Advert
Advert

Review: Dry Rot

Posted on 19 July 2012 Written by

You would have thought that by now, the word ‘farce’ would have firmly established itself as an insult. The embarrassingly British, post-war style of performance known for rude characters who dropped their trousers as casually as their xenophobic remarks has been assaulting our theatres since the 1950s, when it was a mode of entertainment that sold as easily as smutty postcards at a seaside resort.

John Roy Chapman’s Dry Rot ticks all the boxes of this teeth-grindingly awful genre; it has rude patriarchal figures, banal members of the working class, women forever busy with housework and flirting, implausible villains and jokes about the French. Indeed, this production embraces its very offensiveness to the point that – at the risk of being quoted on a poster – we can deem it an exquisitely accomplished farce.

The plot here centres around a grand country guest house, which is reluctantly managed by the Wagstaff family and maintained, haphazardly, by a clumsy and common housekeeper called Beth. True to the genre, the plot is utterly implausible, and concerns some botched horse-racing fix where the baddies get shamed, the French finally get arrested and the ordinary people return to their ordinary lives.

In the middle of this dismal affair, there are two features that prevent the work from teetering into the joyless. Firstly, Duncan Parker’s set design, with its stag’s head and balustrade, provides a relative convincing foundation from which to launch the hopelessly far-fetched acting. Alongside this, Evelyn Adams makes an admirable attempt to depict the young Susan Wagstaff, yet her measured and expressive enthusiasm seems imprisoned within a role that only demands flirty ditziness.

Penned by Chapman as an original Whitehall farce, the text was awkward and boastful. At times it felt as if the scriptwriter was desperately proving that he was refined enough to know the patterns of rhyme and homophony that occur between ‘valet’, ‘valley’ and ‘ballet’. This painfully dated mood of self-important haughtiness was reinforced by the two references to Shakespeare, which were clumsily implanted in the first twenty minutes. At many points, lines were delivered with a degree of inflated apology as the actors seemed almost irritated by the weak jokes that Chapman’s script forced them to make. On top of this, and as if instructed to ensure our faces remained in mid-wince throughout the production, Mike Robertson’s lighting design flicked from shady to over-bright with such cartoonish contrast it was physically uncomfortable to watch.

So loyal it is to the nature of farce, it seems almost unfair to criticise Dry Rot  – after all, what can we expect from a piece that starts with a middle-aged colonel knotting his tie while calling out for his prim and floral-print clad wife? Yet it is certainly necessary to evaluate such works, as to appreciate a piece like this is to celebrate a form of theatre that keeps us unironically trapped in a suffocating and judgemental world, where a man kissing a man can be nothing more than titillation, foreigners and the poor have been put on this earth simply to be ridiculed and women exist to coyly giggle before resigning themselves to a life of pouring tea. Even if we forgive the quirks of the genre, if we accept works that make anyone other than the stereotypical theatre audience the butt of cruel jokes, we reach the point where nostalgia begins to stifle progress. Forget a storyline of fraud and deceit; the stereotypical portrayals here are the real criminals.

Dry Rot is performing at Richmond Theatre until 21st July. For more information and tickets, see the Richmond Theatre website.

Amelia Forsbrook

Formerly one of the Wales Arts International critics, Amelia moved to London in early 2012 with two big aims: to continue working as an arts writer, and to discover whether it's ever possible to pull off both telephones and flying in theatre. With particular interests in regional arts, South Asian performance and twentieth century European theatre, Amelia writes for a number of other publications, as well as being an Off West End Assessor.

More Posts

1 Comments For This Post

  1. Ralph Spurrier Says:

    If I may add my comment – as a 65 year-old – I have to tell you that this is one of the worst productions (and plays) I have ever sat through. It was all that you describe and totally lacked any virtue that would, in my mind, make it worth ever contemplate bringing it back in any revival. I wondered what market audience it was aimed at and assumed that the backers saw the OAP as the target. As one who has seen Olivier, Sher, Redgrave, Gielgud et al perform on stage and enjoyed all forms of theatre I found this demeaning in the extreme and was embarassed that I found myself sitting watching this debacle. It should be remembered that the present-day elder “stereotypical theatre audience” has experienced some of the finest acting of the 20th century and doesn’t need this trash foisted upon them.

Leave a Reply


Comments are subject to A Younger Theatre's Comment Policy. By submitting your comment you automatically agree to to the Comment Policy.
Advertise Here
Advertise Here

Join our E-Newsletter

---
Exclusive offers, opportunities and updates from AYT.

---


Supporting: