The Impotence of Seeing Ernest
Wed, 14 July 2004, 10:41 pmWalter Plinge20 posts in thread
The Impotence of Seeing Ernest
Wed, 14 July 2004, 10:41 pmIn my time as a theatre goer, I have read some particularly scathing reviews. I have also observed how little good they do, and subsequently vowed never to fall into the trap of writing such myself.
Consequently, I shall stick to the positives.
Firstly, I was very impressed with the versatility of some of the cast members, as well as the obvious political clout of the Director. I watched and listened in stunned and gratified amazement as first one player then another demonstrated the scope of their capabilities. First Gwennie astonished us all with her ability to switch seemingly at will between a high-falutin', plum-in-the-mouth upper-class English accent and a flat ocker drawl. Then, quick as a wink, she would drop into a fascinating rendition of the famous Monty-Python-esque Frenchman, so beloved of comedy fans around the globe. Before I knew it, she had stunned us all yet again, by bringing that well loved South African figure, Dr Rudy, to the fore, for a couple of quick, snappy oneliners, before reverting to a marvellous rendition of the Lady Bracknell herself.
As a long time Red Dwarf fan, I'm certain you can all imagine my delight on hearing the inimicable Lister being channelled through the otherwise unlikely vessel of dear Cecily.
And my joy, as I'm sure you would expect, knew no bounds when I realised that somehow, someone had managed to convince Mrs Doubtfire to perform the role of Lady Bracknell.
Further examples of the mind-boggling versatility of the performers abounded throughout, all tied together rather pleasingly by the repetition of "orfen" and "orf", to give a continuity of dialogue heretofore unheard of in community theatre.
Some truly gorgeous character notes were to be seen. Algernon Montcrief displayed his disdain for the travails of his servants admirably, by the simple expedient of repeatedly sitting on his coattails. Of course, I was very nearly rapturous when I realised that the butler was unshaven because Algie never told him to shave!!! Algie was so obviously oblivious to the underlings that surrounded him that he simply never even noticed the full, bushy and rather artistically unkempt beard his manservant was displaying. My ecstacy nearly overcame me at this point, and I was forced to leave the auditorium briefly.
I must also commend the back stage crew - it is a thankless task, and it was lovely to be able to hear the sound of the set being constructed from scratch between acts one and two. It lends a deliciously "behind the scenes" sort of feel to the whole production.
Last, but certainly not least, I offer my heartfelt thanks to the Director of this masterpiece. I am something of a student of theatre, and as you may or may not be aware, the position of director is actually a relatively new one. I felt a warm glow or reminiscence growing within me, to see a production that had been directed in the old style, with little or no interference from someone external to the performers themselves, thus allowing the cast members the deep satisfaction and pleasure of fumbling their way through the experience, whistling all the while, but preserving the integrity of their own personal vision in the face of any and all adversity.
Another aspect, with regards to the overall style of the piece, which I feel is noteworthy - I have had the pleasure of seeing Ernest before, and have never had the opportunity to actually catch everything that was said, frequently due to my own laughter, and that of the audience. I am pleased to share that I did not experience this distraction at all, and was thus able to appreciate everything that Oscar had written in full - or at least the majority of it. It was certainly clear to me that the cast had read the script, and were by and large reasonably familiar with not only the overall plot of the play, but the actual text as well.
All things considered, a delightful evening. I feel that my life has been enriched. Of course, I am unable to comment on anything after the beginning of second intermission, as I found I had a vital appointment with a radio documentary on the current socio-political situation in Bangladesh, which I was of course anxious to miss.
Consequently, I shall stick to the positives.
Firstly, I was very impressed with the versatility of some of the cast members, as well as the obvious political clout of the Director. I watched and listened in stunned and gratified amazement as first one player then another demonstrated the scope of their capabilities. First Gwennie astonished us all with her ability to switch seemingly at will between a high-falutin', plum-in-the-mouth upper-class English accent and a flat ocker drawl. Then, quick as a wink, she would drop into a fascinating rendition of the famous Monty-Python-esque Frenchman, so beloved of comedy fans around the globe. Before I knew it, she had stunned us all yet again, by bringing that well loved South African figure, Dr Rudy, to the fore, for a couple of quick, snappy oneliners, before reverting to a marvellous rendition of the Lady Bracknell herself.
As a long time Red Dwarf fan, I'm certain you can all imagine my delight on hearing the inimicable Lister being channelled through the otherwise unlikely vessel of dear Cecily.
And my joy, as I'm sure you would expect, knew no bounds when I realised that somehow, someone had managed to convince Mrs Doubtfire to perform the role of Lady Bracknell.
Further examples of the mind-boggling versatility of the performers abounded throughout, all tied together rather pleasingly by the repetition of "orfen" and "orf", to give a continuity of dialogue heretofore unheard of in community theatre.
Some truly gorgeous character notes were to be seen. Algernon Montcrief displayed his disdain for the travails of his servants admirably, by the simple expedient of repeatedly sitting on his coattails. Of course, I was very nearly rapturous when I realised that the butler was unshaven because Algie never told him to shave!!! Algie was so obviously oblivious to the underlings that surrounded him that he simply never even noticed the full, bushy and rather artistically unkempt beard his manservant was displaying. My ecstacy nearly overcame me at this point, and I was forced to leave the auditorium briefly.
I must also commend the back stage crew - it is a thankless task, and it was lovely to be able to hear the sound of the set being constructed from scratch between acts one and two. It lends a deliciously "behind the scenes" sort of feel to the whole production.
Last, but certainly not least, I offer my heartfelt thanks to the Director of this masterpiece. I am something of a student of theatre, and as you may or may not be aware, the position of director is actually a relatively new one. I felt a warm glow or reminiscence growing within me, to see a production that had been directed in the old style, with little or no interference from someone external to the performers themselves, thus allowing the cast members the deep satisfaction and pleasure of fumbling their way through the experience, whistling all the while, but preserving the integrity of their own personal vision in the face of any and all adversity.
Another aspect, with regards to the overall style of the piece, which I feel is noteworthy - I have had the pleasure of seeing Ernest before, and have never had the opportunity to actually catch everything that was said, frequently due to my own laughter, and that of the audience. I am pleased to share that I did not experience this distraction at all, and was thus able to appreciate everything that Oscar had written in full - or at least the majority of it. It was certainly clear to me that the cast had read the script, and were by and large reasonably familiar with not only the overall plot of the play, but the actual text as well.
All things considered, a delightful evening. I feel that my life has been enriched. Of course, I am unable to comment on anything after the beginning of second intermission, as I found I had a vital appointment with a radio documentary on the current socio-political situation in Bangladesh, which I was of course anxious to miss.
The Earnestness of Being Impotent
Thu, 15 July 2004, 04:35 pmWalter Plinge
Mr Crisafulli,
I can understand why you asked for there to be no mudslinging in public as you probably know the mud is going to be aimed directly at you. I'd want to hide too. Now you've been named, the world at large knows who is responsible for this attack, and your review was most certainly an attack.
I have been following this with interest. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your mother direct An Ideal Husband (a Wilde which I was unfortunate enough not to have seen)? The same play that was reviewed by a 'certain' K. Wallace? The same K. Wallace who appears in The Importance or Being Earnest as both 'Gendoline' and 'Gwennie"?
I've got no problem with reviews that are critical, contsructive and honest, both postive or negative. But honestly, what purpose was your review meant to serve? I got that you didn't like the production, but was it necessary to write about it the way you did? I mean harsh would be an understatement.
It's important in amatuer theatre that we are honest with one another. If there is no constructive criticism, how are we supposed to get any better? However, there was nothing constructive in your review Curtis, which is why I have labelled it an attack.
Chookas
Lee Mathison
(long time lurker, first time poster)
PS I had the 'pleasure' of seeing Curtis in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest last year at the Studio. When it comes to accents Mr Crisafulli, it pays to remember that those in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
I can understand why you asked for there to be no mudslinging in public as you probably know the mud is going to be aimed directly at you. I'd want to hide too. Now you've been named, the world at large knows who is responsible for this attack, and your review was most certainly an attack.
I have been following this with interest. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your mother direct An Ideal Husband (a Wilde which I was unfortunate enough not to have seen)? The same play that was reviewed by a 'certain' K. Wallace? The same K. Wallace who appears in The Importance or Being Earnest as both 'Gendoline' and 'Gwennie"?
I've got no problem with reviews that are critical, contsructive and honest, both postive or negative. But honestly, what purpose was your review meant to serve? I got that you didn't like the production, but was it necessary to write about it the way you did? I mean harsh would be an understatement.
It's important in amatuer theatre that we are honest with one another. If there is no constructive criticism, how are we supposed to get any better? However, there was nothing constructive in your review Curtis, which is why I have labelled it an attack.
Chookas
Lee Mathison
(long time lurker, first time poster)
PS I had the 'pleasure' of seeing Curtis in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest last year at the Studio. When it comes to accents Mr Crisafulli, it pays to remember that those in glass houses should not be throwing stones.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···