The Arden Rep Company [an extra-curricular and hard-working group of first and second year students of Arden Theatre School] chose to perform for two nights only, the Stephen Jeffreys' modern interpretation of the 17th century play by Thomas Shadwell, The Libertine. [which is, in itself, an adaptation of the earlier El Buriador De Sevilla by Triso De Molina].
Jeffreys' version, originally produced at The Royal Court Theatre in London, and subsequently made into a film, is perhaps the most accessible and certainly the most relevant of this story of a Maquis-de-Sade-esque sexual deviant-turned 'devil-man' who gets his just come-uppance from his grotesque, polyamorous and uninhibited life-style.
No prizes will be awarded for guessing the plot of this play. although Jeffreys does keep the action very firmly in the 17th century and uses real historical figures as his protagonists. The whole action centres around John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester (1647 - 1680) who was a poet, lothario, and (to use the vernacular of the day) a rake. Courtier to King Charles II, he was highly regarded and lived a privileged life, allowing him to pursue his carnal lusts without retribution - at least not in the legal sense. King Charles tolerated him, and even half-heartedly banished him, but his undoing came when true irony befell him as he fell madly in love with an actress (not known for their celibacy in those days!). His love for her was all-consuming, and his, perhaps, coup-de-grace was that at just 33 years old he died of a venereal disease.
Jeffreys account of his life stays really rather close to the truth (as far as we know it to be), and paints a rather black picture of Rochester right from the start. Do we feel sorry for him? Do we applaud his demise? Do we accept his behaviour, or even wish we too could be like him? or do we feel nothing but hatred and anger for such a low human? Jeffreys very cleverly never allows you to have one opinion for long and is constantly challenging the audience with their thoughts. In the end, I think we are both repulsed by him and yet feel sorry for him too; and perhaps that is also intentional.
It is an exceedingly difficult role to undertake, that much is clear, and it could all too easily be played all on one long sexual ranting monotone, but the writing and the character are far too clever for that, and the nuances and subtle changes in his character are there for the taking for the sensitive actor. Elliott Sayers gave this hugely challenging role a very good characterisation. The shortness of rehearsal time and his obvious youthful lack of worldly experience notwithstanding, he was an imposing and strong presence on stage and had a good understanding of character. For me though it was a bit shouty. A little more depth and change of dynamic would have helped me to relate more easily to him. He was at his best towards the end of the play when he realises his number is up, and is visited by his former lovers and friends and left alone.
The most enjoyable and most fully-rounded portrayals for me came from Ewan Mulligan as playwright George Etherege [the man who gave us the wonderful character of Sir Fopling Flutter in perhaps what is now his best known work, referenced towards the end of this play, The Man Of Mode]; the rather euphemistically named Tom Alcock, played, channeling Baldrick in 'Blackadder', by Daniel Molnar, and from the diminutive Lilith Wake in her sensitive and sympathetic portrayal of the prostitute Jane.
It would be wrong of me not to mention all the cast, since they were all deserving of praise. All worked extremely well and made a cohesive ensemble for items such as the rather lusty (in both senses of the word) song which started the second act. I just have two comments which I feel I should make, which may prove helpful hopefully to the two performers concerned. First, Parris Heyes, who played Rochester's love-affair actress Elizabeth Barry (Thursday evening only). Heyes' voice was a little too quiet at times and she tended to have a downward inflection at the end of her sentences and as such I lost a few of the words. Second, Rowan Curran, who played Harry Harris, leading actor and onstage partner to Barry. More should have been done to hide his all-too-visible tattoos.
The stage set was one regal flash of purples, reds and blues in velvet with the Wilmot coat of arms emblazoned on the floor. It was very Restoration, however, the singular nature of this static set meant that the bordels and humble abodes still had all this omnipresent splendour, which sadly was not even blacked out by lighting changes. Costumes were generally very good, and gave a lovely feel of the age as well as the pornographic nature of the subject matter, with majority of the ensemble cast wearing just period underwear. I was uncertain about hair styles though, and the King was the only one ever to don a wig.(despite the narrative mentioning perriwigs several times). I do have a pet hate however, and that is to see bottles or glasses on stage empty when there should be liquid in them. There is nothing worse than seeing someone pouring 'wine' out of an empty bottle into an empty cup and then pretending to drink it! The background music was well chosen and suited the production well, and a good ambiance was created.
As already stated it is a very difficult play even for the seasoned pros, and therefore a hugely ambitious ask from director Gary Willis. The idea of a rep company - working outside the parameters of the school timetable and producing plays in a way very similar to the way much of their early years in the profession might well be like - is a highly commendable one, and one I wholeheartedly applaud. These students are not only young and still learning their craft, but are also prepared to go that extra mile to push themselves even further, and gain a better understanding of the rigorous and unforgiving demands of this profession. I take my hat off to them all!
Reviewer - Matthew Dougall
on - 28/2/19
No comments:
Post a Comment