WILDe - Members' Content

Sleeping Beauty: The Cycle

Wed, 27 May 2026 10:07:00 +0000

Now, our story seems to show
That a century or so,
Late or early, matters not;
True love comes by fairy-lot.
- Charles Perrault, The Sleeping Beauty in the Wood

Whether you read a pop-up book before bed as a child or watched the live-action Maleficent adaptation, you probably know the story of Sleeping Beauty pretty well. It’s a classic fairytale, written and rewritten over centuries. The story's meaning changes every time it's told — it all depends on who tells it.

If you’ve seen the opening scene of our upcoming musical, you're probably familiar with this idea…

On the 5th and 6th of June, we’ll bring to the stage a fresh reworking of this tale. There are so many people pouring their hearts into this project: staying in music meetings until 5am, rehearsing in the bicycle garage after campus is already closed, reworking choreographies dozens of times, hand-stitching costumes from thrifted cloth… It's really turning out incredible! Everyone is working hard to create something beautiful, and we’re very excited to share it all with you.

But when this was still a draft on an empty Google Docs, I had no idea where this story would go. As a writer, it’s always difficult to figure out where to start. How do you come up with something fun and original, from a really basic and linear fairytale that everyone already knows?

Obviously, the Disney movie version of the fairytale was fresh on my mind, but research is a big part of the process. Rather than choosing one “true” version of the story, the musical pulls from multiple historical and artistic sources. There are a lot of small details in the original drafts that are all references to previous retellings of this story!

Join me in a deep dive into the versions of Sleeping Beauty that inspired the musical!

1. Perceforest

Perceforest, or Le Roman de Perceforest, is an anonymous romance, written in Old French around the 1340s. It is a massive epic, spanning about 8 volumes. With interludes of songs and poetry, it's one of the foundational texts of Arthurian legends. It serves as the prologue to King Arthur’s tales, often retelling historical events, local folklore, and (most importantly for us) tales of love.

One of the most famous episodes in Perceforest is considered the earliest substantial ancestor of our fairytale. At the time it was written, France and Britain were in constant territorial fighting — with the start of the Hundred Years’ War — and there were regions under heavy dispute. One of these regions gave name to the princess of this story: Princess Zellandine.

Yes, she was the beautiful princess of Zeeland, a region that is now a notable province of the Netherlands. This story technically took place right here, centuries ago!

Which… now that I write it down… might explain why so many versions of Sleeping Beauty make her sleep for one hundred years…

In the original version of this tale, the royals of Zeeland celebrate the princess’s birth, and invite all the local goddesses — loosely inspired by Greco-Roman mythology. One of those gods, the deity of Destiny, was not offered enough silverware, and cursed Zellandine to prick her finger on a splinter of flax and fall into eternal sleep.

Years later, Zellandine falls in love with a knight called Troylus, and they almost get married before she pricks her finger while spinning and suddenly collapses. In an attempt to find an explanation and a way to save the princess, he goes to the temple of two of the goddesses that attended the party: Venus, goddess of love and desire; and Lucina, goddess of light and protection, often associated with Juno.

What they tell Troylus to do is a much, much less innocent version of the classic smooch we know today. Surprisingly, the way it's written is actually very respectful for the time. To quote:

“No man should breach a girl’s privacy without her leave, and he certainly shouldn’t touch her while she sleeps!”

Yeah! Go, Troylus!

Still, because this is the 14th century, the sleeping princess eventually gives birth to a child — yes, while still asleep. The baby bites her finger, removing the flax thorn that was stuck to her fingertips and waking her up from her curse. Eventually, Zellandine and Troylus run away together and properly marry, though neither ever really recover from these events.

Since this is the first popularized version of our fairytale, it is also the core inspiration for the naming choices throughout the musical!

The title of the story, Perceforest, is the main inspiration for the romantic lead of our musical: Prince Percy! The knight's original name also makes an appearance, inspiring the prince's kingdom: Illinius. It comes directly from the ancient Greek city of Ilium, also known as Troy.

The fact that this story originally takes place in Zeeland inspired the name of our princess’s kingdom: Martera — translated quite literally from Portuguese as the “sea” “land”.

Finally, the two main goddesses who blessed our princess are the direct inspirations for the famous pink and blue fairies that reappear in many versions. Venus and Lucina gave us the names of our wonderful fairies, Vera and Lucilia!

Also, as a general worldbuilding fun fact, fairies all come from garden and forest plants, granting them different abilities. Our two fairy godmothers are specifically flax fairies — the same plant that gave the thorn from the spinning wheel. They are aesthetically inspired by two of the main types of flax flowers: Scarlet flax and Lilac flax.

2. Sun, Moon, and Talia

This one is… interesting. I won't lie, a part of me would rather not talk about this one. It's the reason why this article took so long to write. (Sorry, writing committee…)

Sun, Moon, and Talia is a short story written by Giambattista Basile, published posthumously in 1634. It was the first full attempt to adapt the fairytale, but it was very much not for kids.

After the birth of a great Lord's daughter, Talia, many prophets and astrologers were asked to foretell her future. They read her horoscope (okay, sure…) and brought a dreadful warning to the family: she would be put in danger by a thorn of flax. There were no gifts or evil faeries or wizards to curse the girl: only destiny itself.

Her father declares no flax be brought into his lands, and destroys all things made of flax in their home. Still, years later, Talia finds an old lady spinning at a wheel, making blankets out of the golden flax threads. As soon as she tries to spin herself, she pricks her finger and falls asleep. Her father leaves her to sleep in one of their country estates.

Years later, an old king is hunting in the countryside and finds the house. When he sees her, he tries to wake her up, but she doesn't stir. Then, of course, he obviously does the only logical thing to do: gets her pregnant and immediately leaves. Wow. I love old fairytales.

Again, she gives birth in her sleep to two children, a boy and a girl, who bite the flax off her finger. When she wakes up, she names the kids Sun and Moon and starts raising them in the country house.

When the king comes back, finding her awake and with children, he starts visiting her frequently. Oddly enough, they fall in love with each other (eww) and have a surprisingly healthy and respectful relationship from that point forward (aww?)

However… The king was already married. Because of course he was. This is the version of the story that introduces the “Evil Ogre Queen” plotline that reappears in many darker versions of the story.

The queen notices how her husband is absent and has been saying “Talia” in his sleep. She forces their secretary to tell them all the details of what happened — and when she finds out, she forges a letter saying that the king wants to bring his children to the castle.

Now, by this point, you'd think she is completely justified here, right? Your husband assaults a stranger, cheats on you with her, and has a second family? Awful stuff.

What isn't really great is that, upon meeting Sun and Moon in the castle, she immediately orders the kitchen chefs to kill them, cook them, and turn them into pies so she can eat them in front of the king. That part is less good.

The kitchen staff obviously does not do that, and hides away the children. They give her a random lamb pie as a replacement, and she fully believes them.

After that, she summons Talia to the castle and asks for a bonfire to be made in the yard so she could be burned alive.

She addressed her thus, "Welcome, Madam Busybody! You are a fine piece of goods, you will weed, who are enjoying my husband. So you are the lump of filth, the cruel b****, that has caused my head to spin? Change your ways, for you are welcome in purgatory, where I will compensate you for all the damage you have done to me."

Wow, okay… Talia obviously freaks out, letting the king overhear and rush to save her. He pushes the queen into the flames, who burns to death. The kids run out of hiding and meet the king and Talia, and they live happily ever after…

Yay???

Evidently, there is not a lot from this story we are using. The musical is family-friendly, and this is very much not. There will be no non-consensual pregnancies and no baby-eating wives. However, a few small elements are kept.

For starters, this story popularized the Sleeping Beauty imagery of the spinning wheels on fire, used in later versions. It mixes the beginning declaration of the lord and the final burning of the queen. It also introduced the visual of the old lady spinning golden threads, which is some of my favorite imagery overall.

This story also expands a bit on the king's court, seeing the type of leadership they hold and the wars they often fought in. It also introduced their personal secretary as a notable character. This will come back later.

The king and queen — often retold as the prince's parents instead — have a tumultuous relationship in many versions of the story. People really don't like the jealous queen when she starts monologuing, and many say that this plotline is directly inspired by the Greek tragedy of Medea and Jason's children. This gives us the name of Queen Mara, as it is similar to the tragic Greek figure and means “bitterness”.

And for the record, King Colin’s name simply means “victory of the people.” What exactly does that imply… I guess you'll have to wait and see!

3. The Sleeping Beauty In The Wood

This version of this fairytale is one of the most in-depth and detailed adaptations of the story. Charles Perrault wrote La Belle Au Bois Dormant in his collection of books, Histoires ou contes du temps passé, published in 1697.

