Drawer Boy withdrawal...boy!
Sat, 5 Oct 2002, 01:43 amcrgwllms9 posts in thread
Drawer Boy withdrawal...boy!
Sat, 5 Oct 2002, 01:43 amGiven the deluge of controversial opinion that followed some comments made in a review by Geoff Gibbs last month; I wonder what his latest actions will provoke?
The West Australian (Fri Oct 4) reports that he has withdrawn from Black Swan's production of The Drawer Boy only days before its scheduled opening.
Gibbs and director Andrew Ross had a major difference of opinion in interpreting his character. In the last week Ross suggested Gibbs swap characters with Max Gillies, who plays the other main character. Gibbs though, felt that was asking too much.
However, apparently Gillies is still going to swap roles and play the part vacated by Gibbs, while George Shevtsov will take over Max's role, and the opening night has been delayed a week.
I won't speculate as to whether Gibbs' leaving was initiated by him, by Ross, or a mutual decision...but it's certainly controversial.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
The West Australian (Fri Oct 4) reports that he has withdrawn from Black Swan's production of The Drawer Boy only days before its scheduled opening.
Gibbs and director Andrew Ross had a major difference of opinion in interpreting his character. In the last week Ross suggested Gibbs swap characters with Max Gillies, who plays the other main character. Gibbs though, felt that was asking too much.
However, apparently Gillies is still going to swap roles and play the part vacated by Gibbs, while George Shevtsov will take over Max's role, and the opening night has been delayed a week.
I won't speculate as to whether Gibbs' leaving was initiated by him, by Ross, or a mutual decision...but it's certainly controversial.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
crgwllmsSat, 5 Oct 2002, 01:43 am
Given the deluge of controversial opinion that followed some comments made in a review by Geoff Gibbs last month; I wonder what his latest actions will provoke?
The West Australian (Fri Oct 4) reports that he has withdrawn from Black Swan's production of The Drawer Boy only days before its scheduled opening.
Gibbs and director Andrew Ross had a major difference of opinion in interpreting his character. In the last week Ross suggested Gibbs swap characters with Max Gillies, who plays the other main character. Gibbs though, felt that was asking too much.
However, apparently Gillies is still going to swap roles and play the part vacated by Gibbs, while George Shevtsov will take over Max's role, and the opening night has been delayed a week.
I won't speculate as to whether Gibbs' leaving was initiated by him, by Ross, or a mutual decision...but it's certainly controversial.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
The West Australian (Fri Oct 4) reports that he has withdrawn from Black Swan's production of The Drawer Boy only days before its scheduled opening.
Gibbs and director Andrew Ross had a major difference of opinion in interpreting his character. In the last week Ross suggested Gibbs swap characters with Max Gillies, who plays the other main character. Gibbs though, felt that was asking too much.
However, apparently Gillies is still going to swap roles and play the part vacated by Gibbs, while George Shevtsov will take over Max's role, and the opening night has been delayed a week.
I won't speculate as to whether Gibbs' leaving was initiated by him, by Ross, or a mutual decision...but it's certainly controversial.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Greg RossSat, 5 Oct 2002, 11:26 am
Not Much To Redeem, This Performance
In a stroke of petulant audacity, Geoff Gibbs has disturbed the sponsors of Black SwanÂ’s production of The Drawer Boy - theyÂ’re not sure whether theyÂ’re now paying for someoneÂ’s funeral. As an actor, he has much to learn with this lack of responsibility.
Although it may well be the creative coup of the season, perhaps only his friends and family will tolerate this pedestrian display.
The production brought together a company of actors including Gibbs, (who hadnÂ’t been on stage for ten years). Perhaps the director should look for new actors, when experienced players resort to monumental dummy spits.
Quite possibly, The Drawer Boy will now open on a promising note, although the exchanges between Gibbs and Ross will of course be inaudible.
Director Ross is probably in need of a maiden, to take his mind off his voyage of confrontation with prima donnas and it would be interesting to hear his amusing anecdotes.
GibbsÂ’ departure, (or execution) has been clumsy and curiously devoid of moral and intellectual responsibility, vaguely reminiscent of the theme behind the recent Marsh production of Frankenstein. Come to think of it, so is this review!
