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
er....What's up your But?
Tue, 18 Oct 2005, 02:23 am??? wrote:
>
> The sad thing about the messages posted regarding this, or
> indeed any other performance of the production in question,
> is perhaps that those involved in these discussions feel it
> appropriate to be so 'honest' when critically examining the
> work. Yet...they do not feel the need to justify their
> comments by actually posting their 'real' names!
> My guess is that the person who has posted this 'all
> revealing' message is a fraud and actually has nothing to do
> with the production or indeed the actors in it...if this is
> not the case, im sure everbody reading these messages would
> benefit from knowing the true identity of the person who
> wrote the message. Hence giving ACTUAL merit and
> JUSTIFICATION to the comments provided??? Any takers?!? Or is
> this the work of yet another 2 bit talentless ham?
Mate, just WHAT are you on about??
I can't work out whether you are trying to be cryptically ironic, or whether your real name actually IS '???'
Did you get ANY of the banter above, where Enid and co. were clever parodies of characters that Joe Orton invented?
It's not entirely clear which message you are referring to..? If you are referring to the response written by Stephen Lee, it seemed to be pretty obviously from him; he's a real life character, he doesn't write under a pseudonym; he has already responded clarifying any confusion between his given name and his work name; ...and I don't want to think about his porn star name.
Or if you are referring to me, my name actually IS crgwllms, it's just that most people find it hard to reject the common assumption that you need vowels to pronounce words properly.
But finally, your assumption is totally wrong.
You imply that merit, justification, and honesty can ONLY occur if what is written is accompanied by the author's true name. You're not the first to quibble the same argument here, but in my opinion that's just CRAP.
A meritorious or justified argument can be expressed equally as well from an anonymous writer as from one who reveals themselves. There's no particular extra credibility added to someone with a 'real' name. If Bradley Sullivan calls himself "Bradley Sullivan" as opposed to something like "Zorro's Horse", it makes absolutely no difference...who the hell is Bradley Sullivan anyway? Exactly HOW is 'everbody (sic) reading these messages' going to benefit from knowing the true identity of the person who wrote it? In 90% of cases it's not going to mean anything to me anyway.
In fact, I am often more inclined to believe the opinions of anonymous writers, who are unafraid to tell it as they see it, as opposed to identifiable persons who may be more guarded and unwilling to put their reputation on the line....the exact opposite of the popular but erroneous argument!
There's nothing particularly brave about stating your own name, unless you know that what you are saying is likely to be shot down in flames. And if that's the case, signing your true name is not going to win you back any honour!
But clear, justified, well-expressed and honest opinions can always easily be identified from the quality of the argument, without ever caring who the author or their pseudonym are.
In the same way that signing your name '???' doesn't hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> The sad thing about the messages posted regarding this, or
> indeed any other performance of the production in question,
> is perhaps that those involved in these discussions feel it
> appropriate to be so 'honest' when critically examining the
> work. Yet...they do not feel the need to justify their
> comments by actually posting their 'real' names!
> My guess is that the person who has posted this 'all
> revealing' message is a fraud and actually has nothing to do
> with the production or indeed the actors in it...if this is
> not the case, im sure everbody reading these messages would
> benefit from knowing the true identity of the person who
> wrote the message. Hence giving ACTUAL merit and
> JUSTIFICATION to the comments provided??? Any takers?!? Or is
> this the work of yet another 2 bit talentless ham?
Mate, just WHAT are you on about??
I can't work out whether you are trying to be cryptically ironic, or whether your real name actually IS '???'
Did you get ANY of the banter above, where Enid and co. were clever parodies of characters that Joe Orton invented?
It's not entirely clear which message you are referring to..? If you are referring to the response written by Stephen Lee, it seemed to be pretty obviously from him; he's a real life character, he doesn't write under a pseudonym; he has already responded clarifying any confusion between his given name and his work name; ...and I don't want to think about his porn star name.
Or if you are referring to me, my name actually IS crgwllms, it's just that most people find it hard to reject the common assumption that you need vowels to pronounce words properly.
But finally, your assumption is totally wrong.
You imply that merit, justification, and honesty can ONLY occur if what is written is accompanied by the author's true name. You're not the first to quibble the same argument here, but in my opinion that's just CRAP.
A meritorious or justified argument can be expressed equally as well from an anonymous writer as from one who reveals themselves. There's no particular extra credibility added to someone with a 'real' name. If Bradley Sullivan calls himself "Bradley Sullivan" as opposed to something like "Zorro's Horse", it makes absolutely no difference...who the hell is Bradley Sullivan anyway? Exactly HOW is 'everbody (sic) reading these messages' going to benefit from knowing the true identity of the person who wrote it? In 90% of cases it's not going to mean anything to me anyway.
In fact, I am often more inclined to believe the opinions of anonymous writers, who are unafraid to tell it as they see it, as opposed to identifiable persons who may be more guarded and unwilling to put their reputation on the line....the exact opposite of the popular but erroneous argument!
There's nothing particularly brave about stating your own name, unless you know that what you are saying is likely to be shot down in flames. And if that's the case, signing your true name is not going to win you back any honour!
But clear, justified, well-expressed and honest opinions can always easily be identified from the quality of the argument, without ever caring who the author or their pseudonym are.
In the same way that signing your name '???' doesn't hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···