The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
Mon, 13 Feb 2006, 11:37 amAHarwood13 posts in thread
The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
Mon, 13 Feb 2006, 11:37 amHey everyone!
As I am leaving in only two short months I have made it a mission to see as many shows as I can before I go. I managed to catch the latest at Playlovers out in Floreat the other night.
Overall I thought the production was pretty decent. The first thing that catches your eye (obviously) is the front of house. And boy have you guys pulled your socks up. The whole foyer was beautifully decked out and it was also great to see what you've done with the green room.
On walking into the theatre, again it is hard to avoid looking at the set. It was simply beautiful. On such a limited stage, you guys always manage to bring out the best. The decor was consistent with the feel of the English Hotel room, the colours bright, the detail was fantastic. Perhaps a little too much as I found my eyes wandering sometimes to have a look at something I had missed earlier.
Second act had a much simpler set, but just as detailed when considering the context, showing the wear on the walls, the choice of colours to location. Well done.
Now onto the show itself. In involving story, I can see why Mr Hough Nelson has wanted and waited so long for the right to direct the piece.
I won't give away too much of the story I hope.
I am also not going to comment on individual nudity as I find in most reviews of plays that contain nudity it always tends to fall on the dirty side of whether he was well hung or not or how big her breasts are. I will say that the inclusion of nudity was an interesting choice, not 100% essential in my view but a good shocking technique, entertainment piece and crowd puller. You simply had to listen to the audience to know they enjoyed it.
To start with the biggest part. Always the best way to go. An admirable job. I feel Peter Clark was one of the few characters that allowed himself to get involved in his character. His highs, his lows were well portrayed and explored. I must say if that was what he was like, I wouldn't much like Oscar Wilde in person, but that's just me. His handle on the witicisms of Wilde were well handled and the timing was good. Peter was able to create a well rounded and consistent characterisation. He looked very comfortable in Oscar's skin.
I do feel that remaining seated for the bows is not a good choice. You can all feel free to disagree but I feel as an actor it is a sign of respect and appreciation to stand when taking your bows. If you can run off as the lights go down, you can certainly stand. If it is because the actor is so overcome with the work, this would be the first time I have seen the actor so incapacitated and I speak from personal experience as some of you may recall Carpe Diem a few years back, when I say I don't think there is any level of emotional incapacitation that restricts you from giving the audience your sign of appreciation and respect for their applause. Whether it was a director's choice, or actor's I don't know.
Both Benjamin Russell and George McCabe also gave clean, yet levelled performances. Each had different relationships with Oscar Wilde and different reactions to what was going on and these views were clearly displayed for the audience. There was also a fine amount of detail put into their characterisation as well as that of Tara Khin in regards to their status, their duties and how they behaved for their guests. The making obeisance to each member of Wilde's party, or when entering or exiting the room. Very well performed. Even the miming as they prepared the lobster was fine tuned and entertaining to watch.
Michael Balmer's Robbie started off slightly unsteady. Throughout the play he strengthened and found his centre. I don't think this was altogether part of the character's development rather than a slight uncertainty of the character himself. There seemed to be the odd line quibble but the meaning and the purpose of the character was well shown. Again, I feel Michael entered the role more effectively in the second act. As the character was more confident, so was Michael.
The weakest link, not that I am saying he did a bad job, but I feel he didn't quite grasp the emotional centre or depth of the role was Josh Crane as Bosie, Oscar's lover. For all the yelling and affectation, there wasn't the real spirit behind it. This is a man who is in love with Wilde at the beginning of the play. But there was no bond between the two men. There were too many airs and graces for anyone to perceive him as a lover. Josh did managed to embody a lord. The problem was he managed to portray it even when he was naked or semi naked and in an emotional conversation with Oscar. He talks of being a rebel, we know he has been sleeping around with men and living a rather debaucheous life. I feel his character would have relaxed a lot more over the two years between acts at least, or when he is naked in his own home, not be so contrite. Definitely in the moments he is saying he is returning to his old life and giving up his life of sin, he can show the affectations, but they just didn't sit right through the beginning of Act Two or in the privacy of the hotel room.
Nick Arcaro as Galileo was suitably cast. His language skills are evident, he also understood his character and his position in the scene.
The only other problem I had with the play was the blocking and upstaging. So often was Oscar placed upstage that all the other characters had to turn their backs to the audience we lost any emotional connection with them. There are some effective back actors, but in this sort of play it doesn't work. This could have been rectified in two ways. Firstly, stop moving Oscar so far back or have the other actors move back too. Or secondly, and probably the method I would prefer, stop making the conversations between Bosie and Oscar or Robbie and Oscar being face to face. A lot of the lines in the dialogue could have been delivered to the audience from Bosie and Robbie, or at least facing slightly more toward the front but not looking directly at Oscar. This would have added levels to the final argument between Bosie and Oscar for one, showing Bosie's new found or at least faux independance from Oscar. Yet all these conversations seemed to be trapped in a face to the side of Oscar's face stand off. A good example of what I mean is in the second act when Oscar is sitting by the fireplace, Bosie is by the window upstage and Galileo is on the couch. Oscar spoke to both men whilst only looking at one or even whilst he was looking out at the audience. It's a theatrical convention we all know of and needs to be explored more in this show.
