David Harvey Explains The Crisis of Capitalism and The Dwelling Construction Craze in Turkey

Contemporary British social critic David Harvey gave a conference entitled “The Crisis of Capitalism and Urban Struggle” at Ankara, Middle East Technical University, on 13th June 2012. Arriving just before the conference took start, I certainly didn't expect not finding any seats and sitting on the stairs. Harvey definitely created a wave of excitement in METU, because that he is one of the 20 top cited scholars in humanities(and the funny thing is one cannot help but hesitate how to introduce him, since he is a professor of anthropology and an academic geographer). In his speech which lasted about 45 minutes, Harvey stressed two main points, that is the outcomes of capitalism today thus the crisis the world is going through today, and second, reflections of today's economics in the world cities. Harvey gave a quite clear definition of capitalism, then he asserted capitalism shows its defects from time to time, and resolutes these defects by creating economic bubbles, or speculative bubbles. The new fashion seems to be the strive to compensate current crisis with a massive move: construction of new houses, which is to soothe the problems arising from the difference between supply and demand. Indeed, being a literature student, I am not fully knowledgable about this new craze. However, any person watching TV would recognize something IS going on. What I mean is every other day we are bombarded with the commercials, we are told to buy these newly built houses, each said to be situated at the center of the city, yet promising its future residents a tranquil atmosphere. Every other day a new building complex comes up. Harvey says that capitalism wants to recover from its occasional crises by tempting people to own properties and if they cannot afford, they are provided loans.

For Harvey, this fashion started around 1960s and 1960s, right after WWII and the Great Depression, and first affected people with low income who esteemed “American Dream”. Next it was Bill Clinton who tried to tempt again people with low income to buy houses, consequently meet the deficit between dwelling productions and capital accumulation. However, in 2000s, George W.Bush announced that this policy has failed.

Cities getting larger and larger is a big problem. In Turkey, share taxis (dolmuş) are frequently used. And the places where it collects and drops the passengers is written on them. I wonder how the drivers of these taxis will be able to memorize names of these buildling complexes, for most of the names are unfamiliar for Turkish speakers. Of course there is this bigger concern: How long this craze will last? Will we just enlarge our cities forever, just to sustain capitalism? On the other hand, being an ordinary citizen, primarily I care about how long will it take for me to reach somewhere in the city by bus, because as the time passes, going from somewhere to another gets longer, thus harder. According to Harvey, satellite cities and suburbs fell out of favour, and the only solution is to regenerate the city centres. He says “enlargement” as a watchword for capitalism is riding for a fall. He also points out that like China, Russia and other Latin America countries also sought to gather strength by urbanization politics and the recovery in dwelling constructions. He reminded this recovery is only temporary and if this bubble “pops”, well, we better be prepared for a series of international economic crises. At this point Harvey offers that we need to build our cities according to our lifestyles. I definitely agree with Harvey, and I think we should put human beings at the center in the making of city plans: cities that are planned according to our desires and needs. Otherwise, the point the economy goes could not be foreseen. And we should note that every time a new crisis arise, we take bigger steps, like a new building complex with a cocky name announced every other day. In Ankara, I feel glad most in the university campuses, where you can reach anywhere on foot in a short period of time, or taking a cab costs only a little amount of money. Because the campuses are enviromental-friendly, and they put individuals at the center of everything, not capital.

 Harvey says that he likens the building craze in Turkey to the one that has happened in Spain and Ireland 5 years ago. He mentioned that the 2.5 million houses in Valencia, are empty now. What I understood from this is that there is again this gap between supply and demand. To keep the balance, you build the houses and wait for them to be filled in. But what happens if they remain empty so that you have made a bad investment? You build more houses and wait again.

 At the end of the conference, Harvey listened to couple of questions from the audience (I think there were 1000 people or more. He seemed to be surprised to see this crowd in a hot summer day). But he looked quite tired, and the Conference Hall is quite large so it is difficult to follow long questions, especially if the person is excited. I think there were many irrelevant questions, too. So, Harvey could not answer each of them. I had a question in mind yet couldn't dare to ask, afraid that my ignorance on this subjects would arise. Yet I dare to ask it here: Harvey compared Spain and Ireland to Turkey. There is a certain demand for new houses every year in Turkey. And since the population is increasing contrary to these countries, (so that houses are sold almost in a day) how can Turkey end up Spain's property bubble?

 Being an acitivist, he put a strong emphasis on anticapitalism. Harvey evaluated latest social movements in urban areas such as Occupy as important in an anticapitalist sense. One of the most striking points in his speech was that the people belonging to working class are many in number and if they create a resistant network, battle against capitalism could come true.

 What about universities? Harvey says freedom  of universities has become questionnable after the application of neoliberal politics. Now that universities are trying to be afloat by emterprises, and universities become paid, he is not satisfied with the number of students attending to his classes. I call it a crazy irony that universities both invite scholarly and activist speakers like David Harvey as well as the people whose mere feature is being known as the owner of the biggest construction firms. As the latter often makes the most underbred remarks in the newspapers and TV programmes, I find it ludicrous that some students prefer to wear suits to their conferences.

http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/index.php?Did=4611
İpek Çakaloz, ELIT III

The Postmodern Face of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Theater is an important factor for human life because it is based on the creation of the experience of human living. It is a kind of expression and this reflection of expression related to human life’s experiments. Using theatre as a tool is awareness for the development of mankind. Furthermore, theater has an efficient potential to reach out to society. By staging plays based on the reality of the society and the issues concerning societies, it can easily get out to the public and help them to understand the nuances of societal elements. This can also help the society to move on forward and proceed.

Shakespeare’s many plays are put on the stage or reflected to movie screens. Shakespeare gives great opportunities to attend the play and he wants audiences to find true solutions or responses by themselves. He takes away people to unknown worlds or familiar places but his aim is to create awareness in both situation. One of the Shakespeare’s adaptable plays is the awarded film of Taviani Brothers. The film “Caesar Must Die” (Cesare Deve Morire) is adapted from Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” so “Caesar Must Die” recalls the postmodern face of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

“Caesar Must Die” is based on cruciality of the theater on human life. The movie handles inmates of Rome's maximum-security Rebibbia Prison. Italian filmmaking team Vittorio and Paolo Taviani’s docudrama throws light on hopeless lives of inmates. These inmates do not know the sun, the sky or trees because the beauties of life are forgotten. With the help of theater, they hold on to life and forget their own crime, lives and even names on the stage. During six months, they have performed the play, helping them to see the sun, the sky and trees again. However, inmates feel themselves useless after the performance since they have begun their own lives from scratch with this drama. The play reflects the reality of inmates and their lives at all points. All the cast want to touch on specific themes – life and death, rivalry and hate, collusion and treachery, loyalty and betrayal, the nature of crime and the codes of honor shaping the world of men. Besides, the cast of the movie is real criminals in Rome’s Rebibbia Prison so this also supports the movie’s depth and literalism.

Dealing with utmost importance of theater within a movie points out that theater is an essential part of human life. Vittorio and Paolo Taviani help people about this serious and significant part of life by putting a mirror. “Caesar Must Die” won the Golden Bear award for the best movie at the Berlin Film Festival. Taviani Brothers said that “Among the inmates were, who had got life sentences, serious criminals and this play was a kind of liberation for them.”

