Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

THE BIRTHDAY PARTY - Lawson Productions - Rechabites Hall, Perth

Thu, 18 Sept 2008, 10:48 pm
Julia Hern15 posts in thread
When the house lights came up at the conclusion of the final act, not a single audience member left the auditorium for a full 2 minutes. Like me, they had turned to their companions to mutter hypotheses about what they’d just witnessed. Was it the IRA? Was Stanley dead? Is the whole thing a dream? A religious cult? All theories, and each interpretation could be right. I saw this on opening night and I’m not a big fan of giving too much away in reviews, so forgive me if I am a little cryptic, but when you see this show, I want you to enjoy the surprises as much as I did. The beginning? Very cool! When the powerful music commanded our attention, the bare stage and bare actors rapidly became set and characters. To me the statement was: “Make no mistake, this is not reality. This is going to be a theatrical experience”. I feel it set the convention nicely. Was this the intention of the Director, Peter Clark? Who knows? Peter is fast becoming known in Perth theatre circles as somewhat of a risk taker, making bold choices and putting his personal flavour into the classic works of reputable authors. This was evident recently in his production of Ibsen’s Ghosts at Marloo. The Peter Clark stamp of (some may say) borderline inappropriate sexual undertone was present, nonetheless I found it to be an effective, somewhat confronting and often comical interpretation of the script. When Peter and the cast produced The Birthday Party with GRADS at The Dolphin in 2007 they came away with 2 Finley nominations and excellent reviews. Jacqui Warner was up for Best Actress for her portrayal of Meg. Her performance last night was executed with precision. To me she embraced the character’s search for normalcy with her circular routines, structured blocking and the impeccable way she delivered her repeated lines with consistent tone and inflection (Is it nice?) which had the audience tittering with laughter. In contrast Petey, played by Phillip Mackenzie, seemed natural and grounded in reality (aside from attempting to hang his hat on a non-existent hook on the wall – nice touch). Phillip, like many of the cast members, made great use of the famous “Pinter Pause” and throughout the show his performance became more and more engaging until finally drawing the audience into his character’s personal world of dilemma and sacrifice in the final dynamic minutes of the play. Martin Lindsay (Stanley) embraced the character with great commitment. He gave a very physical performance and depicted his journey from brash confidence to panic to total breakdown with animated intensity. His fear gave me a sense that Stanley had been expecting this day to come, that he was the only character actually aware of the identity of the “gentlemen”, the only one to recognise the true nature of the events unfolding before them all. Ironically, contrasted to Meg in the first few scenes, he actually appeared more sane. Nyree Hughes was ravishing as Lulu, ranging from seductive and teasing in her treatment of Stanley to coy and playful at the party. Finally she portrays the victim, insecure and with explosive rage. An all round natural and very watchable actress. The arrival of Goldberg and McCann was marked with backlighting through the doorway which immediately alerted us that they were not quite of our world, although we knew not why or from where they’d come. Their black suits and slick looks sharply contrasted with the light, “summery” feel that was previously established. When Eddie Stowers (Goldberg) spoke, it was luscious; like warm caramel you could drizzle over rich chocolate ice cream. It’s a gift he utilised with great skill as Goldberg to charm, seduce, dominate and intimidate the other characters. Being built like “the proverbial” lent extra truth to his ominous moments. Combined with his extremely expressive eyes the diversity of the character allowed Eddie to physically probe his emotional range. His performance was enthralling. A particularly captivating moment was the lesson he delivered to a subservient McCann seated cross-legged at his feet. David Gregory was Finley nominated in 2007 for his portrayal of Dermott (or is it Seamus) McCann. Playing the sometimes childlike, underling apprentice of Goldberg, David's mastery of the accent presented him as a convincing Irishman. He delivered extraordinary contrast in his performance, in one moment being calculated and quietly menacing, and the next sweetly singing a ballad or dancing an Irish jig. With a subtle expression of discomfort he showed us the vulnerability and uncertainty lurking just beneath his character’s forceful exterior. Eddie and David expertly handled the complex dialogue of the two interrogation scenes. An interesting twist in the final cross examination seemed to have been inspired by “The Sound of Music” and added to the sense of chaos that had descended upon the scene. As they finally dragged Stanley out the door, I assessed my understanding of the last 2 hours. I had been craving meaning. I had searched their every facial expression and physical nuance, every verbal inflection, every pause and line for subtext, the lights, the haunting soundtrack……something……..anything to evaluate the plot to a satisfactory conclusion. This is a “choose your own adventure” of sorts. You watch. You decide and that is the beautiful frustration of Pinter. Based on quality and entertainment, I feel it is well worth the $22 ticket price (students $17), so I would encourage you to attend a performance at The Rechabites in Northbridge. It closes Sat Sep 27th. Disclaimer: Although I know the Director and some cast members well, I have no other involvement in this production.

In 15 years of enjoying

Mon, 29 Sept 2008, 11:30 am
In 15 years of enjoying amateur theatre, this is the most outstanding show I have seen.....nothing about it was amateur! I have no involvement with the show and no prior knowledge of Pinter or 'The Birthday Party.' I, like many others walked away wondering who Goldberg and McCann represented. I considered The Mob, the IRA and the inner workings of Stanley's mind. A chance reference to society as 'organisation' on TV yesterday inspired what has become my reality of Pinter's brilliant play. Stanley is accused of 'betraying the organisation', and the term is used a couple of other times by Goldberg and McCann throughout. If you view The Organisation as Society, they are saying that Stanley has betrayed society by denying it of his talent. Stanley, who dreamed of being a concert pianist but ran into exile at the first disappointment, is the coward in us that takes the easy way out. He is so afraid of failure that he chooses a life of non-existence over experience. Lindsay portrays brilliantly Stanley's descent into madness as he fights to stay in control of his small existence rather than going back to a life of risk. The performance was so convincing that near the end I thought an ambulance might be needed. Meg is the enabler; the 'mother' voice that tells us we are safe here where we can't be hurt by failure. Warner had the audience cringing as she demonstrated beautifully how easily we are all controlled with 'niceness' Goldberg and McCann represent the fact that no matter how much you run away from your dreams, they will haunt you and eventually catch up with you in some form. In Stanley's case madness. Goldberg is the voice we hear that uses fear tactics to drive us to meet our potential. It tricks us by being calm and soothing, as Stowers resonating voice was, but then punches us right between the eyes when we don't meet it's expectations. McCann represents the more rational voice that politely tried to cajole Stanley into submitting. For me, McCann most closely captured the voice I try to listen to in my own mind that allows me to 'go for it' when I am afraid. The unorthodox manner with which he treated the newspaper says 'you can be part of society but you don't have to follow all it's rules.' He showed he was prepared to vehemently defend this belief in the way he reacted to Stanley's attempted interference with the paper. The unfortunate Lulu is the opposite of Stanley. She is what happens when we jump into something that looks like a good idea without any measure or thought. Even though Hughes played Lulu with the utmost of seductiveness, allowing the audience to believe she was without innocence, she admitted after Goldberg's 'rape' that it was bravado. She shows us that you can go after your dreams but it would be wise to proceed with caution. Petey is the part of us that knows we are giving in to the mundane; conforming to what others expect of us. MacKenzie's facial expressions demonstrated perfectly the thought process 'I can't bear this, but what can I do about it?' As Stanley is dragged away Petey desperately wants to go with him, not to save him as we might think, but to join him. In the end though, he takes the easy way out. I think the drum represented how opportunities come up in life that could be amazing but we are so busy trying to stay 'safe' that we don't even see them. I cannot pick an individual stand out performance from this play. Each actor executed their role beautifully and very believably. The direction by Clark was outstanding and I wondered if the 'dressing' at the start was designed to represent how we all decide who we will be; what face we will wear for each of life's 'performances'. The set, sound and lighting were also excellent. Congratulations to you all and thank you for the best show of my life. Could it be that 'The Birthday Party' represents Pinter's own fears as a writer and how he struggled to follow his dream rather than conform to a more 'normal' profession?

Thread (15 posts)

← Back to Theatre Reviews