Picnic at Hanging Rock, Malthouse Theatre, Saturday February 10th 2018.

Picnic at Hanging Rock, Malthouse Theatre, Saturday 10th 2018

"Picnic At Hanging Rock" was presented at the Malthouse Theatre on Saturday 10th 2018.

For those new to my blog I write about the holistic experience of attending the theatre.  So if you want a re-telling of the story please refer to the links for further information or for further insights.  Note, that I may provide different links for repeated main words or phrases.  I also mainly write for my memories of what I have seen.

This is our second viewing of the play "Picnic at Hanging Rock" that has been adapted from Joan Lindsay's novel by Tom Wright. We originally saw this production at the Malthouse Theatre, on Wednesday March 9th 2016 and we practically ran out of the theatre screaming "Miranda...get me out of here."  This time we were prepared and were pleasantly surprised.  Maybe they had read my review and deleted the "fuck, fuck" sequence!

"Picnic At Hanging Rock" at the Malthouse had originally made us wanting to flee like Edith screaming and running down from the rock "Miranda, Miranda. Miranda." This time the production made more sense. The 85 minutes was more tolerable.  Still not my favourite work it is worth seeing to discuss the book and the film.

My favourite part from the original viewing did not have the same impact.  It lacked the atmosphere when the three of the actors formed a triangle and raised alternate arms and then touched palms to create the most ethereal aspect of the production.  They did this sequence twice which seemed to lack the shadow of the large looming tree at the back of the set.  The shadow had looked like an alien space craft in earlier scenes and did not create that impact here.

Thankfully they had deleted the word "fuck" from this updated version.  The sequence where Irma returns and the other students want information and they attack her.  This sequence was more believable.

The opening created a shared descriptive monologue that foretold the doom of this production.  Each of the five actors shared the verbose opening.  The actors rotate roles and not look like the characters at times. I maintain that it would help when and if they would try and use some body posture to differentiate each of the various characters, as the vocal differences can be subtle.

The production on second viewing has been tightened and can challenge us with focus.  It is not as confusing on second viewing.  Half an hour into the production and suddenly an actor appears in a man's outfit.  Why?  Why now suddenly use different costumes to create and differentiate characters?

Arielle Gray was again the most effective when using vocals to create a male character.  Her changing to male body posture was less defined, which had been so strong in the original production.  Her writhing scene as Sarah made more sense on this viewing. Sarah's vocal change from a mouse squeak to nearly a lion's roar towards the end of the play made more sense on the second viewing.  The quality of the mouse squeak had a more unnerving quality in the first production.

Elizabeth Nabben's created a a stronger journey as Miss Appleyard with her clear diction.  I maintain her pronunciation of words like "room" and "noon"lacked the upper class precision, though I congratulate her as they were not as strine on first viewing.

The final suicide scene did not have the same impact as the first viewing.

All actors, including Harriet Gordon-Anderson, Amber McMahon and Nikki Sheils had their fleeting moments of glory and were more confident with the material.  The variance in the fleeting moments was more consistent and not as jarring.  A maturity had developed in their confidence. Thankfully the anticipation on their faces and in the breathing for their next line or action was absent.  I did not get bored, though I did notice balancing could be an issue with the slow walks forward.  Occasionally, the synchronisation of the ensemble stepping forward was not as precise as the first viewing. and lost that sense of foreboding.

Set and costume design by Zoe Atkinson had a modest set comprising of a large "V" shaped wall>  Most noticeable was the absence of the wardrobe upstage right. The footprints in the carpet were not as distracting.  The quick scene and costume changes were silent and appeared effortless.

I am still at odds with the use of the costumes.  I think the contract made with the audience in the opening scene broke when the other costumes were introduced.  Some costumes were of school uniforms we then had to endure the confusing introduction of character costumes occasionally. The most noticeably was that Miss Appleyard never had her own costume while Irma did.  This did not make sense and appeared incongruent.  Maybe Miss Appleyard had never grown up from being a schoolgirl.  Oh, someone will justify why this was done.  I still wonder "why some characters were being dressed in a different costume and not others?"  It did not make me cringe, but try to fathom why the inconsistency. I would love to hear the justification from the costume designer.

A possible answer to my above question is that some characters remained in costume to show they had were travelling in another time zone. (Refer to the article below for other possible insights as to the costume question!)

The production is an academic discussion of the myth, and is better on a second viewing.

The lighting by Paul Jackson did not add to any mystery but emphasised the concept of time and what it must be like to be in a black hole of nothingness.  It did not alienate me this time with the long black outs between scenes, but made me pause for reflection.  The music did not seem to create an atmosphere as in the original production.

The sound-scape and composition by J.David Franze and Ash Gibson Greig made such an impact on the first viewing and at times reminded me of "Earthquake" with sensurround in the 1970s.  This second viewing left me disappointed as the sound design as in the sensurround effect was more atmospheric in the first production.

For those who did not read my 2016 review, there is an entertaining and informative article - "The Solution to Joan Lindsays' Novel 'Picnic at Hanging Rock'?" by Brett McKenzie.

My partner gave it a 5/10 while I gave it 6.5/10.  

Picnic at Hanging Rock, Malthouse Theatre, Wednesday March 9th 2016

Picnic at Hanging Rock, Malthouse Theatre, Wednesday March 9th 2016

For those new to my blog I write about the holistic experience of attending the theatre.  So if you want a re-telling of the story please refer to the links for further information or for further insights.  Note, that I may provide different links for repeated main words or phrases.  I also mainly write for my memories of what I have seen.

The new play "Picnic at Hanging Rock" has been adapted from Joan Lindsay's novel by Tom Wright. We saw this production at the Malthouse Theatre, on Wednesday March 9th 2016 and we practically ran out of the theatre screaming "Miranda...get me out of here."

"Picnic At Hanging Rock" at the Malthouse made us seething inside and we felt like Edith screaming and running down from the rock "Miranda, Miranda. Miranda." We could not wait to get out of the theatre. "Miranda, Miranda. Miranda get us out of here" It was an awful adaptation of the book and seemed to be a three hour production with its laboured transitions between scenes and it was only 85 TOO too long. Highly NOT recommended.

The best part was when three of the actors formed a triangle and raised alternate arms and then touched palms to create the most ethereal aspect of the production.  They did this sequence twice which followed after the shadow of the large looming tree at the back of the set.  The shadow looked like an alien space craft and together with their actions created some mystery to the production. Obviously this was the trigonometry imagery required to give visual weight to this lacklustre production.

Where in Joan Lindsay's book is the word "fuck"?  There is a sequence that defies logic where Irma returns and the other students want information and they attack her.  Irma of course rants "fuck" as one lady must do in Victorian times!

The opening created a shared descriptive monologue that foretold the doom of this production.  Each of the five actors shared the verbose opening.  Oh yeah I get it that the actors will rotate roles and not look like the characters at times. It would help when and if they would try and use some body posture to differentiate each of the various characters.

Oh no - let's just make it a radio play - like "Under Milk Wood" and use our voices to create the story.  If only this had occurred!  It would have been better to have read the book to us.

The production lacks focus, and is so confused.  Half an hour into the production and suddenly an actor appears in a man's outfit.  Why?  Why now suddenly use different costumes to create and differentiate characters?

Arielle Gray was the most effective when using vocals to create a male character.  She also used her body to create a male posture.  Though her writhing scene as Sarah was beyond comprehension. Vocally as Sarah she whispered her lines like a mouse and then suddenly found her voice towards the end of the play.  This was an interesting device to show her change in finding courage and her sense of identity.

Elizabeth Nabben's created a journey as Miss Appleyard.  Her diction was clear and precise though the accent lacked the precision of words like "room" and "noon" which were a bit strine.  Oh yes there is a difference for words like room and noon when using an upper class English accent compared with an Australian accent.

