Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

A moon for the misbegotten ***1/2

Sun, 15 Apr 2007, 11:24 am
Gordon the Optom12 posts in thread

A moon for the misbegotten’ by the Nobel Prize winning author, Eugene O’Neill, is being performed at the Old Mill Theatre in South Perth until 21st April. It is a community theatre production which was cancelled at the last minute late last year but, I am pleased to say, has reached the stage now.

The story is set on an arid, American farm in the 1920s, but situation could easily be WA 2007 today. Phil Hogan’s (Kim Taylor) farm has struggled for years, so his son Mike (Shane McMullan) decides to leave for pastures new. However, because his landlord (Garry Davies – at his best) fancies Phil’s daughter Josie (Liz Hanich) and her ‘voluptuous breasts’, he is quite kind to his tenants. Then a major landowner (Cary Hudson), wishing to acquire neighbouring farms, appears on the scene and causes panic.

The directors, Sally Bruce and Siobhan O’Gara, have achieved plenty of movement, clear diction and good timing from their actors but generally the intonation, octave range (the gruff comments were spoken with the same pitch as the happier parts) and generally chemistry between the actors was poor in the first act.

The set design (Kyla Morgan) was simple, but very effective and created the perfect atmosphere. The lighting, whilst basically correctly positioned needed barn door and masking attention. The set was over lit. When the curtains opened – then the house lights went out?? – the stage lights were raised and one thought ‘very effective’, but the lights kept getting brighter leaving the white backcloth rather glaring. I realise that the required effect was to show the desert glare, but a soft yellow colour would have been better. The moon effect against a rich deep blue sky was wonderful, however the middle flood lights of the stage, which could have been dispensed with completely for the night scene, were raised to almost full and ruined the effect.

Liz Hanich was fabulous and her grumpy father, Kim, brought plenty of laughs.

I am sorry to be so critical, as this was an enjoyable play but it just missed the mark slightly on so many minor points. The show still deserves to be seen. A glossy 8-page programme – wow.

Thanks for the Review

Tue, 17 Apr 2007, 05:14 am
Walter Plinge
Thanks for the review Gordon! Of course, every time that I step onto stage I hope that I'll give a 5 star performance, and that the play will blow everyone's socks off. It's difficult not to take criticism personally. But I'd much prefer to have an honest critique than false praise. That way I know when I get a good review it means I've truly done a good job. Theatre is very subjective, and I don't think that the reviewer should feel the need to justify his opinions. If his overall enjoyment of the show was 3 and a half stars then so be it. As many people would know, this show has had a tortured route to production. I replaced an injured actor at short notice (I first saw the script 3 weeks before opening night, and am actually the fourth James Tyrone since the start of rehearsals) and Kim the father was only a couple of weeks ahead of me. If Gordon picked up that there was a lack of chemistry, then it's probably a symptom of a cast that have been working together for a very short time. Nothing at all to apologise for - it sounds to me like Gordon's made an honest critique of the play as he saw it. The fact that we've managed 3 and a half stars (which is'nt a bad score after all) given the problems we've had getting the play up and running has to be taken as a compliment. My hope is that audiences this week will have a different opinion of the cast chemistry - we'll have been together for a month by then! After all, we love each other's guts. Oh, I know that sounds like moaning-at-the-bar stuff, but I mean it (the last sentence is a quote from the play....I'm not going crazy *grin*)

Thread (12 posts)

← Back to Theatre Reviews