Cry Havoc

Went and saw this Friday (I think it was Friday anyway). Quality production all round and yes they came, they saw, they conquered. Seems churlish to single out people when there was such a quality cast onstage so please don't feel slighted if I don't mention you - you were all a great ensemble however.... Peter Clark was magnificent. Peter always gives a believable acting performances whenever I've had the fortune to watch him and this was once again on display. What I mean by this is that every nuance, every mannerism is natural and there is no telegraphing of the performance before it's out there - something that actors of lesser ability (myself included) do in abundance. Peter really inhabits his characters and brings a lot of light and shade to them which not only makes them believable but interesting to watch as well. The only downside is I found myself watching his performance from an analytical point of view to try and pick up tips I could use myself. Not Peter's fault or Grant's either because the text itself was absorbing - it was just nice to watch a really good actor at work in a role he played with excellence. Michael Lamont - totally different character to that of Peters but an equally convincing performance. His "blood on the shirt" speech at the end was extremely touching and delivery throughout was beautifully judged - his character had quite an arc - pain in the arse one moment and a character of conscience in the other. Nice work. Amy Welsh - takes the award for character actor of the evening as she inhabited a few roles so as someone who enjoys that sort of acting challenge personally, hats off to you. The characters were differentiated very well and her vulnerability as the character who had stumbled onto what was going on was sold to us with great conviction. As I say, seems churlish to single these three out particularly when the rest of the cast reads like a "who's who" of Perth theatre but the key thing here is everyone works very nicely together to weave a believable tale of intrigue, deception, betrayal, and reflection. This is of course aided significantly by a script that is tight, intelligent and easy to follow. Grant could have tried to dazzle us witrh his knowledge of US politics but he has wisely stripped back the text to serve the story and move it forward and for those with a limited knowledge of the terminology there is a handy glossary of terms in the programme to consult before or after to reinforce some of the references made. Make no mistake - this is a play about people, their choices, the ramifications of those choices - the setting serves the story and the characters not the other way round. The show involves a number of set changes and I realise the reasons were to illustrate the set had changed to accomodate the space a particular character inhabited but they were frequent and I wonder whether or not you needed to bother. If we buy that a character with an aussie accent is playing an american, can we not buy the fact that the bloke in the comfy black chair indicates whose office we're now a fly on the wall in? I think this would cut down significantly on the blackout time. Just a thought. Also (and this may be a deficiency of the Blue Room itself) there were times when characters at the rear of the stage or on the sides disappeared into the dark. I liked the idea of the screen to indicate news conferences being broadcast on the telly but from time to time it took a while for the focus on the camera to kick in - this may because poor Grant was running a one man technical crew comprised of himself so I'm guessing you were juggling lighting, sound and a temperamental camera. It was however noticeable and it did take away from the effect you wanted to create. These are very trifling issues in the scheme of things in an overall well polished production. Congrats to all involved - you should be extremely proud of the production. If you haven't seen it yet, get along to the Blue Room for the closing week. This is quality theatre deserving of a larger audience.