Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 41 No. 4. March 20 1978

An Ocker Peche — A Toast to Melba

An Ocker Peche

A Toast to Melba

An idea. The parochialism of Australians, the singlemindedness of a woman to achieve the highest success she can in her profession against all odds, some satiric looks at the artistic elite of the late 19th early 20th Century and any other barbs you can throw in as you go along. Wrap it all up in an arena production and you end up with a performance of A Toast to Melba. It sounds like a good idea, particularly since the character you are going to revolve it around is Dame Nellie Melba. What an opportunity to include a lot of songs that obviously fit into the show while also being as Ocker as the koalas surrounding the stage. You have so many things going for you. But for some reason it doesn't work.

But why? Maybe it is the play. It is written as an historical epic. After all Melba lived for a long time. Hibberd covers the necessary time transitions by the characters themselves keeping the audience up to date with asides. In contrast to the normal technique which impedes dramatic flow, this allows great pace to be built up.

At the same time it prevents the audience from identifying with the characters too strongly. For a play which is involved in encouraging the audience to look critically at the characters and the situations they get themselves into this is an effective technique. It therefore becomes obvious that Hibberd had some social purpose in writing the play in this way and wished the audience to laugh along with him and the actors at the farcical situations he presents.

To do this effectively the whole play should be a slow and logical development of the major themes so the audience can explore the problems from many different angles. Unfortunately Hibberd seems to have got carried away on many tangents without ever really exploring them in any great detail and in the process distracts the audience from the main thrust of his argument. As Nellie Melba said in the play "I'm sick to death of flippancy". As the show progressed so was I.

An example. Nellie decided to marry Charles Armstrong. Why? We never really get to find out apart from a slight suggestion that maybe it was because of his wealth. This could fit into the theme of a singleminded woman wishing to pursue her career to the fullest, with this being the only way at that time of achieving financial independence (though lumbered with a husband who expects a kitchen-bound wife). A major point, surely, which should not have been merely pushed quietly aside in the rush to present as many events in Melba's life as possible.

This is not to suggest that the play doesn't have some very funny moments. The scene between the critics of Melba's performance, Neville Cardus, Oscar Wilde and Frank Wedekind is masterful if a little too directed towards those who know a bit about these people.

And there are many more similar gems. So much so that I got the impression of a revue-type play tied together around this central character. A bit unfair it is true, but the impression remains.

As for the production itself, Colin McColl can leave Wellington reasonably well satisfied. He has managed to combine all the many elements into an energetic whole. The verbal and visual asides are very effective. The whole acting space is used to great effect, particularly when you consider that the acting space includes every square foot of the theatre not occupied by a member of the audience. No barrier here between the audience and the actors.

They actually include a member of the audience into the play itself. And it is obvious this person is not expecting it. So the rest of us sit there thinking "Thank God they didn't pick me," and laugh at the confusion and embarrassment of the selected person. I personally find this method of audience involvement offensive.

The audience in any production has a prescribed role to play. They sit there and expect to be entertained. And that is a valid role to play. If in your production you are attempting to destroy this passive role, this is not the way to go about it. By directly confronting a member of the audience when that person has no reason to expect it gives the actors an unjustified power over the audience. Rather than encouraging them to rethink their role, it causes them embarrassment. It is rather like the line in the play when John Lemmone is speaking to Nellie "How would you like to sleep with me." It's known as Australian seduction.

It is unfortunate that, while providing a very smooth-flowing and rhythmical production. Colin McColl has been unable to focus attention on the major arguments to a sufficient extent. Rather he has tended to give all the many comic moments equal due.

As for the acting, I have little space left to go into any great detail. Let it suffice that although quite a number of the words are lost through bad diction most of the roles were projected very well. The characterisations were precise and effective.

To summarise. It was like a city with so many towers that they can't have their desired effect because you can't see one for the mass of the rest.

John Bailey

Pietro Cecchi (David Groves) offers homage to the divine Melba (Helen Moulder).

Pietro Cecchi (David Groves) offers homage to the divine Melba (Helen Moulder).