Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

Penny Presents... RENT by Jonathon Larson for the AIDS Trust (14th October, 2pm) ACT 1 Review

Mon, 15 Oct 2007, 02:32 pm
Theatre_Buff14 posts in thread
Penny Presents – RENT – by Jonathon Larson Sunday 14th October, 2pm performance RENT is one of those shows… something that people either love or hate, and the nuances of interpretation can make all the different between a terrible and a great performance. The current production of RENT, by the profits-to-charity amateur society, Penny Presents at the Tom Mann Theatre in Surry Hills has a fresh interpretation, strong cast, and emotional depth not often matched in amateur theatre. The story opens (as we all know) “December 24th, 9pm, EST” on the standard looking 90s East Village set – scaffolding upstage, band stage right under it, and the table in Mark and Roger’s apartment downstage centre. The set is unspectacular, but completely functional – after all, RENT should be a showcase for a strong cast, not an exercise in frivolity by a set designer. However, special mention should be made of Angel’s Christmas tree – which is all junkyard charm. Whether a production is going to be a success or not rests largely on the shoulders of the two men in the apartment at the opening of the show. Mark – played less strongly than one would like, but with pizzaz by Luke Murphy; and Roger, played by John Hogan. John is the standout of the pair – with an incredible look, and a voice to match. These young men portray the desperate friendship of Mark and Roger with unusual strength: Mark’s coddling versus Roger’s rigid isolationism. The vocal duels of the title song and “What You Own” in Act Two are really well balanced between anger, angst, and redemption. Although why on earth are they both standing still for the latter? Roger’s showpiece comes so quickly after the beginning of the show that it always takes me by surprise. John manages to skilfully avoid the plagues of “whinging Roger” (which is a constant burden, because as we all know, Roger spends quite a lot of the story whining about his lot in life), but rather delivers Glory with lots of emotion and true notes throughout. John’s interpretation of Roger goes from strength to strength, vocally, dramatically and emotionally throughout the show, culminating in (what appeared to be), genuine tears in Your Eyes. Even that so-tragic-that-it’s-corny “Nooooo!” as Mimi is brought in at the close of Act II was delivered with believable pain. (My theatre partner burst into tears at this point this afternoon). After Glory, and a problem with a sound cue (the first of a few, unfortunately), we get our first glimpse of Mimi in Light My Candle – and she is certainly no disappointment in this production! In fact, the undisputed stars of the show are the girls – Mimi, played by the sultry yet fragile Caitlin Street; Maureen was brought to life with real skill by Penny Horsfield; and the straight-laced lesbian lawyer, Joanne, was belted out by a buxom brunette, Annette Vietta (who sadly stepped aside today for the second Joanne of the company – who has an extraordinary act to follow). The gorgeous Ms Street vamps her delectable backside into Roger’s life with a vocal performance which would be at home on any professional stage in the country. But moreover, the required chemistry (which has been often lacking in both amateur and professional productions of RENT in NSW) between these leads in palpable. Their attraction to each other boils off the stage, and makes the audience truly ache for these sad, mixed up characters to end up together. It is a spark that none of the other couples on stage come close to matching, and the whole show is worth watching just to see these two young actors relate. After Candle, the audience is treated to the most beautiful Angel ever to grace a stage – Jayr Tinaco. Many of the audience at interval (the more gullible ones, perhaps) were convinced that Angel was not being played by a man! But Jayr sparkles, shimmies and smiles his way into the heart of a convincingly smitten Collins (Ed Mafi). It was a shame that for this performance, Jayr’s voice was showing the strain of a full weekend of shows as some of the expected harmonies in I’ll Cover You were not delivered. Jayr seemed a little unsure of a few entries, but without a conductor, these problems will always happen. One weak spot in this couple was the costuming of Collins – Mr Mafi looked washed out and was in great danger of fading into the background in a horrible beige combination – some rescue work on this point would be appreciated!! Our first real chance to hear the belty voice of Joanne comes up in Tango Maureen. I must confess, the staging feels clunking in this segment. The individual tango type movements are an effective metaphor, but they commence at the beginning of the song with no real motivation. With more forethought here (perhaps the fiddling with the equipment is tango-fied, moving then into a proper separated tango, then to the neat couple work at the end), this scene would have been much more effective. As it was, Mark struggled with the more powerful voice of Joanne (yet another example of poor sound work from the desk here), but his utter “Markiness” carried him through. The ensemble cast begins to make its presence felt with the initial Life Support Meeting scene, although standing on the upper scaffold platform was not terribly well thought out. There are a collection of heads which are half-in, half-out of lights, as well as this high position drawing attention to the hanging lights on the upstage lighting bar. Although theatregoers are aware that they are at a theatre, and not playing voyeur in the East Village, small touches such as this