Where: The Southbank Theatre (Melbourne Theatre Company) until 22 May
Stars: 3
I'm a fan of the works of Joanna Murray-Smith. I loved Songs for Nobodies. Her Switzerland was excellent. But I've been left pondering my reaction to Berlin, which is the second play back for the Melbourne Theatre Company. Did I like it? What did I think of it? Was it on point?
The jury is still out.
Some of my reticence could be due to next to no sleep the night before, but Jay had some difficulties with this two hander which is playing until the end of May.
According to the blub from the MTC, "Tom is an Australian abroad. Charlotte, a Berliner through and through. After meeting in a bar, sparks fly between them and she invites him to spend the night at her place. As they navigate the ritual of seduction, their desire gives way to secrets that cannot be ignored and questions neither of them can answer. Does young love stand a chance against the suffocating reach of the past?"
Grace Cummings and Michael Wahr give great performances as the Berliner, Charlotte, and the Australian tourist, Tom. There is a palpable buzz between the two of them, as we find Charlotte the barmaid in her flat with the seemingly stranded Tom. At the obligatory third the way through, we ascertain that something is going on with Tom, and he has more of a reason to be there than just a holiday jaunt. This, of course, has something to do with the illuminated painting, an alleged Constable, illuminated on the back wall. Throw in some Ramones and a bit of Rilke. I should be in heaven.
But I wasn't. The situation in which the characters find themselves leads to the premise of why Tom is really there and what secrets Charlotte is hiding?
And here is where my issues lie.
The play morphs into the ethical dilemma of just where to the actions of the past stop impacting on the generations down the line. Tom, the grandson of Jewish Germans has one view. Charlotte, the granddaughter of a German art dealer associated with the Third Reich has another.
And this is what felt somewhat heavy handed. The guilt by association theme has been done before and this, near the end, came off as rather stilted. There is no clear cut right and wrong in this situation. Who has true ownership of articles stolen in generations past? The moral imperative is blurred. And I think this is why I walked out of th play feeling with mixed feelings. Jay made the comment that some of her Jewish friends would have found the play offensive (I'm sure some if mine may feel the same way too).
Iain Sinclair's direction is smart, intimate and sexy, directing these two as they initially flirt and banter until things turn more sinister.
For me, a part of me was wanting a bit more. I was left a little underwhelmed. I also found the play underlit - that could also be my tiredness talking.
In all, I was slightly underwhelmed by the play. It's certainly not bad - it's more the uncomfortable feeling I was left with at then end - as really, is there an answer to the questions raised of guilt by association and the sins of our forfathers?
Today's song:
No comments:
Post a Comment