Sydney Theatre Company
8 November – 17 December 2016
Roslyn Packer Theatre
This was the last show in my 2016 STC season, and so seems a fitting place to begin this blog. It was close to three weeks ago when I saw the three-member cast present Andrew Upton’s vision of David Mamet’s script, so I’m going to make a few brief notes here. It was a fine piece of theatre. The performances were up to Sydney Theatre Company’s high standard, and the design was neat and clear. While the text itself isn’t perfect, the positives certainly outweighed the negatives in this production.
All three actors had the gift of filling the size of their roles. I think Speed-the-plow is best treated with a certain melodramatic touch, which runs the risk of seeming heavy-handed. Fortunately, this wasn’t the case here. The characters all felt like a slightly exaggerated version of someone very real, which played well with the style of humour in the text. Bobby (Damon Herrimon) was kind of a blank slate of a character. He was defined by his pre-existing relationship with Charlie (Lachy Hulme), and then redefined by a night with his temporary secretary Karen (Rose Byrne). Herrimon brought out the internal struggle and its impact on the psyche exceptionally well. From the outset, there was an uncertainly sitting just under the surface, which was quickly brought out when Bobby’s loyalty to Charlie was challenged.
Contrasting with Bobby, Charlie was steadfast, seemingly unwavering in loyalty to Bobby, but also a little entitled. The question surrounding him is whether his job is as important to him as Bobby’s friendship. But this is really unanswerable, as maintaining the latter benefits the former significantly. Karen was the highlight of the show for me. Both Hulme and Byrne managed to leaving me wondering exactly what Karen’s motivations were. The immediate aggression and desperation that Hulme treats Charlie’s character with led me to believe that his concern was more selfish. That is, until Karen loses her cool, flipping through the novel obsessively, yelling after Bobby. The ensemble acting left me believing that though each character was out for themselves to a greater or lesser extent, they also genuinely believed they were doing what was ‘right’, whether that was doing their job or making a better film.
I cannot compliment the second scene’s set enough. Three ‘glass’ walls contained the scene, each with enough of a reflection to give a clear images of the scene from different perspectives, without distracting from the action of the scene. It was a simple and sleek design choice that maintained focus on the narrative, hinting at the internal reflections (headed by Karen ) that lead to Bobby’s epiphany.
Often when watching theatre, I treat the text separately to the performance, and I must admit, I struggled a little bit with the script here. Let me start by saying that I found the message itself valuable and entertaining. Questions of our motivations and those of the people around us bubbled just under the surface of this satirical piece, and I appreciated that. For instance, the beauty of Karen’s character, as mentioned earlier, is the flexibility it flaunts. Is she out for herself, or to make a better movie? Both? However, I felt some of the gags were indulged a little too much. A back-and-forth piece of dialogue (‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Yes’, ‘No’) loses its charm it the moment is extended too long, and by the fourth instance of this, I found myself unable to laugh. I think if these moments were given the same treatment as some of the other witticisms of the show – that is, short and sharp – then I think the play would have been better served.
Despite my criticisms, I definitely would have (and did) recommended the show to friends for a night, or afternoon in my case, at the theatre that is light-hearted, but just might get you thinking.
Write, Wrote, Written. 