REVIEW - Western Daily Press Monday March 31st 1975  -  KNIGHTS IN A MUSICAL MOOD

​

King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table are in a musical mood at Weston-super-Mare Playhouse this week, where Weston Amateur Dramatic Society is presenting Lerner and Lowe's Camelot.

And a very polished and professional job it is.

The show is bright and colourful, greatly helped by David Hemming's smooth direction and marvellous costumes designed and made by Mary Hughes.

The cast shows that while acting might be its main interest, it can sing well too.

Gregory Thacker gives a splendidly assured performance as King Arthur and Teresinha Morton-Hicks is a fetching Guenevere.

Anthony Lay oozes confidence as super-knight Lancelot, and Paul Dening provides a few laughs as the doddery King Pellinore.

There seems to be some strange fascination about King Arthur which makes him an ever popular figure, so the show looks set for a well deserved success.

The only trouble with Camelot is that apart from the title song the score is not terribly strong.

But the society has overcome this handicap with the zest of its playing and the quality of its acting.

The show runs until Saturday.

​

REVIEW - Bristol Evening Post Tuesday April 1st 1975  -  MERLYN'S MAGIC WEAVES ITS SPELL

​

It may seem unusual for a dramatic society to put on a full-scale musical.

For all too often actors can't sing and singers can't act.

But some of Merlin's magic seems to have rubbed off on the Weston society, for they can sing and act equally well.

This popular show, based on the Arthurian legend, is certainly a triumph.

Handsomely staged and with some strikingly colourful costumes made by Mary Hughes, it is a perfect entertainment for Easter.

Director David Hemming has drawn some marvellous performances from his principal players, especially Gregory Thacker as King Arthur, who as well as being an assured actor, possesses a fine singing voice.

Equally confident is Anthony Lay as Lancelot and Teresinha Morton-Hicks is a delightful Guenevere.

It is a pity that the show doesn't have a particularly strong score, with only the title song and one or two others having any real impact.

But this is only a small handicap and one which the society overcome with ease thanks to their enthusiastic acting. The show runs until Saturday.                                                                                   Andrew White

​

REVIEW - Weston Mercury, Somerset & Avon Herald Friday April 4th 1975  -  DRAMATIC SOCIETY BRINGS BACK THE COLOURFUL WORLD OF ARTHUR'S CAMELOT

​

Amateur Theatre is aimed at entertaining two groups of people - the

audience and the actors who can derive just as much pleasure from 

presenting as from watching a play.

So amateurs naturally choose material that is challenging and

absorbing to work with and Weston-super-Mare Dramatic Society has

for a long time led the way locally in trying a hand at all kinds of 

theatre, not simply plays.

Camelot began as a play with music, not a musical play, so it is well

within the compass of a society that explores all fields and this Easter

we have been transported far from present troubles to an age of

simpler issues and gentle magic.

Escape for an evening to the court of King Arthur and the colourful

world of medieval England - despite whatever the historians say. The

Dramatic Society has staged its Easter production with great charm

and splendour and nothing has been spared to make it a great visual

treat.

The play is based upon T.H. White's trilogy The Once and Future 

King which, with its own marvellous mythology, equals Tolkien's

wonderland. The play can only hint as the mysteries which are

experienced in White's books, so in this it is a little unsatisfactory.

Merlyn, for instance, who lives backwards, is only fleetingly introduced and other characters so richly detailed in the books are shadowy figures in this highly compressed stage version of the saga. The element of mysticism which pervades White's writing and leads Arthur to initiate his quest for good is not easily reconciled with the fairy story elements which are so colourful in Camelot. Many questions remain unanswered and the big numbers lack import.

All that is the fault of Lerner and Lowe's book and music, not Weston Dramatic Society but it is an element of the production and cannot be ignored. Prettiness is not enough. There is a need for an incisive attack to add tension and drama.

David Hemming, who has directed the Society for the Playhouse has found an excellent leading pair in Gregory Thacker as the reluctant king and Teresinha Morton-Hicks, as his dedicated Queen.

This Arthur is sincere, commanding and confused but resolute in his aim to build a better world. Guenevere is loyal but frail and moving in her penitence. Mr. Thacker's voice and attach are fine in word and song and he is a formidable figure. Teresinha has the making of a useful actress. She can project fun and pleasure and then move on to pathos and emotion with quiet ease and she looks good, too.

Paul Dening is well suited to the gruff King Pellinore and John Butler is a splendidly rascally Mordred. Anthony Lay's Lancelot is a curiously colourless portrait of such a passionate character that it is hard to see why Guenevere was tempted.

There is a long cast list of characters including Don MacGregor's nimbus Merlyn and Lesley Blackwell's seductive study of Morgan Le Fey.

Mary Hughes's costumes are a delight and so is the scenery in this very attractive production. Jessica Hillman keeps a tight but sympathetic rein on the musical numbers which are gently but undemandingly tuneful. Choreography by Judythe Alexander and a troupe of dancers is an important ingredient in this Easter-tide entertainment which has something for everyone - and that includes the large cast, too.               R.M.D.

