Rope (Almeida 23/12/09) 28 December 2009

I did what you probably shouldn't do when seeing a play that has a film version - I watched the film first. Well, sort of. I started watching it then fell asleep. That's not to say that the film was boring but it didn't prove to be as exciting as I expected it to be. The film version of Rope of course is directed by Alfred Hitchcock and adapted for the screen from Patrick Hamilton's play by actor Hume Cronyn which in turn is inspired by true events. Luckily, by falling asleep I didn't see the ending which is important in this story as the audience already knows who, what, when, where and basically why, from the first scene. What is not known is - will they get away with it?

For the first time in Almeida history, the seating arrangement is in the round. I was seated in the first row of the circle, an excellent seat. What they have done is pull the stage forward into what is usually the first few rows. The back wall of the previous stage area is now lined with two rows of seats on tow levels, matching the existing circle and stalls. It's all seamless. If you hadn't been to the Almeida before you would never realy guess that it was a new configuration.

As the play opens, tow of the main characters Wyndham Brandon and Charles Granillo have just strangled a university friend to death with a rope and are stuffing him in chest in the front sitting room. The first ten or so minutes of Rope are played in almost complete darkness as the two characters discuss what has just happened and what will happen. What will happen is a party. They have invited friends of the deceased as well as his father who they assume will come with the aunt. There is a perverse thrill about having a party in such close vicinity of the dead body, and Wyndham (Blake Ritson - Arcadia for the National Theatre and the film RocknRolla) is relishing it. His partner in crime Granillo (Alex Waldmann - Laertes in Jude Law's West End Hamlet) is much less confident, in fact he is in full on panic mode.

When they finally feel safe to turn on lights the play proper begins. Instead of serving the food and drinks in the dining room they have opted to take their plan further by serving from the chest with the body in the front room. Their servant (this is late 20's, early 30's upper class London) Sabot arrives first to set the table. It's really a thankless part, with the character's only purpose being to help arouse suspicion and then exit. As played by Philip Arditti (England People Very Nice - National Theatre, House of Saddam for HBO) I think he is supposed to be North African or French. This is the one severly underwritten part in the play.

After Sabot, the others arrive one by one: Another university friend Kenneth Raglan (Henry Lloyd-Hughes - almost unrecogniseable from his stint as the bully on The Inbetweeners), another friend, socialite Leila Arden (a very well played and very funny Phoebe Waller-Bridge - 2nd May 1997 at the Bush, co-Artistic Director of DryWrite), followed by the father of the corpse Sir Johnstone Kentley (Michael Elwyn - numerous productions at the Royal Exchange Manchester and Open Air Theatre Regents Park as well as Tv's The Tudors) along with his sister Mrs Debenham who struggles to speak more than three words at a time (Emma Dewhurst - Medea, Jane Eyre both West End, The Invention of Love and Making History - both National Theatre). The general interactions between these guests are entertaining to listen to and watch. As directed by Roger Michell (Female of the Species - West End; Landscape with Weapon, Blue/Orange - both National Theatre; films include - The Mother, Enduring Love and Notting Hill) the characters move effortlessly around the circular set allowing each to emerge and establish themselves without isolating them from the central event.

The balance changes with the entrance of Rupert Cadell, another friend - an ex-serviceman from the first world war, who walks with a cane as a result of a war wound. As played by Bertie Carvel (The Pride at the Royal Court; Parade at the Donmar; The Man of Mode, Galileo and Coram Boy - all National Theatre) Rupert is a a visual and aural curiosity. HIs speech is clipped, with odd exagerations on various phrases and words, he walks with a limp and has a very camp, fey air about him. However, it's the hair - the hair is a marvel all it's own. Where did that come from? All I can say it's an early 1929 quif and it works. All in all, Bertie Carvell gives one of the finest performances of the year. He has an uncanny ability to make Rupert extremely funny as well as endearing although he can be bitchy and arrogant. No matter how funny he is, Carvell never allows the character to turn into farce, knowing when to pull back and allow the other characters to have their turn, he never overpowers the scenes. What is also very admirable is that no matter what volume he pitches the performance, Carvel always follows through with the many ticks of the character.

This can also be said of the entire production. There are many times where it becomes extremely funny, to the point where I had to wonder if it was turning out to be a great comedy and the thriler aspects were going to be secondary. This never happened, the production knew when to reign it in - the comedy came naturally from the characterisations so it was only funny when it should be. And the ending. I really loved the lead up to the final events. There are some really great and touching speeches, and some interesting theories to chew on without ever becoming pretentious and overbearing.

Compare and contrast time. This really has no bearing on my enjoyment of the production but I think these are interesting points to bring up. I'll start with the Hitchcock film as that was my point of entry.
Hitchcocks Rope takes place in the late 1950s in Manhattan. The number of characters are about the same but many have different relationships with each other and the servant has a much bigger part and is female. Keeping this in mind, imagine my surprise when in the opening moments of the play I am hearing RP.

Later that evening, when I returned home, I decided to look further into the Rope story. Lets start with the real story. The real killing took place in Chicago in 1924 by Leopold and Loeb. I 'm not sure why the play then took place in the UK other than the playwright may have felt more comfortable with all things English and was writing for that audience (his other famous plays include Gaslight - recently revived at the Old Vic, and Hangover Square). The other interesting fact is the sexuality of the two main characters.

