I had not encountered The Canterbury Tales since struggling with the original text at school, and so was curious as to just how accessible this modern adaptation would prove to be.

In the event it proved to be both accessible and entertaining.

There were strong and self-assured performances from the entire cast, and the delivery of lines was seamless throughout the evening. These young actors are clearly versatile and accomplished – unsurprising perhaps in view of their already impressive biographies.

It was a real pleasure to be in the audience, and I was prompted to go away and read a little bit more about Chaucer and his work.

Sydney 12 Sep 2006

This adaptation of The Canterbury Tales imparts an astonishing collection of tales to a modern audience. Initiated by the Abingdon Touring Theatre Company, and adapted from the tales by Phil Woods and Michael Bogdanov in 1974, the production has made its mark with an accessible and staggering performance at the opening night of its regional tour. Enthralled by the opening night of The Canterbury Tales, this young, experimental and passionate cast, beaming its neon lights in Oxford’s otherwise drab theatrical darkness, won my appreciation without a qualm.

In 1387, the English poet, Geoffrey Chaucer began to write The Canterbury Tales, now understood to be a cornerstone of the English literary canon. The tales revolve around a narrator and a group of pilgrims as they travel from London to a shrine in Canterbury. Travelling with a mixed bag of twenty-seven pilgrims – including the Knight, the Miller, the Cook, the Man of Law, the Friar – each is asked to tell a story as they journey on to the Canterbury shrine. Each of the pilgrims relays a heart-warming plot, tragic dilemma or heroic story, all of which amalgamate into a cluster of tales that have survived almost as well as Shakespeare’s plays (both on the page and the stage). This stage adaptation takes those same tales, placing them in the context of a story-telling competition rather than the competition between pilgrims.

Playing a short selection of the tales, the cast brought to life the Knight, the Pardoner, the Merchant, the Wife of Bath, the Franklyn and the Miller with upbeat plots, appealing fluidity and on occasion, youthful and naked humour. The humour varies from the kissing and placing of a red-hot poker against two of the actor’s bottoms through to the sarcastic wit of Will Rooney (the Miller) throughout their multi-role performances. After also observing the clarity of narration delivered by Eliza Cardale (Knight), the brusque all-out vision of Marie Thomas Galvin (Pardoner), the charming brashness and chutzpah of Sarah Vanstone (Merchant), the superbly chameleonic skills of Andrina Amsdell (Franklyn) as she slipped between roles, the facially-expressive and must-have-been-born-to-act artfulness of Natalie Batten (Wife of Bath), I foresee a great future for the theatre company as it begins to now trundle the region with its characteristic humour and artistry.

This production is based on an adaptation which has at its heart a democratic, non-academic, populist outlook. This is, perhaps, where its true value seems to lie. As the guide to the production warns: “In 1974 Phil Woods and Michael Bogdanov felt that Chaucer had been seen as daunting and inaccessible by too many people for too long, and resolved to do something about it. … The resulting production … took a deliberately non-academic look at the tales.” This is an outlook not commonly afforded by other theatre groups and a move welcomed by the gripped and engaged audience.

James McConalogue 3 Aug 2006