FRANKENSTEIN

Ah, well...yes, me again. Hi.

Went to see Frankenstein at The Rechabites on Tuesday the 20th. I thought it was only fair, after having been so animated in these related discussions. Having seen it, it's only right that I should tell you what I saw. And, feeling obligated to give you my honest uncut opinion, ...I saw a few problems.

I have to say I was forewarned (obviously) from this website that this might be the case. So - although I hoped I might be pleasantly surprised - I deliberately watched it with the intention of trying to isolate anything that was problematic for me, and to try to offer some solutions. Be warned, this is a long post.
I believe that the artists in question have expressed an openness to receive this kind of critique, although I fully understand that they may choose not to agree with either my suggestions or my perception of what constitutes a problem. And so it should be; I'm just a single isolated opinion. Take it or leave it.

These are the notes I walked away with....



I thought the set worked very well, providing a variety of locations and stagings. Suitably abstract and imposing, as well as simple and uncluttered, quite suitable in The Rechabites.

The sound was simple and unobtrusive, but haunting, as I waited for the show to begin. Can't say I noticed much use of music later on; it was very densely scripted and there probably wasn't room. There was one rather unfortunate sound effect, the limp gunshot, which wasn't so much a sound problem as a stylistic choice which I'll speak of below.


The audio/visual screen seemed like a slick touch, which in the main worked well. I much preferred the sponsor and "switch off mobiles" messages presented in this way, compared to the obtrusive stagemanager voiceovers they've done at places like the Playhouse. These were clear messages but did not break the pre-show atmosphere.
Later in the show, the titled images worked well to quickly establish a location and a chronology. The more abstract forest images could have been distracting, flashing up during Victor's speeches, but because they were suitably nondescript, I quickly focussed my attention back on the action.

The live action sequence let it down. Perhaps it solved a staging problem, allowing a costume change or somesuch...but it could have been utilised to better effect. The main problem was the naturalism and theatricality. There was no real difference made in being up on screen; the actors might as well have performed the scene live. The film could have utilised cutaways, dramatic lighting, extreme close ups, fast editing, etc..things that couldn't be staged. Also, a lot could've been intimated on screen but never revealed to the audience; there could've been real dramatic tension and terror. As I saw it, revealing the realistic interior of the house on film diminished all the abstract settings I was imagining on stage. When the monster met Henry in the living room, it just seemed a bit absurd. And a stagey, medium frame single shot of the actors just made it seem like a home video.
There was a strange inconsistancy in how Henry reacted to the monster, continuing a conversation as if they were sitting down to tea, when other characters had run screaming at his sight. I seem to remember this is often how things worked in the novel, but the novel monster I remember was much more enigmatic, a disfigured creature that could also pass as a normal man in the right shadows. So perhaps it was mainly a lighting problem, but the result was that I did not believe the reactions of the characters on screen. It seemed like comic relief, and rather spoiled a nice death scene.



Which brings me to the performances.

My first suggestion is partly to do with the echoing nature of The Rechabites Hall (which you've just got to learn to deal with), and it's partly to do with a rule of pacing in any opening scene where there's dense dialogue. SLOW IT DOWN and speak CLEARLY! Even in shows by the Royal Shakespeare Company, where they have immaculate diction, the first ten minutes probably go at 70% the speed of the rest of the play, giving the audience time to adjust their ear to the language, and figure out who the hell everyone is.
It didn't help that Greg Ross was affecting a Russian accent; but from Dean McAskill and Grant Watson too, I was frequently missing the ends of sentences. I was on the aisle in about the sixth row, and it was just hard to pick stuff up. If you lose me in that crucial first ten minutes, it's a big effort required from all of us to help me pick it up again.

Lines were stumbled over and hard to understand, words were spoken quickly and hard to hear, and monologues were not afforded much clarity of thought. This might seem a harsh judgement, but it really was a recurring problem in the play.

In general, the girls were all much clearer. So perhaps a big part of it is the natural acoustics...deeper voices get muffled. Just means the guys need to take extra care.


Around the time of Victor's excited electricity speech I was starting to dispair that I would not catch up at this pace, when the reigns were pulled in by Campbell Madden and Angelique Malcolm introducing the parents. Particularly by Angelique, who I found was clear of diction and of focus throughout the play. Although the dialogue had that stylised, affected (What was 1818...was it Edwardian?) manner of the novel, it started to seem more natural because the thoughts were connecting with the words.

I liked the mother's death. It was a nice convention to allow her to get up and walk away during the scene; that set the style for the other transitions where dead bodies could remove themselves at the end of a scene. Simple and clean.

A lot of the language was difficult; strangely detached and mechanical. This is most probably the language of Mary Wollstonecraft-Shelley, and a true adaptation, but there was a constant danger of it sounding stilted and unnatural off the page.

It was an unusual device to have Dean's captain listening all the time, reminding us this is all a retelling. He did this well and I quite liked it - it was very filmic and made sense of the flashback narration.

I generally didn't mind the lighting, fairly stark. There were a few moments when actors were briefly out of light beginning speeches but I forgive that because I know the Rechabites rig. The lighting changes often seemed a little slow, though, in quite a few transitions.

The staging and scene transitions were generally good, making good use of the space. Where I think lighting could've been tighter was any time it became obvious actors were moving into a new scene; they seemed to arrive in darkness and wait for the light to catch up. Prime example was the monster's entrance in act 2. He is seen plodding out in the dark, and then leaps up the steps into the spotlight. Why not have him just leap straight into it? The scene doesn't start until he's lit, the plodding just ...plods.

