'Don John' brash, 'Rabbit' trash

Spoleto Overview Critic
Monday, May 25, 2009



Photo of Tim Page

Emma Rice's "Don John," a brash, bawdy and vastly entertaining gloss on the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart-Lorenzo da Ponte operatic masterpiece "Don Giovanni," is one of the triumphs of the 2009 Spoleto Festival USA. It will be playing through June 6 at Memminger Auditorium and can be recommended to all but the most innocent and most squeamish spectators.

Rice is the artistic director of England's Kneehigh Theater, a troupe founded in 1978 and described as "an ever changing ensemble, a kind of strange family, many of whom come from, or have chosen to live in, Cornwall, the extreme Southwest tip of the British Isles." By now, the company has played throughout its homeland and beyond, offering decidedly quirky productions of everything from Shakespeare's "Cymbeline" to Noel Coward's "Brief Encounter."

"Don John" follows the opera closely, complete with booming fragments of the Overture, the Finale and other scenes, transmogrified electronically, as well as an amusing revision of the great Serenade, plucked out live by a trio of musicians. The dubious sidekick figure of Leporello, here named Nobby, has a new "catalogue" aria, which he declaims while projecting slide photographs of the Don's many amorous conquests. As in Mozart-da Ponte, the Don does not escape retribution, although in Rice's update, he is wearing drag and is carried off to hell by a military man (Dave Mynne) who strolls onto the stage crooning "White Christmas."

To those who will object to the depravity and violence of "Don John," of which there is plenty, I would argue that this was always, at heart, a very ugly story, a chronicle of seductions that are really closer to rapes, complete with occasional murders along the way, and that we see the Don's behavior through a less forgiving light than did the mostly male audience of the 18th century. Still, it must be admitted that Rice's reconstitution of this anti-hero, while loutish, inebriated and cruel, still maintains a certain dark charm.

It was a bold thought to cast an Icelandic actor, Gisli Orn Gardarsson, as the Don; his seeming hesitancy with the English language merely added to the character's animal inarticulation, right out of early Brando, all danger, stale booze and star quality. Nina Dogg Filippusdottir made a touching, compromised Anna, Patrycja Kujawska an urgently sensual Zerlina and Amy Marston a shattered, maniacal Elvira. In the role of Alan, Carl Grose proved a superbly lithe physical comedian. Mike Shepherd, a founder of Kneehigh, was an appropriately unctuous Nobby, and Craig Johnson was properly paralyzed and ineffectual as Derek. Emily Dobson, Polly Motley, Helen Tiplady and Sally Williams performed deftly as stagehands, singers and writhing dancers — quite a workout!

Dom Lawton read the words and poems of author Anna Maria Murphy with that musical reverence for the sound of spoken words that is so often an English gift. The music, by Stu Barker, was a mixture of high and low, pastoral folk melodies in intriguing arrangements melded with deliberately cheesy rock that was only slightly more characterful than the best of Andrew Lloyd Webber. The setting is in the strike-ridden late 1970s, and there are references to former British prime ministers James Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher, Jimmy Carter, John Travolta and Olivia Newton John.

World off its axis

One hesitates to denounce too harshly "Story of a Rabbit," a theater show by a writer, director and actor who calls himself Hugh Hughes, although the temptation is surely there. I am willing to forgive "Rabbit" much for its spot-on evocation of the massive, mind-numbing confusion that follows the death of a parent, which is curiously unlike any other death and affects the newly bereaved like an exhausting and debilitating flu that refuses to lift. Hughes' evocation of a world off its axis, of the near- impossibility of fulfilling even a simple task such as buying a train ticket, corresponds exactly to remembered experience, my own and that of others, and I can think of few other works of art that sum up this aftermath so viscerally.

We are on tender ground here, and I would be glad to learn that other viewers found the rest of "Story of a Rabbit" more compelling than I did. Nevertheless, if I were Hughes' editor, I would have him throw away at least nine-tenths of his piece, content himself with the five or six cogent minutes he has created, and then build from there, slowly and mercilessly, until he has something that might sustain the attention of an audience.

In the first half hour of "Story of a Rabbit," virtually nothing happened (which is all right under certain circumstances) but it happened uninterestingly (which is never all right). Hughes came off as a cross between a Mister Rogers for grown-ups, a befuddled secular minister who hadn't quite thought through the day's sermon, and a lounge comic who isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is. Over the course of an interminable hour and a half, he served tea to audience members, led us through memory exercises (we were asked to shout out things that happened to us in 1995, 1996, 1997 — you get the idea), and broke up his narrative again and again with trivial asides and explanations of what he was going to show us next.

"Story of a Rabbit" is mostly a solo performance, although Hughes's longtime friend, Aled Williams, played ditties on keyboards and stringed instruments and the audience was divided in half to sing a two-part round. The spoken "insights" into the show's ostensible subject — death — were glib and sophomoric, a seeming effort to link the death of a neighbor's pet rabbit and that of a beloved father. "Show, don't tell" is among the first lessons offered to would-be writers, and it is one that Hughes should take to heart. When he "shows," as in his recreation of grief's devastation, he is sometimes achingly effective. When he "tells," he is too often a garrulous bore.

