The theatre piece Dracula by the Sydney Theatre Company is the third of a trilogy of works employing LED image making, but it differs significantly in its staging and format from the first work, The Picture of Dorian Grey. The latter used a myriad of suspended smaller mobile screens, none much bigger than an actor on stage, which served to divide the stage space in multiple, shifting layers in which action, based on a nuanced tale of identity, could be freshly and deceptively located. Dracula, on the other hand, uses a very large screen – it is almost as wide as the downstage stage. For most of the time the audience is watching action as it is captured, in real time and recorded/edited material, on the large screen, whose height dwarfs the actor and technicians visible on stage. Sometimes this video format works well – for example the London street appearance of Dracula has recorded characters at stage level and scale to the character on actual stage, the rest is black. The decorative cross and snow blends a very large background design with stage action.
At best the show was like live TV – we saw action, and camera, then broadcast images. Stage and screen are blended in various real time and pre production. Generally however the particulars of stage action are sidelined in viewing because the very large and bright main screen is just so dominating. As a result one is entitled to ask to what extent is the event Dracula a piece of theatre, or some form of experimental extended cinema? STC publicity uses the term “cine-theatre” – but what precedents and theory are there for such style?
The show does continue with the format of one actor playing multiple parts. It is faithful to the characters and prose in the famous novel by Bram Stoker. However unlike the cast of Dorian Grey, these characters are two dimensional, and horror was achieved in past readers of the book, in the imagination of the reading public. Whatever cultural context there might have been in the past or today to this major published work of Gothic Fiction (sexual identity, sexuality, gender roles, race, hygiene, horror – they are all there) seems overlooked in the intent desire of this Dracula production to overplay technical tropes.
Remember, the original story was a prose book probably with thin black and white sketches – every time it is realized in countless film adaptations the source of horror and meaning of the original story is watered down into sensationalized cinematography. Dracula is very cinematographic, although it can exploit the toolkit of video effects – merging and spinning bodies and faces, for example – a little much. Playfulness can substitute for whatever substance the original story could have to qualify the show as contemporary meaning making. The accent was on visual and acted melodrama, at a brisk pace possible in filmic montage which sets the pace on stage action.
Zahra Newman did a deserving and highly capable job, and her singing at the end was powerful. One gathers singing was part of Dracula’s appeal – a pity it was not used earlier in the show. However no effort or skill on the performer’s part could compensate for the director’s choice to use one actor (as done in the previous two video based works). The novel is a concoction of diary entries by several characters, starting with Jonathan Harker describing his visit to Dracula’s castle – interesting to follow in print but these are hard to follow when spoken fully and at pace in one sitting by one performer. Even the best voice can become overdone and dull – why not more than one? What does the format of one actor prove especially when repeated three times?
Multiform theatre styles using digital technology are welcome, although this trilogy is in a class all its own – no other companies can afford the sheer cost of LED installation and programming. This technology does not exemplify best practice because it sets its own rules, and is not governed by general theatre style. Part of the audience was certainly dazzled by the production, and gave a strong standing ovation. The show was in a way a trendsetter for possible production who might adapt similar technology with other perhaps more suited narratives. “Cine-theatre” might yet be a genre, and this show was innovative whatever its limitations. However I am sure not all in the audience were entranced, even if they might find it hard to articulate their reservations.
Theatre must engage the audience in actual time and space – it is a live event, fundamentally observing the Aristotelian unities of space and time – and Dracula just didn’t do that enough. It was polished with high production values, but seemed too absorbed in its own production process instead of reaching out with deep emotion and meaning to the audience.
Production photography by Daniel boud
