Taming of the Shrew
Fri, 20 July 2001, 06:47 pmAmanda Chesterton12 posts in thread
Taming of the Shrew
Fri, 20 July 2001, 06:47 pmPart of Shakespeare's endearing quality is his eternal relevance no matter what time/dimension you happen to be reading him in. Histories, tragedies, or comedies they all have something profound to say about the human condition, telling us that despite microchips, nanotechnology, and the Internet, we are ostensibly the same critters that crawled out of the primordial ooze and became distressingly susceptible to the wiles of rat fleas. And then there's Taming of the Shrew.
For that reason, I suppose, it is intriguing to see any production of this most un-PC of plays to see how much the director is going to skirt, dodge, or plough into the central subject of this play - wedding and bedding (not necessarily in that order) a disobedient woman. Claire Hooper's take on this sorry tale is the most innovative and entertaining I've seen.
It's always a worry when directors stipulate a time and place for their Shakespeare updates as it can be very difficult to consistently and justifiably carry through the show (where, I think, the Northbridge R&J failed). Setting it in a 1930s circus, however, was inspired. It provided a) a time frame where the 'taming' of the 'shrew' was acceptable and believable and b) a visually engrossing context.
I will get the inevitable comparison out of the way first: I think this was a generally better production than R&J, thanks to a design-savvy director with a wealthy girls' school wardrobe at her disposal, and a higher calibre of cast. But then, judging by the sizes of our audiences, I don't think enough people saw R&J to warrant this comparison so this last comment may have meant nothing to most of you ;-)
To the cast: it was overall a very physically energetic and committed performance, but unfortunately to the detriment of vocal production. Trust me, I KNOW it is a hard venue to fill vocally but, in the comedies especially, the text is central to Shakespeare and it's a damn shame to miss it. In some cases volume was lacking, but even when it wasn't, emphasis on the consonants was a bit lazy. Some performers were also using accents which only obscured the text further. A vocal warm up prior to the show is strongly recommended, with work on slowing down the delivery a lot, upping the volume, and spitting out the consonants.
Christine (Christina? - sorry, lost my programme) as Katherine and Meg 'Mrs Toby' Logue as Bianca were a beautifully juxtaposed pair of siblings. Kate was tall and sour, and Bianca tiny and (nauseatingly) cute, which fit in well with the crazy surroundings of the show. Kate's fury upon watching her annoying sister hit-spring-exit-stage-left under the simpering gaze of their father, was almost audible. I felt that the-actress-currently-known-as-Katherine could have had a clearer character devleopment, though. We never really saw her as much of a 'shrew', our conclusions based only upon accounts from other characters. Perhaps it was due to the extensive script cuts? Perhaps this was intentional...? I don't feel it quite succeded if this was the point.
Petruchio was played by Gibson Nolte in a teriffic performance. A character who is traditionally played as a large, arrogant, bearded man, was virtually sent up by Gib, with his weasally, slimy interpretation. Even his facial hair was seedy. What is the toothpick budget on the show, anyway?
The famous Kate-meets-Petruchio scene was the only point in the show where I felt the energy drop, however. I've usually seen this performed as the most energetic scene in the show with the actors virtually throwing the scenery at each other. Again, perhaps this was Claire's intent, to contrast it to the energy of the rest of the show, and to depart from the traditional delivery. I would have liked to have seen something in the vein of the (brilliant) first Katherine-Bianca scene, however. Circling each other and shooting un-funny 16th century gags at each other didn't cut it for me. (BTW This was where volume let the performers down - Kate delivered some of her lines with her back to the audience, and they were all completely lost).
Other notable mentions include Toby 'Mr Meg' Malone as Lucentio - does he ever get tired of playing Shakespearian love-interests? At least he's got the love at first sight look down to a fine art - and yes, it was very cute seeing him and Meg on stage together :-) Mike Djukic as Hortensio was great, but the Welsh (Newcastle?) accent, though consistent, completely obliterated some of the text. Perhaps slowing down might help...? Ben Ruse as Tranio made interesting work of the character, however I felt the English accent detracted from this. He should either keep the characterisation and use his own (very pleasant) speaking voice, or keep the accent and up the absurdity of the character. In the very small parts, the wacky clown in the ugly orange flares was a riot. I think she had a total of three lines, but her delivery was always spot on. Ash McLeod made top work of Grumio, proving the old adage of small parts and small players. (But again, slow down. We lost a lot of words.)
And finally (phew!) it was wonderful to be present at Alec Guinness's triumphant return to the stage. I was under the distinct impression that he had died, but he's back, better than ever, and looking uncannily like Dave Ryding.
Amanda Chesterton
PS Those singing girls that kept coming on - don't run too fast. The possibility of fall-out in those costumes is ever-present...
PPS Go and see the show if you want to see how the whole 'taming' thing was dealt with. As a hint, the line 'Such duty as the subject owes the prince/Even such a woman oweth to her husband' was shrewdly cut from Kate's final speech (no pun intended).
PPS Free show - Sunday - 8pm
For that reason, I suppose, it is intriguing to see any production of this most un-PC of plays to see how much the director is going to skirt, dodge, or plough into the central subject of this play - wedding and bedding (not necessarily in that order) a disobedient woman. Claire Hooper's take on this sorry tale is the most innovative and entertaining I've seen.
It's always a worry when directors stipulate a time and place for their Shakespeare updates as it can be very difficult to consistently and justifiably carry through the show (where, I think, the Northbridge R&J failed). Setting it in a 1930s circus, however, was inspired. It provided a) a time frame where the 'taming' of the 'shrew' was acceptable and believable and b) a visually engrossing context.
I will get the inevitable comparison out of the way first: I think this was a generally better production than R&J, thanks to a design-savvy director with a wealthy girls' school wardrobe at her disposal, and a higher calibre of cast. But then, judging by the sizes of our audiences, I don't think enough people saw R&J to warrant this comparison so this last comment may have meant nothing to most of you ;-)
To the cast: it was overall a very physically energetic and committed performance, but unfortunately to the detriment of vocal production. Trust me, I KNOW it is a hard venue to fill vocally but, in the comedies especially, the text is central to Shakespeare and it's a damn shame to miss it. In some cases volume was lacking, but even when it wasn't, emphasis on the consonants was a bit lazy. Some performers were also using accents which only obscured the text further. A vocal warm up prior to the show is strongly recommended, with work on slowing down the delivery a lot, upping the volume, and spitting out the consonants.
Christine (Christina? - sorry, lost my programme) as Katherine and Meg 'Mrs Toby' Logue as Bianca were a beautifully juxtaposed pair of siblings. Kate was tall and sour, and Bianca tiny and (nauseatingly) cute, which fit in well with the crazy surroundings of the show. Kate's fury upon watching her annoying sister hit-spring-exit-stage-left under the simpering gaze of their father, was almost audible. I felt that the-actress-currently-known-as-Katherine could have had a clearer character devleopment, though. We never really saw her as much of a 'shrew', our conclusions based only upon accounts from other characters. Perhaps it was due to the extensive script cuts? Perhaps this was intentional...? I don't feel it quite succeded if this was the point.
Petruchio was played by Gibson Nolte in a teriffic performance. A character who is traditionally played as a large, arrogant, bearded man, was virtually sent up by Gib, with his weasally, slimy interpretation. Even his facial hair was seedy. What is the toothpick budget on the show, anyway?
The famous Kate-meets-Petruchio scene was the only point in the show where I felt the energy drop, however. I've usually seen this performed as the most energetic scene in the show with the actors virtually throwing the scenery at each other. Again, perhaps this was Claire's intent, to contrast it to the energy of the rest of the show, and to depart from the traditional delivery. I would have liked to have seen something in the vein of the (brilliant) first Katherine-Bianca scene, however. Circling each other and shooting un-funny 16th century gags at each other didn't cut it for me. (BTW This was where volume let the performers down - Kate delivered some of her lines with her back to the audience, and they were all completely lost).
Other notable mentions include Toby 'Mr Meg' Malone as Lucentio - does he ever get tired of playing Shakespearian love-interests? At least he's got the love at first sight look down to a fine art - and yes, it was very cute seeing him and Meg on stage together :-) Mike Djukic as Hortensio was great, but the Welsh (Newcastle?) accent, though consistent, completely obliterated some of the text. Perhaps slowing down might help...? Ben Ruse as Tranio made interesting work of the character, however I felt the English accent detracted from this. He should either keep the characterisation and use his own (very pleasant) speaking voice, or keep the accent and up the absurdity of the character. In the very small parts, the wacky clown in the ugly orange flares was a riot. I think she had a total of three lines, but her delivery was always spot on. Ash McLeod made top work of Grumio, proving the old adage of small parts and small players. (But again, slow down. We lost a lot of words.)
And finally (phew!) it was wonderful to be present at Alec Guinness's triumphant return to the stage. I was under the distinct impression that he had died, but he's back, better than ever, and looking uncannily like Dave Ryding.
Amanda Chesterton
PS Those singing girls that kept coming on - don't run too fast. The possibility of fall-out in those costumes is ever-present...
PPS Go and see the show if you want to see how the whole 'taming' thing was dealt with. As a hint, the line 'Such duty as the subject owes the prince/Even such a woman oweth to her husband' was shrewdly cut from Kate's final speech (no pun intended).