Share this story:
E-mail this story E-mail this story  Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version  

Copy and paste the link:

Comments

suzanne (anonymous) says...

I could not disagree more with this critique, which is so unfair and inexact that I am wondering if we saw the same show ! Story of a Rabbit is so profound and poetic that you must have no heart or brain to have missed all its meaning and importance ...I went to see the show twice and each time was transported to a world of imagination and pure beauty .The second time, the whole cast of Don John was in the public and most of them were moved to tears. They expressed to me their admiration for Hugh Hughes' incredible sense of poetry and intelligence.
The only thing deserving the term of "trash" is your critique, which oversimplified two wonderful works of art to make an easy and sensational front page !I feel sorry for your readers who might not see this play because of your complete lack of artistic judgement!

May 25, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TimPage2009 (anonymous) says...

I thank you for the warmly indignant letter -- and I am glad that you liked "Story of a Rabbit" better than I did.

I'm afraid that writers have no control over their headlines. There's no doubt that I wrote a negative review, but I would never have put matters quite so bluntly, nor do I agree with the characterization.

In any event, I hope we will find points of agreement later in the season.

May 25, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pnylr (anonymous) says...

I disagree with Mr. Page's review of the play. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I definitely agree with Suzanne!

May 25, 2009 at 7:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

harrison (anonymous) says...

I agree with both suzanne and pnylr.I went to see the show today and was amazed by the cleverness and sensitivity of this show ...This is such innovative new theater where the audience imagination is fully engaged .This makes it so unique and interesting but you have to come with an open mind and forget this trashy critique !

May 25, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

lmh27 (anonymous) says...

While "trash" is a rather harsh word, and I can understand the lack of control with the headline... it does correctly describe one of the shows reviewed... just not "Rabbit." "Rabbit" is just a basic simple production that will be for a Spoleto audience and not much future beyond.

However, Don John is "trash." I struggled through and did not leave at intermission, as several did. I just wish I had that time back to see something more deserving. The real tragedy is that this mess runs through the entire festival!

My personal artistic judgement is "Rabbit" is a maybe, and "Don John" is a pass (saving you both money and time).

May 26, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Edwindow (anonymous) says...

Funny thing about these two shows. One's big, yet really really small; the other's small yet really big.

First there's the big big story with big big staging effects (explosions and strobe lights, booming orchestral and electric music, giant ship containers trundled about), and you can usually predict early on where this kind of stuff is headed: mtn. roars and coughs up a mouse. Here was a mythic character; what did we learn, what insight into the emotional dynamics of desire? Zip,nada. Insatiable boner, end of story. My bottom line: great staging, brain-dead script.

You have a point, Tim, on the numb spots in Rabbit, but I'd say YOUR point misses THE point of the piece. All that seam-showing business, that non-stagey, tedious explanation of every little transition and gesture may have reminded you of Mr. Rogers; I took it as a sly artistic ploy: working around a very big topic (the biggest) in very small ways. Nice, different kind of irony there: not the cynical kind that's done to death but the totally sincere, excessively clear expository presentation style of a school teacher. A clever, original way to touch on deep personal pain and transcendence. Deceptively simple and I guess some were just, well...deceived.

May 26, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

elcamino78 (anonymous) says...

I completely agree with Edwindow's break-down of your critique. I also want to highlight that you didn't fully give credit to Hughes' efforts to wrap the audience in his work.

First, Hughes was able to emphasize how memory is continually reshaped by experience by placing the tea on stage on a box and helped the audience understand the links that objects hold between past and present memories. Secondly, I thought that he was able to reach audience members effectively by engaging different senses, adding a multi-faceted element not only to his visual presentation but how others will remember watching the show - including everything from actively singing and responding to Hughes to drinking tea.

Overall, Hughes' subject matter was death - you're correct about that - but his theme was the similarity and contrast between memory/fantasy and experience/reality - which I felt you missed and that is sad because he took the time to explain his flow chart so carefully to you. By the tone of your review, you didn't allow yourself to be immersed in your memories and bring them to Hughes' work (a current post-modern art trend), and that self-imposed distance kept you from embracing the drama and comedy of this theatrical work. It seems that is the only way you could have missed the joy in Rabbit.

I visited Spoleto not really knowing much about Rabbit or Hughes. It was the piece I enjoyed most out of the 3 that I saw (I almost left Don John at intermission - someone let them know they need to enunciate and get mics), and I was appalled with your review of Rabbit. Thankfully, there are other reviewers out there (John Stoehr at http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/Sp...) that understood the piece and gave it the review that it deserves. I think you short-changed Rabbit.

May 27, 2009 at 1:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Notice about comments:

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!

Full terms and conditions can be read here.





.Link.