Covert, A Thoroughly, Modern Morality Play
Sun, 26 Oct 2003, 12:34 amGreg Ross11 posts in thread
Covert, A Thoroughly, Modern Morality Play
Sun, 26 Oct 2003, 12:34 amCovert is stunning
Covert is intense.
Covert is wonderfully written.
Covert is superbly acted and directed.
Such are the moral dilemmas played out in front of the audience, I found myself driving home almost sympathising with Howard, Blair and Bush, quite apart from realising what returning Vietnam veterans must have gone through all those years ago, as they were exposed to our indifference and dissent.
Robert Jeffreys has pierced the protective wall of modern active army life and exposed the haunting reality of life on a necessary edge that most of us would rather not be confronted with. A superb, non-judgemental work that should be mandatory viewing for every Australian.
I have struggled in my ineffectual way to fault the play and apart from a couple of absolutely irrelevant opening night line stuff-ups, I could only come up with the nit-picking fact that Land Rovers are permanent 4WD, itÂ’s not something that needs to be engaged.
The acting was thoroughly believable, mind you, by my count, Greg McNeil and Peter Docker have now been in the Australian Army for 60 years - since "Rusty Bugles,” so they should know their way around the camouflage of army life! And the cast were obviously aware of the notorious Rechabites penchant for muffling male voices.
On that score, Deputy Premier Eric Ripper said on the way out, that the cost estimate for bringing the Rechabites Hall up to scratch was $4 million. I suggested that he could divert some of the revenue from Multa Novas.
To the Perth Theatre Company. Bloody fabulous once again. Skin Tight still lives with me and this superb work will do the same. DonÂ’t miss it.
Ps: Will the thought provoking solo one act play before the main event become a regular feature?
Covert is intense.
Covert is wonderfully written.
Covert is superbly acted and directed.
Such are the moral dilemmas played out in front of the audience, I found myself driving home almost sympathising with Howard, Blair and Bush, quite apart from realising what returning Vietnam veterans must have gone through all those years ago, as they were exposed to our indifference and dissent.
Robert Jeffreys has pierced the protective wall of modern active army life and exposed the haunting reality of life on a necessary edge that most of us would rather not be confronted with. A superb, non-judgemental work that should be mandatory viewing for every Australian.
I have struggled in my ineffectual way to fault the play and apart from a couple of absolutely irrelevant opening night line stuff-ups, I could only come up with the nit-picking fact that Land Rovers are permanent 4WD, itÂ’s not something that needs to be engaged.
The acting was thoroughly believable, mind you, by my count, Greg McNeil and Peter Docker have now been in the Australian Army for 60 years - since "Rusty Bugles,” so they should know their way around the camouflage of army life! And the cast were obviously aware of the notorious Rechabites penchant for muffling male voices.
On that score, Deputy Premier Eric Ripper said on the way out, that the cost estimate for bringing the Rechabites Hall up to scratch was $4 million. I suggested that he could divert some of the revenue from Multa Novas.
To the Perth Theatre Company. Bloody fabulous once again. Skin Tight still lives with me and this superb work will do the same. DonÂ’t miss it.
Ps: Will the thought provoking solo one act play before the main event become a regular feature?
Re: meanwhile, back to Covert
Thu, 13 Nov 2003, 02:04 am"Covert"s theme of military coverup, in a military trial situation, immediately drew parallels to the films 'A Few Good Men' and 'Basic'. Robert Jeffrey's script does a good job of justifying the unglamorous and less "Tom Cruise" point of view, in a perhaps more realistic representation of decisions made under the pressures of conflict, of military code of honour, and of public/media/government image.
Thought the acting was solid throughout. Peter Docker's Captain Smith was a meaty role which he handled well, although I felt he was affecting an odd accent (almost British?) in his very formal scenes with his superior...maybe that's just Peter being formal and official, but it was a distraction to the start of an otherwise solid character.
Greg McNeil handles these 'tough Aussie' roles really well, and still retains a streak of larrikin humour. (Although 'Major Peacock' is an unfortunate choice of character name....although it wasn't related to the performances at all, I couldn't help thinking of a cross between the game Cluedo and the character in 'Are You being Served')
Kemal Osman seems the perfect choice for the buff, tough, and slightly dense private...it's a good thing I saw his multiple roles in 'The Brick And The Rose' to realise that he's only acting a character here.
This is the first time I've seen Roderick Cairns, and I liked how he portrayed the conflict of the 'military' persona and the 'human' persona, which is the crux of the play.
The character who is the catalyst for the drama, played by Caroline Brazier, had a similar journey, and it was interesting to see how her moral right was subjugated to the political; an unusual plot turn that gave us a more interesting insight into her character. I thought it was a bit far-fetched that Captain Smith would have even the slightest hope of their getting back together... obviously his character was pretty self-focussed.
The design and lighting were simple and effective. The few disappointments were technicalities, but distracting enough.
The most glaring were the stage punches. These were really weak and unbelievable. Given that there were at least three or four and they were responsible for significant character moments, it's a shame these weren't either stylised or choreographed better.
