Mar 062012

The space of the Project Cube could have been designed for Purple, lending itself perfectly to the setting of a dim, dank, factory basement in which a newly-formed band rehearses. As the audience enters, they are playing together, and playing out their rivalries, enthusiasm, posing, bickering. This is a space for the grandiose dreams of teenage boys: although none of them can really play, they are convinced that they are on their way to success. The stage empties, and in the opening scene, we see the space shift, as the Boy (Manus Halligan), proudly reveals it to the Girl (Rebecca Guinnane) he has brought to show it to. She is less than impressed – it’s cold, dark, it gives her the creeps – and he begins to see it through her eyes. Suddenly all of his grand pretensions to the glamour of being in a band are dismantled, and he seems to lose enthusiasm. During this exchange, Halligan and Guinnane conjure up a deliciously awkward interaction, conveying the agony of not knowing what to say to someone you desperately want to impress. The space between them suddenly becomes tangible, their every change in stance adds to their evident discomfort, and every sentence is a desperate attempt to break those interminably long silences. We learn that the Boy’s grandmother, who raised him, has recently died; that he has never had a relationship with his parents and is struggling to cope with the death of the only family member he knew.

Then, to reinforce the vulnerability he has just revealed, in comes the drummer, introducing an entirely new kind of tension. Moe Dunford presents a striking contrast to Manus Halligan’s skinny frame and hunched posture – all swinging shoulders and swaggering alpha-male body language, he represents an entirely different kind of teenage insecurity. It’s revealed that the Girl and him have been dating, and his possessive, domineering attitude towards her is clearly for the benefit of the Boy, who is crestfallen. When the Girl leaves, the tension between Boy and drummer is heightened. They are set up as rivals for the Girl’s affections, but there is more to it than that: the band is also a point of conflict between them. The drummer’s refusal to keep time, the Boy’s backing out of promises he has made, his clear discomfort and wish to leave, these are issues between them that they are incapable of discussing calmly. The two are clearly threatened by each other, and again body language has a huge amount to do with the portrayal of their relationship dynamics. When the other two band members come bouncing in, they are nonplussed, and don’t understand the reasons behind the Boy’s sullen refusal to play. The band go off to find a replacement guitarist, the drummer locking the door behind him, and the Boy is left alone in the dark, practising his one guitar riff, dedicated to his grandmother. There is a sequence of feedback noise and haywire lights, which highlight the confusion we already know him to be going through – this effect could have been overdone, cheesy, but Zia Holly’s lighting is effective enough to draw the audience in to his state of mind. When the Girl comes back in, he is unable to disguise this hurt and confusion, and takes it out on her, although it ultimately seems as if there will be resolution of some kind. The two leave the space together, back into the outside world, which seems to offer a release from the claustrophobia of the dank basement and the tensions of the band.

The experience of watching Purple is comprised of part sympathy, part vicarious enjoyment at the familiarity of the awkwardness and extreme emotions associated with being a teenager. These characters are all at an age when anger, jealousy, desire, rivalry, can neither be concealed nor articulated, and this element is understood and effectively exploited by both director and actors.

In a play without any stage directions, or character descriptions, much of the interactions and dynamics have to be very much read between the lines. Director Edwina Casey, whose work before Purple has all been devised, used this experience to develop the show: the first three days of rehearsal were concentrated on improvisation,  for the actors to explore the characters, and the ways in which they interact with each other. This really stands to the show as a whole; there is a real sense that the actors feel for their characters, and have affection for them, as they have in a sense invented them. The show’s bubbling over with energy, with the polar emotions associated with adolescence, and some genuinely touching moments. I very much doubt there was anyone in the audience who couldn’t identify with the Boy’s anguished conviction: “It’ll never be alright. It’ll never be alright.” Purplemanages to convery these heightened and exaggerated emotions without condescension.

