WHAT THE BUTLER SAW

Crgwllms wrote:

“Orton's original text notes for one of his plays … 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 spiralling 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.”

As director of “What the Butler Saw” I would like to respond to some of the points he makes above.

One thing that annoys me occasionally about this site, is that when criticism, however mild, is given to a play, someone from the production will rush online with “what right has this person to attack our play, were they even at the same theatre as all my friends who really loved it?….I know all the hard work that went into this, and I think…etc etc…” So perhaps I should nail my colours to the mast right away, and say that I wholeheartedly agree with crgwllms’ views in every particular. On the night in question I think we mugged our way through the show and played for laughs rather than truth.

Now before an angry cast turn on me, let me just be clear that I have the highest respect for the talent and integrity of my actors. I was working with a group that oozed ability and dedication. And I am proud and satisfied with they way they performed on other nights. But acting (especially comic acting) can be compared to walking a tightrope. On one side you can fall into the pit of making performances so true to life that they lack the verve and energy that makes them funny. On the other side, we can lose hold of truth and just “mug” and “ham” our way through a part. It is an extremely difficult task to present characters in the “larger than life” style that is essential to farce, and yet keep them grounded in truth and believability. I feel that the actors did a fabulous job of this on most nights, playing with strength and credibility. But sad to say, on one night, we fell off that tightrope with a bump.

I am totally in agreement that Orton (indeed most authors) should be played for truth and believable characterisation rather than primarily for laughs. Our performance on this night certainly was as slick and energised as ever. And the audience response was very good. But it was largely based on “externals”. Face-pulling and “funny” tones of voice and frenetic body movements took precedence over action based on truth. Crgwllms, rather kindly I thought, talks of “highly stylised, quite melodramatic” acting. I can think of many other phrases. I am not merely responding to this review: at the end of the night in question I made just these points to the cast (oh, how they must love me!)

I thought long and hard before writing this, and waited till the run was over. But I think that some very interesting points of discussion raise their head. And it is this kind of analysis that this site should support and encourage. In particular, how did a cast who normally were both confidant and assured in their footwork, stumble so badly? And the answer, I believe, lies in a topic raised before on this site, the differences between amateur and professional performers. I am not bringing up the stuff about talent or training, I agree with the views expressed by many that that is an individual thing (you can get wonderful amateurs and appalling pros). But one difference that is often not stressed enough, is that when the pro is paid to perform (trust me, it does sometimes happen), they can afford to focus all their energy on the show. They do not need to do a 9 to 5 job every day and then give a performance at night. As Leah said in an earlier post, I push actors hard and love high energy and pacing. As tiredness grows towards the end of a run, there is the danger of “running on autopilot”. Playing truth is an exhausting and draining process. So we can subconsciously take short cuts. It’s the actors’ version of faking an orgasm (and how Orton would have loved that comparison). This is not to make excuses. Audiences pay to see the play, and don’t care about WHY things go wrong, and hate being told “last night was so much better”. But it is interesting and informative to us as actors to understand this pitfall. Keeping performances “real” is one of the toughest jobs actors face. It is accepted wisdom that any play (even West End blockbusters that run for years) after six months or so of performance, will have lost a great deal of the original truth. That’s why Les Mis re-rehearses twice a year.

And finally, my thanks to all who came to see the production, and especially to all those who posted views and comments. Discussion and comment are vital to a thriving theatre scene, and I hope I am always ready with my two pennorth.