The other actors Harriet Gordon-Anderson, Amber McMahon and Nikki Sheils had their fleeting moments of glory, but due to the script and direction they were drowning with the material.  Sadly we were cringing as any semblance of rapport was lost between the characters as we quickly had to advance to the next scene change.  Sadly you could see the anticipation on their faces and in the breathing for their next line or action.  To stave off boredom I would watch their feet to see how they would prepare for the next line.  Oh yes one lady needed to rest her heel and calf at this moment or otherwise she may cramp!  Or I watched their breathing to see the anticipation in preparing for the next deep breath to support the next tirade.

Set and costume design by Zoe Atkinson had a modest set comprising of a large v shaped wall with a wardrobe upstage right. The carpet was the most interesting feature to keep me entertained as I watched where the foot prints were embedded into the carpet after each black-out.  This was so interesting as to ascertain where the actors and crew entered and exited for each "not too quick" scene change with thumping noisy sound effects to drown out any sounds.

While costumes were of school uniforms we then had to endure the confusing introduction of character costumes occasionally.  MMMMM we wondered "why some characters were being dressed in a different costume and not others?"  Another example to make us cringe.

Programmes were not available for sale until I asked for a copy at 7.10pm.  Finally the programmes were put on display.  This did not give a good impression of the Front of House staff.  Reading the programme notes gave away a hint of what was to come "The cast rehearsed with their eyes closed, and our backstage crew wear night vision googles during the performance."  Yes night vision googles not goggles!  Even Mr Google corrected "googles" to goggles in the previous sentence.  I think they mean "night vision goggles" and could not resist creating a link for them here!

The production was an academic discussion of the myth.  It was a drama school project gone wrong.

The lighting by Paul Jackson did not add to any mystery but further alienated me with the long black outs between scenes.  The best saving grace was the illumination of the tree hanging in the background as if looming.  The long black-outs reminded me of the days when the tabs would close in the theatre for a scene change with music playing to distract us.  The music created atmosphere but with the extended black-outs added to the fury we felt about the production.

The sound scape and composition by J.David Franze and Ash Gibson Greig reminded me of "Earthquake" with sensurround in the 1970s.

Oh yes I did read the director's blog (Matthew Dutton) after seeing the play.  Yes I have read the book and understand the significance of the gym scene.  But really do we need "fuck" in the script? Oh yes I understand now - "fuck" was used to help us run screaming out of the theatre like Edith.

This was not a memorable production and must be on the school curriculum as there were many teenagers in uniform at this performance.  The teachers will have a field day debating the book, movie and now this play.

I cannot wait for the musical or the "Forbidden  Broadway Picnic at Hanging Rock" send-up.  Tongue firmly in my cheek as I again scream for "Miranda".

For a more entertaining and informative piece - read the "The Solution to Joan Lindsays' Novel 'Picnic at Hanging Rock'?" by Brett McKenzie.  Your article made more sense than this ordinary production.

My partner gave it a 5/10 and then changed his mind to a 4/10.  I generously gave this production a 5/10. 

The Trouble With Harry, Northcote Town Hall, Tuesday 21st October 2014

The Trouble With Harry, Northcote Town Hall, Tuesday 21st October 2014

'The Trouble With Harry" is a new work by the award winning playwright Lachlan Philpott.  It played at the Northcote Town Hall and is directed by Alyson Campbell.  "The Trouble With Harry" is produced by MKA: Theatre of New Writing and Darebin's Speakeasy in association with the Melbourne Festival.

'The Trouble With Harry"  should not be confused with the 1955 film of the same name.  Both are completely different stories.

There was a poorly projected announcement from the stairs prior to entering the theatre.  We were near the front and could hear the announcement and sadly those towards the back would not be able to hear it.  They should have repeated the announcement inside the theatre.  Plus no usher was abiding by their own rules by asking people to switch off their mobile phones.  So why bother with the announcements?

We were issued with a set of headphones that had blue lights.  As the lights dimmed we were given instructions through the headphones to ensure that the blue lights were facing forward.  There was also a technician on hand if anyone had any issues with their headphones.  A simple request to raise your hand and the technician would give you a new set of headphones. A simple and effective introduction.

