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.

A Streetcar Named Desire - Rachel Weisz, Elliot Cowan (Donmar 6/8/09) + Helen (Shakespeare's Globe 5/8/09) 8 August 2009

Before I roll off the Streetcar I would like to mention the show I saw the night before, Euripides' Helen and more specifically the theatre where I saw it, Shakespeare's Globe.

I was at the press night performance of Helen which is unusual as I tend not to go to Shakespeare's Globe - there's one main reason for this, Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong, I think Shakespeare is just fine but what I've learned over the years is that I only seem to like certain productions. I've also learned that for me these certain productions are few and far between. To date there are only three I've truly enjoyed and not just appreciated that come to mind - the full length Hamlet with Paul Rhys at Plymouth and the Young Vic Theatre, the recent All's Well That Ends Well at the National and the film version of Titus directed by Julie Taymor (that's a cheat I know, but it was a film version of her original stage version so I'm counting it).

Anyway, I thought a Greek classic could be interesting, and it's not Shakespeare. Well, everyone seemed to enjoy it, mostly, but I didn't. Although it's not Shakespeare it still had that Shakespeare edge in it's style. It was mostly presentational storytelling and not much pathos, for me. I just couldn't connect. From what I understand this was a literal translation of the original Greek without much thought for the original poetry. That explained alot.

Strange thing about Shakespeare's Globe, the elements that make it special are the same that I don't really like. I was sat at the top with a pole blocking some of my view and that immediately took me out of that place I need to be in to concentrate. I think there are more partially obstructed views than not in the Globe. Plus, of course it's still light outside and everyone else in the audience is in plain view, so much in fact that there's almost no delineation between audience and production. I usually find the audience much more interesting and end up watching the groundlings and the blank expressions of those seated opposite me. As a result, I miss out on great chunks of what's happening on stage. It's great to experience the Globe a few times but I don't find it to be an ideal place to see theatre. And great reviews aside, I didn't notice alot of people enraptured by the production. I think if you generally enjoy Shakespeare you will enjoy Helen (and it's only 90 minutes with no interval).

On to Streetcar at the Donmar. I love Tennessee Williams. Let's get that out of the way first. However, that fact in no way clouds my reactions to the productions. Tennessee Williams is my Shakespeare. To date, in London, I've seen five productions of Tennessee Williams plays - two poor, two great, one excellent. First the poor - Night of the Iguana with Woody Harrelson. Boring and uninvolving. The other, Summer and Smoke - same experience. It just didn't work and quite possibly as I saw it at the end of a truncated run, the actors may have lost interest. The great - The Glass Menagerie with Jessica Lange in the West End directed by Rupert Goold along with The Rose Tattoo with Zoe Wannamaker at the National. And the excellent - A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar.

A word to those who have only seen the film version - nothing could prepare you for how visceral, sexual, shocking and moving it is on stage. It's been widely known that cuts were made to the film so it could pass the censors. Part of that footage was reinstate in recent DVD versions - the scene where Stella slinks down the stairs to Stanley after a bust up. It was deemed too sexually provocative by 1950's standards. I always forget that the censoring and strict standards applied to films in those years didn't apply to the stage. On stage Streetcar gets ugly, and real. I can't help but think how it must have felt to have experienced it during its original stage incarnation in 1947. It must have been like getting hit by lightning. If it feels electrifying now, it must have been a crazy force of nature type hurricane back then. It's a classic and won the Pullitzer for a reason.

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.

I now realise I'm assuming you know the story. If you don't, here is the nutshell version (thanks Amazon)-

Fading southern belle Blanche DuBois is adrift in the modern world. When she arrives to stay with her sister Stella in a crowded, boisterous corner of New Orleans her delusions of grandeur bring her into conflict with Stella's crude, brutish husband Stanley. Eventually their violent collision course causes Blanche's fragile sense of identity to crumble, threatening to destroy her sanity and her one chance at happiness.

Back to the production, all of the performances are solid. I really believed that Blanche (Rachel Weisz) and Stella (Ruth Wilson) were sisters. Great casting there. I think the most difficult role is Stanley, mainly because every actor will always have to fight to get out of the original's - Marlon Brando - shadow. Elliot Cowan carves his own Stanley - frightening, lecherous, primal and sometimes conflicted. There were a few spots, however, mostly in the beginning where I thought he might have chosen to channel Brando's voice but this could have been a deluded expectation on my part. Strange side point - Mr Cowan's body is ripped beyond belief (mainly due to his personal atheletic interests) and although that's not my preference, I heard a great many 'Stanley's fit' statements during the interval and afterwards. I find this really strange some choose to ignore how brutish Stanley is and just see sex. Talk about parallels.

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.

Another side note - a testament to the talent of Rachel Weisz. It was evident that she was suffering with a cold. She had to blow and wipe at her nose a few times and there were tissues and hankies available in various places on stage. Despite this there was not one time when it impaired her performance. She gave a full on, fully realised and touchingly accurate performance, bringing Blanche's inner world to life. Neither her energy nor passion ever flagged. I never for a moment felt that she was giving less as a result of illness. A true professional in every sense of the word.

Lastly, I have always been moved by the filnal scenes in the film. In this production those emotions were maginfied 10 fold. I 'felt' it. I was embarrassed, saddened, moved - I held my breath and fought back tears. Just thinking about it moves me even now. What a thrill. They have all done Tennesee justice. I loved it.