Wednesday, 25 May 2011

2011: I Am My Own Wife by Doug Wright

I Am My Own Wife by Doug Wright.  Performed by Robert Jarman.  Tasmanian Theatre Company at The Street 2, May 18-28 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
May 25

Charlotte von Mahsldorf, 1994
http://en.wikipedia.org

Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, born Lothar Berfelde, replied Ich bin meine eigene Frau to Mrs Gretchen Berfelde when she asked her cross-dressing son “Don’t you think it’s time to get married?” 

It has been used as the title for a German language film (Rosa von Praunheim, 1992) and a play (Peter Süß, 2006). Though “I am my own wife” is the translation which has been used by Doug Wright for this play, it may also be translated as “I am my own woman.”  Seeing Robert Jarman’s performance I think I prefer “woman” to “wife”.  It’s Charlotte’s independence – as a person facing the forces of humiliation throughout her life from her Nazi father, through the SS, the East German Stasi, to neo-Nazi skinheads and her treatment as a celebrity transvestite in later life – that forms the central thread of this production. 

The final twist – not represented in the play – is that her family refused to accept "Ich bin meine eigene Frau - Charlotte von Mahlsdorf - 18. März 1928 - 30. April 2002" as the inscription on a memorial at the Gründerzeit Museum which she founded.  Despite money for the memorial being raised in a public appeal, the inscription reads "Lothar Berfelde, 1928 - 2002, genannt Charlotte von Mahlsdorf. Dem Museumsgründer zur Erinnerung" – Lothar Berfelde, 1928 - 2002, known as Charlotte von Mahlsdorf. In memory of the (male) founder of the museum – denying her courage in public as a transvestite and exposing the persecution of homosexuals in the Third Reich and in Communist East Germany.

Wright’s play is a potential nightmare for the solo actor who plays not only Charlotte, but some 40 characters, including Wright himself in the process of interviewing and corresponding with Charlotte from 1993 until her death.  Jarman successfully carries off the transitions between one character and another, almost entirely in the one costume representing Charlotte in black dress, headscarf, heeled shoes and a row of pearls.  His skill is not only in mime as he speaks to a space as one character and then turns to reply from the other direction, but in representing each character’s specific body movement, facial expression and especially voice – both in accent and tonal quality in English and in German.

It took me a little while to get used to what seemed to be a rather slow beginning, but it was the right approach not to hurry us.  It wasn’t long before Charlotte, Wright and each of the lesser characters seemed real, and at curtain call there was a genuine sense of appreciation from the audience for the quality of Jarman’s work.

His acting was supported by a touring set which seemed huge in the Street 2 Studio – achieving exactly what was required to establish the Museum location.  The properties department excelled in providing full-scale items like the horn phonograph with original Edison cylinders and especially in the beautiful small-scale replicas of items from the Museum revealed one by one from a silk-lined padded display box.  On the technical side, the lighting was evocative and precisely designed and managed for each situation and mood, while the audio was particularly effective when, for example, we seemed to hear original 1890’s wax cylinders being played on the phonograph which morphed into surround sound.

I particularly appreciated Lotte Lenya singing Pirate Jenny from The Threepenny Opera and other Weill / Brecht songs as background sound, placing Charlotte and her story into the context of criticism of authoritarianism and corruption.  I might have added:

VOICE:
    What keeps a man alive?

CHORUS AND MACHEATH:
    What keeps a man alive if not the hours
    He spends devouring, tearing, killing all that he can?
    That’s how man lives his life, he has the power
    To make himself forget that he’s a man.

I can only say finally that the value of the play in exposing the awful nature of the regimes Charlotte managed to survive through, and the warning her experiences provide for us – that civil society is a delicate flower which can all too easily be turned into a grisly thistle by the violent and power-hungry – was well-matched by the quality of this production.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Monday, 23 May 2011

2011: Statespeare – Studying Shakespeare Suckeths by Nelle Lee

Statespeare – Studying Shakespeare Suckeths by Nelle Lee (& William Shakespeare).  shake&stir theatre co at Queanbeyan Performing Arts Centre, May 23-24 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
May 23

The context for this review needs to be made clear, as follows:

http://www.ourbrisbane.com/businesses/1691434.shake-stir-theatre-co

From an educational point of view there are positives and negatives in this show.  As a production put on for the general public rather than in a school context, there are different positives and negatives.  In Queanbeyan it was presented for the general public without its theatre-in-education purpose being made explicit.  At the same time quite a large proportion of the opening night crowd were young and possibly students.

The Q publicity says it is a “fast-paced, hilarious and eye-opening experience for all theatre lovers.”  The performance is certainly fast and physical – a positive, though I did hear some middle-aged people comment that they hadn’t been able to pick up all the dialogue.  As a later than middle-age person I had the same problem, but it was obvious from the laughter of recognition from the young people that they had no difficulty following every nuance of the latest patois.  No-one seemed to lose concentration listening to the Shakespeare and following the action.

It’s on the issues of being “hilarious” and “eye-opening” that the divide between the educational and potentially general audience purposes pops up.  The script is clever.  It was obvious that the two pairs of teenage drama students (played by Ross Balbuziente who also directed, Nelle Lee, Judy Hainsworth and Nick Skubij) were parallel to Benedick, Beatrice, Claudio and Hero who I had just seen in Bell Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing.  They bicker, joke, play and expose themselves to emotional risks as they try out possible scenes from different Shakespeare plays to present for drama class assessment. Unintended revelations stop the fun but in the end conflicts are resolved and love is confirmed.  Out of my ex-drama teacher role, it was all just too predictable.

There were quite hilarious moments, such as the matter of Macbeth’s nipples which Lady Macbeth sexily pinches.  There was even a rather shocked laugh when Macbeth pinches her nipple in return.  I thought this represented a highlight of reality about the young characters’ relationships.  But as a play for an adult general audience, only Jay, written and played by Nelle Lee, approached the kind of complexity and depth of character needed.  The other three characters, all played with professional clarity, were too close to the sorts of conventional stereotypes seen in something like High School Musical or Fame.  Lachlan is the standard nerd boy, Nerys the standard nerd girl, and Rob the standard girl-mad boy.  Jay is much more complicated, rejecting the conventional tall poppies Lachlan and Nerys but showing real originality and maturity in how she plays with the Shakespeare, even though Rob is her man in the end.  I think Shakespeare had the same problem in Much Ado – Claudio and Hero never match Beatrice and Benedick – but Statespeare needs much stronger characters and a darker side to work as an adult drama, particularly because the teenagers do perform scenes from Shakespeare’s plays.  The acting here is very good, but Shakespeare’s characters stand out as real against even Jay, and especially against Rob, Nerys and Lachlan.  Shakespeare is the writer who is an eye-opener, not Nelle Lee, yet.

Back in my ex-drama teacher’s role, I might still question whether school students deserve better characterisation and complexity of relationships (I don’t remember a real Lachlan, Nerys or Rob among my 20 years’ worth of senior drama students).  But the educational purpose surely focussed on exposing students, probably in about Year 10, to Shakespeare’s work in a form that they would find enjoyable.  This works. 

