Brimstone & Treacle
Mon, 26 Apr 2004, 12:35 pmjassep2 posts in thread
Brimstone & Treacle
Mon, 26 Apr 2004, 12:35 pmPlay: Brimstone & Treacle
Author: Dennis Potter
Director: Eliot McCann
Company: Kalamunda Dramatic Society (KADS)
Dates: (See "What's On" info) Runs to 15th May
Performance Viewed: Sat, April 24 2004
Rating: **** of 5 Stars
The performance I saw of this play was about a 90% full house. Which interested me, because I wondered if the apparent subject matter of the production was going to put people off coming.
Obviously, I was wrong. Now, it may just be that KADS has such a strong following that they could put on a hat and sell tickets - and if that's the case, I applaud them for building such an appreciative audience.
Or... it could be that people are actually (*gasp*) interested in challenging, confronting theatre.
I *choose* to favour the latter - particularly after realising that it seemed to me that the entire audience were (with some reluctance, it might be argued) dragged, vitally, into this dreary, unrelenting world of the play.
That is the supreme achievement of the evening to my mind. No matter how appalled I was with the subject matter, or how awful the reality of the characters, I was COMPELLED to lock horns with the action onstage.
A great mistake that many community theatre directors continue to make, (whether it's their first production, or their thirtieth), is to allow a great deal of unmotivated action to creep into a production, thus dispersing the force of the script. This was definitely not the case here.
The director recognised early on, (and bravely followed through), the major strength of the play: it's "stillness." That is, the world of the play is inhabited by characters who have basically come to a grinding halt in their lives, and have remained there for two long, horrible, joyless years.
Nothing much is happening, there is just this terrible day-in-day-out, knot-in-the-gut tension that manifests as a terrifying blandness and "active" dullness to life. By "dullness", I don't mean "boring", I mean that the author has a view on the peculiar suburban horror euphemistically called the "rut" -- intensified here to the Nth degree, by the devices of physical, intellectual, spiritual and emotional incapacitation.
To achieve this powerful effect, the director Eliot McCann consciously opted for the "less in more" choice. He decided not to impose (or even allow or encourage in his actors) extraneous personal movement or blocking. This restraint played beautifully WITH the extreme static-ness of the script and story. It also built a kind of whispy, palpable tension over the course of the four acts. (Yes, four acts, but still a suprisingly short play).
Unmotivated movement is an awful mistake that is repeated time and time again when an actor will suddenly, with no organic thought or life, just get up and cross the stage. So, how much more challenging for a director to actually encourage that stillness in the playing, ESPECIALLY when the script's FATAL "siren song" to a director is "DO SOMETHING WITH ME!" The tempation to embellish the production with extraneous "touches" must have been overwhelming at times!
And secondly, there was a magnetic committment to the production on the part of the actors. I cannot say they were the most finely tuned ensemble cast I've ever witnessed, but their raw committment to being a part of the project, and their willingness to "do what it took" to make it work was rewarded by a focussed vitality in the playing that is so often lacking.
I have to say, however, that I did NOT like the script (that's where my review lost a star). I thought the premise interesting, but Potter's polemic was far too obvious for my taste -- religion, radical politics, utilitarian philosophy, family -- they're all represented here with less than glowing reviews (to say the least). And fair enough, too -- after all, I am no advocate for silencing those with strong viewpoints -- but I guess I've always preferred a more "subversive" approach in scripts than being banged over the head... a matter of personal taste, perhaps?
As I've indicated, the cast did an extremely good job with these difficult roles (and the often "clunky" dialogue). Alex Jones as Martin handled his deliberately "disturbing" niceness, and his subsequent change in character with a quiet intensity that was commendable. His transitions were beliveable, and there was always a "nice" level of malevolence present just below the surface.
Robert Whyte as Tom makes a welcome return to the Perth stage after an absence of 7 years. (As an aside, Rob was responsible for one of the biggest laughs I have ever had in a theatre which I still remember vividly to this day, a decade or so later! Welcome back, Rob). Obviously, his laughs in this production are few and far between... but he brings a harrassed, deeply neurotic, guilt-wracked, coldly intelligent-yet-sensitive character vividly to life.
Joy Northover was totally believable as a woman who had put her life completely on hold out of obligation and guilt. She captured an inner "crumbling" which was both compelling and awful to witness... a fine achievement for any actor.
And last, but definitely not least, was Rayann Condy in the thankless and extremely emotionally and physically demanding role of Pattie (which, incidentally, is SUCH a difficult name to say convincingly onstage - it always sounds forced and artificial to my ear).
Nonetheless, Rayann absolutely captured the essence of her characters condition. So convincingly was she, in fact, that from the moment the curtain opened a kind of "appalled hush" settled over the audience, and I for one found it so very difficult to even look at her suffering. She handled beautifully, and with a real clarity and sensitivity, what could so easily have been disgustingingly self-indulgent in the hands of a lesser committed actor. Kudos!
