Category Archives: Adaptations

Noughts And Crosses – December 2007

8/10

Adapted by Dominic Cooke from the novel by Malorie Blackman

Directed by: Dominic Cooke

Company: RSC

Venue: Stratford Civic Hall

Date: Wednesday 19th December 2007

This was a powerful drama, well acted, and successfully aimed at the younger generation. Starting from the problems of racial segregation and repression, Malorie Blackman’s story of the love between a young boy and girl takes the Romeo and Juliet theme and turns things on their head, producing a modern story told by adolescents about the difficulties of growing up and leading a life of your own choosing when society’s prejudices stand in the way. A lot for one evening, and it’s amazing how it all gets fitted in – Dominic Cooke has adapted this really well, though not having read the book I can’t say how faithful he’s been, just that this works well as a drama.

I felt the first half was a bit slow, but it did set up the characters and situation well for us. The second half introduced the other family, and this helped to round out the relationships and the context of a repressive society. The plot concerns Callum, a young white man, and his friend Sephy, a young black woman. In this society, whites are called “noughts” and blacks, “crosses”, or “blanks” and “daggers”, respectively. This is a society in which black people are well off, in charge, and determined to keep it that way. White folk are despised, denied opportunities and treated like shit. Naturally, Callum and Sephy’s friendship doesn’t go down well with anyone, and they go through all sorts of ups and downs in their relationship to each other, as well as their family and friends, culminating in Callum’s refusal to save his own life as it would mean Sephy agreeing to abort their baby. The play ends with Sephy cradling her new born girl – a ray of hope for the future.

Along the way we get to see how people can become involved in violence and lose their way when so many bad things happen to them and their families. Callum’s sister was beaten up for dating a cross, and retreats into madness for a few years before killing herself. Callum’s Dad gets involved with a Liberation group, and allows himself to be convicted for setting off a bomb which killed seven people. He does this partly to protect his other son, Jude, who was involved, and partly out of grief for his daughter’s death (at least, that’s what I reckon). His determination to die leads him to attempt escape, which gets him killed. Sephy herself is beaten up at school for daring to sit with noughts at lunch. It’s a bleak picture, and yet there’s a lot of humour, and the love between the two main characters lightens much of the darkness. There’s a strong sense of compassion. We see the suffering in Sephy’s family – a mother who drinks, an absent father more interested in his political career than his family, and an unexplained rift between the two mothers, who had been on some sort of friendly footing until a few years before. Although the story is mostly told from the youngsters’ point of view, we do get to see the effect the social situation is having on the people around them.

The performance space was new to us. It’s basically a flat area with seats on three sides, and entrances in the corners. The two leads often came on and spoke directly to us without any props. When needed, furniture was brought on by the cast, chairs were held up until all were ready, and then slammed down together – very energetic and lively. Occasionally the people on stage would freeze, while Callum and Sephy would talk or move around them. It was a very direct style, and worked well, especially for the asides. With the audience on three sides, it was noticeable that the two leads were careful to include everyone, moving around as necessary, even when on the loo! (It’s in the small toilet cubicle which gets wheeled on to stage that Sephy gets beaten up.) When the characters turned on the TV for the news, the reporter would walk onto the stage, along with any interviewees, and speak directly to the viewers. Talk about having TV in your living room! I found this worked very well, as it emphasised the closeness there was between the characters in the action and what was being showing on TV.

The cast were excellent. The two leads – Richard Madden as Callum and Ony Uhiara as Sephy – gave superb performances, managing to grow up just the right amount over the two or three years of the action, maturing from gawky adolescents to young adults. The physical aspect of their love was also well done, developing from the first exploratory kiss, heads to one side, to full blown sex described only in words, but all the more powerful for that (for some things, less is more). Their first night together in Sephy’s bed was a lovely depiction of innocent love, and the way Sephy’s mother nearly caught him the next morning was very funny. Fortunately, Sephy’s ally Sarah, her mother’s secretary, helps out by pushing one of Callum’s shoes under the bed.

It’s difficult to single anyone else out, but I do want to mention Jo Martin as Sephy’s mother, Jasmine. She gave a wonderful sense of that character’s “hinterland”, her suffering as she gives in to try and make things work, the drinking to “smooth out the rough edges”, the support she gives secretly to help Callum’s father during his trial, and the unknown reason for all this – what happened those few years before that caused the rift between her and Callum’s mother?

Although I found it interesting to see this topsy-turvy view of racism, I didn’t really relate to either group. I found it hard to believe the noughts were really downtrodden – was that just my conditioning, or was I influenced by possibly unconscious body language from the actors? I can remember wanting to belong to a group when I was that age – we’d moved several times, and it always seemed hard to find like-minded friends of my own age – but I don’t ever remember wanting to create a “them” to support the “us”. Maybe I was lucky not to fall in with the “wrong” sort?

Looking back, probably the only criticism I can find is that the play does sometimes feel a bit like a checklist of discussion points to be covered. The action comes so thick and fast, especially in the second half (20 minutes longer than the first half), and the scenes are so short, that there’s not a lot of time for depth of character to develop. Actually, it’s surprising how much depth is achieved – another compliment to the actors and the adaptation.

Anyway, the play raised a lot of interesting questions, and more than usual I find myself wondering how I would handle some of these situations. The youngsters at the play tonight were obviously engaged as well, and I suspect there will be some interesting discussions as a result of this.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Northanger Abbey – October 2007

8/10

Adapted by Tim Luscombe from the novel by Jane Austen

Directed by: Tim Luscombe

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Friday 26th October 2007

We were treated tonight to some very good performances in a fun adaptation of Northanger Abbey, which brought out much of the humour of the novel. This was all the more remarkable as the actress originally playing Catherine Morland, Jenni Maitland, was stricken yesterday afternoon. Her part was taken by Helen Bradbury, who had been playing Emily and Eleanor, while those roles were played by Emma Hamilton, in her spare moments when she wasn’t on stage as Isabella Thorpe. Minor roles were passed to someone else, presumably the ASM, and the two actresses had scripts to help them through the unfamiliar bits. Who cares! They did an excellent job, regardless of circumstances, and I hope this boosts their careers. All the other actors were also excellent, I should add.

The set was a row of eight doors, which were opened in different combinations to give a host of scenes. There was also a series of gothic arches which appeared from behind a screen or curtain above the doors, to give us the sense of the Abbey itself. Apart from this, one or two occasional chairs, and a mysterious trunk, the set was wonderfully bare, and lighting and acting were all that was needed to engage our imagination and emotions.

I realised as we went on that I remembered more of the story than I had thought. The missed appointment to walk with Henry Tilney and his sister, the attempts by the scurrilous John Thorpe to win Catherine (and her presumed fortune) for himself, the dark imaginings in Northanger Abbey, were all eventually resolved thanks largely to Henry Tilney’s uncommon good sense and suspiciously perfect nature. I enjoyed it all, and especially the way that parts of The Mysteries of Udolpho were interwoven with the narrative, pointing up the similarities and also the differences, as when high melodrama was brought down to earth by prosaic trivialities.

This was good fun all round, and a good adaptation. I hope we’ll see others attempt it in the future, but in the meantime I wish good luck to this company.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Terms Of Endearment – October 2007

6/10

By: Dan Gordon, based on the novel by Larry McMurtry and the screenplay by James L Brooks

Directed by: David Taylor

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Monday 8th October 2007

This stage adaptation is apparently different from the film, though it borrows at least one of the film’s conflations – that of the character Garrett Breedlove (what a name!). Not having read the book nor seen the movie, I had very little idea of what to expect, other than some tear jerking moments. For someone who likes a good sob on a regular basis, and who is often known to indulge, I found my eyes only became moist at the ending of this play, though as I did have a few laughs along the way, I still enjoyed myself well enough.

The plot. Mother and daughter disagree over daughter’s choice of husband, then come together over daughter’s illness and death. During all this, mother rediscovers sex. That’s about it.

The set had two platforms to the rear, and space at the front of the stage with doors either side. Mostly, these spaces stayed the same, but there were changes for the hospital scenes and after the initial scene with the daughter smoking pot with her best friend in the bathroom. Theatre of burglary was well to the fore again, and we were also treated to the ludicrous sight of a long black pole sliding a seat and table onto the stage from one of the forward doorways.

