1729

Things to do

Performance Review: Chilling reminder that Zuckerberg’s monster is very much alive

Ben Hamilton
January 9th, 2023


This article is more than 1 year old.

★★★★★☆

The DNA helixes are one of many impressive visual effects used in the production (all photos: Laura Ioana V)

For a second, I was sucked in: this couple look … hot. Er, wow … sexy pose, rocking those leather pants – this is choreography worthy of a MTV video. And then I caught my breath: come on, leave it alone, director – we don’t need you overdoing this exchange between two sexually-charged lovers, holding one another on the morn of their wedding day like they can’t wait until their already multiply-consummated eve.

And that’s when it hit me. Dr Victoria Frankenstein (Jessica O’Hara-Baker) and her fiance (Nathan Meister) are holding one another in deliberate poses because that’s what they’re hardwired to do. They’re living in a dystopian future without imperfections, in which their entire existence is carefully staged, because that’s their second nature. They might have day jobs as scientists, but they’re also models, film stars and influencers. From the moment they were born (2023 is a reasonable guess), their entire lives have been documented by TikTok videos, SnapChat lenses and Instagram filters – does that sound familiar to any doting parents out there?

In this scene, director Nina Larissa Bassett embodies what is at the essence of Reumert Award-winning playwright Tanya Mastilo’s take on the Mary Shelley classic: a story of how social media will not rest until it has destroyed everything in its grasp. 

Jessica O’Hara-Baker and Nathan Meister sizzling in black. A raised knee finishes off the look

Theatre that makes you think
Or maybe I’m getting ahead of myself. As exciting as the realisation that Frankenstein’s monster (Sue Hansen Styles) – a wrinkled old woman quickly ostracised by society to exist as a pariah – might represent social media, it’s not the only truth in this brilliantly conceived play. It also functions equally well as a gripping tale of motherhood gone wrong. In fact, as luck would have it, we’re treated to a post-performance Q&A with the director and cast that underlines this is a team effort. Everything has been extremely well thought-out. Nobody overly mentions social media. Maybe it’s a bum steer.

But that’s irrelevant: ultimately good theatre should make you think, and this production of ‘Frankenstein’ is compellingly thought-provoking throughout, aided by an original atmospheric soundtrack by Barry Wesil – an eerie, menacing, foreboding presence, much like the monster itself. Wonderful visuals by Sofus Bassett, Valentin Christensen (both video) and Peter Rasmussen (lighting, or should that be shadowing) also impress: in the opening scene, they make the audience shiver into submission with a snowstorm plucked from the far reaches of the doctor’s soul, swiftly followed by an exchange of letters in which the doctor’s face becomes steadily more skullular – a forbearance of the events to come. All in all, this is perhaps the finest display of visual effects we’ve witnessed on an Anglophone theatre stage in Denmark. 

Also worthy of mention is the emergence of the monster, after patiently waiting inert in the middle of the stage for eight minutes, from her silky cocoon. There’s something distinctly creepy about faces outlined in fabric, but also something beautiful about limbs – another warning shot ahead of the familiar story of ‘Frankenstein’ unfolding. Because despite swapping the genders of the main characters, and changing the era, this version is pretty faithful to the original. Newcomers needn’t have read it, but hardened Frankenfans will have plenty to enjoy.

A mesmerising face in fabric scene as the Monster emerges from the cocoon

Another stellar showing from Why Not Theatre’s strong stable
In the initial letter exchange, there are question marks whether O’Hara-Baker, a newcomer to Why Not Theatre Company, can convince the audience she’s a scientist worthy of winning the Nobel Prize, even though she sounds like she’d settle for a few thousand likes on Facebook and free Starbucks coffee for life. But in person, she’s formidable: both matriarchal and malevolant, utterly convincing as a modern Prometheus to behold. Given how the world fell in love with Wednesday last month, her performance couldn’t be better timed.

Hansen Styles is not as wrinkled, or even ugly, as one might imagine the monster. If anything, she’s been prettified for the role, waif-like and dressed in a night-dress with hair longer than the Why Not Theatre artistic director normally wears it. We’re in ‘What Ever Happened to Baby Jane’ territory, and she’s creepy enough without the need for pigtails. Initially, we’re told she’s killed somebody, and it’s hard to believe ‘she’s a killer’, but before long, we’re pretty terrified too of this outer-worldly being: not least because Hansen Styles refuses to sit still, shape-shifting her way towards her goals. 

Completing the trio, but in three roles, is Why Not Theatre regular Nathan Meister. He’s very much the support act in this somewhat Aryan turn, but some wonderful insights (and moments of humour) in the Q&A reveal his involvement in bringing this one “alive”. An invaluable member of the Why Not Theatre gang, it can only be a matter of time before he’s given directorial duties for one of their plays.

Hansen Styles squares up to O’Hara-Baker on the operating table

One slight blemish, and it isn’t the freckles
So why not give it six stars, given the immense quality on display? 

Well, for one simple reason: for many in the audience, a fair portion of the action was impossible to see. Every time the actors sank to the floor, the performance sank with it. The audience started to contort, bob and swerve, like an enormous game of Tetris was unfolding in the rows below, as it strained to see what was going on. Much of Hansen Styles’ metamorphosis and subsequent efforts to walk were lost, along with at least one death scene and some crucial scribbling in the snow.

It was the only blemish on what was a superb night of theatre. Until January 28, you too can find out what all the fuss is about.

One of several scenes that unfortunately got lost in the game of Tetris

Share

Most popular

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive The Daily Post

















Latest Podcast

A survey carried out by Megafon for TV2 has found that 71 percent of parents have handed over children to daycare in spite of them being sick.

Moreover, 21 percent of those surveyed admitted to medicating their kids with paracetamol, such as Panodil, before sending them to school.

The FOLA parents’ organisation is shocked by the findings.

“I think it is absolutely crazy. It simply cannot be that a child goes to school sick and plays with lots of other children. Then we are faced with the fact that they will infect the whole institution,” said FOLA chair Signe Nielsen.

Pill pushers
At the Børnehuset daycare institution in Silkeborg a meeting was called where parents were implored not to bring their sick children to school.

At Børnehuset there are fears that parents prefer to pack their kids off with a pill without informing teachers.

“We occasionally have children who that they have had a pill for breakfast,” said headteacher Susanne Bødker. “You might think that it is a Panodil more than a vitamin pill, if it is a child who has just been sick, for example.”

Parents sick and tired
Parents, when confronted, often cite pressure at work as a reason for not being able to stay at home with their children.

Many declare that they simply cannot take another day off, as they are afraid of being fired.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, a professor of virology at KU, has heavily criticised the parents’ actions, describing the current situation as a “vicious circle”.

“It promotes the spread of viruses, and it adds momentum to a cycle where parents are pressured by high levels of sick-leave. If they then choose to send the children to daycare while they are still recovering, they keep the epidemic going in daycares, and this in turn puts a greater burden on the parents.”