Stuff Happens - but not that well
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Our trip to the National was a treat, less for the play than because it's a good place to visit and Laura and I get up to London so rarely these days. I had to leave a meeting early to rush home and pick up Laura to give us time to get up to London but the trains behaved themselves and we arrived at the theatre with enough time to have a drink and a bag of peanuts before taking our seats. We stood on one of the large balconies that surround the National and looked out over the river, watching the sun sink down over west London and marvelling at the sheer ugliness of much of the South Bank's architecture.
Yet it's clear to see what the designers intended. Across the river is ranged buildings of baroque and ostentatious beauty. The stark contrast of the stained concrete, with its sharp angles and unforgiving lines, is a declaration of independence. Ugly, yes, but somehow satisfying and successful. Better to look from it across to the north bank than otherwise, however!
The play -Stuff Happens - is a satire of sorts. Much of the dialogue is taken from transcripts and interviews and follows Dubbya and his boys (and girl Condy). so the characters are damned from their own mouths. The main surprise, for me, is actually how sympathetic both Bush and Blair appear. The former is surrounded by quite nasty men and the latter appears to believe genuinely that he is following the path of justice. This probably matches the perception of many in the US that Bush is less than the sum of his parts and the hope in the UK of those that voted for Blair and were moved by his 'Africa is a scar on the face of the world' speech.
How does it work as drama? It's acted well, although sometimes the shorthand of gesture, verbal tic, or even - in the case of George W - a way of walking are used. I doubt anyone in the audience learned anything new. Many of the laughs came when a recognisable sound bite was used in what was possibly not its original context. There were a few longeurs, too, and at three hours it was becoming on the long side.
All in all both Laura and I enjoyed it but I'm not sure that it was a play that gave us any new insight into events. What didone of our leading dramatists bring to the story? It seems to me it was as much a job of editing and choreography (the movement across the stage of the large cast, the few props, and the scene changers was one of the most impressive parts of the whole thing) as it was of injecting insight. Final verdict? Disappointed but glad to have seen it.
Yet it's clear to see what the designers intended. Across the river is ranged buildings of baroque and ostentatious beauty. The stark contrast of the stained concrete, with its sharp angles and unforgiving lines, is a declaration of independence. Ugly, yes, but somehow satisfying and successful. Better to look from it across to the north bank than otherwise, however!
The play -Stuff Happens - is a satire of sorts. Much of the dialogue is taken from transcripts and interviews and follows Dubbya and his boys (and girl Condy). so the characters are damned from their own mouths. The main surprise, for me, is actually how sympathetic both Bush and Blair appear. The former is surrounded by quite nasty men and the latter appears to believe genuinely that he is following the path of justice. This probably matches the perception of many in the US that Bush is less than the sum of his parts and the hope in the UK of those that voted for Blair and were moved by his 'Africa is a scar on the face of the world' speech.
How does it work as drama? It's acted well, although sometimes the shorthand of gesture, verbal tic, or even - in the case of George W - a way of walking are used. I doubt anyone in the audience learned anything new. Many of the laughs came when a recognisable sound bite was used in what was possibly not its original context. There were a few longeurs, too, and at three hours it was becoming on the long side.
All in all both Laura and I enjoyed it but I'm not sure that it was a play that gave us any new insight into events. What didone of our leading dramatists bring to the story? It seems to me it was as much a job of editing and choreography (the movement across the stage of the large cast, the few props, and the scene changers was one of the most impressive parts of the whole thing) as it was of injecting insight. Final verdict? Disappointed but glad to have seen it.
