Britannicus

OK Amanda, you asked for it;

Britannicus
Friday 16 November 2001
The Blue Room Studio, Northbridge (that's in Perth)
Naked Emotion, directed by David Meadows

Out of respect for David Meadows and completely secure in the knowlege that he would do the same for (to?) me, I am going to wite a completely honest reveiw of Britannicus. The following represents the veiw only of the author. Feel free to let fly with that mud.

Britannicus is real theatre. Theatre at it's core and most basic form. People, words, a story. No big fancy box set and flouncy costuming self conciously distracting the audience from the actors. It is an actors peice, stark and uncompromising.

And it was done very very well. It is a heavy peice, and while I loved it to death, if it had gone on any longer than an hour I beleive it would have started to lose some of it's audience. The translation is wonderful, lyrical and at times harsh. It never lost me once, but you have to listen all the time. It does not allow you to relax in your concentration and as such it's a little bit tiring. And people, READ THE "THE PLAY" BLURB ON THE PROGRAM, otherwise you won't have a hope in hell of following what is going on.

While the actors all aquitted themselves just marvellously, I did have a few small quibbles and one very large one. Angelique Malcolm was just perfect as the highly strung and guilt ridden Agrippina but the echo in the studio made it difficult to understand her when she spoke both loudly and quickly at the same time. I think I lost about half of one of her scenes simply through bad accoustics. Amanda Chesterton was beautiful (and the clevage crown is very safe) but I felt that in a peice which was striving for naturalism and unity in movement, some of her actions and movements where stiff and jerky. They stood out from the other actors and it was distracting. As soon as she walked on you felt the whole audience think "Dancer" at the same time.

My large quibble should not be interpreted as a critisism of the actor involved, but the casting. I love Anthony Harwoods' work. I never saw him in anything he didn't shine in and a lot of times, almost steal. Until last night. I felt he was very miscast as Nero. I know how he hates to be type cast as the nice one, and the best friend, but he looks so sweet and audiences just like him instantly, and trust him. I just didn't get the seeds of the tyranny and madness that were to follow in Nero from him. At the end in the reportage scene and the final haunting and beautiful moment of his mother attempting to assure herself that he would be alright, the horror at his actions didn't seem justified by the charcter we had had presented to us.

This was never more evident than in the scene between June and Nero. Amanda was just too strong. She stood like a compass point while Nero flapped around her. The total impression was one of her strength and his ineffectuality (OK, probably not a word), which put June in a position of power that just didn't work in the context of the story. This may be what David was going for, I don't know, but it didn't make any sense to me, particularly as in the cast list June is listed as "a pawn".

The other actors were great. Mark Blades was slimey and smug, Keziah Gillam sort of seemed to serve as the audience point of view. I'm not sure if this was the point. If she was supposed to be a trouble maker, I didn't really see that. Tony Petani was very hip tragic hero (although I didn't feel the chemistry was altogether there between himself and June after the huge beat up their perfect love had been given) and the great director himself was, as far as I was concerned, in danger of stealing the show, (small though his part was), by his utterly realistic portrayal of a small minded beaurocrat (and it wasn't just the costume. Seriously, think of a stereotypical public servant and double it. Where on earth did you get those glasses, David?). I have always admired David for his sense of stillness and utter reality; a feeling that he was allowing the audience to come to him, not going to them.

The direction made for a natural and completely unself concious peice. I was a little confused though as to why Nero faced the wall in the poisening scene, particularly when much was made of his facial expression at the time. I would have liked to see his face. I also didn't like the way Narcissus moved in the same scene. I understand the reportage was supposed to be played out mechanically, but the contrast of the way Britannicus had acted out his part of the story and the was Narcissus did was a little jarring.

The best compliment I can give this show was that it was just so good I felt that it deserved careful and long thought by every member of the audience. I myself am still thinking about it; about how seven actors, dressed in almost all black on an almost completely blank stage could have kept me mesmerised for an hour; but it did, competely. The ensamble is seamless, the acting is great, the story is interesting and it's just so very brave. Go and see it.

And, as I feel it is a peice that derverves lengthly and serious discussion, come back to your computers afterwards and disagree with me. Please.