Geoff Gibbs is now isolated and perhaps not suited to the rigours and demands of the theatrical world, which, given his critical career, must be a monstrous torment. However his relentless stride from the theatre has failed to affect the rest of the cast or the director.
The playÂ’s compelling elements will, IÂ’m sure, all still be there, although it is unusual for such a dramatic moment to occur before the production starts.
It should now really be a huge success.
The moral dilemma of Gibbs is apposite for one who is said to have once infamously declared, (on a boat trip down south), that he would only ever take on good looking actors. A shocked Leo McKern, realising he would never be accepted at the Academy, travelled north.
Ross, through no fault of his own, has failed to co-ordinate the technical aspects of dealing with an over-inflated ego and no matter how much light is shed on the subject, Geoff Gibbs actions have done little to enhance his (Gibbs) reputation.
Now that this company has one less amateur, its potential to soar is probably unlimited and with the appropriate changes to posters, the programme and notification to the sponsors, they are now certain to produce something worthy of those elements.
The Hedonist & Raconteur.
Although it may well be the creative coup of the season, perhaps only his friends and family will tolerate this pedestrian display.
The production brought together a company of actors including Gibbs, (who hadnÂ’t been on stage for ten years). Perhaps the director should look for new actors, when experienced players resort to monumental dummy spits.
Quite possibly, The Drawer Boy will now open on a promising note, although the exchanges between Gibbs and Ross will of course be inaudible.
Director Ross is probably in need of a maiden, to take his mind off his voyage of confrontation with prima donnas and it would be interesting to hear his amusing anecdotes.
GibbsÂ’ departure, (or execution) has been clumsy and curiously devoid of moral and intellectual responsibility, vaguely reminiscent of the theme behind the recent Marsh production of Frankenstein. Come to think of it, so is this review!
Geoff Gibbs is now isolated and perhaps not suited to the rigours and demands of the theatrical world, which, given his critical career, must be a monstrous torment. However his relentless stride from the theatre has failed to affect the rest of the cast or the director.
The playÂ’s compelling elements will, IÂ’m sure, all still be there, although it is unusual for such a dramatic moment to occur before the production starts.
It should now really be a huge success.
The moral dilemma of Gibbs is apposite for one who is said to have once infamously declared, (on a boat trip down south), that he would only ever take on good looking actors. A shocked Leo McKern, realising he would never be accepted at the Academy, travelled north.
Ross, through no fault of his own, has failed to co-ordinate the technical aspects of dealing with an over-inflated ego and no matter how much light is shed on the subject, Geoff Gibbs actions have done little to enhance his (Gibbs) reputation.
Now that this company has one less amateur, its potential to soar is probably unlimited and with the appropriate changes to posters, the programme and notification to the sponsors, they are now certain to produce something worthy of those elements.
The Hedonist & Raconteur.
crgwllmsSat, 5 Oct 2002, 08:05 pm
Re: Back to the Drawing board
Greg Ross wrote:
>
> GibbsÂ’ departure, (or execution) has been clumsy and
> curiously devoid of moral and intellectual responsibility,
> vaguely reminiscent of the theme behind the recent Marsh
> production of Frankenstein. Come to think of it, so is this
> review!
> The Hedonist & Raconteur.
Dear H & R Puffenstuff,
..Good to see there's no bitterness left over from your Frankenstein review, Greg...?
So do I take it you are admitting that your own 'review' is clumsy and curiously devoid of responsibility..? (Although I DO recognise that you are "Drawing" from past experience...and almost entirely parodying Gibb's review of Frankenstein, with a fair whack of irony.)
It's not yet quite clear who is the dummy or who spat it... you're assuming it was Geoff (and it may well have been), but maybe it was Andrew Ross..? This is not the first Black Swan show that has had it's opening delayed because it wasn't up to scratch in time.
Or maybe it was mutually decided to recast, in which case the good of the play was obviously in mind, and Geoff unfortunately has had to wear the sacrifice?
We immediately think of the cliche of the actor storming off the set, but how would you feel if it was the director who told YOU, a week before the show was to open, that they wanted to recast you? Or if it simply became apparent to all that the role was beyond your capabilities?
Either way, it's obvious that a major mistake has been made...but what is the best way to deal with something like this?
We've all seen shows that we think would've been better with a different casting. But once rehearsals are underway (and more significantly, once contracts are signed) there's very little you can easily do about it, if you realise an error has been made.
And there are times perhaps, when many of us would love to jump ship from a struggling production rather than carry through to opening night. What is it that forces us to carry on regardless, rather than pull the pin and save everybody the embarrassment?
Is it always true that the show "must go on", even though it's become obvious that it won't be the best it can be? Or should someone swallow their pride and make the hard decision to fix the problem before it continues any further?
It seems to me that this last minute recasting, while perhaps exposing all concerned to accusations of incompetence, could also be one of the bravest decisions made in the creative process.
It remains to see how the show will bear up, but if we can assume it will be better than had it opened as scheduled, then that must be a positive thing.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> GibbsÂ’ departure, (or execution) has been clumsy and
> curiously devoid of moral and intellectual responsibility,
> vaguely reminiscent of the theme behind the recent Marsh
> production of Frankenstein. Come to think of it, so is this
> review!
> The Hedonist & Raconteur.
Dear H & R Puffenstuff,
..Good to see there's no bitterness left over from your Frankenstein review, Greg...?
So do I take it you are admitting that your own 'review' is clumsy and curiously devoid of responsibility..? (Although I DO recognise that you are "Drawing" from past experience...and almost entirely parodying Gibb's review of Frankenstein, with a fair whack of irony.)
It's not yet quite clear who is the dummy or who spat it... you're assuming it was Geoff (and it may well have been), but maybe it was Andrew Ross..? This is not the first Black Swan show that has had it's opening delayed because it wasn't up to scratch in time.
Or maybe it was mutually decided to recast, in which case the good of the play was obviously in mind, and Geoff unfortunately has had to wear the sacrifice?
We immediately think of the cliche of the actor storming off the set, but how would you feel if it was the director who told YOU, a week before the show was to open, that they wanted to recast you? Or if it simply became apparent to all that the role was beyond your capabilities?
Either way, it's obvious that a major mistake has been made...but what is the best way to deal with something like this?
We've all seen shows that we think would've been better with a different casting. But once rehearsals are underway (and more significantly, once contracts are signed) there's very little you can easily do about it, if you realise an error has been made.
And there are times perhaps, when many of us would love to jump ship from a struggling production rather than carry through to opening night. What is it that forces us to carry on regardless, rather than pull the pin and save everybody the embarrassment?
Is it always true that the show "must go on", even though it's become obvious that it won't be the best it can be? Or should someone swallow their pride and make the hard decision to fix the problem before it continues any further?
It seems to me that this last minute recasting, while perhaps exposing all concerned to accusations of incompetence, could also be one of the bravest decisions made in the creative process.
It remains to see how the show will bear up, but if we can assume it will be better than had it opened as scheduled, then that must be a positive thing.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
jassepSun, 6 Oct 2002, 02:03 am
Re: Back to the Drawing board
crgwllms wrote:
> And there are times perhaps, when many of us would love to
> jump ship from a struggling production rather than carry
> through to opening night. What is it that forces us to carry
> on regardless, rather than pull the pin and save everybody
> the embarrassment?
Unfortunately, sometimes there is little choice but to recast / quit / cancel the show...I remember a story Gielgud once told about a young lady he had cast as Ophelia (to his Hamlet as Actor-Manager) and, try as he might, he just could *not* get her to be good enough - but the way he tells it, he did everything he could to get her up to speed - extra rehearsals, private tuition, one-on-one intensives and nothing worked...so, despite a huge level of personal responsibility and guilt, (his reasoning was that it was *he* who cast her!), he had to let her go. I always had a huge amount of respect for J.G. from that account... perhaps, even when under the pump, creating the opportunity for 'breakthrough' is the only way to go, even if you feel it's probably futile... each case, is of course unique.
In Gibbs' case, however, I would suspect that, in not having been onstage for 10 years, he may have found learning the lines quite difficult, as many older actors do...
Jason
> And there are times perhaps, when many of us would love to
> jump ship from a struggling production rather than carry
> through to opening night. What is it that forces us to carry
> on regardless, rather than pull the pin and save everybody
> the embarrassment?
Unfortunately, sometimes there is little choice but to recast / quit / cancel the show...I remember a story Gielgud once told about a young lady he had cast as Ophelia (to his Hamlet as Actor-Manager) and, try as he might, he just could *not* get her to be good enough - but the way he tells it, he did everything he could to get her up to speed - extra rehearsals, private tuition, one-on-one intensives and nothing worked...so, despite a huge level of personal responsibility and guilt, (his reasoning was that it was *he* who cast her!), he had to let her go. I always had a huge amount of respect for J.G. from that account... perhaps, even when under the pump, creating the opportunity for 'breakthrough' is the only way to go, even if you feel it's probably futile... each case, is of course unique.
In Gibbs' case, however, I would suspect that, in not having been onstage for 10 years, he may have found learning the lines quite difficult, as many older actors do...
Jason
Walter PlingeFri, 11 Oct 2002, 04:28 pm
Re: Back to the Drawing board
I don't know anything about this show, or more than the rest of the Perth public... but it seems to me that, if Max Gillies is capable of swapping roles in such a short period (ie with the later opening night), then surely Geoff Gibbs could/should have been able to do the same..? Both had presumably been rehearsing their original roles for the same length of time, so one would assume that, as professionals, they would be equally capable of learning t'other.
Even if Geoff wasn't a reviewer (and thus with more than the usual number of enemies) this would inspire criticism. Media excerpts of Geoff's own version of events seem to demonstrate that it was he who chose to leave (aka spat the proverbial).
We may never know, but it certainly has guaranteed a sell out for the next show featuring Mr Gibbs!! Top points to whoever convinces him to perform again:)
Sorcha
Even if Geoff wasn't a reviewer (and thus with more than the usual number of enemies) this would inspire criticism. Media excerpts of Geoff's own version of events seem to demonstrate that it was he who chose to leave (aka spat the proverbial).
We may never know, but it certainly has guaranteed a sell out for the next show featuring Mr Gibbs!! Top points to whoever convinces him to perform again:)
Sorcha
crgwllmsSat, 12 Oct 2002, 01:44 am
Re: Drawn and Quartered
sorcha wrote:
>
> ...it seems to me that, if Max Gillies is capable of swapping roles in such a short period (ie with the later opening night), then surely Geoff Gibbs could/should have been able to do the same..? Both had presumably been rehearsing their original roles for the same length of time, ...
That may follow in a logical sense, but it's not necessarily going to work that way in reality. One actor may fit all the parts well, but another may not be really suited to play the other role, regardless of his capacity to learn it.
If Gibbs was contracted to play a particular role, and that was taken from him, it's perfectly within his right to decide not to accept a recasting...perhaps the "unable to learn a new role in time" line is a polite excuse, a plausible way to back out of a situation that just wasn't satisfactory.
I don't know what created the initial problems, but there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to conclusively blame Gibbs or Ross individually. Probably no one is without fault.
But what I have just heard tonight, from a reliable source, is that the final result is actually a very good play.
So it seems that the drastic decisions taken (recasting, delaying the opening) were enough to rectify the situation...at least artistically.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> ...it seems to me that, if Max Gillies is capable of swapping roles in such a short period (ie with the later opening night), then surely Geoff Gibbs could/should have been able to do the same..? Both had presumably been rehearsing their original roles for the same length of time, ...
That may follow in a logical sense, but it's not necessarily going to work that way in reality. One actor may fit all the parts well, but another may not be really suited to play the other role, regardless of his capacity to learn it.
If Gibbs was contracted to play a particular role, and that was taken from him, it's perfectly within his right to decide not to accept a recasting...perhaps the "unable to learn a new role in time" line is a polite excuse, a plausible way to back out of a situation that just wasn't satisfactory.
I don't know what created the initial problems, but there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to conclusively blame Gibbs or Ross individually. Probably no one is without fault.
But what I have just heard tonight, from a reliable source, is that the final result is actually a very good play.
So it seems that the drastic decisions taken (recasting, delaying the opening) were enough to rectify the situation...at least artistically.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeSat, 12 Oct 2002, 11:02 am
Re: Drawn and Quartered
Any ideas who has been cast for the part?
Walter PlingeSat, 12 Oct 2002, 12:51 pm
Re: Drawn and Quartered
I believe George Shevstov has been cast in the part.
And yes, Craig, I've heard it's going to be a pretty good show, too... I've read the script and I must admit I'm already a fan. Although, I am a bit wary of some of the advertising they've done - calling the show "the funniest thing to come out of Canada since Jim Carrey". It has funny bits, but I wouldn't classify it as a comedy - more of a drama, really. Definitely worth a look, at any rate.
And yes, Craig, I've heard it's going to be a pretty good show, too... I've read the script and I must admit I'm already a fan. Although, I am a bit wary of some of the advertising they've done - calling the show "the funniest thing to come out of Canada since Jim Carrey". It has funny bits, but I wouldn't classify it as a comedy - more of a drama, really. Definitely worth a look, at any rate.
crgwllmsSat, 12 Oct 2002, 05:34 pm
Re: Over Drawn
Meg Logue wrote:
>
> ...Although, I am a bit wary of some of the
> advertising they've done - calling the show "the funniest
> thing to come out of Canada since Jim Carrey". It has funny
> bits, but I wouldn't classify it as a comedy...
Yes, I was rather bemused to hear how it was being advertised on radio. The 'Jim Carrey' line rather makes me cringe, and it seems rather condescending, both to Canada and to the way we perceive live theatre. I actually love Jim Carrey, but his style of humour is very lowest-common-denominator. Maybe they're trying, with the 'comedy' angle, to milk the Max Gillies connection? A shame, because Max is a brilliant 'straight' performer in his own right.
Returning briefly to the 'not everyone can just swap roles' statement I made above, I have a personal example that actually includes both myself and Geoff Gibbs...!
We were both cast in the Pirandello play "Man, Beast & Virtue" at the Playhouse in about 1990. In the script, most of the actors are required to double characters (which are all strongly based upon animals). Director John Saunders cast Geoff AND me as one of these pairings. In the first act, I played the young student who was very much like a chimpanzee. In the second act, Geoff took the role of the sea captain who was a ferocious boar.
It would have been quite possible for Geoff to have played both roles, as per the script...his ape would've been more gorilla but would've suited fine. I was cast because of the physical qualities I could bring to that role, but I certainly would not have had the physical presence or vocal power to have played the sea captain...who had to overwhelm characters played by strong personalities like Igor Sas.
So I guess this is my evidence for sorcha that there are many other factors other than simply being able to learn another part in time...the chemistry and dynamics of who else is cast make a much larger impact to the end result. I believe this lack of chemistry was the initial error that caused the problem in the first place...which is why the suggestion to swap roles appears to have been a desparate rather than an ultimately realistic or satisfactory solution.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> ...Although, I am a bit wary of some of the
> advertising they've done - calling the show "the funniest
> thing to come out of Canada since Jim Carrey". It has funny
> bits, but I wouldn't classify it as a comedy...
Yes, I was rather bemused to hear how it was being advertised on radio. The 'Jim Carrey' line rather makes me cringe, and it seems rather condescending, both to Canada and to the way we perceive live theatre. I actually love Jim Carrey, but his style of humour is very lowest-common-denominator. Maybe they're trying, with the 'comedy' angle, to milk the Max Gillies connection? A shame, because Max is a brilliant 'straight' performer in his own right.
Returning briefly to the 'not everyone can just swap roles' statement I made above, I have a personal example that actually includes both myself and Geoff Gibbs...!
We were both cast in the Pirandello play "Man, Beast & Virtue" at the Playhouse in about 1990. In the script, most of the actors are required to double characters (which are all strongly based upon animals). Director John Saunders cast Geoff AND me as one of these pairings. In the first act, I played the young student who was very much like a chimpanzee. In the second act, Geoff took the role of the sea captain who was a ferocious boar.
It would have been quite possible for Geoff to have played both roles, as per the script...his ape would've been more gorilla but would've suited fine. I was cast because of the physical qualities I could bring to that role, but I certainly would not have had the physical presence or vocal power to have played the sea captain...who had to overwhelm characters played by strong personalities like Igor Sas.
So I guess this is my evidence for sorcha that there are many other factors other than simply being able to learn another part in time...the chemistry and dynamics of who else is cast make a much larger impact to the end result. I believe this lack of chemistry was the initial error that caused the problem in the first place...which is why the suggestion to swap roles appears to have been a desparate rather than an ultimately realistic or satisfactory solution.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]