Samuel Ravengai
 |
| Peace Mukwara, the director of I have Sinned |
Of course Arthur Miller never wrote a play with
the same title. I Have Sinned was penned by Zimbabwean young and
upcoming playwright, Patrick Miller, who is currently a BA theatre arts honours
second year student at the University of Zimbabwe. Its last performance at HIFA
2012 kicked off at 1540 on Sunday 6 May at the Standard Theatre and ended an
hour later to a thunderous applause from the audience. I Have Sinned was
directed by Peace Mukwara, who has just rejoined the University of Zimbabwe
Theatre Arts Department as a masters student. It was not by accident that the
director chose performers whom he had previous interface with. He cast Tatenda
Mangosho, his ex-classmate, as William and Chiedza Chinhanu, a fellow student
at the UZ, as Natasha.
The story centres on an as yet undisclosed
source of distress in the family. William is mourning and in depression, in
what used to be RJ’s bedroom, comprising a single bed with white bedding, a
single cabinet and chair. When the lights illuminate this first acting area,
they reveal a young man, William, with long Afro hair mourning and sulking
after his cousin RJ commits suicide in suspicious circumstances. Family
members, his father Neil, his mother, Lear, and his sister, Natasha, come to
persuade him to let go of the past and move on with his life through much
prayer and counselling. This is not helpful at all since William would like to
get to the bottom of things to find out the reasons for RJ’s debt and his
suicide. William digs through heaps of paper and discovers that his late cousin
RJ had received a loan of $16,000 which he is unable to link to any source.
 |
| Patrick Miller, the playwright of I have Sinned |
The playwright, Patrick Miller, is successful
in creating suspense in the sense that he does not disclose the information,
but only reveals what is vital to move the story forward. When the lights fade
from the first acting area, another set of light hits the second acting area
comprising a floral couch covered with a coffee velvet cloth, a pine coffee
table and a chair. This is the family living room. Here family members argue
over the best way to help William out of this depression. Neil, who is also a
pastor of the local church, challenges his wife Lear to reveal where she was
getting the money to sponsor the late RJ. Lear does not want to reveal this
information as she was stealing the money from church coffers where both of
them were pastors. Lear’s position is that she was paying RJ to keep quiet
about what we get to learn later that Neil sexually molested him. Mark, the
church congregant, is the only sober person in the family. As a family friend
and loyal member of the church he is steadfast about the importance of prayer
to help William deal with his depression. The only dark spot in Mark’s life is
that he knows Lear was paying RJ, but couldn’t reveal this piece of information
to William, except when William proves that Lear has revealed it to him. All
this information is revealed by the playwright in bits and pieces keeping the audience
on the edge of their seats.
The only problem with the story is that it does
not move away from the folkloric and religious tendency to moralise at the end
of the story. Most Zimbabwean plays of the 1970s and 1980s, especially those
written in African languages, end with a characteristic didactic ending. Our
modern audiences require making their own choices and don’t want to be given a
readymade solution that is moral and didactic.
The director had a logical understanding of
space. Although there was an open space between William’s room and the family
living room, the director created non-diegetic space where the performers
walked through the imagined corridor and obeyed its conventions throughout the
performance. The depth, breadth and length of the house were made clear through
movement which respected established boundaries.
Although the director clearly understood the
importance of tempo and rhythm to his production, he concentrated on acoustic
rhythm and paid less attention on visual rhythm. There was a clear sense of
blocking revealing motivated movements, but everybody moved slowly like they
were dragging weights on their feet. This slow movement was consistent to every
performer and gave the performance a dull visual rhythm. Still on the same subject,
some beats were far too long and did not require the time that they were
accorded since they did not add anything to the story. The ending of the
performance, for example, has family members praying and speaking in tongues.
This needed cutting and tightening to give the performance pace.
Acting was believable and psychological. Performers
worked on elocution and did not depend on microphones like the previous
production of Bonnie and Clyde from Manchester, United Kingdom in the
same intimate theatre. Perhaps Africans have a natural ability to project their
voices without the aid of technology. Charles Matare came across as a seasoned
performer. He had depth and handled the part of Neil convincingly. Matare comes
from the community theatre tradition of the early 90s and that experience came
to his aid in handling the part he played. Lear, Neil’s wife, was played by
Sarah Masike whose acting career began with training at Reps Theatre. Her most
convincing performance was when she played the seduction of Mark, played by
Derek Nzinyakwi, who received his training from Theory X, an offshoot of Over
The Edge Theatre Company. Derek was equal to the task of playing ‘holy’ against
the most appetising temptation. He played stiff when aroused by Lear, but at
the same time remained sensitive to the feelings of his lady pastor to protect
her from embarrassment. While William played his depression convincingly, the
director allowed him to play on two notes – high and low. In that regard, he
was not able to play the various permutations of depression that his role
demanded. This could have been his failure to clearly delineate the various
beats in his speeches or the director did not point to the problem early enough
in the process. Chiedza Chinhanu played the minor character, Natasha, and did
it just good enough. Perhaps, in future she needs a more challenging role.
While all other areas of performance could pass
on any stage in the world, the area of relationships needed more attention and
was the least successful. The audience stretched their imaginations too far to
accept the director’s proposals. The cast needed to analyse these relationships
and find ways of playing them visually.
Despite this setback, this show was well
produced and the audience got value for their money. I had the opportunity of
reading some of the comments in the feedback journal and found that most
audience members enjoyed the show. The British Council should continue to
support such new works.
