Dust by Zac Gillam

Dust 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.

Thanks for your review Cat. The show has been extremely sucessful, with sell-outs on several nights.

Here's the review from the West Australian:

By Pip Christmass

"Blue Room's latest production, Dust, is a family affair in more ways than one. Directed by Cliff Gillam and written by his son, Zac, this inaugural work by local company Looking Glass Productions is a futuristic family drama that explores the impact of global politics on the realm of the personal and domestic.

Thematically, this is by no means a new concept. But Dust's dystopian air will strike a chord with anyone disturbed by the idea of a global society dominated by Western superpowers, faceless corporations and post-9/11 terrorist mania.

Set in Sydney in 2070, Dust depicts a world whose geopolitical climate has been deeply affected by terrorist-era politics and ravaged by Middle Eastern wars.

Slowly, a post-nuclear toxic dust is infiltrating the Sydney home of Margaret (Jacq Fairfax) and David (Mark Blades), threatening the health of Margaret's unborn baby and setting a series of emotional crises in motion. David's father, Gareth (excellently portrayed by Tim Walker), has also come to stay, complicating an already tense situation.

David, a history teacher, likens George Bush's war on terror to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that ignited World War I but for his students, September 11, 2001, is just a date in the history books.

Only one of David's students, the wayward but intelligent Mary (Alex Milne), seems to understand the links between a distant past, her suffocating present and an oppressive future.

As Gillam envisages it, Sydney in 2070 is not all that far removed from the current global situation, which is why this somewhat bleak look into the future seems so realistic.

David and Margaret's world is hamstrung by resource shortages, environmental pollution, robotic and impersonal corporate services and slightly insidious ultra-technology. Bioterrorist attacks are rife and bombs explode at random in train stations.

In other words, Dust explores the tensions created within a marriage marked by fear, not of what is inside the domestic realm but what lies outside it.

Gillam creates a slightly eerie, apocalyptic feel using limited props. A hissing video screen, mobile phone gadgetry, strong lighting, futuristic kitchen accoutrements and stark, modernist costuming effectively convey the feel of a society that, rather than reaping the benefits of technological progress and economic power, is simply struggling to survive each day.

I was struck by the quality of acting in Dust, especially Jacq Fairfax's edgy, fractious Margaret and Tim Walker's humorous, intelligent portrayal of Gareth.

What also interested me about this production was its combination of science-fiction elements with solid domestic drama. The unusual amalgamation of futuristic references (Orwell, Huxley and Mary's Clockwork Orange-like futurespeak) and 1960s style kitchen-sink drama make for an engaging and thought-provoking piece of theatre."

So, don't miss out!

On til Saturday 18th Dec, starting 8pm @ Blue Room. Tix $18 adult, $12 concession & $10 Blue Room members.

Bookings on 9227 7005.

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.

An excellent review Juniper Berry, lessened by that peculiar “Uni student view” of the USA being the “Real Satan.”

The war against terror is wrong? Jesus wept!

Although not in any way excusing Bush, Blair and Howard, (and by the way, try saying that as Australia, Great Britain and the USA), for the disgusting tragedy that is Iraq, it really doesnÂ’t matter whether the terrorist is a Muslim fanatic, an IRA madman, a bullying Jew, a machete wielding African butcher, or a redneck Christian, the result is the same and our world would be a far better place, for their obliteration, in all their guises.
Greg Ross

After reading Junpier Berry's (is that your real name!?) review of Dust I felt compelled to add my own two cents worth. The great thing about theatre (and websites like this) is that people's work and ideas are open to debate. I respect your opinion of the play Juniper but I was a little saddened by the relentless negativity of your response (maybe the bleakness of Dust influenced your mood when writing it? I know I've been feeling pretty bleak since seeing it!).

I was so impressed to see a show at The Blue Room that was selling out regularly. In my experience of going to The Blue Room, I have never seen that before. It's always been a slightly disheartening experience that I seem to come on nights when I'm one of only a dozen or so people in the audience. Looking Glass should be commended on such a successful debut- both financially and in terms of getting people thinking and talking after the show. It was amazing to hear the discussions going on in the bar afterward. For a new theatre company, that's really impressive. I have no student theatre experience to qualify my comments but I was struck emotionally by the play (congratulations to all the actors involved for their superb efforts!) and by the ideas explored by Zac Gillam. It's really exciting to see so much new talent on display.

The upshot is that Looking Glass is fledgling and this has obviously been a huge learning curve for all the people involved. Rather than being put down, Looking Glass should be encouraged to continue to find new creative theatre for the people of Perth.

Well done to all involved- I look forward to seeing the next one!

Greg Ross wrote:
>
> An excellent review Juniper Berry, lessened by that peculiar
> “Uni student view” of the USA being the “Real Satan.”
>
> The war against terror is wrong? Jesus wept!
>
> Although not in any way excusing Bush, Blair and Howard,
> (and by the way, try saying that as Australia, Great Britain
> and the USA), for the disgusting tragedy that is Iraq, it
> really doesnÂ’t matter whether the terrorist is a Muslim
> fanatic, an IRA madman, a bullying Jew, a machete wielding
> African butcher, or a redneck Christian, the result is the
> same and our world would be a far better place, for their
> obliteration, in all their guises.
> Greg Ross



A 'peculiar uni student' view?? Isn't that a peculiar, sweeping, statement?
I don't read criticism of the US as the thrust of Juniper Berry's review at all, I rather understood that to be a view the play was pushing, which Juniper was taking an issue with - quite the opposite of what you imply, Greg.

The archetypal uni student view on war is represented to me by the image of my parent's generation protesting about Vietnam. They were a minority, but they were a huge movement worldwide that had profound social influence. While perhaps not popular at the time, today we look back at those protesters with an undisguised respect and pride.
I wonder if my children's generation will look back with any pride at the protestors about the war in Iraq? Will they even be able to point to any?


I find the view (regardless of whose it is) of the USA being the real Satan FAR less thoroughly terrifying than the USA Govt's own seeming viewpoint that they have the mandate of God.


Jesus wept? My understanding is that Jesus did in fact believe war on terror WAS wrong. He lived in a country under occupation, and managed to be extraordinarily political against the occupying Roman government AND against the overthrown Jewish government, without resorting to or promoting any kind of violence.
Whether or not you accept the religious doctrine, to use the paradigms of Jesus and Satan and then suggest that a war is the solution to obliterate all sinners seems confused, and perhaps hypocritical. Unless you believe in the God from above that does the deed for us in the form of a 40 day and night flood?

The Coalition of the Willing appears to want to achieve the same end in much the same way...so aren't they likening themselves to that God? Open the floodgates against all terror and sin!

The trouble with obliteration is that it is unavoidably violent. So regardless of the terrible burden you take upon yourself to fairly judge which fanatics, madmen, bullies, and rednecks qualify to be obliterated, as soon as you pronounce judgment upon them you join their team, and deserve their fate. The only solution is to call upon God to do it for you... or to act as though you are God.


But as for our world being a much better place? For a start, it would cease to be our world, as we've always defined it.
Perhaps the result could be described, in the words of Talking Head's David Byrne:

"Heaven is a place where nothing, nothing ever happens."



Cheers,
Craig

Relentless negativity or otherwise, Juniper made well-informed and constructive comments.

I believe that the very fact that 'Dust' is Looking Glass' debut production, makes it more important to give as much constructive comments on it. I'd hate to give a company such as Looking Glass, who are obviously committed to creating quality theatre a sense of false security if it is apparent that there are a few misgivings with their first production.

I saw the production on Thursday night as well and I too agree that the show was very friends/family-friendly. As the lights were going down to start the show, people were already clapping and cheering. I've been to some professional internationally renowned productions and I don't remember ever hearing an audience clapping and cheering before they've even seen the production! I believe people like Juniper are needed to give constructive criticism and of course, she may not be necessarily right but its up to Looking Glass to take what they want from all the reviews.

Juniper's review had its mixture of positive and constructive criticism, and to be honest if the balance was tipped towards one way, then quite possibly Juniper may have thought the show was not quite polished yet.

You are completely right Sarah, about how heartening it is to see a theatre company like Looking Glass fill houses up with audience, it can be quite scary sometimes when u look at a booking sheet on the night and theres only one name on it! That comes to a great network of contacts, the choice of play and marketing savvy - but lets not mix that up with the actual production values.