In this version, there were 7 fairies invited to the party, and they were offered golden tableware. There was one fairy who was not summoned — an ancient, forgotten thing, thought to be vanished in a distant mountain — who appeared without invitation.

After many fae give their blessings to the baby, the forgotten one walks forward and curses the baby to pierce her hand on a spindle and die from the open wound. However, the last of the good fairies offers her own gift, professing that the princess would be woken up by a king’s son. The kingdom bans spinning wheels, burning them all in a pyre.

Years later, on the princess’s birthday, she climbs up to the attic, finding an old lady with the last spinning wheel of the kingdom. When she pricks her finger on a needle, she is the only one to fall asleep! The king and queen, in desperation, claim they would prefer to wait a lifetime than never see her again, and call the last good fairy from many kingdoms far. She appears in a chariot driven by dragons and agrees to magically put the kingdom to sleep, so the princess would not be so alone when she inevitably wakes.

Around the castle, a vast forest of thorn bushes and towering trees magically grows. The wilderness becomes so dense that nobody can enter, and over time, rumors spread about the enchanted castle hidden away.

A distant prince, 100 years later, doesn’t know what rumors to believe, so he decides to check himself. As soon as the prince nears the castle, the thorns and trees part by themselves, allowing him passage.

Finally, he reaches the princess’s chamber and sees her lying on a magnificent bed, still perfectly beautiful. In Perrault’s version, the princess awakens essentially because the “destined time” has arrived and the prince is present; there is no actual “true love’s kiss” here! Everyone wakes up; they laugh and dance and plan their wedding!

Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end here.

The prince and princess have two children: a daughter named Morning and a son named Day. He hides this marriage from his family — he has a rough relationship with them, for he knows his mother is secretly part ogre and craves human flesh… Yep.

Eventually, after his father dies, the prince becomes the new king. He is forced to fight an old ongoing war with the neighboring kingdom of Contallabute, and unfortunately has to place his mother in charge of the kingdom. Wanting to keep power, as she was never given the chance to rule before, she proceeds to plot to eat the princess and her children — just like in Sun, Moon, and Talia.

She speaks to her personal servant about the request:

"I will have it so," replied the queen (and this she spoke in the tone of an ogress who had a strong desire to eat fresh meat), "and will eat her with a sauce, Robbert."

Do I find it odd that their one servant gets an official name, but none of the royals do? Yes. But I also find it funny. This is, of course, the main inspiration for our beloved butler in the musical, Robb! The kingdom of Contallabute also gets a notable mention, so keep an eye out for that.

For a while, the ogre queen believes she has eaten all three victims, but Robbert keeps the princess and children hidden together in his house so they can secretly reunite. Eventually, she overhears the children speaking and discovers she has been deceived. Furious, she prepares a gigantic pit filled with snakes, toads, vipers, and other monstrous creatures. She orders the princess, the children, and the servant to be thrown into the fire.

Just as the execution is about to happen, the new king unexpectedly returns from war and shames his mother. Seeing her crimes exposed, the ogress throws herself into the pit in embarrassment, dying by her own hand. The king reunites with his wife and children, and the tale ends with the royal family restored and the kingdom safe again.

I really love this version of the story, but it’s also so silly to me. It’s the foundation of the Sleeping Beauty we know today, but it also has so many random details that never go anywhere. We get the names of three separate neighboring kingdoms. We get to know about the forgotten fairy and get a lot of details about what cutlery the royals use. We also have dragons, apparently.

But do we get the princess’s name? No. Because who needs to know that?

4. The Little Brier-Rose

Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, also known as the Brothers Grimm, published their own version of this tale in 1828 as part of their Children's and Household Tales collection. This version is probably the most well-known, so I won't get into that much detail, besides the differences from the previous versions.

The king and queen wanted a child for ages, but never had one. It was only when the queen was taking a bath in magic waters that a frog (???) leaped up and blessed them with the promise of a daughter.

At their party to celebrate the princess’s birth, they wanted to invite the 13 Wise Women of the kingdom. However, they only had 12 golden plates for dinner… so they just… didn't invite one of them. She was understandably upset, and cursed the princess with her eternal sleep by pricking her finger on a needle on her birthday.

This time, when she inevitably pricks her finger on a needle, the whole kingdom immediately falls asleep too. For 100 years, they are all frozen in time.

The lost legend of the Little Brier-Rose spreads to neighboring kingdoms, though nobody really knows what exactly happened. Many princes and suitors tried to save the princess, but the forest always kept changing, and nobody made it out unscathed. Rumors spread, and one nearby prince gets curious to find out the truth of what became of the overgrown kingdom.

As he approached, the forest opened itself to him, turning into beautiful flowers. He easily finds his way through, finding the sleeping princess, and gasps at her beauty. He kisses her awake, and with her, the whole kingdom rises to celebrate their wedding!

This version is actually really cute!! No doubt as to why it's the most popular. I personally love the emphasis on the magical properties of the enchanted forest, physically taking over the kingdom and blocking off the suitors. The fact that the legend of the princess became lost to time is very interesting, and doesn't appear in many adaptations — but I definitely wanted to include it in the musical, somehow.

Also, of course, this story finally gives us the name for our lead: the Brier-Rose, Princess Rosalind!

5. The Sleeping Beauty Ballet

This ballet consists of a prologue and three acts with music by Pyotr Tchaikovsky, first performed in 1889. While this version of the story isn’t used much for the musical, it’s still a great inspiration to shout out.

The prologue shows the first birthday scene, with the blessing and the witch’s curse. Act 1 focuses on the princess being courted by suitors, before pricking her finger and collapsing. The Lilac fairy appears to put the kingdom to sleep, and let the forest take over.

Act 2 now follows the prince, 100 years later, hunting in the forest and seeking the princess. He has visions of her, finding out he’s her true love. He tries to find her, asking for the Lilac’s fairy help, and manages to kiss the princess awake! Act 3 simply follows their wedding, and it’s a beautiful dance.

The songs of this ballet were the main musical inspirations for the Disney movie, all taken from the stage version. The wicked enchantress Carabosse is also a very clear inspiration for the Maleficent figure of the recent movies.

Also, this story actually gives us character names, for once: Princess Aurora, Prince Florimund, King Florestan, and the enchantress Carabosse.

Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, we can’t really use any of these names. Luckily, we can at least keep the title of the Lilac fairy for our own Lucilia, but the rest had to change.

King Florestan became our incredible King Arden — a name that also means "great forest." The queen’s name, Queen Nathalia, is also connected, as the name (very coincidentally) means "birthday"!

Sleeping Beauty: The Musical!

With such different versions of this story, there are a lot of ways Sleeping Beauty can be brought to the big stage. In the end, different aspects of each version were adapted into the plot and into the small creative choices of the script.

Also! Keep an eye out for the names of the stories' authors… A little birdie told me they might appear directly in the musical!

But what about the curse, you ask? Will we have the fate of the stars, a betrayed fairy, an old god, an evil witch, an ogre queen… a frog… who knows? I guess you’ll just have to come and see!

I hope you enjoyed this very long deep-dive into this story’s inspirations. I’m beyond thrilled to see this project, a story I saw once upon a dream, become reality. There’s a lot of thought put into this, and we're all very excited to be able to share it with you. <3

(Reminder: Get your tickets here! Time is running out!!)

Written by Ana Clara Martins, actress, songwriter, and Head Writer in Sleeping Beauty: The Musical, as well as a dedicated Writing & Marketing Committee member!

You can find Ana Clara on Instagram: @anaa.logy

Waiting for Beckett

Wed, 20 May 2026 09:08:00 +0000

2059. This is the year that will mark the 70th anniversary of Samuel Beckett’s death. A death that came soon after he sued a Dutch company for casting female actors in their performance of his play. Interestingly, the undoubtedly liberal court in Haarlem ruled that the play’s integrity was maintained despite the actresses lacking a prostate. This ruling, however, did not prevent Beckett’s legacy to prevail, as if he built a statue of Pozzo cast in iron, rusting as his thick rope tightens its grip around the neck of artistic expression.

It is said that his rigidity is part of his genius but how can a female mind be too rigid to comprehend the hidden meanings? Perhaps an actress cannot portray an everyman, as there is something inherent about her that distracts the viewer from the minimalism of the scene. Perhaps the presence of boobs defines the character as no longer relatable and universal. Or perhaps the prejudice is in the eye of the beholder who perceives women as an object and not a subject.

If it was really the prostate, why would legal threats be made because a male cast ‘’injected race into the play’’? Is white skin also a condition for a timeless portrayal? Is Beckett’s genius so elusive that too much melanin can prevent you from fully grasping the philosophy lurking from behind tree branches? Or perhaps he was like us, human, susceptible to hardwiring and conditioning overly present in a conservative Irish village, which creeped into his work and locked it in the ice-cold shackles of its context. That context grows and spills and spreads like a slowly developing infection to finally spoil the entire play by stamping it with an expiration date; signaling the death of universality and timelessness.

Shakespeare only survived the trial of times because of the countless retellings, adaptations, multi-medium approaches, legends, tales, songs, and raw emotions poured into the lifeless words by professionals and amateurs alike to breathe life into them. Art lives as long as there is someone to interpret it. Meanwhile, Beckett’s legacy is to fear and tremble as two lines are rewritten, intending to shock, to move, to adapt to the audience. As Shakespeare, Wilde and Brecht shout with a cacophony of voices, Beckett continues to monologue in monotone. If Kafka had such a loyal executor of his will, his legacy would leave this world with the smoke of the burning manuscripts.

I am waiting for 2059. The year when the shackles break and I can realise my dream of directing Beckett’s play. A play that inspired my love for absurd and theatre, and theatre of absurd. When I can cast women, men, and non-binary people to act as everymen, not bound to choose only those who possess distinct characteristics. When I can re-imagine the scenery — the tree, the road, the costumes, or even the underlying message to fit our context and not someone else’s. And I believe Samuel Beckett is waiting too. Waiting for his iron statue to rust away and allow his art to breathe new air. Waiting for Godot who does not bring hope only to the privileged.

Written by Julia Kubiak, a dedicated member, an actress and HoA from the 10th Board!

You can find Julia on Instagram: @toreisvogel

The Cost of Applause

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 12:06:00 +0000

Applause may be free, but in modern theatre, entry itself has become a privilege. When a single Theatre ticket sometimes costs more than a week of groceries for some households, we have to ask: Who is Theatre really for?

The Price of Entry

If Late-Stage Capitalism has changed how theatre is made, it has also changed who gets to watch it.

Theatre has long presented itself as a democratic art form: immediate, communal, and open to all. Unlike film, it exists only in the moment it is shared between performers and audience. And yet, access to that shared moment is determined not by interest, curiosity or cultural value, but by disposable income.

In 2025, the average Broadway ticket price reached approximately $129 per seat, a record high for the industry. In London, the average most expensive West End ticket climbed to £162, while some premium seats exceeded £300. These figures are not anomalies; they reflect a broader transformation of theatre from public-facing cultural practice into premium commodity.

What was once imagined as an evening’s accessible entertainment is increasingly priced like luxury consumption. The first act of exclusion happens before the curtain rises; at the box office.

The Economics Behind the Curtain

The rising cost of Theatre is often justified as economic necessity. Producers point to increasing rents, venue maintenance, staffing expenses, licensing fees, insurance costs and inflationary pressure across every level of production. These pressures are real, and often severe.

Yet there is a contradiction within this logic: even as ticket prices rise, workers are still paid unfairly. Actors have to juggle multiple jobs, stage managers burn through overtime. Expensive tickets do not create fair artistic ecosystems, they only serve to prolong an inevitable collapse.

Dynamic pricing has only intensified this contradiction. A model has been implemented that adjusts ticket prices according to demand, allowing highly anticipated productions to charge dramatically inflated rates. Theatre only continues to behave in the logic of speculative markets: the more desirable art becomes, the less accessible it is.

Capitalism has not only entered theatre, it now rigs the pricing models.

The Audience That Gets Left Behind

When prices rise, exclusion follows.

Young audiences, working-class people and students are often the first to disappear from auditoriums. Those without financial flexibility can’t gamble on tickets more expensive than a week of groceries. Programs are implemented to combat this: Rush programs and Lotteries, but they remain exceptions rather than solutions.

And exclusion has grand cultural consequences. If only audiences with deep pockets can afford to regularly view performances, theatre will begin to reflect narrower social realities, both in who is watching and in what gets programmed. Riskier and community-driven theatre will become harder to sustain when organizations rely on wealthier and commercially-safe productions.

A theatre’s audience is shaped by economic filtering, it now becomes the opposite of public; a market segment.

What Happens When Theatre Loses Its Public?

Theatre depends on more than revenue. It depends on cultural relevance.

When audiences are butted out due to pricing of tickets, theatre risks losing the very thing that distinguishes it from luxury entertainment. It stops to be a common cultural meeting ground and becomes a gated experience, available primarily to those with the means to purchase access.

This isn’t simply an issue of affordability anymore. It is a question on what theatre is for. If theatre now only belongs to those with deep pockets, then its claim to be a public art form begins to collapse.

Applause may be free. But if fewer and fewer people can afford to offer it, the sound grows quieter, and the art form poorer because of it.

Written by Joy Roelandschap, a dedicated Writing Committee member!

You can find Joy on Instagram: joy_mjdr

Matilda the Musical - Lost in Adaptation

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 09:54:00 +0000

For my first article as our local musical fanatic, I wanted to showcase one of my personal favourites and explain how and why it works, by comparing Matilda the Musical on stage with the recent 2022 movie musical adaptation. This will be a spoiler-free review, going over some of the adaptation choices, regarding adaptation for intended audiences, and one of the biggest flaws that snuck in during the adaptation process.

Who is it for?

The original book by Roald Dahl was intended for kids, to see a little girl who loves reading, overcomes difficult situations, and wants things to be just. Putting her in a very unjust environment that gets resolved by the end, through compassion and a little smart problem-solving (and telekinesis). By this point, so many adults grew up on it, or at least the 1996 movie with Danny DeVito, that it’s become a staple even outside of those who read the book.

The stage musical adapted the book freshly, picking scenes that are iconic and mixing it with commentary on how kids are often treated, while creating a genuinely impactful story about child self-empowerment and adults still having to deal with difficult situations that can make them feel small. The vibes are immaculate and Matilda’s family, the Wormwoods, are ridiculous enough to bring a brighter atmosphere and add some adult humour, to balance out the frankly terrifying headmistress, the Trunchbull. A colourful and fun performance with a beautiful set, that can make kids and adults laugh and cry, which makes it a perfect family experience.

Then there is the movie musical. I don’t enjoy bashing things, and it did do some things well, like the singers being pretty decent, or some of the imagery during the song Quiet or Revolting Children, but oh does the adaptation struggle with who it is for. Opening with the words “To change the world it needs a little genius” is already a choice (TM), but I guess you can whittle the idea down from compassion and community to one special person fixing it all, even if it weakens the story’s moral. They cut essentially all of the adult commentary and jokes, reduced the Wormwood’s screentime and plot that added a lot of needed light-heartedness to balance out the school storyline, and weakened the connection between Matilda and her teacher Miss Honey by cutting a good chunk of her story. It feels like they wanted to make this a children’s movie and forgot what children are halfway through, making Matilda a hero protagonist with superpowers, rather than a little girl who is clever and can levitate a glass of water or some chalk. It’s a fine movie on its own, but you are missing so much, and it is a pretty poor adaptation.

I had to pause at certain points during the movie and just take in how the framing, combined with Netflix lighting, sometimes makes Matilda feel like a horror movie monster, with an exchange about the Trunchbull going verbatim

“I'm not scared of her!”
“You should be. She's dangerous.”
”So am I.”

Girl, you are five years old.

The Plot Thinnens

Let's first have a moment of silence for the characters we lost: Matilda’s brother and Mrs Wormwood’s part Italian dance partner Rudolpho. Admittedly Matilda’s brother in the stage version doesn’t add very much other than vague comic relief that gets uncomfortable when you realize that the joke is that he is portrayed as mentally disabled. I cannot fathom what led to this choice in the musical, and while getting rid of him gets rid of the unfunny joke, it does also take away from the Wormwood family dynamic. Matilda’s mom having a very loud hobby in dancing, while Matilda prefers the quiet, was a great way to show the differences between the family members when they aren’t actively interacting, especially when contrasted with Matilda’s favourite teacher, Miss Honey, visiting the same library as her.

Both of these got cut for the movie, and it made me wonder what else they cut.

The answer is: Lots of things! But this is where I run into constraints regarding spoilers. I don’t want you sitting here having me compare things you might not even know, so I’ll stick to some basic examples for now and promise that the same thing happens all over the place.

Using some early scenes that were famously in the older versions, Matilda messing with hair oil and putting glue in a hat, were both responses to things that Mr Wormwood did on stage in the musical. He’s a liar, boasting that everyone trusts people with good hair, so she ruined his hair for him, making the outside match the inside, mixing chemicals that were explicitly meant to be kept out of reach of children. That direct line from point A to B was missing, just like Matilda putting glue in his hat was a response to him telling her to glue a book to hers originally. It was robbed of context in the adaptation.

And that, my friends, is the key issue I have with the scripting of the adaptation. They kept all the big moments (important to specifically Matilda, other character moments often got cut completely), but it feels like they didn’t even know why the moments happened in the first place. The basic rules of setup and follow-through were thoroughly ignored. Chekhov would be disappointed.