From a Year 10 perspective, the play makes fun of the Year 12 drama students but also shows them growing up.  It also shows professional actors playing Shakespeare in a variety of ways which demonstrates very clearly how theatre is action, not just boring old-fashioned words.  Even the similarities to High School Musical work here to tune into ordinary students doing Shakespeare in an English class.

The up-to-date dialogue between the characters outside the Shakespeare scenes obviously kept up the interest of the younger members of The Q audience, and, I suspect, the hilarity and the eye-opening among Year 10s would be highly emotional.  I can see how easily students would be drawn into talk about Jay, about how the characters’ relationships in real life today are like Shakespeare’s experiences 400 years ago.  Probably the key to this talk would be the murder of Desdemona scene, played “straight” with a submissive Desdemona accepting death and then, by Jay, as a woman pissed off by Othello’s cruelty who storms off in a flurry of swearing.

This also opens up for drama students the real work of experimenting with different ways of presenting scenes, not just in Shakespeare but in any drama.  The trick at high school is to start where the students are – perhaps at High School Musical – and shift them up towards adulthood.  An important point in Statespeare is that the apparently corny drama teacher who does an audience warm-up at the beginning deliberately leaves her students to get on with the work on their own.  Of course, in fact, she has already done lots of guiding and setting up expectations, for these Year 12s over perhaps several years, and she knows that to put the less academic (even anti-academic) pair in with the nerds and leave them to discover how to come up with the goods will force the conventional to become more original.  Though not many of the Year 10s will recognise this aspect of the play, there is a message there for the teachers who supervise them.

So my conclusion is that shake & stir theatre can justifiably build a reputation performing this entertaining and engaging work for the general public, but I hope this doesn’t mean they reduce their school-based performances where the work is of most value.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Friday, 20 May 2011

2011: Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare.  Bell Shakespeare at Canberra Playhouse, May 20 to June 4 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
May 20

Usually I write immediately after seeing a show, but this performance (following a five week season at Sydney Opera House) caught me a bit by surprise.  I decided to give myself a day to think a bit longer before writing, since Bell has treated Canberra, as they traditionally do, to a run of a reasonable length for this city of 330,000 people.

I have always been amazed at the emergence of Shakespeare the writer, with such wit, humour, sense of tragedy and ability to stage everything from naturalistic speech to ceremonial ritual – all in one play.  In his early thirties, living in a society riven by religious conflict and controlled by monarchs who had, and used, power over people’s life and death, William Shakespeare’s brilliance stands out against, above and beyond those who destroy rather than create.  Much Ado is certainly not about nothing.

My surprise – not at all an unpleasant one – began to strike me early on, when Benedick’s facility with a stand-up comedian’s flow of words was not less in understanding than Beatrice’s sharpness of riposte.  This Benedick was not even just the equal of this Beatrice, but had far more humanity than she could muster.  Hallo, I began to think, is this because Blazey Best was overplaying her role and becoming too much the shrew?  Is Toby Schmitz simply the better actor?

Or was something going on here to turn my previous view of this play on its head?  Beatrice had always seemed to me to be a modern feminist – a woman of natural maturity in contrast to the incapacities of men of her age, and a significant role model for the easily infatuated Hero.  For me, she did go to an ideological extreme in demanding that Benedick kill Claudio, but in realising this when Don John’s evil perfidy is revealed, she understood that she should back down and accept Benedick for the honest man he is, even if he might not be all that exciting.

But in John Bell’s interpretation, the play belongs to Schmitz’s Benedick.  He becomes the central character through whose eyes we see the issues.  As he bit by bit realises the truth about his own feelings, not only for Beatrice but about all the other players, and sees that Beatrice has not the strength of character that she pretends to have, it is he, Benedick, who sees the danger and rescues her from the likely dire results of her immaturity.  He does indeed challenge Claudio, but takes his time to check things out and go through the proper motions of agreeing on a time and place for the action.  Why does he not challenge and kill Claudio as soon as he meets up with him?  Or even stab him without warning?  To do so would be as thoughtless as Beatrice’s demand.

Unfortunately, for me, the quality of Schmitz’s performance made Best’s performance of Beatrice seem a bit too mundane – except, ironically, for the scene in which she makes her demand of Benedick.  Though what Beatrice expects Benedick to do is, in today’s terms, unacceptable, Blazey Best came up to Toby Schmitz in the making of it.  “If I were a man…” showed a Beatrice absolutely equal to the man Schmitz had created in his Benedick.  And so I could be satisfied that their marriage was right, but probably with Benedick offering more to Beatrice than she might at first realise she needs.  This left me with the question, was Best’s performance exactly right for John Bell’s interpretation, or was the sharpness of her delivery a simplification, a lesser quality in her acting?

I can only recommend, dear reader, that you make sure you see Much Ado About Nothing to make up your own mind.  Of course, I wouldn’t do this unless the rest of the cast are up to your expectations.  Caparisons are unfair, but I have to mention Max Gillies as Dogberry – malapropisms galore, and wonderfully impressed.  Design, movement and music all combine to make something a lot more than mere RomCom, with an especially cleverly staged ending.  Not to be missed.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

2011: The Night Zoo by Michael Barlow

The Night Zoo written and directed by Michael Barlow, designed by Iona McAuley, music composed by Lee Buddle.  Spare Parts Puppet Theatre at The Street Theatre, April 26-30, 2011 (Wednesday – Saturday 10am and 2pm).

Reviewed by Frank McKone
April 26

I had always thought of the company name, Spare Parts, as a whimsical joke, perhaps even a little sad originally when financial support was a struggle.  Perhaps it still is.  But this production, skilfully performed by Katya Shevtsov and Jacob Lehrer (who were ‘phantasmagorical’ according to my five-year-old companion), was spare in the sense of being ‘poor theatre’.  Less complexity on stage meant more opportunity for our imaginations to fill in the links which create the theatrical illusion.

The story is traditional in form.  Jamie cannot have pets in the high rise flat where she lives, dreams of the animals in the zoo who at first take no notice of her, but dreams again of becoming friends and playing with them.  Later in the park with her parents she plays with a dog who has no home, and her parents agree to let her keep him as a pet.  There is, of course romance and some sentimentality, since it seems that the parents will be breaking the no-pet rule, but for young isolated children the purpose is to encourage forming positive relationships.  Jamie’s dream not only stimulates enjoyment and empathy with the animals, but also changes her parents’ standard ‘sorry, but no’ approach to realising that their lonely child needs a companion.

Some of the stage ‘business’ which might have made the production less spare if it had all been physically represented, such as the time and locality transitions, were neatly done by video projection.  The result was a layering of dramatic frames from two-dimensional story-book format to three-dimensional ‘reality’.  The mode-shifting involved the performers acting as people, in costume as animals and as puppeteers, with transitions from one kind of role to another smoothly done.

Though from the children’s point of view The Night Zoo is engaging and directly accessible – apparently simple – the show is a nice example of modern performance puppetry – not so simple as it looks.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

2011: Geese by Joe Woodward

Geese written and directed by Joe Woodward.  Shadow House PITS at Courtyard Studio, Canberra Theatre Centre, April 26, 8pm and April 28-29, 1pm, 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
April 26

While I drove home from Geese in the middle lane equidistant from either verge on a dark section of three-lane freeway, a stationary white car appeared to my left.  As the image grew I could see its bonnet was up like a wing suspended.  Then I made out a dark formally dressed figure peering into the black hole seeming to be attempting to manipulate something impossible to see.  All four emergency lights were flashing.  As the image faded into my left rear vision mirror I found myself contemplating this person’s belief in do-it-yourself action without even tools, light or working clothes.  Why not just wait patiently for Road Service to arrive? I thought.

Before my thought was finished, in my right peripheral vision movement caught my eye.  An athletic figure in white was running, as if in training for some long-distance event, against the flow of traffic on the very edge of the right lane, on a right-hand bend.  I was thankful to be in the middle lane as he disappeared in my right rear vision mirror, and could only hope that drivers in the right lane would miss him as he would appear suddenly to them out of the darkness, just in front of them, unexpectedly to their right.

Then it struck me that Joe Woodward had at last succeeded in making me understand Antonin Artaud.  The images held briefly in my headlights were not part of my life as far as those other figures are concerned, but because I saw them they are now in my memory and I have pejorative thoughts and fears about them.  I impose my conventions and expectations upon them. 

Artaud’s conceit that we are only free when we escape from the hell of convention is not a philosophy to which I can subscribe.  In Woodward’s previous works that I have seen, it seems to me that he wanted to embrace Artaud’s position, but the result was that what appeared on stage remained hidden in an impenetrable cloud of mystery, becoming sound and fury apparently signifying not very much.

Though in Geese many long speeches are soporific as characters expound their particular philosophical positions, in the end there is a structured storyline.  There is a young girl who saw and briefly spoke to a disturbed man at a railway station in the beginning.  When she reappears at the end, she switches on a radio news broadcast which neither she nor the others she meets listen to, but we hear as background noise words like Libya, Yemen and Syria.  Suddenly the ‘Artaud’ characters’ views in the possible memories of the disturbed man, and his possible experiences, become relevant today.  How much conflict, death, destruction and madness is the result of people’s obsessive insistence on carrying out the dictates of conventions like religious beliefs, unbending political positions – even perhaps being totally enamoured, speaking only in French, of the theatre of Antonin Artaud.

Geese is for the most part too heavy (rather than weighty) theatrically for my liking, but now it is openly about Artaud, the cloud of mystery comes but also goes, and the ending makes a valuable observation about the real world.  “No one has ever written, painted, sculpted, modeled, built, or invented except literally to get out of hell” according to Antonin Artaud, but perhaps Geese is a step in the right direction for Woodward.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Thursday, 14 April 2011

2011: The Adventures of Alvin Sputnik – Deep Sea Explorer byTim Watts

The Adventures of Alvin Sputnik – Deep Sea Explorer written and performed byTim Watts.  Perth Theatre Company and Weeping Spoon Productions at The Street Two, April 12-16, 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
April 14

RomTragCom for young adults is how I saw Alvin Sputnik.  But the primary age brother and sister sitting in front of me, after a little anxiety at early death and fright at the loud demand to be a superhero, settled in to the whimsy and said it was “great” at the end.  My (older) generation responded empathetically to the death and perhaps expected more depth of feeling to focus Alvin’s search for his wife’s soul.

For the modern-style bright young things who composed most of those present,  Watts’ shifting relationship with his audience – from technician to puppetry and mime artist, computer graphics artist to singer-songwriter, in-role narrator to in-role character, actor keeping to pre-programmed visuals and sound to actor interacting with the audience and thanking them after a second round of applause – was the kind of spark of originality they look for in theatre.  For this generation, mode shifting is a natural part of technological life.

The romance of this story lies in Alvin’s response to the untimely death of his soulmate.  He is attracted to the idea of heroically acting, even to the point of accepting the possibility of his own death, to save the world from environmental destruction.  Global warming is taken to an extreme – the world is completely inundated as the seas rise even above the peak of Everest – and so Alvin must dive beyond the drowned remains of civilisation in the hope of entering the hollow core of the earth where the environment is said to be perfect for human life.

Though his wife’s death was tragic, there is unexpected comedy in his adventures, during which he sees, or fancies that he sees his wife’s soul, a soft luminosity which he follows until he sees, or fancies he sees the beauty of the inner core – except that, as he had been warned, his oxygen is on the point of exhaustion and the entrance is through a violent volcano which kills him.  Only then can his soul meet with his wife’s, and the luminous images mingle, looking like dividing cells reuniting.  The world has not been saved, but their love is undying.

What I found fascinating was to see how Watts’ design produced a distancing effect which allowed him to present to his own age group a romance without sentimentality, with light touches of comedy, which is a tragedy not because of the protagonists’ deaths but because of the implication that we humans have failed to sustain the earth.

This is a small step into a new form of mixed-media theatre which, I expect, foreshadows greater works to come.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

2011: The Marriage of Figaro by Mozart / Da Ponte

The Marriage of Figaro by Mozart / Da Ponte.  Co-Opera directed by Tessa Bremner,  Musical Director Brian Chatterton at The Street Theatre, Canberra, March 29-30, 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
March 29

“Co-Opera was formed in 1990 with the express purpose of presenting opera in new and imaginative ways….”  Their aim is admirably achieved in this production of Figaro, passing through Canberra on its east coast 30 performance tour from Adelaide to Port Douglas.

The singing and acting was excellent throughout, though I make no bones about being home-town biassed in praising the performance of Karen Fitz-Gibbon.  She has just last year completed her Honours year at the Australian National University School of Music, and her Susanna was close to perfect.  Hers is the central role in Bremner’s approach to Lorenzo Da Ponte’s libretto: Fitz-Gibbon’s timing and characterisation made the whole play work dramatically.

Now, of course, I’m forced to admit that Tessa Bremner is a one-time Canberra Critics’ Circle Award winner – for a production of Amadeus.  All I can say is that it is good to see that our award predicted continuing success, especially since the value of critics is being questioned in the blogosphere.  (Follow this up in the current Currency House Platform Papers No. 27, April 2011: HELLO WORLD! Promoting the Arts on the Web by Robert Reid, and Alison Croggon’s blog ‘The return of the amateur critic’ at http://www.abc.net,au/unleashed/20038.html)

My reason for mentioning Bremner is that she was a successful stage play director who clearly sees this opera production not as a series of platforms for singers but as a drama of plot, thinking characters and emotion.  She has integrated all these elements into the wonderful effects that Mozart’s music creates, and presented the work on a smallish scale so that her audience can all feel personally part of the theatrical illusion.  The result is that all the social criticism inherent in the original libretto is made apparent.

And, it is important to say, Bremner is served very well by a small band, in this case spread across the auditorium floor in front of Row A, conducted in the traditional way by Chatterton at the continuo.

My only thought about the originality of the show concerns the following WikiLeak – sorry, Wikipedia entry: “It was Mozart who originally selected Beaumarchais' play and brought it to Da Ponte, who turned it into a libretto in six weeks, rewriting it in poetic Italian and removing all of the original's political references. In particular, Da Ponte replaced Figaro's climactic speech against inherited nobility with an equally angry aria against unfaithful wives. Contrary to the popular myth, the libretto was approved by the Emperor, Joseph II, before any music was written by Mozart.”

Watching the performance it is obvious that Joseph II didn’t realise that the satire was too subtle for all the political references to be removed, fortunately for us for it is indeed the way that the servants Figaro and Susanna treat their ‘noble’ bosses that makes the show relevant today (as of course it was especially when Beaumarchais’ original play was banned in France in the mid-1770s).  What Co-Opera might have done is to reinstate Beaumarchais’ ‘climactic speech against inherited nobility’, which could be done especially because Da Ponte’s Italian has already been translated into English for most of this production.

For me, Figaro’s tirade against unfaithful wives seemed very much out of place against the self-confidence and sensibility of the women, who take such a modern approach to the practicalities of dealing with rampant males.  Though it is true that at this point Figaro has misunderstood what Susanna has done, the good humour and loving nature of their relationship from the beginning is far too easily blighted in his attack.  It would make much more sense for him to take the nobility to task as they deserve at this point, and as Beaumarchais intended.

Otherwise originality was to the fore.  The use of Germanic English for all of the skulduggery and Romance Italian for the love songs was a beautiful way to make even more of the music than Mozart’s Austrian audience would have heard. The costumes, with beehive head-dresses, exaggerated commedia make-up and a dress sense appropriate for each class of character made for the intelligent comedy that this opera is.  At the same time the use of clear plastic costume overlays, dressing room walls and ‘mirrors’ was an exciting modern touch which worked very well to make the meaning of the play transparent.

I wish this production well on its journey travelling north.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Sunday, 13 March 2011

2011: A Chatroom of Critics with Mark Shenton

A Chatroom of Critics with Mark Shenton, at ACT Writers’ Centre, March 13, 2011

An Unreview by Frank McKone




Mark Shenton is a full-time theatre critic and journalist, writing a weekly review column for the Sunday Express and daily blog for The Stage. He has hosted regular platforms at the National Theatre, including an onstage interview with Stephen Sondheim. He has written liner notes for a number of original cast albums, including the West End recording of Chicago. Mark was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, came to London when he was 16 and has never looked back. He read law at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and now lives in Borough, five minutes from the South Bank
guardian.co.uk (accessed 13 March 2011)

Mark is also Chair of the Drama Section of The Critics’ Circle, based in London but with members from all over the UK.  He has a special passion for cabaret, in common with Canberra’s Bill Stephens who invited him to call in for an informal chat with the Canberra Critics’ Circle en his route between Melbourne and Sydney.

Though we reviewers give awards to the best artists, which means in London that the Drama Awards are presented in a major theatre and attract “everyone” in the theatre industry, there was consensus that the best critics, whoever they are, should not receive awards.  This is why my report of a very entertaining couple of hours is not a review.

In fact it became clear that critics may not receive any rewards in the near future.  Mark commented on the decline in newspaper sales as blogging and tweeting become the new outlets for critical commentary.  Unless the Murdoch paywall approach is taken up by many other publishers, who will pay professional critics to blog?

Indeed, what is a professional critic?  To be accepted as a member of The Critics’ Circle you must have a history of paid-for reviews over at least the previous two years.  But when even a London newspaper reviewer writes, as Mark reported to us, about “blacking up” Iago in an argument against “political correctness”, I had to wonder who killed Othello?  As newspapers struggle financially who will they pay to write reviews?  Not the writers with experience and detailed knowledge of their specialist art forms, apparently.

Should reviews be mere entertainments?  And therefore short?  Of course not, but we discussed the difficult skill of writing briefly to the point, rather than boringly too long.  Which means I will cut the several dozen other topics we discussed, even though this is an Unreview, and thank Mark Shenton for giving us a sense of what it is like to be a freelance reviewer in a city where 55 new shows opened in January, a low season in London’s theatrical year.

The success of this evening suggests finding further visitors for future Canberra Critics’ Circle self-improvement occasions.  Please contact Helen Musa at CityNews with ideas: helen@citynews.com.au .

To catch up with Mark Shenton, check his blog in The Stage at
http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2011/03/oz-connections/index.html

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Thursday, 10 March 2011

2011: Tuesdays with Morrie by Jeffrey Hatcher and Mitch Albom

Tuesdays with Morrie by Jeffrey Hatcher and Mitch Albom.  Ensemble Theatre directed by Mark Kilmurry at The Q, Queanbeyan Performing Arts Centre, March 10-12, 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
March 10

I have to eat humble pie tonight.  Each of us responds to what we see from our own different perspectives. 

Watching this play in my role as theatre critic, I saw a predictable moralistic sentimental story using the death of Professor Morrie Schwartz from Lou Gehrig’s disease as a contrived device, sugar-coated with carefully managed laughs.

I also saw a production highly skilfully designed, directed and acted.  Daniel Mitchell faced a difficult task to avoid over-playing the Professor, but maintained a disciplined balance between making the inevitable one-liners into cartoon jokes and playing the physical horror of the disease for the horror rather than empathy.  Glenn Hazeldine, as Mitch Albom, who wrote the original story that the play was developed from, had to switch regularly between playing Mitch as if in a realistic relationship with Morrie – every Tuesday – and playing Albom, the narrator of his story.   By using stylised posture, movement and voice, Hazeldine clearly delineated each role.  What otherwise might have been a repetitive series of question and answer in a lesser actor became a dramatic dialectic, giving the play more appearance of depth than the content of the text deserves.

However, for most of the audience – senior students from the two Canberra Grammar Schools – my perspective was well outside of the range of their radar.  Their attention was focussed in the immediate heat of the emotion, not the distant cool of criticism.  They were bubbling with excitement in the foyer beforehand anticipating seeing Sydney actors perform the play they had been working on.  The actors’ skills did not disappoint.  The young absorbed the performance as if it were music, directly responding with laughter, shock and tears, as well as a resounding standing ovation for the actors at curtain call.  For them this was great theatre, and who am I to deny their experience?

Like Mitch, who failed to “keep in touch” with his favourite professor for 16 years, I have not taught College students for 16 years and realised tonight how much I have become out of touch with the immediacy of people’s feelings at that transition from teenage to adulthood.  Tuesdays with Morrie may not be my play, but this production certainly made it this audience’s dramatic experience.  The Q is to be congratulated for including it in this year’s program, and I hope it foreshadows more Ensemble productions in future.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Friday, 4 March 2011

2011: My Imaginary Family by Grahame Bond

My Imaginary Family written and performed by Grahame Bond.  Directed by Maurice Murphy at The Street Theatre, March 4 – 26, 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
March 4

After he presented the eulogy at his mother’s funeral, Bond says, his doctor approached him saying, “I think you need help.”  Bond’s unspoken response, he tells us, was to reject criticism, as if the doctor were about to be a critic of his performance.  In fact, it was an offer of grief counselling, which Bond accepted and found of great value.

This story, about his real family – not the family of imaginary characters he has created as a writer-performer – makes my task as a critic of his show one of a delicate balance.  For the creator of characters, like Aunty Jack and Kev Kavanagh, to perform himself is like jumping off a real cliff and trusting that his imagination will make him fly.  It’s a risk that most actors only take in the company of a Michael Parkinson.  In this single hander, Bond plays himself, tells stories about himself, sings songs he wrote (often in company with Rory O’Donahue and Jim Burnett), moving in and out of roles he created, while also filling the Parkinson “interviewer” role of linking us watching with the person being “interviewed.”

Being Grahame Bond also inevitably meant a tendency to interact directly with his audience, so I was not surprised that keeping all these balls juggling in the intimate space of The Street 2 led him to lose his scripted lines at one point early in the show.  This was, I believe, the very first performance, and trajectories came into better unison as the 90 minute show progressed.  There were strong moments of both satire and emotion, both integrated in the horrifying highlight story of the 1980 New Year’s Eve at the Opera House.

For my generation whose adult lives have run alongside Grahame Bond’s, the stories behind the creation of Aunty Jack et al are of genuine interest.  I was always aware of the satire, but the characters and style seemed to appear out of thin air with Thin Arthur around 1970.  There was nothing quite like them in the Australian tradition, yet Aunty Jack, Flash Nick from Jindavick and Wollongong the Brave were as Australian as all get out.  Perhaps they were parallel to the British Not the Nine O’Clock News, Monty Python, and The Goodies, and indeed Bond did take his work to London Weekend Television in Not the Aunty Jack Show

I’m not sure what young people today will make of My Imaginary Family but it runs through the Canberra Festival and bookings are already going well.  It will be a good test for “The stories of a ‘Jack of all Trades’ and the backing songs of his life.”

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

2011: Smoke and Mirrors by Craig Ilott and iOTA

Smoke and Mirrors by Craig Ilott and iOTA.  Directed by Craig Ilott for the Sydney Festival at The Famous Spiegeltent, January 6 – February 6, 2011

Reviewed by Frank McKone
January 19

This is the second time around for Smoke and Mirrors at the Sydney Festival.  It is definitely worth a return visit.  Refreshments served at the open-air bar from 5pm for a 9.30pm start, and queueing to get the best GA seats (be there by 8.45pm), ensures that the whole of Hyde Park buzzes with anticipation even while the band inside tunes up and rehearses.  It feels exactly like a Festival – just as it should. 

The mix of circus and song is held together in the story of a surreal dreamer – SS – whose fantasies of escape – running away to the circus – become smoke and mirrors, hiding reality as much as revealing, reflecting the mask that is ‘slipping from your face’.

The musicians, led by Tina Harris, are outstanding as composers and performers – not surprising when you see their training, qualifications and experience in theatre and film productions.  iOTA, playing SS, brings a certain Rocky Horror Show style to the character in his ringmaster role, but never in an imitative way.  Smoke and Mirrors is original work.  The tumbling, balancing and trapeze episodes are often surprising, even at times startling.

I think two women performers were the standouts of the night – Queenie van de Zandt as an ultimately sad seducer and Kali Retallack on the trapeze. 

By developing a character and using timing and mood, working closely with the band, Kali turned what otherwise might have seemed the usual kind of solo trapeze act into an expression of the show’s theme.  Her work was not fantasy – there was no safety net – but would we all imagine we would dare to emulate her skills?

Queenie’s final appearance, and especially the quality of her singing, was absolutely stunning.  Her last long note actually silenced the Spiegeltent briefly before a great outburst of spontaneous cheering and applause.

And yet, at the end of the night as we walked across a balmy Hyde Park, my wife and I recalled La Clique at the Sydney Festival in 2007.  It was more surreal, more original in concepts, the circus acts were more sophisticated, and Mikelangelo brought a greater ironic humour to the same basic idea – running away to the circus – than iOTA.  But of course it’s only critics like me that worry about such things.  Just enjoy!

If you haven’t got tickets yet, The Tix for Next to Nix booth is located at the bottom of Martin Place, near George Street.
When is it open?
January 9-30
Daily from 8am to 12 noon.
The booth will close early if tickets sell out before closing times.

www.sydneyfestival.org.au/2010/Plan-Your-Festival/Tix-for-Next-to-Nix/

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

2011: Bigger Than Jesus by Rick Miller and Daniel Brooks

Bigger Than Jesus by Rick Miller and Daniel Brooks.  WYRD Productions, Canada, presented by Sydney Festival and Sydney Theatre Company.  Performed by Rick Miller at Wharf 1, January 18-29 2011.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
January 18


As a confirmed atheist, I think the god-botherers who were demonstrating outside the theatre when I arrived have nothing to fear from Rick Miller.  For me, however, his attempt to enlighten us about the truth of the Jesus story is disappointingly shallow.  The show is a great example of how cleverly devised theatre and skilful performance can impress and excite positive responses from an audience, even though the material is inconsistently developed.  I heard Canadian accents in the audience on opening night.  Maybe the most enthusiastic applause contained some degree of cultural bias.

Theatrically, the way Miller and Brooks (as director) incorporated live video, pre-recorded screen images, recorded sound, live amplification and unamplified voice was especially inviting.  Perhaps the most original device was to use three cameras set up in what looked like a laptop (really a box of props).  Miller could present himself as one character on screen front-on when facing the centre camera, talking to a different character when he turned slightly side-on towards another camera, while what we saw was both ends of a Skype session in real time.  Another very funny sequence was his presentation of the Last Supper, videoed live as Miller manipulated models of the characters.  It was like watching the makers of Wallace and Gromit at work and seeing the end result on screen at the same time.

Miller’s voice and movement work was also highly expert, enabling him to play a considerable array of characters from an unassuming Jesus according to John’s Gospel, a fascinating post-modern hot-gospeller (probably as mad as the John who wrote Revelations), through to singing the sentimental Jesus we know so well from Jesus Christ Superstar.  Seen from this point of view, Bigger Than Jesus, including the reference to John Lennon – another charismatic John – was consistently entertaining.

But I came away dissatisfied because Miller himself, or at least Miller in his role of Jesus watching all that has been done “in my name” since his birth in the year 4 Before Christ and the writing of the gospels by biassed supporters “between 40 to 60 years” after he died, appears to present Christ as if he is still around today.  As an atheist humanist I have no problem with agreeing with the message that we should love one another and behave towards others as we would wish them to behave towards us.  But Miller’s ending takes us back to the Catholic mass and the Eucharist ceremony with such feeling that I could not escape the idea that I was meant to put aside all the critical commentary in favour of simple faith in Christ and his message, as if this will carry the day.

I felt cheated because the work began by seriously criticising the likelihood of the Jesus story ever having happened in reality, setting us up for an argument which was never properly followed through.  It was as if Miller and Brooks had never understood George Bernard Shaw, whose St Joan proved that an atheist can appreciate the value of genuine religious belief. Bigger Than Jesus is a philosophical mess in comparison.

Interestingly, since the placards of invocations against the Sydney Theatre Company for presenting this work of the devil had gone from Hickson Road when I left the Wharf after an hour and a half, I can only assume those so bothered had either found out the truth about the ending, or, being post-modern themselves, had given up trying to insist on the absolute truth of anything any more.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

2010: Uncle Vanya by Anton Chekov

Uncle Vanya by Anton Chekov.  Adapted by Andrew Upton, directed by Tamás Ascher.  Sydney Theatre Company at Sydney Theatre, November 9 – December 23, 2010.

Reviewed by Frank McKone

November 24


Cate Blanchett and Richard Roxburgh in Sydney Theatre Company's Uncle Vanya
© Lisa Tomasetti 2010

Despite the success of the first production by Moscow Art Theatre of Uncle Vanya in 1899, I like to imagine that Konstantin Stanislavsky was troubled.  He had not wanted to play the role of the doctor, Mihail Lvovich Astrov “for I had always dreamt of another part – the title role.  But [director] Vladimir Ivanovich managed to break my will and even got me to like Astrov.”

In Ascher’s production, I think Stanislavski’s troubles are over.  Considering he died in 1938, you may think it’s a bit late.  But there’s 111 years of theatrical history behind Ascher’s and Upton’s work, and it shows to perfection in the performances of top-class actors Hugo Weaving (today’s Astrov), Richard Roxburgh (Vanya), Cate Blanchett (Yelena), Hayley McElhinney (Sonya), John Bell (Serebryakov), Jacki Weaver (Nanny), Sandy Gore (Maria), Anthony Phelan (Telegin) and Andrew Tighe (Labourer).

Stanislavski also directed Chekov’s works and in the 1920s and 30s focussed on training actors to perform ‘naturalism’.  His work was the key to making the break from melodrama to the form of drama the 20th Century needed.  But that doesn’t mean that everyone got his ‘system’ right.  I think we were lucky in Australia, from the time of the early NIDA classes and Hayes Gordon, to eschew the ‘American Method’ of Lee Strasbourg. 

Richard Roxburgh and Hugo Weaving in Sydney Theatre Company's Uncle Vanya   
© Lisa Tomasetti 2010

Australians, being perhaps less sentimental than Americans, knew that when Stanislavski said act ‘as if’ you were the character, he never meant ‘become’ the character.  This cast, with this director, backed by their Australian training and experience, demonstrated exactly what Stanislavski meant.  I suspect, too, they also ‘got’ Chekov better than Stanislavski himself had achieved in 1899.

The clue is the fun in this presentation.  Here is the humourist Chekov we know from his short stories and plays like The Proposal.  Weaving skips and even Russian dances about the stage.  Roxburgh swings and sways from gloom to fury, from lust to murderous intent.  The two of them reminded me of Ian McKellen (Estragon) and Roger Rees (Vladimir) in the recent production of Waiting for Godot – the same understanding of the absurdity of the social condition.

One might imagine that the young wife of the old fart professor, so imbued in boredom, would be waspish or merely sad.  Not this Yelena.  Blanchett collapses into unbridled laughter as often as she is the worst manipulator.  And who would have thought that the professor’s horribly put-upon daughter could lose herself so freely in laughter and take the audience along with her, especially in McElhinney’s marvellous scene with Blanchett in Act Two. 

And John Bell at last is free of the constraints he seems to have laid upon himself in recent years.  Compare his Lear with this pretentious old Serebyakov, and Chekov looks better than Shakespeare.

But how is this not mere farce or melodrama?  Because every actor plays their character’s intention behind every facial twitch, every loose movement, every eye contact, every incomprehensible vocalisation, every word which means the opposite of its apparent meaning, or diverts attention away from reality.  As Stanislavsky taught, nothing must happen on stage without the audience being aware of each character’s intention.  Nothing, absolutely nothing, was missed in this production.

A simple demonstration, but a most exciting moment in the play, was the silence after Yelena and Astrov realise that Vanya, bringing roses for her, has seen them kissing.  Such wonderful theatre in which no-one says anything for minutes on end.  My copy of the script has just four dots to indicate no more than a pause before Astrov says [with bravado] ‘The weather is not too bad today.’  On this stage, with this director and these actors, what tension was there – and what laughter from us watching this embarrassed triangle.  What a creation of the illusion of natural reality!  What honour to a master playwright.  What grateful thanks on my part for the skill and artistry of this company.

What a pity for so many of you that the season is fully booked.

 
Sandy Gore and Richard Roxburgh in Sydney Theatre Company's Uncle Vanya
© Lisa Tomasetti 2010

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

2010: When the rain stops falling by Andrew Bovell

When the rain stops falling by Andrew Bovell.  A collaboration with Hossein Valamanesh and Brink Productions.  Directed by Chris Drummond at The Playhouse, Canberra Theatre Centre, November 10-13, 2010.

Reviewed by Frank McKone
November 10




This production of a play, described by Richard Zoglin in Time as ‘easily the best new play of the year’ at its US premiere at the Lincoln Centre in March this year, is a privilege to behold.  The acting, direction and design all fall into their right places stylistically and technically in a jigsaw puzzle which comes together piece by piece. 

At first there are scattered elements of a picture picked up seemingly at random from four generations leading to the meeting of Gabriel York and his son Andrew Price.  The experience watching is exactly as happens while reconstructing a complex 1000 piece puzzle.  Aha! realisations light up completely unexpectedly when it becomes clear that this or that piece just has to go here or there.  Yet it is not until the very last piece is in place that we feel the tension that we might not have everything correctly understood, fall away.  Only as the last clue is revealed, just as the rain stops falling, do we suddenly feel we can breathe again with satisfaction that all is now positively complete.

Zoglin goes as far as to compare Bovell’s work with the achievements of the novelist William Faulkner.  It is a fair comparison in two ways. 

Faulkner used devices like plain print interspersed with italic print and standard sentence structure interspersed with poetic line forms as a way of shifting from time to time or from internal to external experience.    The result is difficult reading until you allow the feelings expressed in the words to wash into your mind without self-consciously seeking logical understanding or even clarity of events.

Bovell’s writing is theatrically interpreted by this production team to create a similar kind of time and perspective shifting, which as Faulkner achieves in the end of The Sound and the Fury, finally comes into clear focus in the final scene of When the rain stops falling.

But the perhaps more important way that the comparison with Faulkner is sensible is that Bovell, as does Faulkner, creates in his jigsaw, images and themes in words and action which symbolise elements of the human condition which recognisably belong to the writer’s culture – American in Faulkner’s case, and Australian in Bovell’s.  In the local we see the universal. 

It is interesting to read the American Zoglin’s description: ‘The play is unrelievedly bleak but with a denouement of unexpected hope: a moving, almost revelatory evening of theater’ while the Australian audience on opening night in Canberra responded to the many moments of ironic humour which are built into our culture.  We certainly found the unexpected hope, but not an unrelieved bleakness.  In fact, without laughter, I suspect, the unexpected hope at the end would have been maudlin and sentimental.  In this production, it was ultimately satisfying to know that Gabriel and his son Andrew, with the help of a fish falling from the sky, could at last enjoy each other’s company after four generations of emotional disaster.

Bovell’s work, it seems to me, has matured in this play even beyond his earlier Holy Day.  Now he has achieved strength in simplicity, placing him among the great playwrights not only of Australia but around the world.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

2010: Namatjira by Scott Rankin

Namatjira by Scott Rankin.  Co-directed by Scott Rankin and Wayne Blair.  Big hART at Belvoir Street Theatre, Sydney, until November 7, 2010.
Trevor Jamieson    Photo: Brett Boardman
Reviewed by Frank McKone, October 19.

Following their highly successful production in the 2008 Sydney Festival of Ngapartji Ngapartji (reviewed in The Canberra Times Thursday 17 January 2008), Big hART and Belvoir Street continue their series of Indigenous cultural projects in Namatjira.

Pitjantjatjara speaker, well-known performer Trevor Jamieson plays the man the general public knows as Albert Namatjira, attracting a friendly joking comment from an elder of the extended Namatjira family who gave permission for this presentation of their famous grandfather’s life story.  “How can a Pitjantjatjara man do an Arrernte?”

Very well indeed, in my view. 

Rankin’s writing tells the story plainly, allowing plenty of emotional space for the miming, dancing, singing, language and characterisation skills of Jamieson and his young performing partner Derek Lynch to be shaped into a major work with co-director Wayne Blair.  I am reminded of Wayne Blair’s own work as a performer in Wesley Enoch’s 2003 production of Richard Frankland’s Conversations with the Dead.  It seems to me that there is a continuing strength of development in Aboriginal theatre, which I expect will go on being supported so well by Belvoir as Neil Armfield steps down in favour of Ralph Myers, whose work on Conversations was noted in the Canberra Times review (August 21, 2003).

But it’s not just important to see Namatjira placed in its Indigenous theatre context.  This play sits just as firmly in the context of non-Indigenous Australian theatre, because of the place Albert Namatjira has as the first Aboriginal person to be classed as an Australian citizen.  It was at this pinnacle of success that his downfall began.  This story is a tragedy which I found hit home just after the last line was spoken as the lights took the focus from the entertaining performer to his painted portrait which faded “Into the blue.”

This play for both cultures works so well because the central theme of the story is the remarkable relationship which grew over a lifetime of the two men, Elea – whose European first name, Albert, was arbitrarily given him by the German pastor at the Hermannsburg Mission combined with a mispronunication of his father’s totemic name as a surname – and Rex Battarbee, damaged physically and mentally as a young soldier in World War I, for whom painting watercolours was his only way of surviving.  In this production itself, writes Rankin, “Every layer of the project is dependent on the strength of the foundation formed with both the Namatjira family and Rex Battarbee’s daughter Gayle Quamby.  If this new performance piece resonated with audiences it does so because of the generosity of these families in contributing their stories to the research for the play, and their support for the broader Big hART project.”

There is no doubt, at the performance I witnessed, that this play resonated with all the culturally mixed audience (even German speaking friends of mine thought Jamieson’s pronunciation of German as the Pastor was “funny” – as, of course, it was meant to be).  For me, one of the great successes was to see Aboriginal people making biting satire of Australian institutions, right up to the Queen, but especially of speeches actually made by society women sponsors of the arts praising Albert Namatjira, to unrestrained laughter and applause throughout the audience.  It made the hypocrisy with which he was treated over his attempts to buy his country back, and finally the circumstances of his jailing, so much more poignant.

To my mind, this kind of theatre takes us in a new direction.  The move towards the end of last century to support community theatre rather than nothing but flagship companies is coming home to roost.  Here we see top-class quality performance, design and technical theatre used to bring people together into community across old divides.  Big hART refers to their work as “projects” because they are more than presenting plays on stage for people to sit back and watch.  This play engages us in coming to know the families in the story and to understand the reality of our own history.  We see Kevin Namatjira, Albert’s grandson, chalking the backdrop images of the Macdonnell ranges in his grandfather’s tradition.  From the next generation, Elton Wirri works with him.  There are some paintings on show in the foyer, but if you go to Alice Springs (Mparntwe) you can visit the Araluen Arts Centre and see the works of Albert Namatjira’s extended family as I did a few weeks ago, as well as works by Rex Battarbee and a portrait of Namatjira by Alfred Cook, painted in 1940, showing us a strong and forward-looking man as he was then, rather than the sad figure of his last years. 
Derek Lynch     Photo: Brett Boardman
Kevin Namatjira       Photo: Brett Boardman
You can follow up Big hART on 03 6423 4577, at www.bighart.org or email bighart@bigpond.com.au .  For political action, there is to be a rally organised by the Stop the Intervention Collective at Sydney Town Hall on Friday October 29, 12 noon.

Belvoir Box Office: (02) 9699 3444.

Namatjira will be seen in Canberra at The Playhouse, September 14-17, 2011.

© Frank McKone, Canberra

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

2010: Long Day’s Journey Into Night by Eugene O’Neill

Long Day’s Journey Into Night by Eugene O’Neill.  Sydney Theatre Company directed by Andrew Upton at Sydney Theatre, June 29 – August 1, 2010

Reviewed by Frank McKone, July 14.

If you have read about O’Neill’s personal life you will understand the significance of the title of this long play, which ran 3 hours 40 minutes (including a 20 minute interval).  Alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide were subjects he could not avoid, though he did put off writing this gruelling story until 1941, as the Parkinson’s-like neurodegenerative disease known as cortical cerebellar atrophy began to take hold, preventing him from writing ever again, until his death in 1953.

Some commentators see O’Neill as taking up, for the first time in America, the Chekovian tradition of realism, but this is not true of most of his work.  His characters and plots are full of symbolism, even though he employs apparently naturalistic forms of dialogue.  In fact, each of his plays is an experiment in theatrical form.  He was an innovator, an inventor never fully satisfied with his last creation. 

Before Long Day’s Journey Into Night only his structured study of racial discrimination in All God’s Chillun Got Wings produced a drama of ordinary internal family relations.  But Long Day is a searing journey to the centre of the night which, in my opinion, has not been undertaken by any other playwright since Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

I’ll come back to themes later, but my first concern is whether or not Upton and his cast – Robyn Nevin as wife and mother Mary, William Hurt as husband, father and actor James Tyrone, Todd van Voris as eldest son James, and Luke Mullins as younger surviving son Edmund, and not forgetting Emily Russell as Mary’s household employee Cathleen – would have had any hope of satisfying the author who claimed, I believe, not to wish to see his plays on stage because he could always do a better production in his own imagination.

If the performance I saw had not been a matinee, requiring us to accept only two curtain-call appearances before the cast took a break to prepare for the evening,  I’m sure the demands of those calling for a standing ovation would have been granted by the whole audience on a third appearance.  Despite Edmund’s disparagement of James Tyrone’s old-style Irish Catholicism, almost certainly true of Eugene O’Neill’s attitude towards his actor-father James O’Neill’s religion, it would not be hard to imagine the author, looking down from theatrical heaven, with satisfied eyes.

The acting was, as we expect from STC, superb. 

Emily Russell’s small but crucial role is a great example.  In a family full of delusions, Cathleen is a normal person, seeing the funny side of situations, wanting to please but standing up for herself, recognising the realities of her job as household help and maintaining a commonsense relationship between her drug-affected employer and Bridget, the terror in the kitchen whom we never see but get to know well.  After a first act which takes us out to interval wondering if we can cope any more with the twists and turns of bickering, accusations, regrets and unsuccessful attempts to express love, Russell opens Act 2 with a large and ebullient Cathleen bringing out a vivacity in Mary so enjoyable to see that we can believe that Mary can perhaps achieve her sanity.  Yet it is Russell’s Cathleen who suddenly has to step back as she realises that Mary’s responses to normal enjoyment of life are abnormal.  Cathleen knows how to deal with Bridget the kitchen tyro, but this is beyond dealing with.  Russell loses nothing of Cathleen’s open personality, but by the time she leaves the stage we know what she knows, and we wonder how on earth this family will end its days.

As the long drunken evening winds it misty way around the men, each little gust of interaction sometimes seeming a little warmer but trending icy overall, we wait in dread.  If we ever see Mary emerge from the spare room again, what will we see?  It is Robyn Nevin’s triumph that, after perhaps an hour off-stage, in the dead of night her Mary is such a sad, sad figure that when she stands so still and speaks we are completely absorbed.  When she stops speaking we are silent.  No-one breaks as the lights slowly dim, and we even feel a bit tentative about beginning to applaud when the lights come up to relieve the intensity with appreciation for such actors.

Of course, without three men to match, no woman could produce such a Mary.  Each one had his element of surprise.  Tyrone, the “great” actor, was not the expected booming theatrical cliché voice.  Often he spoke too fast to pick up all the words, sometimes seeming as if William Hurt was not quite in control of his role.  But think of the complexity of an actor playing the role of an actor who only feels himself to be in control when he is acting before an audience.  At “home” he has no audience, only a wife and sons who see through him.  He is at home on the stage, or used to be in his hey-day, but he is no more than an illusion in this house which even looks like a run-down one-night stand hotel room.  And we are watching William Hurt in this illusion on stage before us, his audience.  So Hurt was right to show us Tyrone unable to maintain the cliché, too mentally messed-up to sound out the booming foghorn voice.

James was a visual surprise to me.  I had never imagined him as rotund as Todd van Voris appeared.  I suppose my cliché expectation was that he would be a drunken broken down version of his tall square-shouldered theatrically heroic father, as William Hurt appeared.  But this was the son who deliberately rejected his father’s appearance of athleticism, even though he showed that he was, at least when sober, a more sincere actor than his father.  And, in his cups, this James was a capable clown – until his cups overflowed, spilling his insecurity all over the floor in the final scenes, and the clown could only watch the horror of his mother, and do nothing.

Even though I knew the story of O’Neill’s tuberculosis, and thus Edmund’s “consumption”, and expected a sick looking Luke Mullins, his slimness looked so thin against van Voris’s roundness that at once his cough said what we needed to know.  So casting was not just a matter of finding actors who could act, especially actors who could act actors when they were acting and when they were not, as well as actors who can act characters who are always pretending, sometimes deliberately but often subconsciously.  Casting was also about design to create images of the characters which tell the story visually.  And this was very well done.

The design, too, of the claustrophobic ugly room, looking cheap and yet also reminiscent of the sort of ship’s cabin that O’Neill himself would have inhabited as a rough merchant seaman, set the atmosphere to dead astern.  But rather than hold us in this confinement for three hours, lighting and gaps in the wings allowed us to see out a little and place this dead centre in the beginnings of a context: the hedge out front, the verandah, the dining room, the street which led to the pub.  But there were only small disturbing sounds from the spare room upstairs, where Mary had her “naps”.  This was just sufficient for us to survive our time with this family – well done again.

The play operates on three levels, and Andrew Upton has allowed O’Neill’s writing to reveal them all.  First, conflicts within each of the personalities become apparent in more and more detail as the second level, conflict within the family between the individuals, grows apace.  These are the levels at which we respond to the action on stage as we watch.  The intricacies of the interactions make this play one of the greatest written in the 20th Century and an outstanding play historically.

The third level is not made explicit on stage, yet is shown in clues – put there by O’Neill – which may be cryptic.  This is an American play.  What does it say about America?  Upton, as director, has not only made sure the first two levels are fully developed, but he has been careful to put issues before us which are core questions in American culture.

The “ould country” is Ireland, and the accents of the two generations, compared also with the original Irish of the immigrant worker Cathleen, bring out the issue of change which we know so well in Australia.  This is fine voice design which, like good lighting, is done so well that it is not noticed.  But it establishes the credentials and credibility of this production, and I bet that O’Neill’s ghost is pleased.  This is because the theme of the migration to America and the consequential belief in the “American Dream” is crucial to appreciating O’Neill’s sense of tragedy. 

It is not just a story of characters who fall into the traps of alcohol and morphine addiction, for whom we may feel sorrow as they effectively commit suicide (as O’Neill’s sons did in real life – one only three years before O’Neill himself died).  It is the story of the failure of America to know itself – to understand that the Dream is a delusion, that America is not the great heroic nation it believes itself to be, that America cannot impose dictates upon others while maintaining its belief in freedom, that even within its own culture the dream of never-ending success for everyone is an impossible dream.

We see the effects of the American Dream played out in the news every day, and even in Australia (where we tell ourselves that we don’t accept authority, with a philosophy of “no bullshit”) we follow America into unwinnable wars and people constantly talk of achieving their dream.  O’Neill’s play is a warning: the dream is a self-destructive delusion. 

Yet the irony is that to create this drama on the stage so effectively, as Upton and his team have done, is to prove that O’Neill’s “dream” can be fulfilled – perhaps better even than in his imagination.  Watch Cathleen, the minor character of no apparent importance but the only one who will survive.

If you have to miss the Sydney season, your next opportunity is at the Newmark Theatre, Artists Repertory Theatre, Portland, Oregon USA, August 13-29, where it will be followed by Eugene O’Neill’s Ah, Wilderness in September.

© Frank McKone, Canberra