Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

Error Flynn at Harbour Theatre

Sun, 20 July 2008, 12:36 am
Greg Ross20 posts in thread

Four of us drove away from Fremantle on Saturday night, shocked and deeply concerned at what we’d just witnessed at Harbour Theatre, a production of Rob George’s ”Errol Flynn’s Great Big Adventure Book For Boys,” directed by Peter Nettleton.

We spent the next half hour debating the merits of writing a review or not, simply because the production is so awful it almost defies logic, I was embarrassed to be in the audience. We vacillated between, “It’s better to say nothing, than to hurt people” and “No, somebody has to tell them.” Yes, perhaps it would be better to say nothing, but at a time when community theatres are trying to attract larger (and new) audiences, then it’s probably best to say something, when standards seem a little low.

There were obviously some talented people in the production, but dear God what a disjointed shambolic piece. The script is so bad it should be left in a bottom drawer - forever. I have no idea whether it’s a comedy (black or otherwise), a drama, or a musical, or perhaps a combination of all three. Whatever, it fails on every score. The comedy lines are dreadful Benny Hill type crass jokes with no subtlety and no clever edge. There is drama - for the last seven minutes - and there is music, BUT the music is so totally out of place and context it’s beyond comprehension.

Don’t get me wrong, the musicians are all very competent, I just couldn’t figure out the country and western style. it was illogical. Then there came a beautiful solo voice and guitar piece by Norma Holmes, as Errol sailed across the Atlantic. What on earth was a gentle, sorrowful piece of folk music doing there? The era was wrong, the feeling was wrong. It was as if Norma has mistakenly wandered in from Clancy’s next door and found herself on the wrong stage. Australian Crawl did the only song to use, or why not chuck in some Glenn Miller?

Unfortunately, a further major problem exists in casting Tony Clarke as Errol Flynn, certainly there is a visual similarity, but this is not a role for Tony to play. It was never believable and sadly there was no life to the character, although there was a little glimpse in the last three minutes or so. Errol Flynn was not a wimp, he was a smooth talking, aggressive, misogynist bastard, an “eats, roots and leaves” sort of prick. I felt I was watching somebody trying to be Flynn in an audition, who hadn't had the character explained to him, which leads me to direction.

I’m sorry Peter, I think you’ve taken on (perhaps had to?) too much with this production. The play appeared blocked, but not directed and your acting mistakes just kept on happening, from early entries to constant line-dropping, it was truly a terrible, terrible, cringe educing performance. There is a lesson there for all of us, in that a complicated (and I’m being charitable, I think it’s a dreadfully written play) work needs a director’s undivided attention. Then there’s the set, I realise there’s enormous difficulty in covering so many vastly different scene changes, but what was gong on with the walls, it just looked like the painted scenery from a previous play that you were rehearsing in.

John Deasy and John Forde are obviously capable actors and I’d certainly go to see them again. Although neither are strong singers, they carried their tunes. Matt Coccovia’s barman roles were small and he was nervous, but he has a nice presence, that again, needs direction.

Thank God for the women in this production, they almost manage to save, through sheer talent, what is basically an unmitigated disaster. They can sing and their characterisations are believable, with the added difficulty of playing multiple roles. Sadly, Kirstie Chorley and Sherrilee Walsh were so far ahead of the men in this production, it was embarrassing to watch.

Then there is Katherine English. Fan – bloody – tastic! She was the show! And carried it (with Kirstie and Sherrilee). Here was a master of her craft; it was a joy to watch her nuances of expression and her portrayal of emotion. I’m assuming her role is probably myth, but the curious thing is, she turns it into something credible and utterly believable.

Peter writes in the programme, that his view of theatre is, ”Keep it funny, throw in some tunes and you can’t lose.” This abomination of a work, is not funny … well, it is funny peculiar, the tunes are so utterly out of place and context that it’s nonsensical and we’ve all lost with this production – the cast and crew who have given their time and effort and the audience who are treated to something that should never have sent the light of day.

Greg Ross 

I was one of that party of

Sun, 20 July 2008, 08:38 pm
I was one of that party of four who attended last night's performance and, while I can't say that I was particularly shocked or deeply concerned by it, neither can I truthfully say that I was bedazzled by it - which I hoped, and even perhaps expected to be. I didn't think it was a bad script at all. In fact, Peter sent it to for my consideration way back at the beginning of the year, and I thought it looked like a lot of fun. Unfortunately other commitments arose in the meantime and with the inevitable clash of timing I wasn't able to be involved in the eventual production of it - as much as I would have liked to be. Not only because I enjoy working with Peter, but because I genuinely believe this could be a very entertaining play. It's always difficult to be critical of the efforts of friends whom one has worked with in the past and hopes to work with again in the future. Difficult also when, through personal experience, one can appreciate all the hard work put in by cast and crew, and feel affinity with them for it. I think all of us who tread the boards (and have trodden more than a few of them)understand only too well that occasionally we'll have a so-called 'off night'. Sometimes the energy level, for whatever reason - and a reserved, unresponsive audience could be one - just isn't where it normally would be. Every night is different, and I wouldn't mind betting that today's matinee performance was pretty sparkling. In fact I'm pretty sure Peter would have rallied the troops for a dressing room pep-talk after he (and possibly all of them) had read Greg's review above some time this morning. I'm only sorry that my hectic Sunday schedule of morning radio and then rehearsals prevented me from getting on here in time to wish them all a good one. I actually agree with Greg's observations of individual performances in last night's show. Yes indeed the girls were all terrific and I thought, on the whole, that they handled the quick character changes with much more aplomb than the men. Not that it means I think the men were terrible - far from it. John Forde in particular had a pretty good grasp of the various accents required, though all, it must be said, struggled with American. And Peter tripping over a few lines . . . well, that happens to all of us now and then, doesn't it? When it does happen it can put a bit of a dent in your confidence - hopefully only momentarily - and I suspect that this may have happened to Peter last night, as I couldn't help noticing a significant lowering of his energy, particularly in his turn as the sideshow spruiker. I'm sure he was just fine today and will be again tomorrow. Whilst there are quite a few of my Harbour friends involved in this show (and please all you anonymous Walters, don't try to make something out of that), Tony Clarke is unknown to me - as yet. I haven't seen him perform prior to last night, but I certainly recognise a capable actor when I see one. In his portrayal of Flynn though, I thought he was almost there, but not quite. It may have been, again, an energy level issue, but to me the supremely confident, extrovertedly persuasive nature of this highly successful con man and reprobate . . . just wasn't there. Delivery of lines, at times, were just that - a delivery, without much conviction. It somehow gave the impression that Flynn was rather tired of life, which may indeed have been the case by the time 1959 rolled up and found him now a washed-up, drunken has-been - but I really think Tony needs to crank up the energy level quite a bit for Errol to be really convincing as the smooth-talking rogue that he was in life. I'm pretty sure he can do it - as I said, perhaps Saturday's show was just an off-night. I may well even go to see it again towards the end of the season (well, later in the week anyway!) to see how its going. Perhaps I won't have to dash off so soon, too. Sorry I had to last night. I'm not going to go into the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the music or the design of the set, because I've prattled on here for long enough and I really ought to go and get some dinner organised! I know you'll be reading this Peter, and I know you're rather fond of this expression - 'Chookas m'dears' - so pass it on and I hope to catch up with you all later in the week. And to everyone else . . . don't be put off by observations expressed here - mine included. Go and see the show and make up your own minds. A lot of work has been put in by some very talented and capable people, and their show - like every show - at least deserves an audience. Tim Prosser.

Thread (20 posts)

← Back to Theatre Reviews