A Laughing Matter? Hmm, Yes and No

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.

Flamin good point Josh, about the mise en scene constructive comments. It would be better, with a lot more technical content in these reviews.

I once heard a Lighting Techy comment that a good lighting design is one that you don't notice. While I think he meant in terms of obviously black spots and such, I think the implication is that for most non-technical people it would be very hard to comment on lighting unless it was bad. Only a truely experienced Tech Person might notice good lighting.

Am I wrong?

Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

SN Profile

No I 'm probably wrong jeff! In as much as you can apply much the same adage, to all the other aspects of theatre. To me in this situation it would be based upon, how it is presented to &/or  perceived by any reviewers. The adage is about the design, similarly there are general aspects, much the same as with acting or directing. Which reviewers comment upon, as in being only their opinion. It does not mean they have to be an accomplished actor, director or in this case even to have technical ability!

There have been some excellent points made about lighting, I didn't comment, as I simply don't have the experience to comment, other than to know when something doesn't look right (I work in light and shade with photography) and it all looked fine to me, e.g.: I could have commented on the spot-lit Narrator, (it was great), but it was such an obvious ploy to do technically, that I didn't mention it. I was asked to help with the lighting for a play about to go up at the Old Mill and wanted to learn, but I couldn't be there for the whole season, I would like to learn.

The sound effects didn't register with me, which may, or may not have been what was intended. Probably that falls into the same category of not noticing what was done well.

Some obviously need to understand that a review is just one person's thoughts, formed in relation to his or her reaction to a production. Its' perfectly valid, (if it's not written dripping with malice and ill-considered thought), but just one opinion.

I've always learnt something from well-intentioned criticism, even if I’ve thought the person didn’t understand what I was saying / producing / doing and then thought, “OK, what can I do to ensure I include those people in my vision in the future.”  One thing’s for sure, nobody gets very far in any discipline hiding in the shadows of anonymity.

All Good Things

Greg Ross

Minister for Good Times