My first question for Hill offers a small clue: I am quite clearly attached to the original. I am torn between my respect for Hill's previous Citizens' directions (Beckett, Shakespeare and Pinter all delivered precisely and respectfully, but with flair) and my fear that adapting an already famous novel feeds into a theatre culture that already has too many repeats.
DH: I've always loved the theatricality of the novel - the characters, the dramatic scenes that Dostoevsky creates, the story, the interior monologues of Raskolnikov. It seemed right for the stage. And it doesn't feel like a departure for me - in fact a fusion: a classic story given contemporary relevance as well as being a new play.
GKV: How do you feel about doing adaptations of the stage of a novel that has a strong reputation? In a way, it is a shift from your usual approach of taking great scripts and giving them a new vigour: my assumption is that there is something about C and P that made you go for it...
DH: I've always loved the theatricality of the novel - the characters, the dramatic scenes that Dostoevsky creates, the story, the interior monologues of Raskolnikov. It seemed right for the stage. And it doesn't feel like a departure for me - in fact a fusion: a classic story given contemporary relevance as well as being a new play.
Hill put my fears at rest (and the news that there would be live Orthodox psalms sung on stage swung me further behind the production). But my follow up question gets to the heart of my problem.
GKV: The release says that it has a modern relevance, and I guess that Crime never goes out of fashion, but I am wondering whether Dostoevsky's angle, which is in this slightly unfashionable Christian existentialist mode, makes the moral impact of the play more compromised in the more secular twenty-first century. How do you relate its values and (fairly austere) understanding of C and P to more contemporary ideas?
DH: For me its a story about a man's reintegration into society, about the need for society: no man is an island et c. And about compassion and valuing life, regardless whose life it is. Those themes are encapsulated in a Christian humanism that the story propagates. But whether you're a Christian or not - these are timeless important themes and values that go beyond the confines of any religion and are relevant to any person living in any society.
GKV: The release says that it has a modern relevance, and I guess that Crime never goes out of fashion, but I am wondering whether Dostoevsky's angle, which is in this slightly unfashionable Christian existentialist mode, makes the moral impact of the play more compromised in the more secular twenty-first century. How do you relate its values and (fairly austere) understanding of C and P to more contemporary ideas?
DH: For me its a story about a man's reintegration into society, about the need for society: no man is an island et c. And about compassion and valuing life, regardless whose life it is. Those themes are encapsulated in a Christian humanism that the story propagates. But whether you're a Christian or not - these are timeless important themes and values that go beyond the confines of any religion and are relevant to any person living in any society.
Even if I don't agree with Hill's assertion that certain values 'go beyond the confines of any religion,' his point is coherent and well-made. It is also supported by Hannan's comments on the Vile Arts' Radio Hour that the conversion experienced by Raskolnikov can be seen in all manner of traditions (he references William Jmaes' Varieties of Religious Experience). And the final scene of the play places this conversion (away from an almost nihilistic atheism towards a more compassionate reading of human life) in a context that is not specifically Christian. Raskolnikov finds his redemption in observing nature and reflecting. This could be pagan, pantheist or even a version of romanticism.
However, that finale was, for me, the least satisfying part of a superb production. The role of Sonya, the prostitute, becomes less important (I suggested that the lack of chemistry between Sonya and Raskolnikov caused this problem). While I am absolutely stand by this - and I don't blame director, actors or author for it- I wonder whether that is my own subjectivity, my resistance to Crime and Punishment as anything other than a Christian parable, that gave me the problem.
For the record, Crime and Punishment is a tour de force - the direction is imaginative and, when taken alongside Hill's King Lear suggests that he is working towards a recognisable style that pays respect to Brecht and the ideals of the Dogme film manifesto. Every cast member works hard, there are many exceptional scenes, especially when the law begins to close in on the idealistic murderer. Hannan respects Dostoevsky's obsession with ideas, and the script has enough philosophy for a month's conversations on issues of justice, freewill, redemption and the meaningless universe.
Even my dissatisfaction is slight. Sonya's character is pretty difficult for a contemporary reader, even in the novel (a Gospel reading sex worker seems to be too symbolic, too forceful a message). In some ways, it even improves my experience: my rejection of both Hill's and Hannan's universality of values clearly exposes my own world view. I don't believe in universal values, or that redemption can come outside of a certain set of religious behaviours.
Fascinated as I am by my contradictions, I won't follow them up just now. I am content to reveal the possibility that I can be subjective, recognise it but still not take it into account. It could be that this restless self-examination undermines my critical project... I prefer to think not...
No comments :
Post a Comment