Dust by Zac Gillam
Mon, 13 Dec 2004, 11:21 amWalter Plinge10 posts in thread
Dust by Zac Gillam
Mon, 13 Dec 2004, 11:21 amDust by Zac Gillam- at the Blue Room Wed-Sat this week.
Being familiar with Zac Gillams work from the 2002 comedy “The Phantum” I was warned that his newest theatrical offering “Dust” was something quite different.
Sure, Zac leaves the spoof genre for a futuristic family drama in which there are no singalongs or dance routines, but his characteristic wit and talent for social commentary carry this dystopic forecast of AustraliaÂ’s future.
From the plays outset the audience comes face to face with a world where water shortage is extreme, gas masks an essential item and society is highly monitored, from food consumption to reproductive practices.
While there are some inconsistencies in ZacÂ’s imagined future, the actors commit themselves totally to the obstacles this world provides; the leaking air vents, the drug culture and other consequences of societies disintegration.
What makes this production impressive is its comprehensive use of design and media. The set is solid, complete with vid-screen and working extractor fan (although the inclusion of a screen door in a world covered by dust was somewhat perplexing). The Blue RoomÂ’s intimate main stage is used effectively in creating the settings required by the script; from doctors office to brothel to drug den to school room.
Another innovative inclusion is the plays assortment of voiceovers, which punctuate the intense action with more mundane aspects of life in 2070 and give some indication of worlds prior destruction. Peter Holland and Steven Lee are (not surprisingly) fantastic news readers and Tilly OzdolayÂ’s Gary Cruise is 1080 6ix of the future!
Ashleigh Greig as usual delivers a high standard of work with his soundscape, which, coupled with Ichina SasamoriÂ’s emotive lighting design, adds sensitivity to some of the plays more poignant moments.
This is an engaging piece of theatre that responds effectively to the worldÂ’s current political climate. It also presents relationships that are not only believable in a futuristic Sydney setting; they could just as easily exist in the familiar surroundings of Perth 2004.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am closley associated with a number of people in this production, however I suspect that serves to make me more critical of their work.
Being familiar with Zac Gillams work from the 2002 comedy “The Phantum” I was warned that his newest theatrical offering “Dust” was something quite different.
Sure, Zac leaves the spoof genre for a futuristic family drama in which there are no singalongs or dance routines, but his characteristic wit and talent for social commentary carry this dystopic forecast of AustraliaÂ’s future.
From the plays outset the audience comes face to face with a world where water shortage is extreme, gas masks an essential item and society is highly monitored, from food consumption to reproductive practices.
While there are some inconsistencies in ZacÂ’s imagined future, the actors commit themselves totally to the obstacles this world provides; the leaking air vents, the drug culture and other consequences of societies disintegration.
What makes this production impressive is its comprehensive use of design and media. The set is solid, complete with vid-screen and working extractor fan (although the inclusion of a screen door in a world covered by dust was somewhat perplexing). The Blue RoomÂ’s intimate main stage is used effectively in creating the settings required by the script; from doctors office to brothel to drug den to school room.
Another innovative inclusion is the plays assortment of voiceovers, which punctuate the intense action with more mundane aspects of life in 2070 and give some indication of worlds prior destruction. Peter Holland and Steven Lee are (not surprisingly) fantastic news readers and Tilly OzdolayÂ’s Gary Cruise is 1080 6ix of the future!
Ashleigh Greig as usual delivers a high standard of work with his soundscape, which, coupled with Ichina SasamoriÂ’s emotive lighting design, adds sensitivity to some of the plays more poignant moments.
This is an engaging piece of theatre that responds effectively to the worldÂ’s current political climate. It also presents relationships that are not only believable in a futuristic Sydney setting; they could just as easily exist in the familiar surroundings of Perth 2004.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am closley associated with a number of people in this production, however I suspect that serves to make me more critical of their work.
Re: Dust by Zac Gillam
Sat, 18 Dec 2004, 04:04 pmWalter Plinge
Hi All,
I managed to catch Dust at the Blue Room on Thursday night and boy was it a sell out. The response was enthusiastic, however I had a destinct feeling it was a friend and family environment I had found myself in.
I, however, was not as enthusiastic (nor did it seem were the couple next to me wishing they were making out instead of in a theatre and that could have had something to do with my unease).
The set was well thought out and utilised. I always fear the idea of box sets in the Blue room - fearing how much space is left to explore realms other than the main setting. The tech team cleverly managed (as mentioned in other reviews) to bring us brothels, class rooms, doctors offices and the like. The stark white of the house contrasting well with the fear of the ever present dust constantly being blown about outside the seemingly safe walls of the family unit. The integration of working appliances such as the television and fan were well handled.
Costuming was simple, yet effective, a similar vein of styles flowing through the futuristic designs was well handled, though I would have thought in such a dreary world where flowers are a thing of awe and beauty, colours would be utilised to the best of their abilities rather than being saved for inside a brothel. However the starkness did help to create the stark vision of the future that was being portrayed.
For the most part, the acting was excellent. Jacq Fairfax handled her role competantly, facing some of the more emotionally revealing scenes in the show and making the necessary transitions effectively. Mark Blades' David seemed to be made up of two people. The teacher and the husband. There didn't seem to be a destinct emotional link from one to the other.
Alex Milne's Mary was perhaps the most human and believeable of all the characters. Her use of futuristic slang was commendable in making them sound natural.
Tim Walker's Gareth was a necessary grounding to Mary and David's home life. His character, like Alex's, very human and believeably fallible.
None of them could be faulted for their efforts or abilities. The fault I found was in the scripting and direction.
Shortly after the first few minutes the show became a game of verbal ping pong with limited but constantly changing players.
It is understandable that a world so ruined by war would be rife with tension, but in theatrical terms there are so many different ways to experiment with said tension. Dust's script and direction found me initially trying to guess which two characters were going to have a yelling match next before swiftly moving to me knowing exactly where and when the next conflict would arise as well as how it would take place and then onto me wondering when the constant yelling would end. Verbal levels, physical emotional representation (body language), varied approaches needed to be explored. As it was it became a tedious two hours and ten minutes of repetitious confrontations.
The future created by Zac Gillam is certainly a bleak one and the inventiveness is to be commended. Created history, new slang, drugs, technology - these aspects were well thought out and used. As a previous review said, this could very well be modern day Perth with a few simple changes.
However, it isn't set in modern day perth but in 2070 Sydney. And with all the history that can occur within 66 years, I find it a tad self indulgent to air one's opinion about the cause of such dreaded war being the initial response to 9/11 and then brushing off any argument (such as Marg was going to use) with emotional blackmail (Gareth's wife was killed by a suicide bomber in a super market when David was four). This didn't gel within the time frame either. if he was four it would have occured around 2035 - thirty four years after that fateful day in New York - yet they directly attribute it to Bush's response. (when I would have actually thought the catalyst - as argued by david and Mary in one scene was actually the initial attack not the response)
Yes the United War against terror front is wrong but with all of the other creativity apparent in the script, a fictitious yet similar event could have been used as "the catalyst".
And to ruin the end for those that haven't seen it (though I believe it ends tonight - so those of you who haven't seen in look away now) the seizure that strikes Marg at the end - where the devil did that caome from? With all of the other information given about the effect of the dust, the new technology, drugs and the like, I am sure the inclusion of this condition that is known to strike expectant mothers with exposure to the dust could have been touched upon fleetingly. Yes this could have ruined the surprise - yet as it is we are assaulted with so much information (including a whole section on the Charlie Chaplin Curse that was spread via paper money - very inventive and thought through - excluding this one poignant and pertinent piece that I found myself thinking that the writer didn't know how to finish the play and simply thought to kill off the lead character.
Referring back to the arguments between the characters, there didn't seem to be any apparent journey for the majority of them. David loves his wife but is tempted by his attractive and intelligent student Mary. He comes home, has an argument with his wife. He goes back to school to Mary has an argument with Mary then there is a little flirtation. He comes home, has an argument with Marg. He goes and gets his dad, comes home and they all have an argument. She goes to bed and Gareth has an argument with David. David goes to school and has an argument with Mary then they make up and flirt. He comes home, Gareth has an argument with marg who then has one with David and then she storms off to her doctor who seems to have very little emotional attachment to her patients, though Marg apparentyl sees one there before coming home and having an argument with David. A few arguments later, David goes to a brothel has an argument with Mary then makes up with her before coming home to end the play.
A little more exploration into the characters, why they are like they are - why did marg have an affair, why is David so obsessed with the past - trying to teach his students that consequences have actions only to neglect his own actions (getting filters for the vent and Marg's gas mask) only to cause his own family's downfall? Why is Marg so emotionally pent up all the time and why is she returning to religion? And why is it frowned upon by Gareth and David?
I am not 100% sure if these factors could have been discovered if the production team wasn't so close knit, but from my experience with plays being written and then directed by the writer or someone very close to them while I was at university, they tended to have critical blinkers on. That was why rules came in to prevent this occuring there without having an AD that was completely unattached from the initial creative phase. A company made up of experienced actors and techies as Looking Glass productions is, they should have spent more time working over the script before selecting it as their first piece. The script has a lot of potential but from what I have heard there were changes being made to it during the rehearsal period (such as the addition of the possibility that David was not the father of the child) - this could be hearsay but even still, with careful examination and a few more drafts, Dust could be something very special.
Dust overall was a good concept. A future destroyed by the super powers of the world, like America where the rest of the world have to live with the consequences. The problem I found was with the characters. The actors did what they could with what they were handed but it didn't have enough power to enable me to feel for them as I thought I would by the end of the play. If I were to meet with these characters they'd simply argue with me.
But with all the depression these people were facing and the lack of emotional depth (by this I don't mean the actors weren't portraying the negative emotions well I mean that that was all we saw) within the play, I'd probably find myself following Mary into self destruction with drugs or wishing I was the victim of an attack on the transit system as Marg's friend was. At least she would be with God or out of the hell hole that was so controlled by dust.
I managed to catch Dust at the Blue Room on Thursday night and boy was it a sell out. The response was enthusiastic, however I had a destinct feeling it was a friend and family environment I had found myself in.
I, however, was not as enthusiastic (nor did it seem were the couple next to me wishing they were making out instead of in a theatre and that could have had something to do with my unease).
The set was well thought out and utilised. I always fear the idea of box sets in the Blue room - fearing how much space is left to explore realms other than the main setting. The tech team cleverly managed (as mentioned in other reviews) to bring us brothels, class rooms, doctors offices and the like. The stark white of the house contrasting well with the fear of the ever present dust constantly being blown about outside the seemingly safe walls of the family unit. The integration of working appliances such as the television and fan were well handled.
Costuming was simple, yet effective, a similar vein of styles flowing through the futuristic designs was well handled, though I would have thought in such a dreary world where flowers are a thing of awe and beauty, colours would be utilised to the best of their abilities rather than being saved for inside a brothel. However the starkness did help to create the stark vision of the future that was being portrayed.
For the most part, the acting was excellent. Jacq Fairfax handled her role competantly, facing some of the more emotionally revealing scenes in the show and making the necessary transitions effectively. Mark Blades' David seemed to be made up of two people. The teacher and the husband. There didn't seem to be a destinct emotional link from one to the other.
Alex Milne's Mary was perhaps the most human and believeable of all the characters. Her use of futuristic slang was commendable in making them sound natural.
Tim Walker's Gareth was a necessary grounding to Mary and David's home life. His character, like Alex's, very human and believeably fallible.
None of them could be faulted for their efforts or abilities. The fault I found was in the scripting and direction.
Shortly after the first few minutes the show became a game of verbal ping pong with limited but constantly changing players.
It is understandable that a world so ruined by war would be rife with tension, but in theatrical terms there are so many different ways to experiment with said tension. Dust's script and direction found me initially trying to guess which two characters were going to have a yelling match next before swiftly moving to me knowing exactly where and when the next conflict would arise as well as how it would take place and then onto me wondering when the constant yelling would end. Verbal levels, physical emotional representation (body language), varied approaches needed to be explored. As it was it became a tedious two hours and ten minutes of repetitious confrontations.
The future created by Zac Gillam is certainly a bleak one and the inventiveness is to be commended. Created history, new slang, drugs, technology - these aspects were well thought out and used. As a previous review said, this could very well be modern day Perth with a few simple changes.
However, it isn't set in modern day perth but in 2070 Sydney. And with all the history that can occur within 66 years, I find it a tad self indulgent to air one's opinion about the cause of such dreaded war being the initial response to 9/11 and then brushing off any argument (such as Marg was going to use) with emotional blackmail (Gareth's wife was killed by a suicide bomber in a super market when David was four). This didn't gel within the time frame either. if he was four it would have occured around 2035 - thirty four years after that fateful day in New York - yet they directly attribute it to Bush's response. (when I would have actually thought the catalyst - as argued by david and Mary in one scene was actually the initial attack not the response)
Yes the United War against terror front is wrong but with all of the other creativity apparent in the script, a fictitious yet similar event could have been used as "the catalyst".
And to ruin the end for those that haven't seen it (though I believe it ends tonight - so those of you who haven't seen in look away now) the seizure that strikes Marg at the end - where the devil did that caome from? With all of the other information given about the effect of the dust, the new technology, drugs and the like, I am sure the inclusion of this condition that is known to strike expectant mothers with exposure to the dust could have been touched upon fleetingly. Yes this could have ruined the surprise - yet as it is we are assaulted with so much information (including a whole section on the Charlie Chaplin Curse that was spread via paper money - very inventive and thought through - excluding this one poignant and pertinent piece that I found myself thinking that the writer didn't know how to finish the play and simply thought to kill off the lead character.
Referring back to the arguments between the characters, there didn't seem to be any apparent journey for the majority of them. David loves his wife but is tempted by his attractive and intelligent student Mary. He comes home, has an argument with his wife. He goes back to school to Mary has an argument with Mary then there is a little flirtation. He comes home, has an argument with Marg. He goes and gets his dad, comes home and they all have an argument. She goes to bed and Gareth has an argument with David. David goes to school and has an argument with Mary then they make up and flirt. He comes home, Gareth has an argument with marg who then has one with David and then she storms off to her doctor who seems to have very little emotional attachment to her patients, though Marg apparentyl sees one there before coming home and having an argument with David. A few arguments later, David goes to a brothel has an argument with Mary then makes up with her before coming home to end the play.
A little more exploration into the characters, why they are like they are - why did marg have an affair, why is David so obsessed with the past - trying to teach his students that consequences have actions only to neglect his own actions (getting filters for the vent and Marg's gas mask) only to cause his own family's downfall? Why is Marg so emotionally pent up all the time and why is she returning to religion? And why is it frowned upon by Gareth and David?
I am not 100% sure if these factors could have been discovered if the production team wasn't so close knit, but from my experience with plays being written and then directed by the writer or someone very close to them while I was at university, they tended to have critical blinkers on. That was why rules came in to prevent this occuring there without having an AD that was completely unattached from the initial creative phase. A company made up of experienced actors and techies as Looking Glass productions is, they should have spent more time working over the script before selecting it as their first piece. The script has a lot of potential but from what I have heard there were changes being made to it during the rehearsal period (such as the addition of the possibility that David was not the father of the child) - this could be hearsay but even still, with careful examination and a few more drafts, Dust could be something very special.
Dust overall was a good concept. A future destroyed by the super powers of the world, like America where the rest of the world have to live with the consequences. The problem I found was with the characters. The actors did what they could with what they were handed but it didn't have enough power to enable me to feel for them as I thought I would by the end of the play. If I were to meet with these characters they'd simply argue with me.
But with all the depression these people were facing and the lack of emotional depth (by this I don't mean the actors weren't portraying the negative emotions well I mean that that was all we saw) within the play, I'd probably find myself following Mary into self destruction with drugs or wishing I was the victim of an attack on the transit system as Marg's friend was. At least she would be with God or out of the hell hole that was so controlled by dust.
- ···
- ···
- ···