Sweet Nothings | atyp Under The Wharf, John Kachoyan & pantsguys productions
- November 23rd, 2013
- Posted in Uncategorized
- Write comment
We know what makes a romantic comedy. It’s the premise by which love conquers all obstacles – and in the current Hollywood model – this usually refers to the foolishness of the man. So what makes a romantic tragedy? Well that is when the will of love can not over come its circumstance or context – eg Romeo and Juliet. Sweet Nothings is a romantic tragedy and is billed as “A sexy, funny and daring new adaptation of Liebelei by Arthur Schnitzler (the writer who inspired Eyes Wide Shut and The Blue Room), Sweet Nothings explores the power of sexual longing, the cruelty of tradition and the vulnerability of those in love.”
However, I found nothing sexy nor funny nor daring nor particularly new in this adaptation or production.
I found a fairly basic (and nearly misogynistc) reading of sexual relationship… two men Fritz (Graeme McRae) and Theo (Owen Little) without imagination seduce two women Mizi (Clementine Mills) and Christine (Matilda Ridgeway). Fritz and Theo treat Mizi and Christine as if they are just objects of distraction on a conveyer belt of sexual gratification. Killing time with these women, the men offer no depth of emotion, no intimacy beyond some over eager cunnilingus on a couch. I guess I have a different view of what is sexy… and daring… and for that matter what is new.
Sophie Fletcher’s set design created a dual level apartment which lacked detail of the extravagance and lavish life suggested in the script of the officer’s apartment. The second act transformation into Christine’s apartment is also lacking in depth and detail. For a piece of writing which is presented as a piece of naturalism – the detail is important, and lacking in this production.
The performances are largely presented in a very overt and unsubtle way, with the exception of Matilda Rigeway’s Christine and some soft and genteel moments from Mark Lee as Weiring – Christine’s father.
What is most troublesome is the director’s (John Kachoyan) attraction to this particular script. The premise is very simple and within the 15th minute of the play we understand how this love story is going to play out. Fritz has been confronted about his affair with another man’s wife – despite being (a rather aloof and emotionally constipated) boyfriend to Christine and must fight in a duel. He, in keeping with being an aloof and emotionally constipated boyfriend, does not tell Christine this. But why would he – there is nothing to suggest genuine yearning from his part? Christine is in love with him (and who knows why?) and he’s using her. We get that. Its up front and centre in the play. And so? Where have we to go dramatically?
Well… nowhere.
We, the audience then sit and watch the delusional yearnings of Christine. And we watch her father watch her delusional yearnings.
The problem is we have no desire to want Fritz to have Christine’s love. And this is a pivitol aspect of romantic stories (comedies or tragedies) – we want good people to have good things (love) and we want bad people to be transformed by good things (love).
What seems so strained about this is not only the lack of chemistry between the characters, and the lack of detail in the design – but also the completely clumsy transplanting of the context (Both playwright and adapter are European) in design and voice. There is no socio-political understanding context of Sydney’s cultural landscape or identity invested in this production. There seems to be a very light understanding of the socio-political context of the play’s origins (Freud anyone?). And so what we are left with is a very pedestrian portrait of male communication/desire and female imagination/lust.
But perhaps I’ve missed something deeper?
Could this be the new cynical view of love?
Some sort of honest portrait of how men only understand men, women only understand women – and that the only man you can trust to love is your father?
Perhaps I am too much the romantic? Perhaps I am as naive as Christine is? I believe that there can be an undeniable connection between men and women – that people are geared to group together – and I also think that lust, love, sex are human traits that aren’t limited to gender or sexual preference. So I found Sweet Nothings to be a mechanical and very familiar white, hetero-normative, gender-biased portrait of these ideas. Not really anything new, or bold.
Tickets, times and more details at: http://www.atyp.com.au/under-the-wharf/productions/sweet-nothings#sthash.oDCrZoio.dpuf
I agree – this play is problematic and has been found so in both the Harrower and Stoppard adaptations but what I find more problematic is your review of this show. I saw it in it’s first week and though by no means did I enjoy every aspect of it (I too felt uncomfortable with the gender issues playing out, but I do believe a lot of the discomfort I felt was that I too have been that girl, put my heart on the line for a man indifferent to me) – but it was a play that engrossed me and provided much debate and conversation with my friends on the drive home and isn’t that what seeing theatre is a about? I find of late reviewers have started taking personal offence to shows that challenge their own personal taste and this concerns me, I believe it should concern everyone.
To paraphrase your own words this review is ‘not really anything new, or bold’ – it’s once again another review that lambasts and condescends to the point of the reviewer (yourself) publishing what can only be said to be a stream of consciousness that I read only as waste of time and energy for yourself. This is a show that polarises, you either love it or you hate it and what concerns me most about this review of the show that it is written with a ‘sigh’ and ‘no passion’ – I get you didn’t like it, but it’s written with such indifference that I come back to my first point – why write this in the first place?
As a regular reader of your blog and I follow you on Twitter (I find you quite engaging on it btw) I was disappointed in this posting as it lacked the nuanced and objective voice that I normally equate with your work. Your lambasting of this play for not being a romantic comedy confused me as I myself, a big consumer of rom coms, didn’t think for a moment that was what I was watching.
But perhaps I’ve missed something?
Your comments on the set and its design again confused me as I found it both naturalistic and nuanced and a great use of the space that is limited at ATYP by those large boulders in the middle of the pace have distracted in nearly show I’ve seen there except this one.
Perhaps we watched a different play?
For what it’s worth I completely agree with your review of Matilda Ridgeway. And Yes, Sweet Nothings is an unsatisfying love story but then again isn’t that what unrequited love is, unsatisfying? But hey, maybe that’s just me…