Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde *** 1/2
Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 11:10 amGordon the Optom7 posts in thread
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde *** 1/2
Sat, 3 Mar 2007, 11:10 amLike the story itself, this play was split into two, the good and the bad. I will start with the bad. Robert Louis Stevenson (not Stevens as on the programme cover) was essentially a poet who wrote stories, and because of his literary skills his books were very densely and poetically written. The descriptions and the atmosphere were built up beautifully, and when reading, the booklovers can pace themselves and adsorb the qualities. Whilst David Edgar has written a sensitive adaptation, he has retained much of the verbose intricacies of the book, which when performed on the stage the language becomes much too rich to absorb.
This was probably the first book for children, and every child born before 1950 knew this story inside out, which tackled the effects of ‘uppers and downers’.
The two superb directors, Peter Kirkwood and Nicola Bond rightly decided to have the transposition from the good to the bad persona, to be shown as several subtle character changes rather than with make-up. Phil Barnett portrayed the elderly doctor and the young sprightly ‘man about town’ superbly, but unfortunately Mr Hyde had an accent – was it Scottish? Perhaps Irish? Could that have been a bit of Geordie? The accent was variable and annoying, and at one critical point of the story where his confused feelings were being explained it was almost impossible to comprehend what was being said.
Now the good, and there is a great deal more good than bad. From the front of house sepia photos and maps display, through to the wonderfully inventive sets. There were four major sets all beautifully constructed, with tremendous care in the décor and choice of props. The tricky and complex scene changes took place totally silently (congratulations) behind the curtain, as various scenes were enacted in front of the proscenium arch. Everyone from the one-liners to the major players conquered their parts and characters superbly.
The lighting was outstanding with careful thought going into the angle of illumination and the choice of colour of filter. The thought given to the visual effects and brilliant music choice and sound design, was well above average (David Finney and Rob Tagliaferri). The costumes were sumptuous and of the correct period.
The whole production was professional, but dare I say too complicated for the average punter?
Congratulations especially to Sarah Christiner as the mal-treated servant, the butler, Norm Heath, who seems to be capable of performing any part with skill and the whole cast who tackled this tricky script.
Well worth a viewing.
Like the story itself, this play was split into two, the good and the bad. I will start with the bad. Robert Louis Stevenson (not Stevens as on the programme cover) was essentially a poet who wrote stories, and because of his literary skills his books were very densely and poetically written. The descriptions and the atmosphere were built up beautifully, and when reading, the booklovers can pace themselves and adsorb the qualities. Whilst David Edgar has written a sensitive adaptation, he has retained much of the verbose intricacies of the book, which when performed on the stage the language becomes much too rich to absorb.
This was probably the first book for children, and every child born before 1950 knew this story inside out, which tackled the effects of ‘uppers and downers’.
The two superb directors, Peter Kirkwood and Nicola Bond rightly decided to have the transposition from the good to the bad persona, to be shown as several subtle character changes rather than with make-up. Phil Barnett portrayed the elderly doctor and the young sprightly ‘man about town’ superbly, but unfortunately Mr Hyde had an accent – was it Scottish? Perhaps Irish? Could that have been a bit of Geordie? The accent was variable and annoying, and at one critical point of the story where his confused feelings were being explained it was almost impossible to comprehend what was being said.
Now the good, and there is a great deal more good than bad. From the front of house sepia photos and maps display, through to the wonderfully inventive sets. There were four major sets all beautifully constructed, with tremendous care in the décor and choice of props. The tricky and complex scene changes took place totally silently (congratulations) behind the curtain, as various scenes were enacted in front of the proscenium arch. Everyone from the one-liners to the major players conquered their parts and characters superbly.
The lighting was outstanding with careful thought going into the angle of illumination and the choice of colour of filter. The thought given to the visual effects and brilliant music choice and sound design, was well above average (David Finney and Rob Tagliaferri). The costumes were sumptuous and of the correct period.
The whole production was professional, but dare I say too complicated for the average punter?
Congratulations especially to Sarah Christiner as the mal-treated servant, the butler, Norm Heath, who seems to be capable of performing any part with skill and the whole cast who tackled this tricky script.
Well worth a viewing.
Watch your Hyde!
Bravo
Off to see
Congrats to all
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde