What the Butler Saw

by Joe Orton

directed by David Wheeler

at the American Repertory Theatre

through February 24

Any contemporary production of a Joe Orton play is usually surrounded by a number of discussions which generally contain the words "censorship," "propriety," and "homosexuality." These discussions often assume an intellectual tone which rarely escalates to the level of heated debate to which they did in England in the 1960s, when Orton wrote his plays. What was perhaps revolutionary then seems somewhat silly now. I do not mean to suggest that the issues which Orton's plays confront, namely censorship, propriety and homosexuality, have in any way abated--hardly. Instead, they have become much more complex and have moved into different forums--the U.S. military, for example.

On Wednesday evening, the American Repertory Theatre opened its production of Orton's What the Butler Saw. In the script, Orton's cleverness, if not outright genius, stands unquestioned. He has a keen knack for dramatizing many of his favorite themes by "inverting" the common knowledge, wherein the normal--progressively through the show--becomes the abnormal and vice versa. His brilliant farce of late 60s English society leaves nothing sacred, not even the phallus of Winston Churchill.

This blasphemy, however, is no longer blasphemy. What the Butler Saw pales in comparison to, say, the most recent episode of "Beavis and Butthead" or Madonna's latest performance. As pure farce, it succeeds; as pertinent critical satire, it has been outdated.

On a purely formal level, the production works. The actor's timing keeps the pace clipping along and the audience laughing. Led briskly by Margaret Gibson, playing Mrs. Prentice, the cast adheres strictly to the whimsical spirit of Orton's text. The set (designed by Derek McLane) and costumes (by Catherine Zuber) reinforce the historical context of the play. Under the direction of David Wheeler, the A.R.T. production is seamless, except for a few chaotic moments when the stage order unnecessarily falls apart. Overall, however, the play is well excecuted.

Despite the script's craftiness and the strong acting, this production is weighed down by the simple fact that what the butler saw in 1967 seems rather banal compared to what the butler now sees. More politically inclined people should not expect much ammunition from this production. However, for those looking for a lighthearted farce (albeit unfamiliar) written by one of the wittiest British humourists, What the Butler Saw at the A.R.T. is a good bet.