The Wharf Revue takes pride in prejudice
Image: THE WHARF REVUE - PRIDE IN PREJUDICE. Image: supplied
It is a truth universally acknowledged that imitation is the highest form of flattery, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and paraphrasing a quote is a hackneyed way to begin an article. None of this has anything to do with The Wharf Revue and their latest show, but it does set an appropriate tone of absurdity — and absurdity is bound to abound in their new show: Pride in Prejudice.
Written by regular Wharf Revuers, Jonathan Biggins, Drew Forsythe and Phillip Scott, the show takes the famous Jane Austin novel as its theme (give or take a conjunction) and features all the same pretence, hypocrisy and caricatured personalities.
The Wharf Revue has been lampooning national and international politics and pop culture for 23 years, producing fast paced shows made up of skits, parody songs and really bad wigs. Biggins, Forsythe and Scott have been at its core for much of those two-plus decades, being frequently joined by guest performers. Pride in Prejudice will see Biggins and Forsythe on stage, joined by Mandy Bishop and David Whiney, with Andrew Warboys providing music.
The team has barely had time to scratch themselves since their last show, Looking for Albanese, which toured from February to April this year. Prior to that they performed Can of Worms (2022) and Goodnight and Goodluck (2021). Not even lockdown could keep them down; in 2020, they live-streamed their show, A Zoom With A View.
Despite the fact that it’s only been a few months since their last show, the team will not be short of material. The daily headlines virtually pre-write their scripts. The Wharf team promises an inaccurate, irreverent, inane critique of current affairs:
“Pride in prejudice? In today’s digital Colosseum, it’s a big thumbs- up for bigotry – ironic that while the polar icecaps melt, the world’s becoming more polarised! So with Dutton upping the anti and the government hoarding their frequent flyer points, it’s time for The Wharf Revue to inject a note of insanity into the debate. Why let the alternative facts get in the way of a good laugh?”
