Postcard from London [2]
Complicité Workshop, A View from the
Bridge, Antigone, Lippy, Happy Days, How to Hold Your Breath, The Indian Queen
On Monday morning, I head off for my first day of workshops
with Complicité at London Metropolitan University in Islington, just around the
corner from my Airbnb flat. I’ve got a busy week ahead of me. The workshops were
only announced a few weeks before I left Perth; luckily they coincide with my
first week in London, but I’d already booked tickets well in advance to a raft
of matinee and evening shows. So I’m going to have to miss the afternoon
workshops, which turns out to be a good thing in terms of my physical energy.
Complicité were formed in the 80s as a multidisciplinary
ensemble of theatre makers influenced by the teachings of Jacques Lecoq and led
by artistic director Simon McBurney. Their productions are often technically spectacular
works of visual theatre. I saw their adaptation of John Berger’s story The Three Lives of Lucie Chabrol when it
came to the Melbourne Festival in the 90s. It’s another work of ensemble
storytelling theatre that marked me profoundly.
The workshop is led by Joyce Henderson, a longstanding
associate with the company who also trained at Lecoq. It’s called ‘Familiar
Laughter’ and introduces some standard Complicité techniques in relation to the
use of physicality, space and objects, as well as focusing more specifically on
humour and clowning. There are about twenty participants, about half of whom
are from London, the others being from Italy, France, Spain and the US. I’m the
only Australian.
We work from 10am till 1pm Monday to Friday, and we’re
encouraged to bring streetclothes as well as the usual actor’s rehearsal gear,
as Joyce wants to focus on staging the physical comedy of everyday life. We’ve
also been asked to bring a short sequence to show the class, using real props
(no pretending or miming) and recreating a mundane routine that might involve thinking
we’ve lost something or talking to ourselves (without acknowledging the
audience).
I won’t go into detail about the workshop or how it unfolds
over the week. Suffice to say that Joyce is a warm and supportive leader and
the participants are intriguingly diverse in terms of age, experience and
background. I notice a cultural and artistic divide between the English-speaking
and Mediterranean participants. The former are better at playing the comedy of embarrassment
and losing face, and favour a more internalized style of performance; the
latter are more physically expressive and even demonstrative, tend to use their
whole bodies and make eye contact with the audience.
*
That night I go to the Wyndham Theare to see the revival of
Ivo Van Hove’s production of A View from
the Bridge for The Young Vic. Van Hove is the artistic director of the
Toneelgroep Amsterdam, and is now one of the leading auteur-directors on the
international stage. I saw his multi-media staging of the Cassavetes film Opening Night with the Toneelgroep at
the Melbourne Festival some years ago and was blown away; and I still regret
not being able to see their epic version of Shakespeare’s Roman Plays in
Adelaide and Sydney last year. In fact I’m on a bit of a Van Hove mini-tour as
part of my Fellowship travels. I’m seeing his new production of Antigone at The Barbican tomorrow night;
and next month I’m seeing an earlier production of Othello at the Toneelgroep’s home venue in Amsterdam where it’s now
part of the repertoire.
A View from the Bridge
was a sell-out sensation at The Young Vic last year. It’s being revived
with the same cast, and the thrust staging of the original venue is being
recreated with an interesting twist. The Wyndham is a classic old proscenium
arch West End theatre, but they’ve added rows of seating onstage, flanking the
action on both sides. I’m sitting in the front stage-left corner, in full view
of the auditorium (as are the three or four rows behind me and those on the
opposite side of the stage). However, there’s a kind of mini-stage in front of
us, corralled by low walls on three sides (the need for which will become clear
at the climax of the show). It’s temporarily sealed off by solid black screens,
so we’re gathered around a black cube, until the screens fly up and the show
begins.
Van Hove regularly collaborates with resident Toneelgroep
set and lighting designer Jan Versweyveld, whose work is integral to the
overall aesthetic. This juxtoposes abstract, dynamic, minimalist yet monumental
staging with an almost cinematic verité
style of performance. It’s a juxtaposition I’m familiar with in Australia from productions
by Benedict Andrews and Simon Stone. Costumes reflect the contemporary world of
the audience rather than the fictional world of the play. Stylistically however
they serve as a bridge between the naturalism of the performances and the minimalism
of the set. In this case, the actors wear contemporary streetclothes, but have
bare feet. Set and props are also minimal, and the blocking sits somewhere
between naturalism and abstraction. There’s a great instance when a solitary
chair is brought onstage by the narrator specifically for an isolated moment
which thus becomes symbolically heightened. Towards the end, the narrator
begins reciting stage directions as the action mounts to its violent climax. A
Brechtian sense of estrangement and detachment adds to the feeling of inevitability.
Overall, there’s an almost neo-classical sense of ritual which illuminates the
play, stripping back the veneer of tradition to reveal its greatness anew.
This economy of means is however drowned in auteurial (indeed
arterial) symbolism when blood begins raining down from the fly tower and
drenches the actors at the moment of the final killing (no knife in sight);
it’s now all too clear why the stage required a retaining wall. After the simplicity
of what came before, I find this a clichéd and disappointing coup de théatre.
I’m thrilled however by the contained energy and emotional integrity of the
acting, especially Mark Strong as Eddie and Luke Norris as Rodolpho. If only
they’d been allowed to complete the job.
*
My misgivings about Van Hove’s auteurial excesses increase the
following night when I catch up with two old friends to see his new Antigone. I’m already sceptical because it’s a multinational co-production
(English-French-German-Dutch-Luxemburgian). It also stars Juliette Binoche,
whom I find a little insipid on screen and fear won’t be up to the challenge of
the role or the medium. Finally, The Barbican itself is a rather forbidding
venue (as its name implies): difficult to find, unwelcoming to enter or
negotiate internally, and (like so many multi-functional arts centres) lacking
in warmth, personality or a clear identity. The main theatre is huge, and
although I’ve seen some great work here, I’ve never yet found a seat that made
me feel connected with the action onstage.
My fears about the show are borne out: like other screen
actors I’ve seen onstage, Binoche shouts, screams and over-emotionalises. I’m
also a little distracted by her overly fashionable Parisian shoes. The other
actors look as if they’ve been directed to underplay everything; or perhaps they’re
just hoping to avoid anyone noticing the egg on their faces. In any case they
mostly look indifferent or bored – never a good look in Greek tragedy. Creon begins
well, in the manner of a complacent Eurocrat, but then degenerates into a
two-dimensional villain, which kills the play just as surely as Antigone being
portrayed as a ranting adolescent. For my money, Hegel’s analysis of Antigone as a clash between the ethics
of state and family is not a bad place to start if you want some genuine dramatic
conflict; and I’ve always thought that the play is actually Creon’s tragedy,
not Antigone’s, as he’s the one who undergoes change, experiences insight and
suffers a downfall. Otherwise the play’s effectively over before it starts.
More fundamentally, the whole production is vitiated by
self-consciousness. Apart from the acting style, there’s a more or less continuous
sonic and musical underscoring which leaves nothing to the imagination. An
extended quotation from a Shostakovich String Quartet at one point only
underscores the hollowness of what’s happening onstage. In A View from a Bridge, this device was less of a problem: the
occasional distorted bursts of Faure’s Requiem at least provided a counterpoint
to the domesticity of the action and underlined its unconscious ritual nature. In
the case of Antigone, perhaps a
selection of entries from the Eurovision Song Contest would have been more apt.
To make matters worse, there’s a huge blurred slow-motion back-projection of
what looks like a crowd in a contemporary war-zone. It’s more interesting than
what’s happening onstage, but entirely gratuitious. As for the new translation
by celebrated classicist-poet Anne Carson: self-conscious doesn’t begin to
describe it. When Creon accuses Tiresias at one point of being corrupted by
‘the profit-motive’, my companion laughs at the bad pun, but I’m less inclined
to be generous.
Afterwards we have a discussion about why contemporary productions
of Greek tragedy are almost invariably so bad. I wonder if we lack a sense of
the sacred to match the world of the plays. Wesley Enoch’s Black Medea came the closest I’ve seen to embodying the clash of
cultures, laws and principles that play enacts (not unlike Antigone); but if you don’t believe in the power of ancestors, gods or a moral cosmos, then Greek tragedy makes no sense (the same is arguably true of
Shakespearian tragedy too). One of my friends argues on the contrary that we
just need to do the plays, simply and
truthfully, without dressing them up, or treating them like holy writ. I like
the sound of that.
On Wednesday after my morning Complicité workshop I catch
the Tube to Waterloo for a matinee at The Young Vic. As soon as I arrive at the
theatre, I feel like I’m on home ground. The venue, café, staff and crowd all
feel relaxed, alive and kicking; I could be at an alternative mainstage theatre
in Australia like Belvoir Street or The Malthouse.
I’m seeing a guest show from Dublin, Lippy, which had rave reviews at the Edinburgh Fringe last year. On
a whim, I ask if there are any tickets to tonight’s performance of Happy Days with Juliet Stevensen,
directed by Natalie Abrahami, an associate director with the company – another
big hit last year which is now being revived. There’s a seat left in the back corner
of the stalls, but it’s an intimate wrap-around thrust theatre, so I should be
fine. I’m more than happy to spend the rest of the day and evening here, and it
turns out to be a good decision.
Lippy is a devised
piece by Irish company Dead Centre. It’s based on an actual incident: three
sisters and their aunt who barricaded themselves in their house fifteen years
ago and starved themselves to death without any clear motive. To describe it as
a work of documentary theatre however would be a misnomer; in fact it’s more
like an anti-documentary, since it explores the unreliability and even the
impossibility of comprehension, at first playfully and then with a mounting
sense of terror. The show ‘starts’ with a mock-post-show-Q&A in front of a
screen with a clownish facilitator (who is also the show’s creator and
co-director, Bush Moukarzel) and a member of the cast (David Heap) about the ‘show’
we’ve just ‘seen’. The actor says he was cast on the basis of his ability to
lip-read (one of the references of the show’s title), which he claims to have
employed on politice investigations, including reviewing CCTV footage of the
women in question. He then ‘demonstrates’ this ability in a bizarrely inaccurate
way.
At this point the tone changes, and we go down a surrealist
rabbit-hole. The screen behind them turns out to be a scrim, revealing the
depths of the stage beyond, which now becomes a distorted representation of the
room where the women died. The next section of the show is a slow movement
piece with an ominous sound-score involving four new performers, who initially
appear in hazmat suits and helmets as if investigating a contaminated site, before
removing this outer layer to reveal themselves as ghost-like avatars of the
women who died.
For the final section of the show, the scrim becomes a
screen again, on which is projected a close-up shot of a mouth wearing heavy
lipstick (referencing the title again). The mouth proceeds to deliver a
Beckett-like monologue by Mark O’Halloran (clearly based on the Irish master’s Not I), which could perhaps be another
distorted representation of one of the dying women’s thoughts.
This last section loses a little traction for me, but
overall I find Lippy inventive,
unpredictable and thrilling. I enjoy the interrogation of narrative and representation,
especially in the context of a typically sensationalized news story. I also enjoy
the abrupt changes of mood and form, and the intelligent sound design by Adam
Welsh (who also figures onstage in the comic prologue) – including the use of
amplified lip-synching to create a disturbing uncertainty between live and
pre-recorded speech. In fact lip-reading and lip-synching ultimately become
metaphors for the deceptiveness of theatre itself. The show also turns out to
be the perfect hors d’oeuvre for Happy
Days.
I’ve long been a fan of Juliet Stevenson, and here she’s an
enchanting, frequently hilarious and ultimately devastating Winnie. She
instinctively understands the level of clowning that Beckett’s theatre relies
on (and without which it becomes obscure, pretentious and dull). She also has
technique to burn, but more importantly, a rare level of emotional connection
that’s transmitted by her every gesture, facial expression and above all her
voice. In this case she’s otherwise physically immobilized, which only lends her
performance an extra intensity.
The spectacular set design by Vicki Mortimer features a vast
slope of scree and sand in which Winnie is embedded (as Beckett specified, up
her waist in Act 1, and her neck in Act 2). It appears to be advancing towards us and
collapsing like a wave over her head. When we enter the theatre, the set is in
full view and fills most of the three-dimensional space; Winnie is already in
place and covered by a kind of tent which is removed by stage-hands just before
the show starts; she stays in place (with adjustments) at interval; and is
still buried up her neck for the curtain call, remaining there until we leave.
Beckett’s catastrophic scenarios lend themselves to whatever
era they’re written or performed in: WW2 and the Holocaust; the cold-war threat
of nuclear annihilation; Sarajevo; and now the immanent catastrophe of climate
change. By the end of the show I’m weeping, and find it difficult to leave. The
audience is packed with school kids and teachers, who seem similarly
mesmerized. All in all, I go home feeling that theatre in London is alive and
well at The Young Vic.
*
I have the opposite experience at The Royal Court the following
afternoon. Venue, audience, play and production all feel stuck in the past. I’m
thinking of the company’s heydays: in the 50s and 60s, when it premiered the
post-war ‘new wave’ of British theatre represented by John Osborne and Arnold
Wesker; or more recently in the 90s, with a ‘second wave’ of socially provocative
playwrights like Mark Ravenhill or Sarah Kane. Now it feels like the venue and
company are in serious need of a change of direction and a renewal of identity.
Perhaps it’s unfair to judge on the basis of a single
production, but How to Hold Your Breath –
written by Zinnie Harris and directed by the company’s new artistic
director Vicky Featherstone (formerly of the National Theatre of Scotland) –
has all the hallmarks of a play hastily thrown together to address a raft of
contemporary issues (European economic collapse, asylum seekers, epidemic
diseases, fear of intimacy, individualism, self-help) without a properly
developed form or process to back it up. The staging is repetitive, while the
tone seems to hover between comedy of manners, domestic drama, political satire,
drama of ideas, metaphysical tragedy and Strindbergian dream-play. The actors struggle to hold it together (in
particular a valiant Maxine Peake in the lead role, who remains onstage for
almost two hours) but seem fundamentally disconnected from what they’re saying.
As soon as they walk onstage and start shouting their lines in an intimate
bedroom scene, I know I’m in for a hard time. It’s like watching a social-realist
version of a bad West End farce.
It’s another story again that night at the English National
Opera, with Peter Sellars’s radical re-imagining of Purcell’s Indian Queen. The Coliseum is a luxuriously
grand, vast Edwardian theatre, and the ENO has a splendid orchestra and chorus,
here conducted by early music specialist Laurence Cummings and incorporating
lutes, viols and other period instruments. The original opera consists of a
50-minute musical fragment and a museum-piece libretto based on an exotic
pastoral play by Dryden. Sellars has ditched the libretto and replaced it with
spoken material from a Nicaraguan novel about the Spanish conquest and genocide
of the Mayans. It focusses on the story of three women: the wife of a Spanish
governor, his Mayan concubine (the ‘Indian Queen’) and their mixed-race
daughter (who narrates the story). He’s also extended the score to
three-and-a-half hours of Purcell’s most sublime songs and choral anthems,
interspersed with some of his most sparkling theatre music. In the tradition of
baroque opera and court masques, he’s also added four dancers who represent Mayan
gods and perform a series of indigenous creation myths. The whole thing is
staged in spectacularly minimalist style with huge backdrops painted by
Mexican-US graffiti artist Gronk which are raised and lowered to designate
scene changes and otherwise surrounded by empty space.
It sounds like a mish-mash, but the integrity of Sellars’s
vision almost holds it together. The music is glorious and the singing sublime
(especially sopranos Julia Bullock as the Indian Queen and Lucy Crowe as Donna
Isabel, with counter-tenors Vince Yi and Luthando Qave as Mayan trickster twin
deities also outstanding). Sellars’s trademark use of formalised movement and
gesture suits the heiratic nature of the action, music and stage design
perfectly – and together with the backdrops creates a unified pictorial
language. The whole thing resembles a kind of mural that has come to life. I’m
less convinced by the spoken narration; and the succession of (mostly slow and
sorrowful) laments and anthems ultimately fails to sustain a totally satisfying
musical or dramatic arc. It’s more like a three-hour oratorio or liturgical composition,
but even as such it lacks the variety and coherence of a unified work by Bach,
Handel, Monteverdi or indeed Purcell himself. Nevertheless, I leave the theatre
deeply moved by the music, the singing, the staging and the story. As with with
Happy Days, this is a bold re-invention
of a classic that speaks to our times.
*
Humph’s Postcards from
London continue next week.