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 

Thread (20 posts)

Greg RossSun, 20 July 2008, 12:36 am

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 

Walter PlingeSun, 20 July 2008, 08:00 am

WHOA!!

Ouch!
Walter PlingeSun, 20 July 2008, 08:27 am

WHat's "cringe educing"?

WHat's "cringe educing"?
Walter PlingeSun, 20 July 2008, 11:14 am

The truth will set you free - but first it makes you miserable.

I also saw the play - and it pains me to admit it but you're 100% right. About everything! For half the play I didn't know where to look, I was so embarrassed for the performers. The music was totally out of place. Music exsits in plays to give a sense of time, not just to carry the story. Folk / country themed renditions were completely inappropriate. Someone should have said something before the play went up. The women were *far* stronger than the men - although I think John Forde did an admirable job in his many roles (I lost count how many). And could someome please explain to Peter (the director) that a director not properly knowing their own lines in their own production is just too ridiculous for words. Katherine English DID carry the show - pity she wasn't supposed to. Her strong performance aside, she was only one of two actors who played a single role (the other one being Errol's character). I was unsure whom we were supposed to *sympathise* with for most of this play. Errol was a bastard in real life ...and finding out that he profited from the slave trade as a young man was a disturbing insight. This left Katherine as the only other character we had a chance to bond with. I found myself sympathising with her far more often than I did with any other character in the play. It has to be said: why did Harbour let this go on? Their last production was Wuthering Heights - and the reveiws were supurb. Not all the cast/director's fault, mind you. The writing called for over a dozen different locations to be depicted over a thirty year period. That's possible with a film - but nearly impossible with a stage play. The result was a confusing mishmash. Please Harbour - step in and intervene if you see a train wreck like this coming. Letting a disaster of these proportions happen is never a kindness to anyone.
Walter PlingeSun, 20 July 2008, 01:12 pm

No review

I think the best thing, in a case so bad, is not to review at all, or to write a very short review. This kind of scathing attack, whether warranted or not, is only going to be harmful to those involved. I guess in a way you see that you are saving potential audiences. I certainly won't go and see it now.
Walter PlingeSun, 20 July 2008, 01:52 pm

scathing attack????

What exactly do you mean by that? Surely that is the point isn't it of doing a review? If nobody likes a show then shouldn't they write it up and express their feelings and warn others? If Ron Banks reviewed a play that he didn't like (or indeed any critic) what would the public think of them if they were to write a possible review of something dreadful that the general public would pay big bucks to go and see? I'm sure they'll be delighted. And this is no sour grapes to the cast. I have worked with some of them and I know they are more then competent performers, if not more so, but if they feel that this production didn't work out for them, they should take it on the chin. As for you the so called scathing attack has possibly saved you some embarassment and hard earned cash!
Tim ProsserSun, 20 July 2008, 08:38 pm

I was one of that party of

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.
Walter PlingeSun, 20 July 2008, 10:35 pm

Ron Banks hasn't been arts

Ron Banks hasn't been arts editor of The West Australian for several years; it's now Stephen Bevis.
Jodie HansenSun, 20 July 2008, 11:12 pm

Review

Greg, congrats on putting a review up that wasn't glowing. Too often you see the ones that are almost nauseating with gush about a show that is actually mediocre. Most people don't like to put up a review that doesn't pull punches because it might offend. People, please note that a review is ONE PERSON'S OPINION of one night of the show. Whether you take note of it or not is entirely up to you. The cast members that were taken to task should possibly look at it as a wake-up and put some effort in and the others should take it as read. Greg, I look forward to more reviews from your pen both good and bad.
Walter PlingeMon, 21 July 2008, 11:22 am

unfortunately the strained

unfortunately the strained sensebilities of alot of supporters of particular amateur theatre companies blind them against the reality of what is acceptable and what is not. The director of this piece has to put his hand up and admit that he got it wrong here. i am unaware of his other plays, however, he can only be measured by what is produced and unfortunately this was it. i felt the piece lacked energy and did not engage the audience, instead there was a distance created which further highlighted the awkwardness of the evening. at times i felt that the actors were embarrased to be in it and we the audience were embarrased to be watching it. the few and far between moments of humour were gratefuly recieved in order to let out the pent up emotional tension created within. i am sorry but this was a shambles and has to be described as so. i see no reason to sugar coat the truth especially when i had to part with well earned cash in return for something that was under prepared and lacked any kind of quality.
Walter PlingeMon, 21 July 2008, 11:47 am

Erroll Flynn -

Saw the production on Saturday night, and I agree it certainly was a bit 'different', but I did observe that most clientele, including Yours Truly, came away in an upbeat mood and with smiles on their faces and I believe for all the best reasons.(no we did not over indulge the complimentary sherry!). In short, I was amused and entertained, which as i understand it was the objective of the production was it not ? It is important for all artistic performances to be critiqued, everyone involved needs the feedback, but I thought I'd put forward the view from an entertainment perspective. Keep your peckers up guys !
Walter PlingeMon, 21 July 2008, 12:28 pm

correction

re previous post. Read "friday" for "Saturday"
Walter PlingeMon, 21 July 2008, 01:17 pm

I think it's great that

I think it's great that this website offers supportive reviews. They still often point out weaknesses or flaws in the work. No one gains anything from a public bashing. If the director really needs to know, why not just tell him in person?
Walter PlingeMon, 21 July 2008, 04:24 pm

Criticism

If you read Greg Ross' review, it was harsh but fair. At never any point did he slag off the cast and director. Contrast his review with those morons that severely criticised Rock Apocalyse and MiniSkirts and Minefields, where their critcisms bordered on the petty and the personal. Most of those "criticisms" were from those that had a personal axe to grind with the director in the latter production and sheer spite in the former. I presume that some of those people despised the director in one case because they weren't picked to be in the production to begin with. Also, I would suggest that in most cases the plays that are reviewed go the other way with high praise for plays that were least deserving. This happens to often. Notable exception is Gordon the Optom. At least he is honest in his reviews. Anyway, why would you think a brief word in the ear of a director be of any benefit to an audience in general?
Jodie HansenMon, 21 July 2008, 05:42 pm

Agreed!

My post that did exist here has been pointed out to me as unfair therefore I withdraw it....
Dean SchulzeMon, 21 July 2008, 09:15 pm

"Cringe educing" is

"Cringe educing" is something anyone could write when doing a review at 12.36am. Get over it.
crgwllmsTue, 22 July 2008, 06:32 pm

Which banks?

Hi Paul. Your point is a non-sequitur. Ron may not be the arts editor, but he has been back in town for over a year and regularly writes reviews. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------
Walter PlingeThu, 14 Aug 2008, 01:42 pm

Errol Flynn - Well Done to All

I was honestly shocked and appalled at the scathing reviews posted in regards to Harbour Theatre’s recent production of Errol Flynn. I had the upmost pleasure in attending the last performance of this play. As a community theatre play I congratulate all those who were part of this production. Why does Greg Ross feel it necessary to disparage not only the play, but also the actors at the level he does in his review. Also what is his obsession with labeling the play a drama, musical, comedy etc. A combination of these entire genre’s is one that offers a little of everything and results in a well rounded evenings entertainment such as this production. This is a community play, yes all may not go well and yes there may be some areas of the play that could have been honed, overall the play was funny, interesting, different and very entertaining. It was also a pleasure to watch the actors enjoying what they do and being part of a community theatre. I feel that a little bias has crept in when reviewing the newcomer Tony Clarke’s performance as opposed to the regular theatre members. I among many others in the audience that night found Tony Clarke’s performance of Errol not only entertaining, but also a very convincing portrayal of Errol. Not once did he falter, when others Mr Ross has quoted as standouts did. Tony Clarke showed a passion for his role and put his own stamp on his portrayal. Tony Clarke and Katherine English worked well together and complimented each other’s roles I disagree strongly with Mr Ross’s comment on “Katherine English was the show”. A comment that is full of bias and utter rubbish. I will say here that yes she is a talented actor, let’s not go over the top here though. Also his comment on “thank god for the women in this production”. What was he thinking with when he wrote this comment? The women is the show were great, but they were part of a great team. Mr Ross in regards to Norma Holmes song in the play – she was a pleasure to listen to and maybe a little out of place in the context of the play, however it was a beautifully sung song and one that was enjoyed by all and a very delightful inclusion in the play. Peter Nettleton put together an interesting take on the Errol Flynn story. Full praise to you and all at Harbour Theatre Company that helped put the production together. I have attended the theatre since I was a young girl, and have had the pleasure of being involved in amateur theatre productions. This play was my first at Harbour Theatre and definitely will not be my last. The venue is intimate and the Harbour Theatre Company has a great vibe and energy. As I walked out of the play that evening I took in the comments of those around me. An entertaining evening was had by all and this is my fellow theatre goers and savage reviewers is what it is all about. Final comment to Tony Clarke – you are a talented actor and I look forward to seeing you perform in another production. To all of those who were slighted by reviewer’s from myself and those that attended that play with me WELL DONE. Your passion and love of the theatre shows. Thank god for community theatre groups.
DazzaBThu, 14 Aug 2008, 02:26 pm

Scathing? Really??

Scathing?? I don't think I agree. Yes, his review was strongly worded, but scathing? Look back in the review forum for a thread about a musical called Paris and a post by someone who calls themself Sting (not Stinger aka Peter Nettleton - let's not get confused here) then you'll see a scathing review! Greg wrote an honest critique of the show he saw. He didn't like it and he wrote that he didn't like it and why. If I was in a show and got that critique I would take on board what was said and use it to try to do better. I'd also like to note that Greg gave a balanced commentary - he didn't simply bash the show. He picked out the bits that worked for him and complimented them and he picked out the bits that didn't work for him and said so. He also said why! Actually, I think that's a really important point here, he gave reasons for his opinions - both positive and negative. This was constructive criticism at its best. Remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion. "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott Adams
Walter PlingeThu, 14 Aug 2008, 03:32 pm

Do what?

So basically what you're saying is that all critical reviews are meant to be flattering and positive even if a play is a bad production? Voltaire once said that "I don't agree what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it". It's a great pity you don't subscribe to that view. I never saw this production and because it was a musical had no intention of seeing it, but someone else did, and wrote what he thought was a fair crit on this production that disappointed him AND he wasn't the only one. Reading what he wrote seemed fair and balanced and it didn't strike me as particularly scathing. If the director didn't like this review (and he didn't) then sour grapes. If he felt that the review was fair (and again he didn't) then he should take all that was written on board. You are free to say that you liked this production and you are just as free to disagree with Mr Ross. But to suggest that Mr Ross was being scathing and disparaging in his review is more then a little disingenuous and you might want to try a bit more tact next time.
← Back to Theatre Reviews