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.
Daniel KershawFri, 15 Apr 2011, 05:11 pm
It’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.
jeffhansenFri, 15 Apr 2011, 05:42 pm
I missed out on the free
I missed out on the free sherry, as I was drinking overpriced beer and wine at the Windsor over the road before the show. I agree with most of Daniel's observations. It was indeed an entertaining night at the theatre, even with the unintended pyrotechnics.
I didn't have any problem with the sound levels. Maybe my ears are not so sensitive as Dan's.
Well done to cast and crew, and too bad to those who haven't booked, with the rest of the season fully sold.
www.meltheco.org.au
Daniel KershawFri, 15 Apr 2011, 05:48 pm
I do have big ears Jeff.
I do have big ears Jeff.
jeffhansenFri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:44 pm
I can't tell under that
I can't tell under that hippie long hair.
I was considering Gordon's volume balance comment last night while watching, and thought that the balance was just right. Always difficult to do when the actors aren't miked.
www.meltheco.org.au
Daniel KershawFri, 15 Apr 2011, 11:34 pm
Which is why I said it
Which is why I said it wasn't really a criticism, but I missed some of the lyrics, which was a shame. But you're right, it's difficult.
Walter PlingeSat, 16 Apr 2011, 05:07 pm
I went to see this the
I went to see this the other night.
Alas, I also went in with a critical eye... more than I was hoping.
Having the knowledge of the music and script to quite a large extent, I feel the director missed a lot of great moments and the spine of a lot of the scenes and characters.
They did well with what they had and the space they chose. I didn't understand why Danielle chose to set it in the late 60's when in the director's notes, she stated how she wanted the audience to see how it was relevant today - (set it today then).
The mise-en-scene in some of the songs didn't match at all. Eg: why use the wives in "Have I Got A Girl For You" ??? Also, a scene with Bobby and Marta, Amy walks by and acts like Marta's best friend saying "hello" with Robert (who is the actual friend of that character) standing right there and not saying anything or acknowledging.
These are just 2 examples of how I think Danielle comlpetely missed the point of the script and mis-judged a lot of the action, comedy, and use of actors.
That aside, the use of the space was fairly good and the blending of voices within the harmonies and other sung text was good.
Also, it looked like Danielle directed it with the thought of using every prop that could possibly be used.
Danielle - He's a pointer for your next production - and I hope you continue.
- Take a script and build it like you would a black-box production. No one should ever rely on props, costume, set or lighting to create character, story and conflict.
Next time, say to yourself - what is the conflict, what is the spine, why is there and audience and why is each character there. Why is the audience there? Everyone has a purpose.
When the script calls for a character to be holding a glass, give them a glass - don't give them a fully decorate kitchen. When someone is in need of a drink at a bar - don't give them a bar-man who stands there too long.
SIMPLE SIMPLE SIMPLE.
If you ever direct this again - I'd love to see it and see what changes you will have (hopefully) made.
Walter PlingeSun, 17 Apr 2011, 11:47 am
At least Dannielle has the
At least Dannielle has the guts to put her name to her work, unlike the author of this post.
Daniel KershawSun, 17 Apr 2011, 12:10 pm
Likelihood of being trolled: high.
I 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.
MusicalMumSun, 17 Apr 2011, 12:17 pm
Hear hear!!
....mind you, stylistically 'Someone else' sounds strangely familiar.....But maybe that is more about personality & attitude rather than identity.
MusicalMumSun, 17 Apr 2011, 12:28 pm
I agree we shouldn't get into troll feeding........
...but what is interesting is that Danni is one of the Directors in Perth who frequently receives attention for the very high standard of her work. And I believe in addition to the many positive reviews she has had, she has also been the recipient of more than one award for Directing.
That's what made 'Someone else's' choice of words (which I too felt dripped with condescension) so vexing to me. Not suggesting that Danni is perfect or will never make a poor choice, but the "this is how you direct" spiel really painted the author in a very poor light indeed. How can any dissenting viewpoint be taken seriously when it's done a)anonymously; and b)with the "Let me tell you how it's done...." spin on it?
Paula
Daniel KershawSun, 17 Apr 2011, 12:36 pm
I absolutely agree with you
I absolutely agree with you Paula. And I should mention that I have not always liked Danni’s work and I think I have been very forthcoming about that. But, I have been impressed lately by the standard of her direction.
Stuart RichesMon, 18 Apr 2011, 10:54 am
For me, this is yet another
For me, this is yet another example of why non users should not be able to comment!!