Rent - Drama Barn
The Drama Barn never really comes across as the best place to put a musical but Rent twists that, almost feeling like it would struggle in a bigger place. Following the recent spurt of using the Barn's back room, Rent sort of meanders about at the beginning before kickstarting with the cast frantically ushering you into the seating area. And from that moment, it doesn't let up.
The set, three levels with the band in the centre, was a great concept, providing lots of locations and meaning that the cast could really fill the space when they needed to. The lighting did a similar thing (note: while watching The Producers the week before, I was struck by how much more difficult lighting the stereotypical 'musical' can be) - helping to set the scenes and in some cases - Angel's exit - give some of the best non-singing moments in the piece. Rent isn't the best story by any means but the songs are catchy as hell and nearly all of them sound sort of familiar. The direction (Tom Ryalls) has all the touches of a Third-Year final production in the Barn - I think it'll be a while before we see something so accomplished that understands the dynamics and intricacies of the space so well. Similarly, the movement/choreography really help the sense of fun that this production had.
It's hard to single out specific actors. The ending (I saw the final show) was testament to how close the cast had become and for good reason. Nobody really stands out because the performances are so high; there are some great acting performances, some great vocals, some great all-round performances but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't improve the show in the some way.
Being fair, it's not the perfect production by any means. It's very polished and very enjoyable but some bits don't hit it for me - a couple of songs felt like the person was doing laps of the stage while singing and some of the humour didn't translate. I enjoyed the production so much that I watched the film a couple of days later and actually if the production were less faithful to the film then I think it might have been improved.
Does the nitty-gritty matter though when I (and the rest of the audience) had such a good time? I'd probably say no. By all accounts, the Barn was packed for four nights and nobody has been anything other than positive about it. It's definitely not easy to do a musical well, even without the added difficulties of the small space, but it did a brilliant job. Rent was a smash.
Friday, 19 June 2015
Saturday, 25 April 2015
Whiplash
Whiplash - Drama Barn
In a student-written piece of theatre, what is more important: the writing or the production as a whole? Given that it's not part of the ODNs, it would suggest the production. And outside of university, in the professional theatre world, there's less of a stigma about new writing than there is within our University bubble. With that being said, I will try to engage a little bit more with the writing as separate from the production than I might normally.
Amy Milton's Whiplash is a play that explores the idea that we have a good (Gabriel Elston) and evil (Golfo Migos) side in our lives; it does this through the prism of a relationship between Maggie (Amelia Hamilton) and Cain (Sam Fallon). We see Maggie's journey as she deals with this relationship and her feelings. And potentially, this is the problem from which the others stem. The concept is nice, the personification of the voice/s in all our heads. But it's hard to attach any urgency to the main through-line, which is a Romeo and Juliet without any other characters. Even though (I think) they're supposed to be at university, the characters feel like they're roughly 15/16 and having their first relationship and for that reason, it can sometimes just feel like 'so what?'. From that, urgency is forced in with lots of shouting and constant movement round the space. The production never allows us to breathe, even though the play has scenes where the characters ostensibly do nothing but breathe.
The plot really becomes an issue during the monologue sections for me. It just feels like not enough has happened for the characters to get this angry so it's like watching overreactions on loop. Am I good enough for her? Am I good enough for him? I'm spoiling my hypothetical plans for him. I'm spoiling her hypothetical plans. I love him. I love her. While I understand that in a relationship these things feel enormous, put on stage, it can be hard to keep an audience's attention. Fortunately, Milton's writing is good enough that the introspective nature of the piece is eloquently conveyed to us. She has a poetic style that makes the play very listenable. Exposition is eked out slowly and the characters interact realistically with each other. These basic elements are strong and make Milton's future work an exciting prospect. With a better plot structure holding the play in place, this could well have been a really exciting piece.
My biggest issue with the production, as a whole, was that the staging seemed to conflict the writing. The strong poetic style of dialogue didn't sit well with the naturalistic acting styles. But then the over-characterised performances of Hope and Will didn't really sit well either. The styles needed to be merged more, to create a base level that was easier to engage with as an audience and that seemed to suit the tone of the language. I wanted more stylised, expressive forms of acting that could allow us to feel that maybe this wasn't set quite in everyday life but was somewhat separate and ethereal. On top of that, the play's violence and power was muted; constant pushing and shoving, as well as shouting, numbed me quickly so I could never really feel the reason behind them by the midway stage. After 45 minutes I was internally egging on the characters to punch each other.
The constant movement around the stage felt like it was trying to make up a little bit for so much talking but it was just a bit forced. Were they sat in someone's bedroom? Or in a park? Or just somewhere? It was often hard to tell, and when the characters are just sat together, chatting, it seemed extraneous to have them moving from one point to the next around the space, resting for a few seconds in each. What this did allow was for the audience to notice the very good set. Minimalistic (for a minimalistic play), there were lots of phrases or words written all over the floor, which really mirrored the kind of introspective, talky nature of the play itself.
It's an interesting debate about where student-written theatre sits in Dramasoc; whether it should all be confined to Monday ODNs or whether it is useful to move it to the weekend where it will get a bigger budget and hopefully a bigger audience. I really appreciated seeing this achieved in a more professional way than maybe an ODN might be and I'm sure Amy Milton will only get better and better as she continues writing but for me, the production somewhat let the play down, rather than the other way round.
