Relatively Speaking *****
Sat, 3 Dec 2005, 11:15 pmGordon the Optom16 posts in thread
Relatively Speaking *****
Sat, 3 Dec 2005, 11:15 pmWhen one has the task of directing an Alan Ayckbourn play, where the timing must be spot on and his complicated plots spoken in a clear and plausible way, then, as has unfortunately been shown in the past the chances of failing can be quite high. However at the Harbour Theatre Celia AndrewsÂ’ gathered a brilliant cast and guided them with true professionalism.
The first act was one of tension between a young couple. Naïve and confused Greg (Leon Ousby) had doubts as to the fidelity of his new girlfriend Ginny (Angela Johnson). Despite the fairly serious script the two actors kept it light and fun.
Ginny said that she intended going to visit her parents (Steve Marrable and Nicola Bond) but was actually going see her ex-lover. Greg thought that he would surprise her by popping along too. Indeed he did and this lead to massive confusion of both couples.
It is a long time since I have seen a whole cast get so involved with their characters that they actually became them. The diction, the body actions were terrific. The innocent charm of Greg, the embarrassment of Ginny, the fond understanding attitude of the mother and the total mortification of the father caught in the middle.
The scenery was well above average thanks to Harry Schultz and his team. Good luck in your retirement if they let you go.
The music from the Beatles and Kinks was appropriate to the period of the play – early ‘60s. I have never before heard a sound effect (in this case a train) being used during the interval to suggest the move to a new location. A good idea.
The success of the acting performances was down to the cool ‘matter of fact’ approach of the director. Had the manic ‘Fawlty Towers’ method been used – as it often is with farces - then this could have been a disaster.
Even the programmes, by Minuteman, were some of the best that I have seen.
Definitely worth a very rare 5 stars. Superb in every way.
The first act was one of tension between a young couple. Naïve and confused Greg (Leon Ousby) had doubts as to the fidelity of his new girlfriend Ginny (Angela Johnson). Despite the fairly serious script the two actors kept it light and fun.
Ginny said that she intended going to visit her parents (Steve Marrable and Nicola Bond) but was actually going see her ex-lover. Greg thought that he would surprise her by popping along too. Indeed he did and this lead to massive confusion of both couples.
It is a long time since I have seen a whole cast get so involved with their characters that they actually became them. The diction, the body actions were terrific. The innocent charm of Greg, the embarrassment of Ginny, the fond understanding attitude of the mother and the total mortification of the father caught in the middle.
The scenery was well above average thanks to Harry Schultz and his team. Good luck in your retirement if they let you go.
The music from the Beatles and Kinks was appropriate to the period of the play – early ‘60s. I have never before heard a sound effect (in this case a train) being used during the interval to suggest the move to a new location. A good idea.
The success of the acting performances was down to the cool ‘matter of fact’ approach of the director. Had the manic ‘Fawlty Towers’ method been used – as it often is with farces - then this could have been a disaster.
Even the programmes, by Minuteman, were some of the best that I have seen.
Definitely worth a very rare 5 stars. Superb in every way.
Re: an earlier review
Tue, 6 Dec 2005, 07:53 amWalter Plinge
I wholeheartedly agree.
I would say though, the "designated reviewers" should confirm that they will indeed attend. And be struck off and cast into the netherworld if they don't.
And yes, Im happy to put my hand up....stinger wrote:
>
> This is not the first time this issue has been raised on this
> website. There is a real dearth of written feedback for
> community theatre productions in this burg, to the point
> where people associated with the show are actually reviewing
> (often surreptitiously) themselves. The solution is obvious
> to me.
>
> If I were a producer, I would offer preview or first night
> complimentary tickets to reviewers who are consistently
> competent, constructive and objective. I believe these skills
> are taught as part of theatre & drama courses at some
> universities (including Murdoch) these days.
>
> Perhaps the contact details of duly accredited reviewers
> could be included on another page of this site. Maybe their
> reviews might even be picked up by the press and thus more
> widely disseminated. Seems to be a 'win-win' arrangement to
> me. Comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thou pribbling flap-mouthed bladder!
Thou spleeny doghearted barnacle!
I would say though, the "designated reviewers" should confirm that they will indeed attend. And be struck off and cast into the netherworld if they don't.
And yes, Im happy to put my hand up....stinger wrote:
>
> This is not the first time this issue has been raised on this
> website. There is a real dearth of written feedback for
> community theatre productions in this burg, to the point
> where people associated with the show are actually reviewing
> (often surreptitiously) themselves. The solution is obvious
> to me.
>
> If I were a producer, I would offer preview or first night
> complimentary tickets to reviewers who are consistently
> competent, constructive and objective. I believe these skills
> are taught as part of theatre & drama courses at some
> universities (including Murdoch) these days.
>
> Perhaps the contact details of duly accredited reviewers
> could be included on another page of this site. Maybe their
> reviews might even be picked up by the press and thus more
> widely disseminated. Seems to be a 'win-win' arrangement to
> me. Comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thou pribbling flap-mouthed bladder!
Thou spleeny doghearted barnacle!
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···