Review: William Shakespeare's Reservoir Dogs at Theatre Works

Review by Greg Gorton

If there is anything I hate more in theatre than a revolving stage, it is a production of Shakespeare where they are all gangsters - even Sam Worthington’s portrayal of Macbeth. In fact, add to that, soldiers, corporations, and schools. It’s not that they can’t be done well, it's simply that they are overdone.

So imagine my delight when I discovered that The Ghostlight League were putting on something that was very literally the opposite: a “Shakespearean translation” of Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs. Honestly, this is more than enough to recommend the show, even if I didn’t mention the live bard-core band. Oh yes, the entirety of one of the most banging movie soundtracks of all time is played live on stage throughout the night, complete with new lyrics and a pseudo-Elizabethan sound.

The set design for William Shakespeare's Reservoir Dogs at Theatre Works is deceptively original. While there is nothing original about building pallets (let me count the ways…), the carefully placed blocks allow for the cast to move seamlessly through different settings without needless set movement, while somehow both providing visual references to wood-not-steel world of yesteryear AND the bare and cold warehouse that the original film spent the majority of its time.

The band (composed of Liliana Braumberger, Lore Burns, Zac Rose, Chloe Towan, and Adam White) are absolutely phenomenal performers, being more than simply clever magicians. While they play a range of instruments through the night, they also take on minor roles in the show, with Towan’s Fool being so charming as to fit quite well in a production of Lear. 

Not all of the actors could pull off speaking Shakespearean (especially when it isn’t the words of the Bard himself, and sometimes not entirely fluid). For some audiences this will mean occasionally accepting the missed line, and having faith that it will all work out. 

There are some performances I think are well worth praising specifically. For the little that “Sir Orange” is given the chance to do, Elysia Janssen is very convincing as a dying person. Donna Winters’ “Lord Joseph” is perhaps the closest to their original counterpart (the late great Lawrence Tierney). Seon Williams as “Sir Pink” elevated the show more than any other, though, thanks to perfect annunciation of the difficult script, and a characterisation that had me completely forgetting that the original was played by Steve Buscemi.

The direction of this play is a little slapdash, and there is an impression that it relies heavily on actor decision making and finding ways to create visual mirrors to the film’s most recognisable frames. Sir White and Orange often look quite awkward on the ground, Mr Blonde’s dancing appears more like an actor improvising than a character moving to their own music, and the final stand-off looks quite ridiculous the second after you nod and say “yeah that kind of looks like the image”. I’m never quite sure of any of the character motivations in this production, despite the film’s characters (while ridiculous in nature) being very clear to understand.

Having said this, that same nature of the play offers a raw authenticity about it that harkens to the low-budget Tarantino debut that, when watched decades after you last did, has a lot less polish than the memory adds. There’s good arguments to be made for freedom to sometimes not look right, because not everything has to be.

Of course, the most stand out element of this production is the script itself. Written by Steven Hopley, this script is less an adaptation and more of a translation. Much of the work is surprisingly easy, turning “tips” into “gratuities”, “bars” into “taverns”, and “being shot” as “run in”. Other moments are far more witty, with flowery descriptions of tilling fields filling in for “being plowed”. Most importantly, many of Tarantino’s more problematic issues are improved upon, or at least offered with greater intelligence. I highly praise the new reworking of “Sir Pink” complaining about their name. 

Personally, I’m not sold that this should have been so close a translation, rather than an adaptation. The conceit is made quickly and effectively, proof offered early that such a translation can occur. Sticking to this, however, causes issues to arise. The dark violence of the film would be next to impossible to translate, though there is one very small and effective moment that survives quite well. Pacing is thrown off by scene changes, and taking three word sentence parts and turning them into ten word sentences. It’s difficult for audiences to catch everything said. Most importantly, in my opinion, you are missing out on the opportunity to “improve” the original film, to make it more yours.

I can’t help but think about films and theatre. I think about watching that terrible Sam Worthington film and instantly comparing his performance to Ian McKellen. Then I think about the fact that I have never once thought about comparing Julia Stiles in “Ten Things” to Elizabeth Taylor. Sometimes what we actually want IS an adaptation rather than something more loyal to the original text. Perhaps a play that told the story of Reservoir Dogs, with references instead of close-text readings, would have been a far more compelling piece, and avoid all the pitfalls the current script can’t.

I read back to myself and see a lot of criticism but it should be, and is in my mind, overshadowed by the fact that this is a very creative piece of theatre, as tasty a bubblegum as the original film, and should be enjoyed as a marvellous piece of entertainment with an Elizabethan twist. I have to admit to having expected only a good time from producers Rob Lloyd and Cassandra Hart, and I did not leave in disappointment.

Image Supplied