It’s not easy taking a punt on a new play, and the scariest punt imaginable is the play which is absolutely positively new and from an absolutely positively new writer. In this case the sleight of hand is interesting: and the context is interesting. The Griffin Theatre Company and Sydney Theatre Company have joined forces to produce Anthony Weigh’s new play “Like a Fishbone.”

Some may have seen Lee Lewis’ production of Weigh’s 2000 Feet Away, which was programmed as a part of the B Sharp Season in 2007 (which won the Sydney Theatre Award for Best Independent Theatre Award in 2007), but since that time Weigh has had plays produced at The Bush Theatre in London… including Like a Fishbone in May/June 2010.

The punt in this circumstance is programming a play by an Internationally based Australian playwright, whose world premiere happens months before the Australian production- and watching the reactions to the script in Europe before it heads to Australia. It’s an interesting case. When a script is produced in one place, in the hands of one director- is that then to be the definitive script? Is the published book in my hand the copy that was also used in the Bush Theatre production? If it is received well there, will it be received well here? And vice versa?

I rarely read anything about the plays I review before I see them. Often I am drawn to a particular artist- writer, director or performer… and I have certain theatres/venues I like to attend- and I happily declare my hand. I choose to go where the Australian writing is. I choose to look at the new plays… I find it an amazing challenge and a thrilling agonizing pressure/pleasure to be the receiver of the newest of the new. So it is no surprise that I have favoured the stages of the Griffin and Belvoir and The Old Fitz- the three at the forefront of new work.

I make it a policy not to know too much before seeing the play… which can make it difficult when wooing a date to come along with me. Often I will be asked “what’s it about?” or “is it going to be good” and the glib response of “I don’t know” pops up in response to both questions… and so I send a link to the potential date… and await to see if there is something appealing in it for them- always an interesting litmus test of the market appeal of a play… and depending on how the show goes says something about the bravery of my date… or in the compelling nature of my company.

Sometimes, I have the great fortune of having the mighty mind of Mr Waites to bounce off- we have turned to each other and said “WOW” simultaneously… we have delighted and been dismayed by many shows together… but regardless of his opinion, I always remain true to my gut response when I write. And so…

I write my response. (So swiftly, it seems that grammar and spelling are sacrificed in the finger-pecking fury.)

I finish.

I post.

Then I read what everyone else has to say. In this circumstance I then read:
http://eightnightsaweek.blogspot.com/2010/07/review-like-fishbone.html

and I saw that Elissa Blake had given the play a 9 out of 10… and then I looked a little further afield and it appears that the critics in the UK had quite a different response to the text:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/review-23845046-like-a-fishbone-sticks-in-the-throat.do

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b89088b8-7ad8-11df-8549-00144feabdc0.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/like-a-fishbone-bush-theatre-london-2001362.html

I draw attention to this not because I think there is a right and a wrong way to read a play- either in text or in performance- but to show the different discussions. I have reservations about this piece as anything more than an interesting intellectual wrestle. I also feel that the play may have started in the wrong place… where the conflict begins- is this an internal conflict or a theoretical one- is it international or completely domestic? What does it mean to be transformed? (Yeats ringing in my ears: “transformed utterly… a terrible beauty is born”) What are we left with, once all the words and thoughts have been spoken. We have wrestled verbally, intellectually and physically- and we are left with…. what? A broken song from a remorseful mother?

No doubt about it- a handsome production- and Griffin and STC must be proud… It is a punt I am thrilled to see happening. An Australian play with an international profile- nice.

Also quite thrilling was Cate Blanchette’s acknowledgement of the traditional caretakers of the land on opening night. Five stars for that acknowledgement up front! But I must slightly suggest that Griffin should not be referred to in the diminutive as a “small theatre” partnering with a “large theatre”… As far as I am concerned, the Griffin is one of the most culturally significant institutions of Australian Theatre- it is the home of National Playwriting… Out of that space (previously known as The Nimrod) Belvoir was born. Let’s not forget, that though small in stature, The Griffin punches WELL above it’s weight. And always has.

This review was originally published on http://www.australianstage.com.au/

White drops of rain trickle in luminescent light down the wall of an office. On a table in the room is a white model of a town. There is the sound of the rain in the streets outside.

In an architect’s office a blind mother waits. She has travelled by bus to talk to the architect. She has travelled by bus because of trackworks. Trackworks because of the flooding. It is raining. She is wet. She waits. Confronted by a voice of a woman, the mother asks to see the architect. It is soon explained. The woman is the architect. “You can be both.”

The architect is responsible for designing a memorial after a community was devastated by a tragic shooting at their local school. The mother feels responsible for passing on the wishes from her daughter: that the memorial is not what they want.

Both women equal in many ways: fierce, intelligent, passionate and yet completely different in world view… completely opposing in philosophy and in their purpose. One places her unerring faith in God. The other, places her unerring faith in herself.

Themes flip between the role of God, the role of architecture (and art), the role of a mother, who has the right to represent a community, the effectiveness of group consultation, what is it to leave a legacy? Like a Fishbone is a series of arguments about authority and righteousness, which ultimately examines a deeper philosophical dilemma- a person’s life purpose.

It is a handsome production- set design by Jacob Nash is suitably cold and efficient, complimented beautifully by costumes designed by Bruce McNiven. And Verity Hampson’s Lighting design is subtle and effective- shifting us elegantly from the poetic to the stark throughout the course of the narrative.

An outstanding performance from Anita Hegh, as the mother gives the piece a warmth and tenderness, which could otherwise be reduced to an intellectual wrestle of righteous ideology. Hegh’s ferocity and fragility is heartbreaking – feels spontaneous and honest. It is a difficult balance to strike as the character of the mother some may find it slightly difficult to empathize with, as her ideology seems old fashioned , naive and unglamorous.

Aimee Horne’s Intern is likeable and balances the scenes with a genuine humour and an authentic spontaneity- and after a barrage of violent ideological exchanges it is the Intern’s speech which grounds us in the simplicity of what is: form follows function. Unfortunately the character of the architect (Marta Dusseldorp) is not only unlikeable, but her transition from hardnosed career woman to compassionate woman is unbelievable.

Like a Fishbone is a play that get’s caught in your throat. Like that of a soft fleshed fish- the translucent , invisible bones of the play are hidden. And before you can fully comprehend what is happening- that which was intended to be a source of nourishment, is now that which is the cause of your demise. Anthony Weigh’s play itself, is largely about the structures – the philosophical structures – which shape us and our world- that frame our perspective. Tim Maddock deftly handles a very intense argument with great skill and finesse.

Like a Fishbone is a wrestle which is personal, and unresolvable and the sport can be best be found not in the end of the play- but in the discussions in the foyer after the show.

A post-event note on Stockholm- which I did manage to see- I scraped-in and sat in some dodgy seats in the last week of the production- I was largely curious to see what the fuss was about- why it had disappointed so many- why some complained of it being over-produced… why some complained of a glib script… why some complained that the actors were satisfactory as actors but not as dancers- and if any of this matters in the larger scheme of the story.

This is not a review- if you want a review- check out the SMH- or the STC website… this is my response, a personal response to Stockholm, not a review.

I don’t envy the Artistic Directors of Sydney Theatre Company- it’s a tough position to be in. And I’m not talking about the fact they are inescapable celebrities. That company has a huge lurching history- a sense of elevation/mystique amongst the regular punters and the general public- a grandeur to aspire to be apart of for practitioners- the STC is Cate Blanchette’s theatre… Robyn Nevin’s old theatre… seen to be filled with rich, grey-haired partrons who sip their white wine whilst ruminating the glossy production of their evening out- the hottest overseas script (or well worn Australian classic) over blue cheese and glittering Sydney Harbour lights…

Do you programme for the people who already go to your theatre- and what they seem to enjoy (if subscription sales can be interpretted as a measure of “enjoyment”) – or do you programme for a potential audience you want to attract? In recent times I am not sure who the STC is programming for- or what is being said about the wider world. Now and then I get the distinct impression that the role of the STC in the landscape of Australian theatre is to inform us of what is popular elsewhere- theatre (and film) practitioners are flown in, to give us an International cosmopolitan experience without having to get our passport stamped. I just wonder if this international perspective is granted to our playwrights in the Northern Hemisphere- do theatre companies in Britain find a need to produce new Australian plays in order to show/prove their cultural capital as an internationally relevent and connected company?

“Yes, yes… Augusta… we know … we’ve heard you bang on about this before… but what did you think of the play?” I hear you sigh-

“Well…” I answer, I didn’t think much about the play- I felt much about the play. I got sucked into that vortex of the world and dwelled in a dark place tangled up in the dark knotted vines of desperate and violent need- but everytime I did, something jerked me out of it… A visual trick- a moving set, a dance routine, a sound effect, a liquid desk top or a spritely direct address to the audience. Everytime I felt myself slip into that soul-heaving trembling space, I was made aware of all the conventions.

Perhaps that’s a good thing- perhaps that a psychological safeguard to make sure that the audience is not left damaged by the experience? Perhaps if we are jerked out of the experience by production values it stops us descending deeper than is safe to? Because once you have seen something, you can’t unsee it. It haunts you. It lurks in your mind’s eye. It changes you.

Perhaps ancient theatre models of confrontation were designed as a means of triggering catharsis… but in this age invested in psychology and nihilsm- what is theatre for us- is it entertainment, a balm to soothe the wound of the everyday? Is it the doorway into an alternative world/way of seeing the world? Is it a safe space to experience the horror and intensity which lurks beneath the surface of things? Perhaps all of this- to some degree at all times, in all genre and platforms… I know what theatre is for me and why I keep coming back- regardless of what I am seeing and how it is presented. I love theatre because it reassures me. It says, “Augusta, you are not alone in your yearning and your pain and your passion and your indecision and your fervour. You are human. You suffer the same as any other. You are resilient and broken like anyone around you. You are alive, and the act of your engagement with this moment is proof. You feel, therefore you are living.”

Stockholm, felt to me to be like my heart was being plunged repeatedly in buckets of water- one hot and one ice cold. A never ending drenching. I felt the heat and the warmth of glowing soft skin and the razor sharp rasping voice of violence. I felt the exhaustion of the battle- and the exhilaration of the sexual highwire act. I felt the joy and the magnetism- I understood the swing between the two opposite and conflicting experiences- the embodied pressence and the cerebral distance. Heart vs logic.

It’s ok for me to have the experience fluctuate and flair out at different moments. I’m going to embrace it as a built-in defense mechanism- to save me from being overwhelmed by those aspects which I recognise in myself, in my past, in my relationships. I am safe to confront myself- because look- they are dancing- because look- there’s a different light casting a shadow over Socratis Otto’s back… because it’s theatre.

I will take a little moment to think about what it means for two of the last shows of the main stage season to be directed by a foreign guest directors (and both film practitioners)- my interest in discussion is not necessarily the “foreign” aspect- but the film aspect.

When I was writing my thesis all those years ago on audience reception theory of a new Australian play one of my interviewed subjects made the comment along the line of theatre as the place where people learn before they become film makers… and it seems in this age of CateNAndrew that its where filmmakers go to feel legitimized as artists. I find it stunning that an opportunity is given of this kind to a filmmaker (with no noted theatre credits in the program) and is not afforded to some of the local Sydney Theatre directors… Nice to note that Cat was there on opening- but did not make the speech- I believe she had arrived back from the Streetcar tour that morning… Andrew made a speech which hinted at risk and innovation… again I’m not really sure what he was referring to- putting a show int he hands of a filmmaker? Letting someone have a slot for a verbatim piece of theatre? Verbatim theatre in general? Programming something that hasn’t been written yet? Regardless, his speech was again a recitation of the program and the sponsors more than a comment on the work itself.

In addition to this I find it somewhat patronizing to the theatre directors of Sydney and beyond that according to the STC website “Steven Soderbergh is donating his fees for Tot Mom to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Sydney Theatre Company will make no profit from this production.” One wonders about the Australian missing and exploited children- will Neil Armfield head over to NYC to direct the Opera of Lindy Chamberlin’s story and donate it to an Aussie charity?

Is Soderbergh slumming it in theatre in Sydney? Well if you stuck around opening night- you would have seen some guerilla filming happening- a “side project” I heard about- seemingly based on a mock production of Chekov’s The Three Sisters- with faux opening night speeches in the tone of a satire of the theatre industry.

Despite the reservations I have about the STC programming choices and their social and industry implications- the fact of the matter is that TOT MOM as a show, is a little on the dull side. Once you have finished being overwhelmed (which will tyake 20 minutes) by the screens (and the conservative part of who I am is a little annoyed that the screen/mobile/ipod-free sacred space of the theatre has been cluttered with screens), and impressed buy the accent work as perfected by voice coach Jennifer White, and by the collection of actors assembled onstage…. once the smoke screen of that has cleared you will notice a few things.
1. This is an editted re-enactment of a TV show… not necessarilly progressive in the realm of verbatim theatre.
2. The case and the story of Caylee is the most unimportant aspect of the message- the message is about American journalism and media- hence why the case can still be underway and it’s result does not influence the show.
3. There is a few structural problems (yes I said problems and they should not to be confused with “innovation”) with the script- including a third act introduction of a similar case about a missing 5 year old called Hayley- which seems to be included so the parent’s appeal- a heart warming reminded that they are ” real people with real lives” can be included in the show- but really without any other justification. And a clumsy false ending which was greeted with applause 4 minutes before the end of the show. There are other problems with this script- namely the very rudimentary portrayal of the search for Caylee’s body.
4. The strange emotionlessness of it all- in that I was not angered by this commentary on the American Media, I was not surprised, I was not moved, I was not disturbed- it was curiously intellectually un-nourishing.
5. The program notes are more interesting than the show- and the discourse within the program notes showed an interesting idea- which did not quite translate beyond what we already assume/know about American TV, celebrity and the American Justice System.
6. If this show was mounted in Florida where Nancy Grace is known, the case is known and the culture is being commented on- I think I would have by far had a greater respect for the act of commenting on the American Media and Culture- but as it is- presented in an Australian city to people who don’t know the case nor the celebrity journalist Nancy Grace- the comment is dis-empowered.
7. As a script- this is really a film.

Culturally- I think we have a great objectivity towards American media- and a great understanding of its corruption of justice and it’s love of opinion and sensationalism so this becomes an exercise in preaching to the converted… which was effective for about 20 minutes and then repeated for the remaining 70 minutes.

My review as published :www.australianstage.com.au

When walking The Wharf’s long glass corridor earlier this year, one of the shows programmed for The Sydney Theatre Company’s 2009 Season stood apart from the others, sporting the image of what could be understood as a cluttered dressing room filled with props, costumes and even a disco ball- Steven Soderberg’s “Untitled.”
That untitled project has since found its title: “Tot Mom” and is as American as it is palindromic. Soderberg’s project is 90 minutes of verbatim theatre where in all the transcripts are taken directly from the source- primarily The Nancy Grace Show- covering the disappearance of Caylee Anthony a 2 year old girl.

In July 2008, 22 year old mother Casey Anthony reports her child, Caylee Anthony is missing at the insistence of her parents George and Cindy Anthony. The missing person’s case quickly becomes a murder case when “evidence of human decomposition” is found in Casey’s Anthony’s car and she is incarcerated within the month for child neglect, lying to investigators and interfering with a criminal investigation.

Five huge screens hang in the Wharf 1 Theatre- on which the god-like presence of Nancy Grace (Essie Davis) vocally puppeteers the 36 characters who come into play during the presentation and discussion of the case. The ensemble, consisting of well-loved theatre actors (Wayne Blair, Zoe Carides, Darren Gilshenan, Glenn Hazeldine, Genevieve Hegney, Damon Herriman, Peter Kowitz, Rhys Muldoon, Emma Palmer) are lined up on stage on basic black chairs numbered 1 to 9- from which they spring forth and deliver up to 11 characters each. In front of the seated actors is a small patch of marsh/swap in which silent searches are conducted between scenes. Designers Peter England, Tess Schofield and Damien Cooper have located the production very much in a theatrical space- despite the obvious importance of screens in this production.

Steven Soderbergh’s feature film career is a dynamic list of popular/mainstream and celebrated Arthouse classics including Academy Award winning Traffic, Oscar nominated Erin Brockovich, Palme d’Or winning Sex, Lies and Videotape (as writer), the recently released The Girlfriend Experience (as featured at the 2009 Sydney Film Festival) and currently released The Informant! staring Matt Damon. His producer and executive producer credits in film are lengthy and impressive- a canon of work which is mind boggling- where does he find the time? So it comes as no surprise to learn that he has been shooting a side project with the actors in Tot Mom whilst creating the show.

This is not verbatim theatre in which there is consultation with the people or the story being presented- but rather an embodied edit of cleverly re-enacted televised interrogation by an American current affairs presenter. The show highlights the quantity of people who weigh-in and are able to capitalise on the tragedy of others, the hype which surrounds infanticide, the vulturistic manner in which journalism picks at the lives of others, the highly manipulative way in which we are lead into opinions, or forced to remember heros who are summed up by their social tags. The show is commentary on commentary- and within the first twenty minutes we are suitably in shock and horrified at the mechanism of reality made entertainment: this time this is reality made entertainment and then realistically parodied. Nothing we don’t already know.

As with many multi-voiced verbatim theatre plays- the actors transform between characters (with the exception of Essie Davis) – a very fun party trick to see how a posture, a baseball cap, a stance can completely change the actor from one persona to another: and despite the commentary on commentary , this becomes the sole novelty of this production.

This is the much awaited debut for The Sydney Theatre Company’s Residents- a collective of hand-picked young actors who have been brought together to be hothoused and nurtured for a period of 18 months… with a view of creating work. Words being bandied around include: “edgy”, “young”, “collaboration.”

The SMH ran an article back in June with a grungy/hip picture of what appears to be the spice-girls equivilent of these actors….
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/new-kids-on-block-have-an-edgy-agenda/2009/06/12/1244664849352.html
…. an idea which takes the idea from Robyn Nevin’s Actors Company and transforms it somewhat into a tight bunch of “multi-skilled artists.” But this time it is strengthening the rise of the actor as prominent creator of Australian theatre. It seems that the actor/writer, actor/producer, actor/director is the most prominent form of creator on Australian stages… And I wonder is this yet another side effect of a celebrity driven world? We are now in the age of actor as auteur! Is this project about grooming the actors of today to be the artistic directors of tomorrow?I this what this project is about? I was curious- desperately curious – to see what this residence would yield as their remarkable, innovative, edgy collaboration… Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. The STC actors residents have yielded (drum roll please…)…

Genesis!

Yep.

No. Not the Phil Collins band. We got The Bible. The first book of the bible (which means there is room for quite a few sequals!!!) Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Noahs Ark. For three hours. Two intervals. Three directors (Matthew Lutton, Andrew Upton and Tom Wright) and an absolutely laughably HUGE budget, for the first three bible stories.

Now, let me first declare a few things.

1. There are two writers that I hold in remarkably high esteem- Lally Katz and Hilary Bell- as far as I am concerned you can not get two more significant and impressive, classy and intelligent and elegantly perfect craftspeople. And they are the playwrights on this project… an interesting co-authorship- one with a perchant for the bizarre and gruesomely hilarious , the other with the grandest command of the poetry of the English language of any current Australian playwright.

2. I am not a church goer. I am not baptised. I did attend a Catholic School for a bit in my primary years. Had a Prespetarian grandfather who I would attend church with on regular occasions… for a while I dated the son of a preacher man… and most people know me as a woman who enjoys the aesthetic of men who have a remarkable resemblance to Jesus. I own 3 versions of the bible- even studied it as a text during university… and wrote a huge assignment on the York Crucifixion during my degree. I’m not religion adverse- infact I find it fascinating.

3. I spent 5 months working with one of the leading directors of promanade theatre in the UK- Mr John Oram… who taught me a huge amount about blocking promenade theatre, managing crowds and sight-lines and story in a mass of spectactors (all without the use of lighting) so I was curious to see how Andrew Upton handled the challenges of promenade.

So now I have all my confessions out of the way… I will say this. I can’t really talk about the performance, because I was absolutely dumbstruck/awestruck by the space. The seats of the Wharf 2 space- the stage… ripped out completely and transformed architecturally. A huge square space- with a mezzanine floor with hard wooden benches. Audience peering down into Eden from a one storey height.

And it has really made me think about the true essence of promenade- which came from a desire of taking theatre to the people. It came from using the qualities of everyday community space and creating work that fit in the space that everyone could access. I wonder if a very similar effect could have been acheived had the audience been asked to stand along the foyer of the wharf two space and look down on the actors/action in the corridor of the wharf? But regardless- the Sydney Theatre Company has completely changed the architecture of the theatre space.

Also it also made me think about the history of liturgical plays of which the Mysteries (The Fall , the flood, the crucifixion) were performed by the Guilds of the town- and this was a significant step in the development of Community Theatre. So the history of this style of play or performance to me is steeped very much in tradition and history. It is also about the building of community and the relationship between church and theatre (which is a really fascinating relationship, politically and socially).

However- The Mysteries: Genesis to me, has absolutely ignored this history. A history where in community space is re-defined as artistic space. (Instead Artistic space is re-defined as architecturally conquered). A community event is made elite (the lucky chosen 9 are showered – literally in resources – as opposed to inviting the community in (theatre or otherwise)). It also seems to ignore Australia’s relationship with Christianity.

(On a side note- One thing I must also mention is that the acknowledgment/opening night speech of Sydney Theatre Company events always manages to thank Audi and Georgio Armani- and never the original custodians of the land. I for one always wonder why that is?)

So I am left thinking: who is this production for? Is it for the punters who spend their days battling traffic and interest rate hikes? Is it for Christians keen to see the bible embraced (be warned – there is a breathtakingly overt amount of nudity in this production and scant clad folks- something I’m sure they don’t talk about in Sunday school!)? Is it for theatre folk to see what amazing epic budget can acheive?

And what is it saying about these stories? Are we to believe in God’s mercy or love or fickleness or vengence? Is it about explaining our history? What are these myths illuminating in us? What am I seeing beyond the impressive flourishes of well-sponsored project?

Mainly I feel a little disheartened that the production values and the design overwhelmed my experience of connecting with the actors performances. Perhaps I am a little old fashioned in thinking that all one needs to create an amazing transforming piece of theatre is an actor, a space and an audience… or perhaps I am too simplistic in my vision and have been living too long in Grotowski’s poor theatre?

This post is dedicated to Associate Professor Gay McAuley and Professor Penny Gay who both were absolutely instrumental in my theatre education- I didn’t probably appreciate you at the time- but if you are out there- thank you. I wish all practitioners could have the benefit of your perspective, knowledge and intelligence.