By Darcie FlansburgThe Real Critics Editor/Publisher
There are two things that the Redlands Footlighters do very well – mystery and farce. Even though I am not a huge fan of mystery or suspense plays, Footlighters’ shows are often quite entertaining, and the most recent production, “Sherlock’s Last Case” directed by Footlighters veteran Cynthia Lake, did not disappoint.
The production was all around good - good acting, good direction, good set, good music, good crowd. What else could any theatrical producer ask for?
Like most secret agent plot lines, the story opens with a debriefing about the previous case, in which Sherlock (played by Tom Shelton) tells Dr. Watson (played by Mel Chadwick) about how he outwitted the now incarcerated wrong-doers. It is the prelude to the next case and usually Sherlock is excited and enthusiastic about catching the bad guys, but this time he had an air of arrogance, like he had done it all before.
Though the production is over, it is never my intention to be a plot spoiler, so I will only say that the “last case” hit Sherlock close to home. As would be expected of a Charles Morowitz piece and a Footlighters mystery choice, the play had turn after turn after turn that could not be easily predicted and the venue handled it well with fabulously dramatic music that almost shook the theatre with intensity.
Another aspect of the stage that Footlighters always seems to accomplish is design. The set was gaudy, but appropriate and well utilized the revolving stage for the one other location outside of Sherlock’s home. Philip Gabriel designed the set, but about 20 people were called to assemble the design and let’s just say that it was well worth it.
But on a scale of 1 to 5, a “good” score is a 4. The reason that Footlighters mainly got 4’s across the board for this production is, first off, better than “good” only because most IE productions get a 3 across the board, but also there were few holes in the production, yet it did not necessarily excel the audience’s expectation.
The acting was sharp, but did struggle with a difficult script. The direction was strong, but aired on the side of caution. The music was appropriately dramatic, but also somewhat cliché. The production didn’t take any risks, but did what the play required, and did it well.
There was one moment when Chadwick, in particular, really struggled with a rather strenuous monologue, which was not his fault as an actor, or Lake’s fault as a director per se, but the fault of a “confused script” as Frank Rich explained in a 1987 New York Times review.
But despite some textual difficulties, the production did not outshine the writings shortcomings, which caused the show to get a “good” rating. Still “good” is better than “average,” but still not quite “excellent.”