The audience thoroughly enjoyed the performance the night I went, as did I. It's great to see some new work being explored and performed well in Perth. The piece was entertaining, emotional and intellectual all at once, which is a hard thing to balance sometimes. But definitely well worth a look.
Thanks Y'all
Anthony
As I am leaving in only two short months I have made it a mission to see as many shows as I can before I go. I managed to catch the latest at Playlovers out in Floreat the other night.
Overall I thought the production was pretty decent. The first thing that catches your eye (obviously) is the front of house. And boy have you guys pulled your socks up. The whole foyer was beautifully decked out and it was also great to see what you've done with the green room.
On walking into the theatre, again it is hard to avoid looking at the set. It was simply beautiful. On such a limited stage, you guys always manage to bring out the best. The decor was consistent with the feel of the English Hotel room, the colours bright, the detail was fantastic. Perhaps a little too much as I found my eyes wandering sometimes to have a look at something I had missed earlier.
Second act had a much simpler set, but just as detailed when considering the context, showing the wear on the walls, the choice of colours to location. Well done.
Now onto the show itself. In involving story, I can see why Mr Hough Nelson has wanted and waited so long for the right to direct the piece.
I won't give away too much of the story I hope.
I am also not going to comment on individual nudity as I find in most reviews of plays that contain nudity it always tends to fall on the dirty side of whether he was well hung or not or how big her breasts are. I will say that the inclusion of nudity was an interesting choice, not 100% essential in my view but a good shocking technique, entertainment piece and crowd puller. You simply had to listen to the audience to know they enjoyed it.
To start with the biggest part. Always the best way to go. An admirable job. I feel Peter Clark was one of the few characters that allowed himself to get involved in his character. His highs, his lows were well portrayed and explored. I must say if that was what he was like, I wouldn't much like Oscar Wilde in person, but that's just me. His handle on the witicisms of Wilde were well handled and the timing was good. Peter was able to create a well rounded and consistent characterisation. He looked very comfortable in Oscar's skin.
I do feel that remaining seated for the bows is not a good choice. You can all feel free to disagree but I feel as an actor it is a sign of respect and appreciation to stand when taking your bows. If you can run off as the lights go down, you can certainly stand. If it is because the actor is so overcome with the work, this would be the first time I have seen the actor so incapacitated and I speak from personal experience as some of you may recall Carpe Diem a few years back, when I say I don't think there is any level of emotional incapacitation that restricts you from giving the audience your sign of appreciation and respect for their applause. Whether it was a director's choice, or actor's I don't know.
Both Benjamin Russell and George McCabe also gave clean, yet levelled performances. Each had different relationships with Oscar Wilde and different reactions to what was going on and these views were clearly displayed for the audience. There was also a fine amount of detail put into their characterisation as well as that of Tara Khin in regards to their status, their duties and how they behaved for their guests. The making obeisance to each member of Wilde's party, or when entering or exiting the room. Very well performed. Even the miming as they prepared the lobster was fine tuned and entertaining to watch.
Michael Balmer's Robbie started off slightly unsteady. Throughout the play he strengthened and found his centre. I don't think this was altogether part of the character's development rather than a slight uncertainty of the character himself. There seemed to be the odd line quibble but the meaning and the purpose of the character was well shown. Again, I feel Michael entered the role more effectively in the second act. As the character was more confident, so was Michael.
The weakest link, not that I am saying he did a bad job, but I feel he didn't quite grasp the emotional centre or depth of the role was Josh Crane as Bosie, Oscar's lover. For all the yelling and affectation, there wasn't the real spirit behind it. This is a man who is in love with Wilde at the beginning of the play. But there was no bond between the two men. There were too many airs and graces for anyone to perceive him as a lover. Josh did managed to embody a lord. The problem was he managed to portray it even when he was naked or semi naked and in an emotional conversation with Oscar. He talks of being a rebel, we know he has been sleeping around with men and living a rather debaucheous life. I feel his character would have relaxed a lot more over the two years between acts at least, or when he is naked in his own home, not be so contrite. Definitely in the moments he is saying he is returning to his old life and giving up his life of sin, he can show the affectations, but they just didn't sit right through the beginning of Act Two or in the privacy of the hotel room.
Nick Arcaro as Galileo was suitably cast. His language skills are evident, he also understood his character and his position in the scene.
