The Taming of the Shrew
Sat, 8 Mar 2003, 02:17 amWalter Plinge8 posts in thread
The Taming of the Shrew
Sat, 8 Mar 2003, 02:17 amWHAT: The Taming of the Shrew
WHEN: Friday, March 7 (2003)
WHERE: GRADS, New Fortune Theatre, University of WA
I was challenged to write a review that wasn't ten pages long and utterly boring. Okay, this won't be ten pages long.
The Graduate Dramatic Society has extended its reputation for presenting quality Shakespearean productions. This was one of the most cleverly and lovingly directed productions I've seen in a long time. Direction can sometimes be overshadowed by performances. The general public will usually walk out saying, "Wasn't Joe Bloggs good (or bad)," but rarely say, "Wasn't it well directed." The director can often be overlooked, unless a show is really good or really bad. This was really good.
Director Stephen Lee is new to Perth, but has years of experience behind him in the UK. Honestly, we're talking decades. The man must be positively ancient. We know that Will's plays have little, if any, stage directions, making them extremely susceptible to interpretation. (Is that one of the reasons they've survived for so long? Thoughts?) Stephen has thought out and choreographed every line. It's very funny and it really is a joy to watch.
Unfortunately, it's not such a joy to listen to. I'm not trying to be nasty, but there were some real problems with acoustics. It wasn't an overall problem - some of the cast could be understood perfectly, but a bit too much of the dialogue was lost in the reverb and echo. Sometimes I had no idea what the hell was going on.
Five hundred years ago, were people smarter or dumber? Did Shakespeare pad out his flimsy plots with superfluous subplots so as to keep the masses entertained, or did they see more in it than us? Why did Lucentio and Tranio swap identities? Why did Tranio (pretending to be Lucentio) woo Bianca for Lucentio? Why didn't Lucentio just do it himself? Why did Lucentio (pretending to be Tranio) start goosestepping all over the stage and using a Colonel Klink accent? Why did Tranio sometimes sound like Don Corleone and sometimes like Tony Soprano? These (and many other small queries) may have been explained, but no one I spoke to heard them
Regardless of the occasionally meandering script, it was a strong cast led by David Meadows and Maggie McPhee, complemented by many GRADS regulars. The servants very nearly stole the entire show, in particular Leah Maher and Dario Dalla Costa, but don't tell them or it'll go to their heads.
The costumes were stunning - absolutely gorgeous for the most part. The guys' suits were stylish and smart, while the ladies were particularly feminine (there are enough bloody men in the world - I can't fathom why the current trend is for women to increasingly dress like them). I have to make special mention of Fiona Mondello's tailor's outfit - how can I not commend the stunning green frock and black seamed stockings? Congratulations to Wardrobe Manager, Robina Maitland-Smith.
I hope I haven't sounded too critical. If they can do something about the sound it will be as close to perfect as a Shakespeare can get. I must admit, the sound was much better in Act 2, so maybe mention was made, or else the audience was getting used to it. It is difficult to tell when you're so close and accustomed to the lines, which is why as an outsider, I hope I'm being helpful in saying, "Do something about it." (Less shouting, maybe?)
Anyway, you have to go and see it. It's GRADS' annual Shakespeare for goodness' sake. You KNOW it's going to be good. And what's more, it's energetic, fresh and very, very funny. It's got a hard-working, enthusiastic and young cast (plus Collin O'Brien - that's what you get for not coming out the front to say G'Day). Stephen Lee has brought an all new energy to what many people casually dismiss (Bah, Shakespeare!), and I'm sure he's going to be in demand in the future.
Thanks again,
JB
WHEN: Friday, March 7 (2003)
WHERE: GRADS, New Fortune Theatre, University of WA
I was challenged to write a review that wasn't ten pages long and utterly boring. Okay, this won't be ten pages long.
The Graduate Dramatic Society has extended its reputation for presenting quality Shakespearean productions. This was one of the most cleverly and lovingly directed productions I've seen in a long time. Direction can sometimes be overshadowed by performances. The general public will usually walk out saying, "Wasn't Joe Bloggs good (or bad)," but rarely say, "Wasn't it well directed." The director can often be overlooked, unless a show is really good or really bad. This was really good.
Director Stephen Lee is new to Perth, but has years of experience behind him in the UK. Honestly, we're talking decades. The man must be positively ancient. We know that Will's plays have little, if any, stage directions, making them extremely susceptible to interpretation. (Is that one of the reasons they've survived for so long? Thoughts?) Stephen has thought out and choreographed every line. It's very funny and it really is a joy to watch.
Unfortunately, it's not such a joy to listen to. I'm not trying to be nasty, but there were some real problems with acoustics. It wasn't an overall problem - some of the cast could be understood perfectly, but a bit too much of the dialogue was lost in the reverb and echo. Sometimes I had no idea what the hell was going on.
Five hundred years ago, were people smarter or dumber? Did Shakespeare pad out his flimsy plots with superfluous subplots so as to keep the masses entertained, or did they see more in it than us? Why did Lucentio and Tranio swap identities? Why did Tranio (pretending to be Lucentio) woo Bianca for Lucentio? Why didn't Lucentio just do it himself? Why did Lucentio (pretending to be Tranio) start goosestepping all over the stage and using a Colonel Klink accent? Why did Tranio sometimes sound like Don Corleone and sometimes like Tony Soprano? These (and many other small queries) may have been explained, but no one I spoke to heard them
Regardless of the occasionally meandering script, it was a strong cast led by David Meadows and Maggie McPhee, complemented by many GRADS regulars. The servants very nearly stole the entire show, in particular Leah Maher and Dario Dalla Costa, but don't tell them or it'll go to their heads.
The costumes were stunning - absolutely gorgeous for the most part. The guys' suits were stylish and smart, while the ladies were particularly feminine (there are enough bloody men in the world - I can't fathom why the current trend is for women to increasingly dress like them). I have to make special mention of Fiona Mondello's tailor's outfit - how can I not commend the stunning green frock and black seamed stockings? Congratulations to Wardrobe Manager, Robina Maitland-Smith.
I hope I haven't sounded too critical. If they can do something about the sound it will be as close to perfect as a Shakespeare can get. I must admit, the sound was much better in Act 2, so maybe mention was made, or else the audience was getting used to it. It is difficult to tell when you're so close and accustomed to the lines, which is why as an outsider, I hope I'm being helpful in saying, "Do something about it." (Less shouting, maybe?)
Anyway, you have to go and see it. It's GRADS' annual Shakespeare for goodness' sake. You KNOW it's going to be good. And what's more, it's energetic, fresh and very, very funny. It's got a hard-working, enthusiastic and young cast (plus Collin O'Brien - that's what you get for not coming out the front to say G'Day). Stephen Lee has brought an all new energy to what many people casually dismiss (Bah, Shakespeare!), and I'm sure he's going to be in demand in the future.
Thanks again,
JB
Re: That's what we have directors for
Sat, 8 Mar 2003, 12:21 pmJarrod Buttery wrote:
>
>We know that Will's plays have little, if any, stage directions, making
> them extremely susceptible to interpretation. (Is that one
> of the reasons they've survived for so long? Thoughts?)
I seem to recall annoying quite a few people, mostly writers, when I once declared that you can pretty well ignore scripted stage directions.
I believe they are a literary tool, to allow a reader to understand what the writer is intending, in the absence of it being acted out in front of them; but not necessarily a dramatic one...meaning directors should make up their own minds about how to move the play, and use or ignore stage directions as they see fit.
The opposing argument seemed to be that the writer has carefully crafted what they want to happen onstage, and tampering with them is treasonable without seeking the writer's permission.
In my opinion, that's a writer also wanting to be a director. The process of creating a play (or film) is an evolving one, where everyone contributes but must surrender to the larger process...the writer gives the play or film script to the director and let's it go; the director passes on to the actors and others, but come opening night must let go; the actors take it and run with it and the audience is the final recipient (in a film, the actors must relinquish to the editor...). Obviously there is cross-talk and loops; a director can give ongoing notes and feedback, and has the most control over the process; writers or actors or anyone in the loop can have greater or lesser involvement at various stages; sometimes one person wears several hats.
Jarrod's point about interpretation is the key, I believe. There are no surprises in Shakespeare or any other well-known script, everything comes down to interpretation. I think you should be free to create whatever you like in order to make sense of the lines, and if it serves the play, it's a good choice.
It appears that Stephen Lee has choreographed every line, and that has been a succesful interpretation.
The writer obviously hasn't felt the need to dictate the presentation; his trust in the process has been well-vindicated, I would say.
(Ha - you asked for my thoughts, oh foolish one!)
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
>We know that Will's plays have little, if any, stage directions, making
> them extremely susceptible to interpretation. (Is that one
> of the reasons they've survived for so long? Thoughts?)
I seem to recall annoying quite a few people, mostly writers, when I once declared that you can pretty well ignore scripted stage directions.
I believe they are a literary tool, to allow a reader to understand what the writer is intending, in the absence of it being acted out in front of them; but not necessarily a dramatic one...meaning directors should make up their own minds about how to move the play, and use or ignore stage directions as they see fit.
The opposing argument seemed to be that the writer has carefully crafted what they want to happen onstage, and tampering with them is treasonable without seeking the writer's permission.
In my opinion, that's a writer also wanting to be a director. The process of creating a play (or film) is an evolving one, where everyone contributes but must surrender to the larger process...the writer gives the play or film script to the director and let's it go; the director passes on to the actors and others, but come opening night must let go; the actors take it and run with it and the audience is the final recipient (in a film, the actors must relinquish to the editor...). Obviously there is cross-talk and loops; a director can give ongoing notes and feedback, and has the most control over the process; writers or actors or anyone in the loop can have greater or lesser involvement at various stages; sometimes one person wears several hats.
Jarrod's point about interpretation is the key, I believe. There are no surprises in Shakespeare or any other well-known script, everything comes down to interpretation. I think you should be free to create whatever you like in order to make sense of the lines, and if it serves the play, it's a good choice.
It appears that Stephen Lee has choreographed every line, and that has been a succesful interpretation.
The writer obviously hasn't felt the need to dictate the presentation; his trust in the process has been well-vindicated, I would say.
(Ha - you asked for my thoughts, oh foolish one!)
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]