Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

The Stillborn Lover

Sun, 10 Aug 2008, 05:49 pm
Gordon the Optom9 posts in thread
‘The Stillborn Lover’ by Canadian playwright Tim Findley is the latest production from the Garrick Theatre team in Guildford. It is showing nightly at 8.00 pm until Saturday 23rd August.

            Diplomat, Harry Raymond (Colin Hughes) and his wife Marion (Dale James) have been recalled from the Moscow Embassy and returned to a safe house in Ottawa. They are met by their daughter (Kristine Lockwood), who discovers that her mother is starting to develop Alzheimer’s. On arrival at their new home they are met by their old friends, politician Michael Riordon (Max Harvey) and his wife Juliet (Marion West). Michael is on the eve of becoming the new Canadian Prime Minister.
            When the daughter finds two men wandering in their garden, she discovers that there had been a murder in Moscow and these men (Ray Egan and Jason Bouwhuis) were detectives here to protect her parents – or were they?

This very tightly and well constructed, intellectual play is beautifully directed by John Lobb. The small Garrick stage is divided into no less than five separate locations, each with a quality individual décor. The stage is on four levels, yet with careful direction and superb lighting (Roy Hopwell, operator Linda Redman) the action switches easily around.
The story has occasional flashbacks, which give an interesting insight to the parents’ earlier life and the locations at which they have worked.
The acting was well above average, with a special credit to Dale and Ray. A tricky script conquered by talent. The ending, whilst being clearly explained by the actors, seemed to leave a little confusion with some audience members, so concentrate towards the end.
A quality show for the intelligent theatregoer.

Thread (9 posts)

Gordon the OptomSun, 10 Aug 2008, 05:49 pm
‘The Stillborn Lover’ by Canadian playwright Tim Findley is the latest production from the Garrick Theatre team in Guildford. It is showing nightly at 8.00 pm until Saturday 23rd August.

            Diplomat, Harry Raymond (Colin Hughes) and his wife Marion (Dale James) have been recalled from the Moscow Embassy and returned to a safe house in Ottawa. They are met by their daughter (Kristine Lockwood), who discovers that her mother is starting to develop Alzheimer’s. On arrival at their new home they are met by their old friends, politician Michael Riordon (Max Harvey) and his wife Juliet (Marion West). Michael is on the eve of becoming the new Canadian Prime Minister.
            When the daughter finds two men wandering in their garden, she discovers that there had been a murder in Moscow and these men (Ray Egan and Jason Bouwhuis) were detectives here to protect her parents – or were they?

This very tightly and well constructed, intellectual play is beautifully directed by John Lobb. The small Garrick stage is divided into no less than five separate locations, each with a quality individual décor. The stage is on four levels, yet with careful direction and superb lighting (Roy Hopwell, operator Linda Redman) the action switches easily around.
The story has occasional flashbacks, which give an interesting insight to the parents’ earlier life and the locations at which they have worked.
The acting was well above average, with a special credit to Dale and Ray. A tricky script conquered by talent. The ending, whilst being clearly explained by the actors, seemed to leave a little confusion with some audience members, so concentrate towards the end.
A quality show for the intelligent theatregoer.

Walter PlingeMon, 11 Aug 2008, 03:18 pm

The Still Born Lover

What a competent actor Dale James is. In this play she demonstrates to us another dimenson to her craft, superb work but then she never fails to disappoint me in any performance I have seen her in. I am suprised an agent has not picked her up and added her to the so called professional talent we have in WA. My advice is if you want ot see a good play and an excellent leading lady - head off to the Garrick its well worth the journey. A lovely theatre with very friendly people running it =- plus a free port or sherry on arrival and then free tea and coffee at interval with a bickkie thrown in...what more could you ask for! - Enjoy yourself.
stingerMon, 25 Aug 2008, 09:58 am

a little confusion

I concentrated, but still couldn't find a definite resolution to the mystery. It may be "clearly explained by the actors" if you happen to be one of them, or someone with special insight privileges, but to me and my companion (both active theatre buffs) it was still very obscure and equivocal - presumably intentionally so? Now that the show is over, perhaps Gordon or someone else would care to provide further clarification, so we can all get some sleep? Ssstinger>>>
jeffhansenMon, 25 Aug 2008, 09:41 pm

The ending

As I understood the ending...... Michael gave Harry two options - to admit guilt for the murder, and be quietly retired with no fuss, or - Refuse to admit to the murder, and be handed over for the Russians to deal with (presumably resulting in NOT being quietly retired) Harry's response was that he would rather die than admit to a murder he did not commit. This seemed to be a quite acceptable solution to Michael. I assume that Harry threw himself from the clifftop. I never worked out who killed the Russian lover though...... www.meltheco.org.au
Walter PlingeTue, 26 Aug 2008, 09:07 pm

SHE did it

I think they all knew Marion killed the boy but Michael needed Harry to take the blame so that it wouldn't come out that Michael had appointed Harry to his Moscow post, knowing he was homosexual. Marion playing with the stones was the explanation.
Gordon the OptomWed, 27 Aug 2008, 07:28 am

the killer

What an interesting selection of solutions.

