Downstage Drama

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, by Edward Albee, is a startling commentary on the pitfalls of marital life and the compressing, suffocating effects of gender roles and competition. In fact, the word “suffocating” encapsulates much of the essence of this play and, in my opinion, summarises its messages. Physically, it is set in one kitchen for the entire three acts, with the same four characters simply entering and re-entering. From just reading it, the atmosphere feels constricted and tight. And then there’s the characters. Each one slowly being suffocated in their respective marriages, their careers and their own perceptions of themselves and the world around them. They, (explicitly Martha and George) allow damage and hurt to infiltrate their lives in every way possible, and in a sense, are suffocating themselves in doing so. It is a very interesting way of writing - how at first Albee implies that someone else has their hands around the characters’ necks, when in fact, as it is reve...

Recently, I’ve seen and heard a lot of praise for the hit Netflix show, Adolescence, the majority of which seeming to be about the actors performing in one take. The show is brilliant and the actors are incredibly resilient and talented. And, whilst it’s not a perfect equivalent, I can’t help finding parallels between this type of screen acting and theatre in general. Every hour-long episode of Adolescence is performed in one shot, start to finish, with patience and planning making up for the much easier technique of hidden cuts or multiple cameras. The cast and crew must perform and be “switched on” every time they film the episode. If they lose focus for a second, the take is ruined.  It’s also a lot of lines and blocking to learn - mistakes can’t just be reset or edited out! In fact, in episode 3, a mistake is left in, where Owen Cooper, playing Jamie, yawned in the middle of a conversation. Erin Doherty, playing Briony, then improvised, asking “Am I boring you?”. It added a ve...

As both a Drama and English Language student, I read a lot of plays and study a lot of words, grammar, spellings and punctuation. I find these two subjects fascinating in their own right: plays have the power to creatively inspire the reader, audience and the professionals who will be bringing it to life, and the English Language provides the tools for the playwright to actually do this.  We’ve been exposed to a lot of prescriptivist media lately, article after article complaining about ‘the decline of our language” or how “the youth of today are abandoning the rules of English”. As a student, I’m required to take a more descriptive approach, which encourages one to observe how English is changing, rather than prevent it. But I don’t have this attitude just because I’m told to. I believe that the idea that English has certain rules (which inherently are all rooted in classism) is ridiculous . Because plays break these rules in every creative, theatrical choice the playwright makes....

So we all know that a four-movie biopic about the Beatles is currently in the works, but did you know that 50 years ago, Willy Russell wrote an award-winning play about the famous foursome? And I read it! The only other Willy Russell play I’ve seen is Blood Brothers and I was able to spot large parallels between the two Liverpool-set shows. John Paul George Ringo…& Bert , written in 1974, features a clever, quick witted voice, strongly developed characters - each with their own idiolects and sound, and most noticeably for me, a striking thematic distinction between Act One and Act Two. All very Blood Brothers -esque.  The play is narrated by Bert McGhee, a fictional singular representation of the band’s hoard of loyal fans. He’s energetic, warm and a little bit weird - a bit hopeless but sweet all the same. He acts as the reminder of who the Beatles once were before the money, fame and drugs. Simple Scouse lads with a dream. And so, when he’s paired next to the argument-stric...

What is “bad drama”? Probably the most logical answer would be theatre that we hate, right? Drama, directing, acting and design that elicit a negative reaction, one of disgust or disappointment. And, in the moment, this can cause audiences to scoff or to roll their eyes, tell-tale signs that what they are watching is not good . But I don’t think this is entirely true. Perhaps, yes, the drama might be “bad” but aren’t those feelings, those full-body experiences of fury and scorn, theatre in itself? I believe that dramatic, theatrical desires and emotion run through the veins of all of us. Any ideas that come from deep, repressed parts of our humanity is, in my eyes, what theatre is. And so, in that sense, the wide spectrum of reactions in response to “bad drama”, the ones that come from a buried recess in the body and psyche, can be called drama itself, allowing it to act as a reprise of the production that warrants such strong feelings.  I find reading negative theatre reviews fa...

Richard Twyman’s adaptation of Macbeth at the Lyric Hammersmith has left me feeling rather  curious. I now ask myself the question: “did it work, or was it just good acting?”. Whilst the set is stunning: a floor to ceiling construction of a mid-century urban mansion. Dark oak panels, a full kitchen and mystifying details such as working shower, giant mirror and disco ball, each having their place in the story, feature prominently and leave a resounding impression in my mind. There are many choices I agreed with. One of which being possibly the most striking addition: the element of live video recordings. Some made to look like security camera footage, some streaming directly from an actor’s video camera on stage, some playing the role of Banquo’s ghost. Because the three witches were not exactly played by a member of the cast, I interpreted this to be a representation of the pressure Macbeth felt from the witches’ prophecies and their omniscient nature, ultimately leading him and h...