|
|||
|
Amateur Theatre Reviews |
|||
|
|
An Amateur Henry VThe Royalty Theatre, SunderlandI have to confess it was with some trepidation that I went to the Royalty to see their production of Henry V. Shakespeare by amateurs can be a bit dodgy. The principals are usually fine, as are (usually) the women, but it is rare for an amateur company to have sufficient men to be able to cast experienced actors - and, let's be honest, Shakespeare really does need experience - in every part. And of course the problem is compounded in a play like Henry V where there are so many male parts. But I had seen the RSC's latest production, directed by Edward Hall, last year, and it seemed proper to see what our local amateur group could make of the same play. Please don't misunderstand me: I have no intention of denigrating amateur actors or amateur directors - they can be very good indeed - but on the whole they lack the training and experience of the professional, and, even more importantly, they do not have the time to develop character and performance in the way that a professional can. And, no matter how dedicated they may be, they do have other things - such as the day job! - to dominate their minds for most of the time they are rehearsing. As one who was an amateur actor for many years, I speak from experience! So how did the Royalty's production measure up? It was a traditional interpretation and played very straight. This was the same Henry as Olivier and Branagh portrayed, the heroic but sensitive warrior, and the play was a patriotic paean of praise for England and the English. The English were good, modest and brave in the face of overwhelming odds, and the French were arrogant and effete. No problems there: that's almost certainly the way it was played in Shakespeare's time. The director Chris Elphinstone had wielded the blue pencil to good effect. That awful opening scene between Ely and Canterbury was considerably cut, and benefited from the surgery. It is a difficult, perhaps even an impossible scene, and Elphinstone very wisely retained only what was absolutely necessary to give the audience the background, to show that Henry's claim to the throne of France had justification and was not simply an expansionist adventure. Martin Wallwork's Henry was a strong performance, although I think that, by Saturday night, his voice was giving him a little trouble so that he lacked the power he needed in certain scenes. He looked good, he moved well and there was plenty of conviction there. I found his performance much more compelling than that of William Houston in the RSC version, although I have to say that I am not sure whether the faults with Houston's Henry should be blamed on the actor or the director, for it was the interpretation of the character which I found unacceptable. What of the verse speaking? Better than I expected, very definitely. Michael Short's Chorus set the standard for the others to reach, and if none of them quite got there, it was not through want of trying. Chris Elphinstone told me afterwards that they had not particularly concentrated on the verse, being pushed for time, which makes their achievement all the more laudable. Diction was a little sloppy in a few places (although not from Wallwork), but I have heard far worse in much easier plays. Given that some of the cast were young (two seventeen year olds and one eighteen) and quite a number very inexperienced (one in his first ever performance on any stage), this was a considerable achievement. But what pleased me more than anything was that each actor was in character and acting every moment they were on stage: there was none of the "looking like a spare part until it's your turn to talk" kind of performance that does bedevil many an amateur show. The actual staging was excellent: a ramp leading down into the audience enabled the soldiers to charge into battle most effectively and avoided the necessity for trying to choreograph fight scenes, which, when there is no professional fight arranger available (and even, on occasion, when there is), can be the kiss of death! Lighting was sensitive and effective, although once or twice some actors positioned themselves just out of light, a sure sign of lack of experience. The sound was good, too. Very high volume for the battle scenes made a great impact, sending shivers up and down the spine, but just occasionally it was a little too loud when there was dialogue going on, making it difficult to hear clearly. Amateur theatre companies often boast that what they do is every bit as good as professional companies, but frankly that is usually nonsense. However individual performances can be of a high professional level, and that was certainly the case with Frank Ditchburn's Bardolph, which was as good a Bardolph as I have seen anywhere. I was also very impressed by John Cairns' Fluellen: he caught the humour of the part, but without making him a clown, something which happens all too often. I enjoyed Rebecca Sandy's Katherine. The girlishness of the character came over well (Sandy herself is just seventeen), with her giggling over the "rude" word ("de coun") and her attempts at dignity. She contrasted well with Margaret Davies' Alice. Davies is one of those joys of the amateur theatre, an actress who always gives a rock-solid performance, even in the smallest of parts, and can hold a whole play together. I was glad I went, and even more glad that my initial trepidation had been groundless. This was amateur theatre at its best. It was the central production of the theatre's 75th year: they couldn't have chosen a better!
|
||
|
|