Ents: Arts

Review: School for Scandal

By Amelia King
Published: 26/05/2009

For the most part this production was neither bad nor good but instead rested lazily in the middle ground of comfortably adequate.

Being a typical 18^th century comedy of manners in which dialogue and wit take precedence over movement in general, the potential for scenes to become static is always a danger. Luckily director David Lawrence managed to avoid this- excepting a few of the earlier scenes in which the actors were too concerned with their own performances to consider interacting with each other. Quite why Miss Katey Warren for example, spent her time onstage pulling odd facial expressions was never fully explained.

The decision to stage the play in the 1920s was definitely a positive move. Drop waist dresses and casual suits seem to be synonymous with the air of wealthy frivolity, perfect for a play that centres on the social misconduct of the upper classes. Props were minimal but well thought out, the hanging picture rail of act IV was especially creative. The piano music also worked well, with the subtle lighting accurately mimicking the warm glow of affluence.

On the other hand a fairly disappointing aspect of the production was the directorial choice to end each scene with a lengthy blackout. Choosing to periodically disrupt the flow of the play was either a failure to find a better solution, or a chance to give the actors a quick moral boost as the audience was forced to applaud.

Although the first half dragged on without much cause for laughter, the second half was undeniably better. The basic plot in which the tiresome marriage of Sir and Lady Teezle is further challenged by the antics of a very sleazy Joseph Surface comes off nicely, largely thanks to the skill of the actors.

By far the best scene involved Mark Chapman in his role as the suffering husband concealing himself in a cupboard whilst his wife hid behind a screen. Mr Rob

O’Conner was on hand as Charles Surface to unravel the confusion, resulting in a scene of veritable hilarity. Victoria Jolly as Lady Teezle accomplished the perfect amount of insolence and wit, without losing likeability. This was until she stood up and perhaps came across slightly too 1920s, over flapping the arms and wiggling around rather too much to be credible.

Despite the presence of some genuine talent, elements of the acting indicated that the director had in many ways lost control of his flock. Andy Elkington in the role of a poet decided to act more like a magician, with each line being accompanied by a flourish of the hand and a tilt of the head as if a pack of cards were to come flying out from his front pocket at any moment. Crabtree’s brilliant eccentricity was undermined by a grating accent that overshadowed his performance, whilst the Butler seemed wracked with unexplained aggression.

Overall the performance was fairly successful, with some clear comedic highlights. True, some scenes were dull and dragged on a little, but the better ones were definitely worth waiting for.

Rate this article