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? The Butler Sore?
Mon, 17 Oct 2005, 02:42 amStephen Lee wrote:
>
> 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?Â….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 crgwllmsÂ’ 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. ItÂ’s the actorsÂ’ 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 donÂ’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. ThatÂ’s why Les Mis re-rehearses twice
> a year.
Thanks for that explanation, Stephen.
The amount of energy expended by the cast was obvious, and what you say makes sense in regard to the strain of sustaining a consistent performance night after night. I believe I saw the second-last night; no doubt the final night was back up to speed.
The discussion you bring up about 'Pro vs Am' is an interesting one. The key difference, as I see it, is one of experience. And like you, I wish to stress that I'm NOT talking about talent or training or dedication. An amateur performer may have a wealth of experience from performing different shows and roles over the years, but how often have they been called upon to enact the same performance 20 times in a season? I'd hazard that the average is more like 6 or 8. And I know from my own experience that a show often doesn't feel like it's settled until it's been performed 6 or 8 times in front of different audiences. I consider myself extremely fortunate that I've been involved in some very long-running shows, quite a few over 100, and my average season is about 45 performances. I credit this experience as having given me most of the skills and success I've acquired.
There is a totally different discipline required to be able to recreate a performance night after night, 8 times a week, for 4 weeks or more, and still keep it fresh, consistent, and real. And that's possibly the one skill that differentiates someone with a lot of professional experience over someone who has only performed short run shows. You become even more acutely aware of the ripple effect that a single word, inflection, or beat can have on the way a performance is received. You learn to interpret how an audience reacts to small changes in energy and performance. Every small variation you make effects how the next actor may react, which in turn effects your next line...only after many performances can you achieve what is close to the 'best' delivery. And yet even though consistent performance night after night is valued, keeping that spark of freshness, that edge of danger, is ALSO valued. Every performance does not have to be a carbon copy of the night before. No matter how many different ways you explore delivering the lines of a play, there is almost always a better way to discover. The discipline becomes one of learning how much variation is desirable and acceptable, keeping within the realms of what serves the character, the story, the other characters, the author, the director, and the audience. And sometimes the reason why a play works one night, and not so well another, is that everybody in the cast is performing their own subtle variation of the night before. Sometimes this can create sparks, other nights it can die a death (in which case we usually blame the crowd, not willing to see that each tiny change has had such a cumulative effect).
That's not to say that I've always managed to get it right, even with an 80 show run... In one show I remember, Kim De Lury and I got a great laugh when I reacted to one of his lines, but then we couldn't recreate it, and we probably took another 25 shows of systematically trying different combinations of line, intention, gesture, look, pause, reaction, grunt, look to audience, etc, before we could nail it every time.
And there have been shows where I've done almost the entire run before trying something new and discovering, virtually too late, that it works much better. That is why actors ought not to be condemned for trying new approaches, there is always room for improvement. However, you obviously run the risk that it could be worse....and you need to be able to observe the difference, so it is not a random process, and mistakes are never repeated.
It does require a practiced amount of focus and concentration, and the professional is at a huge advantage if they are not distracted by the tribulations of a daytime job, and can save their energy solely for the performances at hand.
Having worked with you earlier this year, I have a healthy respect for those who can get a high-energy show together on a part-time basis. (I found it quite challenging). Glad to hear my reservations here were only due to the one off-night.
What's next?
Cheers,
Craig
>
> 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?Â….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 crgwllmsÂ’ 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. ItÂ’s the actorsÂ’ 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 donÂ’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. ThatÂ’s why Les Mis re-rehearses twice
> a year.
Thanks for that explanation, Stephen.
The amount of energy expended by the cast was obvious, and what you say makes sense in regard to the strain of sustaining a consistent performance night after night. I believe I saw the second-last night; no doubt the final night was back up to speed.
The discussion you bring up about 'Pro vs Am' is an interesting one. The key difference, as I see it, is one of experience. And like you, I wish to stress that I'm NOT talking about talent or training or dedication. An amateur performer may have a wealth of experience from performing different shows and roles over the years, but how often have they been called upon to enact the same performance 20 times in a season? I'd hazard that the average is more like 6 or 8. And I know from my own experience that a show often doesn't feel like it's settled until it's been performed 6 or 8 times in front of different audiences. I consider myself extremely fortunate that I've been involved in some very long-running shows, quite a few over 100, and my average season is about 45 performances. I credit this experience as having given me most of the skills and success I've acquired.
There is a totally different discipline required to be able to recreate a performance night after night, 8 times a week, for 4 weeks or more, and still keep it fresh, consistent, and real. And that's possibly the one skill that differentiates someone with a lot of professional experience over someone who has only performed short run shows. You become even more acutely aware of the ripple effect that a single word, inflection, or beat can have on the way a performance is received. You learn to interpret how an audience reacts to small changes in energy and performance. Every small variation you make effects how the next actor may react, which in turn effects your next line...only after many performances can you achieve what is close to the 'best' delivery. And yet even though consistent performance night after night is valued, keeping that spark of freshness, that edge of danger, is ALSO valued. Every performance does not have to be a carbon copy of the night before. No matter how many different ways you explore delivering the lines of a play, there is almost always a better way to discover. The discipline becomes one of learning how much variation is desirable and acceptable, keeping within the realms of what serves the character, the story, the other characters, the author, the director, and the audience. And sometimes the reason why a play works one night, and not so well another, is that everybody in the cast is performing their own subtle variation of the night before. Sometimes this can create sparks, other nights it can die a death (in which case we usually blame the crowd, not willing to see that each tiny change has had such a cumulative effect).
That's not to say that I've always managed to get it right, even with an 80 show run... In one show I remember, Kim De Lury and I got a great laugh when I reacted to one of his lines, but then we couldn't recreate it, and we probably took another 25 shows of systematically trying different combinations of line, intention, gesture, look, pause, reaction, grunt, look to audience, etc, before we could nail it every time.
And there have been shows where I've done almost the entire run before trying something new and discovering, virtually too late, that it works much better. That is why actors ought not to be condemned for trying new approaches, there is always room for improvement. However, you obviously run the risk that it could be worse....and you need to be able to observe the difference, so it is not a random process, and mistakes are never repeated.
It does require a practiced amount of focus and concentration, and the professional is at a huge advantage if they are not distracted by the tribulations of a daytime job, and can save their energy solely for the performances at hand.
Having worked with you earlier this year, I have a healthy respect for those who can get a high-energy show together on a part-time basis. (I found it quite challenging). Glad to hear my reservations here were only due to the one off-night.
What's next?
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···