Heres hoping Looking Glass will continue to learn and grow from each production they produce. Good luck!


Crispy.

Salutations Craig

I rather thought you'd reply, but a touch surprised that you appear to have misread my comment.

I took issue only with the reviewer's statement that the war on terror was wrong. In fact I would have thought my feelings on Iraq were obvious. Regardless of the posturing of Bush and Howard etc, I don't think the two are related, although the Coalition of the Willing have now created an avenue for terrorism (in Iraq).

What would you advocate in dealing with the bastardry of terrorists? Sit back? Invite them in for a cup of coffee? As for redefining our world as we now it, what's wrong with that? There's a few things need changing, not the least of which, are thousands of years of wars.

In terms of the droll comment from David Byrne, I'm afraid I'm in no position to argue with him - I'm not religious and unlike him, I have never been to Heaven. But I can tell you that I was, like your parents, a Vietnam protester, indeed, this whole Iraq thing is frighteningly reminiscent.

What has happened in recent times, is that terrorists of all persuasions have turned me into a relapsed pacifist. Does that make me a God? No, just an ordinary bloke who has come to realise that you can't keep turning the other cheek, although I wish it were so.
Kind regards
Greg

Greg Ross wrote:
>
> a touch surprised that you appear to have misread my comment.
> I took issue only with the reviewer's statement that the war
> on terror was wrong.

Perhaps I DID misread, but my interpretation of, "Yes the United War against terror front is wrong but..." was not that the reviewer was stating an earnest opinion, but rather dismissing it with a yawn. I took them to be saying 'Yes, we get it, but..." to the playwright.

However, I didn't see the play, so as I said, I'm probably wrong. If so, sorry to start off on the wrong foot with you Greg. I was really more interested in the other statements you made.


> What would you advocate in dealing with the bastardry of
> terrorists? Sit back? Invite them in for a cup of coffee? As
> for redefining our world as we now it, what's wrong with
> that? There's a few things need changing, not the least of
> which, are thousands of years of wars.

Absolutely right...the world is worth redefining. In fact, it'll continue to be sad if we don't try.

But I'm still skeptical about how we define terrorists. And to tell you the truth, inviting them in for a cup of coffee would be a damn good first step. It's far too easy to label them as 'evil', 'satanic', 'criminally insane' and blame their gods, when the reality is that it's virtually always economic. And the USA as an economic plundering giant, combined with their god-given self-righteousness is an obvious catalyst for much world unrest.
That of course is a widely sweeping statement, but it's also a recognisable cliche so there must be some truth to it. Oil, wealth and maintaining political might have long been a basis of the US foreign policy, as well as the sideline advantage of selling arms.
Our nation's leaders regularly sit down to coffee with politicians ultimately responsible for murder and pillaging...we just don't call them terrorists.


> In terms of the droll comment from David Byrne, I'm afraid
> I'm in no position to argue with him - I'm not religious and
> unlike him, I have never been to Heaven.

I doubt David Byrne has been to heaven...I think his definition was deduced by pure clever logic. Mick Hucknell of Simply Red and Iva Davies in his solo career both agreed with him enough to release cover versions, and that's good enough for me.


If I have to come up with an alternative solution, I have to admit that I can't do it yet. But the key theme would be understanding what the terrorists think they have to gain, and maybe helping them find alternative ways to achieve those ideals. I daresay it would mean making their lives better and their economies less dependent on the US and it's buddies.
I'm pretty certain it would not include a great deal of self-righteous extermination.


Cheers,
Craig

Craig,
You make some good points here, which you point out are derived from comments other people have made, rather than the play being reviewed.
Since you sprang to my support on a previous topic (which I will NOT revisit here!!) I thought I would agree with your general comment, about having coffee with terrorists.
No less an authority than Sir Winston Churchill said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war". It would be cheaper and probably more productive to sit with the members of the axis of evil, to see what they are so antsy about. Maybe it could be solved or approached without armed conflict so that we could see where each of us has room to manoeuvre, where each of us can change, where each of us can't change, and where each of us can live with the others' inability to change. This may be wishful thinking, but having coffee is a better image than a young boy with both his arms blown off by mistake, in an attack which killed his relatives.
Peace -- Shalom -- Salaam