BLOOD VESSEL

Stalker Theatre

This show was that rare thing, a production that not only disappointed but also inspired real anger.

Blood Vessel seemed to lack coherency. There was little direction in the performers' actions and the whole aim of Blood Vessel was unclear. Was it exploring the history of humanity's envy of flight? Was it discussing the notion of self; individuality versus the world? Or was it perhaps delving into the dark side of consciousness where literalism gives way to elusive metaphor? If so, WHY? By attempting to tackle many concepts Blood Vessel failed to effectively cover any of them. The performers in Stalker theatre are obviously skilled and physically adroit enough to handle the complex acrobatic tasks they set themselves. But a lot of what they did was nullified by having too much of it on stage at one time. The elaborate set was grossly underused and most facial expressions and subtle acting was lost by the back lighting (I saw the show from back stage as well as from the front, and enjoyed it much more for being able to see what was going on).

Blood Vessel inspired anger because it could have been so much better. The performers had a great time on stage (leaping, hopping and bouncing around) but the audience -who walked for one and a half kilometres to get there- were essentially witness to a workshop of a mostly unrefined show. The faults of the show lie in the lack of focus; the warning signs of which were clearly in the Festival programme when it proclaimed the show to be both "dark and portentous yet full of optimism. And when audience members exited saying either, "that was bullshit" or "how wonderfully metaphysical!" they were basically saying the same thing.

FQM  [Top]

ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

The English Shakespeare Company

The fact that this is not one of Shakespeare's most performed plays (for no good reason) and the fact that we rely solely on touring productions for professional renderings of classic plays should have been ample reason enough for most to see this show. The fact that it was a touring production, and therefore not so cheapy cheapy, was ample enough reason for others not to see it.

The character of Cleopatra is an interesting one in this play and Cathy Tyson tackles it with deft subtlty that some might have mistaken for bad acting.

When we think of Cleopatra we conjure up images of opulence, Liz Taylor, asps, baths of milk, and an overriding sense of regality and nobility. This image of a suffering Queen, noble in nature and defeated by love in a boys only world of Roman Imperialism is the image of a victim. Cathy Tyson betrays this image forcefully and creates a character with a complex nature. Tyson's Cleopatra is essentially a pragmatist who uses her body as a political weapon. The two courts (Cleopatra's in Egypt and Augustus' in Rome) are contrasts between sensuality and restraint. Antony is the chap who gets caught between them. Cleopatra is a strong figure with complex vulnerabilities and Tyson succeeds in drawing these out. She can be angry, greedy, dangerous, obsessive and ecstatic all at the same time (as she is with the messenger who informs her of Antony's marriage to Caesar's sister) or she can be at her most dishevelled and broken, as she is when she and Antony meet after the failure of her navy to defeat Augustus's forces. She kneels before Antony thumping the ground with her fists, defying him, chiding herself as well as begging for mercy. That moment, in particular, reveals something of the depth of Tyson's performance.

Tim Woodward (son of Edward) plays Antony, the soldier seduced out of warriordom by the rich and sensual life of Egypt. This land is painted as exotic and dangerous, qualities which are personified by Cleopatra whom he constantly refers to as Egypt. Although Woodward's performance is strong, he lacked the depth that might have been expected from a character who had recently swapped a life of butchery for a life of indulgent love. His dying speech was especially half hearted, delivered more in the tone one might use when ordering a pizza, rather than the pained exultation of imminant metemphycosis and the folly of suicide.

The production was strong and interesting, but the main focus is essentially around Cleopatra, a character which was explored fully and thoughtfully by Tyson.

FQM  [Top]

LEAR

The Japan Asia Foundation

Ong Keng Sen's production of "Lear" jettisons immediately the text laid down by our friend William Shakespeare. Instead we have a work in six Asian languages (seven if you include the 'Australian' subtitles) by Japanese playwright Rio Kishida, hence the removal of the "King" in the title. Kishida rewrote Shakespeare's King Lear in a way that presents a women's perspective of a culturally balanced production.

The basic idea of the thing seems to be to take a universally recognised work and recreate it from an Asian perspective. The various cultural backgrounds of the actors (the two leads were Japanese and Chinese) were complemented by the music and the staging of each scene. These different cultural styles; Japanese noh, Chinese opera, Thai dance, Indonesian gamelan music and Singaporean pop were joined with the kind of sub cutaneous stitching that would make any cultural surgeon proud.

Styles and language were merged all over the shop as the exceedingly minimalist storyline emerged. Lear became the generic "old man / old woman" and Shakespeare's language became minimalist lines of translated poetry on large monitors. It seemed unfortunate that much of the effect of the cultural diversity was lost in the translation - it could have all been Chinese Swahili - it still had to be read, in English, off a big screen. Obviously the artists were aware of this, as they can't expect an audience fluent in 6 Asian languages - so I inferred they were content for the various languages to wash over the audience. This left me feeling a tad chilly.

In other aspects the play was solid but not particularly exciting. Good use was made of a simple sloping set through some inventive lighting and a few dropped curtains. Not a bad job of a pretty daunting task.

NGW  [Top]

THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY

Black Swan Theatre Company

Another collaboration. You know, merge cultures in order to learn about each other and foster tolerance and understanding with a spirit of co-operation etc... This time it's Black Swan and Indonesian artists working together to recreate Christopher Koch's novel.

The collaboration sees the Australian actors providing the bulk of the narrative, which is complemented by an Indonesian puppet show and music, that takes place on the opposite side of a revolving stage. The Australian actors follow the narrative of the novel, while the Indonesia artists represent the thematic links to Indonesian mythology through the use of puppets and music.

Guy Hamilton isn't a dwarf at all. He is an ABC journalist posted to Indonesia to cover the period leading up to the change from Sukarno to Suharto. Billy Kwan is a more dwarflike character. A photographer in fact. Kwan is a fascinating fellow who latches on to Hamilton and shows him the ropes. Through Kwan we see the Indonesian people as they are, in contrast with the view of the international journalists in the Ramayana Bar, who sit above the poverty and report on a political landscape that seems removed from the people. Kwan and Hamilton get along famously for the most part, and if you want to know more, read the book. Or watch Mel Gibson in the film.

Black Swan have done well but not brilliantly in bringing a novel to the stage, and doing it in collaboration with artists from another culture.

NGW  [Top]

RICHARD THE THIRD

The English Shakespeare Company

This was the production which centred most of its publicity around the gimmick of setting Dick III in a children's nursery. Shakespeare purists loathe this sort of thing and often point to such productions as being the root of all indulgent evil in the theatre. They have got a point in many cases, but not in this one. In my opinion (which I admit is of no consequence to you) Shakespeare has enough in it to make it interesting without setting it in space or at the bottom of the sea etc. It also has enough in the script to create excitement whithout needing to resort to inserting large chunks of bad pantoesque frolicking. That said, interpretations are essential for any play to survive and good interpretations, that don't indulge a gimmick, serve to revitalise the theatre and clear out old hackneyed notions. As far as Shakespeare is concerned the modern interpretations of Romeo and Juliet (by our boy Bazza) and Richard the Third (by the venerable Ian McKellen) were both energetic ways to reveal Shakespeare to a new audience without subverting the text.

Such is the case with this production. The play has been severely cut which. This ensures that the 'gimmick' of setting the play in a nursery isn't stretched beyond interest. All of the main points of the story are in this version, all of the treachery, bloodlust, revenge, plotting and betrayal are still there and relevant. It wasn't difficult to picture such butchery and sinister eloquence within the infantile setting. Paul Hunter as Dick is villainous and yet manages to convey a wicked sense of enjoyment to the audience. This production might not have been as subtle and wry as many Dicks three have been (then again Larry Olivier's nose in the early film version was scarcely subtle either, wry yes, subtle no) but it was an intelligent and innovative stab at one of Shakespeare's good'ns.

FQM  [Top]