On March 24th, and on the following two days, the School Dramatic Society presented Shakespeare's King Richard II, produced by Mr. J. S. Golland.
The production seemed to me a great success and, although there are a few possible criticisms and disagreements, these are slight compared with the total achievement, which was considerable. Perhaps it would be as well to dispose of the criticisms first.
There seems to me to be only one reason for acting a play and that is to focus attention on the play, so that it may come to life again in the minds of the audience. Anything that does not work to this end is simply distraction. Both the lighting and the music spring to mind here. The lighting seemed always to be strictly functional, that is, to reflect and clarify what was spoken; but the attention is only too easily detached from action and speech to "effects," and the manipulation of light and shade at times became much too dominant. It seemed fussy, however expertly handled at the switchboard. The only remedy, I think, is just to cut down the changes to a minimum, and let the actors do the work of conveying shifts of atmosphere.
The music was written and played by Thomas Dimmick and recorded in Northolt Church. It seemed ideally suited to the play, although in its application too little use was made of fading, so that the three events of curtain opening, entry of characters, and the retreat of the music as dialogue begins, were not always accurately co-ordinated.
But these points are small compared with the success. The sets were simple and effective, and the scene shifting, and, indeed, the whole stage management by Mr. N. Anderson, was well organised. The make-up, by Mr. R. T. Attridge, was convincing and unobtrusive. As for the acting, the standard was good. The weight of the play rests largely on Richard himself, and Clive Perry must be congratulated above all others on an outstanding performance. The range of his voice was restricted, but so is Richard's poetry. It tends to dwell at either end of the emotional register, at elation or despair, and there is no complexity of tone or feeling except in the Prison speech. Consequently the actor distorts if he endeavours to supply this complexity, although it may be more satisfying personally. This does not mean that his acting should be flat, but it is not required to be subtly pliant in the way that a later play pf Shakespeare would demand. Perry fulfilled these conditions very well indeed, and his handling of the part in the final scenes was unusually moving. One is not likely to see often such a fine performance in a school production.
The rest of the cast did not let Perry down. There was no weak point in the acting of the principal and secondary characters, but all were notable for their enthusiasm, by which the verse took fire. If the cast does not enjoy acting the play, the audience remains uncomfortable and unresponsive. Of the cast Christopher Davies, James Smith and Anthony Smith together with William Allen and Roger Bate, deserve special mention for the quality of their delivery and their interpretation. (I think, though, that Shakespeare's Duke of York was meant to seem genuinely confused owing to conflicting senses of loyalty, rather than humorously befuddled. Otherwise his severity towards his son is grossly irrelevant.)
Still, the level above which these five stood out was a high one. It was the best school production I have seen, and it could set some adult companies back on their heels. Mr. Golland deserves our warmest praise.
G. A. H.
from Gaytonian, October 1955