Daniel’s Woyzeck Review

§ December 15th, 2008 § Filed under Woyzeck

Brought from Iceland in a ship, Woyzeck was unveiled as almost a theatrical invention at BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) on Thursday. Textually based on George Buchner’s play bearing the same name, and philosophically based on existentialism, the Vesturport Theatre streamlined so many ideas that one can feel a tripping sensation overcome them while completely being knocked out intellectually.
Woyzeck is a play of simple nature. A passive-insane protagonist Woyzeck, played here by Ingvar E. Sigurdsson, is battered through many different external encounters. He was ridiculed, pushed around, and treated like an insensitive animal. He is further traumatized by his love’s (Nina Dogg Filippusdotti) predictable traditional affair with an alpha-male type drum major who was adequately done by Bjorn Hlynur Haraldsson. Woyzeck then continued to self-destruct exponentially. Ultimately Woyzeck killed Marie. The stage is thus set for a mesmerizing lights and music show. Did I mention Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre?
May I ask where Marie and Woyzeck’s child went? Or is he symbolized somewhere along the way? This brings us to an important point. Is it ok to disregard a play’s parameters for the indulging of intellectual and audience curiosities? The audience was certainly amused.
Ingvar Sigurdsson was exceptional at throwing fits and swimming but truth of character was non-existent, then again he didn’t have much support other than Elvis (who was very enjoyable). Mr. Sigurdsson had strange character choices; Woyzeck’s true sensitive personality was overshadowed by a choppy presentation of a short temper.
In the beginning we are met with water being poured on Woyzeck. And in the end Woyzeck was floating in a large tank of water. Obviously this was to show that man cultivated water, and other natural primitive possessions, but ultimately ruined himself and was again enveloped by the basic things. Woyzeck was a man of many fields, yet in the end he couldn’t walk and could only feel love and hate, life and death.  This was an example of the few glimmers of Buchner’s bleak philosophies.
This play is credited for being the first modern tragedy, but what does that mean for us simpletons? Does modern mean complete elasticity? Are there tragedies being discussed in this play that did not exist in Antigone? Such openness and abstractness yield such a performance, which does not really pay homage to Buchner, but instead contributes phenomenal original work. The problem with this is, we are not coming to see an unknown acting troupe just to see because we want to, that is just a byproduct of wanting to see Buchner. If someone advertises Woyzeck by Buchner we should expect some authenticity.
Woyzeck was perfect for BAM and is probably on the money for 90% of New York’s intellectuals reading Mein Kampf (which has quite the story of human degradation and eternal struggle) but for the more learned experienced theatre goers the Blue Man Group may seem just as appealing not to mention more accessible.