The War of the Roses - my impressions of the production

Sun, 1 Mar 2009, 11:58 am

Lisa Skryp32 posts in thread

As most may be aware TWOTR is a sweeping saga that covers the reigns of Richard II through Richard III, and the Sydney Theatre Company's production encapsulates this history over either 2 evenings or a full day's performance. I attended the opening nights 27/28 Feb in Perth and was swept away in STC's story and portrayal of Shakespeare's History plays. Without giving away too much of the staging of this production - which I highly recommend - here are a few of my thoughts: Design - astonishing: I was enthralled by the golden confetti throughout Richard II's reign, and the way it was used to convey majesty or at least dominance, as it gilded the heads of monarchs and usurpers alike. The set change that occurs during the deposing of Richard II was inspired, and the echos of the sooty snow throughout Richard III's "winter of discontent" showed how the once-golden era had become a dirty reflection of itself. The blood! One would expect plenty, but the way it and other bodily fluids were dispensed was extermel visceral & evocative. Any hint of manners or propriety were as quickly dispatched as many of the characters. Both murderers and murdered wallowed in blood & dust by the end of the performance. Sound/music - supported the drama well, however I at times found the miking of certain characters a little distracting in its amplification. Performances/direction: very high standard as one would expect. Standout characterisations/moments for me included: Cate Blanchett as the immature regent Richard II - especially his delicious giggling throughout "serious discussions", and his childlike guilt/embarrasment/rage at being deposed. Ewen Lesley as Henry IV - the scenes depicting just how far the prince will go to express his dissolution & baseness in contrast to his furture nobility were an interesting take on the character development. Eden Falk as Henry VI - harkens back as an even more exaggerated version of Richard II - his babyish king was very effective. Marta Dusseldorp as Margaret of Anjou - it was wonderful to watch the progression of her character throught the second half of the production. Her most powerful moments for me occurred after Henry VI is deposed, as she transforms into a prophetess of doom. For me, Pamela Rabe's portrayal of Richard III was the high point of the production - I was awed by his power-mad abandonment of any semblance of mercy or propriety as he plotted and murdered his way to the crown. Among many wonderful moments I particularly enjoyed the playground games with his nephews and niece, which fortold the coming reality of the make-believe. I very much enjoyed the gender-neutral portrayals of many characters thoughout the production, as for me they added to the layers of each character, as well as enhanced the overall cohesion of the cast as a whole. I was also pleased to see that Cate Blanchett's powerful performance went far beyond the simple star-quality-ticket-sales it could be expected to attract. While it was great to experience her exceptional talent live on stage (remember this is Perth so many of us are suitably thrilled already!), her performance enhanced but did not overshadow that of her colleagues onstage. I am a recent member of what was recently dubbed the RSC - "Reading Shakespeare Club", who gets together about weekly to read aloud all of Shakespeare's plays. I do not presume to know much about Shakespeare, but I am enjoying learning. In honour of the upcoming STC production we have just done all the histories up to HVI part 2, so that helped me a lot in following the twists & turns of plot. This production has done a lot to assist viewers to understand the story, through pre-show notes emailed to ticket holders, through copious program notes, family trees & even during the second half, with "surtitles" of a sort, which helped to keep the audience on the same page as the performers. The only portion for me which suffered a little was in Henry V. I am not exceptionally familiar with that text, however I did find it a little difficult to remain focussed through the volume of expostion/oration required to steer us through this portion of the Wars. This is not a criticism of the performers, rather a dilemma that I suspect most directors would face at this point in the proceedings. I'd be interested to hear others' opinions of this section of the history plays. Overall - a challenging but very rewarding production. I intended this to be a brief review! Although considering the breadth of the subject matter, perhaps it still is. If any readers still with me happen to be in the cast or company, kindly pass along my congratulations & best wishes for the remainder of the run to all involved in this very special production. Lisa

Thread (32 posts)

