News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
Who knew that Sir Isaac Newton, the British physicist and mathematician widely regarded as the one of the greatest scientists of all time, was also irritating, foolish, and quite possibly on the brink of insanity? “Isaac’s Eye,” which ran through Saturday at the Adams Pool Theatre, took a different spin on the life of young Isaac Newton and explored the dilemma Newton faced at the start of his scientific career. The play depicted a glimpse of a pivotal time in Newton’s life and illuminated a new understanding that, although Newton left a great scientific legacy behind, his personal journey was somewhat more turbulent. Despite the occasional clumsy dialogue that did not reflect the historical setting, the superb acting under direction of Senikat J. Yusuf ’16 propelled the show to success, ultimately revealing Newton’s underlying search for a fulfilling life.
At first glance, the play seems very minimalistic. The plotline is simple: Newton, desiring to join the renowned Royal Society, becomes entangled in an argument with Robert Hooke on optics, which ultimately leads to a strange experiment in which Newton sticks a needle in his eye. There are only four performers: Todd E. Jones Jr. ’16 as Isaac Newton, Deng-Tung Wang ’17 as Robert Hooke, Lelaina E. Vogel ’15 as Isaac’s female companion Catherine, and Sean K. Hardy ’16 as the narrative character called the Actor. The scenery is also plain: in the center of a nearly empty set rests a wooden chair positioned in front of two adjacent chalkboards. There were almost no scenery changes except for the addition of sound effects such as chirping birds and drizzling rain to emphasize outdoor scenes versus indoor scenes. Yet this minimalism shifted the focus onto the meaningful dialogue and the acting rather than potentially distracting set changes.
The quality of acting itself was impressive and brought to life what could easily have been a bland performance given the lack of action in the play. Jones does a remarkable job portraying Newton as a young man absorbed in his studies. He does not consistently act mature and although Jones brought out the obsessive personality of his character, there were times when he depicted Newton as more of a child than a young man, especially with the bursts of “yay” in his dialogue when he heard good news. Wang was brilliant as Robert Hooke, a well-known scientist of his era with an opium addiction. Vogel put on a superb emotional performance as Catherine; her finest moment was her genuine display of pain and frustration at Newton when she realized he never intended to marry her. As the narrator of the plot, Hardy added a sense of liveliness and spark to the play, driving the storyline forward. All the actors were clearly in sync on stage, and they communicated effortlessly with each other.
The acting was particularly strong during the main conflict of the play, as Newton and Hooke disagreed about the physical state of light. Hooke cruelly dismantles Newton’s ideas, shattering Newton’s hopes to be admitted into the Royal Society. This causes Newton to become so frustrated that he pokes a needle into his eye to prove his own theory that light is a particle, not a wave.
Although the play was well performed and captivating, it was not without its blemishes. There were too many colloquial phrases from modern-day English that did not do justice to the historical setting of Newton’s era. The dialogue was unceremoniously interrupted with phrases such as “for real” and “when Isaac fights, he fights nasty.” Furthermore, there was an unnecessary amount of profanity in the script that was needlessly distracting and made the dialogue seemed forced.
“Isaac’s Eye” was overall nothing short of an impressive performance. Despite its minimal stage design and dialogue that is occasionally historically inaccurate, the high quality of acting brought the production to its full potential and remained engaging until the end.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.