This is a good, clear production, in which the repartee flows right along, except for a big rock in the middle of the stream: Rupert Frazer, far too stuffy and moral for Algernon, and not nearly hungry enough. He becomes a straight man for Jack, in which role Paul McGann, usually a melancholy actor, turns his doleful air into one long, sublimely silly fret. Natalie Ogle is a sweetly fixated Cecily. Amanda Redman has such an abundance of energy some of it comes out as mugging, but in her performance one correctly sees, as Jack foresees, that she probably will become like her mother, as whom Joan Plowright has just the right mixture of dottiness and obtuseness. If it had only had a better Algernon....
13 Reviews
fairly good but something of a curio
didi-53 January 2008
DVD notes for this adaptation claim it is not the 'four act version of the play' - without reference to the text I can't say for sure what has been added or subtracted. However, the play as most of us know it remains intact.
As Jack and Algy, Paul McGann and Rupert Frazer are OK but not fantastic. Joan Plowright is an interesting Lady Bracknell, but not really my idea of the character. And Amanda Redman impresses as Gwendolyn. In minor roles Gemma Jones and Alec McCowen provide the characters of Prism and Chasable with comic relief, not always the best policy but one which works here.
Rather pedestrian and not likely to disturb memories of Redgrave/Denison/Evans in the 1950s, this Earnest is rather more of a damp squib than a raging flame.
As Jack and Algy, Paul McGann and Rupert Frazer are OK but not fantastic. Joan Plowright is an interesting Lady Bracknell, but not really my idea of the character. And Amanda Redman impresses as Gwendolyn. In minor roles Gemma Jones and Alec McCowen provide the characters of Prism and Chasable with comic relief, not always the best policy but one which works here.
Rather pedestrian and not likely to disturb memories of Redgrave/Denison/Evans in the 1950s, this Earnest is rather more of a damp squib than a raging flame.
One of Oscar Wilde's wittiest plays
howard.schumann29 January 2007
One of Oscar Wilde's wittiest and most epigrammatic plays, The Importance of Being Earnest, is given a rousing performance in a BBC production that is one part of The Oscar Wilde Collection, a four-part collection that also features The Picture of Dorian Gray, An Ideal Husband, and Lady Windermere's Fan. Earnest was the last of Mr. Wilde's plays and is considered his best. It premiered in 1895 to mostly critical acclaim with the exception of George Bernard Shaw who was amused but untouched. The advertising for the play stopped, however, after Mr. Wilde's sex scandal and disappeared after a run of only three months but was revived again after the author's death in 1900.
The play, more a farce than a comedy, shows the hypocrisy of the upper crust of Victorian society and ridicules their Puritan ideals. In the BBC production, Paul McGann is Jack Worthing, a rich orphan of 28 who has invented a brother named Earnest that he uses as a means of escape. He is Jack when in the country and calls himself Earnest when in town to court the woman he loves, Gwendolyn Fairfax (Amanda Redman) who loves him because she thinks he is Earnest.
Standing in the way of their marriage is the haughty Lady Bracknell, played with over-the-top gusto by the great Joan Plowright. Lady Bracknell refuses to consent to the marriage because Jack is an orphan who was found in a handbag discovered in a cloakroom at Victoria Station, Brighton Line. Lady Bracknell tells him, "To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness!"
The witticisms and one-liners come so fast that it is often necessary to back up and hear them again. One exchange between Lady Bracknell and Jack Worthing goes like this:
LB: "A man who desires to marry should know everything or nothing. Which do you know?"
JW: "I know nothing."
LB: "I am pleased. I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance."
Both Jack and his friend Algernon(Algie) Moncrieff (Rupert Frazer) have invented imaginary people in their lives. Algie conjures up a friend named Bunbury to visit when he wants to leave the city for the country. To complicate matters, Algie, pretends to be Jack's lost brother Earnest and falls in love with Cecily, Jack's 18-year old ward. The web becomes even more tangled when Jack and Gwendolyn show up and mass confusion reigns. A totally absurd scene between Lady Bracknell, Cecily's tutor Miss Prism, and the two couples is needed to clear the air.
