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: FRANKENSTEIN
Sat, 17 Aug 2002, 11:59 amI was directed towards the reviews of Frankenstein in the West this morning, and happened to also note an ad in Friday's Australian promoting the show - which featured something that arched my eyebrows considerably.
After Geoff's rather vitriolic spraying of the show - which, by the way, I have not had a chance to see, nor will I, but the content of the show is not an issue for me to discuss here - he was quoted in the show's press in the Australian as saying 'It really should be a huge success'.
Great! Good to hear Geoff liked it and recommends everyone to get along! Oh, hang on - let's have another look at his review. And I quote from either side of this 'huge success' line.
"...the dramatic moments in this production are muddied by dire direction and vocal ineptitude.
It really should be a huge success.
...the acting is never more than amateurish and unconvincing, the set is lacklustre and the lighting does little to enhance the action."
As I said - I have no opinion on the show, having not seen it, and do not in any way agree or disagree with Geoff's comments. I don't know if Geoff did have an agenda - I just think he is a tough reviewer and from memory can't recall much that he has liked. That said, maybe you all should get along to Black Swan's 'The Drawer Boy' to see Mr Gibbs in action, and give it back to him on here. Whatever you like. My point, however, is an important one.
Vagabond theatre have directly and intentionally quoted Geoff Gibbs in a national newspaper, in a completely incorrect context. The quote suggests that Gibbs recommends this particular production, and if one were to attend Frankenstein on the strength of this quote and were to note for themselves everything that Geoff noted in his review, they might be entitled to think that Geoff was leading them on a bum steer. The context in which Gibbs' comment can only be taken is when seen in terms of the rest of his review, where he muses on the fact that even with the overriding themes of Mary Shelley's novel retained, and enthusiastic sponsors on board, the show that SHOULD (I emphasise this word) on paper be a huge success winds up disappointing him with its production values. The effort that has gone into promoting this show is testament to the talents of some of the people on board at Vagabond, but if that effort was put into the end product, they would have a hit on their hands.
I may be labouring the point, but I am certain that Geoff Gibbs would be most unhappy with the context in which his name has been used to promote the show, as it brings into question his opinions in the national newspaper. It's one thing to re-contextualise a quote in a promotional ad on ITA, but when you are doing it in the Oz, you have to wonder where your brains are at. And don't get me started over the fact that Stinger's review was also quoted - correct context this time, but not in any way a published and edited review that people might put their stock in. Apologies Stinger - your review was excellent, but I don't think anonymous postings on here should be quoted in press kits.
Vagabond are very fortunate to have the corporate sponsorship they have, but abusing the fact that you can get a quarter page in the Oz to promote the show, by misattributing a respected journalist is not really on. It harkens back to the fake journalist allegations on the posters of A Knight's Tale last year, or the MAD Magazine satires where the poster would scream 'wonderful ... stunning ... a great achievement' where the journo wrote 'even with all the wonderful talent on board, nothing could be done to save this stunningly bad remake. It will be a great achievement for the producers if they are not sued for bad taste'. Please don't take that last line in context to your show. I haven't seen it, nor will I, but I do think that the fast one that Vagabond has pulled in this instance is even a little too much chutzpah, even for a company who got a funeral director to sponsor Frankenstein.
Email responses to me please.
[%sig%]
After Geoff's rather vitriolic spraying of the show - which, by the way, I have not had a chance to see, nor will I, but the content of the show is not an issue for me to discuss here - he was quoted in the show's press in the Australian as saying 'It really should be a huge success'.
Great! Good to hear Geoff liked it and recommends everyone to get along! Oh, hang on - let's have another look at his review. And I quote from either side of this 'huge success' line.
"...the dramatic moments in this production are muddied by dire direction and vocal ineptitude.
It really should be a huge success.
...the acting is never more than amateurish and unconvincing, the set is lacklustre and the lighting does little to enhance the action."
As I said - I have no opinion on the show, having not seen it, and do not in any way agree or disagree with Geoff's comments. I don't know if Geoff did have an agenda - I just think he is a tough reviewer and from memory can't recall much that he has liked. That said, maybe you all should get along to Black Swan's 'The Drawer Boy' to see Mr Gibbs in action, and give it back to him on here. Whatever you like. My point, however, is an important one.
Vagabond theatre have directly and intentionally quoted Geoff Gibbs in a national newspaper, in a completely incorrect context. The quote suggests that Gibbs recommends this particular production, and if one were to attend Frankenstein on the strength of this quote and were to note for themselves everything that Geoff noted in his review, they might be entitled to think that Geoff was leading them on a bum steer. The context in which Gibbs' comment can only be taken is when seen in terms of the rest of his review, where he muses on the fact that even with the overriding themes of Mary Shelley's novel retained, and enthusiastic sponsors on board, the show that SHOULD (I emphasise this word) on paper be a huge success winds up disappointing him with its production values. The effort that has gone into promoting this show is testament to the talents of some of the people on board at Vagabond, but if that effort was put into the end product, they would have a hit on their hands.
I may be labouring the point, but I am certain that Geoff Gibbs would be most unhappy with the context in which his name has been used to promote the show, as it brings into question his opinions in the national newspaper. It's one thing to re-contextualise a quote in a promotional ad on ITA, but when you are doing it in the Oz, you have to wonder where your brains are at. And don't get me started over the fact that Stinger's review was also quoted - correct context this time, but not in any way a published and edited review that people might put their stock in. Apologies Stinger - your review was excellent, but I don't think anonymous postings on here should be quoted in press kits.
Vagabond are very fortunate to have the corporate sponsorship they have, but abusing the fact that you can get a quarter page in the Oz to promote the show, by misattributing a respected journalist is not really on. It harkens back to the fake journalist allegations on the posters of A Knight's Tale last year, or the MAD Magazine satires where the poster would scream 'wonderful ... stunning ... a great achievement' where the journo wrote 'even with all the wonderful talent on board, nothing could be done to save this stunningly bad remake. It will be a great achievement for the producers if they are not sued for bad taste'. Please don't take that last line in context to your show. I haven't seen it, nor will I, but I do think that the fast one that Vagabond has pulled in this instance is even a little too much chutzpah, even for a company who got a funeral director to sponsor Frankenstein.
Email responses to me please.
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···