Bell's Dream
Sun, 6 Aug 2000, 10:35 amGrant Malcolm3 posts in thread
Bell's Dream
Sun, 6 Aug 2000, 10:35 amTip Number One: Don't buy a programme
Ok, so it's a bit late to warn people, as the nationally touring season of this production ended in Perth last night. But i almost wish i hadn't.
Why would anyone pay even a relatively cheap $7 for a programme that contains more than a dozen full page glossy advertisements? Corporate sponsors and some arts organisations would appear to be in danger of losing the plot when it comes to arts sponsorship. I should have thought we support the arts because they have intrinsic merit and value - not hijack and plunder them as vehicles for product promotion! There is a dangerous trend towards each corporate sponsor dollar costing an arts company 99 cents in garish promotions, champagne suppers, corporate boxes and free tickets.
The other two reasons not to purchase a programme? A small card with a cast list and company details was placed on every second seat and a lovely little booklet packed with information about the company and the Dream, Bell Magazine, was available free of charge in the foyer.
In Bell Magazine there is an illuminating interview with John Bell in which he records his "conviction that language, the music of the play as well as the richness of its rhetoric and imagery, was still where the real drama lay."
John goes on to say "Nineteenth century directors ... simply because they had the technology to do it, transferred the audiences attention to the sets and effects - real woods, real palaces, real fog, real darkness. ... The words Shakespeare had to find to evoke these things seemed superfluous."
How well those same comments transfer to some twenty-first century directors.
While I have always had a deep admiration for John's own work, I felt that this production of the Dream, under the direction of Elke Neihardt, might have done well to place less reliance on "sets and effects" and some of the actors might have been encouraged to place far more faith in "the music of the play".
For the most part i found the setting with its sliding panels of what looked like stainless steel mesh distracting and irrelevant. The single, bloated orchid image was a pretty lighting effect more aptly suited to the next version of Star Wars. Music and sound effects were a cacophany of sounds sporadically applied here and there. Some times Puck would accompany himself on a variety of whistling devices, on other occasions he was matched by cartoon sound effects but most of the time conducted his business in sombre - if occasionally - irreverant silence.
There's plenty of textual evidence to support a nominally Greek setting for the play but the patchy application of this principle was inconsistent and distracting.
Peter Brook's Kott-inspired subversive approach to the text is now thirty years old and getting rather tired. The most daring and sensual aspect of the production was probably its striking poster.
For the most part, the actors did an admirable job with Ivar Kants' Oberon and Frank Whitten's Puck the stand out performances for me. Marta Dusseldorp as Helena also brought remarkable clarity to the role. From our premiere national Shakespeare company though, I really expected to see a uniformly excellent standard. In a couple of cases, poor projection, flat performances, contradictory and incorrect pronounciations marred what should be a showcase for the very best that Australia has to offer.
I hope that Bell Shakespeare manages to refocus its attention on Bell's original artistic statement "to incorporate Shakespeare as an essential part of the contemporary Australian culture" amid the distractions of meeting the expectations of its corporate partners.
Cheers
Grant
Ok, so it's a bit late to warn people, as the nationally touring season of this production ended in Perth last night. But i almost wish i hadn't.
Why would anyone pay even a relatively cheap $7 for a programme that contains more than a dozen full page glossy advertisements? Corporate sponsors and some arts organisations would appear to be in danger of losing the plot when it comes to arts sponsorship. I should have thought we support the arts because they have intrinsic merit and value - not hijack and plunder them as vehicles for product promotion! There is a dangerous trend towards each corporate sponsor dollar costing an arts company 99 cents in garish promotions, champagne suppers, corporate boxes and free tickets.
The other two reasons not to purchase a programme? A small card with a cast list and company details was placed on every second seat and a lovely little booklet packed with information about the company and the Dream, Bell Magazine, was available free of charge in the foyer.
In Bell Magazine there is an illuminating interview with John Bell in which he records his "conviction that language, the music of the play as well as the richness of its rhetoric and imagery, was still where the real drama lay."
John goes on to say "Nineteenth century directors ... simply because they had the technology to do it, transferred the audiences attention to the sets and effects - real woods, real palaces, real fog, real darkness. ... The words Shakespeare had to find to evoke these things seemed superfluous."
How well those same comments transfer to some twenty-first century directors.
While I have always had a deep admiration for John's own work, I felt that this production of the Dream, under the direction of Elke Neihardt, might have done well to place less reliance on "sets and effects" and some of the actors might have been encouraged to place far more faith in "the music of the play".
For the most part i found the setting with its sliding panels of what looked like stainless steel mesh distracting and irrelevant. The single, bloated orchid image was a pretty lighting effect more aptly suited to the next version of Star Wars. Music and sound effects were a cacophany of sounds sporadically applied here and there. Some times Puck would accompany himself on a variety of whistling devices, on other occasions he was matched by cartoon sound effects but most of the time conducted his business in sombre - if occasionally - irreverant silence.
There's plenty of textual evidence to support a nominally Greek setting for the play but the patchy application of this principle was inconsistent and distracting.
Peter Brook's Kott-inspired subversive approach to the text is now thirty years old and getting rather tired. The most daring and sensual aspect of the production was probably its striking poster.
For the most part, the actors did an admirable job with Ivar Kants' Oberon and Frank Whitten's Puck the stand out performances for me. Marta Dusseldorp as Helena also brought remarkable clarity to the role. From our premiere national Shakespeare company though, I really expected to see a uniformly excellent standard. In a couple of cases, poor projection, flat performances, contradictory and incorrect pronounciations marred what should be a showcase for the very best that Australia has to offer.
I hope that Bell Shakespeare manages to refocus its attention on Bell's original artistic statement "to incorporate Shakespeare as an essential part of the contemporary Australian culture" amid the distractions of meeting the expectations of its corporate partners.
Cheers
Grant
RE: Bell's Dream
Mon, 7 Aug 2000, 11:57 pmHi Catherine
If commenting or reviewing a show were a simple matter of deciding whether or not we liked it, then we could replace this message board with a simple star rating system.
I wonder how useful actors, directors, designers would find it if people didn't comment on specific aspects of shows but instead simply posted here:
Bell's Dream ***
and someone else posted
Bell's Dream *****
Doesn't really tell us much except that one person thought the show was ordinary while another thought it was great.
What if people posted of a show you were involved in:
Your show *
Your show *****
It doesn't really help you improve on what you are doing and tells you nothing about why some thought the production was pretty awful and others loved it.
Unless you're exclusively involved in theatre as an audience member, it's only natural that you should engage in discourse and debate about why you feel a particular show worked or didn't work. Through this critical process we examine our own work and the work of others, growing and developing as practitioners, artists, craftspeople.
I've seen productions of the Dream where the delighted audience repeatedly held up the action of the play with prolonged, spontaneous applause. I've seen much better interpretations of some of the pivotal roles from local actors (take a bow Tracey, Indira, Garry, David D. and Michael L.). In my book the recent Dream didn't measure up in a number of respects. I'm curious to explore the reasons why.
Even as audience members, nurturing a critical response to our favourite art form does not necessarily destroy your ability to enjoy it. Far from it! A deepening understanding of what it is you are watching can only lead to a greater sense of wonder at the achievements of some truly fantastic productions. The magic doesn't get lost, you're hopefully just a little more discerning and perhaps better able to appreciate something truly magnificent when it happens.
Well, that's my theory anyway.
Cheers
Grant
If commenting or reviewing a show were a simple matter of deciding whether or not we liked it, then we could replace this message board with a simple star rating system.
I wonder how useful actors, directors, designers would find it if people didn't comment on specific aspects of shows but instead simply posted here:
Bell's Dream ***
and someone else posted
Bell's Dream *****
Doesn't really tell us much except that one person thought the show was ordinary while another thought it was great.
What if people posted of a show you were involved in:
Your show *
Your show *****
It doesn't really help you improve on what you are doing and tells you nothing about why some thought the production was pretty awful and others loved it.
Unless you're exclusively involved in theatre as an audience member, it's only natural that you should engage in discourse and debate about why you feel a particular show worked or didn't work. Through this critical process we examine our own work and the work of others, growing and developing as practitioners, artists, craftspeople.
I've seen productions of the Dream where the delighted audience repeatedly held up the action of the play with prolonged, spontaneous applause. I've seen much better interpretations of some of the pivotal roles from local actors (take a bow Tracey, Indira, Garry, David D. and Michael L.). In my book the recent Dream didn't measure up in a number of respects. I'm curious to explore the reasons why.
Even as audience members, nurturing a critical response to our favourite art form does not necessarily destroy your ability to enjoy it. Far from it! A deepening understanding of what it is you are watching can only lead to a greater sense of wonder at the achievements of some truly fantastic productions. The magic doesn't get lost, you're hopefully just a little more discerning and perhaps better able to appreciate something truly magnificent when it happens.
Well, that's my theory anyway.
Cheers
Grant