Theatrical performances can take many guises and Wellington has been fortunate over the years in experiencing some truly amazing off beat shows, but probably none more so than Brain Damagefrom Bard Productions. 

Labelled “a free roaming theatrical installation that delves into the deepest recesses of the human mind” it does all that and more challenging the audience more than most productions and leaving them with more questions than answers. 

For 35 minutes 5 scenes play out around the edges of the stage simultaneously with the audience assembled in the middle to stroll about at will observing which ever scene interests them the most. And on the small stage at BATS this is no mean feat. 

In Dead Man Talking, Paul Stephanus, covered in blood, has a long monologue about how his character Joseph Alburn was in some bloody altercation. Down and Out has Josh Alburn played by Marking Venning-Slater and riddled with bullet holes, in an unknown place talking to a Ghost, Charlotte Claasen to find out where he is.

In the third scene Still Ticking a desperate Doctor, Scott Ransom, has a conversation with a corpse swathed in bloody bandages while beside him Amalia Calder as Electricity and Lucy Edwards as Mother Lily Alburn have a verbal slanging match over withdrawing money from a bank account in The Third Withdrawal. 

While all these are playing out “What’s On Channel 3?” with Aidan Grealish as Brain Damage plays out at the back of the stage, with Grealish lying on a bean bag in a pair of boxer shorts watching a snowing TV screen surrounded by DVD’s. Are the other scenes playing out part of his mind, is the similar surname of each of the characters in these other scenes a connection? 

All the actors give energised, committed performances, each scene played out with an intensity that is both intriguing and certainly engaging. Yet they are also profoundly obscure and also frustrating in not being able to observe each scene in its entirety during the course of the performance, no doubt the shows intention as in the programme notes the Director, Scott Ransom says – “What if we can never truly know everything, what if we are not meant to?’ – which is certainly the case with this production. 

It is a show that lives up to its label of a theatrical installation and does what all good theatre should do, communicate, engage and provoke. But to what extent is the question and have they gone too far with their concept? Go see and make your own mind up. 
_______________________________
For more production details, click on the title above. Go to Home page to see other Reviews, recent Comments and Forum postings (under Chat Back), and News.  

Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer

Described in publicity as “a free roaming theatrical installation that delves into the deepest recesses of the human mind,” Brain Damage asserts that it “challenges audiences to suspend thought and experience the unknown.”

What it actually challenges each of us to do, independently, is gain some value from randomly tuning in to the five scenarios that play out simultaneously around the periphery of what is normally the Bats performing space. We are each free to move about, engaging – or trying to – as we choose.

I was going to say it challenges us to make sense of it all, to discern some overall coherence in whatever we happen to catch, but that would involve “thought” – engaging the brain – which is apparently a no-no.

The trouble is that, being human, we compulsively attribute meaning to whatever we experience. Are we being asked, here, to mindlessly soak up whatever we happen to gather from the maelstrom of talk and interactions in progress around us, but obediently think nothing of it? Maybe we are allowed – expected – to feel something. But what? Bewildered? Frustrated? Irritated?

Of course when it’s all over there’s no point in hanging about and talking to anyone about it, or even interrogating our own responses internally, because that – heaven forbid – would involve “thought”. So there we go. We were told we would “experience the unknown”, we have, and it remains unknown. The point being ….?

It may or may not be relevant for me to put my impressions on the record, given everyone will have had a different experience. And to write any more will inevitably involve the dreaded act of thinking about it. Sorry if I am breaking the Law of Freedom according to Bard Productions.

Illuminated at the centre of the space we gather within is a shrine comprised of war toys, transformers, pizza boxes, soft drink, wine and beer bottles.

The seven actors at the five stations of performance all dedicate themselves to giving life to Scott Ransom’s five simultaneously enacted scripts, which do gain some coherence when we consult the programme and note the scene and character names. In this space there is no escaping the noise that emanates from the four corners, no mater which one we attempt to tune into.

Located centre back, in What’s on Channel 3? – which I happen to gravitate toward first – Aidan Grealish, in shorty pyjama shorts, lounges on a bean bag in front of a TV screening ‘snow’ and talks softly to himself from time to time. His character name is Brain Damage and if you get close you may catch, amid the louder utterances of the others, the odd phrase – e.g. “the shadows play tricks on you” and later “I’ll never get the sand out of my pockets” – which may or may not testify to his being brain damaged.

In the Dead Man Talking corner a man staggers in soaked in blood. It appears clear he has killed someone. The programme tells us he is Joseph Alburn, played with high dramatic intensity by Paul Stephanus. I think it’s him who later says, “This isn’t the first time I’ve killed him.” He seems to be quite traumatised.

To the other side of Brain Damage, Down & Out reveals a man with bullet holes in his shirt (Mark Vennin-Slater as Josh Alburn) with a white-sheet-with-eye-holes Ghost (Charlotte Claasen) who later informs him it was Halloween and now “We’re dead, Josh!” Later I also catch a bit where (according to my notes) he insists his name is Josh and she insists it’s Joseph. They run a gamut of emotions.

Diagonally opposite, The Third Withdrawal plays out between Amalia Calder as Electricity, but acting out like a very stroppy bank manager tethered to her computer terminal, and Lucy Edwards as Mother Lily Auburn, who appears to be wanting to withdraw funds from an account with is empty. Later (should I put a spoiler warning here?) I hear Electricity tell Lily, “Your son is dead … He got shot by Jo,” and then, “You are not his mother” – which does not compute, but there I go thinking again. Mostly their scene is intense and every now and then they, too, shout.

The fourth corner is occupied by a manic Doctor played with malevolence by Scott Ransom (the writer/director) alongside a bandaged and bloodied corpse which I see him beat and strangle at one time. “I cure everyone,” I think he says. Or was it “I kill everyone”? He points across to the killer and calls him a “victim”. Later he gorges on a hot dog roll. Crazy.

While I have randomly caught enough to get that each scenario is in some way connected to the others, I am in no position to say what it all amounts to because the simultaneous performing – albeit punctuated by the odd sudden silence theN a clear utterance before the cacophony reasserts itself – ensures I miss more than I get.

Sometimes it seems the major purpose the actors are playing is to attract attention away from the others, more often than not by being the loudest.

Towards the end of the half hour (which drags when my interest is not held and sustained), Brain Damage seems to be suffering from “the things that swirls around in my head” and his final comment is, “You all need to get out more.” So I do, happily, wondering if I should ever have come in.

On the way home I can’t help wondering (illicit thinking again) if the whole thing was a moralistic diatribe against over-consuming all-consuming television, showing us how it will damage our brains, especially if we also play with certain sorts of toys and pig out on fast food, sugar drinks and booze. But that is hardly something to be discovered in “the deepest recesses of the human mind”.

If (here’s a thought!) we all sat in the unused audience seats and witnessed snippets of each scene, in turn, we’d be able to asses whether all the hard work the cast and crew have put into Brain Damage amounts to an intriguing mosaic of differing perceptions of, or reactions to, a killing, or a load of pretentious codswallop.

Consider the writer/director’s programme note (with my comments interpolated):

“Often our compulsion for comprehension prevents us from truly appreciating an experience we have had.”
But when we appreciate something, we like to mention it to others and it’s hard to articulate anything about it with “comprehending” it – right?

“Our ability to understand and connect with another human being can become impaired by our desire for understanding and knowing the details of another’s life.”
Given all opinion is based on perception, gained consciously or unconsciously through various senses, why is it and “impairment” to know more rather than less?

“What if we can never truly know everything, what if we are not meant to?”
Of course it’s impossible to “know everything”. It is a high level of enlightenment to know what (and that) we don’t know and perfectly human to seek knowledge and understanding. If that was not so we’d still be living in caves. As for “what if we are not meant to?” – according to which pope? Or is such a question out of order in your view?

“Brain Damage is exactly that, it is your experience into the unknown, and what you feel and what you comprehend at the conclusion of our performance is truly your own event and yours alone.”
Bollocks. It is totally provoked by the characters, situations, interactions and dramatisations you have created according to some conscious or unconscious principles and made available to us within a specific time and space. But you have denied us the freedom to fully “experience” the content, let alone engage with it in any potentially satisfying way, because the format guarantees each one of us can only ever get random access to parts of it.

So for me – and me alone? – it amounts to a pointless exercise.
_______________________________
For more production details, click on the title above. Go to Home page to see other Reviews, recent Comments and Forum postings (under Chat Back), and News.  

Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer