Productions of Titus Andronicus

Although the acting wasn't fantastic in all of the film clips we saw in class last Thursday, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Titus Andronicus performed. Because I am a visual learner (I learn best by seeing things), it really helped me to understand the play. I think there were positives to both of the productions we saw. Let me explain.

The first series of clips we watched came from the BBC's production of Titus Andronicus. While the acting was not impressive, these scenes reflected a more realistic setting. I do not remember the specifics of the scenes we watched, however I know I was disappointed by the lack of facial expressions. As some of my classmates brought up in class, Lavinia showed little sorrow or pain, even once her hands were chopped off and she was mutilated. I understand that Lavinia could not speak, so her communication was limited. But she still could have showed facial expressions. I did like the realism of the scenery-which seemed to better portray what the Roman world would have looked like.

The second series of clips contained drastically better acting, but with a price. While I found these film clips more interesting, I was bewildered by the setting. For example, I could not understand the opening scene of the child playing with the action figure. And while the scene with the soldiers' marching choreographed was entertaining and visually powerful, it did not match the picture I had in my head when I read the play. I think Lavinia's acting in this production was much better-the actress used lots of facial expressions and body language to express her pain and sorrow. The one thing that I wasn't a fan of when it came to the portrayal of Lavinia's character was the usage of branches to replace her hands. Now I understand that there could be symbolism and meaning behind the choice, but all I could think of when I watched that scene was the movie Narnia and how the trees came alive. Lavinia's branch hands reminded me of magical worlds, and detracted from the empathy and horror at her demise that I think Shakespeare wanted the audience to feel.

When it comes to critique of productions, I think what matters is how closely the portrayals reflect the pictures we have in our heads when we read the play. Regardless of how spectacular a production might be, if it does not somewhat match up to how we thought the play would be, we will not be truly satisfied. I liked the setting of the BBC production better than the second because it matched what I thought it would be. And I liked the acting in the second production better because when I read of Lavinia's torture, I pictured vivid facial expressions-like the ones the actress in the second production showed.

Well, thats all I have. Please feel free to comment.