An engaging and entertaining production of a cute, fun show.

Fortunately this was the first time I had seen the piece and could not, therefore, bring any preconceptions from previous viewings. For those who haven’t seen ‘Spelling Bee’ it concerns a group of quirky adolescents who are the finalists in one of those, typically American, spelling competitions. Three adults oversee the competition and members of the audience are brought on stage to compete. Before looking further into this specific production I feel it necessary to look at the genesis of the show. It started life as an improvisational play (C-R-E-P-U-S-C-U-L-E) created by a New-York based improvisational comedy troupe. The resulting piece was ‘work-shopped’ and then developed, through the use of a script doctor and a composer-lyricist, into a fully scripted musical. As with all such developments it is difficult to pin-point who did what and when, and this can lead to a hotchpotch end product. Fortunately, in the main, Bee has retained what must have been the original endearing charm and punch. I cannot say that I find the music very memorable (much recitative, little aria). It is very derivative, doesn’t progress the plot and much of it seems to be ‘tacked on’. The only number with real impact is ‘The I Love You Song’. Whilst the whole cast were vocally strong, in this size of a venue amplification should not be necessary. Often the volume was too high and, as a result, some of the voices became shrill. Of course this isn’t the first time that a musical has been developed in this way – probably the most famous example is ‘Chorus Line’. As in Chorus Line this piece has little development, being rather a series of cameos linked together by the original premise. Again as in ‘Chorus Line’ each character has ‘baggage’ to carry and the audience whilst appreciating the humour and expertise of each character is also being involved in their individual problems. The trick is to make sure that these characters are real and not stereotypes. Comedy springs from realism, believability. If it is not real it is superficial and therefore less effective gaining less sympathy. Here we have a very diverse group of characters; the danger is to play their superficial quirks and turn them into caricatures – grotesques – which can lead to overacting. The audience continues to laugh but is less involved. As I say, not having seen the piece before, one must make assumptions about what to attribute to the original script/score and what to this production. What are inherent in the script and what is down to this production. In his programme note the director, Emil Freund, indicates that he adopted an Ensemble approach; as this was how the piece was originally developed this would seem a very logical starting point. However one of the dangers of this approach is that the end product can become so diverse that there isn’t a ‘through line’ and a consistent style. (One of the reasons why the original improvisatory play needed a script-doctor and a composer). Sooner or later the Director must make final decision and, if necessary, weald a heavy hand. In an otherwise splendid production I thought that there were times when this heavy hand had been needed. This applied to some performances and some of the staging. During solo numbers the focal point must remain on the soloist without subsidiary characters distracting, and upstaging, with ‘demonstration’ acting. Fortunately both the direction and choreography were seamless (nothing worse than seeing where either starts and finishes). The energy from all concerned was palpable and infectious whilst avoiding being too slick. The advantage, for this type of production, of being in an intimate venue in a smallish community is that one can play the ‘Parochial’ card both in topical references and in the selection of audience participants. This was particularly well handled by the more mature and experienced members of the cast. However this very parochial nature can tend to encourage approbation for the performer rather than for their performance. Great to see, and hear, both Maxine Montgomery (Peretti) and Andrew Seeary (Panch) back on this stage. Matt Faravoni (Mitch) brought both a powerful voice and warmth to his characters. I thought that the three younger ladies, Maddie Wooster, Allie Sutherland and Vanessa Sheehan (also choreographer) were particularly effective. Gareth Prosser has probably the most bizarre of the characters, Coneybear, and only just managed to avoid turning him into a ‘Stand-up’ routine. On the other hand Gareth Grainger (Barfee) managed to restrain his exuberance and deliver a very touching character. Nathaniel Taylor led a tight band and it was great to see so many young local enthusiasts in the talented Production team. Over the last few years BLOC Music Theatre have started to branch out with this sort of ‘Boutique’ production which not only gives their performers a wider variety of opportunities but also the same for their audiences – I hope that it continues. I really enjoyed my night out at The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, a honey of a show and a marvellous production.