|
I've always been a fan of Michael Corbidge, right from one of his first
works in Singapore as a writer (A
Perfect Love Affair) in 2001 and he has subsequently impressed
me as an actor over the years in productions such as Lonely
Planet and One
Flea Spare. What I particularly like about Corbidge is his
consistency. I can always count on him to have good taste in his choice
of material and to give, at the very least, a solid performance every
time. He did not disappoint with The Dresser. Ronald Harwood's
script is truly wonderful: this distinctly English period comedy is
consistently funny - witty in all the right places while also confident
enough to engage in some slapstick for the big, easy laughs - but it
also builds nicely to a moving finish without betraying its two central
characters or seeming contrived. And Corbidge filled out the part of
Sir, a traveling Shakesperian actor with dreams of grandeur, beautifully
with a nicely rounded larger-than-life performance. He also allowed
the character to be small and fidgety at times and this added a nice
contrast, making Sir seem softer and more two-dimensional.
The surprise for me, then, was Adrian Pang as Sir's fey dresser, Norman.
Despite his acclaim, I've known him essentially as a TV actor and have
never actually seen him perform on stage before. What I loved about
his performance here was not just how he captured so perfectly Norman's
fussiness and flamboyance and delivered his tart lines with such bite
and expert timing but that he was never condescending to this character
that could so easily have been played as a stereotype. This enabled
us to relate to Norman as more than a caricature and sympathise with
him when, at the end, he realises that the egocentric Sir had never
truly loved him, despite Norman's devotion to him for many years as
his assistant.
The direction by Tracie Pang was another reason for the show's success.
Besides eliciting strong performances from her two leads, she also managed
to create a real sense of time and space. The backstage life of a traveling
theatre group in the 1940s was brought vividly to the stage with ensemble
actors milling around even when they had no lines to speak and careful
detail having clearly been paid to costumes and props. Sebastian Zeng's
incisive set design also helped, allowing us to see supposedly backstage
and also onstage when Sir's group was performing King Lear
to an invisible audience, and also to literally see through walls and
thus spy on furtive conversations.
Where I fault her, though, is in her choice of supporting actors. A
lot of the colour of the play was drained away through their involvement.
Susan Tordoff as Sir's weary paramour turned in a quiet and nicely-nuanced
performance but the young actors playing the group's ensemble were only
adequate (and therefore totally overshadowed by Corbidge and Pang) and
the more experienced actors in supporting roles were simply very oddly
cast. Pam Oei as stage manager, Madge, had little chemistry with Corbidge
either as a friend or a lover. The stoic role simply did not play up
to her strengths and she overcompensated when trying to rein in her
natural vivacity, resulting in a colourless performance. I had no issue
with Gerald Chew's performance as one of the actors in the group...
other than that he was playing no older than his own age and therefore
not convincing as a toothless old geezer who had difficulty walking.
In fact, I would have preferred most of the cast to play their parts
older, if not, to have actually been older. A lot of the emotion at
the end of the play comes from the sense of lives having been wasted
because the characters have never been brave enough to confront reality
or take control of their own lives. I feel the impact would have been
greater if you had a stronger sense that these people had traveled a
great journey of time to arrive at this point and that, as they were
already nearing the end of their lives, there would be no second chances
for them any more (although, admittedly, the play's being set during
a time of war did already touch on this to some extent).
Whatever the case, please don't think I did not enjoy the show or see
The Dresser as anything other that a resounding triumph for
the SRT. Comedy of this nature - and The Dresser is essentially
a comedy and should be judged as one - is not easy because rhythm and
tempo have to be timed perfectly, but the cast and director managed
to pull it off with great aplomb. A night out very well-spent indeed.
|
"Comedy of this nature is not easy because rhythm and tempo have
to be timed perfectly, but the cast and director managed to pull it
off with great aplomb"
Credits
Written by Ronald Harwood
Directed by Tracie Pang
Set Design by Sebastian Zeng
Lighting Design by Yo Shao Ann
Sound Design by Darren Ng
Costume Design by Yang Derong
Hair Design by Ashley Lim
Cast: Adrian Pang, Susan Tordoff, Pamela Oei, Michael
Corbidge, Wong Ping Ping, Gerald Chew, Ashraf Safdar, Jared Kok and
Anton Chan
|
|
From: The Editor (matthewlyon@myway.com / Saturday, July 8, 2006 at 22:55:13)
Got anything to say about the review or the production? Click the button above to let us know.
From: Yi-Sheng (ng.yisheng@gmail.com / Sunday, July 9, 2006 at 00:19:49)
I would have given the play 4 1/2 stars, in fact. My overall experience of the play was *that* good - Adrian and Michael together were just magic, and the pathos and tightness of the script itself made it a marvellous experience. And I wasn't surprised by Adrian's adroitness at all; I saw him in SRT's Hamlet years ago, and if you can pull off a great Hamlet, you can manage plenty.
There seemed to be an issue with stage presence of most of the supporting cast - partly because they weren't given enough time to develop their roles, I guess. Consequently I thought Ashraf Husain was rather competent in his role as the upstart actor demanding more attention, because that role allowed him to assert himself. Most people were overshadowed by the main duo in the end though - hard to say if that was a bad thing.
From: Kenneth (bluekei@yahoo.com / Monday, July 10, 2006 at 09:57:21)
I thought that the more inexperienced actors were generally okay but a couple did show their, well, inexperience in their performance. They were not as confident or as able to command the stage as, say, Corbidge and Pang (i.e. it is not that they were not good per se but just "not as good"). Of course, the fact is that young actors do need the chance to perform precisely so that they can continue to grow and gain experience (catch 22?) - and I agree that the ones in The Dresser were certainly not without promise. However, from an objective point of view, I still feel that there was an imbalance with Corbidge and Pang (and, to some extent, Tordoff) being so much stronger. If all the supporting cast had been able to raise their game to the next level, the gap would have been less obvious and ensured a more consistent energy throughout the play. I must disagree with you that they "weren't given enough time to develop their roles" - a couple of them played short but quite key parts. I don't think we - or they themselves! - should sell their parts short. And hey, Judi Dench won an Oscar for an eight-minute appearance in Shakespeare In Love :)
From: Esther (estherseo13@gmail.com / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 14:33:00)
I was entertained by this play too. First time I've seen Adrian Pang on stage and thoroughly impressed! Didn't really like Michael Corbridge though, but that might have been more the fault of the playwright and not a sign of the actor's skills. I thought some of the supporting cast were miscast, while others needed to let up on the affected acting. Very imaginative set design. I felt the play was a bit draggy in the second half - scary to think how much draggier it would have been had it been left at its original three hours.
|
