Review by Andrew Snowdon
60min | Drama | Mature
The “banality of evil,” indeed.
Saucy Jack is one man’s attempt to explore the nature of evil and morality by telling the story of Jack the Ripper in visceral detail from a first-person perspective. Doug McLauchlan relates the story in painstakingly historical detail, breaking up the narrative with forays into the philosophical.
Unfortunately, instead of being shocking, revealing, or thought-provoking, the entire performance is pedantic, tedious, and painful. It misses its mark; far from an insightful comparison or contrast of the story of Jack the Ripper with modern societal evil, the audience is treated to an unfocussed rant, delivered more in costume than in character.
Like an undergraduate lacking material to fill a research paper, McLauchlan pads his rambling speech with quotes from Lewis Carroll, John Donne, Jack London, Friedrich Nietzsche, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and W. H. Auden that are only tangentially appropriate. It is almost a blessing that the performer failed to project his voice enough to be heard clearly three rows back.
Rather than the chilling, fascinating lack of emotion characteristic of a sociopath, McLauchlan displays what can be best described as the tired apathy of a college professor no longer interested in their subject.
There is scant passion in this performance, and the anachronism is handled weakly; there are not even any redeeming aspects as far as costume, set design, lighting, or props go.
Even someone with a strong interest in the psychology of serial killers, or Jack the Ripper specifically, would be hard-pressed to find a truly enjoyable aspect to this piece.
Saucy Jack by Doug Mclauchlan is playing at Venue 2 – Arts Court Library (2 Daly Avenue, Elevator A) on Monday June 21 at 11:00pm, Tuesday June 22 at 7:30pm, Thursday June 24 at 9:00pm, Saturday June 26 at 3:00pm and Sunday June 27 at 8:00pm.
“delivered more in costume than in character.”
Great phrase, Andrew. I may have to steal that from you sometime.
Indeed, and the costume did not even fit properly. I could see from about 2 minutes in how this was going to be. If I hadn’t been sitting front row centre, I would have seriously considered leaving. The program notes listed a name for director and dramaturgy. That person has done the performer no favours by allowing it to go to performance as it is. Even amateurs need actual honest critique.
I could have been watching Duck Wife…
Spot on Andrew and Ruthanne. The worst show I’ve seen in 2-3 years. Tedious, pedantic, and enraging. To make matters worse, he went overtime! I visualised myself standing up and walking out, head held high, several times throughout the show.
I didn’t see the show, but I just wanted to thank the reviewer for giving his honest opinion. It can be so hard so pick good shows to see when so many get glowing reviews, while few honestly deserve them. For those reading my own reviews, I rarely openly pan a show but the careful reader can figure out where I stand by reading in between the lines.
As an aside, the 2008 fringe was amazing, I would heartily recommend about 8 of the 10 shows I saw that year (Boat Load, Flowers in Bloom, The Spy were all top-notch), while 2009 was disappointing (Spiral Dive and The Accident were very good, but I definitely should have walked out of House). I guess it remains to be seen how 2010 will shape up?
As enjoyable as a bad smelling lingering fart