Moulton Drama Group
CTG FESTIVAL 12th March 2009
AN EXPERIMENT WITH AN AIR PUMP
By
SHELAGH STEPHENSON
Directed by ROBERT MEADOWS
Asst: Dir/prompt: KAREN McCABE
GENERAL:
There was a lot of excitement and speculation as the new millennium neared and it was an exciting time in 1999, the year this play is set and only a year after it was presented at The Royal Exchange Theatre. The in- the-round presentation there would have worked well with the play and of course it is characters from 1799 that form the real focus of its attentions. The famous painting on which it is built I have not seen but it was helpfully projected as part of the presentation and it does indeed fascinate and concern at the same time. Moulton Drama Group has always been a group rising to a challenge, and the director, Robert Meadows, has often been in the centre of that challenge, with high production values and innovative theatrical ideas.
This is not an easy play to produce, both in ideas and characters. But the added task of having one playing space representing both 1799 and 1999 and with different sets of characters makes it an even greater challenge. There is also doubling, although here it was Fenwick/Tom, Roget/Phil whereas it was four doubles in the original and only one of Moulton’s was the same. So some quick changes, and not just of costume, complicated the demands even more. But the real test is to create sufficient reality from this complex situation to involve the audience in their lives so that they care what happens in each group and era and are able to enjoy the humour, science, drama and of them all. No small task! It will take a controlled yet well paced form of direction, with style and humanity and a good delivery of some splendid lines, whether for comic or dramatic effect.
PRESENTATION:
It is good fun to speculate on the way which way the group will choose to stage its production, for with its moveable seats, virtually any form is possible and has been used! No in-the-round this time and in fact a similar lay out to the last play I visited, with the players performing at the end below the balcony and exiting either underneath that or off to the sides past the audience. For visibility and involvement, it is a good way of presenting it. The picture and later the text of the letters being read were projected on a white board at stage right above the heads of the players. And in what seems a tradition there was much to fascinate the audience in the collection of props and furniture visible
before them, especially as modern aluminium ladders were side by side with old instruments and period chairs and tables.
SET and PROPS
Stage manager: STEVE ALLEN-GURR
Properties: GILL BIRTWISLE, SUE GREEN, SUE HUBAND
Property Makers: NORMAN CHRISTIE, JANET MORRIS
The redeeming feature of this play, perhaps because of its Royal Exchange origins, is that there is no need to build a set. Hence no credits listed for that task! The downside is that the location is created entirely by the props and the two time periods by costumes and that task is just about as demanding!
There is a little note in the text which starts,
“A bewildering variety of stuffed birds…a large cluttered desk…books, microscope, a skull, bits of bodies….various bits of machinery”
Even in that shortened form it gives an indication of just one part of the task for the property team and the property makers. There was indeed a bewildering variety of old artefacts, a skull, bones, microscope, ink well, little book of sonnets, a candle, scripts, and vivid red wine, bottles and glasses etc, piled or positioned appropriately and so many I won’t list them all. And there was, either constructed or hired, a very convincing “Air Pump” with jar, pipes etc. and Ed had made period racquets. .There was a central table with removable red velvet cloth, a larger matching one at the back and tables and chairs suitable for the 18th century. For the modern room, here presented simultaneously almost, there were the folding storage crates, full of modern objects, step ladders and if this was bewildering at first, it soon became apparent what was going on. The strongest feature was the layout which enabled the spread of characters, enabled a “Drama” to be enacted and a tableau of the Air Pump and even a hanging to take place, without even seeming to be pressed for space. Excellent work by Gill, Sue, Sue, Norman and Janet. And all this was kept in control, making sure objects were moved or in position, by the excellent stage management of Steve. Good work!
LIGHTING, SOUND,
SPECIAL EFFECTS: STEVE BIRTWISLE, DAVE HUNTER
Steve and Dave’s effects helped to create the illusion, whether smoke and red light for the evocation of the past, or the projection or the lighting which moved from 18th century interior to bright daylight of a modern house. Directional lighting and spots provided focus when it was needed whilst the music, especially the stylised Celtic theme, and the convincing explosions, rioters and other sound effects played a massive role in helping the period settings. And, as always at Moulton, it seems it was all well cued and the level of both light or of volume perfectly judged. These aspects were an integral part of the set and also an integral part of the production.
Well done!
