Clifton College Website

Hallward's House House Play 2010 - The Women

I must confess that I did not go to this review in the best of mindsets. While the house has a reputation for good actresses, their track record in the House Play competition before has rarely matched it, at least when it comes to the Clifton Oscars. I was increasingly cynical, furthermore, due to a great deal of hype surrounding a dance - more on that later - and the blatant sex-appeal of the posters. The inability to guard against counterfeit tickets (while also demonstrating their popularity) did leave me with a feeling of anxiety. This was further heightened when, despite the colloquial and distinct femininity of the setting, the first scene failed to win me. I did approve of the good lighting, and of course the real sound courtesy of Owen Franklin (which throughout was highly successful) but felt less kindly about the poor curtain discipline - I could see multiple actresses at any given time - and, upon the transition to the second scene, the veritable army of stagehands which erupted. While I became increasingly aware that there were difficulties with the set, due to its size, the stagehands were very numerous and not terribly subtle. I found it very chaotic. My anxiety increased, causing me to wonder whether this play would really highlight the actresses successfully, whether it would resonate with the majority of the audience.

The second scene, and the entire rest of the play, put my mind at ease. The lighting, props, characterisation - everything began to flow seamlessly, creating a colourful 1930s piece, filled with exceptionally well-acted parts, although some of them were hardly three-dimensional; yet that is hardly a criticism, if they work and interact well enough. Mary Haines (Ella Holbrook) gave a distinct impression of devotion and dedication, both to husband and children. I found myself very quickly sympathising with her, and throughout the play, she seemed almost a martyr to love. Sylvia (Venetia Sims) did equally well, hitting a precise line between Mary and Crystal (Agnes Woolley) – while she is hardly faithful herself, she is witty and manipulative and occasionally vicious – a true vixen. Crystal was played admirably, for I found her to have almost no redeeming features – bitchy, unlikable and clearly deceitful. It is a credit to the general quality of the actresses involved that even minor roles, such as Nancy (Damaris Dresser) had distinct characterisation, ranging from the matronly and cryptic (Mrs Morehead, Abi Hallworth) to the maids. I, like many others in the audience, was highly impressed by the comedic value of Jane (Amelia Allen). I would go so far as to say that the maids fulfilled a role not unlike the porter in Macbeth, providing much needed comedy and cryptic hints of what’s to come. Other highlights included Mary (Mabel Moll) who, despite being timorously quiet at first, managed to bring sufficient youthful exuberance – coupled with a seeming desire to annoy Crystal as much as humanly possible – to be distinctive and impressive.

I feel it necessary to talk, on this point, about several things which improved and yet also definitely marred the play. The first was the difficulty of genre. Frequently, the mood would shift from drama, to comedy, comedy to drama. The sharp-tongued wit frequently gave way to confrontations, sometimes within the same scene, particularly the climax. This overall gave a rather schizophrenic impression; I was never sure what was meant to be drama, and what was meant to be vicious comedy. The second was the sex appeal. Although the costumes were definitely 1930s in style, impressively selected (besides one or two hats) and artistically arranged ... there was far too much bare flesh, showing of lingerie and general sexuality as a part of the play for it to be anything but deliberate. While I most definitely appreciated all of this, I was left with the feeling it was an approval-seeking gimmick, designed to score points on charms other than acting ability. I’m pleased to say that was unnecessary, because the acting was very good, but the fact that it was unnecessary made it all the more jarring. And lastly, following from the sex appeal, we have the dance sequence.

The dance sequence was, naturally, exceptionally well-choreographed, elegant and attractive. It was hyped up, promoted via word of mouth to everyone, and most likely helped contribute to the counterfeit tickets situation. It was wildly popular (given that the audience was perhaps 80% male) and definitely sexy. The anachronisms could easily be ignored, and it was a very impressive moment (I wish I was able to whistle). However, this does not excuse the fact that it came completely out of nowhere, was totally dramatically unnecessary and of totally the wrong era - building up absolutely nothing between the characters, giving us no development, showing no facet of the characters – and was never referenced again. It could have, and should have, been cut if at all possible to focus on more scenes of actual acting. As a dance, it was brilliant. It should not have been in a non-musical play.

But despite my harsh words on the dance, I was impressed by almost every facet of the play, the stagecraft being the noticeable exception. This year Hallward’s produced a solid play, full of worth and wit and worthy of being called a good House Play. Keep on trucking, ladies!

(And dancing. We liked that bit.)

© 2006-12 Clifton College