While I haven't seen the Asquith 1952 version which is supposed to be definitive, the cast in this version does an outstanding job, especially Joan Plowright as the imperious Lady Bracknell and Paul McGann as the high spirited Jack Moncrieff. On the other hand, Rupert Frazer as Algie seems too mannered and effeminate to be convincing as the lover of young Cecily. Regardless, time spent drinking in the wit and wisdom of Oscar Wilde can only be called delightful.
The play, more a farce than a comedy, shows the hypocrisy of the upper crust of Victorian society and ridicules their Puritan ideals. In the BBC production, Paul McGann is Jack Worthing, a rich orphan of 28 who has invented a brother named Earnest that he uses as a means of escape. He is Jack when in the country and calls himself Earnest when in town to court the woman he loves, Gwendolyn Fairfax (Amanda Redman) who loves him because she thinks he is Earnest.
Standing in the way of their marriage is the haughty Lady Bracknell, played with over-the-top gusto by the great Joan Plowright. Lady Bracknell refuses to consent to the marriage because Jack is an orphan who was found in a handbag discovered in a cloakroom at Victoria Station, Brighton Line. Lady Bracknell tells him, "To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness!"
The witticisms and one-liners come so fast that it is often necessary to back up and hear them again. One exchange between Lady Bracknell and Jack Worthing goes like this:
LB: "A man who desires to marry should know everything or nothing. Which do you know?"
JW: "I know nothing."
LB: "I am pleased. I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance."
Both Jack and his friend Algernon(Algie) Moncrieff (Rupert Frazer) have invented imaginary people in their lives. Algie conjures up a friend named Bunbury to visit when he wants to leave the city for the country. To complicate matters, Algie, pretends to be Jack's lost brother Earnest and falls in love with Cecily, Jack's 18-year old ward. The web becomes even more tangled when Jack and Gwendolyn show up and mass confusion reigns. A totally absurd scene between Lady Bracknell, Cecily's tutor Miss Prism, and the two couples is needed to clear the air.
While I haven't seen the Asquith 1952 version which is supposed to be definitive, the cast in this version does an outstanding job, especially Joan Plowright as the imperious Lady Bracknell and Paul McGann as the high spirited Jack Moncrieff. On the other hand, Rupert Frazer as Algie seems too mannered and effeminate to be convincing as the lover of young Cecily. Regardless, time spent drinking in the wit and wisdom of Oscar Wilde can only be called delightful.
Fine Adaptation from Stage to (small) Screen
vox-sane9 January 2004
Oscar Wilde's "Importance of Being Ernest" is indisputably one of the great comedies, frothy with nonsense and, with William Gilbert's libretti, just about the only survivor from the Victorian stage that is regularly performed. Some of the allusions may be dated, but the plot itself holds up admirably.
The play was given superb treatment in the movies in 1952 with an A-list cast including Michael Regrave, Edith Evans, Michael Denison, Joan Greenwood, Miles Malleson, and Margaret Rutherford. The younger lovers were all much older than their roles required, and were played with the sort of delicacy and panache unlikely in younger actors ("Ernest" Worthing was 29 while Michael Redgrave was in his mid forties). Only Dorthy Tutin, in her early twenties, was close to the age of the 18 year old Cicily. Needless to say, the older actors (Rutherford, Malleson, Evans), all experienced old pros who were born in the Victorian era, were exquisitely perfect in their parts.
Unfortunately, for length, there were some cuts in the text.
The adaptation of 1986 with Frazer, McGann, Plowright, Ogle and Redman is pallid by comparison, but stands up on its own as a fine, set-bound full version of the play. It starts with Frazer a letter-perfect Algernon and McGann a less than powerful "Ernest" Worthing, but Plowright (Mrs. Laurence Olivier) does her best to fill Evans' shoes and the well-known first act trickles on with little damage to Wilde. This version picks up steam at the Worthing country manor, and finds its pace with the meeting of Algernon and "Ernest"; with the confrontation between Cicely and Gwendolyn it never looks back and takes no prisoners. When all the characters appear for the finale, it winds down to the inevitable but still amusing conclusion.
Anyone who wants a version of the play uncut and undoctored (from what I've heard the Rupert Everett version was disastrously tampered with) needs to add this to their collection. The only caveat is with the acting. McGann is a good actor but he doesn't seem to have much power as "Ernest". Perhaps he's trying too hard to not make it seem, as with so many versions, he's just repeating all Wilde's famous quotes, attempting to wrest "Ernest" from being just a museum piece it's sometimes played as. Redman is sometimes very good and sometimes is dangerously close to mugging. Ogle is a welcome surprise as Cicely.