There was a strange moment when a map chart fell off the wall (the heat in the venue staging its own war against the sticky tape backing). Peter's character saw it, but didn't do anything. Most of the scene was face-to-face dialogue, and it wouldn't have been hard to have fixed it or removed it...in fact it would have been a really interesting action to play; the completion or interruption of which would have spoken volumes as the conversation became more passionate. Ignoring it only allows it to become an out-of-play distraction.
(I've spoken about this kind of thing before, and I know it's a really difficult call to make...stuffing around trying to fix the problem might actually be more of a distraction. The actor needs to assess this and whether it can be dealt with, while not ever losing the rhythm of the action onstage. But I'm reminded of a great shot in Reservoir Dogs where the door to the warehouse accidentally swung open...Harvey Keitel, realising he could remain in shot, changed his blocking and walked way up the back of the building to close the door, while delivering his dialogue. That shot made the final film. It's also why a certain amount of improvisation training is really important for an actor in situations like this.)
The blackout at the end of act 1 was so close on the word cue that I don't feel the audience got to see any reactions to the line being said (which was significant). Just a beat would've made it less annoying going to interval....although the fact that act 2 began exactly where act 1 left off made it less of a problem.
And the playback of the walkman through the house speakers was a strange distraction to the reality I was absorbed in. I know the Rechabites is a sound sponge, and amplification would be necessary to make it clear, but I reckon it would've been possible to have a separate speaker out the back to make the sound seem like it matched the source, rather than coming through the house speakers and breaking the reality.
These faults are pretty minor though, and I guess only annoyed me because it's the Perth Theatre Company and my expectations are reasonably high. Not a pleasant story, but also not a thoroughly devastating one; as a night of drama it works very well, and as a new Australian work it's hitting all the marks.
Cheers,
Craig
Thought the acting was solid throughout. Peter Docker's Captain Smith was a meaty role which he handled well, although I felt he was affecting an odd accent (almost British?) in his very formal scenes with his superior...maybe that's just Peter being formal and official, but it was a distraction to the start of an otherwise solid character.
Greg McNeil handles these 'tough Aussie' roles really well, and still retains a streak of larrikin humour. (Although 'Major Peacock' is an unfortunate choice of character name....although it wasn't related to the performances at all, I couldn't help thinking of a cross between the game Cluedo and the character in 'Are You being Served')
Kemal Osman seems the perfect choice for the buff, tough, and slightly dense private...it's a good thing I saw his multiple roles in 'The Brick And The Rose' to realise that he's only acting a character here.
This is the first time I've seen Roderick Cairns, and I liked how he portrayed the conflict of the 'military' persona and the 'human' persona, which is the crux of the play.
The character who is the catalyst for the drama, played by Caroline Brazier, had a similar journey, and it was interesting to see how her moral right was subjugated to the political; an unusual plot turn that gave us a more interesting insight into her character. I thought it was a bit far-fetched that Captain Smith would have even the slightest hope of their getting back together... obviously his character was pretty self-focussed.
The design and lighting were simple and effective. The few disappointments were technicalities, but distracting enough.
The most glaring were the stage punches. These were really weak and unbelievable. Given that there were at least three or four and they were responsible for significant character moments, it's a shame these weren't either stylised or choreographed better.
There was a strange moment when a map chart fell off the wall (the heat in the venue staging its own war against the sticky tape backing). Peter's character saw it, but didn't do anything. Most of the scene was face-to-face dialogue, and it wouldn't have been hard to have fixed it or removed it...in fact it would have been a really interesting action to play; the completion or interruption of which would have spoken volumes as the conversation became more passionate. Ignoring it only allows it to become an out-of-play distraction.
(I've spoken about this kind of thing before, and I know it's a really difficult call to make...stuffing around trying to fix the problem might actually be more of a distraction. The actor needs to assess this and whether it can be dealt with, while not ever losing the rhythm of the action onstage. But I'm reminded of a great shot in Reservoir Dogs where the door to the warehouse accidentally swung open...Harvey Keitel, realising he could remain in shot, changed his blocking and walked way up the back of the building to close the door, while delivering his dialogue. That shot made the final film. It's also why a certain amount of improvisation training is really important for an actor in situations like this.)
The blackout at the end of act 1 was so close on the word cue that I don't feel the audience got to see any reactions to the line being said (which was significant). Just a beat would've made it less annoying going to interval....although the fact that act 2 began exactly where act 1 left off made it less of a problem.
And the playback of the walkman through the house speakers was a strange distraction to the reality I was absorbed in. I know the Rechabites is a sound sponge, and amplification would be necessary to make it clear, but I reckon it would've been possible to have a separate speaker out the back to make the sound seem like it matched the source, rather than coming through the house speakers and breaking the reality.
These faults are pretty minor though, and I guess only annoyed me because it's the Perth Theatre Company and my expectations are reasonably high. Not a pleasant story, but also not a thoroughly devastating one; as a night of drama it works very well, and as a new Australian work it's hitting all the marks.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···