Carpe Diem
Wed, 6 Feb 2002, 10:25 pmWalter Plinge11 posts in thread
Carpe Diem
Wed, 6 Feb 2002, 10:25 pmReview: Carpe Diem
“Seize The Play”- The resurrection of the Dead Movies Society.
Richard Lee
Carpe Diem is a well structured, well presented and well performed play. The six boys make up a lovely symmetrical ‘V’ shaped pattern on stage while their Captain, Mr Keating is the focus of their attention. The direction from first time director Rayann Condy was very good and some of the performances are really strong. Nick Christo, in particular added spice and humour and some originality while Deane Schulze and Michael Taylor were very polished and deliberate as Mr Perry and Mr Nolan respectively.
However, symmetry and structure are not everything as one notable actor sage said in the car park after the show: “Film and Theatre are two entirely different media. Cinema tells a story that has already happened and theatre tells a story that is happening at the moment it is being performed.” And here in lies the problem. Carpe Diem was adapted directly from the Dead Poets’ screenplay. As a result, some of the scene’s were too short and remained unresolved and sometimes the scene changes were too long. Because of this adaptation, the play has left itself open to various criticisms.
Firstly and most notably were the accents. “Boys.” Says Mr Keating, “You must strive to find your own voice” and yet in this play all they could find were the voices of other actors. Even though Dead Poets Society was set in 1959 America, it didn’t have to be. The themes and ideas it expresses are universal. Poetry, after all goes in hand in glove with being human, not with being in a scholastically repressed American institution. Even Michael Taylor as Nolan, with the most convincing accent of the cast, kept dropping his ‘r’s’ and finding the again. Then of course there was the ludicrous situation of good Australian actors with lovely diction and delivery performing Shakespearean dialogue in sometimes questionable American accents!
Dead Poets Society renounces conformity and educational rigidity. It espouses intellectual revolution and romanticism yet Carpe Diem conforms so tightly to the script, the dialogue and the ideas of its cinematic counterpart that its spirit of rebellion becomes null and void. Possibly the film was only meant to be an original. Or maybe itÂ’s because at the time of the filmÂ’s release, it seemed so fresh, exciting and seditious, we expect other versions to be just as fresh.
It can be extremely difficult to be enthralled by a play, no matter how good the performances and direction, when the star of the show tells us, “that the powerful play must go on and you may contribute a verse” with exactly the same tone, intonation and expression as the previous verses. Carpe Diem thus becomes limited in its appeal to fans of both the original film and amateur theatre when somehow, one feels that in the very nature of its existence, its raison dÂ’Áªtre as a play, it should have been striving to reach out further. Similarly, one needed to have seen the film in order to pick up some of the subtle plot structures. We were not made fully aware of ToddÂ’s family situation and the rivalry with his brother or whether or not he signed the letter condemning Keating. A play should exist within its own right and this one seemed to target an audience of previously converted Dead Poets fans.
The problem with putting on a play such as this is that its main character, John Keating would also have to be its strongest critic. He is, after all a great English teacher. But when he says things such as, “I want to find your own walk right now. Your own way of striding, pacing. Any direction” he would be a hypocrite if he enjoyed this play. Ultimately, Carpe Diem needed to be “extraordinary” but possibly never could be.
The one great flaw in Dead Poets is the final scene, when, after drumming into them for weeks about the pitfalls of conformity, the entire class (even though most of them ‘finked’ on him in the first place) follow the weediest and most unlistened to student in the class, Todd Anderson and stand on their desks like a herd of stupid sheep. Because of this, it is also one of the film’s funniest moments. Carpe Diem saw Dead Poets Society make a statement and stand on its desk, was very impressed with what it had to say and copied it what it said without listening to what it had to say.
Despite the good acting and the good direction, in the end, Seize the Day didnÂ’t.
“Seize The Play”- The resurrection of the Dead Movies Society.
Richard Lee
Carpe Diem is a well structured, well presented and well performed play. The six boys make up a lovely symmetrical ‘V’ shaped pattern on stage while their Captain, Mr Keating is the focus of their attention. The direction from first time director Rayann Condy was very good and some of the performances are really strong. Nick Christo, in particular added spice and humour and some originality while Deane Schulze and Michael Taylor were very polished and deliberate as Mr Perry and Mr Nolan respectively.
However, symmetry and structure are not everything as one notable actor sage said in the car park after the show: “Film and Theatre are two entirely different media. Cinema tells a story that has already happened and theatre tells a story that is happening at the moment it is being performed.” And here in lies the problem. Carpe Diem was adapted directly from the Dead Poets’ screenplay. As a result, some of the scene’s were too short and remained unresolved and sometimes the scene changes were too long. Because of this adaptation, the play has left itself open to various criticisms.
Firstly and most notably were the accents. “Boys.” Says Mr Keating, “You must strive to find your own voice” and yet in this play all they could find were the voices of other actors. Even though Dead Poets Society was set in 1959 America, it didn’t have to be. The themes and ideas it expresses are universal. Poetry, after all goes in hand in glove with being human, not with being in a scholastically repressed American institution. Even Michael Taylor as Nolan, with the most convincing accent of the cast, kept dropping his ‘r’s’ and finding the again. Then of course there was the ludicrous situation of good Australian actors with lovely diction and delivery performing Shakespearean dialogue in sometimes questionable American accents!
Dead Poets Society renounces conformity and educational rigidity. It espouses intellectual revolution and romanticism yet Carpe Diem conforms so tightly to the script, the dialogue and the ideas of its cinematic counterpart that its spirit of rebellion becomes null and void. Possibly the film was only meant to be an original. Or maybe itÂ’s because at the time of the filmÂ’s release, it seemed so fresh, exciting and seditious, we expect other versions to be just as fresh.
It can be extremely difficult to be enthralled by a play, no matter how good the performances and direction, when the star of the show tells us, “that the powerful play must go on and you may contribute a verse” with exactly the same tone, intonation and expression as the previous verses. Carpe Diem thus becomes limited in its appeal to fans of both the original film and amateur theatre when somehow, one feels that in the very nature of its existence, its raison dÂ’Áªtre as a play, it should have been striving to reach out further. Similarly, one needed to have seen the film in order to pick up some of the subtle plot structures. We were not made fully aware of ToddÂ’s family situation and the rivalry with his brother or whether or not he signed the letter condemning Keating. A play should exist within its own right and this one seemed to target an audience of previously converted Dead Poets fans.
The problem with putting on a play such as this is that its main character, John Keating would also have to be its strongest critic. He is, after all a great English teacher. But when he says things such as, “I want to find your own walk right now. Your own way of striding, pacing. Any direction” he would be a hypocrite if he enjoyed this play. Ultimately, Carpe Diem needed to be “extraordinary” but possibly never could be.
The one great flaw in Dead Poets is the final scene, when, after drumming into them for weeks about the pitfalls of conformity, the entire class (even though most of them ‘finked’ on him in the first place) follow the weediest and most unlistened to student in the class, Todd Anderson and stand on their desks like a herd of stupid sheep. Because of this, it is also one of the film’s funniest moments. Carpe Diem saw Dead Poets Society make a statement and stand on its desk, was very impressed with what it had to say and copied it what it said without listening to what it had to say.
Despite the good acting and the good direction, in the end, Seize the Day didnÂ’t.
Walter PlingeWed, 6 Feb 2002, 10:25 pm
Review: Carpe Diem
“Seize The Play”- The resurrection of the Dead Movies Society.
Richard Lee
Carpe Diem is a well structured, well presented and well performed play. The six boys make up a lovely symmetrical ‘V’ shaped pattern on stage while their Captain, Mr Keating is the focus of their attention. The direction from first time director Rayann Condy was very good and some of the performances are really strong. Nick Christo, in particular added spice and humour and some originality while Deane Schulze and Michael Taylor were very polished and deliberate as Mr Perry and Mr Nolan respectively.
However, symmetry and structure are not everything as one notable actor sage said in the car park after the show: “Film and Theatre are two entirely different media. Cinema tells a story that has already happened and theatre tells a story that is happening at the moment it is being performed.” And here in lies the problem. Carpe Diem was adapted directly from the Dead Poets’ screenplay. As a result, some of the scene’s were too short and remained unresolved and sometimes the scene changes were too long. Because of this adaptation, the play has left itself open to various criticisms.
Firstly and most notably were the accents. “Boys.” Says Mr Keating, “You must strive to find your own voice” and yet in this play all they could find were the voices of other actors. Even though Dead Poets Society was set in 1959 America, it didn’t have to be. The themes and ideas it expresses are universal. Poetry, after all goes in hand in glove with being human, not with being in a scholastically repressed American institution. Even Michael Taylor as Nolan, with the most convincing accent of the cast, kept dropping his ‘r’s’ and finding the again. Then of course there was the ludicrous situation of good Australian actors with lovely diction and delivery performing Shakespearean dialogue in sometimes questionable American accents!
Dead Poets Society renounces conformity and educational rigidity. It espouses intellectual revolution and romanticism yet Carpe Diem conforms so tightly to the script, the dialogue and the ideas of its cinematic counterpart that its spirit of rebellion becomes null and void. Possibly the film was only meant to be an original. Or maybe itÂ’s because at the time of the filmÂ’s release, it seemed so fresh, exciting and seditious, we expect other versions to be just as fresh.
It can be extremely difficult to be enthralled by a play, no matter how good the performances and direction, when the star of the show tells us, “that the powerful play must go on and you may contribute a verse” with exactly the same tone, intonation and expression as the previous verses. Carpe Diem thus becomes limited in its appeal to fans of both the original film and amateur theatre when somehow, one feels that in the very nature of its existence, its raison dÂ’Áªtre as a play, it should have been striving to reach out further. Similarly, one needed to have seen the film in order to pick up some of the subtle plot structures. We were not made fully aware of ToddÂ’s family situation and the rivalry with his brother or whether or not he signed the letter condemning Keating. A play should exist within its own right and this one seemed to target an audience of previously converted Dead Poets fans.
The problem with putting on a play such as this is that its main character, John Keating would also have to be its strongest critic. He is, after all a great English teacher. But when he says things such as, “I want to find your own walk right now. Your own way of striding, pacing. Any direction” he would be a hypocrite if he enjoyed this play. Ultimately, Carpe Diem needed to be “extraordinary” but possibly never could be.
The one great flaw in Dead Poets is the final scene, when, after drumming into them for weeks about the pitfalls of conformity, the entire class (even though most of them ‘finked’ on him in the first place) follow the weediest and most unlistened to student in the class, Todd Anderson and stand on their desks like a herd of stupid sheep. Because of this, it is also one of the film’s funniest moments. Carpe Diem saw Dead Poets Society make a statement and stand on its desk, was very impressed with what it had to say and copied it what it said without listening to what it had to say.
Despite the good acting and the good direction, in the end, Seize the Day didnÂ’t.
“Seize The Play”- The resurrection of the Dead Movies Society.
Richard Lee
Carpe Diem is a well structured, well presented and well performed play. The six boys make up a lovely symmetrical ‘V’ shaped pattern on stage while their Captain, Mr Keating is the focus of their attention. The direction from first time director Rayann Condy was very good and some of the performances are really strong. Nick Christo, in particular added spice and humour and some originality while Deane Schulze and Michael Taylor were very polished and deliberate as Mr Perry and Mr Nolan respectively.
However, symmetry and structure are not everything as one notable actor sage said in the car park after the show: “Film and Theatre are two entirely different media. Cinema tells a story that has already happened and theatre tells a story that is happening at the moment it is being performed.” And here in lies the problem. Carpe Diem was adapted directly from the Dead Poets’ screenplay. As a result, some of the scene’s were too short and remained unresolved and sometimes the scene changes were too long. Because of this adaptation, the play has left itself open to various criticisms.
Firstly and most notably were the accents. “Boys.” Says Mr Keating, “You must strive to find your own voice” and yet in this play all they could find were the voices of other actors. Even though Dead Poets Society was set in 1959 America, it didn’t have to be. The themes and ideas it expresses are universal. Poetry, after all goes in hand in glove with being human, not with being in a scholastically repressed American institution. Even Michael Taylor as Nolan, with the most convincing accent of the cast, kept dropping his ‘r’s’ and finding the again. Then of course there was the ludicrous situation of good Australian actors with lovely diction and delivery performing Shakespearean dialogue in sometimes questionable American accents!
Dead Poets Society renounces conformity and educational rigidity. It espouses intellectual revolution and romanticism yet Carpe Diem conforms so tightly to the script, the dialogue and the ideas of its cinematic counterpart that its spirit of rebellion becomes null and void. Possibly the film was only meant to be an original. Or maybe itÂ’s because at the time of the filmÂ’s release, it seemed so fresh, exciting and seditious, we expect other versions to be just as fresh.
It can be extremely difficult to be enthralled by a play, no matter how good the performances and direction, when the star of the show tells us, “that the powerful play must go on and you may contribute a verse” with exactly the same tone, intonation and expression as the previous verses. Carpe Diem thus becomes limited in its appeal to fans of both the original film and amateur theatre when somehow, one feels that in the very nature of its existence, its raison dÂ’Áªtre as a play, it should have been striving to reach out further. Similarly, one needed to have seen the film in order to pick up some of the subtle plot structures. We were not made fully aware of ToddÂ’s family situation and the rivalry with his brother or whether or not he signed the letter condemning Keating. A play should exist within its own right and this one seemed to target an audience of previously converted Dead Poets fans.
The problem with putting on a play such as this is that its main character, John Keating would also have to be its strongest critic. He is, after all a great English teacher. But when he says things such as, “I want to find your own walk right now. Your own way of striding, pacing. Any direction” he would be a hypocrite if he enjoyed this play. Ultimately, Carpe Diem needed to be “extraordinary” but possibly never could be.
The one great flaw in Dead Poets is the final scene, when, after drumming into them for weeks about the pitfalls of conformity, the entire class (even though most of them ‘finked’ on him in the first place) follow the weediest and most unlistened to student in the class, Todd Anderson and stand on their desks like a herd of stupid sheep. Because of this, it is also one of the film’s funniest moments. Carpe Diem saw Dead Poets Society make a statement and stand on its desk, was very impressed with what it had to say and copied it what it said without listening to what it had to say.
Despite the good acting and the good direction, in the end, Seize the Day didnÂ’t.
Walter PlingeSun, 10 Feb 2002, 11:22 pm
RE: Carpe Diem
Forgive him.... It just he "don't like amateur bloody theatre".
HammoMon, 11 Feb 2002, 12:07 am
RE: Carpe Diem
Why will nobody accept criticism on this site? If this review had have been a rave, everyone involved would have sat back and glowed in their own achievement. However, Mr Lee brought up some very concise and insightful suggestions, comments, and criticisms, and immediately the 'amateur' defence is latched onto. The theatre is an entirely subjective medium, and since we don't live in Stalinist Russia, we are all allowed to perform (almost) any play we like, and in turn are allowed to say whatever we like about it. As Gielgud (via Wilde and Coward) once said: 'Forget about the poor reviews - it's the positive ones you want to worry about...'. Just accept the fact that Mr Lee had problems with Carpe Diem, and move on - just remember that you have also got the democratic right to write up a contrasting review, discussing his opinions from your point of view. And that might lead to some stimulating discussion, something which has been a bit lacking here in 2002.
Cheers
j
Cheers
j
crgwllmsMon, 11 Feb 2002, 02:13 am
RE: Carp On
Justin Hammond wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Why will nobody accept criticism on this site? ....
Well put, Justin.
I've often been outspoken about "bad" criticism, and it's one of those words that gets just as confused as the "amateur/professional" status argument. A "good" crit is one that considers it's position, justifies its argument, covers many aspects, and ventures forth an informed OPINION. Whether that's a favourable or an unfavourable opinion, and whether we necessarily agree with it, is beside the point.
Contrary to what we may like to believe, a good crit doesn't necessarily have to be "fair"... it's nice to give everybody a mention, and it's diplomatic to mention positive things to balance the negative comments, but it's not necessarily a requirement of a good crit.
In fact, trying to be too fair may result in a "bad" crit - one that doesn't commit to a point of view and neglects to make any real value judgements (perhaps in fear of upsetting anyone), and usually ends up just summarising the script.
I don't know whether I agree or not with Richard's comments, not having seen the performance, but it seemed to me that he wrote quite a well considered criticism with valid arguments.
Given that we're in the chosen field of trying to entertain people, good (favourable AND unfavourable) criticism is vital to the process, to learn what people like and don't like. The most immediate feedback is from the audience during the show itself; but when someone feels strongly enough to voice an opinion after the event has passed, that's gotta be worth respecting.
The way to accept criticism is the same as the way to accept a compliment:
1 Remember, it's only ONE opinion.
2 Smile and say, "Thankyou".
3 Go away and think about it - there is always a grain of truth/lie.
4 Use it if it's useful, and move on. Onward and upward!
Cheers
crg
<8>-/====/-----------
-------------------------------
>>Why will nobody accept criticism on this site? ....
Well put, Justin.
I've often been outspoken about "bad" criticism, and it's one of those words that gets just as confused as the "amateur/professional" status argument. A "good" crit is one that considers it's position, justifies its argument, covers many aspects, and ventures forth an informed OPINION. Whether that's a favourable or an unfavourable opinion, and whether we necessarily agree with it, is beside the point.
Contrary to what we may like to believe, a good crit doesn't necessarily have to be "fair"... it's nice to give everybody a mention, and it's diplomatic to mention positive things to balance the negative comments, but it's not necessarily a requirement of a good crit.
In fact, trying to be too fair may result in a "bad" crit - one that doesn't commit to a point of view and neglects to make any real value judgements (perhaps in fear of upsetting anyone), and usually ends up just summarising the script.
I don't know whether I agree or not with Richard's comments, not having seen the performance, but it seemed to me that he wrote quite a well considered criticism with valid arguments.
Given that we're in the chosen field of trying to entertain people, good (favourable AND unfavourable) criticism is vital to the process, to learn what people like and don't like. The most immediate feedback is from the audience during the show itself; but when someone feels strongly enough to voice an opinion after the event has passed, that's gotta be worth respecting.
