Frankenstein (Sydney Theatre Company)
December 3rd 2008 00:18
It is this classic posture of Frankenstein’s monster that the cast and crew of the Sydney Theatre Company’s Wharf2Loud troupe have struck in single file - as the central image of the play’s programme - immediately projecting a sense of the absurd. The troupe includes the two lead actors – Benjamin Winspear as Dr. Frankenstein and Yael Stone as the creature - three support players who also happen to be key crew – Simon Cavanough (props maker), Stefan Gregory (composer/sound designer), and Lally Katz (playwright/lyricist) - and director/designer Ralph Myers.
Lally Katz (who for a brief moment I swore was Mel from Flight of the Conchords) has very loosely adapted Mary Shelley’s seminal tale of creation and destruction. In the programme notes Katz and Myers acknowledge the long line of Frankenstein’s and then state that “in making this play we’ve tried, as much as possible, to ignore this sea of interpretations.” This is true. Katz has followed the essence of the tale: a scientist creates a human, but subsequently things go horribly awry, and morality is severely tested.
When I first read about this production a few months ago I was under the impression the play would be a lot more grotesque and surreal, unorthodox, possibly avant-garde in its staging. The media blurb described it as “an experiment gone wrong. Starting from scratch every night … Pieced together from found objects, odds, ends, scraps of text and songs, things start to get out of control as the monster gradually takes over the Wharf 2 theatre.” To my surprise Myers’ “grappling with the creation of horror and the horror of creation” is much more straight-forward than I anticipated, that isn’t especially horrific (to be precise there’s no visual horror whatsoever), or surreal.
Mary Shelley
For a play the production is very short (roughly 70 minutes), but it felt stunted, as if it were finishing at the end of the second act. Definitely compressed story-telling, but it made an unusually invigorating experience primarily due to the swift nature of the narrative and the spare, but entirely functional design of the show. The performances were great, especially Yael Stone’s charismatic, quirky creature. I loved the industrial revolutionised props, such as the customized overhead lighting rig which could be moved around the stage and the levitation machine (used in the superb opening where Dr. Frankenstein casually observes his creation rising horizontally underneath a cloth).
The use of large inter-title scene cards (roughly sixteen) which Cavenough and Gregory would carry across stage from left or right was a novel (pun intended) and bemusing concept, as was having the three support players wear white with their respective true capacities stenciled on their backs (“writer”, “composer”, “props maker”). But my favourite scene was when Victor presents his creation with her requested mate, which turns out to be a life-size stuffed doll figure with a playback device hidden inside voicing its monotonous “attraction” toward the ultimately bewildered creature. It’s a moment of black comedic brilliance, which at the same time captures the story’s abject loneliness and inherent melancholy.
My other favourite moment was the play’s one moment of actual horror; the disillusioned creature subjects Victor (from the same playback/recorder) to the audio of her murdering Elizabeth; both sit in silence as the audience listens to Elizabeth struggling and choking as she is strangled to death. It’s a powerful and disquieting moment which gives the play its dark peak.
There are a handful of short songs sung during the course of the play, but we’re not talking full-blown Rocky Horror Show numbers, more along the lines of absurdist nursery rhymes, almost limericks. The play deals with psychological darkness and moral corruption, but never takes the audience too close to the edge of the abyss. In that way the songs don’t act so much as relief, but more as light-hearted flavouring. I’m not one to warm to songs being sprung on me in the middle of a production of Frankenstein, but they worked just dandy in this adaptation.
Don’t expect a Gothic descent into hell or an extreme audio-visual treatise on mortality and you’ll have a well-spent hour at the theatre. Grand Guignol this Frankenstein is not, but a gender-twisted, Brechtian-influenced, wry and fresh-blooded take on a classic myth it most certainly is.
Frankenstein plays at Sydney Theatre Company – Wharf 2 until Saturday December 13, 8:15pm (latecomers will not be admitted).
Adults: $35, Concession: $22, Full time student: $20, Under-30: $20
| 94 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Thats awesome - I really enjoy devices like that, they just dont work in film, yet in theatre it can be just magic. Your vivid review tells me that they must have been bursting off the stage, and its nice that its short - Frankenstien is one of those tales that can get bogged down because theres a lot of detail. I gotta get my hands on the book! I did enjoy the Kenneth Brannah version.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
To be honest I loathed Branagh's movie version when it came out, but I'm prepared to watch it again.
Like Bram Stoker's Dracula, no one was ever done an entirely faithful adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. But then both books (as was the style of the time) are written predominantly in letter form, which doesn't lend itself to either stage or screen.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
You just cant expect too much when a classic story is bastardized by hollywood, cos thats all it is...Theres a great scene in Californication where he's (Hank Moody) arguing with the director and director says - "Your book. My movie" shit like that is what utterly destroys it....Just look at Queen of The Damned. That book is mastery, absolute mastery. The movie does not even touch the concepts Rice was driving at. She refused to have her name on it, saying it didnt have ANYTHING to do with her story....And she was right. That being said, I still enjoyed the movie....Except I get utterly frustrated by the ending...Who knew hollywood would opt out of a bloody violent decapitation scene? Mystery.
The Branagh version at least keeps true to the mythology of it, life/death, do humans have the right to interfere, the ethics of creation, darkness in a soul, the harshness of genius. Its all there. Given they were heavy on the drama, but come on man, its Branagh. The monster is played particularly well. And even though the movie for Stoker's Dracula was ok, it just doesnt flow like it should, you know? I think both movies are guilty of way too much 'theatre' heavy on the props and colours and sets which may have worked on a big screen (or a stage) but dont convert well to the tv.
Either way, whatever, I always find something to appreciate in the worst of rubbish. At least they tried, and its not like Im out there trying it...You know, it might be harder to create it than to rate it? (Hahaha) I wish I could go see this though, sounds like a good night out.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
I haven't read Queen of the Damned, but read Interview and Lestat. I really enjoyed both, particularly Vampire Lestat, and was appalled at the Hollywood version which incorporated elements of both but failed miserably. I wish Interview and Lestat had been made back when Rice first decided to sell the rights in the early-to-mid 80s. She wanted Rutger Hauer as Lestat and Eric Roberts as Louis. Perfect. Alas, it got green-lit, but failed to move into production. Julia Phillips, the co-producer of The Sting and Taxi Driver, loved the first book and desperately wanted to produce it. Oh well.
I want to watch Coppola's Dracula again. I wish he'd kept the original more adult cut, instead of taming it down for mass consumption. The novel is one of my faves.
I enjoy Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, but that's another kettle of fish.
Yes, Branagh does lay it on with a trowel, I just couldn't get past De Niro playing the creature, as great an actor as he is, I kept expecting him to turn to Victor and mutter "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?" ...
Comment by Damo
Is coming to Melbourme
I have a soft spot for for that monster.
I did review the novel some time ago.
Really Long Link
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
(sorry to be a serial poster but I am enjoying this discussion!)
I had heard of her original actor choices, who knows how it would have been? Compared the Queen of the Damned, the Interview movie at least tries, and I heard she was incredibly happy with Cruise's performance. Frankly, so was I. Stuart Townsend just looked way too innocent.
But yeah, get the book, seriously. I find that Rice really lays into the Bible and religion - relating back to modern society and what we can be without being strangled by old idea. Queen of the Damned has so much to interpret, all the characters grow, and I just love Akasha...
Im not familiar with De Niro, so I didnt have that problem, but I do have it with David Duhcovny - I was just saying on another blog that Im heavily into Californication, so watching Fox Mulder is really hard. My exact words were -
"I keep expecting him to spark up a ciggi, scull a beer, and bend Scully over!"
So I can understand how a certain mindset can destroy a dramatic scene!
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
I am obsessed with Mary Shelley and her tale of Frankenstein's monster. I actually wrote my college thesis on the connection between Mary Shelley's imagination and the events in her life that led her to write the story. She claims it came to her in a "waking dream" but when you study the events in her life and the places that she'd been, you see that the inspiration must've come long before that dark night of story telling with Lord Byron and the rest.
I wish I could see the play!
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Kleo, what about the others? Blood and Gold? Pandora? Memnoch the Devil?
Tracy ... yeah check it out. It's different.
Natalie, have you seen the Ken Russell movie Gothic? I think it's loosely based around that weekend of creative writing.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Natalie 2
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
Kudos for pulling that movie out of the blue! It is an unappreciated gem. Gabriel Byrne as Lord Byron is fantastic!
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Ah Bryn! Marius didnt make Lestat - Lestat was made by a renegade named Magnus that immolated himself seconds after making him. If blood and gold was about HIM Id be snatching it up, hes a lot more interesting than Marius.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile