Oxford Playhouse, 20-24 May 2008

---

Andrea Hopkins May 20, 2008

For connoisseurs of costume drama and drawing-room comedy, this is a tasty treat served up in a very pretty wrapping. I have to confess that as a reviewer it makes a very agreeable change, after numberless student productions of the cheap and cheerful variety, to watch a play with high production budgets, where the characters actually have more than one costume and the scenery doesn’t fall over if they lean on it. Set first in London and then at Oak Hall in the country, the costumes are from the neglected but glamorous era of the late 1830s, before prudery really hit, and chime beautifully with the slightly rakish and decadent values of the play (first produced in 1841).

At first glance one asks oneself how the 20-year-old Dion Boucicault (his real name!) could have carried off such a light, frothy, sparkling entertainment – it is such a confident piece of writing – but at second glance you realise that he has positioned himself squarely in the long and august line of theatrical tradition dealing with the anxieties attendant on that perennially fascinating question of whom one should marry, and why. The play sits comfortably in the afterglow of She Stoops to Conquer and The Clandestine Marriage, while the modern audience can clearly glimpse The Importance of Being Ernest looming in the distance. It features an arranged marriage between an eighteen year old heiress and a sixty-something roué; if she doesn’t marry him she will lose her entire inheritance, which will then go to his heir. Fortunately, his heir… you can probably guess. The plot, like the character names, is firmly traditional.

This is a touring production of the West Berkshire Playhouse, which has been very fortunate to attract the likes of theatrical giant (in every sense) Gerard Murphy as the vain but good-natured Sir Harcourt Courtly, and (LOVE those names) the completely wonderful and scene-stealing Geraldine McNulty as Lady Gay Spanker – these two were the backbone of the production and dominated the stage. Doing very nicely as the muscles and sinews were Laurence Mitchell as Sir Harcourt’s naughty son Charles, Clare Corbett as the delightfully feisty and spirited heroine, Grace Harkaway, and Alan McMahon, hilarious as Sir Harcourt’s resourceful valet Cool. Boucicault didn’t always exercise perfect judgement and there are one or two longueurs in the first three acts, mostly associated with the tiresome lawyer Meddle and the social-climbing imposter Dazzle, but these should not put you off a very enjoyable, depth-free evening – get tickets if you can.

I was looking forward to seeing the play at the Liverpool Playhouse and enjoyed it very much. Sir Harcourt and Lady Gay Spanker were the dominating stars of the show with good support from the rest of the cast. It is entertaining nonsense with no depth whatsoever, but some digs at lawyers wanting to create cash for themselves in manufactured lawsuits are always welcome (plus ca change)! The 'gentleman' class has largely gone from society so it is difficult to re-create this era but the 'hanger-on' who lives on the coat-tails of wealthy celebrities does seem to have survived in the modern era. The English 'gentleman' was supposed to be a man of good character and honour, word was his bond and all that, but with the right clothes and air of assurance an upwardly aspiring man could carry off the style if he had sufficient wit and brass neck to live off his wits and other people's means.

I had become aware of Dion B and the play through some research into Victorian theatre which had come about partly through finding material on the theatrical history of Liverpool, and partly after a visit to Wyndham's theatre in London. I had not been aware that Charles Wyndham, a famous actor manager specialising in light comedy who managed the Criterion for many years before building Wyndhams and the New, had been born in Liverpool (as Charles Culverwell) and briefly managed a theatre in Camden Street. Wyndham had played Shawn the Post at an early stage in his career but later revived London Assurance at the Criterion with his mistress Mary Moore in the early 1890s but setting the expensive costumes in the original period, much admired by Oscar Wilde who spent a lot of time writing about the clothes in the Daily Telegraph, particularly Wyndham and Arthur Bouchier in their frilled shirts and dashing cloaks." and it is only fair to add that at the end of the play Mr Wyndham accepts his lecture with a dignity and coutesy of manner that only result from the habit of wearing delightful clothes."

Lookin at the references to this production and the original in 1841 (All on Stage - Wyndham and the Alberys) I was surprised to notice that Wyndham, as Matthews before him who created the part, played Dazzle and this was considered the lead comic role. Yet Dazzle had not really shone in this production. I do not know whether it was deliberate or accidental that Sir Harcourt literally stole the show, but the part of Dazzle seemed puzzling and even a little weak in the Watermill production, but was clearly central in the original play. I would be interested to find out more about the decisions made/staging if possible. Congratulations all round. A fascintating insight for me and a good night at the theatre. Incidentally Charles Matthews' son, Charles James Matthews was born in Liverpool when his father was touring.

Judith Cain 7 Jun 2008

On the stage, a paeon of praise for the joys of hunting from the heroes and heroines of country house land. Being a 'gentleman': essential. Being 'of England': enough to make the heart burst with pride. The absence of social critique is a chasm. Although these are pre-industrial, almost Restoration comedy characters, we do note that the valet and butler of Sir Harcourt Courtly are in such terror of losing their jobs that they weave a tissue of (usefully theatrical) lies to support naughty young master Charles.

Out in the country, a wave of support for Glam Cam and Bucolic Boris. It's acknowledged that the Tories would repeal the hunting ban should they be returned to power, in all their finery. Has this august Watermill production presciently chimed with the coming times?

Also worth looking up the spectacularly rackety life of Dionysius Lardner Boucicault, a name not often contemporaneously conjured with but described in the handsome programme (aaah - production values) as 'the most commercially successful dramatist of 19th-century British and American theatre'.

jw 23 May 2008

Share this event