The Trial of the Cannibal Dog
02/03/2008 - 05/03/2008
New Zealand International Arts Festival
Production Details
One of the greatest and most startling of all human journeys is revisited in The Trial of the Cannibal Dog, a contemporary operatic and theatrical adaptation of Anne Salmond’s award-winning book.
Vividly recreating Cook’s Pacific voyages, it revolves around the reverberations of one dramatic event that would eventually decide Cook’s fate. The mock trial and execution of a native dog is enacted by Cook’s crew, but who is really being judged – the Māori warrior who had murdered 10 of their fellow explorers on a previous visit to the South Island? Or Cook himself? The resulting cultural collisions between the Europeans and the indigenous people of the South Pacific leave the crew as much changed by what happens as the islanders they meet.
The Trial of the Cannibal Dog combines operatic and non-operatic voices, European and Māori instrumental performance, a chorus of dogs and live digital audio to create a unique form of musical theatre that blends contemporary and 18th century English styles.
2007 Lexus’ Song Quest winner Phillip Rhodes will star as the Māori Chief and will perform alongside renowned sopranos Deborah Wai Kapohe (Tahitian Queen) and Janet Roddick (Cook’s wife, Elizabeth) who are joined by young Australian baritone, Andrew Collis as Captain Cook.
The Trial of the Cannibal Dog traces Cook’s downfall in a story that still has resonance to this day.
CAST:
Captain Cook: Andrew Collis
Elizabeth Cook: Janet Roddick
Chief: Phillip Rhodes
Queen: Deborah Wai Kapohe
Shore Dogs: Mere Tokorahi Boynton, Teina Moetara
Sea Dogs: Hadleih Adams, Brendon Casey, Nigel Collins, Nick Dunbar
Banks/Officer: Hadleigh Adams
DESIGNERS:
Set design: Penny Fitt
Costume design: Kate Hawley
Lighting design: David Eversfield
Sound design: Konrad Kaczmarek
2 hrs, incl. interval
Cultural clash story turns into important opera
Review by John Daly-Peoples 21st Mar 2008
With The Trial of the Cannibal Dog the international festival presented us with the most important, relevant and engaging opera of the New Zealand opera repertoire.
Based on Dame Anne Salmond’s book, it is a tale of cultural clash and adaptation, the impacts of which rippled across the globe and down to the present day. The work straddles myth and history, weaving together individual and collective cultural memories.
The music by Mathew Suttor is a fine piece of minimalist writing, which owes much to John Adams just as the work itself brings together the themes of Adams’ two major works The Death of Klinghoffer and Nixon in China. The music contains elements of elegant 18th century music and jazz rhythms as well as the drama of the contemporary and includes Māori instruments to marvellous effect.
The action of the opera is bookended by a contemporary medical operation involving Cook so there is a sense this adventure is a also an intervention to change the heart and the memory of what happened and what it means to us today.
The multi-layered rich libretto is occasionally a bit too dense, saved only by the use of surtitles.
Janet Roddick as Mrs Cook gave a finely articulated delivery tinged with love and regret and she was paired often with Deborah Wai Kapohe who gave a riveting performance as the Pacific Island Queen.
Andrew Collis gave an effortless performance, eloquently depicting the flawed, heroic Cook.
Director Christian Penny’s team of Penny Fitt (set design), Kate Hawley (costume), David Eversfield (lighting) and Konrad Kaczmarek (sound) provided an environment worthy of this intelligent and sophisticated production.
Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer
Dog of an opera a trial to its audience
Review by William Dart 06th Mar 2008
If New Zealanders were not such a mild-mannered, respectful lot, there might have been some audience vociferation during the first performance of Matthew Suttor and John Downie’s The Trial of the Cannibal Dog.
There were certainly empty seats after the opera’s mystifying first half and, come the next day, Radio New Zealand’s Eva Radich and Paul Bushnell were vehement on air in their condemnation of the work. [More]
Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer
Comments
Make a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Make a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Throw the dog a different libretto
Review by Pepe Becker 03rd Mar 2008
More than a few pun-like expressions spring to mind (eg: "trying" and "a dog’s breakfast") as the final scene of Trial of the Cannibal Dog draws to a close.
