February 12, 2010
Porridge. Say to yourself. Let's face it, it's not a word that immediately fills one with excitement, like say the word ‘fiesta’. But neither is it a word that is immediately repulsive, like say ‘expunge’. No, the word porridge just kind of sits there; being what it is in a very functional sort of way. Similarly, Porridge will neither blow your mind nor offend you. Rather it'll just do what it sets out to do and provide you some good solid entertainment.
Porridge, for those youngsters who might not know, was a 1970s sitcom following the inmates of a fictional Cumberland prison and their various antics with the prison guards. But then, if you didn't already know that you won’t be going to see this, will you?
The humour and atmosphere has transferred rather comfortably to the stage, and I felt the mood was also captured very well indeed. As it was in the sitcom, Porridge was simple fare, being neither the height of clever wit nor an outlet for vulgar humour. It was completely inoffensive and provided a constant stream of humour which, though producing few belly laughs, was never boring.
The array of characters came over as individual, likable and accessible. There were no grand displays of acting excellence because, frankly, they were simply not called for: The characters are simple and uncomplicated, so require no great subtlety or nuance, and the plot is always straightforward and playful, so does not call for any grand displays of well executed emotion. Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way criticizing the acting or the directing by saying this; it was exactly what was needed to capture the essence of Porridge. I mean, can you imagine how cringeworthy it would be if the familiar chirpy characters were turned into deep and emotional poets? Or how shocked we would be if the plot were made to be hard-hitting and dark? No, if you pay for Porridge, then Porridge is what you shall get.
For me, porridge the food is always sustaining, if a little bland. For others it could be a ritual that they simply couldn't do without. I suspect that the same is very much true for this play.
Porridge, for those youngsters who might not know, was a 1970s sitcom following the inmates of a fictional Cumberland prison and their various antics with the prison guards. But then, if you didn't already know that you won’t be going to see this, will you?
The humour and atmosphere has transferred rather comfortably to the stage, and I felt the mood was also captured very well indeed. As it was in the sitcom, Porridge was simple fare, being neither the height of clever wit nor an outlet for vulgar humour. It was completely inoffensive and provided a constant stream of humour which, though producing few belly laughs, was never boring.
The array of characters came over as individual, likable and accessible. There were no grand displays of acting excellence because, frankly, they were simply not called for: The characters are simple and uncomplicated, so require no great subtlety or nuance, and the plot is always straightforward and playful, so does not call for any grand displays of well executed emotion. Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way criticizing the acting or the directing by saying this; it was exactly what was needed to capture the essence of Porridge. I mean, can you imagine how cringeworthy it would be if the familiar chirpy characters were turned into deep and emotional poets? Or how shocked we would be if the plot were made to be hard-hitting and dark? No, if you pay for Porridge, then Porridge is what you shall get.
For me, porridge the food is always sustaining, if a little bland. For others it could be a ritual that they simply couldn't do without. I suspect that the same is very much true for this play.