Drama GCSE Theatre Review Oh What a Lovely War

The play that I saw was called 'Oh What a Lovely War' by the theatre workshop in the venue of the Octagon Theatre in Bolton. I saw it on the 1/11/07. The production team were: Mark Babych (director), Howard Gray (Musical Director), Richard Foxton (Designer), Jason Osterman (Lighting Designer), Andy Smith (Sound Designer), Beverly Edmunds (Choreographer), Shane Gould (Assistant Choreographer), and Helen Redcliffe (Deputy Stage Manager). And the cast were: Ruth Alexander Rubin, Nicola Bolton, Matt Corner, Christopher Fry, Barbara Hockaday, Jeff Hordley, Matthew Kelly, Siena Lloyd, John McArdle, Helen Power, Matthew Rixon, Simeon Truby, and David Westbrook. My impression of the performance was that it seemed to start off a lot like a pantomime using the methods seen in slapstick comedies such as Laurel and Hardy but as the play progresses it starts to blend in the facts of the war with the comedy of the early 1900's; in my opinion, I liked the play to begin with due to it's interesting mix of ironic comedy but it begins to drag on a bit later on due to the lack of action.

In contrast to another performance that I have seen called 'Singing in the rain' the genre is different which affected the type of performance as well as the time in history and the continent it was set in (in the late 20^th century in America). The stage was an end stage and didn't have separate areas on either wing of the stage, the performance though were equally as strong as each other; however, the style still affected the performance with it being a musical set out like a Hollywood Broadway. Another play to contrast it to would be a pantomime of 'Jack and the Beanstalk'. In contrast to 'Oh What a Lovely War' the acting is done in a pantomime style for almost all of the play and has less seriousness, plus there is much more interaction with the audience. But the stage was end stage still; it also had a separate area for the orchestra.

The play was set during World War 1 and the matter is treated in a comical way that you may see in parodies of the war such as Blackadder. But they kept the accurate figures that made the war so terrible on a projected screen at the top of the stage (centre stage above the actor's heads). Social context was also added, which was shown by the use of showing how the working class were affected by the war with thee use of the sounds of aeroplanes flying making everyone flee during a scene near to the beginning. It also shows how the richer side of the world were living a more luxurious time during the war; for example, during the second act you could see how the richer side (mainly generals) were having a better time with the generals ballroom dancing with their wives this is relevant to our time now because it shows the hierarchy that a capitalist government has and which we still have today. You can also see how this affected the culture of countries during the war. An example of a scene that showed this context would be when all the countries are hunting for birds; this is because this scene shows how each country affected the war and was affected by the war. It's relevant to us because out of most countries we (Great Britain) were involved a lot during the war and it showed how each country was affected and reacted to the war.

The acting in my opinion was very good and felt naturalistic for most of the performance; mainly because of the versatility of the actor's type of acting and the use of switching roles of both acting and playing instruments. The actors will play a variety of roles that are both serious and comical. For example, the actor Matthew Kelly would play the serious and isolated figure of Field Marshall Haig but also plays one of the pom-pom wearing comical clowns at the beginning of the play. Matthew Kelly's performance in my opinion was quite exceptional because of the use of voice and facial expression; for example, when Matthew Kelly is playing William Haig he uses a very powerful voice to signify this specific character's persona in this way and by combining it with the persona of seeming rather isolated he stands at the top of the stage making phone calls; he also plays other characters such as one of the ambassadors for a country in the war game where he uses his accent to really show who he is trying to be; his singing ability was also to very good ability although his voice didn't stand out the most his use of facial expression was also good such as when he was the clown near the beginning of the play you could see in his facial expression the happiness and care free look in his face; I found his performance very enjoyable.

Another performance that should be notified should be the performance by Ruth Alexander Rubin who played as variety of roles such as the women giving out white feathers; one of the most enjoyable things about her performance was the clearness and obvious dominant power in her voice which could be heard in both her singing and her voice projection; she played characters such as the leading suffragette and one of the generals wives at the ballroom dance; overall her performance and acting ability was very good and since she had a strong voice she had roles which played on her forte. The actors use different accents a lot in this play due to the interest of foreign countries that were affected during World War 1. An example of this would be when the actors were representing each country in the war game; many accents were used including Russian, French, and German. I feel that the accents were well used and didn't feel amateurish in any way at all due to the use of it in comical ways (e.g. Jeff Hordley as the French assistant is a good example of comical use) but they are also good actors because of their face expression which had was very emotive as you could tell whether someone was angry, happy, or sad. In my opinion there is nothing noticeable that the actors could have improved on not to say that their acting was completely flawless, but it any flaws were unnoticed; besides the director but he was not a trained actor. The use of audience interaction may have been a slight weak point. Although the audience didn't completely reject the idea of the actors interacting with them; their seemed to be an obviously stale cliché to it in my opinion mainly because of the fact that it seemed all improvised and was completely reliant on audience's reaction; therefore it seemed rather...confused. But the acting was precise and almost flawless.

