You Never Can Tell by Bernard Shaw

IMG_4929.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

January 8, 2006

Garrick Theatre, London, UK

Our last day in London as a group turned out to be a real treat complete with my favorite production of our stay, You Never Can Tell by Bernard Shaw and performed at the Garrick Theatre. Funny, entertaining and relevant are the first three words that come to mind when reflecting upon the show. The acting was top notch, and each character’s sense of timing meshed well to produce a natural comedic presence. Written in 1896, the material felt just as fresh today as I’m sure it would have during Shaw’s day, as he tackles themes of women’s liberation, the generation gap and gender comparisons. Looking at production value, I feel this show was the most enjoyable of our trip and a notch above the others in pure talent, dedication and delivery. Specifically, the portrayal of Valentine (Ryan Kiggell) and the Waiter (Edward Fox) moved the dialogue forward smoothly and effortlessly, and the rest of the cast complemented flawlessly.

Staged in four simple acts with a different setting for each, the play seemed to flow at a very comfortable and appropriate pace. The comedic timing and stage presence of Kiggell proved to be extremely seasoned, despite his recent entrance into professional acting, graduating just four years ago from LAMDA. The chemistry between Kiggell and Nancy Corroll, who played Gloria and who is a fellow trainee of LAMDA, was demonstrated instantly and repeatedly to the audience, creating for a very comfortable experience. In all honesty, this play is better suited for an afternoon in the theatre than a night out, as its pace suits a lazy day in the park or reading a good novel by the pool. I was astonished to discover at intermission that the role of Mrs. Clandon was actually being played by an understudy, Lin Blakley. Even more astonishing is that this performance marks Blakley’s inaugural performance in London’s West End. Perhaps it is the youth and excitement of this cast that culminated together an understanding and energy unmatched by the comfort that comes when one reaches the top of the ladder. Whatever the formula is, the cast of the Garrik’s production of You Never Can Tell produced a very professional and natural performance.

The pace of Shaw’s writing seems to also match the tone of a long afternoon walk, and this writing style is further mimicked by the location in which he sets each act, most of which revolve around the water and one’s ability to enjoy its mystique. The truly amazing attribute of Shaw’s writing is his ability to make the material so accessible to everyone, funny to most, extremely witty to some, yet socially relevant to all. The theme of gender equality would not truly be tackled from a legalistic standpoint until twenty years later, yet Shaw insisted on raising the social importance of gender status in the class hierarchy, carefully intertwining his opinion into his very funny and accessible language.

Trying to categorize the type of comedy implanted in this work, Roger Warren suggests in the program’s forward that “perhaps it is best to forget about labels altogether, and to relish the life-enhancing quality of this ‘delectable entertainment.’” This production enhanced the idea of this work being “delectable entertainment” without getting in the way with modernistic approaches such as overshadowing the play’s content with innovation (as done in Twelfth Night) or failing to communicate an idea due to overlooking the natural charm of live theatre and replacing it with digital catastrophe (Woman in White). The performance worked for a number of reasons, but the major ones being that its cast was extremely talented and properly cast in their roles and that the play focused on the content of the script and worked to best portray that content in its original sense so that a modern audience would be able to understand and emphasize properly.

In regards to Wolfgang von Goethe’s tripartite instrument, I believe that the production was trying to carefully understate very important social issues by overstating the comedic presence of the writing. The comedy was further enhanced through the usage of setting that was equally over-the-top, but in a manner that suited the setting, dialogue and individual relationships on stage. Essentially, the play would be enjoyable to all who watched, but only those audience members willing to read between the humorous jokes and purposefully awkward moments introduced for comedic enhancement would understand there is a whole lot more being discussed during this turn of the century production. I feel as though this production properly executed Shaw’s original intent and it was extremely worthwhile to do so. The show felt natural and comfortable.

The blocking of the show was well-imagined and nicely executed, as each scene felt new and worked well to complement the full use of hand props and a realistic set. My favorite scene during the show was the first, taking place in Valentine’s dentist office. This scene allowed for the actors to reveal the personalities of their respected characters while establishing the pace for the rest of the evening. Furthermore, since the show’s action took place in only four segments, it allowed for very intricate and imagined sets and required the full usage of material props to make the action seem turn of the century and real yet comedic at the same time. This show would not have worked as well, even with this talented set of actors, in a unit setting with limited hand props. Given the costuming and the setting of the show, the lines required a real environment to support them. The combination of intricate hand props and sets combined to support the comedy in an effortless manner, but without these elements, the play would have stumbled in transporting the audience into a different generation and forcing them to think as an audience member would one hundred years ago.

Overall, the play would have been solid and well received due the talent of it actors. However it is the properly executed costuming and scenic design that aid the setting of the play and recreate a subtext within Shaw’s clever humor. After witnessing this production, it is easy to understand why the term “Shavian” is tossed around so readily in the theatrical world, as he managed to utilize techniques in scripting that others had established while writing in his own voice to provide humor with an understated observation of social rights. As the waiter says, “A hotel is a refuge from home life.” As is the theatre, and Shaw’s writing allows the audience to remember that life is, after all, humorous, and worth observation.

Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Commercial

This is one of the funniest commercials that never aired. I think Kellogg's really had something good going for them here. I mean, just watching it makes me feel great.

