Rashleigh

Tonight was part of the second production of the original play written by Hayley Hume to mark the 200th anniversary of the passing of Charles Rashleigh the originator of Charlestown Harbour. This wonderful concept was created duly between the Charlestown History Group and St Austell Players using the author’s written text.

The story had been cleverly written, initially in real time but then through ‘a catalyst for change’ namely Charles’ grown daughter Pattie. He is forced to view the consequences of his actions and his final awakening.

The players decision to recreate the story in the iconic setting of Charlestown Harbour was a brave one. It enabled them to use areas and settings that Rashleigh would have known which added to the authenticity of the piece.

Creating a promenade show in the open air can generate some inherent joys and problems. You have the wonderful, historic landscapes which give a sense of history to the words spoken, but on the down side you have to contend with the logistics of choosing appropriate areas to perform, moving the audience around, ensuring the cast can be heard and of the course the vagaries of the weather which even in August can be changeable. Sensibly suitable footwear and clothing had been suggested to audience members.

The six scenes were set at various locations in Charlestown. The first two at the battery showed Charles following his downfall in the 1820’s and in the study of his former home as a younger man with his siblings and his domineering father. The next location saw Charles with Grace and their marriage. The action then continued on the harbour side where his encounter with Smeaton happened and we learnt about the dishonest Joseph Dingle. The dramatic trial happened further around on the harbour where benches and tables were incorporated and the finale was set on the harbour side in front of the round house with the sound of lapping waves in the background and the true wonder of Rashleigh’s accomplishment around us.

The playing places and movement around meant that personal properties were imagined by the members of the cast. The cast on the whole effectively portrayed these.  I enjoyed the way that minimal props which were situated on the harbourside such as the barrels, seating and strings of lights added to the performance.  

The costumes were in the main well-fitting and added to the time frame covered during the performance. They clearly depicted the social classes and authority figures in the scenes.

Performing a promenade show in the open air with the cast and audience being marshalled from scene to scene and the possibility of members of the public occasionally interrupting the action had been taken into account. The cast were well disciplined and focused on their task, staying in character throughout with the gardener and soldier successfully transported the audience to the next scene.

The actor portraying Charles Rashleigh the Elder did so with fervour. He demonstrated a wide variety of emotions throughout the performance from confusion to trust and understanding to despair. But, by varying the volume and pitch of his speech, facial expressions and body language he created a well-rounded character.

Charles Rashleigh the Younger was depicted as a young man who was confident of his own ability to achieve his dreams. The trusting nature that let him down was evident when he was working with Dingle. He showed his determination in his pursuit of Grace and love of his daughters.

Your player depicting Grace, Charles’ loving supportive wife created a convincing loving and loyal wife. She showed her playful side during the letter’s scene, spoke clearly with emotion and demonstrated her total commitment to her husband plans.

Pattie had an enormous role to play in this production. She had to depict the daughter and narrator of the story. She clearly relayed the essential information to the audience at the same time as persuading/leading her father to an understanding of his worth in the development of Charlestown. She ensured her text was clearly delivered used appropriate body language and gestures. Her despair when trying to get her father to understand was evident and the final statement beautifully presented.

Gossiping villagers Mrs Williams and Mrs Mutton took great pleasure in recounting Rashleigh’s down fall to anyone who wanted to listen and interacted well with other members of the cast.

Your two players who played Charles’ brother and sister did so with care and childlike joy. They were his siblings who were obviously wished him well.

Jonathan and Mary Rashleigh were Charles’ disinterested parents. Jonathan showed complete disregard in his son’s leaving and did not interact with him at all. His mother, a quiet invisible controlled character, continued sewing throughout the conversation.

John Smeaton the first civil engineer was brought down from Yorkshire to work on the construction of the harbour. He had a good stance and maintained a convincing accent. The voice of reason about the harbour and he attempted to dissuade Rashleigh about the construction, with no joy.

I understand the performer portraying the disloyal character came late to the pinitol part. If he had more time he would have embellished the character but he was able to demonstrate a submissive almost caring demeaner to his saviour.

The courtroom scene was well depicted with all three legal representatives creating individual characters. Sir Robert Graham the judge spoke in a clear authoritarian voice and followed correct legal process.  Rashleigh’s attorney. William Crowder, the counsel for the prosecution spoke movingly in respect of his client and won his case. William Jekyll tried hard to defend the traitorous Dingle. He spoke clearly when attempting to defend Dingle’s character. The audience enjoyed being incorporated in the scene.

This was a wonderful challenge to complete. You director obviously had a clear vision of what he wanted to deliver to an audience. Despite the weather the team were able to convey the story of a man who created an iconic structure and more importantly it was presented in the place where it was built!!

Many congratulations to all involved in the production.

Disclaimer 

Any observation made by the reviewer can only be based on what he sees at the performance in question.  The reviewer may have received information in advance of the performance and it is inevitable that his assessment will be affected by that knowledge. 

The NODA Representative’s intention is to give an objective critique of the overall production and in particular, the performance.  It should be remembered that any review of this nature can only be objective as far as the techniques used during the performance observed.  Any criticisms expressed may not have been valid at other performances and are only made to encourage higher standards in Amateur Theatre. 

 It is hoped that the audience’s appreciation of your efforts will have given everyone a lift and encouraged you to greater achievements in the future and that the observations made by the reviewer will prove helpful in improving future productions.

© NODA CIO. All rights reserved.