The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 69, No. 22, Ed. 1 Friday, February 19, 1982 Page: 14 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Theatre
Lyttle's imported My Fair Lady: Tut, tut, T.U.T.S.
My Fair Lady, like Oklahoma or
The Sound of Music is a musical
so well written, so well loved, and
so well (originally) produced, that
everyone wants to see it. As a
result, every theatre group in the
country wants to do it and most do
— with varying degrees of success.
Luckily for this legion of theatrical
copycats, the remembered magic
of Broadway or the famous screen
version is quite sufficient to set the
audience's toes tapping and send
them home with a smile. Unluckily
for the audience, most companies
are quite willing to rest on the
laurels of their illustrious
predecessors and merely go
through the motions in
performance.
While there are many positive
things to be said about Theatre
Under the Stars current revival of
this American classic, it is precisely
this creative indolence that makes
the production unfulfilling. The
majority of the principles, all of
whom have done the show before,
seem almost disinterested,
showing little of the dramatic truth
that marks a truly well-done
production.
To be sure, the cast faces a rather
imposing foe in the Music Hall — a
wonderful place for a concert but
totally unsuited to theatre. A good
sound system and mix could
alleviate the poor acoustics but in
Friday's performance the system
failed to improve the sound at all.
Most of the songs sounded rather
tinny and large portions of the first
act were simply unintelligible. One
would think that as often as TUTS
uses this space, they would find a
way to deal with it.
The musical numbers are saved,
for the most part, by sheer
spectacle The choreography of
Jonathar Charles and Zetta
Shook Raney ranges from ebulient
to graceful as the scene changes
from the rag-tag cockney world of
Convent Garden to the frilly decor
of Ascot. The dancing ensemble
handled these disparate styles
admirably, reining in their energy
in the graceful waltzes, exploding
in the uproarious street dances.
Perhaps the best parts of the
spectacle, however, are the
imported sets and costumes. Not
trusting to the services of their own
staff (if the production's lights and
sound are any indication, the
reason is apparent), TUTS has
brought in sets from the San
Bernardino Civic Light Opera and
costumes from Brooks-Van Horn
of New York. Both are absolutely
splendid.
The imported actors are not
quite so good, for all of their
impressive crdentials. Ian Sullivan
who replaced Ian Richardson as
Henry Higgins in the Broadway
20th Aniversary My Fair Lady, is
wonderful as the taciturn
taskmaster who molds the flower-
girl into a duchess, but he almost
completely ignores the subtler,
gentler side of Higgins' nature.
When Eliza returns to his house at
the end of the play, it seems that
she has not done it because he is
ultimately loveable but because the
script calls for it.
As a matter fact, Valerie Lee
(Eliza) looks as though she does
everything because the script calls
for it. A beautiful Eliza to look at
(she's the girl in the TV
commercials) her technically
correct performance too often
lacks inspiration. She also seems to
have difficulty with Eliza's
dialects, moving from variation to
variation with, at times, no reason
at all. Perhaps it was this problem
that kept her an understudy in the
AIRCRAFT
"•E
2110 Lexington 2011 So. Shepard
Houston TX Houston TX
526-5472 528-2260
Student Discount
10% off Any Service
With Student ID
Exclusively Redken-RK Studio
MasterCard and Visa Accepted
25th anniversary revival with Rex
Harrison.
On the positive side, several of
the supporting actors turn in very
nice performances. Jim Sikorski,
as Freddy, captures that Inner life
which Sullivan and Lee find so
elusive. A very believable young
lover, his energetic rendition of
"On the Street Where You Live" is
one of the highlights of the show.
Jim Bernhard (Colonel Pickering)
is also quite good — his slow-
minded, "Veddy British" linguist
reminds one of Nigel Bruce's Dr.
Watson and is very funny indeed.
The cast's other funny man, Jack
Bell (Alfred P. Doolittle), suffers
more from the bad acoustics than
anyone in the cast. Many of his
lines are lost in the cavernous
echoing of the hall.
Director Thomas Lyttle's
production is charming, but he has
obviously failed to instill in his
stars any enthusiasm for the roles
Movies
Ian Sullivan (Higgens) and Jack Bell (Doolittle,
they have done before. TUTS My the standards set for it by the
Lady is good family orginal.
—M. Christopher Boyer
Fair
entertainment but falls far short of
Why did Nicholson do this film?
The Border
Directed by Tony Richardson
Written by Deric Washburn
Jack Nicholson is one of the
best actors in American film. I have
never thought much of him, but
people keep telling me he's good.
And to be sure, many of his
performances go to make up
superior films. One Flew
Over the Cuckoo's Nest,
The Shining, The Postman Always
Rings Twice, and even the new
Reds are all majcy films. So I will
grant it; Nicholson is a primary
and important movie star. So why,
1 ask only slightly rhetorically, did
he appear in his latest release, The
Border? Why, oh, why would
anybody appear in it?
1 'considered this question
during the movie—there wasn't
anything better to do—and came
up with a few possible
explanations, none of which
properly apologize for the bore I
had to sit through.
My first thought was that
Nicholson was looking for a
controversial statement vehicle.
Perhaps he had political reasons
for his performance. At least, the
subject of Mexican citizens
illegally entering the U.S. is topical
these days, though not extremely
interesting, I think. And further,
the lower middle-class squalor in
which Nicholson's character lives
does indeed seem to pose
interesting questions as to life's
lewdness and tawdry meaningless-
ness. But, unfortunately, the
statement aspect of The Border fell
completely short of anything,
much less effectiveness. There was
DEMO'S AUTOMOTIVE CENTER
"We Offer Personalized Serrice"
Specializing In
TRANSMISSIONS • BRAKES • AIR CONDITIONING • FRONT END
• ENGINE ANALYSIS • TIRE TRUING • IODY REPAIRS • PAINTING
UNDERCOATING
24 HOUR WRECKER SERVICE
W
526-3781
WTtrttesr
cam
(MivanrrY
HClCOMC
-RENTAL CAR AVAILABLE"
2438 TANGLEY AT KELVIN
no political or moral tint to the
silly portrayal of Mexican aliens
nor the snaggle-toothed, slighty
crazed villains who manipulated
them. These characterizations
were completely flat and empty;
thus, we felt no quakings of
sympathy nor any indignant
disapprovals; thus, we didn't
bother to consider the message
there delivered. Likewise, the little
aside on American society—so
shallowly guided by possessions
that is misses its own filth and
evil—was as stirring as a black and
white sheet of newspaper and
considerably less accurate. No, I
answered myself, Nicholson's
great artistry could have never
mistaken this film's insincere
posturings for insightful
commentary.
So why did he do the thing, I ask
again. Weeeelllll, maybe he saw a
great artistic work in the making
and wanted to get in on the ground
floor. After all, it doesn't take an
accurate statement to make good
movies, as Nicholson's past
successes demonstrate. But if this
is the case—if Nicholson saw art
here—then he has no judgment
and deserves the failure that
Border is destined to become. For
literally at the level of the film-
making process, this is a bad
movie—often very bad. The
writer, Deric Washburn, cer-
tainly had something to do with the
problem: characters were only in
terms of cliches and caricatures,
none of them even funny except
insofar as they were played straight
and seriously. The dialogue, on the
other hand, was always sad, even
when played with, humor and
tenderness; Nicholson reflects
back on his good ole days back in
the Park Services Corps with "I
really loved feedin' them ducks."
(Hejje a tear appeared in his eye-
ana mine too for that matter.) But
the script was, I suppose, the best
an untalented writer could do with
an idea stale and unworthy to
begin with.
To this add the director's
failures. Under the perfunctory
treatment of Tony Richardson-
Tony, is that a name for a
director?—the fast story line limps
feebly along without intensity
levels. This cinematic 'monotone
began with the credits and ended as
the blessed end of Border,
surrendering in the meantime
anything like texture or depth.
These elusive qualities which often
make a film feel and look beautiful
were all forgotten, and in their
place there was merely flatness of
expression and form and meaning.
Everything was flat, except for
Nicholson's beer belly. Nicholson
could not have actually seen art
here or even a grand attempt—for
he's a great actor and knows about
such things, right?
Now, there was a certain
documentary flavor to Border, and
perhaps this experimentation in
mixed genres is the thing that
attracted Nicholson. But the
asceticism and candidness which is
honesty in real documentaries
became, in Border, a sloppy lack of
creativity. It was merely a bad little
story told in the wrong naturalistic
terms, and in both respects—as a
story and as a documentary—
Border is not worth considerable
attention.
Why then do I accord it so much
attention here, and why did
Nicholson? I have no excuse, but
I'm not a great movie star. I must
say, finally, that I grow to doubt if
Nicholson is one either.
His performance in Border was
the worst only because it was so
tactlessly showcased—it wasn't
horrible, just his usual bit. He did
not grow nor did he show anything
like levels of emotional intensity;
he was bad—almost as bad as the
movie itself. Indeed, they deserve
one another.
So finally, I cannot explain why
Nicholson left his prestige and high
salary successes for Border.
Perhaps he had some admirable
reason—helping out a downtrod-
den drunken director-friend, or
something like that. Or perhaps, as
seems more likely, Nicholson did
Border because he is dumb—not a
good actor at all. Whatever the
reason, Border shows him in a new
light, for here his mediocrity as a
performer is clear for the first time,
having nothing of a good film to
mask it. I have always been left
indifferent by Nicholson even
when his performance works into
the fabric of a rich and otherwise
wonderful film. In Bo> -ler, though,
I feel quite justified in a total
condemnation: Nicholson was
bad—the movie was worse. And I
begin to think that such silly and
insignificant films are exactly
where Nicholson belongs. There,
at least, he does not spoil a good
film as he has done before. He
merely contributes to an awful
one.
— Harry Wade
Thv Pice Thrfsher, February 19, 1982, page 14
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Grob, Jay. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 69, No. 22, Ed. 1 Friday, February 19, 1982, newspaper, February 19, 1982; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245494/m1/14/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.