What a lot of poor reviews
A Right Royal Farce got! As
you know,
Theatre Record doesn’t
carry reviews’ star ratings, but it’s worthy of remark that even
Nicholas de Jongh has never, to the best of his recollection, given a
no-star review before. If I were Ian Herbert, I might at this
point embark on a nobly contrarian defence of Toby Young and Lloyd
Evans’ piece; but I’m not, so instead I shall simply point out that I
told you so a year ago. The faults of
A Right Royal Farce are exactly
the same as those of
Who’s The Daddy?,
Young & Evans’ 2005 farce about bed-hopping at
The Spectator magazine: no sense
of pace or momentum, direction and performances which generally make
Spitting Image look like Ingmar
Bergman, and a reliance on jeering rather than wit.
The question is why did so many of us indulge this kind of exercise
when it was directed at media folk and a politico, yet turn their noses
up when the same approach was applied to the royal family? I
don’t think it’s due to any hangover of feudal allegiance to the
latter, not even of the “oh, bad show, when they can’t answer back”
kind – we all know that various royal press officers can spin and leak
with every bit as much dedication as their political
counterparts. I’m inclined to believe that we embraced
Who’s The Daddy? (those of us who
did) because of the location of its subject matter: close enough to us
that we could seem good sports by chuckling along, far enough away that
its mud-flinging didn’t leave any noticeable marks on us.
Sporadic
Not reprinted in this issue, but available on the
Guardian’s web site, is a piece
written by Young & Evans in that paper’s “Yes, But…” column
(renamed from “Right Of Reply”, perhaps in an effort to seem less
confrontational or to discourage writers from digging their heels
in). In this piece they profess astonishment at the strength of
the negative reaction, protesting that “Everyone laughed on press
night, except the critics.” Perhaps Young and Evans were at a
different press night from the one I attended, which was punctuated
only by sporadic titters, and those largely of the “I can’t believe
this is happening” kind; in fact, Evans almost certainly was – his
apparent absence on press night was the subject of some comment amongst
our colleagues.
The authors, of course, enjoy the last laugh, professing that the show
played to packed houses, and smirk, “this is worrying to us as critics.
Our revered profession now looks almost redundant”… thus revealing two
fundamental misconceptions: the first being that criticism either is
intended or able to influence box-office significantly, the second that
popularity equals quality, by which reasoning the Big Mac is the
pinnacle of
haute cuisine and
Heat magazine the zenith of
the literary periodical. Remember: he who laughs last probably
didn’t get the joke.
Stilted
Mind you, I’ve often felt that way about various works myself. It
was, for instance, only towards the end of my third year of doctoral
research on James Joyce that it was delicately hinted to me that I
might be barking up the wrong tree altogether. It was with great
relief, then, that I saw James Macdonald’s production of Joyce’s
Exiles and found it entirely
faithful to my conception of the play. The trouble is that that
conception holds it to be dull, stilted and almost entirely
unsuccessful. I admire Joyce’s prose to the point of idolatry
(and probably beyond), but it has to be acknowledged that he was not a
master of all forms. His verse was by and large trite and
sentimental, and
Exiles, his
only play, betrays his own immense admiration for Ibsen without showing
a similar grasp of what makes for drama.
Contrary to claims in some reviews, Peter McDonald is not either
excessively underplaying his part as protagonist Richard Rowan nor
slightly bewildered as to what tone to adopt; he is playing the
character as written. Try as I might, I cannot find in myself the
enthusiasm that others do for the psychological acuity and explicitness
of the dialogue, when it these are vested in characters who are neither
real by the standards of drama in Joyce’s day or ours, nor
hyperrealistically vibrant as are those in his novels and
stories. I am extremely glad to have had the opportunity to see
the play, but I think once may be enough for this lifetime.
Written for Theatre
Record.