Neville's Island

The Director must have been delighted with her cast and having helped them to become a successful team.  This was rather funny in itself, as the whole play is based on a team-building exercise which goes horribly wrong, but there was no sign of dysfunctional team spirit among the actors.  Everyone was working for the others and no one tried to steal the limelight.  The beautifully written play has deeply drawn characters and realistic dialogue which must have been a joy to perform.  The Director had ensured that each actor was secure in their character and that the various foibles of each player were carefully highlighted to the amusement of the audience. 

A writer relies on his/her words being heard and the requirement of a naturalistic presentation can add to the difficulties of getting them across.  In general the actors were clearly audible, but once or twice the desire to keep the pace up did lead to some falling over the words.  Clear articulation is the name of the game.  Remember the audience is hearing it for the first time whereas the actors have heard it many times.  This mumbling and gabbling did not take away from the enjoyment of the play but did misfire some of the gags.  On the whole the audience got every nuance of the wonderful language, with a naturalness that made the dialogue immediate and realistic. 

The setting worked well with Roy’s tree (some way off) appearing mysteriously through the gauze.  This was excellent use of the stage.  The audience easily assimilated where we were on the Island and visually and audibly it worked well keeping the action moving smoothly without call for scene changes.  The lapping water sound effects were slightly incongruous from where I was sitting.  This is a major problem in such a large venue.  The audience at the back has to hear as well as those at the front and perhaps this led to the water being rather loud and distracting at the front.  I’m not sure how you would have solved this problem without a trough of real water surrounding the action.  The wet arrival and general dampness was well handled.  Props should be congratulated particularly on the excellent array of goodies in Angus’s bag.  So vital to the many gags, these were well organised and presumably had been available to rehearse with.

As I have already commented the four actors worked excellently together; building their individual characters while maintaining a team effort for the presentation.  What was particularly good was how each actor was prepared to depend on the author’s excellent writing to do most of the work.  There were no “acting” additions and this helped considerably towards the naturalness of the action.  This assisted by good timing and well rehearsed dialogue ensured that the gags were well presented and were genuinely funny. 

We’ve all learnt from your experience with “smoke” (an asmatic attack in the front row) and I’m sure this is a lesson we will all be grateful for.  In actual fact there was just enough mist to give the right impression although perhaps the first couple of blasts could have been more subtle.  Along with appropriately atmospheric lighting, this subtly greatly enhanced the production.  Again, it was good not to have too stagey effects. 

Don’t forget that sometimes actors do get it right and a scene creates a mood of stillness and reflection.  This probably leads to the audience greeting the end of the scene with silence.  This is a great achievement on the part of the actors and should be celebrated.  It is not necessary for FoH staff to engineer applause: enjoy the silence and congratulate your actors afterwards at the bar. 

I’m certain you must all be delighted with the results of this production which both moved and entertained the audience.  There were so many plusses and Direction that smoothed over any minor weaknesses. 

© NODA CIO. All rights reserved.