Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CANTERBURY THEATRE BEGINS

The Canterbury Theatre Company’s ambitious venture into the unexplored seas of regional professional theatre began last night at the superficially reconditioned Repertory Theatre. In general the result was quite promising. There was a good play and a bad play, both by the same author, Peter Shaffer; there were patches when the presentation was little short of brilliant and others when it was merely—or barely—adequate; there were actors of distinct ability and others whose competence has yet to be shown.

“White Lies” represents Mr Shaffer at his worst, straining titanically at Significance and bringing forth platitudes and phoney wisdom about love and loneliness and the wearing of masks, the whole enclosed in an envelope of crude symbolism and puffed up with theatrical wind. Try as thev might neither the cast nor the producer could do very much with it: they would have done better to leave it alone. I Kathleen Hilditch gave

notice that she is an actress capable of communicating strong emotion when a play more appropriate to her talents is tackled; by this fictitious piece the audience was left unmoved in spite of her powerful work. Bruce Montague gave excellent support and Alan Collins was solid, though the latter, like Miss Hilditch, could not always be heard clearly. After such dreary opening fare it was a relief to come back to the paradoxical light of “Black Comedy," which is is as good a modern farce as one is likely to see. Built on a brilliant gimmick by which darkness becomes light, and vice-versa, it provides an endless stream of visual jokes, which has the average audience laughing almost nonstop. For one period of about 20 minutes, the dialogue goes on unheard; that is part of the fun. And for those who are aware of the current fashion for sticking sombre modifying labels on the old genres of comedy and farce there is the additional amusement to be derived from appreciation of an “in” joke. Unfortunately, towards the end of the play the author appears to take his own joke

seriously and the tone wavers uncertainly as farce aspires to the condition of comedysomething blacker. The play is relatively actorproof and, with its generous provision of stage directions, director-proof as well. Not that it needed to be in last night’s presentation which was competently handled by the director, John Kim, who added some inventive business and who waS responsible for the careful attention to detail that marked most of the performance. Prince of the players was Bruce Montague who, in the part nf Brindsley Miller, combined the talents of clown, athlete and comic actor in a performance of split-second timing; and who carried the action—and the furniture—through the exhilarating period of laughter in the middle of the play. Barbara Latham, “laughingly known as . . . Knightsbridge candy floss” was a beautiful lollipop doll as Carol Melkett, and made delightful use of a husky voice and sensational use of a staircase. The playing of Alan Collins, as the stock “patsy,” Harold Gorringe.was a model of.good timing and utter charm.

Most of the other players were more or less adequate in what, during the long scene of visual gags, must be numbered among the least rewarding parts ever written. Near the end of the play, however, some rather gross acting by Betzie Parker, who lacked charm as Clea, and the indeterminate work of Roger White as Schuppanzigh helped underline the fact that Mr Shaffer had, at this stage, lost his grip. The interesting variations on the London set were designed by Robert Verßekmose, whose costumes were more imaginative than those of the original production. One aspect of the production requires particular attention. Too many lines are indistinct as it is, without talking through audience laughter. Some decision should be made about which lines should be talked through and which not; it should be clear that only In lines which coincide with visual jokes is it legitimate to continue with the dialogue. The double bill, which last night played to a packed and enthusiastic house, will end on July 15.—M.G. T.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19670704.2.143

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31412, 4 July 1967, Page 16

Word Count
679

CANTERBURY THEATRE BEGINS Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31412, 4 July 1967, Page 16

CANTERBURY THEATRE BEGINS Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31412, 4 July 1967, Page 16

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert