Catherine Bennett resumes the weekly look at the performing arts world, with the sad end of Jerusalem, the luck of a cabbie, and French revolt. Do you hear the people sing?
Adam Alcock reviews Nigel Kennedy playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons and his own Four Elements at York Opera House.
Catherine Bennett highlights the trends in the performing arts world today.
Jonathan Cridford reviews 'Ghosts', one of the Freshers' plays for this year.
The Drama Barn has again been given a radical transformation by producer Corrine Millson-Crane: red walls, a central screen and fantastic illustrative paintings to give a sensuous yet twisted feel. The lights are appropriately low and the scene is set for another baffling Jean Genet insight.
Before you see this play, it is fully apparent that a majority of it will fly over your head as you sit watching with a somewhat perplexed expression. They don’t call this style of theatre absurd for nothing and this production was no different. Genet’s plays always seem to have an added level of pretension and it is clear that the French playwright was originally a novelist; the lyricism and poetic nature of the wordplay is something that is better studied and analysed.
This production did endeavour to remove a lot of the sections that perhaps do not work as well and this shifted The Balcony from being a pretentious showcase to an inventive creation, with plenty of dry humour and acting chemistry.
Some scenes however were too protracted and needed a little more action to keep the audience’s attention. A few sections clearly needed to be intimate and subtle but these sometimes became dull as they out-stayed their welcome and boredom crept in. This is a fault of the script perhaps as it is clear that this team were aware that this is a long play; attempting to remove unnecessary sections was a good move but this should have been done to a greater extent.
The sections that were genuinely brilliant went some way to redeem the play’s script and showcased some extraordinary talent for dry humour and perceptive portrayal of strong emotion. The judge – played by James Duckworth – had some highly amusing, twisted scenes that allowed the actor to demonstrate his ability for absurd humour as he contorted his face while flirting with girls and boys alike.
In her first acting role in the Drama Barn, Nicola Carter brilliantly portrayed a whore who satisfies the well portrayed General's desires for creatures not of the human variety: horses in particular. Her timing was excellent and had me chuckling in amusement. Their 'horsing' around made for a superb double act.
She also performed in the best scene of the production: the photography section. The three leads in this part: The bishop (William Seaward), The Judge (James Duckworth) and The General (Matthew Lacey), exhibited a chemistry that made this scene truly brilliant.
It has to be said that this play has something for viewers of both sexes. Half-nakedness in the form of Arthur (Oliver Tilney), and plenty of boobs on display in the form of corseted whores (Danie Linsell, Niamh Walsh and Nicola Carter, to name a few). Some scenes are too long and you should be very aware that this is a heavily "profound" play if you decide to see it.
For the majority director Kate Shenton made very few boobs in The Balcony which is impressively her debut directorship.
So there’s semi-nakedness, a perverse script and a giant vagina painted on the floor: a great, certainly absurd, end to a fantastic term in the Drama Barn.
The Balcony is showing week 9 this weekend in the Drama Barn. Doors open at 7.30 and tickets are available on the door. Arrive early to avoid disappointment.
My own reservations lay not so much with the production as much as with the play itself.Indeed,despite my patriotism, I wouldn't say I am particularly fond of Genet, though his themes are definitely worth a look.
However, of the wealth of Absurd plays out there (when is the "Bald Prima Donna" hitting the Drama Barn?) I don't quite understand why *this* play was chosen...
The actors were amazing and obviously talented, but this kind of production, whose success lay almost entirely in making the audience uncomfortable (which, some argue is the purpose of Art) will do little to improve the Drama Barn's reputation for cliqueyness and highbrow-intellectualism -for-intellectualism-sake type "Rive Gauche Attitude."
That's a shame, because York's obviously got Talent, and lots of it.
Anyway-- well done everyone -- with special mention to Nic Carter and Matthew Lacey for the horse/general scene!
Hello Marie!
'I don't quite understand why *this* play was chosen...'
According to the first-time director, this play was chosen as it was a challenge. I can understand this and there were some very highly humorous and ingenious scenes, like the one you mentioned: 'the horse/general scene'. I don't particularly like Genet either but his plays are somewhat twisted and sexual which will certainly attract a student audience which is, of course and quite rightly, what they want.
Because this is a translation, it meant that this production was indeed a 'challenge'; apparently with somebody once telling the director it was 'undirectable'! But directed it was and hats off to the girl: she did very well in directing an, as you put it, 'cliquey' cast.
York has certainly 'got Talent' and I think this term has showcased this to full effect.
I reiterate Marie's generous sentiment - well done everyone.
Entering into dangerous territory by commenting on a review in which I feature, but...
Kirsty has apparently accidentally fallen into the role of 'Yorker theatre critic', and as such has reviewed what I believe is the entirety of this term's productions. I can't help but think that this continuity makes for a far more consistent and accountable critical approach than the random allocation of reviewers. I believe this is a benefit to audiences, to the performers and to the critic - the feedback has a chance to run both ways, if you like. From an audience's point of view, greater familiarity with a reviewer's style surely helps when working out what weight to accord the critic's opinions. A different critic every week makes comparison between shows, and their reviews, very difficult. Since an objective review is impossible, a consistent set of critical prejudices and enthusiasms, and a greater sense of context can only be a good thing, don't you think?
I certainly agree with you! But I maaay be a little biased...
I hope that I have been fair with this term's productions; there have been some shockingly good plays going on. I try to go in, watch it and just report what I remember to give a not-overly-analysed perspective on things and I hope that comes across.
Some people have said that the reviews have been a little too generous but if a reviewer is genuinely pleased by something, I don't believe they should leave it out just to use the word limit for a controversially scathing review. Similar accurate representation if it's not enjoyed; there's not much point in pseudo-diplomacy.
Definitely criticism where necessary, and of course often it's constructive and that's fully understood, but keeping the student spirit in mind; I think that's important. Offering up suggestions for alternative interpretations to allow the reader to decide for themselves whilst trying to anticipate the wide range of reactions for a hopefully fairly representative view, even more so.
Roll on next term! Can't wait...
Definitely agree with #3, you're doing a fab job Kirsy 
I have agreed with a majority of the reviews on The Yorker. I like that they're in depth as it's nice to nod your head in agreement when reading a perceptive review.
Good work!
I find it poor reviewing to blame the faults of a production on the playwright alone. We have all seen brilliant scripts we love massacred beyond repair by directors and actors alike. Good writing can’t always speak for itself. I am at present undecided on Genet. However a quick perusal of him on wikepidia says that the balcony was ‘the longest running Off-Broadway non-musical of the decade’. I mean he must have been doing something right! How can we pressume that the Drama Barns version is anything like Genets, after being translated, heavily cut, introducing film etc… We must comment on the script but it should not be used as a scapegoat for other faults.
True, one cannot solely blame scripts... Am curious as to how The Balcony became ‘the longest running Off-Broadway non-musical of the decade,' esp how it was arranged...Granted, the play must have its merits, else it wouldn't be in the canon today... Ultimately, I think it's very much a question of taste.
The actors themselves were amazing in this production and managed to provide some much-needed comic relief, but could not quite make up for the tedious lengths, which, in my opinion are Genet's "faults" if anything!
I'm tempted to maybe step up to the drama plate next term, as i seem to have fallen into the role of yorker live music reviewer in a parrallel manner to KD with stage. Could be interesting to see a different perspective though i think KD is doing an immense job here...
Ben P
ps. not more than once though
Simply the length of a scene does not render it 'tedious'. Many of the longer scenes were blocked in a very static way, which I believe to be the fault of the director.
comment deleted by the author I find it poor reviewing to blame the faults of a production on the playwright alone.
If it is not of the fault of the script then this, of course, is poor reviewing.
I have actually read a few Genet texts and also seen The Maids in the Drama Barn and also Genet performed elsewhere. I concluded that I do not particularly like Genet and his overly lyrical style. I did use the term 'perhaps' though as to who the boredom should be attributed to - I could have interpreted this incorrectly and maybe it is the fault of the production. I think this should maybe be up to you to decide for definite...
I have not analysed it properly and could not claim to know the writer wholeheartedly hence the somewhat tentative word...(I write these reviews in 2 hours max please remember, so I do not have time to think about analysing it too heavily.)
Simply the length of a scene does not render it 'tedious'.
I don't believe I used this word (possibly in my Celebrity review). No, the length itself certainly does not induce boredom - some of the funnier sections were longer than the dull ones but contained enough action to keep people's attention, I thought. Like I said, it just needed a little more action in these scenes but overall I thought a very good job was done in utilising, in my opinion, a very overtly poetical and at times inactive script.
I believe anonymous #11 was refering to my comment re: "tedious lengths," because, let's face it, not only is the plot difficult to follow, but the play itself seemed really long!
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report