The Great Unwashed

When Cav Gallagher writes or presents a play, you know that you are in for a good comedy with an original theme and plenty of new ideas - The Great Unwashed was certainly that!

The story is of the revenge by a group of 'Trekkie-types' led by Myra (Michelle Baginski - who just seems to get better with every play that she is in, a great talent) on the popular TV host Fenny (Angelique Malcolm - what a fabulous sense of humour).

Myra is aided by Roy (Jez Obern) who hasn't two brain cells to rub together and Jane (Olivia Hogan) the sane one - even though she wears weird make-up, beautifully done by David Hogan.

The three girls acting was superb, just the right amount of comic presentation without being over the top. Jez got the most out of his part, raising many laughs, yet if there was a weakness in the play it was possibly the script for his part. Having said that, the play was VERY well received by the audience, with many loud bursts of laughter. Opening nights an be a little difficult, but this will refine very quickly.

This play is worth seeing.

Welcome to the Blue Room staff Christina Critch, but don't give up your acting.

One rambling but honest opinion on the show coming up:

I've unfortunately got to say that I went to "The Great Unwashed" a couple of Fridays ago and I can't say I was too impressed. It was a bit of a sci-fi in-joke extravaganza that ended up getting just a little too preachy about the division between high and low art for my liking. Good to see a point was being made, just wish it wasn't in the form of lecture-style monologues. And I swear I remember seeing the plot in some sci-fi show or book I read/watched when I was smallish. I would've really liked to have seen the characters filled out with a bit more depth instead of using comic stereotypes (the dumb guy, the bitchy art critic etc) and putting all the focus on comic timing.

I did like the use of music, tragically I knew all the songs and could sing along to the majority of them. They seemed very knowledgably chosen - each one was a geek classic in it's own right and some of the selections reached into the "I can't believe I own that CD (I only listen to it when I'm alone)" section of my CD collection (David Bowie's Loving The Alien before the play started did it for me ohyeah). The costuming was fantastic too - very slick looking and well designed.

The Great Unwashed was kind of the theatrical equivelant of a science fiction teen movie (think "Scary Movie" or "Not Another Teen Movie" set in space). That is, an occasionally funny (the Courtney Love in Hamlet bit was very nice), sometimes clever show which would be a great night out if I'd drunk enough to turn my brain off. Perhaps it was simply aimed at the mainstream filmgoing public, who would almost certainly have got off on it. Given the nature of the preachy monologues (ie Hollywood scifi is just as valid as expression and entertainment as, say, Filch), this could be the case. Hmmm. I guess I just expected something a little less mainstream from my Blue Room fringe theatre entertainment experience. But maybe that's the point...

If that's the point, then is everything I've just written entirely ignorable?

Isn't everything I just wrote entirely ignorable anyway?

Just ignore it. It'll go away. :)

Re: Tomas' Review
Thanks for the review Tomas, any kind of feedback is good whatever form it takes. I just had to post as I sensed a wee bit confusion at the end...
Oh well, at least it's making you think. THAT was the point. ;)

Thanks again & take care,
Cav G

Mmmm...

I wish I got as much from it as you did Tomas.

I was probably the play's target demographic - a mid 20, sci-fi loving, theatre goer, who loves to laugh at themselves.

But while I found the script ok (a little superficial, but it was accessible, which is important for new theatre) it was the performances I had trouble with.

Most of the cast were strong and capable within their roles, but then - as is the case with comedy - it is easy to get carried away during a performance... (I won't stoop to any mention of what my group called 'Hammy Smurf'... hang on, I just did!).

But that one element aside, I'm glad I went - I look forward to your next writing effort Cav!

Hi Mr. Digby,
'Hammy Smurf'?

Cav Gallagher wrote:

> Hi Mr. Digby,
> 'Hammy Smurf'?

Cav -

I think he means Liv.

I also think he's crazy - I thought she was one of the best things in it (and that's saying something considering the overall strength of the cast).

Thou reeky tickle-brained flap-dragon!

[%sig%]

Hear hear. I think I have enough experience in the theatre (over 15 years) to know if an actor's "hammy" or not. Everything Liv did was based in truth. I felt the same about my other two fellow cast members.


Thou roguish pottle-deep flirt-gill!

Well, I guess we were only the audience - a pretty much non-essential part of the whole theatre experience.

Now, how do I cast my vote in the current online topic?

You were SOME of the audience. Other members of the audience actually enjoyed themselves - at least some of the time. No, it wasn't Shakespeare - it wasn't intended to be. Those who were able to take their critic's hat off for 50 mins. had fun.
In regards to your sarcastic comment - I, personally, believe the audience is a very essential part of the whole equation and have made a career of pleasing the most critical/appreciative audiences around - children.




Thou yeasty tardy-gaited dewberry!