Though the opera itself is not what I would call a resounding triumph, nonetheless it has moments of fascinating ingenuity, and the execution of the work by the performers is highly commendable. The cast and crew and musicians do a sterling job, working with the jumbled and somewhat incongruous libretto by John Downie and a sometimes uneasy and inconsistent musical scoring by composer Matthew Suttor.
In the libretto there are definitely moments of intellectual cleverness, as well as some earthy wit (though even for this enjoyer of a good rude joke, some of the toilet-humour is a tad too obvious), but overall it left me perplexed and dissatisfied as a listener.
I have to confess to not having read Anne Salmond’s book (on which the libretto is based), but I wonder how faithful this adaptation is to the original, and to history itself. An attempt is made, at the end of the show, to bring relevance of the story and nearly-250-year-old inter-cultural relationships into today’s world – we are the living history of this place – but for me this modern epilogue was too much of a sudden jump forward, rather than a natural flow from preceding events.
Of the music itself, I enjoyed the instrumental writing more than the vocal: the sung lines are often pitched awkwardly for the lower voices, making projection at times difficult, and the monotonous repetition of one particular ‘quadratonic’ phrase towards the end of the opera (with too many unaccented syllables ending up on the highest note) lingers in the memory for the wrong reasons.
That said, much of the instrumental writing is very accomplished and rhythmically interesting, creating apt atmosphere, and the duet between the Tahitian Queen and Cook’s wife is an example of very good operatic writing, allowing the sensational voices of Deborah Wai Kapohe and Janet Roddick to shine.
Vocal highlights for me included the thrilling waiata and karanga interjections from Mere Tokorahi Boynton (consistently sincere and energetic in her delivery) and the evocative koauau-like falling minor thirds sung beautifully by the Queen (Wai Kapohe) at Cook’s death. The chorus of Shipdogs and Seadogs (Nigel Collins – his robust and accurate tenor voice of particular note, Brendan Casey, Hadleigh Adams, Nick Dunbar; and Mere Boynton with Teina Moetara) give strong performances, powerful and agile in voice and movement throughout.
The Captain himself (Andrew Collis) becomes more convincing as the opera progresses – perhaps first-night nerves could account for his slightly flat (in musical and theatrical terms) opening lines? – and his interactions with the Chief (sung with full integrity by Phillip Rhodes) were interesting food for thought.
The integration of taonga puoro and other Māori musical aspects in the opera (including the ‘Moteatea’ composed by Teina Moetara) are a definite plus: these indigenous sounds often seem to have direct visceral impact on, and significance for, all New Zealanders, no matter what their cultural background or bent.
A lot of energy and drive from a lot of people has gone into every part of this opera, and the production and creative team have much to be proud of.
Penny Fitt’s set design is very clever, using stretchy angled slats to represent a navigation chart, a ship’s ‘ribs’ (and a dog’s, perhaps) and provide a base on which to project various images (all expertly realised by lighting designer David Eversfield). Kate Hawley’s costume design is a successful mix of conventional and quirky.
Peter Scholes does an excellent job of conducting the small but highly professional orchestral ensemble and cast of singers through what sounds to be a very demanding score; and Christian Penny’s overall direction is inventive and visually cohesive.
The thing that lets the show down, however, is its libretto – and unfortunately, that is one of its most integral components! If someone threw the dog a different bone – one that’s less dense and convoluted, more accessible and directly palatable to the general populace, whom of course any staged show, musical or otherwise, should be designed to communicate and entertain – perhaps this opera could reach its full potential as an informative and thought-provoking work of artistry.
Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer
Comments
Rachel Robbins March 21st, 2008
Well, this all sounds jolly and gay to John. However his use of pseudonyms was exposed quite some time ago on this site and that he continued to use them as cover to launch attacks on productions is extraordinary. Putting that aside, clearly he needs reminding that in the past he has warned us off pseudonyms by telling us he had acquired powerful software to trace posters' IP details and thus expose multiple identities. Now that he's been exposed the question obviously arises: how many more identities has he been using?John Smythe March 20th, 2008
An encounter with Christian Penny prompts me to declare it was an error of judgement on my part to post the first comment in this stream under the pseudonym Moya Bannerman. [For a full explanation go to: Forum / 'Some thoughts on Pseudonyms' and scroll down - it's the 90th posting to that topic.]
I have argued elsewhere that it is our theatrical stock in trade to invent characters to articulate different points of view in order to provoke rigorous enquiry into a question or issue, and I still think that’s valid where the focus remains on the issue or question. But in this case it was a very personal response and I should have owned it – not least because it diverted the stream from a more useful course of debate.
As soon as I became aware that the critic John Daly-Peoples had expressed a completely different opinion in the National Business Review, I emailed him, the arts editor and the editor (on Monday 17 March) asking if they would sent me the text so I could add it to this site. (It is not posted to the NBR website so I was not able to simply set up a link.) I have not yet had a reply. I still hope to acquire the review and permission to post it. [This has now been sent and may be found on
http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=1319 ]
Meanwhile, I reiterate my views on The Trial of the Cannibal Dog here, under my own name:
____________________________________
I completely agree with the roasting Paul Bushnell and his reviewer gave this Dog on National Radio this afternoon, and Pepe Becker’s review here hits the nail on the head: John Downie’s libretto should never have been let out of its cage. It’s so convoluted in every respect – multi-syllabic words and pretentious locutions that strangle and smother any possibility of musical expression, and even just taking the text on its own, it reads like a mangled translation from a long-forgotten language of an unstructured story that goes nowhere – or tries to go in too may directions and therefore gets nowhere, slowly.
The final scene where Cook, as a modern day surgeon, blathers on to the Chief as his post-surgery patient about getting his swing back and meeting him on the golf course … Words fail me. Bollocks. Dog’s bollocks? Nah – that’s a euphemism for something good and this most certainly is not.
Yes the set and lighting design is fantastic and the singing and acting is fine. Even so, I think this production has misappropriated Anne Salmond’s work – it’s name and her name – and they should apologise.
P.S. The dog ears looked good but by making everyone look like a dog, doesn’t that totally sabotage the significance of putting a dog on trial because Cook failed to take retribution for the clear provocation of killing and eating ten sailors?
P.P.S. The bare-bum bonking sequence, doggie-style, might have been amusing at the time but now – given the director is Maori – I take it as a mass whakapohane and I am duly insulted.
Rachel Robbins March 5th, 2008
The thing about John's use of a pseudonym, at least the one we know about, was that it sounded like a real person: Moya Bannerman. Hiding behind it John could then give weight to opinions about others which he didn't want to give to their faces. So while John might want to publicly display sympathy for the petulance of Martyn Roberts, for example, he could then turn round and caustically castigate it under the guise of Moya. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. Unless you're Martyn Roberts. But things become more confusing when we have John overseeing and monitoring a debate on the use or otherwise of pseudonyms and getting on his high horse and trumpeting on about someone's computer being responsible for 38 different identities. If I were Cameron Rhodes, I'd be grinning.Algernon March 5th, 2008
Bunberrying?!nik smythe March 4th, 2008
true, sorry... i hadn't refreshed the page since this afternoon so didn't read the update before posting my excessively valuable contribution... d'oh...martyn roberts March 4th, 2008
its like watching a multi-personality afflicted person arguing with themselves...nik smythe March 4th, 2008
I just searched for 'Moya' and 'Bannerman' on the Lumiere website, and found nothingJohn Smythe March 4th, 2008
Sprung. I genuinely forgot. No fraud intended, my very useful friend Moya agreed to correct something without my having to play one-uomanship with a colleague.T MEEK March 4th, 2008
John, stop it. Stop pretending. Last year you wrote to Lumiere under your pseudonym Moya Bannerman and commented on a review by Melody Nixon of Two Brothers at Circa. You corrected Melody's piece, stating, "I quote from John Smythe's http://www.theatreview.org.nz review..." Why didn't you just write to Lumiere under your own name? Did modesty forbear? Oh, you're such a dreadful old fraud, John!Moya Bannerman March 4th, 2008
That's news to me - I have never done that. Why would I? Lumiere always tags their reviews for shows theatreview reviews with a link to this site.T MEEK March 4th, 2008