In a student-written piece of theatre, what is more important: the writing or the production as a whole? Given that it's not part of the ODNs, it would suggest the production. And outside of university, in the professional theatre world, there's less of a stigma about new writing than there is within our University bubble. With that being said, I will try to engage a little bit more with the writing as separate from the production than I might normally.
Amy Milton's Whiplash is a play that explores the idea that we have a good (Gabriel Elston) and evil (Golfo Migos) side in our lives; it does this through the prism of a relationship between Maggie (Amelia Hamilton) and Cain (Sam Fallon). We see Maggie's journey as she deals with this relationship and her feelings. And potentially, this is the problem from which the others stem. The concept is nice, the personification of the voice/s in all our heads. But it's hard to attach any urgency to the main through-line, which is a Romeo and Juliet without any other characters. Even though (I think) they're supposed to be at university, the characters feel like they're roughly 15/16 and having their first relationship and for that reason, it can sometimes just feel like 'so what?'. From that, urgency is forced in with lots of shouting and constant movement round the space. The production never allows us to breathe, even though the play has scenes where the characters ostensibly do nothing but breathe.
The plot really becomes an issue during the monologue sections for me. It just feels like not enough has happened for the characters to get this angry so it's like watching overreactions on loop. Am I good enough for her? Am I good enough for him? I'm spoiling my hypothetical plans for him. I'm spoiling her hypothetical plans. I love him. I love her. While I understand that in a relationship these things feel enormous, put on stage, it can be hard to keep an audience's attention. Fortunately, Milton's writing is good enough that the introspective nature of the piece is eloquently conveyed to us. She has a poetic style that makes the play very listenable. Exposition is eked out slowly and the characters interact realistically with each other. These basic elements are strong and make Milton's future work an exciting prospect. With a better plot structure holding the play in place, this could well have been a really exciting piece.
My biggest issue with the production, as a whole, was that the staging seemed to conflict the writing. The strong poetic style of dialogue didn't sit well with the naturalistic acting styles. But then the over-characterised performances of Hope and Will didn't really sit well either. The styles needed to be merged more, to create a base level that was easier to engage with as an audience and that seemed to suit the tone of the language. I wanted more stylised, expressive forms of acting that could allow us to feel that maybe this wasn't set quite in everyday life but was somewhat separate and ethereal. On top of that, the play's violence and power was muted; constant pushing and shoving, as well as shouting, numbed me quickly so I could never really feel the reason behind them by the midway stage. After 45 minutes I was internally egging on the characters to punch each other.
The constant movement around the stage felt like it was trying to make up a little bit for so much talking but it was just a bit forced. Were they sat in someone's bedroom? Or in a park? Or just somewhere? It was often hard to tell, and when the characters are just sat together, chatting, it seemed extraneous to have them moving from one point to the next around the space, resting for a few seconds in each. What this did allow was for the audience to notice the very good set. Minimalistic (for a minimalistic play), there were lots of phrases or words written all over the floor, which really mirrored the kind of introspective, talky nature of the play itself.
It's an interesting debate about where student-written theatre sits in Dramasoc; whether it should all be confined to Monday ODNs or whether it is useful to move it to the weekend where it will get a bigger budget and hopefully a bigger audience. I really appreciated seeing this achieved in a more professional way than maybe an ODN might be and I'm sure Amy Milton will only get better and better as she continues writing but for me, the production somewhat let the play down, rather than the other way round.
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
Criticism and Macbeth
I suppose the elephant in the room is that two days ago, Saturday, I wrote a fan letter to the actors of the very same Macbeth that I am now admitting I hated.
How, I suppose, is it possible that I can hate a production but love the actors? Well, in the same way that On Ego refused to be split into minute details of actors, media, sound, lighting etc. so this production seems to have all its parts existing separately from one another. That is the reason that I felt able to tell the actors how bloody brilliant they are, while internally ranting in my head about the production.
Why the wait before writing this? Frankly, I didn't really want to be the person to attack another person's production. I bought my own ticket, I had no obligation to write anything and mainly I didn't trust my ability to criticise something without descending into meanness or hurting someone's feelings. Considering that my two best friends told me "I really think you'll dislike this production" I started to wonder whether I went in support of many good friends involved or out of a strange pleasure gained from sitting through something and not enjoying it. So after leaving the production and letting off steam about the bits and bobs I didn't think worked, I felt okay. Then I read Joe D'angelo's perfectly good review of Macbeth (http://www.nouse.co.uk/2015/03/07/review-macbeth/) and rage filled up again.
WHAT? You think THIS was theatre! But....didn't you....why?!
Still, nothing, no need to write why I didn't like it so much. Then I read some brilliant articles about the nature of criticism, particularly the two from two bloggers I have incredible respect for (Meg Vaughn* and Andrew Haydon**) and two people who aren't afraid of having an opinion. And so, in a very dull and long-winded way, I realised that it's okay to hate something. And it's also okay to tell other people you hated it. So, if you don't want to hear why I hated it, or you loved it and think I'm completely mental at the end of this and want to read something you agree with then again, read Joe's review, he's an excellent writer.
But for me, this was the type of theatre that makes me worried. Worried that we can just throw cigarettes and wine and whiskey in cool decanters mixed with fake blood and something is 'fresh' or 'new' or 'innovative'. Worried that a psychological play produced without any real arc or thought-through concept is okay, as long as there is some attempt at style.
From the moment I walked in and saw the three witches, bound and gagged, in orange jumpsuits, my heart sank. And then I read the note in the programme, telling me that this was a production examining the themes of terrorism and how Macbeth is actually a play about England really, not Scotland. And maybe I'm wrong but I don't really understand (even after seeing it and thinking about it) how on earth those things have anything to do with the play, Macbeth, as it stands.
*********
This is problem no.1
A play doesn't necessarily need to have a concept or a message. Many good plays are just entertaining. But if you outline your concept for the audience, then if that expectation is not met or justified then I will feel disappointed. I can imagine three responses to that: a) the audience should work for theatre, you shouldn't dumb down a production; b) it had those themes - look at the CCTV!; or c) you just missed it.
My response would be a) that is purely laziness. If you layer those things on top and I have to look for them, that's okay. When nothing exists in the production, it is just an idea that maybe could apply and forcing me to do the thinking for you is not the same. b) putting a set piece on stage, or a gimmick, is not the same as rigorously applying a theme or concept to a production and working towards it. Especially when moments could be applied to the theme and aren't. and c) sure, if I did, I apologise profusely for my reading of it.
Let's take the CCTV idea. Generally speaking, it was a good idea. It can totally be applied to Macbeth. The play is set in an unnamed anti-Terror organisation. The CCTV seems modern and we see live streams. But then it is barely referenced for the rest of the play. At some point, the screen changes from a series of CCTV feeds to a picture of the 'dagger' (Stanley knife), rather than actually incorporating this idea into the CCTV i.e. by having a faceless somebody holding the dagger on the screen. Then, later on, we see Lady Macbeth hanging on the screen but this time the picture needs to be changed via remote. Why has Macbeth, being able to see anywhere in his castle, never once used the screens to dispel his worries, paranoia or guilt? Or use the CCTV to watch one of the deaths which, by the last one, I feel nothing for?
For me, it seems odd that something so radical as terrorism can be the theme of such a faithful adaptation of a Shakespeare play. It tries to look cool but this is nothing new? How many productions manage to attach a style to a Shakespeare play but also manage to give their updating a concept that fits and improves the play as it is. I didn't want a more faithful production of Macbeth, I wanted a production that tried to be different. A play about terrorism or the English? That doesn't fit Macbeth. But it could fit. So rip the rulebook up. Would it not be better to put the Macduff and Malcolm scene at the beginning? Frame those two as the challengers, or the pretenders. The narrative was pretty much left by the roadside in the production concept so why not make your own narrative, rather than forcing one that doesn't fit? For a revamped Macbeth, it felt surprisingly similar to many others.
Problem no.2
This is more personal. More in relation to the play than in general to the type of theatre. In a play like Macbeth, arguably one of the best supernatural plays written, it perplexes me that the theme of the supernatural was taken out for this production. In an attempt to justify everything, things became too literal. Every metaphor in the text was represented in some way - from the dagger, to the spots of blood. It's not as if we, in modern times, cannot match up with supernatural elements - see Twilight, Misfits, Let The Right One In (film, tv, theatre). From the beginning when three prisoners, under threat of torture (if not already tortured), told the torturer/colleague something they wanted to hear, I felt off-balance. A worker as high a rank as Macbeth, right by the top of the organisation, would surely mistrust anything said in this context. This transcends suspension of disbelief at the very beginning of the play. Continuing into the next witches moment: it felt like there was no setting or understanding of what they were doing. Before they were prisoners but now they hang out together, dancing and rapping around a dead body. Suddenly, we are asked to trust that they aren't prisoners anymore. Or are they? What purpose does it serve either way in relation to the production?
Problem no.3
*********
This is problem no.1
A play doesn't necessarily need to have a concept or a message. Many good plays are just entertaining. But if you outline your concept for the audience, then if that expectation is not met or justified then I will feel disappointed. I can imagine three responses to that: a) the audience should work for theatre, you shouldn't dumb down a production; b) it had those themes - look at the CCTV!; or c) you just missed it.
My response would be a) that is purely laziness. If you layer those things on top and I have to look for them, that's okay. When nothing exists in the production, it is just an idea that maybe could apply and forcing me to do the thinking for you is not the same. b) putting a set piece on stage, or a gimmick, is not the same as rigorously applying a theme or concept to a production and working towards it. Especially when moments could be applied to the theme and aren't. and c) sure, if I did, I apologise profusely for my reading of it.
Let's take the CCTV idea. Generally speaking, it was a good idea. It can totally be applied to Macbeth. The play is set in an unnamed anti-Terror organisation. The CCTV seems modern and we see live streams. But then it is barely referenced for the rest of the play. At some point, the screen changes from a series of CCTV feeds to a picture of the 'dagger' (Stanley knife), rather than actually incorporating this idea into the CCTV i.e. by having a faceless somebody holding the dagger on the screen. Then, later on, we see Lady Macbeth hanging on the screen but this time the picture needs to be changed via remote. Why has Macbeth, being able to see anywhere in his castle, never once used the screens to dispel his worries, paranoia or guilt? Or use the CCTV to watch one of the deaths which, by the last one, I feel nothing for?
For me, it seems odd that something so radical as terrorism can be the theme of such a faithful adaptation of a Shakespeare play. It tries to look cool but this is nothing new? How many productions manage to attach a style to a Shakespeare play but also manage to give their updating a concept that fits and improves the play as it is. I didn't want a more faithful production of Macbeth, I wanted a production that tried to be different. A play about terrorism or the English? That doesn't fit Macbeth. But it could fit. So rip the rulebook up. Would it not be better to put the Macduff and Malcolm scene at the beginning? Frame those two as the challengers, or the pretenders. The narrative was pretty much left by the roadside in the production concept so why not make your own narrative, rather than forcing one that doesn't fit? For a revamped Macbeth, it felt surprisingly similar to many others.
Problem no.2
This is more personal. More in relation to the play than in general to the type of theatre. In a play like Macbeth, arguably one of the best supernatural plays written, it perplexes me that the theme of the supernatural was taken out for this production. In an attempt to justify everything, things became too literal. Every metaphor in the text was represented in some way - from the dagger, to the spots of blood. It's not as if we, in modern times, cannot match up with supernatural elements - see Twilight, Misfits, Let The Right One In (film, tv, theatre). From the beginning when three prisoners, under threat of torture (if not already tortured), told the torturer/colleague something they wanted to hear, I felt off-balance. A worker as high a rank as Macbeth, right by the top of the organisation, would surely mistrust anything said in this context. This transcends suspension of disbelief at the very beginning of the play. Continuing into the next witches moment: it felt like there was no setting or understanding of what they were doing. Before they were prisoners but now they hang out together, dancing and rapping around a dead body. Suddenly, we are asked to trust that they aren't prisoners anymore. Or are they? What purpose does it serve either way in relation to the production?
Problem no.3
In a return to what we began with: the lack of unity in the production. There were some lovely things in the production that weren't pushed or used as well as they might. The sink in the corner for example: a great part of the set, something for the actors to play off and use and maybe express some internal thought or feeling they might not have otherwise. Except that it was at the side, facing the wall. So I didn't see any of the things the actors were doing. In the same way, a perfectly good scene between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth was completely lost amidst the overpowering sound of Ben Howard. Narrative and character lost for the sake of style. Likewise, the live feed was only addressed once (by Banquo): was the camera hidden? Even though the computer with that stream was on the entire time and everyone in the room could see it?
The characters didn't seem to use the set to its fullest extent - an IV drip that wasn't, aside from the Porter briefly, referenced to or used in the entire play. The blocks around the side of stage, again used only once by Macduff near the end of the play, and otherwise just to keep extraneous props. Much the same, the sound and lighting did nothing to enhance the scenes, sometimes taking away from them directly - e.g. Perfect Day song after Lady Macduff's death. It's not that the sound and lighting are bad - often the sound in transitions and scene lighting were brilliant - but they struggled to add anything more.
*******
It seems odd to try and summarise this, in the way you might a review, but I suppose what I took from Macbeth was that I clearly do have a type of theatre I prefer, much as I wish that wasn't the case. And that actually I don't take pleasure from seeing things I don't like. So I guess the type of theatre that I like is intelligent, interrogates a text and creates a consistent concept. Give me a production that is about something, over a production that just tries to force a style as best it can on top of a play. Macbeth didn't do any of this for me, trying too hard to be a cross between Peaky Blinders and Quentin Tarantino without the money or consistency that those things have.
I have no doubt that, if this is the style of the production team, that future productions will be tightened up - a first-time director will invariably have learnt a lot doing the production and to go for that type of style in a Shakespeare is a bold move. But for me, this production was surface-level aesthetics and even then I saw cracks in the decisions that made me question whether this production knew the style it was aiming for to begin with.
Notes
* Meg Vaughn - incredible and innovative blog at http://synonymsforchurlish.tumblr.com/
** Andrew Haydon - beautiful writer with a wonderful depth of knowledge about theatre at http://postcardsgods.blogspot.co.uk/
The characters didn't seem to use the set to its fullest extent - an IV drip that wasn't, aside from the Porter briefly, referenced to or used in the entire play. The blocks around the side of stage, again used only once by Macduff near the end of the play, and otherwise just to keep extraneous props. Much the same, the sound and lighting did nothing to enhance the scenes, sometimes taking away from them directly - e.g. Perfect Day song after Lady Macduff's death. It's not that the sound and lighting are bad - often the sound in transitions and scene lighting were brilliant - but they struggled to add anything more.
*******
It seems odd to try and summarise this, in the way you might a review, but I suppose what I took from Macbeth was that I clearly do have a type of theatre I prefer, much as I wish that wasn't the case. And that actually I don't take pleasure from seeing things I don't like. So I guess the type of theatre that I like is intelligent, interrogates a text and creates a consistent concept. Give me a production that is about something, over a production that just tries to force a style as best it can on top of a play. Macbeth didn't do any of this for me, trying too hard to be a cross between Peaky Blinders and Quentin Tarantino without the money or consistency that those things have.
I have no doubt that, if this is the style of the production team, that future productions will be tightened up - a first-time director will invariably have learnt a lot doing the production and to go for that type of style in a Shakespeare is a bold move. But for me, this production was surface-level aesthetics and even then I saw cracks in the decisions that made me question whether this production knew the style it was aiming for to begin with.
Notes
* Meg Vaughn - incredible and innovative blog at http://synonymsforchurlish.tumblr.com/
** Andrew Haydon - beautiful writer with a wonderful depth of knowledge about theatre at http://postcardsgods.blogspot.co.uk/
Saturday, 7 March 2015
A fan letter to the actors in Macbeth
Hey guys,
Thanks for this. Like you were good. Really good. I could quite happily go through the entire cast and tell each of you exactly why I loved you. As it was, I've limited myself to a little bit about a few characters. The sycophancy that follows fairly accurately represents my excitement at leaving - the sort of buzz I felt after seeing Jekyll and Hyde.
Thanks for this. Like you were good. Really good. I could quite happily go through the entire cast and tell each of you exactly why I loved you. As it was, I've limited myself to a little bit about a few characters. The sycophancy that follows fairly accurately represents my excitement at leaving - the sort of buzz I felt after seeing Jekyll and Hyde.
Kicking off with the real Jim Jelly, showing us his leading man, and he showed it. That's right. Underlined, bold AND italics. Profesh like. This Macbeth fed on power and love: this was not a Macbeth motivated by fate but motivated by an idea planted in his head and from the moment he was crowned Thane of Cawdor, a fire lit in his eye that you felt would have to be torn from him. Tim managed to hold the entire narrative together, this was less about the actions of the play than the journey of a man once he takes the first step. It wasn't a flawless performance, there were small moments that needed a more complex approach, for example, the guilt or worry was briefly lost in monologues from time to time but when it counted, when Macbeth was facing Macduff, tearing down Lady Macbeth, he came through. Spectacularly so.
Saffia Sage. Lady Macbeth. Claire Underwood. Robin Wright. Not a comparison made lightly but the elegance that Saffia brought to this performance made the decline all the more believable. The measured approach to her switch from controlling to losing control was only noticeable when it had happened; a joyous realisation as you look back through the play and notice all the things she did in the play leading to that moment. This M/LM didn't necessarily have the sexual relationship that many contemporary ones do (aside from THAT black dress - or was it gold?). But a mutual lust for power created a dynamic that left both parties equal and all the more captivating.
(Note: the scenes between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth as LM convinces M to kill the king and as M rips into LM for showing weakness were glorious)
I'm not usually prone to fan-girling. But I think I might have to make an exception for Jamie Bowman. Having only seen him in Road before this, it seems odd to be jumping to this conclusion so early in our short (yet oh-so-creepy) interactions. This guy though. This Macduff. Having seen Ray Fearon's Macduff (http://tinyurl.com/olgdvla) I was quietly confident that this would be okay at best. Instead I was blown away. The way he portrayed Macduff's torn frame of mind as he mourns his wife and prepares to lead an attack on Macbeth; the cracking of the voice that broke the floodgates. It seems impertinent not to mention James Esler's Malcolm at this point: the scene between those two arguably stole the production. Watching Malcolm frantically try to stem the verbal bloodflow that was gushing from Macduff was heartbreaking. Watching Esler's eyes were the key to his performance, his physicality betraying nothing but the pause between lines as he communicated through eye contact were superb. Between the two of them, they kept their end of the seesaw aloft as Tim did his.
Andy Bewley's Banquo, while alive, was a delicate piece of acting; something about him felt off from the beginning. To me, it seems you often get Banquos that are good friend and lose faith but seeing Banquo as an independent, right from the off, felt right in the context. He felt less like a pawn caught up in Macbeth's plan and more as a castle, waiting for his moment to be brought in the game, yet never getting his chance.
In the rest of the cast, there were excellent performances throughout. Despite a rather short scene, Georgie's Lady Macduff established herself first in a great moment with Macduff and Venetia Cook's Porter then, in her main scene, gave us a quiet performance before being given a criminally short time to react to her child's death before her own quickly followed. The aforementioned Venetia managed to bring light to this dark production, without resorting to cheap physical gags, and her monologue was a welcome relief before the revelations that followed. Josh Welch and Hollie Whelan's Lennox and Ross gave us a grounding in a play that usually has a far larger cast during the 'banquet' scenes. Similarly, the assuredness of Toby King's Duncan gave good reason for Macbeth's guilt.
For me, this was easily the best cast I've seen in a production at York. You all know exactly what you're doing and feed effortlessly off each other, each bringing energy and inventiveness. The play could have been performed on a bare stage, with everyone in all-black; or in full Shakespearean costume; or just in my front room (that offer still stands, just let me know) and I would have left as excited and enthusiastic as I left on Friday night. Unreal.
Lots of love,
James
Lots of love,
James
Friday, 6 March 2015
DOUBLE TAKE: La Dispute and Les Acteurs
DOUBLE TAKE
La Dispute and Les Acteurs
Once, in the court of TFTV, a dispute began between a prince and his love (you decide who is who). To settle the argument, they reared a group of students over a period of two years, taught them methods and practitioners and then split them into two. The argument? Could they make a hilarious comedy. One group, they gave a story that mirrored their own, La Dispute, the other, they gave a story that mirrored the actors journey, Les Acteurs. The students toiled with the stories - their strange language, the characters, the setting - and over time they steeled themselves to present the sum of their problems on the grandest stage of them all, La Scenic.
*******
TFTV's Third Years are back, this time on the same bill. As everyone has probably seen from social media, one play, La Dispute, contains a prince manipulating four orphans - two girls, two boys - to see if a specific gender is more likely to cheat than the other. The second, Les Acteurs, contains a comedy within a comedy where characters trick each other to their own ends, but in a far more harmless way than it sounds.
The plays themselves seem evenly written but the difference boils down to what has been added to them. There are flashes of brilliance in both: the dancing bow at the end of Les Acteurs; the Notary's entrance; the jumping companionship in La Dispute; the hand kissing throughout La Dispute. But the overall problem with these plays is a lack of fun. The audience was having a great time but the actors themselves seemed too fixed in the play itself. Yes, an assessed piece of work; yes, the first night; yes, nerves. But what I wanted to see was actors mirroring the pieces themselves; most characters spend a lot of time enjoying themselves but I never believed the actors were having fun.
Several times in La Dispute, for example, I missed lines because actors were trying to talk over the audience laughing. In Les Acteurs, nobody seemed aware that what they were saying was funny: it was like the Devil Wears Prada with Kristen Stewart instead of Emily Blunt. This will, hopefully, improve now the first night has gone and now the groups are getting good feedback, they will be more confident in the performances so they can trust in what they have and begin to enjoy these plays.
This sense of fun affects almost all the aspects. None of the actors are missing the beats or misjudging their character wildly but the actors who stand out are invariably the ones who seem to be having the most fun on stage, to me anyway - Jason Ryall, Symone Thompson, Emily Thane, Joe Winstone. The sets are lovely and inventive but there is no fun to them; Anna Mawn has deliberately not made the structure perfect but you can see the foundations of it, it doesn't feel like it quite fits the atmosphere. The see-through material of Becky Dryden-Jones makes the entrances visible but generally seems unused in the production, the concept of something being visible to audience but invisible to characters generally being ignored.
The music in both productions (Becky Robinson and Martha Godfrey, respectively) is sparse but well-timed and used to good effect. Similarly, the lighting does a solid job in illuminating the stage and setting the tone for the scenes (Katie Wilkinson and George Killick). For La Dispute, director Rosie O'Sullivan does a very good job of focusing the action whilst reminding us of the hierarchy on stage - keeping the Prince and Hermiane up top, watching over the orphans but also Mesrou and Carise. In Les Acteurs, James Dixon keeps the pace quick and the play never seems to stall but I wonder whether more could have been done to help the actors in terms of props or larger set pieces, just to give them more options, particularly in the rehearsal for the comedy play.
These are good productions, definitely the funniest of the performances I've seen at TFTV, and confidence will only raise the standard. In a busy week for theatre, the Third Years more than hold their own.
La Dispute and Les Acteurs
Once, in the court of TFTV, a dispute began between a prince and his love (you decide who is who). To settle the argument, they reared a group of students over a period of two years, taught them methods and practitioners and then split them into two. The argument? Could they make a hilarious comedy. One group, they gave a story that mirrored their own, La Dispute, the other, they gave a story that mirrored the actors journey, Les Acteurs. The students toiled with the stories - their strange language, the characters, the setting - and over time they steeled themselves to present the sum of their problems on the grandest stage of them all, La Scenic.
*******
TFTV's Third Years are back, this time on the same bill. As everyone has probably seen from social media, one play, La Dispute, contains a prince manipulating four orphans - two girls, two boys - to see if a specific gender is more likely to cheat than the other. The second, Les Acteurs, contains a comedy within a comedy where characters trick each other to their own ends, but in a far more harmless way than it sounds.
The plays themselves seem evenly written but the difference boils down to what has been added to them. There are flashes of brilliance in both: the dancing bow at the end of Les Acteurs; the Notary's entrance; the jumping companionship in La Dispute; the hand kissing throughout La Dispute. But the overall problem with these plays is a lack of fun. The audience was having a great time but the actors themselves seemed too fixed in the play itself. Yes, an assessed piece of work; yes, the first night; yes, nerves. But what I wanted to see was actors mirroring the pieces themselves; most characters spend a lot of time enjoying themselves but I never believed the actors were having fun.
Several times in La Dispute, for example, I missed lines because actors were trying to talk over the audience laughing. In Les Acteurs, nobody seemed aware that what they were saying was funny: it was like the Devil Wears Prada with Kristen Stewart instead of Emily Blunt. This will, hopefully, improve now the first night has gone and now the groups are getting good feedback, they will be more confident in the performances so they can trust in what they have and begin to enjoy these plays.
This sense of fun affects almost all the aspects. None of the actors are missing the beats or misjudging their character wildly but the actors who stand out are invariably the ones who seem to be having the most fun on stage, to me anyway - Jason Ryall, Symone Thompson, Emily Thane, Joe Winstone. The sets are lovely and inventive but there is no fun to them; Anna Mawn has deliberately not made the structure perfect but you can see the foundations of it, it doesn't feel like it quite fits the atmosphere. The see-through material of Becky Dryden-Jones makes the entrances visible but generally seems unused in the production, the concept of something being visible to audience but invisible to characters generally being ignored.
The music in both productions (Becky Robinson and Martha Godfrey, respectively) is sparse but well-timed and used to good effect. Similarly, the lighting does a solid job in illuminating the stage and setting the tone for the scenes (Katie Wilkinson and George Killick). For La Dispute, director Rosie O'Sullivan does a very good job of focusing the action whilst reminding us of the hierarchy on stage - keeping the Prince and Hermiane up top, watching over the orphans but also Mesrou and Carise. In Les Acteurs, James Dixon keeps the pace quick and the play never seems to stall but I wonder whether more could have been done to help the actors in terms of props or larger set pieces, just to give them more options, particularly in the rehearsal for the comedy play.
These are good productions, definitely the funniest of the performances I've seen at TFTV, and confidence will only raise the standard. In a busy week for theatre, the Third Years more than hold their own.
Jekyll and Hyde - Theatre Mill
Jekyll and Hyde - Theatre Mill
Four/Five
*spoiler alert throughout*
"?£%£$£!£$%$£%$^^^&&***%@" - James Ralph, 2015
I think that quote clearly shows the general reaction to Theatre Mill's latest production. It is a beautifully measured production that every now and again allows it to take a punch at the audience, mainly at the end of each half. What it does brilliantly is be stylish without really throwing it at you (I wish Uncle Vanya would take note) and keep you invested in the big scene changes that can threaten to lead you into tedious oblivion.
Assuming that people don't know the story of Jekyll and Hyde (as I didn't) the play centres around a narrator (the solid Adam Elm) Gabriel's meeting with the eponymous Dr Jekyll (the incredible James Weaver). Dr Jekyll LOVES an invention, especially when it pushes the boundaries of the science surrounding the human psyche. Unfortunately, you can only kill so many rats in Victorian England (who knew? Gino D'acampo isn't the only one getting in trouble) and so he is forced to find other experiments - eventually himself. In the meantime, he's starting to fancy his best mate's wife, Eleanor (the multi-role-ing Viktoria Kay) and increasingly worry his best mate, Hastings (David Chafer). Eventually people start to realise that the monster Hyde is actually Jekyll (a twist that frankly I never saw coming) and Hyde's knack for killing people becomes a bit much.
There are some wonderful moments in this production. The slow-mo fighting, timed to perfection, ending the first half on black out as Hyde leaps forward to savage his random victim left the entire audience stunned, just looking at each other. It is the type of moment that you rarely get, particularly in the regional theatre I've encountered (especially when I'm the youngest person in the audience by at least 10 years). Similarly, the end of the play, as Gabriel opens the bag of Dr Jekyll's notes and the blinding light of knowledge encompasses him as the delighted face of Hyde looms closer and closer to him and as he looks into his face, shocked, BOOM the play ends.
All of this is made possible by some very fine performances. James Weaver as Jekyll/Hyde is unreal, his physicality twisting and turning and every now and again making you question if the same actor is actually playing them both. Similarly, David Chafer does a brilliant job with his different characters, I didn't for example realise that he was playing the butler Poole until halfway through.
Becs Andrews' set was cleverly designed, the glo-in-the-dark equations on the crates, the hanging lights that could be attached to lampposts instantly to give a sense of location. The lighting and music by Andy Pilliner is the most vital production element, the sneaking, creeping music sometimes telling you what will happen, sometimes giving nothing away; the lighting keeping you in suspense but also framing each scene instantly.
If more theatre like this existed, maybe there would be more theatre fans in York.
Four/Five
*spoiler alert throughout*
"?£%£$£!£$%$£%$^^^&&***%@" - James Ralph, 2015
I think that quote clearly shows the general reaction to Theatre Mill's latest production. It is a beautifully measured production that every now and again allows it to take a punch at the audience, mainly at the end of each half. What it does brilliantly is be stylish without really throwing it at you (I wish Uncle Vanya would take note) and keep you invested in the big scene changes that can threaten to lead you into tedious oblivion.
Assuming that people don't know the story of Jekyll and Hyde (as I didn't) the play centres around a narrator (the solid Adam Elm) Gabriel's meeting with the eponymous Dr Jekyll (the incredible James Weaver). Dr Jekyll LOVES an invention, especially when it pushes the boundaries of the science surrounding the human psyche. Unfortunately, you can only kill so many rats in Victorian England (who knew? Gino D'acampo isn't the only one getting in trouble) and so he is forced to find other experiments - eventually himself. In the meantime, he's starting to fancy his best mate's wife, Eleanor (the multi-role-ing Viktoria Kay) and increasingly worry his best mate, Hastings (David Chafer). Eventually people start to realise that the monster Hyde is actually Jekyll (a twist that frankly I never saw coming) and Hyde's knack for killing people becomes a bit much.
There are some wonderful moments in this production. The slow-mo fighting, timed to perfection, ending the first half on black out as Hyde leaps forward to savage his random victim left the entire audience stunned, just looking at each other. It is the type of moment that you rarely get, particularly in the regional theatre I've encountered (especially when I'm the youngest person in the audience by at least 10 years). Similarly, the end of the play, as Gabriel opens the bag of Dr Jekyll's notes and the blinding light of knowledge encompasses him as the delighted face of Hyde looms closer and closer to him and as he looks into his face, shocked, BOOM the play ends.
All of this is made possible by some very fine performances. James Weaver as Jekyll/Hyde is unreal, his physicality twisting and turning and every now and again making you question if the same actor is actually playing them both. Similarly, David Chafer does a brilliant job with his different characters, I didn't for example realise that he was playing the butler Poole until halfway through.
Becs Andrews' set was cleverly designed, the glo-in-the-dark equations on the crates, the hanging lights that could be attached to lampposts instantly to give a sense of location. The lighting and music by Andy Pilliner is the most vital production element, the sneaking, creeping music sometimes telling you what will happen, sometimes giving nothing away; the lighting keeping you in suspense but also framing each scene instantly.
If more theatre like this existed, maybe there would be more theatre fans in York.
Friday, 6 February 2015
Jezebel - Drama Barn
Jezebel - Drama Barn
Four/Five
Well, just as On Ego storms into TFTV, DramaSoc comes up with its own brilliant three-hander, warming another cold Friday night in the Barn. Jezebel is a bitingly funny comedy about an unconventional couple who stumble into each other's arms and fall in love. We see their problems and their solutions and ultimately their resolution. It is hard to give anything away for fear of ruining the jokes that the plot brings along.
The start sets up all the things that are brilliant about this production, however. We hear (separately) the lead couple Alan (Sam Zak) and Robin (Britt Borkan) break up with multiple partners for increasingly awkward reasons - "where I am...in my life right now...I'm just not looking to get married...to you". This then smoothly transitions into their double-entendre laced first meeting and a quick succession of dates that lead to the realisation that the magic has gone. This is followed by a quick solution - they need to spice up the sex life by trying new and wild things. This idea eventually results in meeting Jezebel (Anna Mawn) who is muddling through life as best she can, despite the heartbreak of her recent break-up with a convict.
If you fancy the theatrical equivalent of New Girl with a hint of Charlie Brooker's wit (and maybe some of his dark comedy), then this is the play for you. Rarely have I been forced to laugh so far after a joke because it has been delivered so quickly and subtly (cough *table tennis*). The actors work as a seamless unit, each of them locked into their character and the play, and the night flew by. The only criticism is that the unnecessary interval stalled the second Act and had to work hard to get the audience back after that break. All credit to director Polly Jordan, she has created a production that knows its strengths and plays to them; the transitions between the scenes are simple and effective throughout.
Jezebel is the funniest thing I've seen in the Drama Barn since I've been here, you'd be a fool to miss it. I don't know what has happened in York this week but with Smoke of Home down in London, On Ego in the Black Box and Jezebel in the Barn, the university is proving that it deserves a far wider audience than it is getting.
Four/Five
Well, just as On Ego storms into TFTV, DramaSoc comes up with its own brilliant three-hander, warming another cold Friday night in the Barn. Jezebel is a bitingly funny comedy about an unconventional couple who stumble into each other's arms and fall in love. We see their problems and their solutions and ultimately their resolution. It is hard to give anything away for fear of ruining the jokes that the plot brings along.
The start sets up all the things that are brilliant about this production, however. We hear (separately) the lead couple Alan (Sam Zak) and Robin (Britt Borkan) break up with multiple partners for increasingly awkward reasons - "where I am...in my life right now...I'm just not looking to get married...to you". This then smoothly transitions into their double-entendre laced first meeting and a quick succession of dates that lead to the realisation that the magic has gone. This is followed by a quick solution - they need to spice up the sex life by trying new and wild things. This idea eventually results in meeting Jezebel (Anna Mawn) who is muddling through life as best she can, despite the heartbreak of her recent break-up with a convict.
If you fancy the theatrical equivalent of New Girl with a hint of Charlie Brooker's wit (and maybe some of his dark comedy), then this is the play for you. Rarely have I been forced to laugh so far after a joke because it has been delivered so quickly and subtly (cough *table tennis*). The actors work as a seamless unit, each of them locked into their character and the play, and the night flew by. The only criticism is that the unnecessary interval stalled the second Act and had to work hard to get the audience back after that break. All credit to director Polly Jordan, she has created a production that knows its strengths and plays to them; the transitions between the scenes are simple and effective throughout.
Jezebel is the funniest thing I've seen in the Drama Barn since I've been here, you'd be a fool to miss it. I don't know what has happened in York this week but with Smoke of Home down in London, On Ego in the Black Box and Jezebel in the Barn, the university is proving that it deserves a far wider audience than it is getting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)