PPS Free show - Sunday - 8pm
Amanda ChestertonFri, 20 July 2001, 06:47 pm
Part of Shakespeare's endearing quality is his eternal relevance no matter what time/dimension you happen to be reading him in. Histories, tragedies, or comedies they all have something profound to say about the human condition, telling us that despite microchips, nanotechnology, and the Internet, we are ostensibly the same critters that crawled out of the primordial ooze and became distressingly susceptible to the wiles of rat fleas. And then there's Taming of the Shrew.
For that reason, I suppose, it is intriguing to see any production of this most un-PC of plays to see how much the director is going to skirt, dodge, or plough into the central subject of this play - wedding and bedding (not necessarily in that order) a disobedient woman. Claire Hooper's take on this sorry tale is the most innovative and entertaining I've seen.
It's always a worry when directors stipulate a time and place for their Shakespeare updates as it can be very difficult to consistently and justifiably carry through the show (where, I think, the Northbridge R&J failed). Setting it in a 1930s circus, however, was inspired. It provided a) a time frame where the 'taming' of the 'shrew' was acceptable and believable and b) a visually engrossing context.
I will get the inevitable comparison out of the way first: I think this was a generally better production than R&J, thanks to a design-savvy director with a wealthy girls' school wardrobe at her disposal, and a higher calibre of cast. But then, judging by the sizes of our audiences, I don't think enough people saw R&J to warrant this comparison so this last comment may have meant nothing to most of you ;-)
To the cast: it was overall a very physically energetic and committed performance, but unfortunately to the detriment of vocal production. Trust me, I KNOW it is a hard venue to fill vocally but, in the comedies especially, the text is central to Shakespeare and it's a damn shame to miss it. In some cases volume was lacking, but even when it wasn't, emphasis on the consonants was a bit lazy. Some performers were also using accents which only obscured the text further. A vocal warm up prior to the show is strongly recommended, with work on slowing down the delivery a lot, upping the volume, and spitting out the consonants.
Christine (Christina? - sorry, lost my programme) as Katherine and Meg 'Mrs Toby' Logue as Bianca were a beautifully juxtaposed pair of siblings. Kate was tall and sour, and Bianca tiny and (nauseatingly) cute, which fit in well with the crazy surroundings of the show. Kate's fury upon watching her annoying sister hit-spring-exit-stage-left under the simpering gaze of their father, was almost audible. I felt that the-actress-currently-known-as-Katherine could have had a clearer character devleopment, though. We never really saw her as much of a 'shrew', our conclusions based only upon accounts from other characters. Perhaps it was due to the extensive script cuts? Perhaps this was intentional...? I don't feel it quite succeded if this was the point.
Petruchio was played by Gibson Nolte in a teriffic performance. A character who is traditionally played as a large, arrogant, bearded man, was virtually sent up by Gib, with his weasally, slimy interpretation. Even his facial hair was seedy. What is the toothpick budget on the show, anyway?
The famous Kate-meets-Petruchio scene was the only point in the show where I felt the energy drop, however. I've usually seen this performed as the most energetic scene in the show with the actors virtually throwing the scenery at each other. Again, perhaps this was Claire's intent, to contrast it to the energy of the rest of the show, and to depart from the traditional delivery. I would have liked to have seen something in the vein of the (brilliant) first Katherine-Bianca scene, however. Circling each other and shooting un-funny 16th century gags at each other didn't cut it for me. (BTW This was where volume let the performers down - Kate delivered some of her lines with her back to the audience, and they were all completely lost).
Other notable mentions include Toby 'Mr Meg' Malone as Lucentio - does he ever get tired of playing Shakespearian love-interests? At least he's got the love at first sight look down to a fine art - and yes, it was very cute seeing him and Meg on stage together :-) Mike Djukic as Hortensio was great, but the Welsh (Newcastle?) accent, though consistent, completely obliterated some of the text. Perhaps slowing down might help...? Ben Ruse as Tranio made interesting work of the character, however I felt the English accent detracted from this. He should either keep the characterisation and use his own (very pleasant) speaking voice, or keep the accent and up the absurdity of the character. In the very small parts, the wacky clown in the ugly orange flares was a riot. I think she had a total of three lines, but her delivery was always spot on. Ash McLeod made top work of Grumio, proving the old adage of small parts and small players. (But again, slow down. We lost a lot of words.)
And finally (phew!) it was wonderful to be present at Alec Guinness's triumphant return to the stage. I was under the distinct impression that he had died, but he's back, better than ever, and looking uncannily like Dave Ryding.
Amanda Chesterton
PS Those singing girls that kept coming on - don't run too fast. The possibility of fall-out in those costumes is ever-present...
PPS Go and see the show if you want to see how the whole 'taming' thing was dealt with. As a hint, the line 'Such duty as the subject owes the prince/Even such a woman oweth to her husband' was shrewdly cut from Kate's final speech (no pun intended).
