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: editorial policy about community theatre
Tue, 13 Dec 2005, 01:59 amstinger wrote:
> Fine then. Why don't we just establish some 'guidelines' for
> reviews on this website, incorporating some of the above
> suggestions?
>
> I nominate Craig Williams to be 'Guideline Nazi'.
>
> Guideline #1 could be 'Don't accept a comp unless you are
> committed to writing a review.'
>
> Guideline #2 could be 'comps are not transferrable'.
>
> Once a review is posted, the individual groups can always
> 'cut and paste' it into their own publicity (with due
> acknowledgement).
>
> Personally, I think reviewers should NOT be anonymous but
> also they should NOT name individuals in reviews (except this
> one).
>
I might not fit your guidelines, Stinger.
- Comps aren't only for reviewers. I assume you mean 'commit to writing a review if you are invited primarily for that purpose'. Otherwise, I recommend accepting as many comps as you can get your hands on.
- Ditto for guideline #2. Transfer if you see fit. Perhaps transfer to someone else capable of reviewing?
- I've seen people do some pretty creative cutting and pasting. Are you going to publish guidelines on how they can quote extracts?
- And I have no problem with anonymous reviewers or the practice of naming individuals....
I have no idea how to police your guidelines, and as I have a generally variant point of view, I demote myself from 'Guideline Nazi' down to 'Drama Debate Despot'.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
> Fine then. Why don't we just establish some 'guidelines' for
> reviews on this website, incorporating some of the above
> suggestions?
>
> I nominate Craig Williams to be 'Guideline Nazi'.
>
> Guideline #1 could be 'Don't accept a comp unless you are
> committed to writing a review.'
>
> Guideline #2 could be 'comps are not transferrable'.
>
> Once a review is posted, the individual groups can always
> 'cut and paste' it into their own publicity (with due
> acknowledgement).
>
> Personally, I think reviewers should NOT be anonymous but
> also they should NOT name individuals in reviews (except this
> one).
>
I might not fit your guidelines, Stinger.
- Comps aren't only for reviewers. I assume you mean 'commit to writing a review if you are invited primarily for that purpose'. Otherwise, I recommend accepting as many comps as you can get your hands on.
- Ditto for guideline #2. Transfer if you see fit. Perhaps transfer to someone else capable of reviewing?
- I've seen people do some pretty creative cutting and pasting. Are you going to publish guidelines on how they can quote extracts?
- And I have no problem with anonymous reviewers or the practice of naming individuals....
I have no idea how to police your guidelines, and as I have a generally variant point of view, I demote myself from 'Guideline Nazi' down to 'Drama Debate Despot'.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···