A couple of weeks ago Lorna and I went
to see a production of James Reaney's adaption of Alice, Through the Looking
Glass at the Confederation Theatre in Charlottetown. The production was interesting—to use a
non-committal word. To be more specific
it engaged me in a number of areas. I
don’t know James Reaney’s interpretation to enable me separate what was his
from the director’s stamp on the production.
However, aspects of it were not, to my knowledge, contained in the
original version by Lewis Carroll.
The production set out to engage the
audience directly in what could be considered a post-modern
interpretation. The audience was
directly engaging with the production by having two lucky young people selected
to pull a chord which descended from the ceiling. The audience was also showered at a couple of
points with objects—first little packets of jelly beans and then with
streamers. It also had bubbles
descending on us at various points in the production. I found that, at the least, it didn’t take
away from the production if it didn’t necessarily add to it. Another attempt to engage the audience was to
have various members of the chorus mug the audience shamelessly at various
points. There were other things that
tended to distract from the main action.
There were, as Lorna pointed out, unfortunate distractions from the
meaningful internal and external dialogue that Alice engages in as she attempts
to understand the curious world in which she finds herself. Another rather confusing and unclear element
was the dressing of the male chorus members in female garb. When it became clear that the rather plain
members of the chorus were actually male, the confusion took a turn to
wondering why? The idea of the director,
Adam Brazier, may have been to capture the confusion of Alice in this inside
out world. However, to my way of
thinking it would have been more effective to have all chorus members in
opposite gender garb as in the looking glass everything is backwards and inside
out.
The production did a creditable
job of presenting many of Lewis Carroll’s wonderful characters in this dream
world; self-satisfied Humpty Dumpty, the poor muddled kindly White Knight,
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—sorry wrong play—I meant the Walrus and the
Carpenter and the poor fated singing oysters, Tweedledee
and Tweedledum. Natasha
Greenblatt’s Alice was wonderful and her performance gave a marvelous interpretation of her character.
In all it was definitely worth seeing.
That being said, what truly engaged me
was the awareness that all this Wonderland of Alice’s took place in a
dream. It harkened back to the Summer
Dream and Spirituality Conference that Lorna and I attended at Kanuga Center in
Hendersonville North Carolina before coming to the Land of Anne (she of Green
Gables). As in The Wizard of Oz, the
girl heroine is in a dream world comprised of archetypal characters that are
sometimes friendly, sometimes helpful, sometimes frightening, sometimes
dangerous, awful and awe-full, and always Wonderful (thinking of Alice’s first
adventure). In a dream it is helpful to
understand all the images as parts of yourself which are often just those
things; friendly, frightening, helpful, dangerous, and awful and awe-full and
wonderful.
If Alice’s adventure Through the Looking
Glass were my dream what would I make of all those wonderful characters who
would be part of me? What part of me is
the inflated pompous Humpty Dumpty?
Which part of me is the confused, out of touch kindly White Knight who
takes things literally? What part is the
Carpenter and which the Walrus, both of whom are described by Alice as “very
unpleasant characters” eating the poor innocent oysters. Indeed what part of me is the innocent
foolish oysters? The mind boggles but
they are all there for me to explore. I
believe that is a large part of the enduring stories of Alice that Lewis
Carroll created. Which character
resonates most with you and which do you want to avoid connecting with the
most? Enjoy your trip into the Looking
Glass World.
