Here's what Garth Jones, Cheshire Theatre Guild's Adjudicator thought of the production:

GENERAL:

When a teacher was showing a DVD of “Oliver Twist” the other day to her class, they asked where was the “Oliver” music? The same might be said of this play and “My Fair Lady.” Except perhaps Shaw might have been amenable, as he revised his script in order to make a film and often that is the script that is used and of course he was a music critic for part of his career.  It has all the right essentials – a classic rags to riches story, the veneer that is the class system but the underlying roots that are not so easy to eradicate!  Of course even in a supposedly light comedy, there is no escaping the need to listen to Shavian philosophy and social comment – one reason perhaps why a modern audience often finds Shaw heavy going. But there is an Irish tradition of good comedy and he is a true descendant of it. It is for Harlequin Theatre to bring out that comedy, to give life to the interesting characters and invest it all with sufficient pace and stage craft to show it all and good timing is, of course, essential. Shaw also had a rather grand impression of himself and would expect the scenes to reflect it. No small challenge, then, for Matthew and his entire team.

PRESENTATION

SET DESIGN                        GORDON HAMLIN and MAUREEN                                 MELVILLE

SET CONSTRUCTION      GORDON HAMLIN, ADAM WADE,     members of cast and crew

STAGE MANAGER                    LORRAINE SHUKER

And the first major challenge is the presentation. Not only do the designers have to include two major areas for the action – Higgins’ laboratory and Mrs Higgins’ drawing room – but also, even allowing for some omission of non obligatory cinematic scenes, the outside of Covent Garden and the magnificent hall at the Embassy. The answer was typical of Harlequin resourcefulness, and included more natural realism than is often the case. So the stage was divided roughly into two. The flooring did it well – with a wooden boarded floor for one patterned for the other. There were upstage doors – one into the laboratory the other to the drawing room. The laboratory had a level upstage, too, with a banister rail, a large bookcase and step ladder and red walls. The other had green walls with a wooden dado wall and in its presentation reflected as far as possible the sort of Morris style of it all. This was in keeping but the join in the rail on stage left above the plant was awkward and ill matched.  The rest was well built (Gordon and Adam) and solid, with views off into halls with furniture, details like a brass light switch and space for the actors and furniture. And when furniture had to be re-arranged  or a heater removed, Lorraine and her crew managed it well.

Now came a major problem – with the stage divided into two where else was there to use for the remaining sets? A floor in front of both sets made up a third area which doubled as the Embassy and the front of Covent Garden. Of course, characters in Mrs. Higgins rather restricted room moved down onto that floor – a slight drawback. The Covent Garden set relied on a heater on the left and a column on either side. All action took place in front of red curtains, drawn, unusually for Harlequins, before the play began. For two such lavish scenes – the one had flowers sellers and taxi-men, the other a waltz stylishly danced in a restricted area, this was another draw back. One member of the audience voiced the misgivings – “I am not fond of scenes played in front of curtains.” Still the designers, Gordon and Maureen had solved a problem and it worked within its parameters.

PROPERTIES/FURNITURE          LUCY DESMOND, LORRAINE SHUKER and

                                                           JOYCE SMITH

Within these designs furniture was an essential ingredient. The period desk and chair, the old style phonograph, on a beautiful little table stage right, the candlestick telephone on the desk helped to create the laboratory. The diagrams upstage of the two halves of the brain etc also helped in that creation. Of course some of the details listed by Shaw were not there but in all it was sufficient. The impressive period seat, right, and the rocking chair onstage left were very much in character as were the books and other items on that capacious desk. There was even a little pedestal dish for the chocolates.

Mrs Higgins’s drawing room was equally well furnished. An impressive double sofa on stage left, a white chair and a white seat upstage centre provided an “audience” area for Mrs Higgins to “hold court”, sitting on her chair right at her Edwardian writing table. Whether every piece matched Shaw’s description or not, the furniture was all well placed and the room “uncluttered.” There was a list of sponsors who had helped to provide these and also a picture on the wall, as well as numerous other properties required as the play progressed. Some items of furniture were available for purchase! It was however the skilled selection, together with baskets, flowers, notebooks which marked the skills of Lucy, Lorraine and Joyce.

LIGHTING DESIGN                       ADAM WADE

Another area really stretched by this production, for curtains in a strong shade of red had to be warmed prior to the play and then lit brightly or with touches of night time. An area in front of them and including the central aisle in the auditorium had now become a major playing space and had to be lit for the actors, or as they became, dancers! Adam did this with no problem, indeed he added brightness to the costumes assembled for the ball! The two interiors, and the views when the doors opened were well lit and the nice air of sunshine in Mrs Higgins room was the result of good rigging. And the cueing with scene changes and the like was excellent.

SOUND EFFECTS                           AMY NORWOOD, JAY REES

From the beginning, when there was a need to turn red curtains into the outside of Covent Garden, sound played a major role in this production. Verdi’s Aida suggested the Opera House they had attended. There was the sound of a taxi drawing up; sound of the church bell – on cue for the thrown basket. The Higgins scene had the sound of phonetic speech as an introduction. There was the sound of the dance accompaniment; the chimes of the clock – just to pick some – all helping to create place or time and all nicely cued. Good work from Amy and Jay.

COSTUMIERS             JULIE HOSKINS, ANN LLOYD, NADIA

                                                                             and JULIE STACEY

If Pygmalion is the legend for the play, then the Labours of Hercules signifies the task of the costumiers! From the changes required by the principal characters to the four flower sellers, two cockneys, policemen, taxi-man etc the list of necessary costumes is endless.  And a leading fashion designer has always been an essential part of the musical “My Fair Lady creating expectations perhaps not there originally! At least we have no Ascot Gavotte!”

This team did an excellent job although there were occasional question marks. Firstly, who vets the actors’ shoes? In the first scene someone says Higgins is a gentleman “look at his boots” - from the look of his footwear, “Hardly!” Later, he had shoes with a curl up at the toes which suited Dracula but was not quite Higgins! I am not sure about the commando style cleats in Doolittle’s boots – wouldn’t it be hobnails then? Pickering’s thick soles might just have been a military affectation? And one or two looked a little lacklustre.

For the costumes themselves – well it was clearly a production point to keep Higgins and Pickering generally in their frock coats and show passage of time by changing the colours of their ties and waistcoats, but I can see nothing in their characters to suggest that, stylish as it was. The Ambassadors and others were well served by their sumptuous costumes and a lot of thought and work had gone into the flower-sellers and cockney bystanders. The Eynesford - Hills were marvellously dressed for those so poor but that I suppose was their only salvation. Doolittle had the leather dustman’s hat and a string girdle to hold up his trousers, the bottoms of which also had string ties, giving him the perfect image of the time and, of course, his transformation in smart wedding attire was the more remarkable as a result! Some beautiful gowns there and for Mrs Higgins – stylish elegant and in period. And Eliza was wonderfully served – some really period yet characterful costumes and if a long skirt was occasionally in place ready for the next one, what did that matter? And of course the hair and make – up were matched to the dress! It was a remarkable parade of costumes – well done to Julia, Nadia, Ann and Julie.

WALTZ CHOREOGRAPHY         MAUREN MELVILLE

What a task! The area was restricted – there was nowhere to dance other than across the stage but Maureen and Michael showed by example how elegant it should be – and it was, even if one or two men were not quite as nimble on their feet. Nice work!

ACTING

HENRY HIGGINS                                       (RICHARD SADLER)

Despite Shaw allegedly writing the part of Eliza for Mrs. Campbell, Higgins remains the most difficult and gargantuan of the roles in the play. And, because he is such an expert on dialect and speech, he cannot even for one moment utter a suspect vowel or a wrong pronunciation. Richard had all the confidence and skill to do it and his pace and his fluency of dialogue were huge contributors to the general pace of the production. His moves too were swift and in character.  He was a convincing crotchety confirmed bachelor and he gave the speech side a near perfect performance, with a round tone and impeccable diction. But the other side of him which makes the audience hope that despite the odds, misogynist or no, there might be a romance between him and Eliza was not very evident in this characterisation; there were not many smiles and mischief and a sense of fun was slightly lost in the seriousness of his enormous task. Eliza should return,

“For the fun of it. That’s why I took you on”.

But the timing and the expression created strong comedy and the philosophy was given full weight – still one of the most convincing Higgins I’ve seen.

MRS PEARCE                                                             (DI SCOTT)

Not a Londoner by any means but a very convincing housekeeper. Her authority despite her “protests” was obvious from the start,

“I should have sent her away, only I thought perhaps you wanted her to talk into your machines.”   

She was suitably dressed and her tone suited her character which Di developed well. She could make some comedy of her own (with the hat, for example) but she was sometimes a little slow on cue, as in some of her replies to Higgins,

“No sir, you’re not at all particular..”

MRS HIGGINS                                        (JENNY HINDMARCH)

If anyone could live up to the history and elegance described in such detail by Shaw of this character in youth and maturity, then it would be Jenny. She has on stage that sense of dignity and energy and she put it to good effect here. Her straight backed stance suited each stylish dress and her hair was immaculate. She spoke clearly, with good diction and an innate sense of timing,

“What a pity!”

Her advice was given with a light touch and her reactions were so in keeping,

“Oh men! men! men!”

whilst her defence of Eliza in the final act was excellently delivered.

ELIZA DOOLITTLE                                     (LUCY CRUDDAS)

Shaw had given her the exits in a way he had not done for Higgins, and this audience seized the opportunity to applaud her work as she went along – a practice not too usual these days in plays. But she did have a skill anyway in building up to them – the voice and pace would gather as for example in her exit,

“I won’t be put upon. And I have my feelings the same as anyone else…”

She had impeccable diction and made the best use of a flexible and expressive voice. Whether as the Flower girl or the refined “lady”, there was nothing held back in this performance and she threw herself wholeheartedly into the comedy,

“Ah-ah-ow-oo!”

was made a catch-phrase and lines were timed well and delivered razor sharp,

“Not bloody likely. I am going home in a taxi”.

At the same time she cried credibly, showed the pain of the predicament she found herself in and exuded great dignity in the latter scenes,

“I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady and always will”.

It was a slightly heightened performance but a good one and one that still had all the qualities the script was demanding. Well played, Lucy.

ALFRED P. DOOLITTLE                                    (JOHN SMITH)

“An elderly but vigorous dustman”

says Shaw and this was a strong and lively interpretation which suited the role perfectly. Perhaps the beard suited the wealthy groom a little more than the first appearance but it was not out of character and there was enough dirt on his face to be convincing. The voice was rich in tone, clear, well articulated, and with a confident dialect. Certainly he has some splendid comic lines and indeed his predicament for all its fine homespun philosophy, lends itself to good comic delivery,

“If I thought they wasn’t, I’d ask fifty”.

John handled the longer pieces of Shavian rhetoric with clarity and a good sense of climax and in his second appearance was full of confidence,

“So long, Henry. See you in St. George’s, Eliza”

COLONEL PICKERING                       (PHIL ASHBY-CROWE

No wilting old codger here but a very credible and suitably well mannered expert in language! Perfect appearance from the moment he first appeared with moustache and an umbrella. He was rendered perhaps a little less military by the matching waistcoats and ties (flying away at the back occasionally!) but Phil’s natural way with words kept his character consistent even when discomforted,

“You mustn’t think of it as an experiment. It shocks me somehow!”

Some vowels were not always pure, but the expression was always there and the diction good.

MRS EYNESFORD-HILL                             (JUDITH KNIGHT)

This was another realistic and convincing performance, avoiding the temptation to exaggerate the character. Well served by her dresses and hats, she developed a well balanced line between the reality and the social pose,

“You mustn’t mind Clara. We’re so poor and she gets so few parties, poor child”. 

She did this well and the stray harsh vowels were not out of character as a result. She had a sense of comedy, too, reacting well to the “small talk”. It was occasionally rather quiet but nicely judged and delivered with clarity and expression by Judith.

FREDDY EYNESFORD-HILL                              (MATT BIRD)

One way to avoid any expectations from “My Fair Lady” is to get away from the handsome romantic singing suitor that is Freddie! And here Matt did just that and how! Rather than speak like the rest of his family he outdid the Prince of Wales in his upper class drawling, turning many otherwise innocent lines into comedy,

“And left me with a cab on my hands? Damnation!”

His  exaggerated vowels and diction did the trick in establishing his empty character – far from expected reality perhaps but good fun and preventing the audience from ever thinking Eliza would marry Freddie!

CLARA EYENESFORD-HILL                   (LUCY DESMOND)

This was a perfect Clara - dressed in fashion, pretty, well spoken and with good tone and smooth delivery, except when being selfish or disparaging towards her brother,

“Are we to stay here all night in this draught with next to nothing on?”

She embraced the new small talk with a good sense of comedy,

“I will. Goodbye. Such nonsense. All this early Victorian prudery”

Nicely drawn character from Lucy.

THE CHORUS

MRS HIGGINS PARLOURMAID                  (ELISE BOWETT)

The wonderful thing about theatre is that you don’t have to have a large role in order to shine, provided you exercise good stage craft. Very smart in her maid’s cap and apron, she had a youthful but musical tone to her voice and good clear diction. The announcements were done well and she told her story about Higgins with a good rhythm and nice articulation. Well done, Elsie.

NEPOMMUCK /POLICEMAN                            (PETE BLAIN)

Although uncredited he was certainly a Policeman and his distinctive voice was used to move along the embracing lovers, in a tone that spoke volumes,

As Nepommuck he did as well as he could with a role for which he had to wear a most improbable beard! Rather like his namesake in “The Merry Widow” he went for pure comedy – a little over the top, of course, but popular with the audience.

“Now I am famous: they call me Hairy Faced Dick”..

This and similar lines were delivered with an exaggerated accent and good projection and Pete could build up drama well, for example when pronouncing importantly on Eliza’s origins,

“Only foreigners who have been taught to speak it speak it well”.

AMBASSADORS TO RHODESIA          (MICHAEL and         MAUREEN MELVILLE)

Whether speaking as hosts or leading the dance which Maureen had choreographed, these two performers were a team. Their diction was excellent, with full tone and good projection, from Michael and Maureen. They made the most of the lines, both looked good and were always in character even up the steep stairs.

TAXIMAN                                              (STEPHEN HOSKINS)

Just a couple of lines but they should be in sharp Cockney and they were, with nicely expressive delivery from Stephen,

“What d’ye mean, Bucknam Pellis?”

FLOWER SELLERS                          (CARMEN BOWETT and HANNAH LLOYD)

Some good work from these, Carmen and Hannah, and other bystanders, and I think they were dancers and courtiers, too. Lines like,

“Why didn’t you say so before?”

were built into a chorus of comment, nicely grouped as they were on the step in front of the red curtains. Good work by all.

COCKNEY M                                           (DAMIEN OATES)

Noticeable in his cap he was a lively bystander with good delivery of his comments and as a dancer Damien willed his feet to do it and they did!

PRODUCTION

The director writes an interesting note about the play, the writer’s epilogue and other matters. He also says,

“I have found this to be the most challenging of the three pays I have directed here at Harlequin Theatre”.

Indeed, every time I see it I am more and more impressed by its difficulties as well as its strength and insight. It is to Matthew’s credit that he has more or less kept all the characters credible and absorbed the pieces of philosophy that each often delivers directly to the audience.

So, in ACT ONE,

The red tabs suggested the inside of the theatre, not a church steps on which to shelter after the opera, but the two pillars on each side did a better job. The crowd were grouped well, with some sitting and some standing on and below the small raised area. There was pace in the lively comments and the attention was drawn by comments to the note-taker on the side of the stage. The side aisle was used for exits to a taxi, helped by sound effects. Higgins gave it pace although he may have put an “incarnate” in the wrong place and the scene finished well with Eliza and her taxi. Although why such a small basket would cost 2d extra, I am not sure!

The double set was momentarily confusing – until one realised that the playing was on one side only and that the other was to be used later. The view of a vase on a small table through the open door, right, added depth and dimension. The opening positions were good, as were the details in the room, but soon the narrowness of the set caused some masking, Higgins in front of Eliza in a chair, Eliza still half masked for “Garn!” and then was completely masked for

“You’re no gentleman”.

Higgins allowed himself a significant chuckle on

“Not any feelings to bother about?”

Eliza used pace and gathering power in her voice to make a splendid exit. Higgins now moved to mask Pickering on stage right. Doolittle was given a good position and although his “wanting, willing, waiting” was not the same as Higgins’s repetition, it was rhythmic enough. His longer pieces found him facing across the stage at Higgins, so most was in profile. He was clear and emphatic on the key lines,

“Undeserving poverty is my line”.

