[FRINGE] intimacy/desperation/sincerity ...................... 32

[reverancepavane]

Amateur theatre at Adelaide University (a University whose Performing Arts School lacks a drama department and would look askance at anyone suggesting that this might be an area of viable study), has always been somewhat problematic. There has always been the Theatre Guild, but for the entirety off my association with the University this has been a rather incestuous group, and one which makes most of the local neighbourhood dramatic societies look positively Elysian in outlook. Still that hasn't stopped the formation of a number of student theatrical companies that have gone on to do great things while they lasted. After all, the Art cannot be denied. The latest is the Adelaide University Fringe Club, who successfully put on The Adventures of Stoke Mandaville last Fringe, and have offered Operation Mincemeat and Servant of Two Masters this Fringe. Whilst I cannot speak for the first, I'm very much afraid that the second was a very amateur production. Too many people mistakenly equate amateur and professional as a measure of the quality. They are not. An amateur does stuff without the need to get paid, literally for the love of it ("amatori"), whilst a professional expects to get paid for their work. Naturally we expect a high standard in the work we pay for, and thus we often have come to equate professional with a high standard of work (or at least, one we are willing to pay for). But this does not mean that amateur work cannot also have a high standard. And Servant of Two Masters had all the hallmarks of an extremely amateur production: the cast was highly enthusiastic and enjoyed their roles, there were plenty of in-jokes, a lack of focus (too many people on stage doing nothing was the biggest problem here), little consideration was given to the existence of the audience, and no real attempt was made at blocking (except in the non-theatrical sense). All of which can be put down to the fact that there was absolutely no visible* sign of any direction in the production of the show. Which was a pity, as even through this lack, several of the cast demonstrated great future potential (at least, when they weren't chewing the scenery or standing around dumbfounded). Although for at least one actor I'm glad it is a short season; they will have to learn to project rather than shout if they wish to keep their voice for long. And I'm afraid it didn't help that the play was not only a comedy, but a farce; a form that is very difficult to do well and very easy to foul up. After all, comedy is all in the...** * I wont even mention the audible nature of the production which was so atrociously bad that I suspect the person running the sound board was not only doing something else, but actively providing the sound cues for a totally different play. ** ...timing.

Comments

[molokov-au.livejournal.com]

Having been on the other side of the (non-existent) curtain once in a while, I could spot some potential talent in many of the cast members - they put all they could into what may have been a rather ordinary role (and even those with richer roles tried to do what they could with it) but I suspect they had all got used to the groan-worthy sound cues (and thus just ignored them) and I will have to agree with you about the lack of good direction.

A director's job is to stand outside the production and get individual actors to feed off each other's cues and make the stage look dynamically interesting. And as you say, it's all in the. Perhaps the play was severely under rehearsed and the cast only bothered to learn their lines individually and hadn't spent much timINGe together putting the scenes in order.

Then again, the material wasn't much to work with - they'd edited at least the placenames to make it "more local" than the Venetian play it was in actuality, and to fill it with some silly injokes & references (Princess Bride swordfight scene done poorly etc) but they didn't really edit the script more to make the language easier to flow from their tongues. Oh well.

What was with the eyepatches? Injoke, I guess.

I've been in some plays where there's been good material but somehow the director didn't think all of it was funny enough and put some extra bits in that were injokes but didn't fit the scenarios or characters so much - and did a lot to damage the material. Then again, I've also been in a very unfunny comedy during high school, so much so that we added slapstick in to try and make it at least a little amusing. Yes, it failed, but at least it wasn't nearly as dry as the material we had to work with.
(Many of us students were quite happy to do Shaw's Andocles and the Lion that we'd been reading, but the teacher insisted on giving us some crappier short plays that were more suited for a "high school" audience, despite how funny Shaw's stuff can be.)

[reverancepavane.livejournal.com]

I do think most of the overt problems could have been fixed, or at least mitigated, with a competent director, at least to the point where it would become viable to actually discuss the play and their interpretation/performance of it. All the components were there to forge a decent production, but it lacked the fire and hammer to bind it all together into a whole. Which I think was the great pity. The heart was there but the body and soul was lacking. As for the half-hearted attempt to "adapt" the play, well, in essence it was really just to provide another couple of in-jokes, some of which the audience was permitted to share. Unfortunately nothing kills farce faster than humour, since farce relies on a certain level of seriousness for its effect – it is from the situation that the comedy develops. I think what irritated me most was the wasted potential.