Archive for February, 2012

A few days ago, I was all set to go to my yoga class, when my friend Nick Guila called me up, inviting me to watch Rivalry: Ateneo-La Salle The Musical. I said, sure, why not? (He’s such a bad friend, he made me run the whole Emerald Avenue, making me think that the play was starting, all the while, I still had an hour. But that’s in the past.)

As the title of this post goes and as a few friends of mine would know, after watching this play, I have a hankering for a boy from La Salle as well. Although to be frank about it, it has less to do with the quality of the play we watched and is actually based on the fact that I am such an envious person that when I see something I like want to have it as well. Case in point: A Boy from La Salle.

You probably don’t care about me anyway so enough about my own wish for a boy from La Salle, so on to the play itself – the very first thing that struck me was the audience. Now you may not think this is important but the composition of the audience is reflective of the play’s target market. While there were many young-looking college students sporting green and blue, what surprised me was the presence of so many old people. (And no, let’s not euphemize. Old is old.) Probably alumni seeking to relive their glory days. I was actually wondering at the beginning if this were a show about alumni – let’s face it – some of the cast members just do not look like college students.

The first thing that sprung on me was the set. Perhaps this is my own bias as a UP student but, while I get that that was supposed to resemble Araneta, it looks a lot like People’s Power. I didn’t like it very much – while it was admittedly versatile and is tied back to the whole college basketball motif, it felt too generic. To put pictures of people as the major set piece requires a deeper necessity, something this lacked – which actually segways me into the text itself. It was quite…meh.

Of course, one can argue that the play does not aim to be deeper (cf. Rent, Avenue Q) and simply be a feel-good romp (cf. Legally Blonde: The Musical) and that’s fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. (The most feel-good theatrical show is still a lot better than most of the things on primetime TV anyway.) It is established that as a musical, this is not ground-breaking, this is not brilliant, this is something that is supposed to be fun and that is alright.

The biggest problem was that at one point in the musical, I lost any feelings I had and started to wonder why I should care about these people.

Let me justify. First point, we’re supposed to care about the rivalry. A decent enough goal. The problem for me was it was lacking in uniqueness. In the middle of act I, you can remove the “Ateneo” and “La Salle” quality and change it to…”Sharks” and “Jets” or “Montagues” and “Capulets” or really any other old rivalry. In other words, a rivalry play has already been done, probably done better. Unlayering the local color (wow, it’s about Ateneo? That’s so….needy – I mean, local), there is nothing there to keep me holding on. The Atenean-ness and the La Salle-ness of it is only present in the first song and practically lost itself in the middle. Fine, one could argue that they are supposed to seem practically the same, but it loses the dichotomy of the two groups of people. I could not figure out a substantial difference.

I go to the fact that I lack a solid lead character to hang on. I am in the belief that within the first ten minutes of any play, we should know who to root for. Apparently, we’re supposed to care about the La Salle guy (jesus, I’m so bad with names, I’ll just call him LS guy.) He’s supposed to be the lead. Problem is, with the Felix Rivera character (FR) meeting up with the annoying Miriam girl (aMg), the playwright is setting-up a dramatic trope. Within the first ten minutes, the audience should know who the lead character is – and we had FR to grasp when apparently it’s about the LS guy. Fine, I can see the effort with how FR is talking to OJ Mariano character (OJ) about LS but it becomes forgettable. In other words, FR initially becomes the lead and it becomes hard to sympathize with LS because of that. (BTW, the OJ character doesn’t really have a story. Apparently, he’s really pressured.)

Why is aMg annoying? On the face level, the girl in the play sound so whiny. They apparently all speak in this high-pitched, bitchy, shallow tone. On a more important note, aMg has no character – she is a recycling of girls like the one from High School Musical. Second, she is wearing some sort of a jacket, probably to make her stand-out from the other annoying Miriam girls. That is just plain cheating, IMHO. I mean, sure, best way to show that this annoying Miriam girl is different from the other annoying Miriam girls is to make her wear a jacket. Also, she has absolutely no character arc, I have no idea what her problem is, why she’s so sexually repressed. She has no character, just generic angst. Also, apparently, she can change her mating decision as quick as a snap. (That was a problematic scene for me – it’s such a sexist idea that she has no say on her decision to choose a boyfriend. Fine, you can argue it is set in 1968, but it was written in contemporary times. Although you could also say Miriam girls are like that. The playwright did not even bother ending her arc. Hmmmm.)

The one good thing about this play is that it proves that one could still write a play (moreso, a musical) in English and still be Filipino. This is a problem that is dividing the playwrights of today (as opposed to the fictionists and the poets). The issue of language and what makes a play Filipino is being debated on two fronts. I think, and perhaps this is just because we’re talking about Ateneo and La Salle and the 1960’s, the English dialogue worked here and I felt that the language (and how the dialogue was crafted) was quite spot on.

The social relevance scene irked me. It felt unneeded and it is reminiscent of Chris Martinez’s ending scene in Last Order sa Penguin. It basically reads like the playwright realizing that no one really cares about the shallowness of the perceived problems of the lead characters and decides to make it witty by making it self-aware of that fault. It comes off too heavy-handed, we see the playwright’s hand crafting it – it feel unnatural in the sequence of the play.

