It’s a society where men work the big jobs, fight the big wars, make the big decisions while women are confined to a role of docile housewife. Sounds like a couple of decades ago or, sadly, in some instances and places, today. This battle of the sexes, however, is the foundation for Lysistrata, a play written in 411 BC. That’s dialing the wayback machine, well, way back, for Theatre Kraken who’s take on Aristophanes classic comedy debuts Thursday evening at the Gladstone.
What are the women to do when their men abandon them to fight seemingly endless wars? Why, go on a sex strike of course until the brutes pony up some peace! What follows is loaded with innuendo, biting social commentary, and even a little lewd humour. Don’t miss this rare opportunity to see one of Ancient Greece’s funniest plays, set against a backdrop of a squeaky clean conformist, white-picketed suburbia.
Ahead of opening night, I chat with Director Don Fex about why the group choose this production and how some of the subject matter is still very relevant today.
Andre Gagne: So, while Theatre Kraken has stepped into the wayyyy back machine for shows before, this might be the furthest jaunt for the group with Lysistrata first being performed in 411 BC. What was the draw the take on Aristophanes?
Don Fex: That’s true — we can’t really get much older than this one. The funny thing is that the themes in this show are still very relevant today, and in some cases even more so when you consider our current socio-political climate. It was the core of the play that really spoke to us, a group of women standing up for what they believe in even though they know that society will laugh at them, mock them, and might even get a little violent towards them. And yet stand up they do, even in a society whose rules do everything they can to ensure women can’t succeed. Sound at all familiar?
What were some of the things that surprised you with the text upon your first reading of it?
Honestly, just how frank the discussions are surrounding sex. This show does not pull any punches. The biggest surprise was really the scenes that explore women’s sexuality, making references to how much they enjoy sex, and how hard it is for them to give it up as well. It makes you realize that we have not always been quite as suppressed. Women have sexual agency in the play, and that is something that fell out of almost all literature for hundreds and hundreds of years. Really only in the last 150 years or so has it started, albeit very slowly, creeping back into literature. But to the Greeks, it was normal.
You mentioned some of the themes are still relevant today despite the text being over two thousand years old. Can you elaborate?
I struggled with this concept a fair bit while working on the show. There are the obvious parallels with the #metoo movement, and men finally being held accountable for their actions, and women finally rising to positions of power. In all these ways, the material is relevant. Also at its core, it’s a parable about how working together on equal ground always accomplishes more than being divided. But there is an interesting thing that has happened to this show over the last two thousand years: when it was written, it was meant to be an absurd comedy to close out a play festival, something to leave the audience laughing and going home with smiles on their faces. The themes in it were so outlandish that no one could possibly take them seriously. I have a theory that we never see Lysistrata’s husband in the play because they literally could not find an actor willing to play the role — what man in that era would be prepared to play against such a forceful female character? But over time, it has become a show about revolution, about women lifting each other up, and about them taking their rightful place alongside men in society. I am pretty sure that wasn’t Aristophanes’ intent.
How do you feel these serious themes translate into, what is at the core, a comedy?
Oh, it’s 100% a comedy, and like all good comedy, it pokes fun to mask those serious themes. If it had been written as a tragedy, it never would have made it to stage. As I mentioned, this show does not pull its punches and at times definitely slips into lewd territory. People are often scared by the term “classical theatre,” thinking it’s going to be highbrow and stuffy, but this is not that — it more closely resembles a good old-fashioned farce than Shakespeare or Marlowe.
What changes, if any, did you make for your modern adaptation?
You have to start with a good translation. We read through several and they vary so wildly in some cases that you couldn’t even tell it was the same play. In the end, we borrowed from a few different ones to put together the script that we ultimately worked with. Setting-wise, we are setting it in a very fantastical 50s-esque setting — think the suburbs from Edward Scissorhands. We wanted a timeframe where it would be improbable for women to act the way they do in the show, and squeaky-clean suburbia seemed like the right fit. But as we all know, there was a lot of darkness brewing behind closed doors in those suburbs. Also music — Kenny Hayes, our music director, has written several pieces of amazing music for the show, including two completely original songs that are not in the original text. I should warn you: they are real earworms.
What would you say is the main message the work conveys?
I think that society is better when we listen, speak plainly to each other and work together. Oh, and that leaving men with throbbing erections will allow you to make them do just about anything.
As director, can you tell me about what went into your casting choices for the principal roles?
Just like in ancient Greece, I felt we needed people who were very expressive and had great stage presence. I needed people who were larger than life, and I would say I definitely got that. They also had to be able to sing, and some of them needed to be comfortable with mask work. So you know, triple threats — just not in the conventional sense.
With roles now cast, how did the show get flushed out and formed in the rehearsal process? Did anything change at all in your approach with the cast in place?
Oh, things definitely changed. I went in with thoughts in my head for every one of the characters, but those larger-than-life actors I talked about before dove into their characters and molded them into something that was truly their own, and the play is better for it. There is also an amazing sense of community and support among the cast, which has lead to some great stuff that I didn’t originally intend. Working with the masks has also brought out some great moments in the show, as well as some really amazing physical comedy that I couldn’t have dreamed would work so well.
What do you feel will surprise audiences unfamiliar with this work?
Just how bawdy it is. I truly hope we make some folks blush in the audience. That and the music — there is some great stuff in here with some amazing voices. We didn’t set out to make it a musical, but it’s pretty darn close at this point. There’s even a dance number or two!
Comentarios