Othello v Titus
Sun, 6 Aug 2000, 11:22 amGrant Malcolm13 posts in thread
Othello v Titus
Sun, 6 Aug 2000, 11:22 amHaving spent the previous night at Bell's Dream I was looking forward to an evening of contrast with Shakespearience's Othello v Titus.
I'll confess it wasn't entirely without some trepidation. While I shared much of Robert Cook's enthusiasm for Gibson Nolte's performance in the recent Macbeth, I'd wished someone had taken a nail gun to his somewhat undisciplined interpretation of Macduff and stapled his feet to the floor!
However, I had seen Gibson's Winters' Tale at Kalamunda last year and I was confident that, as a director, he had a firm grasp of the bard and I was looking forward to seeing how he and his fellow director Claire Hooper tackled these condensed versions.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between the original sources and Kaiser's shorter versions. Shakespeare's Othello and Titus Andronicus they are not. That said, the stripped down texts stand perfectly well in their own right and succeeded admirably in performance.
The contrast with Bell Shakespeare was at once apparent in the almost complete lack of setting and the very simple costuming - not to mention the size of the venue. For all this, the company filled the space with inventive performances that invited the audience to share their journey.
Each play is performed by a cast of three and thankfully, with skillful editing, each actor plays at most only three parts. Shifts in characterisation together with single items of costume or rearrangments of hair neatly distinguished one role from another.
The plays move quickly. The performances are dynamic and the energy never flagged. Titus is as obscenely funny as Othello is tension packed. The invention and passion held the small Blue Room crowd firmly in its thrall.
Some more work on vocal technique might have assisted to carry the otherwise excellent performances of Booth and Keen, but it was a delight to see the development of Toby Malone as a performer. If occasionally physically understated his almost melodramatic vocal range was admirably suited to the roles. Rebecca Pithers performance was the highlight for me with extraordinary assurance, sensitivity and vocal clarity.
And I have to ask... Rebecca is that you? I thought you looked very familiar, but I didn't read the programme until i went for coffee after the show. Can it be that i really directed you when you were ten years old???
Cheers
Grant
I'll confess it wasn't entirely without some trepidation. While I shared much of Robert Cook's enthusiasm for Gibson Nolte's performance in the recent Macbeth, I'd wished someone had taken a nail gun to his somewhat undisciplined interpretation of Macduff and stapled his feet to the floor!
However, I had seen Gibson's Winters' Tale at Kalamunda last year and I was confident that, as a director, he had a firm grasp of the bard and I was looking forward to seeing how he and his fellow director Claire Hooper tackled these condensed versions.
It's difficult not to draw comparisons between the original sources and Kaiser's shorter versions. Shakespeare's Othello and Titus Andronicus they are not. That said, the stripped down texts stand perfectly well in their own right and succeeded admirably in performance.
The contrast with Bell Shakespeare was at once apparent in the almost complete lack of setting and the very simple costuming - not to mention the size of the venue. For all this, the company filled the space with inventive performances that invited the audience to share their journey.
Each play is performed by a cast of three and thankfully, with skillful editing, each actor plays at most only three parts. Shifts in characterisation together with single items of costume or rearrangments of hair neatly distinguished one role from another.
The plays move quickly. The performances are dynamic and the energy never flagged. Titus is as obscenely funny as Othello is tension packed. The invention and passion held the small Blue Room crowd firmly in its thrall.
Some more work on vocal technique might have assisted to carry the otherwise excellent performances of Booth and Keen, but it was a delight to see the development of Toby Malone as a performer. If occasionally physically understated his almost melodramatic vocal range was admirably suited to the roles. Rebecca Pithers performance was the highlight for me with extraordinary assurance, sensitivity and vocal clarity.
And I have to ask... Rebecca is that you? I thought you looked very familiar, but I didn't read the programme until i went for coffee after the show. Can it be that i really directed you when you were ten years old???
Cheers
Grant
RE: Vale - Secret Squirrel
Sat, 12 Aug 2000, 02:50 pmWalter Plinge
Hi Toby,
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. I concur, I don't want to get into an argument, and I'm certainly not offended by your posting, but since I was one of Secret Squirrel's biggest critics I thought I should reply rather than you thinking you'd been ignored.
I disagreed with what Simon wrote and the way he did it, from his very first "review", and I still do.
He went to opening nights of "Butterflies Are Free", "Bumpy Angels" and "Good Common Evil", hung around afterwards socialising with the people involved and telling them how he enjoyed the show (I know because I was there on two of those occasions), then went home and wrote malicious reviews.
I choose my words carefully and, in my opinion, his reviews were malicious. Behind the safety of anonymity he offered no constructive criticism other than to say the shows were crap. In each case, these were after opening nights and seemed almost intent on dissuading future audiences.
What's the best way to bankrupt a bank? You spread rumours that it is in serious financial trouble, people are encouraged to withdraw funds en masse, the bank loses much of its money and the rumour becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The same can be done with rumours about circulations or ratings of magazines or television programs.
Probably the best way to jinx a show is to state, as early as possible, that it is crap and that people should stay away. Approximately 1000 people read this site every week. A recent poll suggested that 30% would decide to skip a show upon reading a bad review. That's 300 bums on seats and 300 ticket sales. Admittedly, statistics are not infallible, but I'm presenting a worst-case scenario. David Crewes (editor of the ITA Link newsletter) touched upon this in his recent editorial.
Few shows are perfect, and most people take that as it comes. Rightly or wrongly, it is a view supported by the relative cheapness of tickets. I was speaking to an experienced friend who said that the professional (ie: expensive) production of Earnest was good, but no better than much of Perth's independent theatre. I see where you're coming from, but I completely disagree with your statement, "it is nice to get a bagging every now and then".
No it isn't. It is nice to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism or valid suggestions, but it is painful to be BAGGED publicly and anonymously.
You wrote, "Nobody likes being told that they did something that they have worked so hard on (especially community theatre whose focus is fun and personal fulfillment) is crap". I DO agree with this, and it corresponds both to extracurricular activities such as theatre, and to professional life. Nobody likes being told that their work - either amateur hobby or full-time profession - is poor. SO WHY DO IT?
Sorry, I'm starting to rant myself. To wind it up, your post proves our point: Simon was told his reviews were crap, people turned against him, and now he's discouraged from continuing. What he set out to do has backfired. Worse, he has inspired cretins like "Poppy" and "Your Biggest Fan" who think they now have a mandate to spew bile - but fortunately, for the moment, are only shooting themselves in the foot with their inanities.
It is possible to write GOOD critical reviews (I did like Malcolm Crisp's review, for instance). Notice that no one bags "Stinger" - despite the fact he/she is anonymous - because stinger's reviews present good and bad points WITHOUT being nasty, cruel or personal. I think Luke put it best when he said, "Instead of bagging our local theatre I'd like to promote, after all, we're all in the same big theatrical boat". (Luke, you have the soul of a poet.)
Food for thought, perhaps.
JB
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. I concur, I don't want to get into an argument, and I'm certainly not offended by your posting, but since I was one of Secret Squirrel's biggest critics I thought I should reply rather than you thinking you'd been ignored.
I disagreed with what Simon wrote and the way he did it, from his very first "review", and I still do.
He went to opening nights of "Butterflies Are Free", "Bumpy Angels" and "Good Common Evil", hung around afterwards socialising with the people involved and telling them how he enjoyed the show (I know because I was there on two of those occasions), then went home and wrote malicious reviews.
I choose my words carefully and, in my opinion, his reviews were malicious. Behind the safety of anonymity he offered no constructive criticism other than to say the shows were crap. In each case, these were after opening nights and seemed almost intent on dissuading future audiences.
What's the best way to bankrupt a bank? You spread rumours that it is in serious financial trouble, people are encouraged to withdraw funds en masse, the bank loses much of its money and the rumour becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The same can be done with rumours about circulations or ratings of magazines or television programs.
Probably the best way to jinx a show is to state, as early as possible, that it is crap and that people should stay away. Approximately 1000 people read this site every week. A recent poll suggested that 30% would decide to skip a show upon reading a bad review. That's 300 bums on seats and 300 ticket sales. Admittedly, statistics are not infallible, but I'm presenting a worst-case scenario. David Crewes (editor of the ITA Link newsletter) touched upon this in his recent editorial.
Few shows are perfect, and most people take that as it comes. Rightly or wrongly, it is a view supported by the relative cheapness of tickets. I was speaking to an experienced friend who said that the professional (ie: expensive) production of Earnest was good, but no better than much of Perth's independent theatre. I see where you're coming from, but I completely disagree with your statement, "it is nice to get a bagging every now and then".
No it isn't. It is nice to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism or valid suggestions, but it is painful to be BAGGED publicly and anonymously.
You wrote, "Nobody likes being told that they did something that they have worked so hard on (especially community theatre whose focus is fun and personal fulfillment) is crap". I DO agree with this, and it corresponds both to extracurricular activities such as theatre, and to professional life. Nobody likes being told that their work - either amateur hobby or full-time profession - is poor. SO WHY DO IT?
Sorry, I'm starting to rant myself. To wind it up, your post proves our point: Simon was told his reviews were crap, people turned against him, and now he's discouraged from continuing. What he set out to do has backfired. Worse, he has inspired cretins like "Poppy" and "Your Biggest Fan" who think they now have a mandate to spew bile - but fortunately, for the moment, are only shooting themselves in the foot with their inanities.
It is possible to write GOOD critical reviews (I did like Malcolm Crisp's review, for instance). Notice that no one bags "Stinger" - despite the fact he/she is anonymous - because stinger's reviews present good and bad points WITHOUT being nasty, cruel or personal. I think Luke put it best when he said, "Instead of bagging our local theatre I'd like to promote, after all, we're all in the same big theatrical boat". (Luke, you have the soul of a poet.)
Food for thought, perhaps.
JB
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···