FRANKENSTEIN

I'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.

I thought Frankenstein was an extremely well put together piece of theatre.
It was a not your 'normal' version of Frankenstein, but actually a close approximation of Shelley's Frankenstein: where the monster isn't a mindless killing machine, but a thinking 'being'.
It was quite a 'text heavy' show but the actors did well to never make it boring - I didn't ever lose concentration and never lost track of what was being said. Grant was his usual terrific self as Victor, not a 'mad scientist' (no cliches please!), but a human scientist with dreams and ideals that finds he can't cope with the realisation of his dream. Patrick was foreboding as the monster, but it was still possible to sympathise with his plight "why was he created?", "what is his purpose?". Sonia was exquisite as... oh bugger I forgot her name and I don't have a program handy (no that wasn't her name either!)... Anyway her lightness and energy was a nice contrast to Grant. Dean was very clear as the Captain. The other actors were very good too and moved between their roles well and there was never any confusion when they switched.
I really liked the stage, especially the underlay. It gave the it an industrial look but at the same time a weird kind of softness. And the minimal, 'essential' quality of the stage was good too. Maybe this is becoming a Vagabond thing, no clutter on the stage, nothing unessential present.
There was nothing obtrusive about the whole show, it seemed to work off the principle that 'less is more' and I think this is an interesting bent on the story of Frankenstein because we are used to lightning rods and chemical reactions, bubbling pots and all sorts of 'things' going on in the 'Hollywood' idea.
Well done I say!
Cheers
Nath

I think Geoff Gibbs read my review before he wrote his for last Wednesday's West. On the whole though, I thought he was quite unfair. No doubt you would agree, Nath .

Thou artless clay-brained hugger-mugger!

I personally believe Geoff Gibbs has other motivations for writing that review... Seems he stressed the 'coup' of getting good sponsors a bit much, maybe he has irons in other fires that aren't getting sponsorship? I don't know...
Anyway I do think he more than unfair, yes.

Cheers
Nath



Thou gleeking rump-fed flap-dragon!

I 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%]

Salutations Justin

The decision to print quotes from different reviews was made in the spirit of throwing caution to the wind, something of a Vagabond Theatre trademark, after all, how often does one see a quote from a bad review in an ad?

In the case of the Dr Gibbs review, it was important not to lift a portion of a quote, otherwise it could have been seen as being out of context.
The quote utilised, was a complete one sentence paragraph.

You also question the use of an internet based quote.
An interesting and valid point, however younger people tend to utilise electronic media, far more than print media and therefore such reviews have relevance. It is a matter of taste and perhaps more probably, age, as to which review suits. Personally, I found The West Australian review very instructive and helpful.

Finally Justin, never lose sight of that wonderful Australian tradition … “Taking The Piss.”
Cheers
Greg Ross

Hi Greg -

Thanks for responding in a concise and reasonable fashion - I have been bracing myself for the mud-slinging that can sometimes follow what I have to say. I would like to respond on a couple of points.

Greg Ross wrote:

> In the case of the Dr Gibbs review, it was important not to
> lift a portion of a quote, otherwise it could have been seen
> as being out of context.
> The quote utilised, was a complete one sentence paragraph.
>

That's fair enough - but the one sentence paragraph was in direct relation to the negative paragraphs around it, and you literally took the only positive sounding section from the review (excepting commendations on corporate support) and made it sound as though that was the entire gist of Gibbs' review. Personally, I had to re-read that part of the review a couple of times to figure out the context Geoff was referring to, but having looked at it again, am convinced that it is a paragraph lamenting what might have been, rather than an actual statement of fact. That said, Vagabond are not the first company to use such a technique - it can be quite common. It doesn't change the fact that I think it is really dodgy.

> You also question the use of an internet based quote.
> An interesting and valid point, however younger people tend
> to utilise electronic media, far more than print media and
> therefore such reviews have relevance.

Nah. If you were quoting Arthur Miller from www.newyorktimes.com or Michael Billington from www.guardian.co.uk you might have a point. A pseudonym from what is not actually credited as www.theatre.asn.au but Theatre Australia - a correct title but who in the GP knows that that is a website and not a reputable theatre journal? Even if it had quoted Stinger and included www.theatre.asn.au it would have been almost okay. The format of the quote in its current form is deceptive and does not even come close to having relevance for 'younger people'.

> Personally, I found The West Australian review very
> instructive and helpful.

Great to hear it. People like Geoff Gibbs tend to have too much power over actors' perceptions of themselves and a negative review can be devastating. Glad to see that you were able to take something from the negatives and work towards replicating more of the positives.

> Finally Justin, never lose sight of that wonderful Australian
> tradition … “Taking The Piss.”

I'm not sure how this applies to me - are you suggesting that Vagabond used this quotation to wryly comment on their own stoicism in the face of a bad review, so much that they are able to quote from it? Rubbish. There was no taking the piss here - it's a matter of deceptively recontextualising a valid statement to sell tickets. And I hear ticket sales have picked up. Congratulations. But I don't agree with your tactics.

jh

**************

[%sig%]

Vagabond appear to have lifted their head above the parapet of "professional" theatre in Perth and had a peak in, only to get a critical two by four smashed across the back of the skull. One does not respond to a king hit by thanking your assailant for complimenting your ladder.

That they responded with humour and restraint is admirable. And to quote the only positive comment in a vitriolic, uncompromising and I might add patronising review, I mean, gee whiz, really, what audacity.