​

REVIEW - Retired Actress W.A. Austin Saturday April 5th 1975

​

I appreciate very much the honour you extended to me in asking me to let you have my comments on your production of 'Camelot'. To begin with I must say that I was absolutely enchanted with the whole thing. The opening scene, with snow falling and the Castle in the distance immediately transferred me to another world. The first song did not have the full impact that I hoped for, but one has to make allowances for nerves and the fact that you cast had both to act, and sing. A tall order I think. Like the first Act of any play one has to put more in to it, from a Producer's point of view as well as the Cast. to make the audience one with the play as a whole, at the start of the performance. If one did not know the story of Camelot, for instance, the 'peeping' of the King must not seem like some off-stage person looking to see that all is well!

The play improved as it progressed, the singers gained more confidence, and the acting more relaxed. I envied you your wonderful theatre, your more than competent back-stage hands, your lighting experts and all the people not seen by the audience, but apart from all this (and I judge as you know from the standpoint of actors and actresses being able to hold an audience without scenery, staging or lighting, as one has to do in the examinations for Dramatic Art) I felt the whole thing had enormous verve and sincere effort on the part of every player, whether the part they played was small or large. The ability to play a small role, well, proves the worth of an actor. Next the team spirit was excellent, no one tried to steal the limelight, each and all submerged themselves to make a perfect whole. My heartiest congratulations to you and your players, also your back stage staff for accomplishing this.

The dancing was truly lovely and added much to the play as a whole. Not only did they dance well, they also projected atmosphere, they blended well into the play as a whole, were part of it in a very satisfactory way.

Gestures    Some of them were too close to the body, not expansive enough, but I think this was offset by the very graceful movement of the players, making the 'pace' fit in with the period. The first love scene between Lancelot and Guenevere was a gem. I've never seen better. One has to remember the period of the play so that the controlled, gentle, sensitive movements of Lancelot, as he touched G. were a poem, and G.'s response matched the gestures. Nothing artificial, overdone or self conscious. Had Lancelot's love making had in it anything of today's brashness the play would have been spoiled for me, congratulations for keeping the whole thing in period. One of the players and singers particularly impressed me, with the gaiety and spontaneity of the acting and movement, unfortunately I cannot name him, he played most at the right hand of the stage (from the audience) and I believe you said that he was your boss.

Grouping    On the whole excellent, occasionally a player allowed himself or herself to be masked, but this was rare, and after all you had a stupendous Cast. You didn't always place your most important player upstage but perhaps you had your reasons? I have to keep remembering the the production was not just a play, but also a musical, needing different technique.

Singing    On the whole very good indeed. But what a marvellous accompanist, no fuss, utterly dependable, and that must have made your singers able to relax and know that all would indeed be well.

Diction and Projection    Good I think, admittedly I sat in a place, but even so I think their voices would have carried well. Obviously whole thing was well rehearsed.

It would take too long to mention each Actor or Actress by name and give a separate Crit; but I do not think you required me to do this. Furthermore, not knowing you were going to ask me to make comments, I did not observe the production from this angle. Naturally, being who I am and what I am, as it were, and always looking at a play from the Producers point of view, I couldn't help noticing some things, though for the most part I was immersed in the play, and the illusion which you sort to build up stayed with me. However, one thing I couldn't help notice, and that was that when the King was distressed by Guenevere's defection, he showed emotions, which were good, but his body did not go along with hi facial expressions. His hands and body quite limp, contradicted by his expressions. When in grief, loss or pain, one either becomes numb and so there is absolute stillness and limpness, or if the other method is chosen, that of passion, or any expression of emotion, must come from the whole body as well as the face.

Another small point, the Nun's hands were not quite correct, I think that the thumbs should have been crossed, any Catholic would have picked up this error. Furthermore, when G. and L. met in their presence, there should have been some sort of re-action from the Nun's themselves, they are but women, even if supremely controlled - watchfulness would be one trait as well as compassion. Again the meeting of the lovers should have been the most agonising part of the play, G. hoped to gain heaven by becoming a Nun and repudiating all earthly love, there should have been a heavily controlled effort not to look at Lancelot, and similar re-action on his part, though to be a foil for the 3 nun's, his approach should have been forceful, yet keeping within the bounds of his obvious purity of heart. The most difficult part of the play this don;t you think.

Should the players have faced the King as they backed out of his presence, surely they are only allowed to turn as they reach their exits? I was surprised you allowed them to bow, and then turn their backs. Protocol was stricter then than it is today, and even in a modern play this point would have been highlighted. The rhythm of the modern play as a whole was spoilt for me by this one defect.

Actually, David, I cannot honestly fault the production, it was a joy to watch and truly I wouldn't have missed it for anything. I don't think I could have produced it myself, it was a stupendous undertaking, doing a full time job, as you do, at the same time. I cannot congratulate you too highly, and the players themselves of course.

I thought the acting of Morgan Le Fey very professional. However, I don't really feel that I can single out any one of the players, they were all good in their own particular way.

​