Oresteia. It’s the latest from Sydney Theatre Company’s Residents. Head to Wharf 1 and see director Tom Wright’s take on Aeschylus’ take on the ancient mythological subject of King Agamemnon and family. And you thought The Simpsons were dysfunctional!
See Agamemnon return victorious from the Trojan war (“boy, did they get the shock of their lives when we piled out of that timber nag!”). See him bring his white-hot mistress, Cassandra, back home to meet the trouble ‘n’ strife. See Agamemnon get into a whole lot more trouble ‘n’ strife than he bargained for. And he thought a lot of blood was spilled in the war.
See him get it in the neck. And elsewhere. See Cassandra topped, into the bargain.
See Agamemnon’s dutiful son, Orestes, return to cook up a plan to exact revenge on his mother and her lover. See him dispatch the latter and deal with his mother in a way Freud warned us about. See his sister, Electra, show the kind of affection to him for which her name has become infamous; thanks again to Siggy. Hear the cast speak Aeschylus’ eloquent, hard-edged, “poetically licensed” text succinctly and sing Max Lyandvert’s stark, evocative compositions beautifully.
Admire Alice Babidge’s originality as set designer and sensibility in costuming. Revere the technical perfection in evidence; from lighting to sound design and stage management. Revel in Wright’s thoughtful, provocative, courageous decisions. Be amused. Be afraid. Be horrified.
Emerge enriched and fulfilled, in the way only the best theatre can fulfil and suffuse you with a lust for life. “Suffer into truth”, just as Aeschylus’ chorus would have us do. Speculate.
Discuss. Ask questions. Find no answers. Reach no destination. But enjoy the ride.
Sydney Theatre Company’s Oresteia plays the Wharf 1 theatre until July 4. Tickets on the STC website.
I don’t know what play you saw Lloyd, but the one I saw last Wednesday in preview was almost bad enough for me and my theatre buddy to walk out of.
A few points that your review seems to gloss over:
a) Declamation is no substitute for acting and interaction between the characters.
b) I get that Aegisthus isn’t as manly a man as Agamemnon but the very strong allusions to his being gay were massively overwrought and quite frankly tacky. This is particularly so when you consider that as a character he had been having an affair with the very female Clytemnestra for a decade. But then maybe Tom Wright thinks that the only man who would let the woman he is sleeping with, rule a kingdom has to be a closet homosexual.
In complete disagreement with you, I also have no idea what it was that the chorus was singing, but I don’t think that they weren’t even tuneful, let alone “stark, evocative compositions”.
I adored ‘The Lost Echo’ and I have attended, studied and enjoyed theatre for years, so I can appreciate new interpretations of classics and adaptations. Trying to ram three plays into one and then attempting to stage it in the space that was chosen for it was (in my opinion) a series of bad calls by all concerned.
The lift doors as a device was overused and the attempt to emulate an ancient greek stage when the physical reality of the Wharf Theatre stage is the exact opposite of such a stage was a similarly bad call in my opinion. Yes the seats are in a pit formation, but the Greek stages were elevated within the pit, not below the majority of the seating.
I don’t know what review you read, Mal, but I haven’t insinuated Aegisthus was gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I don’t think Tom Wright had that in mind, either. But Tom can speak for himself. Neither have I alluded he was less manly than Agamemnon: I think all the male characters are, at once, childlike and childish. It’s part of what makes them complex and interesting, just like real people.
Thanks for advising your resume, but I’m not really impressed. Maybe surrender the burden of being a purist and laugh a little. You seem to have contracted a case of Krudd cranky flu. Poor bastard.
Lloyd, I didn’t read a review, I sat through the entire play. I was commenting on your review of the play, by referencing the play itself and Tony Wright’s fairly high school production like direction of it. By the way the Seinfeld joke is an extremely tired gag and wasn’t that funny when Larry Charles wrote it back in 1993.
Just to reiterate my first point, I wasn’t saying that you said anything about Aegisthus’ sexuality; I was discussing the play. Having cleared that up I would like to say that I would have to disagree with you wholeheartedly on whether Tom meant that Aegisthus was less manly than Agamemnon. He was referred to a few times ‘as less than a man’ in the script adaptation of the text (although I can find no such references in the translation I have read). This was reinforced by dressing him in nail-polish and bad drag make-up and jewellery. I think the interpretation I got of Aegisthus’ sexuality was exactly what Tom right was going for.
I am not a purist, I stated my interest in theatre (my resume) to let you know that I had actually been to plays of various types and wasn’t reacting from a purist’s perspective. If you actually read what I wrote I think that you may have actually understood that I get and enjoy interpretations of ancient and classical plays, but if that was what Tony Wright was aiming for I think he missed the mark in a big way.
I would also have to say I am confused by your choice to use what you see as my purism as a way of comparing me to the Prime Minister (whom I presume you dislike from your choice of the sobriquet ‘Krudd’) and thus calling me a poor bastard.
I think it was a bad presentation of a good trio of plays. I think your desire to attack me somewhat shows a strong connection to a play that you surely should have been genuinely disinterested in (and before you attack me for that please understand that I use that word following its ACTUAL definition).
My God, Mal, you really are tiresome. I realise you sat through the entire play; just. You also referred to my review which, again, isn’t: it was purely intended as a lighthearted pointer to something people might want to consider seeing. The rationale for The Daily Proposition is to suggest things that people might like to do today; tonight; soon.
It’s Tom, not Tony.
Yours is one reading of Aegisthus. There is room, I contend, for others, including mine. Yours seems a very narrow definition of homosexual expression: surely donning nail polish and makeup doesn’t necessarily make one gay. It could make you a goth. An actor. An eccentric. A provocateur. Or, as (I reckon) in this case a metaphor for a narcissistic disorder. Nor does being ‘less than a man’ equate with gay, I wouldn’t have thought. Think. Again.
You mightn’t be a purist. That was an unfortunate misnomer. What I really meant was bore & pedant. OK, that’s an attack, of sorts.
I didn’t compare you to the PM. It was, again, a topical, lighthearted reference (not an attack) to David Marr’s essay. I don’t dislike Kevin Rudd. If you knew my formerly ardent Labor history, or voting patterns, you’d know how laughable that assertion is. Poor bastard is an expression of (mock) sympathy, not derision.
What Seinfeld joke? I presume you dislike Seinfeld and Larry which, by consistent application of your form of logic, probably makes you an anti-Semite. Uncle Leo would have a field day.
I’ve no idea what you mean, in your last paragraph. It’s impenetrably cryptic.
‘Very interesting, but it’s not funny’.
settle down you two, it’s just a play. i think the portrayal of Aegithos was to do with the referencing of him as ‘less than a man’ or even as ‘woman’ by Orestes. i didn’t get much of a sense of homophobia from it but it did reflect the overall subtext of women being the weaker (or lesser) gender which is clear enough in the original text. see Apollo’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge misogyny toward the end…
it’s a strange paradox in 2010 which may or may not have been dealt with appropriately in the presentation of this particular play, at this time. I wrote my own take on it referring to the pastiche of styles – including the chorus ‘declamation’ – which as a student of theatre Malcolm you probably realise is a direct reference to early stagings of the production in massive ampitheatre, where the chorus & actors would probably have to do exactly that in order to reach the very back rows. there wasn’t a lot of room for nuances of performance in the old days…
the review reads like a roll-up roll-up style advertorial with occasional misrepresentations; for example, we don’t actually get to see any of the murders take place, as traditionally in Greek theatre all the key action takes place offstage! but i agree the creative choices made are certainly provocative, if not strange…
also, Lloyd, i think the Freudian ‘Electra complex’ is to do with the relationship with her father- not the brother. I don’t know where the modern idea that the two were involved sexually has come from.