Comments on: Babyteeth | Belvoir

By: Goldman

Goldman — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 02:51:50 +0000

Spot on. For me anyway. I felt the play lacked an internal logic in parts, most of it, and there was an emphasis placed on ‘getting laughs’, more so than justifying the characters actions. For example, the characters would do things that were quite erratic, and seemed to be simply for effect. Slapping one another, saying certain things (much of the dialogue), making out, etc. etc. this is of course a small/ paltry example, but did you feel that perhaps there were a few moments that weren’t necessarily ‘earnt’?

Also, the way that this play was written/structured, I thought there was a lot of extraneous dialogue and in fact, if cut down to the meat of each scene, could have even been a better one act play? thoughts?

By: Diana

Diana — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 05:43:17 +0000

Re first comment objecting to “we” … history should remind Jeremy that “we are not amused” does not include him, or anyone else for that matter. Just Her Maj.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:36:48 +0000

I’d also like to point out that I do stand by the fact that for a play supposedly about love and love of life, both the production and the writing leave a lot to be desired. How many more times am I going to get a revolving set in the next year you think? How many times am I going to get an uninspired white/sparse/ambiguous space in my lifetime? Sigh. WHERE WAS THE NATURE? WHERE WAS THE SKY? WHERE WAS THE GARDEN? THE FLOWERS? And why, with all her obviously endless supply of creativity did Rita choose to keep depicting/describing something as mundane as a cloud and the sky?

By: Katharine

Katharine — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:45:21 +0000

Augusta thanks for writing this and starting the discussion. I have to say I agree with you and Jack. It was too much of a mish- mash for me and it didn’t go deep enough into any of the characters to really hold my attention. Plus the fact that we find out about the death early on, so there’s no element of suprise and the character’s weren’t compelling enough for me to care about Milla’s death.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:16:39 +0000

With a few exceptions, I generally find plays without a protagonist or central character to lack… what’s the word I’m looking for? Grounding? Structure?
Babyteeth’s characters were human, compelling and likable – all of them I thought, and I can’t see a reason why Rita would have felt the need to drop/cut any characters. But without one individual for us to grab onto and follow, the experience was kind of like watching somebody elses family home videos. Who’s story was this? Rita’s play tells me that it was Milla’s. The production’s emphasis seemed to be on Henry & Anna.

By: Augusta Supple

Augusta Supple — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:43:46 +0000

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for your response. And you are right – I should write in the first person – what I meant was “I lost interest” “I have little to be curious about.” “I didn’t see evidence of his love.”

I am so glad you feel differently to me about this show… that means it was made for you. Many people enjoyed it. Including Kevin Jackson. I encourage to find delight and reassurance in his review: http://kjtheatrereviews.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/babyteeth.html

That’s a good question about “why does there need to be a central protagonist?” Well good question. I’ll think about it. I guess my immediate response is that I probably needed a character to connect to – or feel something for. I felt nothing for them. I admired the robust individualism of Gidon… but again – it was more of an observation than a connection. Why do I need to connect with the characters? I don’t know. Why do I like green grapes?

Anyway, just thought I’d say thanks – I won’t be royal “we”ing anywhere in the future, I promise.

Kind regards,

Augusta

By: jeremy allen

jeremy allen — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:09:18 +0000

“we lose interest”
“we have little to be curious about.”
“we don’t see evidence of his love”

who is this we? it certainly wasn’t me.
and why does the play need to be about one person? why can’t it be about everyone?