Blog on the Dog in the Bog

It's quite cathartic to put some thoughts down about a project following its completion.

With the benefit of hindsight you can look back to where it all started, how it ended up and the trials and tribulations you faced in between.

I've been looking back further over everything I've done on the amateur stage since my debut as Bob Cratchitt at the tender age of 11 and as an actor, I can recall no greater challenge than taking on the role of Sherlock Holmes.

It's a double-edged sword, you see. He's one of the most famous literary characters ever, so there's endless source material and frames of reference for a character who – in on-screen portrayals - has undergone more regenerations than The Doctor. So, there's loads to draw from.

However, he's one of the most famous literary characters ever and anyone who has had any contact with the numerous books, films or TV series will have an opinion on Holmes and how he should be played.

For me this brought a lot of pressure as I hate seeing portrayals of my favourite characters from books being played atrociously or totally out of keeping with my vision of said character. So, I read a few of the Holmes stories, watched the Jeremy Brett version of The Hound, (I'd already borne witness to the incoherent mumbling of Robert Downey Jnr), closely followed by the excellent Benedict Cumberbund (sic) version, before finally consulting with an old chum and fellow board treader who just happens to be one of, if not THE definitive voices amongst the many Holmesian societies; Roger Johnson. I heartily recommend his book: The SherlockHolmes Miscellany, which he co-authored with Jean Upton.

However, ours was a period piece and so I tried to play Holmes of the time with an authoritarian manner, but tempered with elegance, hints of mischief and driven by the desire to solve the puzzle whatever the cost. Whether I achieved that or not is not for me to judge...

Regardless, it's been a fantastic experience and as I've previously said: hard work, but ultimately rewarding.

From day one, our director; Gordon Lawson, had a clear vision of what he wanted to achieve and I loved the fact that he would turn up to rehearsal with books, graphic novels and other paraphernalia relating to Holmes or the Hound of the Baskervilles. From this the cast and crew were all pulling in the same direction and working hard in their respective areas to make everything the best it could possibly be.

I've really enjoyed working on a straight play with the likes of Martin Cash (Dr Mortimer) and John Dodds (Sir Henry), when before we've only ever really played silly buggers in panto. The scene that was re-written to include Holmes in the interrogation of Laura Lyons was also a personal favourite as I really got into the psychological warfare with Jackie O'Sullivan who played the part of Mrs Lyons.

One of the highlights for me though has been sharing the stage with Simon Yaxley for the first time. He is an experienced campaigner, a true gentleman, a total professional and a very giving actor. For those who might not know what I mean by this: in performing his own role, he gives you things to react to and work from. Whether it be a facial expression, body language or tone of voice it may all sound quite simple (elementary?), but is in reality quite a hard thing to master. He does it naturally and I felt that I was able to learn a lot from him.

The five months of intense line-learning (reading the script at least once a day), rehearsal and three nights of performance, were as ever over in a flash. On the final night after the performance, I actually felt quite flat – possibly because I felt we had another show in us – and didn't stay too long at the after-show shindig, choosing instead to try and get an early-ish night so I could enjoy the following day with my new and recently neglected wife and our son.

I've had some lovely feedback from friends and colleagues who came to see the show as well as complete strangers who have come up to me after to tell me they really enjoyed it and were impressed with the effects and so forth. It's great to hear and is a nice reward for everyone who has put so much into making the show happen.

We're now two days after the finish and already I can feel my brain starting to relax with the realisation that it doesn't have to retain lines any longer. Little by little it is already starting to let them slip away – I just hope that I do not lose anything important in the process!

Thanks to all the cast and crew for the fun and laughter along the way and in particular thanks to Gordon for giving me the opportunity to play The Worlds Greatest Detective.

I'm now going to take a bit of an am-dram sabbatical to ensure that I spend some quality time with my family in a bid to nail the greatest challenge of all: being a good husband and father.

Derek the Divider

Ricky Gervais' Derek finished last week and there's been a bit of discussion about it since that time.

For one reason or another, it's stayed with me and I've been thinking about it a lot. Originally, I wanted to get some thoughts down sooner, but as with everything these days it takes a little longer.

The programme seems to have been as divisive as Mrs Brown Boys, with some deeply affected and moved by it to those who were angered and left feeling uncomfortable at Gervais' portrayal of Derek Noakes with his drooping jaw, slightly twee way of speaking and his odd shuffling walk. Furthermore (shock, horror etc.) Coldplay were used to soundtrack a couple of montages over the series, surely the death knell for any programme?

Gervais has been derided by many who feel he is gaining comic mileage out of those with genuine behavioural problems or psychological issues and there was a degree of truth in this in the pilot episode where Derek accidentally falls into a pond. That did make for uncomfortable viewing as we were being asked to laugh at Derek as opposed to with him. However, when the series started lessons were learned from this and we weren't asked to laugh at him again. We were asked to find him caring and kind-hearted.

Derek was an attempt by Gervais to break out of the furrow he's dug for himself. He's often been criticised for playing the same character in each of his roles, which in truth does carry some weight as there's not been an awful lot of variety in that regard.

But Derek is a huge step change and a risky one at that - as anyone who has seen Robert Downey Jnr's speech in Tropic Thunder will testify to (also considered by some to be offensive – you were warned). It would have been interesting to see the impact of an unknown actor playing the role. Would it have had more gravitas and been considered less offensive? Would it have created half the fuss, Twitter-rows, general discussion and publicity?

Arguably, Gervais' biggest crime with the writing of Derek is that he is guilty of loving his creation a too much which results in some of the supporting characters being thinly drawn (maybe to come into their own in the second series?), some clunky dialogue in places clunking and supposed “twists” being telegraphed well in advance.

But despite all this, tears of both laughter and sadness (surely the ultimate show of hitting the mark) have been teased out of the watching audience for half an hour each week and that it is no mean feat.

Like it's eponymous hero Derek was inoffensive and had its heart in the right place. The only underlying message that came out from it all, was not “let's have a laugh at those who are different to us” it was simply: wouldn't the world be a better place if we were all a little kinder and showed each other (and ourselves) just a little more respect?

In an increasingly cynical world full of snarky sketch shows and God-awful sitcoms with embedded laughter tracks (just in case you forget that what you are watching is supposed to be funny), Derek is overly sentimental, uncool and completely misunderstood by a lot of people.

I loved it.