The Importance of being Earnest

Thanks, Gordon, not only for your kind words on the show, but for the speed with which you posted them (I believe you saw the matinee and got notice up prior to that evening's show?) ...and also for risking the unfair criticism of Lady Bracknell on this thread, coming after you endured Hamlet's on that other thread...! Lady Bracknell, however, is going to withhold any unnecessary criticism, other than to point out that she wishes to fairly credit Merri Ford as responsible for all the costumes, rather than our capable SM and Tour Manager, Glynis Best. As there was no official programme, this error is entirely forgivable. (She also wonders about the soft shoe shuffle you saw, but will hold her tongue.) Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

The soft shoe shuffle, probably the wrong term, related to the short

synchronised hop and a skip sequence that Ernest and Algy did together.

The season was too short, I would go to see it again any time.

I had to laugh at the number of people who gasped when you took off your wig as they had not realised you were a fella.

It is not often that an actor announces his own entrance as a different character. Yes I watched this one.

I can't agree with you Gordon, I saw the show last night and found it unsatisfying. The great thing in this play is the text. The reason it works so well is that the "one-liners" aren't that at all- they are part of an intensely crafted dialogue. I don't think this production saw it that way. On the whole, the rhythm of the performances was toward milking each line for a laugh rather than letting the text do the work. I don't know if this was a directorial decision, and given the diabolical choices made in Hamlet I think I can assume as much. Last night's Earnest was more like a panto, played for cheap laughs. That's fine too, and most of the audience seemed to enjoy the show. For me it was a real shame. I will say that the production values and design were a great improvement over Hamlet. There were still moments of poltergeisted curtains upstaging actors, and severe problems with the lighting. The costumes were mostly great, except for poor Dan's last jacket, which was too big to the point it impeded his gesticulating. And here, I guess, is where my disappointment really lies. I have seen this cast in other productions and I know their capacity for thoughtful and heartfelt performance. Whether through direction or choice, the performances in this production were hyperbolised to levels of awkwardness. I just wish that some faith had been shown in the text of what may be the most important comedy in our language. It's a hilarious play, but it needs to be played straight to work. A series of cheap gags isn't what made Oscar Wilde a legend.

Terrific! I am personally quite pleased that our play has elicited two extremely opposite viewpoints. I'm sorry you were so unsatisfied. But as you note, you may simply have different tastes to the majority of the audience. "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong. " - (Oscar Wilde). . >> "It's a hilarious play, but needs to be played straight to work". I might agree with you, but I am not certain of how you define a play as 'working'. We all assumed it was a comedy. And made the bold assumption that to make a comedy work, you need to get the audience laughing. And then, because each audience seemed to be continually laughing, and quite raucously, and most constantly, and on almost every line and gesture...we made the mistake of believing it was all working. As you say, if there was a better way of playing it to achieve your definition of hilarity, it was a shame we didn't do it for you. "The moment you think you understand a great work of art, it's dead for you." - (Oscar Wilde). So I'm sorry you seem to have understood the play. Most others just seemed satisfied with thoroughly enjoying it. Cheers, Craig PS: And really? The 'most important comedy in our language'? I wouldn't dare take it so seriously. It only appears so important because that's half its title. ~<8>-/====\---------

Please could you list the 'series of cheap gags' to which you object? sitting on a hat? I'll give you that one. It happened by accident one night, but yes, sometimes I do it again just for fun, and it is a cheap laugh, but entirely justified in the context of Jack's despair at his lack of control. doubletakes at Prism's severe observations? Yes, it pushes the envelope of truth. what are the others? I'd be pleased if you'd enlighten the readers of this thread exactly where you think the text was not served by choices made... Please would you also define what you mean by 'playing it straight'. I thought I was in a farce. There's certainly nothing straight about Wilde's plot. Most people who've seen it seem to be aware they are in a world of heightened reality, where nothing is 'straight', and values are weird in the extreme. We are a company with the director in our midst, aka the companies of the middle ages (Moliere etc), touring the countryside providing entertainment. We were given direction in the rehearsal room, we made choices, we found business, to serve Wilde's world we worked out our function and consequently our character with the guidance of our director, and then over 3 weeks of playing, we 7 actors refined our performances before a series of audiences. You see the distillation of that process. Like musicians, we play the audience. Our director is jumping through hoops of joy at what this company of 7 remarkable comic actors has achieved. And given the hilarity expressed by our audiences, which still surprises us in its vehemence, it perhaps suggests we have well and truly milked this sacred cow of every laugh Wilde intended. But please, lets have that list of cheap gags you refered to...

