Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

A Laughing Matter? Hmm, Yes and No

Tue, 4 Nov 2008, 11:18 pm
Greg Ross30 posts in thread

I have given A Laughing Matter considerable thought, having gone to Sue Lynch’s GRADS production last Saturday night. I suspect my problem is that I don’t have a traditional theatre background – I find Shakespeare as boring as bat shit – opera without the saving grace of powerful emotion-laden music. And although I’m often lucky enough to be cast in English early 20th century pieces, (seemingly inevitably as a cop), my true love is for Australian, New Zealand and American drama. Give me Travelling North, Skin Tight, or Death of a Salesman anytime.

But I’ve always felt I should like and understand the “cultural” stuff, even if, as this was, it’s a contemporary work. For some reason, the play kept reminding me of Last Tango in Little Grimley and Noises Off. And that I think is the issue for me, I feel the playwright tried too hard to be clever. A work that had some excellent comedy and pathos, not to mention an interesting premise, became a “look at me, look at me,” pretentious wank. I’d have cut 40 minutes out of it, most from the first act, which wallowed in wasted time.

However that’s the fault of the playwright, not the director or the cast. And here I should state that I auditioned for a part, as I wanted to see if I could handle a role in such a production. Sue decided against casting me and she was right, I could not have done it justice. Taking this play on was a brave move.

I understood the reasoning (and need for) the minimalist set, but thought the production suffered for it. I would have liked to have seen more intricate touches – more often than not, I felt I was watching rehearsals, no doubt due to the fact that the script dragged in several places, (yes, I'm aware some scenes were rehearsals). Also, I’m not familiar with the acoustics of the Dolphin Theatre, but I certainly struggled to hear some of the female voices – maybe it's a similar problem to that of Rechabites with male voices.

It was the actors who saved the play, with some wonderful interpretations. Perhaps Grant Watson, superb as Oliver Goldsmith and Sonia Marcon, delicious as Mrs Butler, are worthy of special mention, which is not to leave out any of the other excellent cast members, all of which leads me back to the script as the problem,. Somebody needed to say to April De Angelis, “Yes darling, you’re wonderfully clever, (by half!), but have you considered using an editor?”

There were some magic moments of farce and comedy, some pure vaudeville slapstick, but it was too long in coming. Worth going to for the pleasure of watching the craft of the Director, her cast and crew … and also as a lesson (for all writers and journos) in understanding the value of editing.

As a postscript, (in case of accusations of bias), I will add that Sue Lynch and Peter Bloor are much valued friends, I've had the pleasure of working with Tony Rees, a lovely talented guy, I wondered whether the nose Peter Nettleton wore at one stage, was in relation to a couple of recent denials he’s made on this site about having a go at me and finally,  like the wistful memories of a first love, I have great fondness for Sonia and Grant, as they held my hand (metaphorically speaking), when I first took the ludicrous step of appearing on stage.

Lighting for A Laughing Matter

Thu, 6 Nov 2008, 09:08 pm
Hi Icarus, Having studied lighting at uni, I know how hard your job can be! And how few people are often willing to hold up their hands and be part of the techie team! As for constructive criticism, I'm one of those people that notices stuff like pins holding the bodices of costumes together, and how peoples make up is done... and I do notice lighting (especially the really pretty, cool stuff... ) So here's what I noticed about your lighting for the show... I sat in the front row of Laughing Matter on opening night. I thought your lighting was solid, lit the space well etc. The only main things I noticed were the (to me) random lighting transition that occurred between scenes in the first act. They went from your wash, through your green/blue specials into your wash again, for no apparent reason (again, to me). I don't mind special states in lighting, in fact, I think that they can help with mood and atmosphere but this transition seemed to have no purpose other than to fill the stage whilst waiting for the set change to complete. It provided a sense of expectation with no pay off really... I kind of went, "what?????" and waited to see what happened next...which happened to be more blackout... :( The other lighting state that I queried was the DSR special on the chair during the first act, which Peter stood in prior to the "flashback" sequence with the apron... I think that it was required for the scene, but perhaps needed to be held for longer for it to have any real impact or suggestion of time passing/moving, or a changing from the "real" time of the play to the memory...It faded up and down so quickly it almost looked like it wasn't meant to be there... But this is perhaps not your fault.. it is probably what you were told to do by the director/SM and what was programmed in your LX plot... As someone I spoke to mentioned, maybe he even needed to move or put on the apron in the special to help the audience with this concept also... So I hope this helps you. If not, disregard it. That's fine by me. As mentioned below me, sometimes the best feedback about tech is that its not mentioned at all... Its like the saying, "if they are noticing the lipstick on your teeth, then you're doing something wrong..." So perhaps take silence as a compliment and keep up the good work! Amy :) P.S. I'll leave you with this techie quote: "And God said, 'LX1, go'" P.P.S. Icarus, if I have this wrong (and I probably do) and you didn't personally light A Laughing Matter, feel even more free to ignore this review... Sorry to the person who did for the confusion. But my feedback still stands!

Thread (30 posts)

← Back to Theatre Reviews