The way to accept criticism is the same as the way to accept a compliment:
1 Remember, it's only ONE opinion.
2 Smile and say, "Thankyou".
3 Go away and think about it - there is always a grain of truth/lie.
4 Use it if it's useful, and move on. Onward and upward!
Cheers
crg
<8>-/====/-----------
Walter PlingeMon, 11 Feb 2002, 10:33 am
RE: Carp On
Wow! Thanks for all the interest in our show, guys.
I did want to point out that neither Richard or Carol have anything to do with the production, nor do I even know who either of them are. (I don't really know Justin or Craig either, but I'm familiar with their postings.)
Richard's review was met with quite a bit of discussion amongst the cast and crew. We were particularly pleased with his opinion that the show is well acted and directed :-)
Similarly, Carol is entirely entitled to her opinion. I don't know if she saw the show or not, as nothing in her posting seems to indicate either way. I don't even know if she knows Richard or not. However, I can assure you that Carol is not one of the cast or crew having a whinge.
We appreciate all well-considered feedback, and on a personal note, I think Craig's commentary is one of those messages that deserves to have "pride of place" somewhere on the site and be more widely read.
Thanks to everyone for playing.
Jarrod Buttery,
(not a cast member, just President of Blak Yak Theatre)
I did want to point out that neither Richard or Carol have anything to do with the production, nor do I even know who either of them are. (I don't really know Justin or Craig either, but I'm familiar with their postings.)
Richard's review was met with quite a bit of discussion amongst the cast and crew. We were particularly pleased with his opinion that the show is well acted and directed :-)
Similarly, Carol is entirely entitled to her opinion. I don't know if she saw the show or not, as nothing in her posting seems to indicate either way. I don't even know if she knows Richard or not. However, I can assure you that Carol is not one of the cast or crew having a whinge.
We appreciate all well-considered feedback, and on a personal note, I think Craig's commentary is one of those messages that deserves to have "pride of place" somewhere on the site and be more widely read.
Thanks to everyone for playing.
Jarrod Buttery,
(not a cast member, just President of Blak Yak Theatre)
Babar's SisterMon, 11 Feb 2002, 09:34 pm
RE: Carp On
I can explain a bit from what I know...
Carol is a lovely lady, who unfortunately has not seen the production, but knows Richard all too well.
She simply wanted to explain Richard's actions, so that people stopped assuming he was a Nazi bastard. I myself am sure he enjoyed the show, and just wanted to suggest some ideas. You could say the show inspired him artistically. =)
That's all I know, I swear. Please put the gun down Mr Buttery.
Carol is a lovely lady, who unfortunately has not seen the production, but knows Richard all too well.
She simply wanted to explain Richard's actions, so that people stopped assuming he was a Nazi bastard. I myself am sure he enjoyed the show, and just wanted to suggest some ideas. You could say the show inspired him artistically. =)
That's all I know, I swear. Please put the gun down Mr Buttery.
BabarMon, 11 Feb 2002, 11:38 pm
RE: Carpe Opinion
Okay, time for someone that IS a member of the cast to have a yammer. I'm hardly an old hand at this theatre gig, but I have noticed how precious some people get when they get a bad review. However, I don't feel we had any reason to.
From what I know of Richard (I have become rather well aquainted with him recently), he seems more interested in the way the script stuck fairly close to the screenplay, as opposed to the actual performance itself. Admittedly he has told us that he thought the script should be changed, without actually giving us any ideas as to how he would change it. Perhaps someone else has similar ideas that they could present?
On a side note, I think Richard would be one of the first to admit, he DOES have a tendency to dislike "amateur bloody theatre". A lot of people suffer the indignity of watching trite shows at unreasonable prices, simply becase they have a stigma against amateur theatre. Simply because we know that some of the best shows you will see are to be found in the "Amateur" arena, doesn't mean everyone else knows. This doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to get insulted by his predjudice, if he doesn't want to watch it, he'll stop coming to shows. That's his loss.
If you want to find out what all this fuss is about, come see the show and give us YOUR opinion*.
* Blak Yak Theatre accepts no responsibility for the above blatant appeal for more bums on seats and reviews.
From what I know of Richard (I have become rather well aquainted with him recently), he seems more interested in the way the script stuck fairly close to the screenplay, as opposed to the actual performance itself. Admittedly he has told us that he thought the script should be changed, without actually giving us any ideas as to how he would change it. Perhaps someone else has similar ideas that they could present?
On a side note, I think Richard would be one of the first to admit, he DOES have a tendency to dislike "amateur bloody theatre". A lot of people suffer the indignity of watching trite shows at unreasonable prices, simply becase they have a stigma against amateur theatre. Simply because we know that some of the best shows you will see are to be found in the "Amateur" arena, doesn't mean everyone else knows. This doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to get insulted by his predjudice, if he doesn't want to watch it, he'll stop coming to shows. That's his loss.
If you want to find out what all this fuss is about, come see the show and give us YOUR opinion*.
* Blak Yak Theatre accepts no responsibility for the above blatant appeal for more bums on seats and reviews.
Walter PlingeSun, 10 Mar 2002, 09:53 pm
RE: Carpe Opinion
I really liked the show, Adam in particular having just seen him in Hamlet. I can also sympathise with the accents debate because it did detract from the talent of the actors in Carpe Diem. However I would just like to add that it is so difficult to use plays from other countries because it is often more difficult to change a play to fit Australia as it is for all the cast members to have Australian or British accents. Its a devil or the deep blue sea issue, you can't win.
If anyone does have any thoughts on how to change the setting of a play from America to Australia, I would really like to hear their thoughts on it, and maybe some advice, because it goes beyond just changing the accents.
If anyone does have any thoughts on how to change the setting of a play from America to Australia, I would really like to hear their thoughts on it, and maybe some advice, because it goes beyond just changing the accents.
AHarwoodMon, 11 Mar 2002, 11:36 am
RE: Carpe Opinion
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of movies tend to avoid accent issues? For example all the aliens in Sci Fi (with a few exceptions) don't really have unique accents other than American or English. Gladiator was a topical one for a while regarding everyone's accents.
And when they do try accents, they don't always work such as Halle Berry's Storm in X-men - it rang false to me, but maybe other people liked it. Even our own (hehehe) fantastic Hugh Jackman in a couple of his films has noticeable slips back to the Aussie.
My point of view - Does it really matter? Ok yes, it does sometimes, but Rather than have this constant debate pop up everytime someone does an American show (and it generally does, as I have been witness to in a number of productions in which either I was involved or not) can not the suspension of disbelief not come into play and we just decide to do Aussie for a change. This would be less grating on the public's ears and would rile less criticism.
But not for all. A lot of plays require the accents such as Steel Magnolias for the You beaut authenticity of the piece and some would say we need to copy Jack Nicholson for A few Good Men, not to mention The Importance of Being Earnest needing the toffy nosed English.
But then again, look at shakespeare. his plays were set in italy and a number of other countries as everyone can see for example in Hamlet :) but the accents are either non existant or English as is traditional. Does it really matter? Will people notice if accents aren't done? Cos they sure as hell will if they are and will be ready to pounce.
Maybe we should all be like Meryl Streep and learn all the different accents. there should be classes run by all nationalities - I know I would appreciate it cos I can never get Irish or Scottish right (BUT I AM SURE AS HECK WILLING TO TRY IF I HAVE TO) but that brings us back to the point - Do we have to?
I say it depends, but then again, we are AMATEUR companies are we not (I hate that word cos One reason it is true is because it seems people don't see the possibility of the companies being anything other than that) so should we take it so seriously or do we strive for a more PROFESSIONAL quality and get it right? Then again, I have seen some professional shows not use accents or screw them up. For example Sound of Music - Do they use Austrian or german Accents? NOPE!!! Some may say its a musical it isn't necessary, but so is West Side Story and Seven Brides For Seven Brothers and we use accents for that do we not (or I have when I did them).
Who knows? Who cares if you've made it this far through my ramblings? I just say do what ya want and if people criticise, then they obviously can't derive enjoyment out of the show in other ways if it is something they must focus on to any great degree.
I say go out there and have fun, do the shows, watch the shows, critique the shows all ya want, but don't blame an amateur company when the accents fail..Cos it happens to the best of us, professional or not.
PS: These opinions are sorta mine, but I'm in a mood at present so if ya don't like em, just forget about them or argue them cos I DO love a good debate!!!!!!!
Anthony "Me" Harwood
And when they do try accents, they don't always work such as Halle Berry's Storm in X-men - it rang false to me, but maybe other people liked it. Even our own (hehehe) fantastic Hugh Jackman in a couple of his films has noticeable slips back to the Aussie.
My point of view - Does it really matter? Ok yes, it does sometimes, but Rather than have this constant debate pop up everytime someone does an American show (and it generally does, as I have been witness to in a number of productions in which either I was involved or not) can not the suspension of disbelief not come into play and we just decide to do Aussie for a change. This would be less grating on the public's ears and would rile less criticism.
But not for all. A lot of plays require the accents such as Steel Magnolias for the You beaut authenticity of the piece and some would say we need to copy Jack Nicholson for A few Good Men, not to mention The Importance of Being Earnest needing the toffy nosed English.
But then again, look at shakespeare. his plays were set in italy and a number of other countries as everyone can see for example in Hamlet :) but the accents are either non existant or English as is traditional. Does it really matter? Will people notice if accents aren't done? Cos they sure as hell will if they are and will be ready to pounce.
Maybe we should all be like Meryl Streep and learn all the different accents. there should be classes run by all nationalities - I know I would appreciate it cos I can never get Irish or Scottish right (BUT I AM SURE AS HECK WILLING TO TRY IF I HAVE TO) but that brings us back to the point - Do we have to?
I say it depends, but then again, we are AMATEUR companies are we not (I hate that word cos One reason it is true is because it seems people don't see the possibility of the companies being anything other than that) so should we take it so seriously or do we strive for a more PROFESSIONAL quality and get it right? Then again, I have seen some professional shows not use accents or screw them up. For example Sound of Music - Do they use Austrian or german Accents? NOPE!!! Some may say its a musical it isn't necessary, but so is West Side Story and Seven Brides For Seven Brothers and we use accents for that do we not (or I have when I did them).
Who knows? Who cares if you've made it this far through my ramblings? I just say do what ya want and if people criticise, then they obviously can't derive enjoyment out of the show in other ways if it is something they must focus on to any great degree.
I say go out there and have fun, do the shows, watch the shows, critique the shows all ya want, but don't blame an amateur company when the accents fail..Cos it happens to the best of us, professional or not.
PS: These opinions are sorta mine, but I'm in a mood at present so if ya don't like em, just forget about them or argue them cos I DO love a good debate!!!!!!!
Anthony "Me" Harwood
crgwllmsMon, 11 Mar 2002, 08:51 pm
Accent - you ate the positive
We don't tend to realise - but even the Americans are bad at their own accents!
Almost all movies are produced with actors speaking in a "Gen-Am" (General American, Hollywood acceptable) accent. They very often have characters supposedly say, from the Midwest, who sound as if they come from California like every other actor.
There are obvious exceptions, of course. Usually when they need to stress the "difference" of a character, by having them speak in something extreme like a Texan or Minnesotan accent; often for comic effect.
And then there are actors like Holly Hunter, who has such a strong accent that she can't seem to change it no matter where her character comes from. Americans don't seem to pay much too much mind to all this. (Which is hardly surprising when you travel there as an Australian and people ask you if maybe you're from Ohio or somewhere?...many don't seem to get to hear anything but their own region and the GenAm in the movies.)
But I agree that a bad accent can completely ruin a performance for me. Look at Meryl Streep in "Evil Angels". She's usually good, but that was the one accent I thought she didn't cut. It affected the way I watched her character. Whereas Val Kilmer in "The Saint" reproduced a bloody good Australian accent, amongst others, and that certainly elevated my opinion of him.
Brad Pitt is another actor that completely impresses me with his ability with accents, and it really helps me to get absorbed in his different characters.
And then our guys overseas - Russell Crowe is one that springs immediately to mind - when they do the yank accent, I don't see it as selling out to the Americans, I'm more watching their ability to completely assimilate a character.
It's been thought in the past that they HAD to toe the line with a US accent to fit in, and perhaps that was the case to an extent, but no more than someone with a strong southern drawl probably would have had to, to make it in Hollywood. But movies like Crowe's "Proof of Life" showed that the US market is willing to see a character played as an Australian even when there are no kangaroos in the script. He could've easily played it American, and the character was not defined by any nationality, but I'm glad that they made the call to be Australian, just because they could.
But I think it becomes a case of putting all your eggs in one basket. If you don't convince with the accent, you drop the basket, no matter how good the rest might be. Because the voice and inflection is such a strong way to convey feeling, meaning, & character, it's the backbone to a performance, and any accent flaws affect the message getting through intact. (If you DO convince, then all the more power to you, and congratulations for taking the risk and pulling it off).
So I think in the end I would rather see NO accent attempted rather than a bad one. In fact, if no attempt is made to recreate an accent, I will probably ignore the fact and concentrate on the other aspects of character and meaning. (Much like the Hollywood films that don't attempt to be too different with their accents). It wouldn't bother me that much if reference was made to characters coming from the USA (or France, or anywhere...) and yet the cast were speaking in their own Australian accents, so long as it was consistent. What it would do is draw attention to the fact that the story is relevant to EVERY human (if it's a good story), and that takes preference with me.
There are going to be times when the script can't be read any other way (How do you make sense of "Hot Diggetty" and other iconic phrases without assuming the accent?). If you think you HAVE to do an accent, do as much research and practise as you can! Because it's a fantastic, marketable skill to have, and a good consistent accent will always impress.
Cheers,
crgwllms
<8>-/====/--------
Almost all movies are produced with actors speaking in a "Gen-Am" (General American, Hollywood acceptable) accent. They very often have characters supposedly say, from the Midwest, who sound as if they come from California like every other actor.