Threaded Flat

Lisa SkrypSun, 1 Mar 2009, 11:58 am

Walter PlingeSun, 1 Mar 2009, 10:04 pm

WOTR

Thank you for your insightful thoughts on this lavish production. I traveled thousands of miles to see this and it certainly did not disappoint. The only disappointment was - only getting to view this show one time. I would just like to comment on Cate Blanchett, the reason why so many of us spent our hard earned money. I have followed her career since Oscar and Lucinda and have only been disappointed with her performance on one occasion. But what I have learned from Ms Blanchett on many other occasions and only enhanced by this performance, is that she doesn't attempt to usurp her fellow cast members. She becomes part of the ensemble piece (which is absolutely fantastic.) I have no doubt in my mind that she could have included various stage antics to attract and retain attention on her throughout her duration on stage. But the confident and intelligent actor that she is... she allows her cast mates to shine too. This is truly a great actress we are watching.

Lisa SkrypMon, 2 Mar 2009, 12:04 am

the point is to help each other do our best

I agree that Cate pulled her weight equally with the rest of the ensemble. It seems to me that she was simply doing the job that any craft-respecting actor does: watching, listening & responding in the moment, and nothing more. This gives everyone the opportunity to shine where and as they should.

jessmessTue, 3 Mar 2009, 10:25 pm

I disagree

I too saw TWOR's and was equally impressed by stage craft, Cate Blanchett's magnificence, and Marta! My God I want to go out and watch Richard the III again! But only if he's played by her, I have never seen something so amazing in all my life... But on the whole? I felt it was something to be endured slightly more than enjoyed. The Second act was painfully slow, especially the endless, emotionless monologues. The production was a feast of theatre craft, yet every technique, symbol, image was milked for all it was worth. After the thousandth time someone spat blood all over someone else I couldn't help thinking, I get it, move along. I felt that it would take me some time of retrospection to decide what I really thought about this production. A few days later I realise, that I will remember, and be influenced by this for a long time to come...but in the end? Other than some visual stage effects, nothing suprised me, nothing shocked me. It was nothing I hadn't seen coming out of a perth theatre in the last few years. It didn't feel original or fresh. It felt drawn out, and often I didn't care about the 'dramatic symbolism' I wanted to revel in the Shakespeare. I didn't want a brectian emotionless delivery of King Henry the V, I wanted to feel it. Of course ask me again in a month and it might be a different story. And ask me about the final act? Well at least they ended on a magnificent high.

jessmessTue, 3 Mar 2009, 10:43 pm

An Addendum

Sorry Pamela Rabe, Marta was Margaret of Anjou, also wonderful but nothing on dear Richard.

Lisa SkrypWed, 4 Mar 2009, 12:10 am

Did you go to Sunday's show?

I reckon that would be quite a marathon as well. I know each of the 2 nights was a lot of time for me to sit still, but other than the Herny V bit I think they held my attention very well. Over the 2 nights it was pretty cool to see the actors again, immediately know & have some relationship with their characters, & wonder what they'll get up to next. I appreciate your comment that a bit of time might give the viewer the best perspective, as well. Fair enough about the blood, but I think the sheer repetitiveness of it all was part of the point they were making. I laughed inwardly a little when Pamela Rabe just went "bugger it" & poured the blood straight on...

GarrethWed, 4 Mar 2009, 04:13 pm

Brecht isn't emotionless.

Brecht isn't emotionless. EVER! Sorry, It's just that Brecht is a subject I happen to be very emotional about! And the next part of this message is for Michael I know you're sitting there with a smug grin in your face because you knew i'd react exactly like this when I saw that comment so I just want you to know that I know that you know... Understand?

jessmessWed, 4 Mar 2009, 04:58 pm

Sorry Gareth

My husband responded about the same. I'll stick with the 'emotionless' delivery of the Henry V monologues lost a lot of audience attention and were hard to sit through. They in fact weren't altogether that brectian, and the 'epic' style of the production was interesting just a little overdone.

Walter PlingeWed, 4 Mar 2009, 05:09 pm

You have a husband? I'm

You have a husband? I'm devastated... how old are you anyway?

Freddie BadgeryWed, 4 Mar 2009, 08:41 pm

I'm glad you know that I know...

