Richard III

WHAT: 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

Oi! My review was dead serious!

More about this at http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~serge/serge/Richard.htm

Thou errant fen-sucked wagtail!

stinger wrote:

"Oi! My review was dead serious!"

Seriously dude! No, no it wasn't...

Heartily agree with what Jarrod has said...

Was the production good?
Well, no not really...

Was it entertaining?
You'd better believe it!!!

Was going to write a review myself but was hampered by no programmes on the Tuesday Night.

Although, did think they had a bit of a cheek calling it a "Bollywood Musical", when it seemed much more like a Eurovision Song Contest.
[Not that that's a bad thing]

"I haven't even seen Richard I or Richard II, so I apologise for my confusion coming in at the end of the trilogy."
Know what you mean Jarrod, that's why I didn't see "Madness of George III"

:-)

So my review is not to be taken seriously, eh? 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).

It beats me why two self-confessed theatrical ignorami should even bother to review a Shakespearean classic in the first place. 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.

And please - don't call me 'dude'.

Thou dissembling toad-spotted hugger-mugger!

stinger wrote:

"So my review is not to be taken seriously, eh?"

Dude, face it, it was a crap review...
It was like the sort of film review you get on Entertainment Tonight!

"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)."

Hey Jarrod, it's obvious this guy doesn't know either of us...
This could be fun

"It beats me why two self-confessed theatrical ignorami should even bother to review a Shakespearean classic in the first place. 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."

Does anyone know actually know who this Stinger clown is...
Hey Jarrod, he just called us ignorami, are we going to let him get away with it?

"And please - don't call me 'dude'."

Dude, I've called Governors and Generals dude to their faces, why are YOU so special?

I'm a leetle bit busy at the moment, so I don't have time for the response I would like...
So if anyone else would like to jump in and flame this bug for Jarrod and myself (ignorami, I like that!) please feel free (go Leah, go Leah, go, go, go Leah...)
:-)

I rest my case.

stinger wrote:
>
> I rest my case.

Good idea. It was tired.

(Sorry Paul, that's all you're getting from me this time around.)

Leah

Stinger- That's must be from the high acidic content of his sperm...

Sorry, Paul, but you're not getting my sympathy vote here.


I don't really like the word "dude" either...one of those Americanisms that has invaded our culture via popular movies and has now assumed a level of meaning it doesn't really deserve, except as a measure of how desperately we want to align ourselves with that culture in favour of our own.

I don't believe I've ever met a general, but I HAVE met with two WA Governor-Generals, and the Governor of a Japanese province, and I think if I had called any of them "dude" it would have displayed a different kind of ignorance.


You may not have liked the style or content of Stinger's review, but I think you've forgotten where it was posted. It was an amateur opinion, not attempting to be anything more than many others I read here. I agree with you it would not pass as an ET! film review, but neither was it trying to. That's like saying your replies to the thread wouldn't cut it in a comedy debate. Probably true but actually irrelevant.
Stinger's review may not have been up to my standards (!) but I don't think it qualifies as crap.

I don't know Stinger or who he is, but he's been here a while and is a regular contributor. I believe I've ripped into his posts once or twice when I felt it was warranted...now it's your turn to cop it.



Cheers
Craig


(PS feel free to say something clever or disparaging about my username, but I believe Jarrod's previous use of "disemvowelled" is the best so far.)

crgwllms

crgwllms wrote:

"I don't really like the word "dude" either...one of those Americanisms that has invaded our culture via popular movies and has now assumed a level of meaning it doesn't really deserve, except as a measure of how desperately we want to align ourselves with that culture in favour of our own."

I think there are enough ockerisms in my vocabulary to allow one americanism in...
I don't know about anyone else, but I've always thought Australian culture appropriated left right and centre from every other culture that creeps past us. After all, aren't we one of the vanguards of Fusion cuisine.
Besides, I wonder how many of these people who bleat incessantly about preserving OUR culture are really talking about English culture rather than Australian culture.
[not pointing finger at you here, Craig, pointing it at other people who have not entered this discussion yet]
Allow me one Americanism

"I don't believe I've ever met a general, but I HAVE met with two WA Governor-Generals, and the Governor of a Japanese province, and I think if I had called any of them "dude" it would have displayed a different kind of ignorance."

Well... that depends entirely on the context doesn't it...
If you are meeting with them at a formal function, etc. Then dude would of course be totally inappropriate.
When they are sitting at your desk and you are doing work for them, and they are expecting you to treat them the same way you treat everyone else, of course I am going to call them dude, as I do everyone else.
And remember this being Australia, where we don't bow down and scrape to anyone, especially if they are also Australian. Mick didn't mind (and Marlena is a truly beautiful woman...)

"It was an amateur opinion, not attempting to be anything more than many others I read here."

Come on, it was a blatant Dorothy Dixer!
I dislike it when Stinger does it, I dislike it when anyone does it.
I just think if you are going to post a Dorothy Dix, you may as well disguise it.

Besides, the attack from Stinger was after I said that his review was not to be taken seriously, as no Dorothy Dixer ever should...

Paul "Ignorami" Treasure

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!
;-)

Just on the slim chance anyone's still reading this far....

In September, I wrote a review of Noises Off. Eleven days later, Stinger wrote a review. In his opening paragraph he proclaimed: "No-one else seems to have written a serious review of this production, so it falls to me to provide some hopefully useful feedback."

Fast-forward to November. Stinger writes a review of Richard III. Two days later, I write a review myself, opening with this exact quote (cut 'n' pasted) from Stinger's Noises Off review. That's why I used quotation marks. I even put in a smiley face to show that it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to his earlier review. Sorry for being obscure, but I thought Stinger would have been canny enough to recognise his own work.

In response, I get a personal attack on me and my name - actually accusing me of posting under a pseudonym. This from someone who calls himself "Stinger".

I don't think you need to worry about other people making you look foolish.

Jarrod Buttery (wanna see my birth certificate?)

I honestly do not recall having seen a serious review of 'Noises Off' before I posted mine. If there was one then I apologise for being such an ass and for missing the subtlety of the quote.

I guess this 'exchange' raises the question of what should a review be?

My opinion is that it is essentially a spectator's reaction and hence contribution to a performance. It is not meant to be addressed to the performers personally but rather to other spectators and the production as an entirety. It is not meant to be but may of course be used as publicity and for that reason the reviewer should declare any bias at the outset.

My review of 'R3' was admittedly biased but nonetheless well-considered and hopefully constructive. It was summarily dismissed by the intelligentsia (sorry, no name-calling) as 'not serious', apparently because it was not critical enough of the performance. I do not believe a review necessarily has to be critical, although that is obviously one of its functions.

Anyway, it looks like we have finally canvassed all the plusses and minuses of R3. A pity we had to waste so much bandwidth and taxpayers' money on the slagging match to get there, but that's show-biz, I suppose.



Thou puny doghearted pignut!

As far as I'm concerned, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, or review, as it is. However, I don't care how long a person has been contributing to theatre reviews on this website, that is no excuse to start claiming fellow reviewers are self-confessed theatre ignorami!

I don't know very much about you Stinger, other than the fact that you are a university student, but for someone who obviously spends a lot of time learning large words from their textbooks, you definately don't seem to spend any time learning about your fellow theatre reviewers.

Jarrod Buttery and Paul Treasure (yes, those ARE their real names) are probably two of the most intelligent people I know. They're both extremely well educated, and are well-respected among the theatre community scene. Paul Treasure has done professional work throughout Perth and Jarrod Buttery was the President of the Independent Theatre Association for 7 years, as well as the President of Blak Yak Theatre!

These two people are HARDLY ignorami. And while it was wrong to say that your review wasn't serious, you shouldn't start petty name-calling and pointing the "ignorami" finger - especially at people you know very little about.

I find this irony hilarious, and wish I'd picked it up earlier.


The plural of ignoramus (someone who knows little or nothing) is IGNORAMUSES...!

There is no such word as 'ignorami'...check your dictionary!




Cheers
Craig



The world - 'Tis full of thy foul wrongs!

I dont know craig I used to ignore amy all the time...

Jonesy.

How petty ....

NoWay wrote:
>
> How petty ....



....and how can I top that comment, for being such a perfect example of trivial, trifling, narrow pettiness? Honestly, the humorous irony being displayed here lately is thoroughly entertaining.

I DID say I would risk igniting public ignominy; one thing I'M at least NOT at risk of, however, is pleading ignorance....


Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]

I STOLE MY NANS DOG