Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 25. October 4, 1976
Theatre
Theatre
' Saved By Edward Bond, Directed at Unity Theatre by Stephen McElrea.
Why 'Saved'?
Edward Bond's powerful and savage play purports to examine the violent nature of society. His characters are enmeshed in a complex series of volcanic relationships which can only be resolved by vehement erruption. It is a world without pleasure and full of pain; an animal kingdom where only the strong survive. But even the strong are subject to, and kept in control by 'outside forces'.
Unfortunately, this play has dated rather noticeably, and despite Stephen McElrea's laudable attempts to transpose it from its British working class setting to the approximate NZ equivalent, 'Saved' has remarkably little to offer us. Bond is trying very hard to shock us into some form of wakefulness: 'What I hope happens in Saved is that an audience better realises the nature of its society, what the nature of its problems are and therefore what solutions are needed.' By saying this. Bond strikes me as being essentially naive. If the realisation is too horrific, then people will choose to look the other way. But then, Bond himself give no indication that he has realised the 'true nature of the problem', because he has no viable solution. He cannot expect anyone to realise a solution through his play when he has attacked the wrong problem.
He shows us the working class attitudes to love, sex, marriage, street gangs and violence which culminate in the notorious baby-stoning scene. What he does not do is give us the overall picture of society in the samw way that playwrights like David Hare and Howard Barker do. A working class cannot exist on its own. It doesn't take too long to realise that Bond's playing is showing effects, not causes. The problems it reveals are symptomatice of something else, and this nebulous 'something else' is what Bond fails to come to grips with.
In many ways it is a pity that McElrea's 'street-corner society' exists in a vacuum like this, when the ideas behind his adaptation contain so much potential. James Moriarty as the Maori gang members was an intriguing subject for a play in his own right. Tony Burton's schizoid and violently unbalanced characterisation of Pete seemed too large for the play and extended into something else that was far more frightening.
The introduction of a real baby made the stoning scene all the more viscious; but even with these imaginative characterisations and touches, the overall quality of the production was ragged and spasmodic.
In many places it needed a tighter rein. Margaret Burnett as Pam lacked direction; Sean Duffy's characterisation of Len was too vague and wishy-washy.
The play proceeded in series of short scenes punctuated by prolonged blackouts. Because the play relies for its effect on the build up of tension and aggression throughout, these black holes did not make the actor's tasks much easier by allowing everything to evaporate.
Although the production lacked basic spirit and energy, it was certainly an imaginative re-appraisal of Bond's play in the light of a NZ experience. However, even with the vest available technical assistance Avalon had to offer - plus support from the Rothman's Cultural Foundation, the end result was a little disappointing. 'Saved' leaves the impression that no one is really saved at all: "All's cheerless dark and deadly" and the audience is left feeling disconsolate and confused about the value of their experience. As I walked away from the theatre I could not help but think: 'So that was Bond's "Saved".'
- Richard Mays
UBU - Based on the Works of Alfred
By the light of my little green candle and the pubic hairs of St Antony and Cleopatra, this is a most glorious and anarchic romp. John Banas has synthesised (so we are told) a new acting version of UBU based on Jarry's UBU plays, but including most of the original play UBU, The King, or UBU ROI (for purists). The adaptation is true revue style, includes a number of surreptitious references to the state of contemporary society, and has generally been modernised.
UBU is a political, social and economic farce. There are no half measures in this play. Everything is taken to its ultimate sand ludicrous excess. UBU is a grotesque parody of human behaviour. UBU is the supreme hedonist; the embodiment of cupidity, stupidity and brutality. He is profane, obscene, scandalous, indecent, disgusting and amoral. His only predeliction is for sensual gratification. When first performed in Paris in 1896, the opening line of the play, Merdre (the nearest English equivalent would be Shitter) caused a riot in the auditorium. Alas that audiences are not moved thus nowdays.
The role of UBU is brought to live in a more or less brilliant manner by Elric Hooper. A dictator's dictator, he wields the royal dunny brush, farts, swaggers, and greases his way across the stage in a manner most befitting a "little bourgeois upstart' who [ unclear: whats] to be king. He has his nobles and subjects debrained (disembrained for purists) on the slighest of pretexts so he can help himself to their money and property. Idi Amin has absolutely nothing on this character. Having killed off all the financiers and judges, UBU becomes a law unto himself and takes the title of Master of Finances - a proper little one man band.
The John Banas production of UBU is something of a techical specacular; with special lighting effects, overhead projection and shadow puppets (afficcionades will no doubt note the obvious Pythonesque influences), plus those dinky remot-controlled Venetian blinds. UBU's personal bodyguards, the Palcontents, are dressed in futuristic-style costumes, while the set is people by giant-sized puppets, charicatures on wheels, and cardboard cutout characters who are 'wielded'-about the stage by a sweaty cast and stage-crew (suddent death from B.O. poisoning for all those unfortunate enough to sit in the front two rows).
Despite the technicalities, this show has remarkable zest and spontenaity. It illustrates how a play written last century for the purpose of knocking bourgeois values, morality, art, literature and culture can take on entirely new meaning when translated and transported into entirely different cultural and political circumstances. This correlation is entirely in the mind of course and has little to do with the physical structure of the play. It has more to do with the physical structure of Pa UBU who was to Jarry the symbol of all the ugliness and mindless mediocrity there was in the world.
However, the deficiencies of UBU are typical of a number of Downstage productions. It is too flashy and much too pretty. The costumes are too neat for the slobs that wear them; neither is there any dirt or filth of any kind. Ma UBU is made to look far too attractive: tart or whore she may be, but slob she is not. Half the fun and irony of the play arises from the characters being physical as well as mental slobs. Initially, the first act lacked impetus. None of the performers took enough advantage of their parts to make them larger than life. As a consequence, the show did not fill the theatrical space provided. The second act saw the show restored to life. Elric Hooper earninq [ unclear: applause] for his horsemanship in front of his soldiers on the eve of their great battle with the Russians.
Finally, the forces of UBU are defeated, and our little bourgeois upstart is forced to flee in search of a country where he can 'serve' as master of finances instead of rule. His eventual destination is never specified - it never really needs to be.
Richard Mays