Theatre Review: The Entertainer (& Poetry)

[kangeiko]

Last night, monanotlisa and I went to the 50th anniversary performance of The Entertainer, starring Robert Lindsay and Pam Ferris at the Old Vic Theatre, courtesy of athena25 crazay skillz.

The Entertainer - Q&A
Before the show, though, we got to attend the Q&A with the actors. Free wine, always a good start. It was a little too early for me, though, so I dosed monanotlisa with it instead. The Q&A was with Robert, pam and Sean, the director, and followed the usual format - an MC going through a series of set questions, and then taking questions from the audience later. The MC seemed to know his stuff, which was a relief. There's nothing more cringe-worthy than an interviewer who doesn't know what he's talking about! The topics mainly stayed focused on theatre - the original staging of the play, the new staging, and the actors' and director's individual theatre backgrounds - and stayed well away from their respective tv and film careers. Indeed, Robert pointed out that theatre is what they've been trained to do; "TV is what we do to pay the bills," which I thought was very apt, considering the company. A not-insignificant number of people in the audience had seen the original staging (with Laurence Olivier as Archie Rice), and had a great many insights into the differences between the two runs. A lot of the difference seemed to stem from the fact that Robert is not Laurence Olivier - which is a good thing in this case! - and, as such, you watched the play, not the actor. After watching the play, I agreed with this: Robert was supremely convincing as Archie Rice, which wouldn't necessarily have been possible otherwise.

The MC also talked about Osborne for a bit, suggesting that there was a touch of Stringberg about this particular play (!), which had me in hysterics, basically. monanotlisa had no idea what was so funny, bless her soul, not having had post-war British theatre shoved down her throat. I was a little worried about the technical nature of the talk, actually - as I said, a significant portion of the audience had seen the original run, and were heavily involved in theatre, so there was quite a bit of theatre theory floating about. monanotlisa was shifting in her seat by the end.

All in all, the talk was good, and very informative, but possibly a bit too technical in nature. (The director, for instance, spent considerable time talking about cross-cuts and the uses of the proscenium.) Pam Ferris, though, did have very interesting things to say about how she, as an actor, approached taking on the role of Phoebe and (according to the MC) turning out the definitive performance. This, too, was very focused on the technical aspects of stagecraft, but she brought her own anecdotes and personal experiences into the account, which helped.

*

At any rate, by the end of it, I was a little worried - the audience at the Q&A had seen the play the previous night, and there's nothing worse than having theatre dissected before you've had a chance to see it!

monanotlisa and I bought a bite to eat from Waterloo station and then sat outside the theatre, munching away. A homeless guy came to sit with us, so we talked to him for a while. When we went back inside, we were considerably quieter.

The Entertainer
The show was magnificent. I have never been a big fan of Osborne because he's so bloody depressing - and he's just so sad about his anger, rather than, say, Bond's gleeful malice - so I was a little unsettled at first. I have to say that it was just as depressing as I was expecting, but with odd, uplifting moments. Of course, they were mainly there for Osborne to crush the audience's hope even more thoroughly later on, but you get my point.

Pam Ferris quite stole the show, I think. Well, her and Robert Lindsay, anyway - the rest of the cast were very good, of those two were astounding. I totally agree with the MC's comment that Pam came out with the definitive Phoebe performance. Also, I think I can see how a more charismatic and stately actor - such as Olivier - would be off-putting as Archie Rice. You need someone who has a dash of the everyman about him to play Archie, to make him someone seductive, whose charms were long-since dissipated, and only tricks are left in their place. Robert plays him with such sadness - the smiling clown - and such quiet viciousness that you completely buy both Archie's appeal and his self-absorption. Bit by bit, he loses everything and everyone that might have mattered to him.

The last scene struck me as very Brechtian in the way it was staged. The scene numbers had flashed up on glowing bulb displays on either side of the stage, and some scenes took place back of the proscenium ('in play' scenes), some in front of it (Archie speaking directly to the audience as an audience). The last scene took up the velvet curtain - and there was no backdrop, no set behind it. Everything had been pulled back to reveal the shell of the inside of an abandoned theatre. The audience watched Archie stand on the edge of the stage and take his leave of them. And then, very slowly, he followed Pam 'backstage' - both literally and within the confines of the play.

And if that doesn't break your meta brain, I don't know what will. :)

All in all, I give it 9 out of 10.

*

And, now, some poetry for you all. April is National Poetry Month, isn't it?

Untitled by Aleksandar Ristovic

Time of fools is coming,
time of the fairground tent
and the one with a clown's face
cursing God.

Time of the peacock quill,
the quill that glides from right to left
over the paper downside up.

Time when you won't lift your little finger
without dipping into something
they call indecent.

Time of fools is coming,
time of the know-nothing professor
and the book that can't be cracked open
at either edge.