“A Christmas Carol: Smoke & Mirrors”, The Bike Shed Theatre, Exeter.

It was a black night, an evening so dark even the stars were loathe to appear, a night writhing, screaming in the bitter embrace of trecherous, freezing meteorological hootinannies…

Right, now that I have your attention with my little bit of topical spooky business, I present to you, *fanfare* today’s review!

"Scrooge", pinching his pennies.

“A Christmas Carol: Smoke & Mirrors” at the Bike Shed Theatre, Exeter.

In the auditorium of the Bike Shed Theatre, amongst red-brick stone-work, rusting car parts and iron cogs, there sat a “covetous old sinner”, surrounded by smog, thumbing through his accounts. It was this isolated shell of a man, ‘Ebeneezer Scrooge’,  with whom a small audience spent a remarkable evening of supernatural story-telling and Festive frivolities.

Bike Shed Theatre’s production of “A Christmas Carol: Smoke and Mirrors” was an enticingly eerie adaptation of one of the most re-hashed and dramatised novels in the English language, Charles Dicken’s 1843 classic, “A Christmas Carol”.

The production’s ‘Steampunk’ aesthetic was an intelligent visual indicator both of the traditional context of the story, and of the modern social & financial circumstances upon which the production comments. Heavily industrialised set design, an abundance of smoke, dirty Victorian attire, and the projected Christmas ghosts of the past, present & future, created an atmosphere heavy with the smog and coal-fueled filth of the industrial revolution, whilst also pertaining to modern interests and stage-craft.

Similarly, topical references scripted into the dialogue (such as the use of the phrase “Big Society” & refrences to Karl Marx) in combination with the use of traditional carols such as “The Holly & the Ivy” (beautifully sung by the cast),
highlighted the relevance of the story in relation to the financially driven society of the mid 19th Century, and which has been paralleled by the capitalist construct of the 21st Century.

The cast of four (and one stage hand) performed seamless character, costume and set changes: their almost velveteen movements and timing helped the production maintain the ghostly tension established in the first act.

Ben Crispin (Ebeneezer Scrooge) gave a remarkable performance, rife with succint and highly emotive facial expressions,
not to mention a vocal delivery which gave rise to all aspects of Scrooge’s personality; his anger, his humility, his loneliness; Crispin’s performance was heart-wrenching, yet drole when appropriate.

Bike Shed’s mode of storytelling forged a renewed appreciation for Dicken’s work by harking to our own social context in relation to the humanitarian commentary within “A Christmas Carol”, as well as providing an evening of stunning aesthetic and dramatic engagement through evocative performances, intelligent use of props, puppets, and projection, and excellent use of the stage space.

My only regret, is that I didn’t see this production before Christmas! It certainly did my conscience a world of good judging by the financial contributions made to the first busker we came across after leaving the theatre. As such, it seems appropriate to end this review on a slightly retrospective wish of seasonal good-will. And so, “as Tiny Tim observed”, in what has now become a highly cliched and almost cringe-worthy term of expression: ”Gawd bless us, everyone!”

However, for the record, "Muppets Christmas Carol" still rules. Zeee best. Numero Uno. Oh yes. Absolutely. (Sorry Bike Shed).

 

Cinderella, you shall go to the ball! And live happily ever, and ever, and ever, and everrrrr… after.

 

 

 

Imagine, if you will, the Lord of the Rings movie.

Now, put the Hobbits in Georgian wigs.

Good.

With that in mind, dress a couple of trolls in drag, and picture the ending of the last movie. What you are left with, is a pretty good impression of last night’s performance of “Cinderella” at the Octogan theatre, Yeovil, which was to all intents and purposes, “Lord of the Rings”- with sparkles.

After two hours of booty shaking pyrotechnics, dodgy karaoke backing tracks, and a commendable performance by a cast faced with an audience of hyperactive children & largely unenthusiastic adults… we sat through another half hour of the poor buggers trying to say good-bye.

No wonder Ashely Oliver (Cinders) was looking considerably knackered by the final number. She could have run over Mordor and looked less exhausted. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a criticism, more an expression of empathy for an actress who had obviously had a very long night, at the end of an equally long week.

