Review: House Of Games (New Theatre)

newtheatreVenue: New Theatre (Newtown NSW), Aug 9 – Sep 10, 2016
Playwright: Richard Bean (based on the film by Jonathan Katz, David Mamet)
Director: Louise Fischer
Cast: Ben Brock, Hannah Day, Cheyne Fynn, Charles Jones, Mark Langham, Rebecca Levy, Colin McCarlie, Katherine Shearer, Benjamin Vickers, Cindy Wang
Image by Bob Seary

Theatre review
House Of Games features a psychiatrist and a group of con artists. It wishes to be full of surprises and unexpected twists, but the unsophisticated writing relies on the unbelievable gullibility of its protagonist, as well as a gullible audience, for any of its plot to be effective. Its premise is interesting, with a straitlaced academic type finding herself embroiled in the underground activities of the Chicago lowlife, but there could not be a more predictable way to tell the story. Every revelation aims to deliver thrills, but is only disappointing in its failure to offer anything more than what is obviously anticipated ahead of every juncture.

Leading lady Katherine Shearer shows good conviction, in spite of a frankly ridiculous role that seems to take pleasure in depicting a woman’s status and accomplishments as an esteemed doctor, only to take her down more than a few notches by turning her suddenly, and unreasonably, stupid and naive. The actor’s impressive presence almost holds the show together, but we struggle to reconcile her character Margaret’s undeniable intelligence with the absurd predicament in which she finds herself. Co-star Ben Brock displays enough charm for initial scenes of flirtation to work, but to make Margaret “blinded by love” and be so thoroughly entangled in his deceptions, is a tall order that is beyond any sensible performance.

Names of three male writers are attached to this play. It is arduous, and deeply boring, to take them to task for a misogynist creation, but the show offers little else worthy of discussion. It is to their credit however, that the driving force behind House Of Games is Margaret’s ambitions, but it seems that diminishing those very desires is the only way to make sense of things. Feminist readings do not require that every woman comes out on top, but the masochistic treatment of “a strong female” here is reprehensible, because her degradation results from weak logic and too little plausibility, a figment of the imagination of a boys’ club, intimated, perturbed and panicked.

www.newtheatre.org.au

5 Questions with Cheyne Fynn and Cindy Wang

Cheyne Fynn

Cheyne Fynn

Cindy Wang: What is your ethnicity?
Cheyne Fynn: Ooh I get this question a lot I am Australian born and raised; my parents however are South African with a splash of Mauritian on my mother’s side.

How would you describe your character PJ in five words?
Five words is difficult for a character who spends most of the play pretending to be someone/something he isn’t but I’ll give it a go – anxious, boisterous, loyal, intelligent, cheap.

There are a few semi-adult scenes throughout the play. How do you feel about that?
It’s nothing compared to what goes on back stage, so it’s fine by me.

What made you decide to become an actor?
Was there a different path to choose other than acting? I don’t know if I ever chose acting. Since I was a kid, it’s all I wanted to be and all I wanted to do. I never made the conscious decision though, it just was who I was. My parents however always wanted to me get into teaching as a ‘fallback plan’… I don’t know why but the thought of being a starving actor just always had more appeal.

If you were a sales person, how would you sell the play House Of Games to a group of conservative board members?
I’d wrap it up in a hundred dollar bill and tell them there is a good night to be had!

Cindy Wang

Cindy Wang

Cheyne Fynn: Rumour has it you saw your first kiss in the House Of Games rehearsal room! How was that experience?
Cindy Wang: I am a huge prude, and like a good sheltered kid, it was really awkward watching it, but I’d like to believe I pulled myself through the experience and came out a better person!

Your character Edna is not a physical person in the original script. What have you found to be the best and most challenging part of creating a whole new character?
Perhaps it’s due to the lack of experience on my part, however, when you’re given so much freedom to do whatever you want for a character it gets a little overwhelming, it’s as if someone said, “What slice of cake do you want? And you really want to say porque no los dos?”