Another interesting decision by the director was to place the audience in the living room, actively and silently observing. To do this, he used a simple and elegant device to great effect, which was to treat the entire theatre as the house. So, in fact, the front of house area became the "kitchen" and so forth. Had there been continuous use of this device with lots of actor traffic, it may well have become jaded but, used as sparingly as it was, it added an element to the production which was very disarming. Also, the flatness in the lighting enhanced the dullness of the life effectively.
Kudos to all involved -- a well executed production of a difficult script. A real achievement, especially when you consider this to be the directors debut production!
And I, for one, hope not his last...
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
Author: Dennis Potter
Director: Eliot McCann
Company: Kalamunda Dramatic Society (KADS)
Dates: (See "What's On" info) Runs to 15th May
Performance Viewed: Sat, April 24 2004
Rating: **** of 5 Stars
The performance I saw of this play was about a 90% full house. Which interested me, because I wondered if the apparent subject matter of the production was going to put people off coming.
Obviously, I was wrong. Now, it may just be that KADS has such a strong following that they could put on a hat and sell tickets - and if that's the case, I applaud them for building such an appreciative audience.
Or... it could be that people are actually (*gasp*) interested in challenging, confronting theatre.
I *choose* to favour the latter - particularly after realising that it seemed to me that the entire audience were (with some reluctance, it might be argued) dragged, vitally, into this dreary, unrelenting world of the play.
That is the supreme achievement of the evening to my mind. No matter how appalled I was with the subject matter, or how awful the reality of the characters, I was COMPELLED to lock horns with the action onstage.
A great mistake that many community theatre directors continue to make, (whether it's their first production, or their thirtieth), is to allow a great deal of unmotivated action to creep into a production, thus dispersing the force of the script. This was definitely not the case here.
The director recognised early on, (and bravely followed through), the major strength of the play: it's "stillness." That is, the world of the play is inhabited by characters who have basically come to a grinding halt in their lives, and have remained there for two long, horrible, joyless years.
Nothing much is happening, there is just this terrible day-in-day-out, knot-in-the-gut tension that manifests as a terrifying blandness and "active" dullness to life. By "dullness", I don't mean "boring", I mean that the author has a view on the peculiar suburban horror euphemistically called the "rut" -- intensified here to the Nth degree, by the devices of physical, intellectual, spiritual and emotional incapacitation.
To achieve this powerful effect, the director Eliot McCann consciously opted for the "less in more" choice. He decided not to impose (or even allow or encourage in his actors) extraneous personal movement or blocking. This restraint played beautifully WITH the extreme static-ness of the script and story. It also built a kind of whispy, palpable tension over the course of the four acts. (Yes, four acts, but still a suprisingly short play).
Unmotivated movement is an awful mistake that is repeated time and time again when an actor will suddenly, with no organic thought or life, just get up and cross the stage. So, how much more challenging for a director to actually encourage that stillness in the playing, ESPECIALLY when the script's FATAL "siren song" to a director is "DO SOMETHING WITH ME!" The tempation to embellish the production with extraneous "touches" must have been overwhelming at times!
And secondly, there was a magnetic committment to the production on the part of the actors. I cannot say they were the most finely tuned ensemble cast I've ever witnessed, but their raw committment to being a part of the project, and their willingness to "do what it took" to make it work was rewarded by a focussed vitality in the playing that is so often lacking.
I have to say, however, that I did NOT like the script (that's where my review lost a star). I thought the premise interesting, but Potter's polemic was far too obvious for my taste -- religion, radical politics, utilitarian philosophy, family -- they're all represented here with less than glowing reviews (to say the least). And fair enough, too -- after all, I am no advocate for silencing those with strong viewpoints -- but I guess I've always preferred a more "subversive" approach in scripts than being banged over the head... a matter of personal taste, perhaps?
As I've indicated, the cast did an extremely good job with these difficult roles (and the often "clunky" dialogue). Alex Jones as Martin handled his deliberately "disturbing" niceness, and his subsequent change in character with a quiet intensity that was commendable. His transitions were beliveable, and there was always a "nice" level of malevolence present just below the surface.
Robert Whyte as Tom makes a welcome return to the Perth stage after an absence of 7 years. (As an aside, Rob was responsible for one of the biggest laughs I have ever had in a theatre which I still remember vividly to this day, a decade or so later! Welcome back, Rob). Obviously, his laughs in this production are few and far between... but he brings a harrassed, deeply neurotic, guilt-wracked, coldly intelligent-yet-sensitive character vividly to life.
Joy Northover was totally believable as a woman who had put her life completely on hold out of obligation and guilt. She captured an inner "crumbling" which was both compelling and awful to witness... a fine achievement for any actor.
And last, but definitely not least, was Rayann Condy in the thankless and extremely emotionally and physically demanding role of Pattie (which, incidentally, is SUCH a difficult name to say convincingly onstage - it always sounds forced and artificial to my ear).
