WHAT THE BUTLER SAW

Who: 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

I saw 'What the Butler Saw' last night also.

I'm not one for writing long reviews, but I must say for the most part I was very much entertained. Towards the middle I got a bit lost, but that was the script not the actors. All the actors were very strong in their performance. (And bravo to Jessyca Hutchens - talk about gutsy).

I agree, while it was funny it was also unnerving to say the least.

Once more, congrats to all of the cast and crew. Pretty good theatre.

[%sig%]

I too saw what the butler saw - although I never actually saw the butler! For me it was frenetic, funny - and frightening! Whitehall farce meets Eugène Ionesco! I do hope that the "lock-down" in the last scene is permanent - I never want to see any of those people on the outside of an asylum. [I am so glad Grant and I no longer work in the same office. Or maybe he is just a brilliant actor.]

Stephen Lee has gathered around him a talented cast and has brought out the best in them - at least, the best comedy! Every part was well played - I was going to say, well rounded, but you can't really say that about 2-dimensional characters!

The story is silly, the characters crazy, the action farcical - but I laughed and laughed. For pure nonsensical entertainment, it cannot be bettered. Go, see for yourselves!

Marie

I was there to see What The Butler Saw on opening night and I'm afraid I can't quite agree with Eliot on his couple of mentions of "hiccups". If there were any, or many, (apart from the broken glass!) I don't think they were noticed by anyone!

Now that's off my chest, I'm not much of a reviewer but I will say a few things that got my attention. First of all hats off to Jessyca who spends almost the entire play with most of her kit off. (yes of course a bit of nudity/rudity will get first mention, tuh!) I wonder if she knew that the small amount of time she does spend in an actual dress, she was continually flashing her knickers at the audience whenever she sat down. Don't suppose it really matters as we get to see them later on anyway! And the gasp from people behind me as she came back on with all her lovely hair cut off! hehe

Speaking of hair, Jenny's deserves a mention as it gradually goes from a relatively neat coiff to something approaching a mad professors as the play progresses and she gets more and more frantic. Jenny brings a wonderful energy onto the stage and gets the action really cranking. I enjoyed every second of the time she was on.

Speaking of energy (segue, segue), lots of hats off to my darling husband for his wide eyed and action packed Dr Rance. The play really hops into full gear with his arrival on stage and never looks back. Oh, and he did the set too which I think deserves a mention. (I have a husband? where??)

I thought Tony's Tarzan moment hilarious, and the way it all had such a "happy" ending...hehehe.

If you need a laugh and you aren't too easily shocked, go see.

That's my 2 bobs worth.

SL

[%sig%]

What The Butler Saw by Joe Orton, performed by Grads at The Dolphin.

One word to describe this production: frantic!

Of course we all know that I'd go to see Stephen Lee direct traffic. What a great job he's done. Again.

Oh my giddy aunt! I saw this last night (Sept 28). I had been warned of the outrageous play, and so forth, I was ready there with my popcorn and my open mind.

Well there are bits that are in apalling taste, but you laugh and laugh anyway. You hate yourself, but you do. Rape, incest, madness, drug abuse, all treated with wicked lightheartedness that must have been overwhelming in 1967, and even now can raise a blush!

It's an excellent production, you can really see the cast feeding off each others' and the audience's energy, and in the second act it's amazing. It just snowballs into one great kaledescopic chaotic maelstrom, which bears down on the (ahem) climax with the inexorability of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans.

Really witty lines, delivered in an invigorated manner! Actually, at some points it seems like a cross between Shakespeare on crack, and Wilde at his wittiest!

It's really funny, it's a bit like an incestuous pantomine. It's a madhouse!

My mum, who also went to see it with me, said that it brings serious and taboo subjects out into the open using humour and comedy (as human nature does).

I don't have the script, but one exchange goes something like this:

Dr Rance: "Why are there so many doors? Was the house designed by a lunatic?"
Dr Prentice "Actually, yes. He's a patient here from time to time."

and

"You were born with your legs apart. They'll send you to the grave in a Y shaped coffin."

The set design is inspired, especially the hospital colours! Watch out for the ward names! Look out for Munch's The Scream. "Bloody" excellent moulage too - certainly made the audience jump.

Dr Prentice, whose life is turned upside down by his mistimed seduction attempt is played well, his increasingly frenetic and desperate attempts to get out of the closing trap must be exhausting work. Great to watch.

Jessyca Hutchens played Geraldine Barclay, and she is so forlorn, waif like and a picture of sweet innocence trapped in the cogs of the machine the audience as one goes awwwwww....and hopes that she'll get out alright. In fact some of the audience were looking like they wanted to mount a rescue mission to get her out of there! No, it was NOT just because she was in her underwear!

Jenny McCann let fierce energy to Mrs Prentice, her expressions were wonderful, especially when she's listening to the rantings of Dr Rance about her husband.

Dr Rance, a stalking inspector of mental institutions, manically driven, possessed by a demonic drive. Played by the redoubtable Grant Malcolm whose voice shares its richness with Lindt 85% chocolate. Dr Rance is scarey. He's medical beauracracy gone haywire, he's the lunatic in charge of the asylum. He is a force to be reckoned with, and Mr Malcolm makes him look positively demonic at times.

"Who are YOU to decide what is real?!"

Scott Sheriden makes us laugh guiltily at the antics of his character, Nicholas Becket, a totally reprehensible fellow...who among other things "misbehaved himself with a bunch of schoolgirls" but we can't really dislike him. Naturally youthful high spirits. Apparently quite gifted, this fellow. The schoolmistress was missed out, you see, and it was she who raised the alarm. The female policewoman who examined the girls afterwoulds is quite anxious to meet Nicholas in person!
Ahem. This is the sort of thing that keeps happening in this play. Be warned!

Sergeant Match is played by Tony Petani, who starts as the Jungian archtype of the British Bobby, and then gives a wonderful display of the effect of mind altering drugs on the same. He carries off the finale absolutely wonderfully.

Kudos also must be given to the cast, because it must've been hell to get all those clothes exchanged and on and off so rapidly! Well done!

Sound and lighting went off really well, no mars that I could hear or see, and it gave some great feel to the scenes. When the circuit overloads and Dr Rance is at his peak the red lighting and the shadow of the hands behind reaching up in the window behind (clearly disturbed patients) make it a disturbing and somewhat hellish scene.

Then at the end, the red light is replaced by the shining white it's all very allegorical, well done and thought out.

That was certainly a guilty pleasure of a play! You've been warned!

What I do in real life: http://www.cafepress.com/aliciasmith

Thou venomed folly-fallen moldwarp!

As a playgoer of forty years standing, may I say that I heartily agree with Pete Pitnell in his condemnation of What the Butler Saw.

http://www.theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=6933&t=6933

I myself was nauseated by this endless parade of mental and physical perversion. And to be told that such a disgusting piece of filth now passes for humor!

Today's young playwrights take it upon themselves to flaunt their contempt for ordinary decent people. I hope that the ordinary decent people of this country will shortly strike back!

Yours
Enid Walthorpe (Miss)

Enid Walthorpe (Miss) wrote:
>

>
> Today's young playwrights take it upon themselves to flaunt
> their contempt for ordinary decent people. I hope that the
> ordinary decent people of this country will shortly strike
> back!
>

Today's young playwrights? Last I knew Joe Orton had 'Butler' published in the sixties?

You Learn something new everyday.

Hi Enid,

We're sorry the subject matter of the play was not to your liking, but I hope the quality of the acting, directimg, staging and general production values were, not to mention the prime service provided by Front of House.

Your objection is understandable. However, I don't think it's fair to blame today's young playwrights for the play we put on last night. As a playgoer of some 40 years standing, What the Butler Saw's premiere production could have been amongst the first plays you ever watched 38 years ago.

In fact, had Mr Orton lived to today, he would no doubt be a spritely 72 years young, just one year older than my father.

Say what you will about Mr Orton, and our play, but please, for everyone's sake, let's leave the kids out of this. They've been through enough.

And don't say you weren't warned:

"This is one of those all too rare opportunities to see a performance of a Joe Orton play. But be warned, it is not for the faint-hearted!

Joe Orton delighted in challenging the audience of the sixties. His plays put sexuality back on stage in all its exuberant, amoral and ruthless excess."

is how we described the play on this very site.

Enid Walthorpe whined:

> "As a playgoer of forty years standing...."

And BOY are her legs tired!!!

I'll get me coat...

El

Forgetting about the previous final couple of reviews, one of which has an email provider called ***@orton.com so are obviously tongue in cheek.

This play was brilliant. Farce timing is so critical both with speach delivery and the split second movement ie doors opening whilst others are closing, thus characters just miss each other. Very well done.

The script was very complex but the superb direction and the great team of actors speaking clearly made the story line understandable

Never seen Grant Malcolm before, but I hope we don't meet on a dark night after seeing him in this (brilliantly manic - just the right amount under played to be truly weird). great fun!!

Sadly the turnout on Wednesday night was a little disappointing, but the audience were very supportive and the final applause went on and on - much to poor Jessyca's discomfort as she was freezing.

One of the best farces I have seen for ages. Worth a trip to the Dolphin Theatre they deserve big crowds.

Hello to Miss Walthorpe and Mr Pitnell

Thank you for having the courage to write your opinions on this website. It is a pity that you seem to lack the courage to include your real names with the posting.

However, thank you for the very funny postings! I did laugh. What fun!

I can sympathise totally Miss Walthorpe . That naughty Joe Orton! Not quite sure how we can call him a young playwright these days when he died in 1967. Still, what was he thinking!

One of the greatest Drama critics in England called this play "Orton's inspired comic masterpiece", but what would he know? Obviously the man has no morals, scruples or snakes crawling around his ankles. Shame on him!

May I suggest to the both of you , that you stay at home with your cup of cocoa and your National Geographic magazines ( the edition with the pictures taken out, nothing too sensational for you !) and let the theatre going public make up their own mind . You never know , there are actually people in Perth who might like to see a play that was written sometime after Shakespeare died and even, maybe after Oscar Wilde was writing . ( although that shocking play "The Importance of being Earnest", heavens the homosexual references in that and the lewd behaviour of those boys! Please don't waste your time seeing a depraved play like that!)

Your charming email address ( orton.net) leads me to believe that you may in fact be part of the Joe Orton fan club and just don't want to tell anyone. Well don't worry , your secret is safe with us.

Go and see the play , I think it is a credit to all concerned and they certainly do deserve full houses.

Kerri

Dear Mr Petani—Two points arise from Mrs. Enid Walthorpe's letter regarding What The Butler Saw.

One is that everyone is perfectly entitled to like or dislike a play—on any subject—according to personal taste, which is why there is such a wide range of theatrical fare available in Perth at the moment. Some people are, however, more fortunate than others in their ability to enjoy a wider field of subjects, and it is surely not for the more 'blinkered' citizens to censure them for that.

Secondly, I cannot recall a successful play—from, say, Othello to St. Joan from Tamburlaine to Look Back in Anger which concerned itself with 'ordinary, decent people'! One agrees that the ordinary, decent people are the salt of the earth and the backbone of the country—but they do not make subjects for exciting, stimulating and controversial dramas.

Yours faithfully,
John A. Carlsen

Kerri wrote:
>
> Hello to Miss Walthorpe and Mr Pitnell
>
> Thank you for having the courage to write your opinions on
> this website. It is a pity that you seem to lack the courage
> to include your real names with the posting.
>
> However, thank you for the very funny postings! I did laugh.
> What fun!



I agree with you Kerri, it's all someone's idea of a clever joke. But I think perhaps you and all the other writers above have not guessed the half of it.

It IS a pity they didn't include their real names, but then again, it was not for lack of courage....rather, a lack of having any!
May I suggest that you take their 'real' names ... Edna Welthorpe (Mrs), Peter Pinnell, and John A. Carlsen, throw in Joe Orton for good measure, and put it all in a Google search? Or perhaps look on your own shelving for the relevant pages in 'The Orton Diaries'?




> I can sympathise totally Miss Walthorpe . That naughty Joe
> Orton! Not quite sure how we can call him a young playwright
> these days when he died in 1967. Still, what was he thinking!


Well, considering that he was only 34 when he was killed, he can never really be considered an 'old' playwright. And of course, that comment of Edna's has been taken WAY out of context...!





> One of the greatest Drama critics in England called this play
> "Orton's inspired comic masterpiece", but what would he know?
> Obviously the man has no morals, scruples or snakes crawling
> around his ankles. Shame on him!
>
> May I suggest to the both of you , that you stay at home with
> your cup of cocoa and your National Geographic magazines (
> the edition with the pictures taken out, nothing too
> sensational for you !) and let the theatre going public make
> up their own mind . You never know , there are actually
> people in Perth who might like to see a play that was written
> sometime after Shakespeare died and even, maybe after Oscar
> Wilde was writing . ( although that shocking play "The
> Importance of being Earnest", heavens the homosexual
> references in that and the lewd behaviour of those boys!
> Please don't waste your time seeing a depraved play like that!)


I myself consider—a) the dialogue quite brilliant; b) the comedy breathtaking; c) the drama satisfying; d) the play as a whole well-written if not profound; e) let us, however, exhort Mr. Orton to turn his gaze higher. As Oscar Wilde said in another context, "Some of us are walking in the gutter, but we can look at the stars!"

I suspect Joe Orton himself would have agreed.




> Your charming email address ( orton.net) leads me to believe
> that you may in fact be part of the Joe Orton fan club and
> just don't want to tell anyone. Well don't worry , your
> secret is safe with us.


Kerri, you were almost so close to the secret! But she's not part of Joe's fan club....it's the other way around.

If I was going to be guessing secrets, I'd be blaming S Quinn (Mr) ....!



> Go and see the play , I think it is a credit to all concerned
> and they certainly do deserve full houses.


I'll be going to see them sometime this week; my husband always goes to these things to review them.
In the meantime, I might point you toward this rather entertaining thread from earlier in the year...funnily enough it relates to another of Stephen Lee's directorial efforts...

http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=24&i=2719&t=2705


Warm regards,
Myrtle Birdboot

Tony P wrote:
>
> Your objection is understandable. However, I don't think
> it's fair to blame today's young playwrights for the play we
> put on last night. As a playgoer of some 40 years standing,
> What the Butler Saw's premiere production could have been
> amongst the first plays you ever watched 38 years ago.
>
> Joe Orton delighted in challenging the audience of the
> sixties.


You don't realise how right you are, Tony. See my post below.

Myrtle

Enid Welthorpe must be a relative of *Edna* Welthorpe, and she's certainly following in her footsteps. Enid, Edna, what's the difference?

Thou gorbellied fat-kidneyed strumpet! (heh, now there's an appropriate insult)

Alicia Smith wrote:
>
> Enid Welthorpe must be a relative of *Edna* Welthorpe, and
> she's certainly following in her footsteps. Enid, Edna,
> what's the difference?


Welthorpe/Walthorpe also makes a difference if you search on Google. Did you look it up?

Cheers,
Craig

Gordon the Optom wrote:
> This play was brilliant.

No one should seriously nominate as brilliant a piece of indecent tomfoolery like What the Butler Saw.

Drama should be uplifting.

The plays of Joe Orton have a most unpleasant effect on me. I was plunged into the dumps for weeks after seeing his Entertaining Mr. Sloane.

I saw What the Butler Saw with my young niece; we both fled from the theatre in horror and amazement well before the end.

I could see no humour in it. Yet it is widely advertised as a rib-tickler. Surely this is wrong?

These plays do nothing but harm to our image abroad, presenting us as the slaves of sensation and unnatural practice.

Yours
Enid Walthorpe (Miss)

Look it up? Yep, but only because I recognised her from before, during the fracas with the Real Inspector Hound.

Thou venomed milk-livered foot-licker!

Dear Enid,

You deserve a slap across the arse.

Thou goatish tardy-gaited burn-bailey!

The Hampstead Theatre in London has just concluded its run of Butler. Here is what the Guardian said about the production:

What the Butler Saw

**** Hampstead, London

Michael Billington
Friday July 22, 2005
The Guardian

What the Butler Saw, Hampstead Theatre, London


Joe Orton's play famously scandalised the bourgeoisie back in 1969. Watching David Grindley's highly enjoyable Hampstead revival, however, I was as much struck by Orton's technical skill as his subversive vision: he combines the classic structure of farce with a running commentary on a swiftly changing Britain.

All good farce starts from a plausible premise: a randy shrink seeks to divest a would-be secretary of her clothes in order to seduce her. With impeccable logic Orton then shows how this situation leads to orchestrated panic. But he uses the dementia of farce to explore a late-1960s society in which the distinction between madness and sanity is blurred and the rigidity of gender constantly eroded. When the shrink, accused of molesting boys, vainly protests "I'm a heterosexual", the visiting government commissioner replies: "I wish you wouldn't use those Chaucerian words."


Dr Rance, who represents Her Majesty's Government, "your immediate superiors in madness", is in fact the key to the play. Like Inspector Truscott in Loot, he is, for Orton, an embodiment of the crazed corruption of power, and is here memorably played by Malcolm Sinclair. With his poker-backed stance, toothbrush moustache and clipped consonants, Sinclair seems the incarnation of official rectitude. But gradually he lets you see that Rance's rationality is a mask for lust, violence and controlfreakery. It's a brilliant performance that reminds you Orton had a Euripidean distrust of repressive authority that envied the vices it condemned.

At times the farcical machinery strains to contain Orton's epigrammatic density. But the play offers a persuasive portrait of a 1960s society in which anarchy was at war with order. And, even if the actors occasionally play over the laughs, Grindley's production is intelligently paced. Jonathan Coy as the lecherous psychiatrist also effectively suggests a mantrapped in a nightmare of his own devising. And there is good support from Belinda Lang as his nymphomaniac spouse, Geoff Breton as a sexually obliging bellhop, and Joanna Page as the assiduously defrocked secretary. We may no longer be shocked by Orton's suggestion that gender is provisional and madness ubiquitous. But the play is an icon of modern drama in that it shows, like Wilde's Importance Of Being Earnest, that farce can be a well-oiled vehicle for satirical social comment.

Anyone still left with any doubt about Edith's, Pete's, Alan's or John's identity might get a chuckle from:

http://www.scr.org/season/00-01season/snl00-01/snlss1.html#four

http://www.amrep.org/past/loot/loot1.html

Orton's engaging satirical responses to his own plays haven't been dulled by the passage of forty years or his untimely death.

:-)

Don't miss the show, I'm really not as terrifying as everyone says!

Book online and pay for your tickets at the door:

http://grads.org.au/bookings/

Get in quick! There's a good chance some peformances next week may sell out.

Cheers
Grant

Thou fawning rump-fed joithead!

[%sig%]

Dear Mrs Enid Walthorpe,

You wrote..."Today's young playwrights take it upon themselves to flaunt their contempt for ordinary decent people. I hope that the ordinary decent people of this country will shortly strike back!"

and then..."I could see no humour in it. Yet it is widely advertised as a rib-tickler. Surely this is wrong?"

Being an avid theatre goer myself, for some time now, and a practising examiner of human nature, I have personally found Orton's "What the Butler Saw" to provide 'rib tickling laughter' to those masses of people that do not fit into your category of 'ordinary decent people'.

I have seen the play a number of times & even perused the website at the Graduate Dramatic Society, here: http://www.grads.org.au/now_showing
and as you can see there is nothing at all wrong in the action displayed in those photographs. They are not perverse, there is no indecency. they are fun and hilarious.

Your comments are truly a monstrosity of misjustice and they have caused nothing but to display homunculus syndrome!

Yours truly,


Dr S Bunker
FRCP

Sounds a bit like the show I saw at the Dolphin last night. Maybe our Prentice wasn't quite as sleazy and our Rance a bit more manic.
Their hairstyles could have been a bit more realistic as well - our Rance seemed to be going for the 'badgeresque' look, while our Prentice's observation that he has spent "Two decades fighting her and a receding hairline" didn't quite ring true, since his hairline looked as if it was positively PRO-ceding - in a southerly direction. Match seemed a bit young for a sergeant too.
I found the 'circuit overload' and subsequent subdued reddish light a bit difficult on the eyes, but maybe that's just me.
Finally, I still can't quite work out the significance of Winston Churchill's cigar. Any of you smarties help me out?
Well done, all.

Thou dissembling beetle-headed malt-worm!

I have done my duty: gone online booked my tickets and done my research etc etc as encouraged to do so on this site by all of the cast, crew, front of house staff, etc etc. In fact the only person we don't seem to have had a posting from is the Dolphin Theatre carpark attendant's pet Chihuahua.. but I cannot be sure of that either, as there are some suspicious teeth marks appearing down the side of my monitor as I type.
BUT, to answer Stinger.. may I just be SO smart and quote from John Lahr's Introduction in Orton: the complete plays (London : Eyre Methuen, 1976):

"Lewenstein [the producer] was worried about the Lord Chamerlain's reaction to incest and the flourish of the cock from the statue of Sir Winston Churchill. Orton agreed, if necessary, to change the figure of authority, but never the incest."

I have yet to see this production but the Methuen script gives two endings: one with a cock, the second with a cigar. I can only assume, from Stingers posting. that I will be leaving the theatre one night next week with the smell of a plaster cigar wafting about my nostrils. Oh, how I look forward to that.

stinger wrote:
> Finally, I still can't quite work out the significance of
> Winston Churchill's cigar.

Cigar? You thought that was a cigar?

Props diva Pamela is probably slashing her wrists as she reads this.

All the hours of loving care spent polishing and bronzing the object in question... not to mention the care taken stiffening the object when it proved a little flaccid in effect!

More to the point, pity the poor person upon whose parts the object was moulded!

:-)

Cheers
Grant

[%sig%]

What the Bulter Saw, directed by Stephen Lee
The Dolphin Theatre, UWA
1 October 2005

(Apologies for many spelling mistakes, I don't have a spell check)

Firstly, I aknowledge the fact that this may be considered a biased review. GRADS is the company I am usually involved with. I have been directed by Stepehen Lee in the past. Several of the cast are good friends. And the Dolphin has a bar.

However, all this will be balanced by the fact that I HATE this play. I had never seen it performed, but found the script to be uneccesarily unpleasent. I have seen many much more unpleasent plays, and the shocks are a little dulled by age, but it's still not very nice. I had read it thinking "This is never going to be funny."

Having worked with and admired the work of Mr Lee, Ms McCann, Mr Malcolm, Mr Sheriden, Mr Treasure and Mr Petani in the past, I should really have known better.

Firstly, the set is perfect. The curtains open and you say to yourself "Ah! A doctors office in the sixties." I love it when you don't have to guess. The furniture is all reminiscent of the age, and the props unobtrusive and functional. Technically my only complaint is the set change (I suppose you would call it that) at the end of the second act, is clearly viasble to the audience in terms of shadows. This wouldn't be too bad except that it happens at a point where the show is rocketing towards it's conclusion and it's a bad time to distract your audience.

The entire opening scene is chock full of lots of clever wordsmithery. Steve Lee always manages to build the pace of his plays as they go along, without ever actually starting slowly, quite a gift. The aforementioned wordsmithery also lulls us into a "farce meets Wilde" false sense of security, and that sensibility is played to the hilt by Paul Treasure and the appropiately innocent looking young thing (I'm sorry, it's Jessyca, but I didn't get the surname). I have to say when she first appeared I thought "Too young", but that fragility works very well later on. And I suppose the point is that we should be extremely disturbed by what happens to her character and youth is a good way to achieve that. Coupled with a wonderful performance, a maintainence of innocence in the face of adversity, Jessyca's character is in some ways the counterpoint to the rest of the action.

A small thing at this point, I know the play is set a considerable way outside reality, but anyone drinking as much scotch as Paul purports to do in the first few scenes would, I'm sure, have died of alcohol poisoning by the begining of Act 2.

Everything really hits it's stride with the arrival of Mrs Prentise, the incomperable Jenny McCann. She manages to be the harlot she is required to be, but also, in a strange way, quite human. Throughout all the tomfoolery and running about, we still manage to see her marriage as real. Difficult to explain but very effective.

And then comes Dr Rance, Grant Malcolm. My God. Grant has been away from the stage for a considerable period, being a husband and a father and all sorts of, Im sure, very worthy undertakings. Age (or rather, time) has not wearied him, nor the years condemned. In fact any word having any connotation of lack of evergy could never be associated with his powerhouse performance. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

For those who have missed out on Steve Lee's shows in the past, you should know that when he goes through his encyclopedic knowledge of drama, he choses plays to direct (for the Dolphin anyway) on one criteria; "Will this kill my cast?". If the actors aren't dripping with sweat and quietly dying of exhaustion backstage by the end of Act 1, I think Mr Lee believes he has failed. I may be exaggerating slightly. But my point is that this is a show where even one moment of flagging energy would kill it, and with Grant on stage pouring heart and soul and every ounce of electricity within his grasp into the part, that was just never going to happen. Performances like that teeter on the brink of being samey, of every outburst sounding exactly like the one before it. With Grant's performance, that never happens, you absorb everything he says. I can't say enough about this, he was amazing.

That haveing been said much of the comedy, and the moments that the audience walks away remembering (not counting old letches like me who count the hot boys running around in their undies as the momorable moments), came, as usual, from Jenny McCann. The hair was genius. Every step she took and every expression she made was perfectly timed and hilarious. I was determined not to laugh (what with the hating of the play and all), and I really couldn't help myself whenever she was on stage. And to balance the running and screaming in your slip with creation of a believeable human person is not an easy thing to do, but she achieved it. Jenny is an example of someone who is completely fearless when it comes to looking like an absolute tool, and as a result always ends up looking fabulous.

The two supporting men, played by Tony Petani and Scott Sheriden, were just perfect. They were required to do very different things, Tony was to ground the play, to heighten the riculousness of the situation with his own normalcy, whilst at the same time not looking out of step with the mode of performance. His performance was a credit to not giving in to the temptation of using farce as an excuse for heavy handed or thoughtless direction or characterisation. And he provided one of the moments of real skin crawling in a fairly true life portrayal of affliction. I don't want to give it away, but seeing an actor playing "stricken" real in the middle of high farce has a real sobering effect, which, in this particular text, is the point I think. It's only a very small moment, but it's given enough space to be really effective, and I felt the audience shift in discomfort.

And Scotty was great. Scotty is always great. He played impish impudence to the hilt. His is another character of conflicts, he has to confess to really horrible things whilst looking chipper and innocent. Another knife edged characterisation, but again, perfectly realised. There aren't that many actors who can make you like and sympathise with a confessed rapist and peadophile. In fact, my only critisism of Scott is that his crimes should, in some way, be given a little more weight, that there should be a little more of the sinister about him, of the obscene, the unpleasent. I really don't know how this would be achieved, but I think the performance would have to stay exactly the same, but a slightly different conciousness brought to it.

My only other critisism, and it might be where I was sitting, is that the final tableu was a little blurry. I'm not sure if the actors are too close together or is someone was in the wrong spot on the night. I saw what was attempting to be achieved, but it just ended up looking a bit like "milling about". I think it neede more space, but I'm not really sure.

This show is close to perfect. It is head and shoulders above most of what I have seen and to miss it would really be doing yourself a disservice.

Wow! Imagine what Leah would have written if she hadn't hated the play! 8-)

Thanks Leah.

Pardon my continued ignorance, but is it suggested that a local government organisation had actually erected a bronze statue of Churchill without clothing and with a rampant member?

Thou fobbing clay-brained pumpion!

In Joe Orton's world, yes!

Just a quick reminder that What the Butler Saw will be closing this Saturday. Tickets can be booked on 9443 4223 or at www.grads.org.au/bookings.

The show has been raved about, and it would be a shame to miss out!

Hello all,

I just want to give a huge congradulations to Stephen Lee and the entire cast on this fantastic production. I was so impressed it was wacky, demented and damn hilarious!

I was so impressed with the performance by all the actors just fantastic! If anyone can watch between now and closing night i seriously reccomend it, the play might not be suited to all types, but if you like hilarious and random comedy then get in quick!

Congradulations guys!

A 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

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.

Stephen 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

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?

??? said


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?


Dear ???, or may I call you ??

Just which particular "anonymous" posting do you object to? Mine was certainly both under my name and title- Stephen Lee, director., Although to be fair I was actually christened Stephen James Quinn but lost out in British Actors Equity to another actor of that name. James is after my Dad. My confirmation name is Andrew (patron saint of Scotland where dad was born) and my Porn star name (1st pet, 1st street lived in) is Snowy Southolm.

Stephen James Andres Lee (aka Quinn)

??? 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%]

"Although to be fair I was actually christened Stephen James Quinn but lost out in British Actors Equity to another actor of that name."

And whatever happened to THAT Stephen Quinn, I ask. (Actually, a quick flick through IMDB indicates that he appeared in a couple of episodes of something called North Shore.)