The play was given superb treatment in the movies in 1952 with an A-list cast including Michael Regrave, Edith Evans, Michael Denison, Joan Greenwood, Miles Malleson, and Margaret Rutherford. The younger lovers were all much older than their roles required, and were played with the sort of delicacy and panache unlikely in younger actors ("Ernest" Worthing was 29 while Michael Redgrave was in his mid forties). Only Dorthy Tutin, in her early twenties, was close to the age of the 18 year old Cicily. Needless to say, the older actors (Rutherford, Malleson, Evans), all experienced old pros who were born in the Victorian era, were exquisitely perfect in their parts.
Unfortunately, for length, there were some cuts in the text.
The adaptation of 1986 with Frazer, McGann, Plowright, Ogle and Redman is pallid by comparison, but stands up on its own as a fine, set-bound full version of the play. It starts with Frazer a letter-perfect Algernon and McGann a less than powerful "Ernest" Worthing, but Plowright (Mrs. Laurence Olivier) does her best to fill Evans' shoes and the well-known first act trickles on with little damage to Wilde. This version picks up steam at the Worthing country manor, and finds its pace with the meeting of Algernon and "Ernest"; with the confrontation between Cicely and Gwendolyn it never looks back and takes no prisoners. When all the characters appear for the finale, it winds down to the inevitable but still amusing conclusion.
Anyone who wants a version of the play uncut and undoctored (from what I've heard the Rupert Everett version was disastrously tampered with) needs to add this to their collection. The only caveat is with the acting. McGann is a good actor but he doesn't seem to have much power as "Ernest". Perhaps he's trying too hard to not make it seem, as with so many versions, he's just repeating all Wilde's famous quotes, attempting to wrest "Ernest" from being just a museum piece it's sometimes played as. Redman is sometimes very good and sometimes is dangerously close to mugging. Ogle is a welcome surprise as Cicely.
BBC film is a faithful look at Wilde's classic play
SimonJack6 April 2014
This movie is the most faithful version of Oscar Wilde's play, "The Importance of Being Earnest," put on film. By all rights, one might expect it to be the best. The BBC made it a full 15 minutes longer than the 1952 film. It keeps the target of the farce and satire. But it just doesn't stand up to Anthony Asquith's 1952 film. Had we not had that film first, many of us would likely raise this film a notch. But we do have the 1952 film, so the two beg comparison.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the major difference is in the cast and the directing. The biggest weakness in this 1986 BBC film is in the characters and roles overall. While the cast are established English actors, they aren't of the caliber of the several leads – and supporting cast – of the 1952 film. Most of the lead performers in this film quite simply don't seem to fit their roles very well. That, and the director doesn't probe them to get the most out of the characters. Even Joan Plowright's character doesn't quite reach the level of abhorrent societal imbecility that the role demands.
Paul McGann and Rupert Frazer especially are not well cast in their roles as Jack and Algy. The female leads are somewhat better, but still not fully developed by Amanda Redman and Natalie Ogle. Some of the supporting roles are better. But the directing just doesn't bring the satire and farce out very forcefully. It needs to do that to raise this above plain comedy status.
This BBC rendition is entertaining, and worth a viewing for those who may not have seen a movie version yet of this classic Wilde play. But for lovers of wit and satire, Wilde and the classics, the real treat comes in watching the 1952 film, with Michael Redgrave, Edith Evans, Joan Greenwood, Michael Denison, and others.
I don't think there can be any doubt that the major difference is in the cast and the directing. The biggest weakness in this 1986 BBC film is in the characters and roles overall. While the cast are established English actors, they aren't of the caliber of the several leads – and supporting cast – of the 1952 film. Most of the lead performers in this film quite simply don't seem to fit their roles very well. That, and the director doesn't probe them to get the most out of the characters. Even Joan Plowright's character doesn't quite reach the level of abhorrent societal imbecility that the role demands.
Paul McGann and Rupert Frazer especially are not well cast in their roles as Jack and Algy. The female leads are somewhat better, but still not fully developed by Amanda Redman and Natalie Ogle. Some of the supporting roles are better. But the directing just doesn't bring the satire and farce out very forcefully. It needs to do that to raise this above plain comedy status.
This BBC rendition is entertaining, and worth a viewing for those who may not have seen a movie version yet of this classic Wilde play. But for lovers of wit and satire, Wilde and the classics, the real treat comes in watching the 1952 film, with Michael Redgrave, Edith Evans, Joan Greenwood, Michael Denison, and others.
Wonderful television adaptation of Oscar Wilde's famous comedy
sofe854417 January 2002
This version of "The Importance of Being Earnest" is well played and true to Oscar Wilde's script. It is incredibly funny, and full of witty quotable lines. On the surface this is a tale of young lovers and their star-crossed path to happiness, but it is also a very insightful comment on society and human behaviour, which is surprisingly up-to-date.
A Good Version of A Masterpiece of Nonsense
boblipton24 March 2019
This BBC version of Oscar Wilde's paean to silliness has a lot to recommend in performance -- most of the women turn at least a bit goggle-eyed as the lies come out -- and particularly the vivacity of the younger performers. However, Joan Plowright is slow off the mark as Lady Bracknell -- she only needs two syllables to say "handbag", far from the seven or eight Edith Evans used in the 1952 filmed version -- although she picks up a good deal of speed in her second appearance. Gemma Jones is all right as Miss Prism, although nowhere near as good as Margaret Rutherford. I understand that Miss Rutherford played Lady Bracknell in the 1946 BBC version. I'd like to see that, but it's undoubtedly gone.
The way the young ladies go from friends to enemies and back to practically sisters in about six minutes is a treat.
The way the young ladies go from friends to enemies and back to practically sisters in about six minutes is a treat.
"But you know what I am going to say!" "Why, yes, however, you haven't said it yet!"
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews22 April 2010
We watched this in English class tonight, as part of exploring British humor; Half a dozen(one of whom seems to be largely unfamiliar with aforementioned subject) students(and the teacher), and hardly any time passed where there wasn't at least one person laughing. I myself couldn't help it, for nearly every moment of it. Honestly, had there not been hours between my viewing of Eddie Murphy's Raw(an entirely different animal, albeit both are rather hilarious) and this, I might have required some form of resuscitation. Wilde delivered a farce and comedy of manners, in other words, an exaggerated(bordering on the absurd) plot and characters, and poking fun at the classes(particularly, and in this case, the upper one), and his wit, insight and parody are all impeccable. There are jokes in this that hold up to this very day, such as when it is mentioned that there is a woman who has been 35 "ever since she turned 40". It is all in the words, verbal; in what is said and precisely how it is expressed. Oscar mocks the utter superficiality of the kind of people he presents us with in this. They aren't being hypocritical in all their excessive politeness towards one another; there simply is nothing else there. He also comments on the fact that the gender roles were unfair at the time(and remain so, to an extent, to this day) by effectively swapping them, highlighting the injustice. The cast is great, and they are all good actors. This is helped, as well, by the two young women being quite attractive; you understand why their suitors fall for them. While I have not read the entire play, this appears to be it in its entirety(the most commonly known version, not the four-act one), and just about completely verbatim. As far as technical aspects go, this is well-done; essentially, it is performed on a set and filmed. And yet the lighting is not off for a single frame, the editing lacks only occasional minor refining, and the blocking leaves little to be desired(with perhaps one brief exception). I suppose if you want an "adaptation", this won't satisfy you; if you want an experience comparable to going to the (live) theater for this, this is for you. There is one thing in this that is going to bother... well, the majority of us today, since values have changed, and a particular one(that is treated as normal in this) is today, and not unreasonably so, considered to be disgusting. I recommend this film to any fan of the man(R.I.P.) who wrote the original. 8/10
A big "Huh?", followed by an eye roll, and concluding with a deadpan "Oh."
mark.waltz16 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This is the type of play that at the ripe old age of 130 gains laughter simply by the absurdities of its characters and plot, a slam on British society, perhaps a deliberate slap in the face by playwright Oscar Wilde against the snobbery of characters like Lady Bracknell and Algy and Jack. The later two, perpetuating a fraud for creating false identities, get involved with some ridiculous schemes that make no sense as the play goes on and finally comes together in the last scene. Algy and Jack go through deceptions in pretending to be brothers, then becoming involved with the young Cecily (Jack's ward) and Gwendolyn, Lady Bracknell's daughter.
The role of the uppity Lady Bracknell requires someone of aristocratic, grand breeding, and as uppity as her voice influctions are, Joan Plowright doesn't fully capture that highborn presence the role requires. She's much more aggravating than amusing. Paul McGann and Rupert Frazer do what they can with their ridiculous parts, but often, they become bratty babbits that deserve a good throttling. The battling between the two young heroines gives Amanda Redman and Natalie Ogle a great scene to work with, but Gemma Jones is not given much to do as the scatterbrained Miss Prism. I saw the recent Roundabout revival of this which was delightful and of course the 1952 classic film version, and they were more clear in dealing with this play's weaknesses. This probably isn't a good starting point for anyone who's never seen an Oscar Wilde play before, because by watching this, it could be the last one they ever view.
The role of the uppity Lady Bracknell requires someone of aristocratic, grand breeding, and as uppity as her voice influctions are, Joan Plowright doesn't fully capture that highborn presence the role requires. She's much more aggravating than amusing. Paul McGann and Rupert Frazer do what they can with their ridiculous parts, but often, they become bratty babbits that deserve a good throttling. The battling between the two young heroines gives Amanda Redman and Natalie Ogle a great scene to work with, but Gemma Jones is not given much to do as the scatterbrained Miss Prism. I saw the recent Roundabout revival of this which was delightful and of course the 1952 classic film version, and they were more clear in dealing with this play's weaknesses. This probably isn't a good starting point for anyone who's never seen an Oscar Wilde play before, because by watching this, it could be the last one they ever view.
Probably the wittiest of Wilde's plays
fisherforrest21 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This appears to be a very complete TV presentation of "The Importance of Being Earnest". It includes a scene in Act 2 which has been omitted in all the stage and screen versions I have previously seen. "Algernon" in order to woo "Cecily" is impersonating the non-existent "profligate brother" of "Jack". A solicitor appears on the scene with a bailiff in tow to arrest "Ernest", the non-existent brother, for a 750 pound debt to a restaurant. This is actually a debt "Jack" owes. It is not a particularly funny scene, which is likely why it is omitted mostly, but it is an interesting commentary by Wilde on a facet of late Victorian society. The well-to-do were always chronically late in paying bills. Only the threat of debtor's prison helped tradesmen in collecting bills. Probably it was an expression of the contempt of the upper classes for people "in trade". Add to this that people in good social standing, but who were not well-to-do, had no compunctions against running up outrageous bills they could not pay. Maybe "Jack" didn't pay in order to emphasise the "profligate brother" image he was building up about the fictional "Ernest". In any case, it's interesting to see this rarely presented scene.
"The Importance of Being Ernest" is arguably the wittiest and most light-heartedly satirical of all Wilde's plays. Almost every statement by every character illustrates some absurdity of the life and attitudes of the "upper crust". "Gwendolen" says, "Sugar is not being taken in tea in society". Not much different from today, eh? "Sweet and Low" anyone? If your preference in acting styles runs to the understated and restrained, you may be disappointed. This cast doesn't ham it up or chew the scenery, but they certainly don't hesitate to reflect every passing emotion or attitude in noticeable fashion. The general presentation is that of a staged play, but some cinematic elements are introduced, such as many close-ups, where you can see those emotions I just mentioned. Joan Plowright, playing "Lady Bracknell", you will remember, was closely associated with Laurence Olivier. Perhaps you will notice the same oddity that I did. She not only resembles Olivier in facial expression and appearance, she talks like Olivier as well. Interesting, eh? All in all, it is a decent and worth watching realisation of the famous play. Available in a BBC Oscar Wilde collection on DVD with three other works.
"The Importance of Being Ernest" is arguably the wittiest and most light-heartedly satirical of all Wilde's plays. Almost every statement by every character illustrates some absurdity of the life and attitudes of the "upper crust". "Gwendolen" says, "Sugar is not being taken in tea in society". Not much different from today, eh? "Sweet and Low" anyone? If your preference in acting styles runs to the understated and restrained, you may be disappointed. This cast doesn't ham it up or chew the scenery, but they certainly don't hesitate to reflect every passing emotion or attitude in noticeable fashion. The general presentation is that of a staged play, but some cinematic elements are introduced, such as many close-ups, where you can see those emotions I just mentioned. Joan Plowright, playing "Lady Bracknell", you will remember, was closely associated with Laurence Olivier. Perhaps you will notice the same oddity that I did. She not only resembles Olivier in facial expression and appearance, she talks like Olivier as well. Interesting, eh? All in all, it is a decent and worth watching realisation of the famous play. Available in a BBC Oscar Wilde collection on DVD with three other works.
Not the version you want
fsquared-785261 August 2020
It could not be better.
Dr_Coulardeau1 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The play is brilliant and deserves a real artistic and creative production. It would be a crime to update it to any modern times. Too many scenes, sequences, and remarks are so dated that they could become incomprehensible if shifted to our modern times. The BBC chose then to remain as close as possible to what it could have been when it was written and first produced. It is quite obvious that smartphones in such a situation would sink the whole thing down to some underworld of anachronism. The BBC is also excellent in such productions: settings, real settings, costumes, and every single small detail. They are also extremely good at both speaking in a normal and rather fast way, but they remain all the time comprehensible, clear, and understandable. That means great acting.
Of course the story is a pure comedy, but a social comedy among the upper classes of Great Britain in a time when being an aristocrat was nearly better than being rich, but being only rich and not in any way an aristocrat, no matter how little, was unacceptable in this class of people who all have been educated in some very closed and selective public schools or universities, meaning, of course, they are private and exclusively reserved to the well-born, meaning those with some title and some money, one title is generally enough but a lot of money is needed on the other side, plus a country mansion and a town residence on a good street or place.
At the same time, we are thinking - automatically because we have an education, maybe not from Oxford but an education nevertheless - of Shakespeare's comedies with all sorts of multiple weddings and marriages, generally four to reach perfection. Oscar Wilde does not go that far and only puts three on the stage. Then you have tens of sentences you know by heart, because you have an education, maybe not from ..., never mind, and they are still slightly funny like the poor cat that turns into a spade, or some nasty remark about being born in a "handbag" of some size mind you that looks more like a portmanteau to me, in Victoria Station. So, it is funny but more enjoyable than just excruciating funny ah ah without any end, with a lot of laughter and instinctual un-mental and ornamentally demonstrative pleasure.
In the end, you may wonder if it is still like that in a way or another, and you may come to the conclusion that nothing has changed really and that "I may call a cell phone a cell phone" but no one will ever retort "What is a cell phone?" Shucks! Yet if you said "I call a refugee a refugee," no one will wonder "What in hell is that, a refugee?" In our information society we know even what Indians in Amazonia are, think, how they live, the languages they speak, and particularly what their future is, and be sure one person out of ten, or maybe out of five, may care about that future without any guaranteed duration.
Enjoy the Dandy-Forever Oscar Wilde and do not let him make you think the world is not really worth living, even if it means touristing around from one prison to the next and ending up in Reading writing some longish ballad.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
Of course the story is a pure comedy, but a social comedy among the upper classes of Great Britain in a time when being an aristocrat was nearly better than being rich, but being only rich and not in any way an aristocrat, no matter how little, was unacceptable in this class of people who all have been educated in some very closed and selective public schools or universities, meaning, of course, they are private and exclusively reserved to the well-born, meaning those with some title and some money, one title is generally enough but a lot of money is needed on the other side, plus a country mansion and a town residence on a good street or place.
At the same time, we are thinking - automatically because we have an education, maybe not from Oxford but an education nevertheless - of Shakespeare's comedies with all sorts of multiple weddings and marriages, generally four to reach perfection. Oscar Wilde does not go that far and only puts three on the stage. Then you have tens of sentences you know by heart, because you have an education, maybe not from ..., never mind, and they are still slightly funny like the poor cat that turns into a spade, or some nasty remark about being born in a "handbag" of some size mind you that looks more like a portmanteau to me, in Victoria Station. So, it is funny but more enjoyable than just excruciating funny ah ah without any end, with a lot of laughter and instinctual un-mental and ornamentally demonstrative pleasure.
In the end, you may wonder if it is still like that in a way or another, and you may come to the conclusion that nothing has changed really and that "I may call a cell phone a cell phone" but no one will ever retort "What is a cell phone?" Shucks! Yet if you said "I call a refugee a refugee," no one will wonder "What in hell is that, a refugee?" In our information society we know even what Indians in Amazonia are, think, how they live, the languages they speak, and particularly what their future is, and be sure one person out of ten, or maybe out of five, may care about that future without any guaranteed duration.
Enjoy the Dandy-Forever Oscar Wilde and do not let him make you think the world is not really worth living, even if it means touristing around from one prison to the next and ending up in Reading writing some longish ballad.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
Too clever by half
keith-moyes29 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is a straightforward production of a familiar old play.
There is no attempt to open it out. It is staged very simply on a handful of sets, entirely in a TV studio. It also looks as if it might have been shot in real time, with all the editing done in the camera. For example, Joan Plowright seems to miss a couple of her cues, leaving awkward pauses between lines, while Paul McGann's voice has an irritating tendency to rise to a squeak at the end of sentences. In a more conventional 'cinematic' production these little glitches would surely have been edited out.
The performances are nothing special. Rupert Frazer is not too bad and does manage to capture the brio of Algernon, but Paul McGann is a somewhat lugubrious Jack and we see none of the rakishness that would have necessitated the invention of the fictional Ernest. The women tend to fare better. Amanda Redman and Natalie Ogle at least put some gusto into their performances. Joan Plowright is not as dependable as I would have expected. She, in particular, seems to be struggling to remember her lines.
Overall, the production looks desperately under-rehearsed. It seems to be at the stage where the actors have memorized their parts but haven't really developed their performances yet. Too often, they gabble their way to the end of the line but with no sense of comic timing. After 15 or 20 minutes of watching joke after joke crash and burn through poor delivery, I was ready to give up. This is amateur dramatics night at the local Church Hall.
However, for me the real problem is the play itself.
It is often described as a comedy of manners, or even a satire, but it is really just a pure farce. Nobody gets to dress as a woman, nobody has to hide in a cupboard and nobody drops his trousers, but ultimately it has no more substance than those Whitehall farces that Brian Rix used to do in the Fifties and Sixties. The tragedy of Wilde's later life (and his other, more considerable, achievements) shouldn't betray us into seeing more in this play than the frothy entertainment it was intended to be.
As with other farces, nothing need make any sense so long as it is funny. Consequently, we have two separate women who independently arrive at the resolution that they will only marry men named Ernest. This whimsical conceit has no basis in reality and says nothing about Victorian women, society, morals or manners - or anything else, for that matter. Its arbitrariness and its transparent absurdity is the point of the joke.
There is only one issue that need concern us: how good a farce is it?
The plot is unusually thin. In a good farce, the initial premise quickly spirals into situations of ever increasing perplexity so the plot becomes more and more tangled and convoluted - to the point where you wonder how it is going to be possible to tie it all up at the end. That is not really true of this play: the confusion with the fictional Ernest, Algernon's imposture, the mistaken rivalry of the two women and the mystery of Jack's origins are all introduced serially, only to be quickly resolved. Wilde wasn't that good at plots.
However, it does have a high joke count. In that respect, it resembles a good modern sitcom more than a Whitehall farce. The trouble is that the jokes are all very similar. Wilde tossed off epigrams like Richard Prior tossed off profanities, but they often seem a bit mechanical: typically, Wilde just takes a commonplace idea or phrase and inverts it. Moreover, they are of varying quality. When Wilde observed that a cynic is a man 'who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing', that may or may not be true, but it does make you think. When Algernon says "All women become like their mothers; that is their tragedy. No man does; that is his" it doesn't.
More to the point, these epigrams are dispersed indiscriminately amongst the entire cast. In a good sitcom, the jokes are just as relentless but they are customised to the characters. Here, everyone talks in the same way and makes the same sort of jokes. Algernon is Wilde's voice in the play and he gets many of the best epigrams. That is fine, because they are entirely in keeping with his flippant, mildly cynical, character. But Jack gets his share too - as do Gwendolen, Cecily and even Lady Bracknell. In the end it all becomes a bit repetitive and predictable. Wilde wasn't that good at characters either.
If you enjoy this play (and despite my griping there is no reason why you shouldn't) then this 'no frills' production is the least fussy and most complete screen version I know of. For my part, I find ninety minutes of unremitting archness more than a bit wearing.
I give the final word to Jack:
"Was that clever? I am sick to death of cleverness. You can't go anywhere these days without meeting clever people. I wish to goodness we had a few fools left."
Jack, you said a mouthful there.
There is no attempt to open it out. It is staged very simply on a handful of sets, entirely in a TV studio. It also looks as if it might have been shot in real time, with all the editing done in the camera. For example, Joan Plowright seems to miss a couple of her cues, leaving awkward pauses between lines, while Paul McGann's voice has an irritating tendency to rise to a squeak at the end of sentences. In a more conventional 'cinematic' production these little glitches would surely have been edited out.
The performances are nothing special. Rupert Frazer is not too bad and does manage to capture the brio of Algernon, but Paul McGann is a somewhat lugubrious Jack and we see none of the rakishness that would have necessitated the invention of the fictional Ernest. The women tend to fare better. Amanda Redman and Natalie Ogle at least put some gusto into their performances. Joan Plowright is not as dependable as I would have expected. She, in particular, seems to be struggling to remember her lines.
Overall, the production looks desperately under-rehearsed. It seems to be at the stage where the actors have memorized their parts but haven't really developed their performances yet. Too often, they gabble their way to the end of the line but with no sense of comic timing. After 15 or 20 minutes of watching joke after joke crash and burn through poor delivery, I was ready to give up. This is amateur dramatics night at the local Church Hall.
However, for me the real problem is the play itself.
It is often described as a comedy of manners, or even a satire, but it is really just a pure farce. Nobody gets to dress as a woman, nobody has to hide in a cupboard and nobody drops his trousers, but ultimately it has no more substance than those Whitehall farces that Brian Rix used to do in the Fifties and Sixties. The tragedy of Wilde's later life (and his other, more considerable, achievements) shouldn't betray us into seeing more in this play than the frothy entertainment it was intended to be.
As with other farces, nothing need make any sense so long as it is funny. Consequently, we have two separate women who independently arrive at the resolution that they will only marry men named Ernest. This whimsical conceit has no basis in reality and says nothing about Victorian women, society, morals or manners - or anything else, for that matter. Its arbitrariness and its transparent absurdity is the point of the joke.
There is only one issue that need concern us: how good a farce is it?
The plot is unusually thin. In a good farce, the initial premise quickly spirals into situations of ever increasing perplexity so the plot becomes more and more tangled and convoluted - to the point where you wonder how it is going to be possible to tie it all up at the end. That is not really true of this play: the confusion with the fictional Ernest, Algernon's imposture, the mistaken rivalry of the two women and the mystery of Jack's origins are all introduced serially, only to be quickly resolved. Wilde wasn't that good at plots.
However, it does have a high joke count. In that respect, it resembles a good modern sitcom more than a Whitehall farce. The trouble is that the jokes are all very similar. Wilde tossed off epigrams like Richard Prior tossed off profanities, but they often seem a bit mechanical: typically, Wilde just takes a commonplace idea or phrase and inverts it. Moreover, they are of varying quality. When Wilde observed that a cynic is a man 'who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing', that may or may not be true, but it does make you think. When Algernon says "All women become like their mothers; that is their tragedy. No man does; that is his" it doesn't.
More to the point, these epigrams are dispersed indiscriminately amongst the entire cast. In a good sitcom, the jokes are just as relentless but they are customised to the characters. Here, everyone talks in the same way and makes the same sort of jokes. Algernon is Wilde's voice in the play and he gets many of the best epigrams. That is fine, because they are entirely in keeping with his flippant, mildly cynical, character. But Jack gets his share too - as do Gwendolen, Cecily and even Lady Bracknell. In the end it all becomes a bit repetitive and predictable. Wilde wasn't that good at characters either.
If you enjoy this play (and despite my griping there is no reason why you shouldn't) then this 'no frills' production is the least fussy and most complete screen version I know of. For my part, I find ninety minutes of unremitting archness more than a bit wearing.
I give the final word to Jack:
"Was that clever? I am sick to death of cleverness. You can't go anywhere these days without meeting clever people. I wish to goodness we had a few fools left."
Jack, you said a mouthful there.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
