By Jeeves

I've very much enjoyed anything I've read from P. G. Wodehouse, and I adore the television series 'Jeeves and Wooster' of the early 90s that brought these ridiculous characters to hilarious, vibrant life. Incredibly, it was only a matter of weeks ago that I learned there was once a musical based on Wodehouse's esteemed work - or perhaps, not so incredibly, for once we begin reading about the whole matter it becomes clear that 'By Jeeves,' formerly just 'Jeeves,' does not count among Andrew Lloyd Webber's best successes. The fact that the original musical closed swiftly in 1975, and was scrapped in no small part upon being revisited twenty-one years later, does not speak well to the whole endeavor, even if the retooled show was received more positively. Fast forward a few years more and for better or for worse, audiences don't need to shell out big bucks for seats in the orchestra, balcony, or gallery to judge 'By Jeeves' for ourselves, as a 2001 Canadian production received the treatment of a professional recording. So with all this firmly in mind, how does the musical actually hold up?

It doesn't take long as we watch before we can begin to form an impression, and the good news is that far more than not, to my delight, there is actually a lot to like here. Granted, much of the strength in this comes from Wodehouse's own ingenuity, for the characters are his, and the dynamics between them, the dialogue, the scenes, and the narrative all draw from the source material in measures both very direct and slightly indirect. It's no small matter to adapt such foundations into another medium, though, and writer Alan Ayckbourn is to be roundly congratulated for shaping classic satirical brilliance into something both unmistakably kith and kin with Wodehouse canon, and shrewdly original. We're treated to characterizations and dialogue that are both perfectly recognizable and perfectly absurd, and a jumbled scenario that faithfully pulls from the stories of Jeeves and Wooster we know and love: the congenial but addle-minded wastrel, his supremely intelligent, loyal, and sardonic valet, and a retinue of Wooster's friends and acquaintances who rely on him for trading identities and property, resolving romantic quandaries, promoting their hare-brained schemes, and otherwise dutifully helping friends in need - lest he refuse or fail and in turn get implicated in even more trouble. Wodehouse is alive and well in these 140 minutes, and this is absolutely to Ayckbourn's credit.

Between his book and lyrics and moreover his direction, there is further brilliance in the musical that we owe to Ayckbourn. It's noteworthy that the production plays fast and loose with the fourth wall as characters sometimes directly address the audience, and divisions between actor and role are sometimes diminished. The plot is presented largely as a "story within a story" as Wooster relates a past series of events, further freely exposing the artificiality, and that bare-faced contrivance is cemented with some cues, props, or bits that speak to the premise of a shoestring, jury-rigged staging of an evening of entertainment within and for a small community. All this is to say that broadly speaking, on paper and in execution, the concept of 'By Jeeves' is very smart and fun, and Ayckbourn's direction ensures that buzzing energy courses through the proceedings with fast-paced movement to and fro, lively performances, and some extra clever sequences - including the last scene of Act I - that would actually be rather difficult to represent on television, and maybe impossible with the written word. Not to be outdone, the cast in this iteration is altogether wonderful, embracing the madcap spirit of the affair with electric fervor and welcome fidelity to the parts they have taken on. Some players may stand out above others with how superbly they inhabit these established figures, including John Scherer (Wooster), Martin Jarvis (Jeeves), James Kall (Gussie), and Rebecca Watson (Madeline), yet from one to the next the production demands robust expression and physicality, and substantial range, and all involved are plainly excellent with the skills they bring to the table.

Though a tad beside the point, it's also worth observing that the effort to professionally film the production was not wasted. Sometimes a show on the stage is recorded for posterity and the result is in some manner a poor representation as the stage direction, the set, the camerawork, the editing, or even the audience presence may hamper the viewing experience. That is not the case here, and wherever the credit belongs between filmmaker Nick Morris, co-editor Dave Gardener, and camera operator Rick McVicar, I believe this is surely as fine a film or TV presentation of the revamped 1996 musical as we're going to get. Kudos to McVicar in particular, for his editing is often just as bright and fleet-footed as the actors' contributions. Yet despite all these many great advantages, not all is well with 'By Jeeves,' and it falls short of perfect. Where does it go wrong? Well, with all due respect to Ayckbourn, part of the problem stems from the root story. We get all the elements of Wodehouse's tales of Jeeves and Wooster that we know and love, this is true, yet this is an instance where the doing feels overburdened; in his effort to port the beloved comedy stylings to the stage, we get ALL the familiar elements, and we could have done with a few less. If the notions common to Jeeves and Wooster could be summarized as a list of, say, twenty items, that doesn't mean that a single Jeeves and Wooster story must or should include all twenty items, but that's effectively how the production comes across. With that in mind, I shudder to think what the original 1975 show must have looked like with twice as many characters.

Being thusly overburdened in its writing - which again further includes the framing, and dalliances with the fourth wall - there are instances when something seems inelegantly and inorganically smashed into the whole, and gawky in turn, instead of being naturally, carefully woven in. There are also instances of aspects being shortchanged in the script, whether that means being unconvincingly mentioned for only the first time in the second act, tossed in too heedlessly for its own good to ensure inclusion in some manner, or just not receiving all due treatment that would wrap up said aspect in the entirety of Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster. And with all this having been said, I'm sorry to say that the most severe flaw with 'By Jeeves' might be the music. It's one thing to say that a musical lacks any numbers that are specifically notable or memorable; it's another thing altogether to say that no matter how enjoyable tunes might be in and of themselves, they feel ill-fitting, weakly integrated with the rest of the material, and downright superfluous. Kind of emphasizing the point, the second act gives us a love duet between Harold and Stiffy, "Half a moment," which is lovely and comes closest, of any song here, to the tenor we commonly anticipate of Webber. It also sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the more raucous tone of all the other songs, and the outwardly comedic nature of the musical itself. Curiously, "Half a moment" is then followed with another number ("It's a pig!") which very simply raises a skeptical eyebrow of disfavor. To be frank, I think 'By Jeeves' would have been better had it been devised purely as a play, with no more than light musical accompaniment as may befit select moments.

Through to the end with its bizarre medley there were creative choices made in this musical that range from "less than ideal" to "perplexing"; I think the first act is surely stronger than the second, and the plot wraps up in a fashion that feels a smidgen sloppy and abrupt. An early line that caught my ear ("I'm still not certain this is going to work, Jeeves") turned out to be all too prescient in terms of Webber's inclination to turn such classic humor into a musical. Still, the only aim here was to provide a good time and honor Wodehouse while introducing him to a new audience. Regrettably imperfect as 'By Jeeves' is, it nevertheless ably achieves that goal; for all its foibles, I enjoyed watching. It's possible that someone who is an especial fan of Wodehouse, Webber, or another person involved may have extra impetus to check it out; on the other hand, it's also possible that even utmost devotees won't be fully satisfied, and this doesn't necessarily demand viewership for anyone. All the same, this 2001 feature is a terrific TV movie, documenting a solid production, of a show that is a mixed bag, but generally swell. If you're looking for something light and uninvolved to pass a lazy day, this will neatly do the trick. Don't go out of your way for 'By Jeeves,' but if you happen to come across it then it's good enough to warrant a look.