Pages

Showing posts with label Drama and Theatre Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drama and Theatre Studies. Show all posts

Thursday, 29 September 2011

Reading 'Our Country's Good' by Timberlake Wertenbaker (The Importance of Appearances)

The most remarkable thing about the play is not just that it was purely created from a workshop of actors, using research and their talents to form a brilliant play. It is how this doesn't matter; if you did not know it's origins, you would assume this was just a standard play. Because of it's origins, it gains a unique style. While multi-roling is not uncommon in theatre, the play is about theatre and uses multi-roling in a very specific way. If you look at the original cast list, it is worth noting which actor played each role. For example, concited Wisehammer and  Governor Arthur Phillip, both played by Ron Cook, are arguably the most thoughtful characters in the play even though one is a convict and the other in charge of the colony. Lesley Sharp as , Reverend Johnson, and convicts Meg Long and Mary Brenham is able to explore three different views of sex and, in the case of Mary, how love can change someone. With this technique, the similarites and contrasts provoke interesting viewing

When reading the play though, it is not necessary to imagine multi-roling actors; having them as indivdual characters does not lessen the message that theatre can be a form of redemption. Neither does it remove the shock of the opening scene of convicts being flogged and missing home. It is clear from the start then, who we are meant to feel sympathetic for. The play continues in this blatant way, with simplistic plot and characterisation -  set in the 1780s, a group of convicts sent to Australia try to stage a play, despite some reluctance from officers and themselves. The class differences between the officers and the convicts is so clear, that it easily allows the reader to see the different attitudes towards the treatment of criminals; re-education or punishment? This is not as clear cut an argument as you might suppose, even if Wertenbaker is clearly in favour of the former. Neither argument is completely disproved, but the bias is obvious and so we are inclined to agree with the author, and rightly so.

 The officers may be mainly caricatures, of which many are present in Act One, Scene 6 (The Authorities Discuss the Merits of Theatre) but as such work brilliantly as a contrast to the more developed prisoners. By
The Methuen Drama: Student Edition
that contains
eyeopening revelations
about the origins of the play

having the officers sound so similar, all speaking with formal and complex vocabulary, allows the numerous and different voices of the convicts to become more distinctive especially when they talk to each other:
Phillip: Why wouldn't you say any of this before?
....
Liz: Because it wouldn't have mattered.
Phillip: Speaking the truth?
Liz: Speaking
This is a crucial moment on many levels, most notably because we realise that what Liz says is true. When we see the convicts at their best i.e. as decent human beings, it is when they are interacting with each other and rehearsing 'The Recruiting Officer' The fact that they are willing to perform in the play shows that they clearly have some confidence. Yet as Berkoff said "Naturalism is what you do when you don't know anything else" So perhaps it is not surprising that they soon improve their acting ability as they continue to rehearse. They also act as great moments to see character arcs and developments. As they spend more time on the play their true self comes out, as they realise how pretending to be someone else shows you who you really are - Liz is less judgemental, Wisehammer becomes more impressed by the power of words and Mary is more willing to embrace her love for Ralph.

Ralph, a lowly officer, is the protagonist of the play and so is by far the most believable and complex character. His first scene is dully observing the flogging of a convict but by the end of the play is passionately encouraging his new-found actors to give it their all on opening night. This intially sounds like a positive change in character, and yet in the period this would be seen as a lowly official sinking even lower in social status, hence the comment from the bigoted Major Ross of the second lieutenant: "He wants to be promoted to convict." This is a peculiar juxtaposition, but considering the prejudiced attitude of the officers and the more liberal convicts, this statement is not as fatuous as it first appears.
"And we, this colony of a few hundred will be watching this together, for a few hours we will no longer be despised prisoners and hated gaolers" (p. 20)
We, the audience, meet the demands expected from the officers when they become the audience for the convicts' play - we forget that they are criminals and become interested in their character and personality. Their actions and reasons for being at the colony is not important to us (only in terms of the plot) it is what they do with the time given to them. As we witness the prejudicial and arrogant attitudes of the officers, and the brutality this brings, we support their attempts at rebellion and suffer with them as they are duly punished, especially at the dramatic ending to Act 2 Scene 5. It is not unlikely that Wertenbaker herself shared this emotion when she went to see a play run by prisoners within their environment, an experience that has a clear impact upon the themes and general plot of the play, which are also referenced from the various letters she received from some of the performing prisoners.

A simple play which is very easy to read and well worth trying to see a performance of. I saw a college production of it and was very impressed by the complex issues discussed within this straightforward story. As a drama student, I perhaps appreciated the message about the benefits of theatre more than most. Nevertheless the historical context and the fact that it is based on a true event and real people is more than enough to keep the reader engaged.

Thursday, 15 September 2011

Seeing 'The Seagull Effect' (Wednesday 14th September 2011, The Courtyard, Hereford)

A love story...a meteorological study...an examination on the little decisions we make...a reconstruction of devastation...
All of these are encapsulated in one hour by 5 extraordinarily imaginative young performers accompanied by impressive projections, lighting and props. Mostly an ensemble peace, two simple stories are played out over the course of the one day in 1987 when Michael Fish got it famously wrong - the Great Storm of 1987, one of the worst the country has ever had. We are told retrospectively of a prospective meteorologist going for a job interview explaining the science behind the cause of the hurricane, how it (initially) failed to be detected and how people coped during the ensuing days of catastrophe. Unfortunately Grace Chapman struggles with the large amount of statistics and facts she has to communicate and her monotone delivery does make the information slightly less interesting then it was. Fortunately the cast perform incredible visualisations of the origins of the weather forecast system that very easily communicate a very complicated idea.

Meanwhile a minor love story is played out during the storm and as love is want to do, barely acknowledges the tragedy of the world around it . The awkward comedy is played realistically by Alex Kearley-Sheirs and Kate Stanley and while their story is somewhat predictable, the characters are so likable you get drawn in. Yet again I will say they are all fantastic physical performers and both a tasteful love scene and the two drifting apart (both making good use of a bed) are incredibly powerful.

In the end though this is an ensemble piece. According to their Twitter feed an injury to one of the cast meant a re-blocking with one less performer, not that you could tell. There are spectacular sequences as the hurricane grows in strength and destruction is raged upon Britain - simply using handfuls of leaves and violent body movements is enough to show how frightening these moments were. Even simple scenes of telephone calls and travelling on buses leave an impression on the audience. Needless to say, the audience were thrilled and laughing, with an applause that didn't want to end. If possible try and see this show or at least see this splendid company who I have no doubt will go on to further success and rightly so.