Synopsis
Programme
Impressions/Performances
It is an ambitious project to attempt to bring Alexandre Dumas's weighty tome to the stage. To fit into a two and a half hour running time (not including the break), and a cast of only six, the story has had to be very much condensed and we are dependent upon chunks of exposition in the dialog to inform us, sometimes belatedly, of much of what we have missed. It also calls for a profusion of multi-roling with rapid entrances and exits and changes of character in the blink of an eye on-stage. To mark the passage of time during Edmond's long prison sojourn we are introduced to the weekly changing of the toilet bucket and annual visit of the barber and medical examiner. The result is that, even for one with a basic familiarity with the story, this slimmed down, highly eccentric version is still a complex narrative to follow - and is only partially successful in capturing the basic essence of the story since so many important elements are so quickly glossed over. And I say eccentric because the drama is frequently counter-pointed not only with swashbuckling action, but also with outbursts of humour, song, dance, puppetry and even cross-dressing.
As justification for these aberrations, the director, Alan Lane, points to the original book being 'irreverant' and explains that his version, penned by Joel Horwood, has been adapted for a contemporary audience. On the first count Dumas's book may have been 'irreverent' but it was never, at any level, farcical. Lane's handling, on the other hand, is blatantly over-the-top, lacking any degree of subtlety, and as such is not so much irreverant as irrational. He has, for example, seized upon there being an element of cross-dressing in the book (presumably referring to the excessive masculinity of the character of Eugenie) and has then raised this to a ridiculous extreme in the form of a woman playing the part of the male banker, Danglars, and a man with full moustache and sideburns playing the part of 'his' wife! As for adapting the piece for a contemporary audience, it is a historical work anchored firmly to the period in which it is set, and to seemingly suggest that the audience could not understand it without turning the characters into modern-day chavs is lowering us all to the level of school-children.
The humour was also, for the most part, of a fairly childish standard. If it had been genuinely funnier the whole thing might have worked on a different level, but as weak as the humour is it does nothing more than undermine the sincerity of what is otherwise a gritty and sanguine story - a cynical mind might might even ask whether it was simply a ploy to side-step the obvious dramatic rigours of staging such a complex and emotional story.
The set for the production is a simplistic arrangement of folding panels - black when closed for the prison scenes, brightly coloured with open arches when opened - whilst the costumes range from period influenced to unapolagetically modern - and again largely drab in the first act and equally colourful in the second. In the fact the look of the second half pretty much through it's entirety is very psychadelic so that the production then has something of the feel of a 1960's acid trip! The cast, Daniel Rigby, Polly Frame, Tilly Gaunt, Pieter Lawman, Oliver Senton and Duncan Wisbey, do, however, give the production their all and play their many roles with commendable belief and great bravado - even when asked to adopt some quite ridiculous accents (why should the French soldiers have Irish accents or Villefort's long-lost son Australian?).
Promoted as "a reckless, swashbuckling new adaptation" it certainly fits the bill on both counts, only in the former not in a good way. 'Foolhardy' would perhaps be a better word. As a piece of serious theater it falls far short of even the meagrest expections. As a fast-paced whirligig of action it has some merits but not enough to compensate for the cavalier handling of the drama. To be fair, judging from overheard comments during the interval there were certainly those present who enjoyed this type of 'reckless' approach. I, unfortunately, found it rather noisome.
Verdict
A highly eccentric take on the classic story. Funny at times with plenty of action, but captures little of the poignancy or emotional angst of the original story.
Don Gillan - www.stagebeauty.net