Read today?s post here. Follow with Flickr pics here.

The Arrival is a short show based on an award-winning book by Shaun Tan of the same name. The books are illustrated beautifully, and make for good fodder for a puppet show. 

The storyline is simple: a man leaves his family and country to head to a new one, trying to learn the language, make a living and reunite himself with his wife and child. All of this is told using imagery and action, rather than dialogue. 

The curtain was lowered when we first entered the theatre, and when the show started, it was raised to reveal a large set on stage. The set, if you can imagine it, is like a box opened out; there are four parts to it. In the middle is a section, which from first glance seems to be the same depth as the outer two; however, a piece of scrim is lowered down slightly, and we suddenly discover a three-walled platform. In front of this section is a ramp, and to either side of the middle are sections. These have windows, or flaps that fold up and in. Lower down are parts that rotate out, like little steps. (See image to right for a little more clarity) 

Projected images ? I?m guessing animated illustrations from the book ? are placed onto the white set, which creates a very sensual atmosphere of the world of the husband. He travels by boat, and by air, to his new residence, and by using the moving images, it feels as though you are going with him, and that the entire theatre is flowing on the water. (Not in a way that would make you seasick though!) Do check out the book for a better description of the animations, as it?s hard for me to describe. 

Lighting was beautifully done, and I particularly enjoyed the dimmed blue lights during the moments when the husband learns that his family is in trouble, and it suddenly turns to winter. This is also a great example of using simple imagery instead of words: the projected image was of a flower, which grew, then wilted, then became covered by snow, and quickly signified the passing of time. Although it?s an old trick, the use of the illustrated images projected onto the set made it quite atmospheric. 

Sound design used a combination of sound effects and country music/orchestral/harmonious vocals, which had a quite Indigenous Australian feel to it, with a little didgeridoo thrown in as well. The music was haunting, but in the way in which you feel when you are introduced to a new and strange place, which is also non-threatening. 

All of the costumes were simple, the father wearing a suit, and incidental characters wearing both bright and dull robes as necessary to their needs. 

The only thing that let down this production was the puppetry itself ? sadly. While the puppets were beautifully made, and intriguing (I liked the bird with wings that flapped vertically, rather than horizontally, and the monster-ish creatures when the husband tries to be postman), there were technical things that made it lacking. 

Firstly, the puppeteers were dressed in velvet black, including a hood ? the favoured costume when trying to hide puppeteers from the view of the audience ? but for some odd reason they were not wearing gloves. Now I know from experience that using gloves often means you lose dexterity, and as the puppeteers were operating both rod and mouth puppets, it would probably have gotten annoying. But? and this is a big but? a lot of the time I saw these skin-coloured hands appearing from behind the set, in order to place or remove a prop or puppet. Now why go to all the trouble of hiding your puppeteers, and not make sure that their hands aren?t seen at all times? 

Secondly, the two odd mouth puppets, strange creatures in this foreign land, were given squeaky toy voices. While most people would find their incessant squeeks the issue, I had a more technical response. The squeek was separate from the actual puppet, and some of the time the puppet was given to one of the actors and not manipulated by them. The squeek remained with the puppeteer backstage. And if you?ve ever done sound design, you?ll know that if you place the sound of the object in a place different to where the sound is supposed to be coming from, it doesn?t seem natural. Ie. You have a phone in your room at the right. The phone rings, and the sound comes from the left side of the room. Which direction do you go to answer the phone? You always go towards the sound of course. So if a puppeteer makes a noise on stage right, and the puppet is on stage left, it doesn?t make any sense! 

Thirdly, the doors on the middle section of the set were able to have facades placed on them, in order to change the appearance of the door and suggest different locations. I loved the idea, but unfortunately, occasionally when the door was opened or closed, the facades would ?flap? in the accompanying wind, and the illusion was lost. 

I could continue on a number of other points, but you get the idea. For me, it seemed like the
puppeteers had gone on holiday mentally, or were just having a really bad night. 

If these puppetry things were sorted out, it would have been an excellent performance. The acting was brilliant, and the father was so compelling, you could not but help feel sympathy with his character and his journey in a strange new world. The play was like a short animation film, combined with live action, and all done without language at all. 

The audience, mainly adults, did not laugh at many of the activities that were taking place on stage. However, it was a quiet engrossed audience ? I?m not sure what the level of interest or enjoyment was. 

I want to finish on this note: with Explosion Therapy it was as if the storyline came from the inspiration of the set (ie. we want to use a large projection screen, let?s invent a story around it), whereas The Arrival had a story, and then created the set around that. In my opinion, The Arrival, though it used pretty much the same concepts ? minus the actors walking ?onto? the screen ? was much better because of it. 

My vote: (4 UNIMA stars out of 5)

 

Read the next review for today here.