There were only so many things I could say about this adaptation without ever touching on spoilers, and that 100% includes the music. So now go and listen to the stage musical, or look it up somewhere (TM) and get ready for a full spoiler music analysis in part two!

(Editor note: Part 2 of this article, with spoilers included, will come out soon!)

Written by Nic Treczoks, a dedicated Writing Committee member!

You can find Nic on Instagram: @nic_has_a_nac

Ibsen's First Steps

Fri, 03 Apr 2026 12:22:00 +0000

God was born small and crawling. Legendary Norwegian Henrik Ibsen, the second most performed playwright of all time after Shakespeare, went through at least 5 messy, derivative plays before he made something remotely worth considering. Or, at least that’s how the Great Narrative goes.

“Love’s Comedy,” Ibsen’s 8th play, is where the real fun starts. It’s the story of two guys who pursue two girls, one each. Falk and Lind, chasing Svanhild (named after a princess of legend) and Anna, respectively. Lind and Anna settle, all holy. Falk and Svanhild’s tryst unfolds differently. Falk’s a poet, an activist and… he’s looking for a muse. Svanhild marvels at his artistry a little, measures herself up. Measures him up, too. No, she tells Falk, I won’t be your muse, you can do your writing thing on your own. It’s liberation, really, abandoning the historic archetype relegation mechanism of all those artist types that wouldn’t just objectify you, they’d Generalize you, Mythify you, mutilate your personhood for the sake of metaphor. Enter: rich business guy. He tells Falk and Svanhild: your love will not last. The pair talk, really talk.

And decide he’s right. Crazy in love and utterly rational. Svanhild’s future is comfortable and miserable, by painstakingly conscious choice. Falk’s future is all about being out on his own, probably still doing his thing, pen and ink and tears and paper.

“Love’s Comedy” is widely considered to be Ibsen’s first real masterpiece. After it came “the Pretenders” (ignore that one), and then what is in my opinion the GOAT sequence of published plays. “A Doll’s House,” “Ghosts,” “Enemy of the People,” “Wild Duck,” “Romersholm,” “Hedda Gabler”. They’re all there.

So what was the darling protofeminist playwright’s deal before this historic run? Did he suck? Was “Love’s Comedy” a monumental pivot, a Beatles’ “Rubber Soul” moment?

When I started reading Ibsen’s stuff in order, it was from purely a completist impulse. I like diversity in my reading diet; I read, besides for fun, to expand my worldview and challenge my tastes. One day it hit me that maybe I was unfocused. Maybe I needed to really immerse myself in one particular author. Ibsen’s early works ended up serving both purposes. They gave me more focused insight into the Norwegian’s obsessions and quirks. They also proved challenging and taste-expanding.

It isn’t easy reading clunkily translated 19th century verse. It takes some time getting into a setting of 16th century Norway and its geopolitical conflict with Denmark. Most of Ibsen’s early plays are exactly like that – historical dramas with plots of nobles, feasts and poison. These are odd (in lieu of what I’d usually be reading; in terms of early 19th century play thematics they were probably not odd at all, maybe even crushingly standard) lyrical tragedies, more akin to awkward attempts at greek epics than the nuanced psychological drama of the later plays.

There’s some things Ibsen shed as he grew more refined. One striking element is a blatant Norwegian nationalism. In “Lady Inger,” he even tweaks historical events to stoke that anti-Denmark, pro-Norway sentiment. Norway comes out of the big battles stewing in the background of Lady Inger’s conflicted solitude as the noble, warrior force fighting the evil Danes and Swedes. It’s weirdly black and white. I think it’s sometimes alright to use less nuanced framing in campaigning for independence, and maybe that was his goal here. What’s even weirder, though, is that it just makes things up to play up the nationalism. It would have been alright if it was a wholly fabricated conflict, or perhaps if the setting was more fictionalized, but here Ibsen takes a real historical timeline (the Scandinavian Kalmar Union and the last attempts to maintain Norwegian independence within it) and changes its sequencing and choreography. A bit of alternate history that isn’t telegraphed or contextualized; in other words, historical revisionism.

It’s actually “Love’s Comedy”, again, that marks his first public reexamination of the straight nationalism of his early work. In edits to the text, he changed some words that were explicitly Norwegian to make the work more accessible to a Danish audience. This sparked a lot of hate from the more hardcore Norwegian nationalists that believed in the sacred purity of an essential Norwegian language.

Another thing he let go was verse. This he stayed with for longer, though, and his last verse play ended up being Peer Gynt, which is also coincidentally a thematic examination of various kinds of Norwegian nationalism. A lot of his early plays are in verse, and some are in prose, with random stanzas thrown in for no apparent reason.

“Love’s comedy” is in verse, and so is “Peer Gynt”. Verse seems to work for him in a few cases. Still, a more careful but unbounded approach to form is partly what makes Ibsen’s later plays so fantastic.

It’s not like he completely pivoted, though. Some of the cool things he does in his later plays are in the earlier ones too. Most notably, his obsession with strong women. In “Lady Inger”, the eponymous Lady Inger is deeply isolated as a noblewoman, simultaneously ostracized and pulling all the weight in a markedly patriarchal society. That theme of the isolation and confinement of women under patriarchy would go on to be reinterpreted in some of his best plays – “A Doll’s House,” a real classic, and “Hedda Gabbler,” that just got a lesbian movie adaptation starring Tessa Thompson as Hedda Gabler herself.

So what makes the later plays so much better? Nuance, for one. Critically facing his own nationalism and examining it in his plays. Writing as public therapy. Rearrangement, for another. His obsessions with patriarchy, class conflict, activist identity, heavy-handed symbolism, muses – these were all there in the earlier plays, it’s just that through revision, reconfiguration, playing with order and weight, he found how to make what was on his mind as impactful as possible on the page.

Reading Henrik Ibsen’s early work was sort of inspirational. And not because the plays were so interesting and idea-sowing. It’s precisely because they’re kind of stilted and obvious, these first awkward fruits of an undeniable tree, that they give me a sort of license to just play around. To feel what I’m interested in and create a silly, needlessly grandiose story out of it.

Written by Yan Nesterenko, a dedicated Writing Committee member!

You can find Yan on Instagram: @n_strenkyn

The Chameleon Lab, Revealed!

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 11:33:00 +0000

WILDe has been buzzing with activity this season, but one project has been quietly taking shape away from the spotlight. The Chameleon Lab — WILDe's crew dedicated to building a play from a limited script — has been deep in its creative process, and until now, the wider WILDe community hasn't heard a word about what's been brewing. That changes today. We sat down with co-directors Gyula Szijjarto and Timothé Mathelin to pull back the curtain on their latest experimental creation.

Q: What attracted you to directing a piece where the play is still evolving during rehearsal?

Timothé: Funny story is I actually took part in the first edition of the Chameleon Lab two years ago, back in 2023. Gyula here and Sofiya Petrova were directing it back then. I absolutely loved the concept of developing theatre skills, creating a bond with the cast, and putting up something all together at the end. It really brings a different sense of achievement. I liked it so much that I'm co-directing it now haha. What's dear to me is that the concept we use in the Chameleon Lab is going back to the roots of WILDe. That's how things used to be in our first years and where we come from as an association. I find it fulfilling to be honouring that.

Gyula: It is the only way I have ever directed actually. In my first year in WILDe I was about to direct one of the main productions where I already implemented this approach, if only Covid-19 wouldn't have cut the year in half... When I was on the board I kept experimenting with such projects, until finally 2-3 years ago I came up with the concept of the Chameleon Lab and together with Sofiya implemented its first version. Why I'm so keen on this approach? It is how I learned theater and acting as a form of self-expression and performing arts. The goal of amateur theater in my eyes is to realize something about ourselves and/or the world together in a group, actors directors alike, and form this message which is truly ours into a performance of any kind. The director is an enabler, coach, guide in this process to form a common vision instead of implementing their own.

Q: How do you balance giving actors freedom to shape the script while still guiding the overall vision of the Chameleon Lab?

Timothé: What we did is we first organised a film screening and all watched it together. Then, Gyula and I divided it into different scenes and shared the plan with the cast. Now that they know the plot and the characters, we're letting them come up with how the scenes unfold and how they want to portray the characters. We're here to guide them in their process of building the scenes and bring more detail, but everyone knows the overall plan, and the ideas we've seen so far are already wonderful!

Gyula: We — Timothé and me — come up with the overarching structure/timeline of the play. Run this by the actors. Then once the context is clear, the actors actually provide all of the initial input. Once they brought us their first take/edition of a scene, we respect that input and collaboratively try to bring out the most of it.

Q: How are changes to the Chameleon Lab currently being captured and decided during rehearsals?