The clarity of the headphones was much to be desired.  The initial announcement gave us an opportunity to set our desired volume.  Sadly the clarity of the voices of the man and the woman played by Dion Mills and Emma Palmer was very crackly, muddied and inconsistent.  Was it to give it a 1920's wireless sound?  I doubt it as at other times it was clearer.  I think the sound quality diminished when they used the two standing microphones as it was better when they were relying only on their radio microphones.

Using the two standing microphones I guess was to establish the role of a male and female narrator.  They were also wired ("bugged") with radio microphones.  It was not too clear when they were narrator, observer and other characters.  This was also due to the staging of moving the man and woman around and sometimes into the shadows and they were also masked by other performers.

I liked the idea of the man and woman narrating, but it was the differentiation between observer, and other characters that was not clearly defined.  Lachlan Philpott in his play "Bison" used a similar device of having his actors look at only three points: 1. at the other actors, 2. the main character or 3. the audience. 

Here the looking at the audience was more distracting as the central focus of each scene was not staged to create clear locations.

The set and costumes by Eugyeene The created a 1920's feel.  They used a series of steel frames to create doorways, bars, doctor's surgery and other locations.  There were portable and fixed lighting rigs.  The portable lighting rigs danced a duet with one of the characters to illuminate a scene.  It was very cinematic at times and reminded me of the new musical version of Baz Luhrmann's "Strictly Ballroom" in concept.  

The Northcote Town Hall with its imposing and austere presence created an authenticity to the 1920's era.  The huge lights hanging from the ceiling created a sense of power and impending doom. If these large lights were to fall then the whole world would come crashing down.  The lights do not fall but the world of Harry and his family come tumbling down.

The best part was when the frames were lined up to create visibly identifiable locations.  I loved the slight cross over of the two larger frames as they created an art deco doorway with leadlight windows.  There was a long row of fourteen by three windows, a total of forty two windows that created a sense of the house and its surrounding neighbourhood.  It was particularly effective when we could see inside their house.  We as the audience are the flies-on-the wall, eaves-dropping on their private lives.  The windows were also effective as the other characters could be observing as if through the neighbour's curtains.  These were some of the most memorable images.

The acting was good for the main characters as their relationships are established.  Caroline Lee played Annie Birkett with Daniel Last as her son, Harry Birkett.  They had an honest 1920s sensibility to their relationship and behaviours.  While Maude Davey played Harry Crawford with a blokey swagger and rehearsed mannerisms.  Maude's voice, though not deep, had a hint of the 1920s' sound bites.  It would be great to hear her develop more of the 1920's vocal quality.

Josephine Falleni was played by Elizabeth Nabben and gave the production the ticking time-bomb it needed to create more drama.  Josephine observes the action from a doorway for a good part of the start of the play. I liked this device as it enhanced our curiosity of: who was she, what has she got to do with the story?  Her entrance and effects on the story are like a cyclone.  Her relationship with each of the other characters varies and creates conflicting dramas.  I particularly liked the sensitivity with her and the young Harry Birkett.  Together they created the chasm between innocence and worldliness.

The man and woman narrators/observers provide more of a visual radio-play quality to their two dimensional characters, for example a neighbour, a barmaid etc.

The play is based on true events of the 1920s and uses many parts of the large Northcote Town Hall.  They use the doorways as effective entrances,  we see behind the curtains and down underneath the floor as if in an outside shed.  The depth of the town hall is so large I can understand why they chose to use the headphones.  But it is a little like the chicken or the egg in what came first with the designs and direction.  Was it the location or the concept of using the headphones.

Lachlan Philpott  has written a play that speaks largely of the 1920s era.  My parents are of this era and some of the language was a bit modern.

Lachlan Philpott in conjunction with Alyson Campbell have created a good play with some work could be great.  My partner and myself knew that Harry Crawford went to trial but did not pick up it was for the murder of Annie Birkett his wife.  This was not clear from the script and the direction.  Maybe the final dance through the curtains was a dance to her death.

The play is advertised in the Melbourne Festival brochure as one hour and twenty minutes while it ran for ninety minutes. 

A good play that required some clarification and clearer direction at times.

My partner has asked that I put up my scores for each production.  This gets 7/10.