Polar Bears is the second new play of the current Donmar season, the first being the phenomenally successful Red by John Logan which recently transferred to Broadway. I'm not sure where to start with this one. Thinking about it there really isn't much to say, which is sort of how I felt about Polar Bears. Again, drawn by the promise of another production directed by Jamie Lloyd I expected to at least be entertained, and I was, somewhat, but overall it was a slight evening.
I've never read The Curious Incident of the Dog In the Night, the bestselling novel by Mark Haddon who has written this play. All I know it was a huge hit and as a result didn't really think twice about his first play premiering at The Donmar as all the productions are of such a high quality. I figured that there must have been something about Mark Haddon's writing that cried out 'playwright', why else would the Donmar take such a risk as they aren't known for championing new work? I have a suspicion but let's move on to the actual production.
For quite a while I didn't know what the play was about. I was intrigued, that's for sure. With a title like Polar Bears it could have gone into any direction really, but I finally pinned it down to a story about a woman with bi-polar disorder. Nifty. I like how he pulls that together. Then, from what I could tell the structure of the play was unconventional and seemed to be splitting audiences. I personally enjoy unconventional plotting and structure so I was up for the challenge.
The story itself is pretty straightforward - a bi-polar woman meets and falls in love with a philosopher, much to the dislike of the woman's mother and brother. I say, dislike because they aren't so much against the union as suspicious that the woman's disorder could prove too much for the man. So, how do we make this story more interesting? You start at the end. I'm all for that as it forms a basis to really explore the various characters needs and desires. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass. We did get the ending first (I am now giving you plenty of notice by typing a very long sentence to alert you that a major spoiler is on it's way. Even though it's the first thing that happens in the play I still think that many would prefer to not know. - *SPOILER* the man confesses to the brother that he has killed the woman in what could be thought of as a crime of passion by pushing her down the basement stairs - *END OF SPOILER*).
What makes this story more complicated structurally is that it doesn't then go back to the beginning and trace the events that lead up to the ending, it replays events out of sequence. Normally I would have found this intriguing but in this case it comes off as a device for the sake of having a device. With such a non sequential structure I expect there to be a reason for presenting scenes out of order such as illuminating issues and actions in a different way. To know the outcome of actions prior to the inciting events should give those initial events a different spin. Not so with Polar Bears. I didn't really see any reason for the structure other than possibly making the story more interesting.
Actually, it's sad to say, and I don't like having to say it, but, one of the main problems was the central performance of the woman Kay, by Jodhi May (Blackbird - West End, The Talking Cure - National Theatre, Platanov - Almeida). Everything hinges on her actions. There wasn't any real extreme in her actions and her performance was just that, a performance, to the point that I could see why her man did what he did, and not for the obvious reason. There was probably a thought that by not playing th extremes we, like the the characters in the play, would wonder if the character really had a disorder. It didn't work.
The mother, Margaret played by Celia Imrie (Rivals - Southwark Playhouse, Acorn Antiques - West End, Film - Bridget Jones; Star Wars, TV - Cranford) is very clear in her warnings to the husband John played by Richard Coyle (After Miss Julie, Proof - both Donmar, The Lover and The Collection - West End, The York Realist - West End and TV's Coupling) that Kay's emotional swings are very difficult to handle and is continually challenging him in his insistence that it will be fine. The brother, Sandy played by Paul Hilton (The Wild Duck - Donmar, Riflemind - Trafalgar Studios, On the Third Day - West End, Mourning Becomes Electra - National Theatre) is also sceptical about John's ability to commit to what could be such a volatile relationship. These points are driven home through every scene that includes John with either the mother or the brother.
Theoretically this pressure that John is under is what the audience would be looking out for after knowing how it all ends. None of warnings actually carry any weight because we never experience Kay's extreme mood swings nor do we ever feel any real connection with either side of her personality. Everyone else does their best , with Richard Coyle giving the greatest performance, but without seeing and feeling what all the fuss is about it ends up being empty storytelling.
To be fair, even is the central performance was better I don't think it all would have added up to much. I looked into Mark Haddon's experience (his programme biography is very slight) and it seems the majority of his writings are for young people with only two being for an adult market and this is his first play. Polar Bears feels like a first play and there are a few parts - namely two extended monologues one from Kay and the other from John - that feel very literary, as if someone was reading from a book. The dialogue is handled well but nothing is very illuminating and I felt much of it became very repetitive. There was an odd choice of having Jesus Christ having a conversation with Kay and then having the same actor, still looking like Jesus, also play Kay's ex-boyfriend. This was an obvious deliberate choice which probably has more meaning but I stopped looking, partly because I find using Jesus as an obvious device that I no longer find interesting.
It was all directed very well as to be expected from Jamie Lloyd, and Soutra Gilmour's split level minimalist set really hits the mark but it's a shame that there aren't more interesting ideas and characters to make it a more worth while experience. Which lead me to think, why this play? What was the process for choosing this play to be part of a Donmar season?
The Donmar have produced new plays in the past - John Logan's Red, Frost/Nixon by Peter Morgan and The Cut by Mark Ravenhill immediately come to mind. Up until now the pattern seemed to be producing new plays by selected established playwrights. Polar Bears has changed this. From what I can tell, Mark Haddon has never written a play before so what was this choice to produce his first play at the Donmar all about?
I realise likes and dislikes are a very subjective thing but for some reason my dislike of Polar Bears didn't stop me from wondering about the decision to produce the first play by a mostly children's book writer about an adult with bi-polar disorder on the Donmar stage. I have nothing against children's books writers, it's, I'm sure, a very specific skill but how that skill translates into the ability to write for the stage, especially a world renowned stage, is a topic that interests me.
I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that show business is indeed that - a business. Of course, the creative aspects of the 'show' part exists, and it would be safe to say that most everyone involved in the 'biz' started out with mostly creativity on the mind. But to survive, to be able to feed that creativity the 'biz' becomes a major part of the game. And it is a game. It's a business, like most businesses, where you have to figure out a way to keep working, and that comes down to marketability, how much money you can make for someone.
I've never, in my mind, equated the theatre world with the world of show business. That has always been the realm of film and television. Why would I? Those involved in producing theatre don't make near the amount of money of those other two industries but there are the odd exceptions, Cats and Phantom of the Opera have made their creators very wealthy but that took years. Those involved in theatre are involved mainly for the love of theatre. You have to be in love because you can make loads more money in other fields, doing the same thing.
Because of this love I want to think that the art comes first, with a keen eye on the finances coming second. Finances are a major part of West End productions, it has to be but it still has that sense of love and passion lurking in the background (there are a few exceptions which I won't go into). Whereas the arts council funded enterprises have less to lose so the quality (the love) tends to be higher. Also with these funded organisations there are usually a team of workers, leading, guiding, suggesting, crafting and creating work of a standard that they feel is worthy to put before an audience. I'll go out on a limb here and say that their ultimate goal is not West End but sold out houses - an indicator not just of financial gain (sometimes) but of audience engagement.
So we have a culture that now bemoans the inability to reach theatre audiences with new writing, but that seems to be shifting a little. I think we are seeing that interesting writing can still draw the audiences and not just on the back of celebrity names. We are slowly building back a stable of creatives that are associated mainly with theatre and their names stand for quality - Mark Rylance, Rupert Goold and Michale Grandage have helped to create new theatre royalty, artists whose association with theatre alone can sell tickets. This is true for venues as well with the The Royal Court and the Donmar really gaining momentum. So, with all this power why would you take a chance on a new play by a new playwright who has only written, from what I can tell, only one play? And not a great one at that?
I think there's something going on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of. Is the money monster rearing it's ugly head in the off west end world? I could be completely wrong but someone seems to have struck a deal somewhere or personal interest has cancelled out common sense. I'm not saying that a first time playwright / successful novelist can't have their first produced but I question the stage on which this happened. Surely someone would have questioned quite a few things about the piece and maybe they did but if so, someone trumped them. Who and why? I think of all the great playwrights who are struggling to be heard and then I see this play that, though not bad and really not good either, get produced on a major stage. I don't want to believe that the deciding factor was the hope that Mark Haddon's name would help sell tickets. That would be a big letdown.
It's all very confusing - I know that the Donmar has an association with American Producer Arielle Tepper Madover (to be inspired - listen to her interview on the Downstage Centre podcast a few years back - she is the founder of the Summer Play Festival in New York. I wish someone would model something similar in London - Podcast is here ) and there are annual residencies at the Donmar from American playwrights associated with the Festival so why not produce one of their plays instead?
I know I shouldn't complain, it has absolutely nothing to do with me but I just hate to see real theatre talent get pushed to the sidelines. Normally I would chalk it up to 'someone took a chance and it didn't work out' but with Polar Bears something smells a bit fishy.
New Writing Part Four: Polar Bears (Donmar 17/4/10) 2 May 2010
Serenading Louie (Donmar 20/2/10) 25 February 2010
Considering all that I've blogged about recently I have begun wondering if the main point for enjoying a play is memory - memory of people you've known or come across, memory of places you've been and times gone by. What I never realise is how much memory I've got stored up in my grey matter, memories of little things that come racing back when I come across a similar situation or person. Sometimes being reminded of incidents and people can be such a powerful thing that one tends to ignore everything else surrounding it.
Memory can also be a dangerous thing for artists when without realising it you have injected your art with bits and pieces of someone else's art - many times called 'being influenced'. There were many times during Serenading Louie when, for me, memories came flooding back and I was prepared to ignore everything else in favour of being thankful for a good time.
Serenading Louie takes place in the early, early 1970's Chicago, where we meet two couples, the men friends since college are now married and living out the lives they were expected to. Unfortunately things aren't going so well and it's not only their marriages that are falling apart.
On the surface this would seem to be a typical 'look at how our lives have run away with us' play but if you look closer it's about much more.
What makes this play a bit of a curio is that it's, like John Guare's Six Degrees of Separation, a play written in the era in which it takes place. As a result it never comments but just exists . To an extent, if you are not familiar with those times socially, some detail might escape you but that's a minor note as having that knowledge only enriches the experience not define it. Here's one example that come to mind. The two couples go to the cinema to see the film Deep Throat - which for those who aren't familiar, was the first main stream hardcore porn film, a huge sensation in its time that almost single handedly heralded a new sort of sexual revolution. This in itself is almost inconsequential as it doesn't have a direct impact on the story but it does colour it a bit. It's great having that knowledge but not having it doesn't change the dynamics of the characters lives as their issues are not solely based on what was happening around them.
Generally, there isn't a great deal that happens in this play, it's a slight story. The enjoyment comes form the fine tuned performances and the attention to period detail. Designer Peter McKintosh (Be Near Me, Chalk Garden - both Donmar, The 39 Steps - all productions, Prick Up Your Ears at the Comedy) has, I think, taken a leaf out of the Mad Men notebook and created a picture perfect replication of an American middle class home in the early 1970's. It's not the sort of design that one would immediately conjur in their mind when asked what a 1970's home looked like (if you were around then) as those memories tend to get jumbled with what you remember and what you think you remember. What he has done, at least for me, is bring back the actual memory.
Mr Mackintosh and director Simon Curtis (Otherwise Engaged - Criterion, Road and A Lie of the Mind - Royal Court) have worked some magic on the Donmar stage. There are two very specific moments in the staging tapped into memories long since forgotten. First, one of the female characters opens her bags and takes out her house keys. She gets a little impatient and begins jingling them. Sounds inconsequential, right? Not to me. One thing that I had forgotten is that American keys have a different sound to UK keys. You would never find chubb keys on US key rings so all the keys are smaller and lighter, which when jingled together make a noise, slightly higher in pitch. I hadn't heard that in years. Second - after the two couples have finished their post cinema outing at one of their houses one couple readies to leave. Now this will be difficult to explain but the way it's written is that the two couples are at the front door and have split into two groups - male and female. Each group carries on its own discussion which in itself is just idle banter, which happens simultaneously. While they are conversing coats are being put on along with all the accoutrements that go along with the party exit. Again, it was really strange seeing and hearing that exchange, it reminded me of the many times my parents entertained and as the evening started to come to an end everyone gathered at the front door with various last minute conversations. Memories.
What is also very interesting is wondering how many plays or playwrights author Lanford Wilson (Burn This, Talley's Folly, 5th of July, The Hot L Baltimore) has influenced. There are times when the characters directly address the audience - asides and brief inner thoughts. It works really well and although it breaks the fourth wall which is probably the intention, it's never jarring. This same sort of device is used in Six Degrees of Separation written almost two decades later. I wonder if John Guare saw an early production and that device somehow seeped into his memory banks? I also thought about who Lanford WIlson was influenced by. My first thought was Tennessee Williams. The opening scene between Alex (Jason Butler Harner in his UK theatre debut, numerous plays in New York and the films Changeling, The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3, TV's John Adams ) and his wife Gabrielle (Charlotte Emmerson - Therese Raquin, The Coast of Utopia and Baby Doll - all National Theatre) reminded me of the opening of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.
Alex returns home from work and is besieged by Gabrielle, talking almost non stop trying her best to reach out to the indifferent Alex, in effect digging for for the truth. It's almost a monologue and very reminiscent of the opening of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with Maggie trying to reach her husband Brick, also digging for the truth. Is this a chicken or egg situation? One could argue that John Guare was influenced by Lanford Wilson who was influenced by Tennessee Williams. I wonder if it was an obvious choice or if the memories of the influential plays were so deep that unknown to the authors, they were unleashed in their own writing. Who can really say? I also wonder how the fashion world tends to all have the same idea season after season - stripes, long, short - is it cosmic of just stealing?
This is a great production to see if you enjoy great acting. Not the sort that screams acting but the sort that fully realises an actual human being. The two standouts for me were Jason Butler Harner and Geraldine Somerville (Power and Blue Remembered Hills at the National Theatre; Lily Potter in all the Harry Potter films) as Mary, the wife in the second couple. Both command the stage with a naturalness and ease as well as bringing the characters off the page with a simple gesture. Wonderful.
Also in the cast - Jason O'Mara (The Homecoming - National Theatre, Jew of Malta - Almeida Theatre; The John Simm role in the American version of Life on Mars) as Carl - Mary's husband. He plays the bruised sensitive male very well although I wasn't entirely convinced by the turn of events at the end as he portrayed them. Charlotte Emmerson came into her own with her final big moment. Like with Jason O'Mara I wasn't entirely convinced of her opening scene. Where it seems that the audience should at once find her a little irritating but also pity her, I found the scene primarily irritating. This still worked because it sets up the couple's lives and makes her husband's description of her a few scenes later all the more interesting.
I'm not sure if this is a play that everyone will enjoy. I loved it for it's subtlety and the way it built. It seems to be going nowhere in the beginning but as it progresses more layers are uncovered. It's a slow burner that provided great conversation after and allot to ponder in the days following.But, saying that, I also don't think the production would stand up as well without the team involved in this one.
My favourite from the play that says allot about memory - 'I didn't love him then, but I loved him then now'. Ponder that.
RED - 2nd preview (Donmar 4/12/09) 5 December 2009
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.
Speaking in Tongues (Duke of Yorks 22/9/08) + Streetcar - More Desire (Donmar 17/9/09) 20 September 2009
It's difficult to know what to say. When I hear the phrase 'speaking in tongues', I think of someone possessed, speaking in a language that one is not familiar with or understands. I don't think the intention of the play Speaking in Tongues at the Duke of York's Theatre was on the demonic level but I certainly had the feeling that someone, somewhere was demonically possesed and as a result should not be held accountable.
Drawn by the cast more than the writer I had high hopes of seeing something new and interesting. It wasn't either. The play itself, written by Andrew Bovell has been around since 1996 and adapted into the film Lantana in 2001, is not new, not even to London having played at the Hampstead Theatre in 2000. I failed on that level. So that leaves interesting - yes it was, for fleeting moments.
Mr Bovell's most recent play When The Rain Stops premiered at the Almeida back in May. I saw that production. It was infinitely more interesting than Speaking in Tongues but was let down, in my opionion, and in a similar way, by some strange directorial choices. (And it was a long haul of an evening - around 2 hours with no interval).
Speaking in Tounges has four actors, each playing dual roles. In this production they are played by John Simm (Olivier nomination for Elling, the original Life on Mars); Ian Hart (see the Three More Sleepless Nights at the National post); Lucy Cohu (Blood Wedding at the Lyric Hammersmith, The Queen's Sister for Channel 4 for which she received BAFTA and Emmy nominations) and Kerry Fox (Cruel and Tender at the Young Vic, the films An Angel at my Table, Intimacy, and Shallow Grave). I don't think it's giving anything away to say that all characters are connected in some way. It's definitely not giving anything away because you can see the connections flying at you a mile away. The reveals that connect the characters were the biggest let down. Once that mystery disappeared all you were left with were style and perfomances.
The play is heavily stylised. HEAVILY stylised. I can go one step further and say that it was overly stylised. It's structure overshadowed everything else. The only thing that could have made it interesting would have been the performances but as this was a preview it was evident that the characterisations were still in the formation stage. This was especially true of John Simm who seemed not to know who his character was. Judging by the text I would say that of all the characters, his was probably the least defined. This is not to say that the others were better written but they had something about them that I think an actor could easily hook into and build upon - some tick or habit that could give a clue. Poor Mr Simm just had that he was a policeman in a bad marriage as a character.
To give an example of the style. The play opens with two sets of couples, each embarking on a one night stand. All four characters are in the same bedroom set, crossing back and forth and having a conversation with their chosen partner. However, if that wasn't difficult enough to follow, the dialogue is split between all four characters. Some start a line and it's finished by another - it could be their chosen partner or not. Other times two characters responded to a question by saying the same thing at the same time. This scene quickly became about the style of the delivery and not about the characters. As this was a preview I could tell that all four actors were concentrating heavily on getting the words and timings right. As a result, most semblances of character had to take a backseat. It's a neat trick but it gave me a headache and I can't ever rember saying that about a play. Not only did you have to keep on top of who was saying what, when, to whom and why they were overlapping, but visually it became a sort of tennis match (I was in the fifth row centre). Things calmed down in the two separate scenes that followed, each with only two characters, but I quickly lost interest in what the characters were saying. There was no real insight and once you got it, you got it.
Act 2 had four different characters. It opened with two characters, with a connection, telling the audience their thoughts, with alternating dialogue. They were speaking about the same event but from two different perspectives. Again, once you got it, you got . And to make it more difficult, each was seated at opposite ends of the stage which made following what was being said even more difficult. The natural human response to someone speaking is to look at them, so - it was definitely a Wimbledon game for this section. Through this act, more of the 'mystery' is revealed, but the audience pretty much already knows what's going to happen and how and to whom, and then it ends. Just like that. Over and out.
To be fair, the performances were good. You could see that with time it could all come together. Kerry Fox especially shown as the one who has most developed her characters, with Ian Hart coming in second, followed by Lucy Cohu. Normally I would say, it's a preview, give it time, but the play is set and it doesn't add up to much. Strangely though, for a 2 hour 20min play with one interval it really went by quickly. I can't figure that one out.
I think the director, Toby Frow, and designer Ben Stones may be partially to blame. It seems to me that for a play that is so complicated in its delivery, one would want to make it as clear as possible instead of adding to the confusion. And the set. I have the feeling that portions of it were remnants from the production of Tom Stoppard's Rock and Roll that was at the same theatre a few years back. The bare, black 'bricks' looked really familiar. There is also a heavy use of video images, especially in the second act. I felt like I may have slipped into a film showing my mistake. Considering the discussions about the differences between the film and the play in the programme, this was probably a way for them to speak to modern audiences and make it more 'accessible'. Just speculation.
At the end of one of the essays in the programme: "Frow states 'The play does not provide easy answers.' But he does hope that it will give rise to vigorous discussion, to communication on one level at least." This surely came to pass. During both the interval and after the play (after a lukewarm ovation) I overheard many discussions, mainly trying to figure out what it meant. I think people were thinking too hard about this one. Usually, if you think it's really complicated and you can't figure it out, it usually is because it isn't.
STEETCAR! I went back for a second serving of A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar. Mostly because I love the play but also I always find it interesting to see how a production has progressed during a run. As expected, it has moved, changed, developed and redirected itself. I loved it even more.
Here are the developments (all character based).
Elliot Cowan (Stanley - above) - has dropped his Polish-ised New Orleans accent. I didn't have a issue with it before but I have to say it took the focus off how he was speaking and allowed you to involve yourself with the character.
Barnaby Kay (Mitch) - more forcful, aggressive. Could have been a direct result of Rachel Weiss' performance.
Rachel Weiss (Blanche) - this was the biggest development. There was more definition in her flitting from reality to magic. A much bigger arc from the beginning to the end. Also, as a side note, she was still phlegmy (see original Streetcar post). Either she still has a bit of a cold after all this time or it's some sort of method acting.
