1. What evidence of physical theatre did you see in this play? How do you think that opening scene was developed when the monster is coming to life? What approaches might a director have used to get to that point?
The prevalent concepts of creation/birth and monster are largely communicated through the use of physical theatre. Physical theatre was relevant throughout the entirety of the show. However, it was especially striking in the opening scene because the intense body convulsions Johnny Lee Miller performed were powerful metaphors for the struggle the monster would face throughout his life as he tried to be accepted by society.
I am guessing that the director told his actors to physical prepare for their roles. Most likely the two actors trained not only their cardiovascular stamina but also learned and practiced certain movement techniques that accurately emulated those of a creature.
2. Why do you think they asked the actors to play both roles?
Personally, I find the character alternation to be an essential part of Nick Dear's adaptation of Frankenstein. This is because the director intended to deliver the message that the two characters are more alike than different.
As a result, there was a significant blur of the lines that were supposed to distinguish man from monster, master from slave, and right from wrong.
I also think that the director may have done this in order to make the two actors really experience the strange relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his monster. By playing both roles, the actors were able to develop an extremely keen understanding of both character's motives and inner feelings.
This double-sided understanding allows for the actors to perform with the utmost confidence and knowledge on their material.
3. What techniques did the monster use to develop his character from an infant to a man?
Firstly and most obviously, the monster began to mature his manner of walk and speech. The monster also behaved like a chameleon as he "matured into manhood." He began to mimic the actions of others and would adopt qualities (usually negative ones) such as revenge and lying.
The fact that the monster also began to demand natural rights that were given to the other men in society was a key indicator of infant to man.
The monster also desired and demanded a female partner.
4. Describe your impression of the set? What ideas were used by the set designer that you might have been inspired by? How would you describe this set to someone who did not see the show?
The set was a proscenium stage but included a strip of walk way allowing deeper access into the audience area. The set was overall quite simple and only included necessary props but nevertheless delivered the story vividly.
However, the most striking stage element was probably the huge array of lights connected throughout the ceiling of the theatre. The set designer was able to invoke emotions like fear, change, and, creation in the audience by placing the cluster of lights above the audience and operating the lights with immense power.
There was also quite a bit of action done with the wall upstage. Shadows and birds were projected on to that wall.
The set designer also used lighting, sound, and projection in the river scene when Victor's brother was confirmed missing. The water was mimicked by the combination of blue lighting and a projection of a three dimensional image that deftly provided the illusion of deep water.
5. What were scorched moments for you in this production?
I have two scorched moments to mention.
The first scene I am referring to is what I would like to call the humanization of the monster. I believe that this scene was when the audience could feel that this monster might actually be more than just a grotesque abomination devoid of feeling and intelligence. Those few minutes showed the audience a monster that was capable of appreciating the most beautiful things in life such as the rising sun of a new day, fresh rain, chirping birds, and high skies. This was a scene where lighting, music, and acting came together very well and delivered a personally heart warming scene. There was a yellow light reflected onto the white wall which was located far upstage to symbolize the sun, music that set the mood, and immaculate physical movements which, for just a moment made me see what was supposed to be a monster as a young child exploring and loving the life that has been given to him.
The second moment was when the ferociously loud train made its entrance on stage. This was a scorched moment because at that moment I was genuinely afraid of not only the sound but also the fact that when the train arrives, the people will arrive. I was able to feel the same fear that the monster would have felt when seeing a large group of people bursting in on a powerful engine.
I was afraid because I was prematurely feeling the sadness that would come when the people start to abuse the monster.
6. Was there anything you would have done differently as a director and why?
This may be awkward to mention but the fact that I find this scene awkward to mention means that I would have not included this awkward scene if I were to have been the director.
Disclaimer: I'm not immature about sex scenes at all.
It's just that I truthfully thought that the rape scene was unnecessary. Yes, it did invoke emotions, in fact, powerful emotions of repulsion and pity, but I feel like that scene was just "extra."
I failed to see the significance of the scene or better said, the level of disgust I felt from that scene surpassed that of the "deep message" that was supposed to be delivered.
However, there is a positive side to that scene. The director could have been a complete anti-rape activist who dehumanized and presented anyone who commits rape as nothing but a grotesque monster.
Questions answered from previously given play analysis sheet
Frankenstein, originally written by Mary Shelley is like many other great stories in that it delivers a timeless message that is based on morals and issues a society of really any day or age can relate to.
That said, Nick Dear's adaptation of Frankenstein felt more or less like a bitter splash of water that forced me in to realizing how relevant feelings of ostracization, loneliness, selfishness, ambition, arrogance and passion actually are. Not to mention the painstakingly convoluted and broader topics that can be debated upon forever such as existentialism, religion, and even, love.
However, most of these thought-provoking and interesting story elements were already there to begin with in Shelley's original"Frankenstien." It was the combination of immaculate acting, unforgettable lighting, impressive stage technology, and perfectly staged mis en scenes that truly burned the story of Frankenstein into my memory.
Firstly, the energy and power Cumberbatch and Miller conveyed was one of the most important ways in which this production communicated with its audience. The story was not only delivered through method acting but also through a great deal of physical theatre. The mental and physical demands this play must have required of the two actors is truly inspirational. I also thought that switching the roles of Victor Frankenstein and his monster between the two actors was ingenious because the contrast that creates accurately represents the ideals of Frankenstein's story.
In terms of technical elements, the play was presented on a proscenium stage and on the ceiling had an impressive collection of hundreds of light bulbs. The opening scene also showed a unique material that mimicked an embryo of some sort and cast a shadow of the emerging monster. The production not only created metaphors with lighting but also through elements of sound. There was a scene where a giant train burst onto stage accompanied by an extremely loud and disturbing noise. I personally found that to be a scorched moment because of the realistic approach. The noise frightened me and that certainly was a technique used by the director in order to make the audience feel the same kind of fear the monster had towards the heartless people who were aboard the train.
From the perspective of a director there are many things I would take away from the play. However, I would especially take with me the ways in which the director showed the intense, disturbing, and conflicted relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his creation.
That said, this whole production seems like an irony because the director is "god" in the sense that he is creating the premises for a story that is centred on the debate between man vs nature, man vs god, and man vs himself.
Another take away I will mention cannot be attributed to only the director or only the actor or only the designer. Actually, there are many moments in a good play can't strictly be credited to solely one person in the production because the whole play is the result of so many ideas and people. However, there is one scene in particular that inspired me because it clearly invoked strong emotions through the use of a variety of skills such as acting, lighting, music, and directing.
The scene I am referring to is what I would like to call the humanization of the monster. I believe that this scene was when the audience could feel that this monster might actually be more than just a grotesque abomination devoid of feeling and intelligence. Those few minutes showed the audience a monster that was capable of appreciating the most beautiful things in life such as the rising sun of a new day, fresh rain, chirping birds, and high skies. This was a scene where lighting, music, and acting came together very well and delivered a personally heart warming scene. There was a yellow light reflected onto the white wall which was located far upstage to symbolize the sun, music that set the mood, and immaculate physical movements which, for just a moment made me see what was supposed to be a monster as a young child exploring and loving the life that has been given to him.
I think that throughout the majority of the play the mis en scenes were not extravagant and needlessly crowded. Instead, there was a perfect balance between all that was on stage and all that was not on stage. For example, there were multiple scenes in which tangible props were at a minimum and thus allowed for lighting and sound to provide the rest and gave the actors more space to "fill." Most of the mis en scene's delivered a cold, blue, and naturalistic atmosphere. I think that is partly due to the basic blueish or dim lighting and also the element of earthy props and settings. In fact, Mary Shelley intended for appreciation and emphasis on nature to be an overarching theme in her story, Frankenstein.
In terms of technical elements, the play was presented on a proscenium stage and on the ceiling had an impressive collection of hundreds of light bulbs. The opening scene also showed a unique material that mimicked an embryo of some sort and cast a shadow of the emerging monster. The production not only created metaphors with lighting but also through elements of sound. There was a scene where a giant train burst onto stage accompanied by an extremely loud and disturbing noise. I personally found that to be a scorched moment because of the realistic approach. The noise frightened me and that certainly was a technique used by the director in order to make the audience feel the same kind of fear the monster had towards the heartless people who were aboard the train.
From the perspective of a director there are many things I would take away from the play. However, I would especially take with me the ways in which the director showed the intense, disturbing, and conflicted relationship between Victor Frankenstein and his creation.
That said, this whole production seems like an irony because the director is "god" in the sense that he is creating the premises for a story that is centred on the debate between man vs nature, man vs god, and man vs himself.
Another take away I will mention cannot be attributed to only the director or only the actor or only the designer. Actually, there are many moments in a good play can't strictly be credited to solely one person in the production because the whole play is the result of so many ideas and people. However, there is one scene in particular that inspired me because it clearly invoked strong emotions through the use of a variety of skills such as acting, lighting, music, and directing.
The scene I am referring to is what I would like to call the humanization of the monster. I believe that this scene was when the audience could feel that this monster might actually be more than just a grotesque abomination devoid of feeling and intelligence. Those few minutes showed the audience a monster that was capable of appreciating the most beautiful things in life such as the rising sun of a new day, fresh rain, chirping birds, and high skies. This was a scene where lighting, music, and acting came together very well and delivered a personally heart warming scene. There was a yellow light reflected onto the white wall which was located far upstage to symbolize the sun, music that set the mood, and immaculate physical movements which, for just a moment made me see what was supposed to be a monster as a young child exploring and loving the life that has been given to him.
I think that throughout the majority of the play the mis en scenes were not extravagant and needlessly crowded. Instead, there was a perfect balance between all that was on stage and all that was not on stage. For example, there were multiple scenes in which tangible props were at a minimum and thus allowed for lighting and sound to provide the rest and gave the actors more space to "fill." Most of the mis en scene's delivered a cold, blue, and naturalistic atmosphere. I think that is partly due to the basic blueish or dim lighting and also the element of earthy props and settings. In fact, Mary Shelley intended for appreciation and emphasis on nature to be an overarching theme in her story, Frankenstein.
