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, 10:13 pmNath -
Nath wrote:
>
> You still haven't said why you are raising this issue? What
> is your major concern here? What is it exactly that you
> believe in?
I am raising this issue because I believe what has been done is dishonest, and regardless of whether or not there were these intentions in mind, I do not think it is right. I have nothing to gain here, and nothing to lose. I decided to mention this on here to gauge responses as to this issue (as I said, it happens a lot) and spark some healthy discussion, such as that we are partaking in now!! What do I believe in? not sure how this relates here, but I think you mean what I just said above.
> And as to the purpose of the ad, I believe the advertisement
> would have been successful with or without that quote.
Exactly! Exactly! EXACTLY! So why include it? I have spoken to several people who have marvelled at the balls involved in such a stunt - so I am not alone in my view. Some of the best things about this production (hearsay - partly from Gibbs, partly from others) has been the promotion etc - they have an eye-catching poster and have really got noticed so far. So why include a quasi-bogus quote in an already successful campaign and raise the ire of people who might feel condescended to in the company's hope that noone would notice.
> That
> is, I don't believe Geoff Gibbs' reputation is SO great that
> it really makes a difference.
No, but I'm sure it makes a difference to Geoff when he sees his work misattributed.
> You seem to be relying on the
> fact that people will look at the ad, see the name 'Geoff
> Gibbs' and say "Wow I think I'll go now"... Doesn't that seem
> a little ridiculous?
Not really - perhaps people wouldn't trust the name 'Geoff Gibbs', but they would certainly put a lot of stock in the sub-heading: 'The West Australian', which implies an editorially checked piece that has been printed and circulated widely.
> I mean there was a little more substance
> to the advertisement, wouldn't that be more alluring to the
> average punter. Perhaps the title of the production would be
> something that would attract people? Maybe people had seen
> Vagabond shows before?
See my point above. If you have these great attractions, and I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY, I don't think they needed to resort to a cheap gimmick to sell tickets.
> Do you think the purpose of the ad was to quote Geoff Gibbs
> out of context?
It wasn't the purpose, of course, but to me it became the focus of the ad, because it immediately took on a 'long running show at Burswood' feel - 'come and see the show the critics are raving about', when really critics are not raving - other than a few isolated cases on ITA and an eyebrow raisingly contrasting one in X Press. I just wish they had have stuck to the two positive comments and resisted leaving Geoff's off. But if they did that, you see, they would have no widely circulated publication's imprimatur, and that wound up being the killer.
Cheers and thanks for the debate! There should be more of these on here...
jh
[%sig%]
Nath wrote:
>
> You still haven't said why you are raising this issue? What
> is your major concern here? What is it exactly that you
> believe in?
I am raising this issue because I believe what has been done is dishonest, and regardless of whether or not there were these intentions in mind, I do not think it is right. I have nothing to gain here, and nothing to lose. I decided to mention this on here to gauge responses as to this issue (as I said, it happens a lot) and spark some healthy discussion, such as that we are partaking in now!! What do I believe in? not sure how this relates here, but I think you mean what I just said above.
> And as to the purpose of the ad, I believe the advertisement
> would have been successful with or without that quote.
Exactly! Exactly! EXACTLY! So why include it? I have spoken to several people who have marvelled at the balls involved in such a stunt - so I am not alone in my view. Some of the best things about this production (hearsay - partly from Gibbs, partly from others) has been the promotion etc - they have an eye-catching poster and have really got noticed so far. So why include a quasi-bogus quote in an already successful campaign and raise the ire of people who might feel condescended to in the company's hope that noone would notice.
> That
> is, I don't believe Geoff Gibbs' reputation is SO great that
> it really makes a difference.
No, but I'm sure it makes a difference to Geoff when he sees his work misattributed.
> You seem to be relying on the
> fact that people will look at the ad, see the name 'Geoff
> Gibbs' and say "Wow I think I'll go now"... Doesn't that seem
> a little ridiculous?
Not really - perhaps people wouldn't trust the name 'Geoff Gibbs', but they would certainly put a lot of stock in the sub-heading: 'The West Australian', which implies an editorially checked piece that has been printed and circulated widely.
> I mean there was a little more substance
> to the advertisement, wouldn't that be more alluring to the
> average punter. Perhaps the title of the production would be
> something that would attract people? Maybe people had seen
> Vagabond shows before?
See my point above. If you have these great attractions, and I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY, I don't think they needed to resort to a cheap gimmick to sell tickets.
> Do you think the purpose of the ad was to quote Geoff Gibbs
> out of context?
It wasn't the purpose, of course, but to me it became the focus of the ad, because it immediately took on a 'long running show at Burswood' feel - 'come and see the show the critics are raving about', when really critics are not raving - other than a few isolated cases on ITA and an eyebrow raisingly contrasting one in X Press. I just wish they had have stuck to the two positive comments and resisted leaving Geoff's off. But if they did that, you see, they would have no widely circulated publication's imprimatur, and that wound up being the killer.
Cheers and thanks for the debate! There should be more of these on here...
jh
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···