On a whole, I would say the production and performances were more aggressive, they had a 'let's go for it' attitude which served it well. There is always a danger that it could tip too far to the other side and lose that delicate balance, like the one Blanche has in her mind. But, it didn't happen. It's also interesting to note that this was an evening performance on matinee day. I wonder if they boosted the energy level in order to get though a second performance? Just a thought.
Tennessee Williams' A House Not Meant To Stand - Dir. Jamie Lloyd (Donmar 14/9/09) 14 September 2009
This was a most pleasant surprise. Well, more than pleasant - joyous. I stumbled across this staged reading as well as an additional one on the 15th, when online buying a ticket earleir in the summer to my A Streetcar Named Desire return visit. Both Tennessee Williams' A House Not Meant To Stand and The Fugitive Kind were being mounted, each for one night only, at the Donmar as rehearsed readings. I know The Fugitive Kind - the precursor to Orpheus Descending which was made into the film starring Marlon Brando - The Fugitive Kind. I don't know A House Not Meant To Stand, and with the added bonus of being only £10, it was an opportunity that I didnt want to miss.
What I was also looking forward to was being in an audience with mainly Tennessee Williams fans. As there was no addtional information made available (Cast, Director) one had to be interested in the playwright to spend an evening on something that many won't be familiar with. I avoided reading anything about it online as I wanted to be surprised and not come in with any preconceptions. Now that I'm home I looked up a few things. Most significant is it was that last play Tennessee Williams wrote. Described as a 'gothic comedy' this tragic comedy comes up with the goods. But more on that in a moment.
As this was a reading there was no programme with additional information about the play but we did get a cast list. Other than the privelege of seeing a rarely performed and not well known Teneesee Williams play, this was the first idication that the evening would be special. The cast, and for me, the director Jamie Lloyd. I think he is the best director around, He really gets inside the work and gets very fine tuned performances from his casts. Here are his credits: Piaf (Donmar and Vaudeville Theatre), Three Days of Rain (Apollo Theatre), The Pride (Royal Court - Olivier award for Oustanding Achievement in an Affiliate Theatre), Harold Pinter's The Lover and The Collection (Comedy Theatre) and The Caretaker (Sheffield Crucible and Tricylce Theatre). All of which I've seen. All excellent.
Now the cast: Alun Armstong (Sweeney Todd at the National - Olivier award, Bleak House, Little Dorrit -both TV and Get Carter - film); Obi Abili (The Brothers Size - Young Vic, Angels in America - Lyric Hammersmith, Fabulation - Tricycle); Felicity Jones (The Chalk Garden - Donmar, That Face - Royal Court, Brideshead Revisited - film); Anton Lesser (A Doll's House - Donmar, The Vertical Hour, The Seagull - both Royal Court, Little Dorrit - TV); Tom Riley (The Verical Hour - Royal Court, Lost in Austen - TV); Alison Steadman (Abigail's Party - stage and TV, Gavin & Stacey - TV, Confetti, Topsy Turvy - both TV and Shirley Valentine - film); Tim Steed (Much Ado About Nothing - Regen's Park, The Pride - Royal Court) and Una Stubbs (La Cage Aux Folles - Mernier Chocolate Factory, Pillars of the Community - National Theatre, Eastenders - TV). These are by no means exhaustive credits but hopefully you will recognise some of these by the credits I chose.
Now the play. Here's quick rundown of plot from Wikipedia ( editing out bits that should remain a surprise should you ever see it) - ' The play is set during the Christmas holiday in a deteriorating Mississippi home of Bella and Cornelius McCorkle, who have just buried thier eldest son, a gay man Cornelius banished from the home years earlier. During a raging storm, heavy drinker Cornelius, who once had political aspirations, tries to get Bella, who suffer from mild dementia, to disclose where she concealed the considerable amount of money she inherited from her grandfather, who accumulated his wealth by making and selling moonshine. Whe she refuses to cooperate, Cornelius threatens to have her institutionalised, just as he did with thier daughter Joanie. Coming to her rescue is thier negligent youngest son Charlie who has returned home with is girlfriend in tow.'
