See How They Laugh

The second farce of the week for me kicked off at the Churchill Theatre in Bromley. I am inordinately fond of the Churchill as is has all the usual perks of a modern provincial theatre - comfy seating, reasonable bar and lots of space - and it’s only a short bus ride from my home in Sydenham. Part of the Ambassadors Theatre Group, the Churchill will often feature either big shows on their way to the West End or productions heading out on tour. 

This week featured a major television and film actor embarking on a tour of his own production of the classic British farce See How They Run. There is nothing particularly remarkable about this except that the actor is Warwick Davis and his company consists of equally short actors working on a reduced height set. Davis goal behind setting up his Reduced Height Theatre Company is to open up roles to short actors, which might not be available to the in conventional theatre. 

Davis is probably the highest profile short actor in the country at the moment, thanks to staring roles both on film (Star Wars; Harry Potter; Willow) and mainstream television (Extras; Life’s Too Short). Despite this, Davis’ stage work so far has been limited to pantomime and more recently as stint in Spamalot. Undeniably an accomplished film actor, I found Davis was being acted off the stage in See How They Run by his leading lady Rachel Denning and by fellow performer Phil Holden. The important thing is that Davis saw where the stage talent lay and made sure it took pride of place, with himself in the decidedly less showy role of Reverend Toop. Either way, Davis lending his name and talent to any theatrical venture should be good news at the box office.

Aside from the undeniable pleasures of this creaky old farce, it is difficult to see what a company of short actors brings to the table here. I am undoubtedly impressed with the companies ability to maintain the pace and energy of a farce but I couldn’t help thinking that if Davis wished to showcase previously un-noticed talent, why on earth did he choose something so eminently low-brow. When I see any revival, I hope to be able to catch something new or find a reason as to why the producer and directors have chosen the play. I didn’t really catch it here and it left me in a quandary as to how to approach a review. I think in the end, I have given it the benefit of the doubt in anticipation of future work.