AMPHITRYON
A Dulaang UP Production
Cast: Neil Ryan Sese, Lex Marcos, Diana Malahay, George de Jesus, Paolo O’ Hara, Diana Alferez
Direction: José Estrella
Filipino Translation: Jerry Respeto
Amphitryon’s trickery works in two forms. You will see that it also functions specifically, in each form, either well or otherwise.
In its plainest―when you take on the story in itself―the trickery is profound, and yet, perspicuous.
Amphitryon is essentially a tragedy laced with comical elements. The comedy goes as light as jocose antics such as flashing devilishly red panties, hinubad na longganisa and garlic rice, a multi-colored “stick,” and karaoke ditties, while the tragedy goes as deep as engaging in issues like unbridled lust, mistaken identities and something that is related to the idea of “a witty, divine joke.”
It begins in a night, in the course of which is persuaded to give Jupiter more time for his “sport” with Alkmene. Fade, then Sosias enters. Hilarity (the colorful, self-esteemed introduction of himself, Sosias) ensues. Out comes Mercury, but we don’t know that he is Mercury yet; he introduces himself to us and Sosias as Sosias. More hilarity (multi-colored “stick” beatings) follows. Sosias then gives out a monologue in which he says that there is nothing left to reassure him, if this man in front of him says that he is Sosias, looks and acts like Sosias, and knows everything that Sosias did when he was alone, then he must be Sosias, and he (Sosias Sosias) has lost his identity and, with it, his reason for living.
Amphitryon and Alkmene would have their doubts on their reason for living as well―to each others’ fidelity. With that most blissful night, Alkmene thinks it was Amphitryon whom she shared the passion with, but Amphitryon maintains that he is out in military business. “When Amphitryon decides that Alkmene is incapable of lying and must therefore be mentally ill, he is still consistent with the vain mortal Jupiter made him out to be.” When he assumes a new aspect, as his fear of losing her mounts, for she became this “adulteress and liar,” he stakes his life on this oath that Jupiter is indeed Amphitryon to Alkmene. Therefore, he proclaims, she is innocent of any moral or social transgressions. (There we are made witness to the heights of altruistic love.)
We see Alkmene’s take on the situation. She actually really delights in Amphitryon, his prowess, his importance, his fame, his benevolence. She even tells Jupiter, who is in the guise of Amphitryon of course, that she is so sure with her “love and its wholesomeness” that she wants nothing problematic or to disfigure its perfection. So when Amphitryon comes back to her outraged, she tells him sincerely, and is somewhat hurt, at his lack of tact in demanding the recount of the events of that night. She is just so in love with him to feel crushed that she be accused of infidelity. So she hurls angry reproaches at him, thinking that he has found another woman and is looking for an excuse to leave his wife. But then she suddenly discovers the “J” inscribed in the diadem of Labdacus, which she thinks Amphitryon gave to her, but actually Jupiter did (hence the “J”). For the first time in her life, she is unsure of herself.
Jupiter, still Amphitryon, confronts her. “If Amphitryon were to appear now, how would you [she] react?” There is no problem for Alkmene in this. She is totally sure that she is with her dear Amphitryon at this exact moment. Her perception of him is now that of a god’s. She is also now totally restored in the confidence in the infallibility of her love.
Jupiter Amphitryon mentions to her of a mortal who claims that he is the real Amphitryon. Amphitryon Amphitryon comes out to her a second time. What a shock to compare this “ignoble, bad imitation” to her husband (Jupiter, of course) for he falls in every aspect of the man she takes to be her husband. It is for this reason that she abuses him so furiously, and having pronounced Jupiter the real Amphitryon, decides to die.
Jupiter then begins to explain the events that fateful night. Alkmene begs him to spare her from this enlightenment, for the “thought that this creature is her husband” is now highly insufferable to her.
It all ends with the image of her swooning in Amphitryon’s arms at the sight of Jupiter in his divine form. She will have Hercules, the fruit of that most blissful night, but she will also have him as a constant reminder that a night such as that will never be as innocent, serene, and happy again.
The material that the producers had to work with is as classic as it gets. Although straightforward may it seems, the general intention of having this philosophical message―”What is identity, after all, but the knowledge of self?”―has never, until now, been illustrated in such a transparency. It should be treated as groundbreaking in Philippine theater, especially with all our problems, as a nation, of our true identity.
As with the staging itself, Amphitryon is tricky, yes, but in a not-so-palatable way.
OK, maybe I am not that acquainted with German comedy, but the slapstick aspect of the production is mind-numbing. Others may find this “slapstickness” as a justified relief from the underlying material, but (come on) it is too much. No one can deal with this much verbal profanity. The laughter that came afterward them must be out of the immobilization of the mind, the resistance of the brain to take in questions, to cogitate the profundity of it all. (I read a review online: “darating sa point na masakit na siya sa ulo” [referring to the humor employed]. I laughed like a hyena, after reading it.) I mean, I am not a killjoy, but this is UP, where different forms of knowledge converge, where even comedy can be viewed as highly intellectual, but where is the knowledge in the comical aspect of this?! If I want to see mind-numbing farce, I may as well go to drag shows or to comedy bars.
OK, good set design, though. I believe this is where Lex Marcos compensates himself with. Because the portrayal of Jupiter, rather bland, if you ask me. Mono-toned at best (although I have got to say, he fits the “amorous” prerequisites of the role), line missteps at worst. As for the other actors, they did what they had to do; they are OK. Others are kind of new to this foray to comical territory (like Marcos and Sese), but the timing and effort are there.
OK, so maybe I was a bit too harsh with the comedy. I have to admit, I buy myself to the Sosias scenes. They are acted with improvisations, reminded me a lot of Groucho Marx episodes―comic punches in the right time, in the right hitting zones. So therefore, the problem lies, actually, when they are juxtaposed to the subdued parts, not in themselves, not in their own explosion of humor. The Sosias scenes very much lifted the audience to comical (almost cathartic-level) heaven that the melodramatic bits had become excruciatingly slow and dragging. And I have to stick with my disdain with its expletives still; I really am not getting the point of all that excessive utilization for effect exhibition.
I fear that the intended message, the bringing forth of this problem of identity, didn’t stay long: the audience asked for more Groucho Marx, more fireworks, more tricks―and less stupidity and less drag.
Posts
