Buttons In The Bread

It was a “tough” choice among the last 10 semi-finalists. Generally, I would say the plays weren’t too bad, but I didn’t like the gay undertones of some (some too contrived). And some needed more “punch”. This is going to be a long post.

Armistice:
Set just after the war where a Jap soldier seeks out his once Chinese male servant/slave to make peace (as the title suggests). But the latter had come, undecided whether to kill him or not. It would save him from the shame of having been labeled a traitor. It wasn’t too bad, but I felt it was a bit “forced” with the gay undertones, the reason for that peace-making where the Jap thanked the Chinese man for changing how he looked at Chinese. Was the writer trying to find some redeeming factor for the Japs? Were both parties seeking closure?

Bringer of Light:
This was not bad, except it could have come across stronger. A story of Ho Chi Minh having a debate with legendary French chef, Escoffier, in the kitchen of London’s Carlton Hotel where Ho Chi Minh was said to have worked. The peace-loving chef tries to talk Ho Chi Minh out of revolution, using references to food. An interesting 题材.

Dorothy Parker is in the Bath:
This was about a woman going on and on about herself and contemplating about suicide during her own party. It was funny at parts.

Frames:
The premise/theme was promising, but unfortunately, as my friend commented, the delivery was less than perfect. Also, I’m not sure if there was meant to be a connection between the 2 scenes, which were supposed to be enactments of 2 pairs of couples from 2 separate paintings by Rene Magritte and Edward Hopper. Also, the theme of frames, was lost. It could have been more.

Just A Date:
A client of a prostitute wants to take her out on a date, promising her a future. Not exactly a twist, but the ending confronts men with their infidelity and how their promises will eventually come to naught. It actually ended well, as I hope to believe, with the man realising his folly and it is his last visit ever to a prostitute.

Short + Salty 2010:
You can say I’m biased but this was one of the better plays, written by Jeremy (yes, this Jeremy here). It’s a simple and clean satirical dig at the competition itself, which was funny. Can this really be true? But I must admit I preferred the original script, which I had the privilege of reading, but due to the direction and staging, it was cut and some parts changed, like the ending, which as acted out, a little too long. The director wanted to give a sustained effect, but slightly too sustained. And I preferred the original ending which gave the play a “full circle” feel and lets the conclusion sink it, probably even giving the hint of history repeating itself in future.

The Harrow:
As the name suggests, this was supposed to be the “harrowing” experience of the haunting memories of an interrogator in Afghan, with fleeting images of him (during those times) appearing intermittently (which I think wasn’t well planned for the effect) and a ghost of a prisoner’s son. It should have been more “harrowing” if that was the intended effect.

The Kill:
This was probably the best play of the night, with a funny and unexpected twist at the end. I was wondering how it was going to play out as it questions “what if you killed someone in a dream? Do you kill them in real life” I must admit my mind was skewed from Inception, so I was thinking more complex or sinister stuff. And the tomatoes! Ha!

The Tent:
This was ok, as 2 teachers finally express their feelings for each other at a school camp, through a prank card from the students, inviting the female teacher to the male teacher’s tent.

Women & Gays | 女人与 Gay:
A Chinese play exploring the similarities of women and gays in their sacrifices for men. It wasn’t too bad, but again, gay theme. The only issue is the abruptness of the transition from the more olden days as the prostitute competes with the huadan (花旦) for men’s affection and the modern day efforts to keep their men. I appreciated the attempt to show that it’s like a vicious cycle, from generation to generation.

～～～～～～～～～
Of course, at the end, I voted for Jeremy lah. The other play worthed voting for would be The Kill, but think that would surely be selected by the judges already.

Another round of plays, another round of evaluation.

The 3rd programme for Short + Sweet was overall, comparatively slightly better than the 1st set, maybe by the virtue that most of the plays did not feel as draggy. However, most didn’t seem “special”. Maybe I’ve watched too many dramas. What was puzzling was why they would be classified as R18, except maybe the last one (I think my friend seemed to be noticeably uncomfortable with that). Maybe the language and themes were stronger on script than played out, or maybe some topics were sensitive, like Americans, culture, incest? Anyway, for this round, I’d group them into 3 categories: 1) ok, nothing outstanding/special; 2) not bad/good, but something seems to be missing; and 3) Good.

Cat 1
Gurus: This wasn’t very interesting. Although it tried to incorporate some weak twists.
Interview of a Lifetime: This started off well in the 1st few minutes, but went down the drain thereafter.
Stolen: I was a little disappointed with this since my friend had told me his actor said it was good. It was a bit difficult identifying the twist, i.e. not strong. But it does address some social issues.
The Arrangement: Maybe I expected a modern setting, but the olden setting made it too cliche as a background for arranged marriages and story predictable.
Thickness of Blood: Well, this got a bit long-drawn at a certain point and the supposed twist was not as strong as it should have been, although the gist of the storyline might make a good Chinese drama if done rightly (think 雷雨).

Cat 2
Meeting with the Teacher: This was not bad, in the sense that it had a twist at the end that was strong enough. It started off as maybe a relational problem between the parents that turned to a conclusion that was pretty violent.
History of St Paul’s: I kind of liked this as it was slightly funny at some parts and rather nice as a father-son relationship thingy.
Play (with) Misty for Me: This was a rather sweet and simple story of love and support between a couple. The interesting part was the way it was done – the couple spoke separately to the audience, and their conversation kind of affirmed each other though they were not speaking together as they related their stories. But they came together at the end. Interestingly, the male actor reminded me of my fencing instructor.
My Name is Art: This was not bad and somehow I think I related to it, since it talked about interpretation of art. Why would a pile of boxes be considered art? But the interesting thing part was the twist at the end where a man in only underwear (this should be the R18 part) appeared as a “touring exhibit”, forcing the male lead to make a “donation”, which actually turned out to be a scam.

Cat 3
Well, there’s only 1 choice for this which was Some Are Meant to Sit, which was the best of the lot. The virtue of this play would be the wittiness of the script (conversation) as the 2-men cast “argue” over the right to sit and stand. It was done very Jack Sparrow style…wonder if you remember part 3 of Pirates where he was stranded at world’s end and he started talking to other “him”s? But this can only be a short play as the story will go on and on as it reflects the constant struggle over “privilege”. I wouldn’t mind watching it again. However, I wonder if the Jack Sparrow imitation might prove detrimental.

I missed programme 2. What I would really like to see would be the turnip issue in one of the plays. From the synopses though, think programme 2 might have elicited more emotions from me…if done well. Anyway, I think this being a competition made me too analytical when watching the plays. One tries to compare each play and delve too deep. Maybe I should just sit back and relax without thinking too much?

Anyway, this contest has prompted me to think what genre of plays I would like to write. One would be horror (think Woman in Black) and another would be mystery/psychological thriller. But I would think these are quite difficult to write, requiring good twists.

The annual Short+Sweet playwriting contest organised by the Arts House is here again, and I just caught the staging of the 1st set of semi-finalists. Honestly, although I have been wanting to catch them before (though never), I have more interest this year because my friend’s work is running in the semi-finals this year (he’s in programme 4).

Anyway, I didn’t mind watching the others and one motivation for catching programme 1 was seeing Verena Tay’s name in the line-up. Unfortunately, I was disappointed in that piece. There will be 40 plays running over a period of 3 weeks, of which 10 will be selected for the gala finals. For this 1st set, most of the plays didn’t do it for me, even draggy at times (imagine a 10-min play feeling draggy!…some exceeded by a few minutes).

However the last 3 plays were the most engaging for me, and I had to decide which to vote for (yah, we were given voting slips).

The Devil’s Aftershave was actually a rather challenging piece to direct and act and I must merit the play on the text. It’s about a man with an incredibly heightened sense of smell and how he experiences life through that. I can imagine the difficulties describing the many smells and odours, especially when repetition has to be kept to a minimum. The premise, was also something different.

Victim (受害者) is a Chinese play and the interesting part was the plot that had a few “twists”, not exactly the usual extra-marital affair. An engaging piece even though I kind of half-expected the ending in the man’s choice (logical), but the “journey” between was amusing. I would think it would garner more votes on that. Its merit would be on the plot.

The last play, All The Answers was quite promising as it presented the scene of when a man gets to ask 1 question at the answer room in between heaven and hell. The conversation was quite amusing, especially the part of the answer-giver, but the dead man’s part was weaker. The ending, as my friend said, was a bit of a letdown.

So what did I vote for? It was a tough choice between these 3, but I picked The Devil’s Aftershave on the literature/text point of view.

Judging from this set, having read my friend’s work, I think his piece stands a chance to be in the finals.

Event: Emily of Emerald Hill (as part of the Singapore Arts Festival 2010)
Venue: Victoria Theatre
Run: 11th Jun – 13th Jun 2010

So I was at “Emily of Emerald Hill” the other night, which played to a full house at the Victoria Theatre.

Apparently it is one of the highlights of this year’s Singapore Arts Fest because firstly, “Emily” is one of the iconic works of Singapore theatre, and secondly, it features the great thespian Margaret Chan reprising the role which she performed to acclaim 25 years ago.

I shan’t go too much into Stella Kon’s play, but let me just say that I think Margaret Chan definitely made the play what it is.

I’ve got the feeling that “Emily” might not have been “Emily” had it not been for Margaret Chan.

But this is just my own opinion.

Margaret Chan is truly one of our blessed gifts in local theatre.

One thing that struck me was when co-director Jeremiah Choy concluded at the end of the post-show dialogue session saying like “We have the (theatre) talent here. Support local talent.”

This was obviously in reference to the fact that “Emily” was a completely Singaporean product – written, directed, produced and performed by Singaporeans.

And I totally agree.

I think we’ve definitely got what it takes in the local theatre scene.

We’ve got the writers, the producers, the directors, the actors, the designers, etc.

We’ve got what it takes.

This would be my 2nd time watching this, the first being the open rehearsal last week. And this time, I took more effort in analysing the play. I was more reserved in making any judgement previously as:
1) it was a rehearsal, and
2) I didn’t want that to influence my (or any others’) viewing of the actual performance.

And this time, the whole setup and overall experience was better than the other day.

One question came to mind immediately – would “Emily” be such a success if it weren’t for the excellent performance of the actress? Maybe also the theatre scene 25 years back was different and such a focus on heritage rare, which still is few. A monologue was also pretty uncommon.

Margaret Chan put up a splendid performance tonight. It’s really a rather difficult role to play, trying to keep the audience ‘engrossed’ with a full-length “narrative biographical monologue”. That sounds boring enough if it’s not done well. The player needs to be able to have good storytelling skills (not just acting) and at the same time be in character, making it ‘real’. You must understand that most of the story is supposedly happening in Emily’s mind and that the audience (and actress) will need a lot of imagination to grasp the going-ons and other characters in the plot, not to mention lots of time shifting as she reminiscences. As Margaret mentioned before, there’s a need to use different nuances and changes in tones and pitch in voice, body language, and I must add, the ability to bring out the humour in some of the lines that would fall flat if not carried out well.

However, I preferred some of the intensity she displayed during the rehearsal (that particular session was somewhat the “breakthrough” session) where she really “became” Emily at certain points. E.g. the ending part of the 1st segment, I was moved during the rehearsal and she cried then too. And also the ending when she was old and mumbling of past scenes, especially when she called Richard. The sense of loneliness and regret/heartbreak was stronger.

Now I come to the storyline. I didn’t talk much of the story previously as I didn’t focus on that (or wanted to reveal so much). The first half was about her relationship with her first son, Richard. They were very close but then again, there could be a love-hate relationship as she “controlled” him too much, leading to his suicide.
The second half was the relationship with her husband. I believe it got worse due to Richard’s passing? But he was already having an affair then. Maybe he was also trying to break free from her matriarchal ways and hated her for that.
Emily was an intelligent girl and knew how to strategise. She grew up fending for herself and more so when she got married, learning to survive such that she rose up to head the whole family, trying to be the good wife and mother as she knows it. She rounds off addressing these two relationships. I guess this somehow frames the show, separating and emphasizing the two roles Emily plays in her life.

The post-show dialogue was a short lesson in theatre studies, just like the rehearsal. Margaret had gave a lengthier answer for the common “how different” (I was more curious on whether she brought new elements into her performance) during the rehearsal compared to tonight, and basically, it’s the depth and maturity that’s come into her portrayal. It’s really important how society affects theatre and I liked the discussion about how a play becomes classical. It’s true people get caught up with “how it was” while everything changes so fast in the surrounding. And Margaret pointed out 1 important point. Space is now literally non-existent; there’s no concept of time or space, coz everything is so instantaneous and all leap over the space in the current world. You can say we are more networked, but I think the reverse if you think of it. There’s no depth.
Theatre studies, how interesting it would be!

This pretty much rounds up my Arts Fest 2010 experience. I wonder how Ivan Heng’s performance will be like. It should be a more comic take?

As a perk for Arts Fest Club members, members can sign up for the Festival Backstage programme(s) and incidentally, there was one for the open rehearsal for Emily on Emerald Hill. So I took the afternoon off 3 days ago and attended it.

It was an enriching experience. I’ve not read the full play before, but an excerpt can be found on http://nora.nl.sg. Basically, open rehearsals allow the production team to get feedback from some external audience and it’s also an educational process. I believe that anyone serious in theatre should at 1 point or another, expose oneself to the workings that goes behind a production. Whether from a director’s point, actor’s point, sound, music, sets, etc., you need to at least have a peek to understand and appreciate the full effect, and be aware of the effort and coordination that needs to be put in to give the production that audience experience. Any part that goes wrong will affect the viewer’s perception.

The set up was pretty simple, as the actual sets weren’t ready yet, and some video projection was not ready. It was held at a rehearsal studio in SMU. The lighting was still in progress, which wasn’t well-executed during this rehearsal.

Got some tips on acting techniques and “art” from Margaret Chan, like how not to play sad, actor’s choice, balancing between being the character and being the actor, e.g. if one gets too into character or emotional, you’ll tend to forget lines. Also on how not to direct. One could also see how seriously Margaret Chan took her role. For a 61-year-old to play a 30 plus character required some effort, especially as she said, the kneeling part. It was also difficult to keep audience interested as it was a pretty narrative piece and a one-person show. She did it well.

I’ll be catching the actual performance next Friday, so am looking forward to see how it would have progressed by then.