cultural_philistine
HAL_9000Review of Exit the King (Belvoir St Theatre)
July 25th 2007 08:29
You're unlikely to see a more virtuoso performance this year (emotionally bigger, sure -- but not better). The guy has gone through what must have been a punishing run of seven shows a week, for nigh on two months, and yet even such gags as drinking out of a hot water bottle, spitting it at the front row, and then apologising ("I shouldn't have done that. That's what you get for booking so early"), come across as fresh and spontaneous.
The second thing to note is that Eugene Ionesco and absurdism are difficult. Difficult as in difficult on the audience. Even when they're handled expertly, as is here the case under Neil Armfield's direction, you'll probably be glancing at your watch before the show is over. -- In act one King Berenger the First is told he'll die, and in act two he dies. And that's all that happens, it really is. There's little to no plot complications, character development, suspense, mystery, intriguing questions, surprise. And no one's pretending any different -- "You're going to die in 90 minutes, at the end of the play," a character announces.
So don't come to this expecting it's something it isn't.
But what Exit the king does deliver, among other things, is one of the fullest and most memorable theatrical examinations of dying. Line by line, passage by passage, this is incredibly rich and multilayered material. The words have endless depths to plumb -- megalomania and allegory and nonsense and symbol and farce and grotesquerie and desire and existentialism. King Lear and Moliere. And it demands the same sort of concentration as poetry.
At times perceptive (more insightful than the five stages model, and before the theory was written), at times poignant (for instance, in the closing scene, where all of the king's worldly ties gradually leave him in Everyman fashion).
And playful, humorous, dream-like, fantastical. To such an extent was the king accomplished that he wrote both the Iliad and the Odyssey, he split the atom, and invented search engines. To such an extent has the king lost power that when he orders his second wife to walk to him, she finds herself unable to move. To such an extent is the health of the monarch connected to the welfare of the state, that a population of 9000 million has fallen to 45, and most of the young people are retarded. And similar amplifications are handed out to the king's regret at waste, his denial of death, his grasping at life, his enjoyment of final moments, etc.
(I'm assuming, incidentally, that part of the reason Ionesco will exaggerate the hell out of a feeling or idea, explore it to the nth degree, beyond any pretence of naturalism, is basically the same reason as expressionism and magic realism. Isabel Allende once commented on a style of saying the most extraordinary things casually, and speaking of the banal as if miraculous -- in order to talk about the deepest truths.)
It might be the case that Rush too far outshone the rest of the cast. I honestly don't mean to be mean here, and these are just subjective opinions from one philistine punter. But it seemed to me that the older wife, Queen Marguerite (Gillian Jones) was sometimes a little flat, almost reading the lines, and that the younger wife, Queen Marie (Rebecca Massey) was physically limited and a little one-note, with a sort of generalized hysteria. The guard (David Woods) and doctor (Bille Brown) were capable, but unexceptional. The maid Juliette (Julie Forsyth) had brilliant comic timing, but also an annoying curtsy (which turned from amusing to irritating after the third time she used it).
But one shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of these roles -- the "characters" really are written as background noise to the king, and as more symbolic than flesh-and-blood.
As a group they were effective, and I wish I could bottle up some of their moments. And, frankly, I think it was pearls before swine for most of the audience, whose laughter often seemed inappropriate, and most of whom must have come simply to star-spot.
This is theatre that can't be translated to film. The held breaths, the waiting on a syllable, the aliveness, the physical presence, the imagination.
I've never seen Ionesco done better.
~~~
Exit the king is playing from Saturday 9 June 2007 to Sunday 29 July 2007. You've got five chances left.
Adult tickets are $52; student concessions are $32.
You're not going to be able to book -- don't underestimate the pulling power of the name "Geoffrey Rush" -- the season sold out long before it started. But what you can do is ignore the wet weather and camp out for a 90 minute wait three and a half hours before opening curtain (don't listen to the website when it says two hours), to get a shot at one of the 20 last-minute back-row seats that the good folk at Belvoir have set aside for each performance.
It's very likely that you'll see Mr Rush walking around the theatre, with or without entourage, with a full head of brown hair, talking on his mobile phone or whatnot.
The number of restaurants nearby (try Sushisuma or El Bulli) will ensure a good night out.
~~~
Director -- Neil Armfield.
I'm assuming Ionesco can easily be done very badly -- wearyingly and monotonously fast, humourless, annoyingly self-conscious, trying too hard, and with no feel for the more sublime, profound moments. So I don't think that Armfield's juggling task was at all an enviable one. The acting styles seemed inconsistent -- some of the characters seemed more pantomine-heightened than others -- but perhaps it's the nature of the beast that it's almost impossible to balance: the same character might be at some times caricature and at other times more realistic -- the genre is inherently unstable.
Apart from other interpretational complexities, the whole play seemed to me akin to a musical score -- to have a strong non-linguistic level of meaning -- and I think this is particularly evident in the more chaotic passages, where there's a sort of feeling, a consciousness, created out of the hubbub of voices. So the director must also be a conductor, and quite literally attend to the sound of the dialogue, and attend also to each character's style and attitude treated as ingredients, as musical elements.
And this is a hard thing to talk about, but I thought it was testimony to Armfield's skill that each moment was clear and fluff-free.
Also appreciated: that each part of the set (the window, the carpet, the audience aisles) was used to expressive effect ("[w]e... wanted the design to inhabit the entire theatre so that the audience were sitting in the set rather than watching it from the outside", says the programme), that improvisations and additions to the text were apt, and that it was blocked in such a way that even if you were sitting in a backrow corner, as I was, you still had a share of actor close-up moments.
Lighting designer -- Neil Cooper.
I didn't really pay attention to the lighting, have to admit. But in retrospect I get the feeling that it was always lit for some reason or other, rather than simply to display the action.
I liked the film-strip flashing lights effect in one sequence...
Set and costume designer -- Dale Ferguson.
Set was wonderful. Liked the throne -- elegant, bare, and surreal ("cartoon-like simplicity" says the programme). Liked the carpet. Liked the long trains on the queens' dresses. Liked the bare lightbulbs and cracked walls. And liked the special effects (though probably these were more directorial choices) -- the puffs of steams as characters disappeared, the supporting beams shifting and the ceiling crumbling (felt like I was there).
Sound designer -- Russell Goldsmith.
As far as I'm concerned, the sound was perfect, and at times was necessary, to achieve certain effects or add interest to nonsensical monologues.
Live trumpet music provided by Warwick Alder (composed by John Roders) was a nicely regal touch.
Translator -- Isabelle Mangeot-Hewison.
Neil Armfield and Geoffrey Rush are credited as co-translators.
I can't sensibly comment on this, but it seemed rendered into natural English.
~~~
Ionesco quotes (from the programme):
-- "I... could stay there spellbound, all day long. But I did not laugh. That Punch and Judy show kept me there open-mouthed, watching those puppets talking, moving and cudgeling each other. It was the very image of the world that appeared to me, strange and improbable but truer than true, in the profoundly simplified form of caricature, as though to stress the grotesque and brutal nature of the truth." -- Nouvelle Revue Francaise, February 1958
-- "When the fallen Richard II is a prisoner in his cell... it is not Richard II I see there, but all the fallen kings of this world; and not only all fallen kings, but also our beliefs and values, our unsanctified, corrupt and worn-out truths, the crumbling of civilizations, the march of destiny." -- Cahiers des Saisons, Winter 1958
~~~
Further reading
-- Belvoir St Theatre.
-- Wikipedia entry -- play was written in 1962, incidentally (and the five stages theory of death was 1969).
-- Director's note -- Armfield makes the perceptive remark that we are both inside the king's head and outside it, which is easier to understand if you've seen the play. It's a bit like the way that, in film, the camera work sometimes conveys a character's experience, and sometimes watches the character. Armfield also notes the carnivalesque side of the play, which I didn't bring out in my review -- "a sense of life as a mad dance by a bunch of fabulous marionettes".
-- Sydney Morning Herald review by Bryce Hallett -- notes "His graceful physicality, dramatic range, comic instincts and air of mystery make for an unforgettable portrayal. In an instant he can go from exhilarating to exhausted, cruel to childish, pompous to pathetic. The adaptability and ease of Rush's performance is staggering." But for some reason, Hallett also thinks the play is about ecological disaster (??).
-- The Australian interview with Rush by Corrie Perkin -- prior to the Melbourne production (Exit the king ran at the Malthouse Theatre from March until the end of April). Makes some very interesting remarks about Rush's physicality -- for instance, that he studied at a Parisian theatre and mime school, that he's long been famous as a vaudevillian clown and a "bold" physical performer, that he thinks of his role as a bit like Montgomery Burns. Also quotes Ionesco: "I told myself that one could learn to die, that I could learn to die, that one can also help other people to die. This seems to me to be the most important thing we can do, since we're all of us dying men who refuse to die. This play is an attempt at an apprenticeship in dying."
-- Australian Stage review of Melbourne production by Brenton Amies -- couldn't really be more complimentary. "'Exit the King' is a lesson in theatre. Every aspect and element of this production is of the highest standard I have seen this year. This is by far and away the greatest piece of theatre I have seen, certainly this year, if not any other. Nothing can be faulted -- this is a triumph for both Company B and Malthouse... Of particular note in Rush’s performance was the incredible physicality he brought to the role and not just physically demonstrating the stages toward death I alluded to." Also agrees with me about one aspect of Armfield's direction: "Not only did [Armfield] direct the dramatic action with flare, but his use of the space was equally brilliant. Not one section of Belvoir’s considerable sized stage went unused."
-- Variety.com review by Michaela Boland -- "Bille Brown... is under-utilized in the role of the king's doctor, and seems resigned to wallowing along the sidelines. While Julie Forsyth chews up the stage as the madcap maid, matching Rush's vitality, Gillian Jones falters as the king's first wife, Queen Marguerite." Also notes "Rush's greatest achievement in 'Exit the King' [his greatest? Come on!] is maintaining momentum through the second act as the king's deteriorating health increasingly limits his expressions. In another actor's hands, Ionesco's despotic monarch might have struggled to retain the audience's interest." And I think the last is a good comment -- if you're watching Rush, he is constantly interesting, and this is something that not a lot of actors can do (Robert Downey Jr is another).
-- Stage Noise review by Diana Simmonds -- "On opening night in Sydney at least, Gillian Jones seemed ill at ease and unsure of her place in the scheme of things. Normally one of the more formidable stage presences, she was muted and almost transparent." -- Simmonds is normally glowing in her reviews, so it's not just me being uncertain about Queen Marguerite's performance...
-- The Blurb review by Avi Lipski -- a nice review, and amusing. Comments on overhearing two women: "'Terrible play,' says the other. 'But Geoffrey Rush was magnificent.'" Shares my caution towards Ionesco productions -- "I don't particularly like Theatre of the Absurd either, actually - I've seen one too many slaughtered university productions of The Rhinoceros to really be able to get into him properly. And let's face it - this show wouldn't have sold out to packed houses if Geoffrey Rush hadn't been its star vehicle." Shares my belief that Armfield's direction is "clear", though I don't know what I mean by that. And shares my reservations about Gillian Jones: "I didn't love the restraint Gillian Jones brought to Queen Margeurite; I understand that she was supposed to contrast Marie's complete hysteria, but I felt her performance was a little too un-regal for me."
-- AussieTheatre.com review by Lucy Maunder -- "Berenger goes through many phases - anger, fear, resolution ('If only I could have one more century to live, I’d be ready then') self-pity, hallucination, and finally, acceptance. Or at least, resignation. This range of emotions makes the most of Rush’s superb, versatile acting ability, and is a real treat for the audience. Exit the King, despite its sobering subject matter, is wonderfully entertaining. There are many funny moments, and Geoffery Rush makes puns and sneaky asides at any opportunity."
-- Hoyden About Town review -- "[T]his is one of the best performances I have seen in years, not just for Rush’s celebrity and ability but for the attention to detail in every aspect of the production. Catch it if you can."
-- Theatre Notes review by Alison Croggon -- "Like Ionesco's writing, he keeps his options open: anything is possible at any time. He plays the full range of the text, from broad comedy to brutality to sheer pathos, until he becomes the everyking we all are, alone and afraid in our shabby kingdoms, facing the dark." Notes on the direction "but Armfield has wisely ensured that his production is more than a frame for Rush's performance" -- and I don't know if I'd entirely agree here. Comments on Gillian Jones "At first I was a little puzzled, as she seemed strangely monotonal (if satisfactorily regal), but by the end of the play I was completely bewitched." And concludes with a very nice paragraph: "The last ten minutes or so of this production is, quite simply, astounding theatre, the kind that makes you hold your breath and reminds you why you persist with this beautiful, frustrating artform, so apt to failure and disappointment. Theatre can summon a joy that's like anguish, an exhilaration at once ephemeral and unforgettable, that you can find nowhere else."
| 43 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by phil