National Operatic & Dramatic Association -  London Area Once again, I would like to thank the Bards for inviting me to review this production.  This was the first time I had seen a performance of The Ghost Train, although I had heard much about it, so I was looking forward to seeing how the Bards coped with this spooky tale of the supposedly haunted station. MICK GODFREY (Saul Hodgkin). When I last saw Mick, he had a bouffant wig, red lips and large false eyelashes (no, he wasn't in the audience - he was the Dame in the Bards' panto!), so his character tonight was something of a role change!  A good character actor, Mick has the ability to immerse himself completely in whatever part he plays, and tonight was no exception, as he convinced us he really WAS the spooky station master. He coped extremely well, helping to keep the suspense going right until the end. GARY SMITH (Richard Winthrop). Gary had obviously worked hard to learn his lines and delivered them with enthusiasm. At times he was a little stilted and quiet but I'm sure that he would have become more confident as the show nights progressed. He interacted well with his stage wife, Fiona Rogers, and was quite believable as an overbearing, short tempered bore. Once he gets into his stride and concentrates on his emotional performance Gary will become an accomplished actor. FIONA ROGERS (Elsie Winthrop). Fiona coped admirably with her role as the morose Elsie and gave us a very good characterisation tonight.  Her delivery was good and, although quiet to start with, she projected well, and reacted appropriately to the action taking place around her.  She also helped to build the suspense and kept the pace flowing. A good performance. DARREN FIELDER (Charles Murdock). As Darren stated in his resumé in the programme, he is normally a comedy actor, and this I think proved to be his biggest stumbling block tonight.  Because of this Darren tended to rush his lines especially when acting "excited", which made it difficult to understand some of his dialogue.  At times, he seemed unsure of what to say next.  "Straight" character acting is not as easy at it seems when you are used to getting the laughs on stage, but I feel that Darren will learn from his experience in this role and hopefully go on to become a versatile actor. Well done for tackling this difficult role will obvious enthusiasm. RACHEL ANDREWS (Peggy Murdock). Rachel was also convincing in her role tonight and she took on this quite wordy part with ease.  Her confidence has come on in leaps and bounds since I last saw her in the Bards' panto and this helped to give her good projection and stage presence tonight. I look forward to seeing Rachel take on similar major roles in the future, as she is obviously able to tackle principal roles well.  JANETTE MEECHAM-WILSON (Miss Bourne).  The show cried out for the token "meddling old lady" and Janette took this on with obvious enthusiasm.  She carried herself well and gave a very convincing performance tonight.  I did wonder, however, why Janette appeared to be stifling her natural Scottish accent in favour of more clipped English tones; I am sure her natural voice would have sufficed and it would have given her one less thing to worry about!  I also wasn't convinced by Janette's "drunk" acting.  She started to slur her words much too early on in the script and made the mistake most inexperienced actors make of becoming a parody of a drunk rather than a convincing inebriate. Drunks are far more subtle in their mannerisms, and usually make great efforts to convince those around them that they are not getting drunk - study the next after show party in greater detail for clues! STEVE THWAITES (Teddie Deakin). Well, what can one say about Steve, apart from the fact that he stole the show!  He was perfectly cast as the irritating imbecile of the piece (no offence meant there, Steve!!) and gave us a wonderfully OTT characterisation tonight.  His obvious confidence and experience at playing such strong character roles meant that the action "lifted" whenever he was on and his skill at comic timing had the audience in stitches throughout much of his performance.  If I had any complaint it would be that his character was sometimes a little too upstaging at times, but this was probably enhanced by the inexperience of some of the other actors around him.  Another of the Bards' talented team! FAY DONDI (Julia Price). Fay's confidence tonight was apparent as she appeared as the slightly strange baddie of the piece.  Her obvious confidence and experience meant that she projected well and moved naturally and she kept in perfect character throughout.  In fact, her overall characterisation and look put me in the mind of a young Michele Dotrice, which was perfect for the role. Fay also managed to switch very convincingly from a proper English accent into American, as her true character evolved.  A good, strong performance, Fay - congratulations! STEVE KINSELLA (Herbert Price). We didn't get to see much of Steve in this particular production as this was a relatively small role, but when he was on, I felt that his delivery could have been a little better, as at times he appeared to be just reciting lines.  However, it must have been difficult for Steve to get his teeth into the part, as there wasn't a lot to build on, it being so minor.  Nevertheless, Steve remained in character when on stage and reacted well to the action around him. ADAM KUHL (John Sterling). As mentioned in my previous Bards review, Adam is a superb and experienced character actor, able to swap from comedy to straight role with ease and tonight took on this small but important role extremely convincingly. I also understand that he stood in at the last minute, so full marks to him for managing to learn his part whilst also taking on the mammoth task of directing the production!  Another good characterisation, Adam - well done! JONATHAN BLANE (Jackson). This was another smaller role, only appearing at the end of Act II and having very few lines, so it was difficult to judge Jonathan on the strength of this performance alone.  However, he both looked and sounded the part and remained in character when on stage, so I suspect this will be the first of many acting roles with the Bards, having been "hijacked" from his usual backstage role!   DIRECTION (Adam Kuhl). Despite the confines of a relatively small set, Adam did a good job tonight in moving his actors around and helping them to create a sense of menace.  The pace was generally good and people moved with purpose and intent. I think a little more could have been done in helping the cast to get into character, as some actors seemed "faceless", but nevertheless this was a good effort which should be commended tonight. LIGHTING, SOUND and SPECIAL EFFECTS (Emma and Adrian Hone).  The play has quite a bit of scope for interesting special effects and these were tackled with obvious enthusiasm. The introductory sequence used projected video archival footage and this was an interesting, innovative and welcome change. On the negative side, I thought the sequence was rather too long, with the video loop rather too obviously repeating many times; perhaps this was determined by the length of the music underneath it, which could have been faded out. The lighting and sound effects involved in the passing of the "ghost train" through the station were very well done, with convincing lighting - flickering carriage lights - effects and realistic sound levels as the train passed through. On a more general note, the demands on the lighting designer for the rest of the show were minimal as it was a single room scene, only requiring simple overall lighting, which was competently executed - with the caveat below. I would make a comment on lighting's ability to help create a believeable environment, to assist the actors in their task of suspending disbelief: we were told repeatedly by the cast that the waiting room was "cold and damp" or "draughty", "miserable", etc., and yet in fact it was lit fairly warmly which made the room actually look rather comfortable and inviting. I suspect standard gel colours such as straw were used, whereas the lighting team could maybe have considered the effect gained by cooler colours, in order to produce a colder and less attractive-looking room, to match the supposed environment. This is always a trade-off between a naturalistic approach and one which more actively supports the action or mood. Another minor "technical" quibble would be that although there was a storm brewing up outside the station, no one appeared to be wet when they emerged from it!  Perhaps a water spray off stage would have been handy? STAGING AND SCENERY.  The action was based in a cold, damp, rundown train station waiting room and a lot of attention had been paid to detail in getting things to look exactly right.  The paint appeared to be peeling from the walls and the light fittings and notices were in keeping with the period and the setting.  However, I was unsure whether the choice of bright green paint was wise, as - along with the lighting (see above) - this made the "room" look bright and comfortable which I think was the opposite effect to what was called for.  Perhaps a dull grey or matt brown would have looked better?  Also, the brass fittings appeared too clean and bright to have been in such an "old" waiting room and I wondered whether the addition of some fiberglass "cobwebs" here and there might have helped to add to the eeriness of the situation.  This was, however, a good effort and worked well with the small confines of the hall. COSTUMES (Emma Hone and Karen Hatt).  On the whole, the cast were dressed appropriately for the period. Saul's uniform was extremely authentic and the ladies in particular were properly dressed for the setting of the play and their characters.  However, in contrast, I think Richard and Charles' suits were far too "modern", and although "formal", weren't in keeping with their respective ladies' attire. MAKE UP and HAIR. Make up tonight appeared perfectly natural and in keeping with the show. I particularly liked Saul's facial hair, which looked very natural and helped to "age" up the character.  However, I think we had grey hair spray overload - either that or Saul had a very bad case of dandruff tonight!!  I also wasn't convinced about Richard Winthrop's haircut, which was far too modern for the period. PROGRAMME. Tonight's programme was a vast improvement on past offerings, so well done for that!  The colour front cover was appropriate for the production and, apart from the back cover, the printing was clear and easy to read.  The photographs were also clear (and very well done!) and there were some interesting resumés.  Advertising was also discreet. One minor criticism would be the lack of a staple to hold it together - the pages tended to separate whenever it was opened.  It would also be a good idea to have the cast list and a list of how many Acts there were (we didn't know there would be three as they weren't mentioned!) in the middle of the programme, as this is where it falls open naturally on your lap and is usually the page most referred to by the audience.  It would also have been nice to see mention of the Bards' affiliation to NODA. For future info, check out http://www.noda.org.uk for the appropriate logo and brief information pieces on NODA, which are downloadable and suitable for inclusion in programmes (and are essential if the programme is to be submitted for the NODA Awards!). FRONT OF HOUSE. I was pleased to see that the Bards' Front of House had also improved since my last visit, and I was greeted warmly and well attended to.  Well done! To sum up, on the whole, this was an extremely well presented thriller which I am sure improved with every performance as the cast grew more confident.  There were some good, innovative effects and we were kept on the edge of our seats right until the end.  A good effort all round! Many thanks again for inviting me and I look forward to reviewing your next production. Kim Halliday