THEATRE
Moby Dick, or The Whale
Oran Mor, Glasgow
Mary Brennan
FOUR STARS
Some narratives are so epic in length and thematic content that rendering them into a lunchtime Classic Cut seems foolhardy, if not impossible - would this be Moby Dick: The Minnow? Indeed, when Ishmael reveals the source of Ahab's vengeful obsession - it is a fish, but I won't spoil the surprise - it looks as if J.C. Marshall's adaptation is making light of Melville's mighty tale. Not so. Instead, the bones of Melville's novel become a vivid foray into novel-writing, with Ishmael (Robert Jack) producing a note-book and thereafter introducing sections with a chapter number - not in strict linear order, however, but in a random way that suggests how ideas come to mind, and then take shape.
A sea shanty initially sets the scene - live music (by the cast) will create soundscapes throughout - but in a trice Ahab (Meg Fraser, eyes and voice burning with delusional hatred) is venting against Moby Dick, as if the whale is a malicious adversary, rather than a creature fighting for survival. Robert Jack and Harry Ward (who also devised the sound design) join Fraser in playing the handful of characters needed to convey the full cost and folly of Ahab's destructive quest. Ward's Queequeg, for instance - now with a strangely appropriate Glesca' accent - gives physical immediacy to the dangers risked by a harpoonist, Jack's Captain Stubb expresses a father's grief over a son lost to the whale, a grief unheeded by the driven Ahab. It's a tremendous cast, urgent yet poetic, thrillingly attuned to Melville's style - as if Gareth Nicholls' direction - even when at its most didactic. If only Ahab had taken the same joy in nature as Queequeg... but then, that would have been a very different story.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article