FRANKENSTEIN
Sun, 11 Aug 2002, 12:22 amWalter Plinge19 posts in thread
FRANKENSTEIN
Sun, 11 Aug 2002, 12:22 amI'm hoping I get this on the web before midnight 10/08/02, the opening night of this play, presented by Vagabond Theatre at The Rechabites Hall, Northbridge. I know how good it feelsas a cast/crew member after an opening night celebration to wait for the notices to come in.
The choice of story seems surprising, given that it is a romantic/gothic classic, if ever there was such a thing. Nevertheless, the various themes and morals of the story are good to reflect on in these post-post-modern times of ours, with stem-cell research, genetic manipulation and performance-enhancing elite sports very much on the agenda.
The acting performances were all very slick. I found all the characters very well drawn and plenty of energy coming from the stage. I particularly admired the multi-roling by the younger members of the cast. Patrick's Monster evoked the right levels of sympathy and fear, while Grant's Victor held it all together very capably. My only complaint is that Grant is a bit too young and pretty to be really covincing as a mad scientist.
Finally, I loved the the audiovisual, light and sound design, cheerful front of house and bar staff. However, as much as I liked the multi-level stage draped in underlay, I'm sure there are ways a designer could utilise the lofty architecture of the Rechabites to better effect.
Congratulations and have a great season.
The choice of story seems surprising, given that it is a romantic/gothic classic, if ever there was such a thing. Nevertheless, the various themes and morals of the story are good to reflect on in these post-post-modern times of ours, with stem-cell research, genetic manipulation and performance-enhancing elite sports very much on the agenda.
The acting performances were all very slick. I found all the characters very well drawn and plenty of energy coming from the stage. I particularly admired the multi-roling by the younger members of the cast. Patrick's Monster evoked the right levels of sympathy and fear, while Grant's Victor held it all together very capably. My only complaint is that Grant is a bit too young and pretty to be really covincing as a mad scientist.
Finally, I loved the the audiovisual, light and sound design, cheerful front of house and bar staff. However, as much as I liked the multi-level stage draped in underlay, I'm sure there are ways a designer could utilise the lofty architecture of the Rechabites to better effect.
Congratulations and have a great season.
Re: FRANK'N'FURTER a (harsh) critique
Wed, 21 Aug 2002, 02:48 pmWalter Plinge
Thank you for such a lengthy critique.
I hope you didn't see the show last night - I was so unwell that I spent more of the play trying to not have a 20 minute coughing on stage when I was supposed to be acting. That, and I lost my hearing during the graverobbing scene and had to lip-read Greg to get my cues, and the time I nearly fell over in a dizzy spell. Oh for understudies. Anyway...
I didn't realise I was speaking too fast. That's a valuable point to make and I'll watch it in the future.
The live-action AV sequence is indeed rather lame. Time and money, as always, is the kicker here - more time than money.
I'm interested in many of your comments that relate to the text, because I found Frankenstein a bugger of a novel to adapt. The whole thing is curiously disaffected and heavy in exposition. When we made the decision to do the most faithful adaptation possible, this meant copying what could have been (and may well actually be) a very unwatchable and dull style of text. Hence the play is heavily weighed down with monologues and storytelling.
I did make some changes: the Prometheus dreams were all mine, and I think they kind of work, the family in forest don't get killed in the book, Victor's brother Ernest is deleted, as is Ireland, and alchemy isn't mentioned in the book at all (something which Geoff Gibbs obviously didn't realise when writing his review - he mentions it as a core theme of the novel).
It would have been interesting to do an adaptation that dumped Shelley's dialogue altogether (about 25% of the lines are Shelley's, the remaining 75% are me trying to sound like Shelley) and made it a much more vibrant and naturalistic production.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. They've been most useful and extremely fair. :-)
G.
I hope you didn't see the show last night - I was so unwell that I spent more of the play trying to not have a 20 minute coughing on stage when I was supposed to be acting. That, and I lost my hearing during the graverobbing scene and had to lip-read Greg to get my cues, and the time I nearly fell over in a dizzy spell. Oh for understudies. Anyway...
I didn't realise I was speaking too fast. That's a valuable point to make and I'll watch it in the future.
The live-action AV sequence is indeed rather lame. Time and money, as always, is the kicker here - more time than money.
I'm interested in many of your comments that relate to the text, because I found Frankenstein a bugger of a novel to adapt. The whole thing is curiously disaffected and heavy in exposition. When we made the decision to do the most faithful adaptation possible, this meant copying what could have been (and may well actually be) a very unwatchable and dull style of text. Hence the play is heavily weighed down with monologues and storytelling.
I did make some changes: the Prometheus dreams were all mine, and I think they kind of work, the family in forest don't get killed in the book, Victor's brother Ernest is deleted, as is Ireland, and alchemy isn't mentioned in the book at all (something which Geoff Gibbs obviously didn't realise when writing his review - he mentions it as a core theme of the novel).
It would have been interesting to do an adaptation that dumped Shelley's dialogue altogether (about 25% of the lines are Shelley's, the remaining 75% are me trying to sound like Shelley) and made it a much more vibrant and naturalistic production.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. They've been most useful and extremely fair. :-)
G.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···