Drama Review
Anna Weiss
Sirohmi Gunesekera reviews "Anna Weiss" a play by Mike Cullen
Practically a bare stage but the air was pregnant with the tension emanating
from the three figures on stage. "Anna Weiss" is a psychological
drama and the Joint Effort Company went all out to make it a gripping theatrical
experience.
Act one was a nicely balanced interaction between the talkative Anna
(with some solid four-letter punchlines) and the obviously distraught Lynn.
The suspense was built up through the dialogue and the rare yet symbolic
acts. There was good visual impact with Anna turning the corkscrew as she
spoke of men's obsession with a "hole."
Yes, the language was very explicit. The theme is child sexual abuse
with a slight variation on the theme of "Whodunit."
Whose was the most difficult role? Each role had its strengths and director
Steve de la Zilwa had done a good job of the casting. Perhaps the hardest
role to sustain was that of the titular heroine who could only hint at
her hidden trauma.
Rohan Ponniah as David had the richest line of erasing all our yesterdays
echoed in stage daughter Lynn's final line of " a new frontier."
But if you are looking for easy answers or even of a chord of authenticity
as the natural father talks of being present at Lynn's birth, this play
is not for you. The gender war is played out between David and Anna but
at the end, there are no winners. Nor does love, or even friendship, conquer
all. The spectator, in the modernised arena theatre of the Bishop's College
Auditorium, was left to apportion praise and blame as he wished. Perhaps,
Lynn's references to the books on "Survival" and "Confrontation"
may have helped.
But as Anna Writhes on the floor in the agony of "Recovered Memory
Syndrome" there is a hint of the tragedy implicit in human relationships,
natural and man-made, and the dilemma of child abuse.
No, "Anna Weiss" was not light entertainment but for the serious
theatre-goer, it was essential viewing.
 One's
rights are another's duties
My Darling Daughter,
These last few days there has been a great deal of discussion on
the rights of the child. It really is nice to see so many people concerned
with the child. But we always seem to emphasise only one side of the coin.
What about the duties and responsibilities of the child too?
I look back at my own childhood, I think of yours too, and I wonder
whether we ever thought of our rights. My parents would have been aghast
if I so much as whispered of such notions! They loved me, fed me, educated
me and when occasion demanded disciplined me. I respected them and even
if I did not quite agree with them, I reluctantly obeyed them - why? Because
they were my parents. True enough I argued with them, lost my temper, protested
as you did years later with me at the so-called restrictions ongoing for
late night parties or unchaperoned hotel dances, but yet in the end you
obeyed as I also did those many years ago.
Today parents seem so confused about their own rights. Surely they
are the guardians of their children. The child is a trust given to them
and as much as a child has rights the parent has the right to guide and
correct them. One's rights are another's duties. It is a two way street.
Today while the educated theorize on children's rights, parents confused
try to provide all the material comforts a child needs. They are afraid
to discipline or control their children. A friend of mine asked me recently
how she could prevent her high spirited daughter from going for a teenage
unsupervised party. "Just tell her that she is too young yet to go
for such parties. Tell her that it is not because you do not trust her
that you don't want her to go, but because you love her and want to protect
her from various situations she is too young to handle." She looked
at me sadly as if the word "no" was one she could never use on
her children.
The little boy next door insists that only the TV channel he wants
must be switched on and his parents glance at each other in consternation
without telling him that it is up to the adults to decide what he should
watch. I guess half the problem with the parents is that new fangled ideas
of traumas children suffer and notions of mental and emotional abuse affect
them so much, that they are unable to say a simple "No." Today
this has lead to most teenagers being a law to themselves, but yet they
too are so confused, after all they are young and need parental guidance
and advice.
Don't you think parents too should insist on their rights? I am sure
you will smile, but can you remember the time I insisted on my rights and
refused you permission to go with your very young teenage friends to a
hotel dance. You were furious then and said I was old fashioned, but then
later when your friends related their experiences, you agreed that perhaps
I may have been correct in refusing you the permission. Permissiveness
is not a prerogative of a right. I wish daughter, today even while we talk
of a child's rights, parents will see that they have a vital role in giving
their children an understanding of values. Do you think that I am yet old
fashioned?
Ammi
 One
for you...
I know everyone's had it up to there with Clinton, but you've got to
admit that as a conversation piece it still isn't completely dead. Especially
now that it looks like he's got away with it. I'm not really surprised,
after all as President of the United States, he does have one of the best
propaganda teams in the world working for him. But I was a bit surprised
at just how easy it was for him to get away. One nation-wide address over
the Tele, in which he said as little as possible very nicely, was enough
to get him off the hook.
If you look at his speech, all he actually admitted to was having "inappropriate
ties." That could mean just about anything from having mob connections
to having bad taste in clothing. If he was actually referring to an affair
with Monica Lewinsky, that news couldn't possibly have come as a shock
to anyone who'd been even semi-conscious during the past few months. Duh,
really? Ms. Lewinsky? No way...
What really struck me about the whole thing was that he didn't actually
apologise. He beat around the bush, turned red, got angry, looked straight
at the camera – he did all the things you'd do during a good apology speech.
Just that he forgot to actually apologise. Though of course some liberal
minded people don't think that he should be apologising at all. They think
that what he does in his private life is his own affair (pun unintended),
and what really matters is how he does his job. True enough, but would
you trust a guy who lied through his teeth to be your President?
Curiously, most sympathies in this case are divided along gender lines.
Most of the girls I know are thinking "Poor Hilary", whereas
most of the guys I know want to know more about that dress. I guess we
all have our ways of dealing with things. Though also curious about the
dress, I must admit that I did give Hilary a thought. If she really didn't
know anything about it as she claims, then I do feel very sorry for her.
I mean it must be awful to have your personal problems dragged out in public
like that. And it can't be easy at all keeping up appearances and hoping
it would all just go away.
That was what one side of me was thinking. But there was another side
of me that was hoping that Hilary wouldn't be such a wimp. The entire American
public were being wimps. No one wanted the actual inconvenience of getting
rid of Clinton and getting someone else in. They were all too concerned
with their own problems. As it is, this entire thing has fizzled into a
rather anti-climatic end. It isn't fair to hype something like this up
and then just let it die. They're letting down viewers all over the world
who have been following this soap-opera on the news ever since it began.
I was at least hoping that Hilary would make a fight of it. That would
have at least made it interesting. A bitter, ugly divorce would be the
perfect ending to this whole messy state of affairs (intended this time).
Hmm, Divorce – that would be a rather novel wouldn't it? I don't think
any US president has ever had a divorce while still in office. Just imagine
how weird it would be trying to decide who gets what. He definitely wouldn't
get the kid – not role-model material.
But who will get the house? Maybe if they can't decide they'll have
to sell it and divide up the money. I wonder who'll get NASA, the Pentagon,
Fort Knox...
More Mirror Magazine * The Trial * Wackiest
Weddings
Mirror Magazine Archive
Front Page| News/Comment|
Editorial/Opinion| Business|
Plus |Sports
|