Garreth- spot on. freddie the rocking jedi badger

Walter PlingeThu, 5 Mar 2009, 11:30 am

I have to admit I've always

I have to admit I've always had a problem with Brecht, in that you go and read his writings on epic theatre, "verframdum... whatever the German word is.. effekt" and what have you, and he seems to write about the alienation effect, and detaching the viewer from being a spectator into being an observer, so that they can engage with the text on a more real world level, have critical distance, etc. And then you go read one of his plays, and the bugger can't help himself from making it dramatic and engaging, and all the sorts of things his critical writings suggest theatre practitioners should avoid. Plays like Mother Courage, for example, seem to me to strain in two different directions at the same time. He wants to write epic theatre yet by the very act of writing characters in crisis on stage he automatically continues to create dramatic theatre at the same time.

GarrethThu, 5 Mar 2009, 10:57 pm

I think we should burn most

I think we should burn most of Brecht's theoretical writing in english: 1. The translations are awful and haven't been updated since the 1960's 2. There is a big difference between the theory and the practice, Brecht knew and accepted this and moved on. 3. He considered none of his theories on how to perform the epic theatre to be set in stone and was constantly changing them up to the day he died. This point remains much to the discontent of Drama theorists everywhere. and to quote the man himself: "Life is dramatic and the events I write about are dramatic events. What we must attempt to achieve is not to sucker the audience into thinking they are watching anything but a play. If they are reminded it's a play they are free to observe the dramatic action rather than feel impelled to participate in feeling the emotions of the characters on stage... The audience in my theatre should be confronted by their own emotion in response to the action and social implications rather than the emotion of the actor." My problem is now we are naturally so "made strange" to the theatre and devices of verfremdungseffekt used so often that we very often fail to feel any emotion when watching a play at all. Also many of us come engendered to look for the play's social meaning because somehow we have been taught that all theatre is a statement on our current state of affairs. So ultimately I believe Brecht succeeded in a way he never intended or would have wanted. For example I felt quite unsatisfied after Antigone for a number of reasons but chief amongst these reasons was that I did not see the relevance of reviving the play and nor could I make any real world connections. What I will be calling for in "Life of Galileo" is a new Brechtian manifesto to seek out the purpose of an epic theatre in a world that is filled with the meaning makers inside all of us working at full pelt all the time. Times, social conditions and theatre have changed since Brecht died in 1956 and now we must find new approaches to his work. I could go on and I could also go back and clean this statement up but if I do I'm going to be here for a while.

Walter PlingeFri, 6 Mar 2009, 01:11 am

That's actually very

That's actually very interesting, because I suffered a major disconnect at university by reading an English translation of Brecht's theoretical writings, subsequently reading some of his plays, and not being able to shake the feeling that the guy wasn't practising what he was preaching. I do think ultimately it's not the theatre practitioner's job to shape the audience's experience of the performance - that part is up to the audience. The actor/director/writer/performer only gets to meet the spectator halfway.

GarrethFri, 6 Mar 2009, 06:52 pm

"I do think ultimately it's

"I do think ultimately it's not the theatre practitioner's job to shape the audience's experience of the performance - that part is up to the audience. The actor/director/writer/performer only gets to meet the spectator halfway." This is true... if we all felt the same way about a show what the hell would there be to talk about afterwards?!

Marcus CookSat, 7 Mar 2009, 02:05 pm

Brecht-Effect

Garreth, I couldn't agree with you more on most of your points. However, I read Brecht's theories in English, and did not find them inconsistent with his texts. "Alienation effect" is a poor translation of "verfremdungseffekt", a word that was actually made up by Brecht himself. "Making strange" is better, as Garreth alludes to. Brechtian Theatre (what ever that is anyway) is certainly not emotionless, either in its performance or in the sources (the texts). What you will get is consistence - both in stagecraft, and emotional delivery. Unlike with so called "method acting", where you may get a different performance every night, depending on how the actors feel. It is not necessary to "feel" the emotions of the character you are portraying to give a good performance - and such emotional investment may well be counter-productive - rather, an actor should be able to reproduce the emotions of the character, as interpreted by the director, with consistency, night after night. Brecht achieved this by long rehearsal periods (a luxury of Ensemble Companies), and development of character that becomes almost second nature by opening night. That you, jessmess, found tiresome the "emotionless delivery of King Henry the V", in no way suggests that that part of the performance is "Brechtian."