Nonetheless, Rayann absolutely captured the essence of her characters condition. So convincingly was she, in fact, that from the moment the curtain opened a kind of "appalled hush" settled over the audience, and I for one found it so very difficult to even look at her suffering. She handled beautifully, and with a real clarity and sensitivity, what could so easily have been disgustingingly self-indulgent in the hands of a lesser committed actor. Kudos!
Another interesting decision by the director was to place the audience in the living room, actively and silently observing. To do this, he used a simple and elegant device to great effect, which was to treat the entire theatre as the house. So, in fact, the front of house area became the "kitchen" and so forth. Had there been continuous use of this device with lots of actor traffic, it may well have become jaded but, used as sparingly as it was, it added an element to the production which was very disarming. Also, the flatness in the lighting enhanced the dullness of the life effectively.
Kudos to all involved -- a well executed production of a difficult script. A real achievement, especially when you consider this to be the directors debut production!
And I, for one, hope not his last...
Warmly,
Jason Seperic
Re: Brimstone & Treacle
Mon, 26 Apr 2004, 05:36 pmWalter Plinge
With all the hype surrounding it, in regards to it being banned by the BBC when it was first produced because of its subject matter, I was very wary that Brimstone and Treacle could possibly be painful to sit through. A black comedy about the family of a mentally disabled young girl could easily venture into tastlessness, never mind the disturbing things that happen to the girl. Knowing what these were before seeing the show, as many of you may do if you have read the paper or heard through word of mouth; I didn't expect to be amused, impressed, or even affected by the events on stage.
However, I was pleasantly suprised on all accounts. Brimstone and Treacle is cleverly funny at times in that Englishy- Dennis Potter way (I'm sure you know what I mean despite my articulacy), although I do agree with Jason in that it does sort of beat you over the head with its political and moral ideas. Joy Northover and Robert Whyte did well in executing that English quality even with opening night nerves, appropriately understated in their interaction with each other in that typical working-class English style. My only complaint in that respect is that there were times where I would have liked their discussions to become a little more heated; I think the impact was lost a few times on a few very important lines between those two.
Alex Jones was wonderful in his depiction of the 'Visitor'. His change from ridiculously and hilariously upbeat to pure evil was downplayed enough to keep it believable. And its got to be a bit of a challenge when you are playing some one implied to be the devil. His snarling exit and his sudden change of character made my stomach turn.
Rayann Condy was amazing as Pattie, her portrayal was tactful enough not to be parodic, even though at times her non-verbal communication was actually part of a joke. Her helplessness in the hands of the visitor is terrifying.
The sound effects and lighting were perfectly executed on the nights I was there, quite a feat considering the ridiculous things Dennis Potter's works sometimes require, having been written for TV. In one particular case, they allowed the action to implied rather than graphically displayed to the audience, and I was both relieved and thankful.
Brimstone and Treacle is a challenge for any director and cast. On opening night it was only about 60% full, and I assumed, contrary to Jason, that people had been put off by the subject matter. Don't be. It is handled so well that, as long as you come prepared and open minded, you leave the theatre having experienced what Dennis Potter intended, whether you liked it or not. If you have been waiting, as I have, for community theatre to be courageous enough to tackle something as gritty and controversial as this, don't miss Brimstone and Treacle.
However, I was pleasantly suprised on all accounts. Brimstone and Treacle is cleverly funny at times in that Englishy- Dennis Potter way (I'm sure you know what I mean despite my articulacy), although I do agree with Jason in that it does sort of beat you over the head with its political and moral ideas. Joy Northover and Robert Whyte did well in executing that English quality even with opening night nerves, appropriately understated in their interaction with each other in that typical working-class English style. My only complaint in that respect is that there were times where I would have liked their discussions to become a little more heated; I think the impact was lost a few times on a few very important lines between those two.
Alex Jones was wonderful in his depiction of the 'Visitor'. His change from ridiculously and hilariously upbeat to pure evil was downplayed enough to keep it believable. And its got to be a bit of a challenge when you are playing some one implied to be the devil. His snarling exit and his sudden change of character made my stomach turn.
Rayann Condy was amazing as Pattie, her portrayal was tactful enough not to be parodic, even though at times her non-verbal communication was actually part of a joke. Her helplessness in the hands of the visitor is terrifying.
The sound effects and lighting were perfectly executed on the nights I was there, quite a feat considering the ridiculous things Dennis Potter's works sometimes require, having been written for TV. In one particular case, they allowed the action to implied rather than graphically displayed to the audience, and I was both relieved and thankful.
Brimstone and Treacle is a challenge for any director and cast. On opening night it was only about 60% full, and I assumed, contrary to Jason, that people had been put off by the subject matter. Don't be. It is handled so well that, as long as you come prepared and open minded, you leave the theatre having experienced what Dennis Potter intended, whether you liked it or not. If you have been waiting, as I have, for community theatre to be courageous enough to tackle something as gritty and controversial as this, don't miss Brimstone and Treacle.