Madagascar
Feb. 28th, 2010 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hnpccYesterday I went to see the play "Madagascar" with my Mum.
Mum hated it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't think it was particularly good either. The acting was good - given the actors involved (Noni Hazelhurst, Asher Keddie and Nicholas Bell) I'd be surprised if it wasn't - but the play itself left me empty.
The play's structure is three separate soliloquies given by three connected people (Lily, June and Nathan) at different timepoints in the same Roman hotel room overlooking the Spanish steps. The three are linked by two absent people - Gideon/Paul[1] and Arthur. Gideon (his mother Lily's given name for him)/Paul (his father Arthur and everyone else's preferred name for him) has failed to turn up to visit his mother in the hotel room where she was waiting for his arrival. June, Gideon/Paul's sister, has spent several years looking for him, trying to work out whether his disappearance was voluntary or not, and is now living in the hotel room, working as a tour guide. Nathan - a socially awkward microeconomist who worked with Arthur and knows the family well - is there several years later again. The reasons behind Gideon/Paul's disappearance and the relationship of the family members slowly emerges from the three narratives.
The problem I had was, well, I couldn't see why two out of three of the characters took the paths they did. And Gideon/Paul's absent character irritated me - I had no idea how old he was supposed to have been, but he came across as an over-privileged early 20s wanker with absolutely no empathy who I wanted to slap by the end. His sister I thought was older than him for about two thirds of the play, at which point they suddenly became fraternal twins.
Mum admitted that she was expecting some form of brother/sister incest to emerge at one point, which wasn't far off what I was thinking either, only I had it as mother/son incest. Either way, I didn't really follow the characters motivations that well. Especially not Gideon/Paul's.
The staging was slightly odd too - the stage was bare apart from a bed (with no coverings), a moderately ornate desk and a chair. Given they kept describing how ornate the room was they could have at least added a chandelier or some bedding or something. Gilded walls perhaps?
Oh and there was a water feature, which was seriously distracting - a central panel of the floor started filling with water just before the end of act 1 and was a pool by the start of act 2. Then June started sitting and lying in it, which meant both Mum and I were wondering how warm the water was[2]. Not distracting at all, although the light patterns reflecting from the water were quite pretty.
As to the play's title - does anyone seriously hit early 20s (ish) and go in literal search of fairyland? I mean really? When 'fairyland' is named after an actual country?!? One you can find on a map and by googling? Yeah, OK, I'd hit the eye-rolling part by then.
The Age's review is here.
The most amusing part was Mum coming out at the end, apologising and then bringing up a play she took me to see when I was 15, which turned out to have full frontal male nudity in it[3].
"It's as bad as that play where the woman took that man's shorts off!"
"Um.. "Salonika"? That one?"
"Yes! I couldn't believe it, she put his pants back on and then she took them off again!!"
"I think she was washing his dead body at that point."
"She could have done it with his pants on!"
I had completely forgotten that play until then actually. That actor had a great body though, now that I remember it.
Richard III's coming up soon, I think I will have to drag Dean along to it.
[1] Mum, at interval: who's this Gideon person? And who's Paul? Me: they're the same person. Mum: well that's just stupid then.
[2] Not very, judging by the actress's nipples. Also, white dress that becomes kind of see-through when wet? Interesting clothing choice all things considered.
[3] I don't think she would have taken me if she'd realised it had full frontal male nudity in it.
Mum hated it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't think it was particularly good either. The acting was good - given the actors involved (Noni Hazelhurst, Asher Keddie and Nicholas Bell) I'd be surprised if it wasn't - but the play itself left me empty.
The play's structure is three separate soliloquies given by three connected people (Lily, June and Nathan) at different timepoints in the same Roman hotel room overlooking the Spanish steps. The three are linked by two absent people - Gideon/Paul[1] and Arthur. Gideon (his mother Lily's given name for him)/Paul (his father Arthur and everyone else's preferred name for him) has failed to turn up to visit his mother in the hotel room where she was waiting for his arrival. June, Gideon/Paul's sister, has spent several years looking for him, trying to work out whether his disappearance was voluntary or not, and is now living in the hotel room, working as a tour guide. Nathan - a socially awkward microeconomist who worked with Arthur and knows the family well - is there several years later again. The reasons behind Gideon/Paul's disappearance and the relationship of the family members slowly emerges from the three narratives.
The problem I had was, well, I couldn't see why two out of three of the characters took the paths they did. And Gideon/Paul's absent character irritated me - I had no idea how old he was supposed to have been, but he came across as an over-privileged early 20s wanker with absolutely no empathy who I wanted to slap by the end. His sister I thought was older than him for about two thirds of the play, at which point they suddenly became fraternal twins.
Mum admitted that she was expecting some form of brother/sister incest to emerge at one point, which wasn't far off what I was thinking either, only I had it as mother/son incest. Either way, I didn't really follow the characters motivations that well. Especially not Gideon/Paul's.
The staging was slightly odd too - the stage was bare apart from a bed (with no coverings), a moderately ornate desk and a chair. Given they kept describing how ornate the room was they could have at least added a chandelier or some bedding or something. Gilded walls perhaps?
Oh and there was a water feature, which was seriously distracting - a central panel of the floor started filling with water just before the end of act 1 and was a pool by the start of act 2. Then June started sitting and lying in it, which meant both Mum and I were wondering how warm the water was[2]. Not distracting at all, although the light patterns reflecting from the water were quite pretty.
As to the play's title - does anyone seriously hit early 20s (ish) and go in literal search of fairyland? I mean really? When 'fairyland' is named after an actual country?!? One you can find on a map and by googling? Yeah, OK, I'd hit the eye-rolling part by then.
The Age's review is here.
The most amusing part was Mum coming out at the end, apologising and then bringing up a play she took me to see when I was 15, which turned out to have full frontal male nudity in it[3].
"It's as bad as that play where the woman took that man's shorts off!"
"Um.. "Salonika"? That one?"
"Yes! I couldn't believe it, she put his pants back on and then she took them off again!!"
"I think she was washing his dead body at that point."
"She could have done it with his pants on!"
I had completely forgotten that play until then actually. That actor had a great body though, now that I remember it.
Richard III's coming up soon, I think I will have to drag Dean along to it.
[1] Mum, at interval: who's this Gideon person? And who's Paul? Me: they're the same person. Mum: well that's just stupid then.
[2] Not very, judging by the actress's nipples. Also, white dress that becomes kind of see-through when wet? Interesting clothing choice all things considered.
[3] I don't think she would have taken me if she'd realised it had full frontal male nudity in it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-28 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-28 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 10:15 am (UTC)Why was the actress rolling around in the water? Was that ever explained?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 06:09 am (UTC)I've no idea why the actress was rolling around in the water - symbolic drowning perhaps? It wasn't hugely clear to me, and I was distracted by the water temperature.