The Mystery of Edwin Drood
Savoy Opera Group
Pleasance Theatre
★ ★ ★ ★ ★
The familiarity of the Pleasance Theatre is completely forgotten upon entry as one becomes completely submerged into Dickens’ 18th century world, where characters are already milling around the audience, picking on individuals and charming us with their tongue in cheek humour. The University’s very own Savoy Opera Group presents the first out of their three annual plays, Dickens’ final and unfinished mystery murder novel: The Mystery of Edwin Drood.
Indeed, the incompleteness of the novel lends itself to its ‘Whodunnit’ genre, as we never find out the identity of Drood’s murderer. The story itself follows the characters’ intertwined lives rather than an actual plot, focusing on Drood’s uncle, choirmaster John Jasper, who is enamoured with his pupil Rosa Bud: Drood’s fiancée and also the object of fiery-tempered Neville Landless’ affections, whom Drood immediately takes a disliking to. The fourth wall is not just broken but utterly obliterated as the first electric musical number leads into the captivating, omnipresent narrator openly making jokes about Dickens’ death. The narrator acts as an eloquent master of ceremonies, wittingly acquainting the audience with each character on their debut.
The play succeeds in containing strong elements of pantomime without being cringe worthy, including not just audience participation but Drood being played by a woman and, at times, introduces realist theatre aspects such as using the real actors’ names – all of these aspects provoking consistent laughter and participation from the audience. However, there are also abstract ballet dance scenes, most notably to represent Jasper’s opium-caused inebriation. These contrast to the Narrator and Jasper’s dance duo, which is deliberately messy and becomes a hilarious entire group performance. The performance keeps us hooked throughout with a constant flow of one liners and surprises, such as the entire cast suddenly parading down the aisle.
The operatic skill of the cast simply cannot be faulted as each character silences the entire theatre, especially quiet for an enchanting harmony between Rosa and Drood, but equally the case for all characters, from wonderfully pompous, snarling Jasper to cockney Angela, a loveable opium pusher who makes individuals squirm with her sharp, tongue in cheek humour and simultaneously sympathise with her through a biographical solo. However, the pitch perfect tones does not put the acting to shame at all, as we are often left wondering if an action is a genuine slip that’s been expertly improvised or just extremely well executed humour.
The production ends with a spin, as the characters all stop talking at the exact point Dickens put down his pen, and leave it to us to decide the ending – of which there are over 400 possibilities. Once we vote numbers and cheer competitively for our desired Detector and Murderer of Drood, we can then choose a pair of lovers unrelated to the plot, which saw, for this particular showing, rough around the edges Angela being paired with Mr Phillips and his loveable weediness. All the craziness and fun is then rounded off with some tap dancing, just for good measure, to show this is a true triple-threat of a cast.
Riona Doherty
The Student
Monday 10 March 2014
Review: Mansfield Park at King's Theatre
Mansfield Park
King’s Theatre
A Theatre Royal Bury St Edmunds Production
★★★
The plushness of King’s Theatre is enough to transport anyone back in time, positioning us perfectly for Tim Luscombe’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s third novel, often cited as her most overlooked, Mansfield Park. Director Colin Blumenau ensures Austen’s idiosyncratic wit is not lost in its transition from page to stage, nor its classicism as we realise Austenian teenage problems are not all that different to our own.
Perhaps the reason Mansfield Park is overlooked is due to its introverted heroine Fanny Price (played by Ffion Jolly), whose journey we follow from modest beginnings to an aristocratic lifestyle at Mansfield Park with her wealthy aunt and uncle. Whilst we watch steadfast Fanny navigate her way through Elizabethan rich kid problems, messy love triangles and a play she is forced to perform in, it becomes evident that the underlying theme is the natural ability to understand oneself. A small but versatile cast features eight actors playing sixteen characters; Geoff Arnold particularly stands out, whose portrayal of the blunderingly inept Mr Rushworth is an admirable professional debut. Austen’s humour is kept alive on stage through not only Rushworth but Fanny’s sarcastic, narcissistic cousin Maria Bertram (played by Leonie Spilsbury) whose sheer brashness keeps us entertained. Jolly has to be praised for her gradual transition of meek ‘I cannot act’ Fanny from Act I to Act II’s bolder heroine who lights up once her brother returns from the Navy. However, as such an inward heroine, one would expect Fanny’s lack of dialogue to be more than justified by her almost constant presence on stage, but Jolly’s depiction could be much more alluring and definitely more emotive; her crying seems more pantomimical than period drama.
The costuming, though well suited to the characters’ personalities, was not as impressive or authentic as it should have been. The open plan arched set is simple but effective, remaining untouched throughout and allowing characters to be simultaneously inside and outside, as well as helping to change scenes by a simple walk through the framing; though, had more attention to detail been paid, the set and the use of more props could have given the performance more of a historical feel. Intimate duologues are highlighted perfectly by a single spotlight and the lighting generally works well, matching the tone of the performance. Overall, the performance is akin to the novel, even featuring some of the same dialogue, and though we can still appreciate Austen’s humour, the emotion and intimacies of the novel are trampled over by vanity. Blumenau doesn’t entirely lose the game, but if he did, it wouldn’t be from lack of striving for it.
Riona Doherty
The Student
King’s Theatre
A Theatre Royal Bury St Edmunds Production
★★★
The plushness of King’s Theatre is enough to transport anyone back in time, positioning us perfectly for Tim Luscombe’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s third novel, often cited as her most overlooked, Mansfield Park. Director Colin Blumenau ensures Austen’s idiosyncratic wit is not lost in its transition from page to stage, nor its classicism as we realise Austenian teenage problems are not all that different to our own.
Perhaps the reason Mansfield Park is overlooked is due to its introverted heroine Fanny Price (played by Ffion Jolly), whose journey we follow from modest beginnings to an aristocratic lifestyle at Mansfield Park with her wealthy aunt and uncle. Whilst we watch steadfast Fanny navigate her way through Elizabethan rich kid problems, messy love triangles and a play she is forced to perform in, it becomes evident that the underlying theme is the natural ability to understand oneself. A small but versatile cast features eight actors playing sixteen characters; Geoff Arnold particularly stands out, whose portrayal of the blunderingly inept Mr Rushworth is an admirable professional debut. Austen’s humour is kept alive on stage through not only Rushworth but Fanny’s sarcastic, narcissistic cousin Maria Bertram (played by Leonie Spilsbury) whose sheer brashness keeps us entertained. Jolly has to be praised for her gradual transition of meek ‘I cannot act’ Fanny from Act I to Act II’s bolder heroine who lights up once her brother returns from the Navy. However, as such an inward heroine, one would expect Fanny’s lack of dialogue to be more than justified by her almost constant presence on stage, but Jolly’s depiction could be much more alluring and definitely more emotive; her crying seems more pantomimical than period drama.
The costuming, though well suited to the characters’ personalities, was not as impressive or authentic as it should have been. The open plan arched set is simple but effective, remaining untouched throughout and allowing characters to be simultaneously inside and outside, as well as helping to change scenes by a simple walk through the framing; though, had more attention to detail been paid, the set and the use of more props could have given the performance more of a historical feel. Intimate duologues are highlighted perfectly by a single spotlight and the lighting generally works well, matching the tone of the performance. Overall, the performance is akin to the novel, even featuring some of the same dialogue, and though we can still appreciate Austen’s humour, the emotion and intimacies of the novel are trampled over by vanity. Blumenau doesn’t entirely lose the game, but if he did, it wouldn’t be from lack of striving for it.
Riona Doherty
The Student
TV Stars in Theatre: The Cons
A ‘night at the theatre’ has long been considered a refined, middle class way to fritter away an evening. And whilst nowadays lots of theatres seem to be attempting to combat this stereotype by featuring ‘special appearances’ which you’d more likely suspect from your own mum before ever guessing the long forgotten reality TV star they’ve actually tracked down, are these appearances really all that special or exclusive?
Cons:
Are they really the best trained theatre actors? Obviously, the runner-up of the third series of I’m A Celeb/former Sugababe/washed up Neighbours star will have taken some form of theatre performance class to prepare themselves for their big meritable debut, but there are thousands of drama school-trained graduates wasting away on the streets of London regretting chasing their ‘Rent’ dreams, who could most probably do a better job. Is it any wonder that Drama is often branded the degree that produces the most unemployed grads when directors are more interested in the Old Big Thing than the New Big Thing?
Attracting people to the show for the wrong reason? More so a concern of the theatre-goers themselves rather than the theatre running the show who would presumably be most concerned with revenue. Someone who attends a performance wholly to see Gareth Gates’ acting debut may not fully appreciate the other actors or director’s intent – and if they’re unhappy with what they view as the pinnacle of the show, this inevitably taints their overall impression. In reviews especially, the use of a television star can detract from the attention paid to the rest of the cast. This matter of being enticed by (possibly) false pretences could result in the viewer’s not enjoying the show and simply being a waste of money.
Is it cheapening the theatre experience? The reason the theatre is so popular is because one can simply lose themselves in a different century/country/world for an evening – a quality hard to achieve when the poster boy of everything the stereotypical theatre-goer detests about populist society is playing the leading role.
So, special appearances. In pantomimes at Christmas? Sure. Featuring a high end Hollywood actor (that sells out instantly)? Slightly more inclined. But in my opinion, special appearances from on screen actors just aren’t the right way to bring in an audience.
Riona Doherty
The Student
Cons:
Are they really the best trained theatre actors? Obviously, the runner-up of the third series of I’m A Celeb/former Sugababe/washed up Neighbours star will have taken some form of theatre performance class to prepare themselves for their big meritable debut, but there are thousands of drama school-trained graduates wasting away on the streets of London regretting chasing their ‘Rent’ dreams, who could most probably do a better job. Is it any wonder that Drama is often branded the degree that produces the most unemployed grads when directors are more interested in the Old Big Thing than the New Big Thing?
Attracting people to the show for the wrong reason? More so a concern of the theatre-goers themselves rather than the theatre running the show who would presumably be most concerned with revenue. Someone who attends a performance wholly to see Gareth Gates’ acting debut may not fully appreciate the other actors or director’s intent – and if they’re unhappy with what they view as the pinnacle of the show, this inevitably taints their overall impression. In reviews especially, the use of a television star can detract from the attention paid to the rest of the cast. This matter of being enticed by (possibly) false pretences could result in the viewer’s not enjoying the show and simply being a waste of money.
Is it cheapening the theatre experience? The reason the theatre is so popular is because one can simply lose themselves in a different century/country/world for an evening – a quality hard to achieve when the poster boy of everything the stereotypical theatre-goer detests about populist society is playing the leading role.
So, special appearances. In pantomimes at Christmas? Sure. Featuring a high end Hollywood actor (that sells out instantly)? Slightly more inclined. But in my opinion, special appearances from on screen actors just aren’t the right way to bring in an audience.
Riona Doherty
The Student
Cambridge's 'Capostrophe'
A feature I wrote for The Student:
Grammar enthusiasts nationwide have recently been enraged after hearing of Cambridge City Council’s decision to abolish apostrophes on all existing and new street signs, their reasoning being that apostrophes could potentially be misleading to drivers. Naturally, this has caused what could be deemed The Cambridge Riots: proud and very angry grammarians with hand-made signs and, as the Cambridge News has reported, carrying around marker pens to personally adjust any apostrophe misplacement. This entire episode has sparked a great grammatical debate – why exactly are we so passionate about grammar? Are standards really failing or just changing?
You wouldn’t be totally wrong to assume that people simply don’t care about grammar anymore, or just aren’t as thorough with it. Whilst, yes, I personally have been guilty of tweeting the odd photo of a hairdresser window’s spelling mistake and various (self-denying tabloid) publications’ grammar faux pas, one cannot deny that there have never been more influences affecting our grammar. Simply cite our social networking addictions and, as mentioned, our reliance on less than reputable online publications. Even some teachers nowadays struggle to give thirty children the correct spelling to copy down into their workbooks. The headmaster of Brighton College, which recently scored 54th place in The Telegraph’s Top 100 Secondary Schools by GCSE Results, has complained that out of 30 CVs and covering letters for a teaching post, 12 were “semi-literate.” How can children be expected to become literate, apostrophe-aware adults (an apparently crucial asset nowadays) when the adults supposedly teaching them these rules aren’t even sure themselves? Relating to Cambridge’s capostrophe, there is the pertinent argument that perhaps the removal of the apostrophes wouldn’t be hindering other people’s grammar (nor causing such a fuss) if they were well educated on them in the first place.
The correct position of apostrophes, much like, for example, the elusive Oxford Comma, seems no longer a simple matter of language but a ferocious cult. As a self-proclaimed Grammar Nazi I can totally understand the outrage at this incident involving some of Cambridge’s most historic roads. Why are we so passionate about grammar? The fraction of us who still get some sort of sad thrill out of finding a misuse of there/their/they’re would argue that incorrect grammar can not only hinder communication but also show unprofessionalism in marketing. With this in mind, CVs and cover letters are scrutinised by employers, with some even enforcing fines for grammatical mistakes (or, for example, repetition of ‘like’) in the office, as Sue Shellenbarger investigated in 2012 for The Wall Street Journal – even for what we might consider minor errors, such as confusion of ‘there is’ and ‘there are’. Professional point of view aside, are some obnoxious people simply trying to appear intellectual? This is certainly not out of the question; it’s an intellect boost that makes us feel slightly superior. Or are we simply being traditionalists? We live in a fast-paced society and people want new, not old. Is our clinging onto correct grammar just our yearning for ‘the good old days’?
On the other hand, maybe our standards are not declining but simply evolving. If you were unaware, ‘twerk’ is now in the Oxford Dictionary. Times are most definitely a changing. It’s inevitable that words will, over time, change their meaning, pronunciation and spelling. Many grammarians (often of the obnoxious type) seem to have some sort of misconception that before recent years, the English language was that of high formalities – a stark contrast with today’s modern, casual slang used by most people, in most situations. They are mistaken: our language is constantly in transition. With this frame of mind, one can see why people get irked about others getting irked about “youths” commenting and writing in their own slang. Surely the fact that most of the time it is fairly clear what they’re saying simply shows that this is the overtaking language in our society? It’s hardly as if it’s some sort of abstract code. I’m sure every English Literature student is currently feeling similar emotions towards the ‘Medieval’ section of the course – to us it’s completely foreign, but as one point it was the norm. Perhaps we are simply unwilling to accept change. Our grammar is
constantly changing, and the extent to which English grammar has been simplified has provoked debate over whether it could be even further simplified. It has been suggested by linguists that eventually we may dispense of ‘these’ and ‘those’, not to mention possibly dropping the ‘S’ in the third person of the present tense. Other, perhaps more innovative, linguists are currently yearning for fresh material, suggesting new pronouns for the third person in indirect speech and there’s even talk of a completely new pronoun of common gender and singular number to replace ‘everyone’ and ‘each’ in order to abolish the annoyance of having to specify ‘each did his or her best’ or ‘everyone did what they wanted’. Is our society’s disregard for apostrophes just natural grammar evolution and the way forward?
Out of interest on how correct the grammar of fellow students is, I used website Grammar Monster’s apostrophe test (featuring options such as ‘Each month accrues an extra day's / days' leave.’) on 12 students across different subjects. 8 scored full marks, 2 scored 6 and a further 2 ranked at the bottom with 5s. This only touched on basic apostrophic rules but shows that, as young people, our grammar ain’t that bad. What adults don’t tend to understand is that, for the vast majority of us, how we may text and Facebook our friends (though with iPhones and autocorrect, it’s now far less effort to type ‘properly’ anyway) is not actually how we would genuinely write an answer in an exam, apply for a job with or send emails with. This divides opinion: on one hand, if you know when to ‘turn on’ correct spelling and grammar, for when it really matters, then what’s the problem? Is a lack of public apostrophes really going to worsen this? On the other, one can easily get out of practice and confuse the two language arenas – so why not just type the Queen’s English all the time to maintain standards and rid this reputation?
Personally, I empathise with the Cambridge protestors and general outrage – yes language is evolving rapidly, as always, but something as instrumental as the placing of an apostrophe, a placement which can easily alter the meaning of a sentence, should stay set. Abandon language snobbery by all means; people who say our language is deteriorating clearly have trouble accepting change. However, this said, I can’t quite see myself proclaiming how happy I am to have bought a new set of pens whose sole purpose will be to essentially graffiti grammatical corrections over Cambridge street signs (a genuine quote from the Cambridge News). Finally, yes, in my opinion it’s a grammatical disgrace anywhere, but in Cambridge of all places? Pleez.
Riona Doherty
The Student
Grammar enthusiasts nationwide have recently been enraged after hearing of Cambridge City Council’s decision to abolish apostrophes on all existing and new street signs, their reasoning being that apostrophes could potentially be misleading to drivers. Naturally, this has caused what could be deemed The Cambridge Riots: proud and very angry grammarians with hand-made signs and, as the Cambridge News has reported, carrying around marker pens to personally adjust any apostrophe misplacement. This entire episode has sparked a great grammatical debate – why exactly are we so passionate about grammar? Are standards really failing or just changing?
You wouldn’t be totally wrong to assume that people simply don’t care about grammar anymore, or just aren’t as thorough with it. Whilst, yes, I personally have been guilty of tweeting the odd photo of a hairdresser window’s spelling mistake and various (self-denying tabloid) publications’ grammar faux pas, one cannot deny that there have never been more influences affecting our grammar. Simply cite our social networking addictions and, as mentioned, our reliance on less than reputable online publications. Even some teachers nowadays struggle to give thirty children the correct spelling to copy down into their workbooks. The headmaster of Brighton College, which recently scored 54th place in The Telegraph’s Top 100 Secondary Schools by GCSE Results, has complained that out of 30 CVs and covering letters for a teaching post, 12 were “semi-literate.” How can children be expected to become literate, apostrophe-aware adults (an apparently crucial asset nowadays) when the adults supposedly teaching them these rules aren’t even sure themselves? Relating to Cambridge’s capostrophe, there is the pertinent argument that perhaps the removal of the apostrophes wouldn’t be hindering other people’s grammar (nor causing such a fuss) if they were well educated on them in the first place.
The correct position of apostrophes, much like, for example, the elusive Oxford Comma, seems no longer a simple matter of language but a ferocious cult. As a self-proclaimed Grammar Nazi I can totally understand the outrage at this incident involving some of Cambridge’s most historic roads. Why are we so passionate about grammar? The fraction of us who still get some sort of sad thrill out of finding a misuse of there/their/they’re would argue that incorrect grammar can not only hinder communication but also show unprofessionalism in marketing. With this in mind, CVs and cover letters are scrutinised by employers, with some even enforcing fines for grammatical mistakes (or, for example, repetition of ‘like’) in the office, as Sue Shellenbarger investigated in 2012 for The Wall Street Journal – even for what we might consider minor errors, such as confusion of ‘there is’ and ‘there are’. Professional point of view aside, are some obnoxious people simply trying to appear intellectual? This is certainly not out of the question; it’s an intellect boost that makes us feel slightly superior. Or are we simply being traditionalists? We live in a fast-paced society and people want new, not old. Is our clinging onto correct grammar just our yearning for ‘the good old days’?
On the other hand, maybe our standards are not declining but simply evolving. If you were unaware, ‘twerk’ is now in the Oxford Dictionary. Times are most definitely a changing. It’s inevitable that words will, over time, change their meaning, pronunciation and spelling. Many grammarians (often of the obnoxious type) seem to have some sort of misconception that before recent years, the English language was that of high formalities – a stark contrast with today’s modern, casual slang used by most people, in most situations. They are mistaken: our language is constantly in transition. With this frame of mind, one can see why people get irked about others getting irked about “youths” commenting and writing in their own slang. Surely the fact that most of the time it is fairly clear what they’re saying simply shows that this is the overtaking language in our society? It’s hardly as if it’s some sort of abstract code. I’m sure every English Literature student is currently feeling similar emotions towards the ‘Medieval’ section of the course – to us it’s completely foreign, but as one point it was the norm. Perhaps we are simply unwilling to accept change. Our grammar is
constantly changing, and the extent to which English grammar has been simplified has provoked debate over whether it could be even further simplified. It has been suggested by linguists that eventually we may dispense of ‘these’ and ‘those’, not to mention possibly dropping the ‘S’ in the third person of the present tense. Other, perhaps more innovative, linguists are currently yearning for fresh material, suggesting new pronouns for the third person in indirect speech and there’s even talk of a completely new pronoun of common gender and singular number to replace ‘everyone’ and ‘each’ in order to abolish the annoyance of having to specify ‘each did his or her best’ or ‘everyone did what they wanted’. Is our society’s disregard for apostrophes just natural grammar evolution and the way forward?
Out of interest on how correct the grammar of fellow students is, I used website Grammar Monster’s apostrophe test (featuring options such as ‘Each month accrues an extra day's / days' leave.’) on 12 students across different subjects. 8 scored full marks, 2 scored 6 and a further 2 ranked at the bottom with 5s. This only touched on basic apostrophic rules but shows that, as young people, our grammar ain’t that bad. What adults don’t tend to understand is that, for the vast majority of us, how we may text and Facebook our friends (though with iPhones and autocorrect, it’s now far less effort to type ‘properly’ anyway) is not actually how we would genuinely write an answer in an exam, apply for a job with or send emails with. This divides opinion: on one hand, if you know when to ‘turn on’ correct spelling and grammar, for when it really matters, then what’s the problem? Is a lack of public apostrophes really going to worsen this? On the other, one can easily get out of practice and confuse the two language arenas – so why not just type the Queen’s English all the time to maintain standards and rid this reputation?
Personally, I empathise with the Cambridge protestors and general outrage – yes language is evolving rapidly, as always, but something as instrumental as the placing of an apostrophe, a placement which can easily alter the meaning of a sentence, should stay set. Abandon language snobbery by all means; people who say our language is deteriorating clearly have trouble accepting change. However, this said, I can’t quite see myself proclaiming how happy I am to have bought a new set of pens whose sole purpose will be to essentially graffiti grammatical corrections over Cambridge street signs (a genuine quote from the Cambridge News). Finally, yes, in my opinion it’s a grammatical disgrace anywhere, but in Cambridge of all places? Pleez.
Riona Doherty
The Student
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
