BLOODY HELL!!!

- A Scathing Review by K.

A while ago, I had published on this my blog my feelings about the kind of language used in the Times of India. I might have neglected to mention that the Hindu contains some of the best written articles, in the best English, by far. And this has been true from my grandfather’s days.

That image, unfortunately, was shattered rudely today.
See this review.

I haven’t seen this play. But even then, this review is GIBBERISH. That such things not only get accepted, but actually feature prominently in one of the nation’s largest papers – God!

BRING BACK THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

This is the first time I have ever felt like REALLY tearing a review apart. I’ve read some stuff in my time, but this takes the cake. I may get personal here, but really, this is something that must be done.

I shall take isolated examples. To prove my case. The review in BOLD BLACK. My comments in RED.

1) The play was executed well, with only a few technical hitches.
I am liking it!!! There is nothing else to say. This is as non-committal as you can get. Executed well – Okay!! Thanks!!! But no – wait! There were – only a few – technical hitches.
Right.

2) The stage is set to suggest these two locations with two Roman Coliseum like structures at the two ends of the front stage, and a pharaoh's chair at the centre.
A coliseum looks like this:

And a pharaoh’s chair like this:

I wonder how the stage would have looked with two Coliseums (or Coliseii). And classically, the Pharaohs were not known to use high-backed chairs. Most of the chairs of that period barely came off the ground.

3) The actions happen in the appropriate areas.

A VERY funny statement. I am liking ver' much.

4) The music too, occupies scenes between Anthony and Cleopatra…

Bad, bad music. It comes between the two lovers, thrusting its physical presence between their two physical presences.

...but (the music) ended rather abruptly...

every time.

Oops!!! Another hidden barb. Clever, clever writing.

5) The costumes were grand. Cleopatra was dressed in shimmering gold, and the rest of the cast in black.

Now this sentence, for some strange Grammarian reason, strikes me as INCREDIBLY funny. Classic usage of bathos or counterpoint. But let me not ascribe too much.

6) Keeping a basic style of the toga, the actors were given different styles in black.

Now this is amazing. A toga looks like the picture on the left.

From what angle do the costumes even resemble togas???

I really beg to differ on this point.

A Toga is classically a length of cloth almost TWENTY FEET long, wrapped around the body.

7) With same actors playing two roles, Tonse plays Charmaine and the soothsayer and the three main male characters — Agrippa, Anthony and Octavius Caesar — merged with other characters.

WOW!!! One woman, FIVE roles. Two female, three male. AMAZING!!!

And then comes this silent stunner:

8) The single flaw? The performance seemed rather dilute and unconvincing. The strength and resoluteness of Cleopatra even in her emotional shifts, vanity and diffidence is missing.

Now the thing is, this review contradicts itself every other sentence, and sometimes within the same sentence. And this above plum kinda negates everything else. The play was DILUTE (I assume the word is diluuted, but we'll let that go) and unconvincing. Cleo's strength and resoluteness were missing.

9) While none of the actors had any problems with lines, they too struggled somewhere with being convinced themselves.

I CANNOT understand this sentence. They weren't missing lines, but they struggled (somewhere), unconvinced about what????

Oops. I know, I know. You understood that sentence really well. Cool. Thou art better than me. I am just a nitpicker.

But, to continue:

I present to you, the FINAL PARAGRAPH!!! A SUPREME EXAMPLE OF THE WONDERFUL LANGUAGE OF GIBBERISH!!!

MAKE SENSE WHO MAY!!!

TAKE IT.

10) Sudarshana Gupta's work is apparent, nevertheless, her struggle to seem convincing as Cleopatra, only suggests that a play of Shakespeare, even if adapted, becomes in many ways both the best and the worst play for those who are working on it for the first time. Admittedly a difficult script such as this requires a lot of authorial and characterization support, otherwise faces the risk of showcasing good, potential talent, which ultimately does not touch.

Thank you.

I end here.

No, really.

I can go no more, my stomach hurts.

Luv,

K.