Tag Archives: Lauren Gunderson

The Half-Life of Marie Curie

18 Jun

It’s the summer of 1912, and Marie Curie’s good friend and colleague Hertha Ayrton invites her to England to escape the scandal that threatens to destroy her.

Curie has had an affair with a married man, and so now she’s not only a two time Nobel laureate, but also a home-wrecker. The second of these monikers, it would seem, trumps the first. (It can be difficult to believe the misogynistic, hypocritical rage directed at Curie. Or it should be. Unfortunately, history proffers too many examples.)

The wonder of Lauren Gunderson’s play is – that with a focus on this one brief historical moment, and with only two characters – she creates something of incredible beauty and richness.

The critique of the patriarchy is suitably sharp, but even more stimulating is the representation of the complexity of female relationships.

Firstly, there’s a depth to their experience of men. Institutionally, socially, at large, men are unjust: fearful little soulless moustached marionettes, incapable of granting women equality. But on a personal level, both women, now widows, have had husbands who were the best of humankind. William Ayrton called his wife BG (beautiful genius) and Pierre Curie refused a Nobel Prize unless it was shared with his wife. Even Paul, the married man who Curie loves, for all his vacillation, offers an undeniable joy. And it’s worth noting that Ayrton has taken her first name from a poem by a man: “Hertha” by Algernon Swinbourne. His poem, she says, gave her the courage to believe in her own worth as a woman.

And secondly – for those concerned the play might not pass the Bechdel Test – (it does, with flying colours) – the friendship between the two woman themselves is portraited brilliantly. There’s fierce loyalty and honest admiration. There’s shared humour (and whisky) and the glory of two top class minds in conversation. But there’s also an unspoken (delightful and light-touched) homoeroticism. And there’s an argy-bargy that sails awfully close to bullying. Ayrton asserts that Curie is strong, is resilient, can transcend the scandal – but she asserts it just a little too often. Curie is wounded. She doesn’t know who she is anymore, and being told you’re an otherworldly goddess, when you’re feeling so very human, is akin to erasure.

Directed by Liesel Badorrek, Gabrielle Scawthorn and Rebecca Massey give utterly engaging performances. They play each note of Gunderson’s script with a meticulous awareness of its possibilities, bringing to the fore both the delicious humour and the deep humanity. Scawthorn’s Curie is a terrific portrait of power in pain, fraught but ever able to inspire awe. Massey’s Ayrton is beautiful bustle, fire-hearted affection, and no nonsense determination. On a stripped back stage, the physicality of the actors is paramount, and these two are extraordinary: powerfully embodying both suffering and exultation.

(This is probably the time to mention design. James Browne provides a raised transparent podium, which can be encircled by a transparent curtain. It’s spare but layered, aligning with a script that presents a seemingly single, simple historical moment only to reveal its complexity. The choices of lighting designer Verity Hampson and projection designer Cameron Smith wonderfully evoke this complexity – as well as the unseen physical forces that these two scientists explored.)

I was saying Curie is feeling so very human – with all the vulnerabilities and vagaries that entails. And that’s why Gunderson chooses this moment to set her play. Gender tensions might be crucial to the piece, but so is another tension: that between the supposed objectivity of science and the unavoidable subjectivity of the people who work in it. Curie says she loves science, but not scientists. Both women muse on the fact that proof is real, but recognition is political.

And just as the tension between the sexes is represented with a humane richness, so is this tension between knowledge and its knowers. The women’s belief in inviolable proof is undercut by their greatest conflict. The spoiler rule prevents me giving detail about the moment, but the tension is one in which scientific findings are disputed, where two passionate, intelligent women debate when – and if – knowledge can ever become complete. Truth maybe immutable, but Science remains an all too human endeavour.

Constructed from such vital tensions, and presented with such mastery, Ensemble’s production of The Half-Life of Marie Curie is superb theatre.

Paul Gilchrist

The Half-Life of Marie Curie by Lauren Gunderson

at Ensemble Theatre until 12 July

ensemble.com.au

Image by Prudence Upton

Silent Sky

26 Apr

This is an engaging production of an extraordinarily beautiful play.

Written in 2011 by American playwright Lauren Gunderson, Silent Sky tells the story of astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt. Despite the patriarchal prejudices of the early 20th Century, Leavitt made paradigm-shifting discoveries in her field.

Her work was crucial in determining the distance to faraway stars and has helped us appreciate that our Milky Way is merely one galaxy among many. Thanks to her, and those who developed her insights, we’ve been offered intimations of the true majesty of the universe.

Though obviously critical of misogyny, Gunderson does not reduce Leavitt to a woman solely defined by this challenge. The play is an enchanting exploration of vital ideas, ones that offer liberation beyond the passing evil of patriarchy. For simplicity, I’ll reduce these ideas to two, what I’ll call the two ‘P’s’.

The first of these ‘P’s’ is patterns. Like all scientists, Leavitt worked on the assumption that if the universe is to be comprehensible, we must find its patterns. The trick is to find the right pattern. Or, perhaps more importantly, not to commit to the wrong pattern. (Patriarchal prejudices are a perfect example of commitment to the wrong pattern, exacerbated by the fact that this misplaced conviction is ultimately self-fulfilling. If women have not proved great scientists, any assertion that they can’t be is indubitably one of the reasons they haven’t been.) True wisdom consists in being able to see patterns, but also in being able to see more than patterns. In philosophy, it’s the perennial battle between the systemisers and the existentialists, between those who are committed to a grand theory that explains all existence and those who are constantly startled into an invigorating awareness by existence’s inexplicability.

The other ‘P’ is perspective. Leavitt’s insight that helped calculate the distance to the stars was one of perspective: Does a star appear bright because it’s close? Or does it appear close because it’s bright? I won’t spend time explaining the science with which Leavitt solved this problem – but the playwright does it with a splendid lightness of touch that leaves her tale utterly accessible to all. And the motif of perspective is threaded cleverly through the entire work. Einstein’s theory of relativity – at the time new, fresh and controversial – reminds both the characters and the audience that no perspective can be automatically privileged. Perspective is about being maturely aware that you will inevitably suffer from bias, an unavoidable consequence of seeing the world from a particular place. And Gunderson uses the gentle friction between Leavitt and her sister to highlight the concept of perspective in a slightly different way. Margaret says You would think a world war would make the stars seem trivial only to be answered with You would think the stars would make a world war seem trivial. At another moment, Leavitt asserts Life is about being appropriately upset. Perspective is not just the awareness that there are competing points of view; it’s also about keeping one’s own multifarious experiences in mature relation to each other (what is commonly referred to as keeping things in perspective.)      

But I don’t want to give the impression the script is heavy – it’s not at all, it’s gloriously rich. Gunderson’s brilliance in telling this tale of magical wonder is that her touch is gentle, humorous and heart-warming, as soft as starlight.

Except for a couple of hiccups that can be put down to opening night gremlins, director Tracey Okeby Lucan’s production is captivating. The Theatre on Chester is a proscenium arch, but the limitations of this type of theatre are turned by Okeby Lucan into opportunities. The depth of the stage facilitates an appropriate sense of vastness, aided by deft lighting by Mike Brew and Milo McDermird and evocative design by Michael Arvithis and Okeby Lucan.

The cast do some great work. Angela Pezzano captures magnificently Leavitt’s determination and wonder. The scenes with her sister, played by Tida Dhanommitrapap, are sweet. As Peter, David Eisenhauer navigates the journey from nemesis to admirer and beyond with likeable humour. As Leavitt’s two colleagues, Annie and Williamina, Julie Moore and Anna Desjardins are excellent: Moore creating a gravitas inclusive of tenderness, and Desjardins a delightful, mischievous playfulness.

Paul Gilchrist

Silent Sky by Lauren Gunderson

At the Theatre on Chester until 17 May

theatreonchester.com.au

Image by Carla Moore