LogosSat, 7 Mar 2009, 02:53 pm

Brecht

In danger here of being attacked viciously but... Is Brecht really still particularly valid in modern terms. he wrote and theorised for a world that has vanished completely, he was very much a Marxist in his earlier years and although he became disillusioned with the Soviet and east german systems he never really backed away from his beliefs. Theatre now has other concerns and other important issues to examine and while the "distance effect" (my term) can still be a valid tool in reality much of his philosophy is now irrelevant. Much of his work will live on, Mother Courage, The Caucasian Chalk circle and other work is valuable but increasingly work like cycle of plays set in the Third Reich are becoming unperformable. I would like at this point to say that I am 57 years old and was for many years a member of the Communist Party and can now best be described as a Left Libertarian. Examine the newer work of David Mamet, I speak particularly of his recent work "True and False Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor." Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

GarrethSat, 7 Mar 2009, 11:11 pm

I have read true and false

I have read true and false and found it to be a marvellous text and Mamet makes some strong and very excellent points. I believe Brecht is still important and his message is a simple and a clear one. If you don't stand up for yourself the world will go down with you. From my point of view as a 23 year old the world is falling down around our knees because the baby boomer generation enjoyed the spoils of a society that believed in revolution and the right for each person to make themselves. Housing was affordable, petrol was cheaper, Jobs easier to find and the politics of the world was alot more visable and did not suffer from the effects of the smoke screen. Slowly, as the baby boomers came to power the liberty they enjoyed disappeared inch by inch and now my generation is left to inherit a cynical world run by yesterday's revolutionaries who have now grown fat on their own self worth. So is what Brecht was trying to achieve with theatre worth while? Yes, it is. We can't become complacent, we need to be able to feel for ourselves again and hopefully stop believing the lies perpetuated by the establishment that if we just stick our heads down and our butts up the world will be fine. Brecht's parables about "how the world is run" still ring true in my ears and until I am utterly done with my life I am sure they always will. So is Brecht still valid in modern terms? Oh yes and if you believe the world he was writing about has vanished completely then he is of more importance than ever because I assure you that world has not vanished. "I can see your people's devine patience, but where is their devine fury?" ~Life of Galileo

GarrethSat, 7 Mar 2009, 11:24 pm

Sorry Marcus, I do't see

Sorry Marcus, I do't see how you can find consistency in a theory that was constantly fluctuating and changing? The aim certainly remained the same but the techniques are markedly different from text to text. Actually Brecht would have hated your character becoming second nature. If its second nature we run into the danger of slipping into a trance and ceasing to be aware of the fact that we are acting. Brecht didn't believe in long rehearsal periods as he believed that it gave the actor's too much time to indulge and as such would be re-editing the scripts right up until the night of the performance. Finally Brecht believed we should invest into the emotion but it should be the emotion of the character rather than the emotion of ourselves. Therefore we must feel the characters emotion if that emotion is going to retain any semblance of the truth in performance. This is one example of where I blame bad translation.

Walter PlingeSat, 7 Mar 2009, 11:35 pm

Is True and False the Mamet

Is True and False the Mamet book where he rather unsurprisingly suggests actors deify the writer above all else, and never work on developing their characters beyond that which the writer has handed to them on a plate? I wasn't a big fan, although I love the guy's plays.

GarrethSun, 8 Mar 2009, 01:14 am

lol, yeah that'd be the one

lol, yeah that'd be the one Grant.

LogosSun, 8 Mar 2009, 07:53 am

Well.