Generally the cast was strong, however hilarity particularly prevailed whenever the Ugly Sisters ‘Annie & Fannie Hardup’
(played by Simon Bashford & Robert Rawles); ‘Buttons’ played by the ‘cute-as-a’ Simon Burbage; and the delightfully camp ‘Dandini’ (Eddie Dredge) minced, bounded, or frolicked on stage, all working very hard to liven up a slightly withering Friday night audience with their superb comic timing & enthusiasm.

The visual and technical aspects of the production were equally spell-binding, and must have caused the back stage crew a great deal of strife, judging by the sheer number of explosions, scene changes, costume changes, prostheses… not to mention the live ponies who pulled Cinderella’s carriage to the ball (I was hoping against hope that they wouldn’t… you know, ‘relieve themselves’ on stage as they’d apparently done on previous nights). Visually, the performance was faultless: pink, sparkly castles; vulgar costumes of a spectrum of non-definable colours; and dark green spooky forests, seemed to emulate every child’s impression of a fairy-tale kingdom.

Despite the vivacity of the cast and the entertainment value of the visual spectacle, you couldn’t help but feel the production was just a bit too long, mainly due to some musical numbers which seemed superfluous to the story, and caused many of the children in the audience to temporarily lose interest. It was also unfortunate that (at times) these songs were played at such a high volume, as to render the actor’s singing inaudible.

Despite the sound issues, the production seemed to run smoothly, with all the items on the panto shopping list thrown with wild abandon into the metaphorical trolley.

A trolley of the not-so-metaphorical variety.

Audience particpation, saucy jokes, not-so-saucy jokes, slapstick, mind boggling costumes, and a fairy-tale romance made this production the eptiome of the stereotypical pantomime. Octagon’s “Cinderella” was successful due to their expert use of the stereotype in conjuction with flair and orginality (improvisation, local references and topical humour were rife) and a strong cast, most of whom should be knighted for their commitment to a relatively drawn-out but none-the-less, highly enjoyable production.

“Cinderella” runs from 10th Dec- 1st January, at the Octagon Theatre, Yeovil.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

To all my American readers… that’s right, both of you… Happy Thanksgiving!!

In fact, even to my non-American readers, I wish you all, in the spirit of the day, a happy start to the holiday season!

No doubt many of you will be seeking out the best of the various fun and frugal Panto’s and seasonal theatrical offerings to frequent over the next couple of months, and all things permitting I shall be right there with you!

Now, onto some preliminary panto/festive production ideas to get you a-pondering as you digest your pumpkin pie…

First up, we have something for the grown ups, in the form of Le Theatre De Decadence, performing their Burlesque and Christmas variety show at the Exeter Northcott on Monday 12 December. From the looks of things, it promises to be a fun filled, risque evening, perfect to get in the Festive spirit if you’re not a fan of the “he’s behind you!” brigade.

Next, we have something a little different for the theatre going sprog… Rogue Theatre have an unusual seas

 

onal offering with “Winter Wood” which promises to bring some of the more pagan aspects

of the holiday season to the forefront (a welcome change from the habitual commercialization usually drummed into the skiddy winks at this time of year). With numerous activities and interactive performances, “Winter Wood” is likely to be far more engaging relative to some of the comparatively passive pantomimes you’re likely to find.

 

Finally, on my Christmas “to see” list so far, is BikeShed Theatre’s musical take on Charles Dicken’s classic “Christmas Carol.” And whilst nothing could compare to the Muppet’s version as far as I’m concerned, I’ve high hopes for “Christmas Carol: Smoke and Mirrors”.

 

So there you are, I hope you’re thankful for this brief round-up of what I think will be *cracking* (christmas crackers, cracking? Ha ha- ah never mind) productions to see this December, and don’t forget to check back for more to add to your list, as well as upcoming reviews and theatrical type ponderings.

Ciao for now, and once again, I say to you, “Happy Thanksgiving!”

 

Zee ultimate in Christmas Carol adaptations.

Annie, Get Your Gun… And your coat. You’ve pulled.

It’s that time again folks…!

On Saturday night (19th November), I had the unmitigated pleasure of attending ”Annie Get Your Gun”, presented by Axminster Operatic Society… and, well, what can I tell you? If I were otherwise inclined, I might have been tempted to say:

Annie, Get your Gun. And your coat. You’ve pulled.

