Got anything to say about the review or the production? Click the button above and let us know.

Hello Marcus,

Although I was in no way involved with the 2004 production of godeatgod, I was in the original production back in 2002, so I am aware that the comments I am about to make are necessarily biased, even though I strive for objectivity.

But that’s never stopped me before, so I thought I’d point out some areas where I disagree with you, the first of which concerns your critique of the “God on trial” scene in the last paragraph of your review.

If we wish directly to portray God in theatre, the easiest thing to do is to make Him a character and have an actor play him. This will necessarily involve God's being portrayed by post-lapsarian man - indeed, there is no other kind of man.

Following through on the argument you make in your last paragraph, since all dramatic representations of God must by their nature "[assume] the identity of God and the knowledge of a 'Godly' response," and since doing this is (in some way) wrong, then no playwright/actor combination will ever be able to portray God dramatically satisfactorily.

This would also apply to other theatrical methods of representing God (music, miracles shown onstage, silence in reply to a character's prayer, etc.) since all possible methods of representation would involve fallen man assuming knowledge of a Godly response.

(Your argument would also serve to invalidate most theological writing which, after all, uses human intellect to interpret and assess the divine.)

In fact, presumably the only way to portray God onstage would be to quote directly from the Bible and have Him speak in His own words. This is so absurdly limiting as to proscribe religion as a possible subject of theatre. I think theatre is a great place to discuss religion and God.

I am not denying that there is a logical inconsistency in attempting to portray the infinite using finite means; what I am saying is that doing so does not imply bad theatre. I would go further: criticising theatre for attempting to portray God despite its limitations is invalid since theatre (along with all other art forms) has no choice but to portray God in a limited manner if it attempts to portray Him at all. Indeed, it is one of the duties of Art to reach into the unknowable. All your argument does, then, is point out an obvious logical paradox and pin the blame for it on a specific theatre production.

Were you to argue that the scripted defence "God" makes in godeatgod is feeble on its own terms, I would have more sympathy. But mainly I think that when theatre attempts to put words into God's mouth, its intent is rarely to give answers; rather its intent is to ask questions - and that is what I believe godeatgod attempted to do. I personally found its attempt reasonably successful.

Nor do I believe that the play was, as you say, “Painfully unaware of the ways it deconstructed its own artistic intentions.” On the contrary, I believe it was deliberately ambivalent about the power of Art to change things and about the power of dramatically presented questions and answers to provoke meaningful thought. I don’t think that it was unintended irony when Sharma said, as you quote, “At times some stories are better told without metaphors and symbols,” because I credit him with being fully aware that the majority of the play was stuffed chock-full of such metaphors and symbols. What he was doing was asking the audience to evaluate the power of art to affect audiences and change the world: was the audience more transformed by the play’s artifice or by its contrasting directness? Similarly, did the artifice and the directness inform each other? In short, I like to think Sharma knew what he was writing.

Having said that, I agree that the unscripted section in the middle, where the actors spoke about censorship, was problematic. I bought a copy of the script (TNS was selling them at the door), and this section was not in it, indicating that it was supposed to be spontaneous, and yet much of it appeared scripted, probably because the section had been practised/rehearsed so much that the actors were on autopilot. This was especially true of Alin’s responses because she acts in a highly self-conscious manner. This was unfortunate, because it undermined what I assume was Sharma’s intention of contrasting art and artlessness and it made his play seem disingenuous.

But I truly believe this disingenuousness was accidental. I did not feel the “sense of contrivance” you felt. I actually felt the play was extremely sincere, and a surfeit of sincerity is what led to the triteness and the clichés that you (correctly, in my opinion) accuse the play of possessing. But it was not always trite; in places I found it chilling, uplifting and intensely moving.

I was particularly moved by a scene the effectiveness of which, I believe, hinged upon its possessing a multicultural and multilingual cast. Eriko Wada, playing a bereaved wife, speaks in Japanese for much of the play, but in one scene, where she questions God about the fairness of taking her husband away, she switches to English. Her English is uncertain and heavily accented and because, in this foreign language, she is unable to articulate sufficiently her burning pain and need, she seems like a small child: hurt, clumsy, uncomprehending. This Japanese woman, then, is made into a child by a God who speaks only in Western words she cannot understand or counter. She is robbed of her culture, of her language, of the fact of her indigenous spirituality – just as she is robbed of her husband.

That God is played by a Filipino is equally interesting. In speaking the language of the West, in adopting the religion of the West, and in using these against a fellow Asian, is this Filipino God a true deity or merely a puppet, especially when he denies responsibility and knowledge for the wrongdoings he stands accused of?

You define an intercultural performance, Marcus, as one which involves the “interaction of culturally specific performance styles and modes”. I think that is too limiting; you shouldn’t have to stick some Nô Drama into your play just to be called intercultural. While godeatgod didn’t create a dialogue between different indigenous performance arts, it did on occasion forge meanings and questions out of the dialogue of different cultures. For my money, that qualifies it as intercultural.

Also for my money, Wada’s performance was the strongest I’ve seen in a very long time. I wonder what other people thought of the actors (and the set and the multimedia); since they are not discussed in the above review, it would be nice to hear some opinions. It would also be great if someone could give their thoughts comparing the two versions of the play. Obviously, I don’t feel I’m in a position to do so…

This review is so far off the mark I can't even begin to respond...

Alfian, you're a fellow creature of the night! Could you try to respond anyway? Pretty please!

i personally went for the play and i felt that the play was good. i missed the first run so i cant comment on it with biasness to any. the play was good, as in it gave ppl much leeway to actually think and come up with answers to the questions posed in the play. while i have to admit that certain aspects of the play got a little mono, eg. breaking into monolouges, scripted words running across in bright bold orange, but in its essence, all these, i believe, contributed to the play and its essence. many a times, wen a play is watched, you are presented with a few types, out of these few, u have plays that TELL U WAT TO THINK and plays that LET U THINK CONCLUDE AND THINK ON YOUR OWN. in this review, it seemed like you would have prefered the former. i am not saying that i am a veteran in play watching but i believe it is more of a "to each his own" kinda logic. i truly believe this play was done up well. 1. the costumes suited the mood. --> would u rather have elaborate costumes to take away the attention from the underlying issue? which was by the way terrorism. and anyways, how many terrorist attacked contries have their ppl dressed in fine expensive purple rags around the streets? 2. the lighting was fine. --> would u rather have tot that glaring stage lights been better considering the short distance between actors and audience? 3. the actors monolouges contributed to RATHER than handicapped the play. --> better to add a personal monolouge to give ppl time to think about the issues already presented in the play, rather than have them banter on and on like a borken tape recorder playing it's moss- lined strip. issues like this require ppl to think and conclude and understand the concepts. it is not much in TNS's style to spoon-feed it's audiences. 4. the short interlude with it's "scripted anger" ending was fine and in no way "killed" the play --> it had to end somewhere in it's argumentations, would u rather have a huge debate goin on in the theatre till 8 pm the next day? the scripted anding had to contribute and link back to the mood of the play. would u rather end the interlude happy and suddenly try to fall back into serious mood again? not everyone is an emotional rollar coaster. all in all, this play was presented well. it's style was unsual and not like the more "normal" play by wildrice and such other theatre companies. i feel that TNS and haresh sharma too should be applauded for scripting and presenting a different play with filled with different themes and presentation styles. this is the kind of stuff theatre should be made of. unconventional creativity to end, to each his own

Yes, the play did not provide any absolute answers but it sure did answer my question: “What the hell am I watching this?” This is my second play and the second time I have asked the same question. Maybe I am a masochist. Nobody seems to understand the ironic humour splashed across this review. Frankly, I had a great laugh and basically appreciated the reviewer’s insightful retorts. I think everyone who has responded to his review already has an idea of how they felt about the play and allowed their feelings get in the way of reading this review “objectively” and critically. It is sad considering we are the “arty people” (to quote Sharma in the play, which is problematic itself… using patriarchal dialectics? arty vs normal? So who is being a bigot now?) With regards to the god-on-trial issue, Marcus’s point was that Sharma concept of putting god on trial was extremely trite. I am sure Marcus knows that any conception of the transcendental signifier is only man’s notions of it. To personify and characterize god by such simplistic means and to put him (why not her?) on trial for all the horrid things inflicted onto the world is not creative or thought provoking. I say it is horribly predictable. I have seen secondary school plays using this same theatrical technique and exploring the theme further. There was no difference between Wada’s performance and the ones you get from some bad Japanese drama series. So, I beg to differ Matthew. The actors swayed from extreme emotion (for example, screaming) to extreme emotion (screaming again), which actually made some of the audiences cringe. Well, the ones around me anyway. I think the genral bad acting of the actors was most apparent during the (un)staged Q&A section. Issues of censorship were brought up but only superficially. It is one thing not to provide answers and let the audience “think for themselves”. It is another thing not to explore the topic at all. All I got from the play was censorship=bad and no censorship=good. I mean, form a freaking opinion. You do have to leave thing “open” or ambiguous to let the audience make up their minds. That is not duty of the playwright. It is foul and patronizing. Form an opinion, for goodness sakes. The play lacked argument right from the start. It tried to do too much and achieved little. If Sharma actually knew he was deconstructing his play then he would not have added the Q&A piece in the middle of the play. Art versus artlessness? I think not. Everything that was happening on stage (and even on screen) was artifice. I am not convinced that he was trying to deconstruct his own play. The play was too self-absorbed and not self-conscious enough. Watching the play was like leafing through Sharma’s teenage diary, full of angst and shock-value. Putting sniplets of Faces of Death on the screen does not make me think about mortality. It just makes me think about the shallowness of the playwright’s approach. I know most people on here are friends of the people at TNS or have worked with them. All I can say is “grow up!” Reviews are not meant to be appreciative pieces to appease actors, directors and playwrights. If we are not even open to the diversity of people’s opinions, then censorship might just be the best way to go. Why bother with a forum like this one then? Why bother with one-liners (which by the way is not a response or an opinion)?

Hi Calvin, thank you for your feedback! I just like to clarify, using snippets from Faces of Death (and other historical footage of assassinations) was my shallow approach and not the playwright's, so I apologise. And I didn't really want to make the audience question their mortality. If u noticed I juxtaposed it with footages of people of different faiths praying and doing other religious rituals. I have certain opinions about stuff and that was the best way i could express them. Maybe I still need to grow up and express them better so that you won't think of mortality only (or not think of it). I'll try harder next time! It's not easy, but that's the best arty people like us can do. Cheers!

Dear Calvin,

Some thoughts on your comments...

“I think everyone who has responded to his review already has an idea of how they felt about the play and allowed their feelings get in the way of reading this review.”

Yes, you’re right, of course. When people read a review, they should just forget what they felt about the play in question. Ideally they should forget that they saw it at all! They should just accept the reviewer’s opinion as the absolute truth.

“With regards (sic) to the god-on-trial issue, Marcus’s point was that Sharma (sic) concept of putting god on trial was extremely trite.”

No, that isn’t what he says at all; he says that it was problematic to have man assuming God’s identity. As it happens, though, I agree with you that the trial concept was trite – I’ve seen it too often before and, yes, in secondary schools.

“You do [not] have to leave thing (sic) “open” or ambiguous to let the audience make up their minds. That is not duty of the playwright. It is foul and patronizing.”

Well, how bizarre. You must hate an awful lot of plays. And you didn’t think the play discussed any issues at all, apart from a superficial treatment of censorship? How also bizarre.

“I know most people on here are friends of the people at TNS or have worked with them. All I can say is ‘grow up!’ Reviews are not meant to be appreciative pieces to appease actors, directors and playwrights.”

I get more than a little annoyed when people question my integrity as a reviewer, or the integrity of the other reviewers on this site. Perhaps you might like to read some of the reviews in the archives. You will find honest and varied opinions.

Maybe you would also like to take another look at Marcus’ review, above. It has been posted on this site and it is not appreciative.

“If we are not even open to the diversity of people’s opinions, then censorship might just be the best way to go. Why bother with a forum like this one then?”

This is contradictory and very silly indeed. We are open to the diversity of opinions. This is demonstrated quite clearly by the diversity of opinions that you can see above. Or perhaps what you mean is that we are not open to accepting one person’s opinion without argument – your opinion, for example. If everyone agreed with you, there wouldn’t be much diversity of opinion, would there?

You will also notice, I hope, that your comments have not been censored.

dear calvin, diversity is how u percieve it... i am not associated with TNS in anyway. not frens with any of the scriptwriters or directors... thus, i am not being bias in my comments...
if diversity in the arts culture is wat u want, don't u think that the best way to achieve it, is to be objective and appreciative of the different things, views and comments. trying to understand and percieve how everything contributes to the play and its comments. and THEN drawing conclusions and presenting them without trying to "insult" any of the other party's views with ramblings on how un-choreographed the play was and asserting that anyone who comments here, has a vested interest in TNS.
i am sure that if u look deeper in the play, u would get answers. it is a THINKING play. and u SHOULD have gotten some sorta answers to the various qustions asked. unless of course... i shall keep that comment to myself.
but then again, my meat is your poison and so thus, i shall practice YOUR diversity and NOT appreciate how u have totally distorted the views previously presented...
with all due respect. i say again, DIVERSITY IS HOW U PERCIEVE IT.
thank you