There are obvious exceptions, of course. Usually when they need to stress the "difference" of a character, by having them speak in something extreme like a Texan or Minnesotan accent; often for comic effect.
And then there are actors like Holly Hunter, who has such a strong accent that she can't seem to change it no matter where her character comes from. Americans don't seem to pay much too much mind to all this. (Which is hardly surprising when you travel there as an Australian and people ask you if maybe you're from Ohio or somewhere?...many don't seem to get to hear anything but their own region and the GenAm in the movies.)
But I agree that a bad accent can completely ruin a performance for me. Look at Meryl Streep in "Evil Angels". She's usually good, but that was the one accent I thought she didn't cut. It affected the way I watched her character. Whereas Val Kilmer in "The Saint" reproduced a bloody good Australian accent, amongst others, and that certainly elevated my opinion of him.
Brad Pitt is another actor that completely impresses me with his ability with accents, and it really helps me to get absorbed in his different characters.
And then our guys overseas - Russell Crowe is one that springs immediately to mind - when they do the yank accent, I don't see it as selling out to the Americans, I'm more watching their ability to completely assimilate a character.
It's been thought in the past that they HAD to toe the line with a US accent to fit in, and perhaps that was the case to an extent, but no more than someone with a strong southern drawl probably would have had to, to make it in Hollywood. But movies like Crowe's "Proof of Life" showed that the US market is willing to see a character played as an Australian even when there are no kangaroos in the script. He could've easily played it American, and the character was not defined by any nationality, but I'm glad that they made the call to be Australian, just because they could.
But I think it becomes a case of putting all your eggs in one basket. If you don't convince with the accent, you drop the basket, no matter how good the rest might be. Because the voice and inflection is such a strong way to convey feeling, meaning, & character, it's the backbone to a performance, and any accent flaws affect the message getting through intact. (If you DO convince, then all the more power to you, and congratulations for taking the risk and pulling it off).
So I think in the end I would rather see NO accent attempted rather than a bad one. In fact, if no attempt is made to recreate an accent, I will probably ignore the fact and concentrate on the other aspects of character and meaning. (Much like the Hollywood films that don't attempt to be too different with their accents). It wouldn't bother me that much if reference was made to characters coming from the USA (or France, or anywhere...) and yet the cast were speaking in their own Australian accents, so long as it was consistent. What it would do is draw attention to the fact that the story is relevant to EVERY human (if it's a good story), and that takes preference with me.
There are going to be times when the script can't be read any other way (How do you make sense of "Hot Diggetty" and other iconic phrases without assuming the accent?). If you think you HAVE to do an accent, do as much research and practise as you can! Because it's a fantastic, marketable skill to have, and a good consistent accent will always impress.
Cheers,
crgwllms
<8>-/====/--------
The Review MasterMon, 11 Mar 2002, 11:14 pm
RE: Accent - you ate the positive
Hi there Crgwllms,
I agree with you on the point that accents are quote: "a fantastic, marketable skill to have". And I also agree partly that no accent attempted is better than a bad one, but then again, where's all the fun of it? Sometimes you just can't find the right person for the job.
Just recently, ( and here's a review I did write), I saw "Buddy - the musical " at the Burswood Theatre. I noticed too that the thick texan and southern accents were mighty strong. I guess it all comes down to the fact that I am not an american. I am not used to hearing this accent in reality, though I do watch a lot of american movies/ shows and i find that an hour and something into the movie I have gotten so used to different types of american accents that I don't notice them so strongly. Does anyone else find this? But, should anyone ask me to do an american accent after watching a 2-3 hr american film, I'd still sound like a "Foreigner struggling to put on an american accent" which can be ruddy dreadful to listen to....
Actually in regards to Meryl's accent in the film evil angels..I didn't actually find it to be that bad... and yes I know enough about the aussie accent to know what's authentic and what's not.
And if you really listen to different Australian people talk, you'll actually notice some will carry more a posh aussie accent, some more slangy, some moderate, some graceful etc.... so maybe its not all down to 'one' particular Australian accent. Not saying that you made that point but simply bringing it up. Actually I have watched that movie maybe seven or eight times and have also noticed somewhat of a New-Zealander Accent in Meryl's portrayal of Lindy. But let's not start the Australia/NZ debate please....
Holly Hunter's accent, I think, is delightful. She has such a sweet little face to go with it. I forget now what kind of accent she carries..Texan is it??? I read a video review on "Copycat" which mentioned something about the strongness in her unique, perhaps uncommon Hollywood accent. What I've seen and heard more commonly in Big Hollywood films is closer to the NewYorker's accent, perhaps slightly milder.
Anyway- I've said enough. Interesting discussion crgwllms.
Care to join for a round of cards one fine day?
The Review Master