The worst thing that ever happened to poor old Oscar is that people started taking him seriously!

It might be important to earnestly point out that cernunnon was 'unsatisfied' for personal reasons that were nothing to do with the play - he might have let this taint his observations?

I think that there is only one thing more embarrassing than a bad review. That is when members of the cast feel the need to defend the decisions they made in response to a reviewer. I feel that these comments reek of insecurity instead of pride, and I am disappointed that the cast has decided to challenge the reviews instead of considering the opinions of the audience. I did not enjoy the production of Hamlet and recognized some 'diabolical decisions' that resulted in inaudible dialogue and produced misinterpretations of the text. I did not see Earnest, and as a colleague of mine suggested as well, the responses to comments in this forum has made me glad to miss it. I would also propose that those with no names and snide comments concerning the personal lives of those within our theatrical community keep their remarks off public forums.

I once played Dr Chasuble (hope I spelt it correctly... It was a while ago now) in IoBE. I remeber on one night I had to pause for close to 20 seconds during a line while the audience laughed themselves stupid at something my character had just said. The president of the company later (jovially) accused me of milking it for all it was worth. I said I hadn't milked it, I was just waiting in character for the laughs to subside and trying not to corpse. I think the risk (and the joy) of Wilde is that he gets such great laughs that one is tempted to push them further, and yet even holding back on the gag factor doesn't necessarily get one off the guilty-of-milking charge. I can't offer an opinion of this production in question, but I do feel that each person is entitled to their feelings/responses without having to justify or explain why. freddie the rocking jedi badger

Dan, I didn't write a review to attack you or anyone involved with the production. Please don''t be insulted. As you note, there were plenty of people in your many audiences that loved the show, and that should be enough for you. My singular opinion doesn't discount their many. As I stated in my original post, it was a shame for me. And that's just me, and only a handful of other people I have spoken to. I don't claim to be an authority on audience satisfaction. I am entitled to my opinion, and I'm not one to agree with the mob if I think differently. As to a list of gags, I didn't object to anything in particular- as I stated, I felt that every line was played that way. You can, and have, defended that position. That's fine too, and most of the audience agreed with you. To illustrate my disappointment, I'll use your hat gag. I don't think there was anything wrong with this- hell, it's a classic. Where it failed for me is that I saw it coming from the moment you put the hat on the seat. Because of the unsophisticated style of humour used throughout the show, it became predictable. I didn't think it was unfunny in isolation, but when that's all there was to the show, it didn't stand out. I'm happy that you feel you all played Earnest in a way true to a farce. I just don't think that's the best reading of the text. For me it works best as a satire of the comedies of manners, particularly those of the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century. Without descending in to a semantic argument, I don't think that farce is the style Wilde wrote in. You do. Fine. I think what I saw was more like a sitcom, which is certainly derivative of farce. Maybe Craig (via citation) is right that I understood the text and that it spoiled the show for me. I won't deny that at all. I'd prefer to say that my understanding of the text is different to yours. The play can be read many ways, and I didn't like your reading. You don't need to justify it to me, and it has already been validated by the overwhelming majority of audience members. Be proud of that. In response to Oscar the Grouch, if I wanted to make my personal life public, I wouldn't be quite so silly as to air my opinions on this forum, which is unfortunately notorious for undignified and unvalidated comments such as yours. I'm glad to say that people who know me well understand that I have a little more class than that.

Hi Nathan I DON'T think bad reviews are embarrassing. They're thought provoking. And when my thoughts are provoked, I want to discuss it. Opinions are always valid, always subjective, and always interesting. But also only as significant as we choose to let them be. One individual opinion must always be taken with a grain of salt...and I don't trust gushing reviews either. (Hence my somewhat cavalier attitude to the good write ups we got here as well.) The collective opinion of a larger group of people, like an audience response on the night, is always easier to trust, but that is a fleeting thing and differs from night to night...which is why we come back night after night, play after play, to test the relationship again, and you ought never to rest on your laurels. If I WERE insecure, I imagine I would have shut up after your admonition above for fear of offending you further. And if I challenge, I only challenge you to be clear and specific. I take no offense at opinions but I challenge them to be carefully considered. You are within your rights to not have enjoyed Hamlet. It was by no means perfect and I wonder if some of those diabolical decisions you recognize are the same as the ones I would single out myself? Hard to tell, as you don't specify, but I'd agree with your conclusions of some inaudibility and imperfect interpretations. A pity that pithy comments on a website might prejudice you against a show you have not even seen to judge for yourself, but it really makes no matter. The show's over, you can imagine it were as good or as bad as you wish. I also agree with some of cernunnon's comments, or at least respect his right to think of the shows as he pleases. But I found it too funny that his major complaint was that in a comedy, we were playing too much for laughs..! This might have been 'diabolical' if we WEREN'T getting those laughs....but as cernunnon admits that most of the audience WERE laughing...surely that's not a grave objection! Like I said on another thread, it all comes down to interpretation, and our interpretation may simply be the one that has cheap laughs all the way through it! That obviously didn't appeal to him, and he's allowed to feel that way. In fact, I likened him to Wilde himself, in his contrariness, hence my juxtaposition of those quotes Wilde made on the subject of art. Read my response again. I am genuinely happy to be provoking entirely opposing responses, I am perfectly comfortable with having a laugh at anyone and everyone including myself and now you, and I repeat how I finished my previous response...that none of it is worth taking all that seriously! Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Why does Mr Williams always get caught up in threads about his own performances. Please have the good grace to stand aside and allow people to have their own say, and view their opinions without worrying about a retort. As a matter of fact I saw the matinee performance and I was unimpressed, as I felt I had seen it all before. Also, as I had read some of your previous comments on other threads, Mr Williams, I felt a distinct diliking to you, as you come across as arrogant and self righteous in your writing as is evident in this thread...such a shame as without that I may have enjoyed it more. I hope you read this before it is cut down...your response will be one of interest

...you've suggested Craig doesn't get caught up responding in threads about his own performances.....and then you invite him to do so. You invite him to do so because, I'm guessing, you feel your attack on him is clever in some way and you're hoping he'll take your bait and respond so you can have another go at him. And you call Craig arrogant? I know Craig only peripherally but he really is a lovely chap and has a lot of knowledge to share given he's a professional actor which he'll freely share with anyone. Craig would probably be the first to agree that his wordy responses may shit some people and yes, he runs the risk of accusations of "self interest/self righteousness" whathaveyou. At least he states an opinion and I can assure you he's open to being told he's wrong. Disliking someone without actually taking the time to meet them and simply judging them on words alone seems a little short-sighted. Anyway, I remain confused why you've chided him on his retorts and then invited him to respond to your posting.

I personally think there is little to gain from an artist publicly responding to her or his critics - it makes the artist look defensive, insecure and unable to accept criticism of any kind, whether that's true or not. There simply isn't a way to do it that lets the artist come out on top. As a result I think we shouldn't do it. Just my opinion, obviously.

Always supposing that what an actor does onstage amounts to art. I personally have trouble distinguishing between art and craft in this context. Then again, when an actor is offstage and takes issue with his critics - perhaps that is all part of the "artistic process" - the end result being a 'stretched thread' such as this? :) Ssstinger>>>

I hope your post WON'T be cut down, as it is perfectly sensible. I gave it an 'excellent' rating. I get caught up in threads that interest me. Search back to all my previous contributions and you'll see that only a very tiny percentage are to do with my own involvement in a show. Naturally, though, if I am involved, it interests me...especially when others like yourself continue to challenge and provoke. I don't deny I can be arrogant and self-righteous. Of course, anyone who states a disliking for someone (or a diliking) could possibly also be considered arrogant or self-righteous. One of the side effects of expressing a strong opinion. A shame the show didn't impress you, but if you've seen it all before that's hardly surprising, as I don't think we did anything enormously innovative with Earnest (other than get a lot of cheap laughs!). And the final shame is that you feel unable to enjoy a play simply because you don't like how an actor has previously written in threads on unrelated topics. Do you also dislike paintings done by artists who cook food that you disagree with? Such a prejudice must severely limit your ability to enjoy a night out. Thanks for voicing your opinion. I hope my response to you interests you as much as you hoped it would. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Mr Williams the very fact that you had to put dilike in brackets because i didn't put an 's' in its place, confirms what I already believe or feel. The substance of what I said was lost on you, as you just had to pick up on the way it was composed. Whether this is intentional or not, I'm not sure but it just smacks of pure arrogance. When I read your words I see a man who puts himself on a pedestal, a man that lacks the necessarry humility to allow an audience to have an opinion without jumping to defend himself. Art remains subjective therefore we are all entitled to opinion without rebutal. May I assume that you are not a full time actor...therefore you have a job outside of this and therefore, you are not, despite, your best efforts to be judged on the same merits as those who act as a profession, however, you defend yourself and talk as if you are. I get very offended by this...but Im sure you will have something to say!

It's delicious when amateur theatre people get caught up in these tit-for-tat threads. It makes for such compulsive reading! But people...get over it! It's a hobby. Enjoy it...do it...and enjoy it some more! As well as theatre, i do mountain biking and fishing as a hobby. I can imagine the "review" section of the fishing website after a day out in the boat: "Rob , i found your knot tying to be sub-standard and the way you released your bail arm really left a lot to be desired. Having said that, your 'pump and wind' technique - once hooked up - was simply poetry. You deserve a medal for the nice snapper you caught..."

That's hilarious Wally. Yeah, most of us are amateurs. Mr Williams happens to do this for a living. www.meltheco.org.au

