Quartet

"Quartet" by Ronald Harwood is a staple of amateur drama. It is in the tradition of well-made plays and could have been set any time between 1920 and today I would suggest, topical references aside. Like most of Harwood's work, it is unashamedly wordy. This immediately puts great pressure on the quartet of actors called to bring it to life and maintain our interest. In act one exposition is laid on with a trowel and then some. Unless we really feel something for each of the actors' predicaments we can very easily be lulled into a sense of disinterest in what happens to them. It takes acting of a very high standard to overcome this.

On stage, we were introduced to four of the outstanding stars of District 3.  Of that, there is no doubt. When one considers the national professional tours that pop up of this play we have only to look at the names involved to realise the extent of expertise required to make anything of it. This production got off to a shaky start from which it never fully recovered. I was surprised that on the last night so many hints were given to the players and at the number of times they talked over each other or anticipated cues thereby affecting the concentration of the audience. At times the overlong speeches given to them by the author seemed to be nothing more than tests for the actors to get from start to finish without taking a prompt. They lacked the real sense of emotion, that surely lay behind the intention of Harwood, to create and communicate. I could not have cared less whether the quartet's rendition of Verdi at the end was successful or not. Then the play just finishes! This is a difficult play to produce is what I am trying to convey. Approach it with care.

Not that there were not some lovely moments dropped in like jewels from time to time. David Quick was masterly in his interpretation of a tortured, perhaps wronged soul faced with the prospect of coming to terms with his past. His sense of anguish was readily conveyed. Kathleen Watkins also provided some memorable moments and of the four came across as the most interesting character: one I actually almost began to care about. Edward Munday made most of his comic role yet seemed by contrast to the others to be miscast. Yet he provided laughs and made what he could of some crass lines. Anne Starks is an actress who I have seen create many fine roles. As the impoverished former diva, Jean Horton, Anne brought a distinct touch of class to the line-up. She offered us the haughtiness, tempered by tragedy and poor decisions in life, that the role demanded. Yet there were times too when due to the direction I became uncomfortable for her. I did not like the dressing and undressing on the side stage. The actors were not at ease with it and this showed. 

Sarah Nolan, a most able director, did not give her players enough scope to develop themselves. This is almost a static play. More movement was needed. The two chairs centre stage were overused, yet where else could the actors go? 

I have written this from the perspective of seeing very good actors and a respected director come face to face with an immense challenge and narrowly losing on points, and have assessed it accordingly. It is always a pleasure to attend the eclectic range of plays produced by the Arts Club. Thank you.

PRM.

© NODA CIO. All rights reserved.