the observatory

After what I found as an infuriating version of The Trial, I was very pleased to experience the other side of Belt Up. The Tartuffe is fun and friendly, witty and imaginative. It engages its audience without abusing them (or pretending to abuse them) and has, in a simple but effective way, opened out this story into a meta-theatrical fantasmagoria. That they point out and gently mock their own meta-theatricality and deconstructionism helps to keep the play on the level of satire that Fringe audiences like. Personally, I'm not sure it was necessary to set-up a "reality" logic for the piece, but more on that later.

The story follows Orgon who wants to put on a play (see what they're doing?) of his life. His life's story pivots on his being fooled by The Tartuffe, a faux spiritual man who is basically after sex and money. We meet Orgon's wife, daughter, son and of course The Tartuffe as they go over what happened. There is, hidden behind the quick-fire wit, a serious point here about needed to act out events in order to understand them. This is not looked at in detail and with good reason: it wouldn't be funny. Still, it might be interesting.

The script is riddled with puns - my personal favourite, a mime who says, "I'll make you a Le Coq-tail" (it works better off the page) - and in many instances you feel that some people get some of them and others get some of them but none of us get them all. The play engages its audience to varying degrees - from just holding an object to complement a scene to performing alongside them in a key scene here or there. It is all well intentioned and while it is less generous a show than some that involve interaction, no one is unclear about what they are getting into.

I did feel that in many instances, but particularly in the main role of Orgon, the actors were not listening to one another in a way that would have helped. Of course you want to move through the material with more energy and it's about setting up the joke rather than emotional reality, but it would have helped if there wasn't a feeling of just waiting for cues a lot of the time. Indeed, because the set up asked us to believe that they actually were rehearsing a play of Orgon's life that emotional reality was important and it was a shame to lose it.

The work is unapologetically unempathetic to its characters. Orgon, as the obsessive patriarch of the family and the production, can dismiss the characters around him, mocking them often viciously. What some newspapers would call a "non-PC performance", this is all in the fun of it and feels appropriate to the form. There were one or two moments when this passed a boundary and became both distasteful and not funny at all. At one point Orgon's wife, Elmire, is raped by Tartuffe. She then stands as says something about how much she enjoyed it. It was neither witty nor necessary and clunked onto the floor like the unwieldy piece of performance it was. No one laughed. The worst thing was that it didn't even feel like a wry comment on the sexual relations in that era, or in ours. It was just a bit nasty.

This play has been getting a lot of attention - there were cameras present during this performance - and it is well deserved (even if it has not yet reached the level of performance sophistication that it could, and the script could do with a little editing). I wonder if the decision to take two productions was the best, though. The Trial feels laboured and less imaginative, but still with some nice ideas. Perhaps if the creative drive was more focused on one production it would have really created a great show. As for The Tartuffe, it was certainly a good show, but there were heights it never reached. As for the company, you hope they will continue making work and you suspect they will have some time in the spotlight off the back of this. They certainly deserve it.

8.5 out of 10.

At S Soco (Studio 1a) at 8.55pm.

-    James Grogan.

P.S. This is the last review I will make during this year's Fringe. It is a real shame to leave when there is so much unseen and so many shows not even up yet. I'm missing the Forest Fringe and the British Council showcase, both worth seeing if you're up. The great thing about Edinburgh is that even if you ignored all comedy shows and only wanted to see theatre and a bit of dance you would still have to see 10 shows a day everyday in order to see everything. Alas, such is not the case. In the past 10 days or so we have reviewed 30 shows; we have given 1 out of 10 (A Grave Situation) and 10 out of 10 (Trilogy) and everything in between. We have seen wonderful performances that will have a life far beyond Edinburgh 2009 and we have seen shows that were instantly forgettable. Such is the way with this wonderful festival. Still, we have not seen enough shows. If you want to review any show we have not featured yet, please email your review to James.Grogan@nationalartservice.org.uk and we'll post it online.

Enjoy the rest of the Fringe!

Despite this company's slightly disturbing name, one suspects that they would be the last in line at a baby feast. They are really just a bit too nice. They are the sons and daughters who excuse themselves before leaving a table and who you really wouldn't think twice about inviting to your mother's 60th birthday dinner where the Hendersons and all the residents association eat retro canapés. There is no baby on the menu here.

The fact is that A Clockwork Orange needs to pervade a vicious and menacing poison throughout. If we don't feel in immediate danger, there's a pretty good chance that we'll feel it's all a bit over the top and cartoonish. Walking in a few minutes late (very rude, I know, but the previous show had overrun) I did have a slight expectation that I might be abused by the cast. Alas, no, I took my seat under the very distracting overhead fan that is a favourite of all Fringe venues and realised that actually, I wasn't going to enjoy this very much at all.

A Clockwork Orange follows Alex and his droogs as they rampage around a dystopian city seeking cheap and violent thrills. Well, the why of the rampaging will always be open to argument - not one I wish to start now - and that's very much the job of any given production. In the course of the rampaging Alex is arrested and imprisoned and eventually subjected to a treatment for his violence that is worse than the affliction itself. It is a complex tale with no straightforward moralising and both Anthony Burgess and Stanley Kubrick have rendered the story with such unforgiving cruelty that it is hard to top their efforts.

The acting was solid enough and watchable for much of it, but it did lack both nuance and menace. The fear that characters were supposedly feeling did not make it past the first row and the stakes were never really raised. It's funny, but looking at men in bowler hats and canes inflicting stage violence on people is really a bit pantomimeish. It's such an oft repeated image that it has just come to stand in for ultraviolence, rather than actually evoking it. As someone pointed out to me later, it is the hooded teen who invokes such fear for many people these days. While I'm not sure that interpretation would have quite cut it either, it at least would have been a clear statement and could have inspired some fear.

