The Importance of Being Earnest

The London Classic Theatre staged a performance of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest in Siamsa Tíre from Valentine’s Day to the 16^th of February.   The play follows two gentlemen, John Worthing (Paul Sandys) and Algernon Moncriff (Harry Livingstone), who have both created fictional personae in order to deceive their friends and families.  When Algernon is faced with family engagements he does not wish to attend he claims that his invalid friend, Mr Bunbury, has taken a bad turn and that he must go to Bunbury’s country home to care for him. John’s deception is of a different nature, he lives in Hertfordshire with his eighteen year old ward, Cecily (Felicity Houlbrooke), and in order to be a good influence he tries to maintain a serious demeanour. However he also has a libertine streak and he regularly leaves for London with the excuse that his fictional brother, Ernest, has landed himself in trouble and John must go to the city to help him. When he arrives at London John lives under the name of Ernest and is therefore free to live out his whims.  At the beginning of the play John has resolved to kill off Ernest but his plan is immediately complicated when the lady he  has been courting in London, Mrs Fairfax (Helen Keeley),  declares that she loves him because of his name (which she believes to be 'Ernest'). Here Ernest who was initially a boon to John has become a burden and unbeknownst to John the devious Algernon has arrived at John’s country home claiming to be Ernest and he is intent on causing trouble. 

Structurally the play is not original; it is a comedy which derives much of its humour from the confusion which arises from mistaken identities, however what separates The Importance of Being Earnest from other plays of this type is Wilde’s witty and outrageous use of language. I felt that the first the half of the production was a bit flat comedywise: I chuckled a lot but I do not think I laughed out loud. However the second half of the play more than made up for the disappointment of the first and I found myself laughing throughout.  I think the relative weakness of the first half  was down to the fact that  much time was expended consisted in down the foundation for the plot and the subsequent hilarity of the second half.

The quality of the cast was strong, However I felt that Laosisha O’Callaghan’s (who played the part of Miss Prism) Irish accent was jarring when put next the clipped aristocratic accents of the rest of the cast. Harry Livingstone’s Algernon Moncriff was a particular highlight in that he proved to be both charismatic and hilariously mischievous.

The set design was distinguished by its minimalism which helped to bring attention to Wilde’s masterful use of language. An interesting aspect of the set design was that every character had a unique chair whose style reflected the character’s personality. The one part of the set that I found off putting was the huge back drop of three gigantic pink roses which contradicted the set designer’s minimalist aims and which in my view did  not display any real metaphorical significance which could have been used to justify such a huge (and presumably expensive) set piece.

Despite a uneven start I felt that the London Classic Theatre’s production was a highly entertaining show which was sharply and skilfully executed by an accomplished cast and compliment by a smart minimalist set design.

3 out of five stars.

Les Misérables

                I was meaning to watch Les Misérables for quite some time but up until Monday events got in my way.  Les Misérable or  ‘Les Mis’ as it is known to its fans is a Hollywood adaption of the famous musical which itself was based on Victor Hugo’s epic nineteenth century novel. While I had heard good things about the movie I was initially apprehensive. This worry seemed to be confirmed in the opening scene which show a huge CGI ship been dragged into dock by chained prisoners. I felt that this set piece was overblown and the scene was further marred by Russell Crowe’s poor vocal performance in the role of the prision guard/ policeman Javert . Thus in the first scene I was simultaneously overwhelmed (by the CGI trickery) and underwhelmed (by Russell Crowes squawk).  However after this rocky start the film improves markedly. Starting in 1815 (the year of the Bourbon Restoration) the film follows several different story threads which all converge during the republican rebellion of June 1832.

The major plot thread focuses on Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman) a man who spent nineteen years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to save his starving family. In the beginning of the movie he is released on indefinite parole but his papers, which label him as a ‘dangerous man’, ensure he is unable to gain employment or shelter. Eventually he is taken in by a bishop, whose kindness Valjean repays by stealing his silverware. He is quickly caught by the authorities who return him to the bishop however the cleric confirms Valjean’s alibi that the he gave Valjean the silverware as a gift. Once the authorities leave the bishop tells Valjean that he lied for him so that he could sell the silverware and become an honest and godly man. Inspired by this act of kindness Valjean tears his papers and vows to start his life anew.  Eight years later Valjean , living under the alias of Monsieur Madelleine, is a successful factory owner and a pillar of society but the appearance of Javet on the scene threatens his new life and Valjean is faced with a moral dilemma when an innocent man is mistaken for himself and is facing life imprisonment for Valjean’s crimes. Simultaneously we see the tragic fall of Fontanne who after being fired by one of Valjean’s foremen when it is revealed that she is using her wages to support her illegitimate daughter, Cosette, who is living with a family of unscrupulous innkeepers. Unable to make money Fontaine sells her hair, her teeth and eventually her body in order to pay for her daughters care. Eventually her path intertwines with that of Valjean who feels a responsibility for her fall and vows to become Cosette’s guardian.

The opening scenes of the movie depicts an unjust world in which the poor suffer at the hands of inhumane laws and are ignored by the rich. This foreground helps put the June Rebellion in context but this attempt at radical change is ineffective against the power of the army. In the end it seems to be examples of Valjean and Javert which seems to illuminate the path out of penury however both these examples are troublesome. Javert escapes his poverty by becoming a policeman and by adopting a strict moral code in which the law is unimpeachable, however while Javert’s dutifulness has its own dignity it is also problematic because he upholds a system which is fundamentally unjust. Valjean after meeting the bishop also becomes a man with a rigorous sense of morality but his code seems to be guided by a sense of natural justice rather than strict adherence to the law: he will follow the law when it is just, but he will break it when it is not. This moral system allows him to improve both spiritually and materially however his ability to transcend his station is essentially due to his lucky encounter with the bishop and thus goodness and honesty alone cannot guarantee one’s advancement out of poverty. We see Valjean’s success but we also see the counter example of Fantine who dies in poverty despite her inherent goodness.

 Both Valjean and Javert are shown to be pious men and I think they represent  two different approaches to morality: Javert’s morality is rigid and legalistic while Valjean seems to adhere more to the spirit of the law than to the letter. While Valjean’s system is the superior one  it also more difficult because unlike Javert's morality it is not based on black-and-white distinctions and therefore it is more difficult to discern what is morally right. 

Despite its length (158 minutes) the film proceeds at a quick place which adds a sense of exuberance to the proceedings. The film is quite melodramatic especially the ending which is highly sentimental but I don’t think the film ever falls into mawkishness. On the whole despite speed bumps in the beginning Les Misérables  a highly entertaining and engaging piece of cinema.