Little Angel, King Arthur and the Quest for the Holy Grail

Review in Issue 15-3 | Autumn 2003

Nice to be able to praise a show for so many of its elements: the set formed of silks and drapes: simple, changed by the three puppeteers to create many spaces and environments; the puppets with expressive, delicate features (young Arthur’s held a gentle anxiety) – both these were the work of Peter O’Rourke.

The manipulation was fine, by all three performers who spoke as narrators and as the characters they operated. The aesthetics of puppetry demand that a speaker giving the voice for his or her character has regard for the scale and the appearance of the figure: you cannot speak for an ethereal faerie with a voice like a severe headmistress, nor can you endow a wistful visage with a cheery laugh (without some sleight of hand). The puppeteer or the actor has to keep in the front of his or her consciousness the outward appearance of the character, and in this production the actor playing Arthur did not. The acting was over the top and unmatched to the figure.

This aside (and most people would not have worried about it, since the puppeteer’s timing and manipulation were so good), the show was a success. The script was amusing, the lighting (Adam Crosthwaite) and the music and sound (Dennis Conoley) good. The sensitive direction was by Howard Gayton. In general I’d say it was one of the Little Angel’s best of recent years.

Presenting Artists
Presenting Venue
Date Seen
  1. May 2003

This article in the magazine

Issue 15-3
p. 28