The Real Thing (Old Vic 19/4/10) 18 May 2010

Confession time...I was sitting in the theatre, flipping through the pages in the programme when it dawned on me, I had never seen a Tom Stoppard play. It feels as if I had, his name has been synonymous with classic British theatre for decades and I have seen him around town numerous times but I never saw any of his plays, revival or not. And I don't have an answer for how that has come to pass.

Here we have a real classic. Premiering in the West End in 1982 , The Real Thing went on to win the Evening Standard Award for Best Play and subsequently premiered on Broadway in 1984 and won the Tony for Best Play. It would be easy to assume that subsequent productions would have to deal with either keeping in set within the era it was written or make some attempt to update it to reach a more contemporary audience, however what's so wonderful about this play is that it doesn't need either treatment to be relevant or 'contemporary'.

The Real Thing engages the audience from the start, giving us two scenarios which keep us wondering which is the real thing? Back to back we have two scenes with one common element - the same woman is in each and we're left wondering for a while how the two fit - was one or both just a scene from a play written by Toby Stephens (A Dolls House at the Donmar, The Country Wife in the West End, TV- The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Cambridge Spies, Film - Die Another Day) playwright character Henry?

Characters collide, home truths are dished out and once the dust settles the play gets a more conventional tone, for a while. We are left with two of the originating characters - Henry and his other half as they navigate through their relationship. Considering how much of the play is essentially a two hander it is never less and captivating. Discussions about what is real ring true, whether it be the truth in relationships and what one needs from their partner or (what I found to be the pinnacle of the night) a conversation about what makes a good play. The basis of that conversation was a discussion about a play by a non playwright, one character thinks its a bad play and the other feels it says what it needs to say which gives it validity. It's that age old argument questioning the concept that there is good and bad art - some think it's simply a matter of taste and effectiveness and others feel its more prescribed than that.

In The Real Thing Stoppard uses a cricket bat to get his point across, explaining the craftsmanship that goes into making a cricket bat separates good bats from bad. A wonderfully crafted bat will elevate a players game where as a bad bat will bring it down. It's a wonderful argument and makes complete sense in context although, to be fair, making a cricket bat does not entirely equal full on creativity but then we could ask if Henry's plays are also indeed, the real thing.

I could run on and on with this 'real thing' concept and I think that's why the play works so well, It's tightly constructed and everything is there for a reason, feeding into the central concepts and thought processes.

Down to specifics - Toby Stephens is very effective as Henry. He's a middle class snob who, I believe, and based on my big ears during the interval, you could sympathise with or simply detest. It's a fine line he has to walk and he does veer a little too much on the negative side for me but it's necessary for the character I guess. As the two women in his life - Fenella Woolgar (Time and the Conways at the National, Motortown at the Royal Court, films Vera Drake, Bright Young Things and Stage Beauty) captures the slightly cynical and funny Charlotte while Hattie Morahan (The City at the Royal Court, Time and the Conways,... some trace of her, Three More Sleepless Nights - all National Theatre) took a while to capture my attention. There was a wonderful moment when I realised that her character had been influenced by Henry through a subtle switch in a conversation. Very subtle and difficult to do so hats off to her. Barnaby Kay (Closer, Man of Mode at the National Theatre, The Herbal Bed in the West End, Dying For It at the Almeida and A Streetcar Named Desire as the Donmar) as Max was wonderful. He brought a very playful, open quality to a character that only appears in the first few scenes of the first act.

The only downside for me was the introduction of additional characters in the final third of the play. I understand why they were there, I felt they were necessary for the development of other characters but a few of them were directly out of stage school and although fine, their lack of experience shown.

I'm no director but I would imagine that directing this play would be a tricky affair. It balances and counter balances so many ideas and character flaws that allowing the production to tip too much in one direction could throw the whole thing off. It's the careful point / counterpoint effect that is believably created and entirely entertaining that makes this a must see, especially if you consider yourself a 'thoughtful' person. I can't imagine anyone looking for a heavy duty storyline full of mystery and suspense to really hook into the magic of Stoppard's writing. If in doubt, give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Speaking of surprises...as I was writing this I realised that I had seen a Tom Stoppard play - Rock and Roll in the West End. And surprisingly, I didn't like it. I felt it relied too much on intellectual banter along with political and cultural references that to a point eluded me.That's not the case with The Real Thing. All the preparation you will need is your mind.

The Real Thing
with Tom Austen, Louise Calf, Barnaby Kay, Hattie Morahan, Toby Stephens, Fenella Woolgar, Jordan Young
Director: Anna Mackmin
Designer: Lez Brotherston

Ibsen's A Doll's House - Gillian Anderson (Donmar 16/7/09) 18 July 2009

I really like Ibsen. To date I've seen The Master Builder with Patrick Stewart (loved it), Pillars of the Community with Damien Lewis (loved it), Enemy of the People with Ian McKellen (didn't really impress), Rosmersholm with Helen McCrory aka Mrs Damien Lewis (didn't impress) and Brand with Ralph Fiennes (also didn't impress). So that's three to two against. Maybe I was a little quick with my praise for Ibsen, or it could have been the problems were the productions and not the plays.

There are two additions to that list, or possibly just one. I've seen two pseudo-Ibsen's so I will consider each as a half production. The first was Mrs Affleck by Samuel Adamson from Henrik Ibsen's Little Eyolf at the National and most recent, Ibsen's A Doll's House in a new version by Zinnie Harris at the Donmar. A 'new version'. Hmmm. That's a strange concept for a play. I think it's valid to update or adapt a play - pulling out various aspects to make an older piece more relevant to a contemporary audience, putting emphasis on other aspects that sometimes get lost in other productions - but to rewrite someone elses work, put your name on it and retain the original title is just a bit - rude.

Going back to Mrs Affleck. That was a disaster. I never saw Little Eyolf so I had nothing to compare it to but as a stand alone piece of work, it was pretty bad. The Director, Marianne Elliott, was there the night I saw it and from her expressions (this was the end of the run) she wasn't too impressed either (by the way, she also directed the Pillars of the Community I mentioned above). At least they retitled the play which is not the case with A Doll's House.

Again, I've never seen A Doll's House so there was nothing to compare it to. I read that it was not faithful at all to the source material, with characters missing or rewritten as well as the dialogue being stripped of its poetry. Without a comparison to the original I wouldn't have realised this but knowing made me think how unfair it is to Henrik Ibsen and his art. Mr Ibsen worked hard to invent characters, situations, dialogue and a story that would serve his message. A Doll's House is his work from top to bottom so you can't have a 'new version' unless you were Henrik Ibsen. You can have a new play 'based' on A Doll's House with a different title but calling your new version Ibsen's A Doll's House doesn't make sense (maybe if you were a conceptual artist making a statement about...). Enough of the soap box and on to the play.

For those who know the play I'll give you this one major rewrite - the setting has been changed from late 1800's Norway to Edwardian London 1909. For the rest who aren't familiar with the story here it is in a nutshell:

There's a woman Nora (Gillian Anderson) who is married to Thomas (Toby Stephens) and together they have two young children. Also involved in the story is Nora's old school friend Christine Lyle (Tara Fitzgerald) who comes to work for Thomas after the death of her husband left her destitute. Rounding out the homestead is family friend Dr Rank (Anton Lesser). Thomas is involved in politics and there seems to have been a problem with a struggle for power and standing with Neil Kelmann (Christopher Eccleston) who in turn has a past and present with both Nora and Christine. Nora has been very cunning in keeping her family ticking along and the main storyline concerns her keeping how she has done this from her husband. Of course there are other bits and pieces but that's basically the story.

As with all Donmar productions, the production is intimate, the sets and costumes are good and there is never the sense of reaching for more than the space will allow. However, ensuring all the actors were being seen from all three sides (the stage is a mini thrust) was a problem. From where I was sitting I saw most of Christopher Eccleston's performance via the back of his head.

I loved seeing this for one main reason - Gillian Anderson. She was phenomenal. I was very much taken aback. From her very first scene until her final minute, she was Nora. Every nuance, movement and vocal inflection was very much in keeping with the moment. I never once thought 'oh, it's Gillian Anderson'. It was always Nora. She made you care about her and her plight. I think that is very rare. She owned her performance and she commanded the stage. You couldn't stop watching her and this was also a problem with the production.

With the exception of Tara Fitzgerald, who was excellent as well, the other actors seemed very stilted next to Ms Anderson's pitch perfect performance. I discussed this issue with a friend who was with me at the performance. I attribute the jarring differences to the variances in how actors are trained. Here is my theory. The majority of what we see on stage in the UK is a direct result of very formal acting training. Although much revered throughout the world and having turned out some amazing actors, UK training is missing something. I would call it 'true emotion'. On the other hand US actors as we all know favour The Method which has been much maligned and misunderstood. The Method is fundamentally a connection with the characters emotions to ensure a truthful portrayal, truthful to both the characters emotions and reactions to surroundings, situations and other characters. However, what alot of US actors are missing is technique, especially stage technique which the UK has in spades.

I think of the most famous and respected UK actors as having a balance of both. This could be a result of their training mixed with pure instinct and talent or training mixed with having done a good amount of US films. On the other side of the pond, formal training, at least for the stage, is not as widespread or required as here in the UK. There is more of a reliance on Method to get you through. My favourite performances come from actors who combine both. Gillian Anderson combines both and I think it's because of her transatlantic career. The other actors in A Doll's House seemed to be doing what they should do as an actor as opposed to what they feel they should do, if that makes sense. It's not that they were bad, but it was a weird juxtapostion.

One final word about the 'version'. I'm not entirely sure if the stories are clearer in the original version but I wasn't following a few details, like Thomas' political situation and there is another coming together of two estranged people where I thought I had missed the backstory. I asked my friend and it was confirmed that I didn't miss it. I guess I was thinking it was more complicated. Although the play had some light funny moments, especially between the two women, there were times when I wasn't sure if the lines were supposed to be funny (the audience laughed) or they weren't supposed to be funny but the actors decided that they would deliver them that way because they were so ridiculous. And they were ridiculous. Example - one character proclaims their love for another. One asks the other to move in with them. The response was (sic) "will there be enough room for my children?", response (sic) "we may have to get more chairs". The chairs thing was also mentioned as they parted. Oh well. So much for new versions. But, thanks so much for Gillian Anderson's performance. I'll be seeing the next thing she's in.