Reply

This writing was supposed to be a reply to my friend's opinion about her first theatrical experience as an audience. But turned out it is quite long that I decided to make a new post.

* * *

On your first point, I feel the same way when I watched Teater Koma's ANTIGONEO. The dialogues are tediously long, and I perceive that some scenes' existence are not that significant in supporting the whole plot line. But I think it's just me who didn't possess enough intelligence to understand them. Perhaps, that's really what theatre is all about (as you pointed out earlier).

I. Yudhi Soenarto (the director and scriptwriter) told us that all of the dialogues were carefully chosen, and he tried to make not even single sentence ends up pointlessly. Several are meant to strengthen the nature of each characters (as you said), some are additions in order to build logical & sensible plot, and the rest are allusions to ongoing political issues in our country. But I agree with you. It would be much better if those ideas could be delivered in much more concise dialogues.

And I have to admit that I personally think that the scenes' settings are not visually enchanting, compared to other plays I've watched. This has something to do with internal issues, but I don't think I'm supposed to write it down here, in publicly-visible social media.

You can compare the settings of this play to settings of 'Sayang Aku HIV, Kamu Ngapain Aja?' (2008) which was also produced by Teater Sastra UI.

Perhaps this also affected your interest in watching the play, since you're a visual person.

I spotted interesting point there, about the internal jokes. I did not notice this at all until you pointed it out. Sure, the jokes are supposed to be generally acceptable. Regarding the internal jokes, I. Yudhi Soenarto of course avoids including any form of it in the script. But, the actors did lots of improvisations on stage. I am pretty sure that the internal jokes are recited out of consciousness. Please note that I'm not trying to justify my fellows' (or even mine?) mistakes. We should have avoided that, I know.
Which part of the dialogues that contained internal jokes (which you wouldn't get unless you read the booklet), if I may ask? :)

About the costumes, I also think they were pleasing to the eye. And what's amazing about it is the fact that we didn't rent any costumes. We have a pile of clothes, I don't know how did they get those clothes, but the point is, that the pile is some kind of 'stock of costumes'. All they (people from costume division) did was just mix-matching those clothes, and it has to have no similarities (at least, the audiences won't notice) with costumes in previous plays. If you remember my first costume, the white transparent (some kind of) lace around my arms? It was actually a tutu skirt, pressed by the black vest I wore afterward. The costume division deserves salutation, don't you think?

On your questions about the plot... Well. I will try to explain it from my point of view and from what I've known. People can have different interpretations, and what I am going to say could in fact deviate from what actually I. Yudhi Soenarto intended it to be. Forgive me if such misunderstandings happen.

Okay. Now I am confused how to start this.
*cough*

I perceive that the Prime Minister initial suggestion about holding the 'Baju Baru Sang Raja' festival was free from any intention of embarrassing The King. He suggested it merely in order to present idea to celebrate The King and Queen's wedding anniversary in such glamour way, which was an allusion on how our government frequently wastes money and allocates it for unnecessary expenses. Do you remember the case when members of People's Representative Body (sounds pretty weird, but I checked Miriam Budiarjo's textbook regarding this term. Finally, 'Introduction to Political Science' subject is put into good use. Ha!) proposed to make golden rings for them, as a 'farewell' item? Well, I associates that case with this scene.

But, the Defence Minister saw this as an opportunity to take over the reign. Of course, he couldn't do it with his own hands. He needed mass and back-ups to run his plan, so that he will not be spotted in case it ends up failing.

On the other side, the activists had their own interest to take down the king, with their own motives. But, you see, they're in deficiency of funding. That's why, I guess, they initially suggested about participating in the festival as contestant (though in the end they didn't).

This was where the needs of Defence Minister and the activists' interest met. The Defence Minister willingly funded the activists' demonstration (though he emphasise not to be mentioned at all), and the activists willingly held demonstration to achieve Defence Minister's and their own goal. It was explained in the third scene, if I am not mistaken.

Apparently, there's third party involved in this plan. I hope you still remember the part where Defence Minister was receiving phone call and doing conversation in English. From his dialogues (monologues), we can assume that he was making phone call with foreigner.

Bruce Wong was also making phone call in the penultimate scene, elaborating that the plan went just well.  I assume the person that was talking to Bruce Wong was the same person as the one who phoned Defence Minister. That person from America, with unknown background, was the mastermind of this plan. He has his own motives, of course, by interfering the political condition in that kingdom, but that was not elaborated explicitly in the play.

Is there anything more in the designer other than he's from America or is he involved with the plan along with the activist/defence minister?
Yes, the designer was involved with the plan along the Defence Minister and activists.

Isn't that mean that the evil minister and the activist was lucky enough that the king making a fool of himself at the time? They only wanted to point out how much money the king spent for it right?
Nope. I'm really sorry for the badly organised explanation, but I hope you get my point. They weren't lucky. The King's making fool of himself at the time was not coincidence. It was well planned coup d'état 

About your lack of interest in politics... I hear you, mate, I hear you. I was never a fan of politics too.
As Peter Merkl said,

Politics at its worst is the selfish grab for power, glory, and riches.

Indonesia's politic has reached this degree, and I'm so disgusted with it. I feel like it shows nothing but how cruel, selfish, and beastly people can be. How true the phrase 'Homo Homini Lupus' is.

Indeed, politics is excruciating topic to contemplate on for some people. That's why this play was delivered in the form of satyric comedy, in hope that we can deliver the message through laughter. So that the issue could be accepted by general audiences. I'm so sorry that we failed to satisfy you in this aspect :(

Additions
I let Nosa Normanda (the one who played Bruce Wong) saw your post. He thanks you for the critics. To respond your critics, his argument was:

'In this play, 'context' was everything. If you can't relate the allusions to the on going political context, you'll fail to understand and enjoy this performance.'

I asked him whether other plays are similar to this, that it has elongated dialogues and such. He said,

'There are many kinds of approach that could be used to develop the plot line. This one's called Brecht (since it was initiated by Bertold Brecht). Brecht explored theatre as a forum for political ideas.'

I guess that explains why the dialogues were incredibly long. There were extractions of I. Yudhi Soenarto's political ideology, I think.

He also suggests you to read Kompasiana's article. This article reviewed the play scene per scene, pretty much detailed. It will help you to understand the context, in case you are interested :)

* * *

Thank you so much for the critics!
Though you didn't seem to enjoy the performance, I really am glad you write honestly about what you think about it, and that you didn't pretend to like it. Which brings us into (some kind of) discussion regarding this topic! This may not be a pretty neat reply to your questions, but I hope it will be satisfying enough for you (if not, please don't hesitate to make another reply).


I advise you to not so quickly jump into conclusion that theatre is not your thing. Like stated before, theatre consists of lots of types and sub-types. Maybe it's just this one doesn't suit you well.

Lastly, I really thank you, Rani, for your willingness to spare your time watching this, for your support, encouragements each time before I performed. And now I read that you wrote,

'I was there for a friend'.....

It... really touches me. To certain extent.

I've already forgotten what it was like when a friend did something so sincere for me.

Le Petit Prince

...or widely known as 'The Little Prince'.
Written by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, this book was originally published in French and is often used as beginner book's for French language student.

It's been recited in my previous post that I'm gonna write a review about this novella.
So here I am, fulfilling my promise.

This isn't my first attempt of reading this book, actually.
I've read it some time ago, and by the moment I finished reading it, I wasn't quite impressed by any features of this book.
I don't know whether it's because the translated version (Indonesian) I've been reading or I was too little to understand.

too little to understand.

Ha! We often think that we, adults, are waaay more in the upperhand of children, don't we?

Thus, this book somewhat altered my perspective.

The very first chapter of this book describes about how the character 'I' (narrator's point of view) who ever drawn this object when he was a little boy: an elephant which was being digested by a boa constrictor.

But, adults recognized that drawing as a hat (I do personally think that it would indeed looked like a hat, if you miss the small dot that meant to be the eye of the boa constrictor).

Then The Little Prince met the narrator, and in instance he recognized the drawing as what the narrator intended it to be.

That scene settles of what perspective this tale would be told: children's mind,
for there's a theory that says: a child's drawing may looks abstract (to adults) but children can recognize each others' drawing.

The Little Prince himself was described as a little boy who travelled along from one planet to another until he finally arrived on Earth. Each planet was inhabited by individuals which represents adults in their various ridiculous characters. They were: The King, The Conceited Man, The Businessman, The Drunkard, The Lamplighter, and The Geographer.

The King

The Businessman

The Drunkard

The Lamplighter

The Geographer

Those individuals, which told in the tenth chapter until the fifteenth, picture the characters of adults in extreme way of personification. For example, The Conceited Man who had been excessively proud of himself, craving for praise, and can't hear anything which is not considered as a form of adoration.
This actually satirize people who profoundly obsessed with respect.

The Conceited Man

One may say, " Who doesn't like being flattered anyway?"
True, but at some point these people might try to find any way, as well as doing bad deeds, in order just to receive higher status for the sake of praise.
Adults are like that.


But The Little Prince, with the innocence of a child, respond to this,
"...why should that mean so much to you anyway?"


I'm not gonna write any further about the other characters :)


The rest of the chapters told about The Little Prince's days of wandering on Earth. Each events represents things in life which being elaborated beautifully in words by Saint-Exupery.

The Little Prince and his rose

Like, the relationship between The Little Prince and The Fox, also between The Little Prince and his flower, teaches about love among two lovers, or could be friends. From The Fox, The Little Prince learnt how to love his rose, his only remarkable rose among the entire universe.

'Men have forgotten this basic truth,' said the fox. 'But you must not forget it. For what you have tamed, you become responsible forever. You are responsible forever'

'One runs the risk of crying a bit if one allows oneself to be tamed...'

'be tamed' here means if you put a feeling towards someone. Well said, eh?

I ended up profoundly fond of this novella after I finished reading it. Though it may be considered as a children's book, it left the readers with deep thinking afterwards and let it be widely interpreted. So yes, contrary to my first impression, this is one of the books I'd like to label:
a-must-read :)