interfere greatly with the suspension of reality for an audience to really get into a show. The ensemble has an eclectic mix of actors, and characters - all physical sizes, and all voice standards. This was a refreshing and probably more accurate rendition of the street dwellers in NY than seen in other recent productions. In general, the ensemble provided good vocal support to the leads, and all ensemble soloists coped well with their moments. Special mention should be made of the choreography – particularly the 3-piece dancing bums in Santa Fe. I don’t think any of the audience watched Collins, Mark or Angel at all during this number – all eyes were on the bums! Sadly, the ensemble suffered from inadequate sound support (is there a theme emerging here?), particularly for the solo lines in the full cast numbers. After Life Support, the pace speeds up into the brilliantly delivered double act of Out Tonight and Another Day. The only disappointment in Out Tonight was the lack of the traditional blue pants for Mimi. At the very least, if the pants cannot be managed, there should have been a more spectacular costume change – but Mimi appears here in her street clothes from earlier: something more appropriate would’ve given the scene a further touch of sauciness. Mimi’s dance was of the normal ilk, but very well performed. Parts could have been raunchier, but in general it was a worthy rendition. As Mimi approaches Roger for the kiss between these two songs, Roger did convincing job of looking slightly petrified, yet greatly keen on the idea. The smooch was quickly forgotten in his completely venomous delivery of Another Day. Roger is bordering on schizophrenic as he moves between denial of his attraction and screaming out his self-righteous diatribe in this number. Strong support from the rest of the cast makes this piece one of the best in the first act. The ensemble shines further in the Will I round, which slides neatly into Santa Fe and I’ll Cover You. After the disappointment of Collins’ costume, I admit to not expecting much from Mr Mafi, however there is a richness in this voice which is reminiscent of the spectacular Jesse L. Martin. Collins’ greatest moment comes up in Act Two at Angel’s memorial, and there were quite literally tears all over the place – on stage and off, as Ed sang to farewell his love. The power and emotion in the song was (sadly) not at all reflected in any physical chemistry between the pair, but with the quality of Collins’ voice I got the feeling that so long as he was singing, anyone would be happy to be with him forever! And what is RENT without that awfully cringe-worthy performance piece? Actually, it would be marvellous. Although I see so much theatre, I abhor the need which directors and casts seem to have to make an audience feel “involved” through audience participation. If I wanted to participate, I would have auditioned, thanks all the same. However, the performance of Penny Horsfield as Maureen was utterly flawless. From clear, pure, sung tones, perfectly pitched monologue, snarky, sexy attitude, and evocative hand movements, I had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about mooing with the rest of the cows in the audience. Maureen presented fabulously every moment on stage, and when coupled with her very natty Joanne, the power of these two women seemed unstoppable. Again (sadly), there was no physical chemistry between this pair, but they were committed to their characters, and were convincing none-the-less. Outstanding. The showstopper of RENT is, to my mind, La Vie Boheme. Although lacking the melodic charm of Seasons of Love, the power of the Act 2 finale, or the downright passion of the title song, La Vie Boheme is one of the cleverest moments in modern musical theatre. The lyrics are all Sondheim, with more than a small tribute paid to the patter-songs of Gilbert and Sullivan. In Penny Presents, it was clear that every member of the cast was having the time of their lives. The lyrics were delivered cleanly, and the choreographed movements by the table sitters were very effective. Benny (played with not quite enough attitude by Larry Ruiz) smarmed his way around the diners, taunting their ideals, but never quite gave the vocal or dramatic performance that I would expect from this role. Occasionally, this song did not live up to my expectations – some moments were far too contrived. The traditional move of having Mimi humping Angel was not well executed. It took Mimi far too long to get into position for what was clearly going to be the “dildoes” line. The power of that word and that move is in the shock value – yet, when Mimi is made to spend 3 or 4 lines clambouring on, that impact is completely lost. The Director should have refined this clunky and clichéd move and found something more innovative. The “Dorothy and Toto” line, by contrast, was a clever piece of staging, which worked very well. Sandwiched between La Vie Boheme A and B comes the resolution to the first Act romance, with Roger and Mimi brought together at the AZT break. Again, where on earth was the sound effect for this moment?? Vocally sound, although you could hear both actors were tiring, and Roger maintained a little too much anguish to be convincingly romantic. Once La Boheme B took off around them, though, Roger and Mimi put on the most sensual display I have seen in live theatre. The small touches, and smiles were electric. When Mark delivers his “Mimi and Roger, oblivious to all this…” he had never spoken a truer word. At this performance, Mimi and Roger’s sharing of a “small lovely kiss” resolved considerable tension; there was a flurry of feminine murmurs, and blokes shifting in their seats around the theatre as the Act came to a close.

...

Mon, 22 Oct 2007, 01:08 pm
Walter Plinge
Before I start, let me just say that I am saying this as a personal response and not as a member of Penny Presents... Anything I say doesn't neccessarily reflect the attitude that the company holds. I'm sorry if you thought my comment was arrogant, but your "critique", to put it simply, gave me the shits. I use quotation marks to indicate that your little diatribe about the show was merely a worthless attack on what was otherwise a well recieved show. Sure, it wasn't a professional affair, but then again, it never purported to be. However, what it did purport to be was an AMATEUR show that was performed FOR CHARITY. And you're right, you don't need a theatre degree or loads of theatre experience to critique a show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, to post up something like that as a review, something that is designed to influence people as to whether they want to watch the show, is quite offensive, as most of what you said was just inflammatory bullshit (my personal opinion) and some was just steeped in personal opinion. For example... I personally can't stand it when people attack a show for a difference in directorial vision... "I feel that Mimi, while looking great, was far to hard and masculine in her performance of this sexy, alluring YOUNG girl. She came across as a hardened ex-stripper that has to turn to drugs to keep herself happy... this is NOT how I see the character at all. Mimi is supposed to have a sweet innocence that makes her very attractive to the men, and a wild fun streak that she lets out when taking drugs. This is why she becomes an addict, because she wants to have FUN, not wants to escape reality." Therefore, if someone has a different vision for the character to you then it's the WRONG vision. I also liked that you seemingly mistook strength for masculinity... how feminist of you. "The Tango 'choreography' (I use quotes because it ended up looking like a saluting contest) was so distracting, that you lost all the plot points that the song was trying to make." "Having choreographed dancing ensemble members during that song was a TOTAL distraction from the 3 leads - again the audience missed the point of the song, due to bad staging." Once again, the show not being performed as it has been before... and before that... and before that... and before that. How do you speak for the collective audience (I know you did get the point of the song considering you've seen the show at least three times before at Rockdale, Penrith and Canberra) as to whether they 'got' the song. The dance may have been used to reflect what was going on in the song (This was the intention anyway). Which brings me to my favourite line... "I believe this production had all the emotional depth of a bowl of jello." Probably the most offensive moments of your 'critique' and the moment where your true arrogance is revealed. Whilst Theatre_Buff's review wasn't entirely positive, I can still respect their opinion, and the fact that it is one persons opinion. In fact, I know that a lot of the cast read Theatre_Buff's review and took some of the criticisms on board. However, the same can't be said about your 'critique', as ultimately, not much was said that could be taken seriously. All I can really say is I would LOVE to come see a performance of yours. Please, send me any details of a performance your in and I will be there with bells on. You can send it through to my email at redropelicorice(at)gmail(dot)com. On another note, I would also love if you came along and critiqued Assassins, which I am directing in May 2008. Hell, why not come audition for it! I apologise for possibly being overly-sensitive to your response, as I am a cast member and did feel that, whilst not perfect, this production was at par with the other productions of RENT I have seen (Some audience members who have seen the show on Broadway and on the West End even commented that some cast members hold their own against their professional counterparts). And, after all, I suppose you did end up supporting the company and the AIDS Trust of Australia through purchasing a ticket, and possibly even purchasing a program or candy bar items, so why should I complain? - Disgruntled cast member

Thread (14 posts)

← Back to Theatre Reviews