‘Ptolemy’s Dip’

Press, 14 July 1982, Page 6

‘Ptolemy’s Dip’

“Ptolemy’s Dip,” by Peter Hawes, directed by Paul Sonne for the Court Studio Theatre. July .13 to August 14. Running time: 8.15 p.m. to 10 p.m. Reviewed by Gerrit Bahlman.

“Ptolemy's Dip" is a witty, workman-like piece of theatre which provides more scope for the author than the performers. In places it is brilliantly funny but often the sequences are separated by long verbal extravaganzas into esoteric, abstruse knowledge which does more to testify to the erudition of Mr Hawe's than to further the play. The strength of "Ptolemy’s Dip" lies with its clearer sense of purpose. The resolution of Mr Hawes's first play, "Alf's General Theory of Relativity." had an abruptness which suggested an intellectual decision that enough had been written. "Ptolemy" has a well prepared resolution and is better struc-

tured. Its primary fault, is its verbosity. The opportunity for a director to use the potential of the actors was impeded. David Copeland as Terry Osbert provided a competent performance which did little to stretch his known talent. Mary Spencer as Miss Gittings had virtually no room for development yet managed to convey a "Hitch-hikers” Guide to the Universe" kind (of dilliness. Horrick was played by Tony Wahren with- a nicely withheld delivery that often evoked quiet humour. The opportunity for the "layman versus the expert" juxtaposition between Horrick and Osbert was not used.

The absurdist storyline details the manipulative connivance of Horrick and his niece. Miss Gittings. in persuading Terry Osbert. curator of Egyptology, to allow the. erection of Jurassic specimens in his Hall. The

reason for this transferral is inflation — the tourists are stealing the bone for soup stock. .

Terry, unwilling to allow the subtle introduction of all the bone specimens in the museum, eventually recognises the duplicity being perpetrated against him by use of a dinosaur colouring book. So the riddle of the evergrowing single skeleton is resolved.

Once again the Court has taken a formative role in developing opportunities for New Zealand playwrights. This production has considerable potential but needs to be reassessed in terms of its loquacity. Sections of the script need to be reexamined to allow the brilliance of the isolated ideas to meld into the action. Judicious cutting may well provide the performers with a greater challenge and allow direction to dictate pace.