The Shape of Things | atyp Under the Wharf and pantsguys Productions
- March 21st, 2011
- Posted in Reviews & Responses
- Write comment
There is a thrill for me, in attending ATYP’s under the Wharf program – and it may seem like an obvious statement to make – but this is one of the most valuable programs showcasing emerging theatre makers in Sydney. This is the platform where we can see the art and ideas of the artists who will one day be in charge of theatres across Australia. This is where it starts – and for me, it is the place to go to see what is hot in the eyes of the under 26ers. Last slot, WOOF/meow presented a new Australian work “Parkie” as a part of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
On this occasion, a team of recent Actor’s Centre graduates have formed pantsguys Productions and presented Neil LaBute’s “The Shape of Things” as their offering.This is pantsguys Productions second production following on from a season of Neil LaBute’s “autobahn” last year. There is something about Actor’s Centre graduates – they have a get up and go spirit which is highly energetic and enthusiastic. (Infact I declare my hand here – I too have been hired to direct Hilary Bell’s “Wolf Lullaby” by an ACA graduate collective… and last year Paige Rattray directed Bronte for Illyria Productions and atyp’s Under the Wharf program). What produing your own work does is put your money, time and talent where your mouth/career/artistic integrity is: if you want to be in it – you make it! And I know without a doubt such an experience really is invaluable -especially if you’re an actor and you don’t know what a producer does, you certainly learn pretty quickly what’s at stake.
On this occasion, Sam Haft is at the helm of this production. An actor I have enjoyed in several productions including Stephen Colyer’s New Theatre Production of “Little Shop of Horrors” and Anthony Skuse’s Darlinghurst Theatre production of “Pool (No Water).” He is one of the Sydney Theatre landscapes much respected acting teachers, practitioners and a pure gentleman. This is also his debut in the role of “director.”
Sam Haft’s director’s notes for this new production reads like an artist statement. Reads like, because it is. Like that piece of paper or plaque displayed as an explanation, justification or defense of work, Haft asks us to look beyond what is shown in “The Shape of Things.” “[It] is understandable, particularly for those familiar with LaBute’s other works, as we are dealing with an author who often encounters the term misogynist in the same sentence as his own name.” And I agree with Haft, theatre is what we make it – as audience and/or as artist. But I do believe a few fundamental things: that artist intent is only worth what is/can be understood by the audience. Yes, we bring our own baggage and background to theatre and our own frame work – but it is the writer and director who will guide us through the ideas, character, story. The director balances the play’s origins and intent with the contemporary context in which it is performed – political, cultural, social – and the audience receives a message. On this occasion it is not the production of this play that asks us to look beyond what is shown – but the director’s note. I generally don’t read media releases or programs before I see plays – I like the shock/surprise delight adrenalin burst of spontaneous discovery/delivery of dialogue. So I saw the play first (my first time) and read the directions second.
The Shape of Things is largely an exploration of several questions “what would you do for love?” “what would you do for art?” “what are you willing to compromise to please others?”
The plot goes along the lines of: When Adam Sorenson (Tim Rueben), an English Literature major nerd meets an attractive graduate art student Evelyn Ann Thompson (Rebecca Martin), his life takes an unexpected turn. Evelyn becomes a great influence on Adam’s life improving his diet, exercise regime, appearance and boosting his self esteem effecting his relationships even with his best friend Phillip (Graeme McRae), and Phillip’s fiance, Jenny (Cat Dibley).
The interesting ideas in this play include notions of free will and dominate power in relationships, one’s willingness to transform for someone who loves you, the ethics of art, the subjectivity/objectivity of truth. The unfortunate aspect of this play is that Evelyn’s character is surprisingly clear -her force and her righteousness is unshakable -we never have a chance to see her vulnerability, fears, her dreams, we only receive didactic blasts of sedition and discussion. She’s pretty, but also pretty unlikeable – and so cliche that we push her into the “crazy chick” basket pretty quickly. I don’t think this is the doing of Haft nor Martin – I don’t think there is anything they can do to control or influence this character’s relationship to the audience, except perhaps write a director’s note.
The cast are clearly committed to what they are doing – present, ready and comfortable on stage with each other. Martin is suitably articulate and powerful as Evelyn, Reuben is sweet and awkward as Adam. Dibley is a bright burst of energy and McCrae ambles along amicably. It’s a tight team. The scene work is intense and clear, and the actors take great care of each other. Set design by Tom Petty is clever, functional and flexible, but unfortunately quite cumbersome and some manoeuvers on opening night slowed the overall pace of the production but I’m sure this will become smoother as the run rolls itself along. Teegan Lee’s Lighting design is unobtrusive in the scene work and artful in transitions. It’s a solid team and a solid show.
My quibbles are with the content- largely – the writing. I’m not sure if LaBute is a misogynist – he might be a misanthropist as the men aren’t given much in the way of strength or empowerment (unless it s arrogance) – in fact they are all pretty unlikeable folk and it is a portrait of how people tear each other apart, more than “how women destroy men.” I must say I struggled to understand why the play was performed in American accents… I think the acting challenges of wrangling American idioms and syntax in an Australian voice are much greater than mimicry of accent.
That being said – I utterly concur with Sam Haft – that we should all make sure the post show discussions are robust, articulate and brave in dealing with the ideas. I urge all those emerging artists intending on working in the theatre industry to head to the show, see it, then spend 3 hours debating the ideas, the execution and the cultural implications of this production and script at City Extra over a cup of English Breakfast Tea. That is what it’s all about. That is the purpose of art. Discussion, development, the unravelling of an idea so we can sew up our opinions… go on. Check it out. Have an opinion. You’ll enjoy having an opinion. I for one, am thrilled Haft and pantsguys have given me the chance to have one. Thank you.
We’ve shared that opinion Augusta. I enjoyed the production – (surprisingly, I enjoyed the first half much more due to the fact that there was some likeability left in the characters).
However the thing that bugged me, and has bugged me when I’ve seen the production by another company, was that at the end I couldn’t feel anything for Evelyn, I just hated her. To me, that’s not interesting – far more interesting (for me) would have been if I started justifying her actions, then hating myself for doing so.
I wanted to feel sorry for her, to get it, to see how if I made just ONE mistake in my life I could end up the same way.
However I think that reading may simply not be in the script. It becomes so black and white toward the end that it almost countermands the message it attempts to deliver (on the subjectivity of art). I sometimes feel like Labute is grabbing his beliefs and smashing me over the head with them.
That said, I found myself unwittingly drawn in to the love affair between Cat Dibley and Tim Reuben’s characters and realised I was on the edge of my seat, desperate for them to “hook up”. This may simply be that I have a bit of a thing for short, fiery women though..
I also enjoy that some people have an extremeley visceral reaction to this play – on one night when Evelyn/Bec was asking the audience for questions, someone (apparently) said “Yeah, why are you such a bitch” – This level of engagement is exciting and I’m curious how else it can be used.
Eg. When evelyn bows at the end of her presentation of work, what would happen if she waited longer for the audience to applaud? Being audience members so conditioned into polite clapping, and being concerned that this might be the end of the play, they would probably start clapping. Then as she walked off and the play continued the audience would realise that they just applauded her presentation and would feel guilty (perhaps).
Anyhow, thanks for the article Gus
Thanks for your response, Grant. The interesting thing here is your reaction to what you wanted from Evelyn. You wanted to like her – or to feel compassion – or to feel something for her.
Perhaps that’s the point. Perhaps there are sometimes characters we feel nothing for… but are we engaged with them, I think that is the question. For we can dislike someone, but find them fascinating, learn from them. I think it is interesting that you had the response you hated her. Surely this is no fluke of LaBute’s. It’s intended. Why the strong reaction? What is it that makes us grizzle and furrow?
Perhaps it’s the innate belief that all people can be understood, liked, accepted – all people deserve compassion? Perhaps it’s our understanding of the Romantic comedy genre. Perhaps The Shape of Things isn’t a romantic comedy. Perhaps it’s a romantic tragedy – where the classic “death” is the “death of affection for the protagonist?”
This is all very clever because the play itself questions the value of subjectivity in art. Your response to Evelyn is subjective. what we wish of a character and a story does not make it right. Why do we need to like a character? What is it about likeability in characters (especially female protagonists) that we won’t be compromised on?
It is our responsibility as thinkers/theatre goers/philosophers/theatre makers (whatever) to regard and respond to what the work is showing us – and to examine our response to it. Unpack it, not merely reject it if it is not what we are expecting or wishing.
I know Grant. It’s tough. It’s tough because we want happy endings. We want theatre to be our moral compass, our guide and teacher. And sometimes it is. But perhaps on this occasion the sport is not in what is being said but our reaction to it.
Thoughts?
We saw this yesterday. Re: the point on American accents – maybe because the play is clearly referential to American geography – Illinois, Midwest, West Coast – the pantsguys team chose to perform in American accents. Maybe its just an extension of their craft, an immersion in the role. In any event, it starts as confronting but by the middle of Act I, its unnoticeable, which is testament to the sincerity of the performances, I guess.
I didn’t find any of the characters particularly loathsome; obviously Evelyn is one of those people we all know who is ‘out to provoke’ (and this contrasts nicely with the character of Phil, who doesn’t set out to be obnoxious .. he just is), but when you take that into account her actions become comprehensible. Bec Martin enhances this with just the barest glimpse of vulnerability during her final monologue and the final scene with (the excellently believable) Tim Reuben’s Adam; its not blatant and hence deosn;t work against the rest of the script, but I left the play thinking that Evelyn was human, and not some consciousless monster.
I also left the play discussing laBute’s reputation as a mysogynist with my three female companions. Not one of us got that vibe, and we all felt that the roles could have been reversed and the play would not have suffered at all.
All in all, an excellent effort including fine minor performances from the lovely Cat Dibley, and Graeme McRae (who my aformentioned companions all assure me is not ‘the big goofy guy’ but ‘the hot guy who could have been in it more’).
Cheers, Darryn
That’s an interesting point you make – especially about my belief that all people can be understood/sympathised with.
I should clarify my feeling a little more though – I used the word hate because that’s what it felt like I was being wanted to feel. I actually disengaged in the second half of the show as it all felt too easy. I could hate her, but hate her as an idea – the image of a psychopath, someone I don’t need to empathise with but am allowed to simply hate and not question. I felt that if I were to hate Evelyn I would be justified in it because it felt like LaBute wanted me to hate her.
(Of course this is also subjective)
What I suppose I wanted was for the answer to be less easy, for me to still have questions at the end about her. I felt, despite the “What I whispered was true” line, that my need to think about her was gone because the answers were already given.
Consequently I felt like the ending was an ending of the dialogue as well, that there was no need for me to discuss or think on the issues further as they were already given to me.
When I say I wanted to like her, I mean I wanted to have an option.
But I suppose that too is interesting, I know I do have the desire to be able to empathise with everyone, no matter what they’ve done. So the fact that I was not allowed to do this irritated me.
Thanks for your response Darryn, it is a matter of taste. I don’t think any production “needs” accents even if it is referencing the midwest as the point of the story or the characters is not that of cultural identity. This is not a criticism of the pantsguys production – it’s an observation of independent artists making the choice to do accents. I’ll cite Neil Armfield’s production of the Book of Everything which is set in Amsterdam, but in natural Australian voice. Nothing was brought down by that choice – we weren’t confused where we were.
I think all the actors did a fine and dedicated job – but I don’t think there was any ambiguity about the author (or the audience’s for that matter) judgement of Evelyn. It’s a powerful final monologue – but she is unrepentant. And she did not seem at all remorseful to me – but then again Darryn, we did attend different performances. I think the dedication was there from the actors – I don’t question that. I question the writing… is there subtly in this piece of writing? No. I maintain – the subtly is in the audience’s thinking about the production.
Happy to agree to disagree with you on this – but let me make this clear – this is not a quibble with the actors. It’s a quibble with the text.
Augusta, sorry if I gave the impression I was counterpointing your fine review, not my intention at all. Just making my own observations and I take your points fully. I don’t think we disagree at all, really. Evelyn is certainly written as unrepentant, even defiant – but she is played in this piece with that slight hint of wounding when Adam lets fly and also when she’s making her presentation. The effect is achieve by Ms Martin dropping her eyes, biting her lips and weakening her eyes. But yes, it could be a facet of different sessions. That’s all part of the fun of theatre, eh?
I saw the production on Wednesday, before opening and enjoyed both Sam and the ensemble’s work immensely. I do, however, think it’s a very problematic play – one I’ve seen three productions of now, one from the assistant director’s chair – and the way Evelyn is portrayed (as well as the spectre of misogyny) is at the very heart of it.
I would add that I’d love to see a production of the play one day that tries to address this problem not by trying to humanise Evelyn, but instead by pointing a few fingers at Adam. There’s a tendancy to find geeks a little bit hapless, cuddly and adorable but they don’t need to be done that way. Outsiders and outcasts can, sometimes, cultivate a real vicious self-serving egomania.
I think Adam, as written, has more than a few of these traits. He can be smug, duplicitous, acts on and seems to feel he deserves everything he’s ever wanted and clearly enjoys lording his english-lit proclivities in the face of non-english students in an automatic way that might just bely a feeling that he knows more than they do. His response to Evelyn’s rebuke at his Kafka-namedrop in the final scene is telling of this: “I don’t get that reference, Adam!” “It doesn’t matter! I do!”
If Adam has a little bite then perhaps the play can be viewed in a very different light. Not the evil that women will do to men, but the evil that people bring on themselves – it becomes something almost Greek – bad things coming to bad people.
It strikes me too that Jenny’s plaintive final call for decency and “just being a nice person” has even more pathos in a world where everyone is horrible to everyone else as a matter of course.
This is in no way an indictment of Tim Reuben’s performance – I’m talking about a perspective shift on the play itself that seems might uncover some new points of interest in the original script. I thought Reuben and the cast did a great job that, as Gus puts it, got everyone talking. All the best for a great season.
Hate is too simple a response to Evelyn. Her character is not hateful; if anything it is too pure. I think that is what Labute wants; I don’t believe he is either a misogynist or a misanthrope.
The character of Evelyn is a woman because that makes it more interesting, more against the norm of a strong man and a malleable women. The play is interesting because of its views on weakness and strength, and on what we really want and crave. The context of “Art” is merely dictatorial strength, focus and purity (eg the aryan references) versus everyday neediness and weakness.
The “nice” Adam is even more duplicitous then Evelyn simply because he is weak and human, two qualities which gain the sympathy of the audience, and combine to allow us to crucify Evelyn. Labute deliberately makes Adam’s character more sympathetic and “everymanish” simply to further his theme of obsessive focus.
I enjoyed it very much. It is great to see young actors following their dreams, and giving such strong, polished yet raw performances in the childhood of their careers. It is always good to ruminate about the human codition, and the play and the performances certainly makes you do that.