There is a lot about this production which,
through talking with others who have seen it, strikes at a matter of
opinion. For example, I noted that this
is one of the few plays I have seen where I felt I could really see the
director’s work: Carrie Cracknell’s vision is clear, right alongside the aesthetic
stamp of the Royal Court. I thought that
this was a good thing. But apparently
good direction is the sort where you don’t notice it, like good lighting. But if I enjoyed the nuanced style in the
actors’ performances, surely this remains a positive criticism?
Furthermore. People have expressed boredom, and indeed,
the woman sat next to me fell asleep halfway through the play. I kid you not: we reached the end of the
play, the audience applauded, and she woke up, turned to me and asked “Oh, is
that the end?” Whereas I was gripped to
it, like a child confronted with a wall of colour and sound and buttons to
press.
Credit for a large portion of my rapture must
go to the set design by Ian MacNeil, which is just fantastic. It consists of six 60’s style swivel chairs, bubbles
that lower from the ceiling when it snows, and a moat surrounding the stage
that floods with water. My favourite
structure is a large moving platform that allows play above and beneath it,
moving forward for more intimate scenes or backwards to allow more space and
scope. All of the odd props and devices
could easily seem novelty and unnecessary (again, an aspect for debate) but
from where I was sitting, it really enhanced the feeling of immersion in Paul’s (our protagonist played by Andrew Scott) perspective of the world.
Now, the story of the play is one that we
have read in newspapers a hundred times before now: rock star goes off the
rails, spends millions of pounds on “flowers and miscellaneous” and is
overwhelmed by fame, power and a warped grip on reality. But what Stephens’ play does is give us
characters to whom this rapid demise actually means something, and we witness
the turmoils of fractured relationships and crippling exhaustion anew. With this in mind, whether you are profoundly moved by
the storyline – as I was – probably depends on how much you care about the
characters themselves.
And yet, I struggle to believe that anyone
could be disaffected by the plight of this rockstar. Andrew Scott’s performance as Paul is bright,
dynamic, and shrieks alive with pain and love and immortality. He flits from bouncing around the stage with excitement, to the numb, commercial face of
celebrity, to a guttural roar
of anger that puts a chill through the audience. His performance is mesmerising, and is well supported
by beautiful performances from Nikki Amuka-Bird as a hotel waitress and Alex
Price as his best friend Johnny. The
whole cast show infallible versatility, and do an incredible job of switching
between characters.
This interchange of characters,
particularly between scenes, is aided by Ann Yee’s striking choreography and the
crash of Tom Mills’ sound design.
Throughout the play, in fact, the approach to movement is neat and
calculated and expresses as much about the 60’s aesthetic as it does the
personality of a character, told through the quirky manner in which they
descend from the top of the moving platform.
This is all held together with Neil Austin’s lighting design which
shifts the audience between days, rooms and countries without us even stopping
to realise.
For me – if not for others – this play and
this production is rich and engaging and an interesting comment on the dark
sides of money and fame. It made me
think further on our relationship to money and idolatry, beyond the doors to
the Royal Court, and I urge others to see it and do likewise.
(And tell me what you thought!)
'Birdland' plays at the Royal Court Theatre until 31st May.
No comments:
Post a Comment