Blood Relations
Thu, 1 May 2003, 02:39 pmAmanda Chesterton4 posts in thread
Blood Relations
Thu, 1 May 2003, 02:39 pmIt seems to be my lot in life to write a review for this site, hit ‘Post’, then have my computer crash at the exact same moment, losing every carefully-considered word I’ve written. This is review-mark-two. Does anyone else experience the phenomenon that your first one is always better written? Perhaps it’s a case of absence makes the heart grow fonder, and want to take a baseball bat to your computer. Anyway…
WHAT: ‘Blood Relations’ by Sharon Pollock
WHEN: Wednesday 30 April 2003, 8pm
WHERE: Perth Institute of Contemporary Art, Northbridge, Perth, WA
WHO: Directed by Monica Main for Not The Mama Productions (Georgia Malone and Melissa Cantwell) featuring Leanne Page, Naomi Hanbury, Toby Malone, Lucy Eyre, Elwyn Edwards, Christine Jeffery, Mike Anthony.
Not The Mama Productions have finally provided a long-awaited follow up to their 2001 hit ‘After the Fair’ with an equally creepy, uncomfortable and blacker-than-black-comic rendering of the Lizzie Borden tale, ‘Blood Relations’ by Canadian playwright, Sharon Pollock. With another Bryan Woltjen ‘how the $%&@ did he think of that?!’ set, this is a stunning, stunning production that made me leave the theatre feeling most uncomfortable and slightly ill, despite the complete lack of on-stage violence or gore. And, no, I didn’t have one of the opening night Bloody Marys.
The story of Lizzie Borden, known colloquially as The Fall River Legend, is a true one, about a late 19th century woman living in Fall River, Massachusetts. She was accused of murdering her father and step-mother with a hatchet but, the part of the story that plunged it into legend, she was acquitted, despite all the evidence pointing to her guilt. She lived for another 30-odd years after the murders, but never once admitted to her alleged crimes.
History has been less than impartial to Lizzie, immortalising her in a poem familiar to all North Americans: ‘Lizzie Borden took and axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When the job was nicely done, she gave her father forty-one.’ Lovely.
PollockÂ’s play emulates the feel of this rhyme, reflecting its guffaw-out-loud audacity and oneÂ’s inward horror at its factual subject matter. At just over an hour and a half with no interval, itÂ’s a long sit, but dynamic direction and a superb cast have overcome this flawlessly. The play is intriguingly structured, and how exactly this is done would take me ten pages, so, heck, youÂ’ll just have to go and see it to find out.
The most refreshing thing for me about this play was the fact that the two main characters, one or both present in every scene, were female, and ballsy ones at that. Naomi Hanbury and Leanne Page play both Lizzies (again, go see the play to understand this), and lived up to, and beyond, their well-deserved reputations. Both of them are astonishing, yet completely different, performers who work together beautifully on stage, Hanbury’s passion and emotion balancing Page’s calculation impeccably. It was particularly delightful to see Leanne in this role, as I have only ever seen her previously playing giggly ditzes – Playlovers ‘Stags and Hens’ from years ago particuarly springs to mind. I’ll never see her as anything but an axe-wielding lesbian again, I swear.
The supporting cast was just as wonderful, and I was pleased to see Elwyn Edwards and Christine Jeffery as the ill-fated Mr and Mrs Borden. These are two marvellous older performers who I’ve heard a lot about, but not seen nearly enough of. Toby Malone was clearly relishing his role as the slimy step-uncle Harry, and I was mighty disappointed not to see him get the chop at the end. Lucy Eyre as Emma beautifully trod the line between uptight spinster and equally-desparate sibling to Lizzie. I found it a little disconcerting, however, her visual similarity, through hair and costume, to Jeffery. I initially thought, ‘oh, she’s related to the step-mother, and Lizzie isn’t’, and it was only my recollection of the script which rectified this. Did this bother any one else? Mike Anthony was excellent in the smaller roles of Dr Patrick and The Defence Lawyer, and differentiated so well between his two characters that I found myself consulting my programme to find out who the ‘eighth’ cast member was.
The script is interesting and cleverly constructed overall, but I found the ending a little awkward and unsatisfying. My only thoughts as to how this may have been rectified, would be to block that final scene directly downstage, rather than up, which I felt weakened its impact a little. Also, I would like to have seen it slowed down to increase the intensity of Lizzie’s new ‘accusation’ - to leave the audience wondering if Lizzie was now going to take the axe to Emma, rather than just feeling we’d witnessed another petulant sibling spat that was going to blow over. Please, see the show and if you disagree with me on this point, say it out loud here. I would be very interested to hear another’s point of view, and be pulled up on my observations.
The accent work is impeccable, a testament to Julia MoodyÂ’s coaching - Page and Anthony in particular rise superbly to the challenge of switching rapidly and seamlessly between North American and Irish accents. The afore mentioned Bryan Woltjen set design was ingenious and effective, my personal favourite being the chicken wire stretched below the lighting rig, lowering the ceiling of the warehouse-like PICA space, and turning the stage into an oppressive, narrow and eye-bending farmhouse. Two projected screens at the sides were simple windows at first, but at two points during the play the rough cross-hatch design flew away, as though boards were being removed, revealing peering eyes at one time, and silently moving mouths at another. This was really creepy and visually very effective, but I felt it was too distracting, and detracted from the action we needed to pay attention to in the middle.
Despite the whoÂ’s-who of Perth theatre opening night crowd, the audience was not capacity which was disappointing. I have a feeling that this will be one of those beg, borrow and steal a ticket in the last week shows, so please GO EARLY to avoid missing out. This is as good as Perth independent, and indeed professional, theatre gets, and this classy production is more than deserving of your support. It runs at PICA until the 10 May.
[%sig%]
WHAT: ‘Blood Relations’ by Sharon Pollock
WHEN: Wednesday 30 April 2003, 8pm
WHERE: Perth Institute of Contemporary Art, Northbridge, Perth, WA
WHO: Directed by Monica Main for Not The Mama Productions (Georgia Malone and Melissa Cantwell) featuring Leanne Page, Naomi Hanbury, Toby Malone, Lucy Eyre, Elwyn Edwards, Christine Jeffery, Mike Anthony.
Not The Mama Productions have finally provided a long-awaited follow up to their 2001 hit ‘After the Fair’ with an equally creepy, uncomfortable and blacker-than-black-comic rendering of the Lizzie Borden tale, ‘Blood Relations’ by Canadian playwright, Sharon Pollock. With another Bryan Woltjen ‘how the $%&@ did he think of that?!’ set, this is a stunning, stunning production that made me leave the theatre feeling most uncomfortable and slightly ill, despite the complete lack of on-stage violence or gore. And, no, I didn’t have one of the opening night Bloody Marys.
The story of Lizzie Borden, known colloquially as The Fall River Legend, is a true one, about a late 19th century woman living in Fall River, Massachusetts. She was accused of murdering her father and step-mother with a hatchet but, the part of the story that plunged it into legend, she was acquitted, despite all the evidence pointing to her guilt. She lived for another 30-odd years after the murders, but never once admitted to her alleged crimes.
History has been less than impartial to Lizzie, immortalising her in a poem familiar to all North Americans: ‘Lizzie Borden took and axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When the job was nicely done, she gave her father forty-one.’ Lovely.
PollockÂ’s play emulates the feel of this rhyme, reflecting its guffaw-out-loud audacity and oneÂ’s inward horror at its factual subject matter. At just over an hour and a half with no interval, itÂ’s a long sit, but dynamic direction and a superb cast have overcome this flawlessly. The play is intriguingly structured, and how exactly this is done would take me ten pages, so, heck, youÂ’ll just have to go and see it to find out.
The most refreshing thing for me about this play was the fact that the two main characters, one or both present in every scene, were female, and ballsy ones at that. Naomi Hanbury and Leanne Page play both Lizzies (again, go see the play to understand this), and lived up to, and beyond, their well-deserved reputations. Both of them are astonishing, yet completely different, performers who work together beautifully on stage, Hanbury’s passion and emotion balancing Page’s calculation impeccably. It was particularly delightful to see Leanne in this role, as I have only ever seen her previously playing giggly ditzes – Playlovers ‘Stags and Hens’ from years ago particuarly springs to mind. I’ll never see her as anything but an axe-wielding lesbian again, I swear.
The supporting cast was just as wonderful, and I was pleased to see Elwyn Edwards and Christine Jeffery as the ill-fated Mr and Mrs Borden. These are two marvellous older performers who I’ve heard a lot about, but not seen nearly enough of. Toby Malone was clearly relishing his role as the slimy step-uncle Harry, and I was mighty disappointed not to see him get the chop at the end. Lucy Eyre as Emma beautifully trod the line between uptight spinster and equally-desparate sibling to Lizzie. I found it a little disconcerting, however, her visual similarity, through hair and costume, to Jeffery. I initially thought, ‘oh, she’s related to the step-mother, and Lizzie isn’t’, and it was only my recollection of the script which rectified this. Did this bother any one else? Mike Anthony was excellent in the smaller roles of Dr Patrick and The Defence Lawyer, and differentiated so well between his two characters that I found myself consulting my programme to find out who the ‘eighth’ cast member was.
The script is interesting and cleverly constructed overall, but I found the ending a little awkward and unsatisfying. My only thoughts as to how this may have been rectified, would be to block that final scene directly downstage, rather than up, which I felt weakened its impact a little. Also, I would like to have seen it slowed down to increase the intensity of Lizzie’s new ‘accusation’ - to leave the audience wondering if Lizzie was now going to take the axe to Emma, rather than just feeling we’d witnessed another petulant sibling spat that was going to blow over. Please, see the show and if you disagree with me on this point, say it out loud here. I would be very interested to hear another’s point of view, and be pulled up on my observations.
The accent work is impeccable, a testament to Julia MoodyÂ’s coaching - Page and Anthony in particular rise superbly to the challenge of switching rapidly and seamlessly between North American and Irish accents. The afore mentioned Bryan Woltjen set design was ingenious and effective, my personal favourite being the chicken wire stretched below the lighting rig, lowering the ceiling of the warehouse-like PICA space, and turning the stage into an oppressive, narrow and eye-bending farmhouse. Two projected screens at the sides were simple windows at first, but at two points during the play the rough cross-hatch design flew away, as though boards were being removed, revealing peering eyes at one time, and silently moving mouths at another. This was really creepy and visually very effective, but I felt it was too distracting, and detracted from the action we needed to pay attention to in the middle.
Despite the whoÂ’s-who of Perth theatre opening night crowd, the audience was not capacity which was disappointing. I have a feeling that this will be one of those beg, borrow and steal a ticket in the last week shows, so please GO EARLY to avoid missing out. This is as good as Perth independent, and indeed professional, theatre gets, and this classy production is more than deserving of your support. It runs at PICA until the 10 May.
[%sig%]
Re: Blood Relations
Sun, 4 May 2003, 06:22 pmHmmm...I seem to get the same thing as Amanda sometimes: the site freezes or crashes at the point of posting, so it appears to me the post
didn't work. Either it actually didn't; or if I've saved before I post (which I'm now getting in the habit of) and try again, I may end up unintentionally posting the same thing twice afterall..! Something to do with the log-on process? I'm often already logged on, but when I go to post, the site tells me that someone else (ie me!) has already used my log-on name so I have to go through that again...and that's when I'm likely to lose whatever I was trying to post.
But meanwhile...
BLOOD RELATIONS
An interesting choice of production for Not The Mama...it's not an easy play to watch, not a lot of laughs; but it IS a well crafted interpretation.
Interesting if you get time before the show to read the newspaper articles in the foyer about the Lizzie Borden case, and to realize that the case became rather legendary in its time, because then the play begins with the interesting device of Lizzie, some years after the event, living with the fact of this legendary status - to the point where an actress is portraying her...and the two then tell the story together in a slightly schizophrenic fashion.
Naomi Hanbury's Actress/Lizzie is the one we mostly identify with, portraying the events as they unfold, the one most affected by the emotions of the situation. A tricky path; for the ending to really work she needs to win sympathy from the audience while not really being a sympathetic character, and I thought Naomi's studied performance got as close as the script would allow.
Leanne Page's Lizzie really portrayed the duality of the character, looking back with the benefits of acquital and hindsight, and also portraying Lizzie's maid/accomplice Bridget as if telling Lizzie's story through outside eyes.
The two performers complemented each other well and were each strong interpretations.
I don't know that the 'lesbian' insinuation really came across, it didn't ever really seem to me that they were in a relationship. And I think it would have been a mistake to pursue it further. (I think that idea only got put in our heads from Leanne's programme notes, or Bank's review...really it didn't even need mentioning.)
The rest of the cast were great as well; sometimes it seemed their characters' main function was to be less attractive to the audience, to help Lizzie earn our sympathy....but despite this each actor managed to flesh out their character and show us the lighter, natural side as well. (Except you, Toby, your character was just a nasty guy!). The accents
were all great; many of the cast have naturally UK/Irish accents, but
this helped lend more authenticity to the very English-sounding Bostonian accents. Leanne did a great job of switching between the two.
I didn't mind that Lucy's Emma appeared more similar to Christine's Mrs Borden; it just emphasised Lizzie's feeling of not fitting in. Reading the programme later I did wonder that Toby seemed young to play Mrs Borden's brother, but it didn't worry me at all during the play.
I liked Mike Anthony's portrayal of Dr Patrick; not playing for laughs but giving the play a much needed shot of levity just when it needed it. Elwyn, Lucy, and Christine...nothing specific to mention but I don't want to leave you out because you were all strong!
Turning the PICA space into such a long, narrow set was an interesting choice that largely worked really well..the depth made the court scenes literally and figuratively very distant, and it was a bit hard to relate to Lizzie in those scenes. From where I sat, actors at the top of the stairs were obscured a bit by the low chicken wire roof...it wasn't a huge distraction, but it was a bit unfortunate. I liked the way the performers could watch the story from 'in the wings', distancing themselves slightly from the events in what seemed a calculating way.
The design somehow manged to be a farmhouse manor, a courthouse, and a bird enclosure at the same time...the caged bird images were really interesting; although an important idea in the play, it was unnecessary to actually show because no scenes take place there...Brian's design put the idea right in the forefront without ever compromising or cluttering the necessary locations. I really liked that aspect.
What I really DIDN'T like were the video screens. They were slickly produced, and not unattractive to look at, but there was half
the problem...I found myself completely distracted by them to the point that I missed lines of dialogue, wondering about their significance.
And the actual significance wasn't so revelationary...yes, the symbolism of 'being looked at' or 'being talked at'...they didn't really add anything that I wasn't already getting from the performers. I was already impressed by how clever the set design was...the video was a strangely anachronistic (everything else was rustic 1892) indulgence that really didn't need to be there.
I also found the ending a bit abrupt (partly because I was snapped out of the moment by someone connected with the play immediately
starting the applause before I felt the rest of the audience had really realised it was over) because it suddenly tries to play on a new ambiguity - did Lizzie or didn't she? - but by then any ambiguity had been removed for me. The staging, if not the dialogue is clearly insinuating that she did. To this end, I didn't really feel I even needed to see the hatchet...it was obvious enough to guess she could be hiding a weapon in the pile of sheets as she follows her mother up the stairs...the slightly melodramatic 'reveal' elicited a bit of a chuckle from one or two in the audience...maybe it wasn't necessary?
The play's structure, with the interesting split character device, seems to set up this deliberate ambiguity, but in the last few minutes it undercuts itself. Actually, I quite liked the way the father's death was staged, so once the play goes down that path it seems to be working fine, and I'm not sure I could suggest a way to make the ending less abrupt. The script seems a little bit contrived, trying to preserve and amplify an ambiguity that no longer exists, apart from a different take on trying to apportion the blame. Not that it isn't a suitable ending, just that you're left expecting just a bit more.
However, don't let this stop you seeing it for yourself, because the acting, direction and set design are all very good and the production values are high. It's a really interesting piece of theatre, and hopefully it'll be less than 15 months before Not The Mama get their next similarly challenging piece up and running.
Cheers
Craig
[%sig%]
didn't work. Either it actually didn't; or if I've saved before I post (which I'm now getting in the habit of) and try again, I may end up unintentionally posting the same thing twice afterall..! Something to do with the log-on process? I'm often already logged on, but when I go to post, the site tells me that someone else (ie me!) has already used my log-on name so I have to go through that again...and that's when I'm likely to lose whatever I was trying to post.
But meanwhile...
BLOOD RELATIONS
An interesting choice of production for Not The Mama...it's not an easy play to watch, not a lot of laughs; but it IS a well crafted interpretation.
Interesting if you get time before the show to read the newspaper articles in the foyer about the Lizzie Borden case, and to realize that the case became rather legendary in its time, because then the play begins with the interesting device of Lizzie, some years after the event, living with the fact of this legendary status - to the point where an actress is portraying her...and the two then tell the story together in a slightly schizophrenic fashion.
Naomi Hanbury's Actress/Lizzie is the one we mostly identify with, portraying the events as they unfold, the one most affected by the emotions of the situation. A tricky path; for the ending to really work she needs to win sympathy from the audience while not really being a sympathetic character, and I thought Naomi's studied performance got as close as the script would allow.
Leanne Page's Lizzie really portrayed the duality of the character, looking back with the benefits of acquital and hindsight, and also portraying Lizzie's maid/accomplice Bridget as if telling Lizzie's story through outside eyes.
The two performers complemented each other well and were each strong interpretations.
I don't know that the 'lesbian' insinuation really came across, it didn't ever really seem to me that they were in a relationship. And I think it would have been a mistake to pursue it further. (I think that idea only got put in our heads from Leanne's programme notes, or Bank's review...really it didn't even need mentioning.)
The rest of the cast were great as well; sometimes it seemed their characters' main function was to be less attractive to the audience, to help Lizzie earn our sympathy....but despite this each actor managed to flesh out their character and show us the lighter, natural side as well. (Except you, Toby, your character was just a nasty guy!). The accents
were all great; many of the cast have naturally UK/Irish accents, but
this helped lend more authenticity to the very English-sounding Bostonian accents. Leanne did a great job of switching between the two.
I didn't mind that Lucy's Emma appeared more similar to Christine's Mrs Borden; it just emphasised Lizzie's feeling of not fitting in. Reading the programme later I did wonder that Toby seemed young to play Mrs Borden's brother, but it didn't worry me at all during the play.
I liked Mike Anthony's portrayal of Dr Patrick; not playing for laughs but giving the play a much needed shot of levity just when it needed it. Elwyn, Lucy, and Christine...nothing specific to mention but I don't want to leave you out because you were all strong!
Turning the PICA space into such a long, narrow set was an interesting choice that largely worked really well..the depth made the court scenes literally and figuratively very distant, and it was a bit hard to relate to Lizzie in those scenes. From where I sat, actors at the top of the stairs were obscured a bit by the low chicken wire roof...it wasn't a huge distraction, but it was a bit unfortunate. I liked the way the performers could watch the story from 'in the wings', distancing themselves slightly from the events in what seemed a calculating way.
The design somehow manged to be a farmhouse manor, a courthouse, and a bird enclosure at the same time...the caged bird images were really interesting; although an important idea in the play, it was unnecessary to actually show because no scenes take place there...Brian's design put the idea right in the forefront without ever compromising or cluttering the necessary locations. I really liked that aspect.
What I really DIDN'T like were the video screens. They were slickly produced, and not unattractive to look at, but there was half
the problem...I found myself completely distracted by them to the point that I missed lines of dialogue, wondering about their significance.
And the actual significance wasn't so revelationary...yes, the symbolism of 'being looked at' or 'being talked at'...they didn't really add anything that I wasn't already getting from the performers. I was already impressed by how clever the set design was...the video was a strangely anachronistic (everything else was rustic 1892) indulgence that really didn't need to be there.
I also found the ending a bit abrupt (partly because I was snapped out of the moment by someone connected with the play immediately
starting the applause before I felt the rest of the audience had really realised it was over) because it suddenly tries to play on a new ambiguity - did Lizzie or didn't she? - but by then any ambiguity had been removed for me. The staging, if not the dialogue is clearly insinuating that she did. To this end, I didn't really feel I even needed to see the hatchet...it was obvious enough to guess she could be hiding a weapon in the pile of sheets as she follows her mother up the stairs...the slightly melodramatic 'reveal' elicited a bit of a chuckle from one or two in the audience...maybe it wasn't necessary?
The play's structure, with the interesting split character device, seems to set up this deliberate ambiguity, but in the last few minutes it undercuts itself. Actually, I quite liked the way the father's death was staged, so once the play goes down that path it seems to be working fine, and I'm not sure I could suggest a way to make the ending less abrupt. The script seems a little bit contrived, trying to preserve and amplify an ambiguity that no longer exists, apart from a different take on trying to apportion the blame. Not that it isn't a suitable ending, just that you're left expecting just a bit more.
However, don't let this stop you seeing it for yourself, because the acting, direction and set design are all very good and the production values are high. It's a really interesting piece of theatre, and hopefully it'll be less than 15 months before Not The Mama get their next similarly challenging piece up and running.
Cheers
Craig
[%sig%]