As it seems I have logged on before Murray or Grant or anyone tries to defend me, I am afraid, yes, it is me responding to you again. Seeing as we are being so formal, should I address you as Mr Plop? Mr Plop, I am kindly proving you right by indeed having something to say, as you hit the ball back in my court, and in games of this nature one keeps rallying back and forth until the opportunity presents itself to volley down the line for a point, or until the other fouls himself in the net... Such a short paragraph, but such a fine lob for me to smash! . >>The substance of what I said was lost on you... Really? What WAS the substance? You said I get caught up in these threads, which I agreed with. You saw nothing new in our matinee, which I agreed with. You said I come across as arrogant, which I agreed with. You wanted me to let you voice your opinion, which I agreed to. You wanted me to not worry about a retort, but were interested in my response...which confused me at first, until I decided to read you at face value - and so I assure you, I did not worry in the slightest while making my retort. And then you confessed that if you'd not read things I'd said in previous threads you might have enjoyed our performance more, which also confused me because I don't quite see how the two are correlated, but it shows that the deep feelings you harbour against an individual's thoughts can taint, for you, the art they produce. See? I might not have understood your substance but it certainly wasn't lost on me. >> you just had to pick up on the way it was composed. Yes, I did that too. Yes, it was intentional. >> it just smacks of pure arrogance. Geez Louise, you're not saying anything that I didn't put out there FIRST. These two threads discussing the responses to the two shows I've just been in were STARTED by me comparing myself to 'an arrogant smart arse who delights in the sound of his own argument'...I don't think you could get a more honest confession than that! So why do you feel the need to believe you are putting me back in my place by labeling me arrogant? You can't. >> I see a man who puts himself on a pedestal... I no longer put myself on that pedestal, although I can see it clearly when I look down from my ivory tower... >>> lacks the necessarry humility use your spell check on 'necessary'. >>> to allow an audience to have an opinion without jumping to defend himself. I actually don't defend myself that often, as I am (arrogantly, so they tell me) secure in my defense most of the time. What I do is attack lame arguments. It may look like the same thing, but any chess player will know there's a difference between offense and defense. And I think you'd find yourself wrong if you looked for evidence of me not allowing an audience to have an opinion. Yes, art is subjective, and I delight in seeing many sides of an argument, including totally opposing points of view (as I expressed near the top of this thread)...so long as they are argued WELL. It is too easy to make unsupported statements, to draw illogical conclusions, and to propose facts that are unsubstantiated, all while hiding under the guise of 'having an opinion'. My crusade is to challenge you, point out where your argument is weak, and invite you to construct a stronger one in reply. Should you become more convincing, I'll immediately back down and we all win. The parts that actually DO turn out to be personal, subjective opinion remain sacrosanct. (in fact, I have actively crusaded against the professional paper reviewers to try to get them to HAVE an opinion, rather than just re-hash press releases and say nothing of value-judgement). But when statements are made that show no thought or are demonstrably inaccurate...well, that's when you offend ME. >>May I assume that you are not a full time actor Yes, you may. If you don't mind being proven very wrong. >> therefore you have a job outside of this Correct. In the last 21 and a bit years, I have also worked as a professional musician, a professional songwriter, a professional improviser, a professional theatre reviewer (!), a professional theatre production manager, a professional theatre tour manager, a professional music director, a professional voiceover artist, a professional director, I'm currently a professional theatre stage manager, I worked for a short time as a professional scuba instructor (on a couple of film sets), and sometimes as a professional drama tutor & facilitator...but none of those jobs ever last long because I keep being offered acting work! >> despite your best efforts to be judged on the same merits as those who act as a profession Thanks for your concern, but as you see, it's no longer such an effort. >> you defend yourself and talk as if you are. Ay, there's the rub. >> I get very offended Look, I'm sorry you seem to take offense at everything I do. I honestly don't know why I take such perverse delight in torting and retorting at you, other than the fact that I've spent the entire last three days in a dark theatre plotting lights and need some light mental distraction to amuse myself. If it is really distressing you so much, simply stop reading. I'll fade away. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

So Rob, do you have any advice on how to reel an audience in??

Personally I think that Oscar Wilde aint got nothing on this website. I haven't been on in years, ever since they changed the design to it's now unwieldy layout, and I am pleased to announce that the vapid and idiotic still reign supreme. Yes you all take yourselves too seriously, yes you all should find something better to do like save a whale or something and yes you should allow opinions to remain exactly that. But this is nothing that has never been said before by other people who have logged onto a forum thread only to have their eyes and common sense raped. So I say, keep up the work, keep writing reviews Gordon, keep the spelling in check Craig, keep posting forums on innane subject matter like "What is peoples thoughts on Butterflies in the Theatre?" and keep taking yourselves to seriously Theatre Australia, I love you. Yours faithfully, Targuus Taargus

Mr Williams, I am so impressed by your lengthy responses, however, I have to admit that I didn't read it all as I just got a little bored...sorry. As you seem to have a lot of time on your hands and enjoy the analysis of what is said and how it can be interpretted etc, may i pose this little ditty... Were you ever bullied at school?

Mr Williams, please before you answer the above...I just went back to read your thread...I too love you taking perverse delight in your torting and retorting (whats torting? I like the sound of it and want to use it in conversation)...but just one thing...did you say professional improviser? Please tell me you just stated that you are/have been a professional improviser.