How anyone could NOT have fallen in love with the lilting, soothing, southern tones of Annie Oakley

(played by Nicky Sweetland) and the other talented cast members of “Annie Get your Gun”, is beyond me.

Axminster Operatic Society’s 69th production, in a performance history spanning nearly 85 years, was professional, energetic, and highly enjoyable.

The production began strongly, as the modestly sized but skilled orchestra bibbled & bobbed through Irving Berlin’s
complex introductory musical score with vigour & aplomb.

This established expectations of good things to come; and slap my knee and call me a Texan, come they did.

A silver haired ‘Buffalo Bill’ (Steve Vernon) began proceedings, with an amiable introduction of Scene 1, down-stage of what was initially an uninspiring set of black flats.  However, fears of a visually uninteresting production were waylaid by the sudden transition  into a brightly coloured street scene, courtesy of the bustling southern belles and cowboys
who made the set transition with expert precision.

Vernon’s amiable performance continued throughout, as did Brian Ratternby’s as ’Charlie Davenport’, co-owner of ‘Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show’.

Andrew Helson’s performance of the womanising showman & sharp-shooter ‘Frank Butler’ was strong, with a more youthful, lyrical singing voice than you might expect from his frame, and despite having trouble with the southern accent at times, carried the part well.

An excellent performance from Kelly Apps as the conniving, scheming southern belle (& Frank Butler’s show assistant) Dolly Tate, was particularly engaging, with smart delivery and wonderful facial expression.

The highlight of the evening however, came in the form of the small but perfectly formed tomboy “Annie Oakley.”

It was clear from her first entrance that Nicky Sweetland (Annie) was a remarkable performer, combining expert comic timing, the uncanny ability to pull at your heart-strings, and a startlingly beautiful vocal ability. Sweetland was simply fantastic, maintaining a highly invigorating and professional performance throughout.

Whilst the main cast were exemplary, the background action lacked vivacity at times; a little bit more “oomph”
was in order from the supporting actors to really bring out the choreography: however, This was a very minor flaw
in an otherwise faultless production.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not the biggest fan of musical theatre, yet I enjoyed “Annie Get your Gun”  immensely: to the point of fighting the urge to find a ten-gallon hat, water pistol, and to go galloping off into the sunset with a hobby horse firmly clasped between my knees.

YEEEEEEEEEEHAAW!!!

Curtainclaws rating: ***** (Five Claws out of Five).

Everything’s not Black & White: but this was.

Disclaimer:

My dear readers, this production left me in a quandry, which is why it has taken so long to post this review. After much thumb twiddling, tea-drinking, and pondering along the lines of:

“Just how much detail should I go into, when reviewing a production directed by somebody with whom I’ve worked in the past? Especially when this particular production was… um… *struggles to find accurate yet polite adjective*… “

I’ve decided to publish the review anyway.

I do so in anticipation of my words being received as an objective perception of an independent performance, not as a ‘personal’ commentary of any persons involved.

A less than Ideal Production.

Not everything in this world is Black & White: but this was.

From the monochromatic set, to the eerily Omish-come-Oliver-Cromwell-esque costumes, and the half melodramtic, half unenthusiastic performances, the Cathedral Players’ production of “An Ideal Husband” fell remarkably flat
to the comic expectations of one of Oscar Wilde’s best loved plays.

The set consisted of contrasting black & white curtains, drawn across a free-standing stage situated in the centre of Exeter Cathedral. The stage was dotted with microphones around the circumference, which led to hopeful expectations of overcoming the awful acoustics of the Cathedral itself. Unfortunately, they did more to hinder rather than help.

One of the major bed bugs of the evening was the incessant scrunching, crackling noise from one of these mismanaged microphones, which, in conjunction with the swallowed delivery of some of the actors, rendered a great deal of the dialogue inaudible.

Solving the technical difficulty did little to help matters. Although ridding the audience of the teeth grindingly irritating noise was welcome, turning the microphone off created a doppler effect as the actors moved about the space, contributing to “An Ideal Husband”‘s acoustic nightmare.

In tribute to the staging aesthetics and technical duplicity, the performances were like-wise very black & white.

The “Ideal Husband”, played by Alan White remained physically as well as verbally stiff and unanimated: his lines were largely dictated as opposed to performed.

