Archive | Responses to Plays RSS feed for this section

We Have Stolen Our Bodies From God

11 Apr

In so many ways, I’m not the person to write about this show. I routinely refuse invitations to musical performances with the excuse It’s outside my area of expertise. No doubt this leaves publicists shaking their heads, thinking Expertise? You’re a theatre critic for God’s sake, not a brain surgeon! Just whack some stars on it, and go and guzzle more free champagne at your next show!

Matthew Forbes has composed a series of musical pieces. It’s described in the notes as a song cycle or live concept album. The pieces are marvellously eclectic in style, indicative of Forbes’ extraordinary talent. Forbes plays guitar and synthesiser, and he’s put together a super tight band. Particularly impressive (to a non-musician such as myself) were the vocal performances of Olivia Tajer and Felix Staas.

The 40 minute show shines with musical gems.

The space itself, the Upstairs Studio at Shopfront, is beautiful. Softly and warmly lit, it has a magical ambience, one promising the stuff of dreams.

And now I have to describe what the piece is about.

The title is wonderfully rich, evocative and provocative. (But I’m not quite sure of its intended meaning, or whether it’s deliberately – and beguilingly – ambiguous.)

Is the piece conventional in its presentation of religion?

It seems to source the Abrahamic traditions: there’s talk of a creator God, and there’s a sense that we’ve been left as custodians of this fragile planet.

But there’s also talk of space and of visitors. One track samples a small child saying something like God is someone who rules the world  … (and then something about) Outer Space. (It’s a quote I really should be able to remember, as it’s repeated numerous times, with increasing poignancy.)

Excepting blasphemy, Australians are generally very literal in their use of religious language. In many other cultures, writers comfortably evoke God without fear that it automatically commits them to the theological tenets of some religion. Religious language is employed to suggest or symbolise the grand, the awe inspiring, the universal. Sometimes, it can feel like the only language big enough for these things. Albert Einstein was famous for using religious language in this way. His oft quoted comment, expressing his objection to quantum theory, that God does not play dice, was simply an assertion that mere chance couldn’t be fundamental to the fabric of the universe. He was saying nothing that we unsophisticated Australians would interpret as religious.

With this piece, I’m uncertain whether Forbes is doing an Einstein, or whether he is genuinely discussing theological ideas. I wasn’t even sure if there was a narrative.

Live performance of original music always has the risk that your audience won’t follow the lyrics. (Indeed, anyone who’s written a straight play exploring anything other than cookie cutter conventional themes knows the danger that the audience won’t keep up. It’s enough to leave a writer questioning whether live performance is, after all, the best form in which to present her art.)

The production values of this show are first rate, so it’s not a technical problem. (Of course, it could be just a me problem; remember how I began this review.)

It might just be the nature of this gloriously rich piece that it asks to be listened to multiple times, and then it will reward its audience a hundred fold.

Still, the 40 minutes I spent last night with Forbes and his team were reward enough.

Paul Gilchrist

We Have Stolen Our Bodies From God by Matthew Forbes

Forbes was mentored by Jack Prest, and the piece is presented as part of ArtsLab: Reverb, a program from Shopfront Arts that showcases the talents of emerging artists.

Until 12 April at Shopfront

shopfront.org.au (for tix and full program)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Mummy, I’m Scared

11 Apr

This is a work of craziness and true comic commitment.

Set in the late nineteenth century, it tells the story of a family of women intent on summoning a spirit via a séance.

I call it a story – and for the show’s 50 minute duration, the plot works very effectively – but it’s really just a fast moving vehicle for some humorous hijinks.

It’s a three hander, written by Fia Morrison, and performed by Morrison, and her co-collaborators Alison Cooper and Georgia Condon.

There’s a lot of doubling, and this adds to the show’s enormous verve.

All three performers display great physicality, and Morrison herself excels in the type of magical facial expression that’s gloriously hyperbolic and glowing with mischievous energy. (Rather than the Theatre of Authenticity, this is the Theatre of Audacity, inviting an audience response of I can’t believe you’re actually doing that!)

All three performers have thrilling, distinctive vocal styles, and use these to mine and shine the comic nuance of Morrison’s lively script. Cooper is particularly adept at the throwaway gag. (Admittedly, at times, I lost lines from all three actors, but in a show like this, that’s always a risk courted for the sake of sheer exuberance.)

The historical setting makes sense of the focus on seances and the supernatural. The world weariness of fin de siècle society, with its rejection of traditional religion and its growing awareness of the inadequacy of any substitutes, encouraged the most audacious of spiritual experiments.

But the setting also facilitates key aspects of the show’s humour and impact.

Somewhere in the last hundred years or so, the acting fraternity has developed a way of portraying (faux) late Victorian and Edwardian historical characters, one epitomised by a thoroughly declarative vocal style. (It’s one of the styles employed in this production.) Where does it come from? Perhaps it’s our shared response to amateur theatre’s penchant for quaint old drawing-room dramas. Or perhaps, more broadly, it’s modernism’s response to the era that preceded it. Virginia Woolf famously quipped “on or about December 1910, human character changed”. But from wherever the trope derives, the declarative style we routinely give to historical characters is a delightful and deliberate denial of their inner life. And in this consciously comic erasure of psychological complexity, the performers themselves gift us a playfully subversive reminder of genuine human vitality.

Paul Gilchrist

Mummy, I’m Scared by Fia Morrison

Morrison was mentored by Mish Grigor, and the piece is presented as part of ArtsLab: Reverb, a program from Shopfront Arts that showcases the talents of emerging artists.

Until 12 April at Shopfront

shopfront.org.au (for tix and full program)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

These Youths Be Protesting

10 Apr

Aye, they do be protesting.

I’m not sure why the title of this one is in Pirate. The rest of the play is not, and that’s probably a wise decision, as it’s set in contemporary Australia, me hearties. (Yes, I’ve got to admit, I’ve been fighting the temptation to write my response entirely in the language of the buccaneer. After all, in a flat, consumerist society such as our own, what is any serious theatre review but some quaint, seemingly old-fashioned, musty document … but one that shows the way to hidden treasure?)

And this play, written and directed by Izabella Louk, certainly has its treasures.

I’m guessing it’s inspired by the student climate crisis protests of a few years ago, where young people quite understandably answered criticism that they should be in school with the assertion they’d like to be, if only the adults would do their job and protect the planet.

All the characters in this play are fifteen and, surprisingly, that’s the source of its strength.

Louk and her talented cast nail the high energy of youth, and the piece is fast-paced and very funny. Karrine Kanaan as the bossy would-be school captain offers a terrific satirical portrait of the obsession with self-advancement. Rachel Thomas’ Georgie is hilariously prim, and her journey to independence fascinating. Hamish Alexander’s Jimbo is slow-witted and good-hearted, great fun and greatly inspiring. Mây Tran’s Mandi is the serious heart of the play, and her impassioned speech about the challenges and necessities of political engagement is deeply affecting. But the script also gives Mandi plenty of scathing sarcasm, and Tran delivers it with delicious bite.

In these four characterisations, there’s a real sense of the dreams and doubts of youth.

But in making all the characters fifteen, doesn’t the play risk being about being fifteen? Is it a creative decision that threatens to overwhelm the more pressing issue of climate change?

Perhaps. Louk’s script reveals a maturity of political vision that belies its dramatis personae. The challenges of political action are candidly presented: How do you deal with those who support your cause but do so for selfish or stupid reasons? How do you work with people who claim to have the same goal as you but demand a different strategy? How do you not hate those who oppose your cause or, even more provokingly, seem entirely oblivious to it? How do you cope with the hate directed at you?

These challenges are not presented to dissuade us from political action, but to clarify what it is. Despite the current rhetoric, everything is not political. There are the things we can only do alone and there are the things we can only do together. The second of these clauses describes the political sphere of life, and its key word is together. Learning how to do things with other people is the key to political action.

This might seem naïve and simplistic, but this recognition of the true nature of politics is invaluable. The play may portray children, but many adult Australians appear to believe they’re being politically engaged when they’re merely spouting opinions. By representing the political sphere of life as it is first encountered by a group of teenagers – as they first learn to work together – the adults in the audience are gently, and surreptitiously, given a lesson in political maturity. (It’s a trick Harper Lee uses to great effect in To Kill A Mockingbird.)

On an even plainer level, the play’s exclusive representation of youth has an irresistible emotional impact. In regard to that most critical of issues, climate change, reason alone should prompt action, but the sight of fear in the eyes of a child is a powerful motivator.

Paul Gilchrist

These Youths Be Protesting by Izabella Louk

Presented by Blinking Light Theatre, in association with bAKEHOUSE Theatre

At KXT until 19 April

kingsxtheatre.com

Image by Karla Elbourne

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Rex

8 Apr

Jasper Lee-Lindsay’s one actor show is a 40 minute abbreviated version of Sophocles’ Theban plays.

Well, that was the plan.

What we get instead, as recompense, is a PowerPoint outlining the show he was going to write, if he’d finished it.

It’s a terrific conceit, allowing for brilliant humour and yet, surprisingly, still capturing the essence of the Ancient Greek tragedies.

Initially, the projector screen isn’t in place, and Lee-Lindsay’s mumbling, bumbling incompetence is juxtaposed to great effect with the quick action of the stage manager.

As Lee-Lindsay outlines the show that was to be, his comic timing is excellent. This is self-effacing, self-depreciating humour, beautifully delivered.

It’s not stand up, it’s a character piece. There’s whiff of Bob Newhart about it all (which shows my age, unless of course Newhart ages as well as Sophocles, and then I won’t be old, but erudite.)

Why Sophocles’ tragedies? Lee-Lindsay suggests the plague and crisis that hit Thebes resonate with the last few years in world affairs. And the title is a pun. Everything is wrecked.

Not that Lee-Lindsay articulates it, but there’s also the train wreck of this show. As I suggested earlier, it mischievously manifests the Ancient Greek tragic spirit: it’s fated that things will go terribly wrong; despite all our hopes, the universe is fundamentally, and incomprehensibly, hostile.

And there’s also the hint of what we call Shakespearean tragedy. Does the persona that Lee-Lindsay creates have a flaw which plays a part in that persona’s demise? Is that flaw ADHD? (That’s if a mental disorder can even be a flaw, in the way that, say, ambition is for Macbeth.) The possibility is aired but then, just as quickly, buried by fear. Hasn’t he read somewhere that the disorder might not even be real? It’s both a hilarious and moving portrait of debilitating doubt.

The world is big and we are small – and born of that eternal yawning disparity is bewilderment and pathos and pity and resignation and compassion and mercy and acceptance and … recognition. (Oh, and humour. Lots of that.)

Lee-Lindsay was mentored by Zoe Coombs-Marr, and the piece is presented as part of ArtsLab: Reverb, a program from Shopfront Arts that showcases the talents of emerging artists.

ShopFront proves once again to be an invaluable part of our arts scene.

Paul Gilchrist

Rex written and performed by Jasper Lee-Lindsay

presented as part of ArtsLab at Shopfront until 12 April

shopfront.org.au (for tix and full festival program)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Dear Elena Sergeevna

4 Apr

This is an absolute cracker of a play.

Written by Lyudmila Razumovskay in the 1980’s in the Soviet Union, it’s a masterclass in building tension.

Four senior high school students arrive at the home of their teacher on her birthday. She is surprised. The students bear gifts, and one dubious request.

This is a classic battle-of-the-generations tale. Elena stands for an idealism which the students think is quaint and naïve. Elena thinks the younger generation are cynical materialists. We are your children, they tell her.

What makes this exploration of intergenerational conflict so rich is that Razumovskay makes it obvious that it’s not simply a matter of conflicting intellectual fashions. She recognises it’s also about power. The younger generation are fighting, not just for a new vision of the world, but for ownership of it. (It’s been suggested elsewhere that one reason Stalin’s purges didn’t lead to the total collapse of Communist Russia, despite their seeming irrationality and their certain brutality, is that there were sufficient young people who knew they would benefit. The murdered fill unmarked graves, but leave vacant more coveted positions.)

In this case, the young people want what they want, and one weapon they use to get it is to suggest Elena’s ethics are old fashioned, out of touch with hard reality. Anyone of a certain age is familiar with this strategy, only now the trick has been updated so that the younger generation’s claim is that they are more moral than their elders.

But it’s really about power. Volodya, the student ringleader, says it explicitly.

Volodya is a terrific portrait of a talented, dangerous young man. Once again, in tribute to the richness of the play, Volodya’s suggestion that his generation are the inheritors and natural development of Communism has sufficient a ring of Truth to make it perfect material for drama. (Out of the crooked timber of humanity….) With the collapse of the traditional religious consensus in Europe in the nineteenth century, the cry Everything is Permitted was heard in the winds that urged change. No longer was Communism, or any other political philosophy, to be restricted by old parochial moralities. If you had to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, you had to crack a few eggs. But it proved only a small step from Everything is Permitted to Everything is Possible. With the right planning, the right organisation, anything could be achieved. Hannah Arendt has observed this is a core belief of totalitarian movements. And Volodya has learnt from the masters. He comes to Elena’s apartment determined to make her give into their will. His friends will gain materially if she submits, but for him it’s just the thrill of dominance. (Those familiar with 1984 will see a whiff of the villain O’Brien about him.)

This production, directed by Clara Voda, makes some bold, thrilling decisions. Fitting the societal interrogation which is the play’s purpose, Voda goes for an ultra-realistic style of performance. This means the talented cast achieve an impressive level of authenticity (especially considering they all play characters substantially different in age to themselves.) Faisal Hamza as Volodya is particularly frightening, exuding the type of allure usually reserved for rattle snakes. Madeline Li as Lyalya captures the pathos-inducing, innocent arrogance of youth. As Pasha, Toby Carey nails that quiet sense of entitlement that screams ignorance – and its usual attendant, moral myopia. Harry Gilchrist as the group goof is likeable when required and threatening when not. Teodora Matović as Elena portrays a spiritual strength in the face of rising panic.

The ultra-realism of the production does have drawbacks. Sight lines are sometimes obstructed, and vocal delivery, while aiming for verisimilitude, occasionally slips into inaudibility.    

Paul Gilchrist

Dear Elena Sergeevna by Lyudmila Razumovskaya

produced by Last Waltz Productions

at the Old Fitz until 11 April

oldfitztheatre.com.au

Image by Noah David Perry

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Lotto Line

3 Apr

This is seriously committed crazy.

Written by John Tsakiris, and directed by Megan Heferen and Tsakiris, The Lotto Line presents five people waiting in line to buy tickets in a lottery. They don’t seem interested in winning. Once the outlet closes, they wait for it to reopen. Time stops.

Absurdist theatre is a funny form. Some would say that it doesn’t so much reflect Life’s meaninglessness as actively add to it.

And it’s a brave team who presents a play in which Time stops. Of course, theatre reviewers are never catty or petty, but if they were, it’d be one hell of a temptation.

And perhaps only a youthful team could produce a play in which the halting of Time – the having to Wait – is presented as a fundamental human experience.

That’s what absurdism does: in convention-shattering ways, it tries to express something about the human condition. It’s transgressive spirit means that it especially values innovation (in fact, some commentators might suggest that the only thing absurdist plays have in common is that they’re all longer than they need to be.)

To suggest a formula, absurdism is where the Theatre of Audacity (I can’t believe you’re doing that!) combines with the Theatre of Authenticity (I totally believe what you’re doing.) It’s an absolutely explosive mixture.

I’ve already suggested I struggled to connect with the authenticity of this piece, but neither my personal limitations nor my impatience with decoding should get in the way of discussing its audacity.

In terms of physicality, performances are super tight. The choreographed movement that suggests these characters are slaves to routine is wonderfully executed. Jess Spies as the Lotto Master is a terrific counterpoint, engendering a swaggering superiority.

When those who Wait individualise themselves from the group, there’s more skilled comedy. Larissa Turton’s gruff crazy cat lady is splendid. Holly Mazzola’s clever, particular and prematurely middle-aged woman is a masterclass in focus. Jonathon Nicola’s petulant pedant is engaging fun. As Mr Horner, James Thomasson balances well the eternal battle between frustration and hope. Megan Heferen’s imperious, supercilious Ms Atkins drives much of the piece.

On occasions, there could be more care with vocal work. There were moments when I was afraid I’d be reduced to recommending this show to only enthusiasts of screeching. And, unfortunately, some of the mischievous linguistic humour was lost in delivery. But there’s a neat trick where characters swap vocal styles, and Turton and Mazzola pull it off with aplomb.

The Lotto Line is a playful puzzle, a nonsensical 90 minutes, an invitation to laugh.

Paul Gilchrist

The Lotto Line by John Tsakiris

Presented by Studio Five Productions

At Flow Studios until 12 April

events.humanitix.com/the-lotto-line

Image by Patrick Phillips

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Amber

2 Apr

This is a consciously cartoon-candy confection.

It’s both deliciously sweet and deceptively sophisticated.

Ostensibly, it tells the story of a young woman seeking the One.

Amber openly acknowledges that this relationship-focussed worldview derives from the rom-coms of Nora Ephron and Richard Curtis, the sit-com Friends, the Twilight series and Peter Pan.

Her journey to secure love is presented with terrific humour and true heart.

This is not new territory; it’s standard fare of fringe shows around the world. But this piece gloriously transcends that genre, offering something as provocative as it is playful.

Firstly (and because of my reference to fringe, I should make this clear) the production values are excellent. Director Mehhma Malhi understands the gem of a show she has and allows it to shine. The set by Hailley Hunt is suitably puckish, replete with panels that slide to reveal mischievous surprises. The lighting by Isobel Morrissey is dominated by hues of pink and mauve, wonderfully suggestive of the girlish dreams of the protagonist, but it’s also constructed from a plethora of states that reflect and enhance the bubbly bounce of her narrative.

Secondly, writer and performer Nikita Waldron is brilliant. With a vibrant charm, she breaks the fourth wall, and with self-deprecating humour expresses Amber’s dismay when reality doesn’t align with her chosen narrative. In her scenes with the other characters – the men in her life and her best friend – she creates an Amber who is a superb portrait of the bewilderment of youth, certain and insecure, outward looking but still mesmerised by the miracle of self.

The supporting cast are splendid. As the men, Harry Stacey, Ashan Kumar and Kurt Ramjan all move between characters with impressive versatility, and Esha Jessy as Amber’s best friend, Gabby, is an engaging mix of support and sarcasm.

If you’ve read this far, you might still be wondering what lifts this piece above rom-com. Waldron’s script, for all its seeming fluffy fun, takes on some extraordinarily large concepts. (And, no, I don’t mean socio-political ones. So much new work by early playwrights purports to do this, but these plays are rarely constructed in a way that allows more than the airing of slogans and so, despite aspiring to transgression, remain wholly conventional. Not that Waldron ignores the socio-political. Amber asks in the first scene Am I a bad feminist? and then moves on to bigger game. Race gets similar treatment; in a later scene, at a late-night kebab shop, there’s a hysterical pun, and then we’re off again.)

The big game the show hunts is narrative itself. Amber is clearly trying to make her life fit a story, but the play addresses this all-too-human habit on levels far beyond what the packaging might suggest.

Let me mention just a few instances.

