Company
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 05:11 pmDaniel Kershaw15 posts in thread
Company
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 05:11 pmIt’s a Thursday night and you want to be entertained. So you head off to the Old Mill Theatre, situated in the hub of South Perth, to go support a show produced by a lot of your friends. You know you’re in the proverbial heart of community theatre when you see a tray of sherries offered before the show. Even though it is absolutely disgusting, you knock back two, just because you can – and because it’s free. Its pungent taste wakes you up a little and makes you seem cool in the eyes of all the old people ... I mean youthfully challenged.
I went to see Sondheim’s Company last night. This, a week after I saw two amazing productions by Malthouse and Melbourne Theatre Company, so, to be fair, I probably went in with a more critical eye than usual. But you know what? Despite this handicap, the show impressed me, so much so, that I have decided to write about it. The story revolves around 35 year old bachelor Bobby (If you saw the show you won’t forget his name – they sing about it incessantly), played by Scott Burns, who is trying to decide if marriage is for him, based on the views and experiences of his married friends – a story a bit too close to home for a few people I know. It’s an enticing book and a mesmerising score, but the cast, under the direction of Dannielle Aston, assisted by Shelley Ormerod, brought it to life with flair and gusto.
It was a very strong ensemble performance and the direction was slick and seamless. The choreography by Claire Nichols was understated and elegant, a perfect dichotomy for this show. While all the performances were solid, the stand outs for me were from people I have never seen perform before, which is refreshing when you see a lot of theatre. Matthew Kiely and Cicely Binford had great chemistry as the pedantic and bickering couple of Harry and Sally, yet managed to find a great deal of authenticity in their roles. Bonnie Coyle’s portrayal of April was outstanding. It was the most natural and engaging performance I have seen in community theatre for a discernible amount of time.
Matt Austin’s musical direction was flawless, but as Gordon previously stated, the levels of the keyboard at times (not very often mind you) made it difficult to hear some of the lyrics, which is more of a observation than a criticism, because I am sure everyone did the best they could in the space and with the resources available. The stage design of this production excited the theatre nerd inside of me. Apartments colour coded. Improvised neon lights. All married with Lewis Johnson’s superb lighting. Amazing. Although, in saying that, the design was a bit of a double edged sword. As much as I loved it, I felt at times that it cramped the stage and it definitely diminished the scenes on the top or ‘blue’ level. I am not sure performing above a live orchestra was the wisest decisions, but it certainly looked great.
Overall, a very enjoyable night out, exploding follow spots and all. I think the rest of the reason is sold out, but if you’re keen to see this production, I would try your luck at the door.
Likelihood of being trolled: high.
Sun, 17 Apr 2011, 12:10 pmI aware that this is going to be troll bait, but it’s something I feel strongly about and hence why I am posting it.
‘Someone else’. Your grievances with the show seem to be more with the interpretation than the production itself. I must make a disclaimer here and say that this response isn’t me championing the show. You can say the show sucked balls for all I care - as long as your reasoning for such a statement is sound. This response is me challenging your rationale behind your disparagement. You have every right to post your thoughts here, but I would ask you to be more specific about your criticisms.
To say Dannielle completely missed the point of the script you know ‘to a large extent’ is a little arrogant. If she, as you suggest, worked against the text, or simply did not understand it, it would have been obvious in its execution and a criticism of a lot of people – if that’s the case, I encourage people to speak up. The only people who could truly say that she missed the point are George Furth and Stephen Sondheim. Unfortunately, George Furth is dead and Sondheim was unavailable to attend this production and give us his thoughts. And even then, they just wrote the words and music. Sure, they could revoke the rights if they strongly disagree with creative choices, but in a perfect world, theatre makers should be able to go completely against the author’s intention as long as they say the words and sing the notes written. Texts are manuals, not edicts. If you want to jump to step 5 of the IKEA instructions or not follow them at all, go for your life. If you succeed in making something out of the materials, I will give you a standing ovation.
I had very little exposure to the show before I saw it, but had no major problems with its interpretation. I understood what was happening, there was a clear distinction between characters and I laughed a number of times. So, what I am saying is what ‘exactly’ did you have a problem with? The fact she used props? Because that to me is what you HAVEN’T told us.
I feel your ‘how to direct’ guidelines are very condescending. It basically read as ‘you did a good job, little girl, but this is how you actually direct’. What makes you such an authority on directing? And what makes you think Dannielle does not understand these basic principles of direction? Dannielle didn’t rely on props, costumes, set or lighting to create character, story and conflict. She relied on the text and her artistic choices, which, in my opinion, were fine. I didn’t agree with all the choices she made, but overall, I was impressed by the direction of this production.
Please don’t see this as a personal attack ‘someone else’, I am merely disagreeing what you are saying and await your rebuttal if you chose to make one. Anyway, I hope you had a great weekend.
Daniel.