Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

Falling Petals ****

Fri, 12 May 2006, 04:47 pm
Gordon the Optom8 posts in thread

The Black Swan Theatre and the Blue Room present Ben Ellis’s award winning play at the Blue Room until 27th May.

 

 

This story is based around three teenage students living in a small remote Australian town. Sally (Sarah Borg) is a naïve girl who loves her little home town; whereas virgin Phil (Wyatt Nixon-Lloyd) and Tania, 17 going on 27 (Zoë Pepper) are more ambitious for their futures. Their excellent feel for the characters, all delightfully played, combined with Adam Mitchell’s skilled direction, gives talented entertainment.

 

 

The lifestyles of the three, are typical of most 17 year olds with their outlook on life in general, and includes a novel way to learn TEE economics.

 

 

Then the blossom petals fall from the trees, and as with the ancient tradition surrounding the Sakura tree, tragedy is not far behind. The police need to isolate the village and the inevitable social degradation starts to set in – or should have, but I felt didn’t quite make it.

 

 

The ‘children’s’ characters developed well as the play progressed and one could really see the bonding between them. However the play also had several short parts for adults, which were a little too brief and hence confusing. Despite superb acting by both the older female (Talei Howell-Price – a talented actor not seen nearly often enough) and the older male (Bryn Coldrick – a skilled director), both of whom played several parts each, the multiple characters still never really attained any depth. The distinct costume and personality changes did not seem to help, which unfortunately meant, that when the tragedy started, I felt little sympathy for the people of the village.

 

 

Whilst the dialogue was extremely well written - some great lines – the weakness was that the writer put very funny lines and situations into the dramatic portions of the play. Hence instead of increasing the pathos by the use of contrast, it resulted in the play ending up basically as a comedy. I realise that this was an awarding winning play, but I feel that the writing was the only weak point. Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

 

Clever set (Fiona Bruce) and successful, well thought out, lighting (Lucy Birkinshaw). Effective and appropriate quality synthesised music by Ash Gibson Greig.

 

 

On entering the theatre the audience were handed hospital facemasks to protect them from the unknown plague. William Castle, the horror film director in the 60’s, always used gimmicks like this to raise the fear and tension of his cinema audiences. They didn’t work much then either.

 

 

Despite some of this minor negativity, a most enjoyable night’s entertainment, I’m sure the team will have a most successful season.

 

 

It was wonderful to see both the evening plays at the Blue Room, fully booked and crowds milling around.

Thread (8 posts)

Gordon the OptomFri, 12 May 2006, 04:47 pm

The Black Swan Theatre and the Blue Room present Ben Ellis’s award winning play at the Blue Room until 27th May.

 

 

This story is based around three teenage students living in a small remote Australian town. Sally (Sarah Borg) is a naïve girl who loves her little home town; whereas virgin Phil (Wyatt Nixon-Lloyd) and Tania, 17 going on 27 (Zoë Pepper) are more ambitious for their futures. Their excellent feel for the characters, all delightfully played, combined with Adam Mitchell’s skilled direction, gives talented entertainment.

 

 

The lifestyles of the three, are typical of most 17 year olds with their outlook on life in general, and includes a novel way to learn TEE economics.

 

 

Then the blossom petals fall from the trees, and as with the ancient tradition surrounding the Sakura tree, tragedy is not far behind. The police need to isolate the village and the inevitable social degradation starts to set in – or should have, but I felt didn’t quite make it.

 

 

The ‘children’s’ characters developed well as the play progressed and one could really see the bonding between them. However the play also had several short parts for adults, which were a little too brief and hence confusing. Despite superb acting by both the older female (Talei Howell-Price – a talented actor not seen nearly often enough) and the older male (Bryn Coldrick – a skilled director), both of whom played several parts each, the multiple characters still never really attained any depth. The distinct costume and personality changes did not seem to help, which unfortunately meant, that when the tragedy started, I felt little sympathy for the people of the village.

 

 

Whilst the dialogue was extremely well written - some great lines – the weakness was that the writer put very funny lines and situations into the dramatic portions of the play. Hence instead of increasing the pathos by the use of contrast, it resulted in the play ending up basically as a comedy. I realise that this was an awarding winning play, but I feel that the writing was the only weak point. Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

 

Clever set (Fiona Bruce) and successful, well thought out, lighting (Lucy Birkinshaw). Effective and appropriate quality synthesised music by Ash Gibson Greig.

 

 

On entering the theatre the audience were handed hospital facemasks to protect them from the unknown plague. William Castle, the horror film director in the 60’s, always used gimmicks like this to raise the fear and tension of his cinema audiences. They didn’t work much then either.

 

 

Despite some of this minor negativity, a most enjoyable night’s entertainment, I’m sure the team will have a most successful season.

 

 

It was wonderful to see both the evening plays at the Blue Room, fully booked and crowds milling around.

Walter PlingeSun, 14 May 2006, 06:56 am

Everybody go see it.

