9 – 23 July 2011
Festival 50 is a collection of nine one-act plays, presented as three sets of three plays each, being produced by the Criterion Theatre to celebrate its 50th birthday. As you would expect, it is a mixed bag, but there is at least one gem in each set and the concept is to be encouraged. Check the theatre’s website for the dates each set is performed.
The Monkey’s Paw
by Jonathan Holloway (adapted from the story by WW Jacobs); dir Ruth Miller
A supernatural horror tale of ‘be careful what you wish for’. The monkey’s paw of the title grants its owner three wishes and is brought to a man and his family by a friend who warns against using it, but to no avail. The wishes made are granted, but the repercussions are shocking. Or should be.
Unfortunately, the play falls rather flat and, although it chronicles the story well enough, it fails to build a feeling of tension and horror. The presentation is flat and unimaginative – much could have been done with staging, lighting and sound. The cast make a reasonable attempt, but ultimately, it fails to convince.
by David Campton; dir Nancy Silvester
An elderly couple stop to rest on a cemetery bench on their way home and muse about mortality, remembrance and their past life together. There is a lot of humour in this touching and down-to-earth play and the two actors are entirely believable as having grown old together and their mild bickering is underpinned by a seasoned love.
Doug Griffiths is excellent as the slightly hen-pecked husband, keen to know what’s in his wife’s shopping bag. Maureen Copping is truly wonderful and spends time berating her husband for not having earned enough to afford a nice grave together. A lovely short play brought to life by skilled and experienced actors.
by Michael Frayn; dir Bill Butler
A farce, with two actors playing five characters (plus two unseen children). Jo and Stephen are having a dinner party and have accidentally invited both members of a recently separated couple. Whatever happens, they must not meet.
Fast-paced and full of laughs, this is a very physically demanding play for the two actors, with many quick costume changes going on behind the scenes. John Elves and Becky Fenlon handle this with apparent ease and still manage to present us with five very different, funny and believable characters. I particularly enjoyed Becky’s Julie-Walters-like Jo, and John’s drunken Barney. If you’re not in a coma, you will laugh.
by David Ives; dir Anne-Marie Greene
A short piece about two young people meeting at a cafe. They get chatting, as you might expect, but each time either one says anything that might scupper the potential romance, a small bell is rung off-stage, time effectively takes a small step back, and the conversation continues again from the earlier point – allowing a slightly different path to be followed.
The re-tries often invoke a change of character, making it a tough one for the actors, Joe Fallowell and Olivia Holmes, who make an acceptable job of it. I would have preferred the many American references to have been anglicised, making it easier to identify with the situation.
by Brian Friel; dir Jane Railton
Two lonely people meet in a Moscow cafe for the second night in succession and chat about their past and present lives. The man embellishes his story by promoting himself from busker to concert violinist and in a number of other ways to try to impress the woman. He later comes clean and we find that the woman has some deceptions of her own.
This gentle play rewards a lot of attention. It is sensitively played by both actors; Peter Bagley is superb and very moving; the woman is well played, but could do with some work on positioning and gestures.
The Zoo Story
by Edward Albee; dir Greg Cole
Peter is sat at a park bench enjoying a book when along comes Jerry, who assertively strikes up a conversation. After extracting details of Peter’s home life, Jerry tells his own story, about his apartment, neighbours, landlady and her dog, and about his visit to the zoo. Towards the end, he picks a fight and the outcome is surprising and shocking.
This is a very intense piece of theatre that leaves you breathless. Calum Speed as the disturbing, edgy and unpredictable Jerry and James Wolstenholme as the pleasant, confused and sometimes indignant Peter both excellently bring a good piece of writing to life.
by Davey Anderson; dir Doreen Belton
In this piece from the theatre’s youth group, James is in a jail cell and narrates the events of his adolescence that led him here, covering his gradual alienation from friends and family, school and home.
The two young actors playing James, Sam Taylor and Peter Meredith, tell the story, sharing the narrative dynamically: in perfect sync, in turns or with one enacting what the other narrates. At these times, the amorphous chorus of other actors, come forward from the shadows to become necessary characters. The staging, lighting and fight sequences are first-class and Sam and Peter are astoundingly good; full of raw power, attitude and emotion. Weaker characterisations from some of the chorus narrowly keeps this from getting five stars.
by Anton Chekhov, adapted by Brian Friel; dir Helen Withers
Elena has been shut away in her house, in mourning for her husband, for a year now, when the boorish Gregory, the bear of the title, arrives, demanding payment of a debt, owed him by the late husband, in order to pay his own debts. The antagonism builds and then subtly turns into mutual affection, while family retainer, Luka, provides comic interludes.
This dramatic, but touching and humorous piece is played creditably by the cast of Christine Evans, Matt Sweatman and Annie Woodward. A little too much played out to the audience instead of each other, though, which would be the responsibility of the director.
In Camera (Huis Clos)
by Jean-Paul Sartre, adapted by Hugh Sorrill; dir Hugh Sorrill
Three people arrive in hell to find it isn’t what they expected. They are led into an ordinary room and left there together. They soon come to realise that this is where they will spend eternity and that “Hell is other people”.
It fails to be all it could, however; the dialogue felt raced through, almost like a competition, making it near impossible to identify with the characters. It seems unsure whether it wants to be realistic or stylistic and flounders somewhat between the two. In consequence it doesn’t really bring out the bleakness and horror of their situation and makes the whole thing drag somewhat.