‘Trial by Jury’ lacks careful planning

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33987, 30 October 1975, Page 18

‘Trial by Jury’ lacks careful planning

"Trial by Jury.’ by Gilbert and Sullivan. “Sullivan and Gilbert,” by Malcolm Hopwood. Produced by Gwen Millar for the Christchurch Gilbert and Sullivan and Light Opera Society, with musical direction by Malcolm Hopwood. James Hay Theatre, October 29-Nov-embr 1. Running time: 8.00 to 10.20.

“Trial by Jury” is a favourite of anv Gilbert and Sullivan enthusiast, and a relaI tively attractive show from a production angle: its set requirements are minimal, its choreography cannot help [but be simple, it contains isome of Sullivan’s most enjoyable music, and — most important of all — its success depends on vocal skills | rather than acting expertise, a priority which should suit light ooeratic societies. Tn view of this, I am very surprised at the duality of this production. Very little thought or time seems to have gone into design, choreography, lighting, grouping, or movement, and this throws undue dependence on some voices which

are simply not strong enough to take such attention. Certainly, the production has its attractive features — particularly the solo work of Heather Taylor as the Plaintiff and Peter Williams as the Defendant — but many qualities that one expects of Gilbert and Sullivan productions, like strong chorus work, are just not there. The simple economic fact is that no company can afford to do a season in the James Hav Theatre without paying much more attention to the whole spectrum of production business; unfortunately, this suggests that good amateur performers are to suffer from what is essentially a production mismanagement — all too common a story in local theatre. BETTER HALF

The second half of the nrogramme. however, is by far the better. Although Malcolm Hopwood’s drama about the two men is relatively uninteresting on a biographical level, it nevertheless serves as an efficient narrative context for a number of the best-known songs.

For me, it suffers by comparison with Max Adrian’s masterly one-man show on the same subject, and demands perhaps too much talking from people whose ■strength is mostly in their singing. An exception to this would be John Goodliffe’s performance as Sullivan—high quality acting, though his song could have been given to someone else. Dorothy Hitch and Barbara Walton put in some good numbers, but the one actor to combine excellent singing with interesting acting is Lynda Spiers, as Mrs Mary Ronalds. The result is an uneven programme, and considering that Hopwood’s work could easily have been tailored to suit available singing strengths, the over-all standard might have been expected jto be higher. But the best •parts of both works are most ; enjoyable, and the large first■night audience obviously I found considerable pleasure jin the high points of the I evening. 1 —Howard McNaughton.