COSTUMES and WIGS: LYNDA BANTOCK, SHEILA HETHERINGTON
Where does one start? Except to say how the stunning appearance of the costumes, wigs in the tableau made one think we were in a wax-works or museum, so perfect did they seem, and it just went on from there. There was detail, lavish style, immaculate wigs and such suitable colours - from the red of Fenwick and his little cap, to the greens and golds of the coats and the pastoral costumes of the “play”, not forgetting, of course, the impossibly demeaning sheep costume for poor Isobel! And if Tom looked every inch the lecturer, Phil was the jeans clad electrician of modern times, whilst Ellen and Kate were dressed in character. And yet, two players could change out of and back into their costumes, using modern casual clothes, in what seemed a miraculous short space of time! It was very impressive, both for the acknowledged help from Chads Theatre and for the work of the two costumiers. Assembling and choosing these costumes had clearly been a labour of love and one in which great care had been lavished. Well it worked and worked very well! Nice work from Lynda and Sheila!
PUBLICITY: SARAH FLANNERY, SHEILA HETHERINGTON, DEREK MORRIS
Once again my limited scope for comment is that the tickets were ready, and there was plenty of publicity outside and in the village. Judging from the packed house it had all worked well. There was plenty of help and interest in the clear and helpful programme. Indeed I am indebted for the costings of the productions, which I think was a splendid reminder to the audience.
BOX OFFICE: CHRISTINE KIRKHAM;
BAR MANAGER: DEREK MORRIS
HOUSE MANAGERS: JOAN CHRISTIE, NORMAN CHRISTIE
Again, judging from the numbers, the satisfaction of the audiences and my experiences, all of these departments seem to be well managed. I read that Derek is retiring from the bar (sounds like a barrister’s farewell doesn’t it? So as to be just as busy with “The Odd Couple” no doubt!) All the best to him and to successor, Eric!
ACTING
FENWICK/ TOM (PETER BURKEY)
This was a key role – Fenwick the scientist, the eccentric, the lover of what he had lost in his wife, the wit and the withdrawal and in the guise of Tom a modern man faced with the dejection of redundancy. He accomplished all these with an even and calm delivery, moving into a stronger register when making an angry or an emphatic remark, or passionate in his love-making. He could deliver a good line well and his timing was good although the pace was a little slow sometimes.
As Fenwick, he was suitably dressed and caught very well the pre-occupied scientist, making the most of his quest for a suitable vision of the new century. This passion came out in key lines as did the sharp humour he possessed,
“We want to storm into the next century, not doze through it”.
He did point with his finger rather a lot, but his real strength lay in conveying the deeper feelings in a measured way. As Tom, for example, he found just the right tone for
“No one will remember that dead girl in the kitchen garden except us”.
It was a controlled performance, conveying both characters with skill. Nicely done, Peter.
SUSANNAH (SARAH FLANNERY)
It is an old axiom – don’t play the drunk, as you’ll be thought over the top by some and far too underplayed by others! Yet here the character and its “new woman” tendencies at the time of revolution came first and the liking for drink was then buttered on, never obscuring either character or diction. Very well judged. She was a well dressed 18th century lady – hair, dresses – all perfectly groomed and matched. The light voice was expressive and well used. There was range within to run a gamut of feelings and a sharp ear for comedy, with a withering delivery of lines like,
“Then that’s the man for me. Hire him immediately”
Her strength and her beliefs were delivered strongly with the trace of inebriation nicely played down,
“You must talk to me in a language that does not exclude me”
along with the rest of that fine piece of dialogue.
Just occasionally the pitch was a little high but usually to show heightened emotion. Good work from Sarah!
ELLEN (CHAD MEADOWS)
The un – doubling and the only partial resemblance to Susannah did take away the immediacy of the comparisons a little, especially as Tom and Fenwick were the same. But it provided Chad with a great opportunity to create a modern and three dimensional character and she did this wholeheartedly. In “hoodie” style top and casual gear she was the modern scientist, whilst, unlike Susannah, her character had become the financial and stronger part of the relationship. Her even clear delivery explored the facts of the situation with conviction,
“Who would not want to be caught up in this world?”
And then was able to come down to earth with a sharp delivery,
“But we can’t afford it so that’s that”.
She handled comedy with as much stage sense as she showed with the emotions she was trying to make sense of and in the end the character which emerged was truthful, sympathetic and strong.Well thought out and well performed, Chad!
KATE (BEV SLOBOM)
This was a well observed character and one which, for all the assurance of having a big company behind her, she carefully subdued so as to let Ellen make the choices. Her delivery was determined and could be assertive,
“I just think it’s a wonderful opportunity, that’s all”
Her modernity was always evident, with expressive language delivered without a trace of restraint,
“Oh that. Absolute bollocks!”
Her voice was clear and strong and could convey easily the passion of her conviction,
“It’s like for me everything is a possibility.”
Her comic timing, in the little that she had to deliver, was good, with the splendidly judged break in,
“I wouldn’t kill, I wouldn’t murder. But apart from that…white or red?”
It was well performed – well played Bev.
HARRIET (ALI CLARKE)
This certainly is no easy part to play, especially as for much of it you are dressed as Britannia! This spoiled yet bullied character has to convey her frustration as well as being the object of some comedy. With a suitable register to suggest a girlish character, she could show a bold defence,
“You’re more irritating than Mr Roget. He at least resists the temptation to patronise”.
Yet her screaming exits and physical tantrums were equally well played with a change of vocal register,
“Get off me, get off me. Papa, Papa”.
As for comedy, her recitation as Britannia was well put together and phrased for some good comedy, delivered in all innocence,
“The future’s ours, these chimneys belch out hope”.
Good work, Ali.
MARIA (SAMANTHA MOSS)
The second half of the jealous and quarrelling sisters and like Ali she had to wear an Arcadian costume for most of it. She had a good clear voice well able to capture the same note of quarrelsome attack, despite her protestation,
“I’m not given to rages at all”.
She was equally energetic in the fights and had good pieces of well timed comedy,
“I don’t know how those poor shepherdesses stood it”.
But she did of course have the much bigger task of reading the letters which in turn showed the deterioration of her engagement. She read these clearly and quickly with enough expression to underline the significance and she made a lot vocally of the pieces about blue eyes. Well played Samantha.
ROGET/PHIL (JONATHAN POWER)
Despite occasional hesitation, this double characterisation was one of the strongest! Leaving aside the amazing costume, wig changes for which the re should be a medal, it was the completely different gravitas, voice, dialect which Jonathan gave to each. Each wonderfully apt and so well played. As Roget, he had a sympathetic yet obsessed character, expressing his passions for lists in a deep and calm voice,
“How are we to understand the world unless we organise it coherently?”
Yet he had a toughness that enables him to express his dislike of Armstrong in the latter scene with a blow. He was a little older than the author specified but very well cast.
As Phil, his quick clear and resonant delivery in perfect idiom enlivened the scenes and his concerns and down to earth “science” was well played.,
“My uncle was a manic depressive and he was magic”.
His movements were easy and convincing and he was able to break and phrase effectively his longer pieces of dialogue. Magic, Jonathan!
ARMSTRONG (BEN IRESON)
Another key figure given a good performance which turned a possible two dimensional figure into a three dimensional one! He was youthful enough for his curiosity and for all the nastiness of his revelation that he did not care for the maid only the prospect of seeing the deformed spine and his “killing, he managed at least to remove malice and show an intellectual desire, using a calm even rhythm,
“I’ve never had a moral qualm in my life, and it would be death to science if I did”.
His seduction of Isobel was lively, with good movements and a clear delivery of the poetic style praises,
“a beautiful, transforming smile, like sunlight on a glacier”.
A contrast to his callous dismissal, delivered with a sharper edge to his voice,
“I had to make up some awful rubbish about my mother being dead, which she isn’t.”
With a touch of style his movements captured the spirit of the age. Good work, Ben.
ISOBEL (SHARON CAFFREY)
Here is a Scots lassie who is so well read as to be a living thesaurus, so being interesting to Roget, whilst having the deformity which interests Armstrong. Firstly, Sharon created a warm characterisation, well thought of in the Fenwick family, and used her quick but impeccable delivery to make sure that all her vocabulary was delivered with clarity. Then, she captured the Puritan morality, with a physical tightening of her shoulders when accosted, she softened as she read the poetry, showing response, and then she was left to recreate almost by herself (hand and scarf) the hanging. It is a pivotal character in the play and this was a player who could match all the demands as well as making the most of the humour of being dressed as a sheep, with splendid timing,
“But not for sheep. For sheep it’s looking grim”
Well thought out and well performed, well done Sharon!
PRODUCTION
Of course a thoughtful director has made some adjustments to suit the style of presentation and the hall it is being played in. The doubling has been reduced, although perhaps the analogy would have worked better if Ellen and Susannah had been played by the same actor? Perhaps even with the costumes waiting visibly to be adopted, as in the script directions? The letters were projected on the screen as they were being read. That should have been helpful but for two reasons perhaps it wasn’t. One was that occasionally the page being read was late in coming up, but most importantly it split the focus, caused reading instead of listening and so lessened the impact of Maria’s delivery.
Quick changes, a feature of the production were brought to a fine art here and were a source of pace and of smooth juxtaposition. Well done everyone involved in that! Stage positions were stylised, with composed and appropriate stage pictures, and these gave way to lively movement and well placed actors in the modern pieces. This was a director, Robert, helped by an assistant, Karen, who knew what he wanted to achieve and set out to do it!
So, in ACT ONE…
The audience were involved by the powerful music and the smoke from the doors as the actors in 18th century dress moved to positions reminiscent of the experiment of the picture. Ellen, supported on other ladder by Kate, did well with a brisk opening piece. Good delivery and timing made the most of a good line,
“I had smaller ambitions. I wanted to be God”.
The group went smoothly into dialogue. Susannah moved downstage right on
“Don’t start, Harriet!”
But Roget was hesitant on the line,
“Perhaps we could use a different bird?”
And the pace was rather slow.
The bangs offstage and the cries of the rioters worked very well. Fenwick used a quill pen and Armstrong was suitably priggish. Roget was fully confident and made a good delivery of
“Left Leggedness”
whilst Susannah with her drink or her cards effectively stressed some sharp lines. They tried hard to inject some liveliness into the suggested celebratory papers. The cues were sometimes a little hesitant. But Fenwick swore effectively at “Botan” and Susannah’s light voice interjected with good timing,
“I’d rather have Reverend Jessop and his legs.”
Big bang outside was effective. Harriet and Maria built up the tension about the riot and Isobel was splendidly clear on
“I think they are moving off, sir”
The stage was used very well, with a spread of varied positions across from Susannah on the right to Roget on the left. The costume helped Maria make the most of her line,
“I’m playing an Arcadian Idyll”.
(The sound of glass falling was another member of the audience to kick a glass over!) After some sharp delivery from Harriet, Armstrong and good interplay between Isobel and Fenwick, Harriet built up a sulk very well and stormed off to the right of the audience. Maria followed her after a splendidly strongly delivered line,
“which is why I have a fiancé and Harriet has not”.
Teamwork always pays off and it was interesting to see one character cue in another with a look. Isobel was brisk and confident and made a telling line about the sheep and the ears. Her summing up,
“menial and a minion. I am all these things but I am not pretty”
was well delivered. There was a dramatic pause before Armstrong’s
“Beauty is more complex…”
Maria’s letter reading was slightly out of synch with the slide but she read it quickly and well. Kate. On the telephone, established clearly that a decision of some sorts was to be made and Phil (Roget after a quick change) made realistic use of the real wall of the hall. The modern crate stage left was used to put stuff in. Phil did well with the piece about the future plans – just a little hesitant after “commercial”. Step ladder nicely used to vary the levels. Phil had a positive grin of excitement for “Black hole” and other mysteries. Used his clipboard realistically and Ellen kept up a sequence of “business” well, speaking quickly and significantly. Both had their arms folded on, “if you ask me”.
The big mugs and the whisky on
“Hot toddies all round” deservedly got a chuckle from the audience. The dialogue was brisk and expressive, although Phil had to play his piece about Uncle Stan and the Northumbrian pipes rather too much across the stage. Tom, too, had a good change into casual clothes, although more time in which to do it, and established quite a different character. There was a good link from “box of bones” back to Maria and her letter, with the letter also being read by one of the modern women.
Roget was back in 18th clothes and his “advances” were soon stopped and there was a good insight into his love of lists. Susannah sang the “Marseillaise” as they spoke about science and went about her “sewing” (embroidery). There were some robust lines and Fenwick had a good round tone to match, “Fart stardust”. Susannah made a strong exit. Tom, without spectacles this time, had changed clothes rapidly and was equipped with a tray of seedling plants. He moved across the stage as he and Ellen spoke about the body and about her job offer. The lighting changed to the redder glow again for the return of Armstrong and Isobel. He kissed his hand and placed it on her cheek but was it sufficient? He had a last look back at her as he went, which was convincing.
In ACT TWO…
Maria stressed appropriately the line in the letter about blue eyes. Isobel was on the high balcony looking down on it all. She came down and joined the other players. Maria used the same exit as that used by Armstrong and Roget to come on stage. The stage picture, using all the characters, was excellent and gave Harriet a good position centre.
There were some good quick deliveries for the audience to enjoy, Fenwick’s
“Unfortunately no”,
Susannah’s sharp toned,
“Now look what you have done”,
Roget’s
“Any chance of seeing the play?”
and Armstrong’s
“This is as good a play as I’ve ever seen”
Grouping for the play was good, some business, shoving aside etc and the dialogue built up well to Harriet’s
“You’re the audience, shut up”.
The sound offstage of a door slamming after she had run off was a good effect.
Armstrong’s obsession was coming out,
“If I give you a guinea, will you let me see you naked?”
but was still played with a degree of subtlety, leaving Isobel pleased but confused. The whiter daylight for the modern era came in and Phil was sitting on the steps. He came down to light (eventually) a candle, while Tom got all the facts of the bones across to the audience. He too had some difficulty when he relit the candle. Phil went off, clearing the ladder and Ellen and Kate were suitably dressed in anoraks for the cold outside. Roget and Armstrong played with splendid period looking racquets and shuttlecock, using the whole stage, as they talked, punctuated with a series of “twangs”. The men “froze”, and then went off in a line as Maria read another letter, mirrored by the silent reading of Kate. Harriet and her smoking bonnet was a supreme comic moment. Fenwick’s well delivered,
“Susannah, that’s enough” was rather wasted as he was masked, behind her.
The scene had visual comedy and focus, Armstrong sitting quickly on the command to sit down; the later screaming and wrestling by Harriet and Maria. There was good delivery, with a pose,
“I have a soul!”
Leading into an almost modern discussion of their relationship, with amorous sincerity, sharp comedy,
“Joseph, please, this is bedroom talk”,
And a conclusion of sorts from Susannah,
“Why don’t you practise it?”
Isobel, clearing, was a good link. Roget disturbed them kissing and, with Isobel listening upstage, reveals the real object of his attentions to Isobel. Even when some of the audience continued giggling at one outspoken line, Armstrong kept his composure and built up the scientific principles in it all.
The modern scene was interesting for Tom sat at the table on which there were still wine glasses and used one of them even though it still had wine in it from the previous scene. It was a well played scene, although perhaps a little more could have been played towards the audience. It built well to the “Happy New Year” freeze and Isobel made use of the modern stepladder to prepare for her hanging, using a good soft tone for her words. and raising the scarf in one hand to simulate her hanging. There were good reactions from all, and a sinister movement by Armstrong, showing clearly that he killed her. A piece of dance like movement, using the arm as if carrying her, gave Fenwick and her a powerful exit. Armstrong’s laconic,
“Waste not, want not”
earned a vicious punch from Roget. The next scene resolved Tom and Ellen’s dilemmas and the group round the skull and bones upstage in a similar way to the air pump tableau. The tone is softer, now. The sound effects grew, the clock chimes, the rioters and the kiss heralded the return of the picture on the screen and that effective reddish glow completed the effect,
“Here’s to the next century”
ENDEAVOUR, ORIGINALITY and THEATRICAL ATTAINMENT
As if this original play weren’t enough, this mix of “Shakespeare and the Isaac Newtons”, there were lots of original touches in this production of it. The doubling was altered, with successful playing and quick changes, rather than visibly putting costumes over tee shirts, but not quite as neat a comparison for the audience. It was not in the round, which sometimes made the clutter of modern and old puzzling, although one could also think that it enhanced the juxtaposition of the ages. Was it a step too far to drink the same wine from the same glass? It was original to project the letters on the screen, although of course its use for the picture was part of the original production. The staging of the hanging was original, too, using stepladders. Much praise then to Robert for his originality! And of course to make that and the complicated strands of the production work required enormous endeavour by everyone.
The endeavour was obvious in the setting and presentation, the exquisite costuming, sound effects and music,, lighting etc but also in the use of full stage pictures, well enough grouped to rival the classical grouping of the picture! The vocal work was a little mixed, with some slow cues and measured delivery adding gravitas to the production but lessening its pace and excitement, sometimes. Some characters were outstanding and reflected so well the insights contained in the direction, making full use of all the entrances and exits afforded by the hall. The drama was sure and the touches of comedy were well timed and delivered. The similarities and the different styles of the two eras and settings were well brought out assisted by imaginative changes in lighting and, of course, in acting style. Moulton has maintained its enviable reputation for challenging theatre and the audience supported the team well. Well done everyone, especially Robert whose energy and insight was apparent throughout!
Garth Jones
GARTH JONES
Adjudicator 2008/9 |
