Review: ‘Now Or Later’ and ‘Faces In The Crowd’, Royal Court Theatre

It was a Royal Court double whammy last week as I caught the two plays running at the Sloane Square theatre.

On Tuesday it was ‘Now or Later’ Christopher Shinn’s new and rather well-timed play set on the night of an American election. Things are looking up for the Democrat candidate until potentially offensive pictures of his twenty-year-old son, John (Eddie Redmayne), start surfacing on the internet. The play hinges on whether John should apologise for what he’s done or whether he’s entitled to his freedom of expression.

Structurally the play is fairly conservative. John is holed up in a slick hotel room as one character after another enters and argues with him about his decision to stand his ground. At its worst it felt like an essay, and I wondered at the dramatic value of at least one of the characters’ contributions. But if the play was occasionally formulaic, the subject matter was dynamite. Put together with a red hot performance from the brilliant Redmayne and the whole thing came very close to being explosive.

Both ‘Now or Later’ and ‘Faces In The Crowd’ – Leo Butler’s new show, running in the upstairs theatre – occur in a single place and in continuous ‘real’ time; both shows lock you into the drama with no scene change or interval to give you time to ponder or assess. In both cases, the technique works. But if the former is exploring how personal actions can radiate out into the world with unexpected effects, then the latter is about turning in and looking at how the world around can sometimes crush us.

Set in a ‘minimalist’ (read: small but trendy) flat in Hoxton, ‘Faces In The Crowd’ lifts the lid – literally – on an awkward, painful and intense reunion. Dave abandoned wife Joanne ten years ago to leave Sheffield and start over in London. Burdened with the debts he left her, both financial and emotional, Joanne wants paying back. With interest. What, precisely, she’s after is left tantalizingly vague for roughly the first half of the play – how plausible you find her demands will probably determine whether or not you enjoy the rest of the piece.

I won’t pretend to be impartial; I know both Leo and director Clare Lizzimore. Nevertheless, I can honestly say I found the writing bracing, fresh and honest and all the production elements, from the spot-on performances (Amanda Drew and Con O’Neill) to the inspired decision to have the audience elevated and looking down on the action, everything contributed to an exhilarating – and exhausting – show.

If you like to be challenged this is a show for you. If not, then you’ll probably agree with the elderly American gentleman, who said this to his female companion on leaving the theatre: “Maybe we should see a musical next time.”

Review: The Girlfriend Experience, Drum Theatre, Plymouth

Happened to be down in Plymouth last week and had the good fortune to catch a play I’d missed during its London run at the Royal Court theatre. ‘The Girlfriend Experience’, playing at The Drum, is a piece about a real Bournemouth brothel and the ladies who work there. The actors all wear headphones and recite, verbatim, edited versions of what the real working girls say, how they say it. Alecky Blythe, the ‘playwright’ (if that’s the right term) has used this device to effect before, with shows such as ‘Come Out Eli’ and ‘Cruising’.

But the ‘Girlfriend Experience’ was my first encounter with this particular brand of verbatim theatre and, despite really wanting to hate it (largely because it risks making ‘normal’ playwrights like me irrelevant) I actually had a thoroughly enjoyable night in the theatre. (Dammit.)

Two factors made it for me: the subject matter and its delivery. Learning about new types of people and different ways of living is always fascinating and I can honestly say the comings and goings of middle-aged, prostitutes was new to me. I swear. I was especially intrigued by the business side of things (£60 for full service, fyi), the terminology for services offered (girlfriend experience = more tenderness, cuddling, etc.) and what the women really think about the punters. On this last point, the answer pretty obviously is: it’s complicated.

‘Bubbly, passionate’ Suzy begins by telling us that she’d never get romantically involved with a client, only to do exactly that. Just as she predicts, it goes very wrong – they’re unable to get beyond the reason they met in the first place: purchased sex. Tessa, the down-to-earth, tough-as-nails madam of the establishment appears to have her head screwed on right when it comes to the distinction between work and personal life until she decides to move into the brothel…along with her 16 year old daughter. And spaced out Poppy seems unphased by even the strangest sexual proclivities but the cigarette burns on her arms – ‘let’s just say it was intentional’ – tell a different story. Her creepy encounter with a punter who won’t take no for an answer gives us glimpse into the darker corners of the world’s oldest profession.

At times I did wonder ‘what it meant’ that the largely middle class audience was having a (often nervous) laugh at these women. Maybe it was the way they could jump from descriptions of tying up a man’s testicles to consoling each other about the death of a father. Being confronted with the complexities and contradictions of sex workers, well maybe the only reaction that seemed appropriate was laughter. I didn’t dwell too much though since I was laughing too. This had a lot to do with the exceptional cast and the humanity they brought to their characters.

Enjoyable, thought-provoking stuff.