If money were not an issue, what’s the one thing you would ask for (and no, world peace is not an answer, you are not trying out for Miss Universe)?
I would want to buy a country so I could tell people I own one just because I’m a materialistic prick. However, if it weren’t a want rather a need, I would probably buy a house so I wouldn’t need to worry about that in 5-10 years’ time.

Do you have any show superstitions or rituals?
No, however, sometimes, during a really late night on the weird side of the internet, I read about the strangest things and I read about it being lucky (or unlucky, depending on the internet source) if you saw 11:11 on your clock. Not too long after that, 11:11 always happens to be on my watch when I looked at it.

If you could go back in time and give yourself one piece of advice what would it be?
I would tell myself to trust my instincts, relax, enjoy yourself, and follow the flow. However, knowing the young me, I would have said “omg… time travel exists.” Yeah, I had a short attention span.

Cheyne Fynn and Cindy Wang are appearing in House Of Games by David Mamet.
Dates: 9 August – 10 September, 2016
Venue: New Theatre

Review: Proof (Freefall Productions)

freefallVenue: New Theatre (Newtown NSW), Jul 14 – 30, 2016
Playwright: David Auburn
Director: Derek Walker
Cast: Alex Brown, Julia Christensen, Peter Flett, Ylaria Rogers
Image by Michael Snow

Theatre review
Catherine has not lived up to her considerable potential as a mathematics prodigy because of sacrifices that have had to be made for her family. Also, her talents are constantly being underestimated and undermined in the patriarchal worlds of academia and maths, who insist on perceiving her as an insignificant shadow of her genius father. David Auburn’s Proof does not explore sufficiently the sexism experienced by his protagonist, even introducing a male love interest to help Catherine realise her dreams, but the narrative is nonetheless a fascinating one, with twists and turns that ensure a gripping experience.

Derek Walker’s direction of the piece brings a good amount of tension for drama to take hold, and although enjoyable for most of the duration, a stricter hand over actors’ choices would give the show a better sense of polish. Playing Catherine is Ylaria Rogers, a dynamic performer who delivers each scene with a thoughtful diligence, but there are inconsistencies in her interpretation that make her character feel slightly distant. Alex Brown leaves a strong impression as Hal, charming and authentic, with a natural sense of timing that serves to make his role effortlessly convincing. Also memorable is Jeremy Allen’s set design, beautiful in its rustic realism, and bold in the way it dominates and transforms space.

It is an entertaining production that will satisfy audiences who want a good story. Proof has got tragedy, comedy and a lot of intrigue, but the moral of its tale is uncertain. This show does not have a strong message that it wishes to advocate, leaving us instead to absorb what we can from its staging of a very popular play. Making theatre is essentially political. It involves strangers talking to each other. The artistic act in today’s pragmatic economies is by nature one of subversion, even if the work itself is polite to the degree of being nondescript. As long as artists remain dedicated, as they appear to be here, there is hope for the world.

www.freefallproductions.com.au

5 Questions with Lauren Dillon and Caroline Levien

Lauren Dillon

Lauren Dillon

Caroline Levien: In The Heidi Chronicles, we bump into Heidi intermittently over the course of three decades. What were the challenges in portraying a character over from the age of 16 to the age of 40?
Lauren Dillon: I guess the biggest thing for me was having to make the connection between each year that we see Heidi and figuring out what happened that influenced her life, her state of mind and social standing in those blocks of time that we don’t see on stage. She goes through some pretty significant changes and they also happen during quite iconic political movements in America so wrapping my head around all of the historical context has been a big part of this also. It’s a challenge to find the subtle changes that are necessary to show the evolving nature of a person as they grow older, while also keeping everything true to that character. Also slightly terrifying trying to remember what I was like as a 16 year-old!

