I'm as comfortable as a cow

The third in an occasional series of play reviews...

The Glass Menagerie : The Duke Of York's Theatre

Three plays so far this year - which is more than I've managed in the previous decade, I reckon.  I decided that because I wasn't going to be working for a bit, I'd make more of an effort to be cultural - but obviously my unfortunate inability to remain unemployed meant that failed miserably.  But I'd already booked this so I thought "well at least I'll be working in London, so it'll be easy to go".  And then the train strike happened - but luckily I'd booked a matinee, so whilst it had the potential to be touch and go if it was a long play, at least I'd get to see most of it before the last train back home, at the incredibly late time of 5:50 (and as it was, the play was a normal length and I was on the 5:19, so all was good).

I booked to see this for two reasons - firstly it's by Tennessee Williams and his Orpheus Descending (featuring Vanessa Redgrave) was the ONLY play I went to see in the four years I spent at Bath (I went with Su to a Wednesday matinee, where we spent £10 to sit in the gods and my glasses weren't the best at the time, so I couldn't really see a thing - it's funny the things you remember).  Bath has the most fantastic Theatre Royal which attracts some top talent so the fact that I never went to see anything else is a crime - but at least I went to The Little Theatre (which is obviously an arthouse cinema) quite frequently for a spot of culture.  Pop quiz - which animated film features The Little Theatre (that's a hard one, so you get 20 points if you know the answer)

Lordy, we're already three paragraphs in and I've only give you one reason and not even named the thing (and I'm not about to do so just yet, either).  The other reason is that Amy Adams is in it and she's nearly always good value - often in not great films, but American Hustle, Arrival, Vice and Dear Evan Hansen are all well worth a watch if you haven't seen them.  And if you venture on to the telly then Sharp Objects is really very good indeed.

Yada yada yada - is there any chance you can just tell us what you went and saw?  Yeah, fair point - it was The Glass Menagerie at The Duke Of York's Theatre.  Happy now?

I'm going to start off with the somewhat strange set, which is displayed with the curtain up before the play starts.  One third of it is massively cluttered with all sorts of rubbish on it and the other two thirds are raised but have only a table and (before the play starts) a covered box which is 10(?) feet tall (scale is hard to gauge from seat C4 in the upper circle).  For about 30 mins before the play starts, one of the characters wanders around the stage seemingly aimlessly moving things - except that you know that each aimless movement will have been scripted down to the second.  As the play starts, the cover is then removed to show a glass box with shelves in it and on each shelf is a load of small figurines - I'm guessing they're animals (because I'm smart that way) but from when I was sitting they could have been absolutely anything.  

The character that was aimlessly moving stuff around (played by Paul Hilton) then introduces himself as Tom, both the narrator AND one of the characters in the play who's played in his younger days by Tom Glynn-Carney.  He then introduces his mother Amanda (Amy Adams' character) and his sister Laura (played by Lizzie Annis - and it was only when writing this up that I knew whether she was Laura or Lara).  And he also introduces another character - "a gentleman caller who we won't meet until much later" (Jim, played by Victor Alli) and also talks about his father "who we will not be meeting".  And that's the entire cast - they wouldn't have all got name-checks otherwise.

And what follows is very much a game of two halves.  The first half concentrates on Amanda and Tom trying to arrange "a gentleman caller" for Laura, who is insecure and crippled ("I told you never to say that") and the second half deals with the arrival of said gentleman caller and his interaction with Amanda and (mostly) Laura.  It's all very Tennessee Williams (from my massive experience of the man) - a dysfunctional Southern US family trying (and failing) to make a go of it.  There is one point where you think things might actually work out - we all know better than to believe something like that in these things, but it all falls apart in an interesting and very watchable way.

So, let's start with Amy - she does a fine job, but it's not a very sympathetic role or conspicuously more difficult than any other part to allow her to stand out (unlike eg Mark Rylance in Jerusalem).  And when I say "conspicuously more difficult" I'm being a bit unfair because this strikes me as quite a difficult play to do - there are a lot of long sentences and double-header scenes so the actors have to really be on their game whenever they are on stage.  However, you do realise I know nothing about this stuff, right?  I think another part of the problem is that I got the impression you're supposed to believe that Amanda is well past her prime and unfortunately for Amy she's still looking pretty fine - I guess that's not the worst problem for her to have though.

The rest of the case all do well - Young Tom is a bit whiny at times, but the whininess is at least well-acted whininess.  But actually, for me the play comes to life in the second half where Jim and Laura are the only people on stage for 40-ish minutes.  Lizzie and Victor do a great job, we don't know how it's going to turn out and it makes it all quite intriguing - you could really feel the audience were invested in the scene.  

Completing the cast, Paul Hilton does a great job as the narrator - it's not a huge role, but it is an interesting one and is, allegedly, based on Tennessee describing his life with a controlling mother and a fragile sister who he ran away from.  He also opens and closes the play with some very poetic imagery which I very much enjoyed, including telling us that all that we are about to see is not necessarily true.

The longer the play went on, the weirder the set seemed - mostly, the messy third seemed to be used as a backstage area and when anyone needed a prop they just wandered there and picked it up.  But there was also a piano there and a typewriter, which were used at times for no obvious reason.  Another intriguing thing that happens in the second half is the glass cabinet moves from the back of the stage to the front - in the dark.  I suspect a rotating stage was involved (I've no idea how else they'd do it), but there were people on stage at the time, so it feels like it would have been a challenge for everyone.  And, to be honest, not one that felt particularly worth the effort.  The lighting was well done - particularly in the second half where all the lights go out and you're ostensibly watching the characters lit by candles.

Wikipedia tells me the play is quite a big thing in dramatic circles - it was the one that kicked off Tennessee's career in 1944, with the first London production being directed by one John Gielgud in 1948.  It was the play that coined the term "memory play" - which they are various dramatic explanations of but my layman's description would be "very loosely based on real events from the author's life and quite possibly not actually true".  It also tells me that Amanda is viewed as a star role and the quality of people that have played her on stage is impressive to say the least - the Jessicas Tandy and Lange, Brenda Blethyn, Cherry Jones and Sally Field have all given it a go. 

My other major comment on the play is that I don't really understand why it was called "The Glass Menagerie" - yes, it features small glass animals but I feel there has to be a lot more allegory going on there.  Maybe it's all to do with us being kept in a metaphorical box whilst being observed and/or playthings?  The internet suggests that emotional fragility or reflections of memory are themes to consider and there's also the fact that Laura's favourite glass animal is a unicorn, which maybe reflects her unique nature.  As with so many of these things, the internet has a million possible theories - and who am I to try to divine their truth?

I liked the theatre - the seats were roomy enough and it actually had a reasonable amount of bar space and an outside balcony over St Martins Lane.  My seat didn't have the best view but it was 13% of the price of the top tickets and I would much rather mostly experience seven plays than REALLY experience one.  I appreciate that everyone has a choice to make, but £150 for a seat for an enjoyable, but not stellar, play feels a bit nuts.

So, to conclude, I did enjoy the play and I was pleased to expand my dramatic knowledge with a classic play.  Did I have the faintest idea what happened in most of it?  Well, no - but that wasn't really the point to the thing now, was it?  It's all about the experience, dah-ling and it was a fine experience - particularly because it ended early enough that I could actually get home.  I was pleased to see Ms Adams and she is a fine actor but she didn't stand out from the rest of the cast in the way that I suspect she was hoping to because they were as good as, if not better than her.  I'd certainly recommend it if you like "classic" theatre (which I do) - it ticks a lot of those boxes nicely.

And the film that features The Theatre Royal is Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr Fox which is a most fine film indeed with a really beautiful ending - "They say all foxes are slightly allergic to linoleum, but it's cool to the paw, try it..."

Jerusalem - a surprisingly short long play
The Seagull - some very odd decisions made here