|
|
|
|
The
Edinburgh Fringe
|
|
|
|
Fringe 2000 Reviews (13)Lolita Oh dear! Any production of Lolita was bound to attract attention. The novel and subsequent films have attracted so much controversy that it is a sure-fire box office winner. And so it proved: the small Garage Studio was packed literally to the doors with a very mixed audience, mainly female, ranging in age from early twenties to (at least) seventies. It should be a challenging piece, particularly given the amount of attention focused on paedophiles as a result of the "News of the World" outing campaign, forcing the audience to confront their own attitudes to sexual activity between young teenagers and adults. But not this over-long, plodding production. There was some spark of life from the actress playing Lolita herself and just a tiny bit from her mother, but the actor playing Humbert was so lugubrious that it was impossible to imagine him experiencing any passion, let alone inspiring it in others. The pace was unremittingly slow and the voice-over recording of Humbert's diary of such a poor quality that it was a strain to follow it. I realise, of course, that the actors were performing in a foreign language, but that isn't so unusual and certainly should not prevent them expressing some emotion. It reminded me of nothing so much as an amateur dramatic society trying out new and inexperienced actors with a new and inexperienced director. The Reader The novel on which the play is based is divided into three parts: the 1950s, when 15 year old Michael Berg falls in love and has an affair with 36 year old tram conductress Hanna Schmitz; the 60s, when she and four others are put on trial for their actions as concentration camp guards, and Michael is now a law student watchuing the trial; and looking back from the perspective of the 90s, with Michael now a much older man. Schlink confronts the question, if you are in love with a criminal, does that make you guilty too? What would you have done in the same situation? The play follows the same pattern, and so we have three Michaels: the fifteen year old, the student and the older man. This is the same theatrical device that Alan Bennett uses in The Lady in the Van, and I have to say that Bennett uses it much more successfully. Given the importance of the subject matter, I came away feeling guilty that I didn't think as highly of the play as I wanted to. It came across to me as an intellectual exercise rather than something which engaged my emotions. This was partly due to the way it was constructed, in short scenes which required a pause between them as the furniture and setting (not the set) were changed. For example, Michael and Hanna would be in bed together (a mattress covered with a sheet laid on the floor), and this would be removed for the next scene, and then returned again for the following. So the flow of the piece was broken, as was the audience's concentration, thus minimising the impact. I have no quarrel with the performances, which were, as one would expect of a company of Borderline's reputation, of a consistently high standard: it is rather the play itself which disappointed me. Adapting a novel for the stage is always fraught with problems. Novels are by their nature much more discursive than plays can ever be, and so the adapter is faced with the choice of following the basic structure of the novel, which may not be suitable for the stage, or making major changes to get the spirit of the book rather than reflect its structure. Doing the latter inevitably leads to a piece which can best be described as "bitty", which, I am afraid, is how The Reader appeared to me. Abandonment Abandonment tells two love stories, both of which end unhappily. One, the main strand of the play, is set in the present day, whilst the other, happens dring the Victorian era. In the modern strand, Elizabeth (Patricia Kerrigan) has an affair with newspaper photographer Alec (Neil McKinven). For her it is real, for him it is a bit of fun, just another of his many conquests (including Patricia's sister Kitty, played by Elaine C Smith), and he dumps her. In the Victorian strand, governness Agnes (Michelle Gomez) has an affair with her employer Merric (also played by McKinven), becomes pregnant and is killed by Merric's wife Laetitia (played by Smith). Both strands are set in the same room, which is the main room of Elizabeth's new flat in the modern strand and the drawing room of the house in the Victorian. The two strands are linked, aparts from the similar situation, by the ghost of Agnes and the discovery of her skeleton under the floor in the modern. It's an enjoyable play, but one which is flawed. The mdoern scenes are much more successful than the Victorian, which tend to be rather overwritten and even overheated, with characters that tend to be somewhat stereotypical. There are many wonderfully witty one-liners in the modern strand - I loved Elizabeth's mother's "tikka chicken mascara", and there is a delightful exchange between the sisters: Elizabeth says to Kitty, "I think you're confusing yourself with someone who gives a shite," to which Kitty replies, "Oh. So I am"! I see a great future for this play as a touring vehicle and as a play for the better amateur companies. It's funny and enjoyable - the audience loved it - but just misses the spot. Next page - - - Index |
|
|