Week #9 : 'The Prodigal Son' by Jack Hibberd

The Prodigal Son - A wayward son who squanders his inheritance, however he returns home to find that his father forgives him.  Luke 15:11-32

The parable of The Prodigal Son is reflected in the tale of Luke, Chapter 15, from the Bible. The characters in the parable are The Father, The Prodigal Son and The Elder Son.

The Father is a wealthy man with two sons - He is the reflection of divine love. Some say that the father is the representation of God, some prefer the suggestion that he is actually the symbol of Christ.

The Elder Son is a materialistic man whom desires no familial relationships. He is suggested to be the representation of The Pharisees who had religion and and righteousness in their heads, but not in their hearts. They did not believe in Christ nor forgiveness of sins.

The Prodigal Son is a young, wasteful and unmarried boy who is undisciplined in the ways of life. He is said to be the representation of a person living in rebellion without Christ in their life. The fable tells us that we sometimes need to hit rock-bottom before we can repent for our sins.

The basis of this parable from the Bible tells us that we, as the general human race, are wasteful and are too absorbed in our own wants, needs and desires to realise that we are living in sin. In this sinful life we hurt others around us, especially our fathers, and we need to repent and ask for forgiveness. In this, our fathers will always love us and grant us with patience, generosity and grace. All we need to do is awaken our hearts to the love of Christ and redeem ourselves in his eyes.

The premise of Hibberd's The Prodigal Son is in a similar vein of this Bible story, however modernised for a 90s post modern audience with the inclusion of a homosexual son, unforgiving parents and disconnected language. In Hibberd's version, we are witnessing the return of The Son to The Father and Mother (known only as Mr and Mrs in the playscript)

"The Son returns home 30 years after being rejected by his family on the suggestion that he is a homosexual. He returns home in the hope that he will be granted a reconciliation with his parents, only to be rejected again, specifically by a ruthless and monstrous mother." (Derived from Jack Hibberd's website)

In replacement of The Elder Son, Hibberd inserts the Mother character with all be same representations of this character - self righteous, pitiless and unforgiving.  The Father character is per the parable. He is loving and devoted parent. He cannot understand why his son has left nor why he has returned, he is only glad that he has come back and doesn't care for the why.

Mr:  I missed you, son. Dreadfully. Your absence has been like a hole in my -

Mrs:  Head

Mr:  Heart

On the other side The Mother is persistent in her unrelenting belligerent manner, trying to get her son to blame himself for leaving, forcing him to explain his return. She constantly berates The Prodigal Son and blames him for her ruined uterus, vagina and sagging breasts. She refuses his questions and his insistence on moving home again.

Mrs:  The room is frozen in time. And will remain unthawed.

Son:  Like your heart.

Mrs:  I never wanted you.

Son:  I gathered that. It is unusual for a mother to hang her son on a meat hook when he has been naughty.

                           

The play starts with only the sound of a metronome. A heart beat. It is suddenly stopped by The Father. The family continue to act as a normal family - the pouring and offering of coffee, the offering of cake - but in complete silence with frequent and highly specific pauses to create different tableaux.

In the finality of the situation, after The Prodigal Son is asked to leave the house, The Father begins the metronome again. The heartbeat continues.

The language in this play has a post-modern vibe to it. It is broken up into small tableaux with frequent silences and sometimes incomprehensible, and sometimes philosophical, dialogue and conversations.

Mrs:  Children. They suck you dry. They sup upon your very marrow. To them your blood is raspberry pop. They gnaw at your liver. Guzzle goblets of fluid, cerebrospinal and lymph. They eat your placenta. Buttocks subside and gravitate. Breasts become old knapsacks. Your navel fills up with gunk. Receptacles pucker. You feel like tripe.

(Pause)

Mr:  I could do with a snack.

The Prodigal Son was first produced for the Queensland Theatre Company in 1997 and Directed by Jennifer Flowers, as part of their short season.  It was first produced in script form alongside Barry Dickins play 'Insouciance' published by Playbox in 2001. Directed by Daniel Schussler (I think....) for Playbox (now The Malthouse) it opened in the Beckett Theatre in July 2001 for a short double bill season.

Unfortunately there are so little productions of this play that I cannot even search for reviews of productions or images from any shows apart from the Playbox season. (And even then, all I can find is reference to reviews written...  http://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/event/11567) 

[FYI - I am on my iPad and it won't let me do anything fancy like imbed links and make the images all pretty 

and properly centred.]

This is a real shame as it is a brilliant play that deals with some meaty issues that are especially prevalent today with the debates on gay marriage. 

I for one would love any chance to see this play in action as Hibberd's plays always carry a sense of the public and private lives of dysfunctional families and the detachment and disillusionment of such in these familial structures.

Hibberd is such an Australian institution, being one of the founders of of the Melbourne Writers Theatre, which is still running today. He is noted for his playwriting, especially with his play 'Dimboola', which has been noted as one of the most produced Australian plays, even to this day (albeit in Amateur Theatre circles).

Next Week: 'A Comedy of Errors' by William Shakespeare

Week #3 : 'Six Characters in Search of an Author' by Luigi Pirandello

"We have this illusion of being one person for all, of having a personality that is unique to all our acts. But it isn't true. We perceive this when, tragically perhaps, in something we do, we are as it were, suspended, caught up in the air on a kind of hook. Then we perceive that all of us was not in tha act, and that it would be an atrocious injustice to judge us by that action alone, as if all our existence were summed up in that one deed." (The Father)

'Six Characters in Search of an Author' is an absurdist play based on metatheatrical ideas. Six characters walk into a rehearsal in progress asking for an author to complete their story. The characters know what is to happen to them, but they need to play it out in order or it to be complete. The director/producer becomes enamoured with their story and is determined to replay their scenes with the actors of his company.

A paradox in the making? Complete nonsense? Prophetic and life destroying? 

Let us ask the character of the FATHER:

"...if we have no other reality beyond the illusion, you too must not count overmuch on your reality as you feel it today, since, like that of yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow."

Confused yet? You're not far off the context of this play. As you start to read, Pirandello lulls you into a false sense of security: The characters story seems to be quite straight forward, the comedy of the actors watching this tragic (and in parts tragically awful) story that embodies traits of Mills and Boons formulaic writing.  Yet it is far from that as we delve deeper into the characters narrative, it becomes more of a 'game' for the Director and acting troupe, but so much more of a life for the Characters. 

The prose is beautifully written in two differing forms - Naturalistic and often comedically colloquial for the troupe of actors and poetical and prophetic for the characters. This alludes to the starkly different natures that Pirandello has specifically created for the audience to disassociate the two halves of diametrically opposed 'reality and make believe'.

Pericles Lewis at Yale University discusses that 'Pirandello’s work plays with the central tension in the modern theater between the desire to create a perfect illusion of extra-theatrical reality on the stage and the contrary impulse to celebrate the very illusoriness of all theater. Modern drama calls attention to the fact that theater is both a representational art, like painting or writing, and a performing art, like dance or music.  The actors on stage are at the same time real people and representatives of fictional characters. One of the startling elements of Pirandello’s play is the separation (which he emphasized in his stage directions) between the “characters” and the “actors.” As the theorist Bert States has written,

"we tend generally to undervalue the elementary fact that theater—unlike fiction, painting, sculpture and film—is really a language whose words consist to an unusual degree of things that are what they seem to be…. Or, as [the playwright] Peter Handke puts it, in the theater light is brightness pretending to be other brightness, a chair is a chair pretending to be another chair,”

and, of course, a person is a person pretending to be another person.'

FATHER (jumping up suddenly): Illusion? I would ask you not to speak of illusion! I would beg you not to use that word. For us it has a particularly cruel ring!
PRODUCER (astonished): For heaven’s sake, why?
FATHER: Oh, yes, cruel, cruel! You really ought to understand.
PRODUCER: What are we supposed to say? Illusion is our stock-in-trade [...]
FATHER: I entirely understand [...] As artists [...], you have to create a perfect illusion of reality.
PRODUCER: That’s right.
FATHER: But what if you stop to consider that we, the six of us (he gestures briefly to indicate the six characters) have no other reality; that we don’t exist outside this illusion!

In 1921 it was greeted with great hostility (and inciting riots in the theatre) in Italy when it was first produced, but soon became heralded as a great piece of Modernist theatre when it was performed in 1923 in Paris, helping to forge the way ahead for Beckett and Ionesco's Theatre of the Absurd.

This play, being in the public domain, has been adapted for the stage many a time. The most recent in Australia or the 2010 Sydney Festival. The team at 'Headlong Theatre' used a docu-drama premise for the very beginning of the play and coupled it with the use of video and white noise to disrupt the flow of the character and actor interaction to establish a sense of authenticity of the falsehood of the situation but also fragmentation of the plot devices.

This play would certainly be a challenging script to adapt for any producer/director/actor, but it would also bring great joy in the triumph of gaining the right mix of contemporary and ancient theatre practices.

Next Week: Hamletmachine by Heiner Muller

Week #2: 'The League of Youth' by Henrik Ibsen

A political idealist is released and consequentially run out of town because of social and sexual complications .... How poetic! (especially  in this day and age of political tenacities!)


The League of Youth, written in 1869, was a turning point for Ibsen as it marked his first play in colloquial language away from his previous verse writing.  The play of five acts (and over 125 pages...) centres on protagonist Stensgaard and the beginning (and ultimately the crashing demise) of his young and vivacious anti-capitalist political party 'League of Youth'.
Stensgaard is a conceited entrepreneur who has been suitably termed by many as 'a political Peer Gynt."  He first sets a provincial town in Norway alight by his radical attack on the social structures of the town and the formation of the 'League of Youth'.
Although, ingratiated by the community's conservative, all-powerful chamberlain, Stensgaard swiftly changes tact and, after a local electoral triumph, is happy to be proposed for a seat in higher parliament.  What eventually undoes Stensgaard is his sexual, rather than his political, cynicism.  it is discovered by the town that he simultaneously proposed to three differing women (and comprehensively rejected by all three), he becomes a local laughing stock and is run out of town.

Having started reading this play with full intentions of its possibilities for a younger cast (namely my Theatre Studies class), I propelled myself into reading it, only to come to a halting end.  The language is, in true Ibsen fashion, proper and loquacious.  Unfortunately I could not envisage the production, making it difficult to form a deep impression for reflective comment.

It has been said that the character of Stensgaard was a political allegory of Norwegian outsider Herman Bagger, who in the 1830s, arrived in the town of Skein (Ibsen's home town), was subsequently elected to political office in 1848.  Even though Bagger was involved in a few scandals, he went on to further his political life and eventually retiring from office in 1874.

This is a script that is rarely staged.  The most recent production was in 2011 adapted by Andy Barrett and Directed by Giles Croft for Nottingham Playhouse.  This production, complete with traditional setting, was highly commented upon.
Steve Orme for the British Theatre Guide states "in the programme Andy Barrett points out that Ibsen's original work is a very long, five-act play and he's had to condense it so that it could be bought to a UK stage for the first time." ... "Barrett's adaptation is authentically perceptive, Giles Croft directs with an assured confidence, Dawn Allsopp's design is impressively grand and the actors - fifteen townspeople and servants as well as eleven speaking parts - throw themselves wholeheartedly into the production."

Michael Billington for The Guardian comments - "Although the play strains the resources of a regional theatre, Giles Croft's production adroitly makes use of non-professionals to embody Stensgaard's supporters, and allows the teeming action to spill out into the auditorium.  There are also good performances from Sam Callis as the overwhelming antihero, smiling unfazed by temporary setbacks, Phillip Bretherton as the easily hoodwinked chamberlain and David Acton as a suave conservative who sees though Stensgaard's expediency."

The production took use of modern political imagery, most notably the iconic two tone blue and red image used in the Obama election.  Maybe this was a political theatrical opportunist choice in itself in order to garner an audience?? (I would say that it was a very clever marketing ploy for this particular production for their season in conjunction with the Nottingham European Arts and Theatre Festival.)

I can recognise that if you were to adapt this script to a more contemporary setting, that audiences could create a deeper understanding of the context in which it was written and form a greater appreciation to the overall comical presence within the play.  Particularly if it was to be adapted for an Australian audience; due to the current political climate and humorous nature of the catastrophes that the two major parties have placed themselves in, an audience could immediately associate the attempts at forming a working party for the masses, whether they are the working class or the upper ranks of society.
It would be a highly poignant production is treated with a modern re-write and adaptation to our current political mess.




Next Week:  'Six Characters in Search of an Author' by Luigi Pirandello

Week #1 : 'Miss Julie' by August Strindberg

Miss Julie..... Mistress Julie...... Mademoiselle Julie....... Oh, how your prestigious birthright belies you...

August Strindberg wrote a gripping tale of a society woman bent on seducing her fathers porter into a sexual experience to prove that she still has power over men of any status after her disastrous engagement that has just ended. The events that follow allow herself to be wrapped in his tangling web of seductions all to be humiliated, belittled and ultimately manipulated into sacrificing herself in the end.

Written in 1888, 'Miss Julie' was so controversial, it was not produced in Swedish theatres for over 14 years. This seminal text of the Naturalism period, that Strindberg himself described as a "modern psychological drama", has been depicted as volatile, psychologically turbulent and captivating. 

Strindberg influenced such writers as Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee and Ingmar Bergman (to name just a few) with his intellectual thoughts on morals and class structures all wrapped up in characters that were multidimensional and contained within a plot that was not fabricated. 

'Miss Julie' is all this and so much more!

                    

The action happens across the span of a single night where societal status is challenged and crumbled beneath the weight of seductions from both Julie and John. Both try to best each other with desperate actions that would shake the morals of any human being, yet John takes it in his stride and cuttingly overhands the dangerously enticing situation to manipulate and ruin Julie for his own gratifications.

The script allows a man and a woman to create a growing psychological tension on stage that not only covers sexual attraction and eventual domination, but the mechanisms of polarised upbringings of the upper and lower classes of society and their desperate layers of control.

          "Why do you go about in livery on a holiday evening? Take it off at once." (Julie to John when in the company of his fiancée - the kitchenmaid)

John, who will not be bested in any situation, seemingly plays right into Julie's flirtations and enables the situation to grown beyond her power. As the night spins beyond anyones control, the status of men and women, class distinction and the strong and the weak are put to the test.  John clearly sets the tone and in one fowl swoop, cheapens Julie's actions and a forces a flow of abuse onto her:

          "No one in my station of life could have made herself so cheap as the way you carried on tonight, my girl... Have you ever seen a girl in my position offer herself in the way you did?" 

Strindberg was quite specific about the way in which he wanted his play to be seen: a small stage, the single setting of a small working kitchen and fireplace, with a glass door leading to the garden. Other items on stage reveal a large bell and a horn for the residents of the upper house to contact their staff. (Later on also Julie's pet canary and large knife...)

The dialectic of class conflict is delivered through the only openings to other parts of the household: the staff quarters on one side of the stage and the opulent gardens on the other. The kitchen then becomes the intermediary between both worlds. The very personalised relationship display between Julie and John in this middle ground forces the tension out in the open where the themes of love, desire and control in a world with rigid class conventions override any visceral perceptions. 

Strindberg's stage directions are almost stifling in specificity in parts, but kept relatively open when the dialogue becomes overwrought with dramatics and emotions. Writing around the same time as Ibsen, whom also heavily focused on the specificity of the actors movements; Strindberg knew exactly how he wanted his writings to be imagined on stage and did so in these directions to whomever tackled his script. (Oh,and painted  backdrops were definitely not allowed on a Strindberg production!) 

In 2012, Yael Farber re-imagined Strindberg's play to post-apartheid era with tremendous success, winning the Carol Tambour Best of Edinburgh Award. Claire Simpson reviewed the performance for Fringe Reviews: "One of those rare exceptional productions where all the elements - writing, direction performance and technical direction - combine to become more than the sum of its parts, this powerful Mies Julie lets out a cry of anguish for today's South Africa that won't be easily forgotten." Rory Eddington also commented on the performance: "While individually giving exhilarating performances, the chemistry between Bongile Mantsai and Hilda Cronje is torrid, creating a perspiration drenched eroticism. Yet perhaps the most enduring image is that of John clutching both shovel and scythe at the play’s denouement as if to ask one simple question: is this the only way? Sexy, dangerous and riveting."

     

Not so successful was the French adaptation in 2011 staring Juliette Binoche, however more for the bold minimalist modern setting rather than the performances. The reviews for this show focus on the design rather than the acting, which is disappointing considering Juliette Binoche is renowned for creating deep and often beguiling female characters. One comment made by Michael Billington for 'The Guardian' concluded that "In the end, the production makes little sense. Strindberg dreamed of a 'small stage and a small auditorium' where the entire focus would be on the situation's emotional reality. Instead the play is presented as a pictorial spectacle with the emphasis on a mood of debauched glamour and where either the glass screens or the lighting render the actors' faces semi-visible."

     

I feel that I could easily write a thesis discussing the psychological complexities of this play, let alone the numerous adaptations of the text. However, I think I may have to stop here as I draw alarmingly close to the 1,000 word mark.....

I chose this play to be my first as it will be on at the Belvoir St Theatre in Sydney in August/Sept with aussie actor Brendan Cowell as John.  I had the chance to work with Letitia Cáceres at MTC and I am really interested to see how she will tackle this with Simon Stone's adaptation of the original text.

http://belvoir.com.au/productions/miss-julie/

Next week: 'The League of Youth' by Henrik Ibsen