Gizem Irmak Yolcu, ELIT III

On Plays Performed by Ankara State Theater/II 2011-2012

HAYDİ KARINA KOŞ

            Haydi Karına Koş is the most entertaining and funny play I have ever seen in 2011-2012 season. The title represents a cab driver who has two wives and he runs from pillar to post between them. The play’s writer is Ray Cooney who is a famous comedy writer. In addition, he was the founder of “Theatre of Comedy Company” in London and also in some of his plays, he performs just like actors. His play (Run For Your Wife) has been translated into Turkish by Orhan Azizoğlu. In the play, we see lots of familiar and popular actors because some of them are also playing in TV shows. Moreover, the director, Ali Hürol is also familiar to us because he acts in many TV shows in Turkey. There are seven actors in the play and each of them has a remarkable role. The main character is Cüneyt Mete and in the play his name is John Smith. He has two wives; one of them is Şirin Giobbi (in the play Mary Smith) and his other wife is Pelin Dikmenoğlu (in the play Barbara Smith.) There are two police commissioners; Şahap Sayılgan (Porter) and Savaş Tamer (Thomson). Moreover, there are two neighbours, who breathe new life into the play, Ünsal Coşar (Stanley Gardner) and Mert Hürol (Boby Franklin). The play is staged in Cüneyt Gökçer Theatre On April 19^th, 2012 in Çayyolu which is a recent theatre hall and enormously large compared to other theatres in Ankara. For the first time I watched a play from balcony but watching it from overhead is quite an experience. During the play; stage design, which looks like a house but indeed it is divided into two different houses, keeps its stability.
In the play, John Smith is a cab driver and he married to Mary but 6 months later he married Barbara. The two women are completely different from each other. Barbara is sexy, charming woman and she has extraordinary behaviours. But Mary represents the perfect wife; preparing food for her husband, tidying the household in other words she gives importance to moral principles. In order not to be caught, John prepares a timetable and he puts some codes in specific days such as, ADB= All day Barbara, HTM= Half time Mary. However, one day he has an accident and his programme goes wrong because both of his wives are worried about John. At the same time Mary and Barbara call different police departments in order to inform them about the loss of their husbands. The events are mixed up when police commissioners get involved and John’s neighbour, Stanley lends help to John. John makes a great effort to solve the problem but the issue becomes more and more complicated. At the end of the play John revealed everything but this time nobody believes him. It is clearly type of a comedy but indeed the writer tries to put emphasis on “the institution of marriage” and in a way he criticizes marriage in a funny way. Moreover, the play is accepted as a “vaudeville” which is a type of theatre entertainment in the 1800s and early 1900s which included music, dancing and jokes. Its aim is to make audience laugh and entertain them. Because of this reason in some parts of the play we see exaggerated events and characters. As a result of being a comedy, in almost all of the scenes audience amuse themselves and laugh. For example, at the very beginning of the performance; when Mary and Barbara call police department anxiously, they need to introduce John and they tell exactly
the same features and simultaneously they say “John Smith.” In another scene, Stanley makes contact with audience and wants them to applaud. First nobody does anything but then they string along with him. Mostly I fancy the way Barbara talks and I laugh every time she says “Hellooo!!” In one scene, Barbara begins to make a sexy dance, John and Stanley join her, too. Suddenly, the lights are turned off and the stage changes into a disco. I like both dance figures and the music so this scene is the most amusing part. In addition to all these good comments, the play is too long because toward the end I cannot keep up with the play and I want it to end up as soon as possible.
Lastly, the stage design is a usual one. At first glance you see a simple living room but indeed it is divided into two different houses. One of them belongs to Mary and the other belongs to Barbara. The costumes contain overtones from 1970s for instance John is wearing a wide leg trouser. In my opinion costumes play a significant role in this play because it helps us to understand the differences between the two women. Barbara prefers to wear décolleté dresses and she looks very sexy. Also in every scene she has an excessive make-up even when she gets up in the morning. Moreover, Barbara’s neighbour Boby wears a pink jumper with pink pad and this dressing helps audience to understand that he is a gay. There is no unusual lighting or sound effects because there is always chaos in the play so it is a good choice not to exaggerate these elements. In conclusion; if you want to have fun and amuse yourself, it is a good choice to see Haydi Karına Koş. Not only the well-composed plot but also great efforts of all of the actors make it worth seeing.

Hazal Yavuz, ELIT II

On Plays Performed by Ankara State Theatre/I 2011-2012

Kerbala

            Aridity, drought, thirst, strife, sand, heat, suffering, massacre are such notions the title of the play Kerbela brings to my mind. The writer of the play is Ali Berktay. Ayşe Emel Mesci assumes the title of director. The play is – I think – a reworking of historical events and thus covers a long period. The play has elements similar to the Ancient Greet tragedies. We have chorus and a chorus leader in the play. Therefore there are many actors in the play and I would like to point out the key actresses and actors. In the order of appearance we see Rengin Samurçay as the Chorus Leader, Alpay Ulusoy as Imam Hasan, Erdinç Gülener as Imam Huseyin, Serdar Kayaokay as Abbas, Nihat Hakan Güney as Muaviye, and Cüneyt Arif Soysalan as Yezid. I saw the play in “Büyük Tiyatro;” the date of the performance was 04.24.2012 Tuseday. The auditorium is large and has a balcony and loges. The seats are right in front of the stage and they do not have a horse shoe shape but a sickle shape. However the shape is not a full sickle; it is like both ends of the sickle are cut off and the middle part remains. There is the place for the orchestra between the seats and the stage; they are covered by a small wall and they are seated lower than the audience. The auditorium is old and a big chandelier attracted my attention. It was inclined on one side and I guess it must have drove people with symmetrical fixations mad. The walls and the ceiling were embellished with many patterns and it gave a traditional look to the hall. The lobby is separated from the hall and I found it empty and because it was constructed with marbles I felt dull inside the lobby. There was no music and the only sound was the murmurs of the waiting audience. In the middle of the stage there was a circle within another circle; the inner circle was higher like a stair step. On the far back there was a curtain which images were projected on. Before the beginning there was an image of the Milky Way galaxy and after the play begun, it changed to an animation of a cloudy sky during sun set. The actors and actresses entered and exited the stage from the sides to the back.

            One detail which made me feel content was the announcement of the beginning of the play, which was given by bell sounds from the speakers mounted on the walls. I would like to add that the most disappointing thing was the utilization of speakers and microphones. I think there are many people who are distracted or disturbed by the metallic sound of the microphone. The chorus leader gave her speech with a microphone and although she had a sonorous voice, the metallic tones ruined it all. I didn’t do the math but the play is approximately three hours long and I strongly believe that some parts can be omitted. In the play Imam Huseyin hears poet Fuzuli’s voice (an old wise looking man with deep charismatic voice). Although we see Fuzuli on a wheel chair moved by a person in dark clothes, Huseyin cannot see him, but Fuzuli talks to him and his words give him strength and patience in one of his hardest times during the siege of Yezid’s forces. I am not hundred percent sure but Fuzuli lived many decades after the events in Kerbela and I cannot offer a reason why Imam Huseyin and Fuzuli’s scene was there on the stage. I think the idea behind their conversation is that Huseyin was made a hero and that he was able to communicate with this spiritual person. Therefore as it is common to the characteristics of heroes, Huseyin became the chosen one or the favoured one. In many other stories we see heroes, in one way or another, communicate with beings that common people cannot. This is what separates heroes from the common people actually. I liked the scene when Muaviye passes all his political authority to his son. All the characters there including Yezid are depicted as shallow and minion like jesters. I didn’t like their reactions because they were very childish and ruined the solemnity of the play. There was even a monkey who mocked Muaviye. Although I found this scene very childish it actually gave messages. It gave messages like everyone dies and nobody can take what is earned to the afterlife. I like the massage that power, whether physical or political or social, is temporary. It also gave the message that how new generations lack ambitions and wisdom to rule a country. Yezid and his court was shown as corrupted and tyrannical with no regard to the pitiful state of the society or to the religious righteousness and humility.

            The hall was full and the majority of the audience was young primary school students. There were high school students as well but not many. I reckon they were prompted to watch and do homework about the play by their instructors, because the parents sat next to me were advising their daughter to take notes. I was seated on the balcony and I think most of the elder audience was very interested in the play, but I also see some people getting bored. One young fellow leaned forward and rested his head on the empty seat in front of him and stood like that for more than twenty minutes. During the scenes where lamenting for the dead are performed I think people are emotionally moved. Also there was the massacre scene towards the end, which made me very sad.

            The play starts with the passing of Ali bin Ebu Talib and Muaviye’s succession to become the caliph. Then the play develops towards the end of Muaviye’s reign and Ali’s son Huseyin’s journey to the city Kufe. Huseyin and his followers are killed during this journey because Huseyin was a threat to the Yezid’s reign after Muaviye’s.

