Since writing my review of The Skriker a number of points have been come to my attention about the production, partly from cast and crew member complaints and also from attending a postproduction lecture with director Ian Spink. In the 1999-2000 Practical Semester, as was pointed out to the entire year on several occasions before and during this year, there was an unpleasant incident that year regarding the director of The House of Bernarda Alba, who from the beginning of rehearsals had not been given a chance by her cast and crew. Despite being told that this was not acceptable, that each production should be approached with a totally open mind, the lack of co-operation and belittling of the director from certain areas of the cast and crew may not have been too far from creating a repeat performance.
From what has been suggested in the postproduction talk Director Ian Spink had only ever been shown studio 1 (which certainly wasn’t ready for rehearsals until nearer Christmas), research material presented to the cast at the beginning of rehearsals was largely ignored, and I very much doubt that he (Ian Spink) will return as a guest Director in the future. And to be honest I don’t blame him. For reasons never brought to light at the time his set designer was rarely available (and the set was eventually put together by the cast and crew), two of the cast quit when they weren’t offered large parts, two out of three of the stage management team were uncooperative, and a number of people have also mentioned to me that one of his assistants openly belittled the production to the cast.
A cast of over 50 characters, stage directions more complicated to produce than warm ice, a cast of only 12, a play which Carryl Churchill took 7 years to write, and a director who had previously worked at the National. – This was The Skriker.
That’s right SKRIKER – a shapeshifter and death portent (as the fliers told us) and not STRIKER as just about everybody has called it all year.
Beyond the arguments and gossip this was quite a good production. And no I wasn’t part of it. I don’t HAVE to say positive things about it – I only have done because I thought they were deserved.
The basic story revolves around Lily, a young and pregnant girl, and her friend Josie. Josie has wound up in what we assume to be a mental hospital; apparently mad – though in reality plagued by the ethereal creature known as the Skriker. In desperation Josie wishes the Skriker away and onto her young friend. Though the gifts the Skriker presents to Lily is initially very tempting that power later – as power generally does – becomes corruptive. Both women are then dragged down into the comings and goings of ‘damaged fairies’ and the underworld.
As a script “The Skriker” reads very poetically, but also makes you wonder “how the hell do you stage it?” With people vomiting frogs and coins, ten foot tall invisible monsters drinking at the bar, and a beach awash with blue men as just some of the direction left by Churchill attempting it is a mean feat. It is because of this nature to the play that it is imperative that the background characters, who often do not have any lines as such, are created well. Without them the play can easily fall flat (regardless of what some primadonnas may think). Director Ian Spink was part of the original production of the play, so you had to figure he had some idea of how to do things. But did the production rise to the challenge and live up to what was needed?
On the whole I would say Yes. There were a couple of details I perhaps would have tinkered with if I had been in that situation, but on the whole – and though it isn’t the most objective of comments perhaps – I thought it was good. The set was a suitably bleak canvas for the cast to create an image of a real world with the sinister elements of the underworld undetectedly sharing the same space; silently and calmly perverting it.
Puppetry and fooling formed and solved many of the scripts tougher details. The interaction of the 10ft Spriggan puppet was a welcome detail. And the Skriker itself – being a shapeshifter – was played by multiple members of the cast, metamorphisizing into new situations. But this change was always very clear when the force was passed on, and several of its incarnations were distinctly individual.
Cathy Long and Julie McNicholls were both very strong as the two leads. Jodie Bray created a strongly spoken, eloquent and slightly perverted Skriker. Alison Fowler’s Skriker tenure as an American Woman who cannot understand TV was simply hilarious.
Other notable performances also included Mandy Cunliffe’s Black Dog, and Imogen Fleury’s version of the Skriker as a lascivious man was scarily convincing.
At this point in my original review I fell under particular criticism for stating a poor opinion of the choreography of the feast scene; which had been choreographed by Anna Shearer. I felt that it was a weak link, more west end than underworld, and squashed the cast into only a third of the stage space. I felt this to be undue criticism. This particular scene is a favourite of mine. In my opinion it should owe more to similar scenes for example such as those of the Goblin Palace in Jim Henson’s Labyrinth. My words were not designed to portion a blame entirely on Ms Shearer. My response was more of curiosity. Ian Spink has been a movement director for the RSC. Perhaps I was just expecting something slightly more extravagant.
I did feel the end of the play could have been executed better. Lily should most definitely crumple to dust rather than run offstage, in time to have disappeared when the sheet which shielded her from the audience was dropped. But other than these two minor flaws it was a great production. And I don’t care now if people think this review is still too damning. After all you’ll get worse than this out in the real world.
Damn fine effort at very complex play. Not excellent, but a lot better than some people would have had you think. 3 Machs.
