Lovepuke - 2004 production
Produced by Casting Couch Productions

Cast: John Marsh, Liz Hanich, Matt Todd, Renee Lim, Ben Maclaine, Kaitlyn Cox, Stella Rankin, Henry Hereford.

Playwright: Duncan Sarkies
Director: Greg Eccleston

Publicist: Troy Dodds (Troy Dodds Enterprises)

Australian Premiere: TAP Gallery Theatre, Sydney. 10 November, 2004.


The Lowdown:
This show has been around for a long time, and in fact was produced by the same production company four years before this return season. The play uses the "Sex, Argument, Argument, Make-Up, Sex" tag on all of its publicity material.


AussieTheatre.com Review:
As I walked down George Street in central Sydney after this show a saxophone blasted the refrain from the Girl from Ipanema to which I responded in my mind: What’s Love Got to Do With It. It sparked a memory of what happened with one of my lady friends. She knew that I was supposed to be allergic to mushrooms. She just didn’t believe it. So one night unbeknown to me the delightful Boef Wellington she served me was stuffed with pureed mushrooms. Other than almost dying from anaphylactic shock (OK slight exaggeration) I was well and truly firing at both ends that night. When you think about it, that is what love is truly about. Sure good sex is nice, great, good, healthy and exciting - but love - love is coping when your heart-of-hearts is upchucking and retching bile into the bucket every five minutes. His eyes are bloodshot, he looks pathetic and he is shaking and sweating in spades. Makes a lovely picture don’t he?

And that friends is really where the lancet should be wielded. There is a gut churning destructiveness about which the world revolves, when love goes wrong. This I believe is where the author of Lovepuke is aiming to point his pen. Does he succeed? Let me come back to that.

The thread of the argument for the play is simple. There is a commonality to relationships around which we are all destined to turn. The structure of this argument is thin and this is the major weakness of the play. However it is not a fatal weakness. I know, I’m supposed to start with the positives and then gently reveal any failings. That might be the genteel approach, but it begs the question. Anyway, let’s look at places where the plays does work.

First it is engaging. The actors keep the energy up throughout and their sincerity and playing off each other works in the main. Liz Hanich as Hermione has a thankless job as the keeper of the loo and as counterpoint to Glen the narrator, played by John Marsh. The other players Matt Todd, Renee Lim, Ben Maclaine, Kaitlyn Cox, Stella Rankin and Heny Hereford bounced off each other with emphasis.

The opening with everyone dropping flashcards as indications of game labels and emotions is sustained throughout. The cast has worked hard at this and the director has been tightly focused on making sure that nothing happens to let the action flag. It really moves along. So does it work or doesn’t it? Truth to tell it’s a bit bitsy. The emotions and the sex are too self contained and too sanitised. What we see are indications of the actions and the feelings. The actors aren’t allowed to go onto dangerous ground. To be specific, imagine two extremes. One extreme would be suburban sex behind the venetian blinds. The other would be the porno-display with coconut oil and my GOD! HOW did he to do that and she smiled all the way through it? Somewhere in the middle you have rampant sex where nipples are pressed and tongues are twirled and the temperature, friends, is going up!

I want to be convinced that the character is getting so hot and excited that I share the arousal. OK so I’m a voyeur. So sue me. In scenes like this I want to be part of it -- involved, feeling the thrill. Then the disappointment which follows is more real and gut-wrenching.

This a debate which has gone on for a while now. Do we follow the example of the Abbey players and lose ourselves in excesses of emotion or do we use the Brechtian mechanisms to keep the audience at bay -- aware of what they are watching? Brecht was a con artist anyway if you look closely at what he was doing. He always involved the audience. While he pretended to place them in a safe little confinement of alienation, he immersed them in emotion and tricked them into sympathy with his key characters.

I am not going to take each of the actors and do a comparison. It is an ensemble. They trust one another and they work well together. However, there is not enough depth. There is not enough risk taking. The fault lies partly in the writing and partly in the direction. The writing constricts the action in that three couples, although they have different outcomes, follow a rhythm which is a constant for all. For this reason there is less tension, more predictability and a “little boxes” approach which cuts us off from any real danger.

On the directorial side, I very much responded to the positive feel and enjoyment which was generated by the actors. For that the director deserves the applause and thanks of his cast. He missed the opportunity however of giving them the extra level of devastation and real danger. The real horror for lovers is the vulnerability with the lack of a map -- how to cope with uncertainty. The fear that comes with commitment does not come from where do we go next, but from how do we keep the communication open so that the vulnerability can continue? Where do we find the trust? This is the level which does not get explored enough. Don’t make the mistake of thinking these ideas aren’t there. They are there, but they are not given full rein.

All that being said, the audience enjoyed the play and so did I. The thing is, I am greedy. I see the potential for this play to go further. As it stands the characters are amusing and diversionary. It’s like a good TV soap opera with a bit of spice and a bit of zing. What if it was taken to the next level and the characters showed real abandon, total absorption with their respective partners? Picture that and picture what it would mean when there is betrayal or the feeling dies. Then you’d have a play!

For some reason in my mind I keep coming back to a scene toward the end of the Woman’s Room with Lee Remick. She is sitting in a chair realising that the relationship is coming to an end or has ended and she is in control. She also realises what it has cost her. That final realisation is what makes the film so memorable. Such comparisons are grossly unfair but in a sense this is an accolade for a work partly realised. So I will ask the question again: Does it work? Yes it does. It is worth the trip. So there you have it. Now it is your choice as to whether or not you make the journey.

To answer the original question, What has Love Got to Do With It? Why everything. But not in some tidy little universe where everything is under control and God’s in his heaven. Our world is chaotic and love sometimes adds to the chaos. Add to that the bodily functions and their associated orifices in which we hook and twine ourselves plus bite, lick, suck, snort, ingest, imbibe, inhale, vomit, excrete, exhale, urinate - no wonder we get confused sometimes.


Production Shots:
None Available


Further Information:
None Available