He was not the only actor to be somewhat awkward in both physicality and confidence: his wife, Lady Chiltern (played by Jules Alexander) verged on the melodramatic in times of high drama. One particular instance was the comical
waving of arms in the air, followed by much wailing & beating at the end of a sofa at the conclusion of Act II.

However, the most remarkable thing about Alexander’s performance, was her poise and elegance in times of calm: which made the character come across as very bipolar.

A slight mis-casting in Mrs. Cheveley rendered her too likeable, despite Susan-Gunn Johnson’s fabulously nasty performance, and increasingly, enchantingly malevolent delivery.

The casting was also misplaced when it came to the age of the other players (always a difficult situation within amateur dramatics). The age gap between Viscount Goring (played by Andrew Mimmack) & his father The Earl of Caversham (played by Martin Davies) was just too close to be able to suspend the audience’s disbelief.

Conversely, the discernible age gap between Goring & Mabel Chiltern (Alice Hutchings) made, if not quite a credible
romantic pairing, then at least, a visually ‘uncomfortable’ one.

Despite the penickity subject of age gaps, the aformentioned cast members gave commendable performances in what was a difficult performance space, rife with technical difficulties.

David Gunn-Johnson especially, was absolutely spot on as Phipps, with a dry sarcastic delivery, and excellent comic timing.

It was unfortunate that such a promising production was plagued by microphone malfunctions, however it was the aesthetics and the performances of “An Ideal Husband” which led to a theatrical experience with no room for the mediochre: moments of  brillance which punctuated an otherwise black production.

THE BLOG IS BACK!!

The blog is BACK. Baby.

Poor Curtainclaws… this much maligned blog is somewhat reminiscent of the Simpsons episode
featuring Mr. Burns & his bear Bobo…

“Bobo, I know I say this every century but, I’ll never leave you behind again…” *runs off in random
robot body with disembodied head in a jar.*

It’s pretty much been a year since I last posted! And what an eventful year it’s been!

I finally graduated after what had felt an extortionate amount of time: July 13th, I waltzed out of University and into a Chinese takeaway with a mock BA degree under my arm (the real certificate arrived in the post shortly after).

I’ve also returned to the county of my birth: the fragrant greenery of Devon, complete with eau de manure,
and tractors trundling down country lanes. I’ve had the most wonderful opportunity to work with Rogue Theatre in the middle of Tehidy woods this summer (in a bath tub, cutting my hair off… don’t ask… great fun!)

So, now that I am back in the Westcountry and on the “Curtainclaws” blog once more, what have
we to look forward to in this theatrical and eminently pastoral part of the world?

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, when can you expect the next review?

Well luvvies & lovelies, watch this space for a curtainclaws analysis of Oscar Wilde’s “An Ideal Husband”,
performed in Exeter Cathedral (which should make for an acoustically interesting evening) on
Friday 11th November. Directed by the ever meticulous Elizabeth Miller. As for what comes after, before, in-between or upside-down, you’ll just have to wait:  biting your fingernails with chattering teeth. But for now, I’ll just have to end on a promise, Mr.Burns stylee:

I know I say this every year curtainclaws, but I’ll never leave you behind again.
*runs off into the horizon in random flourescent trousers, reindeer jumper & disembodied head in a jar.*

“Hidden” advertising.

Greetings Bairns, i’ve just had a thought, something that’s been irritating me for a wee while…

Why do production companies make such ill conceived attempts to hide shameless plugs of new productions within loosely held together “arguments” for newspaper blogs? I find it marginally irritating. I find it more likely to put me off the production rather than tempted to see it. It feels sneaky and pointless somehow.

For example, the newest post on the Guardian Theatre Blog discusses the lack of political satire in UK theatre at the moment. One of the arguments is:

“Shakespeare’s plays are all about the business of ruling, but precious few contemporary playwrights engage at the same level.”

Yeeeesss… but this is a bit of an irrelevant comparison: how long ago did Shakespeare die? And how many of Shakespeare’s plays directly deal with the intricate political workings of Elizabethan government?

* awkward silence *

While I appreciate that by voicing a concern at the lack of satirical political theatre, this company are bringing about the perfect opportunity to plug their own production (and genuinely good luck to them from one artist to another) but i’m a wee bit confused as to why they even attempted to hide, what is essentially an advert in such a poorly argued “article”, which is more elaborated wonderings than constructive argument.

No offense, just my two cents!

Lack of finance = Sil-ance. (Bad rhyme, head hangs in shame).

Well, well, well- it HAS been a long time! The silence reverberating around the Curtain Claws Blog over recent months replaces my somewhat inane ponderings on the theatrical world, and for that i apologise… unless you were relieved at my silence, in which case, i apologise for coming back.

Ah my friends, despite what you hear about the party-animal antics of student life,  student life is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Whilst there are various commendable schemes to assist financially struggling post-pubescent pre-career theatre lovers such as myself (for example, the marvellous A Night Less Ordinary ) there are numerous other factors that get in the way when trying to stay in touch with the theatrical scene, when you’re a student in the UK.

The main issue for me personally, is that the majority of premiering theatrical works are in London: the bustling centre of struggling wannabes, established West End Musicals, and productions lucky, or rich enough to procure a venue. This is fine if you live in London; can afford the hideous rail fares to Waterloo; navigate your way around endless underground stations;and for those of us with numerical difficulties (myself included) staring blankly at train time-tables desperately trying to de-code the endless wibbly lines of text which dissapear as soon as you look at them, all whilst surreptiously keeping and eye on your handbag. I’m a self-confessed country bumpkin, and whilst I’ve gradually learnt to shuffle my way through old Londinium, I cannot afford to visit the glorious city frequently enough, in order to become acquainted with the smaller venues secreted amongst the glitz, where i’m sure the truly exciting, gritty, new theatre must be hiding.

I hate to use phrases such as “in the current economic climate” or “in the current political climate” and other such gross generalisations when applied to commercial, private and social concerns of both British culture and society. However i’m going to be a hypocrite anyway, and say that despite the reigning confusion over cuts, and funding that will be available to the creative sector, the current economic and political climate (*shudder*) could lend itself to a re-distribution of theatrical foliage, ready to be raked up by theatrical enthusiasts and drama queens all over the country… however we all know that’s unlikely. London is still likely to remain the hub of theatrical activity in England. Which is why, at the conclusion of my University degree, I’ll do my best to re-dress the balance for those who can’t afford to go to London, either due to financial or time restraints.

I intend to set up my own touring theatre company, focusing on casual theatre and use of adaptable spaces. I’ve already penned a few scripts, and am in the process of organising company requirements. I want to take theatre back to the masses as opposed to the masses having to come to the theatre. I know this will not appeal to everyone; a great deal of people do enjoy the formality of conventional proscenium arch, sit down, pay for your tickets before-hand theatre- but my roots are rural, my roots are small communities, and it is to these rural, island, and smaller communities both in the UK and in Europe, whom i want to bring theatre to. And for god’s sake, i want them to be able to have a beer when they’re watching the show, i want them to be able to get up and come back whenever they want, and i don’t want them to have to sit in regimental rows of uncomfortable seats- i want them to really ENJOY the theatre they’re watching.

For the time being, i am unable to see and review London shows; nor have i yet secured the finance for my production company (which at any rate, i will not be able to establish properly until the conclusion of my university degree) so once again, i apologise for my profound silence- however, i shall endeavour to find something to get worked up about and jibber-jabber on to you about very soon. Well, not just anything you understand. Don’t worry it will be culturally relevant- I won’t just turn up and have a rant about my laundry.

Thought for the day- flippent critics and common decency.

What is the polite, grown-up thing to do when someone is trying to critically engage with something you’ve written?
Is it to clarify one’s opinion in a well constructed counter-argument, politely but affirmatively validating your opinion?
Or is it better to write a one-line, flippent remark because you have nothing more intelligent or constructive to respond with?

I recently read a review of a production of Measure for Measure at the Almeida Theatre (which i’ve reviewed also), and happened to disagree with one of the points made. In my usual tongue-in cheek but essentially well meaning manner, I asked for clarification, explaining why I think this reviewer’s opinion differed from my own. This was my comment:

“   “the resulting stalemate denies the audience any shred of optimism or comfort”- is that not the point? That none of the characters are satisfied with the conclusions… Duke Vencentio is his own worst enemy- well-meaning but disorganised, and far too optimistic to think his good intent would prevail and win Isabella’s approval, who is right to refuse his proposal because of her religious devotion which has been evident throughout… Angelo deserves to be forced into marriage with the woman he betrayed- the fact is, all the characters get what they deserve by the end of the play: dissastisfaction as a result of their various flaws. The audience are meant to feel uncomfortable: It wouldn’t quite work in terms of continuity if they all joined hands and did the hokey cokey at the end.”

and this was the response I received:

“Maybe not the hokey cokey – but I am a fan of a good jig.”

If you do not have the decency to reply to someone who is making the effort to critically engage you in innoncent cultural discourse- I don’t believe you have the right to assert un-substantiated opinions on the rest of the world. You shouldn’t be so fearful of rebuttal as to fob someone off so childishly.

So there you are, my little rant for the day. Surely it’s behaviour like this which has sullied the general reputation of critics for so long?

Leave me a comment: let’s HAVE a discourse- but no one liners.

The Boundary Between Playwright and Critic.

When you’re fresh out of University, with a Drama degree in one hand and a limp mortar board in the other, just how do you decide what to move on to? Especially when one has studied disciplines that coincide, yet potentially cannot be used reciprocally without endangering one’s narrative credibilty… I refer to the line between the playwright/artist/actor, and the critic.

There’s nothing to say that at the start of a career, one can’t just hop on the playwright boat at one point, then decide to commandeer the criticism barge to add to your fleet (oh yes, i am digging the sailing cliches today). But what knowledge or experience is appropriate and/or safe to transfer from one to the other? How could you do so without making your artistic principles abandon ship? *pun groan*.

As a playwright myself, I’m aware that my critical approach to other work is often centred around the meanings of the script; as an actor, I like to talk about cast performances; as an artist, I like to talk about set design. So the job of reviewing a production based upon it’s aesthetics, acting quality and use of the text, is surely much easier if one has prior, personal knowledge of the processes involved. If you are creatively minded, I hazard to say that your imagination reaches quite far, and is perhaps more willing to find interpretation and meaning in every detail, than that of a more logically minded person: therefore I suppose you could (theoretically) be accused of letting emotions get the better of you. Either when gushing about or deriding (constructively of course…) a production, there’s always the possiblity that your insider knowledge bars the ability to watch the production as an audience member, whom, possibly, won’t have such knowledge to form critical opinion. Is that not the job of the critic? To watch the production as an audience member and give an opinion about it afterwards?

To a certain extent: yes. However, there are as many critical styles as there are creative works, logically making generalisations about critical perspective somewhat difficult when you consider the variants involved…

1) Has the critic prior knowledge of the text/ director/ company?

2) Can/should the critic empathise with the processes involved in producing a show?

3) Should a critic simply be the ‘voice’ of the viewing audience? Or should they arrive with enough background research and information to analyse the show on a deeper, perhaps more academic level?

There has been alot of recent controversy about the appointment of new theatre critics without prior knowledge of the theatre itself, but whom have established themselves as a voice in the public forum via other means. This would then, argue the case for the former argument of the third point: these new wave of pre-established journalists would surely be analysing the productions they see from the perspective of any other audience member. No or little prior knowledge of the intricacies and processes of production or historical/cultural/social context, they would judge upon what they see on stage that night, and what they read in the program.

This being the case- why do they need to be paid for the ‘expertise’ they bring when there are a great number of forums, blogs and online information which provide non-informed opinions for free?

Critics with prior experience of theatrical endeavour, from the perspective of playwright, designer, actor, director etc. would be far more in tune to assess the productions on merit of originality of aesthetic, quality of performance etc.

Then of course there are the pre-established critics whom fall into neither category. These are the pale, male and stale big-wigs of the critical world. Mainly educated through Oxbridge, and falling into theatre critic jobs after (sometimes tenuous) links with the theatre, with a high degree of education to allow a logical and informed argument.

So- which of the three breeds of ‘professional’ critic shall inherit?

The pre-established journalist with no prior experience?

The pale, male, stale Oxbridge middle-aged?

The students, fresh out of University with a range of experiences and new academic, analytical tools with which to form well-rounded opinions, striking a balance between what they see as audience members, and what they know as creative academics?

Post up a comment, let’s see if we can’t just strike up a discourse…