Macbeth by GRADS

Macbeth by GRADS

DISCLAIMER: In the interests of objectivity, I obviously must disclaim that I viewed this production knowing, and counting as a friend, the director (Garreth Bradshaw), and the actors playing  Macbeth (Cameron Clark), Macduff (Michael Lamont), Banquo (Patrick Downes) and Witch/Ross (Jo Williams). 

I originally did not wish to write a review, as I know many people involved in the show. However, following Pettigrew's comments, I thought I would like volunteer my "considered" opinion for Bass Guy and others. :) 

To my friends; please don't kneecap me! I just thought you deserved an honest, and explanatory review.

DISCLAIMER 2: I saw this production on opening night, and am going again on closing.

DISCLAIMER 3: This is my first review on this website. Previously, I have mainly contributed a rather... unpopular blog on blackface makeup. :P

Overall, I would summarise this production of Macbeth as being hit and miss. There were some techniques/ideas/performances and that worked for me and some that didn't.

I'll be nice and get the constructive criticism out of the way first, before I say what I liked. 

Firstly, where I think the production ultimately "missed" for me, was the pacing. 

I know that Garreth loves pace and energy in his shows, but unfortunately, especially when I saw it, the pace was pushed too hard at times, and became detrimental to the emotional weight and understanding of the show. I felt sorry for the miriad of school kiddies in attendance, as even I found it hard to follow initially, and it took me longer than usual to get my "Shakespeare ear" in and working effectively. And especially unfortunate was the performers who initially suffered the most from the overly eager pace: Mr and Mrs Macbeth.

As mentioned above, Cameron Clark (Macbeth) is a good friend of mine, but I did feel his performance was hindered by starting at such a high energy/delivery level. He started at an 8 (so to speak), but this left him with nowhere to go performance wise. He could only become more manic, and you could see him absolutely slogging his guts out trying to show the deterioration and mental decay in his character. However, his performance in the quiet moments showed great growth and charisma.

Similarly, Lady M absolutely sped through most of her dialogue, and this meant that most scenes between her and Mr M only left you with an overwhelming feeling of pace. Any beats, revelations, coercion or sense of mental games between the two tended to get lost in the break-neck speed of their scenes. All the "risque" stuff between them lost its shock or effectiveness because any sense of the intention behind the action was drowned in the pace. After most of their scenes, I would only realise at the end of the scene that a character had changed their mind/or had their mind changed by another, and I had missed it completely.

As this tended to occur mainly at the start of the show, perhaps this was the main contributor to some people's perception of this production as having "style over substance". (That's for you, Bass Guy :P) 

What also didn't help is that, I felt that only 5 out of the 12 performers had any real command of the text and their characters. This is despite knowing that Garreth has a tendency to beat iambic pentameter into his actors with a stick! Perhaps this also was a contributor to people's reception of the show. Additionally, there were some sloppy entrances and moments of dead stage at missed cues. 

Despite this though, I did enjoy some elements of the production. The director, Garreth, has recently been exploring the use of rhythm and beat (ie. stamping/chanting) in his works, in line with the theories of David Suzuki. (EDIT: Its actually Tadashi Suzuki. Apologies, I should've checked.)

I personally have done hours of chanting and stamping under Garreth's direction (even with the aforementioned stick). I thought his exploration of this in the opening five minutes of the play, and indeed, all the witches' scenes was especially effective. The witches scenes, for me personally, were the strongest of the play. The "bubble bubble" scene with the cauldron and Hecate mask was especially strong. 

That being said, towards the end of the play, I would've actually liked the rhythm and stamping to return. Through the last act especially, when I felt the pace dropped off, I would've liked to see the stamping re-emerge to help build tension and Macbeth's sense of entrapment and despair as his world crumbled. Garreth used this technique very effectively in his production of The Life of Galileo. As part of my own aesthetic tastes, I also think it would've made a nice "bookend" so to speak with the opening scene of the play.