Through the play, Wendy Wasserstein tracks the waves of feminism through her character’s respective journeys. We see it through the nurturing women’s rap groups of the 60’s-70’s, the open protests for equal representation, women’s collectives, and finally the 80’s: ‘beating men at their own game’ and the rise of the business woman. In light of this journey, where do you think feminism stands today?
Somehow the topic of feminism can still make for extremely volatile discussion along with misinterpretation and confusion. I see fantastic initiatives where women who live in countries that are closer to gender equality are now also fighting for the basic equal rights of women in situations where they are still oppressed, politically or socially. I see really positive steps on the global stage towards acknowledging that feminism is about gender equality on the whole and how it not only benefits women but men as well. Yet there are still those who think that Feminism is a dirty word espoused only by man-hating witches, and some of the vitriol out there, especially online, is really quite upsetting and disturbing. The battleground is not only in the public arena, it’s still very personal and I think young people now are looking for ways to take it in to their own hands. It seems feminism has accomplished much yet there is ongoing work to do to tackle the anti-feminism ignorance that still exists.

We meet Heidi through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. As an actor, what era has been the most fun to revisit?
Hhmmmm…. That’s a tricky one. They’re all so great and full of fantastic music, political changes, fashion and social movements. I think I’d have to say the 60’s and 70’s though, as these are the years where Heidi has a lot of her political/ feminist awakening and becomes a little rebellious. Plus I have to admit that watching youtube videos of Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane and Fleetwood Mac is very satisfying ‘research’.

What have you most enjoyed about working on this production of The Heidi Chronicles?
I’ve really loved working with our awesome cast and crew. Everyone brings their own slice of magic to the room, and is also really supportive and encouraging of each other. I’m inspired by everyone each time we rehearse as I’m learning from people who’ve been doing this longer than me and also watching great choices and incredible work ethic from others. There have been a lot of laughs in the rehearsal room, and some fabulous reminiscing on the past from our Director – lots of great stories and insight. Plus our stage management team are the business!

What do you hope audience members will take away from this production of The Heidi Chronicles?
I hope that the audience will have a really enjoyable couple of hours watching a play that’s got a heap of women in it and not your typical linear structure. I hope they will have the opportunity to reflect on what’s changed in the world since this play was written – but also what hasn’t and see if that moves something in them. I also hope they have a bloody good laugh – there’s some comedy gold in there!

Caroline Levien

Caroline Levien

Lauren Dillon: The Heidi Chronicles was a Broadway hit & Pulitzer Prize winner in the late 80’s – what keeps it relevant today?
Caroline Levien: So much. In a way I wish it was less relevant if it meant that we had come a little further as a society in terms of what we ask and expect of women.

The Heidi Chronicles really tracks the various waves of feminism from the 60’s-80’s and explores a wide variety of themes including ‘sisterhood solidarity’, sexual liberation, gay rights and ‘having it all’ to name a few.

I feel like the subject of feminism is something that has been tarnished a bit and I cringe when I hear women say they don’t need it, as though it’s the new F word and can’t be uttered. On the contrary: It should be studied, celebrated and reinvented. Heidi’s journey through the play highlights the ups and downs of the movement as it changed through the eras. Was it perfect? God no. These social and civil movement rarely go smoothly because what they are doing is shaking up the status quo- there are no rulebooks for how they are supposed to run so in each era the play visits, we see how the ideas have changed: from ultra supportive Consciousness Raising Rap Groups in the 60’s all the way to the rise of the Power Women of the 80’s and the corrosion of the early notions of ‘solidarity’ in favour for emulating traditional male roles in the pursuit of success- shoulder pads anyone?

The Heidi Chronicles looks at these changing incarnations of ‘feminism’ and does so with a certain humour and intelligence that I hope resonates with audiences today, and ask them to study where the role of women’s equality sits in our current era. I imagine most people will recognise that we still have a long way to go.

What are some of your picks of songs that were released in the years Susan features in the play?
Tough one. I’m a big fan of the 60’s and 70’s music so I’d probably have to pick The Kinks. Although my favourite Janis Joplin song happens when I’m off stage so I am free to rock out. Lucky me.

What have you most enjoyed about working on The Heidi Chronicles?
The ensemble. We have some wonderful people working on this production and it’s been such a pleasure to watch and learn from the other actors and the lovely work that they bring to the floor. It’s a challenging play, charting a whole lifetime in two hours, so having a great supportive group of actors and creatives is such a blessing.

There are several scenes in the play where you get to eat/ drink – what’s your pick of the food/ beverage options?
I seem to be either constantly eating or drinking wine in this play. Tough call but it’s got to be Jill’s peanut butter and granola cookies. The breadsticks are pretty fabulous too.

Do you quietly have a favourite character from this play? Come on – spill the beans…
I love all the characters for various reasons. I love my own character, Susan, for her ballsiness and confidence which at times feels so far removed from me as a person and actor, but if I had to pick a favourite I would have to chose Heidi. Her journey speaks so clearly to me that it’s almost eerie. A woman in a world that is constantly changing in ways that she cannot control or fathom, stoic in her beliefs in a society with a very mutable moral and social compass, people coming and going and morphing in front of her, leaving her with no solid ground to stand on. Jesus it’s like an extract from my diary!

The woman in a tempest of a changing world. For me, Heidi is an ‘everywoman’.

Lauren Dillon and Caroline Levien are appearing in The Heidi Chronicles by Wendy Wasserstein.
Dates: 7 June – 9 July, 2016
Venue: New Theatre

Review: The Heidi Chronicles (New Theatre)

newtheatreVenue: New Theatre (Newtown NSW), Jun 7 – Jul 9, 2016
Playwright: Wendy Wasserstein
Director: Alice Livingstone
Cast: Sarah Aubrey, Matt Charleston, Lauren Dillon, Caroline Levien, Olivia O’Flynn, Amelia Robertson-Cuninghame, Darren Sabadina, Benjamin Winckle
Photography © Bob Seary

Theatre review
Wendy Wasserstein’s The Heidi Chronicles first appeared at the end of the 1980’s when American women were beginning to crack the glass ceiling, and when second-wave feminism was approaching its last days. The play examines the life of Heidi Holland from high school to middle age, beginning in 1964 through to 1989, charting the progress of white middle-class women through those three decades of the second-wave. Another thirty years (almost) have past, and we wonder how much has progressed since. “Can we have it all?” remains a question that only one of the genders asks herself, and the ambiguous conclusion to Heidi’s story confronts our contemporary sensibilities, leaving us to meditate on our place in society today.

Director Alice Livingstone presents a vibrant production that wears its heart on its sleeve, with an unmistakeable affection for the play’s nostalgia guiding us through Heidi’s years of development. It is a work painted with broad strokes, and although nuance is not always delivered, the staging of each scene is crisp and impactful. Refreshing and inventive use of space, along with Livingstone’s choice of projections help elevate the visual content of its otherwise basic design aspects.

Performers demonstrate an earnest conviction that encourages us to get involved with their stories. Leading lady Lauren Dillon does not seem to possess sufficient maturity for the portrayal of Heidi’s life in later sequences, but her confident presence stands her in good stead with the audience, and her passionate interpretation of a crucial monologue gives the poignant work its heart and soul. Darren Sabadina and Sarah Aubrey leave remarkable impressions with their exuberant and adventurous approach to their respective roles, both detailed with their characterisations and humorous at every appropriate opportunity. There are moments in the show of great chemistry between actors, but also scenes in which people do not seem to connect. Nevertheless, this production of The Heidi Chronicles is consistently enjoyable, and many will find its explorations meaningful.

Heidi lives a feminist life because she is in charge of her own destiny. The rules are her own, and she does not seek approval for her decisions. No one lives in a bubble, and we all find inspiration from other lives, but self-determination for every individual should be afforded and supported by our civilisations. A feminist does not have to look a certain way or prescribe to any particular doctrine, but she needs to be aware of her power, where it comes from and the battles that were fought for it to exist.

www.newtheatre.org.au

Review: The Cherry Orchard (New Theatre)

newtheatreVenue: New Theatre (Newtown NSW), Apr 26 – May 28, 2016
Playwright: Anton Chekhov (adapted by David Mamet)
Director: Clemence Williams
Cast: Alex Bryant-Smith, Sarah Chadwick, Finn Davis, Miranda Daughtry, Bella Debbage, Jasper Garner Gore, Brett Heath, Cecilia Morrow, Nicholas Papademetriou, Eliza Scott, Josephine Starte, Sam Trotman, Benjamin Vickers
Photography © Bob Seary

Theatre review
Ranevskaya is at the brink of losing her family estate. She is understandably distressed but does nothing to prevent the worst from happening. All her people go about their usual petty business, unable to find ways to remedy the situation. In David Mamet’s adaptation, the aristocracy’s complacency is a representation of lives not irrelevant to how we live today, especially in our era of unprecedented wealth. Our fearless leader very famously said not too long ago that “there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian,” indeed we are a nation that finds itself in possession of so much, yet we are no longer known to be a progressive people; we are stuck in old ways, overrun by new waves of conservatism.

It is a big cast of characters in The Cherry Orchard, and in this case, depicted by individuals with diverse strengths that never seem to find cohesion. They all tell their own stories, but insufficient attention is paid to appropriate tensions for its central concerns to engage. The show is often a confusion of personalities and intentions that never become interesting, and we find ourselves left struggling to make sense of who these people are and what they are trying to say. It is acceptable that plays can involve portrayals about the meaninglessness of existence, but they should at least find a point and drive it through with some level of conviction. Nevertheless, it is a good looking presentation, with Jonathan Hindmarsh’s set and costumes bringing to the stage an air of wealth and decadence, and Benjamin Brockman’s lights providing structure to sequences that would otherwise bleed into one another with little rhyme or reason. It must be noted however, that the use of sound is counter-intuitive and completely confounding in the way it works against the emotions and energies that actors try to harness. Even though pleasantly performed, the music is almost always a bothersome distraction.

Firs is the very old servant, senile but charming, played memorably by Nicholas Papademetriou who, with accidental irony, brings the most lively presence to a lustreless experience. His decay symbolises the dismantling of the old Russian order, but also serves as reflection on how we think of the poor today. Although at the very bottom of the pecking order, Firs had felt part of the family and was reliant on their care all his life, but eventually finds himself forgotten and abandoned. His plight is a poignant indictment of Australian society today, where we seek to diminish the indispensable ones who prop up the rich and the glorious. We continually find ways to redistribute money away from the have nots, blissfully unaware of the damage caused by advanced capitalism, but as the roots are left to rot away, it is only a matter of time before the magnificent plantation begins to crumble.

www.newtheatre.org.au

5 Questions with Nicholas Papademetriou and Clemence Williams

Nicholas Papademetriou

Nicholas Papademetriou

Clemence Williams: If Firs was ever granted long service leave, where would he go and how long would he last before wanting desperately to return to the family?
Nicholas Papademetriou: He’d definitely go to Paris just to know what it was like after all the stories he’d heard from the master’s trips there. He’d stay in a grand hotel like the Crillon and make sure the service was as good as he would have given. He’d miss the family from day one, but he’d probably not come back as his age would probably see him die peacefully after a delicious breakfast in bed in his hotel suite.

Shoot/Shag/Marry three characters in the play.
Firs would shoot Yasha, shag Gaev (just for payback) and marry Varya. Me – I’d shoot Lyubov, shag Lophakin and if I had to marry (cause I don’t believe in it) probably Pischkin cause he’d be drunk and out most of the time.

What’s your dream role?
I’ve already played one – Perry in Mike Leigh’s Greek Tragedy – and there are a few dream roles left, but George in Virginia Woolf and Shylock.