The performances varied. John Bowe was excellent as Garrett Breedlove, giving the most rounded performance of the cast, and making the most of what was one of the better parts, if not the best. He certainly made it look that way. The best scene of all was his almost casual threatening of the oncologist supposedly looking after the daughter, but he boosted the energy every time he appeared. I particularly liked his expression when he almost gets away without commenting on the mother’s “I love you”. Linda Gray as Aurora, the mother, still has a good body, if the parts showing through the diaphanous nightgown are anything to go by. Her acting range doesn’t appear to extend to depth of characterisation, nor to subtlety of performance, but she made up for it by semaphoring wildly and rapidly during the opening scenes, and with the range of her grimaces, most of which we saw during the first half. This was all tempered after the interval – it’s amazing what a good orgasm can do for a woman – and she made it to the end OK. The daughter, the other main part, was OK, but I felt it was seriously underwritten. The final deathbed scene was moving, though I think I had been more affected by Garrett’s concern for the daughter than anything else.

Not a play I would choose to see again, but not a complete loss of an evening, either, thanks to Mr Bowe.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

All About My Mother – October 2007

8/10

By: Samuel Adamson, based on the film by Pedro Almodóvar

Directed by: Tom Cairns

Venue: Old Vic Theatre

Date: Wednesday 3rd October 2007

This was a very moving experience. I haven’t seen any of Almodóvar’s movies, and so didn’t know what to expect. I found the start a little jerky, but as we got to know the characters I was drawn into their stories, and felt very emotional at the end. I wept buckets, of course, so it was fine.

The main character is a mother (Manuela) who loses her son (Esteban) early on in the story. Esteban also acts as narrator, so we have a lovely sense of ambiguity throughout – is this just a story he’s writing, or is it actually happening? He wants to get a famous actress’s autograph, and as she rushes away from him, he follows her out into the road and is knocked down, dying later in hospital. Manuela then tries to find her husband, the boy’s father, about whom Esteban knew nothing at all, and we find out the father is a transvestite prostitute – dick and boobs – who’s run off, leaving another woman, a nun (Rosa), both pregnant and HIV positive. A cheerful story then.

Actually, there’s a lot of humour, mainly from Agrado (Mark Gatiss), another transvestite hooker, who talks directly to the audience several times. Agrado’s a friend of Manuela and Lola, the father of Esteban (do keep up).

With Lola gone, Manuela visits the actress, Huma (Diana Rigg), and gets involved with her life, including her partner, a junkie lesbian actress who’s also in A Streetcar Named Desire, the play Esteban saw with his mother on the night of his death. Various complications lead us to the point where Rosa’s mother is at last involved with her daughter enough to be present when the baby is born and Rosa herself dies. As Lola was the father of both boys (this second son is also named Esteban), Manuela is closely involved with looking after him. Finally, Lola turns up, and as he’s dying too, it’s a emotional moment when he gets to see at least one of the sons he fathered.

The final scene has five women (I include Agrado) sitting in a semicircle, after Lola’s funeral, with the baby. Rosa’s mother (Eleanor Bron) asks Huma for a speech from Lorca’s Blood Wedding, the next play she’s doing. After refusing, she’s persuaded to do it, and the lines were very moving, and very appropriate.

There’s an amazing sense of life in this play, for all it has so much to do with death. There’s the narration by a dead man, the way the scenery was moved on and off, sometimes dropping down, sometimes sliding on. All of this gave the production a dream-like quality. The scenes were very focused on the essentials, very spare, but still we got to know the characters very well in a short time, and to feel for them. There was a huge sense of acceptance, as most of the characters were on the fringes of society, and although Rosa’s mother was unaccepting at first, even that began to change. (It didn’t help that Manuela (Lesley Manville) was dressed up like a tart when she first meets her.) I felt more affected by the story than I expected, and glad to have seen this. I suspect there will be a lot more thoughts coming up over the next few weeks, as I sense some of this play went deep. I shall enjoy watching the experience unfold even more. A very good play, and, I trust, a good adaptation.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Nicholas Nickleby part 2 – September 2007

8/10

By: Charles Dickens, adapted by David Edgar

Directed by: Jonathan Church and Philip Franks

Venue: Chichester Festival Theatre

Date: Thursday 20th September 2007

First we attended the pre-show event in the Minerva, where Philip Franks chatted with David Edgar about this production and adaptation of Nicholas Nickleby. Both of them were knowledgeable and entertaining, so the time flew, and I’m not sure how much I can remember now. David covered the choice of play to adapt fairly briefly (there are notes in the program) and again emphasised how lucky it was that he agreed to do this book instead of Our Mutual Friend. What came across as he talked was that he isn’t as familiar with Dickens work as might be supposed. Philip talked about his enthusiasm for the full-length version first done at Stratford, which he visited regularly in his younger days.