The only other problem I had with the play was the blocking and upstaging. So often was Oscar placed upstage that all the other characters had to turn their backs to the audience we lost any emotional connection with them. There are some effective back actors, but in this sort of play it doesn't work. This could have been rectified in two ways. Firstly, stop moving Oscar so far back or have the other actors move back too. Or secondly, and probably the method I would prefer, stop making the conversations between Bosie and Oscar or Robbie and Oscar being face to face. A lot of the lines in the dialogue could have been delivered to the audience from Bosie and Robbie, or at least facing slightly more toward the front but not looking directly at Oscar. This would have added levels to the final argument between Bosie and Oscar for one, showing Bosie's new found or at least faux independance from Oscar. Yet all these conversations seemed to be trapped in a face to the side of Oscar's face stand off. A good example of what I mean is in the second act when Oscar is sitting by the fireplace, Bosie is by the window upstage and Galileo is on the couch. Oscar spoke to both men whilst only looking at one or even whilst he was looking out at the audience. It's a theatrical convention we all know of and needs to be explored more in this show.
The audience thoroughly enjoyed the performance the night I went, as did I. It's great to see some new work being explored and performed well in Perth. The piece was entertaining, emotional and intellectual all at once, which is a hard thing to balance sometimes. But definitely well worth a look.
Thanks Y'all
Anthony
AHarwoodMon, 13 Feb 2006, 11:37 am
Hey everyone!
As I am leaving in only two short months I have made it a mission to see as many shows as I can before I go. I managed to catch the latest at Playlovers out in Floreat the other night.
Overall I thought the production was pretty decent. The first thing that catches your eye (obviously) is the front of house. And boy have you guys pulled your socks up. The whole foyer was beautifully decked out and it was also great to see what you've done with the green room.
On walking into the theatre, again it is hard to avoid looking at the set. It was simply beautiful. On such a limited stage, you guys always manage to bring out the best. The decor was consistent with the feel of the English Hotel room, the colours bright, the detail was fantastic. Perhaps a little too much as I found my eyes wandering sometimes to have a look at something I had missed earlier.
Second act had a much simpler set, but just as detailed when considering the context, showing the wear on the walls, the choice of colours to location. Well done.
Now onto the show itself. In involving story, I can see why Mr Hough Nelson has wanted and waited so long for the right to direct the piece.
I won't give away too much of the story I hope.
I am also not going to comment on individual nudity as I find in most reviews of plays that contain nudity it always tends to fall on the dirty side of whether he was well hung or not or how big her breasts are. I will say that the inclusion of nudity was an interesting choice, not 100% essential in my view but a good shocking technique, entertainment piece and crowd puller. You simply had to listen to the audience to know they enjoyed it.
To start with the biggest part. Always the best way to go. An admirable job. I feel Peter Clark was one of the few characters that allowed himself to get involved in his character. His highs, his lows were well portrayed and explored. I must say if that was what he was like, I wouldn't much like Oscar Wilde in person, but that's just me. His handle on the witicisms of Wilde were well handled and the timing was good. Peter was able to create a well rounded and consistent characterisation. He looked very comfortable in Oscar's skin.
I do feel that remaining seated for the bows is not a good choice. You can all feel free to disagree but I feel as an actor it is a sign of respect and appreciation to stand when taking your bows. If you can run off as the lights go down, you can certainly stand. If it is because the actor is so overcome with the work, this would be the first time I have seen the actor so incapacitated and I speak from personal experience as some of you may recall Carpe Diem a few years back, when I say I don't think there is any level of emotional incapacitation that restricts you from giving the audience your sign of appreciation and respect for their applause. Whether it was a director's choice, or actor's I don't know.
Both Benjamin Russell and George McCabe also gave clean, yet levelled performances. Each had different relationships with Oscar Wilde and different reactions to what was going on and these views were clearly displayed for the audience. There was also a fine amount of detail put into their characterisation as well as that of Tara Khin in regards to their status, their duties and how they behaved for their guests. The making obeisance to each member of Wilde's party, or when entering or exiting the room. Very well performed. Even the miming as they prepared the lobster was fine tuned and entertaining to watch.
Michael Balmer's Robbie started off slightly unsteady. Throughout the play he strengthened and found his centre. I don't think this was altogether part of the character's development rather than a slight uncertainty of the character himself. There seemed to be the odd line quibble but the meaning and the purpose of the character was well shown. Again, I feel Michael entered the role more effectively in the second act. As the character was more confident, so was Michael.
The weakest link, not that I am saying he did a bad job, but I feel he didn't quite grasp the emotional centre or depth of the role was Josh Crane as Bosie, Oscar's lover. For all the yelling and affectation, there wasn't the real spirit behind it. This is a man who is in love with Wilde at the beginning of the play. But there was no bond between the two men. There were too many airs and graces for anyone to perceive him as a lover. Josh did managed to embody a lord. The problem was he managed to portray it even when he was naked or semi naked and in an emotional conversation with Oscar. He talks of being a rebel, we know he has been sleeping around with men and living a rather debaucheous life. I feel his character would have relaxed a lot more over the two years between acts at least, or when he is naked in his own home, not be so contrite. Definitely in the moments he is saying he is returning to his old life and giving up his life of sin, he can show the affectations, but they just didn't sit right through the beginning of Act Two or in the privacy of the hotel room.
