The Box That Dared to Be Theatre: A Reflection on Ontroerend Goed's 'Handle With Care'
There’s something undeniably provocative about a theatre production that dares to strip itself bare. No director, no professional actors, no elaborate set—just a box. That’s the premise of Ontroerend Goed’s Handle With Care, and it’s as intriguing as it is polarizing. Personally, I think this is where the genius lies: in its audacity to challenge what we consider ‘theatre.’ But does it succeed? That’s a question I’m still grappling with, and it’s what makes this piece so worth discussing.
The Box as Director: A Radical Experiment
At the heart of Handle With Care is a simple yet profound idea: the audience becomes the performer, guided by instructions from a box. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it flips the traditional power dynamic of theatre. The audience isn’t just watching; they’re creating. But here’s the catch: the result is often chaotic, sometimes awkward, and rarely polished. It’s like watching a group of strangers improvise a play on the spot—which, in essence, they are.
From my perspective, this is both the strength and the weakness of the production. On one hand, it’s a refreshing reminder that theatre doesn’t need grandeur to exist. On the other, it leaves you wondering: is this truly theatre, or just a well-structured group activity? What many people don’t realize is that the line between the two is blurrier than we think. Handle With Care forces us to confront that ambiguity, and that’s where its value lies.
The Global Footprint: A Tapestry of Shared Humanity?
One of the most intriguing aspects of the show is its incorporation of past performances from Sweden to Hong Kong to Australia. The box carries traces of these earlier iterations, creating a sense of continuity and shared experience. But does this really illuminate our ‘shared humanity,’ as the production suggests? Personally, I’m skeptical.
What this really suggests is that while we may follow the same instructions, our interpretations and executions are wildly different. It’s less about unity and more about diversity. If you take a step back and think about it, the show inadvertently highlights how culture, context, and individual personalities shape our interactions. That, to me, is far more interesting than any claim of universal connection.
The Climax: Smashing the Box
By the end of the performance, the box—once the central figure—is unceremoniously destroyed. It’s stepped on, slammed against railings, and left in pieces. This raises a deeper question: what does this act of destruction symbolize? Is it a rejection of the constraints the box imposes, or a celebration of the chaos it unleashed?
In my opinion, it’s both. The box is a tool, a catalyst for something larger, but it’s also a limitation. Its destruction feels like a statement: theatre doesn’t need a box, but it also doesn’t need the traditional trappings we’ve come to expect. What this really suggests is that theatre is whatever we make of it—even if that means breaking the rules.
The Economics of Minimalism
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: this is an economical production. Ontroerend Goed has essentially created a show that requires minimal resources. A detail that I find especially interesting is how this contrasts with their previous work, like £¥€$ (LIES), which was both high-stakes and high-budget. Handle With Care feels like a deliberate counterpoint, a flex of creativity over capital.
But here’s the thing: while it’s impressive, it’s not as satisfying. The lack of polish, the reliance on audience participation, and the absence of a clear narrative arc make it feel more like an experiment than a fully realized piece of theatre. For anything more than a trite distraction, as the original review notes, people need much more than a box.
The Future of Theatre: A Box Too Far?
So, where does this leave us? Handle With Care is undoubtedly a bold statement, but it’s also a reminder of the limitations of minimalism. Theatre, at its core, is about storytelling, and while this production achieves a certain level of unrehearsed authenticity, it falls short in delivering a cohesive narrative.
What this really suggests is that the future of theatre might not lie in stripping it down to its bare essentials but in finding new ways to blend tradition with innovation. Personally, I think Handle With Care is a stepping stone, not a destination. It challenges us to rethink what theatre can be, but it also reminds us why the classics endure.
Final Thoughts
As I reflect on Handle With Care, I’m struck by its ambition and its flaws. It’s a production that demands to be discussed, debated, and dissected. What makes it particularly fascinating is how it forces us to question our own assumptions about art, performance, and human connection.
In the end, is it a success? From my perspective, it depends on what you’re looking for. If you want a polished, emotionally resonant experience, this isn’t it. But if you’re willing to embrace the chaos, the ambiguity, and the sheer audacity of the concept, Handle With Care offers something unique.
One thing that immediately stands out is how it lingers in your mind long after the box is smashed. And perhaps, in a world where theatre often feels safe and predictable, that’s the greatest achievement of all.