PPS Free show - Sunday - 8pm
For that reason, I suppose, it is intriguing to see any production of this most un-PC of plays to see how much the director is going to skirt, dodge, or plough into the central subject of this play - wedding and bedding (not necessarily in that order) a disobedient woman. Claire Hooper's take on this sorry tale is the most innovative and entertaining I've seen.
It's always a worry when directors stipulate a time and place for their Shakespeare updates as it can be very difficult to consistently and justifiably carry through the show (where, I think, the Northbridge R&J failed). Setting it in a 1930s circus, however, was inspired. It provided a) a time frame where the 'taming' of the 'shrew' was acceptable and believable and b) a visually engrossing context.
I will get the inevitable comparison out of the way first: I think this was a generally better production than R&J, thanks to a design-savvy director with a wealthy girls' school wardrobe at her disposal, and a higher calibre of cast. But then, judging by the sizes of our audiences, I don't think enough people saw R&J to warrant this comparison so this last comment may have meant nothing to most of you ;-)
To the cast: it was overall a very physically energetic and committed performance, but unfortunately to the detriment of vocal production. Trust me, I KNOW it is a hard venue to fill vocally but, in the comedies especially, the text is central to Shakespeare and it's a damn shame to miss it. In some cases volume was lacking, but even when it wasn't, emphasis on the consonants was a bit lazy. Some performers were also using accents which only obscured the text further. A vocal warm up prior to the show is strongly recommended, with work on slowing down the delivery a lot, upping the volume, and spitting out the consonants.
Christine (Christina? - sorry, lost my programme) as Katherine and Meg 'Mrs Toby' Logue as Bianca were a beautifully juxtaposed pair of siblings. Kate was tall and sour, and Bianca tiny and (nauseatingly) cute, which fit in well with the crazy surroundings of the show. Kate's fury upon watching her annoying sister hit-spring-exit-stage-left under the simpering gaze of their father, was almost audible. I felt that the-actress-currently-known-as-Katherine could have had a clearer character devleopment, though. We never really saw her as much of a 'shrew', our conclusions based only upon accounts from other characters. Perhaps it was due to the extensive script cuts? Perhaps this was intentional...? I don't feel it quite succeded if this was the point.
Petruchio was played by Gibson Nolte in a teriffic performance. A character who is traditionally played as a large, arrogant, bearded man, was virtually sent up by Gib, with his weasally, slimy interpretation. Even his facial hair was seedy. What is the toothpick budget on the show, anyway?
The famous Kate-meets-Petruchio scene was the only point in the show where I felt the energy drop, however. I've usually seen this performed as the most energetic scene in the show with the actors virtually throwing the scenery at each other. Again, perhaps this was Claire's intent, to contrast it to the energy of the rest of the show, and to depart from the traditional delivery. I would have liked to have seen something in the vein of the (brilliant) first Katherine-Bianca scene, however. Circling each other and shooting un-funny 16th century gags at each other didn't cut it for me. (BTW This was where volume let the performers down - Kate delivered some of her lines with her back to the audience, and they were all completely lost).
Other notable mentions include Toby 'Mr Meg' Malone as Lucentio - does he ever get tired of playing Shakespearian love-interests? At least he's got the love at first sight look down to a fine art - and yes, it was very cute seeing him and Meg on stage together :-) Mike Djukic as Hortensio was great, but the Welsh (Newcastle?) accent, though consistent, completely obliterated some of the text. Perhaps slowing down might help...? Ben Ruse as Tranio made interesting work of the character, however I felt the English accent detracted from this. He should either keep the characterisation and use his own (very pleasant) speaking voice, or keep the accent and up the absurdity of the character. In the very small parts, the wacky clown in the ugly orange flares was a riot. I think she had a total of three lines, but her delivery was always spot on. Ash McLeod made top work of Grumio, proving the old adage of small parts and small players. (But again, slow down. We lost a lot of words.)
And finally (phew!) it was wonderful to be present at Alec Guinness's triumphant return to the stage. I was under the distinct impression that he had died, but he's back, better than ever, and looking uncannily like Dave Ryding.
Amanda Chesterton
PS Those singing girls that kept coming on - don't run too fast. The possibility of fall-out in those costumes is ever-present...
PPS Go and see the show if you want to see how the whole 'taming' thing was dealt with. As a hint, the line 'Such duty as the subject owes the prince/Even such a woman oweth to her husband' was shrewdly cut from Kate's final speech (no pun intended).
PPS Free show - Sunday - 8pm
Leah MaherMon, 23 July 2001, 08:47 am
RE: Taming of the Shrew
Hmmmm... I don't think I'm going to be able to leave "how the whole "taming" thing was dealth with" alone. For me this was the part of Shrew that detracted from an otherwise marvellous experience.