The use of costumes had the affect of showing the mood that the characters were meant to have by creating their own persona. For example, the generals all dressed in very smart and uniformed army suits that created an aura of power as well as an aura of ignorance due to the fact that they weren't aware of the death that was occurring (which can be seen in the projected screen above). Another example would be the use of make up such as moustaches. The use of a moustache would change the status of the character that the actor was playing; for example, none of the basic infantry had moustaches but many of the older and more experienced generals such as General Haig who would wear large moustaches to represent age and experience; the ambassadors also wore moustaches.

I think that the playwright's intention was to show people the horrors of the war using the technique of irony by showing it in a comical fashion. It does this by creating what could be known as a dual mood. Even if the mood on stage is happy you may see some of the figures of casualties on the projected area making the audience rethink their own mood. For example, there was a scene when the cast of actors were singing a song and asking people to sing along by having the words on the projection, but then the words on the projector are replaced by the figures that said how many casualties there were during the Battle of the Somme; changing the mood dramatically for the audience. I think another intention was to show the First World War like a musical which it does quite successfully due to the variety of musical based numbers such as the use of the song at the beginning where the title of the play is repeated and makes it seem more cheery then it should (yet again irony). One of the other main messages was to summon up anger and sympathy for the lost generation of men as the idea of the First World War being a slaughter is constantly pushed into your face with the projections and the mood swing that the slightest sound of a gunshot could create in the play. For example; sometimes in the scenes of the trenches there may be a happy mood such as in the trenches at Christmas but the single throw of the gifts from the Germans made the mood change to caution and fear. But it got the message of sympathy for the soldiers across very well because of how it still managed to portray the fear that the sound of war brought.

In my opinion the production had its strengths and its flaws. An example of the director use of mise-en-scene would be when the troops are in the trenches; this is because the director uses the lighting to create an isolated area for the trench area with the rest of the stage being left in the dark. The use of powerful imagery can be shown when in the trenches you can hear gunshots in the background when people leave the trenches. The stage type was thrust stage so that interaction with the audience could be more feasible; an example of audience interaction would be during the military scene when they brought out someone from the audience to use as an attack post. I thought that the play was directed to a satisfactory ability, it was well acted (even the director managed to pull off being an adequate actor although the lack of an understudy had me puzzled) and it was well paced for most of the play (the beginning was a bit farfetched and moved a little too fast but that was the only problem with the pace). The stage was set up so that there was both a top floor and ground floor and a separate area for the Orchestra. Almost every actor played an instrument at one point as they switched roles of playing instruments and acting which kept the pace going as well as showing their versatility as entertainers. The lighting was set out in so that there was a spotlight centre stage (like a circus show) with another light focused on the orchestra then the use of different strengths of lights were used to create the illusion of either darker places or lighter places; for example, in the scene of the trenches at Christmas, the lights were dimmed over every area except for the spotlight at centre stage making that area seem isolated and dark. The use of sound affects and music could create an emotive landscape because of the moods that they could create; for example, the use of the sound of a Victorian ensemble for a day at the seaside could make you feel all cheery. But they could also use the sounds of jet planes and bullets to create the mood of fear. It allowed the production to exceed expectations on its potential which I found very admirable.

Overall I feel that the response to the overall play was positive (the audience applauded at the end) and the contribution to the audience was mostly a success as the audience contributed when they were needed (e.g. when they asked the audience to sing along to their song the audience did so). The production of the performance helped this audience interaction with the use of the thrust stage. Along with the use of lighting for the affect of mise-en-scene and the spotlight in the centre helped most of the focus to be isolated onto that specific part. But I liked the play because of its ability to use irony to create a dual mood; it's inspiring because the use of it is very difficult to get especially with complete opposite moods. The performance was overall an enjoyable performance if a bit tedious nearer to the end.