Showing @ King’s Theatre, Edinburgh until Sat 17 Aug @ 20:00
The first thing one notices about Teatrocinema‘s production Histoire d’Amour is the staging. The combination of animation and live action is both stunning and highly effective. However these uniquely inventive techniques are wasted on a story which quickly becomes as tedious as it is brutal.
Julian Marras plays the man who spots a stranger on a train and immediately descends into obsession. He waits outside her workplace, follows her home, and rapes her for the first time. Over the next 100 minutes or so, this scenario is repeated countless times. The monochrome palette hints at the workings of the man’s mind – he is justified in his actions because he loves the woman, and ultimately he is certain she will succumb. And she doesn’t fight back, so she must, deep down, be willing.
And therein lies the problem. Marras puts in a faultless performance as the sociopathic anti-hero, but as Sofia, little more is required of Bernardita Montero than a string of stylised contortions and the occasional groan. Thus the overlong, repetitive and harrowing story becomes little more than a rape fantasy where the audience are never allowed to understand the victim. It is as though the writers were only interested in the mind of the man, and in that sense they have objectified Sofia just as much as her abuser.
The programme notes claim that this is a parable about power and abuse, but normally any meaningful dialogue will, by definition, contain at least two opposing viewpoints. Sadly, Teatrocinema’s artistic director, Laura Pizarro, also suggests the play has a “feminist perspective”. Unfortunately this message doesn’t seem to have made it to Sofia – perhaps if it had, she could have spoken up for herself and cut short this harrowing experience.
Showing as part of the Edinburgh International Festival 2013
Does everything have to be spelled out with such clarity that a five year old can understand it? Is the audience no longer expected to have imagination or some critical thought process regarding what is happening before its very eyes? From the looks of this review, that seems to be the case.
First things first, if you are telling a story from the point of view of an abuser, the victim’s perspective is of little to no relevance. A concept perfectly portrayed in this amazing work of theatre. The victims of this world never have a voice! And when they do manage to get a squeek in edgewise they are instantly silenced (also depicted in the play).
Thank god this play didn’t portray the frail and feeble voice of it’s abused woman. Those scenarios are already far too trite and commonplace on daytime television.
And last but not least, I agree with Laura Pizarro, this is a feminist work. Women suffer in silence in every country on every day, and although we know they suffer, we rarely stop to ask why or what it is their tormentors have to gain.
Try scratching the surface next time, and you might just find something brilliant behind a thought-provoking and layered work of art.
Despite the tone of your comment, I’m sure you must realise that simply because someone has a different opinion to you does not mean that opinion is ill considered. I am fully aware that it was not Teatrocinema’s intent to present a mere rape fantasy. However just because the intent for a feminist message is there does not mean that the company were successful in conveying it.
It is absolutely worthwhile to attempt to understand the motivations of those who commit such horrific crimes, but when the victim is given nothing approaching a realistic reaction or indeed a personality, the story veers dangerously close to trivialising a subject that we already struggle to address as a culture. The programme even suggests that Sofia is lonely and therefore in some ways drawn to her abuser. I confess I have not read Régis Jauffret’s original text, but the play certainly doesn’t explore the motivations for Sofia’s own behaviour, and the attempt to address in the programme what could have been presented onstage seems nothing more than laziness, a retroactive attempt to remedy the failings of the art.
Neither were the issues confined to the controversial treatment of such sensitive subject matter: the story was tedious, repetitive and overlong. One suspects that if the subject did not evince such strong reactions, there would be little here to discuss. The arguments are an effective way of distracting attention from the fact that once you get past the visuals and the controversy, this was a just an incredibly dull piece of theatre.