The Importance of Being Earnest (Marloo Theatre)
Mon, 19 July 2004, 01:50 pmWalter Plinge6 posts in thread
The Importance of Being Earnest (Marloo Theatre)
Mon, 19 July 2004, 01:50 pmBefore I start this review, let me just say a couple of words.
I have started it as a new topic to distance myself from the other reviews posted on this board, most of which came across as either shamelessly partisan, or an overcompensatory reply to a shamelessly partisan review.
I would also like to point out now that I am a former member of Marloo Theatre, so I know most of the people in the show, and it have also directed at least half the cast in other shows over the years. At the same time, I am performing in Roleystone’s production of “Earnest” later in the year, the production that was scheduled a couple of months earlier than, but subsequently gazumped by this Marloo production.
I have many reasons to write a nice partisan review, and many reasons to write a not nice one. So my only course is to write a NON-Partisan one.
NowÂ… on to the reviewÂ…
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST
Darlington Theatre Players at Marloo Theatre
Night attended: 9 July 2004.
Like half the acting world, I am very familiar with Earnest, an old friend so to speak, and have seen many productions over the yearÂ’s, including the Sydney Theatre Company with Ruth Cracknell, and also a production starring Hinge and Bracket. So I am used to a certain received practice of how to do Wilde properly, especially Earnest.
Douglas Sutherland-Bruce has decided to ignore this received tradition, and in fact he seems to have ignored any ‘developments’ in dramatic theory in the last hundred years, and has attempted to give us a production in the style that the play would have originally been performed. I must admit I found this a little bit problematic to start with, this wasn’t the old friend that I knew and loved, until I realised (roughly halfway through the first Jack/Gwendoline scene) what Douglas was up to, and adjusted my expectations accordingly, from that moment on the play was a joy to watch.
Douglas has quite rightly placed the main emphasis of his production on the lines. Taking the view that Wilde was a poet first and foremost, and his plays are poetic in nature. This seems to have worked well, in the most part.
Gail Palmer was an indomitable Lady Bracknell, well-poised and confident, without being too much of a dragon lady. She also managed to make the part her own, I rarely saw her make the chief mistake of a Bracknell and channel Dame Edith Evans.
Kim Wallace, as Gwendoline, managed to pull off an enormous feat. She actually looks very little like Gail Palmer, and yet at times the family resemblance between the two characters was frightening. Pity poor Ernest in a few years time when he realises that the gel he married has turned into her mother. Kim was poised and perfect, her porcelain skin shining under the lights as though she had never been outdoors a day in her life. Physically she was an almost perfect embodiement of the character. Her accent did at times wander slightly, but NEVER did it cross the channel. Although she seems to have exactly the same problem that I do with that most pompous of English accents, I think we both have to really watch for words like hour (ar not aower) and gone (gonn not gorn). When you solve the problem Kim, let me know how you did it? I have noticed with Kim in previous performances that she is always herself on stage. Unlike other actors who become the different people they are playing, she always seems to bring the character to her and thereby make them her own. This is merely an observation, not a criticism, in fact it is a rare skill possessed by some of the greatest actors of our time (like Jack Nicholson).
Katy Warner, Cecily, is one of my favourite actresses. A rare beauty who can light up a stage by her very presence. Even in her mid twenties she still portrays late teens better than many actually in their late teens. The main criticism I have of her performance was that her brilliant projection at times seemed too brilliant. I like the idea of Cecily being one of the loudest people on stage, as would befit her country upbringing, but she could readily afford to come down a notch or two and still be the loudest onstage.
Norm Faraday, playing Canon Chasuble, is simply one of the best character actors I have EVER had the privilege of seeing. Full Stop. End of sentence. Nothing more need be said.
Troy Hall seems born to play roles like Algernon, both in Earnest and in the other Wilde’s such as Lord Darlington in Windermere and Dorian Gray. There’s really not much to say about his performance either, this is “stock character number four” for Troy. I’ve seen him play it a number of times, and I am sure he will play it a number of times yet and with each incarnation of this character he gets better at it. When are you coming home, Troy? Although it was nice to see him wear more of a costume than the last time he appeared on Marloo’s stage.
