'The Removalists’ worth seeing

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33753, 28 January 1975, Page 16

'The Removalists’ worth seeing

“The Removalists,” by David Williamson. Directed by Yvette Bromley for The Court Theatre. Running time: 8.15 p.m. to 10 p.m.

The over-all standard of this first 1975 Court production may be no higher than the middling standard of the last few. but the competent handling of such a play as this very successful contemporary Australian piece is bound to raise more ripples than local audiences have experienced for some months.

There are some excellent things about both play and performance — and both suffer from great limitations.i But it should be made clear; at; the outset that this is aj production' that is certainly well worth seeing.

Almost certainly based oni an actual event, although not authentic in the details con-> cernlng the police in particu-i lar, David Williamson’s script; bears the marks of both great talent and an equal degree o f inexperience.

There is some delightful’ early dialogue between the police officers, and, later,)

[between them and the sisters; not a strong opening 'scene and almost wastefully i barged through at times by this cast, but still very funny and a satisfactory exposition, i Part of the play’s problem !is where to go after the exchanges (physical and verbal) between the police and Kenny (the husband) have started to wear thin. A re•moval man comes and goes with women and furniture jand the play should end. But •it can’t: Kenny is still handcuffed to the doorhandle and the sergeant is now resigned; to venting his frustrations in wavs other than sexual.

So both producer and cast ;had a potentially excellent plav that in itself created difficulties — they created some more themselves before finishing with a worth-while product that could, with more determination (and probably more time), have been verv satisfying. Perhaps in a week or so it will be. Only two of the cast managed to overcome all problems on the opening night. Both have had considerable experience and bath were in relatively minor roles.

James Wright was outstanding as the removalist. Slotting neatly into the role of the cool and idly insolent worker, he gave a masterly example of firm control of pace, subtle underplaying and complete involvement. This was a small but vital role.

Managing a similar consistency was Janice Finn who ; built the only other really i credible character. She was a sister who knew what she wanted and rarely lost control of the situation. Again, everything about this performance pleased for its delicate purposeful control. Mervyn Glue was most convincing when his police sergeant started to stride and bellow. Earlier he was rather flat. I tend to doubt that any Australian that used the colourful language given the sergeant would do so with the even pace and crisp consonants that Mr Glue produced.

I also doubt that any newly-trained constable would be as immature and petulant as Peter McCauley’s Ross. As with most of the performances this, character.

was not carried beyond the shallow surface that the first scene suggests. Also as with the others, Peter McCauley went some way towards redeeming himself when things got meatier in the final half-hour.

Philip Holder had the unenviable task of being punchbag for the sergeant for half of the time; the other half was just as difficult for an actor of this calibre; conveying the sustained pain and anger. Perhaps this is the play’s most difficult role; the actor is physically tied to one spot and the variety of reactions , possible is similarly limited. Philip Holder does not manage to fill the gaps undoubtedly left in the script but he too improves as the violence gains momentum. Cathy Downes must be longing for a role that gives her a more active say in her own character’s responses. As was true of the two other younger performers, she usually seemed to be working hard for the appropriate grimace; her’s, however, was ja relatively even and mature I portrayal. | — W.H.L.