Seventeenth Doll - This IS A Reveiw

I'm sure this wil not be the only reveiw for this GRADS production but here is my two cents.

I must admit to not looking forward to seeing "Summer of the Seventeenth Doll" at the Dolphin last night. Being the philistine that I am, I had heard of the play but never read it, I assumed it would be boring by virtue of being Australian and not modern. (I don't know why I had these asumptions and am now quite ashamed of them.) Well I was pleasently surpirised. From the outset it held my attention, which is difficult to do when the first scene is quite long and consists of two characters chatting. I contributed this to the amazing performances, particularly by Tracey Wolridge (I'm sure I've spelled that wrong), but my companion was blown away by the writing. He said that the reason GRADS always put on a good show is that they always chose beautifully written plays. In this instance he was right. It's a fairly simple story of some fairly simple people but from start to finish they carry you along with them, in their simple lives. When they yell, you jump, when they cry, you're sad and when then laugh, you laugh too.

In terms of laughng the lady who played Emma was an absolute scream. Everytime she walked on stage you could feel the audience smile, waiting to see what she was going to do next. One of the group I went with (Rent-A-Laugh, reasonable rates, contact the President of the ITA!!) started laughing before she even spoke.

My few complaints thoguh, were with the technical side of things. I felt that the sound effects were intrusive and needed to be timed better. At one point I could not hear a very important and emotional speach beacause of the loud and unecessarily long sound of a car driving off, I swear it got from Melbourne to Bendigo before it died out. I also felt that the piano playing was distracting in a play where the charcters and dialouge were so natural. Was it possible to angle the piano so we could not see the players hands??

Well done to David for picking such a fabulous play and a brilliant cast. And for providing an entertaining interval game! When you get to the Dolphin, try to pick the director out of the crowd, I guartentee those of you who saw Assassins won't be able to do it. I would have said my personal congrat's David, if I knew the Kossak in the corner was you!!

Thank you for your kind words, Leah. They come as balm to a particularly traumatic production week.

A few corrections, in the spirit of accuracy:

Woolrych is the correct spelling of Tracey's name, Thelma Lumsden is the lady playing Emma, and the programs cost as much as they did because we had to have them done professionally at the last minute.

I mention this because I suspect it's why you didn't have one handy to check the names.

cheers,
Rabbi David (Ned Kelly) Meadows

President of the Harley Davidson riding Hippies Association of Australia.

Thanks, Leah, you've written an excellent summation of this fine production - and saved me the trouble. For my two cents, I'll admit I wasn't a big fan of the script, but the performances certainly brought the show alive. Commiserations to the six talented, hard-working actors and actresses who had certain entire scenes stolen right out from under them (are you listening, Ben?). One particular gripe I had was an annoying (for me) tendency to tread on some of the laughs. God knows, this script needs a sprinkling of light relief in places, and when the laughs did come (few and far between - this IS a serious drama!) it was disappointing to have to stifle them quickly (but that's just me). Congratulations on a powerful production, and nice to see that GRADS have taken some of my previous hosiery comments to heart!

JB

This isn't actually a review, more an affirmation. I saw Summer of the 17th Doll on Saturday and must say I agree with all the glowing reports I had heard beforehand.

Also as the season was a little progressed from when Leah saw it the technical problems she mentioned had been ironed out.

I recommend this show to anyone who hasn't been as yet.

A review was recently printed in Xpress magazine.

Unfortunatley, the reviewer got her wires crossed and implied that the characters of Olive
and Barney were having an affair.

In fact it was Olive and Roo - and so the comment "strong emotional performances by" - should
have read Neil MacDonald, not John Deasy (sorry John).

And yes, this has been confirmed with the author.

I posted this notice as I doubt that any correction will be printed in the Xpress.

:-) Tracey

Leah - Thank you for your review.

As S/M for this production I concur with all your comments and accept your criticisms. There are indeed some fine performances and it has been a great pleasure and a privilidge to witness the development of the characters by this group if fine and dedicated actors.

Director David Meadows deserves acclaim for the way he has put together this excellent cast and nurtured them through this difficult but immensely rewarding piece of writing. (I used to hate it too!)

If I might comment on the early technical problems. Grads, in common with other companies, has a great deal of trouble attracting technically-minded people (experienced or inexperienced) to its membership. This became a major headache - especially for me as S/M! Our earstwhile president and set builder extraordinaire Jonno Beckett volunteered at the last tick of the production clock to run the sound desk. With a 30 cue script this was no mean feat! Especially as he had no previous experience in this area! I had prepared the sound effects tape (through trial and error - at
a time when I should have been concentrating on other things (thank you Kelly & a tolerant cast!)) and we opened 10 minutes late for our opening performance largely because I was only able to drag Jonno away from finishing off painting the set at 7.45pm (only a 3 day bump-in)! So it was a necessarily "hasty" introductory lesson! And took some careful Q'ing
from the corner - which, associated with a naturally nervous and somewhat sleep deprived operator didn't always happen spot on time - and required 'on your feet' adjustments to sound levels as we went along!

But that's all part of Theatre, isn't it?

We'd just about got our act togetherd by the 2nd performance of course. But sadly any number of companies have had similar survival experiences.

WHERE ARE ALL THE TECHIES??? The Dolphin is a fabulous theatre to work, and offers splendid teching opportunities. So please don't be backward in coming forward and offering yourself - or pass this message to someone you know, who might enjoy the challenge. Carpenters, painters, electricians, sound and
lighting people, dressmakers, stage crew - we need you! Fiona Reed has done a great job with lighting - but is about to respond to the call of Sydney - and Lorraine Warnock has done magical things with costumes - but we won't always be able to rely on enticing her away from Garrick.

I look forward to hearing from anybody who is interested/able to help.

By the way if you haven't seen it yet you'll be lucky to get a seat - closing Saturday.

I would like to pass on my congratulations to GRADS for yet another very solid reading of an important play.

There is no excuse for not following the consistently good seasions at GRADS. Where else can you find examples of the classics being done in such an intellegent and informed way?

I still have very strong memories of both The Cherry Orchard and Doll's House.

On Pat's query "Where are all the Techies?" well from my exerpience most of them are busy working professionally.

And while on this subject: The reason most community theatre companies have such difficulties with their technicals is because they are so finnicky about them. I spend most of my time finding ways to make shows run more easily. The community theatre world seem to delight in stacking in 90 cues an act and then blaming the tech for not keeping up... "I'm off to catch a bus" doesn't need to be accompanied by the sound of a bus driving away - the audience aren't that stupid.

The audience is quite able to imagine an implied cue - but they are very unforgiving of a wrong one.

If an actor can't play the piano then cut the piano scene. Trying to time a piano being played with a cassette recording of a piano being played is a logistical nightmare. Certainly not worth the risks of embarrassing the audience and breaking the powerful spell created up till then.

A technician boasting about the huge amount of cues they have is like an actor boasting about the number of syllables in a speech - totally mindless; and from an audience perspective absolutely unimportant...

Malcolm Crisp wrote:

> "I'm off to catch a bus" doesn't need to
> be accompanied by the sound of a bus
> driving away - the audience aren't that
> stupid.

Several dialogue cues in "Doll" were prompted by offstage SFX, such as Barney's line in the third act: "That'll be your taxi", or Olive's in the first "Ooh me beads, that's not them is it?" It was essential that these have SFX to prompt them, otherwise they would have come out of the blue and seemed absurd.

If you're going to have the horn, you need the car pulling up; if you're going to have the car pulling up, you need it driving away; if you're going to have the car pulling up and driving away for one scene, you need it for all scenes involving cars pulling up and driving away.

Consistency's a bugger, ain't it?

> If an actor can't play the piano then
> cut the piano scene...

Using that logic, if the actor playing Desdemona can't sing, you cut the willow song... no matter how much it adds to the mood of the final scene and the impending tragedy.

An actor's inability to perform a specialised skill must be weighed against their ability to play the role. Most people didn't care whether or not Thelma was miming the piano, or how well it was executed technically... they were so enamored of the character (and the actor) at that point that it truly was unimportant to them.

> ...certainly not worth the risks of
> embarrassing the audience and breaking the
> powerful spell created up till then.

I sat in the audience most nights (as you do, being the director), and on the comparatively few nights when the piano scene went technically skewiff, sure, the audience were a little embarrassed, but they were carried by the humour of the scene, were on the actor's side, and appeared to keep the same level of enthusiasm post as prior.

With no disrespect intended Malcolm, it truly isn't a big deal for anyone other than uber-techies such as yourself. Theatre audiences accept it as part of the experience... things go wrong... it happens... and they appreciate it if the actors have the skill to deal with it.

D.M.

OK I admit the first thing I do on entering a theatre is to check out the lighting grid and speculate on the colour gels... doesn't everyone?

But my argument is for LESS technical supports not more. The fewer cues the fewer opportunities for inexperienced techs and backstage crew to tear the delicate fabric of audience attentiveness.

My first and only rule of theatre is: Have absolute faith in actors and their artistry.

Production consistency is firstly established by theatrical convention. My argument was one of setting conventions that de-neccesitate costly and technically problenmatic consistencies.

If a character states "That sounds like my taxi." I am not going to dispute it. Why should I? I'm buying into his world. That's why I'm there! If I want to spend an evening listening to taxis' arriving and departing I'll hang out in St Geoges terrace!

Realism in Theatre has nothing to do with the 'real' world. That was called 'naturalism' and it died very quickly in theatre - in fact as soon as film came along. The 'supposed' or 'accepted' reality of a dramatically 'real' world doesn't have to look and sound like our own. Why did the cars have to sound real while the room certainly wasn't designed to look real? No one disputed that these 'real' people actually inhabited this 'real' house.

AND on a NON-TECHNICAL matter:
Shakespeare's Desdamona doesn't have to sing. She could squeal it out and still make it work. But I challenge you to sit through a performance of Verdi's Otello with a Desdamona without the neccesary skills. Sympathy would die very quickly indeed!

I am sure I am not the only audience member who dies a little death everytime I see a complex web of magical technical occurances start to slowly unravel around the ankles of actors who have nowhere to run and hide... no dark and comfy chair to sink back into and curse the techie!

And by the way no disrepsect taken! Theatre practice is a site of argumant and counter arguement. We can only ever present ideas that come form our own particluar brand of theratre aesthetic. And this just happens to be mine...

MC

Malcolm - please tell me my eyes are failing me and you really didn't write "de-necesitate". Because if you did I'm going to insist that from now on you only be known as Joh!!!

Hi ya Dean!

At least I spelt it correctly... oh dear... back to school for me...

On the recommendation of my fellow reviewers, I went and saw the show last Friday night with 3 friends.
I agree that overall, it was a classy production with powerful performances and delightful design. If there were any tech problems, they were insignificant.
At the risk of sounding ageist though, is it really so difficult to cast middle-aged male roles these days? Both actors in this case did splendid jobs but it was nevertheless rather obvious that they were actually quite young men with silver hair make-up. As for my old mate Thelma, she just seems to get better with age and the fact that she's a bit out of practice on the piano should not hold her back.
Well done all and don't forget - comp me at PO Box 1133 Fremantle 6959

Necessitate .. one x c, 2 x s
DesdEmona ?? (i think)
disrespect
argUmEnt .. 1 x e
from
_______________________________________________
content & argument: excellent
spelling: fair
Still proofing your work Malcolm; don't pick on poor Dean!!
BarbZ

Hi Malcolm

> OK I admit the first thing I do on entering a theatre is
> to check out the lighting grid and speculate on the
> colour gels... doesn't everyone?

Do i hear someone busily typing away suggesting another poll?



> If a character states "That sounds like my taxi." I am
> not going to dispute it. Why should I?

I'll side with Malcolm on this one. Not that i never want to hear or see anything approaching realism/naturalism on stage. It's just that as Malcolm suggests, there are plenty of other things that theatre does better.

That said, on the evening i attended the aforementioned performance the sfx went off without a hitch and formed a seamless whole with the rest of what was a very effective production. The focus was where it should have been - on the drama unfolding on stage.

I think it's worth noting that it can be a tough call for a director to cut intrusive effects and business late in rehearsal - or even early in performance. I know there are a couple of people who, six years on, still remember an eleventh hour decision i made to cut slide projection from a show. It might have almost worked. It may have got better with tweaking during the run. Ultimately though, i had to make a call on whether i felt the potential distraction was going to be worth the additional effect. I cut it all out before the final dress rehearsal.

I cut work that had taken several people tens of hours of painstaking research and hard labour. Understandably, my decision was unpopular with the people who had done the work.

But I don't think the audience minded. In fact, David, you'll probably remember taking several standing ovations.

:-)

Cheers
Grant

Hi ya Barbara!

It's great to be proofed by you again.

High regards
Malcolm

To be fair, the first person to find fault with the fx was not an ubertechie, it was me, an undertechie. I don't think it's true that only techies notice the technical side of things.

However, I always find the better the show, the greater the considered critisism in a review, well my reviews anyway. If a show was truely awful, I don't even bother. So perhaps these critisisms should be taken as a compliment, David. (A fact I only came to realise after being able to step away from a not completely complimentary reveiw of my own. It only took about six months.)

> To be fair, the first person to
> find fault with the fx was not an
> ubertechie, it was me, an undertechie.
> I don't think it's true that only
> techies notice the technical side
> of things.

Fair point. Trust an uber-techie to post a rant about it on this forum, though. ;o)

> However, I always find the better the
> show, the greater the considered
> critisism in a review, well my reviews
> anyway. If a show was truely awful,
> I don't even bother. So perhaps these
> critisisms should be taken as a
> compliment, David.

A compliment? You're slipping, Leah.

D.M.

stinger wrote:

> At the risk of sounding ageist though,
> is it really so difficult to cast
> middle-aged male roles these days?

In my experience, absolutely.

D.M.

Come on guys, once again I log on to see a few reviews and the review section is clogged with non-reviews. Is it possible to reply to a message by posting your response in a more suitable category? You are obviously intersested in this topic and that's great but there was a storm of insults hurled at a previous off-topic conversation which took place in this section. I want to read reviews in this section, not off-topic conversation.
Cheers,
Gibson

Gibson Nolte wrote:
-------------------------------
I want to read reviews in this section, not off-topic conversation.

Fair enough. I thought you were fabulous, Gibson.