I can't comment on the production, not being a position to be able to attend, but it sounds like everybody in Perth should go and see it. However, as the playwright, but more pertinently as a reader of reviews, I have to question the reviewer's insistence on assessing plays according to a set of assumptions or even rules, such as "no funny lines in serious scenes". (But lots of thunderclaps instead, I guess?) Why should the adult characters be in any way sympathetic, given what they do and don't do? The play I wrote is intended to disturb, not via the airing of the issues that the characters talk about, but via their actions as well as through the differing emphases of the play's elements. What if the lack of "depth" (do you mean you can't remember their names? or their favourite colours?) is a device employed deliberately to contrast the characterisation of the young adults? What if the humour is there deliberately to keep an audience from being led down the "tragic illness of the week" drama path that has a place on commercial television but not in the sort of theatre that I want to go out and witness? Reviewing is a tough gig, I do understand that. What irks me here is the assumption that a play must be written a certain way, and if it isn't, then there's a problem with the writing. Why not ask what the playwright intends by this difference? If you think that no difference was intended, then certainly it becomes vaild to question the playwright's control of his or her material. But if it's simply that the playwright hasn't conformed to a pre-fabricated model of drama within your head, then it's a difference of outlook. And the criticism I find the most interesting to read, regardless of whether or not my writing gets praised, such as John McCallum's or Chris Boyd's or Allison Croggon's spins on recognising these differences and what they mean.
NaSun, 14 May 2006, 10:25 am

Words

>the weakness was that the writer put very funny lines and >situations into the dramatic portions of the play. Hence >instead of increasing the pathos by the use of contrast, it >resulted in the play ending up basically as a comedy. I don't understand how 'not creating a contrast' of serious v. funny could turn a play into a comedy. Shakespeare did this all the time. You could hardly call one of his tragedies lacking in seriousness simply because one character makes a joke halfway through the play. And even then, doesn't the 'joke' depend on the director - where an audience finds something funny, a director might not, and vice versa... Perhaps the writer did not in fact write the joke as a joke... >I realise that this was an awarding winning play, but I >feel that the writing was the only weak point. Perhaps I’m wrong. How can the writing be the only weak point of a play? I would say that since the entire performance is based on the writing, it would be more than a weak point. Having seen this performance in Melbourne, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and thought it was extremely good. I am a tough critic, and though at times I thought the performance was slow, it was quite clear that the script was written by someone who will go far... The Prompt Copy Networking emerging theatre professionals www.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs http://stickyapplelegs.artsblogs.com
Gordon the OptomSun, 14 May 2006, 02:34 pm

falling petals

I bow to Ben's superior knowledge on the techniques of writing. He won a prestigious award so I'm sure he is correct and I am wrong.

Unfortunately I left the theatre entertained but not distrurbed.

It is an excellent production.

Grant MalcolmMon, 15 May 2006, 05:51 pm

The Playwright Is Dead

Gordon the Optom wrote: > I bow to Ben's superior knowledge on the techniques of > writing. He won a prestigious award so I'm sure he is > correct and I am wrong. I suspect you probably had good reasons for offering the views provided in the review and in a post-post-modernist world full of deconstruction I don't know that Ben's views as a/the playwright amount to anything more than anyone else's. My only regret is that I won't be able to get along and make up my own mind. Whether or not I'd be disturbed or entertained, it sounds as though my assumptions/views on what constitutes depth/contrast/good writing may be challenged. That's always a good night out! Cheers Grant
Walter PlingeWed, 17 May 2006, 02:27 pm

Falling Petals

I saw this production last night, and I was overall very impressed. Unlike some of the other reviewers, I did end up feeling disturbed....but I suppose I would call it 'deliciously disturbed'! I was definitely engaged by the excellent performances, and felt that the depth of character given to the teenagers, as opposed to the surface presentation of the adults, was quite purposeful - really highlighting the gulf between the generations. I kept wondering what the next shock would be...and there always was another shock! This play may not everyone's cup of tea...but if you like to be challenged by your theatre - this one's for you! Kudos must also go to the director Adam Mitchell for bring us this controversial and wonderful piece!
Walter PlingeWed, 17 May 2006, 02:41 pm

falling petals

i watched the preview night of the performance, so i'm pretty sure it would have evolved and strengthened since my viewing. however, like an angry fat child, i'm still gonna state my opinion. the performances by all the cast were solid, convincing and showed depth of character. the writing is snappy and thought provoking, with the 'great lines' mentioned by the reviewer being a stand out feature. However, i wasn't greatly affected by the show, and many i have talked with feel the same. my supposition on this matter is that i found i couldn't empathise with any of the characters, i grew to dislike all of them. now, i'm not laying any blame, and it comes down to what we want from theatre. if this statement of dislike in itself is a desired effect and goes to some length in achieving the pieces aim (if theatre should have an aim in this postmodern (EWWW) world), then tops. but i personally don't wake up the next morning thinking about a show i wasn't emotionally involved in. to my mind, this overall coldness is a weakness. people must to be intellectually and emotionally affected by theatre. whether this is the writing, directing or performing, i don't know. but something left me wanting to care more than i did. it could be argued that this feeling is proof of the shows success, but i don't feel i would care this much or even be discussing it still, if i didn't have friends involved in the production. if i was joe audience member, i feel its resonance would be even shallower. so why? i encourage people to go see it, because it is a solid piece of work with top notch performances and relevant, dangerous subject matter. and the territory it explores is a damn sight more interesting than the safe waters most mainstream perth theatre is currently swimming in. so go on. have some theatre. IN YOUR FACE.
Kelly WalkerMon, 29 May 2006, 05:16 pm

As a theatre student, i try

As a theatre student, i try to see as much live theatre as possible, and i am so glad i went to see Falling Petals. Not only was it challenging, but the play made a very important statement about human nature and what desperation will drive people to do. I though it was excellent and the acting was compelling and believable. It was very 'heavy' in content, but still managed to maintain a sense of humor throughout.] Thanks BSX
← Back to Theatre Reviews