Filch

In the last few weeks I have seen (in no particular order) - Plum, Hand in hand, Cyclone, Emerging from the Collective Unconscious, Sarenas Song, The Anzac Letters, He gave me flowers, One day in 67, Desire, Flashblack, After the fair, Twelfth night and Filch.

I mention this list of shows only to give some relevance to what I say next.

See Filch.

Blueroom @8pm till next Saturday.

yes.

see filch.

I too have had the priveledge of witnessing Mr. Angus Cerrini at work. And it is, quite simply staggering. A seamless blend of dance, martial arts and stream of conciousness narrative that insinuates itself into your heart and mind. A veritable cavalcade of characters and stories. Some of which will make you laugh, some of which will make you weep and some of which will force you to re-examine the way that you look at the world and the people in it. People that you see every day. If you only see one show this Fringe, see Filch.

Ooops! Forgot to tell yopu the times and dates of the remaining shows.
Tuesday 12th Feb-Saturday 16th Feb @ 8.00pm. Blue Room.
Doors open 7.30pm. Tix:$18 full, $12 conc.

Is this the same show The West's Naomi Millet describes as:

"unfocused and confusing."

and

"mercifully short"



The same Filch described by Fiona Scott-Norman in The Age as:

"a brilliant and unusual theatrical experiment."

and

"It's not a long show, maybe 45 minutes, but it could have been 45 seconds."



Another example of local journos entirely out of step with the arts scene? Or a case of the emperor's new clothes?

I'd be interested to hear a few more views, as ii'm not likely to make it.

Cheers
Grant

Grant Malcolm wrote:
-------------------------------
>>Another example of local journos entirely out of step with the arts scene?


I made a special effort to see Filch tonight, firstly because of Dave Ryding's smoothly-phrased urging at the top of this thread (you should be a copywriter, Dave), and then because I was intrigued by Grant's juxtaposition of the two reviews from The West and The Age, which were so wildly differing.

Now, I'm a big defender of reviewers stating their case and having an opinion, and here were two EXTREME opinions. This is what I really miss about Perth no longer having several daily papers - it used to be much clearer to the public that a critic's review wasn't the ONLY point of view, or even necessarily the BEST point of view, but merely an informed, isolated opinion.

But Grant's comparison caused me to examine each reviewer's comments in a competitive light - Which was more perceptive? Which more accurate? Allowing for differences in taste and opinion, which reviewer "got it right"?

Putting aside for the moment which opinion I agreed with (...okay, I happen to side VERY consistently with Fiona Scott-Norman of The Age...), I was disappointed with the style of Naomi Millet's review in the West.

It seems to me she said "unfocussed and confusing" simply to appear clever in opposing the words "unusual and confronting" in the publicity. While I grant that there are confusing images, and not every moment is clear; she neglects to acknowledge that this seems to be Cerini's intention - live dialogue is spoken over recorded; physical gestures are hard, rapid, and spontaneous; scenes occur in harsh bright light or in virtually no light at all; all parts of the stage, aisle and even outside corridor are explored for their potential; the images in the piece are dense, layered and, yes, confusing - but at all times stylistically consistent, and quite evocative.

Unfocussed? Really? I'm an acknowledged specialist in this type of physical theatre (recent reviews for After The Fair acclaimed my physicality and focus) and I could not help but be impressed by Cerini's precision, commitment and controlled energy. Add to that the disciplined choreography (which I could never aspire to), and I would call it a highly focussed performance!
Scott-Norman's phrase "controlled, and out of control" is a perceptive one. Cerini was pushing the edge, and whether you liked it or not, it was commanding to watch.

I think perhaps Millet just didn't understand it (and obviously didn't like it much), which is fine and valid so I take no issue there.
But it's a shame that she couldn't express this in a more informed and accurate way, with less condescension, and without manufacturing support for her "it's confusing" stance by pulling in disjointed and out-of-context phrases from the play and letting them fall flat to prove her point.
She acknowledges Filch to be 'an experiment' and yet condems it for not fitting into her rigid defines of what dance, text, character, martial art, mime and "in your face theatre" should (?) be.
The piece was apparently "not strong, interesting or original enough to sustain attention, though at 40 minutes" ...I rather marvel at how short this reveals her attention span to be.


This isn't to say that I found everything in Filch to be perfect. In fact there was a point where I found myself thinking, ..."I'm not comfortably enjoying this/does the language need to be so crude, racist, ugly, and confronting?/this is a bit excessive/alright, I get the picture/enough already"...but on reflection, I'm even more in awe of how he managed to push those buttons. It's Fringe theatre, and that's what I want it to do to me. Fantastic.


We thanked Angus Cerini afterwards, and he was modestly pleased to hear how word of mouth among the acting community had spread about his show, in opposition to the print media. I told him that his show will continue to provoke and inspire, whereas the Arts section of The West will most likely be wrapping up food scraps tomorrow.


Cheers,
Craig

<8>-/=====/---------------

Went last night to see Filch and, at the risk of having a hundred and fifty ITA messageboard writertypes suddenly turn against me, I've gotta say I felt a little underwhelmed. I might be being a tad harsh here, but though I admired the energy, approach and spirit of the production, it wasn't the amazing theatrical stylistic revolution that I had been told it would be. It was pretty much an alright piece of movement theatre, as opposed to a brilliant move away from convention. I suppose that it's a bit of a case of my expactations being built up too much.

Big points do go to Angus for successfully making use of a prerecorded voiceover - I was hanging onto every word of it. I really liked the contrast of the voice on the tape casually relating the stories to us while Angus showed the emotional reality. Apart from the odd moment or so, the movement itself often verged on being simply demonstrative, as opposed to showing something that I couldn't get out of the monologue already.

Some of the piece WAS unfocussed. In the middle bit there was a few tangents that Angus went off on that I couldn't follow. But the bit up to and including the coffee sequence was cool and the bike story was grouse too. Of course, the story was a little too familiar and something of a single parent cliche, but Angus performed it so well that that didn't matter at all. And sometimes things seem cliche just because they happen so much.

Though I didn't come out of the show in fits of post-theatre joy-gasms, Filch did serve to reminded me of the importance of taking into consideration a person's circumstances instead of judging them, and also of being able to see other people's perspectives. And seeing as though that seemed to be Angus' point, there is no real grounds to call the show a "failed" experiment, though I would go as far as "over-rated".

Good arguments for an opposing point of view....would you please apply to the West to be their new reviewer?

<8>-/====/------------