There was talk about the changes between last year’s production and this year, and Philip confirmed that there was more light and shade in the performances: Daniel Weyman as Nicholas had been determined to rise to the challenge last year, which was appropriate enough, but this year he knew he could do it and was now able to look for ways to play the young man unsure of how to handle the world and the situations he finds himself in. The scene where he has to decide whether to take Smike with him or not was much more moving this time, and I certainly felt the decision wasn’t an easy one.

I asked if there were any changes David still wanted to make, and if the play had been translated at all. Both David and Philip answered the first point. David felt there had to come a time when you said “enough’s enough” and let the piece be, although there was still some tinkering even this year. Philip has a file called Reclaim, where he keeps all the bits he wants to see back in the production – by the time they get to Plymouth, it may be back to two four hour parts! This year, they had put back in some lines where Nicholas and Kate are showing Smike the house where they grew up, lines about how it always seemed to be summer then.

On the translation point, the play has been translated, particularly into Swedish and Finnish, for some reason – not so much into other European languages. David appears to go to just about every production he can, and told us how strange it was to hear the Swedish version, where the only things he could make out were the proper names – a gabble of Swedish, then “Mrs Nagg”, etc. He also mentioned another version of his original, which had been done by a theatre group themselves, which brought out different aspects of the play, and Philip mentioned yet another version he’d seen, which David was surprised by – one he didn’t know about! There were other points, and all very entertaining, and the end came all too soon. But at least we had the pleasant prospect of a good evening’s entertainment.

Steve noticed the cameras first – I was oblivious. This show was being recorded (I assume the matinee had also been filmed) as part of the Open University program. We speculated on whether the DVD will be available – if so, don‘t stand between us and the shelves or you may get knocked down in the rush!

The performance started with a “previously, on Nicholas Nickleby”. The cast skimmed through the first half’s events in a wonderful way, introducing us to the characters again, and bringing us up to speed with the plot. It got a tremendous round of applause, and got the whole evening off to a great start.

The second part of this story is a bit quieter, although there isn’t as much suffering on view. (Philip described it as being in a minor key at the pre-show). Nicholas gets to meet the Cheeryble brothers, and their superb cheerfulness lights up this half. They’re wearing bright orange wigs, and when Nicholas meets their nephew, we realise straightaway who he is once he takes off his hat and reveals the same colour of hair.

Nicholas is back with his family, and all seems well, but Smike is poorly, and when Nicholas and Kate take him to see their childhood home, he’s so ill he dies. This was definitely an occasion for tears. Eventually, Uncle Ralph’s evil plans to make Nicholas suffer, and force an innocent girl into a disgusting marriage, come to nothing when Newman Noggs, overhearing the plan, takes matters into his own hands and saves the day. As Ralph Nickleby’s machinations collapse around him, he wanders the streets, trying to find some way out. This was well portrayed, and I felt much more the suffering that Ralph goes through before ending it all in the very bedroom Smike had lived in all those years ago. I felt there was a small chance that he could have changed things round, and become a better person, rather than seeing him as completely irredeemable, but it didn’t quite happen, sadly.

With Ralph and his plots out of the way, all the various couples are free to marry and enjoy life, with many of them going on to happier and happier lives. Dotheboys Hall is trashed, by the remaining “scholars”, and a most sombre note is struck by showing us that these boys have nowhere else to go. One lad is left, freezing in the winter weather, until Nicholas finally rescues him – another tearful moment, and one that will probably go down very well this Christmas.

All in all, I enjoyed this second romp through the Nickleby story. There was still plenty of humour, plenty of sentiment, and lots of energy from the cast. As the audience were pretty responsive, too, I hope they got some good footage for the OU.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

By Jeeves – September 2007

6/10

By: Andrew Lloyd Webber and Alan Ayckbourn

Directed by: Chris Jordan

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Wednesday 12th September 2007

This was good fun. The premise was a church fund-raising event, put on by Bertie Wooster and some chums, at which Bertie is to be the star and demonstrate his banjo-playing skills. The set backed this up, being the inside of a church hall(?), with the band off to our left, entrances on our right, and a small stage at the back. In addition, several of the cast also sat in the auditorium to begin with, and only joined in the action on stage when things took a mysteriously strange turn.

Some miscreant had made off with Bertie’s banjo! Knowing the books, I suspect that Jeeves bribed some youngster in the vicinity to do the deed, as he’s known not to approve of his employer’s musical efforts. Anyway, Jeeves has sent for a replacement, from Kent, and there will be a two hour delay before it comes. In the meantime, Jeeves suggests that Bertie tells the assembled throng (for such we were) a story. With much prompting from Jeeves, Bertie takes us through the difficulties of the assorted engagements, courtships and burglaries (fake) that enlivened one weekend at Totleigh Towers.

It’s a typical Wodehouse story. There are numerous changes of name. Bertie, for example, goes by his own name, or Gussie Fink-Nottle, or Bingo Little, depending on circumstances. There’s the compulsory irate old geezer (Bassett, in this case), who’s got a down on Bertie, a bumptious American who threatens everything by falling for Madeleine Bassett, and of course the mandatory falling out between Bertie and Jeeves, resulting in a standoff which inevitably leads to Bertie’s complete capitulation as he finds himself totally unable to handle the twists and turns of the plot. Jeeves, as usual, contrives the perfect solution, demonstrating his amazing genius and almost Shakespearean understanding of human nature. And all before the banjo arrives!

Highlights include the fake burglary, with Bertie clambering up a ladder that changes direction halfway up (you had to be there), the maze that kept blocking Bertie’s attempts to get out of it, Bertie’s hat stand impersonation, and the way all the women kept falling for Bertie when all he wanted to do was get them safely paired up with the men who adored them. My favourite section was the car trip to Totleigh Towers, with Jeeves turning the car round to show changes of direction, and scenery and people passing by on the stage at the back.

The performances were very good. Robin Armstrong gave us a very agile Bertie Wooster. His singing and dancing were excellent, and the only sad thing was that we didn’t get to see if he was any good at playing the banjo, as the replacement, when it came, had some special strings that seemed silent to the person playing the instrument, but could be heard really clearly by the audience. Yes, this explanation was given by Jeeves, and yes, Bertie fell for it.

Jeffrey Holland played Jeeves, and had all the necessary presence, gravitas and imperturbability. As stage manager of the fund-raiser, he managed to cobble together some wonderful props at short notice – the car made out of boxes, the maze seat, the bed clothes – although the Wizard of Oz costumes at the end were a bit unusual. We also recognised Jon Trenchard, recently Bianca in Propeller’s Taming of the Shrew, and he did very well playing Bingo Little.

The music was OK, but nothing memorable, and the band were very good. I enjoyed myself well enough, but I wouldn’t necessarily see it again, as the humour is pretty well worn by now. Good production, though.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Our Man In Havana – August 2007

8/10

Adapted by Clive Francis from the novel by Graham Greene

Directed by: Richard Baron

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Friday 24th August 2007

This version of Our Man In Havana was great fun. I was vaguely aware of the story, though I haven’t seen the film nor read the book, so I was very open to see what they would do. This wasn’t the first performance but it was the second, so I wanted to give as much response as I could to help them get the feel of it. Also, one of the cast had had to be changed at short notice – Clive Francis came on at the start to make an announcement about it – so the replacement actor had only had a few days to learn lots of parts. Poor chap.

The set was really amazing. There were slatted screens across the back, which could be turned into doors, the side walls of a toilet cubicle, etc. Various desks and tables slid on and off and the cast were very good at bringing on the extras – chairs, drinks, etc. For one scene they even made the changes while dancing! Another panel to our right could be a shrine or Wormold’s desk, and there were so many variations that within a few seconds we could be anywhere we liked. There was even a map of that part of the Caribbean which came down every so often and a model plane on a stick which flew across from one side of the stage to the other – the sort of thing I really enjoy. I did find the lighting a little awkward at times – it left the actors’ faces in shadow a bit too often during the early stages – but hopefully they’ll sort that one out as they go.

It took about twenty minutes for the play to really get going – the first part obviously introduced all the characters and set the scene. It wasn’t a bad start, but there was so much to take in and my headset wasn’t working, so I had to concentrate to keep up. Also I found the amount of scene changing a bit distracting at first but that soon settled down. Once we got to the start of the fake agents, though, the whole performance took off. I loved the way the other actors came on and played out Wormold’s fantasies as he developed his list of agents.

From here, it’s a wonderful ride through the intricacies of Wormold’s web of deceit. The idea of senior Whitehall officials being fooled by large scale pictures of a vacuum cleaner was hugely entertaining, and I felt genuinely moved when Dr Hasselbacher died. Oh, and the dog that got poisoned was another great moment, as were Hawthorne’s (Clive Francis) reactions as he realised what Wormold had been up to, but felt he couldn’t expose him as he was receiving congratulations all round for finding him. Clive also had a great deal of fun with his portrayal of Teresa the stripper, as did we.

There’s too much to write it all down, so I do hope they produce a text for this. Other than Simon Shepherd, who was only Wormold and helped with the narration, each actor played a massive number of parts, and they got across the changes very well. Their adrenalin levels must be through the roof during each performance, as they have a lot to do and they all did the various roles extremely well. I certainly didn’t notice that one of the company was any less well rehearsed than the others. I hope we get a chance to see this again.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

A Matter Of Life And Death – May 2007

5/10

Based on the film by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, adapted by Tom Morris and Emma Rice for the National Theatre

Directed by: Emma Rice

Company: Kneehigh

Venue: Olivier Theatre

Date: Thursday 31st May 2007

I enjoyed Kneehigh’s Cymbeline so much, that I probably expected too much of this production. There was a lot to enjoy, but some of it was just plain dreary. Even so, I cried buckets, and felt happier when we came out, so I’d obviously had a good time.

First off, I tried out the audio devices for the first time here. Although we were in Row E, and I would have expected to hear most of it anyway, I wanted to find out what it was like. The headset is quite nifty, and certainly gave me a louder and clearer listening experience than without it. I found the pressure in my ear a bit uncomfortable, verging on painful, so I may have to investigate other options, but for now this will be a great way to get more out of the many plays we see. I also realised I would have to avoid wearing my pendant, as it kept clattering against the base of the headset. (Audio assisted experiences marked (headset) after seats.)

Before the start, the Olivier stage was bare. At the start, the panel at the back slid open (up and down), and the musicians were wheeled on, on a rectangular bandstand with a white arch at the back. The music was not particularly pleasant – rather wailing and loud – and it went on for far too long, in my view. As the music got under way, the whole stage became awash with the cast – cycling nurses stopping to light up a fag, hospital beds with pyjama-clad military patients, etc. Various people were reading aloud from books, and at one point there was a blaze in the middle of one of the beds – why? They’d already discovered torches under the bedclothes, and strung them up, and then the blaze, and then some fire buckets were brought on and set alight, and I have absolutely no idea why any of this was going on.

Then one of the pyjama men, dressed in a natty pair of star-patterned pj’s, started us off with the description of the universe. This was where it first started to engage me. As this was going on, another arching staircase is brought on, and Peter, the airmen who causes all the trouble, is being set up on it. Then we’re into the famous dialogue between Peter and June, and I cried and cried.

When Peter jumps out of the plane, he’s held aloft by wires for a while, and then comes down on a newly-cleared stage with a (photographic) beach scene plastered all over the back wall, and a couple of sand patches deposited on the floor. This was very evocative. He chats with a small girl, who’s playing in one of the sand patches, then along comes June, and the great romance gets underway.

Meanwhile, up in heaven, or at least the waiting room, Peter’s crewmate is waiting for him. The angels, all in nurses’ uniforms, are booking flyers in, but so far, there’s no sign of Peter. The chief accounting angel has no sooner explained that mistakes aren’t made, but that if one were all the alarms would go off, and that hasn’t happened for over 600 years, than the alarms go off, and it’s all hands to the pump to get that day’s soul receipts balanced.

