Marisol (Theater)

Jean Vilar wrote:
“A director who cannot detach himself from his work during the final rehearsals is only a mediocre craftsman, however much it might seem that this is the very point at which he should be most intensely involved in it. Failing this detachment, the director blinds himself – the worst possible error. Such poor fools forget that theatre is play, in which inspiration and child-like wonder are more important than sweat and tantrums.” ( p. 211: The Making of Theatre: From Drama to Performance, Robert W. Corrigan)

Premise:
Not all theater artists can be directors. A director has the innate ability for both visual and aural aspects of the theater. Not everyone has that capability. Thus, the director makes him / her a major asset in contemporary theater.

Damages:

The 21st century theater in the Philippines upholds the significant impact and influence of a director to the production. Without the director, the conglomeration of such event would not be enough for other artists to articulate and present a cohesive execution of exciting theatrical elements in a production.

One.
The whole theatrical event still lies on the very vision of the director. Krystal Banzon, a visiting American Fulbright scholar-artist and the director of this production, failed to synthesize the very essence of theater – to say something to the audience in the most articulate way possible – visually and aurally.

The staging did not say anything. Hence, making her an ineffective and unimaginative creator of the theater. She exhausted a lot of potential images on stage with absurd ( "meaningless" ) forms.

What do you want to say?

Two.
Rody Vera’s adaptation of Jose Rivera’s Marisol promoted the physical environment ( from the rural to the urban, capitalism, discrimination, corruption among others ) we have today here in our country. However, it did not compliment the lyricism of Rivera’s apocalyptic interpretation of the Second Coming (The Book of Revelations ) to that of our existing contemporary Filipino language. Hence, it sounded constipated and askew.

The director Banzon might have not adequately guided all the actors in using the text on stage as Vera perhaps would see it done effectively. It is important when the playwright or in this case, the writer who adapted the original work should closely collaborate with the director. Hence, it felt that it lacked communication between the director and the writer.

Three.
Basically, the actors for this production were quite confused whether to impose an artificial theater acting styles or just to go for “truth.” Most of them were under-utilized. Mailes Kanapi ( Marisol ), one of the leading stage actresses of today, poured in a lot of effort physically, emotionally, intellectually, psychologically and artistically. What is so sad is that: actors can only do so much. Even if the director has the best actors in town, they should still be guided technically and truthfully. Kanapi, depressingly, did not transcend the microcospic message of the playwright, thus, becomes unsuccessful. Marjorie Lorico ( Angel ) might have been effective if not for her zombie-like walking and less magical and mysterious attack as the fallen angel. There was no power in her. She looked exorcised and nervous. Contrary, Nicco Manalo ( Golf-club man, ice-cream man, Lenny, Beggar with a scar ), the only male actor with multiple roles, created his chance to showcase versatility and passion for his work as an actor in this production. Finest when Manalo enunciated and thrown his lines with a lot of sincere energy to his co-actors. Surely, he displayed the most engaging acting approach.

Sigrid Bernardo ( June, Vigilante ), Virgie Sorita-Flores ( Jeepney barker, Babaeng marangya ), Tao Aves ( Bulag ), Miela Sayo ( Everlasting girl ), Chic San Agustin ( Takatak boi ) were either not directed or because of the director’s inexperience of Philippine culture that made them look so amateur onstage. There were even internal laughs ( internal punchlines ) and groping for lines ( lack of mastery of the script ) used by these actors which also made them incompetent – worst at that.

Four.
There was something wrong with that humongous set. Lex Marcos, aspiring to be a set designer, did not help the actors primarily. The giant set looked flat and boring maybe because the director was not able to utilize and maximize its symbolical representations through visual enunciation. Marcos would have been a big help (a Fine Arts graduate and now pursuing Art Studies) had he been strict and accurate with his ideas. There was an attempt to purge a lot of images in the play that were seen on canvass or at the ceiling using fiber glass. Hence, another failure for Marcos ( "As You Like It" set designer for Dulaang UP ).

Five.
The costuming was terribly awful. All accessories were just “accessories.” There was no conceptual interpretation of the costumes - no meaning transcended to the audience. The use of newspaper and discs over a black fabric indicated a puny transformation of images.

Six.
Roxanne Pagdanganan chose the music of Filipino popular hits such as Gloc-9, Francis Magalona, Yano, Wolfgang, Sandwich, Pepe Smith, Juan Dela Cruz band, Matilda and Sugar Hiccup. The question here is – what for?

Why would a director use these? Answer: to sound like it is set in the Philippine? This did not work as experienced during the run. It was more of a display of OPM hits than the usual magic of music when played in between scenes.

Seven.
The technical design also created a lot of uncertainty and purpose. To cite some, the volume level of gunshots was not accurate and balanced; the lighting design ( Ed Abquina ) was way out of the context of “end of the world” scenario; chaos did not look like “chaos” among other unimaginative and mediocre supplies of technicalities.

Eight.
A simple question: How did the staging move from a dramatic text to the actual performance? What was the idea of all these? It was very clear that the production forgot to include the audience and how the audience would react on the director’s idea through visual messages, themes and illusions of Jose Rivera about apocalypse and even post-apocalypse ( as faith in the bible would declare in the book of Revelations).

Nine.
The audience would normally reciprocate warmly or stiffly on any production. In this case, aside from being too exhaustingly long, the production made no impact at all.

Ten.
Sadly, Rivera’s “Marisol” is an interesting visual and aural allusions of poetry and lyricism though used in a dark and mysterious subject matter. As one hears the lines, one would question faith, power, hope and rebirth. The production assured not anyone of the above mentioned concepts might even help them regain the trust of the audience. At the end of it – one would ask: what is the point of staging this supposedly engaging text?

A note to all theater directors:

Consider your power to command on all the theatrical elements in a production with a clear conceptual staging in tow.

In every production the director wonderfully conceives a child but sometimes, the director can also be the "murderer" of his / her own child.