Austentatious - Piccadilly Theatre

Pride and Prejudice painted on some form of block

I was expecting to really enjoy this. I mean,

1) I love Jane Austen and am familiar with her works. 

2) I love the concept of a comedic, full-length improvised play in the style of Austen based on a humorous, bastardised Austen book title suggested by an audience member.

3) I have a sense of humour.

So...why didn't I like it?

First, I'll pay tribute to the set and costumes, which were excellent. The set started off as a wooden crate, which fell open when the title for the play had been decided upon, to reveal an impressive Regency drawing room interior. The costumes were all that one could wish for in a Regency-era play. The music, played by two musicians (violin and piano?) was also fitting and added to the humour.

The chosen title for the play was 'Seasoning and Seasonality', and began with one of the gentlemen adding seasoning to a meal. The improvisation was very clever - the cast's ability to craft a multi-layered storyline while constantly coming up with witticisms was impressive.

However, I didn't like it because I'd been expecting it to be set completely in the Regency era, and draw more from Austen novels trope-wise. I'd thought that was the point of it: to perform a comedic, parodic, ridiculous Austen-esque story - set at the time at which Austen's books are set. I'd imagined that was part of the challenge, and would be one of the main sources of humour.

Instead, they did an improvisation in Regency garb, loosely set during the Regency period, with a ton of modern references. Several of the scenes took place in a Lidl supermarket. One of the characters played a cashier. Aldi was also mentioned. There were parts that I found genuinely funny, like the  confusion over the boundaries of the indoor fire, the 'spectacular', and the flashback (all of which would've worked in a more authentically Austen-esque improvisation), but overall, the constant modern references rendered it less creative and clever to me than if they'd stuck to what I'd imagined was the brief. And less funny. But most of the audience seemed to find it hilarious, so I accept I'm an outlier.

Next: Satyagraha

photo credit: steeljam bb Pride and Prejudice Bloomsbury 9497 Back via photopin (license)

Pride and Prejudice - Regent's Park Open Air Theatre

Regent's Park Open Air Theatre - not great photo, sorry

'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a play based on a witty yet not hilarious book, which is rendered purely comedic, loses some of its soul.' - Alice Lambert

This was my first visit to Regent's Park Open Air Theatre. I was seated in one of the end seats on the back row; too far away to see facial expressions, but I did appreciate having a more complete view of the stage. It was quite special to see the actors skittering about the set like dolls in a Regency's doll's house. The revolving set, with stairs leading up to an elegant walkway/balcony, was impressive.

There were parts of this production that I thought were well done, but overall I wasn't keen on it. It was mostly played for laughs, which meant that the characters were portrayed in an over-the-top, parodic sort of way. Yes, I know Mrs Bennet, Mr Collins and Lydia are larger than life, parodic kinds of characters...but not to the extent that they were in this production; Mrs Bennet and Mr Collins especially. And Mary Bennet! I have a special affinity with Mary, having played her last year in the Hampstead Players' P&P, and was disappointed to see her portrayed so cartoonishly in this version by Leigh Quinn. She spoke like an elderly woman and her singing was ridiculously terrible.

I didn't warm to Tafline Steen as Elizabeth, either. I thought she was great in the contemporary play Charles III, in which she played art student Jess. In P&P she spoke with a posher accent but still seemed to use the same inflections and intonations as she had done in Charles III, which made Lizzy sound too modern. But - worse - she came across as flippant and glib, especially in the scene in which she was introduced to Lady Catherine de Bourgh. There wasn't much depth or reflectiveness to her at all. 

The action went at a whirlwind pace, with scarcely any build-up to Darcy's doomed first proposal, but the ending dragged. Mr Bennet took it upon himself in the penultimate(?) scene to recount his life story - the reasons why he had married Mrs Bennet etc. - which was mildly interesting but unnecessary. A lot could have been cut from the last few scenes and more time given to the Darcy/Lizzy relationship build-up. Also, Darcy's first proposal took place at Lady Catherine's house, when the other members of the party had just gone to dinner, and were presumably waiting for Darcy and Lizzy! Unrealistic!

Having said all that, there were parts of the play that I enjoyed and thought were very good:

• Costumes!
• The relationships between the sisters. I liked the way they related and reacted to one another non-verbally in the background. For example, Jane comforting Mary after her disastrous singing episode.
• The weird hopping dance at the Netherfield Ball performed by Lizzy and Darcy (and others). I know this was another example of a reasonably serious scene played for laughs - but I did actually find it genuinely funny. It was just quite strange and original to see them moving about like that. Was it an actual Regency-era dance? 
• Mr Bennet trying to leave the room as unobtrusively as possible while Mrs Bennet tried to convince Mr Collins that Lizzy would indeed marry him.
• The final scene in which different characters spoke aloud the letters they had written to other characters, who read and reacted to them non-verbally. For example, Lizzy reacted to a letter from Lydia, in which Lydia told her how much she was enjoying life with Wickham...but that they didn't have much money, and could Lizzy please send her some? 

Lastly: why did they call Anne de Bourgh 'Annabel'? I didn't get it.

Next: The Two Gentlemen of Verona

Pride and Prejudice - Hampstead Parish Church (Guest post)

Elegant Regency figures

The much-awaited and much-delayed guest review of Pride and Prejudice has finally arrived. My sincere apologies for the long wait, o fans of Alice’s London Theatre Blog – especially those in Russia who must be particularly desirous of the comfort and homely succor that this blog provides now that the Winter Solstice is upon us. I actually saw this production twice in one day. While the main reason for this was a plethora of visiting friends and relatives, my enjoyment was only magnified by the repetition – a testament to its energy and depth.

As it happens, I very nearly auditioned for this myself, but chose not to in the end. When the cast was announced, I was filled with an overwhelming sense of regret, such that only an experienced am-dram acting diva can feel, because I knew it would be a fantastic performance that I could no longer be part of. My expectations proved entirely correct.

Hampstead Players’ stalwart Sarah Day was perfectly cast as the concomitantly virtuous and sharp-witted Elizabeth Bennet, as amused by the world’s foibles as she is quietly dedicated to reposting them. Jon Waters seemed equally sincere as the congenitally arrogant Mr Darcy, his stiff pride providing much of the production’s comedy.

Two more stand-outs for me, amongst this very large and strong cast, were Rosie Wheat as the conceited alpha female Caroline Bingley, floating about the stage in a graceful haze of obnoxious self-satisfaction, and Matt Williams, whose perfect timing and facial expressions made for a Mr Collins so deluded that he was as painful as he was hilarious to witness. Special mention also goes to Margaret Pritchard Houston who, in addition to creating many of the impressive costumes (well done to the Players for going all out on this, you really can’t have a Jane Austen play without the textile eye candy), managed to make her handful of appearances as a put-upon servant laugh-out-loud moments, without ever being distracting or implausible.

I was also particularly taken by Alice Lambert’s unique rendering of Mary Bennet. The middle Bennet is generally portrayed as something of a fool, clumsily attempting pompous sermonizing to compensate for her plainness. This Mary, though clearly not immune to wanting to fight her own amongst her sisters, stood out as naturally elegant and swanlike, serenely gliding about the stage and providing what to her seemed like genuine aid to her less enlightened fellow mortals, delivered directly from the higher plane of philosophical abstractions which fortune had made her mind’s natural terrain. The tragi-comedy came from her more earthbound sistren’s reaction to these convoluted and cluelessly timed pontifications, and Mary’s hurt and incomprehension at being constantly rebuffed.

The true star of the piece was of course Jane Austen’s dialogue and the fascinating world to which has created a window, and through which we can see a strange intermingling of graceful pleasures and stiff hierarchy, strong individualism embedded into family honour, where women are permitted and expected to dazzle and shine as honourable and “accomplished” persons in their own right, all with the ultimate goal of proving their price at their family’s stall at the genteel marriage market.

It was this world that director Jane Mayfield was able to summon to the 21st Century, through an excellent adaptation of the book, delightful sets, an engaging pace with fast transitions, and some wonderfully choreographed (credit to Cristina Bancora) ballroom scenes, providing just the backdrop to the verbal sparring that we all want and expect from a great Jane Austen adaptation. It had none of the modern intrusions and frothiness of the 2005 film adaptation, and all of the the verve and dexterous philosophising of the 1813 book. Well done!

by Nicolas Holzapfel

Next: Guys and Dolls