Amber is Catholic. And she talks to God. (He retains his usual reticence.) But, she asks, and – in a way – receives. Several people in her life question her faith, people she deeply loves, and she openly admires their atheism. She doubts her faith herself. But she’s loathe to let it go. Let a story go and you have to replace it, and this one she knows. (Quite understandably, Catholicism has got a bad rap recently. But for all its institutional crimes, and for all its focus on guilt, there’s a song of joy tucked away in there – as there is in so many religious traditions – and it’s owned eternally, not by the hierarchy, but by souls like Amber. Without in anyway being overtly or conventionally religious, this play and this production sing with that joy.)

We’re not being asked to agree with Amber’s religious choices, but we’re shown a character entirely conscious that she’s navigating a grand narrative. (It’s one of the dullest and most disappointing of modern phenomena that educated individuals will reject some grand narrative or other and then tell themselves they’re now realists – which is just another story, one still unconscious of itself. A digression: Catherine of Siena, or one of the other medieval mystics, was once asked whether her visions appeared in the real world or in her imagination? With soul-expanding sanity, she responded, In my imagination, of course. The real world is only known through story.)

The play’s focus on narrative is emphasised by the choice to make Amber, and one of her most important male friends, career storytellers. She’s a novelist, he’s a film-maker. Narrative is something to take seriously.

And the final instance highlighting that the play is, in fact, a profound and rewarding exploration of the phenomenon of narrative is the plot turn that takes it beyond standard rom-com territory: the experience of grief.

We construct narratives to make some sense of the living, to create some stability that might survive their incorrigible dynamism, that perpetual becoming that is the hallmark of the Other. But when they are gone, our narratives are no longer challenged. And so we forget that they are constructed fictions, and they diminish into mere illusion.

Faced with grief, Amber must learn this. And as she does, we’re offered a deeply affecting reminder of the power, pleasure and purpose of story.

Paul Gilchrist

Amber by Nikita Waldron

presented by essential workers,

at Old Fitz until 11 April

oldfitztheatre.com.au

Image by Phil Erbacher

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saints of Damour

31 Mar

Written by James Elazzi, this is new work, but it’s a historical piece, with everything occurring forty to fifty years ago.

And it’s set in Lebanon, rural Queensland, and Sydney.

This is big storytelling, and it’s terrific to see it on one of our stages (and the Loading Dock and Qtopia deserve credit for giving space to such stories.)

But Saints of Damour is also small storytelling; we’re very much focussed on Pierre, his mother, his wife and his lover. The big historical events remain in the background. (The dramatic form doesn’t make this inevitable, but very different creative decisions would’ve had to been made on the script level if a grand historical drama was to be offered.)

The title is a tease: are these characters saints?

Sure, they feel the weight of duty, especially to family, but they’re also quite prepared to behave in ways that cause serious pain to others. Migrants in a new country, they stick together, but the dust of dishonesty dirties everything. It’s a long time before Pierre’s homosexuality is acknowledge or accepted by anyone except his lover. And Pierre’s decision to not reveal his sexual orientation to his wife before their marriage – even privately – seems unnecessarily cruel.

Are we victims of our circumstances or can we rise above them? That’s the fundamental question the play posits (though I’m not sure if it posits it consciously.)

We talk a lot about theatre that makes us feel seen.

And this narrative feels as though it’s attempting to be true to some particular personal history. I say this because it sprawls, as though it’s trying to capture what actually happened to someone.

Seemingly superfluous to a story, the family spend several years in Goondiwindi. They buy land and try sheep farming, though they’ve had no previous experience. They also open a small shop in town and an ad runs in the local paper telling residents to boycott them. These challenges are not especially developed in the script, it’s as though it’s sufficient they are recorded. Witness needs to be borne. (A similar recording of what appears to be actual events happens when the family move to Sydney: an Anglo-Australian who has lived in this city his entire life, and who has the privilege of a tertiary education, says he’s never seen the Blue Mountains. It seems so unlikely that it has to be based on the truth.)

