'Applause' saved by Bacall

been good at musicals: we've had theexcellent"Company" in London for some time to remind us of that. Lauren Bacall is a legendary star. one of the few stars who are even interesting in television interviews. Her stage presence is electric. But Applause (Her Majesty's) was a disappointment. Take away Lauren Bacall, and what have you got'? The story of All About Eve." a superficial. bitter little showbiz plot about a girl with ambition who moves in on and eventually takes over as leading lady from an ageing star. To this skimpy plot very little has been added.
There are no good tunes. frenzy rather than excitement is the keynote of the dances. and visually the production is a disaster; where did they get those costumes'? A stage-full of extras, rehearsed to screamingpoint, give an impression of frenetic desperation.
That Lauren Bacall isn't desperate — in fact. that she seems to be enjoying herself is a tribute to her star quality. When she is on stage she is worth watching. She would probably be worth hearing in her songs. too. but the orchestra swamps her, Surely the microphones could have been arranged to avoid this'? Or, if the worst really came to the worst, the orchestra could have been told to shush up a bit?
Nobody in the whole production can have been told to shush up nearly enough. and Angela Richards, who plays the ambitious young girl, sings much too loudly and is so obviously English and out of place that if one had a suspicious mind one might think she had been chosen with the protection of Lauren Bacall in mind.
What a waste! I kept thinking as I watched. So much money. so many actors and actresses, so much effort. to so little effect. The boredom was sub-acute, but always there. An evening with Lauren Bacall can't be an evening totally wasted; but if she hadn't been in the play I wouldn't have lasted till the interval.
If Americans are good at musicals, the British are good at productions of Shakespeare. Since our whole system of training actors and actresses is almost directly related to Shakespearean performances, that isn't surprising. Michael Blakemore's new production of Macbeth (National) is typical of recent versions from the Na tional and the Royal Shakespeare Company; most professional. bold. and gimmicky.
I've almost stopped asking simplistic questions about new slants on Shakespeare; for instance since the Stratford theatre acquired that remarkable revolving stage 1 mutely accepted their evident belief that the most interesting possibilities in the Roman plays all rose in relation to a stage which behaved like a funfair roundabout.
But I cannot at all un derstand why this "Macbeth" is set in Elizabethan Scotland. Perhaps a generous benefactor has given the National Theatre a stunning set of new Elizabethan costumes. But there is no other justification for such a palpable distortion of the play. Other notable gimmicks: the witches, who appear throughout in scenes where Shakespeare never wrote them. have much business with trapdoors and realistic cauldrons. and are as unbelievable and mirth-arousing as they can be. The fights are in slow motion. a gimmick oddly at variance with the overall attempts at realism.
But the centre of the play must always be Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. If all else fails they can make the tragedy credible and moving. In the event they don't.
Anthony Hopkins performs a remarkable feat; he makes Macbeth insensitive. a practical, unreflective soldier whose excursion into evil is the sort of accident that might happen to anybody. He also shouts far too much. Better shouting than mumbling; but better neither, and Hopkins is a fine actor and can speak quite normally when he tries.
Diana Rigg is an ideal choice for Lady Macbeth. She has exactly the hardness and determination, and she is a n-lost intelligent actress. as her performance in "Jumpers" conclusively showed.
Here she manages to suggest Lady Macbeth's disastrous under-estimation of the power of conscience and the horror of murder itself. Her breakdown is totally credible.
But she is grotesquely madeup; her face starts chalky and ends with a clown effect dead white with huge red circles round 'her eyes. The credibility of the whole production was too low for this to be convincing; it was just embarrassing.
A very reliable team of supporting players, particularly Denis Quilley as Banquo and Ronald Pickup as Malcolm, soldiered on. The talent expended on this production was considerable; the waste therefore the sadder. The real enemy in this "Macbeth" wasn't the forces of darkness, it was the director.
A Doll's House (Greenwich) being a play of ideas, is usually deadly dull, especially since Women's Lib has taken the idea that a woman's home is her padded cell so much further than Ibsen did. But this modest production, by Michael Wearing, has an unlikely jewel in it -Susan Hampshire's Nora.
Miss Hampshire is not usually an actress l admire;
after a decisively undistinguished career in secondclass films her excursion into acting as Fleur in "The Forstye saga" 1 took to be a flash in the pan. However, I must eat my words. Her Nora is tender and ambitious at the same time. and always fascinating to watch; her mannerisms, which can be so irritating, are here used to full effect.