This is not at all what I expect from "Mystery!" Unless intended as farce, in which case it did not succeed either, I found the production far-fetched, and fraught with 21st century sensibilities and laxity.
Why did Sally only wear a hat to visit the villain? Was it 1875 when she was investigating, but 1970 or later in the rest of the story? I would have expected her to cover her head whenever she went out, with the exception of emergency.
And though very funny (*Was* it an attempt at farce?), during the scene at the Patent Office, I wasn't sure whether the Anglo-Asian clerk was befuddled by Sally because she was a woman or ineptly flirting with her.
To quote Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This production eliminated none of the impossible, and so we are left wallowing in disbelief at what we are expected to accept as the "truth" of the story.
Not being a reader of Pullman, I cannot comment on how true it is to the book on which it was based. Perhaps Mr. Pullman deserves the blame for my incredulity?
Why did Sally only wear a hat to visit the villain? Was it 1875 when she was investigating, but 1970 or later in the rest of the story? I would have expected her to cover her head whenever she went out, with the exception of emergency.
And though very funny (*Was* it an attempt at farce?), during the scene at the Patent Office, I wasn't sure whether the Anglo-Asian clerk was befuddled by Sally because she was a woman or ineptly flirting with her.
To quote Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This production eliminated none of the impossible, and so we are left wallowing in disbelief at what we are expected to accept as the "truth" of the story.
Not being a reader of Pullman, I cannot comment on how true it is to the book on which it was based. Perhaps Mr. Pullman deserves the blame for my incredulity?