WHAT THE BUTLER SAW
Sun, 25 Sept 2005, 08:12 amBass Guy38 posts in thread
WHAT THE BUTLER SAW
Sun, 25 Sept 2005, 08:12 amWho: GRADS
Where: Dolphin Theatre, UWA
When: 8pm 23/9/2005
What: Sordid farce from the soon-to-be-bludgeoned-to-death Joe Orton
Why: Threats of conjugal favours being withheld if I failed to attend. (Not entirely true)
Well, if the butler saw what I saw on Friday last, he needs his eyes checked or his head read. I thought IÂ’d indulge a little too firmly in the house convivialities prior to the show, but IÂ’m led to believe I wasnÂ’t the only one to suffer the demented visions this play provokes, so I canÂ’t blame it on the unwitting ingestion of psychedelics. I can, however, blame it on the crazed imagination of Stephen Lee and his cast of lunatic stooges.
Orton’s farce apparently flopped at the time of its premiere- and I think I know why. There’s not much “whoops, matron my trousers fell through the pantry. More tea, vicar?” in WTBS. Well, check out the poster- there’s more emphasis on the PHWOOAAR! Factor. As evidenced by the opening five minutes, which sees the heroine on the piece reduced to her underwear, and being subtly drooled over by the hero. It’s like Carry On Without Any Inhibitions. Of course, this is precisely the highbrow entertainment demanded by Generation Zzzzz today, so the choice is apt.
The cast rollicked through the opening night production, with only pause for the occasional hiccup with miscreant props and recalcitrant business. Paul Treasure starts as a bear-like figure, but is soon reduced to a sympathetic putty-like creature by the idiocy of his circumstance. The elfin Jessyca Hutchens not only spends most of the play near naked (I couldnÂ’t afford tickets to WTBS Uncut- Jarrod Buttery had bought them all and was scalping them cruelly) but a good deal of it sedated and/or screaming. Not easy to do both at the same time. Scott Sheridan attacks his role with gusto giving us something akin to Norman Wisdom on crack- which is what the show requires. Tony Petani sets new records for the achievement of those born without gorm. His Sgt Match is bizarre in the way he falls into the mania of the situation without blinking or pause. Jenny McCannÂ’s portrayal as the nymphomaniac harridan was too close to home for me to consider it acting- but by God itÂ’s convincing.
The most FRIGHTENING portrayal in recent history belongs not to that Welsh pretender Hopkins, but the demented Grant Malcolm as Dr Rance. His Murnau-esque take on the character (eyes a-twitch, shoulders a-hunch, voice a-boom) is hysterically funny and unnerving at the same time- and consequently does little to counter my lack of faith in the Western Health System.
Bravura doesnÂ’t begin to describe the efforts of cast and crew for this show. And if opening night had hiccups, these will be ironed out and the show will become unfathomably slick. This is a play that will reward a repeated viewing- theyÂ’re getting more risque as the season progresses. Well, thatÂ’s the rumour IÂ’m going to be spreadingÂ….
El
Where: Dolphin Theatre, UWA
When: 8pm 23/9/2005
What: Sordid farce from the soon-to-be-bludgeoned-to-death Joe Orton
Why: Threats of conjugal favours being withheld if I failed to attend. (Not entirely true)
Well, if the butler saw what I saw on Friday last, he needs his eyes checked or his head read. I thought IÂ’d indulge a little too firmly in the house convivialities prior to the show, but IÂ’m led to believe I wasnÂ’t the only one to suffer the demented visions this play provokes, so I canÂ’t blame it on the unwitting ingestion of psychedelics. I can, however, blame it on the crazed imagination of Stephen Lee and his cast of lunatic stooges.
Orton’s farce apparently flopped at the time of its premiere- and I think I know why. There’s not much “whoops, matron my trousers fell through the pantry. More tea, vicar?” in WTBS. Well, check out the poster- there’s more emphasis on the PHWOOAAR! Factor. As evidenced by the opening five minutes, which sees the heroine on the piece reduced to her underwear, and being subtly drooled over by the hero. It’s like Carry On Without Any Inhibitions. Of course, this is precisely the highbrow entertainment demanded by Generation Zzzzz today, so the choice is apt.
The cast rollicked through the opening night production, with only pause for the occasional hiccup with miscreant props and recalcitrant business. Paul Treasure starts as a bear-like figure, but is soon reduced to a sympathetic putty-like creature by the idiocy of his circumstance. The elfin Jessyca Hutchens not only spends most of the play near naked (I couldnÂ’t afford tickets to WTBS Uncut- Jarrod Buttery had bought them all and was scalping them cruelly) but a good deal of it sedated and/or screaming. Not easy to do both at the same time. Scott Sheridan attacks his role with gusto giving us something akin to Norman Wisdom on crack- which is what the show requires. Tony Petani sets new records for the achievement of those born without gorm. His Sgt Match is bizarre in the way he falls into the mania of the situation without blinking or pause. Jenny McCannÂ’s portrayal as the nymphomaniac harridan was too close to home for me to consider it acting- but by God itÂ’s convincing.
The most FRIGHTENING portrayal in recent history belongs not to that Welsh pretender Hopkins, but the demented Grant Malcolm as Dr Rance. His Murnau-esque take on the character (eyes a-twitch, shoulders a-hunch, voice a-boom) is hysterically funny and unnerving at the same time- and consequently does little to counter my lack of faith in the Western Health System.
Bravura doesnÂ’t begin to describe the efforts of cast and crew for this show. And if opening night had hiccups, these will be ironed out and the show will become unfathomably slick. This is a play that will reward a repeated viewing- theyÂ’re getting more risque as the season progresses. Well, thatÂ’s the rumour IÂ’m going to be spreadingÂ….
El
Re: WHAT BUTLER?
Sat, 8 Oct 2005, 02:23 amA very strange play, and on the whole, well done.
I happened to mention to my mother that I was going to see it, and with her infinite tact she said, "Oh, that's an OLD play". Thanks, Mum, it came out the year I was born...but I didn't like to pursue that line of argument as it only reflects equally on her age as well..!
To me most of the interest in the show can only be understood in the context of when and where it was written...late 60's Britain. Understanding that, and imagining the uproar it must have caused in dealing with such taboo subjects in such a hideously cavalier manner allowed me to appreciate the play a lot more than had I not known this background. Because, to be honest, I didn't find any of it shocking or gratuitous, and the smug way the writer seems to say "well, what about THIS taboo?....I can top it with THIS one...and THIS one!..." bordered on the tedious. (Am I jaded? Perhaps. I see a heck of a lot of modern comedy, and graphic film images, and current affairs stories, and it seems that perhaps I am now immune to finding anything shocking? Or rather, our definitions of what is shocking have changed, and this seems tame in comparison.) Unfortunately about half of the humour in WTBS is based around attempts to shock and disturb...I get it - it just doesn't trigger much response from me.
The problem with material from such an iconic period of history is that it immediately effected and inspired everything that came afterward, and to now go back in time to the source of this snowball effect reveals it to be much smaller in today's context than the image I had in my mind.
Orton's certainly in good company, because I would include things like Monty Python, Beatlemania, outrageous mini-skirt fashion, and psychedelic drug culture to be just a few similarly subversive artforms of the same era that were hugely significant at the time but not entirely interesting today, other than to note their huge influence on what was to follow.
So I have to anchor my comments with the fact that the play didn't really grab me, although this does not reflect on the performances or direction. The other half of the humour in WTBS revolves around the elements of traditional farce and characterisation, and the team all do their utmost to make that work in an entertainingly chaotic manner.
Paul, Jessyca, Jenny, Scott, Grant and Tony deserve all that's been said about them above. Energetic, larger-than-life, and suitably manic performances from all. Each character gets driven to hysteria, which is hysterical, and only works because they are played with just enough depth to have levels, and refrain from remaining too long at one manic pitch. The timing involved during endless chasing through doors and in and out of clothes, and the character reactions to increasingly ridiculous situations, are what make the play work. Stephen Lee has choreographed a complex and convoluted story into a slick piece of work.
As highly entertaining as I found Edna Welthorpe's (or Enid's...Aunt Talcum?) thread above, it was perhaps unfortunate that it lead me to read a bit about Orton, and affected my expectations.
Orton's original text notes for one of his plays (I think it was Entertaining Mr Sloane?...I don't have the article to hand) instructed the cast to play it absolutely real, not as a farce. The original performance, however, was camped up and played for laughs, and was a dismal failure. It wasn't until a remount when the author's wishes were adhered to that it became the success it did. I can't help feeling the same would be true of What The Butler Saw. There is a lot of dialogue that is played in a highly stylised, quite melodramatic, manner; and the intention seems to be to get the most humour from the lines rather than to improve upon the two-dimensional nature of the characters. But several times I found myself wondering whether I wouldn't have found it funnier if I had found the characters more believable, and less farcical....more 'life' than 'larger-than-life'? And despite the danger of it spiraling into hysterical speed, there were still several scenes where I'd have liked to see the dialogue at a faster, less pompous pace, emphasizing the characters' thought rather than the author's wit.
Still, audience enthusiasm seemed to much outweigh my cynicism, and I certainly enjoyed it for what it is...a lighthearted romp with a dark and twisted underbelly, and a chance to see an iconic and highly notorious piece of theatre.
Cheers,
Craig
I happened to mention to my mother that I was going to see it, and with her infinite tact she said, "Oh, that's an OLD play". Thanks, Mum, it came out the year I was born...but I didn't like to pursue that line of argument as it only reflects equally on her age as well..!
To me most of the interest in the show can only be understood in the context of when and where it was written...late 60's Britain. Understanding that, and imagining the uproar it must have caused in dealing with such taboo subjects in such a hideously cavalier manner allowed me to appreciate the play a lot more than had I not known this background. Because, to be honest, I didn't find any of it shocking or gratuitous, and the smug way the writer seems to say "well, what about THIS taboo?....I can top it with THIS one...and THIS one!..." bordered on the tedious. (Am I jaded? Perhaps. I see a heck of a lot of modern comedy, and graphic film images, and current affairs stories, and it seems that perhaps I am now immune to finding anything shocking? Or rather, our definitions of what is shocking have changed, and this seems tame in comparison.) Unfortunately about half of the humour in WTBS is based around attempts to shock and disturb...I get it - it just doesn't trigger much response from me.
The problem with material from such an iconic period of history is that it immediately effected and inspired everything that came afterward, and to now go back in time to the source of this snowball effect reveals it to be much smaller in today's context than the image I had in my mind.
Orton's certainly in good company, because I would include things like Monty Python, Beatlemania, outrageous mini-skirt fashion, and psychedelic drug culture to be just a few similarly subversive artforms of the same era that were hugely significant at the time but not entirely interesting today, other than to note their huge influence on what was to follow.
So I have to anchor my comments with the fact that the play didn't really grab me, although this does not reflect on the performances or direction. The other half of the humour in WTBS revolves around the elements of traditional farce and characterisation, and the team all do their utmost to make that work in an entertainingly chaotic manner.
Paul, Jessyca, Jenny, Scott, Grant and Tony deserve all that's been said about them above. Energetic, larger-than-life, and suitably manic performances from all. Each character gets driven to hysteria, which is hysterical, and only works because they are played with just enough depth to have levels, and refrain from remaining too long at one manic pitch. The timing involved during endless chasing through doors and in and out of clothes, and the character reactions to increasingly ridiculous situations, are what make the play work. Stephen Lee has choreographed a complex and convoluted story into a slick piece of work.
As highly entertaining as I found Edna Welthorpe's (or Enid's...Aunt Talcum?) thread above, it was perhaps unfortunate that it lead me to read a bit about Orton, and affected my expectations.
Orton's original text notes for one of his plays (I think it was Entertaining Mr Sloane?...I don't have the article to hand) instructed the cast to play it absolutely real, not as a farce. The original performance, however, was camped up and played for laughs, and was a dismal failure. It wasn't until a remount when the author's wishes were adhered to that it became the success it did. I can't help feeling the same would be true of What The Butler Saw. There is a lot of dialogue that is played in a highly stylised, quite melodramatic, manner; and the intention seems to be to get the most humour from the lines rather than to improve upon the two-dimensional nature of the characters. But several times I found myself wondering whether I wouldn't have found it funnier if I had found the characters more believable, and less farcical....more 'life' than 'larger-than-life'? And despite the danger of it spiraling into hysterical speed, there were still several scenes where I'd have liked to see the dialogue at a faster, less pompous pace, emphasizing the characters' thought rather than the author's wit.
Still, audience enthusiasm seemed to much outweigh my cynicism, and I certainly enjoyed it for what it is...a lighthearted romp with a dark and twisted underbelly, and a chance to see an iconic and highly notorious piece of theatre.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···