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.
http://theomnireview.blogspot.com/
Concluding York Theatre Royal’s successful ‘In The Round Ensemble Season’ is Laurel & Hardy, a play which follows the dramas which constituted the lives of the two prolific performers, as well as re-enacting some of their finest on-screen moments. The piece relies on just two central actors: André Vincent as Oliver Hardy, and Martin Barrass as Stan Laurel, and is set in a kind of limbo where the characters are forced to reflect on their lives. The play is written by Tom McGrath, directed by Damian Cruden, and produced by the York Theatre Royal itself.
How should you tackle bringing Laurel and Hardy to the stage? In a word, cautiously. There are so many pitfalls: the change in medium from screen to stage, the change in timeframe and especially the simple fact that the pair are famous because of their unparalleled comic talents. My hopes were high for the finale of the Theatre Royal’s season- we’ve had some absolutely cracking plays this year, and if you missed out then you’re a fool. Sadly, it is now well and truly too late to rectify your mistake; I’ve never been less impressed by a main-stage performance at the venue.
This is a classic example of a play that tries to do too much at once. For a start, as I’ve already mentioned, the simple idea of representing Laurel and Hardy brings a number of complex implications, which aren’t palliated by setting the play in limbo. It contains elements of the biopic, elements of re-creation and emulation, and elements of a dramatization - and it can’t be all of them. In fact, in trying to be, it destroys its chances of truly succeeding at any of them; when this is added to the futility of portraying a pair of world-famous comic actors, the play soon becomes confusing and farcical. The man in the gorilla suit didn’t help (I’m serious, there was a guy just hanging around in a gorilla suit. Never explained).
There are a lot of funny moments to be had; scenes lifted straight from the celluloid are recreated with impeccable accuracy, and the mannerisms of the duo are captured equally well by the two actors. There are sad moments too, when biographical details of Hardy’s love life, or Laurel’s alcoholism are revealed. But the play doesn’t stay sad long enough to really affect you, and doesn’t create enough of its own humour to keep you laughing. The writer might even have set the laughter and sadness in stark opposition, which might have been effective, but he didn’t. It’s derivative, but worse than that, it’s blatantly derivative.
To make matters worse, the acting is very good. Vincent and Barrass are clearly very talented actors, who’ve evidently taken a lot of time to familiarise themselves with their characters. Such talent and hard work (not to mention excellent music and staging) should have been directed towards a better end, or at least a more entertaining one. There was so much potential here, and the play seemed ready at every turn to take off into the piece I knew it could have been; it just never happened.
I should really stop and say something good at this point, but when I think of what else I need to mention, the good is very far down the list. Instead, let me say that actually, far from heartwarming, I found the play quite offensive to the memory of Laurel and Hardy. Apart from anything else, the final message of the play seemed to be: let’s not think about the biographical detail, let’s remember the pair for their films’. Isn’t that kind of patronising? And if you don’t value the biographical detail, why spend large chunks of the play introducing the audience to it?
This isn’t a play that has fallen short because of a lack of talent, or effort; it’s a play whose unfocused writing has not been apprehended by sharp directing. With a re-focussing of the script, however, the problem could have been easily solved: as it is, I can’t recommend it to those unfamiliar with Laurel and Hardy, because the unfamiliarity will become a barrier; neither can I recommend it to L&H aficionados, since nothing is more certain to irritate the practiced eye than sketches performed even slightly incorrectly. Ultimately, I cannot see any viable market for this play, which puts a disappointing period to the Theatre Royal’s otherwise successful season.
Laurel and Hardy is showing until the 5th November.
You must log in to submit a comment.