If there are weaknesses, they are associated with the text. There are a couple of lines which feel unnatural, which are all the more highlighted because of the naturalness of the rest of the acting. I suspect this might have something to do with difficulties of translating Fosse, whose plays are written in the New Norwegian, or Nynorsk, language, a synthetic form which is never really used in everyday life. In an interview, he has been quoted as saying: “It’s the same with French and German theatre: their theatrical language is not the way you speak in the streets. In England, theatre is connected to dialect and what level of society you’re speaking from. Elsewhere, it’s a poetical reflection of the basics of life.” His writing has often been classified as “post-dramatic theatre”. Despite being the world’s most performed playwright, his work is rarely staged in the UK and Ireland. He attributes this during the same interview to a predilection in England for naturalist theatre: “My writing can’t cope with complete naturalism. It just disappears.” To a certain extent, this production is at risk of this: the content at times feels slightly flimsy, although this as I have said is more to do with the text.

Devices such as the surreal lighting and heightened soundscape during the Boy’s interlude in the darkened room help to avoid an overly naturalist aesthetic, as does the set, designed by architects TAKA. Comprising of two long black boards along the top and bottom of the stage, it makes for a hyper-realist feel, giving the audience the feeling that they are looking into a wide-screen television.  Described as a “deep, dark and revealing journey of unspoken tension, hidden emotion and adolescent rivalry,” Purple is not quite so harrowing as this suggests. It is, however, a touching and well-executed exploration of the (often harrowing) experience of being a teenager, the attempt to find self-expression and form alliances and relationships, performed by a very strong cast, and with an atmosphere that remains with you after the play ends.

I Heart Alice Heart I, directed by Amy Conroy (HotForTheatre)

@ Project Arts Centre Oct 4th-9th 2011 (Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre)

Also at Draíocht Studio, Blanchardstown Centre Oct 10-12th and Pavilion Theatre, Dun Laoghaire Oct 14th & 15th.

Photo by Amy Conroy

I Heart Alice Heart I is about love. Alice Kinsella loves Alice Slattery. The play charts the quotidian tides of their beautifully ordinary relationship. Like any partnership, theirs is made up of little details: tiny gestures, observations, marks of affection and appreciation. They have learned each other’s customs, preferences, idiosyncrasies, and they delight in them. They remark on each other’s habits, peeves, and vocabulary.

In case you had forgotten, it reminds you how so many tiny mundane things interlock to build the people you love; it reminds you how love elevates the everyday, infusing everything with significance. Only love, and a sense of mortality, which is really just love of life, can do this. When illness threatens to separate Alice and Alice, they have to learn all over again how to appreciate the preciousness of every day. Bound up in love, of course, is fear: fear of losing everything that has unconsciously been built between you. Everything you take for granted is so fragile.

The history of their relationship is told through reminiscences. Amy Conroy and Clare Barrett act and interact with positively uncanny naturalism. (If you caught Conroy’s incredible performance in Eternal Rising of the Sun over ABSOLUT Fringe, you are still not prepared for how good she is in this.) The writing is not only flowing, it’s beautiful. The multiple dimensions of adult relationships are explored with intelligence and poetry: not only the purity of love at its simplest, but also loyalty; guilt over those loved before; gratitude for love received – love unearned, perhaps; and the residue of Catholic guilt, staining love with shame.

Most of all, the play is full of humour. A gorgeous, warm, humane kind of humour, the sort that doesn’t just make you laugh but makes you happy, turning a switch on inside you so you feel your whole ribcage light up like a Christmas tree.

Testament, directed by Garry Hynes (Landmark Productions)

@Project Arts Centre, Oct 3rd-16th 2011 (Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival)

 

Marie Mullen in Testament, photo by Ros Kavanagh

Creeping along a sandy path, the viewer enters a doorway and steps into a sparsely-furnished house with dark walls and dim lighting. By having the audience emerge onto the stage rather than filing in from the back, the director cleverly creates a sense of awkward intimacy. Feeling somewhere between guest and intruder, one takes a seat. When Marie Mullen appears suddenly out of the blackness, it’s mildly embarrassing, like being surprised while raiding the fridge at a friend’s house.

