|
SALUTE TO BRITAIN'S NATIONAL THEATRE Send This Review to a Friend
Whenever I get to London and begin looking over the theater scene, there's one certainty on which to depend. It's a given that there's bound to be something of special interest at the Royal National Theatre. August, 1999, was no exception.
The revival of John Osborne's 1956 play "Look Back in Anger" was particularly important to catch. How would it hold up? Times had changed since the period of disillusionment that gave rise to Osborne's hit and the reception it received. The fine new production, directed by Gregory Hersov, held up very well indeed.
For one thing, it still works on the level of the personal relationships with characters that transcend time. One is easily caught up in their lives, and the cast I saw was superb and moving. Michael Sheen electrically captured the rage of Jimmy Porter as well as the frustration that drives him. Emma Fielding as Allison Porter, Matilda Ziegler as Helena, Jason Hughes as Cliff and William Gaunt as Colonel Redfern clicked as the rest of the ensemble. The intense performances made the drama riveting, as if one were experiencing it for the first time.
But "Look Back in Anger" also survives on the level of content. True, times have changed. But the bitter frustration over obstacles to finding one's place in society is still present, only with a different set of characters. A play written today that covered similar territory could be rooted in the ethnicity of currently struggling immigrants. The truths in "Look Back in Anger," while connected to a particular period, are universal and timeless. Events and characters change; the basic problems do not.
One can say the same thing about "Money," Edward Bulwer-Lytton's play that goes back much longer in time. It was first performed in 1840. Yet the author (1803-1873) tapped into truths about society that are entertainingly, and somewhat frighteningly, current.
The National production, under John Caird's direction, proved to be marvelously stylish, with astute use of the stage and a unified sense of ensemble acting of the type usually wanting in New York. If the production were brought to Broadway and cast mainly with Americans, the result would likely be very uneven. One would probably lose the overall style and sophistication of the National's presentation, in which everything blended smartly, with carefully choreographed movement, creative use of lighting, colorfully appropriate costuming and the right use of music.
The cast was first rate, including Denis Quilley, Sophie Okonedo, Patricia Hodge, Thomas Brown-Lowe, Victoria Hamilton and Simon Day, among others. Above all, it's the wit and thrust of the play stands the test of time. The themes of success versus poverty and conflicts concerning the acquisition of money and the use of money permeate the plot and dialogue. Sir John Vesey (Quilley) at one point discusses the importance of seeming to be successful even if you are not. As one line goes: "I paid Dicky Gossip three guineas a week to go about everywhere calling me 'stingy Jack." His reasoning: "When a man is called stingy, it is as much as calling him rich, why he's a man universally respected." Present-day public relations honchos take note.
To be sure, I also ventured into the West End, as I especially wanted to see how Eddie Izzard fared in the revival of "Lenny" at the Queen's Theatre. He fared extremely well, using his gift for standup comedy to great advantage in attempting to recapture the spirit of Lenny Bruce's performing. I hadn't seen Izzard work on stage before, and was astonishingly impressed. His presence was generally electric, and whether or not he came close enough to Lenny as a character, he certainly shone in delineating the kind of humor and language hat got Bruce in so much trouble because he was much ahead of his time and relentlessly satirizing sacred cows.
The production of Julian Barry's play under the direction of Peter Hall was another matter. It was slipshod with a hodgepodge of staging. The drama only came into focus when Lenny took center stage and did his shtick. The set was unattractive to start with, and there was little connection between the characters and their environment. The show turned out to be all Izzard, the only reason for going. Hall resorted to considerable male and female nudity. It grabbed one's attention, although I'm not sure it added to the play.
One thing I observed was a unifying factor between "Look Back in Anger," "Money" and "Lenny." All from the past, they nonetheless have relevance to life today. In the case of "Lenny," the play addresses pressures to censor whatever one disapproves of, an ongoing problem no matter in what era, as I was to note once again in New York when Mayor Rudolph Giuliani retaliated against the Brooklyn Museum of Art for refusing to eliminate works of which he disapproved from the imported exhibition "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection."
|