David Mamet

Catch-up Post: Plays Part 1

Leave a comment

And here is the post with a few words about all the plays I’ve seen over the past year. Looking back, I saw many good plays and very few poor productions.

Bakkhai (Almeida): Not quite the stunner that Oresteia was, but a very memorable afternoon. Ben Whishaw’s Dionysus was clearly influenced by the likes of Conchita Wurst and Russell Brand, but memorably his own. But it was Bertie Carvel who stole the show for me, both as a buttoned-up Pentheus (channelling Margaret Atwood as he whispered, “It’s very important that the women don’t make fun of me”) and a suitably mad Agave. Compelling, but I could have done with less of the Chorus.

The Heresy of Love (Globe): I had not previously heard of Helen Edmundson’s play, but was entranced by this exploration of love and faith in 17th century Mexico. Naomi Frederick was forthright, elegant, and ultimately very moving as Sor Juana.

The Motherfucker with the Hat (NT): Definitely not the usual National Theatre fare, this New York-set play about infidelity and a conman trying to go straight had a vivid, earthy (and profane) energy. For once, the American accents were spot-on throughout. The acting was very strong, but the play ultimately a trifle shallow.

Everyman (NT): An interesting experiment. Well-acted by a strong cast, including Chiwetel Ejiofor, written by one of my favourite poets (Carol Ann Duffy), and yet it didn’t completely grab me. The subject matter (meaning of life) was a little too well worn.

Oresteia (Almeida): An incredibly strong beginning to the Almeida’s Greeks season. It was very long, but not difficult to sit through as the intervals were well timed. And it was beyond compelling. Lia Williams was mesmerising as Klytemnestra, Angus Wright’s agony as Agamemnon seemed to come from his very bones, and the death of Iphigenia was almost unwatchable. Its West End transfer is richly deserved.

The Elephant Man (WE): I’ll admit it, I was there for Bradley Cooper. And he did not disappoint, contorting his body admirably and speaking with a suitably distorted but accurate mid-Victorian accent. The play, however, was short and so pointless that I couldn’t quite believe it was over, as so little had happened.

Constellations (WE): I had missed this play the first time around, so I was very pleased to see it return to Trafalgar Studios this summer. It was well-acted and the physics was interesting, but I didn’t find the conceit of the repetition as moving as I was clearly intended to. Science and art can be combined beautifully (as in Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia, the most sublime example) but sometimes the science can be just a gimmick.

Rules for Living (NT): An uproariously funny play about a dysfunctional family at Christmas, oddly scheduled in the NT’s spring season. It would have been much more suited to a Christmas season. The “rules” were a unique concept and the scoreboard certainly noisy, but not necessary for the family dynamics to play out. A delightful curio.

Temple (Donmar): A play about the dilemma facing the leadership of St Paul’s Cathedral during the time its courtyard was taken over by Occupy. Simon Russell Beale turned the part of the finely tuned senior cleric into an exquisitely tortured man undergoing a profound moral dilemma. Paul Higgins (always a favourite since his legendary Jamie in The Thick of It) was marvellously passionate as the Canon Chancellor.

Man and Superman (NT): This should not have worked. Over 3 hours long, with an unrelated and frankly bizarre second act, lots of Shavian repetition and a leading man (Ralph Fiennes) who was much too old for the part. It was wonderful, engaging from start to finish and with beautiful chemistry between Fiennes and Indira Varma. We don’t see enough Shaw. More like that from the NT, please.

The Beaux Stratagem (NT): I should have loved this Restoration comedy. It had elements of country-house farce, which I normally adore, it was strongly acted and had some lovely singing. And yet I was bored stiff and longing for it to be over. There just wasn’t enough zing, and I didn’t care about any of the characters. A dud.

Peter Pan (Open Air): This production made me nervous at the beginning. Linking Peter Pan’s lost boys to the lost boys of WWI was an inspired and moving idea. It was just rather difficult to explain to the child accompanying me, who was understandably asking questions about why the boys were hurt and who was the enemy. But it was a lovely production, if a bit challenging for the lower end of the recommended age bracket.

