Everyone knows the story of Lewis Carroll Alice in Wonderland, but the adaptations in the 21st century are pretty uncommon. What’s sadly not uncommon anymore are terrorists attacks all around the globe. In large gatherings of people, around monuments or in calm places, just to set their foot. This version of Alice is one of those. A woman, Alice, lost her husband to a terrorist attack in the grocery store of their cozy neighbourhood. She goes on the Italy trip they planned together, and her husband, Ever, appears to her as an entity. The design of the set was meant to represent the narrow path on the side of the mountain Alice was visiting, so the actors didn’t have a love of space to move around. To me, the lightning used didn’t match well the plot, since it was a dim light, like if it was meant to pretend a sundown, but it was repeated multiple times that it was the early afternoon. The amount of space between the stage and the audience was especially small, as well as the room itself. It did made the audience feel closer to the actors, but so did it made an unappreciated proximity in the audience. Every single sound, laugh or commentary expressed by the people in the room were really disturbing, which made me lose my focus on the play in multiple occasions. Although, a big thumbs up to the actors who, I don't know how, managed to remain unbothered by the people constantly talking during their performance. The play itself was disturbing in some ways. It engaged with difficult subjects, such as terrorism, death of a loved one, grief and the confrontation of one’s fears. There were beautiful metaphors within the play to illustrate these difficult subjects. Basically, Alice’s path was to go from one side of the mountain to the other. She stopped in the middle of her journey, and that is were Ever started to appear to her. The character is reminded frequently, first by the spirit of Ever and then by a bypassed later on, that at this point, going back was as long as going further on. The trip represented her journey with the grief of her husband. With all the progression she has made so far (leaving her home, travelling, etc.), she is at the “middle” of her grief. If she started to isolate herself again, fear everything and living with the constant thought of “what if”, she’d be going back on the same path she has already taken. Of course, it is also reminded that a grief doesn’t really have an ending, the loved one will always be missed, but life still goes on for the living. I really like that metaphor, because it made a valid point and was expressed really well, even thought death is a rather difficult subject.