Quite Impressive

Woman in White by Andrew Lloyd Webber

December 28, 2005

Palace Theatre, London, UK

IMG_4888.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

“I have a secret,” said Andrew Lloyd Webber, late one night to his friend over a few beers. His friend sat patiently, wondering when the secret would be told. Hours passed, and a few beers later, Webber finally revealed his secret. He continued, “I took all of the compositions that did not make their way into Phantom of the Opera and threw them together to create The Woman in White.” Of course this dialogue did not truly occur, but this is how I was left feeling by intermission. But here’s the kicker, the book by William Wilkie Collins that goes by the same name which he used as the basis for these compositions was a best-selling phenomenon with immediate impact. Which, are unfortunately (and hopefully) accolades and overall audience and critical impression that this musical will never garner.

I’m not sure what I disliked more, the unconventional scenic design or uncreative compositions. Fortunately, I don’t have to decide, because neither worked and the show suffered from the first scene forward. Sure there was decent vocal talent from most actors, specifically the roles of Marian Halcombe (Ruthie Henshall), Sir Percival Glyde (Michael Cormick), and Walter Hartright (Damian Humbley). The play’s bright spot was the portrayal of Mr. Fairlie (Edward Petherbridge), humorous, fitting and well-developed.

I’m not a huge fan of Webber’s work, but I’m comfortable with some of his earlier musicals such as Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and Jesus Christ Superstar. But from there, he decided to be progressive, and he should have stopped while his stocks were up. The measurement of the success of the technological implementations is where my interpretation diverges from most of the class. While my peers view the use of the projected images as a movement forward, placing the theatre in close company to film, I view this as a step backward, confusing the true beauty of cinematography. While the use of moving screens and projection technology is seemingly a move toward the future, it actually underplays the magic and variety that live theatre accomplishes. Live theatre and today’s film cannot be measured using the same instruments. Film is successful because it shows true human interaction in realistic spaces, highlighting the intimacy of communication. In film, close-ups cause us to be closer to the truth of subjects. Theatre is the opposite. Unit sets are successful because the audience fills in the gaps of what the room would truly look like. The use of projected images and limited hand props causes the realism to be one step further removed, because now you have actors standing in front of intangible items. This is the exact opposite of film, and thus, in my eyes, is a move in the completely wrong direction for a live performance to make a mark on an audience.

Pillars of the Community by Henrik Ibsen

IMG_5197.JPG
Originally uploaded by dwri.

January 6, 2006
Lyttelton Theatre, London, UK

It is easy to understand why Pillars of the Community was the first of Henrik Ibsen’s plays to be performed internationally, and further, it clear as to why it is still being performed in the heart of London’s theatre scene more than one hundred and twenty-five years later. Dubbed the “Father of Modern Drama,” Ibsen’s work deals with significant social issues, but the beauty of his writing is that he seamlessly incorporated pertinent, relevant and substantive material into an already established, successful and formulaic style. The writing, as confirmed by its continued existence, is intelligent and creative, capable of translating to a modern audience. The January 6, 2006 performance of the play at the Lyttelton Theatre was solid from the acting to the lighting to the overall scenery and staging.

Directed by Marianne Elliott, the show transitioned well, did not drag in unexpected places, and for the most part illuminated the key messages of the play to the audience cleanly and effectively. Staged in a box set to emphasize the period of realism in which the play was written, most of the action took place on a stage decorated to recreate a room. Good scenic design should emphasize two parameters: first, to express a play’s qualities, and second, to aid audience understanding. By staging the play in a box set, both requirements were met, as the audience viewed a performance amidst a true backdrop, with tangible walls. The implementation of a box set made the performance come across more like a movie, played out in true rooms as opposed to the stage. I personally favor a play to embrace the fact that it is a performance, with all the nuances that live performance encompasses as opposed to trying to ignore the theatrical elements that can become so magical when overstated. However, performing the work in the context it was written allowed the performance to showcase realism, or an attempt to portray faithfully the surface appearance of life. I felt the use of lighting aided the portrayal of realism, from the light illuminating through the shutters to the use of real candles. The costuming of the characters were visual attempts to match the personalities of the characters. Lona Hessel (Leslie Manville) the half-sister of Karsten Bernick’s wife Betty, was costumed in bright, vibrant red to emphasize her strong and outspoken personality. In contrast, to emphasize the American influence of Johan Tonneson (Joseph Millson), Betty’s brother, he was costumed in a much less formal manner, communicating the geographical gap between two cultures.

Beyond geographical boundaries and differences, the social gap was well portrayed in this production, a theme that can translate to any generation, as technology and morals constantly progress, or rather, become more progressive. The acting was strong enough to demonstrate related themes of honesty and deceit, virtue and the destruction of innocence. The performance demonstrated the ever-changing stance on what honesty entails and how a culture reacts to various moral issues. I enjoyed this performance, but found it ironic that a show set in the 1870’s, portraying realism in context and on stage would be performed in such a modern venue. However, I feel that staging this play as they did in a progressive theatre like the Lyttelton is a testament to the timelessness of Ibsen’s material and an indication that his work will be studied one hundred and twenty-five years from now.