1984 Review Beaumaris Theatre
Mon, 4 Oct 2004, 10:52 amWalter Plinge1 post in thread
1984 Review Beaumaris Theatre
Mon, 4 Oct 2004, 10:52 amI Recently saw Beaumaris Theatre's production of 1984, and decided not to post this "review" until after the season had commenced.
I use the term 'Review' as I was unable to acquire a program on the night I went and therefore can not comment on particular actors by their name.
This may be a good thing.
Can I just say in advance though that as far as this reviewer could see the problem was not with the acting per se, but with the wooden, misunderstood direction of the piece.
The first thing that struck me as strange is that why oh why was big brothers screen placed at the back of the stage (an illuminated canvas with a foreboding drawing of a "dictator like" face, for those of you that didnÂ’t see it). It seemed so obvious to me that for ease of blocking, masking etc, that the screen should have hung on the 4th wall. The audience, the voyeurs, should have been 'big brother' - after all, we were watching their every move, just as big brother was.
My second major gripe with the direction? Why oh why do directors bother putting a set on stage with a bed, table, chairs and then confine the actors to one corner of the stage where they deliver all their lines in a static standing position? To me this made the scene more like a play read or a bad high school production that a rehearsed performance.
On a night that was supposed to be the Winston and JuliaÂ’s wedding night I saw absolutely no passion and or joy whatsoever, apart from an occasional wooden hug and a painful delivery of the word "darling" that came out of the actresses mouth with the same amount of ease as it takes to bring up your vomit on an empty stomach - which is what I wanted to do by the end of this scene.
I must say that the translation from novel to theatre script - which I thought would be audience memberÂ’s main gripe with the show, was done extremely well. Particular monologues, such as Syme's 'new speak' section were written and performed in a very natural manner, yet served their purpose in informing the audience of the sinister task that Winston and the others perform each day.
I know that the only people that really take an interest in reviews are the actors so I will try to comment on all of them individually.
Winston: Will never be cast in a romantic role after this again with any luck. Has the tenderness of a mac truck and the passion of a dole bludger. Despite these scenes (which were the majority of the play) gave a consistently average performance that was hindered by lifeless wooden "blocking" and obviously no explanation of the themes of the play. Definitely bounced well off Parsons, which in my opinion was his best, scene due to the understated casual way he pulled it off. Nice work. Excellent projection at all times too.
Julia: Was obviously cast for her looks, and, I'm so sorry to say, not much else. The actress has a beauty and a haunting face that was very captivating. Her huge eyes and petite body complimented WinstonÂ’s frame very very well, unfortunately the intimate scenes were done so awkwardly and were so incredibly unbelievable, it was difficult to accept that one could fall in love with Julia for any other reason than wanting to have sex with her. (Having said that there was no 'sexuality to her performance at all, which made Winston come across more like a paedophile) Another actor that had obviously not read the book and had little understanding of Julia's playful nature at all So much so that she came across as a nagging brat and not a whimsical dreamer, very much in love. This was a shame as Julia's character is so crucial to the tragedy of the piece. Overall a completely wooden performance, although perhaps more due to direction than talent. Who knows?
Parsons: I'm sorry but apart from projection, this pantomime performance made me want to smirk, and not much else. I felt that this actor was painfully aware of the audience and played entirely to the 4th wall. Parsons character was probably the best translated character from the novel to the play, so much so that just with the dialogue her weakness and pathetic nature jumps out at you from the pages of the script. Although probably one the more obvious and simple roles to play, the interpretation was taken WAY too far. The actors portrayal was nothing short of a high five number. I felt like a 4 year old. Everything was over acted for my benefit. Maybe she should apply for a role on playschool.
O'Brien
While the accent threw me initially, I must admit this was a satisfying performance, the actor delivered the lines with a slow casualness (at times I was unsure if he was pausing dramatically, although I fear he may have been searching for a missed line) however the pauses and nonchalant attitude gave him a sense of power over the other characters. I really believed he was a party member with all the privileges that adorn it.
Syme
Although too young (and possibly too good looking) for the role the actor pulled this one off with the necessary air of intelligence. I felt his mis-casting worked against him, but he worked well playing someone whom he was obviously so very physically different from. I'm glad that the actor was not "aged" with the god awful white powder and drawn on wrinkles that some theatre companies are apt to do. The director obviously worked with what talent she had at the audition, and maybe she didnÂ’t cast the right look, but she did cast a good actor, and I commend her for that (I wish sheÂ’d done the same for the role of Julia) The interpretation of Symes was one of an intellectually intelligent but not very street-wise 'just-graduated-from-accounting' type, rather than the incisive philologist you read of in the book. It worked. Good job on both director and actor alike.
Carrington
A very believable portrayal hampered only by terrible blocking - as the old lady, for instance, should she not have either been resting her sore feet by sitting down - or doing what most doddering old lady's do and fussing about the place. No. Just stood in the one position for the entire scene. This drove me insane. Overall though excellent voice, posture, and interpretation. Certainly the most likeable and believable character of the 1st act.
Martin
A small role but was pulled off with the necessary efficiency. So many supporting actors feel the need to star in the scenes they are in rather than "support" their fellow actors - neither Martin nor the female messenger/Servant fell into that trap with the exception of their comic like marching - for people in an office that would march everyday, perhaps it could have been toned down slightly - just a thought.
Female messenger
Smart efficient, robotic. Great job, perhaps a little over the top at times when she got to say more that 3 words in a row, and I doubt she could have handled a role that demanded more layers, but nevertheless, in the role that she did do, she was great, so what more can I ask?
It's a shame that despite a superb translation of the script with complete attention and understanding to the main themes of the novel, the actual performances, and in particular, direction, showed none of this. 1984 is an incredibly relevant, believable play - that is what makes it so very frightening, even to this day. It was so disappointing that it was executed so badly, at times I found myself closing my eyes trying to imagine how the lines of this great script would sound if they were coming out of the mouths of actors who understood what the play and it's themes were actually about, and a director that had managed to convey that to the actors (and bother blocking.).
Beaumaris seems to have an excellent resource of untapped talent, and despite my nasty gripes, the cast showed potential if nothing else. They had the right script, but really needed a strong mentor to bring out the best in all of them, I'm sorry to say that it didn't happen.
I use the term 'Review' as I was unable to acquire a program on the night I went and therefore can not comment on particular actors by their name.
This may be a good thing.
Can I just say in advance though that as far as this reviewer could see the problem was not with the acting per se, but with the wooden, misunderstood direction of the piece.
The first thing that struck me as strange is that why oh why was big brothers screen placed at the back of the stage (an illuminated canvas with a foreboding drawing of a "dictator like" face, for those of you that didnÂ’t see it). It seemed so obvious to me that for ease of blocking, masking etc, that the screen should have hung on the 4th wall. The audience, the voyeurs, should have been 'big brother' - after all, we were watching their every move, just as big brother was.
My second major gripe with the direction? Why oh why do directors bother putting a set on stage with a bed, table, chairs and then confine the actors to one corner of the stage where they deliver all their lines in a static standing position? To me this made the scene more like a play read or a bad high school production that a rehearsed performance.
On a night that was supposed to be the Winston and JuliaÂ’s wedding night I saw absolutely no passion and or joy whatsoever, apart from an occasional wooden hug and a painful delivery of the word "darling" that came out of the actresses mouth with the same amount of ease as it takes to bring up your vomit on an empty stomach - which is what I wanted to do by the end of this scene.
I must say that the translation from novel to theatre script - which I thought would be audience memberÂ’s main gripe with the show, was done extremely well. Particular monologues, such as Syme's 'new speak' section were written and performed in a very natural manner, yet served their purpose in informing the audience of the sinister task that Winston and the others perform each day.
I know that the only people that really take an interest in reviews are the actors so I will try to comment on all of them individually.
Winston: Will never be cast in a romantic role after this again with any luck. Has the tenderness of a mac truck and the passion of a dole bludger. Despite these scenes (which were the majority of the play) gave a consistently average performance that was hindered by lifeless wooden "blocking" and obviously no explanation of the themes of the play. Definitely bounced well off Parsons, which in my opinion was his best, scene due to the understated casual way he pulled it off. Nice work. Excellent projection at all times too.
Julia: Was obviously cast for her looks, and, I'm so sorry to say, not much else. The actress has a beauty and a haunting face that was very captivating. Her huge eyes and petite body complimented WinstonÂ’s frame very very well, unfortunately the intimate scenes were done so awkwardly and were so incredibly unbelievable, it was difficult to accept that one could fall in love with Julia for any other reason than wanting to have sex with her. (Having said that there was no 'sexuality to her performance at all, which made Winston come across more like a paedophile) Another actor that had obviously not read the book and had little understanding of Julia's playful nature at all So much so that she came across as a nagging brat and not a whimsical dreamer, very much in love. This was a shame as Julia's character is so crucial to the tragedy of the piece. Overall a completely wooden performance, although perhaps more due to direction than talent. Who knows?
Parsons: I'm sorry but apart from projection, this pantomime performance made me want to smirk, and not much else. I felt that this actor was painfully aware of the audience and played entirely to the 4th wall. Parsons character was probably the best translated character from the novel to the play, so much so that just with the dialogue her weakness and pathetic nature jumps out at you from the pages of the script. Although probably one the more obvious and simple roles to play, the interpretation was taken WAY too far. The actors portrayal was nothing short of a high five number. I felt like a 4 year old. Everything was over acted for my benefit. Maybe she should apply for a role on playschool.
O'Brien
While the accent threw me initially, I must admit this was a satisfying performance, the actor delivered the lines with a slow casualness (at times I was unsure if he was pausing dramatically, although I fear he may have been searching for a missed line) however the pauses and nonchalant attitude gave him a sense of power over the other characters. I really believed he was a party member with all the privileges that adorn it.
Syme
Although too young (and possibly too good looking) for the role the actor pulled this one off with the necessary air of intelligence. I felt his mis-casting worked against him, but he worked well playing someone whom he was obviously so very physically different from. I'm glad that the actor was not "aged" with the god awful white powder and drawn on wrinkles that some theatre companies are apt to do. The director obviously worked with what talent she had at the audition, and maybe she didnÂ’t cast the right look, but she did cast a good actor, and I commend her for that (I wish sheÂ’d done the same for the role of Julia) The interpretation of Symes was one of an intellectually intelligent but not very street-wise 'just-graduated-from-accounting' type, rather than the incisive philologist you read of in the book. It worked. Good job on both director and actor alike.
Carrington
A very believable portrayal hampered only by terrible blocking - as the old lady, for instance, should she not have either been resting her sore feet by sitting down - or doing what most doddering old lady's do and fussing about the place. No. Just stood in the one position for the entire scene. This drove me insane. Overall though excellent voice, posture, and interpretation. Certainly the most likeable and believable character of the 1st act.
Martin
A small role but was pulled off with the necessary efficiency. So many supporting actors feel the need to star in the scenes they are in rather than "support" their fellow actors - neither Martin nor the female messenger/Servant fell into that trap with the exception of their comic like marching - for people in an office that would march everyday, perhaps it could have been toned down slightly - just a thought.
Female messenger
Smart efficient, robotic. Great job, perhaps a little over the top at times when she got to say more that 3 words in a row, and I doubt she could have handled a role that demanded more layers, but nevertheless, in the role that she did do, she was great, so what more can I ask?
It's a shame that despite a superb translation of the script with complete attention and understanding to the main themes of the novel, the actual performances, and in particular, direction, showed none of this. 1984 is an incredibly relevant, believable play - that is what makes it so very frightening, even to this day. It was so disappointing that it was executed so badly, at times I found myself closing my eyes trying to imagine how the lines of this great script would sound if they were coming out of the mouths of actors who understood what the play and it's themes were actually about, and a director that had managed to convey that to the actors (and bother blocking.).
Beaumaris seems to have an excellent resource of untapped talent, and despite my nasty gripes, the cast showed potential if nothing else. They had the right script, but really needed a strong mentor to bring out the best in all of them, I'm sorry to say that it didn't happen.