Cheers
Dean

Anyone else in the cast care to weigh in here?

Dean, please refer to my post to Greg. The comment quoted was NOT a positive - it was regretfully lamenting what might have been and what did not deliver. By quoting this in a different context Vagabond clearly attempts to manipulate people into believing that they have received a positive crit from the West. I do not believe this to be 'humour and restraint' - I feel this is dishonest. So Geoff Gibbs didn't like your performance. Move on. People are still coming along and everyone has a right to their opinion.

Apologies to all for continuing this thread publicly - but I feel that if I am questioned publicly (even though I specifically mentioned private responses would be less boring for everyone else) I should respond in kind.

j

[%sig%]

I'm confused as to your motivations for raising the issue in the first place Justin, and if you raise it in a public place of course the 'argument' will continue in a public place. If your motivations for raising the issue are just to say you don't think theatre companies should indulge in this behaviour, I think it is entirely appropriate that the discussion take place in a public venue.
I doubt very much the producer's of Frankenstein want to 'deceive' the public purely to raise ticket sales. I know them and that's not their game. More likely, I believe, it was just to annoy Geoff Gibbs. Whether or not this is wise is another issue. If you really want this discussion to go 'private' why not raise it privately with Vagabond?

Cheers
Nath

Nath -

I was not lamenting the fact that this was a public conversation - rather, I was apologising to the board for the inevitable spam that this conversation would raise - as I knew that I would feel compelled to answer every question raised in public in a public fashion. I don't mind where this is discussed, as long as it is discussed.

I raised this topic because it is an important issue, and I feel that Vagabond have done exactly what you have said - well, perhaps not trying to 'deceive' the public, but there is no way I will be convinced that the quotes in the Australian were not in there for any reason other than trying to convince people to come to the show! That's the whole point of marketing!

I, too, have a vague knowledge of the people at Vagabond, and I really don't think they are dumb or malicious enough to print something in a major newspaper just to 'annoy' someone who has a perfect right to his opinion. Seriously. I think your argument is slightly flawed, Nath, because there is very little chance that the ad would have been in the paper at all unless they were trying to convince people to get along, ergo, trying to raise some more revenue! Quarter page ads in the Australian are not free, and to spend that money simply to 'annoy' is ridiculous.

I am not going to fade away in this topic and will answer any question as I see it. I believe in what I am talking about and have absolutely no agenda against Vagabond - I have very little knowledge of the internal workings of that company and only wish to see them continue to put on good theatre. I would hope to see this dishonest practice ended though. Did they think no-one would notice?

j

PS - nervously awaiting Craig Williams weighing in to the debate...!

[%sig%]

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?
And as to the purpose of the ad, I believe the advertisement would have been successful with or without that quote. That is, I don't believe Geoff Gibbs' reputation is SO great that it really makes a difference. 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? 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?
Do you think the purpose of the ad was to quote Geoff Gibbs out of context?

Cheers
Nath

Nath -

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%]

Nathan and Dean, I find your tirades against Geoff Gibbs tiresome and offensive.

Geoff’s review was “helpful” to one cast member, and “patronising” to another. Here lies a conundrum. How can it be both?

Does Geoff have an agenda, as you suggest, Nathan? Or is he simply writing what he saw? Is it necessary that he experience the show exactly as you did?

Let's assume for a moment that Geoff was being altruistic, and that his broadsides against Vagabond were based, not in malice, but in a genuine desire to point out the shortcomings (as he saw them) of the company and its output. Maybe he hoped that Vagabond would see them as constructive criticisms, sift through the specifics, and apply some work to those areas that they agreed were lacking.

If his review was "uncompromising", maybe it's because he felt that a company with this amount of enthusiasm, organisational savvy, clear professional ambition, and, yes, corporate sponsorship, should be mature enough to handle a review pointing out what he considered were legitimate shortcomings.

Instead, Vagabond's response -- both here, and at the show -- seems to be one monumental hissy fit. Hardly the sign of people who are interested in evolving as artists, or being seen as professionals. Living in your own little world, indeed.

Geoff Gibbs has been in the business for decades, acting, directing, and teaching. He has been instrumental in creating the unparalleled reputation enjoyed by WAAPA, an institution with which he has been involved practically since its inception - an institution that has launched the careers of the likes of Frances OÂ’Connor and Hugh Jackman (love them or loathe them, they are at the top of their profession, and their reputation as professionals is impeccable).

Dean and Nath, call me when you have as much experience as he has, and maybe I'll find the time to listen to your narrow, self-congratulatory insolence. Until then, prise yourself out of that fuzzy little cocoon of yours and learn your trade the hard way, like everyone else has to.

"If one would learn how to fly, one must first learn to walk, and then to run. You cannot fly into flying." - Nietzsche.


David Meadows,
who only hates being told that he sucked when he isn't told why.

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%]

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

But then wouldn't we rather all be respected anyway?

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

I reckon it was a damn fine review, all the actors would be able to take a lot away from that.

Craig,

Thank you. Thorough critique. Perhaps the first truly relevant post to this thread since the first couple of reviews.

In mitigation I must agree regarding acoustics of the old Rechabites and diction. Your comments matched those of two of my friends who attended separate performances. They found the female voices much easier to hear, particularly Angelique.

In Angeliques case this would be due to her skill and experience. And in my case it is chronic speeding (dialogue not the illicit kind).

Cheers
Dean

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.