Good Common Evil
Fri, 21 July 2000, 07:37 pmWalter Plinge6 posts in thread
Good Common Evil
Fri, 21 July 2000, 07:37 pmI normally wouldn't do this (and probably shouldn't seeing as my identity has been revealed to a few people) but I've kinda been asked to - when asked if I would give it a good or bad review, I replied I would give it a honest one, and you can't ask for much more than that. so here goes!
Having seen the show on opening night (Tuesday), listened to both colleauge's (spelling?), peer's and media people's opinions (both what they said then and then later out of cast's possible earshot) and then read the subsequent (rather glowing) review in the West, I feel I need to provide a balanced view of this show. I have seen it before, last year I think, and it has been reworked since then (although I couldn't spot the changes, but that's probably because the play wasn't that memorable the first time). It is a fairly _good_ show, and quite entertaining but I found there were a few moments when the dialogue seemed alien to the characters and said to myself "they just wouldn't say that!". I have also heard complaints about the levels (Tom was a little quiet), and some unmotivated pauses for the trucks - Tom's performance has of course been compared to his predessor, Adam's and while Tom's lacked the confidence, intensity, energy and wit of Adam's, his was a much more vunerable and sensitive character - you could believe Tom's insecurity and Adam's intelligence but not the other way around. Luke has a certain writing style which of course not everyone likes, and certainly directing his own work he has a definite view of how things should be done and therefore may not be getting as much out of it as someone else, with a little distance might. This is highlighted in the confrontational nature of the language of the play : we don't need f*@# and C@#* as a substitute for emotional intensity and it just jars the audience rather than adding impact. Kudos must go to Chris Taylor's consistent and well-placed performance as most people have mentioned him as the real star of the play (although I consider Lucy Bath's very thoughtful and honest performance would be the best, opening night nerves aside). Obviously I don't want to bag it too much, as there was nothing really wrong with the play, merely stylistic and directoral discrepancies that might be looked at. All the actors gave good performances, it is hard to judge Susie's portrayal of Pennie due to the length of the role. *But* there are things that stop this good show from becoming a great one. Go along and see for yourselves.
ps You can all come and bag me when you review Hayman's Threesome - August 1-5!! =)
SS
Having seen the show on opening night (Tuesday), listened to both colleauge's (spelling?), peer's and media people's opinions (both what they said then and then later out of cast's possible earshot) and then read the subsequent (rather glowing) review in the West, I feel I need to provide a balanced view of this show. I have seen it before, last year I think, and it has been reworked since then (although I couldn't spot the changes, but that's probably because the play wasn't that memorable the first time). It is a fairly _good_ show, and quite entertaining but I found there were a few moments when the dialogue seemed alien to the characters and said to myself "they just wouldn't say that!". I have also heard complaints about the levels (Tom was a little quiet), and some unmotivated pauses for the trucks - Tom's performance has of course been compared to his predessor, Adam's and while Tom's lacked the confidence, intensity, energy and wit of Adam's, his was a much more vunerable and sensitive character - you could believe Tom's insecurity and Adam's intelligence but not the other way around. Luke has a certain writing style which of course not everyone likes, and certainly directing his own work he has a definite view of how things should be done and therefore may not be getting as much out of it as someone else, with a little distance might. This is highlighted in the confrontational nature of the language of the play : we don't need f*@# and C@#* as a substitute for emotional intensity and it just jars the audience rather than adding impact. Kudos must go to Chris Taylor's consistent and well-placed performance as most people have mentioned him as the real star of the play (although I consider Lucy Bath's very thoughtful and honest performance would be the best, opening night nerves aside). Obviously I don't want to bag it too much, as there was nothing really wrong with the play, merely stylistic and directoral discrepancies that might be looked at. All the actors gave good performances, it is hard to judge Susie's portrayal of Pennie due to the length of the role. *But* there are things that stop this good show from becoming a great one. Go along and see for yourselves.
ps You can all come and bag me when you review Hayman's Threesome - August 1-5!! =)
SS
RE: Good Common Evil
Sat, 22 July 2000, 02:45 amWalter Plinge
Oh one other thing, instead of bagging our local theatre, I'd like to promote. After all, we're all in the same big theatrical boat.
If you come and see the show, get the program and look at the ad for Threesome on the back. Secret Squirrel is the guy in the middle. He looks kinda pissed off 'cos I probably just offended him with some of my gratuitous cuss words. Time to get the soap out of his soap box and wash out my filthy mouth.
f@$#% oops! There I go again.
Luke.
If you come and see the show, get the program and look at the ad for Threesome on the back. Secret Squirrel is the guy in the middle. He looks kinda pissed off 'cos I probably just offended him with some of my gratuitous cuss words. Time to get the soap out of his soap box and wash out my filthy mouth.
f@$#% oops! There I go again.
Luke.