4-30 Aug, 1615 (1715) @ C, Chambers Street
By Danielle Farrow
Against a backdrop designed by theatre designer Edward Gordon Craig, Anna-Marie Paraskeva is Isadora Duncan, dressed in her iconic Grecian manner, dancing – with shadows cast – in her style, and living childishly, sensuously, coquettishly, demandingly and tenderly through her writings, mostly letters written to her lover Craig.
All the right character notes are there: the stillness before dancing, and symbolic Duncan gestures and steps; the earthy aspects that would make modern dance ’real’ alongside her dreaming inability to connect long with reality in her life; the mood swings of the relationship and of ‘Topsy’ herself, with the feeling of inevitable separation and possible exploitation; tragedy in the death of her children (one of whom was also Craig’s), and joy in her passionate love. The acting is layered, varied and superb, and it infuses the dance – this is part of the real beauty on display, the way in which movement is seamlessly part of ‘acting’ scenes, while real feeling enriches the dance, following truthfully from what has gone before or already paving the way for what is to come.
Unfortunately there are no biographical notes, or notes on the play, in the programme. As with Poem without a Hero (see review for this), Inside Intelligence presents pieces that would benefit from prior knowledge. Indeed, all publicity blurb refers to ‘Isadora Duncan’ and ‘Gordon Craig’ – without prior knowledge or post-show research, how is one to know that ‘Gordon’ is not his first name? Knowing that he is actually Edward Gordon Craig is even necessary to make sense of the play’s title. There are also references to others: her children’s names can be worked out via context, but when Isadora makes reference to another man, it does make a difference to the story if that man is another lover or – as later research showed – a relation (case in point, her brother Raymond).
The performance of Teddy and Topsy, though – while the script alone may prove a little thin without explanation – is a great example of truth in acting and dance. It is intriguing, and enough can be gleaned from the performance to be satisfying too. Isadora Duncan wrote well, passionately, with apt phrases, and of course, her dance style is legendary. Anna-Marie Paraskeva embodies this ‘mother of modern dance’ and dances her into the audience’s collective heart.
Tags: Edinburgh Fringe, fourstars, review
Hi Danielle,
I’m the director of Teddy and Topsy (and also Poem Without a Hero, which you kindly mentioned in the review). Thanks for your interest in our work and for your thoughtful and constructive reviews. I’m particularly glad that you liked the performances by two great actors.
May I disagree with you about one thing? You complain about lack of some explanations. To me, this is a really interesting point. Why this uniquely British obsession that everything in a play has to be explained – all set out neatly in rows? No European writer would understand that at all! They would dismiss the very idea.
I deliberately did not explain certain things, such as the points you mention. What’s wrong with a play being ambiguous in places? If a poem lacks ambiguity, you would feel dissatisfied. Why can a play not be a like a poem in that respect? If you read Poem Without a Hero (or the Wasteland or the Four Quartets), you accept its ambiguities and obscurities as part of the world of the poem. Why the sudden need to explain everything when you perform it?
To take up your points with respect to Teddy and Topsy, I think it matters nothing if we don’t know who Raymond is. That letter is about how she coped with her grief at the loss of her children by going to Corfu and helping Raymond in how work with the refugees from the two Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. Should I explain all that as well? Of course not. The explanation would obscure and obstruct the effect of the letter.
Or should I leave out the letter altogether because there’s no way to explain it all?
Of course not. The point of the letter is its beauty, its revelation of her emotional state at that time and of her overriding selflessness and her love of humanity. Worrying about the identity of Raymond, or what she’s doing, gets in the way of understanding all that, so let it go! Allow for, embrace, ambiguity. Focus on the bigger picture. Look up Raymond later, if you like (as you did – that’s good, it’s got you on the Isadora trail – yay!). It doesn’t matter to the story, nor does it affect the main things that the letter conveys, if he’s her brother, her lover, her friend or any other person.
Similarly with the title. It’s GOOD to pose a little conundrum that people have to wrestle with – just like a poem in fact. Why patronise the audience by assuming they can only deal with things if they’re explained? If you’re asking yourself who Teddy is, for me that’s a result.
I am really grateful to you for raising these points. It allows me to say that I embrace the ambiguity, the fact that the play is not “well-made” in the old-fashioned British way. I will continue to do work like that and hope one day to persuade you to see it my way. Best wishes. Robert Shaw.
Most Market Makers use the MMindicator to trade
I’m sorry I missed this performance. Will it be performed anywhere else?