That's theatre, man

Just back from the late night Frankenstein Q&A session in aid of Dramatic Need. It was just as superficial as expected, but amusing. For the people interested in the production, there were some interesting points made, but it rather frustratingly proved my point about the unquestioning lack of thought put into the discussion of science, which is at the heart of the book. Only the most trite aspects of science versus religion were discussed in any depth, once again completely neglecting the horror of the novel.

The most interesting parts of the evening were the actors explaining the rehearsals and the research. They visited two schools for children with severe disabilities and Cumberbatch and Danny Boyle even observed an autopsy. Cumberbatch was dispassionately explaining the experience (in a very Sherlock manner), while the audience 'oohed' in disgust. He paused and asked, “Why do you think it's disgusting?” and explained how relevant it was to the character of Victor. He said it taught him how to be 'professional' around dead bodies, which was queried by the interviewer and reveals quite a lot about Cumberbatch's interpretation of Victor: the dispassionate scientist. Miller, on the other hand, was too squeamish to attend the autopsy excursion and his Victor is the more tortured by the quarrel between his striving intellect and his sensitive soul.

The very trite scene about original sin was played for the audience (among other clips, but it is still a weak moment of the play in my opinion) and a discussion about science and religion ensued, which I think is actually grafted over Shelley's novel, rather than being extracted from it, so I was disappointed to see it discussed in great detail as though it were a deep philosophical exploration. Yes, in the novel, there is little place for God and yes Victor's attempt to discover the secret of animation and replicate it is seen as striving for the knowledge of God ergo replacing him, but what of the horror that ensues when he realises the dilemma he has dug himself into? The novel is no simple treatise on the unnecessity of a creator God, it is a complex illustration of the scientist's condition, of responsibility, of moral grey areas, of the holiness of all life, but it must still be destroyed. I love the scene in the book where Victor realises he has created his own mortal enemy and they are now destined to destroy each other. These lines are lifted directly into the play, but the context is lost. The book is not about whether people are born bad, the book is about taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions or, in the creature's case, learning to do so. The fixation on original sin I can only surmise comes from the playwright's modern experience of religion, in contrast to Shelley's context. The fact that Danny Boyle so readily identified with it is evidence that the play was heavily influenced by modern disdain for religion and faith in science.

Of course these issues were never going to be discussed at a short question and answer session, and it was very amusing regardless. Jonny Lee Miller was hilarious and Cumberbatch rambled charmingly. Amusing moments included the interviewer overhearing an audience member walking into the theatre this evening saying, “I hope it's Miller as the creature tonight because I want to see him in the buff.” For the following few minutes, he gleefully acted flattered, once again showing how well he can use his body to tell a story (which, for a primarily screen actor, is impressive). They were obviously unsettled by seeing themselves on screen. The first time a clip was shown, Cumberbatch and Miller were commenting to each other and holding their heads in their hands and such antics. Miller explained in some depth that it was slightly wrong seeing it on film, when everything they had rehearsed was geared towards the live audience and the space in the Olivier theatre. This was when he uttered the quote I have immortalised as the title of this blog entry; “That's theatre, man.”