 

For what it’s worth, this woman is used to unwelcome guests. Men have been coming to ask her questions, documenting her story. But it isn’t her story; the one they write down is the one they’ve already decided to tell. As we piece together the details, we recognise the narrative; there’s confusion and doubt as we try to reconcile the woman standing before us with the icon we’ve been told about. This is Mary, Mother of God.

 

Mary as the writer Colm Tóibìn paints her is a strange character. It’s not simply the disparity between the living, feeling mortal woman before us and the inhuman, immaculate, boundlessly benevolent figure of Christian myth. There’s plenty of leeway to imagine Mary as a live woman; that’s why she’s so enduring a symbol. Maternal love, maternal pride, faith, fear, grief, loss – her experiences are ones we can more-or-less wrap our heads around. Jesus’ experience? The experience of actually being a living god, the mortal manifestation of a divine power? Less identifiable.

 

But I don’t recognise the Mary that appears here. This does not detract from the storytelling, or the incredible performance, but there it is. The things that preoccupy her, the things she takes exception to and the things she fails to question, all seem odd to me. Not merely for “Mary”, but for any human woman. She’s self-absorbed, introverted. Her absent son’s importance is not in doubt but his realness is; he is never “there”, we are never given a sense of him. Or Him. She treasures him the way one guards a belief, albeit without the wide-eyed fervour of the evangelists. If she has any deep feelings about his supernatural powers, his ability to inspire devotion, she does not discuss them. Why he is important to her, how she sees him, is not adequately explained – but he is her son, that is enough. Is it grief or guilt that afflicts her most? She seems sodden with it. She confesses to having fled before the deposition, out of fear, so that his body was taken down from the cross by others. This dereliction of duty seems to haunt her. Everything else – the execution itself, mankind’s salvation, the resurrection – apparently pales in significance.

As she paces in her crypt-like cottage, it feels as though she has taken her resurrected son’s place in the tomb – penance for her own sins. His act of sacrifice could not redeem her, somehow.

 

In Development: The Maeve Brennan Project directed by Annabelle Comyn (Hatch Theatre Company)
@Project Arts Centre Oct 6 2011 (Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival)

Thursday afternoon in the Project Art Centre’s Space Upstairs provided a glimpse of a work in progress: an as-yet-untitled play exploring the work and life of the Irish writer Maeve Brennan. Emma Donoghue (writer) and Annabelle Comyn (director) were on hand to discuss the ongoing development of the piece and what attracted them to the story of this extraordinary woman and to her brilliant, unusual, fragmented mind.

Maeve Brennan, photographed by Karl Bissinger

Maeve Brennan was born in Dublin in 1917 to fierce and fearless Republican parents and experienced a chaotic childhood due to their political activity. Still, it led the family to Washington D.C. and Maeve to a university education, which culminated in a remarkable writing career. There was a strange disconnect between her life as she lived it as a beautiful, charming, assured woman writer in New York city, and her inner world, shaped by memories of her fractured Irish childhood. Her writing is rife with strained relationships, the tension between characters humming like a generator in the background. It is this disconnect, amongst other things, that Donoghue and Comyn seek to investigate in the play.

To their credit, they resist the temptation to focus on the more romantic elements of Brennan’s biography – daughter of revolutionary parents, physically stunning, mentally ill, ultimately destitute – eschewing these lurid details in favour of a more nuanced analysis of her self-generated identity.

Having creators/writers talk in this way, about the trigger that sparked the initial idea and the process that fed the flame, can be as fascinating as many a finished production, and all the more precious for being so rare. A five-piece ensemble that appear onstage to enact a few snippets of the play as it exists so far. They’re very engaging, even while reading from scripts, and it’s enthralling to see each character emerging, partially formed, like an unfinished sculpture.

 

The piece is a co-production between HATCH Theatre Company, Landmark Productions, and Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival.

