Upon arriving at Oldham's Lyceum Theatre.... sorry, Walmington-On-Sea!, one was immediately transported back to the war years with cast milling around in period costume, FOH staff similarly attired, and plenty of contemporaneous posters and photos around the place, along with red, white and blue bunting. We were all encouraged to have a war-time sing-a-long in the bar too before we took our seats. Once there, we were reminded by the ARP Warden that we were still at war, and to "put that light out!" And after two archive announcements from both Lord Haw-Haw [Germany Calling], and the famous 'fight them on the beaches' speech from Winston Churchill himself, the searchlights went on, the famous theme song to the TV sitcom was played, and the curtains opened to a tableau of Home Guard looking as near to the TV series as is possible to get, and garnered a deserved round of applause. This was the 'Dad's Army' that we all know and love and this was going to be a splendid trip down memory lane - even for the likes of me, who only really remembers watching it because my dad did, as we only had one TV!
There is a huge problem inherent in reviewing productions such as this though. The script has yet to be written that cannot be performed by more than one actor and interpreted by any actor in many different ways. Obviously if the script is written well enough, then the style and characterisation of the character should be immediately apparent, but any actor with the help of a director can put their own spin on it. That's the beauty of acting and the joy one gets when seeing different companies tackle the same play. BUT... with TV sitcom adaptations, there is a problem, they are so well known and loved that even those who are too young to have watched them first time round, still recognise the characters, the stock phrases, etc... and so the temptation with any production of any sitcom is to try and be a close as possible to the TV version. However, it is extremely unfair to ask anyone to emulate another actor no matter how legitimate that might sound, and how on Earth an amateur actor can be expected to turn in a reasonable 'copy' of the professional actor who originated the role I am not sure anyway. So how does one review such a play? It is my belief that it should be reviewed in the same way as it was produced. If the production has tried to reproduce the TV sitcom faithfully on stage, then one should review it as such, and as that was so obviously the case this evening, that is how it shall be tackled.
If I have it correct, then the first act was the entire episode titled, 'The Deadly Attachment', whilst the second act took parts of two other episodes, 'Mum's Army' and 'The Floral Dance'. Written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft, the scripts are written for a TV sitcom, and consist of little more than short vignettes lasting a couple of minutes each in one location, before it changes the location for another short interchange. Such is the nature of most TV, as it makes it easier to film short sections at once, and also works on the assumption that the audience needs a change of pace or location every 2 or 3 minutes otherwise they will get bored and switch off...! However, theatre audiences are different, and plays work in a different way, and so why no-one has adapted the scripts for the stage I have no idea. However, under the direction of Phil McCarthy and Ian Orry, they chose to adhere to the structure rigidly, and the curtains would close after every short 2/3 minute scene. Sometimes period music would be heard over the speakers if it was only a short pause, or if a longer pause was needed then a pianist and three singers were on hand to cheer us with live songs. As entertaining as this was, it was not what we had come to the theatre to see, and seemingly more time was given over to the "intervals" than the actual play itself. The sitcom fitted into a 30 minute slot for the TV, and the first act alone was one hour in length. This had the effect of making a very bity and fragmented production, and also very predictable. Not only that, but we lost interest and focus on the Dad's Army part of the evening!
The play utilised the largest cast I have thus far seen at The Lyceum, and seeing them all on stage for the 'Floral Dance' final section was most interesting, since I would not have thought the Lyceum's stage big enough to accommodate so many.. but accommodate them it did, with room to spare! In all, a cast of 26, (27 if you include the pianist!), and every one of them doing everything in their power to make you believe it was the 1940s and this was the "real" Dad's Army.
Phil McCarthy played Arthur Lowe playing Captain Mainwairing. He was very good indeed, but for me he was not quite blustery and austere enough. His brusque nature was not explored as much as it could have been, making his 'melting' with the upper-class Fiona Gray less convincing and he didn't have as far to travel with his character either. John Weetman's take on John Le Mesurier's Sgt Wilson however was much more successful, as Weetman managed to capture the facial expressions and tentative nature to a Tee. Cameron Kennedy did well in capturing a young Ian Lavender portraying "stupid boy" Pike, but perhaps the closest of the characters this evening was Ian Orry's excellently observed portrayal of Clive Dunne playing Captain Jones. Orry didn't quite have the walk and sometimes the voice went back to his own, but overall, for me at least, he gave the most convincing 'copy'. The others too all deserve much credit, as audience members during the interval were remarking at just how close these characters were to the TV show, and just how well they were all doing. I can only mirror those thoughts since I am absolutely no expert on the sitcom, and haven't seen an episode of it in many years! James McKean impressed as the German U-boat captain, and both the Vicar (Frank Williams aka Nigel Slater) and the ARP Warden Hodges (Bill Pertwee aka Jon Cockroft) gave lovely cameos, and were not seen anywhere near enough for this reviewer.
Both set and costuming all looked absolutely spot on, and it all should have been much more enjoyable and much funnier than it actually was. The whole simply did not cohere into one cogent and solid mass. Entertaining, and crafted with obvious love, but far too disjointed showing piecemeal only the play that we had all come to see.
Reviewer - Matthew Dougall
on - 24.4.23
on - 24.4.23
No comments:
Post a Comment