Greg Ross' sing-song lecturer never once made eye-contact with other performers...I thought this was a character choice until I noticed it happen repeatedly, and became something other actors did as well. Entire scenes were played ostensibly in naturalism, with the one exception that the players didn't contact each other once. There was a strange tendency for everyone to stare out to the audience, which really undermined the emotional reality of their scenes. The was no character "connection" in many speeches. Victor and his dying father, for instance, didn't look at each other once, yet it WASN'T a stylised scene. Many naturalistic scenes were diminished because there was no spark of connection between the actors or audience. It's like everybody was talking to themselves in an empty room.

Again, the consistently notable exception was Angelique. Maybe her diction wasn't clearer after all, maybe it was the FOCUS she gave each thought that just helped me to understand everything she said. In the final scene between the two professors, she was the only one making personal contact; it seemed a bit freaky that Greg wasn't giving it back.


Maybe it was this character flaw that spoiled the graverobber's scene for me. There was a huge potential for humour, and I could sense the audience really wanting to laugh at that point, but the chemistry (or galvanism) just didn't happen, to give us that opportunity. The scene was played strangely self-consciously, and missed its chance.


I generally liked Patrick Spicer's monster. I was a little disappointed in the first scene on the slab...we all KNOW he's going to wake up, so there's no surprises there...what we want to see is Victor's reaction, but that was strangely devoid of fear or surprise and any reaction just got lost in the monsters screams.

Patrick had a good range from quiet menace to shouting rage - he could always be heard, even in his stage whisper - and he gave a good IMPRESSION of pain, but I didn't always FEEL his pain. I often found it hard to believe Victor's fear or shock. Difficult stuff, true, but it really is the guts of the play.

In the final scenes I didn't believe the fear & angst of the monster. Patrick's voice was painfully appropriate, but didn't convey what I felt I needed to receive from him. I did not understand the monster's mental changes - he could've killed Elizabeth several times, but he hesitates? Why? I certainly didn't see the thought process, it just happened in the lines.
I was told but never really believed his anguish.



I guess with so many characters having so many heightened states of emotion, there's no particular moment that stands out as being really "bad" ; but on the other hand, there was rather a wash of scenes where I didn't really see the truth of emotion that I needed for me to care and be involved in these characters...Elizabeth & Alphonse talking about him dying, the news about the young brother's death, the truth of the big "I love you" moment (seemed completely stoic, despite the kissing scenes) , Henry's death, Justine sentenced to die (I thought Romi gave excellent performances considering her experience, but it was still difficult for her to pull off)...etc.
Again, the play really fell down on the big monologues. Who are they talking to? Not connecting with the audience. Not connecting with each other. Apparently talking to themselves.

For some reason, when Victor was recounting his dreams (in words of narration, therefore of hindsight in speaking to Dean's Captain and so presumably with the calming influence of time) he was hyper emotional and reduced to cringing on the floor. I'm not sure why, and wish I'd seen this emotion in some of the 'real time' scenes.

I got the gist of the Prometheus analogy, but the stilted retelling didn't seem to motivate the characters, just bewilder them, and us.

The 1st act ended abruptly but not conclusively...it was like we simply got halfway so why not stop here? Structurally it didn't seem a natural point to stop, nor was there any intrigue for me to hang on to through the interval. It was just a toilet break.


Angelique's blind woman was a well grounded character..but if she was really blind, how did she always know which way the audience was sitting..? Always facing out front, away from whoever she "wasn't looking at" struck me as staged and odd, DEMONSTRATING blindness, rather than BEING it. Finding the truth of that physicality will improve what is actually a great scene between her and Patrick.

The fight scene was a bit unfortunate, probably because the scene is played in naturalism. Either some combat choreography, or a more stylised approach will help make it more effective.
Same thing with the gunshot later on. In a heightened stylised manner (physically and audibly) we could have believed it was real. Naturalisticly, it was a disappointingly weak moment. The gun appeared to be an ineffectual toy, so there was no surprise the monster was still standing. If I'd believed the gun, I might've been impressed at the monster's strength.


The Icarus story - I guess it's in the novel? I can't remember. - the connection's pretty obvious, especially if you've heard the tale before. You might as well have told me the tale of Goldilocks - get on with it. I want to see your reactions. I didn't really see the weight of what was being told effect the characters in any way.

Strangely weak ending of Victor's court scene. It's like the judge just got bored and went off to lunch. A script problem?



As it was ending, I felt it was TOO LONG. Yet I think it came down at 1000. I hesitate to say that I think at least 5 minutes could be shaved off, because I'd hate to see the actors try to speak faster, especially at the opening. But there's a sameness of energy that could perhaps be improved by revising the script or tightening some sections.

The audience reaction seemed polite and unaffected.



Whew - this probably sounds really harsh. It's how I interpret what I saw, that particular night.

I have to say it was generally disappointing. I remember when I first read the novel how interested I was that it had nothing to do with Herman Munster and bolts through the neck - there is so much more depth. (I'm currently reading the original books of Tarzan - same thing, nothing like the popular cliche, most refreshing.)
It makes me want to get out Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein movie of a few years back (which I remember was largely panned at the time...I'd like to know why his version wasn't the success it should have been, either). There seems to be this huge potential, a great expectation.
But the style of writing (it's not an easy read) means it's difficult to create a modern flow to the dialogue. It's a highly ambitious project, obviously difficult to pull off.
And it ALMOST makes it, on many counts.

It should really be a huge success (..!)




Just prior to posting this onto the website, I was curious to look up the much maligned Gibbs review. I'm afraid to say I seem to have agreed with virtually everything he said.


So I guess I can expect to be the most hated person here for a while, if I haven't achieved that already.



Cheers
Craig

[%sig%]