Pygmalion
05/06/2010 - 19/06/2010
Production Details
CAST:
CHARLES UNWIN – Higgins
GINA TIMBERLAKE – Eliza Doolittle
JOHN TREVITHICK – Colonel Pickering
DARREN LUDLAM – Doolittle, Nepommuck, Bystander
JONNY HAIR – Freddy Eynsford-Hill
SUE GROSS – Mrs Eynsford-Hill
JO CLARK – Mrs Pearce, Lady, Sarcastic Bystander
NICOLA CLIFF – Clara, Hostess
CAROL SEAY – Mrs Higgins
ROWENA SIMES – Betty The Maid, Olga, Bystander
CREW:
DIRECTOR: Geoff Allen
PRODUCTION: Galatea
STAGE MANAGER: Emma Kay
COSTUME: Annamarie Dixon & Cathie Sandy
ELIZA COSTUMES: Designed and made by Cathie Sandy
LIGHTIING: Oliver Powell
DESIGN & Backdrop painting: Marko Nella
HAIR: Cathie Sandy
FRONT OF HOUSE: Raewyn Wright
BAR: Tony Sandy
SET DRESSING: Caroline Parker.
SET CONSTRUCTION: Tony Sandy, Dave Allis, Emma Kay,
PHOTOGRAPHY: Ross Kinnaird
BACKDROP SEWING: Rayma Owen
SOUND FX: Morgan Allen
DRESSER & CREW: Jess Forsman
Not Shaw
Review by Adey Ramsel 07th Jun 2010
We know we’re in trouble when the Director states in his programme notes that he has come to the job with no pre-conceived ideas and has neither seen the play staged before or indeed the more famous musical based upon it. This may be ideal for modern theatre and a modern interpretation of a classic but you do need to have a grasp of the themes and at least understand the characters. And it is this shortcoming that seems to lie at the problem with this revival of Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion.
There’s not a lot of direction evident for script, story or character. The main protagonists change mood at the drop of a line, rushing their words inaudibly in Act 1 to Act 2 where the main game seems to be who can shout the loudest at the most inappropriate time. This not only illustrates a lack of insight for the script and its era but a basic understanding of the main conflict within the play.
From their first meeting Higgins (Charlie Unwin) and Eliza (Gina Timberlake) seem to be more at odds with each other as actors rather than characters. The sparring on stage should not forget the social class of their day, yet Eliza from the first seems to fight Higgins tooth and nail and treats him as her equal. This unfortunately continues through to the final Act where she treats Higgins with disdain, reducing the beautifully theatrical moment of the ‘statue’ coming alive to a shouting scene that merely gives us more of the same. That she speaks the lines Shaw gave Eliza, who definitely knew her place, leads us to a performance that seems to be more erratic than the volume contest.
The fact is, Higgins hates women. Because of the contempt he holds for the sex, he would no more flirt with Clara or Eliza than Pickering would because of the respect he holds for them. There should be no physical contact between the two main characters, and as for the closeness of their body language during certain scenes, it simply doesn’t work. It is at odds with the play itself, as a little research would have uncovered.
It is not a case of Higgins trying to make a Duchess out of a flower girl, but rather a human being out of a woman. The only woman he has respect or time for is his mother. He has spent his whole life convinced there is no-one better and spends his whole life trying to prove himself wrong. Until he does, he would not demean himself by engaging in something as beneath him as flirting.
For her part, Timberlake holds her own but fails to ignite a glow within Eliza as she grows. Where is the angelic light, the innocence that makes us wish for her success? More importantly it would be nice to see her vulnerability when she does take that step into the next class. In the final scene we should care that she has no place in life and no place to go; she has a newfound strength but it is at the cost of her independence; unfortunately this Eliza plays it with a confidence that again shows a lack of understanding.
Aside from the other mostly angry and harsh characters, Nicola Cliff’s Clara and Hostess are a joy to watch with her easy manner and charm and Darren Ludlam adds some welcome relief as Alfred Doolittle with his long-winded philosophies on life. Pickering (John Trevithick) is as he should be, easy going, personable and blends into the background with the wallpaper.
Elsewhere the cast fight for stage time in the cramped space. Of course the stage size is not the fault of the company, but why then choose such an epic play which far outweighs the space it requires?
The set is a good idea, consisting of twin sitting rooms either side of the stage and used alternately as Higgins study and his mother’s house. Upstage two marble columns dwarf the set with steps linking the two. Used as the setting for St Pauls in the opening Act and various balconies for the interior scenes, it works well, though the effect on the whole is a little underdressed. However the permanent backdrop that resembles a country farm though is a little confusing for a play set wholly in London! ( There is no actual Set Designer mentioned in the programme, though Marko Nella is down as Designer and a list of people for construction – top marks for ideas.)
And here we come to another main issue. The producers have decided to use the full script, inclusive of scenes that Shaw himself disliked and discouraged producers to use. The standard script has the five main acts. Here we are treated to seven which takes us not only to the Embassy Ball but outside Higgins’ house for a futile scene between Eliza and Freddy (Jonny Hair), a pointless teaching scene and a short excursion upstairs as Eliza is enticed into the bath. What this adds in exposure to brilliant Shaw dialogue, is lost in pace, rushed changes and a lengthy evening.
Unfortunately a lot of action is taken that is at odds with the story it’s trying to tell us – the misplaced sexual chemistry, Higgins’ sheer nastiness, Eliza’s brashness when ‘educated’, the maid stealing cups of tea, and the bizarre business of Mrs Pearce retrieving a pair of ladies high-heeled shoes from Higgins’ study floor and referring to them as his slippers!
I see the next production for the company is Director Geoff Allen’s own script. Maybe this is where this new company will be on safer ground.
_______________________________
For more production details, click on the title above. Go to Home page to see other Reviews, recent Comments and Forum postings (under Chat Back), and News.
Copyright © in the review belongs to the reviewer
Comments
Adey Ramsel June 8th, 2010
It's interesting to see Oscar that I must be prejudiced or have issues because I didn't see what you saw? On the flip side, you didn't see what I saw - does that make you prejudiced, blinkered or have issues? No. It means I have a view. You have a view. I'm just in the position that I write my opinion down for people to read and they take or leave from it what they will.
I fully expect people to ignore a bad review if they so wish, (just as I have done many times in the past), but what people have to get over is that a bad review is just a bad review because of an opinion based on a certain prior knowledge of theatre, arts, whatever and NOT because the person giving it is blinkered or prejudiced or deficient in anyway or attends a production with issues.
I don't think any reviewer I've met believes that their opinion is the only opinion in the world and that should be the end of the matter, that is why the comment option is available on these pages but just as you, or anyone else has the right to speak their mind about an event without being labeled, I too, and other reviewers have the right to speak as we find without being branded as 'not good reviewers' merely because our opinion does not sit right with someone, or because we've actually dared to say what we think is wrong and why.
I'm a Producer and Director myself and I've recieved more than my fair share of bad reviews - some from this site from reviewers that still review for us - but I just accepted it as someones opinion and didn't go on that there was something 'wrong' with the reviewer.
I went to see this production with an open mind. I came away with an opinion and I wrote it down but because you don't agree with it and I don't think what you think - I'm prejudiced?
Kim Muncaster June 7th, 2010
I grew up watching musicals with my mum every Sunday. My Fair Lady was a firm favourite. Whilst I don’t pretend to know much about George Bernard Shaw or the original screenplay, I loved the musical and I’m pleased to say I loved the play the other night. I thought the cast were amazing; igniting fond memories of the characters I loved so much from the film. Their performance was real and compelling, and in some parts inspired. If anything the evening ended too soon. Well done to Geoff Allen and the cast and thank you for such a wonderful night. I'll be back again.
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
quite regardless of 'Shaw’s play writing enterprise in itself' tonight's repeat of a repeat of a ... & so on ... of The Simpsons had as its punchline Higgins pashing Pickering ... the point simply being that the Shaw meme survives, is recognisable, makes its way into popular culture, where perhaps it takes up residence. A review, just as a production, should be judged on its own merits. The point is not taken that the class system is that without reference to which Pygmalion just can't be done. Ye cannae change the laws o Physics!
Oscar Gabites June 7th, 2010
The reviewer seems most definitely to have approached this production with firmly entrenched preconceived ideas of what makes a good "Shaw" play, but not a very open mind to the production (which does not make for a good review or reviewer).
I saw the production yesterday (Sunday) and find myself at odds with a lot of what Adey has written; not all (the maid stealing tea is one area we agree). To my understanding Shaw did not "dislike and discourage producers to use" the extra scenes, but was aware that it would be difficult for theatre makers at that time to stage the play in its entirety and made a note for the technicians that they were permitted to omit the scenes if necessary. Personally I feel to see the play without the grand garden party scene would be both disappointing and would make me feel the producers were being lazy!
In the reading/misreading/presentation/whatever I saw on Sunday Higgins did indeed treat Eliza as an object, a plaything and a challenge. She had to be different to all other flower girls, a challenge to his abilities and his intellect otherwise why would the play exist? The reviewer seems to have a problem with her confidence in the final scene, but she needs to have it for Higgins to call her a "tower of strength, a consort battleship" and change his opinion of her, only to then lose it in the final moments.
On the flirting I agree both with Adey and Glenn - yes, it did seem a little out of place but it also highlighted Higgins' disdain for women. It actually seemed to me that he was doing it to deliberately cause a reaction and drive them out of the house! But personally, I would drop it as as Adey says there is no pay off from it and we are already well aware of Higgins' feelings towards women.
The reviewer appears to have some issue that they brought both to the production and to their subsequent review instead of seeing what I saw and those with me saw.
Adey Ramsel June 7th, 2010
I agree, a man may hate women enough to lead them on and then leave them high and dry but there is no pay off for that course of action in this particular script. It leads nowhere and does nothing but create an inconsistent character.
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
sounds quite Pythonesque. Another wonderful precedent.
John Smythe June 7th, 2010
I’d have though it fundamental to Pygmalion that Higgins treats Eliza as an object and that the class system is at the core of the whole enterprise – i.e. the Higgins/Pickering wager-driven enterprise and its impact on Eliza and Alfred P, not to mention Freddy; and Shaw’s play writing enterprise in itself.
To not build these into a production yet play out the ending would be like setting up one joke then delivering the punchline to another.
glenn patten June 7th, 2010
What is interesting to me is this reviewers preconceived notions of how a man who "hates" women would treat them. Outright flirting such as was depicted in this production was not at odds to Higgins disdain for women, but highlighted it. A man with no respect for women may indeed avoid or ignore them, but also may lead them on with no intent of follow through for the sheer fun of it. It seems harsh that this should be one interpretation that would lead the reviewer to assume that neither the director nor the actors "understood" the script?
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
a wonderful precedent.
Adey Ramsel June 7th, 2010
I believe many years ago there was a production of Hamlet where Hamlet failed to appear due to him being pissed out of his head at the side of the stage; they carried on without him and it was announced as a superior production because of it. Last I heard soemone in UK was adapating the story as a play itself!
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
... what about Hamlet without Hamlet? That'd be one hamlet less...
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
... need I add that that includes the 'general accepted' view of and or 'what the author intended.'
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
these are interesting questions. Interpretation can rely on the memory of an original against or with the trace of which it plays. Theatre has been especially slow to accept that any reading, i.e. production, is a misreading.
Adey Ramsel June 7th, 2010
Not prejudice or pre-conceived ideas just a general accepted view of what Shaw intended the characters and storyline to be - without which the play makes little sense. You would hardly do Hamlet or Richard III without understanding what drives them. In this case I believe there was little understanding, as the 'on stage' actions of the main protagonists went against what they said and where the plot took them.
I'm all for modern interpretation. Do with the classics what you can, God knows they need spicing up but surely it has to be confined within the original characters and/or authors intentions, if not why bother doing that particular play at all? Why not create a new one with characters you can play around with?
Simon Taylor June 7th, 2010
The extent to which this reviewer's preconceived ideas of what the play should be like, such that the director does not 'understand' it, amounts in this case to approaching the production with extreme prejudice.