1. 26-08-2008 08:08

It has not been a good year for theatre in Sydney but when a play such as this garners the gushing praise from our "critics" that is being heaped on this banal and derivative work, it is cause for concern. Or outrage. This is supposed to be Tommy Murphy's foray into heterosexual storytelling but it is essentially a play about a gay couple with a last minute casting decision to change the sex of one of the leads. I suspect casting was the first time Mr Murphy ever met a woman as I saw no evidence of any on stage - the entire hooker scene is deeply embarrassing for both playwright and director.  
By the time the play devolves into "surrealism", most in the audience I sat in were looking for the exits. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then I'm not sure whether it is Michel Gondry, director of The Science of Sleep, or the producers of Play School who get the credit. This play is an out and out stinker. It is going to Wharf 1 next year by all accounts. What are Our Cate and Andrew thinking? Is this really all there is? Or is this actually their taste level? Whichever it is, it's bad news for the STC in 2009. Be warned.

Guest

2. 30-08-2008 02:59

I couldn't agree more with the comment above. Although the acting was solid, the play was dull, dull, dull... the audience were bored and couldn't care less about the characters. I wanted to leave ten minutes in! I want my money back!

Guest

3. 30-08-2008 06:41

I saw the show last night. It was a completely full theatre, mostly young and mostly women and they all loved it. Just like me (I’m female and 32). Tommy Murphy somehow got into my dreams! Zara was me. Sometimes how I know I am but don‘t want to be and sometimes like I want to be, I don’t understand the last post. There didn’t seem to be anything ‘gay’ about it at all. I read bits of Murphy’s journal that are on the stc website and it’s clear from them that Zara was always a woman, right from the beginning, so I don’t get what that person means by a “last minute casting decision” to change gender. Anyway, I loved it and I really hope it goes into Wharf 1 next year. This play totally speaks to me and my friends so good on our cate and Andrew!

Guest

4. 02-09-2008 20:42

Theatregoers are a quasi-religious congregation who mostly behave according to instructions. The Murphy/Berthold team have saturated the media for months instructing the congregation that they will go into rhapsody mode on beholding this dazzling new creation and most of them, along with the critics, obediently rhapsodised on queue. However, those of us, who evaluate according to rational criteria, detected a feeble pretentious queeny wank, where the dramaturgy went all "dreamlike" - a good cop out when times places and characters have trouble adding up in the first place. The acting was first yeat NIDA.

Guest

5. 03-09-2008 01:10

I felt utterly confused at the beginning, I almost thought each scene gave a different glimpse of Zara and Matthew's life and the different scenarios of 'is this all to life?'. I'm not sure if this because of my real understanding for theatre/knowledge of live performance or if it is because it was my first time at the Sydney Theatre Co. but I'm hoping having fresh eyes might not have given I didn't read the critics reviews. I agree that I had high expectations for Saturn's Return and only to have felt kinda let down as it didn't meet my perceived expectations from all the rave reviews it received from fellow classmates. Or maybe I'm not theatre-goer material? Although, it was a strong performance by the cast, I personally thought the narrative was lacking.

Guest

6. 03-09-2008 09:36

i haven't seen a tommy Murphy work before but this really impressed me. I went with a group of 5 friends and after we went out for a late dinner and spoke for hours about it trying to pull it apart and often talking about our own relationships. it was really insightful, and almost embarrassingly so for some of us! and confronting about what it said about how things can fall apart so easily. loved the set how it slowly opened up just as zara went further into her fantasy world. the actress who played the lead part was brilliant. i read that cate blanchet has taken the play for her 2009 season at stc. which is great news. more people should see it. a special night in the theatre.

Guest

7. 06-09-2008 15:08

I think this play suffered from a lack of a clear protagonist, narrative, and style. I thought it was Matt's play until everyone talked about Zara's character. I find it very interesting that some women seemed relate so strongly to Zara in light of the first comment about the relationship seeming like a first foray into heterosexual dynamics. I see where they are coming from although don't entirely agree. I thought the hooker scene was well done, except that it didn't fit into the narrative or characters. Good accent work as well.  
 
The actors were very sound, although I think the highly talented Socratis Otto was looking for a character to play the whole show, poor thing. I found the whole descent into surrealism less a "gentle slide" as the reviewer says and more of an abrupt turnaround with absolutely no precedent in the narrative, which was confusing and lacking cohesion as a result. The early scenes were well written, if a little formulaic - employing a lot of standard tropes and misdirects, set ups for punchlines and so forth, but nonetheless very entertaining and well directed. I think the final scene made no sense whatsoever, and the play ultimately made no definite point. There were a number of walk outs in the performance I saw as well, some very early on.  
 
Not to be a totaly naysayer, I think this would benefit from a rewrite and some serious workshopping before being presented on the mainstage. Normally a big fan of Murphy's writing, but this was a disappointment. It does have potential, and is not unworthy subject matter. It was just poorly presented this time.

Guest