Alas, the game has deteriorated. You just hit two balls at me, so the first must've been a let. Your service is slipping. And is your real name Lindsey Davenport by any chance? Because this is sounding like the longest exchange on record ever at Wimbledon...which was, incidentally, won by Venus Williams. Exciting as it may have been, I am aware that the audience has just crossed over to watch the live coverage of the women's hockey, and we've lost our coverage. Feel free to use any of my made up words in any conversation, or proversation should you decide to argue for the positive. Although perhaps you won't be arguing much in the future as you appear to have gone deaf? Yes, I often earn income as an improviser. It was my chief source of income a few years ago. Short reply, as I'm off to earn more money today in the theatre. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

(whats torting? I like the sound of it and want to use it in conversation) Well there is such a thing as a tort - it's a legal term. The word retort is based on "re" (back) and "tort" (to twist or wrench).

In Perth you can come to two different weekly improvisational nights. One is The Big Hoo Haa, which has been running for over 7 years and still sells out. The other is a new experimental night of improv where two improvisers have 20 minutes doing whatever they wish. They both start at 8:30 at Lazy Susan's Comedy Den upstairs at the Brisbane Hotel. You should come and see it, it's really quite fun, plus you'll be able to know what you're talking about next time. Yours faithfully, Targuus Taargus PS I believe Craig is involved heavily in both.

Grant, I believe a tort is a sweet pastry type thing. You can put anything in it. Fruit and custard are generally what is seen in them. To retort is to take the fruit and custard out of one tort and put them in a better or more structurally sound pastry base so that the tort may be enjoyed by generations to come. Yours faithfully, Targuus Taargus

I have seen a number of class act productions and I have continually come away disastisfied on two particulars: 1. Production Values. I feel that the quality of the costumes and sets are so poor as to be distracting from the overall production. Now I have heard Angelique Malcolm state that they run on the smell of an oily rag, and I respect that. However, as someone who also runs theatre on next to no budget I believe that with very little money and you can create very effective sets and costumes if you are intentional about it. Instead I feel the production design, especially for Earnest was half assed, instead of clever. It looked like they had gone to a curtain shop and asked for the cheapest off cuts they could find. It's okay if they did, but the audience shouldn't be so painfully aware of it. 2. In general I have found Class Act productions to be hammy, and over the top to the point of pantomime. Not so much in Joe Egg, however deffinitely in the case of Canterbury tales, and in Earnest to the extreme. I believe Dan Luxton is a terrific actor and have enjoyed him in other productions, but his portrayal of Earnest was painful to watch. It wasn't poor acting, just poor script interpretation. The audience was laughing yes, but at clever well written dialogue. If anything the over the top clowning around detracted from the humour rather than added to it. This was a real pity, as some of the performances, especially Rodda? as Gwendoline, and Angelique's Miss Prism were truly amazing. I'm sorry to say it but it really was a substandard production, and I would be reluctant to attend another Class Act performance again. This makes me sad because they are producing a lot of theatre, and supporting many actors around Perth. However, why would spend $32.50 on tickets:to see a production that clearly has had less passion, thought and time invested than an amatuer production selling tickets for half the price?

How come the Trolls can never cover their tracks by learning to spell? "Interpretted" ?

Dear Sir nun non, (the origin of your nom-de-plume interests me) First let me apologise for responding to your critique in the first place. I was on a high after Fri and Sat nights' uproarious laughter and applause, being cheered as we entered the foyer on Saturday night, and it was a shock and a major deflationary moment reading your response on Sunday evening. I reacted to what I perceived as your belittling of our efforts into nothing more than a series of cheap gags. At the time I had no idea who cerunnon was, and in point of fact I object to the use of nom-de-plumes on this or any other site of correspondence, as they can become a license for abuse, and a whole play has been written about that. Not that I'm suggesting what YOU wrote was abusive, just forthrightly negative. I subsequently learnt, later the same evening in fact, who you are, and that we have met albeit briefly. It has been suggested we have more in common than the obvious, and may quite like each other if we came to know each other. Your reply above is moderate, and in person, if the opportunity arises, I will discuss with you the importance of action and reaction in comedy, that every line can't be played for a laugh, because most often the reaction is what gives the audience its trigger, and then only if the individual character journey's are clear. Sometimes an individual line is funny on its own, but most often its the reaction to a line that is a trigger for a laugh. But leave that for a face to face discussion. Regarding you comment ***I'm happy that you feel you all played Earnest in a way true to a farce. I just don't think that's the best reading of the text. For me it works best as a satire of the comedies of manners, particularly those of the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century. Without descending in to a semantic argument, I don't think that farce is the style Wilde wrote in. You do. Fine. I think what I saw was more like a sitcom, which is certainly derivative of farce.*** I believe that this play will still be played in 300 years, by which time it will be as old a text as Hamlet is now. Why do I think this? Because the characters are archetypes we recognise in our own society. The dress we don't. The language is highfalutin'. The social mores unfamiliar. The sexual politics of the 1890's unknown by the vast majority of a contemporary audience. But they still laugh. And still will in 300 years in my opinion. So what are they laughing at? I think, at the unfolding relationships between these archetypal characters placed in Wilde's absurd situation. I agree that Wilde wrote a satire, a very funny satire OF HIS TIMES. I politely suggest that as Wilde wrote this play in the LATE 19th century (1890's), he was unlikely to be satirizing plays written in 'the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth century'. He had bigger fish to fry, satirizing the worst excesses of the people living immediately around him. It took a world war and 20's jazz to finally dismantle the society Wilde ridiculed in Earnest. It seems to me Wilde's satire is earnestly directed at the class structure of his England ('did he rise from the ranks of the aristocracy, or was he born into the purple of commerce', 'he has nothing but his debts to depend upon') and the sexual politics of his time ('why should there be one law for men and another for women'). Algernon and Jack's sexuality is never directly referenced, but I'm sure the homosexual's of Wilde's time read a lot between the lines. I certainly cannot imagine an Earnest in modern dress. It will in my opinion, always be most successfully played set in its period. Its internal references are peculiar to its moment in history. And now to the nub of my argument. Surely a satire only remains a satire, if an audience understands the underlying situation being satirized. To my mind, Wilde's play cannot any longer play as a satire because it has no relevance in satirizing our modern socio-economic existence. For a modern audience, surely the focus is on the dysfunctional attitudes of one character toward another, dependent on self conceited notions of their status in society. That remains playable, and is I believe played to the hilt in our production. To my mind, it is Jack's job in the play to be the everyman who reacts to, and thereby reveals, the ridiculous conceits of those around him. Yes, he is just as conceited as the rest, but somewhat more earnest in his endeavours to navigate a just and fair life ('who has a right to cast a stone against one who has suffered'). So in my humble opinion, to say that Earnest 'works best as a satire of the comedies of manners', or anything else for that matter, asks far too much of a modern audience. Certainly the majority wouldn't know a comedy of manners if they fell over one. But they know what they like. yours, Dan PS I'm an entertainer, which requires craft, not art.

Comments made by the cast, not only reflect badly on the productions in question, but on the company as a whole. Although I consider both male actors to be very talented, I would hesitate on casting them in a production because they can't keep their mouths shut, which is a shame.