In my own juvenile way, I also liked some of the Tarentino-esque gore; it made me laugh out of shock/comic relief. I thought the vomit and the eyeball were especially effective. They provided a nice break to the text and visceral way of exploring characters reactions/situations. Some of the other gore moments I thought were less effective- but more so out of the prop design and execution, than the directors intention. 

EDIT: Additionally, I also liked the fight choreography between Macbeth and Macduff. The eye jab in particular looked awesome from where I sat. The pace and intensity of the fight was good. Some of the other smaller "stunt" stuff was good, especially the Lady Macduff moment. It got a genuine gasp from the audience. Solid work. :)

In lieu of my comments above, I felt I should note some of the performances I did enjoy. As written above in my disclaimer, I am friends with four of the main cast in Macbeth, and though I know this could paint a target on this post for trollers and critiques, I thought generally, they, along with the actor who played The Porter/Doctor/Shaman/Priest provided some of the strongest performances. Not because they are mostly my friends and colleagues (though any of them will tell you I am a critical and opinionated theatre goer) but because I thought they had the best command of the text and stage-presence of the cast. Patrick Downes and Jo Williams in particular had the best command and delivery of the iambic pentameter. On pure emotional range alone, I enjoyed the scene where Macduff found out about the death of his family (IIII:iii), and the sleepwalking Lady M scene. The emotional weight was well performed and stood out for me as being especially strong. 

I agree that some elements of the prop and costume design were a little... odd, but I liked the simplicity of the set, which in typical Garreth fashion was probably done with the intention of cutting the superfluous dressing and c**p that can sometimes pad out/soften Shakespeare for audiences, and make you focus on the text. The use of the banners in particular was really well done and a great concept. :) 

So there you are, my considered opinion of the show. I am looking forward to going again tomorrow, and seeing how it may have changed and grown over the last 2 weeks. Chookas to the cast for their next shows. See you there. :) 

I had no idea that art offered salvation from madness. I was of the opinion that most artists are, themselves, quite deranged.

Doug Wright, Quills

Disclaimer: I don't know anyone from this show or GRADS - I went along because a friend had a spare ticket. I also forgot to grab a program, so I have no idea of the names of the actors - for that I apologise.

Okay, here goes. Well, Macbeth would have to be my favourite Shakespeare play, so I approached the evenings entertainment with a fair bit of excitement. My first impression was the absolute beauty of the New Fortune theatre. Bravo to Grads for choosing to perform an Elizabethan play in an Elizabethan theatre :) The acoustics of the venue ensured I heard every single word uttered on the stage and the ability to move seats and view the performance from the side gave me a rather interesting perspective. I felt that overall the director managed to achieve a certain ambience that is often lacking when companies take on a Shakespeare. 

From venue we move to set and I commend the decision to play it simple. The monolith situated centre stage drew focus from the instant I entered the venue and took on a character all of its own throughout the show. It exuded a sense of malign, fantastic power - especially during the scenes with the witches. I also believe that the structure of the theatre was well utilised. I clearly understood that the stage left exit from the balcony lead to the room where Duncan was murdered etc etc. Full marks.

In general I thought the costumes worked well enough. About the only costume that didn't work for me was Lady M's. The crop top seemed a little too valley girl for my tastes and had the unfortunate effect of pulling me out of the world of the show. But that's me and I respect that the costuming choice may have been made to help the character resonate more strongly with a younger audience.

I didn't notice the lighting, which to me is always a plus - good lighting should enhance the production without drawing focus, and that's what happened here for me. (Incidentally - the previous night I had seen Chicago at Burswood and I heard - as did most of the audience members sitting in the circle - the dome operators discussing their plans for the weekend during most of the first act. I didn't hear any technicians talking during Macbeth... Food for thought.)

In general, I was unimpressed by the textual interpretation. It seemed to me that too much emphasis had been put on bringing out the rhythm of the iambic pentameter, and not enough on ensuring that the flow of dialogue/monologue made sense. This wasn't a problem for characters like the witches, but for Mr. & Mrs. M this really inhibited my ability to understand what they were saying. I know the play, so it didn't stop me from understanding, but (to take a phrase from Amy) my "Shakespearean Ear" took a long while to click into place.