Nick Arcaro as Galileo was suitably cast. His language skills are evident, he also understood his character and his position in the scene.
The only other problem I had with the play was the blocking and upstaging. So often was Oscar placed upstage that all the other characters had to turn their backs to the audience we lost any emotional connection with them. There are some effective back actors, but in this sort of play it doesn't work. This could have been rectified in two ways. Firstly, stop moving Oscar so far back or have the other actors move back too. Or secondly, and probably the method I would prefer, stop making the conversations between Bosie and Oscar or Robbie and Oscar being face to face. A lot of the lines in the dialogue could have been delivered to the audience from Bosie and Robbie, or at least facing slightly more toward the front but not looking directly at Oscar. This would have added levels to the final argument between Bosie and Oscar for one, showing Bosie's new found or at least faux independance from Oscar. Yet all these conversations seemed to be trapped in a face to the side of Oscar's face stand off. A good example of what I mean is in the second act when Oscar is sitting by the fireplace, Bosie is by the window upstage and Galileo is on the couch. Oscar spoke to both men whilst only looking at one or even whilst he was looking out at the audience. It's a theatrical convention we all know of and needs to be explored more in this show.
The audience thoroughly enjoyed the performance the night I went, as did I. It's great to see some new work being explored and performed well in Perth. The piece was entertaining, emotional and intellectual all at once, which is a hard thing to balance sometimes. But definitely well worth a look.
Thanks Y'all
Anthony
As I am leaving in only two short months I have made it a mission to see as many shows as I can before I go. I managed to catch the latest at Playlovers out in Floreat the other night.
Overall I thought the production was pretty decent. The first thing that catches your eye (obviously) is the front of house. And boy have you guys pulled your socks up. The whole foyer was beautifully decked out and it was also great to see what you've done with the green room.
On walking into the theatre, again it is hard to avoid looking at the set. It was simply beautiful. On such a limited stage, you guys always manage to bring out the best. The decor was consistent with the feel of the English Hotel room, the colours bright, the detail was fantastic. Perhaps a little too much as I found my eyes wandering sometimes to have a look at something I had missed earlier.
Second act had a much simpler set, but just as detailed when considering the context, showing the wear on the walls, the choice of colours to location. Well done.
Now onto the show itself. In involving story, I can see why Mr Hough Nelson has wanted and waited so long for the right to direct the piece.
I won't give away too much of the story I hope.
I am also not going to comment on individual nudity as I find in most reviews of plays that contain nudity it always tends to fall on the dirty side of whether he was well hung or not or how big her breasts are. I will say that the inclusion of nudity was an interesting choice, not 100% essential in my view but a good shocking technique, entertainment piece and crowd puller. You simply had to listen to the audience to know they enjoyed it.
To start with the biggest part. Always the best way to go. An admirable job. I feel Peter Clark was one of the few characters that allowed himself to get involved in his character. His highs, his lows were well portrayed and explored. I must say if that was what he was like, I wouldn't much like Oscar Wilde in person, but that's just me. His handle on the witicisms of Wilde were well handled and the timing was good. Peter was able to create a well rounded and consistent characterisation. He looked very comfortable in Oscar's skin.
I do feel that remaining seated for the bows is not a good choice. You can all feel free to disagree but I feel as an actor it is a sign of respect and appreciation to stand when taking your bows. If you can run off as the lights go down, you can certainly stand. If it is because the actor is so overcome with the work, this would be the first time I have seen the actor so incapacitated and I speak from personal experience as some of you may recall Carpe Diem a few years back, when I say I don't think there is any level of emotional incapacitation that restricts you from giving the audience your sign of appreciation and respect for their applause. Whether it was a director's choice, or actor's I don't know.
Both Benjamin Russell and George McCabe also gave clean, yet levelled performances. Each had different relationships with Oscar Wilde and different reactions to what was going on and these views were clearly displayed for the audience. There was also a fine amount of detail put into their characterisation as well as that of Tara Khin in regards to their status, their duties and how they behaved for their guests. The making obeisance to each member of Wilde's party, or when entering or exiting the room. Very well performed. Even the miming as they prepared the lobster was fine tuned and entertaining to watch.
Michael Balmer's Robbie started off slightly unsteady. Throughout the play he strengthened and found his centre. I don't think this was altogether part of the character's development rather than a slight uncertainty of the character himself. There seemed to be the odd line quibble but the meaning and the purpose of the character was well shown. Again, I feel Michael entered the role more effectively in the second act. As the character was more confident, so was Michael.
The weakest link, not that I am saying he did a bad job, but I feel he didn't quite grasp the emotional centre or depth of the role was Josh Crane as Bosie, Oscar's lover. For all the yelling and affectation, there wasn't the real spirit behind it. This is a man who is in love with Wilde at the beginning of the play. But there was no bond between the two men. There were too many airs and graces for anyone to perceive him as a lover. Josh did managed to embody a lord. The problem was he managed to portray it even when he was naked or semi naked and in an emotional conversation with Oscar. He talks of being a rebel, we know he has been sleeping around with men and living a rather debaucheous life. I feel his character would have relaxed a lot more over the two years between acts at least, or when he is naked in his own home, not be so contrite. Definitely in the moments he is saying he is returning to his old life and giving up his life of sin, he can show the affectations, but they just didn't sit right through the beginning of Act Two or in the privacy of the hotel room.
Nick Arcaro as Galileo was suitably cast. His language skills are evident, he also understood his character and his position in the scene.
The only other problem I had with the play was the blocking and upstaging. So often was Oscar placed upstage that all the other characters had to turn their backs to the audience we lost any emotional connection with them. There are some effective back actors, but in this sort of play it doesn't work. This could have been rectified in two ways. Firstly, stop moving Oscar so far back or have the other actors move back too. Or secondly, and probably the method I would prefer, stop making the conversations between Bosie and Oscar or Robbie and Oscar being face to face. A lot of the lines in the dialogue could have been delivered to the audience from Bosie and Robbie, or at least facing slightly more toward the front but not looking directly at Oscar. This would have added levels to the final argument between Bosie and Oscar for one, showing Bosie's new found or at least faux independance from Oscar. Yet all these conversations seemed to be trapped in a face to the side of Oscar's face stand off. A good example of what I mean is in the second act when Oscar is sitting by the fireplace, Bosie is by the window upstage and Galileo is on the couch. Oscar spoke to both men whilst only looking at one or even whilst he was looking out at the audience. It's a theatrical convention we all know of and needs to be explored more in this show.
The audience thoroughly enjoyed the performance the night I went, as did I. It's great to see some new work being explored and performed well in Perth. The piece was entertaining, emotional and intellectual all at once, which is a hard thing to balance sometimes. But definitely well worth a look.
Thanks Y'all
Anthony
TobyMon, 13 Feb 2006, 03:51 pm
Re: The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
AHarwood wrote:
> To start with the biggest part. Always the best way to go.
> An admirable job. I feel Peter Clark was one of the few
> characters that allowed himself to get involved in his
> character.
Which 'part' were you referring to? Looks like you missed a juicy pun there Anthony.
> To start with the biggest part. Always the best way to go.
> An admirable job. I feel Peter Clark was one of the few
> characters that allowed himself to get involved in his
> character.
Which 'part' were you referring to? Looks like you missed a juicy pun there Anthony.
AHarwoodMon, 13 Feb 2006, 04:13 pm
Re: The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
Exatly Why I stayed away from discussing the nudity. Thanks for the example.
Anthony
Anthony
Walter PlingeMon, 13 Feb 2006, 09:27 pm
Re: The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
I also saw Judas Kiss, and overall it was a good play that was well written, well directed and well acted.
Peter Clark did a great job as Wilde. He had a good air about him and put lots of energy into his performance. He did have a tendency to rush his lines, both in the first and second act, but particularly the second. But this was the biggest flaw in an otherwise very good performance.
Michael Balmer was very solid as Robbie. His diction was amazing and I could hear every word he said. He was a little stiff in his movement, but this suited the character. Overall a very good job.
Josh Crane as Bosie has a good accent, look, but lacked energy on stage. He seemed to be more delivering lines than acting out a role. Sorry Anthony, but I didn't agree that he embodied a lord well. He didn't have the confidence that such breeding would give you and that I imagine a lord would have.
I thought the minor characters did a good job too, and some of their subtleties in their performance were appreciated by the audience.
I do agree that some of the stage direction did have a tendency to block some of the other actors, and I felt as if I only ever got to see the side of many of the actors faces, especially during long passages of speech.
But overall, a good production which is an intellectually stimulating piece. Many people who I know who have seen it say very good things about it, and the critisims I have listed above are outweighed by the positives of this good show.
Walter PlingeTue, 14 Feb 2006, 12:56 pm
Re: The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
"Leaving in only two short months", and you "still managed to catch the latest at Playlovers". Wow, what a busy life! Writing reviews consisting of... blocking suggestions? Better find another show, and quickly. It'll take a month to write your next review. Either that or make it your "mission" to learn the art of self-editing.
AHarwoodTue, 14 Feb 2006, 01:56 pm
Re: The Judas Kiss - Playlovers
Interesting so this has become a personal slogging site has it?
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
Two simple questions for you:
How long has the season of The Judas Kiss been running for?
How much time does that mean it has taken me to write the review?
And if you simply want to pick on my use of the word Still maybe you should consider that people don't live by going to theatre alone but have other things in their lives you might need to take into account. So please keep your snide comments to yourself and maybe read the review and see there is more than simply blocking suggestions, or maybe that one word "still" Caught your train of thought and you just couldn't get past it or yourself. (Yes this is a personal point but like for like)
Have fun everyone.
Anthony
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
Two simple questions for you:
How long has the season of The Judas Kiss been running for?
How much time does that mean it has taken me to write the review?
And if you simply want to pick on my use of the word Still maybe you should consider that people don't live by going to theatre alone but have other things in their lives you might need to take into account. So please keep your snide comments to yourself and maybe read the review and see there is more than simply blocking suggestions, or maybe that one word "still" Caught your train of thought and you just couldn't get past it or yourself. (Yes this is a personal point but like for like)
Have fun everyone.
Anthony
Walter PlingeThu, 16 Feb 2006, 02:00 pm
Re: THE JUDAS KISS - Wednesday Review
Oscar Wilde seems as large as Wilde's own larger-than-life persona and enormous appetite for the best things in life which for him included sex with men. In Victorian England this last was subject to legal prosecution under the law of "gross indecency" and led to Wilde's three celebrity trials and incarceration.
The approach to Wilde taken in The Judas Kiss (the last in David Hare's trilogy of plays about love and betrayal) ,is best described as the Oscar Talk Show. Mr. Hare hints at but does not focus on Wilde's life as the outrageous and epigrammatic toast of London. He uses the Court-TV worthy drama of the three trials that began with his own suit against his decidedly unworthy lover's homophobic father to jump start his examination of Wilde as a figure of almost biblical nobility -- to wit, the title's allusion to Judas Iscariot, one of the original twelve disciples of Jesus, who for thirty pieces of silver betrayed Him, with a kiss of identification to the priests and elders of Jerusalem.
What we have then is a play which uses what Hare calls "stage poetry" to reimagine what might have happened between Wilde and his current lover, Lord Alfred Doulas, (a.k.a. Bosie), and past lover, Robert Ross, (a.k.a. Robbie), during two crucial episodes of his life -- the first when he is faced with the choice of exile or arrest and the second two years after that fateful decision when he has risked betrayal once again by returning to the lover who already betrayed him once. In short we have Wilde at moments of emotional crisis without the more colorful scenes in his life that led to his fall from glitterati splendor to ruin.
We also have Peter Clark bring his particular brand of charismatic excitement to the more spiritually than flamboyantly grand role Hare has assigned him. He does not disappoint.
Clark's Wilde is indeed a towering spirit and physical presence and without any of the usual bombast and showiness. He still radiates style as he bursts into the Cadogan Hotel room of his lover in a purple top hat and gold knobbed cane. Even with the playwright's firmness in holding back the usual shower of epigrams, the sardonic humor is still there.
Clark is somewhat hobbled by a first act which is more or less a debate between Wilde, Lord Bosie (Josh) and Robbie (Mike) as to whether should stay and eat his lobster lunch or flee to safety. As even those unfamiliar with Wilde's history quickly surmise, his story is indeed "already written" (as he sees it partially because the English are bound to punish an uppity Irishman but in fact by his own fatalism).
It is in the more interesting second act set in Naples that Clark takes his real opportunity to hold us memerized. Here he's physically devastated by the imprisonment famously detailed in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol." His face is etched in sadness and cast in an unhealthy pallor. The long hair hangs like dank sea weed and a heavy suit underscores his displacement in the sunny world of Naples. What's more he spends that entire act sitting in a chair . He is Jesus sitting on the cross, nailed there not by Judas but by John (the self-absorbed Bosie). Hare, like Wilde, is a talented wordsmithith and manages to inject wry humor into the biblical allusion to the title when he has Wilde state drily that "Christ died at six . . . the cocktail hour." Most importantly, the deposed giant always keeps his heart and soul and dignity intact.
As that first act is pretty much a set-up for the far more moving and dynamic second, so the passionate heterosexual love scene on which the curtain rises turns out to be a set-up -- in this case with no other purpose than to grab our attention. You could, I suppose, view that steamy curtain opener, in metaphorical terms. As the young servants' coupling is interrupted by the demands of the hotel butler , so the five years of passionate happiness knew in that room have been rudely interrupted by the Victorian facts of life and his own stubborn missteps in his battles with his lover's father.
The Judas Kiss is basically a one-man show. Robbie (Mike), Wilde's first lover and devoted friend and adviser remains a rather nondescript and shadowy figure, however, performed with confidence and commitment. As for Lord Alfred Douglas (Josh), what may seem like a clever bit of casting -- the diminutive Bosie dwarved physically as well as spiritually by Clark's monument sized Oscar -- misfires. Bosie is never anything less than a petulant, me-me-me brat who defends his first betrayal with "I was the last to go."
Talky first act. Moving second act. A tour de force for the main actor and worth seeing if only for that performance, but also for David Hare's always strong dialogue and ideas. Always appealing to see a Theatre prepared to face the challenge of not only Hare - but a large following of Wilde supporters. Well done to you all!
