It's not only rock 'n roll
Husband
and wife John (Hugo Weaving) and Lynn (Susan Prior) have retired
from the heady world of rock ‘n roll to live in the country.
They’ve become yoga practising, tea drinking teetotallers
who bicker and nag each other. They’ve been clean for years,
but this weekend the members of John’s former band, Riflemind
- including his brother Phil (Marton Csokas) and his wife Cindy
(Susie Porter) - are coming to visit. With them they bring a legion
of memories, temptations and the kind of baggage that doesn’t
come in a Louis Vuitton valise.
John is a surly, snappy, unhappy man. Weaving plays
him with an air of sadness which you don’t fully understand
until the end of the play. It soon becomes apparent that when
John snarls at people he’s really snarling at himself. He’s
haunted by demons from his musical heyday and the fact that he
can never go back to doing what he loves – playing guitar
in the band.
The play includes all the usual accoutrements you’d
expect in a story about the music business – drugs, infidelity,
drying out, rivalry, wives interfering in the band, egotistical
grandstanding – it’s all there. To playwright Andrew
Upton’s credit, these features do not make the characters
stereotypical. Indeed, Upton’s characters are fully formed
individuals, most of them fascinating to watch and mostly fascinating
to listen to.
The script however suffers from an excess of repetition
which is so circular it goes round and round until it eats itself
and then throws up. The characters talk a lot, but they don’t
make a lot of sense. Perhaps the repetition is about drug-addled
minds trying to express themselves and groping for the right phrase.
Perhaps it’s intended to reflect the repetitious phrasing
you find in songs. Either way, it is wearing on the ear and by
the end of 2½ hours, it’s very trying on one’s
patience; especially given the way the play wraps up.
Yet the actors have worked with the script in a
way that uses these repetitions to their advantage. Indeed, the
characterisations across the board are outstanding. Weaving, Prior
and Sims are a real joy to watch and their performances and are
three excellent reasons for seeing the play. Weaving is brooding
and intense as the damaged John. Prior is brilliant as the disintegrating
Lynn. Jeremy Sims plays the band’s manager and he’s
a real card, complete with a cockney lilt, which proves that everything
really is funnier with an English accent. Sims plays him as a
foolish, skittish man who’s all front. His attempts to seduce
Porter’s Cindy provide just some of the comedy that is so
embedded in the play it seems organic.
Oscar winner Philip Seymour Hoffman makes direction
look easy. Of course he’s working with experienced professionals
who know what they’re doing; but the whole thing flows very
naturally.
The set looks like something out of Home Beautiful.
A modern white kitchen, and stainless steel bench top, complete
with a working fridge and running water. There is also a lounge
room featuring artwork, lounge, chair, coffee table, lounging
cushion and stereo. On the back wall of the lounge room is an
arched doorway with a double glass door, covered by white wooden
shutters. It’s an impressive set. Everything functions and
you really feel like you’re in someone’s home.
The lighting and sound effects, in particular a
helicopter coming in to land rate a special mention – they
were so effective.
There’s just one problem and that’s
the script. The first act is chock-full of conflict and issues
for all the characters, not just John. The second act features
only three actors – Weaving as John, Csokas as his brother
and Prior as John’s wife. It’s as if the second act
flicks a switch and the play stops. The band is the driving force
in the first act and its absence is marked in the second act.
All the humour disappears to be replaced with nothing but hard
core wordy drama which doesn’t seem to go anywhere.
The character arc of the brothers is unclear. The
script is confusingly silent about the fact that John and Phil
are brothers until the second act, which is a glaring error of
omission. The interaction of husband and wife is more concise.
But John’s motivation for resolving things the way he does
is hazy at best and totally at odds with everything else that’s
happened. Sure it shows his warm and fuzzy side, but a character
arc needs to be more emotionally logical. Certainly the audience
I was part of seemed confused throughout. They failed to clap
at interval and they didn’t know the play had finished until
the lights came up to reveal the actors lined up to take their
bows. The actors were pouring their hearts and the audience just
didn’t get it.
The irony of Riflemind is that it’s
art imitating life. You’re going to go see it because of
who directed it, who stars in it and who wrote it. But whether
it’s worth the price of the ticket is another thing. It’s
entertaining in a voyeuristic way because of the content and the
talent involved. But is it satisfying as a theatrical experience?
I would say not.
Philippa Wherrett