I also felt that the level of intensity was far too high far too early. I could see that the young man playing Macbeth was hugely talented, but he screamed at me for most of the night. Where was the silence and the softly spoken words that inspire dread? The absence of these "down" or "soft" moments took away the impact of the "up/loud" moments for me. The same was true for most of the performances - a flat-lining of energy at about a 9 on a scale of 1 - 10.

Now, to the contentious issues... sex, vomit, saliva and gratuitous violence - all the fun stuff :)

Sex: I've read from many sources regarding this show that apparently Shakespeare didn't write any sex into his plays. I must have a completely different set of Shakespearean texts to everyone else, as I see a lot of sex in these works. I believe the idea that Lady M would use her sexuality to manipulate Macbeth into doing what she wants was inspired - pure genius. And I felt the manner in which these exchanges were instigated verged on absolute mastery. What didn't work for me was the tongue in cheek manner in which Mr. & Mrs. M played up these moments to the audience. These seductions should have been chilling as we saw Lady Macbeth use her power over her husband to seduce him from level headed, loyal servant to bloody murderer. Instead they had the audience in fits of laughter as Macbeth gave a casual wink as he zipped his fly. A shame about this execution, because the idea behind it was brilliant.

Vomit: For starters - that vomit looked sooooo real! I thought I could almost smell it - did you put parmesan cheese in it or something? As for the appropriateness of it - I challenge almost anyone to view a corpse that has been hacked to pieces and left to rot for several hours not to throw up! I thought this moment was highly appropriate and realistic for what was happening in the show at the time. I was a little distracted by the clean up as the actor playing the porter was really into the moment of having to mop up vomit - he looked beyond unimpressed - but it was dealt with quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

Saliva: Well, it's true that there was an inordinate amount of saliva in this production. There was almost as much saliva as there was blood. But the question begs asking - How much saliva is too much? I think that people who will quite happily hack at each other with swords (or in this show's case, beat at each other with sticks) until their playmates are dead are sick, brutish, neanderthal-like thugs. I think these people would spit a lot because they don't care what other people think. Did the spitting in the show work for me? I spent a large chunk of act two with my eyes stuck to the large gobbet of saliva Macbeth had hacked up onto stage after drinking the witches potion hoping no-one was going to slip and break something, so... no, the spitting didn't work for me. That doesn't mean I don't think it was a good idea though!

Gratuitous Violence: What do we see in so many of our films today? Look at Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker - lots of gratuitous violence! Look at cartoons - even more gratuitous violence!! If we remember that in the Elizabethan and Jocobean ages, going to the theatre was just like going to the movies is for us in the *coughs* enlightened *coughs* 21st century does it surprise you that there's a lot of violence? Those complaining about the violence in this production of Macbeth should NEVER see Titus Andronicus - you would feint! I think that a lot of audience members felt uncomfortable with the violence because it was right there in front of them. There was no screen between them and what was happening to help distance them from the violent act, so it was confronting and made them squirm. I'm guessing that's what it was supposed to do. Me, I'm completely desensitised, so I can take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me.

Okay, I'm almost at the end, just a couple more things I want to point out. A) The porter/doctor et al. was excellent - completely stole the show for me. B) I thought Duncan was lacklustre and dragged down the scenes he was in. I'm not meaning to be mean, but he simply wasn't in the same league as the other actors, sorry. C) The idea of having the witches channeling Hecate through the mask worked brilliantly for me and was carried off by the expert performances of the actors - well done indeed. D) I didn't understand the microphone thingo - what was the point? The actors didn't even use the prop consistently. Garreth, please write me an answer to this question, as it's the only thing I didn't get and I want to know what your reasoning was.

A firm congratulations to all involved - Shakespeare is not easy to tackle. I look forward to your next summer Shakespeare - my other fave is Tempest *wink wink*

Daz

"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott Adams