Review: ‘The War Within’ by Bob Woodward

So I’ve just finished reading Bob Woodward’s latest – and presumably final – book on the Bush administration. ‘The War Within: A Secret White House History’ contains all the joys and frustrations of the previous two Woodward-authored Bush books I’ve read (‘Plan of Attack’ and ‘State of Denial’). Joys: Woodward, who was one of the journalists to break the Watergate story, countinues to get interviews with pretty much every important person in Washington and gets them to open up in ways that are often jaw-droppingly frank. Frustations: for all his access and clout, he still can’t seem to get to the root to the most fundamental question about Iraq, namely ‘Why did Bush do it?’ So, as with ‘State of Denial’ especially, we’re again left with a catalogue of the political schemes, top secret memos, anecdotes, and high-level bitching. Fun stuff, but deeply annoying for anyone curious about the real reasons behind what might possibly be the most important foreign policy decision of this generation.

My inclination was to blame Woodward. Couldn’t he have pushed Bush to give concrete reasons? But, as becomes clear in the book’s epilogue, it’s hard to get straight answers the President. Bush talks about ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ as virtually self-justifying causes for doing just about anything. Because Iraq was under a dictatorship, the logic goes, it was right to invade. End of story.

In some respects, Bush as portrayed in ‘The War Within’ is the ultimate conviction politician. He believes what he believes, makes a decision about what he’s going to do, and then surrounds himself with people who will make it happen, despite their private reservations. When it came to ’surging’ troops in Baghdad, this is exactly the method he employed.

This got me thinking – isn’t this what a good leader should do? Leaders make things happen and they don’t need to ask permission. Isn’t it the job of a good leader to think the big ideas, take the long view, and make his vision a reality? Well, yes, provided said leader has formed his thoughts through rigorous research, consultation with experts, and deep, careful thought. Bush’s method? “I’m not a textbook player,” he says, “I’m a gut player.”

So there we have it. Bush listened to his gut and went to war in Iraq. Great.

Elsewhere in the book, other senior officials are clearer about what the Iraq war is really about – a presence in the region. “Let’s say I have to live with the Iranian revolutionary state for some time,” says Condeleeza Rice, defending the administration’s decisions, “Would I rather live with [it] with American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia? You bet.” Retired General Jack Keane is even more blunt. “We’re going to be here for 50 years minimum, most of the time hopefully preventing wars, and on occasion having to fight one, dealing with radical Islam, our economic interests in the region and trying to acheive stability.” Several interviewees all chime in with the sentiment that the new centre of gravity in global events has become the Middle East – so, it’s better to have the US in there.

As true as this may be, it’s a retrospective justification. And what that means is that we were all lied to about the reasons for going to war – not that anyone seriously still thinks the Iraqi adventure was about WMDs anyway…

‘The War Within’ is a good read for any political geeks interested in the inner workings of Washington. A bit heavy at times with bureau-babble and military-speak, it still clips along at a good pace and is buoyed up by the narrative of ‘the surge’ and how it worked it’s way from an idea to reality. Woodward also teases us by alluding to secret missions that are really turning the tide in Iraq, but is obligated to not to give any details about them as they’re ongoing. Which is fine with him, I’m sure – if President Obama (er…or McCain) doesn’t give Woodward the same kind of access, then at least the journalist can always bank on another best seller with the real story of American victory in Iraq.

If there is victory, that is.

The US Presidential Debate and the size of…Koreans?

So I watched the US Presidential debate on Friday and, as someone who works in the performing arts, was a little disappointed by the lack of theatricality, epsecially on the part of Senator Obama. Where were the rhetorical knockouts? Where were the verbal bitch-slaps?

Maybe it’s because they started with the economy. I imagine it’s hard to get sassy when you’re talking about interest rates, nationalisation of investment banks, and the the loss of thousands of jobs. Still, when they finally moved on to foreign policy, which was meant to be the theme of the debate, both men were sadly on message.

Except – thank god – for one glorious moment when John McCain, when talking about engagement with rogue states, stated ‘The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean’ before calling the axis-of-evil bronze medallist ‘a huge gulag.’ Now, of course senator McCain was making a point that North Koreans are so malnurished that they’re shorter than they’re southern neighbours – but like any good performer, it’s all in the way he tells ‘em. McCain simply spat this information out, mid-sentence, and then looked around as if to say, ‘Come on people…three frickin’ inches!’

In case you’re wondering, a quick whip ’round the internet reveals that team McCain have got their facts on Korean height pretty much spot on. If you’re interested in finding out more about this vital point of foreign policy, check out: Height and weight differences between North and South Korea, by Daniel Schwekendiek, an economist from the University of Tuebingen in Germany.

Most pundits gave Barak Obama a slight lead on Friday’s debate, but if he wants the presidency he’s going to have to dig deep for more nuggets of debating oddness – it’s the stuff that sticks.

birth of a blog

2006:

me you know, you really should keep a blog.

myself should i?

me you should. everyone’s doing it.

myself maybe i will.

2007:

me given any more thought to that blog idea?

myself yes. definitely going to start one.

2008:

me okay, this is getting ridiculous. just start the damn blog.

myself yea, yea, let me just -

me now.

myself fine. [creates blog.] happy?

me very.