Dan, I'm glad we can agree to disagree, and will be happy to discuss the finer points of satire over a beer sometime. Or just have a beer and let the finer points be damned. My username is just the internet handle I've always used- so much that I don't even think about it. I remember another thread about this somewhere... pretty sure it was in the heady days of Apocalypse Perth. Anyway, I go by cernunnon online, but am happily identified with my fleshy counterpart. When posting on this and other forums (and always as a registered member), I forget that there is a perceived disticntion, but no subterfuge is intended. You can email me at cernunnon@gmail.com for more- that's how entrenched I am online :)

In case this tempers some of your reluctance... Class Act was basically in charge of getting the cast organised. So casting, rehearsing, directorial choices, and acting criticisms fall in their court. Bare Naked Theatre is basically the guy in Busselton who puts up the finances. So budgetary, admin, and marketing decisions mainly fall to him. In fact, to most practical purposes (apart from artistic choices) this should be considered a Bare Naked production based out of Busselton. This is why we did (& are still doing) an extensive tour down south, but were only booked into a Perth theatre for 4 nights to fit in both shows. I agree with you, the 'set' (used for both plays...in fact, recycled from last year's two plays and I think possibly the year's before that?) is painfully rudimentary - simply some garden chairs and a frame with 2 curtains. Touring down south, it made far less of an impression. In several of the venues we performed in (to name just two, the Dwellingup community hall, or the Hopetoun Rec centre, bless em both) the venues were markedly IMPROVED by the addition of our set! The stages themselves were almost too small for 7 actors to manage a curtain call, and the only way to effect any theatrical entrances or exits in the space were by erecting our cheap set. The mistake was to place this on the stage at Subiaco. Framed by the larger stage, focus was drawn toward the set construction, which previously had been less prominent and had drawn better focus toward the actors. In a 'proper' theatre, ours could only come off looking poorer. Others in the cast had put forward the idea of doing it all at Subi with NO set, but given the shape of the venue and the time we had to bump in and consider reblocking, it was decided too problematic to attempt. Unfortunately too, the shape of Subi meant we could no longer enter AROUND the set, but were forced to make all our entrances through curtains which previously had been used far less. This drew attention to how distracting they could be. I personally prefer shows that lean to a minimalist design. They are my favorite shows to act in and to watch, because nothing distracts from the relationship between actor and audience. Nothing gets in the way of the mechanics of telling the story, and the performance is completely versatile. (Of course, the performance is also then completely vulnerable...there's nothing else to blame!). And to counter your point, I often feel that sometimes the quality of some sets and costumes are so GOOD as to be distracting from the overall production..! But in this instance, our set did not come close enough to be considered properly minimalist in this regard, so I can understand your disappointment if you care about such things. I'm a little surprised that you extend this equally to the costumes, because I thought Merri did as well as anyone could on no budget (indeed, as well as several professional companies would have managed on their tight budgets)...but then, I concede that there are some of you out there who have become extremely good at producing effective costumes out of nothing. And for effective simple touring sets, I really miss Lou Westbury! Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Please don't let my comments reflect badly on the company as a whole, as indeed I don't see why they should, nor even on the productions in question. I alone am responsible (or irresponsible) for my comments, and those entities and I are entirely separate concerns. All reflections from my comments should most definitely shimmer badly only upon me. However, it's a fair warning to give. I'll forgive your hesitation should I ever decide to audition for you. Those who have cast me to play a role realise that I merely play one here. Keeping a mouth shut is something a script might dictate, or something I would do sensibly amongst denizens of the real world; none of which I care to worry about in the fun and games of cyberspace. "My semblable is my mirror" Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

You have a point, the costumes were more than adequate. However touring is no excuse, I have toured with much simpler, and yet more attractive sets.

Mr Williams, so did you get bullied?

In my (somewhat pedantic and over-educated) book, a 'tort' is a civil wrong, eg slander or libel. A 'retort' is a piece of equipment often found in a chemistry lab, used for making rotten egg gas. Either seems quite fitting in this context. Ssstinger>>>

Ah it got moderated again...touchy subject..i'll leave it. Bye

TheatreMan, grantwatson (01/09/2009 - 10:22), and others in the thread who have expressed similar views... Fair enough. I am feeling ridiculous. Chastened and ridiculous. And in no hurry to contribute to this website again. Hope I meet you all socially sometime, you have all been generous in your appraisal of my worth as an actor. Thankyou Dan

No. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Ooooh Stinger your Techie Feasance are showing!