I agree with Walter Plink, that Marion in a sane but jealous mind, carried out the murder, and then they BOTH jumped off the cliff.

jeffhansenWed, 27 Aug 2008, 12:34 pm

Maybe the RCMP killed

Maybe the RCMP killed Mischa, so they would have something to hold over Harry, in order to remove him from his post before his homosexuality became public. http://www.meltheco.org.au
LabrugWed, 27 Aug 2008, 01:34 pm

Political Intrigue

Marion is unlikely to have killed Misha, although this is one conclusion that could be drawn right up until you learn that she had a history of 'setting' Harry with young men. Why would she then murder?

Misha had quite clearly been a plant for the Russian Services, a male prostitute hired to ruin the reputation of a British Official.The fact that Marion seems to have introduced her husband to the young man, it can only lead us to two conclusions;

  1. The KGB/Russian Officials KNEW of Marion's secret and planted Misha in Her path;
  2. Marion was working with the Russians, which seems unlikely, but not impossible.

If she had been used as in point one, it may go a ways to explaining her dementia, except that the daughter seems very familiar with it even though they have only just arrived, so Marion's 'problems' have been going on far longer. This makes her working with others even more unlikely.

However, it does make the possibility that she killed Misha (inadvertently) more probable, a moment of frustrated fury, rage, what-ever.

Or was her amnesia all an act? There were moments when speaking with the detective where she had clarity, authority and confidence. Then again, most suffers do have occasional moments of clarity.

Now we come to the photos. There were two sets. The first were obviously of the illicit affair. The second I feel was the murdered boy. Everyones reaction to it was of revulsion. What exactly had been done to him? It must have been pretty bad. Mutilated maybe. Would Marion have been capable of such an attack, even with clarity of mind? I personally think it unlikely.

Also recall the final bit of dialogue where Marion steps momentarily out of character, reverting to possibly an early, less affected version of her self, and talks to the audience of the Japanese Game? Who is the loser she is referring to if it not be Harry? and what is it that the winner of this games says to the loser when he asks "Where did I go wrong?" Marion then looks directly at Harry for the first time in that speech to say "Everywhere." This is placing the blame firmly at Harry's feet. Not for the murder, but for everything.

  • Marion's Madness
  • His Affairs
  • His Fall From Office
  • The Death of Misha
  • For what is about to happen

It is quite clear that Harry is contemplating death and the fact the there is frequent reference to the Cliff and the people below, the gap all leads us to the conclusion that Harry takes his life after blackout. It is the unspoken third option that he has, yet is never spoken of. Does this statement also clear Marion of any wrong doing? I feel it does.

So who did kill Misha? Well, how do you bring down an honourable official who has a morally questionable vice? Simply setting him up is not enough. What is Misha had developed feelings for Harry? That would make him a liability.

Why hire a prostitute in the first place? Because he is expendable. If things did not go quite the way they should, they could be removed. As it was, I think Misha must have developed an affection for Harry and was not prepared to see him 'hurt' as such. Killing Misha in questionable circumstances would then cast enough shock, suspicion and curiosity on Harry and his family to effectively knock him off the radar.

I think the Russian's killed Misha when his death was more useful to them than his life.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

GippsiSun, 31 Aug 2008, 11:15 am

My overall opinion

I thought the acting was generally good, with 'Marion' and 'The Superintendent' being stand outs. Their characters were completely believable and they didn't miss a cue. The part of Juliet seemed to me very badly written. I felt the character was only included in the play in order to give background information to the audience. The actor tried valiantly to make Juliet believable but the writing just did not allow it. The set was quite well suited but I thought somewhat busy and mismatched. It was however, well used by the actors with excellent lighting. The second half saw a big hoo haa made between most of the charaters about the inappropriateness of a homosexual government official which came off like a dark version of 'Are You Being Served'. At this point, the play got bogged down in the details of who was doing what with whom. I wonder what other audience members would have been saying after the show, given that the majority laughed raucously at a naked man's behind. I also wonder if that behind was included simply to label the play 'adult content & nudity'. I was left with the feeling that somewhere along the way the writer strayed from simply telling a story, to trying to weave a philosophical web that the audience had to unravel without much help from the characters. I think 'The Stillborn Lover' is aptly named.
← Back to Theatre Reviews