|
|
|
|
The
Edinburgh Fringe
|
|
|
|
Fringe 1999 Reviews 10Salome and
A Full Moon in March There are plays which are theatre and plays which are literature. There are also, of course, those plays which are both theatre and literature, but these are the masterworks, the greats of world theatre. These two plays, produced by Oxford based student company Giralda, are literature, but certainly not in the third category. In fact, any performance of the Yeats can be little more than an animated poetry readng. And it has to be said that the same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, of the Wilde. This is not one of his better efforts - witness the number of productions it has had! Regrettably it was too much for this young company. Their lack of formal training, especially in voice, meant that they were taking on too much right from the start. They don't have the flexibility to speak the verse convincingly, much less make it sound natural to the character. Nor, unfortunately, do they have the stagecraft to overcome the problems of crowding on the tiny stage. As a result the plays became rather stilted tableaux. The one opportunity for Salome to come alive is the Dance of the Seven Veils, which in this production was also (rather oddly, I thought) danced by the Baptist. However, even this was static and lacked the eroticism that should so excite Herod. And Herod, incidentally - what was the designer thinking of? - was dressed like a pantomime dame! Sadly I have to say that this was one of the longest short performances I've seen this Fringe. The Liar There was a considerable amount of hype in various quarters about this production long before the Fringe actually began. It was touted as a major event. I am rather of the opinion that future generations will look back and sum up Fry as a minor talent who happened to carried along by one of those waves which occur from time to time, often for the most minor of reasons. That said, this is a reasonably entertaining play which looks at what we might call "playing with the truth". It is a convoluted spy story, interspersed with (typically Fry) scenes of public school homosexual affairs and their consequences. Or is it the other way around? Is it about schoolboy affairs interspersed with a spy story? And therein lies the main problem with this play, its lack of proper focus. Admittedly there are connections between the two aspects, but they are fairly tenuous. This may, of course, be the fault of the adaptation: to judge from the "notes from a conversation with Stephen Fry" in the programme, there would seem to be more justification for the school scenes than is apparent in the play. On the other hand, when one considers Fry as a personality (for in my opinion he is more that than an actor or comedian - I can't comment on him as a novelist, for I haven't read the book), he does build his persona on the flaunting of his homosexuality in a flamboyant, Wildean way. Recognising, therefore, that the play is not particularly well constructed, what about the production and performances? Given the shortage of money in theatre, we have all grown used to the doubling of parts. It is often essential in small scale theatre like the Fringe, but even companies like the RSC and NT have to resort to it, purely for economic reasons. But why, in this production, do all four male members of the cast play the main character at some stage? There is certainly no need for it in terms of the mechanics of the production, so we must presume that there is a point to it. However, what that point might be escapes me completely. As for the performances, they were never less than adequate, but never rose to the heights of good. I sensed a great deal of anticipation in the full house before the play went up - that's the personality thing! - and a fair amount of disappointment at the end. It would have been difficult to live up to the hype, but this show never had any chance of doing so. Late One Night Thank God for the Cambridge Mummers! They have restored my faith in student drama, a faith which has taken quite a battering this Fringe. This is a physical theatre piece, but it is unlike many student productions of this nature, where the physical tends to forget all about the theatre! Here the three tales (the word is carefully chosen) which make up the play are crystal clear, something unusual in student physical theatre. They are stories about sad lives, death and ghosts, and are told with a delicacy and gentle humour which is a million miles away from much of what passes for physical theatre at the Fringe. Some of the ideas are also, it has to be said, just a wee bit derivative, but that is inevitable in student theatre, as they "discover" ideas. Ideas which may seem just a bit hackneyed and even jaded to those of us who are ourselves, perhaps, rather jaded, seem fresh and newly minted to those who have just found them for the first time. But this is a minor criticism, if criticism it is, and should not be allowed to detract from what was a delightful piece of theatre. Next page - - - Index |
|
|