We missed it when it was first performed downstairs; not sure why as the subject matter will have appealed. Perhaps it coincided with one of our holidays and/or a heavily booked period.
Anyway, the Hampstead knew a hit when it saw one and transferred the piece upstairs (and subsequently beyond).
Again an upper-middle class drawing room drama – even less promising than the second.
We were at a preview. There was Polly, socialising with her friends and relations, who were there to make sure that the preview was well received by the audience…
…it all seemed aa shame and a waste of talent to us. Perhaps Polly was honing her skills for a TV writing career that will be far more lucrative than the stage…and perhaps to that end she is succeeding.
Indifference summed it up for us too. It was entertaining, there were good lines and vignettes in it. If this had been a young writer’s first play we would have oozed about a promising writer. But this piece was a waste of Polly Stenham’s talent and the talent on show with cast and crew too.
I have a copy of the play if anyone wants to seek enlightenment from reading that, let me know. I challenge you.
Tucked into my copy of the play is a short script for something else – I think it is a sample from one of Simon David’s pieces – quite impenetrable without context – clearly it was that sort of night.
Well acted, directed and produced – of course. But a rather predictable, tame piece. Maureen Lipman and Tracy-Ann Oberman for sure could handle something more challenging – probably all the cast could have done – we certainly would have preferred more challenge.
Nephew Paul and his partner Mish came up from Bristol and joined us for this evening.
We thought the subject matter of the play would interest them, as they both teach teenagers and thus come across lots of these media issues in the real world…
…it did interest them, giving us all lots to talk about afterwards.
It was also a very entertaining evening at the theatre.
We had a very pleasant meal together and discussed the play at Colbert, virtually next door to the Royal Court, in the quieter room at the end where you can hear yourself think and can hear the other people at your table when they talk.
My weekend pages are a blank at this time, but by a process of elimination Janie and I must have seen this play on 13 October or 20 October 2012. Janie’s diaries (currently in the attic) might help solve that tiny element of the case.
At the time, in 2012, this cartoon-like 1970s play about some bizarre future White House regime, set about 40 years hence…i.e. about now…seemed crazy beyond belief.
Writing in 2018, I realise that the playwright, Jules Feiffer, merely lacked the imagination to envisage a Trump-like character in all his grotesqueness.
I don’t think Janie and I were overly smitten with this piece. It had its moments and some good acting – Bruce Alexander as the President I recall was a bit of a standout – but on the whole it seemed a bit silly and superficial to us.
This was a bit unfortunate for us, as we were there for a preview and Phil Daniels had just been forced to pull out of the leading role, so we saw the understudy (Andrew Frame I think, although we might have had a temporary understudy our night) reading from the script.
Even so, I don’t think this was really our type of play.
The Cottesloe had been laid out like the House of Commons, with the audience on both sides forming the back benches.
The play is basically about the chaotic era of the hung parliament in the mid-to-late 1970s; not least the scheming of the whips to try to get some semblance of business done in trying times.
At the time of writing (March 2018) this seems like a hark back to halcyon days, but in 2012 I think we were supposed to be thinking, “thank goodness our 2012 coalition is so much saner and more stable – politics is just more mature now, isn’t it?”
Below is the trailer:
There were some amusing lines, but it was all a bit obvious and of course, as the case with all dramatisation of historical events, there was no suspense for us in the “what happens next” department because we lived through it all as youngsters.
As a play, it all felt a bit “tell” rather than “show”.
I have a lot of time for John Graham as a playwright but this one didn’t really do the business for us and I don’t think it was just the unfortunate understudy business – we’ve seen enough theatre to be able to adjust and allow for that.
We saw Beth (from downstairs) and her dad across the political divide; I discovered afterwards that they got more out of it than we did…