SS
The approach to Wilde taken in The Judas Kiss (the last in David Hare's trilogy of plays about love and betrayal) ,is best described as the Oscar Talk Show. Mr. Hare hints at but does not focus on Wilde's life as the outrageous and epigrammatic toast of London. He uses the Court-TV worthy drama of the three trials that began with his own suit against his decidedly unworthy lover's homophobic father to jump start his examination of Wilde as a figure of almost biblical nobility -- to wit, the title's allusion to Judas Iscariot, one of the original twelve disciples of Jesus, who for thirty pieces of silver betrayed Him, with a kiss of identification to the priests and elders of Jerusalem.
What we have then is a play which uses what Hare calls "stage poetry" to reimagine what might have happened between Wilde and his current lover, Lord Alfred Doulas, (a.k.a. Bosie), and past lover, Robert Ross, (a.k.a. Robbie), during two crucial episodes of his life -- the first when he is faced with the choice of exile or arrest and the second two years after that fateful decision when he has risked betrayal once again by returning to the lover who already betrayed him once. In short we have Wilde at moments of emotional crisis without the more colorful scenes in his life that led to his fall from glitterati splendor to ruin.
We also have Peter Clark bring his particular brand of charismatic excitement to the more spiritually than flamboyantly grand role Hare has assigned him. He does not disappoint.
Clark's Wilde is indeed a towering spirit and physical presence and without any of the usual bombast and showiness. He still radiates style as he bursts into the Cadogan Hotel room of his lover in a purple top hat and gold knobbed cane. Even with the playwright's firmness in holding back the usual shower of epigrams, the sardonic humor is still there.
Clark is somewhat hobbled by a first act which is more or less a debate between Wilde, Lord Bosie (Josh) and Robbie (Mike) as to whether should stay and eat his lobster lunch or flee to safety. As even those unfamiliar with Wilde's history quickly surmise, his story is indeed "already written" (as he sees it partially because the English are bound to punish an uppity Irishman but in fact by his own fatalism).
It is in the more interesting second act set in Naples that Clark takes his real opportunity to hold us memerized. Here he's physically devastated by the imprisonment famously detailed in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol." His face is etched in sadness and cast in an unhealthy pallor. The long hair hangs like dank sea weed and a heavy suit underscores his displacement in the sunny world of Naples. What's more he spends that entire act sitting in a chair . He is Jesus sitting on the cross, nailed there not by Judas but by John (the self-absorbed Bosie). Hare, like Wilde, is a talented wordsmithith and manages to inject wry humor into the biblical allusion to the title when he has Wilde state drily that "Christ died at six . . . the cocktail hour." Most importantly, the deposed giant always keeps his heart and soul and dignity intact.
As that first act is pretty much a set-up for the far more moving and dynamic second, so the passionate heterosexual love scene on which the curtain rises turns out to be a set-up -- in this case with no other purpose than to grab our attention. You could, I suppose, view that steamy curtain opener, in metaphorical terms. As the young servants' coupling is interrupted by the demands of the hotel butler , so the five years of passionate happiness knew in that room have been rudely interrupted by the Victorian facts of life and his own stubborn missteps in his battles with his lover's father.
The Judas Kiss is basically a one-man show. Robbie (Mike), Wilde's first lover and devoted friend and adviser remains a rather nondescript and shadowy figure, however, performed with confidence and commitment. As for Lord Alfred Douglas (Josh), what may seem like a clever bit of casting -- the diminutive Bosie dwarved physically as well as spiritually by Clark's monument sized Oscar -- misfires. Bosie is never anything less than a petulant, me-me-me brat who defends his first betrayal with "I was the last to go."
Talky first act. Moving second act. A tour de force for the main actor and worth seeing if only for that performance, but also for David Hare's always strong dialogue and ideas. Always appealing to see a Theatre prepared to face the challenge of not only Hare - but a large following of Wilde supporters. Well done to you all!
SS
Walter PlingeThu, 16 Feb 2006, 02:21 pm
Re: THE JUDAS KISS - Wednesday Review
Hello Mr Shepperd
I was reading your review of this play and found myself wondering if your name is actually Elyse Sommer . Elyse reviewed this play in 1998 and strangely enough , your review and hers are remarkably similar. If you would care to check out the original review
http://www.curtainup.com/judas.html
Surely if you are going to reveiw a play it would be best to use your own review. I doubt that Ms Sommer would be terribly happy. Copyright is an amazing thing.
q
I was reading your review of this play and found myself wondering if your name is actually Elyse Sommer . Elyse reviewed this play in 1998 and strangely enough , your review and hers are remarkably similar. If you would care to check out the original review
http://www.curtainup.com/judas.html
Surely if you are going to reveiw a play it would be best to use your own review. I doubt that Ms Sommer would be terribly happy. Copyright is an amazing thing.
q
ChasThu, 16 Feb 2006, 04:46 pm
Re: THE JUDAS KISS - Wednesday Review
Hmmm...It could be a case of plagarism to me!
