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.
Pantomime is a notoriously slippery genre for critics. The problem is that the inherent parody of theatrical convention lends itself to intentional travesty; the pantomime is often, in theatrical terms, deliberately bad. Treasure Island is no exception to this rule, and one is often caught between moments of sparkling humour, obligatory ‘pantomime jokes’ which make you grimace, and abortive attempts at humour which lie somewhere in between the two. In short, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The first thing to say is that the production takes place outside. If the weather on the opening evening is anything to go by, this is going to be a problem- and a problem exacerbated by the very generous run-time: 150 minutes, including interval. That’s a long time to sit around in the cold, and this is not an environment conducive to relaxation and laughter.
The set was basic but fit for purpose. It was also surprisingly minimalist, for a pantomime- unlike the costumes, which were impressively detailed and complete. A band provided appropriate music from the shelter of a gazebo, and did so in a very able manner. The production included a variety of musical and dance numbers which, as a whole, were well choreographed, and made full use of this supporting band. The singing on offer, however, was obviously under-rehearsed. Cues were often missed, leaving singers to mumble into their lines in a sloppy fashion, quite letting down the skill of their musical support.
This was a very well-written piece, and although the gags were not consistently funny, I think this was more a variance in performance than written quality. This said, some gags were overused: there was no need for the ‘Lady Macbeth’ character to appear as many times as she did, for example. Meanwhile, other opportunities had been missed: that cynical doctor character limped around stage for over two hours, and yet never alluded to ‘House’? Baffling. Assuming, however, that the lyrics of the musical numbers were also created by the same writer, there really is a lot on show here in the way of writing talent. Three performers who really stood out were Emily Thommes, Joe Popplewell and Lewis Chandler, who played Alexandria Smollett, Captain Flint and Long John Silver respectively. Popplewell and Chandler had a brilliant chemistry from their first appearance, and this was an energy that they carried with them throughout the first half. Both actors have superb voices, and I’ve seldom seen comic timing like Chandler’s. Emily Thommes was a different story. It’s often said that women aren’t funny, but Thommes disproves the cliché: she took a well-written part and delivered it with impeccable accuracy. Where Popplewell and Chandler - and the rest of the cast - let the energy sag in the second half, Thommes became, if anything, funnier. This trio was a pleasure to watch.
The other characters, not so much. Although they had their moments, these were few and far between. Eleanor Francis’ baby pirate character, Rosie Fletcher’s ‘Arrow,’ who constantly shouts, ‘That’s what she said’, and the Jack Sparrow character all did nothing more than take up stage space as far as I’m concerned. Even granting an amnesty to the pantomime’s intentionally over-formulaic jokes, there were a lot of gags that fell a long way short.
The pantomime’s biggest problem, which accounts, in part, for all the lesser problems, was that it was too long and introduced more characters than it could effectively deal with; as a result, the second half was absolutely interminable. As I’ve mentioned, conditions weren’t ideal, which exacerbated the situation - despite being beyond anyone’s control. The lapse in energy also made it clear that the cast themselves were less sure of the second half, and it is therefore clear that this is really something in need of attention. Several characters and sequences should certainly have been left on the cutting-room floor, which would have allowed, among other things, greater focus on the things the production did well. It would have also allowed for more rehearsal, and a longer direction process, which I really think could have honed this production into something genuinely impressive.
Treasure Island was a serviceable pantomime, which was let down by a dragging conclusion and sloppy musical numbers. If you’re a fan of the genre, then there are some highly commendable moments to be seen here, and I would recommend you give it a watch. If you’re not, however, this certainly won’t be the one to turn you around. There is undoubtedly treasure on offer here, but you’ll find it’s buried very deep.
You say it was too long...I find this funny because you clearly didn't see last year's summer panto, a gruelling 3 hours. By comparison this was short and snappy. And thoroughly enjoyable.
"It’s often said that women aren’t funny" - I think this is a completely unfounded statement. Thommes is indeed very funny in her role but I don't consider this at all shocking of her gender. I am surprised this comment got past the editor as I do not feel it represents The Yorker well.
While I produced this show I think the above is the thing I feel is most important to take issue with here.
It's often said that male chauvinists write horrendously unfounded statements about women which need to be left in the 1970s, James Harle is not an entirely different story.
I'd just like to also register my disdain for such a sexist comment.
Seconded
To be fair to James, I don't think he PERSONALLY thinks that all women aren't funny. There is a (sexist) cliche that women aren't funny and James is showing how it's not true. I highly doubt he's some sort of Gene Hunt throwback.
Seconded. He doesn't say women aren't funny, he says it is often said. Admittedly to say it is said 'often' may not be entirely true, but I would not say it is completely 'unfounded' [2 and 3].
Generally, in my experience, men *are* a lot funnier. Of course it is subjective, but out of the people I know, the boys definitely outweigh the girls with humour, I see this reflected in popular culture too. It's a bit of a silly comment to make in a review, but that said, I often find it true.
To #8 - sounds like you hang out with some terribly boring women. No wonder you chose to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, I don't think Harle is himself being intentionally sexist, rather that his culture frame of reference needs updating by at least thirty years.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report