A moon for the misbegotten ***1/2

‘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.

Hmmm...4 and a half stars for a murder whodunnit like 'Spider's Web' but only 3 and a half stars for a classic that was just as well acted. I dunno you know. You got my scratching my head...

I haven't seen the show, but this review has also left me scratching my head a little. Comparing the ratings given to other plays in reviews by the same author, 3 1/2 stars seems to indicate that it's a bit of a lemon. However, there doesn't seem to be too much in the way of negative criticism apart from the lighting being too harsh. Even then the reviewer indicates there's a reason for this, and that it fits the setting. It's hard to imagine the lights being that bad that it would turn an otherwise good play into a lemon. There are some criticism about the general chemistry between the actors and their delivery style, but they are also described as 'at his best', 'fabulous', and 'brought plenty of laughs'. I don't really understand how these can be descriptions of a cast with poor chemistry and monotone delivery. Gordon the Optom, I love reading your reviews. But this one also has me scratching my head. Maybe I'll have to go and see the play to judge for myself!

Perhaps I was slightly too generous with my rating of ‘Spider’s web’ – so call it 4 stars instead. It was however, with the exception of one actor out of the ten, generally better acted than this show.

I don’t like to be too harsh on my reviews, or to get personal. Normally if a director or actor signs their comments on my review, I will approach them privately and make suggestions or comments. ‘The moon’ took most of the first act to get the rhythm going, but worked well after that.

Garry has come on leaps and bounds since I last saw him in Melville, but ‘at his best’ means just that. The father’s performance was good and raised plenty of laughs, but to reiterate the team chemistry was not there.

Agatha Christie’s plays rely on all the characters being ‘independent’ items, and if they don’t interact then this can actually help develop the red herrings. This play was built on family, hardship and emotion, hence I thought it was weak on the important interaction level.

Monotone delivery is often a sign of nerves and I fully sympathise, but there were some angry scenes in the play and places of elation, where an attempt at a greater octave range would have improved the delivery. There were several minor fluffs, but again I try to ignore these, unless they are lengthy pauses which drag the acting down.

Liz Hanich was fabulous and a very natural player, best amongst the 5 actors. The show, with three and a half stars (still a fairly good mark) certainly was not a lemon.

Please let someone else, who has seen the show, disagree. I am certainly not the archangel of reviews, I just write them as I see them and love to hear other’s comments. Good luck to the show, as I said before - it does deserve to be seen.

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*)

I managed to see Moon for the Misbegotten on Saturday (closing) night. I didn't have very high expectations based on the reviews above, but ended up being blown away by one of the best plays I've seen all year. Either Gordon was in a bad mood the night he went to see it, or the play improved dramatically by the second week. Let me start my review by commenting on the set. I agree with Gordon that it was VERY effective. It was minimal but evocative, setting both the mood and period without cluttering the stage and detracting from the performances. Running water was a surprise! I do agree that the lighting might have been a little harsh, and this wasn't helped by a white backdrop. However, I didn't find the lighting at all distracting, and there was a fair contrast between night and day. The white backdrop was used to create the simple moon effect (a spot light centred on the flats at the back), but perhaps a softer plain colour might have enhanced the mood - maybe more of a cream than stark white would have improved it. Any criticism about the lights was minor because it was the acting that elevated this play above the norm. Liz Hanich as Josie was absolutely brilliant. It was a huge part - she was on stage for the whole two hours in what was a very dialogue-driven script. There's nothing to say except that the performance was incredibly natural and moving. I believed (and hung on) every word that she said. If she doesn't get close to Best Actress at the Finleys this year then something is wrong - it was the best performance I've seen for a long time. I've never seen Liz before - where has she come from! Garry Davies as Jim Tyrone was almost as good. The part was only on stage for half the play, but it was the central part in terms of 'showiness'. Garry displayed a very wide range of emotion to good effect, and delivered a breathtaking monologue. If this is what he can do with a role given a limited preparation, then he is a very fine actor indeed. Kim Taylor as the father was as fine as always in a meaty character role. I had to laugh when I saw those teeth - very effective make-up (actually I'm not quite sure how it was done!). The remaining actors were on stage for cameo roles only, and seemed to neither add nor detract to the play. Siobhan OGara and Sally Bruce did a great job putting life into this script, which is amazing given its nature. I was absolutely riveted to the stage at all times, even though the play was essentially two hours of dialogue with minimal plot. The second half scene between Josie and Jim, which must have lasted about 45 minutes, was breathtaking. This was helped by a couple of great performances, but must also be attributed to clever and subtle use of movement across the stage. The scene could have really dragged under lesser direction. I'd also like to comment on the choice of music. Very effective country-folk that fit the mood of the play, even down to the lyrics. One aspect that might have been jarring to some people was the transposition of the play to Australia by the absence of Irish American accents, even though the script was not changed to accomodate this. I thought the transposition worked quite well, and the play seemed like it could easily have been set in this country. I would have preferred the dialogue to be tweaked to accomodate this, but again this is a very minor quibble. Wow, that's a long review. But the play deserves the kudos - thank you to all involved.

Liz won't be getting a Finley's award as indeed the production itself as the play was not put up for Finley's Adjudicators.

Pressed 'post comment' instead of the moderation button. The Prompt Copy Store www.store.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne Treading the Boards www.treadingtheboards.thepromptcopy.com

I understand the moderation of the two mindless insulting comments I would have moderated them myself had I seen them first but why was Gary Davies comment moderated off? Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

I was going to write that I might have done it by accident before, but no, the post was already moderated down. ? Dunno... The Prompt Copy Store www.store.thepromptcopy.com Sticky Apple Legs www.freewebs.com/stickyapplelegs Puppets in Melbourne www.freewebs.com/puppetsinmelbourne Treading the Boards www.treadingtheboards.thepromptcopy.com

I guess it was once again someone who didn't like what he had to say. Can't think what though. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

My initial post was basically defending Gordon the Optom's right to say what he wants about the play - I'd much rather an honest review than no review at all. Realistically, Gordon's comment that there was a generally poor cast chemistry is understandable given that I had come into the cast 3 weeks before opening night, and Kim Taylor was also a late replacement. This is not intended to read like an excuse - we can't be judged on the excuses we provide, but on the performances we give. I mentioned it only because it's relevant to the criticisms that were made in Gordon's review. In my opinion from the inside, the show was much improved by the second week and this appears to be reflected in the review by "Also Confused". It's a shame that the production might have been a little underdone in its first week, but I'm pleased that a seasoned reviewer like Gordon still enjoyed it. Thanks to both Gordon and Also for their reviews. Even though they rated the play differently, I've really appreciated the feedback, as has the rest of our team.