Of the shape of things and fairies

First things first, I suck at face recognition totally. I just told a nice gujju boy with an easy smile he looked like a North-east ka college student. Every man carries the traces of whatever corner of the world is imprinted in his gene code in his face, no? To read a man’s history, all you need are the lines on his face. That’d be a pretty awesome superpower though.

Sunday morning edit:

Went for ‘The Shape of Things’ at Prithvi yesterday.  I had some idea that it would be somewhat subversive being a Neil LaBute script and all (caught his ‘In the Company of Men’ a long, long time ago, about two jaded married men taking advantage of a deaf office girl.) Never ever read about a play (or its screen adaptation) before watching it ever. I knew the whole time how it was going to be Pygmalion turned on its head. Reading how it actually ends just colours your whole viewing of the play from the start and with something like this, where all the impact rests around one reveal-all moment, it spoils everything. I did manage to leech some second-hand amazement from the people with me. 

The theme of  ’A Shape of Things’ is the relationship between a shy, diffident undergrad lit. student Adam and an outspoken arts student who has been asked to change the world with her thesis project. Just two other characters in the play, Philip, Adam’s opinionated, argumentative ex-roommate who appears to be full of gas and Jenny, Philip’s fiancee who’s the quintessential sweet, charming girl who has nothing much to say. The play is a series of vignettes with short interludes separating them where a projector throws up pictures or slideshows of what transpires during the interlude, usually stuff like pictures or diary entries and such detailing the way Adam and Evelyn’s relationship progresses. The wiki  says the author did not intend for there to be any breaks at all in the play. But there was one in this showing about an hour into the action which was totally unnecessary. Some of the elements, random and otherwise, I remember:

1. There are many little literary snippets Adam drops throughout the play. The only ones understood by both him and Evelyn are Oscar Wilde, which is kinda funny, seeing how Wilde made a career out of being generally useless (“The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely”) and in the idea of an artist as outsider (“The artist has always been, and will always be, an exquisite exception.”) looking in and making art out of the mundane”There is no golden age of art; only artists who have produced what is more golden than gold.”). Both ideas which an Evelyn would find appealing.
2. I read the original performance had Smashing Pumpkins during the interludes. Thank the gods they had some soft acoustic number playing on this one. 
3. (Something I wouldn’t have learnt without the assistance of someone who seems to have near-perfect recall). In the first act where they discuss their meeting at the video store, where the original had Adam acknowledge that he found the copy of ‘Picture of Dorian Gray’ in the Drama section behind Cabaret, last night he found it behind ‘Hot Chicks’ in the Comedy section. Didn’t quite go down all that funny with the audience though. 
4. The guy playing Adam was amazing. He stole the show from everyone else, or it probably just seemed so because the other characters didn’t have the same depth to them as Adam did. Jenny and Philip could’ve been played differently, I think. Philip seemed to have a perma-frown etched on his face as if he smelled shit in every corner of the stage. Jenny spent her time on stage giving the impression she was -this- close to wringing her hands in a worried-housewifely fashion. And Evelyn, well now I think back on it, she was loud in places. (I forgot the names of the actors so if anyone reading this can fill me up on it…yea, that’d be cool.)
5. Something that struck me like  a bolt of lightning only this morning, ADAM and EVElyn, heh. To think the play starts with a discussion of what has been covered up behind a leaf  and proceeds to chart how Adam is led through a transformation which ends up with him potentially exiled for all time from what he once held dear. Also points to a possibly different interpretation of the play, playing up hidden symbols scattered throughout it. Things like the responsibility any Creator (or artist, if you will) holds towards his creatures. Or her creatures, as it were. Should the artist be held accountable for every possible effect their work has on its viewers? Is something that is pleasing, that is aesthetic be rejected only because its means of production were not up to the highest moral standards? Can the artist, the creator really be an outsider? 
6. The announcement at the start of the play which asked for all patrons to keep their cell phones switched on and not in Silent mode. Drew quite a few chuckles, it did. Though I don’t think I heard any phone ringing during the performance. 

That does it for that, it was a decent show overall. Had good seats for once though I noticed many seats were empty. 

Ooh, before all of this, of course, I had my first sip of Raki and a re-experience of the green fairy with someone who preferred Raki and later with someone who actually liked it. I’m thinking I should find a way to ship some more at a safe location or look for places that sell it down here, though I’ve been told there are none.