This is where we’re introduced to Conductor 71. He’s a Norwegian, not that long deceased, who used to be an escape artist, but who suffered the most embarrassing death, as the trick that went wrong was the first one his mother had ever turned up to see. Judging by his completely unsuccessful attempts to vanish in front of everyone’s eyes, she was right to be unhappy about his chosen profession. He claims that the thick fog prevented him from snatching Peter’s soul from the jaws of life, and so he’s sent back down with orders to put things right.

Back on Earth, Peter and June are shown in a more sexually liberated 1940’s Britain than usual. They’re snuggled up together in bed, minus some clothes, and having a swinging time. Literally. The bed is swinging from side to side of the stage, and as Conductor 71 comes along, he show us his gymnastic skills by hanging on underneath. Eventually he emerges, and causes time to freeze, so he can speak to Peter. Spare company members hold the bed in place, while Peter tells Conductor 71 where to go.

The story unfolds as expected – the doctor at the hospital who’s in love with June tries to sort out Peter’s medical problems, and eventually gets caught up in helping him fight his case in heaven. All is resolved happily (yet still I cried!), and I left feeling cleansed. So, what else to say about the staging?

Wheeling the beds on and off was occasionally distracting, but overall, I felt the production settled down into a good rhythm. There was a lovely sub-plot with a wounded airman who’s obviously very affected by his experiences. He’s playing Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, as staged by the doctor, and for ass’s ears, he’s got a couple of bedroom slippers strapped to his head. He hangs himself, which was distressing. Later, he sings a lovely song, which was actually a poem written by a deceased airman in the war; it’s quoted in the program notes.

While the doctor and June wait to see how Peter will go, they play ping-pong. This is done by having a ball on the end of a long pole, with one of the non-visible cast members moving it backwards and forwards between the players – great fun.  Finally, the bike crash was well done, with Douglas Hodge, the doctor, being lifted away from the wreckage.

Overall, I enjoyed this well enough, but wouldn’t particularly want to see it again.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

The Hound Of The Baskervilles – March 2007

6/10

By: Arthur Conan Doyle, adapted by Clive Francis

Directed by: Robin Herford

Venue: Yvonne Arnaud Theatre

Date: Monday 19th March 2007

We’ve seen a number of Sherlock Homes adaptations recently, and enjoyed the way so few actors could represent so many characters. This promised to be the same, but with Peter Egan and Philip Franks as the two leads, we were having to dampen our expectations, so as not to get too excited.

The production was being done by the same folk who did The Woman In Black – I wasn’t sure what this would mean, but we soon found out. The stage was almost filled with two large screens. On the front one, a view of an open book was projected, with a blank page on the left, and the start of the story on the right. The text was blurred – Steve suggested this was to stop the audience reading the book, and getting to the end before the play did. The screen behind wasn’t visible at first, but as the action moved from place to place, the technical effects came into their own. The first screen “cleared”, and behind it we could see a bridge, with rocks around it. The second screen then gave us the backdrop – hills, hallway, etc – and these, together with the lighting, created a lot of atmospheric settings. We also had glimpses of Holmes from time to time – one item to note was that the violin playing was all done by Mrs Hudson (the actress playing her, that is).

In front of the screens, on what was left of the stage, were four “piles” of books and papers – these served as seats, tables, railway carriages, and anything else required, being shunted around as needed. The backdrop on the front screen changed regularly, which was very helpful in establishing where we were. The billiards table was invisible. So much for the set.

There were three other actors filling out the cast for this play, and they each covered a number of parts. Hattie Ladbury, as well as giving us her violin-playing Mrs Hudson, was the Baskerville housekeeper, Stapleton’s sister/wife, and the woman Stapleton proposes marriage to. Andrew Harrison was mainly Sir Henry Baskerville, but doubled as a cabbie and a postmaster, while Rupert Mason did just about everything else – Barrymore the butler, Stapleton himself, Mortimer the neighbour, plus station porters and a coach driver. I did find myself wishing they could have stretched to another actor to help spread the roles out a bit more, although I don’t intend to fault any of the actors for either their performances or their quick changes. The difference between the bit parts and the leads was noticeable, however, and it would be nice to see the other actors get more of a chance to flesh out their roles, rather than simply differentiating them.

The story is well known, so I won’t go into details. I wasn’t aware of anything missing, although there were some descriptions in the opening scenes which I think were taken from other stories and books. The hound was created by special effects, and worked very well, and the whole evening had a distinctly “Clive Francis” feel to it – slightly camp and pleasantly entertaining.

The main bonus was the two fine central performances. I enjoyed seeing Philip Franks on stage again, and his portrayal of Watson was fine. It didn’t stretch him much, but he gave us a good version of the affable sidekick who’s always that bit behind the main detective, but mainly because he’s working with such a supreme genius. His caring and his emotional reactions, so essential for the audience to relate to, were warming and funny. Peter Egan as Holmes was excellent. He carried such authority, and showed the unpleasant side of Holmes as well – not caring for anything except the mental stimulation and challenge, but so brilliant that people forgave him. It was easy to spot him in disguise, of course, which is another reason an extra actor might have helped for anyone not familiar with the story. Still, it was a classy performance, and one of my favourite Holmes representations.

Finally, I enjoyed the way they finished the play, with Mrs Hudson announcing another visitor who refuses to go without seeing Holmes – Professor Moriarty. The lights go down on Holmes and Watson sharing a look of astonishment. Good fun.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

The Alchemist – February 2007

5/10

By: Paul Coelho, adapted by ???

Directed by: Dominic Knutton

Venue: Connaught Theatre

Date: Tuesday 27th February 2007

This was a bit of a disappointment. I haven’t read the book, but the opening set up looked promising. A couple of the actors, in costume, were selling programmes inside the auditorium. The programmes consisted of a plastic bag, containing a piece of paper with production information, some sand, a pebble, and a chocolate (bagsy the chocolate!). The other three actors were on stage. I think only one was playing the music, while the rest sat and listened. The stage itself had a large round mat in the middle – a story-telling circle. On it were some large reddish coloured blocks. Outside the circle were instruments and various impedimenta of the production. At the back I could see poles and wires, with small bundles of coloured cloth in various places. It looked like these would be raised up to create a backdrop, and indeed they were. There were three streamers in the middle, and two on each side, which were raised at different times to create different effects. The actors wore basic tops and trousers, except for the woman who was actually playing a woman – the other actress was playing the boy at the heart of the story. Headdresses were added as needed, and I particularly liked the sheep’s heads that most of them wore at the start.

The story is simple – a boy herding sheep has a recurring dream. I lost track of what he was actually dreaming about. One the one hand he seems to see a beautiful woman, and on the other, it’s a child who takes him off to the pyramids to find buried treasure. Anyway, he sets off in search of the treasure, while keeping an eye open for the woman. He has various adventures, arrives at the pyramids, and unravels the mystery, presumably ending up wealthy and with the love of his life, although this adaptation ends with finding the treasure.

Firstly, we found it difficult to ignore some massive coughing coming from our right in the early stages. It was so loud, that I briefly thought it might be part of the performance. Secondly, the delivery from a couple of the actors was on the weak side. The Connaught isn’t a large theatre, and we were seated in row G, yet I lost about half of the dialogue through lack of projection. I felt the production was designed for smaller auditoria – studio spaces perhaps, or theatre in the round. Thirdly, the blocks in the circle sometimes became a distraction, as the actors moved them around to create various settings. Normally, I love this kind of thing, but here it seemed very dull, lacking in imagination, and noisy enough to add to my hearing difficulties. Finally, the story itself seemed a bit simplistic and lacklustre, and I didn’t feel as engaged with it as I would have liked.

On the good side (and there has to be good side, or I wouldn’t have given it 5/10), I did like the music (more of that, please), the use of the cloth streamers at the back, the excellent sheep at the start, and the use of mime throughout to avoid perilous props, e.g. crystal glasses. I perked up when one of the characters is revealed to be Melchizedik, especially as he seemed to have uncanny knowledge of the young lad and his search. The effects with the wind, desert and the hawks were excellent, so perhaps all this production needs is time to bed down. We did see it on the opening night in Worthing; I don’t know how many other performances they’ve done. The actors are certainly talented enough, so good luck to them.

© 2007 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me