“Lulu” is a story of a person who has no qualms about her body and her sexual needs, which means she able to explore and express her desires without compromise or guilt. She is highly adored and lusted by men and she takes them on a dance of bodily freedom and utter ecstasy. She, in other words, is a whore. But in this adaptation, directed by Dexter Santos with Joel Saracho’s Filipino translation, she becomes a he, a transvestite (wait, we’re not too clear whether he’s a transsexual or a transvestite) who can easily transform men into hungry beasts.

The play has an English version, which I think is more advisable to watch, if you’re a Wedekind newbie but I felt like seeing the Filipino version for the main reason that I barely enjoy plays in English. It was, as I think about it now, a big mistake. You see, Wedekind is a hard play to watch and the harder it is to understand if you are unfamiliar with the original play. For one thing, Lulu is a woman in the original version; here, she’s a transvestite. If you think about the social milieu in the play, you can hardly get why those men go mad about Lulu. It’s simply odd for those upright and honorable men to die for a transvestite Lulu. And the play’s not too successful in this aspect. Lulu’s desirability doesn’t radiate off Mr. Rutaquio’s portrayal and the men that desire him are not too convincing in their delivery.

Dulaang UP’s “Lulu” doesn’t have what I personally call a ‘Filipino experience’ which was present in other plays I’ve seen from a few plays. In Jose Estrella’s “Orfeo sa Impiyerno,” adapted from Tennessee Williams’ “Orpheus Descending” for example, you could feel that the play was set locally not just because Shamaine Buencamino was speaking in Bisaya with believable twang and inflection or that her father was part of the Guerilla movement. It’s very Pinoy. The same can be said in Tanghalang Pilipino’s adaptation of Samuel Beckett’s “Godot Wer is U?” in which Didi and Gogo were waiting for Godo in the slum area, very reminiscent of a squatter’s area in Tondo. Or Luigi Perandello’s “Yun Na Nga Kung Yun Na Nga.”

Even though some of the characters in “Lulu” interact with the audience, asking them questions, i.e., if they want the protagonist live or die or instructing them to shout, there’s very little to engage. If anything, the audience participation is distracting and quite a mess. The dialogues are long, the kind that would make you yawn. Worse, they rather tell than show. Mr. Rutaquio’s blocking creates a feeling of restlessness but it’s tiring. All the hallmarks of Lulu’s character — her implacable cruelty, her seductive power, and the wily manipulation — are not well present in his performance. His set design works well however. Another thing that I don’t understand is the costume design. Alva, for instance, one of Lulu’s lovers, looks like a modern student studying in Ivy League. And oh, there are cowboys and a Dora balloon too.

In the end, the play fails to give a raw, wrenching and eye-opening evocations of human sexuality, which I suppose is the central theme in Wedekind’s provocative masterpiece. But there’s no doubt that the play is brave and shocking, which, sadly, can be attributed to the nudity toward the end.

Nevertheless, it’s an emotionally draining play that made Jacqui and I crave for something sweet. So off we went to Red Ribbon after.

*“Lulu” runs until Aug 23 at the Wilfrido Ma. Guerrero Theater, UP Diliman.