I really enjoyed Shrew. Truely Shakespeare for the people. Understood every word without having to call on my memory of the text, there was lots of falling over and bright costumes, the characters were intellegently dealth with, the acting was lovely, especially the guy who played Hortensio. Unlike Amanda I think the accent was perfect and at times sounded like the text was written to be spoken this way. I felt that the usually brilliant Mike Frencham was a bit off his game, but otherwise loved them all.
The problem, as mentioned above, was the relationship, central to the plot, between Kate and Petruccio. Or rather, the lack thereof. As Amanda said in her reveiw, this is why we see this play now, to explore this relationship in a modern context. Shrew is the only Shakesperian play which has suffered a complete reversal of ideals. We don't tame Shrews anymore, we aspire to be them. We recognise their strength and admire women who live life on their own terms. So when you put on Shrew do you play it traditionally or attempt to re-interpret the text to show the equality between Shrew and Shrew Tamer?
BUT YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE! You can't play this one on the fence, which is what came across when I saw Shrew last night. The relationship was not defined. The scenes between the characters were all sly grins and no explanations. WHY? WHY does Kate agree that the sun is the moon? WHY does she come when he calls? WHY? WHY? The first scene between them, one that an audience usually looks forward to, was so flat. Not for lack of talent, the two actors were very good. I think there was a simple lack of clear vision. Kate wasn't given a chance to establish her Shrewness, Petruccio wasn't given a chance to be either hero or villian and as such at the end of the play I still didn't know wether to clap or hiss. This lack of vision was most surprising an a show full of vision, angles and design concept.
A real pity, because the show is great, entertaining from start to finish, with a great end credits sequence (nothing like a full cast boogy to end a play). I recommend going to see it and then having a long interpretation debate over coffee afterwards.
I invite disagreements, explanations etc. However do remember that not everyone has studied the Bard and could find the subtle nuances in the text, in a twitch of an eyebrow of an intreging use of levels. Most of the (extremely substantial) audience will be like me, just shmo's of the street. Claire (delightfully) hit us over the head with Shrew, if the Shrew taming interpreation was subtle and I missed it, I apologise, but I do stand by the fact that it should have been at the level of the rest of the show.
Oh and one more thing, I'm about a 34/6C Claire, what can you do for me?
I really enjoyed Shrew. Truely Shakespeare for the people. Understood every word without having to call on my memory of the text, there was lots of falling over and bright costumes, the characters were intellegently dealth with, the acting was lovely, especially the guy who played Hortensio. Unlike Amanda I think the accent was perfect and at times sounded like the text was written to be spoken this way. I felt that the usually brilliant Mike Frencham was a bit off his game, but otherwise loved them all.
The problem, as mentioned above, was the relationship, central to the plot, between Kate and Petruccio. Or rather, the lack thereof. As Amanda said in her reveiw, this is why we see this play now, to explore this relationship in a modern context. Shrew is the only Shakesperian play which has suffered a complete reversal of ideals. We don't tame Shrews anymore, we aspire to be them. We recognise their strength and admire women who live life on their own terms. So when you put on Shrew do you play it traditionally or attempt to re-interpret the text to show the equality between Shrew and Shrew Tamer?
BUT YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE! You can't play this one on the fence, which is what came across when I saw Shrew last night. The relationship was not defined. The scenes between the characters were all sly grins and no explanations. WHY? WHY does Kate agree that the sun is the moon? WHY does she come when he calls? WHY? WHY? The first scene between them, one that an audience usually looks forward to, was so flat. Not for lack of talent, the two actors were very good. I think there was a simple lack of clear vision. Kate wasn't given a chance to establish her Shrewness, Petruccio wasn't given a chance to be either hero or villian and as such at the end of the play I still didn't know wether to clap or hiss. This lack of vision was most surprising an a show full of vision, angles and design concept.
A real pity, because the show is great, entertaining from start to finish, with a great end credits sequence (nothing like a full cast boogy to end a play). I recommend going to see it and then having a long interpretation debate over coffee afterwards.
I invite disagreements, explanations etc. However do remember that not everyone has studied the Bard and could find the subtle nuances in the text, in a twitch of an eyebrow of an intreging use of levels. Most of the (extremely substantial) audience will be like me, just shmo's of the street. Claire (delightfully) hit us over the head with Shrew, if the Shrew taming interpreation was subtle and I missed it, I apologise, but I do stand by the fact that it should have been at the level of the rest of the show.
Oh and one more thing, I'm about a 34/6C Claire, what can you do for me?
Walter PlingeMon, 23 July 2001, 12:42 pm
RE: Reviews of Taming of the Shrew
Hi there!
I've decided to break convention by replying as myself (rather than a clever pseudonym). Crazy.
Thanks for the compliments about the show - yes, I've been lucky to work with such a skilled and comic cast!
But to the central relationship (since you did sound curious..) - Chris, Gibson and I decided to be very infuriating by ignoring the fact that everyone would be looking for the pro vs anti traditional reading of the 'taming', and set out to find a whole new reading which would work for the 30s.
What we came up with was this: Katharina and Petruchio find each other's 'froward-ness' amusing and refreshing. They offend each other on their first meeting, but there is interest. Petruchio 'breaks her' by making her laugh at how ridiculous they both are. The famed final speech from Katharina thus is a mixture of parody and affection for her husband.
You have a point though, Leah, perhaps it's all a bit too subtle considering the tone of the rest of the production.
Oh, and for your personally tailored showgirls costume at a reasonable price, see me after the show.
Claire
PS Amanda - to address the costume thing. MLC just filled in the blanks this time - most of the costumes are from my own collection!
I've decided to break convention by replying as myself (rather than a clever pseudonym). Crazy.
Thanks for the compliments about the show - yes, I've been lucky to work with such a skilled and comic cast!
But to the central relationship (since you did sound curious..) - Chris, Gibson and I decided to be very infuriating by ignoring the fact that everyone would be looking for the pro vs anti traditional reading of the 'taming', and set out to find a whole new reading which would work for the 30s.
What we came up with was this: Katharina and Petruchio find each other's 'froward-ness' amusing and refreshing. They offend each other on their first meeting, but there is interest. Petruchio 'breaks her' by making her laugh at how ridiculous they both are. The famed final speech from Katharina thus is a mixture of parody and affection for her husband.
You have a point though, Leah, perhaps it's all a bit too subtle considering the tone of the rest of the production.
Oh, and for your personally tailored showgirls costume at a reasonable price, see me after the show.
Claire
PS Amanda - to address the costume thing. MLC just filled in the blanks this time - most of the costumes are from my own collection!
Amanda ChestertonMon, 23 July 2001, 12:49 pm
RE: Reviews of Taming of the Shrew
> PS Amanda - to address the costume thing. MLC just filled in the blanks this time -
> most of the costumes are from my own collection!
Lucky Gib! :-)
Amanda Chesterton
> most of the costumes are from my own collection!
Lucky Gib! :-)
Amanda Chesterton
Walter PlingeMon, 23 July 2001, 04:37 pm
RE: Taming of the Shrew
I thought it was played just beautifully. A wonderful shade of grey. You say that you weren't sure whether to clap or hiss. I say do both because Pretruchio is just that sort of character and Gibson did a great job with it.
Auctor
Auctor
Grant MalcolmTue, 24 July 2001, 12:38 am
Utterly off-topic - Auctor
Hi Auctor
Couldn't help but notice you've got some php skills. Don't suppose you might have a few hours to share? I've some interesting projects around this site that need attention....
:-)
Cheers
Grant
Couldn't help but notice you've got some php skills. Don't suppose you might have a few hours to share? I've some interesting projects around this site that need attention....
:-)
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeTue, 24 July 2001, 02:09 pm
RE: Utterly off-topic - Auctor
I wish I had the time. Sorry.
Auctor
Auctor
Walter PlingeWed, 25 July 2001, 05:07 pm
RE: Taming of the Shrew
I agree that Gibson did a fine job as Petruchio. But I would also like to stir the
pot by dealing with two contreversial subjects: they are
a) cutting
b) budget and casting.
The cutting was excellent as a whole with a few casualties in terms of charecter exposition with many characters, from Kate, to Toby and Michaels characters.
what I found amusing was, in comparison, the cutting in relation to Gibson Noltes
Petruchio. In fact I often find myself wondering during the second monologue or so whether the director and Gibsons relationship effected the nature of the cutting in any way. Was this a star vehicle? Was this Heather Graham in Bowfinger in reverse? interesting.
I, being a local perth theatre performer, and not connected with either of the productions, noticed that the budget and casting for Taming were vastly superior to Romeo and Juliet in many ways. Did this co-incide with Gibson Nolte and Claire being involved in the former and not the latter production? I have no beef with the choices, but the division was very noticeable. Perhaps a more generous smattering of talent and money would have been preferable-was this not a "joint production"?
Having been rather rude and naughty, I would like to finish by saying Taming was a brilliant night, punctuated with fine performences and direction, and that Romeo and juliet hinted at new talent bursting at the brims in Perth.
All in all a wonderful and successful presentation of Shakespeare and one that should be commended and supported.
pot by dealing with two contreversial subjects: they are
a) cutting
b) budget and casting.
The cutting was excellent as a whole with a few casualties in terms of charecter exposition with many characters, from Kate, to Toby and Michaels characters.
what I found amusing was, in comparison, the cutting in relation to Gibson Noltes
Petruchio. In fact I often find myself wondering during the second monologue or so whether the director and Gibsons relationship effected the nature of the cutting in any way. Was this a star vehicle? Was this Heather Graham in Bowfinger in reverse? interesting.
I, being a local perth theatre performer, and not connected with either of the productions, noticed that the budget and casting for Taming were vastly superior to Romeo and Juliet in many ways. Did this co-incide with Gibson Nolte and Claire being involved in the former and not the latter production? I have no beef with the choices, but the division was very noticeable. Perhaps a more generous smattering of talent and money would have been preferable-was this not a "joint production"?
Having been rather rude and naughty, I would like to finish by saying Taming was a brilliant night, punctuated with fine performences and direction, and that Romeo and juliet hinted at new talent bursting at the brims in Perth.
All in all a wonderful and successful presentation of Shakespeare and one that should be commended and supported.
David RydingThu, 26 July 2001, 10:13 am
RE: Taming of the Shrew
Please allow me the opportunity to reply on behalf of Broken Limb and Shakespearence, co-producers of the Shakespeare cycle.
No. To all your questions, suggestions and pot stirring.
This a co production and frankly i find it insulting that you would sugegst that you would suggest that a) Gibson would gild his own nest and b) Broken Limb are thick enough to let that happen! Yes Shrew looks a million dollars but you obviously didn't look skyward at the lighting rig that R and J had. ooh boy those robotic lights come cheap don't they.
Claire,as mentioned earlier, has access to a great costume resource which she ahs built up over years of productions. She also has acces to MLC wardrobe and she is the op shopper from hell. The suit i wear cost $4!
What else cost so much money. The trailer? Built by voluntary help very cheaply? The set? Hmm hay is expensive. So much more so than scaffolding hire
Gibson didn't want to be Petruchio. He was in Shoping and f**king, was co producing BOTH shows and his company is mounting a self funded tour of the south west of Othello vs Titus ( selling out too thanks you very much) but Claire persuaded hm to be in it due to the obvious chemistry he had with Christina and he (sorry guys) was the best for the role. No he didn't audition but he was at call backs reading opposite people.
Now i'm not saying there hasn't been problems with the co produceing/ acting/ fiancee dual role but to suggest what you have is, quite frankly, insulting.
I will take this moment to outline my bias. I am close friends with both, in the cast and a passionate supporter of their work but as any one who knows me who reads this site, I will give credit where it is due and criticism when it is fair. As i do with both these people and their work.
Gib has built up a small professional company which has had four shows, two of which sold out and have been remounted. As well having been in three proffessional productions this year. Not bad going if you ask me, an effort that should be applauded on this site not denigrated with snide accusations.
Of course you may have been airing these opinions innocently. If so fair enough, you've got your answer.
The theatre industry in perth is too small and, some ways fragile, for competitive behavour, back stabbing and out and out bitching but theres always a place for healthy discussion. I'll place your post in the latter but if you're going to stick your hand up and give a comment how about standing by your opinion and giving your full name?
David Ryding
No. To all your questions, suggestions and pot stirring.
This a co production and frankly i find it insulting that you would sugegst that you would suggest that a) Gibson would gild his own nest and b) Broken Limb are thick enough to let that happen! Yes Shrew looks a million dollars but you obviously didn't look skyward at the lighting rig that R and J had. ooh boy those robotic lights come cheap don't they.
Claire,as mentioned earlier, has access to a great costume resource which she ahs built up over years of productions. She also has acces to MLC wardrobe and she is the op shopper from hell. The suit i wear cost $4!
What else cost so much money. The trailer? Built by voluntary help very cheaply? The set? Hmm hay is expensive. So much more so than scaffolding hire
Gibson didn't want to be Petruchio. He was in Shoping and f**king, was co producing BOTH shows and his company is mounting a self funded tour of the south west of Othello vs Titus ( selling out too thanks you very much) but Claire persuaded hm to be in it due to the obvious chemistry he had with Christina and he (sorry guys) was the best for the role. No he didn't audition but he was at call backs reading opposite people.
Now i'm not saying there hasn't been problems with the co produceing/ acting/ fiancee dual role but to suggest what you have is, quite frankly, insulting.
I will take this moment to outline my bias. I am close friends with both, in the cast and a passionate supporter of their work but as any one who knows me who reads this site, I will give credit where it is due and criticism when it is fair. As i do with both these people and their work.
Gib has built up a small professional company which has had four shows, two of which sold out and have been remounted. As well having been in three proffessional productions this year. Not bad going if you ask me, an effort that should be applauded on this site not denigrated with snide accusations.
Of course you may have been airing these opinions innocently. If so fair enough, you've got your answer.