Eliza took over the “profile” position. And the hat brim hid some of her face. Her change for the “lesson” scene was very quick and the dialect was well maintained for lines like,

“A cup of tea”

Stage crew arranged furniture on stage left for next scene and Higgins just had time to change his waistcoat but not coat. Pickering, too, had a change of waistcoat. Lines and business were delivered well by everyone and there was visual comedy when Higgins virtually “flicked” Freddy onto the seat and then sat down next to Clara. Indeed it was a comedic style which also made the most of,

“Or anything else?”

Well dressed Eliza did well with the studied

“How do you do”s

and pump handle style shaking of hands. Line after line was given full comic delivery, with good timing,

“I bet I got it right”, and

“they done the old woman in”

The climax of the duologue between Pickering and Higgins and Mrs Higgins hands over ears reaction was well judged and performed.

In ACT TWO,

The light on the curtains gave a not unpleasant pinkish glow to the proceedings and the dance was elegant in style. Nepommuck delivered his broad comedy about shaving, and had a touch of the melodramatic villain about his lowered voice for,

“I make them all pay”.

The central aisle was used imaginatively as a staircase.  There was a nice focus on the position of Higgins. Cues were quick and all built up to Nepommuck’s conclusion,

“Morganatic perhaps”

And Eliza caught the humour in her delivery of

“ that I speak exactly like Queen Victoria”.

In the next scene a doleful looking Eliza fetched the slippers and listened as the men kept up a good pace with their chatter. Higgins and Eliza played the scene with quick cues and some good physical business and sharply delivered dialogue,

“because you’re crying and looking as ugly as the very devil”

Eliza judged the crying well and looked away left, with appropriately slow delivery of the line

“Oh God. I wish I was dead”.

In contrast, the note was lighter, especially from Freddy in boater and blazer, as Eliza tried to escape her predicament. With Freddy’s demeanour and the comic relief from the Policemen., it was a nice contrast to the previous scene.

The next scene saw another change of waistcoat for Higgins and Pickering. Doolittle made the most of his costume and comic lines,

“Do you see this? You done this”

but still did not escape the side facing position. He was, too, in front of Pickering on the seat upstage. He moved down and onto the different floor below the curtain line. Mrs Higgins had great strength in delivery of lines like,

“If not, go home”.

The scene with Eliza brought out some expressive acting from them all – but positions continued to be awkward sometimes – Pickering pointing at Higgins, across his body with his hand; Eliza downstage in front of Higgins and having to speak upstage; Eliza in front of Doolittle as he talked to her about the “two men”. But there was a good build up of the long pieces by all of them, especially Doolittle and the climax was superbly done, by Higgins and Eliza about going back, with quick cue-taking and nicely varied expression by them both, with strong, animated gestures and anger.

“Teach him my methods. My discoveries!”

and “That’s done you, Enry Iggins, it az”

Mrs Higgins returned, after a long time, but only seemed to have added a hat?  And Higgins’ laughter had the ring of conviction,

“She’s going to marry Freddy! Ha- ha, ha” .

It was a strong and confident conclusion from a director who had led up to it consistently throughout.

ENDEAVOUR, ORIGINALITY and THEATRICAL ATTAINMENT

The play was original, despite anything it owed to classical tale or, as the director tells us, W.S. Gilbert’s Galatea. Indeed it was full of what we came to regard as Fabian Society views on gender and on society

“and one soul is as good as another”

And, as the difficulty in casting showed, it was original in asking a leading lady to swear on stage. Of course that sort of originality is impossible to re-create. But the dialogue was delivered with energy and as if newly written – there were no clichés, for example, in Higgins delivery.

This less heightened manner was not wholly universal, but with a flower-girl who is asked to “play” a lady, that is perhaps inevitable. It created some good theatrical attainment and was clearly the result of a lot of endeavour on the part of the fluent and fast speaking cast. It was all well planned and thought out and the use of chorography, full sets where they were able, and some beautiful gowns, hairstyles and make up clearly were an endeavour to balance the philosophy.

Shaw is about dialogue and listening to it, with actors sitting in chairs to do key pieces in a way that today would have them doing the reverse – hence some difficulties with stage positions in places.

But the delivery of dialogue was a strength and one of the best parts of the theatrical attainment. And, although red curtains had drawbacks, the look of the whole piece was sumptuous, thanks to all the design and technical departments.

Matthew, the director, says, he “knows the play inside out and upside down” and that was obvious in the quality of his endeavours. Well done to him and to everyone in such a large and challenging undertaking!

Garth Jones