It sounds like a pretty dire situation, not ripe for comedy, but add in a zany busybody neighbour who has recently succumbed to plastic surgery, her down home macho-ist husband along with wild revelations about the girlfriend and you have a great and very funny comedy. What's interesting is although it's the 70's and sex, pills, plastic surgery and foul language run rife - it is still very much Tennessee Williams. I would venture to say it may be the funniest Tennessee Williams I've seen or read. However funny it might be, as is Tennessee's way, there is alway a sad, forlorn undercurrent. In this play it's Bella's refusal to let go of the past. As she feels she is approaching death, and helped along by her dimentia, she longs more and more for the life she once had, when all three children were present and everything was good.
Keep in mind that this was a reading. There were only chairs on the stripped bare Streecar set and all actors were on book and one of the actors - Obi Abili - read all the stage directions. This element was a great success. Anyone who has ever read a Tennessee Williams play will know that his stage directions tend to be very detialed and he ususally uses the same wonderful use of language in these directions that he uses in his plays. Having them read laoud not only gave the audience a greater sense of the action, it was also entertaining to listen to.
Hats off to the actors. To be able to get such fully realised performances, complete with believable Southern accents in a reading is a testament to their skills. I am sure this is also due to jamie Lloyds direction. i would say that it must be a very difficult thing to get stage a reading, wth little rehearsal , no set and on book, in way that is also interesting to look at, and keeps the audience engaged and entertained. At over two hours with one interval, this reading flew by.
Of all the performances there were three that shone. Both Felicity Jones and Una Stubbs were absolutely hysterically funny and spot on with their characterisations, and the great Alison Steadman gave great humanity and pathos to the bewildered Bella. A close second would be Alun Armstong as Cornelius and Anton Lesser as the macho Emmerson. The only real issue was that although the stage directions were great to listen to, alot of the actors diction was garbled and I felt I was often missing elements.
As with all 'pop out of nowhere' productions I have to wonder why they did the reading. Jamie Lloyd was there, the first time I've seen him in person, as were from what I can tell, Donmar staff. To me it points to the possibility of a full production. That would be fantastic. I would love that and be the first in the queue for tickets. There are a few scenes, ones dealing with the more dramatic parts, that in a fully realised production would be heartbreaking. Elements that can only be hinted at in a reading.
However much I want a full production I have two concerns. One - Jamie Lloyd would have to direct it as it's very obvious that he 'gets' Tennessee Williams, and two - please, oh please let it not be at the Donmar. This play needs a big playing space and the Donmar isn't set up for this, at least without dodgy sightlines. It was great for this reading, but a full production, no.
A House Not Meant To Stand could have just been a nice added gift to the audience. It ties in nicely with Streetcar and there are alot of elements and themes that resonate with current times. So if that's the reason - then I'm extremely appreciative - thanks Donmar! But, I'm still secretly hoping for more.
One last thought. If Tennessee were alive and still writing today, I'm sure he would be writing about how the more things chage, the more they stay the same. Actually, unbeknownst to him, he already has.
A Streetcar Named Desire - Rachel Weisz, Elliot Cowan (Donmar 6/8/09) + Helen (Shakespeare's Globe 5/8/09) 8 August 2009
I've always depended on the kindness of strangers. I don't want realism, I want magic. STELLA!
As with many classic plays there are tense moments when the classic lines appear. One false move and they can often take you right out of the moment. It's a dangerous line between remaining true to the text and character whilst giving 'those' lines a new spin. On top of that it's just getting Tennessee right.
What most of the American South based Tennessee Williams productions I saw were missing was an understanding of the American South and the Southerner. In addition, I would venture to say that his dialogue can be as difficult for some actors as Shakespeare's. Tennessees language is a mixture of poetry and straight ahead realism and humour. Getting that balance right can be tricky business. You really have to understand the character and get in the groove to sucessfully pull it off. It's so much more than just getting the accent right. This production gets it right. There's not one wrong note in it's style and delivery (although accents are sometimes shaky it doesn't matter - at all). I think much of this is down to the American director who is himself from the South.
Luckily my friend and I were sitting stage right next to the aisle in the fifth (and back) row in the stalls so had a good view. I imagine however that If you were on the other side or sitting closer to the upstage area you may have your views impaired. The action takes place in two rooms, separated by a sheer curtain that is sometimes drawn. Sightlines seem to be an issue sometimes with the Donmar. I'm am seeing it again in September and will be on the other side so we'll see.
Ibsen's A Doll's House - Gillian Anderson (Donmar 16/7/09) 18 July 2009
Posts