Timothé: Regarding changes compared to the original source material, Gyula and I first discussed what our vision was for the overall narrative so we both had a common agreement, and then we shared it with the cast. We also really value their opinion so we had a long talk about the overall vision and now we're all in sync! For smaller details, we just discuss it with them as they're building the scenes.

Gyula: I think we have a common understanding usually of what needs to be done. Then an actor comes, out of nowhere, with something brilliant and/or impressive, and it just becomes part of the play.

Q: What kind of rehearsal environment are you creating so actors feel comfortable taking creative risks?

Timothé: First of all, getting to know each other. It's much harder to let go with strangers in the room. That's why we start out with a lot of fun theatre games, and gradually build into exercises and useful practice. It's also important to foster a positive atmosphere, and we do that by being encouraging and supportive. It's difficult to completely let go as an actor, and I'm so proud to see the cast manage it every time.

Gyula: We find it very important that everyone knows each other, is treated with equal attention, and feels heard because they are listened to. In the first part of the project, before we even start talking about a play, we provide trainings on different disciplines of theater so that everyone gets roughly on the same page. We play plenty of theater games where actors can collaborate, experiment, go crazy... And we also never start a rehearsal before having heard from everyone in some detail what is going on with them personally.

Q: At this stage of the process, what has surprised you most about how the play is developing with the actors?

Timothé: Honestly, how easy going it is. As I said earlier, there's a wonderful chemistry, and that makes the process so pleasant and easy. Everybody is onboard and always excited to come to rehearsals. As a director, that's one of the most rewarding sentiments.

Gyula: It has been a very rewarding experience to direct the Chameleon Lab every year because so many talented people who never acted before were able to surprise an entire audience by the end with some unexpected virtuoso performances. This is just as true this year as it was before. I think my jaw drops at least once at every rehearsal when yet another actor surprises us with their interpretation of a casual exercise. We're already so proud of them, I cannot wait to see the end product!

One thing is clear: whatever is taking shape in those rehearsal rooms is something special. A cast of performers growing bolder with every session, two directors who believe in the magic of collective creation, and a play that is still writing itself — the Chameleon Lab's latest production is shaping up to be one not to miss. Stay tuned.

Written by Anna Galtsova, a Writing Committee member and a legendary veteran of WILDe!

You can find Anna on Instagram: @gal.tsova

You’ve been cast as a side character. Here are 3 tips to make your few minutes on-stage count.

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 17:10:00 +0000

If you are the type of person who did not receive enough attention from their parents in childhood and are now desperately seeking that attention in the spotlight, then you are probably familiar with this type of frustration.

You wanted to be the star of the show. To have the most stage time. To be the main face on the promo poster.

But alas… after hours of tireless audition prep, and wishful thinking…

You got cast as a side role instead.

Your dreams are crushed. Your rejection sensitivity is triggered. Your frustration is real.

Now you think to yourself, “Am I doomed to play an insignificant part that no one remembers… again?”

If you are this type of person and this does sound familiar to you, first of all, please seek help. The stage will not heal your parent issues, I guarantee you that.

Now.

Jokes aside, yes, it is a common desire among theatre enthusiasts to want to be the most prominent person in the spotlight and to receive the loudest applause.

As a result, many actors have developed a false misconception that the only roles that matter are the main ones.

Not only because side characters have objectively less stage time, but also because it feels like there just aren’t enough opportunities to do something exciting with a small role.

But worry not, because with this blog, I aim to prove you wrong ;)

Humor me this…

What would it be like to have a “Lion King” without Timon and Pumba?

A “Beauty and the Beast” without Lumière and Mrs. Potts?

A “Shrek 2” without Puss in Boots?

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Though seemingly insignificant, once you remove a side character, the story is suddenly void of… spark.

While yes, you can, in theory, have “The Lion King” without Timon and Pumba, and the plot would still work (ish?), I imagine your gut reaction to even assuming such a thing is “Hell no! Bring the goofy boys back!”

Interesting, isn’t it?

It’s almost like side characters can and do fulfill an extremely important role in a story. Bringing emotional depth and carrying important plot beats.

Contrary to what you may expect from a theatre person like myself, I actually LOVE playing side characters.

Why?

Not only is it less rehearsal time and fewer lines to learn (though admittedly, those are bonuses).

But because I believe it’s always fun as an actor to take the few minutes of the stage time you have and to come up with a creative way to utilize them.

We already know the main character will be great and memorable due to the amount of time they have to develop their story.

But how can you do the same with a side character?

In this blog, I will share with you the three tips that will, in my opinion, help you maximize the potential of your small role and make your side-character-acting a fulfilling experience.

I will support each step with examples of side characters I have acted as in WILDe Theatre. And may have won a few awards for.

So, without further ado, here are the three tips.

Tip 1 - Understand your purpose in the story

When developing the role you’ve been cast as, I encourage you to first and foremost think more deeply about your character’s purpose in the story.

There is always a reason the author created side characters, and I can assure you none of them are placed in the story “just cuz”.

Otherwise, why would they be there in the first place?

Think about it.

What theme(s) does your character represent? What narrative values do they contradict or support?

Is it to serve as an antithesis to the main character and\or to challenge their ideology?

Is it to bring a comic relief to an otherwise very dark story?

Or is it, perhaps, to highlight a certain characteristic of the world the story takes place in?

Even if you are only on-stage for a few minutes, I encourage you to treat your character as a fully fleshed-out individual with a complete backstory, a moral compass and a goal.

Example

Take Maya Wolfsheim - the character I acted as back in “The Great Gatsby the Musical”.

Up until the moment we meet Maya Wolfsheim, our understanding of the world of Gatsby is simple - it’s a world of wealth, abundance and lavish, champagne-soaked galas where everyone is rich, successful and seemingly happy.

Gatsby himself represents that dashing side of New York—his endless success stories, his well-connected network of wealthy businessmen and celebrities, his massive mansion, hell, even his amber car all point to the fact that our main character lives in a utopia of sorts.

But then… In comes Maya Wolfsheim.

A dangerous criminal who wears human teeth as jewellery and has single-handedly overturned the World Series baseball. A woman who stands behind Gatsby’s success.

It is only when we meet Maya Wolfsheim that we realize - Gatsby’s world is a facade.

A fake utopia that was built on crime, corruption and, perhaps even murder.

Maya appears on-stage for only a few minutes, yet her presence looms. Like the judging eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg. Like a threatening reminder, that at any moment that beautiful facade of Jay’s successful life may fall apart like a card house.

With all of this in mind, Maya’s role in the story becomes clear - to showcase a different, darker, but also a true side to the world of Gatsby.

Maya isn’t just an evil-looking femme fatale who had that one funny interaction with Nick at Speakeasy.

She is a representation of lies and corruption that serve as the foundation of Gatsby’s fake world.

After realizing this, everything I did for Maya Wolfsheim’s character made sense and served this single purpose.

She wore a red dress because red is the color of danger - a warning and a reminder that Gatsby’s world is fragile and may fall apart (foreshadowing the end of the story).

She acts seductively but has an evil demeanor because that is what Gatsby’s world is - beautiful on the outside, corrupt on the inside.

She is heartless because Gatsby’s real world is void of love and care (nobody showed up to Gatsby's funeral when he died…).

Her musical number looked like an uncanny puppet show / a spider web because that is how the world of Gatsby works - you sell your soul to crime to gain access to wealth, but you pay a grand price of being trapped in servitude to a cold, unloving system.

And that’s how we turned a small character with less than 3 full scenes in the entire show into a fully fleshed out persona with a concrete image and a meaningful goal in the story.

The rest is cosmetics ;)

Now the next question is, how do we make the complex purpose of a side character clear to the audience in just a few minutes of stage time?

Tip 2 - Define your characters’ “archetype” and keep it simple

You have seen them in basically any story ever written.

Character archetypes.

A simple, comprehensible set of characteristics assigned to a single person.

A gentle giant who seems threatening on the outside but is actually very kind.

An incompetent ruler who holds a position of power but is yet to learn to use it.

A wise magician who guides the hero's journey.

You probably already have a few examples in your mind for each of those archetypes:

Shrek as the gentle giant.

Joffrey Baratheon as the incompetent ruler.

Gandalf as the wise magician.

Archetypes in stories exist for a reason. They are easy, recognizable patterns of behaviours or symbolic figures that are familiar to humans across cultures.

Because character archetypes are so well-known and repetitive, once an archetype is introduced, it becomes very easy for the audience to set expectations for the said character’s personality and behaviour.

We meet a giant who seems shy - we expect to witness his journey to discovering himself while being challenged by his grotesque appearance.

We come across a stubborn, bratty prince - we are thrilled to see what lessons he will learn to eventually grow into a wise, responsible ruler.

We get introduced to an old, friendly magician - we expect to hear some words of advice and showcases of wisdom.

So… how does all of this tie back to building your side character?

I believe when you only have a few minutes to tell a full story, archetypes can be a great way to showcase a very complex persona with just a few recognizable characteristics.

Sometimes even with the most basic stylistic choices and a few lines of dialogue you can establish very concrete archetypes, setting predictable expectations for the audience to follow.

Now, does that mean your side character should be void of complexity and only follow a cliche “stereotype” to be memorable?

Absolutely not.

I’m not saying “make your character fit perfectly into a strict, limited category”.

What I am saying is, try to think of ways to make your role’s motives and values as simple and as comprehensible as possible from the get-go, and let the rest of the decisions you make about this character fit that single image.

If your side character’s archetype is simple, it is a no-brainer for the audience to cheer for them when their values are endorsed and to be shocked when their values are challenged (or the other way round if it’s an antagonistic character), thus leaving a lasting impression in the show...

Example

Back in Romeo and Juliet the musical, I played a small character whom most people will barely remember from the original play scripts - Paris Capulet.

And yet I must admit it was probably one of the most entertaining roles I have ever played.

So what made Paris Capulette special from the character archetype perspective?

As discussed earlier, I started by defining my character’s role in the story, which was pretty obvious - to serve as the antithesis to both Tybalt (a man who genuinely loved Juliet but never saw her for who she really was) and Romeo (someone who not only loved Juliet but made her feel seen and understood).

Paris also “loved” Juliet, but his love, in contrast to Tybalt’s or Romeo's, was never centred around her, but rather around his own ego.

Everything he did “for her” was in truth for a selfish reason. To boost his status. To show his rich friends that he got the most beautiful girl. Perhaps even to win some adoration from Juliet’s mother ;)

With that in mind, Paris’s character archetype drew itself - a selfish spoiled man who always gets what he wants and severely overestimates his own greatness.

A “rich frat boy”, if you may. Gaston from “Beauty and the Beast” type of character.

All I needed to do next was to make it immediately clear to the audience who I was as a character.

Wear a suit and a perfectly slicked man bun and walk into a scene with a bottle of Sauvignon to show that I am a pretentious rich man.

(Imagine if, instead, I walked on-stage with a can of beer and untidy clothing… It would have made a completely different first impression, wouldn’t it?)

Flirt with literally everyone, including Juliet’s mom and the audience to show how laughably highly I think of myself.

Kiss Juliet’s hand in a practiced, exaggerated manner to show how all of this is just a performance to Paris, not a genuine act of affection.

And there we have it. In just 3 minutes of on-stage time, we plant a very specific image in the audience’s mind. A spoiled rich asshole who wants to win the main character’s heart but is destined to fail due to his arrogance.

Later on, when the audience sees Paris “lose” Juliet to Romeo, it is easy for them to laugh at my character’s pathetic downfall and to enjoy seeing him get “punished” for his selfishness.

A very simple character image with a very simple motive resulting in a hilarious and memorable sub-plot within a larger story.

Creating an archetype for Paris helped me set immediate, predictable expectations for the role without the need to go through a multiple-scene-long character-building journey.

And I invite you to do the same for your role, should you be blessed with a chance to make the most out of your few minutes of stage time.

Speaking of which, what exactly CAN you do to make your side character shine?

Tip 3 - Get creative and make a SHOW

Ok, this section has become a bit too philosophical now that I have written it, but I hope it still brings the point across.

Regardless of the type of production you participate in, I believe your sole job as performer is to create a show that leaves an impression.

It doesn’t matter if you are the main character or a dancer number five. Every person in a production serves a greater purpose - to effectively deliver the main message of the story, and to invoke emotions within the audience.

Be it to disgust them, to make them laugh, to make them feel hopeful, or sad, or philosophical, or impressed by how much can be done with the make-believe magic of the stage.

Actors are storytellers. And so are you.

Theatre is a place where things that aren’t feasible in the normal world suddenly become “real”.

A place where people collectively agree to close their eyes on the laws of physics and “accuracy” of what’s happening before their eyes and to simply let themselves enjoy the story.

For just two and a half hours, you and your cast mates are able to bring imaginary characters to life, to build a world that doesn’t exist, and to make magic possible.

And even if your role in this collective hallucination act is small, the moment you set your foot on-stage you gain the power to make literally anything real.

So, go make it happen!

The creative potential of the stage is endless. You don’t need hyper-realistic equipment to make the audience believe you are on the moon if you act like you are wearing a space suit.

You don’t need to buy special effect kits to make people think you have magic powers if you move your body through space like you are casting a spell.

What I’m trying to say is, don’t let yourself be limited to what’s written on the script.

Get creative. Use what you and your theatre already has. Brainstorm ideas with your directors and cast mates. Ask for help from the people who have the skills you need to make something happen (WILDe Theatre is very rich in talent, I remind you!)

A crazy interpretive dance to deliver an emotion of your character - why not?

A dramatic, heartbreaking monologue to reveal your character’s big secret - why not?

An oddly specific item for your costume to bring a bit of humor to your character - why not?

Hell, a swordfighting duel between you and your rival - Why. The hell. Not?

(Obviously, please consider the limits of the production as well as the budget and the safety rules, but you get what I mean.)

And finally, the most important thing of all (and this has already been said multiple times in the other authors’ pieces written in this blog series, but I will say it again) - have fun!

The energy of an actor is very contagious.

If you love your character, so will the audience.

If you are enthusiastic about the ideas you are bringing on-stage, your cast mates will be too.

If you are enjoying the small role you were given and are giving it all the love and care it deserves, the people WILL feel it.

If you had made a decision to bring yourself to theatre, it means you already have dreams, aspirations and a creative potential waiting to be freed.

I am not here to tell you what to do with your character or how to make a good show, because you already know how.

And at the end of the day, big or small, it is your character.

Your chance to shine.

Your story to tell…

In sum

If you wish to make the most out of your short time on-stage as a side character, start by clearly defining your role in the story:

The values you represent
Your relation to the world and the other characters
The message your role needs to deliver

Once your purpose in the story becomes clear, think of the most simple and identifiable way you can bring your characters’ personality across in relation to that purpose.

What “archetype” do you fit in?
What tools can you use to clearly showcase your motivations and values? (Think mannerisms, costume design, behavioral choices, props, etc.)

And finally, don’t be afraid to get creative. Think of interesting ways you can bring across your characters’ unique personality, values and beliefs. A dance? A song? A unique prop? An intense dialogue or a monologue? A fight? Use the magic of the stage to make a memorable show!

Remember, you only have a few minutes.

So, why not make those minutes count? ;)

Written by Juliana Boboshko, a veteran of WILDe, actress and a member of 4th and 5th Boards!

You can find Juliana on Instagram: @jules_the_sparrow

A Room in a House - How to "Build" a Character

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:01:00 +0000

You, my dear actor, are a designer. After many arduous competitions with other incredible constructors and architects, you have been chosen to decorate a beautiful room in a house.

The foundations of the house are already there. The blueprints of the building were drawn centuries ago by the most famous builders of their time. Everyone knows what the house is supposed to look like, in theory. It has been copied again and again all over the world, with the same white walls and pointed roofs. On the outside, there are dozens of replicas of the exact same house.

On the inside, there is a common understanding of where each room is supposed to be: the kitchen is on the left, next to the living room. The bathroom is connected to the main suite. There is a garden outside the house that reaches out to the street, where you can say hello to those passing by.

However, each room can be decorated in its own original way. How you choose to decorate is up to you. But how do you do that, exactly? You have been given an empty box, and it is your job to fill it and present it in a way that feels uniform with the rest of the house. So how can you make this room truly yours?

The first thing you need to know is what the room is for. What is the purpose of the room? What's the reason it was put there?

To answer that, it's important to know what kind of house is being built: A modern apartment? A cottage in the woods? A Victorian manor? Your "guests" need to be able to tell this just by the interior design, so that's what you'll need to focus on when choosing your furniture.

It always helps to do research into the setting. This is not just about the inside of the house — the time and location where things take place, the political issues of the time, the kinds of clothing worn — but also the house's history. Who created the blueprints? Most writers — oops, sorry, "architects" — bring in messages and conflicts from their own life into their creations, so it's vital to understand what lessons or themes they wanted to present at the start.

When you're focusing on one room, try to summarize its purpose in one sentence: the kitchen is where you eat, the bedroom is where you sleep, the basement is where you hide the secrets. Each room has a meaning, both for the guests and for the house itself, and this helps give you a straightforward direction for what you're here to do.

If you're decorating the living room, you have a big task! This is the first thing that guests will see. First impressions are very important. It sets up the shape of the house, connecting to each and every other room. This is your main space, the lead, where guests will spend most of their time — so it needs to show the house's purpose immediately. Sometimes, there's a monologue printed on the wall or an "I want" song playing on the radio that spells it out plainly for you. Regardless, the designer still has to know what these goals are, and the house's structure follows along the pursuit of those goals.

Remember: your room has to be interesting, not beautiful. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad, evil or saintly, logical or insane. Every home has its eccentricities. Sometimes there's a broken antenna on the old TV, but that's still a part of the house. It needs to be there at that specific angle for the signal to work. You don't have to clean it or fix it. As long as it's possible to peek through the window into someone's life, people will be curious to walk in. Open your doors. Let guests see into every dusty nook and cranny: especially the ones that aren't so pleasant.

On top of all this, there is a very important question that people forget to ask themselves:

Why?

You know the living room has a sofa, a carpet, a coffee table, a shelf, and a TV. That's fine — anyone can shove the cheapest furniture they find at IKEA in a reasonable arrangement and call that a living room. However, if you really want to take up space, create something genuinely appealing that people will actually call home, you have to ask what those things are trying to achieve.

You need a coffee table because you need an easy place to put things down. That's straightforward enough — but maybe, you know that there was once a fight in the living room. The coffee table might've once been made out of glass, but now it has been changed to a harder wood to keep people safe. Maybe there are still fragments of that fight embedded in the floorboards, that you scrub and broom but they never go away. Do you want to seem simplistic, contained, and keep to minimalistic decorations? If so, you put a basic white vase right in the middle of the table — but it's left empty, because you've never received a bouquet from a friend before. Or maybe you want to appear gentle and caring, placing a little crocheted runner with embroidered blue flowers? Those flowers could be forget-me-nots, so guests never forget what actually happened to the original glass table.

You must see the same types of little choices in your own house. You surely have a charger you always keep next to the couch because one time someone needed it and it's now a permanent fixture; a slight stain on your bedsheets because your best friend spilled wine on it and you were never able to wash it off; a lightbulb that went out and you spent months trying to find the replacement but never could. It's not the best, or healthiest, decision to replicate your room exactly, but it always helps to take some inspiration from your own experiences to have ideas.

There is so much you can do with a simple space just by asking yourself what caused things to be the way that they are. When guests only catch one small glimpse, they don't need to have the complete story of someone's life, but they at least need to understand why the room is there, and why it's decorated the way it is. As the designer, you get to decide what parts of the story you want to show. You create the meaning behind every decision.

But importantly, a room does not exist on its own. Even the most amazingly decorated living room is useless if it has no hallways to connect to. You have to ask yourself: how does your room relate to the rest of the house?

What do you give to the neighboring rooms? Perhaps your space brings warmth from the fireplace, perhaps you complete each other like a bedroom and a walk-in closet. Perhaps it offers rest after a long journey through the house, or perhaps it disrupts the calm and forces guests to rethink what they’ve seen so far. Maybe colors bleed through the doorways, or noise might echo through the walls. In many ways, every room both shapes and is shaped by the ones around it.

Contrast and parallel are both important to consider. Some rooms are built to complement one another: the warm kitchen next to the lively dining room, the quiet study tucked away near the library. What do they offer each other, at the end of the day? What they agree on, what they learn from each other, and what they represent? Still, it's important to know what makes them different — what makes them distinct from each other? If they are too similar, you might as well take down the walls and turn them into just one larger room. If they are separate, there must be reasons why. What makes them separate?

Other rooms are deliberately placed to oppose each other, but even extremes still have things in common. The attic is upstairs with the most important family memories, open to a gorgeous sunroof. The basement is dark, shadowed, and grimy, left behind with pipes and rats. Despite being on the literal opposing side of the house, they are fundamentally similar — they both are dusty. They see the house changing while they stay stagnant, left forgotten behind closed, trapped doors.

Look closer, and you may find similarities hidden beneath the surface: perhaps both rooms serve the same purpose in different ways, or perhaps they were designed by the same hand, reflecting the same fears or hopes. There's still a lot they hold inside that is functionally the same, even if architects act upon them differently.

Some rooms transform dramatically as the house ages. The nursery becomes a bedroom, the workshop becomes an office, and the kitchen gets updated with a brand new fridge. These rooms undergo renovations to help reach those overarching goals. As a designer, it's important to ask yourself where the room starts when the house's doors are first opened, and how it changes as the guests go through it. Furniture moves, walls are repainted, and windows are opened that were once shut tight. How do you want the room to end up, and in what state is it in after the guests have left?

Other rooms remain mostly the same. Their role is not to change, but to give the rest of the house context. A stable room can act as a reference point — a place that shows how much everything else has shifted. Even without transforming or going through an arc, it can influence the transformation of the spaces around it. It serves its purpose, and that's never a bad thing.

Sometimes you're not tasked with decorating the living room, or the kitchen, or the evil basement. Sometimes you're just a storage closet. That's okay! It's just as important as any other room, and all these guidelines still apply. The house was built to include that storage closet for a reason. If you know those reasons well, you can still do the same kind of work. Even if the guests are with you for less time, they'll notice if you put effort into making it a very impactful and interconnected storage closet.

At the end of the day, the house does not belong to the designers alone. It belongs to the people who walk through it, the construction company, the team that set the land, the people who bought the paint, and the engineers who fixed the pipes.

You are not building the entire house. You are not even defining the walls that surround you. But within the small box you have been given, your decisions can give a very different impression of the house as a whole. Think about who passes through your door, what they bring, and what they should take away with them when they leave.

So ask yourself these questions, be creative, and put on a show. Most importantly of all, have fun! People will notice, and they'll have fun with you! Nobody will remember old blueprints or any nitpicky little flaws — they'll remember the rooms that felt alive.

Written by Ana Clara Martins, a dedicated Writing & Marketing Committee member!

You can find Ana Clara on Instagram: @anaa.logy

Theatre in Late-Stage Capitalism

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 13:58:00 +0000

‘Late-Stage Capitalism’ is one of those phrases that gets thrown around constantly to describe our day to day life. Many people believe that Late-Stage Capitalism is just something that is used as a joke, satire on the world we live in. Sadly for us, we are by definition living in a world of Late-Stage Capitalism.

By definition, Late-Stage Capitalism is characterized by extreme inequality, unchecked corporate power, financialization and monetization of everyday life. Gas prices, cigarettes, food, water. All these things are slowly rising in prices, while everyday people struggle left and right to find jobs that are able to sustain themselves in times like this.

Naturally, in a world where the average person spends one-third of their life at work (totalling around 90.000 hours over a lifetime) most people turn to the Entertainment sector. A place where we can forget our lives, our wages and our troubles. Movies, Shows, Art, Museums, Games, and of course, Theater.

It surely comes as no surprise, seeing as it’s right in the title. Today I’ll be writing about Theater in Late-Stage Capitalism.

Unlike film, streaming or other digital media, theater resists easy scaling. It can’t be mass-produced, optimized by an algorithm or consumed passively. It requires bodies like you or me in a room, time spent together, and a willingness to participate in something that will one day never be shown again. In an economic system obsessed with efficiency and profit, theater can seem almost irrational.

And yet, theater persists.

Perhaps that existence is the point.

Community Stages, Independent Companies and the experimental productions continue to appear in cities and towns around the world. Powered not by profit, but by collaboration. A diverse group of people coming together for one common cause; Entertainment.

Sure, you could be an actor, or a singer. But somehow through all the shallow feelings that modern day film and tv gives you, somehow Theater continues to feel raw, trailblazing and new.

Content vs. Art

Still despite this diversion from our lives, Capitalism is slowly worming its way into Theater. Writers and Directors on Broadway are pushed to produce marketable shows, ones without risk and with plenty of bait to draw in as much money as possible.

Plays and Musicals are redone and rehashed until every last bit of them can be milked out for profit. And beyond all of that, Theater has to compete with Streaming Services and other forms of Digital Media.

Corporations desperately try to turn theater from what it is today into large profit margins. The question is whether Theaters are resisting this transformation.

Corporate Sponsorship and Artistic Freedom

Slowly and surely, especially after Covid, Theaters have given in to corporate sponsorship, relinquishing their creative independence to stay afloat. But with money comes more risk than just lack of artistic freedom, it also comes with corporate influence, censorship and blatant advertising, ruining the safe spaces that Theater lovers once called home.

Original and groundbreaking plays and musicals are now replaced with more of the same, as Corporations clearly prefer money over spectacle and truly impressive entertainment. It doesn’t matter to them whether the corporations if the people actually enjoyed what they saw, so long as they’re making money they don’t have to change a thing.

Yet through all these issues Theater still persists. But why is that?

Why Theater Still Exists

Even though Theaters all over the world experience similar issues like Censorship, Lack of Funding and Lack of Freedom, Plenty of local and smaller theater groups fight for what’s right in a broken society.

Through all of this, Theater resists. Live storytelling, empathy and true cultural resistance, that’s why Theater still lives to this day. And we’re lucky, because of we keep on this course, one day nothing will be original anymore.

So What Can We Do?

If Theater is struggling under the pressures of modern systems, it’s easy to feel like the problem is too big for any individual to influence. But Theater has always depended on something that large industries often overlook: a community that cares enough to show up.

Support Theater doesn’t always mean large donations or industrial funding. Often, it’s much simpler than that.

Buy a ticket when you can, bring a friend who hasn’t seen a play before, take a chance on a show you know nothing about. Live performance only exists when people decide it’s worth being in a room for.

For those who are part of theater communities, support can take other forms. Volunteer your time. Help build sets and design props, usher audiences, design posters or spread the word about upcoming productions. Small participations keep local theater ecosystems alive.

And perhaps most importantly, talk about it. In a culture dominated by screen and streaming, theater survives through conversation and community. Every recommendation, every post-show discussion and every moment of shared excitement about a performance helps create an audience that theater needs.

Theater has always been a fragile art form. It requires lots of time, effort and a bunch of people willing to believe in a story together. In a world increasingly built for convenience and profit, that might be exactly why it still matters.

Written by Joy Roelandschap, a dedicated Writing Committee member!

You can find Joy on Instagram: joy_mjdr

The Comedy of Being Human: Interview with Directors

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 12:42:00 +0000

For the first time in forever, WILDe is giving up its classic winter play concept for a split bill: three short plays for the price of one! This March 2026 (not technically winter, but let’s not dwell on that), we present The Comedy of Being Human: an evening of three short plays by world-renowned American playwrights David Ives and Christopher Durang.

Through wildly different stories, this comedy-filled night explores familiar questions: what does it mean to be human? How do we love, dream, and occasionally lose complete control?

The programme brings together three delightfully contrasting comedies. Mere Mortals offers a soulful construction-worker confessional, Soap Opera tells the lightly unhinged story of someone falling in love with a washing machine, and The Actor’s Nightmare delivers an absurdist tale of an accountant suddenly thrust into a leading role.

We sat down with the directors of Soap Opera and The Actor’s Nightmare, who generously took time out of their busy schedules to share more about the rehearsal process - and why you definitely shouldn’t miss this show.

SOAP OPERA

Placed in the middle of the program, Soap Opera is certainly not the average show.

Written by world-renowned playwright David Ives, Soap Opera is a story about love: a very special kind of love. When a washing machine repairman falls for the machine he’s meant to fix, an absurd yet heartfelt romance unfolds. This show is perfect for anyone who has ever had a love-hate relationship with doing laundry, despised the typical stepsister trope or simply enjoyed playing Date Everything (if the play evokes a certain feeling in you, you should definitely check it out).

El, the director putting together the rowdy romance, is sharing a few words about what it’s like directing such a kooky show, with a no doubt even more kooky cast.

Q: How is Soap Opera going from a director's POV?

El, director: It is going fine! We are currently in the state of taking care of production stuff. We are a bit short on time, but we are handling it! From a director’s point of view, it’s been going really well. My actors understand the directions well, there are people in the cast I can rely on, they are very involved and they seem like they are enjoying the process. It was also a little chiller than other productions, because we have rehearsals only once a week. So yeah, it’s been going well!

Q: What was the most rewarding moment in the production process?

El: Probably seeing it come together and seeing my actors understanding the point of the play and finding some things I didn’t notice. We had a discussion where we sat down and looked through the script, and we talked about what the actors found funny, what their favorite moment of the script was, how they understood their characters and hypotheticals of how the characters would behave in different settings. It was really nice to see that they get the play in the same way I do, and sometimes even find new moments that I didn’t see before!

Q: What is your overall rehearsal process like from first read-through to now?

El: It started with reading the script and doing a couple exercises. Then, we were running the script scene by scene, mostly based on the combination of actors. For example, we ran some scenes with one set of characters, but not with the other. As the process kept going, we brought them together, and now we’re just basically doing the overall runs of the script. We went off-script after the Christmas break, so now we have a finished product!

Q: To address the appliance in the room... How are you dealing with the washing machine from a production POV?

El: The washing machine is currently being made by Pavani in WDKA! We were planning to make it out of wood, but then things happened, and we can’t do that anymore. So now we are making it out of cardboard! It will be painted over, and might be a little unstable, but we are really hopeful that it’s going to work out. The issue is that there is supposed to be someone inside the washing machine, so that is a little more difficult… but we are gonna deal with it!

Q: What do you hope the audience takes away from experiencing Soap Opera?

El: Soap Opera is a very funny play, so my main expectation is for the audience to laugh a lot! There are a lot of jokes and different tools in the script: some wordplay, some references, some very blunt acting choices - so I really hope that they will laugh at not just the script, but also at the way we act it out. At the same time, I hope it brings out some sweet experiences, because the main point of the play is to not chase perfection, but notice the beauty in the mundane. I hope this gets through to the audience!

THE ACTOR’S NIGHTMARE

The Actor's Nightmare is the final of the 3 plays you will see during performance.

Written by world-renowned playwright Cristopher Durang, The Actor’s Nightmare is a bizarre and surreal comedy about the struggles of acting. The unhinged triplet of the set, it’s delivering on the worst fears of a theatre kid (failing on stage) and of a normal functioning member of society (being on stage in the first place).

We sat down with the powerhouse duo that stepped in at the last minute to steer the wheel. Lucas & Sinem, a dynamic director pair, share a little bit of what makes The Actor’s Nightmare so nightmarish.

Q: What emotions and themes can we expect from The Actor's Nightmare?

Lucas, co-director: The Actor's Nightmare is a comedy first and foremost, of course. It is very, very funny, it is humorous, but it is also very surreal. It is a very strange play, at times even a little unsettling, especially towards the end, but it is a comedy first!

Sinem, co-director: The Actor's Nightmare reminds us, in a fun and familiar way, of the mixed feelings of surprise and fear that come with being in an unfamiliar place - a feeling almost everyone has experienced at least once.

Q: Give us a quick idea of your rehearsal planning & process. How did it start, and how's it going?

Lucas: The rehearsal process is a little bit messy, just because I came onto the project very late. As you may know, they lost a director midway through and didn’t really have a lot of stuff done yet, so I stepped in as a sort of emergency because those problems needed to be solved very quickly. Right now it’s going a lot better than I first expected, but I do also feel a little more rushed than the other directors of the plays!

Q: As an actor, how do you feel about the show and what it has to say?

Lucas: I do like how The Actor’s Nightmare manages to pick out and make fun of certain stereotypes and cliches within acting & theatre in general. I also enjoy that, at least to me, it doesn’t have a much deeper meaning than that! It is much more focused on doing this and being funny, and doesn’t have a super deep secondary meaning.

Sinem: Regarding the show time, first of all, personally, I'm excited because it's the first English-language play I've been involved in directing, and because I'm working with such a young and dedicated team. As for the team, despite their busy schedules, everyone is doing their best to make the show a success.

Q: What are your actors like? How is the cast approaching their roles?

Lucas: The actors are doing a very good job! They are responding to feedback very well, and especially for how quickly we had to get into this, I think they are doing very well! It is a very difficult play to act in, just because of how surreal it is at times, especially for the main character, George. It is a very special type of role that you definitely need a lot of talent for, and not something easy to play!

Sinem: Although the actors sometimes feel tired and low on energy due to their busy schedules, I think they do their best to focus on their roles, and they are very supportive of us even in the costume and creative processes, eagerly asking questions and adding their own creativity to approach their roles. The lines sometimes scare them because they have other active roles, but I think they will overcome that :)

Q: Are you ready for showtime? :)

Lucas: We aren’t ready for showtime just yet*. There are still some things that production has to get us, there are still a couple of lines to fully memorize and some bits and pieces to make right. But on our current timeline, I’m pretty confident that we will be very ready once the date rolls around, and we are very excited for it!

*Ed. note: this interview was taken on 16.02.2026 - the cast is definitely adding the finishing touches by now!

Sinem: Ahhh, you can never really feel completely ready for the show :) And that's perhaps the most magical and exciting part of it ;) I can only say that we'll be close to feeling ready when a few small details fall into place :) We'll all see together on the night of the show. But before each performance, we really won't feel ready until it's over :)

The clock is ticking, and the seating capacity is dwindling fast! So don’t delay and purchase your ticket now:

https://studiumgenerale.stager.co/shop/wilde

And we will see you soon, beautiful and human life stories in tow, in Erasmus Pavilion!

Written by Anna Galtsova, a dedicated Writing Committee member!

You can find Anna on Instagram: @gal.tsova