If you go to Lumiere you find "Moya Bannerman" sends in comments recommending John's insights on theatreview.com.John Smythe March 4th, 2008
Rachel, I did not review Trial of the Cannibal Dog, Pepe Becker did. Her clarity about what was commendable and what was not makes for an excellent review in my opinion. 'Moya's rave expands on points Pepe made and is not inconsistent. And sometimes - more often than not - the points being made are more important than who is making them.The Land of the Jumblies March 4th, 2008
Um, I'd say that's 'fair' if you're not a fan of logic, and you're waiting for the Queen of Hearts to show up. In what way does that tortured sense of events work? I mean, if we take your point, that the nom-de-plume is so well known, then the attack is equally damaging anyway. If we don't accept this, then it's hypocritical to adopt a shrill moral tone and wag your finger at people, then not follow your own 'rules'. In either case, it's a bizarre justification you've just offered.Rachel Robbins March 4th, 2008
In reply to Tina Meek -- Tina, John has been public about his use of pseudonyms (see the Forum thread on this) and everyone seems to know one of his identities is Moya Bannerman. So this is not a general matter of John's use of pseudonyms. This is more specific. John, under his own name, and presumably not wanting to offend or put in jeopardy the International Festival's major local production, contributed a pretty bland review of what seems to be a dire show. But then he added slashing comments under a pseudonym. Reading John's review, you'd still be inclined to fork out a large sum of money and go to Cannibal Dog. Reading Moya's comments, you'd spend your dough elsewhere. There are issues here. Fair?T MEEK March 4th, 2008
"And who, or what, are you, Moya? In principle I think dismissals like this should only be made by people using their own real names. Fair?"e. v March 3rd, 2008
well, the author loves it so i dont think they have to apologise to her moya. the book was used as a starting point, not meant to be a direct translation/interpretation or however you want to say it..Moya Bannerman March 3rd, 2008
I completely agree with the roasting Paul Bushnell and his reviewer gave this Dog on National Radio this afternoon, and Pepe Becker’s review here hits the nail on the head: John Downie’s libretto should never have been let out of its cage. It’s so convoluted in every respect – multi-syllabic words and pretentious locutions that strangle and smother any possibility of musical expression, and even just taking the text on its own, it reads like a mangled translation from a long-forgotten language of an unstructured story that goes nowhere – or tries to go in too may directions and therefore gets nowhere, slowly. The final scene where Cook, as a modern day surgeon, blathers on to the Chief as his post-surgery patient about getting his swing back and meeting him on the golf course … Words fail me. Bollocks. Dog’s bollocks? Nah – that’s a euphemism for something good and this most certainly is not. Yes the set and lighting design is fantastic and the singing and acting is fine. Even so, I think this production has misappropriated Anne Salmond’s work – it’s name and her name – and they should apologise. P.S. The dog ears looked good but by making everyone look like a dog, doesn’t that totally sabotage the significance of putting a dog on trial because Cook failed to take retribution for the clear provocation of killing and eating ten sailors? P.P.S. The bare-bum bonking sequence, doggie-style, might have been amusing at the time but now – given the director is Maori – I take it as a mass whakapohane and I am duly insulted.Make a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Cannibal Dog goes wandering
Review by John Button 03rd Mar 2008
In Anne Salmond’s book, tracing all three of Cook’s Pacific journeys, there is a central point where, in returning to Grass Cove, the scene of the massacre and eating of 10 of the Adventure’s men in 1773, Cook had surprised both his own men and the local Māori, by exacting no retribution.
He lost mana from both and, indeed, the midshipmen and masters mates held a mock trial of a Māori dog (kuri). The dog was convicted of cannibalism, sentenced, executed and eaten. Perfect material, you might say, for dramatic treatment, but how would it fare as an opera? Well, I must say the result is distinctly mixed. [More]
Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer
Comments
Make a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Make a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments