Review of "Present Laughter" Chichester Festival Theatre's woeful production with Rufus Hound
“Present Laughter” at Chichester
Paddy Briggs on a farcical revival of Noel Coward’s Light Comedy
masterpiece.
(This review appears in "Home Chat" the magazine of the Noel Coward Society)
The work of Noel Coward is not Holy Writ that you tamper with at your
peril. Every theatre director is entitled to put his own interpretation on the
master’s work and whilst a degree of respect is in order new and interesting
interpretations, if well done, can add to our appreciation of the work. Noel
called Present Laughter a “very light comedy” and that should give directors a
clue. Of his great plays only one, “Blithe Spirit”, was described by Coward as
a “farce” which I think was a bit of modest self-deprecation. There are no
dropping trousers or slamming doors in it. So what about the farcical (in both
senses of the word) production of “Present Laughter” at the Chichester
Festival?
The poster should perhaps have been a clue. Noel (or is it
Rufus Hound?) as Garry Essendine dressed in what looks like a clown’s outfit.
This was not going to be a conventional production. Coward fans are generally agreed that peak
Coward as a dramatist (and performer) were the five undisputed comic masterpieces
of the inter war years – “Hay Fever”, “Private Lives”, “Design for Living” “Present
Laughter” and “Blithe Spirit”. In all of them wit is paramount – the display of
an effortless talent to amuse with words. There is situation and character as
well of course and in all of them, at times, the action borders on farce. In
“Private Lives” the two-hander second Act certainly ends in farce and, as
Frances Gray[1]
puts it in respect of “Present Laughter”, “The
play contains episodes which come closer to French farce than anything else in Coward’s
oeuvre”. But the farcical episodes in these plays do not make them, or
indeed any of Coward’s work, pure farce. In ignoring this basic fact Director
Sean Foley has vulgarised “Present Laugher” to such an extent that whilst it
does get some belly laughs from some in the Chichester audiences those of us
who understand Coward better left the theatre spluttering with anger.
Coward was not called “The Master” for nothing and his
“Talent to amuse” relies on dialogue and character rather than slapstick.
“Present Laughter” is full to the brim with brilliant lines many of them
requiring study and practice to get them right. As Michael Billington in his coruscating
review of this production put it “Coward
was a fastidious verbal stylist who had a faultless ear for the right word and
the rhythm of a sentence”. Much of that subtlety is lost as the actors
indulge in “… an orgy of stylised
exaggeration”. I discussed an earlier production of “Present Laughter” with
its Director
Stephen Unwin[2]
. He said that the characters are “…real human beings,
albeit ones who crack good jokes”. In farce the characters are
generally unreal, exaggerated and often stereotypes.
The first scene of the play has the excited deb Daphne phoning
a friend to tell her that she has spent the night in Garry Essendine’s house
(and implicitly in his arms). Lizzy Connolly has been directed to play this
character as if she was in a pantomime with grossly exaggerated gestures and a
comic cuts upper-class voice and braying laugh. She trips around the stage as
if the play is a Monty Python sketch. Subtle it isn’t. But that sets the tone
for the rest of the play. The key role of Garry Essendine is played by Rufus
Hound who unusually is the right age for the part (approaching 40) – it is an interesting
casting. His brief acting career on his CV looks unpromising for the subtleties
of Coward and he does not have matinee idol looks or physique. I have a feeling
that despite this under more intelligent and sympathetic direction he might be
able to play Essendine quite well. That we will never know. As it is he shouts
and pratfalls his way through the role as if he was a character in pantomime at
a third rate provincial theatre. To be fair in the (relatively) calmer
seduction scene with Joanna (Lucy Briggs-Owen) he impresses suggesting there is
more to him than the loud and boorish style the rest of his performance offers.
Coward’s writing for women, especially his character
creation, is good in most of his work and Present Laughter is no exception. Ms
Briggs-Owen has a jewel of a part in Joanna and despite the constrictions of
the director’s wishes restraining her she does well. The same applies to
Tracy-Ann Obermann’s Monica (another terrific role) and Katherine Kingsley’s
Liz Essendine. I wonder what these excellent three actresses felt about finding
themselves in such a dumbed-down production.
The reviews for this production were
mixed, some are along the lines of Billington in condemning it as a travesty
others more complimentary – excessively so in the case of Ann Treneman in The
Times who says it’s an “absolute hoot” and enjoyed the fact that “gestures are
coordinated to corps de ballet perfection” – which for this reviewer was
probably the low point of a truly gruesome disaster.
Moritz von Stuelpnagel, who directed last year’s revival of
Present Laughter on Broadway with Kevin Kline as Garry Essendine, which secured
three Tony Award nominations including Best Revival of a Play, says that “…each
production needs to be built around the lead actor playing Gary”. That makes
sense but not to the extent that you move out of genre from light comedy to
raucous farce just because you’ve cast a comedian not an experienced actor in
the main role. The strength of Kline’s performance was that his humour was
subtle and his timing exquisite. But he was true to the character and von
Stuelpnagel was true to Coward’s instruction that the play is a “Light
Comedy”.
Sean Foley in a promotional video for
the Chichester production says “They sent
me this play, will you read it and will you direct it?” Having revealed
that he only came to the play when somebody sent it to him (!) he then goes on
to lambast and mock the traditional way of presenting the Master’s work. If you
want to understand the reasons why this production will be anathema to all of
us who believe that Noel Coward is “something of an English Chekhov” (as
Stephen Unwin put it to me) rather than an English Feydeau then watch this
video. Both Foley and Hound profess admiration for Noel Coward and for the
play. But (in that gruesome phrase of our times) want to bring a “new audience”
to Coward. Well fine, but the way to do that is to be true to the author’s
intent to write a charming, funny often subtle and always superbly crafted
light comedy. Not to turn it into a Whitehall farce.
posted by Paddy Briggs at 5:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home