This is why I really, truly love the internet...
Ty, please allow me to explain myself (And I think go some way towards explaining Amanda & Angelique's posts). You were perfectly in your rights to not be taken by our play, and I would never have bothered putting the script in at the Blue Room if I was unprepared for some people not liking it - it's all horses for courses in this business. Likewise, your opinions on the performances are your own and you have every right to them. However - and this is a big, capital-letters HOWEVER - there is a big difference between expressing these opinions privately with those around you and putting them up on a public forum.
Again, if the criticisms are constructive and well-reasoned that's great, but 'Hammy Smurf'? That's just immature and insensitive; did it ever occur to you that Liv (The 'smurf' in question) might have wound up reading that? I'm glad to say she didn't, but the point remains. Liv is one of the most talented people I've ever worked with; I gave her the most difficult role in the play, and she gave me the exact same character I had in mind when I was writing the play and did it completely naturally, with barely any interference from me (And that, as any writer/director will attest, is a very, very rare thing).
You didn't like her performance? Fine. And when you're with your 'group', you can bandy about all the names you want, but don't think you can throw this stuff around in public and not be held accountable. And when you are, please don't try and hide behind the old 'I am the audience' argument. You're not only showing your own arrogance, you're insulting us and the many people who offered me their feedback (Both positive and negative) during the show's run... and to my face. Oh, as well as the many other audience members who came to see the show.
Phew. Sorry about the length of this post everyone, but I felt something had to be done: as most of you know, accepting criticism is an essential part of the game but I know a lot of you feel, as I do, that so much hard work and dedication goes into what we do (And I can safely say that on 'Unwashed' I had the most dedicated cast & crew I have ever had the honour to work with) we can reserve the right to retort every now and again. Constructive criticism? Lovely. But that doesn't mean we'll put up with any old pile of shite. Please people, think before you post!!

So whatddya say we agree to disagree, announce a ceasefire and get back to what this board's really about... the reviews?

Cav

I realise how difficult it must be to be impartial when you're so close to a production, but the fact remains that whenever you present work to the public you must be prepared to accept their reaction, whether you do or do not agree with it.

If, as an actor, you are not prepared to receive criticism (justified or otherwise) then you should probably either develop a thick skin or not read reviews. I wonder if I had said that the production was a 'sci-fi spectacular', whether that euphemism would have been so abruptly discounted? Probably not because, like most people, actors/directors accept the good without a whisper of opposition and get extremely indignant when even the slightest word of criticism is uttered.

If there is any arrogance in the above posts, it's in the ones that tell me what I should feel and for what reasons. I had absolutely no expectations when I came to the performance - except to enjoy myself. If you read my original post, you will note that I did actually enjoy many aspects of the show. But then affirmations are very rarely challenged, which makes being taken to task by people so close to the show share many properties that certain liquids have on certain parts of certain birds.

Far from hiding behind the 'I am the audience' argument - I would emphasise it again. I went, I paid my money, I sat through the performance, I enjoyed some parts, I didn't like other parts so much and I expressed my opinions - there's nothing criminal in that. I don't have to apologise for my reaction and any amount of posts will not change the way that the play made me feel - either in a positive or negative way.

If you wish to sail through life in the theatre without disapprobation, then I would suggest you only invite family and friends to performances. Otherwise, just accept all criticism and all accolades, and then decide for yourself which ones are justified and which are not.

Live long and prosper.

Well, well, well Mr Digby. Aren't you the moron that lives in a glass house. Could it be the fact that you were dark on a play that holds up a reflective surface to the geek lifestyle you obviously live your life by. I am referring to your various "comments" on this production and your subsequent argument of it's various facets. First of all, you and your "friends" (and I'm sure I use that term in it's broadest possible sense) plainly did not like the play as it made mockery and fun of the sci-fi genre which you obviously live your lives by. My evidence of this is your signing off in a later email with "Live long and prosper". Quite frankly it's obvious you need to get a life or at least stay inside where you are no harm to others or yourself.

The main point I would like to make however is that of your mockery of Olivia Hogan or "hammy-smurf" as you and your "witty" kin have named her. If I'm not mistaken the show is a spoof and therefore I would have thought "hamming" to be the order of the day. If you had seen Miss Hogan in anything else i'm sure you would realise as most others have that she is simply one of THE most talented female actors around.

I really have nothing more to say other than: this is the first time I have posted anything on the site and I only saw fit to do so this time to hopefully stop your meandering fingers ever touching a keyboard again.

Thank you and Hi to everyone in Perth! Miss you all!

Brett Whittingham wrote:
>
> I really have nothing more to say other than: this is the
> first time I have posted anything on the site and I only saw
> fit to do so this time to hopefully stop your meandering
> fingers ever touching a keyboard again.
>

Don't make this the only contribution we have to remember you by.
Please feel free to contribute with your opinions in the future.

[%sig%]

Hi Crg

Hope the tour continues to exceed all expectations!

Have you had any reviews in local press over there? Can you convince some people to put some news/reviews up here? I'd love to hear how it's going.

crgwllms wrote:
> Brett Whittingham wrote:
> > I really have nothing more to say other than: this is the
> > first time I have posted anything on the site and I only saw
> > fit to do so this time to hopefully stop your meandering
> > fingers ever touching a keyboard again.
> Don't make this the only contribution we have to remember you
> by.
> Please feel free to contribute with your opinions in the
> future.

I hope Ty will feel free to contribute too.

While it's perhaps not entirely undeserved, he has received something of a beating over what might have been some poorly chosen words. Perhaps he should have taken a leaf out of your own book Craig and beaten a hasty retreat shouting profuse apologies?

;-)

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

Thanks for the good wishes, Grant

We've been getting a terrific response everywhere. Tonight in Frankston was the third performance that we completely sold out their 200 seat theatre, and we've been getting reasonable houses in larger venues.

The trouble with only being in a town for 1 or 2 shows is that we haven't been getting much in the way of local reviews (or we've moved on before any of us have read any). We've had a fair bit of advance publicity (including footage of the show on Bert Newton's programme, when he interviewed Toni Pearen) and radio coverage, but not a lot of written crits.
I think our tour manager has a copy of the review from Sydney (a Manly paper), which was very complimentary; if she does I'll post it here so people know what to expect when we roll into town.

Cheers,
Craig


(obtuse profanities followed by profuse apologies; yes, that seems to be a recurring theme. I don't mind stepping on toes, but some people have brittle feet and I never intend to break ankles.)

[%sig%]