What the Butler Saw

British humour has always appealed to me. I love the dry wit, the sometimes outrageous farce that is so much a part of everything from Oscar Wilde to Monty Python. So when a local theater group announced a production of What the Butler Saw by Joe Orton, I leapt at the chance to see it.

People often underestimate how difficult and skilled one must be to act effectively in a comedic farce. Because it often involves exaggeration and isn't the most subtle of genres, it is easy to think that farce isn't all that challenging. It is quite a fine balancing act between exaggerating and going completely over the top, especially in terms of the physical comedic elements. At its best, farce is unbridled and uninhibited fun. The actors in this piece did a good enough job without completely hamming it up, with former DJ Vernetta Lopez doing a rather deliciously outrageous turn.

Farce does have the benefit of universality. Mr. Bean is Britain's most famous comedic export (with apologies to Monty Python and Ali G.) because the physical nature of the comedy was able to cross almost every cultural and linguistic barrier. However, Orton's play while, a comedic farce at its core, was rooted in 1960s Britain, and there were elements of irony, and a thinly veiled cynicism at society that earned his comedies the sobriquet Ortonesque.

That made the decision by the director to adapt it for the local audience - to Singaporeanize it, if you will - one that was misguided and one that ultimately misfired. Some aspects of the attempt to Singaporeanize did work well, and was funny, particularly turning a typically British bobby into a localized khaki uniformed, bermuda wearing, grammatically challenged Police Sergaent. Though even the initial laughs wore off as the novelty of the accent and mannerisms wore a bit thin.

More unsuccessful were the repeated attempts to alter dialogue in the play to suit the local setting. A statue of Churchill became one of Sir Stamford Raffles, which only left one wondering about a reference to a certain portion of the anatomy being "cigar shaped". I have never read the original play, but I couldn't help but get the feeling that a plethora of veiled references and black humour was irreparably lost by the decision to meddle with the script. While I understand that the average Joe wouldn't get many of the British turn of phrases, or the cultural references, rewriting the script ripped if not the heart out of the play, then at least the intestines.

It didn't help that some of the rewriting was truly cringe worthy. Lame references to the National Trade Union Congress, to Members of Parliament was well and truly supplanted by a piece of National Education propaganda that was well and truly nauseating. In true Wildean fashion, the true relationship between two of the characters in the play was revealed when they had separate halves of a pendant. That the pendant was in the form of the Singapore crest was kitsch enough. For that to be followed by a two minute exposition explaining the significance behind it - five stars and a crescent moon etc. - was in exceptionally bad taste. Some of the localized references were simply thrown in willy-nilly and seemed rather superfluous (or in the case of what the play attempted to do, it ended up quite rojak and somewhat quite extra).

It was a shame really, because the farce itself was well performed, the play (in the original) was probably superbly written, and on the whole it was still a relatively enjoyable experience. Still, the perils and pitfalls (not to mention the sacrilege) of messing about with an original piece of art were put on rather vivid display here. Overall, it ended up a mis-mash and pastiche, rather like the repeated cross-dressing that took place within the play itself. Sometimes, it is better to leave well alone.