✭✭✩✩✩

by Oliver Goldsmith, directed by Christopher Newton

Vancouver Playhouse/Grand Theatre, Grand Theatre, London

January 14-19, 2000

“Stoops Droop”

Oliver Goldsmith's 1773 comedy, "She Stoops to Conquer", is one of the most beloved and most performed of all Restoration and 18th-century plays.  Pre-20th-century classics, except for "The Importance of Being Earnest", have been almost completely absent from the Grand since the fateful one-year reign of Robin Phillips in 1983-84.  Knowing that the play was directed by Christopher Newton, Artistic Director of the Shaw Festival, and would feature Shaw veterans, Michael Ball and Wendy Thatcher, led one to expect an excellent night out at the theatre.

In the event, the production proved quite a disappointment.  This is not due to Mr. Newton, but rather to giving in five key roles to actors with little significant stage experience and little or no experience acting in classic drama.  Instead of a well thought-out production with richly nuanced acting like one might expect at the Shaw Festival, we were presented with something more like a mediocre student production with pretty costumes and Michael Ball. 

Restoration and 18th-century comedies are difficult to produce because they depend so much on all involved having a clear notion of the period and all that entails, such as class distinctions, language, style, etiquette, etc.  Christopher Newton is well aware of this as his programme note shows.  But this is precisely what was lacking in the performances of the five principal young actors--two women and three men--all of whom, as it happens, come from British Columbia.  (The play is a coproduction with the Vancouver Playhouse.)  One assumes that Newton imparted what he could to them but that their training was insufficient to make full use of his instruction.  All five suffered to a greater or lesser extent from poor diction, little or no attempt to match the English accents of the three mature actors and only a vague notion of the correct style for this kind of play. 

Worst of the five was Katey Wright as Constance Neville, whose demeanour and delivery were more appropriate to a sit-com than a classic play.  Her unmodulated voice became annoying by the end of the evening.  Jane Perry as Kate Hardcastle, the "she" of the title, is the pivotal character of the play who must be able to present herself convincingly as both a well-bred English girl and as the low-class barmaid she pretends to be.  Kate "stoops to conquer: by pretending to be of a lower class than she is to win her lover.  Ms. Perry, unfortunately, communicated neither Kate as upper class English nor as lower class, doing nothing at all to change her demeanour or accent when moving from one role to the other.  She let a change of costume take the place of acting.

On the whole, the three young men fared much better.  Best was Rick Dobran as Tony Lumpkin, the loveable lout spoiled by his mother.  Of the five young people, he knew best what his character was about and how to make the laughs derive from his character, not from mugging or other added business.  Mike Wasko as George Hastings had the strongest presence, undermined, however, by lapses of diction.  When, as Hastings, had to congratulate his best friend on taking an action that had ruined his own plans, Wasko was unable to show the contrary emotion underneath his hearty congratulations.  Jeff Meadows as Charles Marlow was also unable to communicate more than one layer of feeling at a time.  He telegraphed his shyness at meeting Kate in the broadest manner while he did not make his shift in interest in Kate disguised as the barmaid clear enough.

Among the mature actors, Marek Weidman was very good in his two small roles as the Landlord and as Charles’s father.  Wendy Thatcher, however, as Dorothy Hardcastle, abandoned all subtlety and created a caricature not a character.  It could be she was provoked to such overacting by the general underacting of the young people or by the mostly unresponsive audience who seemed to have difficulty following the relatively simple plot.  It was thus left to Michael Ball as Richard Hardcastle, excellent as usual, to anchor the entire production.  Whenever he was on stage one felt that here, finally, is someone who knows what this play is supposed to be like.  He alone had the correct sense of style, delivery and portrayal of multiple layers of character.  He alone gave off the kind of energy a comedy needs.  But he was playing mostly in a vacuum.

Vancouver designer David Roberts’ sets did nothing to suggest that the Hardcastles’ house is “old” or “old-fashioned” as it is frequently called in the text.  Shaw designer William Schmuck’s costumes, while very handsome for most of the cast, made Kate and Constance look giddy and superficial rather than smart and clever as they are supposed to be.  For someone who has had so many successes, it must have been a frustrating show to work on for Mr. Newton.  One had the sense that one directorial idea after another had to be abandoned until something simple was found that the cast could bring it off.  Despite all this, this was not the worst production of a Restoration/18th-century play I’ve seen, and the Grand should be congratulated for programming something substantial for a change.

Despite all I’ve written, this was not the worst production of a Restoration/18th-century play I’ve seen (think of "Love for Love" at Stratford in 1990!).  The Grand should be congratulated for programming something substantial for a change.  Unfortunately, due I assume to their financial difficulties, Kelly Handerek, the new Artistic Director, has announced a 2000-2001 season that will consist entirely of fluff.  Those who want something more from the theatre will have to wait or go elsewhere.

©Christopher Hoile

Photo: Katey Wright and Mike Wasko. ©2000 Grand Theatre.