Prince Caspian from the Logos Theater at Museum of the Bible

We went to the Museum of the Bible to watch Prince Caspian, performed by the Logos Theater company. It was a great way to celebrate finishing our play and inspire us for more plays in the future. It also provided a catalyst for thinking about theater, why I love it, what I think about it, what I wish it could become. So this is a personal processing, not so much a review, of the 1pm performance on April 6. 

The message of the play was that we need to follow Jesus no matter what opposition we may face - denial of his existence, doubting of companions, inability to see him, and unclear guidance - with the faith that He is working behind the scenes to bring us to victory. They presented the message mostly by telling the story, but there were several times when it was a bit didactic, though within didactic characters.  It helps that Aslan is so clearly a Christ figure that a character can say, "I will follow Aslan," without wading through salvation talk. In the characters of Trumpkin following the High King, and Edmund following Lucy, they also brought out the idea of following Aslan's shadow, so even when we can't see what God is doing, we follow those who can. All in all, they mostly managed to convey the message without stepping out of the story to preach it.

The story-telling was good. They kept many lines straight from the book, and I don't think adapters can beat the simplicity and humor of C. S. Lewis. Where they added and cut characters, it made technical sense, even though I would have loved to see a centaur or a giant. There aren't many female characters in Prince Caspian, so beefing up the ones that are there made some sense, and adding a few, like Mrs. Badger, and casting Repicheep as a female was understandable, especially considering that all the puppets almost had to be performed by men, even though I thought they were unnecessary. I also thought that by boosting those roles, they diminished the roles of Susan and Lucy. 

Thomas also pointed out the use of "money-shots" and I think that explains a lot of my issues with the storytelling. There were moments when the action stopped after an important line to emphasize the lines "hidden" meaning, or a important character point. So after Trumpkin says, "I will follow the High King," there was a significant pause. Or before Susan flounces out after the others, she has a moment in the spotlight. This is common in TV and movie acting, but to me, it feels unnatural on the stage. I do wonder though if it gives audience members not accustomed to stage theater a visual cue, like TV and movies do, just like the soundtrack gives auditory cues. It is one of those areas I am not sure what I think of. Should we use a soundtrack and money shots in live theater? Or do we embrace the limitations of what live theater is, and develop within those limitations?

The set for the play was amazing. This, by far, was my favorite part. The moving set pieces, especially the astronomy tower, was technically amazing. The transition from the train station to Narnia, and then back again was a spectacle in all the best sense of the term. I leaned over to Malcolm and said, "It would be fun to be the one moving the sets in this scene, wouldn't it?" I also loved the use of the "flies." Some of the set got lowered and some characters got flown. Most of the time, I felt it was seamless and beautiful. The breaking up of Beruna's Bridge seemed a little bit more of a spectacle in the negative sense - an important plot point, but so much energy and unique props put into it that it lost its power. 

I loved the costumes! They were beautiful, appropriate to the characters, and creative, even if the Telmarines' were imitations of the Vikings TV show. My favorite part, as a costumer, was that costume changes were explained well. My only critique was Peter's tunic, because when he put on his sword belt, it made the tunic paunch unbecomingly, rather than looking regal. (Caspian and Edmund's tunics had a defined waist, so they worked better.) The solution was for the boys to take on and off their swords every scene, which gave them something to do with their hands, so it ended up working out.

Their puppetry is incredible. Logos Theater prides themselves in their puppetry, and rightly so. The animals move like real animals. There were walking trees (even though one looked like Groot), and Aslan is enough in-human to be a powerful character,  not a person in a mane. The problem is that the puppetry requires recorded lines, which sometimes break the flow of a scene when the other characters make a mistake. I, personally, would like to see the head puppeteer also provide the voice, giving the character even more unity, but I don't know the technical details of that.

In each of these areas, since I have written for theater, directed young actors, and done costuming, as well as able to recognize many soundtracks (though not nearly as many as my children or husband), sometimes I feel like I can't appreciate a play as it is meant to be received. Sometimes I feel that I notice things that if I hadn't done theater, I wouldn't have noticed. But the noticing also comes with an understanding.

So I felt that the scene between the nurse and young Caspian was too long, too didactic, and too emotional. King Miraz never would have tolerated so long a delay in his command, and brief farewells are more Narnian. However, because I have written, I know how easy it is to add an unnecessary scene to make a point. In my opinion the scene should have been significantly shortened, but I understand why it wasn't. 

Another example is that I wished I could have directed Lucy and Peter. Lucy always held a closed position and cried and fretted too much. That didn't really change after she met Aslan; in fact, we don't really get to see a change in her at all. I don't know if it was a directorial choice or a personal acting choice, but I would have loved to see her play a more carefree and trusting Lucy, rather than the closed, timid one. Also, to me, it seemed that Peter wasn't having the best performance. Again, I don't know if they were choices or mistakes, but there were several times when I wondered if a line was given in the wrong place, or if there was redundancy in the script. Also, I listened to a short video of him talking about his character, and it made me sad because he saw (and therefore acted) Peter's failings more than his strengths. Bowing to Aslan was interpreted as being humbled, not as a fulfillment of his character. Facing death bravely in the duel was interpreted as insecurity. Peter isn't a perfect character, but he has nobility and honor, not pride and self-confidence issues.

My boys have pointed out that the things I critique most are often the things I like the best. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they are right. I enjoyed the performance so much. I appreciate what the Logos Theater is doing. I admire the people who are acting, writing, and directing there. The part of me that critiques most heavily is the part that also wants to be a part of their creative process. Where I saw weaknesses, I want to turn them into strengths, not rip it apart because it isn't good enough. 

That is why this is a processing, not a review. I loved it because it told a favorite story, well. I loved it because it did with its set and costuming all the things that I wish I could do when I direct. I loved it because I love the same Jesus that they serve, and can see His light in them. Those things are really more important than my observations and critiques. And not only that, their creativity has inspired my creativity, and I can't wait until we can do another play, building on all the things I am learning along the way.