Rian, musical direction by Liam Ó Maonlaí, direction and choreography by Michael Keegan Dolan (Fabulous Beast Dance Theatre).

@ The Gaiety Theatre, 6-8 October 2011 (Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival)

Liam Ó Maonlaí; photo via dublintheatrefestival.com

Musician Liam Ó Maonlaí (formerly of Hothouse Flowers) released his solo album Rian in 2005, inspired by the extraordinary recording of Irish folk legend Sean O’Riada’s 1969 performance at the Gaiety theatre with his band Ceoltóirí Chualann. (This recording was later issued as Ó Riada Sa Gaiety.) Ó Maonlaí wears his influences on his sleeve, and the word rian, meaning ‘trace’, remains a very apt title for this evocative, beautiful show.

Weaving threads of other musical styles through traditional Irish folk (at one point there’s a gorgeous bluesy interlude), Ó Maonlaí rambles between instruments, coaxing beautifully layered sounds out of a range of absurd and disparate objects, including what looks like some kind of tiny bronze bodhrán. His company of musicians constantly create new relationships – with each other, with the dancers and with the audience, as they switch instruments, swap positions on the stage, face the back of the theatre or huddle in a circle like druids conducting some arcane ceremony.

Photo via dublintheatrefestival.com

The dancers find ever new ways to respond to and explore the music, the pulse and twists of their bodies punctuating the sound in ways that open the experience up to the viewer, adding a new dimension to the music. The texture of a melody differs depending on where your eye lands, although sometimes it’s tempting to close your eyes completely and paint your own pictures in your mind. Then again, at certain points the visual spectacle is so arresting it is almost possible to forget you can hear music at all. One particularly memorable sequence has the entire ensemble seated on chairs to the front of the stage, illuminated only by footlights. Rich black shadows pour down their limbs as they slowly sway to the sound of a lone piper’s song. The lights cast a maelstrom of shadows on the green-tinged back wall, so that outlines of writhing figures appear to be drowning in green waters, like the aftermath of the wreck of the Medusa.

Though the crowd are enraptured, they’re not very involved. Once or twice, after spine-tingling down-tempo performances, several long silent seconds pass where no one dares applaud for fear of breaking the spell. The usual foot-stamping, thigh-slapping and giddy shrieks that accompany a trad session in a sweaty pub anywhere up and down the country are curiously absent. Perhaps it’s the formality of the setting. Perhaps it’s the presence of the dancers, through whom we move vicariously, as they leap and twist til their skins glisten. Perhaps tonight was just a nervous crowd. This show feels like something precious, something fleeting and unique as a kiss or a summer. Catch it while you can.

 

Heroin, directed by Grace Dyas (THEATREClub)

@Smock Alley Theatre, Oct 4th-9th 2011 (Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival)

 

Heroin was first staged as part of ABSOLUT Fringe 2010, and shown again in March of this year in axis:ballymun Arts Centre. It’s essentially an overview of an epidemic – a history of the social, political and economic factors that contributed to the spread of heroin addiction in Ireland.

 

Photo by Barbara Cieslar, via dublintheatrefestival.com

The cast erect the set around themselves throughout the play, as though building themselves into a simple but restrictive frame of reference. Very soon it becomes hard to recollect that there was ever a “before”: the dingy flat they now occupy was surely always there, and will always be there, just like an addiction. The intensity of the cast’s interactions ebbs and flows, from a gentle indifference to one another’s existence to a desperate physical struggle, all grasping hands and gritted teeth. They talk over one another, evoking the clamour of eager, bitter, guilty, pleading, angry voices in a troubled mind. The repetition, the anxiety, the bargaining; perhaps it is impossible to truly identify with an addict’s experience unless you’ve been there, but if you’ve ever felt desperation, grief, any self-destructive impulse, you’ll feel enough here to make you very uneasy.

 

The first time someone shoots up in front of the audience, the scene is given all the time and space and silence it needs to impress itself as a solemn ritual, like Holy Communion. Insights into one person’s mottled personal history are given wider context as each passing decade is given a morbid Reeling-In-The-Years obituary, and somehow, with all the bright lights and spit-flecked urgency, it seems not only plausible but inevitable that the Irish football team’s performance in the 1990 World Cup led directly to this man injecting into the webbing between his toes. The show is not about logic, there’s no logical solution because it’s not a logical problem. It’s not about the simple ratio of detox beds to junkies (and what the hell is a “junkie” anyway? Most drug users recoil from the term, it’s dehumanising). It’s a wide-ranging, deep-rooted problem that requires all of us, all of society, to engage with it and demand its resolution.

 

****************

 

There can be something uncomfortable about a production like this that deals with difficult social issues. The rawness of the subject matter aside, there is is the queasy sense that it relies on exploiting the people it claims to represent, the realities of whose lives seem a world away from this theatre and the well-heeled people attending. It’s the moral question of whether you can ever really tell someone else’s story. By processing your reading of someone else’s experience, and turning into a product that you then sell to the public, are you raising awareness or merely commodifying pain?

 

Ultimately, most of us would agree that art should attempt to address social problems, whether or not the artist is speaking from direct personal experience. But of course it depends how you do it, what your goals are, and whether you attain them. Good intentions alone are not enough.

 

This particular play was developed with the involvement and support of staff and clients of the Rialto Community Drug Team, and rehearsed in St. Andrew’s Community Centre, which houses, amongst other things, a methadone clinic, meditation classes and counselling services. The structure of the show – the timeline of drug addiction in this country – is drawn from a talk by Graham Ryall, one of the Drug Team members, who took part in a post-show discussion panel this week with writer/director Grace Dyas and THEATREclub co-founder Shane Byrne.

 

When THEATREclub first approached the Rialto Drug Team with the intention of researching this piece, the staff were understandably reticent. The people who use their services, already so vulnerable, are constantly under scrutiny by reporters, government bodies, researchers and filmmakers, who despite what their intentions may be, do very little good in return for their intrusions. It took a lot of time and persistence for Grace and Shane to build relationships with the staff and clients and secure their trust. Feedback from staff and former users who have seen the show has been generally positive; not surprisingly, some found the experience unpleasantly intense. That, more than anything a critic could say, speaks to the truth of the production.

 

I talked to Shane Byrne briefly about the show, and asked him what he hoped the show would achieve. He said simply that he hoped people would have a bit more empathy. There are so many misconceptions about heroin and the people that use it. People don’t recognise the strength it takes to recover; many of the things that people assume are the result of drug abuse may in fact be the effect of treatment. The services that recovering patients need go beyond mere detox treatment: they need emotional support, a social network, a way out of poverty, a connection that makes them feel a part of the wider society, and a way to make their voices heard. Much of the dialogue in the show is drawn directly from conversations with clients of Rialto Community Drug Team; this is their story.

Info and booking here.

The Animals and Children Took to the Streets, directed by Suzanne Andrade (1927)

@Project Arts Centre, Sep 29-Oct2 2011 (Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival)

 

The Bayou Mansions is a labyrinthine boarding-house on Red Herring Street, where thieves, crooks, perverts, whores, derelicts and degenerates live on top of one another like rats in a sewer. Feral children infest the halls like cockroaches, a naïve woman imagines her maternal instinct and art classes can save them all from ruin, a rag-and-bone merchant struggles to control her errant daughter, and a caretaker dreams of escaping them all forever.

The Mayor of the city has devised a terrible scheme to quash the child crime epidemic, by abducting all the children of the Bayou and sedating them with a debilitating chemical compound disguised as candy – “Granny’s Gumdrops”. The story follows the well-meaning but powerless Agnes Eaves and her little daughter Evie, who seems sure to fall victim to the scheme.

Lucky? members of the audience got a sample of Granny's Gumdrops.

The story is delivered in a gorgeous multimedia storm of live theatre, haunting vocals, musical performance and projected animation. Instead of using painted sets, street scenes and interiors are projected onto white backdrops, with animated details integrated seamlessly into the performance so that live movements and projected images are beautifully synchronised. Paul Barritt’s animation is deliciously redolent of illustrations by Quentin Blake or Ronald Searle and the extraordinary vocals by Suzanne Andrade, Lillian Henley and Esme Appleton fill the space and chill the blood.

It’s presented like the best kind of fairy-tale, with its delight in the macabre and its unnerving mix of the sinister and the playful. But this is by no means aimed at children. If you like Edward Gorey, Roald Dahl, Hector Hugh Monro, Neil Gaiman, the Brothers Grimm, Tim Burton, Henry Selick, Danny Elfman, Tom Waits or Agnes Bernelle, there is much to love in this play. An absolute treat.

Bás Tongue (Manchán Magan) directed by Willie White
@ Project Arts Centre, Sep 19th – 24th 2011 (ABSOLUT Fringe)

I’ve always been interested in languages, of almost any kind, but my self-discipline lacks the force of my enthusiasms, so I’m fluent in almost none of them. Sign Language, mathematics, !337$|)34\< (leetspeak), musical notation… all have known the ephemeral caress of my interest, but I can never seem to stick with anything. If you’re reading this, you probably have the same fascination. The arts are all about communication, about manipulating different forms of language to express an idea. If you care about the arts, you care about language. If you’ve ever come across some esoteric little nugget of text-speak or internet jargon – “ymmv” or “afaik” – and gathered it eagerly like a pearl, or if you’ve ever laughed with someone over bizarre local slang – like “tome” or “sips” or “bushing”* – then you know how magical language can be.

I really do not know why or how the magic got sucked out of the Irish language for most of us, but it happened. I don’t know what it is about our school system or the culture at large that is so hostile to it, but this play goes some way to undoing it.

Bás Tongue is written by Manchán Magan and directed by Willie White (until recently, Project Arts Centre’s artistic director, and now director & CEO of Ulster Bank Dublin Theatre Festival).

A jaded scholar (Magan) attempts to deliver a lecture on Irish poetry, but he’s losing patience. The language he uses and describes seems dead in the water, its demise has long been foretold and few in the audience seems to understand a word he’s saying. He gets into a long, wide-ranging debate with a surtitle-operator (Roxanna Nic Liam) bubbling with a newfound love of the language, who rejects his pessimism and snobbery and insists that the language can and must be saved. As they argue back and forth, the most interesting dynamic that emerges is his ambivalence: he clearly loves the language, harbours a reverential awe of its history and idiosyncrasies, but he is protective of it to a fault, resisting those changes which offer its only hope for survival. He considers neologisms and Anglicisms as polluting toxins and the mangled Gaenglish occasionally used by young people as a weak substitute, an embarrassing desecration of the Mother tongue.

There’s a part of him that wants to let go of the language, give it a sort of Viking funeral and let it drift away, instead of allowing it to suffer what he regards as an undignified diminishing at the hands and clumsy tongues of young Anglophones like this girl, who has nothing like his fluency despite all her ardour. He questions her motives, sneers at her naïveté and mocks her idealism. She does rather have the wide-eyed, breathless enthusiasm of an 8-year-old who has found an injured rabbit on the side of the road and imagines she can nurse it back to health. When she talks about the bewildering richness of the Irish language, its monstrous vocabulary that has never yet come close to being fully recorded, the effect might perhaps be more depressing than inspiring: what hope is there that it can be saved? There’s simply too much. And so much has been lost already.

The play is written with wit and eloquence and has moments of profound sadness, particularly when it deals with the feeling of isolation that comes from linguistic barriers: from having not enough words, or the wrong ones. The writing pulls you in all directions, making persuasive arguments on both sides about the stakes and the challenges involved in reviving the Irish language.

Personally, I’ve come to the realisation that all we need to reclaim and re-energise the language is ourselves. We still have a collective identity as Irish people and we’ve stamped it all over the English language. No one speaks English the way the Irish do.

Take our innate sense of drama. Something is not merely “very”, it’s “fierce.” I’m fierce happy about this. Something is not merely bad, it’s “brutal.” If it’s good, it’s “deadly”, or it might even be “savage”. If it’s excellent, it’s “savage cabbage”. My little brother and I express this in Irish as “sabháiste cabáiste”, but unfortunately “sabháiste” is not a real Irish word – at least, not according to his school fóclóir. We tried translating it directly but the best we could do was “cabáiste bhrúidiúil” – brutal cabbage – which of course is not the same thing at all.

The point is, as long as we retain our sense of ourselves, the connection we have with our ancestors who spoke our strange bockety national tongue remains unbroken, despite the fact that we’re soaked in Béarla up to the eyeballs. At the moment we’re still predominantly using someone else’s language – which the play likens to wearing someone else’s knickers. But we still have our own voice.

This isn’t a proper review. I don’t think I could write one. I loved the show. I saw it twice. The second time, I brought my mother, a schoolteacher, in the hope of thereby infecting a classroom of kids with a newfound appreciation for the teanga. At the end of each performance, each member of the audience for Bás Tongue was handed an Irish word on a card, to keep and to treasure and to nurse as you would a seedling, to keep it alive and help it grow by sharing it with others. I went twice so I got two words. I gave one to my little brother. I hope he finds a way to connect with his national language. And I hope you do too.

* “tome” means “cool”, “sips” means “ugh, I am not in favour of this” and “bushing” means drinking outside, generally illegally, and possibly in a field or a graveyard somewhere.

Eternal Rising of the Sun, directed by Veronica Coburn (HotForTheatre)
@ Project Arts Centre, Sep 10th – 16th 2011 (ABSOLUT Fringe)

Amy Conroy in Eternal Rising of the Sun. (Photo by Emily Quinn, via Fringefest.com)

Eternal Rising of the Sun is a play about a woman called Gina. Gina’s story is not a happy one. A dysfunctional family, a drunken, abusive father, a mother who dies young; an unwanted pregnancy conceived in circumstances that we might euphemistically term “unsavoury” (it’s not made explicit, but the suggestion is rape); and a violent partner who takes no interest in the little girl except as another tool he can exploit to keep Gina in line. From the pressures of young motherhood and poisonous relationships, Gina’s only escape is her lifelong fascination with dance. But opportunities are few, she’s not a natural mover and her own self-loathing and embarrassment threaten to block even this private, precious outlet. She starts taking dance classes at the local community centre, and this tentative first step marks the beginning of a transformation.

 

Gina is played by Amy Conroy, whose performance is ruthless – utterly eerie in its authenticity. The outfit is a uniform of sorts: the ponytail; the hoops; the tracksuit; the runners that look like the International Space Station, an 80s notion of a futuristic aesthetic. You’ve got to have the attitude too, though: the coiled slouch, shrugging shoulders, the impression of chewing gum even when you’re not. Thanks to media stereotypes, you already have a hazy notion of who this girl is: fights, pills, broken home, it’s all here. All clichés intact. There’s much more to her than that, though.

Throughout the play, I spend the whole time silently begging this girl to take control of her life, which really just means trading her dependencies for more socially acceptable ones. I’m angry at myself for my arrogant and misplaced pity, my naivete in taking her to represent all women in similar situations. I’m also full of righteous feminist outrage. Men in general don’t come off well in this show. (They generally don’t in any depiction of the working classes.) Here, they’re black holes sucking in any glimmer of hope or autonomy or self-esteem. They dominate, abuse, defile and destroy. Relationships between women – between Gina and her friend, her mother, her daughter – are a refuge, but no salvation. They’re a source of comfort but devoid of power. Ultimately, it’s the non-threatening dance tutor Anton (and the sexless effigy of Michael Jackson) that catalyse Gina’s self-actualisation…or a less poxy word: Gina doesn’t go in much for “big words”. Still, the play is beautifully written, and there are some very funny lines, although with a lump still in your throat from the scene before it can be hard to laugh.

