Falling Stars

Shaun Tan is one of my absolute favourite artists, and I'm always excited to see adaptations of his work. So when a stage production of Cicada was announced, I was keen to go.

When I told my friends, they were like, "But it's so sad!" and I was like, "What, really?" I'd only read the book once, so my memories were kind of fuzzy. I remembered the catharsis and transformation, and somehow forgot the gruelling journey to get there.

Shaun Tan notes the ambiguity (summary from his website):

Cicada is the story of an insect working in an office, and all the people who don't love him. It's a very simple 32-page picture book about the unspoken horrors of corporate white-collar enslavement... or is it? You never can tell what a bug is thinking.

Sydney Theatre Company presents it in a more upbeat way (summary from their website):

Cicada spends his days dutifully working away in a grey office. Overlooked by his superiors and overworked by his colleagues, he is getting very close to the end of his tether. But one day, looking out over the city from the rooftop of his office building, Cicada has an epiphany.

This puppet show is a collaboration between Sydney Theatre Company (where I saw it at Wharf 2 Theatre, The Wharfs) and Barking Gecko Theatre (who originally staged it at Studio Underground, State Theatre Centre of Western Australia). The cast were two puppeteers: one who performed Cicada, and one who performed most of the other characters. They were also costumed as office workers in suits, and played those roles in a few interstitial scenes.

Since they were expanding a 32 page picture book into a 55 minute stage play, I assumed that they would have to invent new content. And yes, secondary characters and subplots were fleshed out. But rereading the book afterwards, so much of it was already there! Just that a single line was unfolded into a full scene. It was a delight to see how it was done.

The play made full use of the language of theatre and the magic of stagecraft - the best of adaptation. Like scene setting through the puppeteers taking pictures out of a briefcase, which progressively zoomed in from a cityscape to street level to the interior of a single office building. Or portraying movement via a character running in place while objects moved past them.

Cicada is a cicada in a business suit. So cute and expressive! He has a glossy green carapace and big black eyes, but his face can't move, so it's really his body language that conveys all his emotion. The joy he starts off with, with his new job and his own desk, and then his reactions to everything that happens.

His nemesis is the Faceless Manager, aka Peterson Jr, of Peterson & Peterson. All the human characters are portrayed as two-dimensional walking suits, with no faces. He bullies Cicada relentlessly, including leaving a can of insect spray on his desk. But we see he also suffers from insecurity and daddy issues, and is trapped in the rat race.


( Spoilers )


I have to wonder what the kids in the audience made of it. A distorted depiction of corporate life? Or an accurate one?


Links:

Cicada (Shaun Tan's website) - Illustrations from the book, and an essay about his inspiration and ideas.

Digital program (Sydney Theatre Company's website) - Background on the stage play.


Trailer:

Still catching up on posts I've been meaning to make.

Back in January, during the Sydney Festival, I went to see The Insect Circus at the Seymour Centre.

This was a puppet show by the String Theatre from London, featuring insects performing in a circus.

For some reason, I was expecting giant insects, like the puppets on Farscape or something. But the show didn't use the whole stage, but its own special stage, about 1 metre tall by 2 metres wide, and the insects were appropriately sized for that. I guess they still count as "giant insects" if they're 20 centimetres instead of 2 metres?

The puppets were marionettes, operated by strings and sticks, and very beautifully detailed, with multiple moving parts. The show consisted of a series of circus acts (eg trapeze, juggling, acrobatics) by various insect performers (eg ants, beetles, grasshoppers). It was very charming, and woven with suspense and humour.

Halfway through the show, a tiny child wandered down the aisle and stood in front of the stage, staring mesmerised at the puppets. An usher hovered nearby, probably to intervene if she decided to grab the puppets. Fortunately, that didn't happen. I wonder if it's a common hazard at puppet shows for kids?

The weevil act from The Insect Circus:

Catching up on posts I've been meaning to make.

So way back in January, I went to see Amadeus at the Sydney Opera House. Mostly because Michael Sheen was in it! He played Salieri, while Rahel Romahn played Mozart, and Lily Balatincz played Constanze. (Interestingly, Michael Sheen played Mozart in a production when he was younger.)

The Concert Hall had been renovated just in time for the 50th anniversary of the Opera House, and it looked and sounded pretty good. L and I had seats way up the back, so the performers had tiny faces and you couldn't see their expressions. But their voices projected clearly, and you could easily follow the action onstage.

L and I had both watched the movie a long time ago, so we were familiar with the storyline. I hadn't known back then it was based on a play.

It felt really fitting to see excerpts of the various operas in the Opera House. The costumes and staging were spectacular. And I liked the liberal use of other languages, with Italian, German, and French.

I was very impressed with the energy and emotion of the performers. Two hours and fifty minutes of absolute intensity. And having to do that every single day.

It was an emotional journey. Salieri hating this rival who he sees as unfairly talented and revoltingly immature, and yet he's the only one who can appreciate the genius of his music. Mozart's downfall into wretched poverty through Salieri's sabotage of his career, all while pretending to be his friend. Salieri still dissatisfied and empty afterwards. And Mozart finally gaining fame and recognition after his death, and Salieri generating the rumours of poisoning, to link himself to that fame forever.

Differing philosophies: Salieri sees music as a gift from God, while Mozart believes the composer makes the audience God, bringing the voices and hearts of people together.

There was one significant difference at the end: in the movie, Salieri appears to Mozart in the guise of a masked Death, and lets him die believing it. In the play, Salieri confesses the truth and expresses his remorse. I think I prefer that they have that moment of repentance and resolution between them.

In October, I saw the play The Demon at the Sydney Opera House. It was described as:

A Chinatown for Western Sydney, The Demon reimagines a dark story in the history of White Australia. Using physical theatre and aerial stunts that push the boundaries of magic realism on stage, it tells the story of two Bankstown detectives, Arab Australian Jihad and his Aboriginal Muslim partner Matthew/Muhammad, investigating a crime allegedly perpetrated by a Chinese Australian street fighter. To solve the mystery, the brother-boys must ask: does a curse inhabit a land or its people? Don't miss this noir fable, exploring the demons we invite into our hearts.

I love stories about cultural identity and with multicultural casts, so this was right up my alley. I was also intrigued by the promise of aerial stunts and magic realism.

According to the program book, The Demon is based on a historical event in 1861, when a mob of white men attacked a camp of Chinese miners, at the Burrangong goldfields on Wiradjuri land. They marched in with a brass band and carried a flag with circus and confederate iconography.

The play tells the story of a Chinese woman who was killed there, a treasure she took from the land, her descendant trying to lay those ghosts to rest, and the two detectives who are tracking her down and have also faced racism and death themselves. It's a story about the sins of the past. The demon is a malevolent force that possesses people, causing acts of violence, jumping from body to body over the centuries. (But also, the demon is racism.)

The plot was a bit more lightly drawn than I expected, and some of the dialogue was a bit clunky. But I really appreciated that they're telling this story at all, and giving voice to the experiences of Indigenous, Asian, and Muslim communities in Australia.

The highlight for me was the night driving scene through the outback, elegantly conveyed with the two detectives being wheeled around on a flatbed trolley with headlights. Jihad muses on the Afghan cameleers who built the railways in Australia, and how being in the outback makes him feel a connection to his ancestors, riding their camels through the deserts of their ancient homeland.

Muhammad says, in scathing rebuke, "My desert isn't your desert."

It's a brilliant moment that shines a spotlight on the reality that this land was stolen, and the difference between immigrant and Indigenous experiences. Sometimes we defend ourselves against racist attacks, by stating the truth that Australia has been multicultural for many decades of history, but the deeper truth is we are still trespassers. How do we reconcile the struggle to belong with the fact that this land belongs to someone else? I really loved that the play is grappling with these issues, in a similar way to how New Gold Mountain explores the conflict between cultures.

The other highlight was the looping flashback acrobatic sequence. After a lethal chase where a pursued suspect falls from a construction site, the two detectives are trying to get their stories straight before reporting to headquarters. As they narrate the events again, rewinding when they contradict and correct each other, the two detectives and the two suspects reenact the scene several times. It was really impressive because of the stunts and acrobatics, which involved hand to hand combat, climbing up scaffolding, and - for one performer - repeatedly somersaulting from a height onto a crash mat. Despite the dark subject matter, the physical comedy was a tension breaker amid the otherwise serious plot.

The other aerial acrobatics in the play involved wirework, with performers flying through the air during fight sequences and dream sequences. It was very cool. There were also scenes featuring dance and martial arts. A very multi-talented cast.

The dialogue contained frequent swearing and racial slurs (which were warned for up front). I assume it was to convey the tough guy attitude of noir, or the blokiness of young guys from Western Sydney. Some of it was in-group (affectionate), some of it was out-group (derogatory), and most of it was in conversation rather than used as aggression. It was still kind of jarring. But what weirded me out a bit was the choice of slurs for some groups, which seemed to refer to other groups and were also a bit outdated. I wonder if it was a conscious choice in order to soften the impact, but still get across the attitudes of the characters?

The Demon was performed as part of the UnWrapped arts festival. I don't know how easy it would be to restage it, given that you would need performers with a range of complex skills. But I would love to see more plays in a similar vein, telling stories from more perspectives, about our complicated relationship to this land and to each other.

Last week - which now feels like a million years ago - I saw Hamlet by the Bell Shakespeare Company at the Sydney Opera House. (Now all public performances there are cancelled, due to the COVID-19 situation, until at least the end of the month.)

I know Hamlet is supposed to be the pinnacle of Shakespeare, but I've never felt particularly compelled by it. Maybe because of impatience with his indecision. Maybe because my earliest exposure was the Mel Gibson movie.

Turns out, what gets me excited about seeing Hamlet, is casting a woman as Hamlet.

The director, Peter Evans, says in the program:

Shakespeare is interested in masculinity and how too often when under pressure, or perceived pressure, men can lash out. Often against women. Working with Harriet on the character of Hamlet is fascinating in this regard. Her point of view makes our exploration of the more troubling aspects of Hamlet's behaviour more acute and specific. I feel our understanding of Hamlet is richer from having a her, play him.

The 1960s setting reflects a fascinating aspect of the play; its innate nostalgia. The character of Hamlet longs for the past. He has an idealised vision of his father, and his parents' marriage and former love for each other.

I don't know that the genderswapped casting added extra resonance to the play for me. But Harriet Gordon-Anderson did an awesome job in the role, and I love that a woman gets to play this part. What I found interesting about this production was, I never felt that Hamlet was indecisive. His tragedy was being consumed by revenge. From the moment he learned the truth from the ghost, he turned his whole being to one purpose: an obsession that destroyed everyone around him and then himself.

Other notes:

* Some familiar faces! Claudius was played by James Lugton, previously Brutus in Julius Caesar. Gertrude was played by Lisa McCune, from Blue Heelers!

* It was cool to see diverse casting! Ophelia was played by Sophie Wilde, who is Ivorian-Australian.

* It was cool to see genderswapped casting! Guildenstern was played by Jane Mahady and Osric was played by Aasnisa Vylet. They also doubled for other secondary characters.

* One of the highlights was Polonius, played by Robert Menzies, who had great comic timing.

* The set design: the framework of a house, with chairs and carpet, while the backdrop was fir trees in a snowy landscape. Occasionally, flickering video footage of Hamlet's childhood played on the wall.

* The costuming: stylish 1960s fashion. (Except for Claudius who was, for some reason, rocking the casual look in a jumper.)

I've now seen genderswapped casting for Cassius, Richard III, Mark Antony, and Hamlet. It's pretty cool that women are getting the chance to bring these characters to life and speak their classic lines.

Julius Caesar is my favourite Shakespeare play. I first saw it in 2011, and at the time, it was so relevant. Now in 2018, it still feels so relevant.

I saw it at the Sydney Opera House two weeks ago. Bell Shakespeare has a new touring production. The reviews have been lukewarm, but I wanted to see it anyway because (1) it's my fave, and (2) diverse casting! And I'm glad I went, because it totally blew me away.

Last time, they genderswapped Cassius and Octavius, which was fascinating and compelling. This time, they genderswapped Mark Antony, Octavius, Casca, Trebonius, Messala, Pindarus, and the Soothsayer. They also had a multicultural cast of actors, which was really cool.

Last time, they dressed everyone in suits, like Parliament. This time, they made everything kind of industrial modern. The set was just a scaffolding of metal bars and wooden planks, on wheels, which I guess is easy to transport on tour. The mob of Romans was dressed in hoodies, with paper masks of Caesar's face, a bit like Anonymous.

The costuming of the main characters was pleasingly individual, a mix of formal and casual. (For the first time, I could tell all the conspirators apart.) Caesar wore jeans, a shirt, and a jacket draped over his shoulders like a cape. In the race scene, Antony wore athletic gear and running shoes. In the battle scenes, some characters wore camouflage fatigues.

Caesar (Kenneth Ransom) was magnanimous and ambitious. He was played by a black actor, which was pretty cool, though one review noted that this made the assassination scene somewhat uncomfortable. It was kind of ameliorated by the conspirators who stabbed him also being a diverse group?

Mark Antony (Sara Zwangobani) was awesome. There was a huge dramatic build up to her speech about Caesar, and right after she got up on the podium and began, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears", was when we cut to interval. What a cliffhanger.

Brutus (James Lugton) was suitably noble and tormented. (But I have always been Team Antony.)

Cassius (Nick Simpson-Deeks) was suitably cunning and tormented. (And is it just me, but why do Brutus and Cassius always have such intense chemistry?)

Casca (Ghenoa Gela) was hilarious. She had great comic timing. When she reenacted Antony offering Caesar the crown, and Caesar refusing it ever more reluctantly, I had no idea it could be so funny.

Octavius (Emily Havea) was a stiff and obnoxious brat, and I loved her delivery of, "If you dare fight today, come to the field."

Cinna the poet (Jemwel Danao) was clearly not Cinna the conspirator (Russell Smith). (Some productions cast the same actor, which I think muddies the point.)

This play has the best quotes:

"He doth bestride the narrow world, like a Colossus."
"Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."
"The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes."
"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war."
"Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."
"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."

Still one of my favourite quotes: Cassius, Act 3, Scene 1: "How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over in states unborn and accents yet unknown?" Especially since many of the cast let their Australian accents shine through.

Last weekend, I saw Julius Caesar performed by the Bell Shakespeare Company at the Opera House. It's nearly my favourite Shakespeare play, after King Lear, and I've been hanging out for ages for the chance to see it on stage.

Anyway, this was a fascinating production for a couple of reasons:

(1) It's a modern adaptation, with everyone in suits instead of togas, bringing the story from Ancient Rome to contemporary politics. All the ads show a bespectacled man in a suit next to a woman throwing her head back laughing, which has resonances with certain recent events in Australian politics.

(2) Cassius, leader of the conspirators, is recast as a woman. (Thus explaining the ads.) In the program book, the actress says that she had always thought of Julius Caesar as "that play about war and men and togas and speeches", but when she was asked not only to play Cassius but to help adapt the text for this production, she was tantalised and terrified all at once. Anyway, she was awesome and it worked really well. If everyone's running around in togas, then a woman in the senate might strike an odd note, but if everyone's in suits, then why the hell not?

(3) It's a touring production, which means a cut-down version of the cast, and a cut-down version of the play. The forty roles are combined into ten players, and the big battles in the later acts are compressed and summarised. But all the drama and emotion and conflict are still there. And the speeches. It really is a lot about the speeches.

Despite the impression from the ads, Caesar was actually played more like an aging mafia don, in mannerism and accent, and Cassius was a lethal petite blonde in a suit, with lots of fire and intensity. Brutus was pretty good too, and there was this interesting tension between him and Cassius, which I don't know if it was entirely because Cassius was a woman.

Now, I'm a Mark Antony girl, even though I know Brutus is supposed to be the hero of the story. (I have a thing for loyalty, so I'm all for the guy who avenges his fallen friend, even if he sets Rome to burning, as opposed to the guy who stabs his friend in the back, even if he did it for honour.) So I was pleased to see Mark Antony played well. His broad (almost strine) accent took a while to get used to, but it did fit his persona of "a plain blunt man". And he nailed the "dogs of war" speech. Brutus did manage to blow me away with his "not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more" speech to the crowd. A shame for him that Mark Antony also blew the crowd away with his "they are all, all honourable men" speech.

Interesting parallels: Caesar tells Antony that he doesn't trust Cassius, and Antony tells him he has nothing to worry about. Cassius tells Brutus that she doesn't trust Antony, and Brutus overrules her concerns. People! When someone tells you that someone else will be trouble, you will probably regret not listening to them.

Interesting contrasts: Octavius was also played by a woman, but the character remained a man, unlike Cassius, who was actually genderswapped.

Interesting casting: Cinna the poet was played by the same actor who played Cinna the conspirator. So when he delivers that line to the rioters ("I am Cinna the poet, I am not Cinna the conspirator!"), there's a moment of whoa, surreal.

Interesting quotes: Cassius, Act 3, Scene 1: "How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over in states unborn and accents yet unknown?" Oh, Will, you sure love your meta, don't you?

Pratchett fans who live in Sydney might be interested in checking this out:

"Thee More Pork Players's much awaited follow up production to our 2003 production of Guards! Guards! has arrived! Wyrd Sisters will be staged at the Fig Tree Theatre at UNSW from Tuesday December 7th to Saturday December 11th, 2004 at 8pm, with a matinee performance Saturday December 11th at 2pm. Tickets will be $15/$10."

More details - and an online booking facility - on the official website.

I saw the Guards! Guards! production last year - it was pretty good. Will be checking this one out too.

Word count:

Today - 2492
Total - 35169

If you're a Terry Pratchett fan and you live in Sydney, then this week is your chance to catch a live performance of the play Guards! Guards!. All the details are on the website.

I'll definitely be going - the only other Pratchett play I've ever seen is Mort. It's frustrating when I see a Pratchett play being advertised, and it turns out to be in Canberra or Melbourne or even London. Heh, not this time.