Home
Reviews
Archive
Listings
About Us
Email

Production

Blood Binds

Company

Magdalena (Singapore) and the Substation

Reviewer

Ng Yi-Sheng

Date

21/08/2008 and 24/08/2008

Time

8.00pm and 3.00pm respectively

Place

The Drama Centre Black Box

Rating

***

Four Her

Since the '70s, women have played a vital role in the writing of Singapore theatre. Just think how much poorer our brief dramatic history would've been without the words of Stella Kon, Li Lienfung, Eleanor Wong, Ovidia Yu, Leow Puay Tin, Li Xie, Alin Mosbit, Selena Tan and Natalie Hennedige. These women have probed, played with and pushed our conceptions of local theatre, creating compelling and challenging works that break new ground, showing us a way forward.

So it's puzzling to me, first of all, that this year's Singapore Theatre Festival lineup should include so few women playwrights, and, second of all, why those few women playwrights should have created works so distressingly safe.

Yup, that's what I said: safe. Of the four plays presented at Blood Binds, three were naturalistic domestic dramas dealing with issues of family ties, generation gaps and the lives of the elderly, while the last resorted to the slightly clichéd feminist tactic of exploring the voices of mythological women. Nothing terribly ambitious or new this time; nothing earth-shattering, paradigm-shifting or sensational.

Perhaps this is okay. Not all drama has to run on sensationalism and high concept, after all: there are playwrights like Jean Tay who write beautifully and consistently without being purposefully deviant or experimental.

Still, I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish the authors of Blood Binds had been a wee bit more ambitious, trying to pull off crazy scripts that'd never have been given a staging without the endorsement of the festival.

Let's have a look in depth. The first night begins with Dora Tan's Just Late (***1/2), arguably the best script of the lot. It's textbook in its craft of storytelling, systematically balancing wants against obstacles, concealing and revealing details about its characters and thus shifting about our sympathies like counters on a checkerboard.

The plot's pretty simple: a blind old man unwittingly allows two burglars into his house, mistaking them for his grandchildren whom he's expecting to arrive for his birthday party. First the male robber, then his girlfriend, begin to empathise with the old man, growing closer to him by degrees as he complains about his unfilial children - who of course never turn up to his self-cooked birthday party.

It's only at the end of the play that we discover the reason for this callous abuse, but along the way we're treated to a long-distance phone call, a suicide attempt and a very campy policeman investigating a blackout. True, the humour's more slapstick than sparkling, and the level of language is a bit off - would an old man in Singapore really complain that someone's lacking a "sensitivity chip"? - but the show never gets dull or stupid or tireseome. The focus is on the storytelling, and quite simply, it works.

What's ever-so-slightly problematic for me is the fact that this piece is being featured in a festival of new theatre, when it'd been staged before, just last year, with a low-key performance by Faithworks. It just proves my point: there are other opportunities to stage works like this. (No real complaints, though - this is a script that deserves more exposure.)

With this run, I thought acting and direction standards were pretty good, though never quite breathtaking. Sure, I'll grant that the pacing of obstacles preventing the robbers' departure was very well done - I remember in particular a magic moment when the male robber puts his hand out of a window, feeling the imaginary rain. And while I hadn't thought Jerry Hoh was remarkable during the show, I was pretty impressed when I discovered that in real life he was not an old blind man - his act was convincing without being impresario.

Next up is Ng Swee San's Bond-Age (**1/2), coming right after the intermission. Thematically, the pairing's perfect: here we also encounter themes of ageing and family, as we're introduced to a pair of old frenemies: the shakily diffident Agnes and the spunky, spiteful May, who convinces Agnes to bust her out of hospital.

In terms of quality, however, Bond-Age just can't cut the mustard. This is partially the playwright's fault: Ng's script never really progresses, ending after two long scenes with the two old ladies more exhausted from their snipings and hobblings around the hospital rather than actually having found emotional resolution - more like the beginning of a play than a full, finished work. The grudges between the characters also remain puzzlingly unclear - whose son did what and who betrayed or slept with whom in the ancient past?

But alas, what really kills the play is the acting. Loke Loo Pin is horribly micast as Agnes: her attempts to cower and appear nervous and defensive are halting and clumsy, totally robbing her character of any believability. Though a veteran actress, she stumbles over her words, unable to convey any sense of emotional tension, breakdown or outburst - her very presence ends up slowing down the play to a snail's pace.

Taking the role of May, Bridget Therese Lachicha fights back against this stultification: she plays the acerbic, imperious invalid with grace, charm and energy, shooting insults at her old companion even when wobbling on crutches or stuck in bed. Still, she can't save the show: a two-hander like this depends on both actresses pulling their weight.

There are moments, however, when the piece succeeds, especially when Ng's script describes the process of growing old with unexpected frankness. Her heroines battle with memory loss, the hassles of illegal medication and incontinence - there's even a painfully comedic scene where Agnes wets her panties while trying to use the disabled toilet. I was also intrigued by hints of Agnes having a sexual affair - but, like most of the script, this just wasn't developed enough.

On to the second night. There's a looser theme here, concerning the role of woman as progenitor. Tan Suet Lee's Sperm (**1/2) deals with this on a reproductive level: it tells the story of Margaret, a 43 year-old woman attempting to have a child by advertising for a sperm donor through the classifieds.

Tan's written the piece as a sitcom-esque, screwball comedy: we've got antics galore as Margaret's mother Rose returns early from her holiday abroad and stumbles upon the porn collection she's prepared for the donor, then more chuckles when the donor turns out to be a gay hairdresser believing his customer's been actually seeking not sperm, but "a perm", then a whole bunch of confessions and heartfelt hugs before a happy ending.

I didn't like it. As before, this could be blamed on the acting: Karen Lim was a whiny, two-dimensional Margaret, while Beatrice Chien's hearty portrayal of the old but vigorous Rose was spoiled when she kept flubbing her lines. Though things warmed up a bit in the second half, the energy wasn't really there for a good, tight performance.

The playwright doesn't get off scot-free, though. Her script may win points among virgin theatregoers with its easy laughs and overwrought moments of drama, but a jaded critic like me found it simplistic and heavy-handed. Why should we even need a discussion over a modern woman's right to reproductive choices? Why all this effort to portray Fabian the hairdresser as a gay role model, so exemplarily monogamous that his story inspires Rose to propose that he and Margaret make a baby together after all? This is a play that would've mattered in the repressed '90s, but in the swinging '00s, it feels irrelevant. It's amusing, but I just can't buy it.

I'm quite a fan of the last play of the set, however. Verena Tay's The Lunar Interviews (***1/2) goes beyond its tired premise of presenting voices of various goddesses of the moon and instead becomes an extended poetic essay on the relationship between women and language.

My favourite of the play's seven segments has to be the first, where the three actresses describe the difficult process of textual creation using the dense, visceral imagery of childbirth. I'm also appreciative of the stories of everyday women who talk too much or too little, sandwiching the stories of the goddesses, cementing the lot into a modulated whole that transcended expectations.

The goddess monologues themselves vary in quality. I wasn't wild about the tale of Hina, the housewife who escapes her scolding husband to become a Polynesian moon goddess, nor of the tales of the Roman goddess Diana, who defies tradition by remaining a virgin. Young actresses Renee Chua and Elizabeth Gott perform these roles decently, but with a certain blandness - these speeches aren't really exciting in any way.

Undoubtedly, the star of the show is Fanny Kee, who makes the most of her monologue as the Chinese moon goddess Chang-Er, giggling, simpering and dancing her way into our hearts. Tay does a good job rewriting this familiar character as a court lady thriving on gossip, selfish and occasionally bawdy - quite unlike, and yet not alien to the ethereal archetype we've seen so often on mooncake boxes.

The play's epilogue is a disappointment - the actresses offer up multiple interpretations of the moon in relatively prosaic language, concluding with the rather bathetic aphorism that the moon (and hence womanhood) is anything we want it to be. Still, I'm definitely impressed with the work as a whole: it's the first time in years of reading and watching Verena Tay's works that I've seen her tapping into such a wellspring of poetry for a script.

The sad thing is, I couldn't become completely absorbed by the performance because of its little kinks - the younger actresses aren't as well physically trained and coordinated as Kee, and the director had made some pretty iffy choices about set and prop design. The performers struggled to maneuver and control their huge, clunky, circular props, pathetically flapping around white strips of printed paper supposedly evocative of the intimacy of language. It's the perpetual hazard of trying something new in theatre: every tentative step runs the risk of looking absurd.

With its low profile and relatively modest ambitions, I'd definitely say that Blood Binds was the most honest of the ticketed events in this year's Festival. Unashamedly, it presented itself as a lab for developing writers rather than a ra-ra celebration of the best the local theatre scene has to offer - so I'm inclined to be forgiving of the flaws in these works, and fully prepared to see what the playwrights offer next.

And to be frank, our focus should be on what happens next, because these four short plays aren't going to leave an impact on our theatre scene. This shouldn't worry the feminists among us: besides these four authors, there are other emerging women playwrights, such as Cheryl Lee, Fezhah Maznan, Christine Sim, and of course Zizi Azah bte Abdul Majid, who've impressed us already with their first works and are bound to continue writing.

There is, after all, a wealth of drama to be gleaned from the female experience that male writers just can't reach. Blood Binds may not have changed Singapore theatre, but rest assured: Singapore women will.

First Impression (Bond-Age and Just Late)

In this doublebill, playwrights Dora Tan and Ng Swee San turn their gaze on the place of senior citizens in our society - neglected by their children, betrayed by their ageing bodies, yet still full of dignity and anger. Tan's play Just Late (***1/2) does this most successfully: we're drawn into the life of a blind old man as we witness two robbers burgling his home on his 70th birthday, alternately tickled by situational comedy and touched as we delve deeper and deeper into his sad biography. In fact, my only grievance with the play is that it's not very ambitious - it accomplishes beautifully what it sets out to do within the tiny, domestic limits of its scope.

By contrast, Ng's piece is more daring - "Bond-Age" (**1/2) offers an uncompromising look at ageing in its tale of two old women as one attempts to escape from a hospital. It's a delightfully frank affair, complete with sex, drugs, mysterious grudges and adult diapers. Unfortunately, the performance is dragged down by inconsistent acting and a lack of clear directionality in its second half, coming to an end rather suddenly without a satisfying resolution.

First Impression (Sperm and The Lunar Interviews)

Tan Suet Lee's Sperm (**1/2) doesn't really work for me. True, the story's very charming - a mother and her single, middle-aged daughter clash when the latter decides to get pregnant via DIY insemination, engendering a drama of merry mix-ups and explorations of the changing definition of the family. Still, neither the sitcom-esque comedy nor the more pointedly meaningful monologues are handled very well - the acting is stilted, lacking the requisite energy for a good, tight play.

Verena Tay's The Lunar Interviews (***1/2), on the other hand, is modulated, delicious and intense: using the recurring motifs of the moon and the goddesses thereof, the playwright describes a complex of relationships between women, language and power, drawing on a wellspring of poetry I've never seen before in her writing. A few clumsy moments pop up, stemming from inexperience in physical theatre and some extremely cumbersome props. But at the end of the day, I'm satisfied: this is a good piece of theatre.


"It's puzzling to me, first of all, that this year's Singapore Theatre Festival lineup should include so few women playwrights, and, second of all, why those few women playwrights should have created works so distressingly safe"

Credits

Directors: Adrian Tan, Shelly Quick

Playwrights: Dora Tan, Ng Swee San, Tan Suet Lee and Verena Tay

Lighting Design: Rabita Jamal

Sound Design: Stephanie Kwok

Costume and Props Design: Suan Yip Ling

Videographer: Vincent Yap

Producers: Verena Tay, Audrey Wong

Production Stage Manager: Lim Beng Siew

Assistant Stage Manager: Siti Raudha Tehan

Cast: Ghazi Alqudcy, Jerry Hoh, Chris Lee, Daphne Ong, Bridget Therese Lachicha, Loke Loo Pin, Beatrice Chien, Karen Lim, Ernest Seah, Renee Chua, Elizabeth Gott and Fanny Kee

More Reviews by Ng Yi-Sheng

Ratings out of 5, based on Practitioner's Vision / Reviewer's Response: ***** = Transcendent / Rapturous;
**** = Crystal / Appreciative; *** = Transmitted / Thoughtful; ** = Vague / Unsatisfied; * = Uncommunicated / Mystified.


To break between paragraphs, type <br><br>

Readers' Comments


From: The Editor (matthewlyon@myway.com / Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 23:19:20)

Got anything to say about the review or the production? Click the button above to let us know.

From: Audrey (audrey@substation.org / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 13:33:30)


From: Audrey (audrey@substation.org / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 14:07:51)

hi Yi-Sheng, I'm glad you recognised that Blood Binds was conceived as a lab for the playwrights. It's the result of the playwrights meeting regularly as a group (the Play Pen group) and I could see that they've enjoyed the process of peer critique and discussion. I'm sure the playwrights will be the first to say that yes, the scripts aren't perfect, and feedback is welcome; many thanks to the Theatre Festival for giving us a voice. As to whether the plays are 'safe' - yes, compared to most of the other shows I've produced (and you'd know them!), these can be said to be on the 'safe' end of the spectrum since they (mostly) follow the narrative/character-driven, well-made play model, except for Verena's script. I agree with you that this is probably Verena's most exciting script. What was meaningful to me about Blood Binds was that stories about an older generation were being told on stage, and it's a rare thing to see the mundane struggles of remembering all your medication, going to the toilet, etc. on the Singapore stage. I didn't fully realise the impact of this until we received audience feedback at Blood Binds and discovered that the plays resonated with them. The audience responded to the honesty of the work - I'm glad that this came across. It was also good to work with two directors who aren't that well-known in Singapore but have plenty to offer - their reading of the texts, thoughtfulness about using the theatre space, etc were mostly spot-on, and they took on the risk of bringing new texts to life with gusto. Interestingly, I did enjoy Loo Pin's and Bridget's performances; there was a certain discomfort there which I felt fitted the tone of the play. Anyway, I wonder whether there's still a role for the well-made play here in Singapore and how we can nurture the further development of Singapore writers. If Suet Lee, Dora, Swee San and Verena keep honing their craft and come up with even better plays that are honest, well-crafted but could be perceived as 'safe' by critics like yourself, will they actually be produced?

From: Ng Yi-Sheng (ng.yisheng@gmail.com / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 17:29:28)

Oh wow! Comments! (ST journalist also told me she loved Bridget's performance, by the way. It might've been the effect of the matinee.)

Here's some feedback I received via e-mail by playwright Tan Suet Lee, reproduced with her consent:

Verena forwarded your review of Blood Binds to all of us, and I just wanted to share some things that you mentioned about Sperm that I felt were misunderstood in your review.

I have no problem with your analysis of my writing, about being 'sitcomesque and heavy handed etc" but there is something I want to say about the paragraph below. I'm sure it will have no impact on your view of the play, but I feel as the playwright I have the need to be better understood, and I hope that being a fellow writer you understand that.

" Why all this effort to portray Fabian the hairdresser as a gay role model, so exemplarily monogamous that his story inspires Rose to propose that he and Margaret make a baby together after all? This is a play that would’ve mattered in the repressed ‘90s, but in the swinging ‘00s, it feels irrelevant. "

You suggest that it is Fabian's exemplary monogamous relationship that inspires Rose to suggest that Margaret have a baby with him. But frankly, I didn't really consider that. True he is in a monogamous relationship, and that suggests he is able to commit, but really it wasn't a main consideration.

There are several turning points for Rose. One is on hearing Fabian's story, she is moved by the strength and courage of Fabian's mother and this makes her think about her own disapproval about Margaret's relationship with a married man. She is moved by how Fabian's mother's love for her son gave her the strength to stand against her husband, his prejudice and her marriage? It was really about accepting your child for who they are, even if they do not meet your expectations, or society's expectations. Society's expectations may be irrelevant to the young, but to the old, it is a real barrier to freedom. I have to share with you, that I got this inspiration from your book SQ21. Out of all the stories in there, the one that moved me (as a mother of 2 boys myself) was the story of a mother who did just that. Mothers in Singapore more than anywhere else have great expectations of their children. I have many friends who almost want to disown their kids for not coming top of the class. They see their children as investments, and they expect returns. How much more inspiring then to see a mother who can stand against all that.

But perhaps what really moves Rose (the mother) to see Fabian as a potential father is his character. His strength. His kindness and compassion as evidenced by the work that he does with old folks. Also she gives him a lot of prejudicial crap, but he is able to rise above that. He is still able to show her that respect and care. That takes strength of character and wisdom. These are the qualities of a good father.

Also, I dont see that the play mattering less in the "00s than the 90's. I was brought up in England and came to Singapore in 1991. So yes I have observed changes. In some sense things are a lot more liberal now. Back then, you would hardly see a guy and girl hold hands on the mrt. But the other day, I was at the esplanade and a couple of young kids were almost doing it on the bench outside the box office. So yes, for the younger generation things have changed. But I have sat through new years dinners and other dinners where gays are derided and being gay is still considered "abnormal." For the older generation, and I mean 40+ things haven't changed, as evidenced by the barrage of letters to the forum, when there were efforts to repeal sec 377a about "how we are a conservative Asian society." My intention in Sperm was to emphasise humanity, and the need to see beyond labels and to see people for who they are. For example, sexuality or marital status. is just one part of who a person is, why should it define everything they are? Also, if we have moved on so far as a society, why is it that the sperm banks in the hospitals here are only available for married women? And why are single women forgotten when it comes to government gifts? You're right, my play should be irrelevant, and perhaps it is if you live in UK, Aus or US etc. But Singapore? I don't know.

Thanks for listening.

Suet


From: Ng Yi-Sheng (ng.yisheng@gmail.com / Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 17:31:05)

Suet Lee further adds:

Another point I would like to add is that for me the play is about families, about parents and about parenting. The government favours the traditional nuclear structure, as does conservative Singaporeans. I'm just asking whether with rising divorce and infidelity that should be the only model. As I said in Singapore single women aren't encouraged and gay men are excluded from raising children. Whether a different family structure will fair any better than a nuclear one, remains to be seen, but I'm saying just because a person doesn't conform to society's expectations should they be excluded the gift of raising a family if they want one? Also the ending of the play isn't clear and wrapped up. It is to Rose because she has decided, and for her things are simple. Everything is clearly boxed. She is after all from an earlier generation when one got married, had children, and stayed in the marriage whatever happened. But for Fabian and Margaret things are unclear. At the end Margaret begins to protest, as Rose encourages more participation from Fabian as a potential father. For Fabian, he has other concerns. He doesn't agree with Margaret's motivations to have a child. Also he has to handle the newness of the idea that he could be a father and is unsure how that would affect his own relationship. Whether Fabian would ultimately donate his sperm to Margaret, I don't know.

Thanks

Suet