The theatre industry in perth is too small and, some ways fragile, for competitive behavour, back stabbing and out and out bitching but theres always a place for healthy discussion. I'll place your post in the latter but if you're going to stick your hand up and give a comment how about standing by your opinion and giving your full name?
David Ryding
Walter PlingeFri, 27 July 2001, 03:00 pm
A concise rebuttal for 'jonny'!
Hi Jonny,
I heard about this posting and from the way some cast members were talking was expecting something much more vicious!
I will therefore leave out my long spiel about people who have nothing better to do than whinge anonymously and go straight to a rebuttal of your 'concerns' (at aformentioned cast members' request).
Budget: 'R & J' were actually given a larger budget than 'Shrew' (by a few hundred dollars) due to their set and lighting requirements.
Casting: Both shows auditioned on the same date and a lot of casting decisions were actually made according to actor's availabilities. Gibson never intended acting in either, but was helping out at call-backs and I had to convince him to take the role despite an already heavy workload on other productions.
Cutting: The editing of the script was done well in advance of casting and you will be pleased to know that we actually cut more of Petruchio's lines and added lines for other characters (eg Lucentio, Hortensio) during the rehearsal process!
Thanks for keeping us accountable - easy to do when you don't leave a real name, huh?!
Claire
I heard about this posting and from the way some cast members were talking was expecting something much more vicious!
I will therefore leave out my long spiel about people who have nothing better to do than whinge anonymously and go straight to a rebuttal of your 'concerns' (at aformentioned cast members' request).
Budget: 'R & J' were actually given a larger budget than 'Shrew' (by a few hundred dollars) due to their set and lighting requirements.
Casting: Both shows auditioned on the same date and a lot of casting decisions were actually made according to actor's availabilities. Gibson never intended acting in either, but was helping out at call-backs and I had to convince him to take the role despite an already heavy workload on other productions.
Cutting: The editing of the script was done well in advance of casting and you will be pleased to know that we actually cut more of Petruchio's lines and added lines for other characters (eg Lucentio, Hortensio) during the rehearsal process!
Thanks for keeping us accountable - easy to do when you don't leave a real name, huh?!
Claire
Walter PlingeFri, 27 July 2001, 03:36 pm
RE: A concise rebuttal for 'jonny'!
A very measured response for a Shrew Director!
Grant MalcolmFri, 27 July 2001, 06:12 pm
Less concise rebuttals
Hi Clare et al
I'll have to confess ignorance here on a couple of fronts. Firstly, i'm ashamed to say i haven't seen the Shrew yet, so i don't know what all the fuss is about. I'll be rectifying that on Saturday. Chookas for closing night guys!
Secondly, I can't claim to know a great deal about the budget as i've not seen one. There were a few figures mentioned for some areas of expenditure, which i dutifully passed on to the relevant people. I'd echo Dave's comments about fancy robotic lights and scaffold!
The auditions happened exactly as Clare describes. In most cases casting had more to do with availability, interest AND racial origin than anything else. I simultaneously opened up a world of wonderful possibilities and a can of worms by choosing to cast the play in the manner i did. It's remarkably unfair to blame Clare or anyone else involved in the Shrew for this and not particularly kind to the cast of R&J to suggest that the show would have been better without them. It would have been a different show and i wouldn't have been directing it.
Staging two shows back to back clearly stretched the capacity of the companies involved to staff both shows adequately.
But particularly give the short time frame from conception to realisation, i think the companies and individuals involved are deserving of lashings of praise for getting two such large shows up and happening.
I'm looking forward to getting along to see the Shrew!
Cheers
Grant
I'll have to confess ignorance here on a couple of fronts. Firstly, i'm ashamed to say i haven't seen the Shrew yet, so i don't know what all the fuss is about. I'll be rectifying that on Saturday. Chookas for closing night guys!
Secondly, I can't claim to know a great deal about the budget as i've not seen one. There were a few figures mentioned for some areas of expenditure, which i dutifully passed on to the relevant people. I'd echo Dave's comments about fancy robotic lights and scaffold!
The auditions happened exactly as Clare describes. In most cases casting had more to do with availability, interest AND racial origin than anything else. I simultaneously opened up a world of wonderful possibilities and a can of worms by choosing to cast the play in the manner i did. It's remarkably unfair to blame Clare or anyone else involved in the Shrew for this and not particularly kind to the cast of R&J to suggest that the show would have been better without them. It would have been a different show and i wouldn't have been directing it.
Staging two shows back to back clearly stretched the capacity of the companies involved to staff both shows adequately.
But particularly give the short time frame from conception to realisation, i think the companies and individuals involved are deserving of lashings of praise for getting two such large shows up and happening.
I'm looking forward to getting along to see the Shrew!
Cheers
Grant