If you could join any past/present music group, what would it be and why? Where would you tour?
I’d want to be the fourth back singer in The Supremes, cause I know all the words to their songs. I love that big hair and outfits of the 60’s. I’d want to play Vegas, the Copacabana in New York and a live concert in the Colosseum.

If you could change three things about the current political climate, what would they be?
I’d make Tanya Plibersek Prime Minister, I’d cut all politicians wages by half and I’d instigate a public panel (consisting of ordinary citizens) who would hold the deciding vote in any decisions, bills, actions, etc that were being passed on both federal and state levels.

Clemence Williams

Clemence Williams

Nicholas Papademetriou: If you could make a film that would commence where the play ends, which characters would you follow and what would the film be about?
Clemence Williams: For me, one of the most challenging characters to create an arch for is Anya. Of all the Orchard Dwellers, I think she holds the most potential for change and yet she is incarcerated by the generation before her. It’s for this reason that I think she’d make a wonderful subject of a film or perhaps a mini series: documenting her education, love affairs (above and beyond Trofimov, no doubt) and escape from a family that has done nothing but hold her back.

Which Shakespeare would you like to direct the most?
Without a doubt, Hamlet. While it straddles cross generational themes, for me it will always be the Quarter Life Crisis play. And so I would like to tackle it early in my career while his dilemmas still seem within reach.

Which three people either fictional or non would you combine to make the person that you might come back as in a future life?
That’s a tough one. Probably somewhere between Eugene Ionesco, Jennifer Lawrence and my grandmother. I would want the absurd outlook on life and art of Ionesco, Lawrence’s humour, flair and excellent hair and my grandmother’s grace, humility and integrity.

Do you think one can get through life without lying in any way, shape or form? This includes anything that comes under the banner of little white lies.
Ultimately, one should try. I think there’s a line between complete frankness and tactfulness that one has to walk, but if everyone decided to drop the bullshit then we might get more done in a day.

If you could adapt any film, composition of music (any genre) or book into a theatre piece, which would you choose?
I have so many answers to this that it’s impossible to pin one down… but I was recently quite struck by the beauty and the sadness of Jeanette Winterson’s Why Be Happy When You Can Be Normal. I think it would be a fascinating slice of a lifetime to stage.

Nicholas Papademetriou and Clemence Williams are working on David Mamet’s adaptation of The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov.
Dates: 26 April – 28 May, 2016
Venue: New Theatre

Review: That Eye, The Sky (New Theatre)

Venue: New Theatre (Newtown NSW), Mar 15 – Apr 16, 2016
Playwrights: Richard Roxburgh, Justin Monjo (adapted from the novel by Tim Winton)
Director: David Burrowes
Cast: Alex Bryant-Smith, Joel Horwood, Shaun Martindale, Jenae O’Connor, Romney Stanton, Simon Thomson, Emma Wright
Photography © Bob Seary

Theatre review
Religion is a subject that art can always rely on to evoke and provoke, especially in these modern times when scarcely any two persons are able to find complete agreement about who, what or how it is that we are being looked over, or indeed that supreme beings exist at all who we have to be answerable to. We meet the 13 year-old boy Ort just as his young mind begins to understand abstract concepts about faith. He finds God, but the relationship is a rocky one, and salvation continues to elude him.

That Eye, The Sky is a tender story about a sensitive child in challenging circumstances, but David Burrowes’ direction does not deliver an emotionally charged experience capitalising on our susceptibility to impassioned empathising of the pure or the weak. His show is polished and quiet, a feast for the senses, but it keeps us at a distant position of observation, never giving us the opportunity to delve into the romance of the piece. The work is consistently cerebral, which feels somewhat contradictory to the issues being explored, but all facets of production are impressively executed. The design team does exceptional work, especially Benjamin Brockman on lights, and the duo of Hugo Smart and Dean Barry Revell on sound and music, with brilliantly conceived flourishes that play much more than a subsidiary role to the actors on stage. Set design by Tom Bannerman and costumes by Alana Canceri create a sophisticated and powerful visual impact in spite of their understated approach.

The actors are equally strong, with Joel Horwood’s portrayal of Ort remarkable for its deceptive ease. Horwood is a grown, and very tall, man who makes us believe unreservedly in the innocent and prepubescent being he brings to the stage. The wide-eyed wonder he performs seems effortlessly achieved and every youthful quirk of voice and gesture is convincing and delightful. His family is played by Romney Stanton and Emma Wright, both resplendent with sensitivity, nuance and psychological accuracy. Their work is restrained and elegant, but surprisingly memorable. Shaun Martindale plays the pivotal role of Henry with an energetic spontaneity. He brings a sense of danger to the show, and although not always sufficiently effective at key plot moments, there is a quality of enigma in his work that adds to the complexity of what is being said.

We should not expect every work of theatre to produce the same emotional effects. Art can do much more than to speak to one’s feelings, and on this occasion, we discover the sensation of being moved without having to respond with sentimentality. The production’s style is perhaps at odds with the very substance of its story that seem to call for a more gushy approach, but what it does create is a sensual landscape that we can watch in admiration. Beauty is sublime, but it will not always move you how you wish.

www.newtheatre.org.au

5 Questions with David Burrowes and Joel Horwood

David Burrowes

David Burrowes

Joel Horwood: If you could shadow any director, dead or alive, who would it be and why?
David Burrowes: I would have loved to be in the room with Piña Bausch. Every snippet of work I’ve seen by her blows my mind a little bit, I would have loved to see her make, not so I could replicate the process but, so I could experience it. I can’t image the work she made came from a banal place, she knew how to tap into something special with her art.

You certainly enjoy a cup of coffee. How do you take it, and what does that say about you?
I want to say strong and black like me, but I drink flat whites to which I hope I have zero correlation.

What is the most powerful piece of theatre you’ve ever seen?
Simon Stones’ Thyestes blew my mind when I first saw it. I’ve seen a lot of incredible theatre since but that was the production that made me consider the stage as a medium I wanted to work with.

When you’re not directing incredible theatre productions, what gives you the greatest joy in life?
Being told I direct incredible theatre productions. I’ve also recently started to snowboard, which is mad fun.

You also direct for the screen. What are the major differences, and do you have a preference?
Don’t make me pick. There’s a lot of safety as a screen director in the fact that when you show a film it’s going to be exactly the same every time you show it. Theatre changes every night and that terrifies me, but it’s also why you do it.

Joel Horwood

Joel Horwood

David Burrowes: What’s the biggest challenge about playing a 13 year-old?
Joel Horwood: Being six foot tall with stubble that insists on growing back daily hasn’t made life easy, but I think the biggest challenge has been in finding that sense of naivety and wide-eyed wonder. Even for a 13 year-old, Ort reads as quite young, so it’s been difficult not to let my cynical, judgemental brain get in the way. Reactions to events that are instinctual to me read far too old for a 13 year-old, so it’s been a difficult task to hold back on those instincts and preconceptions.

As an official WA resident for most of your life, how on point is our regional dramaturgy?
As thrilling as it has been to see so many references to my home in the novel and in the play, for me, the story really does transcend its setting. It’s undoubtedly very Australian, and that sense of isolation and remoteness is definitely something we west coasters know all too well, but the sense of longing and hope for something bigger than us is true universal.

How influential was Tim Winton’s novel in helping you find the onstage Ort?
Hugely. Ort’s voice is so clear and detailed in the novel, and you get to spend 170 odd pages living inside his head. It informs so much of the subtext in the play, that mightn’t otherwise be as clear. I’ve spent the entire process constantly referring back to the novel to clarify and enrich moments. It’s been a real luxury having this beautifully realised character just itching to be brought to life on stage.

If you weren’t acting, what would you be doing?
As a kid, I would drag my Mum along to home opens on the weekend so I could assess the originality of the designs and take home brochures for me to obsess over for the next week. So, I guess I would probably be an architect. I still sometimes drive around to house inspections on weekends just to perv on people’s homes. The domain app gets a lot of use on my phone!

If you could invite one person to see this show, who would it be?
Probably either David Wenham, so he could school me on how it’s done. Or one of my favourite high school teachers, Leigh Hannah, who cast me as Seymour in Little Shop Of Horrors. That show is probably the reason I’m pursuing this, and not designing houses.

David Burrowes directs and Joel Horwood stars in That Eye, The Sky by Tim Winton (adapted for the stage by Richard Roxburgh and Justin Monjo).
Dates: 15 March – 16 April, 2016
Venue: New Theatre

Review: The Ritz (New Theatre)

newtheatreVenue: New Theatre (Newtown NSW), Feb 16 – Mar 5, 2016
Playwright: Terrence McNally
Director: David Marshall-Martin
Cast: Les Asmussen, Meagan Caratti, Samuel Christopher, Jarryd Clancy, Ricci Costa, John Edwards, John Farndale, Lisa Franey, Ivan Hui, William Koutsoukis, Adam Kovarik, Rosane McNamara, Marty O’Neill, David Ross, James Smithers, Barton Williams
Photography © Bob Seary

Theatre review
It may be argued that there was only a small window of time in LGBT history, when stories were being published and told in theatres about vibrant queer experiences. The emergence of the gay rights movement alongside the sexual revolution of late 1960’s opened the doors to artistic expression that began to take queer lives out of the closet, but before much momentum was able to be achieved, the AIDS epidemic of the early 1980’s signalled the return of oppressive powers, and although LGBT stories continued to be produced, they were turned much darker to reflect the sombre times of death and community destruction.

Terrence McNally’s The Ritz first appeared on Broadway in 1975, and although its protagonist Proclo is heterosexual, the action takes place in a gay bathhouse in Manhattan, with a host of vivacious gay men providing the core structure to its narrative, along with an endless stream of campy punchlines. Their proud and exuberant sexuality is its central appeal, in fact Proclo’s story is almost ancillary, existing only as an excuse for the rambunctious humour to unfold. The infamy of pre-AIDS bathhouse culture finds itself represented here in all its shame-free glory, in the form of a classic American farce (admittedly not to everyone’s tastes), complete with accents, stereotypes and show tunes.

Director David Marshall-Martin brings to the production a potent nostalgia that many will appreciate, and an energetic madcap style of comedy perfect for the script. The old-fashioned quality of the show takes some getting used to, but it does get increasingly charming through the course of the evening, aided by the bawdiness of the writing that Marshall-Martin is able to present with a surprising edginess, despite its use-by date.

Leading man Les Asmussen is an endearing and effervescent presence, with an ability to communicate and connect with his audience effortlessly. The actor’s strong instincts ensures that on-stage chemistry is consistently buoyant, and his generous nature as a performer keeps us engrossed. Similarly engaging is Samuel Christopher in the role of Chris, an extremely flamboyant character who has a joke ready for every situation. Christopher’s comedic skills are a highlight of the show, leaving a lasting impression with bold choices and immaculate timing. Also very funny is Meagan Caratti, who embraces the boisterous tone of the show to deliver some of its biggest laughs. Her passionate commitment is paralleled by an emotional warmth that allows her character Googie to become one of the more believable personalities in this outlandish presentation.

The style of The Ritz might not be innovative, but the portrayal of unbridled joy by its community of gay men is refreshing. We might be in a new century, but we remain burdened by the darkest days of AIDS and its indelible negative impact on sexual freedoms. The rampant sex and promiscuity of The Ritz was a result of emancipation that was meant to be celebratory. Its intention was to welcome a new era of equality and acceptance, but we now look at those behaviour as an archaic oddity. It is a vision of pride that we have lost, replaced by something less assertive, maybe even slightly ordinary.

www.newtheatre.org.au