Ironically, this sense of truth being recorded is emphasised by the play’s treatment of major historical events. Big issues are, oddly, given short shrift; they’re outside the parameters of a story dedicated to documenting personal lived experience. For example, the gay lovers believe they will have more freedom in a Western country, which is probably true, but when Pierre gets to Australia no mention is made of the fact homosexuality remains illegal or that the battle to change that injustice is being fought. It’s outside this story’s scope. Similarly, the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War is the impetus for the characters’ migration, but the complexity and tragedy of a society tearing itself apart remains curiously offstage. Ethnically, the two lovers are from opposing sides in the conflict, but little is made of this. And, when they’re in Australia, only Pierre is interested in what happens in the homeland, and seemingly only in terms of his lover. No one else seems haunted by the past, or as it is for them, the ongoing present.  

It’s the sort of play where characters, when they’re concerned about who might have survived the conflict in Lebanon, say things like I’m concerned about who might have survived the conflict in Lebanon.

As a whole, the dialogue is lucid and limpid. Or direct and flat. It’s a matter of taste.

There are many quick scenes and, aided by a clean, functional design by James Smithers, director Anthony Skuse creates a beautiful sense of flow.

The cast are imminently watchable. The two lovers (Antony Makhlouf and Saro Lepejian) have a delightful, intense chemistry. Nicole Chamoun as Layla, Pierre’s wife, pitches her performance gorgeously between protest and pathos, while still finding that vital spark of joy. Max Cattana as Todd (who’s never been to the mountains) is splendidly gentle and, in other bit roles, displays a laudable versatility. As Pierre’s mother, Deborah Galanos has a glorious waspish tongue (which she also used on us before the performance, asking us to turn off our mobile phones.) At the finale, her bewildered terror, her explosive anger, is a moment in which the piece realises the dramatic form’s full potential (that is, refusing us any easy, unthinking judgement of the characters.)

Stories that make us feel seen – I suspect many audience members will feel this piece does this in spades.

But the title invites more: it’s a provocative reminder that having our challenges acknowledged does not automatically result in our actions being approved. It would be a pity for the dramatic artform if being seen was allowed to diminish into being justified.  

Paul Gilchrist

Saints of Damour by James Elazzi

At the Loading Dock Theatre until 6 April

qtopiasydney.com.au  

Image by Emma Elias

Tags: , , , , ,

The Glass Menagerie

27 Mar

This is a beautiful production of a superb play.

The Glass Menagerie was first produced in 1944, and it launched Tennessee Williams’ career.

This slightly amended version is a poignant meditation on dreams, memory, and regrets.

Blazey Best is absolutely magnificent as Amanda, matriarch of a small house, evoking both laughter and pathos as she presents the fading southern belle, all attitudes, airs and … anguish. Once, in a single afternoon, she had seventeen gentleman callers. Now she worries for her daughter Laura, who has no gentleman callers at all.

Laura has a slight defect in her leg, but suffers more from her crippling shyness. Her life has reduced to playing records and tending her ornamental glass menagerie. Bridie McKim is brilliant as Laura, portraying perfectly her painfully overwhelming self-consciousness, while still finding those heartrending moments where hope glimmers through.

Tom, Laura’s brother, chafes under the responsibility he has to his fatherless family, and can barely endure his banal warehouse job. He also narrates the play, stepping out of the action to muse on the distance between mundanity and magic, between the average life and the adventurous one. Tom is a partially autobiographical creation; he dreams of being a writer, and his family situation is not unlike that of Williams’ youth. Danny Ball is mesmerising in the role, capturing both Tom’s energy and his desperation.

Tom also rankles under his mother’s insistence he find his sister a beau. The tyranny of women snaps back Amanda, with scathing satire.

He brings Jim to dinner.

Tom Rodgers offers a splendid portrait of Jim, bubbling and brimming with naïve enthusiasm. His scene with McKim’s fraught Laura is dramatic gold.

Liesel Badorrek’s production is a wonderful opportunity to see a classic of the American stage.

Paul Gilchrist

The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams

at Ensemble Theatre until 26 April

ensemble.com.au

Image by Prudence Upton

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Ophelia Thinks Harder

26 Mar

This is high energy feminist fun (with a few scenes that are less fun and more confronting.)

Written by Jean Betts in 1993, it’s an appropriation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, one that places Ophelia centre stage.

Ophelia has feelings for Hamlet, but she can’t pretend he’s not utterly obnoxious. Her father and her brother are far too interested in her virginity. And Gertrude offers unwanted advice about how to live as a woman in a man’s world. (Don’t think too much.)

Betts cleverly weaves elements of the original text into her version of the story. With only a little tweaking, Ophelia gets all Hamlet’s major soliloquys, and they work magnificently. (Though I have to say I was less excited by the interpolation of so many lines from the other plays and the sonnets. Fortunately, my eyes no longer make that clicking sound when they roll. But what I found tiresome, others will find erudite and inventive.)

There’s also an appropriation of a poem by A E Housman, which is intriguing, and anachronistic (though that can hardly matter in a play like this.) It’s a brave writer who puts her words alongside the Bard and possibly the last great popular poet (that is, before modernism alienated the average reader.) But Betts definitely holds her own, and sometimes left me feeling I’d prefer more of her and less of them.

Alex Kendall Robson directs a terrific cast, and the key note is vitality. This is a wise decision; few people come out of a production of Hamlet wishing it were longer. (To stay or not to stay has been pondered at many an intermission. This version, at 150 mins including interval, keeps its engine at full throttle to keep us engaged.)

Brea Macey is superb as Ophelia – but I’ll get back to that.

Shaw Cameron as Hamlet is deliciously brutal, offering an engrossing portrait of the worst of privilege and entitlement. His physicality, especially, is a highlight, being both enthralling and threatening (as hinted in my first paragraph.)

Lucy Miller as Gertrude is a delight. Having accepted the misogyny of her society, the Queen has adopted a transgressive Machiavellianism that makes the character captivating. Many audience members have waited a long, long, long time to see the closet scene with this Gertrude.

Eleni Cassimatis as Ophelia’s maid servant gives the piece a poignant gravity, a terrible, galvanizing awareness of the dangers of this patriarchal world.

Pat Mandziy as Horatio offers a male character beyond the myopic, self-obsession of the other men, and both his performance and his text is crucial for the humane, richness of the work.

I started this article with the bland assertion that this is a feminist piece. Perhaps it occasionally overplays this element. The set is dominated by a painting of the Virgin Mary, and discussion of the history of the Church’s attitude to women gets a lot of stage time, a curious decision considering its all placed in the world of the Elizabethan playwright who was perhaps the most secular (admittedly, in a very religious society.) And this historical focus emphasises the academic. I’m not in a position to comment on whether contemporary women feel the challenges they currently face become more surmountable with the aid of a history lesson, especially one going back to Aristotle, Aquinas and the (aptly named) Church Fathers. I’ve written before that theory has little place in theatre, the form being more suited to the dreadful messiness of human reality than theory’s seductive simplicity.

Having said all that, by positing the protagonist’s problem in sociological or cultural terms, she must respond (at least partially) in kind. The result is that Ophelia has not only an emotional journey, but an intellectual one. 

But the rub is, her response to the theoretical language in which her problems are explained is not to simply regurgitate that language but rather to consider and test how it might inform her life. That is, she thinks – and I, for one, am thrilled to see a thinking character on the Australian stage.

Macey’s Ophelia is glorious, expressing beautifully the conflict between her self-doubt and her fundamental sense of dignity as a person. Macey powerfully presents Ophelia’s growing awareness that, for all her enervating inconsistencies, she deserves more agency than she’s permitted. Betts does well not to make Ophelia some kind of virago; the play is classic bildungsroman, a genre far better fitted to the dramatic form than any platform for slogan sprouting heroines. In the open-ended nature of the conclusion of Ophelia’s journey, there’s a splendid, invigorating optimism.

We know what we are, but know not what we may be.

Paul Gilchrist

Ophelia Thinks Harder by Jean Betts

Presented by Fingerless Theatre, in association with bAKEHOUSE Theatre

At KXT until 29 March

http://kingsxtheatre.com

Image by Phil Erbacher

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →