"Write what you know"
In
almost every biography one has read about the great literary figures,
this "write what you know" is a constant mantra of advice.
This is what Tommy Murphy has gone on to do so well. Beginning
with Troy’s House a “story of a group of
teenagers at the end of their schooling”; Strangers
in Between about a young boy fleeing his home and attempting
to discover who he might be in the alien world of a big city:
Sydney’s King Cross, and confronting his relationship with
his family through the demands of his brother; and Holding
the Man, an adaptation of Tim Conigrave’s memoir about
two male lovers and their fate in the early years of the AIDS
epidemic and the effect it had on that community of family and
friends. Now, as the writer himself approaches the age of 30,
he chronicles for his generation "Y" (and the rest of
us) "a major rite of passage" that many astrologers
consider "to mark, the 'true beginning' of adulthood, self-evaluation
independence, responsibility, ambition, and full maturation."
The return of Saturn in our astronomical history occurs approximately
every 29.5 years. Astrologically, Saturn being associated with
time, challenge, fear, doubt, confusion, difficulty, seriousness,
heaviness, unwanted burdens, and hard lessons “as well as
some positive things ‘such as structure, significance, accomplishment,
reflection, power, prestige, maturity, responsibility and order.”
In Saturn’s Return, the
principal character Zara, in a comfortable longstanding relationship
with Matt, is dealing unconsciously with the return of Saturn
into her astrological chart (he too). At the end of the first
scene, Zara is confronted with the need to re-evaluate her response
to Matt’s declaration of “I love you”. She hesitates.
He notices. She denies it. “They kiss. They move towards
sex.” But there is “ NOISE. NOISE. NOISE.” It
could just be the terrible plumbing in their apartment building
(as it is in Schimmelpfennig’s Arabian Night,co-incidentally
playing at the Stables Theatre) or a metaphor for change, a cleansing
coming.
The rest of the play, short five scene episodes,
deal with the couple’s journey through this patch of living.
It deals mainly with Zara’s decisions and journey, and the
consequences on herself and Matt. This is about a couple of “middle
class, energetic empowered Sydneysiders.” A hedonistic life
of sex, drugs and partying has been lived. Matt has just entertained
his young nephew with a creative “playschool” game
of make believe and building: a rocket ship and uniform; the remains
of it lying around. Zara returns home and in the debris of playtime
they talk of junkies, plumbing, sexual threesomes, sex on drugs,
yoga, candles and petals, bathing together, saving for a house
deposit, cancer, dementia, their car (tank, bomb), soundproofing,
recycling, pot, Blue Mountains weekend sex idylls, parental divorce,
grey nomading: all the concerns of a generation: Generation Y
in 2008. The play bends a little with time and realities and ends
up back in the playschool of a certain middle class life style
where time and change need to be addressed, on a “playschool
boat” on a “playschool ocean”. Zara makes a
decision and steps out of the playschool boat to… ? This
is a very neat play. It may be just a little too neat but it certainly
is a fairly charming and interesting new addition to the canon
of Australia’s dramatic literature.
David Berthold in the afterword of the printed text
gives a very erudite dramaturgical breakdown of the play. As he
does in his introduction to the Currency Press Introductions to
Tommy Murphy’s two previous plays: Strangers in Between
and Holding the Man. This is Tommy Murphy’s and
David Berthold’s eighth collaboration. It has been almost
exclusive. And maybe Mr Berthold should remain the dramaturg and
not also the director of the first production of the works because
what he and Mr Murphy know about the play is not obvious in the
production. (I found it so at the original showing of Strangers
in Between at the Stables years ago.) It is staged but not
as carefully directed as it could be. The knowledge that the collaborators
have is too second nature for them and so I found the directing
in action on the stage makes assumptions about what is clear to
them but maybe not to the audience watching it for the first time.
The playing of the material is just not careful enough. It tends
to skim where it should reveal. It makes too many assumptions
of clarity where it is most dense and needs gentler explication.
I found the style of performance that Leeanna Walsman
(as Zara) and Matthew Zeremes (as Matt) were playing in, in the
first scene, confusing as well. It was on the night I attended
fairly actorly. It appeared artificial and I could not discern
whether it was deliberate or not. It appeared that they were acting
in a representational style. Not that they were Being the characters
but rather that were Representing the characters. Were mouthpieces
rather than real people. Ms Walsman tended to talk at her fellow
actors; her reactions seemed to be contrived and obviously rehearsed.
In fact I thought it was robotic. (In Mr Murphy’s diary
on the STC website he actually at one stage considered that, as
an option: that Zara was a robot! April 16th 2007). Ms Walsman
did not think her text to motivate either her verbal or physical
responses nor did she really listen to the other actor except
for cues, either pre-determined story points or literal cues.
The vocal colour was very limited and the pitch and volume stayed
in a fairly narrow expressive usage (a consistent over projection,
a kind of elocution.). Mr Zeremes seemed bewildered as how to
react to her offers. It appeared awkward. This was brought into
focus when Socratis Otto appeared as Brendan in the second scene.
This actor created a believable human being. Brendan demanded
empathy from me. It was not a satiric representational style it
was a heightened naturalism. This did not impinge on Ms Walsman’s
playing style seemingly blithely unaware of the offers being made
to her, however, in contrast Mr Zeremes found an ease and a comparatively
less mannered delivery and response in the work with Mr Otto.
Something real was in transaction and had a believable cause and
affect that I could read as an audience member. I saw this on
the play’s second performance and there was an uneasy feel
in the audience on how to respond. The actors were not in control
of us they were oblivious to our presence.
The set design (Adam Gardnir) looked as if it were
executed on a shoe-string budget;some clever surprises built in
but essentially it looked cool, bleak and uninviting. The lighting
(Luiz Pampolha) was similarly cool. The sound a feel of retro
trendy (Basil Hogios) After the recent presentations of Guilt
Frame and Manna, the Wharf 2Loud program returns
to the more conventional work of the STC. Certainly, it is the
most accomplished writing I have seen in this space at this stage
of development.
“A bewitching playwright of startling originality”
says Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton. Well, bewitching maybe right,
but on this outing I wouldn’t claim it as original, unless
you mean "created personally by a particular artist".
If you mean inventive or novel you are probably pushing it. As
an empathetic social observer of a particular strata of the middle
class constituency one could say so, of generation “Y”
much like David Williamson was, is, for the “baby boomers”.
There is the difference; maybe the originality.
Kevin Jackson
To read more of Kevin Jackson's theatre reviews,
check out his blog at
Kevin Jackson's Theatre Reviews.
