AM+Life+is+a+Dream

The play “Life is a Dream” was a strange jumble of thoughts and ideas. There were so many different elements that the entire play seemed disjointed and not at all cohesive. Sadly I must say that I have more negatives to discuss than positives.

The first element I disliked was the idea of the framework play. The frame of con artists selling a fake product is almost the polar opposite of what I will call the central play. The central play was the story of royals and aristocrats living in Poland and Russia with several different storylines including revenge, imprisonment, and throne ascension. Though the frame attempted to introduce the central play in a way that would make sense (a business teambuilding exercise in which the employees improvise a play within an interactive game setting) the two stories were just too diametrically opposed. The story goes that the business employees were supposedly continuing in the central play in order to save face- an obvious allusion to Hans Christian Andersen’s story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”- but it was drawn out and quite peculiar. At the end the woman playing Rosaura tells everyone that everything is fake and, “we’ve been had,” but it is quite unbelievable that she would become //so// engrossed in the “interactive experience” and then some fifty minutes later decide the entire thing was a farce. Perhaps this point is overly critical, but there are several other issues I had with the play as well.

As one who did not become swept up in the story of the play, I sat in the back thinking that there were too many loopholes. Obviously if these were regular business people who were improvising then they would not be able to sing and dance in unison. If the play acknowledges that it is a play and not real life by “bringing in” an audience member, then why would the business people even fall into the illusion of the fake interactive experience?

In addition to the song and interpretative dance seeming like a loophole to me, these aspects of the play also appeared really out of place. I also felt cheated since I was hoping for the play to transform into a musical, but the singing did not last and neither did the dancing. These two elements were heavily used at the introduction of the central play, but then quickly vanished from the remainder of the play. The lack of reasoning behind the singing and dancing in addition to these elements ending abruptly interrupted the already choppy flow, and had many in the audience exchanging glances of confusion. If I were to judge the singing and dancing as a separate entity from the play, however, I would say that the actors/actresses sang very well and their dancing, though odd, was well done and explanatory in nature. The birth of Segismundo was very powerful, and the movements of the two involved were very strong and emotional. A dance that probably went unnoticed by most was when Rosaura disguised as Clotaldo’s niece was attempting to join Estrella’s court while another scene was occurring more closely to the audience. Rosaura stood opposite Estrella and two members of Estrella’s court (all in blue), and then they did a small dance that mimed the underlying sentiment of the silent conversation they were having until she was accepted. After her acceptance, the two members of Estrella’s court moved over to Rosaura’s side and the three bowed to Estrella. The dance was very cleverly done, but clearly I focused more on the dance than the upfront action and missed part of the dialogue in the play. The singing and dancing, though fleetingly entertaining, sometimes seemed distracting and always seemed out of place.

As mentioned earlier, another critique I have is that the audience acknowledgement was strange and unnecessary. It did not enhance any feature of the play and in my opinion was detrimental to the overall effect. At some points characters would give “thoughts aloud” which seemed directed at the audience, but there were few and far between. When Ms. Straps “pulled” a member of the audience into the play it was a “palm to forehead” moment. The entire bit was contrived, and though the actress who played Segismundo redeemed herself later, her line of, “but I’m not even in this play!” sounded completely fake and rehearsed.

Though I disliked the entrance of the actress playing Segismundo, her portrayl of the imprisoned prince was phenomenal. She completely committed herself to the role and played a very convincing male. That being said, my sense of humor is juvenile at best, and the cross-dressing of Segismundo, Mr. Boots as Clorilene 1, and David as Clorilene 2 had me stifling giggles, especially since the roles they played during the central play were so serious. Since Segismundo and Clorilene 1 were related in the play with Clorilene playing Segismundo’s mother, I wondered why the two did not just switch their garb and play their actual genders since they were two of the three who were cross-dressed without a provided reason. The gender switching only added to my already growing confusion.

The director attempted to connect the framework and the central story by having the actors “break character” from the central play back into the framework, but it only added to the confusion. At some points, such as when they clarified that the two mothers were dead while the other was in Poland, were helpful, but others were just odd, such as when Tara and David started talking about kittens. Though I understand these two characters as the “clowns” are supposed to be silly, it was so unrelated to the central play that it did not contribute anything other than a cheap and confused laugh. I even heard a girl in the audience audibly whisper, “What the hell?” after that strange kitten interjection. The reference of Schrodingers cat again as the final line of the entire production was as odd as when it was first mentioned.

One aspect of the play that I did enjoy was the costumes. Though the original business wear was all very typical and monotone in nature, the vests and skirts added later on were clearly selected to guide the audience to understanding. The two dead mothers and their offspring wore blue with each mother and child pair wearing a slightly different shade of blue than the other pair. This use of different shades of blue distinguished them subtly from each other while still indicating their togetherness with respect to the other parties in red and purple. Segismundo wore an animal fur vest to begin with to demonstrate his cruel and uncivilized upbringing, but when he was brought into the castle he wore purple to match his father King Basilio. Rosaura and her mother wore red. When Rosaura disguised herself as a man, she traded her skirt for a vest. When she disguised herself as Clotaldo’s niece she changed to what I recall (though perhaps incorrectly) as being a blue skirt in order to associate herself with Estrella. All royalty- King Basilio, Estrella, Astolfo, and Segismundo- had gold piping along the edges of their garb to indicate their status. Clotaldo wore a vest that was purple on the front, and red on the back. This color dichotomy was a means of showing his dedication to the King, but also his relation to Violante and Rosaura. The final and most memorable costume was that of the clown Clarin . His was a mismatch patchwork-like jumble of all the colors. This colorful vest showed his lack of dedication to a single party and his wavering between groups depending on the situation. Because there were so many characters with such vastly intertwined narratives, the costumes served as the jumping off point for me to follow the confusing storyline.

Though the play was disjointed and hard to follow, the actors and actresses all seemed very talented and some aspects of the play were well thought out. The director attempted to put a spin on a heavy, dramatic play, but overall it was just not effective. I do, however, applaud the efforts of the actors because they were very professional and talented while performing in this smorgasbord of a play.