Oliver Twist chronicles the misadventures of a young orphan boy struggling to find his way. Directed by Professor Gregory Tuck, who was celebrating his 40th production here at Bishop’s, bringing this story to life was no small feat.
Robert Dawson portrayed the role of Oliver Twist, but it was the group of actors as a whole that truly made the play. Each character had something to offer, be it the “Artful Dodger” portrayed by Lesley McKirdy or Mr. Bumble, portrayed by Christina Kingsbury. The accents used throughout the play by characters such as the Dodger and Mr. Bumble had me wondering if these actors hadn’t actually braved the streets of London as children themselves. They certainly all looked the part, with a wide variety of costumes to please the eye. The set on which this tale unfolded was simple, yet extremely effective. Accompanying the set was the music played in between each scene, which conveyed the mood of the coming events perfectly. Whenever the audience was brought into the lair of the despicable Fagin, an eerie theme came on, warning us that we were venturing into the underbelly of London, home to thieves and vagabonds alike.
Another aspect that truly stood out and made a difference was the way it was narrated. Oliver kept quiet throughout most of the scenes, except in confrontational situations where he was able to make his plight heard. Aside from a song near the middle of the play, it seemed as if the young protagonist, Mr. Twist, was simply being dragged through the plot, at times. It was the company, or some of the central characters, that narrated his tale. Although at some points it seemed as if he should have had a couple more lines, the way the cast served as these omnipotent narrators, almost taunting and poking at his misfortune, made up for it. However, this did make it difficult for the audience to become attached to one character in particular. I feel this was the only obvious flaw of the production.
It was Nancy, portrayed by a very convincing Kelly Van der Burg, whose violent death at the hands of the brute Bill Sikes (Peter Jarvis) that was truly upsetting. Why? For most of the story, I don’t think anyone believed that Bill had it in him to murder her. But Nancy had the chance to win over the audience before meeting her end. It could be said she served as his voice at times, knowing what her young friend was unwilling to say. Ultimately, she traded her life for Oliver’s freedom.
So, it was a collective effort which made Oliver Twist so successful. I’d have no problem going for seconds.
“The set on which this tale unfolded was simple, yet extremely effective.”
Although I would agree that the set was effective, it was by no means simple. Having a set that moves and can be adapted to fit 75 scenes with minimal blackouts is quite impressive. The set designer John Dinning, the technical team led by Mike Medland, and the actors who skillfully moved the set pieces while in costume and maintaining their characters deserve more credit than having their work be deemed ‘simple.
Lynsey,
I should have pointed out what I was referring to as “simple”. I was
not making reference to the skill required in maneuvering such a large set or the many
functions it yielded, but more directly its appearance. It was used in 75 scenes, as you say
yourself. The same set which was merely turned around several times, managed to serve
each scene extremely well.
Its appearance however, underwent no great transformations. It was not an overly complicated
structure at all. The way in which it was used, and the many functions it managed to serve with the
appropriate use of lighting, and props was not simple. However in my opinion, the actual structure
itself was.
Apologies for not including this point in my article. I’m still learning.
Christian M.G.