Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Blithe? Maybe. Spirits? Definitely.

After six weeks of rotating-cast rehearsals and five weekends of performance, the show has come to an end. I never posted a full-length review of the show because, until very late in the run, none had been published. Two brief notices in a local online theatre page singled me out as a "fresh young face to watch," calling my "subtle performance" of Ruth "formidable and credible."

A week before closing, a local reviewer saw the show on its worst night (the night we taped, of course), but remained kind. As the opposite of flighty Elvira, he said, I was "convincing in [my] range of emotions" as the solid, grounded Ruth who flip-flops into hysteria.

My favorite review, however is the one posted online by [reference removed], who summed up the show thusly:

“Blithe Spirit” is Noel Coward's comedy about “the other side” and spirits who come back to haunt.

Charles Condomine's wife Elvira tragically died in a auto accident 17 years ago. Charles has recently remarried and he and his new wife, Ruth, have been happy until now. All of the sudden, Charles is acting rather strange, he appears to be talking to someone, though no one is in the room. It seems that Charles' first wife, Elvira has come back into Charles life via the ghost route. To straighten this out, Madame Arcatti is called in to arrange a seance to settle the spirits. Dr. Bradman and his wife Violet, have arrived for dinner so they become part of the seance. It took a bit of time for Ruth to believe in this ghost business, but she decides to confront Elvira. In the meantime, Elvira is set on getting rid of this new wife and decides that Ruth will leave this world the same way she did, via an “accident”. Now there are 2 ghosts in Charles life.
Let's stop right there for a moment and count the errors thus far. Elvira did not die in an auto accident; she died of pneumonia -- seven years ago, not seventeen. Charles did not recently remarry; he's been married to Ruth for five years. Madame Arcati is not called in to "straighten out" Charles' strange behavior with Elvira; her seance causes it. Dr. Bradman and Violet do not "become a part of the seance" by the coincidence of their dinner arrival; the planned seance prompted their invitation. Elvira is not "set on getting rid of" Ruth; she is hoping to kill Charles. When Ruth falls victim to Elvira's trap, her death is indeed an accident, but not one that in any way matches Elvira's own.

Did this woman see the show? That's seven errors so far, and I've only dissected the first paragraph! In fact, those nine sentences provide only one bit of accurate information: the fact that there are eventually 2 ghosts in Charles' life (the final scene). To continue:
[Actress] is delightful as Madame Arcati, the soothsayer, who can tell the future...

Soothsayer? Arcati herself admits that she disapproves of fortune tellers "most strongly," because "even when the gift is genuine (and it very rarely is) you can't count on it... Time is the reef upon which all our frail mystic ships are wrecked!" As for the rest of the cast kudos, I'll refrain from reprinting a paragraph riddled with dizzying sentences and many spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors (have another cocktail, Bev!) and tell you only that I was said to "come on strong" as Ruth. Yet, I can't resist the last few factual errors in the paragraph below:
[Herr BS] is the director of the show and comes to Scripps with an extensive resume of directing plays at numerous San Diego theatres. He directed “Blithe Spirit” for North Coast Repertory Theatre. This is a funny show, one you will have a good time at.
Once you've recovered from the dangling preposition, you might be interested to know that our director does have an extensive acting resume at numerous local theatres, but all evidence suggests that our Blithe Spirit was his first directing gig. He most certainly did not direct the show at NCRT; he performed in it. As Charles.

2 comments:

Kate said...

Picky, picky, picky.

Kel said...

PICKY? I've noted ten FACTUAL errors, without even beginning to point out the editorial nightmare that is her full article. (Well, I did mention the dangling preposition...) There is NO EXCUSE for that kind of public "reporting."

Mistakes like that should be limited to personal blogs. ;)