Arts Club Theatre's The Importance of Being Earnest verges on vulgarity over polish

Comments

By Oscar Wilde. Directed by David Mackay. An Arts Club Theatre production. At the Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage on Wednesday, March 21. Continues until April 15

Director David Mackay seems to think that he’s funnier than Oscar Wilde. He is gravely mistaken. In this Arts Club production, Mackay takes The Importance of Being Earnest, the wittiest play in the English language, and bludgeons it almost to death with vulgarity, adding, among other excesses, a fart joke and a food fight. Why?

The Importance of Being Earnest has been making people laugh since it premiered in 1895—because it’s sublimely stylish. The absurd plot centres on two young toffs, Algernon and Jack. Both, for reasons of their own, pretend to be named Earnest, and two comely young women—Cecily and Gwendolen—fall in love with them, largely based on the strength of that stalwart moniker.

Language is front and centre in The Importance of Being Earnest. Through their filigreed sentences, Wilde’s well-heeled characters send up the anti-intellectual stupidities of wealthy Victorians. When Jack proposes to Gwendolen, he must face an interview with her mother, the formidable Lady Bracknell, who opines, “The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.”

Much of the comedy in the play bubbles out of the tension that arises between its genteel surfaces and its savage undertow. When Gwendolen and Cecily meet for the first time, they quickly fall into a spat about who is really engaged to Earnest Worthing. In order, the stage directions for their lines read, “Quite politely, rising”, Very politely, rising”, “Meditatively”, and “Thoughtfully and sadly”; as the venom amps up, so do the manners. That’s the point.

But Mackay runs roughshod over Wilde’s polished surfaces and he explodes—and destroys—the play's comic tensions. Often he does so by applying the excesses of lower forms of Victorian entertainment. Mackay begins his interpretation with a music-hall-inspired dumb show that gives away the script’s most crucial plot point. He treats several scenes as if they were melodrama: his characters pose and gesticulate, throttling their repartee. And through sound designer Murray Price, Mackay adds melodramatic piano accompaniment, gumming up the superior music of the script. Rather than engaging in wickedly polite exchanges, his actors yell, physically fight, spit on one another, and throw food around the stage. He even has Gwendolen make a cunt joke. Really. In her tiff with Cecily, Amber Lewis, this production’s Gwendolen, says, “I had no idea there were any flowers in the CUNT-ry.”

It’s sad, because many of the performers in this show could have honoured the script and revealed its true riches, given better direction. Impressively, recent Studio 58 graduate Ella Simon, who plays Cecily, has the lightest—and most effective—touch. In the second half, she shares a scene with Charlie Gallant’s Algernon—Gallant dials it down during this passage—and you can see the script peeking through the muck of Mackay’s vision. Simon Bradbury mostly hits the right baffled notes as local curate Reverend Chasuble. And Allan Zinyk has his moments playing Lady Bracknell in drag, but it’s not the bravura performance I had hoped for.

Amir Ofek is one of the most creative set designers in town, and within the terms of Mackay’s vision, he delivers. But the vision and the sets are still grossly overstated. In Act 1, which takes place in Algernon’s London rooms, the dominant set pieces are a gigantic hand mirror and an enormous top hat. When Lady Bracknell arrives and wants to sit down, she has to jump onto the top hat to do it.

Does Mackay really think that Oscar Wilde needs his help to be funny? Or does he think that Vancouver audiences aren’t clever enough to grasp genuine wit? Whatever motivated Mackay, the results, in this production, are a disaster.

Comments (46) Add New Comment
David Mackay
Thanks, Colin. The last time you slammed me this hard was for 'Twelfth Night'. That ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard. Thhe general audience reception has been ecstatic. I'm sure the Arts Club will do very well by it.
1
4
Rating: -3
rick waines
That was a sound thrashing. For what it is worth I found myself tickled by both Oscars truly magnificent language and the physicality that was clearly unique to this production. I found my higher and lower self massaged most thoroughly. And who doesn't like a good massage?
0
1
Rating: -1
VSOP
I couldn't agree more with Colin! Those poor actors, as if they don't have enough on their plates without acting through some misinturpted concept.
And David... so what your previous production "made money." So does Wallmart and Goldman Saks. You must be so proud
2
0
Rating: +2
PleaseWhatever
Ladies, ladies! Please. No one cares.
0
1
Rating: -1
Hate that
I hate it when the actors try to play off the contemporary slang meaning that was never intended. I know they think it's clever but it comes off sounding so silly.
Seems like lazy acting.
1
1
Rating: 0
Emily B
David Mackay took the time to read his own press, then comment on it, and all he could say was (my) "Twelfth Night...ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard."
Colin T criticized David Mackay's artistic choices and David's only comment in regards to his art was; (my) "Twelfth Night...ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard."
Oh well then he must be a great director! His "Twelfth Night...ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard." He must really know his Oscar Wilde because "Twelfth Night...ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard." I bet he's a really great guy and is invited to all the best dinner parties because his "Twelfth Night...ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard." Hey everyone did you know that David Mackay's "Twelfth Night...ended up being the highest grossing show for Bard."

As for the show... great act 1 set but wrong for this show. Act 2 was a better act because there was less "concept."

And as for the review, I think Colin T went easy on director David MacKay
0
1
Rating: -1
B. Samuels
Why do I bother reading what I thought was the alternative arts magazine in a major city to read some slap dash writing from someone more conservative than a bloody Victorian, and less informed than a first year literature student?

I have been seeing theatre my whole life, all over the world, and in fact come from a family with a long illustrious heritage in the arts, and I can tell you that the amount of thoughtful consideration and meticulous execution evident in this production is incontestable.

So how could Mr. Thomas sit down and dash off a nasty little piece of late night writing within a few hours of seeing the production and think he has anything worthwhile to say?

Mr. Thomas, do you really think it was an accident that Oscar Wilde has Gwendolyn use the word country four times in five consecutive sentences when she's having a cat fight with her rival? Most professional writers are known to be quite deliberate in their use of language. That you don't credit Oscar Wilde with that rigor or intelligence seems a little unfair of you.

You exalt Wilde but don't seem to actually understand his genius.

Why does this city put up with such poor thinking in it's papers? Has anyone put forward the idea that it isn't the general populace who don't value arts and culture in this city, but its local critics? To read Marsha Lederman in the Globe and Mail or Colin Thomas in the Georgia Straight you'd believe Vancouver was a cultural backwater. To sit in the house with paying audience members and watch these performers you'd know very well you weren't.

Ignore the humorless and gravely mistaken Mr. Thomas. The performances from Mr. Beil and Mr. Gallant would be a standout in any cosmopolitan city. Be your own judge.
2
2
Rating: 0
East Van Arts
An excellent review of a fatally-flawed production.

Clearly, Mr Mackay neither trusts nor respects Wilde. Like many self-important directors, he seeks to 'improve' on Wilde by adding whacks and thumps and cheap gimmicks that the author never intended.

Wilde was perfectly capable of writing "add clownish gesture here", or "apply vaudeville schtick there". Strangely, he failed to do any of that. Rather, Wilde trusted his audience to grasp his language, follow his wit, and understand his intent. By way of reward, his audience -- for more than 117 years -- is given the most near-perfect comedy since Shakespeare.

'The Importance of Being Earnest' flies on language, understatement, and the ability to speak the absurd with an absolutely straight face. Wilde devastates the very concept of the class system by allowing it to speak its own meaning, however unintentionally.

The director of this foolish production doesn't understand Wilde, the play, or his audience.

Imagine a curator putting a clown nose on the Mona Lisa, in order to heighten the comedy... and that's what bad directors do when they impose their coarse 'vision' on original genius.

Thanks, but no thanks. We prefer to let Oscar Wilde speak for himself.
2
0
Rating: +2
Ann Orther
Left after the first act.
2
2
Rating: 0
Dick Grayson
First let me be crystal clear I don't work for the Arts Club. I saw this last Saturday and found it delightful. It's very well put together and quite a lot of fun. My sincere compliments to the director, fine actors and crew. Well done and on with the show! Bravura!
0
3
Rating: -3
Hazlit
Hmm, what to do? I found Mr. Thomas' review of Lear absolutely wrong--there it seems to me he didn't mind what I saw as a fatally overplayed production with little or no subtlety. Here he talks about overplaying a verbally witty comedy and I'm inclined to believe him. I love understated, underplayed, classic theatre. Should I go see this play? Let me know.
0
2
Rating: -2
Sarah Lind
I'd have never put in writing that David Mackay seems to ruin everything he touches, but his response to this review has removed any fear of being rude I had. I had high hopes for this production but within the first 10 minutes they were gone when the great Simon Bradbury had to wave a hat across his butt, fanning away a fart he apparantly let out while speaking to his love interest. Bah!
1
0
Rating: +1
Martin Dunphy
I attended this production on Thursday (March 22), and although I feel that some of the performances bordered on marvellous, and even occasionally inspiring, the whole of the effect bestowed the impression that Oscar Wilde possessed a giant ham for a writing hand. To me, and to lovers of Wilde, that is sacrilege. To the disdain bestowed upon the aforementioned flatus interpolation I will add my disappointment with the déclassé buffoonery displayed by the insertion of the phallic watering-can spout and Prism and Chasuble's subsequent discomfiture.
Wilde's devastatingly incisive comedy of manners is reduced to some manner of comedy.
2
1
Rating: +1
evan o
@B. Samuels. The fact that Wilde intentionally used the word "country" for its sound associations cannot be a justification in itself for the director to direct/allow an actor to hammer it home unsubtly with an emphatic line-reading.
0
2
Rating: -2
Rob Roy
Here's what David Mackay said in May 2008...

9. Given a time machine, what would you tell a young David Mackay just starting a career in the theatre?
-- Don’t read reviews, good or bad, you’re wasting time either gloating or seething, read more plays.

and this:
8. How do you keep Shakespeare relevant for the uninitiated?
-- Let the language be heard. In rehearsal, trust that the funniest guy in the room is Shakespeare. SOURCE: http://thenextstage.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/this-one-goes-to-eleven-dav...

If only Mr Mackay remembered what he said just four years ago...

A director is ill-moved to lead a play he does not understand, for an audience he does not respect.

Let Wilde be Wilde, and one will never be never disappointed.
2
0
Rating: +2
T. E. Bradshaw
Did Mr. Thomas and I see the same play?
1
2
Rating: -1
Fancy Pants
Firstly, just because a reviewer does not share your opinion, it does not mean said reviewer is an incompetent moron. There is nothing more eye rolling than the wounded yowling of the "agree with me, validate me or feel my wrath" crowd that clutters the message boards of the world.

Secondly, Colin Thomas is one of the last of a disappearing breed: intelligent, erudite and experienced reviewers who calmly and rationally calls 'em as he sees 'em. The death of the late, great Lloyd Dykk has thinned the herd even more. I have disagreed with Colin on a number of occasions; doesn't mean I don't appreciate him.

And finally, I ceased attending Bard on the Beach years, decades, ago for just the reasons listed above. Too often the astonishing deliciousness of the language is ignored in favour of cheap laughs. The bumpkins may be buying out the theatre but it doesn't mean that those of us who know better have to tolerate it. This production just sounds depressing.
2
0
Rating: +2
Gwendolen Fairfax
Anyone who agrees that there is little to no value in staging the classics today unless we have new, radical interpretations of them will celebrate David Mackay’s The Importance of Being Earnest. Indeed, anyone who celebrates artistic risk will celebrate this production.

David’s concept features a sound, culturally relevant reading of the play: he is interested in the parallels between the deceitful performances that Wilde’s characters put on for each other and the ways in which we create and perform identities today by premeditating every tweet and every status update with the intention of seeming as beautiful and morally superior as possible.

By exploiting these ideas, David also pays tribute to Oscar Wilde. Anyone who is familiar with Wilde’s biography will know that his life was a complex web of lies and secrecy, forcing him to constantly perform different versions of himself: less than two months after the premiere of The Importance of Being Earnest, Wilde was imprisoned for sodomy.

But David’s respect for Wilde and his work does not end here: a brief look at the text reveals that the food fight between Jack and Algernon that Mr. Thomas references is built into the play—and that’s only one of many ways in which this production honors the text. If you know Oscar Wilde, you might also know that he loved Shakespeare, who was the first to make cunt jokes in Hamlet.

Today it is common practice to explicitly discourage university students from trying to decode authorial intent. We now recognize that text does not contain any specific “Truth” or “meaning”—that unlike Mr. Thomas’s assumption, there is no one right way of interpreting and staging a piece of text.

Students find this realization liberating as it allows them to draw connections between themselves and the literature they’re reading. It usually also leads them to abolish false dichotomies, such as those between the past and the present, and between high and low culture—two erroneous distinctions Mr. Thomas makes in his review. And ultimately, it’s this generation of students we need to get out to the theatre now—where Oscar Wilde meets Facebook and Gossip Girl.
0
1
Rating: -1
TrueConservative
Make no assumptions about the reviewer's authorial intent.
Decoding is useless. For all you know, he liked it.
1
2
Rating: -1
PR Barnum
I enjoyed this innovative production well enough. A conservative interpretation would have gone over well too. But there is surely room for both.
1
2
Rating: -1

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.