Of the main actors, the weakest link was John Gould as Jack/Ernest. This was a role that seemed beyond his ability to bring life to. I am not going to tell him to not give up his day job. He was unfortunate enough to be cast in a production where the rest of the cast were far more skilled and experienced than he was. Thereby highlighting shortcomings that may not have been apparent in a less skilled ensemble. A reliable source has told me that he has come along in leaps and bounds during the rehearsal process. My only word is that of encouragement: John has the look, and at times we saw the talent shining through. Learn to relax a bit more on stage, and learn from all those around you, and you will soon be a very good actor.
While I appreciated DouglasÂ’ experiment of farming out MerrimanÂ’s lines to two maids, I feel that it did not altogether succeed. The main problem being I felt the maids should have spoken almost as one voice, and yet there was always the tiniest of pauses between the two. The performances of this trio were effective, it was just the experiment didnÂ’t quite work.
Costumier Marjorie de Caux (the title Wardrobe does not do her justice) gave us one of the best dressed plays in recent memory. Gwendoline and CecilyÂ’s frocks standing out. And those hideous hats! I sometimes feel that I am not worthy to comment on the better efforts of this woman. If Marloo started placing MarjorieÂ’s name on the posters of shows she costumes, she would soon have a dedicated following just going up to see the frocks.
I can see why people may not have liked this production. As a departure from the standard practice of this piece, even a departure backwards (in time not quality) can upset people who go expecting to see what they know. In these days of unrelenting naturalism there is also a tendency to not understand deliberate stylisation.
There is a theory, donÂ’t ask me whoÂ’s, that when a play reaches the level of classic (like Earnest) any single production ceases to have individual relevance, and needs to be seen as part of a continuing discourse. And a classic needs to be judged on how much it adds TO the current discourse. As such, this production is an unqualified success. Douglas has dared to show us something we may never have seen before, and are unlikely to ever see again. In many ways, the fact that this production, so stylistically removed from recent productions, works demonstrates why Earnest is a classic.
I only hope and pray that our production will also add to the discourse.
Thank you Douglas.
I have started it as a new topic to distance myself from the other reviews posted on this board, most of which came across as either shamelessly partisan, or an overcompensatory reply to a shamelessly partisan review.
I would also like to point out now that I am a former member of Marloo Theatre, so I know most of the people in the show, and it have also directed at least half the cast in other shows over the years. At the same time, I am performing in Roleystone’s production of “Earnest” later in the year, the production that was scheduled a couple of months earlier than, but subsequently gazumped by this Marloo production.
I have many reasons to write a nice partisan review, and many reasons to write a not nice one. So my only course is to write a NON-Partisan one.
NowÂ… on to the reviewÂ…
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST
Darlington Theatre Players at Marloo Theatre
Night attended: 9 July 2004.
Like half the acting world, I am very familiar with Earnest, an old friend so to speak, and have seen many productions over the yearÂ’s, including the Sydney Theatre Company with Ruth Cracknell, and also a production starring Hinge and Bracket. So I am used to a certain received practice of how to do Wilde properly, especially Earnest.
Douglas Sutherland-Bruce has decided to ignore this received tradition, and in fact he seems to have ignored any ‘developments’ in dramatic theory in the last hundred years, and has attempted to give us a production in the style that the play would have originally been performed. I must admit I found this a little bit problematic to start with, this wasn’t the old friend that I knew and loved, until I realised (roughly halfway through the first Jack/Gwendoline scene) what Douglas was up to, and adjusted my expectations accordingly, from that moment on the play was a joy to watch.
Douglas has quite rightly placed the main emphasis of his production on the lines. Taking the view that Wilde was a poet first and foremost, and his plays are poetic in nature. This seems to have worked well, in the most part.
Gail Palmer was an indomitable Lady Bracknell, well-poised and confident, without being too much of a dragon lady. She also managed to make the part her own, I rarely saw her make the chief mistake of a Bracknell and channel Dame Edith Evans.
Kim Wallace, as Gwendoline, managed to pull off an enormous feat. She actually looks very little like Gail Palmer, and yet at times the family resemblance between the two characters was frightening. Pity poor Ernest in a few years time when he realises that the gel he married has turned into her mother. Kim was poised and perfect, her porcelain skin shining under the lights as though she had never been outdoors a day in her life. Physically she was an almost perfect embodiement of the character. Her accent did at times wander slightly, but NEVER did it cross the channel. Although she seems to have exactly the same problem that I do with that most pompous of English accents, I think we both have to really watch for words like hour (ar not aower) and gone (gonn not gorn). When you solve the problem Kim, let me know how you did it? I have noticed with Kim in previous performances that she is always herself on stage. Unlike other actors who become the different people they are playing, she always seems to bring the character to her and thereby make them her own. This is merely an observation, not a criticism, in fact it is a rare skill possessed by some of the greatest actors of our time (like Jack Nicholson).
Katy Warner, Cecily, is one of my favourite actresses. A rare beauty who can light up a stage by her very presence. Even in her mid twenties she still portrays late teens better than many actually in their late teens. The main criticism I have of her performance was that her brilliant projection at times seemed too brilliant. I like the idea of Cecily being one of the loudest people on stage, as would befit her country upbringing, but she could readily afford to come down a notch or two and still be the loudest onstage.
Norm Faraday, playing Canon Chasuble, is simply one of the best character actors I have EVER had the privilege of seeing. Full Stop. End of sentence. Nothing more need be said.
Troy Hall seems born to play roles like Algernon, both in Earnest and in the other Wilde’s such as Lord Darlington in Windermere and Dorian Gray. There’s really not much to say about his performance either, this is “stock character number four” for Troy. I’ve seen him play it a number of times, and I am sure he will play it a number of times yet and with each incarnation of this character he gets better at it. When are you coming home, Troy? Although it was nice to see him wear more of a costume than the last time he appeared on Marloo’s stage.
Of the main actors, the weakest link was John Gould as Jack/Ernest. This was a role that seemed beyond his ability to bring life to. I am not going to tell him to not give up his day job. He was unfortunate enough to be cast in a production where the rest of the cast were far more skilled and experienced than he was. Thereby highlighting shortcomings that may not have been apparent in a less skilled ensemble. A reliable source has told me that he has come along in leaps and bounds during the rehearsal process. My only word is that of encouragement: John has the look, and at times we saw the talent shining through. Learn to relax a bit more on stage, and learn from all those around you, and you will soon be a very good actor.
While I appreciated DouglasÂ’ experiment of farming out MerrimanÂ’s lines to two maids, I feel that it did not altogether succeed. The main problem being I felt the maids should have spoken almost as one voice, and yet there was always the tiniest of pauses between the two. The performances of this trio were effective, it was just the experiment didnÂ’t quite work.
Costumier Marjorie de Caux (the title Wardrobe does not do her justice) gave us one of the best dressed plays in recent memory. Gwendoline and CecilyÂ’s frocks standing out. And those hideous hats! I sometimes feel that I am not worthy to comment on the better efforts of this woman. If Marloo started placing MarjorieÂ’s name on the posters of shows she costumes, she would soon have a dedicated following just going up to see the frocks.
I can see why people may not have liked this production. As a departure from the standard practice of this piece, even a departure backwards (in time not quality) can upset people who go expecting to see what they know. In these days of unrelenting naturalism there is also a tendency to not understand deliberate stylisation.
There is a theory, donÂ’t ask me whoÂ’s, that when a play reaches the level of classic (like Earnest) any single production ceases to have individual relevance, and needs to be seen as part of a continuing discourse. And a classic needs to be judged on how much it adds TO the current discourse. As such, this production is an unqualified success. Douglas has dared to show us something we may never have seen before, and are unlikely to ever see again. In many ways, the fact that this production, so stylistically removed from recent productions, works demonstrates why Earnest is a classic.
I only hope and pray that our production will also add to the discourse.
Thank you Douglas.
- ···