American Buffalo (WE): Plenty of star power was on offer with this David Mamet three-hander, which involved John Goodman, Damian Lewis and Tom Sturridge. It was very well acted (particularly by Sturridge, who I had never seen before) but the play itself was about stupid people and I found it a rather stupid play. Mamet and I clearly do not get on.

Farinelli and the King (Globe): A gem. Mary Rylance’s performance in this play about the effect of the castrato Farinelli on his King of Spain was a quiet miracle, his eyes alone conveying every emotion that one could wish. Stunning singing from Iestyn Davies. I will go again during the West End transfer but that first experience in the tiny Sam Wanamaker Playhouse will be a treasured memory.

Speed-the-Plow

Leave a comment

Apologies for the lengthy delay; between going on holiday and getting back to work, I have had little time for culture lately. But I came back to London cultural life with a bang on Wednesday, when I attended the first preview of David Mamet’s Speed-the-Plow, starring Richard Schiff, Nigel Lindsay, and, infamously, Lindsay Lohan. Ordinarily I would not book tickets for a first preview, but my knowledge of Lohan’s predilections had made me cynical about her appearing on very many occasions, so I wanted to make sure I saw her.

Well, see her I did (after a fashion). Speed-the-Plow is a David Mamet play about two producers in Hollywood, one of whom, Charlie Fox (Nigel Lindsay) has been given an excellent opportunity. The other, Bobby Gould (Schiff) is head of production at a major studio and is delighted when Fox brings him the opportunity. Plans are, however, derailed when Lohan’s character, Karen, gets involved, bringing her naiveté to the situation and seducing a Hollywood cynic with the one thing to which he is unused, innocence.

I do understand that previews are not meant to be reviewed until the press night, but previews are meant to be mostly finished performances that the director might add a few tweaks to here or there. Previews are not meant to be rehearsals. Accordingly, to see Lohan need a line prompt on no fewer than 6 occasions was disappointing (but unsurprising). To see Richard Schiff need a line prompt (which he did, once) was normal. It ought to be noted that the scene in which Schiff needed the prompt was one of the many scenes between his character and Nigel Lindsay’s character. Those scenes were fine, having the merit of two professionals acting in them, but seemed woefully under-rehearsed in comparison to the scenes involving Lohan. Clearly the vast bulk of rehearsal time had been spent on scenes she was in.

It is difficult to say how much of the blame was due to Lohan’s inability to remember her lines, how much was due to the complete and utter lack of chemistry between Lohan and Schiff, and how much was due to the fact that it simply didn’t seem to me to be a very good play. But it ended up being ludicrously unbalanced, with Lohan’s Karen a complete blank, Schiff’s Gould simply unbelievable (because his actions depend entirely on Karen), and only Nigel Lindsay’s Fox having any fun at all. When Fox would leave the stage, I longed to follow him into his logical, corrupt and infinitely more interesting world than that inhabited by Karen and (for a time) Gould.

When Lohan did remember her lines, she was adequate. However, her face was remarkably blank for that of a 28-year-old. An actor needs to be able to use her face to express emotion, and Lohan’s face wasn’t capable of doing that. She has a lovely speaking voice, though, and generally used it to good effect. I did not get the sense of any emotional maturity being present, however, although to be fair, the character does not need to express any.

Schiff, as mentioned, had nowhere to go with his character, but his scenes with Nigel Lindsay’s Fox were enjoyable enough. He had projection problems, which I remember also being the case the last time I saw him on stage, in Underneath the Lintel in 2007. Nigel Lindsay was the only one of the three to really sink his teeth into the part, seemingly enjoying himself and producing a generally good American accent (although it wandered from the northeast to the south to the west coast).

Ultimately, however, the play’s the thing, and I didn’t think the play was all that good. Admittedly, the actors did not really produce Mamet’s rat-a-tat dialogue as quickly or trippingly as I suspect he would have wanted, but the plot was not particularly interesting or shocking. It may well be that we are much more jaded than we were in 1988 and the play is simply dated, but my sympathies were entirely with the Hollywood “let’s make money and who gives a crap about art” attitude, because the alternative was so poorly presented.

An interesting failure. It may improve Lohan’s bankability, if she can finally learn her lines and be relied on to turn up. I would not particularly recommend it though, unless you enjoy squirming, or schadenfreude.