|
|
|
|
The
Edinburgh Fringe
|
|
|
|
Fringe 1999 Reviews 1Whoredom Author and performer Heather Robson writes of Whoredom, "The original piece, steeped in historical truths, has now been bastardised and injected with gloriously cheap gags of a crowd pleasing nature." It's true. She might also have added that she follows the old adage (which I made up just a moment ago): never let the plot get in the way of a good gag. Don't get me wrong. There is a plot, but it takes second place to the humour. Set in Elizabethan Southwark, it's about a lady whose husband has died, leaving her penniless (and a virgin), so she decides to apprentice herself to a Bankside whore. They work a nice scam: while the whore is on the bed with the client, the lady is under it, ripping off anything she can find. There's also the inn-keeper who wants to be an entertainer, and the Bishop who wants all the Bankside whores to work from his brothel. And Richard Burbage makes an appearance.... but what the hell? the plot isn't that important anyway! Not even the dead toad... It's a bawdy romp, nothing more and nothing less, and as such it's a good hour's entertainment. The actors - Ms Robson herself, David Alison, Helen Bright and Terry Kilkelly - play with gusto and obvious enjoyment. It moves along at a fair old clip; the character doubling (by the two men) is well handled and the typically Fringe rudimentary set adds a nice air of seediness. A good, undemanding but enjoyable start to my Fringe this year! Words and Music 1999, of course, is the Noel Coward centenery, and so it is most appropriate that there should be a centenery production at the Fringe. What is interesting is that Rexana Productions chose a show which hasn't been produced since 1932 rather than one of the more well-known pieces. Words and Music contains some of Coward's best-loved songs - Mad Dogs and Englishmen, A Room with a View and Mad about the Boy - as well as a number which probably haven't seen the light of day for sixty years. So has it dated? Of course it has: songs about debutantes are pretty meaningless in a society which hasn't really noticed them for forty years, as are songs about "children of the Ritz" and housemaids. On the other hand, change the Ritz to Stringfellow's, debutantes to the clubbing generation, and suddenly they're relevant again! We tend to think that satire is only relevant to the society in which it was born, and that can be true (as it is of the song Housemaids' Knees), but the best satire - and, make no mistake, Coward's is the best! - attacks human foibles which do not change that much from generation to generation. That is why, for instance, we can still appreciate Juvenal nearly 2000 years on, and why Words and Music still has something to say to us 67 years later. One or two of the songs in the show have a period charm (Housemaids' Knees and The Wife of an Acrobat, for instance, and - of course! - Mad Dogs and Englishmen, but the rest are just as meaningful today as they were then, including the romantic songs, especially Let's Say Goodbye and the bitter-sweet The Party's Over Now. So yes, this is a show worth reviving, and it is a welcome reminder that Coward did more than Private Lives or Hay Fever! What, then, of this production? The cast of four (two men and two women) and an accompanist/musical director, made the hour seem very short. At a guess, I'd say that probably none of them had been born when Coward died, but that didn't prevent them capturing the spirit of the work beautifully. If I have a complaint, it's that, in the more romantic numbers, I would have liked them to sing through the notes (particularly the last) a bit more. Their more clipped style - very Coward in many ways - works well in the satirical numbers, but Coward himself used a more legato style in the right place. But this is nit-picking! A most entertaining and enjoyable show. Macbeth 2000 I suppose that, given the contemporary concern for making Shakespeare accessible, sooner or later someone was going to have the bright idea of making Macbeth into a musical. So here it is: Macbeth 2000, a multimedia rock musical. At first I thought, "This is going to work!" The Witches' first scene was powerful: singing the words really did make a big impact, lifting a scene which can so easily descend into cliche - and often has! I wasn't so sure about the video projection, however. It might have worked if it had been more atmospheric, but it was shot in full daylight, which detracted from the on-stage scene rather than adding to it. Later in the show they used live shots, mainly close-ups, and that did work. So, a good start. But from then on it was downhill all the way. There seemed to be no rhyme nor reason behind what was sung and what was spoken: most of Macbeth's and Lady Macbeth's words were sung; others (Duncan, for instance) spoke everything; and some alternated, but for no discernible reason. The great speeches, quite honestly, were destroyed by the music: it added nothing and took away almost everything. The "Macbeth hath murdered sleep" speech, for instance, was totally lost in a cacophony of noise. Emotional subtleties, here and elsewhere, were completely destroyed. And why, oh why did Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have to use hand-held radio microphones? Lavalier mics are so good nowadays that there is no possible justification for restricting an actor's movements. And their movement was very definitely restricted: Macbeth, in particular, performed more like a singer than an actor. But with good performances, it would have been possible to overcome the obstacles the production put in the actors' way, but I'm afraid this company simply wasn't up to Macbeth. Richard Ercole (Macbeth) has a good strong voice, his diction is excellent and he moves well, but the production did not really allow him to use his talents to the full. Sara Constantinople (Lady Macbeth) has a very expressive face and body, but her voice didn't match up. Volume was low, even when amplified, and her diction such that I caught no more than one word in ten - and I know this play well. As MacDuff, Andrew Honings looked as though he had just walked off the set of Braveheart: traditional kilt, leggings, tattoos and all. He looked fearsome, but his appearance was at odds with the rest of cast (who looked in no way Scottish) and, I feel, with the character as portrayed by Shakespeare. However I must commend Heather Milone's First Witch. She sang superbly: she has a strong rock voice, expressive and powerful, and her face mirrored the words, and it was she more than anyone else who gave the beginning the impact it had. The use of amplification for some and not for others did most of the cast no favours. In comparison to the amplified voices, the unamplified sounded weak as the audience's ears strained to make the adjustment necessary. It has to be said, in fact, that most of the cast are not actors: they are university students taking part in a play - and it shows. I never felt that they were the characters. An interesting idea, but, sadly, one that didn't work. Next page - - - Index |
|
|