Under normal circumstances I wouldn't have attended a second preview but this was the result of booking as a Donmar Friend for the first time and getting to grips with the booking form. Live and learn. However, it was the second preview and I kept that in mind.
This is the second play in a row that has greeted the audience with a scent (see Cock at the Royal Court for the other). Whether intentional or not, the space smells of artists paint which does set the scene nicely. The Donmar stage has been turned into a painters studio, the walls have been stripped bare with the only built set piece are doors leading out to one side. Hanging on a suspended wall, centre towards the back and dominating the stage is a Rothko painting - see above image for an idea of his work - which they change numeous times throught the production. Here lies problem number one, abstract expressionism can be difficult to get into, understand or appreciate. Either you do or you don't. As with many art forms, having information about them or doing some sofa research could help appreciate it, however if you come to Red with no prior knowledge it could be heavy going. Honestly, I think this is a major problem with this play but more on that after a quick rundown on the story.
It starts in Rothko's studio, 1958, as a young man - Ken (Eddie Redmayne - Now or Later at the Royal Court, films The Other Boleyn Girl and Savage Grace) meets Mark Rothko (Alfred Molina -films Frida, Prick Up Your Ears, Chocolat) for the first time as his assistant. The action takes place over a two year period as Rothko works on a mural for the restaurant in New York's ritzy Seagrams building. Rothko proves to be difficult in his relationship with his assistant as well as being overprotective about his work and how it's presented. That's about all there is to the actual story. The remainder of the play is filled with discussions about how Rothko feels about art, how he challenges his assistant and how he felt about his contemporaries and the art world in general.
I had heard on the by and by that Rothko was known for being very difficult. That's clear after the first scene. Unfortunately 100 minutes of a man being difficult is in fact difficult to listen to. Even more difficult is the language used and subject matter. All very high brow. I could have gone along if there was an ultimate purpose but it just waffled on and on, often repeating the same themes and points. Not much is revealed about either character with the exception of a brief 'tender' moment about two thirds of the way through and the very end which left me wondering even more - what's the point?
Keeping in mind it was an early performance, I couldn't help but wonder if it was in fact a 45 minute play stretched out to make a full evening. Each scene change is marked by two occurances - first, the painting on the suspended wall is changed by Rothko and Ken (this involves loosening ropes, lowering one painting, taking it off of hooks, walking it to the back wall, putting it down, taking a new one, walking it back, putting it on the hooks, putting it on the hooks and fixing the ropes again) and second, one of the two characters exits to change their clothes. There was one exception to this. One of the best visual scenes occurs as the two prime a canvas with red paint. It's a furious and visceral encounter of man, canvas and red paint - all done to an aria - that leaves them both covered in red. At this point Rothko goes offstage to clean up and Ken does his cleaning up onstage. So basically we sat there and watched Ken take off his shirt, wipe himself down, clean up and put on a new shirt. If they took out all the on stage, off stage, change the picture, stretch a canvas and mix some paint actions, it wouldn't have been nearly as long.
Going back to the 'prior knowledge' issue, unfortunately programmes were not available due to an error that was only discovered after they had been printed, but one can assume that there would have be some background information on Rothko, the times and the art world he was a part of. That would be useful to have but my feelings are that you shouldn't need that information to understand or fully engage with the play. There is so much information bandied around that assumes prior knowledge and I'm pretty sure those without it would not get the full effect. It's all about the art. Matisse's work is referred to, Pollock plays a major part (it seems there was some sort of rivalry), Picasso and the cubists and then Warhol and Lichtenstein. If you don't know these artists works then I wonder what the play would say to you I get the impression that there is an attempt to get to the bottom of Rothko's personality and desires but not much is revealed. Maybe it was intentional that what is revealed is almost in an abstract expressionist manner?
My last big gripe with the production is the use of the paintings. I think it would have been much more powerful to not have the paintings on stage, to let our imaginations set free by the characters descriptions. Seeing the paintings makes the production so specific that it's hard to grasp any universal meaning, message or theme. What was also odd was that the mural being painted for the restaurant, the painting that formed the thrust of the story, was never seen. What the audience gets (continuously) are two actors looking at the bottom of the dress circle as if they are looking at the mural.
Again, this was the second preview. The performances were at the place you would expect them to be on a second preview, and one would assume that with their talents they will develop as the run continues. My issue is with the play (by John Logan - known for his screenplays for Sweeney Todd, The Aviator and Gladiator as co-writer. It doesn't say much and the little of what it says is said with self- indulgence. It's the sort of play that many will probably see and come out raving about how fantastic it is - primarily because the language is literary and academic which many equate with being good theatre. It reminds me of those people who think an actors performance is fantastic primarily because they can memorise a five page monologue and rattle it off without error. For me it's not enough.
What I find suprising is that Red is directed by Michael Grandage who is one of the most respected and sucessful directors today. Again, early days, I'm not sure if he will be making any major adjustments, we'll have to wait and see how it develops. I could forgive the play for it's use of over intellectual language and thought but I spent 100 minutes in the company of two people who over think everything only to be told at the end that it's a bad thing. Oh well. Maybe I can get those 100 minutes back somehow.
RED - 2nd preview (Donmar 4/12/09) 5 December 2009
Cock (Royal Court 1/12/09) 1 December 2009
Almost flawless. That's my feeling. There will always be preferences in performance, style, dialogue etc... but when you put all of that aside and just look at the mechanics and effect of Cock then almost flawless is the only thing that comes to mind. Almost - flawless. There's a little caveat which I will get to in a moment.
I'm going to start with the space itself. For any who have every been to the the Theatre Upstairs at the Royal Court, you will know it's a small space. What is surprising is that it's actually more flexible than one would think. Upon arrival for this show what I was hit with first was a strange yellowy light and the smell of freshly cut timber. There's a choice to walk right or left around a timber plywood wall and enter the playing space through a narrow walkway. A round wooden playing space, an arena with three seating levels has been constructed. It's a small space with the main playing area painted a billiard table green and above it what could only be described as a circular plywood lampshade, but as large as the central playing area. The only lighting (other than the yellowy light on the audience) is flourescent tube lighting from inside the giant shade. Because of the set up you were not only in close proximity to the person beside you but in full view of everyone else in the space.
The sparsness of the space designed by Miriam Beuther (Judgement Day, When the Rain Stops Falling at the Almeida, The Good Soul of Szechuan at The Young Vic, Six Characters in Search of an Author in the West End) extended to the production. Here's playwright Mike Bartlett's description from the play text:
The audience is raked down towards the actors.
There is no scenery, no props, no furniture, and no mime.
Instead the focus is entirely on the drama of the scene.
This sounds like it could make for a pretty dodgy evening of ACTING but it worked, beautifully.
Here's the basic setup. Through an opening arguement between a gay couple (John and his boyfriend only known as 'M; in the script) we discover that John is having an affair with a woman. We also see the other side of the story through John and the woman - only known as 'W' in the script. The thrust of the story is John trying to understand these conflicting desires and attempting to make a choice.
Many of the individual scenes skip the interactions that are not relevant with delineations between scenes audibly marked with a buzzer/bell. It's all very subtle but again, very effective as it's clear when the scene has changed. There are two very intimate scenes, both dealing with nudity and sexual exploration where clothes are never shed and the reactions never exploited but are in keeping with the intimatacy of the moment. It's all wonderfully directed by James MacDonald (Judgement Day at the Almeida at the Royal Court) in a manner that is at once very straightforward and choreographed. Where each individual is placed in the space and how they move in relation to each other speaks volumes, about as much as the dialogue itself.
I love coming across a play that has dialogue that is funny, touching and insightful. Playwright Mike Bartlett has an amazing ear for how people speak. At one moment you're laughing hysterically with recognition, and the next it feels as if you're privy to a very private moment, hearing things that aren't meant to be heard outside of private conversation. This effect is not only down to the writing but the actors as well. Each delivers such a connected performance, such an understanding of what they are saying that the marriage between script and performance is explosive. There is nothing showy in the performances, each serving the situation and defining the individual characters.
Of the main three - I would say, which is to be expected, that Andrew Scott (see my Sea Wall post) as 'M' comes out on top. As the betrayed lover he walks that fine line between bitchy, hurt and desperation, giving a fully fleshed out character that in the wrong hands could have just been a one note performance. Coming in a very close second is Katherine Parkinson (The Lightning Play at the Almeida, Other Hands at Soho theatre and TV's The IT Crowd) as 'W'. This role requires softness and a hard centre, an ability to stand up for oneself and also expose an inner need. She's wonderful in her delivery. You couldn't imagine anyone else playing that part. As John, Ben Whishaw (the films Brideshead Revisited, Poison The Story of a Murderer, I'm Not There) gives a good performance but I didn't feel it was as real or nuanced as the other two. There is a third characted 'P', an older gentleman who seems to be more of a representation of an older generation than a real person. I will have to read the play to figure out if this is intentional in the writing or down to the actor - Paul Jesson (The Seagull at the Royal Court, Awake & Sing at the Almeida, Mary Stuart in the West End, on film - TV's Margaret and the film Vera Drake).
We have now arrived at the point when I explain the 'almost' part of the 'almost flawless' statement. Without giving too much away as there is a strong 'what's gong to happen?' thread that runs through the story, there is a section towards the end when all the themes and conflicts merge to be confronted. It's abit clunky. What had previously been revealed through action briefly turned into a disertation drama on the nature of bisexuality and the fluidity of desire. It felt as if he had so many ideas to get out that it seemed to be the only option - for issues to be directly confronted. There is a danger in pounding home those sort of discussions in such an obvious way. I wished it had been handled more in line with the other revelations. It's all a matter of taste. That was the only real downfall to me. A small one, one that can be excused because although it became obvious it still made made think and consider the issues.
Another play that came to mind while watching this was David Mamet's Oleanna - a play where there is no clearcut right or wrong, it's up to th viewer to make their own decision who was at fault. There are circumstances in Cock that ask the same thing from the audience. Who is right? Who is wrong? Is there a right or wrong? I found myself taking sides but I think that was firmly rooted in my own value system and past experiences (not to be revealed here, thanks).
Unfortunately it's only on until the 19th of December and it's all sold out - there are only around 80 seats in the space. It would be great to have this remounted so more people could sexperience it. I'm going again on the closing night so I can see how it evolves.
Side note: Hats off to the staff at the Royal Court - the bookshop, the coatcheck, the ushers, the bar - all fantastic and made the trip even more enjoyable. They could be the best I've come across in London.
Follow me on Twitter - @thisbarry
Coming soon - Red at the Donmar, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof at the Novello and Cock again.
Posts
