The Elephant Man

Come on, you guys! Support your local co-ops! We went to see The Elephant Man last night (at the Rechabites Hall, 224 William St, Northbridge) and it was a damn good show - but the audience numbers are right down - so much so, they have had to cancel at least two performances so far. Why?? Is everyone scared of catching SARS or something??
We NEED people like Shirley and David in this town who actually get off their butts to put on great plays - at their own financial expense - because, let's face it, there wouldn't be too much to see if we only wait for the fully professional stuff.
There just isn't enough paid work for every professional out there - so co-ops are the only way for some of us to keep our skills polished and earn a little bit of money as well. So, PLEASE support them.
Anyway, enough ranting. I think The Elephant Man is on for another week - so there's still time to catch some great performances from a very able cast. Vivienne Glance's portrayal of "Mrs Kendall" was a definite highlight for me - a very brave and sensitive performance. She had a magnificant stage presence and was perfectly cast for the role.
In fact, the whole cast was at a very high standard, as were the costumes. Congratulations to David Meadow for his direction and to Shirley and the cast for those LIGHTENING costume changes - how DID they do it??
And if that's not enough to encourage you to go - I will be really crass and mention there is also full-frontal nudity (done very bravely and appropriately).





Thou errant tardy-gaited flirt-gill!

What; The Elephant Man
Who; Naked Emotion Ensemble
Where; Rechabites, Northbridge (WA for all youse interstaters)
When; Saturday 10 May 2003

(First of all, apologies for calling members of the cast "actor lady" and"that doctor guy" and things like that. I didn't pick up a program 'cause I'm an idiot.)

I always thought that if David Meadows was going to direct a play that would break my heart, he would (directorially) rip it still beating from my chest and show it to me, before stomping it under heel, spitting on it and striding away with his black cloak billowing, laughing maniacly. I had no idea he was capable of breaking my heart by degrees, bit by bit, with subtlety and sensitivity. But he did it with The Elephant Man. Almost.

The staging was as it should be, exposed and bare, with nowhere on stage to hide and no room for pretense. At some points however I was a little confused as to where rooms ended and began and if all characters on stage where privy to conversations happening between other characters. The costuming was excellent, mood (and time) setting, without imposing too much on the action. The lighting played a large part, to some small extent being another character in the play, and I loved the changing backdrops and projected images. It was a little annoying though (although I'm probably being very picky here) that the projected light sometimes hit actors exiting and entering during blackouts. It's a pity they could not have been projected a little higher and just miss the top of the actors heads.

The choice to resist any temptation to give in to grosteque makeup and effects was a very good one, but might not have worked but for the excellent performances. I think makeup would have just served to mask the characters who would have used it, seeing their real faces exposed was so much more effective and much more in keeping with the themes of the play.

Great though the direction and setting was, to an actor (and that's the only area I really have experience in) this show's most impressive asset was it's cast; and as impressive assets go...well..to use the words of a fellow audience member; "Crikey!"

The lady who played The Actor Lady was just amazing. She was everything at once; bravado, vulnerability, compassion, arrogance, bravery, weakness. And all with incredible grace. She was a pleasure to watch. I wanted to clap after all of her scenes, expecially in the conversation with the Doctor about bones (which was just so funny) and her first meeting with Merrick. I can't congratulate her enough on her performance and as soon as some one lets me know her name, I'll look out for it and go and see anything else she's in.

Kingsley Judd was great as usual, but I had trouble understanding him in some parts, particluarly the pin-head scene. Which was a pity because it left me wondering what the story was with the pin-heads. I'd still quite like to know. But he carryed his varied characters well and (surprise, surprise) got most of the shows laughs.

A very welcome return to the stage from Paul Treasure as the doctor. Again an actor who managed to portray all the conflicts and facets of the character with ease and clarity. His struggle was painful to watch and the character never anything but flawed and human. Paul and David have not let him simply become the hero of the piece, and he is, as a result, compelling. I lost him a little at the end though in the scene with the Bishop. I though it might be a problem with focus, even when things start to come apart for a character, I think the audience needs focus to understand the conflict.

Stephen Lee just rocks. He is a pretty distinctive looking guy, but his physical transformation (without any actual physical transformation) from the Bishop to the Spruker guy is really an amazing thing to see. I can't wait to see him in the Scottish Play at the same venue later in the year.

The Other Doctor Guy and the other pin head lady (I know, I suck) aquited themselves admirably, despite costume changes from hell and multiple characters. I really enjoyed their performances. I felt the Other Doctor Guy at times suffered a little from the same vocal problems that Kingsley did. But Her Majesty was just a scream.

And then there was the Elephant Man. What a pity he let the side down so badly. (Ahh, sorry Petaaaaan, couldn't reist that.)Tony Petani as John Merrick was just wonderful. The character could so easily be a characiture, a pathetic but heroic martyr, but he never was. He was a quiet all pervasive presence who covered the entire stage and everyone on it. The performance was brave and subtle, never pushed too far, and all the more heartbreaking for never being allowed to be "heartbreaking". His deformities where horrible to see, even though they were created simply by a limp, a tilted head and a hanging arm. But more than that, though childlike at times, Tony's Merrick was always a man. And Shirley, yes I will order those rehearsal photos. Thanks.

I know I have been going on for a long time, but here is my gripe. I felt the play never had the emotional impact it should have. It was restrained and beautiful played and directed, but it lacked conflict. I don't know if that was the script. I though more of the conflict should have been generated by the Other Doctor Guy somehow. I just had an impression that it was supposed to come from him but I never felt it. I also felt that the parade of characters talking to the doctor in quick sucession should also have left me feeling worse than it did. It may be that I was looking for a bad guy in a black hat that I could hate and blame, and that may not have been the point (It wouldn't be the first time I have missed said point!).

Overall, the show is wonderful. And more than that it is the product, as Angelique has already said, of people trying to stimulate YOUR theatre scene and provide opportunities for all of us. I'd hate to think where theatre in Perth would be without the David and Shirley's of the world. But don't just go because you SHOULD (and you bloody well should!) go because you will really enjoy it.

That's what I think anyway.

Leah Maher.

Leah M wrote:

Lots of lovely things. Thanks, Leah.

> The lady who played The Actor Lady was just amazing. She was
> everything at once; bravado, vulnerability, compassion,
> arrogance, bravery, weakness. And all with incredible grace.
> She was a pleasure to watch. I wanted to clap after all of
> her scenes, expecially in the conversation with the Doctor
> about bones (which was just so funny) and her first meeting
> with Merrick. I can't congratulate her enough on her
> performance and as soon as some one lets me know her name,
> I'll look out for it and go and see anything else she's in.

Her name is Vivienne Glance, and she'll be appearing alongside Stephen, myself, and Kingsley in "Macbeth".

> A very welcome return to the stage from Paul Treasure as the
> doctor. Again an actor who managed to portray all the
> conflicts and facets of the character with ease and clarity.
> His struggle was painful to watch and the character never
> anything but flawed and human. Paul and David have not let
> him simply become the hero of the piece, and he is, as a
> result, compelling. I lost him a little at the end though in
> the scene with the Bishop. I though it might be a problem
> with focus, even when things start to come apart for a
> character, I think the audience needs focus to understand the
> conflict.

The playwright (Bernard Pomerance) has chosen, at this point in the script, to deliberately obfuscate. Treves is having a breakdown... one of those really quite common nervous breakdowns that occurred at that time among men of Treves standing. He embodies the archetypal Victorian-era crack-up.

The writing for the scene is fractured, dissonant, and extremely unforgiving. Think David Mamet in a really shitty mood. But it's meant to be unclear.

> Stephen Lee just rocks. He is a pretty distinctive looking
> guy, but his physical transformation (without any actual
> physical transformation) from the Bishop to the Spruker guy
> is really an amazing thing to see.

Not to mention the Porter.

> The Other Doctor Guy and the other pin head lady

Peter Thompson and Tracey Woolrych.

> It may be that I was looking for a
> bad guy in a black hat that I could hate and blame, and that
> may not have been the point (It wouldn't be the first time I
> have missed said point!).

It's a humanist text... it doesn't really blame anyone. Unlike the film, where the bad guys were clear, obvious and all very Hollywood, the play offers us a glimpse into character motivations that are very difficult to define.

> Overall, the show is wonderful. And more than that it is the
> product, as Angelique has already said, of people trying to
> stimulate YOUR theatre scene and provide opportunities for
> all of us. I'd hate to think where theatre in Perth would be
> without the David and Shirley's of the world.

Thanks, Leah. It hasn't been easy. Audiences are right down... we've had to cancel three performances so far (please no more), and last Wednesday saw us play to eight people, only three of whom were paying customers. It's disheartening and emotionally / financially draining. How we're going to get the next season up is anyone's guess.

The tragedy is that it's a fine piece of writing, the cast are uniformly excellent, and I've rarely been prouder of my work as a director as I am with this show. Everyone who's seen it has loved it.

The show finishes this Saturday. Please book at BOCS, or if you're a student, see the other new post today.


D.M.

Firstly, congrats to David and Shirley for finding such an evocative piece of work and secondly, my apologies for not saying so sooner!!

Thanks to Leah for mentioning everything that I have been thinking/feeling about the show for the week since I saw it. I am STILL thinking about it now!

Just a few comments because I'm short of time (and doing this at work!)

I agree with Leah's comment on the projected images sometimes finding the actors and spoiling an entrance or exit. I thought perhaps they would have been best projected onto the side flats, even both flats simultaneously for symmetry. We, the audience, would be more ready to overlook seeing entrances and exits if they weren't emphasised by spillage.

I too loved Vivienne Glance's beautifully serene, mature portrayal of Mrs Kendell. All her scenes were sensitively styled and I enjoyed the fact that we saw pity for Merrick on her face only fleetingly and that their friendship progressed believably. ALL the acting was studied and a pleasure to watch and I too, certainly agree with the decision not to mess around with makeup for Merrick.

Leah's comments about being confused of the intent in some scenes and not getting the impact she wanted from others, was exactly the way I felt. Maybe we've been "Hollywooded" and we're always looking for the good ol' formula (how horrific!) but I felt that the play was detached. One of the reasons I haven't put up my post until now is that I was trying to decide on whether I missed something or if that's the way the play is written. I'm still unsure, however, that does NOT deter from the value of this production. Loved the simplicity, starkness, sometimes harshness of the "set" and lighting. It was all very delicately handled.

Get along and see this show folks. It'll have you pondering for a long while.

Please go and see this show.

It's lovely and very sad, and yes, I'm technically part of the Naked Emotion Ensemble having been in two its three productions, so I am a touch biassed, but this is really a very, very good show. Vivienne Glance and Paul Treasure are just great. And it's delightful seeing people recoil in horror at the lovely-looking Tony Petani.

PLEASE go and support this show so that they can put more on like it.

Amanda Chesterton

(Grant - this sight is refusing to acknowledge my existence any longer, and I have to request a new pin every time I log on. Does one get voted off for being too opinionated?)

Managed to catch the last show (the only one I could manage to get to). Generally agree with whatÂ’s been said.

I agree that Vivienne GlanceÂ’s performance as the actress Mrs Kendall was a highlight. Her characterÂ’s journey and the profound changes were extremely clear and moving.

The others all did their parts good justice, with a few instances of vocal clarity being the issue (the Rechabites venue is partly to blame, although some performers were clear regardless).
I didn’t find Kingsley unclear, I just found it a little strange that he affected such extreme basso voices for two of his characters (I remember he did the same for a character in “Bouncers”) and, while the actual voice is very impressive and humorous, I found it a little theatrical and it distracted me away from the sense of the character.

Tony PetaniÂ’s Merrick was great. I remember seeing brief footage of David Bowie in the 1979 production, and TonyÂ’s physical portrayal seemed of a similar calibre. He could have been a little stronger, in the dreamlike scene where he becomes the exhibitor to the doctor, to really emphasise the reversal.


...No, Leah, not picky. I too was really annoyed by the overlap of actors with the projected images, and actually REALLY surprised by how clumsy the blackouts and scene transitions were.

The projected titles gave a nice style to the piece; by themselves I would’ve accepted them as classic silent movie captions….but with actors seen standing in the semi dark, waiting, ready to go, I just got impatient with them…YES let’s GO! The captions were quick to read, so straightaway I’m looking at an actor pretending they’re not there yet (or even there but not THERE yet – wiping their nose or fiddling with a tie)…it was a weird characterless limbo that I found very distracting, and slowed the play down a lot.
There was one image I remember, where Stephen Lee's priest came out in blackout and I could clearly see him begin the scene (administering to Merrick on his knees) well before the scene actually began with the doctor's dialogue...it was interesting! I would've liked to have seen more of this overlap, without hiding it in ineffective blackouts.
Not even sure that the slide captions always gave information that added to the following sceneÂ…so maybe they werenÂ’t all necessary?
(The images of Merrick though, were great shown behind Tony, so that just by his attitude he took on the photoÂ’s characteristics.)

There were a few other awkward lighting states, with actors poorly lit, but IÂ’m prepared to blame that on the limitations of the RechabitesÂ’ rig.

The other problem with the light spillage was being able to see awkward set changesÂ…a stage manager brings out a chair and exits, only to return with a table and then an actor arrives to sit. Why didnÂ’t the actor bring his own chair, at least? It just enforced this tedious stop-start quality to the evening that never allowed a flow of pace throughout the play.

(Sorry if that sounds harsh; I’m probably still in “The Stones” mode, which made a point of virtually invisible snap-transitions; or from watching “Last Cab To Darwin” where the scene transitions were beautiful, overlapped the narrative, and were a highlight of the play. These ones kinda plodded like an…elephant…and while I could read the light and shade of pacing within individual scenes, the overall sense of rhythm of the play was ruined for me by the blackouts.)

Leah wrote:

> I felt the play never had the emotional impact it
> should have. It was restrained and beautiful played and
> directed, but it lacked conflict. I don't know if that was
> the script. I though more of the conflict should have been
> generated by the Other Doctor Guy somehow. I just had an
> impression that it was supposed to come from him but I never
> felt it. I also felt that the parade of characters talking to
> the doctor in quick sucession should also have left me
> feeling worse than it did.


My feeling was that the parade of characters became predictable in the same way the scene transitions did. We waited for a character to exit completely and then we knew well in advance the next character was about to appear. I reckon the reason was probably to do with balancing out the time needed to allow the (impressive) costume changes, but it did suck the energy out of that scene.



Having said all that, the season's over and I'm sure the crew have developed pachydermous hides. I thought it was a really interesting show and I'm glad I saw it.


One other thing...I know the show was struggling to pick up audiences, but IÂ’m aware of several people who didn't attend because they werenÂ’t prepared to pay $25 for the ticket. I was at least able to get a Blue Room members $18 concession, which wouldÂ’ve been my limit. Did they have to be so pricey?



Do I get voted off now, Amanda?


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

crgwllms wrote:

> Do I get voted off now, Amanda?


I certainly hope not. Can't speak for David, but I really enjoy reading such a positive review, yet with excellent, constructive criticism.

So where's your promo for 'Hot Dogs', crg? Now that Elephant Man is gone, we're sorely missing an animal reference in the What's On section.

[%sig%]