The staging and the lighting are both simple and understated but in many ways the most clear elements present. The spot pointing directly down centre stage is a common devise, but effective nonetheless. The costume design was also clear, but as discussed before, a little unimaginative.

It was often difficult to hear the actors, especially over the incessant whirl of the fan, and that did add to the lack of intensity. It's a shame. This - relatively - large cast could, I feel, have produced something much more unleashed and terrifying. Alas, it has become just one more Fringe show that leaves its potential unfulfilled and its audience largely unmoved.

3 out of 10.

At C Venues (C +1) at 10pm.

-    James Grogan.

Hugh Hughes is charming as disarming and as his audience enters he does his best to make them feel at ease. If he is, in fact, a sociopath who enjoys torturing small animals - I would be very surprised. Despite one slightly strange interaction with a late-comer - we couldn't find out where she was from or anything about her, but she seemed nice all the same - he maintained a jovial atmosphere throughout. Initially, with the informal banter and adlibs, I thought that this must be more like a stand up show, which while all well and good, was neither what I was expecting nor what I was looking for.

In truth, Hughes has re-evaluated the theatrical experience. Not set or props or scene changes or lighting cues. Just him and a microphone he occasionally uses. He melted into the start of the show, taking a strange joy in the fact that the show officially starts when the door closes. It's hard to know when it did start - there was no sense of ritual about it. Generally you felt he was stripping back narrative and theatre formalities and just being himself.

The show, we are told, is about friendship. Hugh narrates the story of his eventful friendship with his friend Garreth, their childhood "adventures" and their more recent difficulties in communicating effectively. The undertext of the show is about fantasies, realities and how you can shift and adjust one reality based on perception. It also considers how feelings and atmospheres of spaces affect one's own emotional landscape. By playfully exploring narrative structures and layers Hughes holds a mirror to our own lives and asks if we can't shift our perspective too.

Hughes believes in fantasy as a reality that stands next to our own. He believes that you can choose how you see and what you see - about yourself, about others, about situations. He reaffirms the power of not performing a role that is not yourself for the benefit of others - their prejudices and their worthiness. I fear I am making the show sound more serious than it feels, but that's because the beauty of this performance (it feels wrong to call it a play, somehow) is that it has a deadly serious undercurrent.

Parts of the narrative could be given more time and possibly a better sense of the theatrical event would give the performance more shape - but both of those are part of the performance, so it's hard to criticise them. In one or two moments there was a sense that there is a sharpness underlying Hughes and it might have been nice to see just a little bit more of that - is there a greater complexity to the on-stage persona. I think many of us would have wanted to track what Hughes did and said in the bar that night, just to see if he was for real.

A good story, well told without the pretensions of being more than it is, Hugh Hughes in 360 would endear itself, along with Hughes himself, to any audience member. Recommended.

8 out of 10.

At the Pleasance Courtyard (Pleasance Two) at 7.05pm.

- James Gogan

Once again, a good show, better than most, with only a handful of audience members. It is ridiculous how much people will scrabble for certain tickets and completely disregard a curious, enjoyable and genuine performance. At times, I do despair. Lucy Foster presents us with her campaign to save the polar bear and prevent the world from sliding inexorably towards ecological disaster. She does this by making propaganda videos dressed as a polar bear, giving confident speeches about the necessity to save the planet and imagining a world after the consumerist hell we have built up in this society.

Foster is both funny and charming and a compelling performer. She is incredibly real with us - greeting us as we enter, looking at each of us directly throughout (mind you, that is easier with such an empty house). She asked for our input and participation, but never in a way that feels exploitative or cheap. She is clearly passionate about what she is doing and why.

The reason the play is more than just a playful polemic about the environment is that the real story - or perhaps the more compelling one - is actually about how becoming passionate about an issue can give you the confidence and hope to be more passionate about your dysfunctional love life and more welcoming to life's possibilities without the necessity to be full of beer. In some strange ways, this is a love story - love for polar bears, for nature and the environment, love of affection and intimacy, love of love.

There are moments when Foster undermines her own political statements - by self-deprecating you imagine she is trying to be more endearing, but it comes across as weak and somewhat of a cop-out. It is possible to make deadly serious political points while being witty and charming, and with some subtle reworkings this show could be just that. A simple and effective staging and lighting, the whole show does work well and is a very enjoyable hour in the company of a very honest and compelling performer.

One hopes that in time Lucy will not just pretend to be confident about her ability to affect the course of environmental degradation, but will, in fact, believe in her ability to realise that world she describes to us.

7.5 out of 10.

At Pleasance Courtyard (Above) at 3.40pm.

While well performed, with a great deal of energy and clarity of movement and voice, this piece simply did not have the material to support the energy. A man goes to post a package in a Post Office. He discovers an American postal clerk and together they go to Paris, or do they imagine going to Paris? They meet some people, do some fun things and he is given a new perspective on life, or something like that. A few passable jokes did not make up for the paper-thin plot, with little or no sense of dramaturgy.

The performances were strong. The clear characterisation, strong accent work, good physicality and occasionally strong physical theatre set pieces. Why it is under dance I do not know, but there are moments of solid choreography. There are one or two good one liners - such as when the man says, referring to a bottle of wine, "But we don't have any glasses" and the woman says "Glasses? We don't need glasses. [Long pause] We can see perfectly fine." It's hardly going to become a classic, but worth a titter.

Ultimately, though, it was all-round quite insubstantial. There was little or no sense of dramaturgy - why were people behaving like they were, on what basis were things changing and scenes developing? It completely evaded me. At the end we were told this was Half Wits's first Fringe appearance. I do hope they take this experience and make something more meaty, more gripping and more substantial.

4 out of 10.

At Pleasance Courtyard (Attic) at 2.30pm.

-    James Grogan.