What an interesting interpretation of his work. He is not alone in suggesting that it might be time to re-examine the whole skein of "techniques". There is a danger of getting lost in the whole thing. I would rather read that the actor should avoid getting lost in a whole pile of unjustifiable back story that actually has no connection with the play. That way can lie madness. On the other hand I'm a writer too. Have you ever considered what damage you can do to a writers real intentions by overloading your character with a completely erroneous history and set of motivations? Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

LogosSun, 8 Mar 2009, 08:10 am

Response

Garreth, I do not for one minute suggest that there are no ills in the world to cure. While I would perhaps not use such florid phraseology to express it, I too am sadly disappointed by my generation but as far as that goes you miss one serious point. The majority of the baby boomer generation wanted no change. This is true of almost every generation. My point about Brecht relies largely on the fact that his theorys are frozen by the very fact of his death. He has been unable to adapt and carry forward his attitudes as he has left the world. Academics will teach his theories as though the world is the identical place that Brecht lived and worked in and it is not. Sure many of the evils that he spoke against still live and that is why many of his plays will survive and be performed for a great many years yet. Much of his theory about theatre has been accepted generally. Everyday we work in studio theatres and spaces that take us away from the beautiful lie that theatre can be and put our work firmly in the the realms of truth. He was an important figure in the development of todays theatre world but no more important in my opinion than Jerzy Grotowski or many others. I think Garreth (and please don't assume that I am being patronising because I mean this sincerely)that is is a great thing that you are hanging your hat upon Brecht's work and I don't want you ever to cease to be passionate about the world around you and the injustices in it. But you must remember that it is important to grow and develop and that you must at some time open the doors to ideas that are less than 60 years old. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Walter PlingeSun, 8 Mar 2009, 01:07 pm

If all a writer wants is

If all a writer wants is someone to read the lines they wrote, they may as well get people from off the street and just hand them a script. As an actor I appreciate being allowed by the writer to actually do my job and construct a believable character using the script as a foundation. As a writer I treasure actors who will take the script I have written and transform it into a performance. The script is not the play. The writer does not generate the performance. If a writer *does* think that, they should back away from the performing arts as soon as possible and stick to writing novels.

LogosSun, 8 Mar 2009, 05:13 pm

Response

"If all a writer wants is someone to read the lines they wrote, they may as well get people from off the street and just hand them a script." Don't be silly! "As an actor I appreciate being allowed by the writer to actually do my job and construct a believable character using the script as a foundation." Exactly, using the script as a foundation. Not inventing backgrounds for the character that make him or her something entirely different from what was originally intended. I have seen the central argument of my work destroyed by a director and actor who decided I meant something totally other than I meant. "As a writer I treasure actors who will take the script I have written and transform it into a performance." So do I. "The script is not the play. The writer does not generate the performance. If a writer *does* think that, they should back away from the performing arts as soon as possible and stick to writing novels." So are you suggesting that as a playwright that I should simply give a play to a director and actors and let them totally make up their own minds what I mean. Even if they turn my intentions on their head through misinterpretation. Try and do a Beckett play one day and see what happens. My work is not the whole performance but it is and should be the solid base on which the performance is built. If you take away the foundations of a bridge it will fall over. So will a play. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

GarrethSun, 8 Mar 2009, 08:53 pm

I agree, Brecht's theories

I agree, Brecht's theories were frozen by his death and now I plan to thaw them out and make them work again. Though were they ever frozen. Practitioners and companies like Grotowski, Pinter, Joan Littlewood, 7:84, Mamet, Stoppard, David Hare, Edward Bond, Howard Barker, Tadashi Suzuki and the list could go on have all made contributions towards the momentum of the ball that Brecht started to push. I don't believe in museum pieces, I believe whole heartedly in change but to not protect, stand up for and acknowledge where our modern theatre came from is to try to run a marathon without using your legs. I believe I did mention the fact that the baby boomers did want change and they did change it. But who did they change it for? Most certainly it wasn't for me. Yes every generation wants change but the one big point you have missed is that each generation has wanted to make life easier and better for the next. Ask any WWII serviceman why we went to war and he will tell you that it was for his kids. I understand you're disapointment in your generation but it is not enough to be disappointed in yourself or your generation, your disapointment is not helping to make the world a better place for those who come after you.