Leopold and Loeb were gay. It was never called that back in the day of their trial, but they admitted to sexual relations. I find this information of interest because it explains a few things about the film. Of course, the 'love that dare not speak its name' was a no go area in the late 1950s, especially if James Stewart is one of your stars, but if you watch the film closely one does wonder why the two killers are standing so close together. It sounds odd but have a watch and you'll see what I mean. I think Hitchcock was inferring intimacy without making it an issue. Again, this was an issue that you wouldn't find in a 1929 play, so the closest you get in the play text (much like the film) is that the two characters are travelling out of town together for the winter. Flash forward to the West End revival of Rope in the 90's which famously opened with full frontal male nudity, intimating that the killing was part of a honey trapvmaking no bones about the characters sexuality.

In this current revival, it sticks to the text as is. I've never read it so I can't be sure how camp Rupert was written, but as with the film, the sexuality is inferred but off handed comments and physicality but never overtly stated. Ultimately, does their sexuality make a difference to the play? No, not one bit. It's just an interesting sidenote to an interesting and engrossing play which you should see (if you can).

Judgement Day (Almeida 08/09/09) 9 September 2009

We're back in adaptation land. I pointed this phenomenon out to my friend and it's now beginning to hit home. Originally I wasn't going to say anything about Judgement Day due to two issues that I faced while seeing it, but after a chat with a work colleague today who saw it the night before I thought it may be worth giving it a go.

As a preface, it's another adaptation but to it's credit, it's a play and a playwirght that don''t really get seen or performed (I had never heard of either). I did have an issue with either the adaptation or the direction, not sure which, but I'll come to that in a minute.

FIrst performed in Germany in 1945, Judgement Day is presented in a new version by Christopher Hampton (adaptations and translations include: God of Carnage, Art, Les Liaison Dangereuses, Sunset Boulevard; Screenplays include: Atonement, Dangerous Liaisons; Original work includes: The Philanthropist which was just revived on Broadway with Matthew Broderick)from the original by Odon von Horvath. The story takes place in a small German village in the 1940's. After a train crash which leaves many dead, the villagers speculate on who was to blame with the results of the trial leaving many in doubt. That's all I will say, I know it sounds somewhat vague, but saying any more would give too much away I feel.

So, what were my reasons for not wanting to discuss this initially? Firstly, it was a preview performance. I find there are two types of previews. One is where a production has been performed at another theatre already so those previews are ususally just ironing out issues with being in a new space, or it's in very good shape already (although I think the preview aspect should still be taken into consideration). The second are previews in which the production is still finding it's feet. I find writing about a performace viewed during the second set of circumstances unfair to all involved. Although productions do grow and mature during a run, those first performances should not be used as a measuring stick for its success or failure.This particular performance fell into the latter category as it was evident that there were alot of kinks that needed to be worked out, and performances that may not have found the right tone yet.

The second issue was the cast. We were greeted by the Almeida's Executive Director who explained that the actress who plays the part of Frau Leimgruber - Sarah Woodward - was unable to be there that evening and that the part would be played by Susan Brown. It was explained that since the Almeida don't employ undersudies Miss Brown only came on board at 4.30pm that afternoon and shet would be on book. (After I returned home ad properly read my programme I discovered it was slipped with Susan Brown's bio and a note stating that Sarah Woodward was granted compassionate leave. My best goes out to her).

So, here we are, a preview performace where one of the actors is a last minute substitute. My friend pointed out after the performance (we were seated behind the director James Macdonald - Dying CIty, Blasted, 4.48 Psychosis, Drunk Enough to Say I Love You - so there wasn't any discussion about the production, on our parts, inside the theatre) that it was quite possible tthe last minute change in cast effected the cast and crew.

The set is a real star. Part of it is a train platform complete with smoke when trains arrive and depart. The platform then, throughout the production, moves back and forth as well as rotates to give the whole production a very cinematic feel. Unfortunately things didn't really go all that smoothly. Nothing outrageously bad but just off kilter enough to notice - things like doors not sliding or closing correctly, missed cues for light fixutres to move - just a bit messy.

The perfomances were somewhat uneven, some more mannered than others (I'm not a fan of mannered performances). Here we are at an adaptation issue, or a directing issue i'm not sure. The entire play takes place in Germany in the 1940's. I think it's fine that decided not to have German accents but everyone was speaking with their natural British dialect. We had accents from Northern Ireland to the East End of London. I found that odd. I wonder what the reasoning was behind that. I kind of gave me the feeling that not enough effort was made athough I'm sure that's not the case. Just a strange decision.

To the play itself. I could see what teh playwright was getting at (clue in the title) but at times it seemed very vague in delivery, tmoving into predictable, then into a place no one could see coming. That was also the place where I lost any understanding of what was going on. My initial thought was that the play itself was not very strong. The circumstances surrounding it that evening didn't help.

I briefly discussed this with a work colleague the next day. She had seen it the night before, with full cast intact. From her description the perfomances were as different as night and day. In particular we discussed the end. Her take on it all made sense. Although I'm not sure if it's meant to be open to interpertation. She also thought it was a shame I didn't get to see Sarah Woodward peform the role of Frau Leimgruber as she gave a wonderful performance.

After all that I have concluded that due to unforseen circumstances, I was witness to an off performance and the production does deserve people's attention. That's not to say if I went back later in the run, all would be forgiven. There are still elements that I know I would have a problem with, such as characters ramdomly changing thier points of view. But, at a little over 90 minutes, I would say that it's worth giving it a shot. And with such theatre pedigree behind it, you will definitely get something out of it.