            The author of the play Ali Berktay after graduating from Galatasaray High School worked as assistant, lighting technician, transtator, and actor abroad in Sweden and France. Director Ayşe Emel Mesçi who took acting lessons in Istanbul Municipal Conservatory imprisoned for 3,5 years during March 12th period.

            Kerbela is a tragic play and the mood throughout the play is depressing, however there are comic scenes as well. Because the common people suffer under repressive authority, the mood is not cheerful. During the massacre of Huseyin and his followers we see people depicted as “good” suffer and die; most of the time the mood is sorrowful and bitter because unwanted things happen. During the scenes where common people talk and soldiers discuss their ideas about the events, we are offered a relief with the usage of vulgar and everyday life language. Additionally with storytelling the play also makes us smile and even laugh. I think the major theme of the play is religion abuse. Leaders like Yezid abuse the power of religion to control masses; with tyranny he even further gives the order to exterminate a descendant of the prophet Muhammed. Although Yezid gives Huseyin a “chance” to live his terms are not agreeable to Huseyin. There are other themes such as faith, brotherhood, sisterhood which develop even stronger among the oppressed people. We see heroism on Huseyin’s part. There are people who follow and believe in his decisions. They support him till the end. The play was a reworking of historical events and there were surrealistic and spiritual styles. As Huseyin hears Fuzuli we see spiritual or divine intervention. One surreal element in the play was a tree representing the common people. The tree was consisted of three actors who inclined towards Huseyin’s position on the stage. As Huseyin moved the tree changed its branches direction towards Huseyin and always followed him. The tree also represented hope, which was another theme in the play.
The tree became dry and weak just like the state of the common people, oppressed and in poverty. There were various decors, mobile platforms and platforms that ascended and descended. In the background the play utilized various curtains to effectively depict various settings. The chorus sometimes carried a desert tent to show us Huseyin’s journey. Also while depicting the suffering of Huseyin’s followers, because of thirst for water, they used yellow coloured long curtain to depict the arid desert landscape. Muaviye’s court was also a mobile décor and was big enough that people could get on it and act on the platform. The lights have a significant role in creating various settings. We saw day and night cycle by changing lights. During the battle scenes and hot desert scenes the lights were too bright. They were so bright even the audience had to cover their eyes (I had to cover mine too); just like one would do under the sun in a desert. The play had many poems and songs in it. The chorus sang songs and the orchestra accompanied them with various instruments from violin to flute and drums to reed. The part I would like to criticise again is the usage of microphones; they ruined chorus leader’s lines. Additionally the chorus lacked coordination and unity. What I want to say is that it was as if some of the members couldn’t follow the other members and they end up yelling inarticulate words. The costumes were well selected and with the aid of make up and wigs and false beards the play successfully depicted the characters.

Ahmet Can Vargün, ELIT II

A Memorable Play: Blood Wedding

The play that I watched for my performance report is Blood Wedding that was staged in Bilkent Theatre Hall on 29^th of March 2012. It was written by Federico Garcia Lorca in 1932 and was first performed in 1933 in Madrid. Lorca (1898-1936) is a Spanish poet, playwright, painter and composer. He is accepted as one of the two most important poets of Spain. He became famous for his play Romancero Gitano. The director of Blood Wedding is Erdi Mamikoğlu. He was born in 1987 in Ankara. He is the youngest Turkish playwright and received the Sadri Alışık Youth Special Award for his achievements.

This was my first time that I went to Bilkent Theatre Hall and I found it a bit smaller than I had expected. However, the atmosphere of the saloon was warm and cheerful. It was furnished with wood and the seats were covered with navy blue fabric. The lighting was sufficient and the colour of the light that was chosen as yellow made the saloon cosy and made the stage look brighter. The places for audience to sit were divided into 3 parts: one is in front of the stage and the others were at the each side of it. The play had been performing for three days and the day I went was the first day of the performance so the interest was immense by the audience and the saloon was full.

            The stage was decorated with long tulle that was hung to the ceiling. It was the most outstanding detail of the stage and there was a present that was on the stage floor. The background of the stage was white. This was the appearance of the stage when the play began.

When the lights were turned off, a very pleasant and soft music began. It was the great harmony of violin and guitar. The two players were situated through the back of the stage. A pretty girl who was dressed in pure white was playing the violin and a boy who was dressed in black was playing the guitar. They were sitting next to each other. With accompany of the music, the actors began to appear one by one. At first, they didn’t appear on the stage but by using the two side doors of the backstage and the two side doors for the audience to enter, they walked slowly through the way, which was between the seats of the audience and the stage. It was a good idea in terms of influencing the audience. I think it gave a message that the play was realistic and the actors were inside from us. Then the ones whose parts were later went back to the backstage and the play started.

It began with the speech of the Mother that was performed by Ülkem Önal and the Bridegroom that is performed by Kaan Akın. She was wearing a long black dress. The Bridegroom’s costume was a black pant and a white shirt. In their talk, the Bridegroom wants her mother to give him a knife, which he will need in the vineyard but the Mother suddenly gets angry and starts to curse all the knives and guns. She talks about her husband and it is understood that her husband had been killed by a family named Felix. The Bridegroom wants to change the subject and asks her mother when they will go to see the family of the girl with whom he is in love. They arrange a date and the Bridegroom leaves the stage. After that, a neighbour who is willing to gossip appears and she starts to talk about the Bride with the Mother. Gamze Sönmez performs her. From their talk, it is understood that the Bride once had some relations with a man called Leonardo that is performed by Erolcan Talas from Felix family. This is the point where the Mother’s suspicions and anxieties begin about the union of her son and the Bride.

            Then the scene changes and the stage gets a bit darker. Two women who sit at the edge of the stage sing a lullaby to a baby with accompany of violin and guitar. This scene was very relaxing but was also very emotional. The lyrics of the lullaby was very sad and the two women sang feeling it deep inside from their hearts. They were Leonardo’s wife that is performed by İlknur Yakar and Leonardo’s mother-in-low that is performed by İpek Çakaloz.  When the lullaby is over, Leonardo arrives and he has an argument with the two. His mother-in-low questions him about a subject and it is apparent that he hides something. He appears as a very angry and harsh man and also behaves his wife very badly although she is affectionate to him.

After this scene the Mother and the Bridegroom take a short trip to meet with the family of the Bride that is performed by Nazlı Yalçın. Her mother is dead and she lives with her father that is performed by Özkan Akkaya. The bridegroom gives the present to the bride. However, she looks terribly unhappy. After the Mother and the Bridegroom leave, she is alone in her room with her maid that is performed by Betül Erdem. The maid wants o have a look at the present but the Bride strictly refuses it. When she tells the Bride that every night Leonardo comes to the window of her room to see her, she gets excited but tries to hide it. This scene gave the audience a clue about her unhappiness. It was not difficult to understand that she still has some feelings towards Leonardo.

When the preparations for the wedding go on, Leonardo comes and tries to persuade the Bride that they are for each other and tries to affect her. However she marries the Bridegroom but then, by making up some excuses, manages to get away from him. When she finds a proper time, she flees away with Leonardo because she cannot repress her real feelings any longer. After some time, Leonardo’s wife realizes that her husband is lost and then also the Bride’s absence is realized. Leonardo’s wife announces crying hysterically that they fled away together. Then some people go to the forest to find Leonardo and the Bride and the scene changes.

In the forest scene, the stage got darker. Two woodcutters that are performed by Ahmet Can Vargün and Melik Babur appear on the stage and begin to search for the couple and suddenly the Mood appears that is performed by Gamze Sönmez. Here, some smoke was sprayed to the stage and a mysterious atmosphere was created. The smoke caused a bit excitement among the audience. She was wearing a white big ball that represented the moon on her back and also her costume was a white jump suit that covered all her body and composed a unity with the ball. The Moon, with a hoarse voice says that he will lighten the escapees’ way and she disappears from the stage. Then Death as a beggar woman that is performed by Sezin Çırak appears. She was wearing white wings and her dress was also white. She says to the Bridegroom that she knows where the lovers are and leads him to there. They leave the stage but after some time the Death reappears and screams painfully. I think this represented the bad and inevitable end of Leonardo and the Bridegroom.

At the end of the play, the female characters that seemed sorrowful reappeared (the neighbour, Leonardo’s wife, her mother and the bridegroom’s mother) and each sat at the edge of the stage. There was a long and deep silence and then the Bride appears with blood on her bridal veil. There is an emotional talk between the Mother and her and it turns out that Leonardo and the Bridegroom kill each other.

I think the end of the play was an apparent representing of the feeling of taking revenge’s futileness and its harm to the ones who are full of that feeling. Also, in the play the role of the fate was clear. Although the two families tried to get away from the destruction, they cannot escape from it and blood kept on running out. Actually I think it was the fate that led Leonardo and the Bridegroom to take their revenge from each other and they cannot help it.  Also, in the play, only Leonardo’s having a specific name caught my attention. It may be because of her rebellious character because he was the one who was different in the play. He was not a conformist and tried to ruin the taboos and to change the fate. He couldn’t manage to do it but he proved his braveness and his different character. He was the opposite of the Bridegroom who was a very innocent and a bit naïve.

In addition, at the end of the play there were only female characters. I think this was because of their being victims in a way. They were the ones who remained to feel the sorrow of the dead ones and although they had no guilt, they had to experience this dreadful fate. The play was reflecting the women’s condition in the society when it was written. In terms of these, I think it was a realistic play and its plot was selected from real life.

In the play, the smoky scene and the ending scene of the play were the ones that affected me most. The smoky scene affected and surprised me because I wasn’t expecting such an effect and it was a well-planned detail in terms of adding credibility and excitement to the play. The audience’s reaction was also the same as mine. As to the ending scene, I was affected by it because it was very emotional and the actors were really successful in that scene. Their intonation and mimics were suited to the theme very well. I specifically was amazed by the performance of the Bride. Also, the Bride and Leonardo’s escape was the peak point of excitement in the play. There was a certain type of chaos at the stage and this also was reflected to the audience and there was a curiosity in everyone’s mind if the lovers would be caught or not. Mostly the mood of the play was sad and anxious but in the wedding scene there was happiness. There were some girls that spread flowers to the stage. I think this was because of the concept of a wedding ceremony and was related to its nature.

The costumes and make up were quite appropriate in the play. Generally everyone was wearing black clothes. This represented the sorrow of their souls and the mood of the play. The Moon’s costume was a very creative idea and it could not be better than that. However, the Death’s costume might have been a bit different because at first I thought her as an angel. Also, as far as I heard the audience’s reaction, most people thought the same. The make up was also effective because I realized that some quantity of powder was used on the Bride’s father’s and on Leonardo’s mother-in-low’s hair to give the aging effect and it was a good idea. In addition, there was not much make up on the female characters’ faces to make them look pale.

The stage design was interesting. The tulle effect was different because at the beginning of the play it seemed just as a décor on the stage but then it turned into the bridal veil of the Bride. At the end of the play, the tulle formed a cross on the stage. I thought that it represented the fate’s leaving the two families helpless. They couldn’t sort out the ongoing controversy between them and the idea of taking revenge went on. Maybe there could have been more decoration for example in the forest scene or in the wedding scene but I did not really mind it and generally liked the stage design. To me, one of the most impressive components of the play was the music. The harmony of the violin and the guitar was wonderful. In the beginning of the play and in some unhappy scenes there was calmer and more melancholic type of music but in the wedding scene, which was the happiest scene of the play, there was a more energetic type of music. I liked this shift between the scenes. The lighting was also to my taste. In the forest scene and in the Moon’s appearance, the lights went dim and this created a certain type of mystery at the stage and suited well to the plot. When there was one character at the stage, the lights focused on her or him. For example; when the Death appeared, she immediately caught the audience’s attention thanks to the lighting.

To sum up, with all of it aspects, the play was very successful and well-played. It was apparent that every actor and actress worked hard and gave great importance to their roles. I am happy to having seen such a play and am proud of my department arranging such a great organization for us.

GÖZDE BEGÜM MIZRAK (ELIT II)