Thankfully, there’s no saccharine-sweet Deus Ex Machina, no Orphan Annie/Billy Elliot style miraculous deliverance. If there is a message, it’s simply this: change is really, really hard and you really have to work at it.

Sep 222011

Intimacy, directed by Adriano Cortese (Ranters Theatre Company)

@ Project Arts Centre, Sep 12th – 16th 2011 (ABSOLUT Fringe)

A man leaves his Melbourne apartment one evening in search of nothing more or less than company. He manages to convince one stranger after another to sit and converse with him, sharing a little piece of themselves, while we the audience are offered the chance to watch the brief intersection of their respective worlds, like Venn diagrams, and speculate about the common ground. Who seeks out the company of strangers? Who would accept this man’s bizarre offer? Why is the idea of two people agreeing to sit and chat, without any pretext, inherently weird? Isn’t that sad, that we consider the idea of such a simple, human connection highly suspect?

Well, I do. I’m suspicious. I can’t explain it. I feel like the worst kind of voyeur, watching a peepshow at some sort of emotional brothel, where people go to make themselves vulnerable because they have no healthier outlet for their thoughts and feelings. I can’t relax, I can’t even laugh at the often tragicomic dialogue, because it feels so invasive. I’m totally hooked, though.

We’re introduced to a “bird-man”, somewhere between a performance artist and a Furry, who impersonates various birds in public places but hates to have his photograph taken. We meet a chronic insomniac, who for reasons I can’t justify I feel inclined to dismiss as an irritating hypochondriac. There’s a man who admits to obsessing about a fictitious woman, loosely based on a female acquaintance. There’s a girl who talks about robotic pets programmed to feign emotional dependence. The cast (Paul Lum, Beth Buchanan and Patrick Moffatt) are mercilessly convincing. The acting is flawless.

The dialogue is suitably awkward in places; there’s the familiar automatic validation we all offer when someone we don’t know confides something weird. (“Mmm. Really? Wow, that’s amazing.”) The atmosphere veers from nervous relief to dark tension, when the conversation stumbles into precarious territory. Certain questions that seem better left unasked hang in the air.

Initially, almost every character strikes you as basically normal; perhaps a touch eccentric. Then the context impresses itself again and you find yourself making unnecessarily harsh judgments about the sort of person who would conduct this experiment and the sort who’d participate. Suddenly, what might have seemed mere eccentricity seems a symptom of outright lunacy. They must be damaged, mustn’t they? If they feel the desire, the compulsion, to confess to strangers, something must be really wrong. They’re not thriving within society’s usual parameters. They’re like exotic flora, thermophiles, or bizarre algae, requiring adverse, perverse conditions to flourish. And if I can sympathise, what’s wrong with me?

None of the characters meet with rejection. Polite tolerance, at worst. At best, a superficial acceptance that doesn’t ring quite true. Certainly no one finds a soulmate here. But still, no rejection. No one recoils in horror, no one calls off the meeting. Why isn’t it a relief? What with all the unburdening, this theatre should feel like a safe space but I personally don’t feel like joining in. I mostly just feel deeply sad and slightly hopeless. Privileged at the same time, as if I’ve been secretly shown some sacred piece of knowledge, but it’s turned out not to be good news. But that’s just me. If this play is a portrait of the human condition, then for every viewer like me who left lamenting the fact that human beings are inherently deficient, there’s probably another more optimistic soul who experienced the same epiphany – we are all the same – as a revelatory sense of glorious unity, and greets every fellow traveller on the path of life with a “hail fellow well met”.

Intimacy is very funny, very touching, often unnerving, and beautifully performed, with intelligent, understated use of music and video that enhances but never overwhelms the production.

© 2011 My_Project All Rights Reserved Project Arts Centre, 39 East Essex Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2 Information: +353 (0)1 881 9613 Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha