The Mysteries: Genesis |Sydney Theatre Company
- November 27th, 2009
- Posted in Reviews & Responses
- Write comment
![stc_wideweb__470x315,0[1]](../../../wp-content/uploads/2009/11/stc_wideweb__470x31501-300x201.jpg "stc_wideweb__470x315,0[1]")
This is the much awaited debut for The Sydney Theatre Company’s Residents- a collective of hand-picked young actors who have been brought together to be hothoused and nurtured for a period of 18 months… with a view of creating work. Words being bandied around include: “edgy”, “young”, “collaboration.”
The SMH ran an article back in June with a grungy/hip picture of what appears to be the spice-girls equivilent of these actors….
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/new-kids-on-block-have-an-edgy-agenda/2009/06/12/1244664849352.html
…. an idea which takes the idea from Robyn Nevin’s Actors Company and transforms it somewhat into a tight bunch of “multi-skilled artists.” But this time it is strengthening the rise of the actor as prominent creator of Australian theatre. It seems that the actor/writer, actor/producer, actor/director is the most prominent form of creator on Australian stages… And I wonder is this yet another side effect of a celebrity driven world? We are now in the age of actor as auteur! Is this project about grooming the actors of today to be the artistic directors of tomorrow?I this what this project is about? I was curious- desperately curious – to see what this residence would yield as their remarkable, innovative, edgy collaboration… Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please. The STC actors residents have yielded (drum roll please…)…
Genesis!
Yep.
No. Not the Phil Collins band. We got The Bible. The first book of the bible (which means there is room for quite a few sequals!!!) Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Noahs Ark. For three hours. Two intervals. Three directors (Matthew Lutton, Andrew Upton and Tom Wright) and an absolutely laughably HUGE budget, for the first three bible stories.
Now, let me first declare a few things.
1. There are two writers that I hold in remarkably high esteem- Lally Katz and Hilary Bell- as far as I am concerned you can not get two more significant and impressive, classy and intelligent and elegantly perfect craftspeople. And they are the playwrights on this project… an interesting co-authorship- one with a perchant for the bizarre and gruesomely hilarious , the other with the grandest command of the poetry of the English language of any current Australian playwright.
2. I am not a church goer. I am not baptised. I did attend a Catholic School for a bit in my primary years. Had a Prespetarian grandfather who I would attend church with on regular occasions… for a while I dated the son of a preacher man… and most people know me as a woman who enjoys the aesthetic of men who have a remarkable resemblance to Jesus. I own 3 versions of the bible- even studied it as a text during university… and wrote a huge assignment on the York Crucifixion during my degree. I’m not religion adverse- infact I find it fascinating.
3. I spent 5 months working with one of the leading directors of promanade theatre in the UK- Mr John Oram… who taught me a huge amount about blocking promenade theatre, managing crowds and sight-lines and story in a mass of spectactors (all without the use of lighting) so I was curious to see how Andrew Upton handled the challenges of promenade.
So now I have all my confessions out of the way… I will say this. I can’t really talk about the performance, because I was absolutely dumbstruck/awestruck by the space. The seats of the Wharf 2 space- the stage… ripped out completely and transformed architecturally. A huge square space- with a mezzanine floor with hard wooden benches. Audience peering down into Eden from a one storey height.
And it has really made me think about the true essence of promenade- which came from a desire of taking theatre to the people. It came from using the qualities of everyday community space and creating work that fit in the space that everyone could access. I wonder if a very similar effect could have been acheived had the audience been asked to stand along the foyer of the wharf two space and look down on the actors/action in the corridor of the wharf? But regardless- the Sydney Theatre Company has completely changed the architecture of the theatre space.
Also it also made me think about the history of liturgical plays of which the Mysteries (The Fall , the flood, the crucifixion) were performed by the Guilds of the town- and this was a significant step in the development of Community Theatre. So the history of this style of play or performance to me is steeped very much in tradition and history. It is also about the building of community and the relationship between church and theatre (which is a really fascinating relationship, politically and socially).
However- The Mysteries: Genesis to me, has absolutely ignored this history. A history where in community space is re-defined as artistic space. (Instead Artistic space is re-defined as architecturally conquered). A community event is made elite (the lucky chosen 9 are showered – literally in resources – as opposed to inviting the community in (theatre or otherwise)). It also seems to ignore Australia’s relationship with Christianity.
(On a side note- One thing I must also mention is that the acknowledgment/opening night speech of Sydney Theatre Company events always manages to thank Audi and Georgio Armani- and never the original custodians of the land. I for one always wonder why that is?)
So I am left thinking: who is this production for? Is it for the punters who spend their days battling traffic and interest rate hikes? Is it for Christians keen to see the bible embraced (be warned – there is a breathtakingly overt amount of nudity in this production and scant clad folks- something I’m sure they don’t talk about in Sunday school!)? Is it for theatre folk to see what amazing epic budget can acheive?
And what is it saying about these stories? Are we to believe in God’s mercy or love or fickleness or vengence? Is it about explaining our history? What are these myths illuminating in us? What am I seeing beyond the impressive flourishes of well-sponsored project?
Mainly I feel a little disheartened that the production values and the design overwhelmed my experience of connecting with the actors performances. Perhaps I am a little old fashioned in thinking that all one needs to create an amazing transforming piece of theatre is an actor, a space and an audience… or perhaps I am too simplistic in my vision and have been living too long in Grotowski’s poor theatre?
![stc_mysteries[1]](../../../wp-content/uploads/2009/11/stc_mysteries1-300x118.jpg "stc_mysteries[1]")
This post is dedicated to Associate Professor Gay McAuley and Professor Penny Gay who both were absolutely instrumental in my theatre education- I didn’t probably appreciate you at the time- but if you are out there- thank you. I wish all practitioners could have the benefit of your perspective, knowledge and intelligence.
> all one needs to create an amazing transforming piece of theatre is an actor, a space and an audience
… Which, for me, is precisely what happened. I was blown away by The Mysteries: Genesis and believe it’s the best production I’ve seen this year. A case of the actor, the space and the audience coming together in, yes, an amazing, transforming piece of theatre.
The text was true to the source material in the ways that mattered (from what I recall of the Bible), and when it departed it did so with insight and dramatic purpose (eg the Penguin).
The Residents’ performances were all impressive and direction produced gripping moments of theatricality.
And the promenade format was an eye-opener. For me it created a theatre experience simultaneously communal and personal. It added to my idea of what theatre can do and how it does it. Not being familiar with the history or the purpose of this format I didn’t know that what we got was a “Claytons promenade”… but neither does that matter to me.
Not sure I understood your comments about the huge budget. I thought that the show had a very sparse feel to it, production-wise. The design team put very little on stage: a chair, ash, fake snow, a rope, masking tape, mattresses, some mechanics and sound. If money was spent reconfiguring the space then there was certainly no sense of the production values and design overwhelming the performances, given the entire piece took place, almost literally, in a black box. But then, my idea of a big budget show where production elements dominate is Wicked or Beauty and the Beast.
The nudity I thought was entirely appropriate to the setting and the story. It’s not like nudity in the theatre is particularly noteworthy these days. In the past year I think I’ve seen about half a dozen such shows, the most recent being The Only Child. Well, unless you count the puppet nudity in Avenue Q. 😉
While I’m being nitpicky, it’s probably more accurate to say that this was the main stage season debut of The Residents. They’ve been featured in various development initiatives and shows such as The Accidental Death of an Anarchist. This might however be the first time the entire troupe has appeared in one production.
Oh, at a wild guess, I’d venture that Audi and Armani are so consistently thanked because it’s written into their sponsorship contracts. 😉
Thanks for your comments- I am glad we disagree “Jean” as it is truly comforting to know that someone is enjoying the shows that I’m not- as I was once told “for every cup there is a saucer” and clearly this was not my cup. Happy to disagree with you on a Penguin being a source of dramatic purpose.
I’m sure there is a contractual requirement with Armani and Audi- I just don’t know why the social contract and recognition of the traditional owners of the land is such a stretch for the STC to include in their list of thanks? I was reminded tonight about a skit the chaser did around the STC where in they “acknowledged the traditional owners, Cate and Andrew.”
The HUGE budget is surely that of reconfiguring the space (before and after the architectural re-design) but the production values- although the last time I hear a revolve (like that used in Noah’s Ark) is around $15,000. But I am happy to stand corrected if you have a different pricing.
As I have said before – happy to disagree. It seems this is in your aesthetic- which is fine by me. I don’t like big budget shows I guess- I am interested in ideas and find alot of production values distracting. But that’s my aesthetic. To each their own.
I don’t have any figures re the production budget, but I reckon that two things are in play.
Firstly, we have different ideas of what constitutes a big theatre budget. For instance, the forthcoming (and troubled) Julie Taymor-directed Spider-Man Broadway musical has a capitalisation of around fifty five million US dollars (not a typo), about half of which will be spent on reconfiguring the venue. Now THAT’S a big budget for theatre! US$55M is more than DOUBLE what the entire STC – with its A$28M pa income – turns over in a year across ALL of its main stage, development, education and touring productions. (The budget’s so big in fact that the show will never make its money back. Investors are going to take a bath.)
Secondly, now matter how much actually was spent, I’d argue that the production aesthetic of The Mysteries was in fact very pared back. If you didn’t know what the Wharf 2 normally looked like, if you didn’t know that a carousel cost 15 grand, then all you saw was a black box and some revolving mattresses which could have been achieved by having a couple of stage hands hidden inside, pushing around a fixed axis. The design emphasised the performances and the text rather than the sets, and when visual elements did come to the fore, they did so with elegance and simplicity (like bringing on the snow in Eden or the ash of Lucifer’s fall). Contrast that with a show like, say, Priscilla Queen of the Desert where every last cent of its $10M (I think it was) capitalisation is ostentatiously visible on stage in the form of moving buses, frills, sequins and road kill.
Now I love the big budget shows … but I also love the no budget shows, or the shows that LOOK like no budget shows. One of the more memorable theatre performances I’ve seen was Seneca’s Oedipus which featured Robert Menzies alone on a bare stage for the entire play (except for one sequence when Kosky forgot to restrain himself).
Not going to get into the traditional owners acknowledgement issue other than to say I think it’s great when organisations choose to do it, but I’m certainly not going to take anybody to task if they don’t.