ZERO LIBERTAD…
March 29, 2010
If you are familiar with the singer M.I.A., and, if you saw and remember well the movie Patton, you’ll have an idea of the format of this play at the VORTEX. In Patton , there are a few segments where General Patton stands and delivers a monologue directly to the audience. Behind him, the only thing visible is a giant American flag. M.I.A is a Shri Lankan expat to England and daughter of a prominent Rebel Leader.
In Zero Libertad, the lead actress/writer stands before a projection screen and delivers an intense narrative of her life as a daughter of a Nicaraguan rebel and American CIA spy/asset. She adds in background singers, costume changes (military uniform, then stripper outfit, then dress made from m16shells), songs, and music; all while the projection screen is alternately filled with video taken from US news segments, documentary footage, and video edited especially for this production.
There was singing, dancing, stripping, spitting, red lights, and “blood”.
If the writing above seems a bit scattered, it’s because the experience of watching the play was likewise scattered.
Worth seeing? sure. The main actress–also the writer–had a definite vision, and surely accomplished what she set out to do. The sound, songs, visuals, and organization were unique and carefully crafted. This was not an ‘amateurish’ work. However, overall, it was high indulgence, and difficult to get into.
phl346
luolongren
shotgunmae
drewmcneil
mcandrews975
alyonashnulina
areyna12
jilllancaster
mcgamble23
millerjacobp
Emily
lautarom
March 29, 2010 at 9:01 pm
On the issue of a “scattered” show: do you mean that the producers seemed to have a bunch of ideas that they thought fit some general theme, but then put them together in a mere sequence or episodically, or all a-jumble as in a variety show? Did this seemingly haphazard organization mean that it was actually haphazardly organized? Could one imagine the producers intended to create this effect, and if so, what would be the goal of it?
And on the issue of “high indulgence”: do you mean that the producers seemed to want to use all the techniques they had at hand, even if such techniques didn’t advance the plot or help the audience enjoy and appreciate the show? What features seemed most indulgent, i.e., most appealing to the producers without proportional benefit to the show itself?
And finally, on the difficulty of getting into Z.L. What obstacles did you find most hard to get around? And if you did get around them eventually, what allowed it?
May 4, 2010 at 7:12 am
do you mean that the producers seemed to have a bunch of ideas that they thought fit some general theme, but then put them together in a mere sequence or episodically, or all a-jumble as in a variety show?
They were definitely working one idea, but it was hard to get at it exactly. Maybe this is because I am not shocked when people unearth and reveal horrors and atrocities of war. War is atrocious. This I think may be a source of my disconnect from the performance. The “war is bad” premise is just…boring, tried, and almost universally mishandled.
The jumble-ness of the performance I think was deliberate and meant to be shocking and artistic. It was, kind of.
One thing that stuck with me was the “blood”. THe main character in the play is the daughter of a rebel who runs a bloodbank type of operation that ships blood from Nicaragua to the US, and my understanding of the situation quickly became “blood money guns blood money guns”.