Richard III
Fri, 7 Nov 2003, 11:06 amWalter Plinge20 posts in thread
Richard III
Fri, 7 Nov 2003, 11:06 amWHAT: Richard III
WHEN: Thursday, November 6
WHERE: Nexus Theatre, Murdoch University, WA
"No-one else seems to have written a serious review of this production, so it falls to me to provide some hopefully useful feedback." :-)
I'll try and keep this short - there are only two performances left (tonight and tomorrow) so I haven't much time to push the show. I've said before that I'm not a Shakespeare aficionado. I have never read or seen Richard III and am only familiar with the story from what I've seen on Blackadder. I haven't even seen Richard I or Richard II, so I apologise for my confusion coming in at the end of the trilogy.
Nevertheless, I LOVED this production. I'll freely admit that, early on, I had no idea what was going on. It took quite a while to work out who was related to who, why such-and-such wanted so-and-so dead, and who was trying to bonk who. (Thanks for the excellent programme which helped somewhat.) However, the production was presented so entertainingly that little things like plot coherency didn't seem to matter.
As advertised, the production was performed in the style of a Bollywood Musical. At the drop of a hat, the cast would burst into huge production numbers - singing and dancing to mostly original (and extremely catchy) music. ENORMOUS congratulations to Musical Director Nick Choo. The choreography was clever and appropriate for the style, the acoustics were perfect, the set was lovely and the costumes were absolutely stunning - particular favourites included Kayti Fryer's backless dress, Kristan Smith's fetching suit, Dana Lisman's shimmering gown, Alexa Taylor's translucent frock and Melissa Merchant's dominatrix outfit. What? Don't look at me like that!
The tremendous liberties taken with the script may raise the hackles of some Shakespeare purists, but it's all done in good fun. It's quite rightly emphasised that the desire for power, and corruption therein, is just as relevant today (if not more so) as it was 400 years ago.
My vested interests? Apart from one close friend in the cast I don't know anyone involved with the production. I only went to the show because of my friend and I'm certainly glad I did. I paid for my tickets like everyone else and at $10 per head it's cheaper than most other shows and GREAT value. And how close a friend, you ask? Well, I COULD have gone and seen The Matrix Revolutions....
Like I said, I'm trying to keep this short, but this really was a tremendously entertaining production. All performances were fine and everyone got their moment in the spotlight. Special mention should go to Paul Grabovac who was obviously enjoying himself immensely as Dirty Dick. It's about 1 hr 45 mins long and has no interval. Thanks to director Serge Tampalini, and all involved, for a wonderful evening's entertainment. Two performances left!
JB
WHEN: Thursday, November 6
WHERE: Nexus Theatre, Murdoch University, WA
"No-one else seems to have written a serious review of this production, so it falls to me to provide some hopefully useful feedback." :-)
I'll try and keep this short - there are only two performances left (tonight and tomorrow) so I haven't much time to push the show. I've said before that I'm not a Shakespeare aficionado. I have never read or seen Richard III and am only familiar with the story from what I've seen on Blackadder. I haven't even seen Richard I or Richard II, so I apologise for my confusion coming in at the end of the trilogy.
Nevertheless, I LOVED this production. I'll freely admit that, early on, I had no idea what was going on. It took quite a while to work out who was related to who, why such-and-such wanted so-and-so dead, and who was trying to bonk who. (Thanks for the excellent programme which helped somewhat.) However, the production was presented so entertainingly that little things like plot coherency didn't seem to matter.
As advertised, the production was performed in the style of a Bollywood Musical. At the drop of a hat, the cast would burst into huge production numbers - singing and dancing to mostly original (and extremely catchy) music. ENORMOUS congratulations to Musical Director Nick Choo. The choreography was clever and appropriate for the style, the acoustics were perfect, the set was lovely and the costumes were absolutely stunning - particular favourites included Kayti Fryer's backless dress, Kristan Smith's fetching suit, Dana Lisman's shimmering gown, Alexa Taylor's translucent frock and Melissa Merchant's dominatrix outfit. What? Don't look at me like that!
The tremendous liberties taken with the script may raise the hackles of some Shakespeare purists, but it's all done in good fun. It's quite rightly emphasised that the desire for power, and corruption therein, is just as relevant today (if not more so) as it was 400 years ago.
My vested interests? Apart from one close friend in the cast I don't know anyone involved with the production. I only went to the show because of my friend and I'm certainly glad I did. I paid for my tickets like everyone else and at $10 per head it's cheaper than most other shows and GREAT value. And how close a friend, you ask? Well, I COULD have gone and seen The Matrix Revolutions....
Like I said, I'm trying to keep this short, but this really was a tremendously entertaining production. All performances were fine and everyone got their moment in the spotlight. Special mention should go to Paul Grabovac who was obviously enjoying himself immensely as Dirty Dick. It's about 1 hr 45 mins long and has no interval. Thanks to director Serge Tampalini, and all involved, for a wonderful evening's entertainment. Two performances left!
JB
Re: Richard III
Thu, 13 Nov 2003, 10:23 amWalter Plinge
stinger wrote:
"I rest my case."
On what, Stinger, on whatÂ…
Lets have a look at what youÂ’ve said so farÂ…
“…I saw this show for the very first time at last night's preview…”
Okay, at least we saw the same performance, so there should be no argument about how they must have got better/worse over the course of the runÂ…
“…everything from the posters and postcards to the costumes to the set to the lighting has been meticulously crafted with a unity of vision…”
Well, hereÂ’s one problem already. From the posters and the advertising, we were invited to expect a Bollywood version of R3. Now, I donÂ’t know about you, Stinger, but IÂ’m a closet fan of Asian cinema, and IÂ’ve seen a bit of Bollywood in my time. The set may have possibly borne that out, however apart from a couple of costumes (i.e. R3Â’s heavy eye makeup, very Bollywood villain) the production seemed to have slunk away from its proposed Bollywood version into a more eclectic, Eurotrash version. [BTW nothing wrong with Eurotrash either]
Just because two or three characters are wearing Sari’s, does not make the whole thing Bollywood. There were one or two attempts that could have borne up the reading (bear with me, I didn’t get a programme and I’m battling my poor memory for character names): the Queen Consort’s brother’s Fez and sunglasses were good, as was R3’s whole look. Generally the Queens as a whole were not Bollywood at all. I don’t suppose you’ve seen the English National Opera’s production of “Il Coronazione di Poppea” (you know, the one John Milson ripped off at the Con a couple of years back) its been on SBS and Ovation many times, but it sets Ancient Rome in a hyper-real almost Gaultierean milieau, this is where I felt everyone else had stepped from, not Mumbai.
“…to the superb singing and dance routines.”
Okay, Stinger, I knew that half the cast were crook, I could hear it in their voices, its been going around and every show that involves singing in the last three to six months has been affected by it. Because of this alone there is no way you could call the routines superb!
Brave, yes, IÂ’ll grant you. Energetic possibly. They did a very good job considering how sick most of them were. (The one person I actually knew in the show didnÂ’t even sing in the choruses to preserve what little she had left of her voice). The dance routines were under-rehearsed and shaky.
“The second word that comes to mind is 'multicultural'. I don't mean that in the much-abused political sense but in the sense that many influences from across vastly differing ethnic backgrounds have been absorbed into this show with the result that it is bound to have broad cross-cultural appeal.”
I counted two cultures, Stinger. Western European and token Sub-Continental. That does not make it multi-cultural.
Besides, it comes back to it was billed as Bollywood!
I counted about three bollywoodish songs.
The decline started with “Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser” er, sorry “Richard the Great” and ran through to the Swedish entrant for Eurovision “Love is in the Air” (Sverige, Douze points!!!)
Most of these songs were performed with aplomb and conviction, but most of them were not Bollywood.
I mean, honestly, Mr Cellophane?!
(By the way, ten points to the woman playing the Dowager Queen, the night I went her voice was shocking, and I was seriously worried about how much damage she was doing to her voice by singing when she was that ill. But she performed her songs brillliantly regardless)
“This is not to suggest that the acting is not of a uniformly high standard, which it is.”
HmmÂ… disagree but weÂ’ll let it passÂ…
“The third word is "bardolatry", or the acknowledged admiration of all things Shakespearean. As a self-confessed bardolator, I do not think it is ever excessive, however there are varying degrees to which one pays homage to the great man and many purists might find this particular interpretation of the text somewhat disrespectful.”
Well, Stinger, IÂ’m sorry but I did find this production disrespectful.
Not to the Bard, I actually thought it was an okay production, and it opened my eyes to a couple of relationships within R3 that I did not think about before. Casting Buckingham (?) as a woman gave a lot more play with how much of a loyal side kick he is to R3, so his abandonment of R3 becomes even more compelling.
I actually thought it was more disrespectful to Bollywood. Think what you like, scoff as much as you want, but it IS the biggest film industry in the world. There has to be something behind it.
I honestly felt that what Bollywood there was seemed more in the line of parody than homage.
Does anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Apu is staying at the Simpsons and they are watching one of Apu’s videos and Homer goes “It’s funny because their clothes are different to ours”. That is what this felt like.
Billed as bollywood just to ride on the bandwagon, and hey we can use a couple of saris, but thatÂ’s about it. The few more exotic touches from the keyboard (who did a very good job by the way) still sounded more Eurovision, except this time it was the Turkish or Cypriot entries.
“From this view, I'm sure he [WS] would have been quite impressed with the overall appeal of the present effort.”
IÂ’m sure he would, as a Shakespeare itÂ’s an okay production. Not too heavy and very entertaining, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
But just because “Barbarella” is one of my favourite films, doesn’t mean I think it’s a good film.
[Skip to post No 3]
“Well, that's a laugh, coming as it does from a low-brow, lightweight musical-comedy double act like Buttery & Treasure (if those ARE real names).”
IÂ’m starting to detect a bias in StingerÂ’s arguments.
He raves about the Shakespeare and ignores the Bollywood, he tries to insult me by comparing me to Abbott and CostelloÂ…
This duÂ… guy, seems to have one of those Dead White Male syndromes. You know the sortÂ…
It has to be serious to be any good.
There is a place for lightweight and low-brow, and even in centuries to come people will still be quoting “Whose on First”
“It beats me why two self-confessed [?] theatrical ignorami should even bother to review a Shakespearean classic in the first place.”
True, WS is not my forte, he is a little bit too modern for my tastes. But given that you donÂ’t get that many Athenian Tragedies in Perth, you gotta make do with something.
IÂ’m not kidding here either, Stinger, I have at least one copy of all the Athenian Tragedies, and for some of them up to four different translations, and yes I have read them all.
Never read any Menander, thoughÂ…
Mind you, he wouldnÂ’t appeal to me any way, I much prefer the low-brow and lightweight AristophanesÂ…
Stinger, donÂ’t accuse people of being ignorami, unless you actually know them. YouÂ’d be surprised at some peopleÂ’s knowledge. True, my grasp of R3 is a bit hazy (always prefered the comedies to the histories) but IÂ’m not afraid of something different (Hey, I own a copy of the Klingon Hamlet!).
True, my posts tend to be flippant, but then my favourite dramatists are people like Aristophanes, Fo, Wilde, people who are witty and flippant while maintaining a serious underedge.
If I make a hundred thrusts and only one gets through, hey, at least I got one through.
“If you really think this production was all about 'tits & ass' then you missed the point entirely and I suggest you do a bit more homework before you leap for the keyboard in future.”
Did I say anything about T&A?
Do you know Jarrod? Have you ever read any of his other reviews? It is pretty much expected of Jarrod to make comment about the female costumes, it wouldnÂ’t be Jarrod if he didnÂ’t.
Lets be honest here, Stinger.
IÂ’ve read reviews by you before, and while I may or may not have agreed with what youÂ’ve said, I will say this one thing finally.
Your review of this show was, frankly, a bit of a Dorothy Dixer, and not a serious review at all. You normally do a lot better than thisÂ…
Why the change for this one?
“And please - don't call me 'dude'.”
No wuckers, mate!
;-)
"I rest my case."
On what, Stinger, on whatÂ…
Lets have a look at what youÂ’ve said so farÂ…
“…I saw this show for the very first time at last night's preview…”
Okay, at least we saw the same performance, so there should be no argument about how they must have got better/worse over the course of the runÂ…
“…everything from the posters and postcards to the costumes to the set to the lighting has been meticulously crafted with a unity of vision…”
Well, hereÂ’s one problem already. From the posters and the advertising, we were invited to expect a Bollywood version of R3. Now, I donÂ’t know about you, Stinger, but IÂ’m a closet fan of Asian cinema, and IÂ’ve seen a bit of Bollywood in my time. The set may have possibly borne that out, however apart from a couple of costumes (i.e. R3Â’s heavy eye makeup, very Bollywood villain) the production seemed to have slunk away from its proposed Bollywood version into a more eclectic, Eurotrash version. [BTW nothing wrong with Eurotrash either]
Just because two or three characters are wearing Sari’s, does not make the whole thing Bollywood. There were one or two attempts that could have borne up the reading (bear with me, I didn’t get a programme and I’m battling my poor memory for character names): the Queen Consort’s brother’s Fez and sunglasses were good, as was R3’s whole look. Generally the Queens as a whole were not Bollywood at all. I don’t suppose you’ve seen the English National Opera’s production of “Il Coronazione di Poppea” (you know, the one John Milson ripped off at the Con a couple of years back) its been on SBS and Ovation many times, but it sets Ancient Rome in a hyper-real almost Gaultierean milieau, this is where I felt everyone else had stepped from, not Mumbai.
“…to the superb singing and dance routines.”
Okay, Stinger, I knew that half the cast were crook, I could hear it in their voices, its been going around and every show that involves singing in the last three to six months has been affected by it. Because of this alone there is no way you could call the routines superb!
Brave, yes, IÂ’ll grant you. Energetic possibly. They did a very good job considering how sick most of them were. (The one person I actually knew in the show didnÂ’t even sing in the choruses to preserve what little she had left of her voice). The dance routines were under-rehearsed and shaky.
“The second word that comes to mind is 'multicultural'. I don't mean that in the much-abused political sense but in the sense that many influences from across vastly differing ethnic backgrounds have been absorbed into this show with the result that it is bound to have broad cross-cultural appeal.”
I counted two cultures, Stinger. Western European and token Sub-Continental. That does not make it multi-cultural.
Besides, it comes back to it was billed as Bollywood!
I counted about three bollywoodish songs.
The decline started with “Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser” er, sorry “Richard the Great” and ran through to the Swedish entrant for Eurovision “Love is in the Air” (Sverige, Douze points!!!)
Most of these songs were performed with aplomb and conviction, but most of them were not Bollywood.
I mean, honestly, Mr Cellophane?!
(By the way, ten points to the woman playing the Dowager Queen, the night I went her voice was shocking, and I was seriously worried about how much damage she was doing to her voice by singing when she was that ill. But she performed her songs brillliantly regardless)
“This is not to suggest that the acting is not of a uniformly high standard, which it is.”
HmmÂ… disagree but weÂ’ll let it passÂ…
“The third word is "bardolatry", or the acknowledged admiration of all things Shakespearean. As a self-confessed bardolator, I do not think it is ever excessive, however there are varying degrees to which one pays homage to the great man and many purists might find this particular interpretation of the text somewhat disrespectful.”
Well, Stinger, IÂ’m sorry but I did find this production disrespectful.
Not to the Bard, I actually thought it was an okay production, and it opened my eyes to a couple of relationships within R3 that I did not think about before. Casting Buckingham (?) as a woman gave a lot more play with how much of a loyal side kick he is to R3, so his abandonment of R3 becomes even more compelling.
I actually thought it was more disrespectful to Bollywood. Think what you like, scoff as much as you want, but it IS the biggest film industry in the world. There has to be something behind it.
I honestly felt that what Bollywood there was seemed more in the line of parody than homage.
Does anyone remember the Simpsons episode where Apu is staying at the Simpsons and they are watching one of Apu’s videos and Homer goes “It’s funny because their clothes are different to ours”. That is what this felt like.
Billed as bollywood just to ride on the bandwagon, and hey we can use a couple of saris, but thatÂ’s about it. The few more exotic touches from the keyboard (who did a very good job by the way) still sounded more Eurovision, except this time it was the Turkish or Cypriot entries.
“From this view, I'm sure he [WS] would have been quite impressed with the overall appeal of the present effort.”
IÂ’m sure he would, as a Shakespeare itÂ’s an okay production. Not too heavy and very entertaining, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
But just because “Barbarella” is one of my favourite films, doesn’t mean I think it’s a good film.
[Skip to post No 3]
“Well, that's a laugh, coming as it does from a low-brow, lightweight musical-comedy double act like Buttery & Treasure (if those ARE real names).”
IÂ’m starting to detect a bias in StingerÂ’s arguments.
He raves about the Shakespeare and ignores the Bollywood, he tries to insult me by comparing me to Abbott and CostelloÂ…
This duÂ… guy, seems to have one of those Dead White Male syndromes. You know the sortÂ…
It has to be serious to be any good.
There is a place for lightweight and low-brow, and even in centuries to come people will still be quoting “Whose on First”
“It beats me why two self-confessed [?] theatrical ignorami should even bother to review a Shakespearean classic in the first place.”
True, WS is not my forte, he is a little bit too modern for my tastes. But given that you donÂ’t get that many Athenian Tragedies in Perth, you gotta make do with something.
IÂ’m not kidding here either, Stinger, I have at least one copy of all the Athenian Tragedies, and for some of them up to four different translations, and yes I have read them all.
Never read any Menander, thoughÂ…
Mind you, he wouldnÂ’t appeal to me any way, I much prefer the low-brow and lightweight AristophanesÂ…
Stinger, donÂ’t accuse people of being ignorami, unless you actually know them. YouÂ’d be surprised at some peopleÂ’s knowledge. True, my grasp of R3 is a bit hazy (always prefered the comedies to the histories) but IÂ’m not afraid of something different (Hey, I own a copy of the Klingon Hamlet!).
True, my posts tend to be flippant, but then my favourite dramatists are people like Aristophanes, Fo, Wilde, people who are witty and flippant while maintaining a serious underedge.
If I make a hundred thrusts and only one gets through, hey, at least I got one through.
“If you really think this production was all about 'tits & ass' then you missed the point entirely and I suggest you do a bit more homework before you leap for the keyboard in future.”
Did I say anything about T&A?
Do you know Jarrod? Have you ever read any of his other reviews? It is pretty much expected of Jarrod to make comment about the female costumes, it wouldnÂ’t be Jarrod if he didnÂ’t.
Lets be honest here, Stinger.
IÂ’ve read reviews by you before, and while I may or may not have agreed with what youÂ’ve said, I will say this one thing finally.
Your review of this show was, frankly, a bit of a Dorothy Dixer, and not a serious review at all. You normally do a lot better than thisÂ…
Why the change for this one?
“And please - don't call me 'dude'.”
No wuckers, mate!
;-)
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···