Gentlemen Incorporated**
Sun, 5 June 2005, 12:45 pmGordon the Optom8 posts in thread
Gentlemen Incorporated**
Sun, 5 June 2005, 12:45 pmYear after year the Melville Theatre have produced first class shows and I wondered when their luck was going to run out, and with this production I felt it did.
I have never given a really poor review before, trying always to concentrate on the better aspects of productions. The better aspects of this one? The set as always was outstanding, and the sound and lighting very good. The warmth of the welcome and the general ambience of this much improved venue - superb .... but ...
The play was a 'comedy' with a very good and original story line, but required a great deal more work on the one-liners to keep the laughs coming. The direction was weak, but I must give allowance for the fact that directors changed half way through the rehearsals.
The cast of five consisted of two actors who, despite this being the last show of the run, still didn't know their lines, made numerous fluffs and generally dragged down the three other actors who were quite admirable.
The body movement of the weaker couple was almost totally missing and the voice intonation monotonous.
The feed back in the lounge at the interval was very positive, so perhaps I wasn't tuned in - or were they at a different show?
Sorry, I wish I had gone to the Old Mill instead.
I have never given a really poor review before, trying always to concentrate on the better aspects of productions. The better aspects of this one? The set as always was outstanding, and the sound and lighting very good. The warmth of the welcome and the general ambience of this much improved venue - superb .... but ...
The play was a 'comedy' with a very good and original story line, but required a great deal more work on the one-liners to keep the laughs coming. The direction was weak, but I must give allowance for the fact that directors changed half way through the rehearsals.
The cast of five consisted of two actors who, despite this being the last show of the run, still didn't know their lines, made numerous fluffs and generally dragged down the three other actors who were quite admirable.
The body movement of the weaker couple was almost totally missing and the voice intonation monotonous.
The feed back in the lounge at the interval was very positive, so perhaps I wasn't tuned in - or were they at a different show?
Sorry, I wish I had gone to the Old Mill instead.
Re: Gentlemen Incorporated**
Wed, 8 June 2005, 09:59 amWalter Plinge
Gordon
Any review is a welcome review. As one of the five actors that may or may not have been one of the 'problem' cast members, all I can say is that I appreciate the feedback.
Gentlemen Incorporated is one of those plays that appears to have polarised audiences. A number of my friends that came to the play didn't rate it very highly, but others loved it. I've had a few interesting discussions with people after the shows about various aspects of it.
Personally, I think the play was very well directed. We didn't have a change of directors - Val Riches was at the helm from the start to the end, with the exception of one week where she was ill and her husband Stuart (the Stage Manager) filled in at rehearsals. I don't believe that too many of the faults you saw were attributable to Val.
Your comment about lines is a reasonable one. In one of the early scenes, my co-actor and I dropped a page of very important dialogue that established that my character, George/Damian, was attracted to older women generally, and Elinor specifically. Since some of the lines in this page of dialogue were repeated or referenced in later scenes, we made a decision to reintroduce the dialogue at an appropriate place in our next scene. I think we were generally successful, and most people I spoke to didn't even notice that there had been a problem (either that or they were being kind!), but the truth is that we were not as comfortable as we would ordinarily have been, and the dialogue probably came over more stilted than it should have - I presume it's this that you picked up.
It's a shame that you didn't see the play, or the actors involved in it, at their best. However, that's the way with live theatre - some performances will inevitably be better than others. And sometimes there will be disasters!
I'd also like to respond to the comment about the play being a 'comedy', and that you would have preferred the one-liners to be delivered better to keep the laughs coming. My feeling is that whilst there were a few one-liners in the script, and there were a few side-splitting moments, generally it was a 'smile at the situation' rather than a 'laugh out loud' type of play. I was always surprised that night after night we'd get the second kind of response. The fact that this happened is probably a credit to the Director rather than the other way round.
It's hard not to take a bad review personally, and I hope that my response has been a level one. Either way, I hope that I get an opportunity to perform for you again - a chance for redemption *grin* !!!!
Cheers
Garry
Any review is a welcome review. As one of the five actors that may or may not have been one of the 'problem' cast members, all I can say is that I appreciate the feedback.
Gentlemen Incorporated is one of those plays that appears to have polarised audiences. A number of my friends that came to the play didn't rate it very highly, but others loved it. I've had a few interesting discussions with people after the shows about various aspects of it.
Personally, I think the play was very well directed. We didn't have a change of directors - Val Riches was at the helm from the start to the end, with the exception of one week where she was ill and her husband Stuart (the Stage Manager) filled in at rehearsals. I don't believe that too many of the faults you saw were attributable to Val.
Your comment about lines is a reasonable one. In one of the early scenes, my co-actor and I dropped a page of very important dialogue that established that my character, George/Damian, was attracted to older women generally, and Elinor specifically. Since some of the lines in this page of dialogue were repeated or referenced in later scenes, we made a decision to reintroduce the dialogue at an appropriate place in our next scene. I think we were generally successful, and most people I spoke to didn't even notice that there had been a problem (either that or they were being kind!), but the truth is that we were not as comfortable as we would ordinarily have been, and the dialogue probably came over more stilted than it should have - I presume it's this that you picked up.
It's a shame that you didn't see the play, or the actors involved in it, at their best. However, that's the way with live theatre - some performances will inevitably be better than others. And sometimes there will be disasters!
I'd also like to respond to the comment about the play being a 'comedy', and that you would have preferred the one-liners to be delivered better to keep the laughs coming. My feeling is that whilst there were a few one-liners in the script, and there were a few side-splitting moments, generally it was a 'smile at the situation' rather than a 'laugh out loud' type of play. I was always surprised that night after night we'd get the second kind of response. The fact that this happened is probably a credit to the Director rather than the other way round.
It's hard not to take a bad review personally, and I hope that my response has been a level one. Either way, I hope that I get an opportunity to perform for you again - a chance for redemption *grin* !!!!
Cheers
Garry