Noises Off
Thu, 18 Sept 2003, 11:15 pmGreg Ross5 posts in thread
Noises Off
Thu, 18 Sept 2003, 11:15 pmBloody fabulous.
Laughed like a drain
Laughed like a drain
Re: Noises Off
Mon, 22 Sept 2003, 05:01 pmWalter Plinge
It's probably not worth much to review the last night of a show but alas I couldn't get there any earlier and my faithful comp-generator obviously had other things on its plate. Nonetheless, no-one else seems to have written a serious review of this production, so it falls to me to provide some hopefully useful feedback.
To my mind, it is the sign of accomplishment in an actor if he or she can handle the broad spectrum of roles from the classics to farce to experimental theatre with equal ease. In this instance, there were at least 3 examples of this onstage and no doubt more off.
The play itself has become something of a 'classic' of its genre, although it is not tackled all that often, for obvious reasons. Too many things can go wrong. There is an awful lot to be mastered in this script and those belly-laughs don't just come all by themselves. In this instance though, the combination of hard work and talent paid off.
I liked the idea of the director speaking to the audience at various intervals. It added to the 'play within a play within..' aspect. I also appreciated the two intervals - one to empty the bladder and perhaps recharge it and one to watch the fascinating process of scene-changing, once we had all gotten used to the idea that in this production, all pretence of theatrical convention had been thrown out the window (or one of the many doors).
The last night of a run usually has the set and props starting to show signs of wear & tear and such was the case here. At one point in the third (first) act, I had the feeling that someone may have replaced the cold tea in the whiskey bottle with the real thing as a last-night prank. I dismissed this however when I reminded myself that these were all very experienced actors and there was bound to be a Stanislavskian influence in there somewhere and perhaps that was it (?).
In all I did enjoy the show and would have stayed around for a drink afterwards, except that I had this inexplicable craving for sardines!
Thou dissembling guts-griping canker-blossom!
To my mind, it is the sign of accomplishment in an actor if he or she can handle the broad spectrum of roles from the classics to farce to experimental theatre with equal ease. In this instance, there were at least 3 examples of this onstage and no doubt more off.
The play itself has become something of a 'classic' of its genre, although it is not tackled all that often, for obvious reasons. Too many things can go wrong. There is an awful lot to be mastered in this script and those belly-laughs don't just come all by themselves. In this instance though, the combination of hard work and talent paid off.
I liked the idea of the director speaking to the audience at various intervals. It added to the 'play within a play within..' aspect. I also appreciated the two intervals - one to empty the bladder and perhaps recharge it and one to watch the fascinating process of scene-changing, once we had all gotten used to the idea that in this production, all pretence of theatrical convention had been thrown out the window (or one of the many doors).
The last night of a run usually has the set and props starting to show signs of wear & tear and such was the case here. At one point in the third (first) act, I had the feeling that someone may have replaced the cold tea in the whiskey bottle with the real thing as a last-night prank. I dismissed this however when I reminded myself that these were all very experienced actors and there was bound to be a Stanislavskian influence in there somewhere and perhaps that was it (?).
In all I did enjoy the show and would have stayed around for a drink afterwards, except that I had this inexplicable craving for sardines!
Thou dissembling guts-griping canker-blossom!