Get off the line, please

The first in a (very) occasional series of play reviews...

The Human Voice : Harold Pinter Theatre

So, we've done a few musicals, but we haven't done any plays yet - until now, that is!  My general preference would be to go and see a play over a musical, but I quite understand that it's not for everyone (and particularly not for my children).  However, my lovely wife is aware of my preference and, at somewhat of a loss as to what to get me for Xmas, bought me tickets to go and see Ruth Wilson in The Human Voice.  And so, at the second time of asking - thanks to Covid, but even more thanks to the theatre for given us a refund which they didn't have to do, we headed off into the big city to see it (not knowing an awful lot about it, other than believing it to be a monologue at just over an hour long - which sounded like it might have been challenging viewing).

Sitting in the theatre, with about 10 minutes to go, the curtain rose to show us a very large (4x10m?) piece of glass or screen mounted on/in a wall.  And that was it.  Errr, OK.  How is this going to work then?  When the lights go down, you can see stage lights behind the glass which suggests it's a window into a room - but you're not entirely sure.  And then the play starts with her off stage, talking on a phone - so you're still not sure.  She does finally appear behind the glass, so your initial suspicion is confirmed - which leaves you being simultaneously impressed (it's a BIG piece of glass) and unimpressed (is that it?).  As the play goes on we learn that it's actually a sliding window, which is even more impressive - but it's never entirely clear that all the work involved in installing it (and it must have been a LOT of work!) was actually necessary.

The play is, as we we believed, an hour-ish long monologue, so there's a lot of work for Ruth to do - and you'd have to say she does it well (better than I'd manage, certainly).  It is a bit overly theatrical/drama theory at times - there's one bit where she leans against the back wall for three minutes without moving, which I'd struggle to say obviously moved things along.  However, you very much get the impression that she was only doing what she was told and she gave it her all - and she looked thoroughly worn out by the end of it all.

However (and this is not at all down to Ruth) I would say I was very confused as to what was occurring a lot of the time.  Now, it's perfectly possible this is down to the original play (written in 1928 by Jean Cocteau in response to complaints from actresses that his plays didn't get them enough acting to do) but my suspicion is that the director could have made more of an effort to be less confusing.  

For example, the play starts with our character talking on the phone with various people she doesn't want to be talking to either as a result of crossed lines or a party line - that's fine because this was obviously a thing in 1928.  However, she then turns down the music she's playing with a remote control - not so much a thing in 1928.  Also, from the sounds of the little research I've done, the original play has her on the phone for the entirety but this was very much not the case in this production - but this did leave me wondering exactly who it was she was (or thought she was) speaking to and over what timeframe.  So either update the play or don't update the play - but be consistent.  Or if you're not consistent, make sure there's a damn good reason for it, I guess

Looking at the reviews for this production, the general consensus is "Ruth deserved better" - and I feel I can pretty much go along with that.  I enjoyed watching a fine actress working hard at displaying her craft, but I must admit as to being somewhat distracted by trying to work out what she was supposed to be telling me.  It was a challenging watch (not helped by the big lunch I'd had beforehand) but it was generally enjoyably challenging and certainly broadened my literary horizons.  And Ruth Wilson really is a very fine actress indeed and I'll keep my eye out to see what she's in next.

I might make an effort to search out Pedro Almodóvar's version starring Tilda Swinton - my suspicion is that this might make more of an effort to make some kind of sense (although it wouldn't surprise me if it's a completely different kind of un-understandable).  There are also film versions with Sophia Loren and Rosamund Pike and apparently there's also an opera out there based on the play - I will not be making any effort to search that out though.

Finally, thank you to the lovely Mrs Reed for organising the tickets - come back in early July and you can read up about how enjoyable my Xmas present to her was!

Jerusalem - a surprisingly short long play