I was also so annoyed by the ending. It was anti-climactic. I GET IT – You’re pitting two forces of more or less equal power and you want to leave the ending up for grabs. That is a tough situation – but whoever said writing plays was easy? It felt like a cop-out that instead of resolving the situation, the playwright had to result to ending the play at that stage. I also did not get why FR had to get shot – that was another deus ex machina by the playwright to pretend that these middle-class people actually have problems. By having FR shot, he basically used that as a catalyst to pull all the warring characters together. Effective, but still a cheap trick.

I feel that this work would be better as a movie rather than as a play. Generally, this play feel so disjoined. It lacks the substance the great dramas have to last the test of time. It fails to capture the essence of being “Atenean” and “La Sallean” that is crucial to the success of this play. It relies heavily on literary tropes to forwards its message and sacrifices three-dimensional characterization for that. Cute, fine, I’ll give it that. I still don’t care though. I still do want a boyfriend from La Salle.

I want to give this play one star. It is witty and, for all intents and purposes, the dialogue is well-crafted – it is just specific problems in the plot that irk me. It is also interesting because it is written in English. However, I believe that Felix Rivera’s presence in the musical merits another star. So one star for the play and one star for Felix Rivera. So, final rank is two stars. 🙂


Read Full Post »

So depressing we get to read this during Valentines. But, hey, it’s suitable.

  • There has to be understanding that Ibsen’s greatness is predated (at least by this point) by William Shakespeare and the Greek playwrights. Ibsen’s body of work is so strong that theatre as we know it today can easily pinpoint Ibsen’s realism as its foreground.
  • I do want to get this out of the way – the roots of realism are traced to either the publication of ‘A Doll’s House’ or the first staging of it. We have to take into account the tradition of neoclassicism it predates as well as the French concept of the ‘well-made play.’ A parallel, for instance, is Oscar Wilde’s Salome as an example of Symbolist drama. I did not include Salome for the reading challenge (although I read it together with Doll House) but comparing the two, it is a clear shift from technique, attack and theme.
  • It is such a depressing play. Alright, resolution, the next round of Reading Challenges, we’ll do just comedies. Anyway, in Europe, A Doll’s House heralded what is known as a domestic tragedy. Let’s call it a modern tragedy. At the same time, it is ground-breaking for being a ‘problem play’ – a play that shows a specific social problem.
  • Let’s move to text, which is arguably the main point of this whole reading challenge. Krogstad is an evil bastard, but I sort of think Mrs. Linde is the bigger bitch in the whole play. Of course, I don’t get why Nora had to spill her secret to Mrs. Linde who obviously is this whole jealous woman with so many issues. But I think, though Mrs. Linde had good intentions by the end, the way Ibsen chose to show a scene where she had to decide whether Krogstad had to withdraw the letter or not shows that it was an important choice and it rested on her. Whether she truly cared about her friend or whether she were just this evil bitch is perhaps up to the director to decide.
  • So much tension is boiling here. The audience is aware of the surface feelings of Nora throughout the whole play, she seems uneasy even though her husband seems to be admiring her. Later on, her explosion that she doesn’t love him pushing things to the limit. In my opinion, the understatements of tension between her and her husbands in acts i and ii really paid off for an explosive act iii.
  • Of course, one can argue that this is one of the earliest texts that talk about women’s rights. (Ibsen would deny that and call it human rights. I see no difference.) It does show the whole bored in a relationship thing but raises it to the level where she and her husband have really lost any love for each other. Rereading portions in the play, even the way they jovially talk to each other, seems to be just a game with no real emotions attached anymore. It’s play. Nora is Helmer’s doll. That is why when Nora reveals all this in the end, we get it.
  • This is the play with the best pay-off, really. It is all surface at the start but it blows up in your face in the end.
  • My favorite line in this play:

    HELMER: No man would trade honor for love.

   NORA: Millions of women have done just that.

Right. So next week, we’ll stay with pioneers of modern theatre. Chekhov, Cherry Orchard.

Read Full Post »

First of all, apologies. This is a week late, the reason being swamped with so much stuff to do this past week – deelaytful launching, papers, my birthday. Anyway, Way of the World


  • It’s so convoluted. On purpose of course. The way the love stories criss-cross, there’ll come a time when I wonder, hey when did this character figure out something; or, wait this guy is good or bad? It reaches that point where you’re just not sure and that is what the point of this play is about. The Way of the World is not simplistic.
  • The fun part – history. This is Neoclassical England (although Congreve would lean more Irish than English). Restoration England had the characteristics of following a closure of the theatres from the puritans (coming from golden age Elizabethan and Jacobean drama) and being influenced by French, Italian and Spanish Theatre (all of which were experiencing a golden age). So – five act structure – check! Happy ending – check! Villains were punished (restoration comedy) – check! Of course, wit and elegance were championed above all in Restoration Comedies (later on to be hated on by the Sentimentalists of the Glorious Revolution but that’s for another week)
  • The wit here is just awesome. The banter – especially the battle between the sexes – is just so witty. In particular, I want to focus on when the girl is talking about what she would do (and not do) as a wife, for me, that was a stroke of brilliance.



Argh. Sorry, it’s a bit late and I don’t have really that much more to say about the play. The dialogue was superb (especially the women’s dialogues and monologues). I would really love to see a modern spin on this, (although probably modern sensibilities and technologies would render this mute) Next week – IBSEN! DOLL HOUSE! 18th century theatre let’s go!

Read Full Post »