A Southwick Players & Wick Theatre Company joint production

On the Razzle

by Tom Stoppard

 September  24, 25, 26, 29, 30 October 1, 2, 3  1998

Directed by Bob Ryder

BR wrote "Tom Stoppard's On the Razzle appeared in 1981, but the plot goes back a long way.  The trail starts with a one-act play, John Oxenford's A Day Well Spent [1835] which was turned into A Lad Needs a Fling in 1842 by legendary Viennese playwright and actor, Johann Nestroy.  Before Stoppard got to it, Thornton Wilder used parts of the story in The Merchant of Yonkers [1938] and The Matchmaker [1954] - and the latter went on to become Hello Dolly! in 1963.

Although Stoppard has used much of Nestroy's basic characters and plot, all of the dialogue is unmistakeably his own.  It fizzes with brilliant wordplay at one moment, corny jokes and crude double meanings the next.  His is also a highly visual play, using dozens of gags and tricks in the best tradition of music hall and comic theatre.

On the Razzle was a great critical success when it opened at the Edinburgh Festival, and then enjoyed a popular run at the National Theatre in London and on tour.  That original production featured Felicity Kendall as the young shop-boy, following Nestroy's tradition of having the rôle of Christopher played as a 'breeches' part -  a tradition which we also follow here.

On the Razzle calls for a large cast, which is probably why professional revivals of the play are so rare.  Fortunately, Southwick is bale to muster the resources needed!  Of course, the challenge is not si9mply about the scale of the production.  It is also about the difficult and deadly serious business of making great comedy look like effortless fun.  To that end, the large acting and technical team assembled by the Southwick Players and Wick Theatre Company have put in an enormous effort - and even had some fun as well.

It is a pleasure to be directing this production as a collaboration between these two fine old theatre companies, one now in its 50th year, the other in its 60th, in the splendid new Barn.  The joint production is very much a celebration - both of these companies' many achievements and of the reopening of the theatre itself.  What better way to celebrate than with the heady brew of On the Razzle!

In-house review by

Charles Porter

On the Razzle tells the tale of two Viennese shop assistants - Weinberg [Phil Balding] and Christopher [Judith Berrill] - as they take advantage of their proprietor Zangler's [David Creedon] absence to live it up in Nineteenth Century Vienna for a day.  Needless to say they end up having more adventures than they bargained for as they become inadvertently entwined in Zangler's attempts to woo his fiancée Madame Knorr [Maggie hall] whilst at the same time defending the virtue of Marie [Katie Szeless] - his niece.

The unique Stoppard style of switching effortlessly between comic word-play, corny jokes and outright farce is much in evidence and was beautifully handled by a talented cast under the direction of Bob Ryder.  A fine balance between keeping the pace but not running away with the words - they are so many gags that one could see this play three nights running and spot new laughs every time.

David Creedon was resplendent in his tightly tailored uniform complete with jingley [sic] spurs and was ably supported by John Garland as Melchior, his new servant.  Phil Balding and Judith Berrill formed a tremendous double act together On the Razzle.  There were some lovely cameo performances in smaller rôles from, amongst others, Roger Howarth as the burly, buttock crazed Coachman, Jan King as Fraulein Blumenblatt and Suzanne Green as Lisette, her sexy French maid.

The many scene changes were slickly handled using a stylish and invemtive set.  A show stopper was the equine dance routine by Lightning [Sharon Watts and Vanessa Strong] who ultimately trotted to the rescue of our intrepid adventurers just in the nick of time!  A memorable evening

A Man for All Seasons

by Robert Bolt

 December  9, 10, 11, 12  1998

Directed by Tony Brownings

TB wrote " Historical Note - 'The King's Divorce'.

Sir Thomas More was a famous enough figure in his day - as a scholar, a lawyer and as a statesman.  But he has become much more famous down the centuries because of the events which led to his death.  How was it that a man so admired by his King and his contemporaries could end up being beheaded by the State for high treason?

Much of the reason lay in King Henry's growing dissatisfaction with his wife, Catherine of Aragon.  She was the widow of Henry's older brother, Arthur, who died in 1502.  At the time there were good reasons of state for Henry to marry her.  The marriage caused no trouble for many years and Henry was able to enjoy distractions elsewhere.  But there was an increasing concern that Catherine was unable to 'produce' a male heir for him and for the Tudor line [though hindsight suggests the fertility of Henry himself may have been more to the point].  Catherine was six years older than Henry: aged 40 in 1525, she is said to have grown quite plain.  Mistress Anne Boleyn was a goodly young thing, assumed to be much fitter for breeding, and Henry was verily smitten.

Problem.  Unless Catherine were to die, only a divorce could clear the way for Henry and Anne to make a legitimate heir to the throne.  And only the Pope had the authority under canon law to grant such a divorce.  To be sure, there were some good arguments under canon law for annulling the marriage; and there were arguments against it too.  But the crucial thing was that Rome had recently fallen under tight Spanish control.  The Poe was simply not going to grant something which the King of Spain strongly opposed.

Henry was nothing if not strong willed.  He developed a solution which stripped the Pope of his authority over the Church in England.  In 1532, by Act of Parliament, Henry himself became Supreme Head of the Church in England, and then divorced himself from Catherine.  Some, like Wolsey, who were too slow to achieve the King's will, had fallen by the wayside.  Other, like Thomas Cromwell, who were more eager prospered.  And some, like Thomas More, who were visibly in the way, got crushed.

But Henry's move against the Church was not simply a bit of over-reaction by a man with marital problems and a bad temper.  It was the conscious act of a ruler who wanted to be a s strong in his own kingdom as Charles of Spain and François of France were in theirs.  By breaking the power of the Church in England, and seizing a fair slice of its assets and revenues, he greatly strengthened the power of the Tudor monarchy.  In the broad sweep of history, a man of resolute principal like Thomas More stands little chance of surviving a ruthless power struggle of that kind.  But history also has its way of honouring the victims.  And Robert Bolt's play demonstrates very clearly the more abiding power of thought, conscience and principle."

In-house review by

Ray Hopper

Firstly. I am a speaker rather than a writer - especially when giving criticism I like to adjust my comments according to the feedback that I am getting.  I also prefer to give an honest critique to a few selected people who might respect my opinion [ie my daughter!] - if the words "You were marvellous darling" pass my lips it is usually either a lie or a family joke.

Secondly, I carry some baggage about the play - I was marginally involved in the Wick's original production, with my best man Pat Johnson marvellously in the lead and David Creedon's inaugural [I think] rôle for the Wick, also then as The Common Man.  I also failed to find any inspiration as Henry in Tony Muzzall's production of Southwick Churches.  On the other hand, if I take my turn now it should be about 20 years before it comes round again!

Having got that out of the way I must say I found this to be an excellent production.  Music, costumes, settings, lighting, sound, props and above all direction were all top rate.  I was particularly pleased that the director and cast seemed to clearly understand the central principles of the play, and my attention was held throughout.  

I had some initial difficulty tuning my ears in to the dialogue when suddenly a background fan - presumably from the heating system - cut out and from then on most of the dialogue was crystal clear.  One hopes this sort of Barn teething problem will quickly get sorted out - the radiators went on pinging for 20 years or more!  I mention this particularly since David Creedon carried out the opening dialogue.  Now, I think it fair to say the our 1960's Common Man, with his rich North Irish brogue, caused many of us some frantic ear tuning, and my initial impression was that less had changed over the years than I would have thought.  But after that switched off we were treated to a clear, mature and deliciously sly reading.

I was very happy with Derek's Sir Thomas More.  He caught, I thought, the essential saintliness of the man, both in appearance and manner, whilst also being able to display the intelligence that befitted a Lord Chancellor.  If the Common Man was sly, what about the nasty Mr. Cromwell?  Yup, Peter Mandelson wearing Machiavelli's beard.  A delightfully odious interpretation by Bob Ryder.

Now to, for me, the great problem with the play.  The Immovable Object of More's moral certainty meets the Irresistible Force of 'The Greatest Prince in Christendom'.  Well, not when I played Henry it didn't.  The meeting took place between Scofield and Robert Shaw in the film, aided by cinematic close-ups of twinkling eye fading to cold steel and mature gravely voices.  I simply could not find the required power either in Henry's dialogue or my own character.  If I may pay Phillip Balding the highest compliment of an honest criticism, I felt he had a problem.  We saw a perfectly competent performance, but not, I think, the totally overwhelming personality that was the younger Hal.

All of the other characters, save one, were competently and satisfactorily played.  Space prevents further individual analysis, but overall I could perhaps have done with a little more definition, clarity of characterisation and risk-taking here and there.  The mention of definition reminds me of Kenneth Tynan's constant search for a 'High definition performance', and his excitement on those rare occasions when he found one.  I felt his excitement whilst watching David Goodger's brief appearance as Wolsey - it made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.  What appalling risks he took - at one stage, with More seated at his left, he suddenly leant far across to the RIGHT side of the table, gripped it with his right hand and stared aghast into the wings - God, what had he seen?  Nemesis?  A horde of Demons?  Continuity dropping the prompt copy?  I really don't want to know - it was just one of the many pieces of a performance I will long treasure."

Joseph Giacomelli

"Outstanding drama deserved better support from the public"

The rôle of Sir Thomas More was brilliantly portrayed by Derek Fraser, who conveyed the inner tensions of his character superbly.  He had the benefit of performing alongside a talented cast who included the devious Master Richard Rich, played by Adrian Kenward, the villainous Thomas Cromwell, alias Bob Ryder and David Creedon, was marvellous as The Common Man.

All the performers were outstanding along with the production team who made the evening go without a hitch.  The lighting and music created a great atmosphere and the detail of the costumes provided the actors with even more authenticity in their rôles.  Sadly, it was a shame that more people did not attend the performance on the opening night last Wednesday at the Barn Theatre, Southwick, as the skill and professionalism of everyone involved was worthy of a packed house"

"More is a man of an angel's wit and singular learning.  I know not his fellow, for where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability?   And, as time requireth, a man of marvellous mirth and pastimes; and sometimes, as of sad gravity.  A man for all seasons"

Robert Whittington [1520]

From The Life of Thomas More by Peter Ackroyd

Jonathan Swift