‘Bride of the Wheel’

Press, 3 September 1984, Page 8

‘Bride of the Wheel’

“Bride of the Wheel,” by the Blue Ladder Theatre, 87 Cashel Street, at 8.30 p.m., August 31 to September 22. Running time: 90 minutes. Reviewed by Stephen Quinn. This play is an attack on the senses. This is not meant as'criticism or condemnation; it is more a case of context, of talking about the methods the director uses to elaborate upon the play’s themes. The themes concern corruption and notions of what constitutes morality, set in a world where most of the characters have no control over their destiny. The play is based on a ’ poem by the radical English poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, adapted by the revolutionary French director, Antonin Artaud, one of the leading lights of the Surrealist theatrical movement. This production is subtitled, "After Shelley and Artaud,” because its director, Bill Direen, has attempted various dramatic methods to develop and support the play’s themes. It is these, methods that involve the assault on the audience’s sensibilities. The plot concerns an Italian family of the seventeenth century. The head of the family, Count Cenci, is a er«l and corrupt tyrant, i® ’murders and timbers of his family an*-,

staff and then obtains Papal “pardons” by paying “indulgences.” Paying indulgences was a relatively common practice in that era by people who could afford it. The belief at the time assumed that the Catholic Church had a monopoly on the infinite mercy of Christ. It could grant these indulgences for crimes committed if the person involved gave money or property to the Church. These indulgences were like cheques on a bank, drawn on the infinite mercy of Christ. To the twentieth century mind this is corruption but in the seventeenth century context it was acceptable. When the remaining members of the Cenci family revolt and kill their oppressor, they are condemned and tortured by the Church. This apparent reversal of morality is the underlying concern of this production. The way this situation is portrayed theatrically is intriguing and unsettling. It is unsettling because it is not easy on the audience. It is intriguing because it is a brave effort by such a relatively inexperienced cast. At times the demands are too great on their resources and it all descends into silliness. Yet there were some moments on Saturday evening that were quite ’..riveting — in spite of, and

probably because of, the demands made on the audience.

These demands and attacks came in many forms. Discordant music mingled with harsh and cruel dialogue and action created some nerve-wracking situations. Some of the acting was overblown, particularly on the part of Lindsay Forbes as the evil count. His hissing delivery was suitably nasty but also at times too much like a comic Count Dracula.

The play manages numerous visual assaults. The set is spartan and hard, like the seats the patrons were required to sit on. Like the costumes the actors wore, the whole affair created a clashing, discordant mood. The presentation of the action is particularly good. The play is tightly constructed, being broken into numerous small scenes that never allow the flow to become boring. A recurring motif of spinning, circling movements conveys an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty, and also binds the production, sucking it into a whirlpool of inevitability. ■ This production is a brave attempt by a young cast that requires endurance on the part of both audience and fflfayers. Some people will iSo it worth the effort