Walter PlingeThu, 16 Feb 2006, 04:59 pm
Re: THE JUDAS KISS - Wednesday Review
Hello
It would seem to be out and out plagarism to me. I am sure that Peter Clark would love to be compared to Liam Neeson who played Wilde in the former production that was reviewed by Ms Sommer)
Mr Shepperd states ( in one of the few parts of the review that is his own) "always appealing to see a Theatre prepared to face the challenge of not only Hare -.." May I make the comment Mr Shepperd that is always appealing to read peoples own comments about a show that they have seen. It is not overly difficult to cut and paste someone else's review (granted you did insert the names of the different actors very well).
Then again, maybe you didn't see the show at all. Either way, plagarism is not something that the playwright Sam Shepperd would take lightly I am sure. Then again, if I go back and re read "Fool for love" I might actually find it was written by Shakespeare or , heaven forbid, Oscar Wilde.
q
It would seem to be out and out plagarism to me. I am sure that Peter Clark would love to be compared to Liam Neeson who played Wilde in the former production that was reviewed by Ms Sommer)
Mr Shepperd states ( in one of the few parts of the review that is his own) "always appealing to see a Theatre prepared to face the challenge of not only Hare -.." May I make the comment Mr Shepperd that is always appealing to read peoples own comments about a show that they have seen. It is not overly difficult to cut and paste someone else's review (granted you did insert the names of the different actors very well).
Then again, maybe you didn't see the show at all. Either way, plagarism is not something that the playwright Sam Shepperd would take lightly I am sure. Then again, if I go back and re read "Fool for love" I might actually find it was written by Shakespeare or , heaven forbid, Oscar Wilde.
q
Walter PlingeFri, 17 Feb 2006, 09:27 am
Re: THE JUDAS KISS - Wednesday Review
It's an eyeopener to see the range of interpretations that audiences can place on a play! What happened to ... "I enjoyed it." or "I didn't enjoy it". Why must fellow reviewers intellectualise their responses? Is it because the play revealed a literary figure!?!
I enjoyed the performance immensely last Saturday. The set for the first act was exquisite - every inch the resplendent hotel that befitted the flamboyant Wilde. I found the second act set just a little too stark, even though I acknowledge the need for the contrast with the first act. The costuming was excellent - gave just the right feeling for the period. The length of Bosie's coat sleeves bothered me during the first act - they seemed to both him too.
The direction appeared sensitive and true to the script, the only exception being the over-use of profile and some blatant upstaging.
The characterisations felt very 'real', particularly the central character. Peter Clarke embodied the essence of Wilde for me. His on-stage presence is mesmerising - I was transported to the plush hotel and the Italian villa with him adn found myself feeling as he felt.
Michael Balmer's character has been labelled 'insignificant' - I don't agree! Michael gave a superbly contained, controlled and convincing performance. He was much more the foil for Wilde than the petulant Bosie.
If there was a disappointing performance in the production, it was that of Josh Crane as Bosie. It is a difficult part to play convincingly, especially as the audience are inevitably against the character. But I must agree with previous reviewers that his interpretation lacked any real committment - there seemed to be nothing coming from within.
It was a very well-staged, powerful piece of theatre, and yes, I enjoyed it!
Shelagh
I enjoyed the performance immensely last Saturday. The set for the first act was exquisite - every inch the resplendent hotel that befitted the flamboyant Wilde. I found the second act set just a little too stark, even though I acknowledge the need for the contrast with the first act. The costuming was excellent - gave just the right feeling for the period. The length of Bosie's coat sleeves bothered me during the first act - they seemed to both him too.
The direction appeared sensitive and true to the script, the only exception being the over-use of profile and some blatant upstaging.
The characterisations felt very 'real', particularly the central character. Peter Clarke embodied the essence of Wilde for me. His on-stage presence is mesmerising - I was transported to the plush hotel and the Italian villa with him adn found myself feeling as he felt.
Michael Balmer's character has been labelled 'insignificant' - I don't agree! Michael gave a superbly contained, controlled and convincing performance. He was much more the foil for Wilde than the petulant Bosie.
If there was a disappointing performance in the production, it was that of Josh Crane as Bosie. It is a difficult part to play convincingly, especially as the audience are inevitably against the character. But I must agree with previous reviewers that his interpretation lacked any real committment - there seemed to be nothing coming from within.
It was a very well-staged, powerful piece of theatre, and yes, I enjoyed it!
Shelagh
Walter PlingeFri, 17 Feb 2006, 09:29 am
True Betrayal
Contemptible behaviour "Mr Shepperd". Why? Post your own review or go away.
Thou pribbling milk-livered pignut!
Thou pribbling milk-livered pignut!
NimrodSat, 18 Feb 2006, 04:12 pm
I dissapprove.
No press button insult for me...idiot.
good day sir.
good day sir.