Focusing in on the Romanian revolution of 1989, Mad Forest brought together stories of
people living through tumultuous times with corrupt and ever changing governments. Told in a
sort of tableau form, actors would break off into smaller stories as the characters slowly came
together to form a cohesive vision. These stories focused on anything from family relations to
general conditions to governmental control. Eventually the stories culminated in a complete
tonal change; actors portrayed different characters, giving interviews on news stations as
narration of events of the revolution. A brief intermission precedes a third act for the play,
returning to the original characters. The only new character is a vampire who appears sparingly
throughout the act as stories finish.
These stories, operating mostly independently of the revolution, save for one
character’s direct involvement, were absolutely the most interesting part of the show. The cast
managed an excellent portrayal of these characters for the most part, and this meshed well
with the obviously complete nature of the director’s vision. The resulting aesthetic was not only
entertaining, but it also fit with the themes of the story. Although there were times the
tableaux were confusing or not altogether interesting, these sections of the play were certainly
Mad Forest at its best.
In spite of some of these successes, the show had some glaring issues. The first, and
most obvious, was the necessary context for understanding events of the play. Much of the
audience felt that external research would have helped understand the story a great deal,
which speaks to an expository failure. Additionally, the second act, with narration by news
interview, was wholly uninteresting. Theatre as a storytelling medium allows for a great amount
of spectacle and visual storytelling. To boil the events of a revolution down to being told by
some characters the audience had not previously met is absurd. This was perhaps the most
uninteresting way possible of telling this story. USC theatre seems to have some obsession with
these projectors used to display images from phone cameras in real time (they were also used
heavily in Amsterdam), but these displays did not enhance the show.
Amidst these confusing or boring moments, the character of the vampire is very
problematic. Likely a symbol for the corrupt government of Romania that, despite seemingly
being banished never changes, the vampire’s scenes were both confusing and unrelated to the
characters realistically. This was problematic enough that when the vampire arrives at the
wedding at the end of the play and begins to dance, it is entirely comical, to the point of
absurdity. This undermined the message of the show, as in a climactic and meaningful moment,
the audience’s focus was on the nature of the dancing rather than what these events actually
meant. As a result, Mad Forest fell short of communicating any universal message and became
little more than a series of well performed tableaux.
Leave a Reply