'NO, NO, NANETTE!'

Evening Star, Issue 21881, 19 November 1934, Page 13

'NO, NO, NANETTE!'

OPERATIC SOCIETY SCORES AGAIN BRILLIANT DANCE SPECTACLE One of the more definite successes of tlie Dunedin Operatic and Dramatic Society was the happy revival of ‘No, - No, ' Nanette! 5 ' in His Majesty’s The- . atre .on Saturday , evening. The society has, unfortunately, rather a restricted field to exploit, and is denied access to many of the more important works well within its scope, but in selecting this particular concoction of musical frivolity—one of the very few among the huge crop of light-hearted efforts .of the last two decades to achieve any form of permanence —it has accurately gauged current theatrical taste. It is tnor<j than possible that, had the . vehicle chosen been more worthy of critical attention from both musical and dramatic aspects, it would have- engaged much less interest than this carefree affair is certain to excite. As musical comedies go—and most of them do—Vincent Youman’s blithe presentation has merits that put it well ahead of practically all its numberless contemporaries and successors. The music is quick-and alive (its tunes are still as well known as any), it has a diverting story with lively action as pleasantly impossible as any other, and there' are many ingenious and delightful situations. And of these opportunir ■ ties the Operatic Society, with the rich resources and experience at its com- - mand, has made a great deal. Colour, gaiety, and dash are the dominant attributes of this performance, and the premiere on Saturday .certainly indicates that with ‘ No, No, Nanette!’ the society'is to bring off one of its greatest popular successes." With each succeeding Operatic Society show has come a steady developmeat, in stage technique, and now that . line has reached. its highest, level, ■ a '' consummation that is born only of long and trying experience' in amateur theatricals. The four primary directors who made ‘.No, No, Nanette!’ such a pronounced hit were Mr Stan. Law- . son and Mr Angus Gorrie (co-produc-. ers), Miss Rosetta Powell (ballet mistress), and Mr James Clark (conductor), and they have welded their respective studies into a most arresting whole. Mr Lawson and Mr Gorrie produced many very striking effects, particularly in ensemble, and worked out the action 6f the comedy with a prac- , tical appreciation of its possibilities. ‘ But if they did excellently, Miss Powell scored the most distinctive success of all four, producers. She has; made ‘No, No, Nanette!’ first and foremost a brilliant dancing spectacle. To say “as good as any professional show ” is a worn (and seldom justified) cliche, but the baHcts here indubitably make good that ancient platitude. The dancing in previous shows might have been a model of precision and grace, but never before has there been such originality and ingenuity in conception as in this, ■' The same old routine steps and evolutions, no matter what the setting, are apt to be rather boring, but the fresh and fascinating ideas developed by Miss Powell caught the immediate and obvious fancy of the audience on Saturday night. Mr Clark, a fairly recent. : recruit to the ranks of the, society, is proving his worth with an admirable directional sense in its music. True, the score of this comedy is not particu-; larly complex or difficult, but the assessment of its values does call for the intelligence shown by Mr Clark. His were very effectively pro- -» duced " ’to ? the -' accompaniment • :of ' ; la- ■ highly competent orchestra, which, incidentally, gave the whole score an excellent foundation. The enlivening story and action about which these directors built their production will probably be remembered by the theatregoers who saw the Williamson show here seven years ago. The “plot” hovers about the amorous eccentricities of Jimmie Smith, the millionaire publisher of Bibles, whose business principles contradict his domestic behaviour. Jimmie, from sheer goodness of heart and the pleasure he gets from spending money (his wife being a rabid addict of the saving habit and a hopeless dowd into the bargain) maintains in luxury three expensive young ladies known in American parlance as “ golddiggers.” After they have nlade deep excavations into ■ his fortune Jimmie persuades Billy Early, a solicitor friend, to deal with his troublesome proteges, hut, unfortunately for them, their wives become suspicious. And when the wives, husbands,' and gentle grafters ” all meet the fun commences. The Nanette of the title is a high- ' spirited young lady who is a ward- of Jimmie and his wife, and is kept under . a tight rein by that latter intimidating figure—hence the command of tho title. She, of course, has a lover, who, according to the best traditions of musical comedy, is ready to misinterpret all her actions and spurn her as a very - loose young lady. There are many complicated and amusing situations to keep' the action at top speed, and Saturday night’s audience followed with delight the manoeuvres of Jimmie and Billie to extricate themselves from a tangle of suspicion. ■ It is not generally known that when the production of ‘No, No, Nanette!’ was well ’ under way there were, for various reasons, three very important defections from the cast. It seemed then that the society was really up against it, and it is to the infinite credit of the producers that, far from being dismayed, they not only pulled the show out of the fire, hilt went on to make an exceptional hit of it. Their casting was admirable. Miss Lettie De Clifford, one of the valuable assets

. of the society, was in. the title role, and made a very attractive study of it. i Miss De Clifford has a vbice above that of theusual musical comedy lead, and. in the catchy songs of her part could

give it delightful play. She has developed, too, a pleasant ' stage stylo that gave her delineation charm, and conviction. Most of the comedy was in the hands of Mr T. R. Vanity and Mr Clarence Paine, who were Jimmie and Billy respectively, the roles enacted with such skill here seven years ago by Jimmie Godden and Charlton Morton. Mr Vanity came from Invercargill at very short notice to fill one of the vacancies, and, all things considered, gave a performance of distinction. He also has an excellent voice, but had. little opportunity to show it off. Mr Paine has a decided flair for comedy, and, as the harassed solicitor drawn into the nueltsrom of his friend’s amorous difficulties, was in high fettle: Miss Freda Elmes, who appeared as Lucille, his too discerning wife, was the most natural and convincing in her style of all the principals. Miss Elmes carried off her role with a poise that is rare in amateurs, and also sang attractively. Miss Gwenda Burt, always a very thorough and dependable performer, was Sue Smith, Jimmie’s cautious helpmate, and of this role made a great deal. Miss Burt has an excellent sense of comedy values, and played her part with smoothness and assurance. Mr Harold Bain was paired with Miss De Clifford as juvenile lead, and showed a thorough knowledge of stagecraft in his work. In his atten-

tion to detail Mr Bain was a model, and in this very necessary study he could be emulated by many- Mr Bain was deft in his appraisal of his part, and was a delightful stage personality. Miss Erana Ncwbold contributed an intriguing little comedy cameo with her representation of the sniffing maid,'and Miss Audrey Watson, Miss Doreen Dore, and Miss Jean Liddicoat were happily cast as the three languorous ladies who ba'tened on to the unresisting Jimmie. The scenes of the comedy, were given pointed effect. The first, act was, pardonably ’ enough on such an occasion,. rather slow-moving, but, from the brilliant beach setting that opened the second, the show was a lively spectacle that commanded close and delighted attention. But it was the dapeing that scored most decisively. The 1 Tea for Two ’ ballet was brilliantly conceived and executed, and the girls- dancing with dummies struck a very original note. Another intriguing innovation was the jaded style of the dance for the men and girls in immaculate evening dress and expressionless masks, a remarkably interesting presentation that conveyed a suggestion of Greek tragedy and Eugene O’Neill. The fan dance in the third act was one of the niost beautiful scenes of the production, a brilliant exemplification of grace and beauty .in motion.- Then there was the dance of the four girls with a beach ball, a material subject translated in poetic terms. , Even for its' dancing: alone ‘ No, No, Nanette 1’ should not be missed.

There will bo -performances of this highly diverting show nightly for the remainder of the week.