GarrethSun, 8 Mar 2009, 08:58 pm

Oh I should mention at this

Oh I should mention at this juncture that Mamet does not want to deny emotion in his characters but he believes that the emotion should be supported and suggested by the script and should not become "over done". He says that in reading the script the emotion will suggest itself to the actor who must not then over indulge which is what Mamet believes a great many other actor's believe. I'll lend it to you Grant if you haven't read it already. Oh and if anyone wants to see Mamet's theory at work the film Edmund is better example than perhaps his more mainstream films... Oh and House of Games is a good movie too!

jessmessSun, 8 Mar 2009, 11:36 pm

Brecht again...

I've created a monster! This started with a Shakespeare review!

Walter PlingeMon, 9 Mar 2009, 09:01 am

No, I've read it - it's

No, I've read it - it's OK.

Walter PlingeMon, 9 Mar 2009, 09:07 am

I have seen the central

I have seen the central argument of my work destroyed by a director and actor who decided I meant something totally other than I meant. Then I assume they didn't read the script properly, which is an altogether different problem. But I still maintain it's not the job of the writer to dictate the precise form of their work on stage - doing that moves away from the whole point of live performance to me, which is that it is a collaborative medium. So are you suggesting that as a playwright that I should simply give a play to a director and actors and let them totally make up their own minds what I mean. Yep. Even if they turn my intentions on their head through misinterpretation. If that happens, either they didn't read the script properly, or your script insufficiently expressed your intentions, or there was unsufficient communication from the outset of the production about what you and the director were each anticipating. Try and do a Beckett play one day and see what happens. Well Beckett sits at a fairly extreme edge of the playwrighting spectrum in terms of the playwright's expectations of how the performance will look. It's up there with Pinter's three-second pauses. Compare that with Howard Barker, who sometimes doesn't even include punctuation because he feels it's up to the director and actors to work out how the lines should be said.

LogosMon, 9 Mar 2009, 11:07 am

My final word

Well, I give up. That doesn't mean I agree with either of you I still don't. What you are saying Grant is that the arbritary decisions of a Director and actor outweigh the intentions of the writer, something I can never accept. Garreth I admire your passion but ... I don't know. You are I guess both young and should make the most of your passion and fire while you still have full control of it but I still say that you need to look forward rather than backward. Good luck to both of you with your careers I will look forward to watching you rise. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Walter PlingeMon, 9 Mar 2009, 02:21 pm

What you are saying Grant

What you are saying Grant is that the arbritary decisions of a Director and actor outweigh the intentions of the writer, something I can never accept. Actually that's not what I've been saying at all. What I am saying is that the theatre is a collaborative medium, and that means the writer, director, actor, designer, etc, collaborate to bring a work to life. It would be a very rare writer in a professional capacity who would not have their script edited and transformed a bit during the rehearsal process - they're often there at some of the rehearsals actively making changes themselves. Sure the script is the foundation, and I'd even go so far as to say the writer has the most crucial role in a scripted theatrical production. But that doesn't mean their word is the law, and it doesn't mean the director and actors don't get any creative leeway in developing the work. I've had several plays performed over the years, and every single one has benefitted considerably from the input of the directors and actors. I suppose that's my final word too. Thanks for the conversation, it's been a refreshing change from the usual flame wars and trolling this forum seems periodically obsessed with.

stingerMon, 9 Mar 2009, 03:35 pm

Don't Mention The War!

Just changing the subject back again - I thought it was interesting that there was no actual representation of the war itself, ie apart from the odd obligatory mention in passing, no suggestion of the vast armies and hundreds of thousands of casualties. As has been mentioned, even Henry V's exhortation to his troops was delivered in an almost conversational style, straight out to the audience. I did like those Brechtian touches though - like the Marshall stack and the smoke machine onstage. I'd hate to be on that stage crew though, having to clean up afterwards...then again, just for Cate... Give me a Michael Chekhov any day! Ssstinger>>>

← Back to Theatre Reviews