Skip to main content

Review: Our Boys,

I did resolve to use this blog for more reviews, so here goes...

Our Boys by Jonathan Lewis

I went to see this as a Birthday outing for a friend who is rather fond of Lawrence Fox, as it happened this play also had Arthur Darvill of Dr Who fame and Matthew Lewis of Harry Potter fame. I was expecting death by fangirls at the theatre but luckily they behaved themselves.

It's also a worry with a group of young-ish actors, known for tv/film and with less theatre experience that carrying a West End play could fall flat. Not one of the cast dropped the ball at all, there was a real sense of an ensemble cast but with each getting their moment to stand out. Of the three 'known' actors Matthew Lewis gets least to work with, as the solider in for an adult circumcision he is very much posited as a comic relief character (not that the others don't have riotously funny roles) with simply less 'meaty' scenes it could seem he isn't as strong but actually he brings a roundness to the role where it could be easy simply to rely solely on the humour.

Arthur Darvill's character is a great role for any actor and it gives him chance to show off comedic skills his television work have hidden as well as illustrating his abilities as an actor. Lawrence Fox was funny and charismatic as the 'Battersea Boner' (work it out...) while also treating those inclined to several scenes in his pants...

What is interesting about this play, as plays about Soldiers are very much 'in' at the moment is to see an example of one from another conflict. In 1984 the men depicted have served in Northern Ireland and have colleagues in the Falklands (though none of those depicted have served there). That's not to say that we don't need plays about the current conflicts and difficulties of our soldiers, we do, we also need the dramas about the First and Second World Wars-like Journey's End or Private Peaceful to name two fairly recent revivals  But it feels like the period these men are from-the space in between almost-isn't as much a part of our cultural and particularly theatrical dialogue. And it really should be.

As Joe, played by Lawrence Fox, finally reveals the real reasons he has been in the hospital so long and depicts in detail the events of the Hyde Park bombing that caused him the injuries the audience unravels all that went before in the play and comes to understand a great deal more about Joe.

Perhaps the reason we don't hear as much from the era of Northern Ireland and the Falklands is the inherent and unresolved politics of it all. What this play does, and what any effective play about the human cost of conflict does, is strip away the politics. The men don't tell us if they agree or disagree with the conflicts, in the hospital they are just a group of lads trying to recover-some with wounds worse than others.

An interesting play from my perspective as someone who is writing about plays from the 1980s/early 1990s being revived, this play ages well. The only refernece that has is more to do with unfortunate timing-the script has two Jimmy Savillie references (one use of 'Jim'll fix it' and one 'impersonation') which understandably fell a little flat this weekend. Do I think they should be taken out? no. They are relevant and real references that fit the characters at the time, to take them out does a disservice to the playwright's intent, what will happen naturally through audience response and actor savvy is that the nature of those references will change to reflect new circumstances. Just as the circumstances of the solider's in the play take on new significance and meaning to today's audience in contrast to those who first saw it.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Theatre Fangirls (here we go again)

There's some arguments that come around and you think 'really? we're still talking about this?' but also you're not really surprised.

So when it was annoucned Tom Hiddleston was teaming up with Kenneth Brannagh for a production of Hamlet, it was inevitable that the cries of  'Silly fangirls' began. Once again we're confronted with comments that girls 'Only want to see it because he's in it' and 'Aren't interested in the play'.

And because I am a woman, therefore incapable of thinking of him other than in terms of his looks....here he above with a cat looking cute.

But just like Mr H there is both petting a cat, reading a newspaper and looking brooding, I'd like to point out that it's entierly possible to be interested in more than one aspect of a thing at the same time. And secondly I say so what the audience is just there to look at his cheekbones?

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Hiddles is a damn good ac…

Why Elliott & Harper is the company I've been waiting for

I can never resist a good (bad) pun in a title. As the first production from Elliott & Harper opens its doors for previews tonight, it’s worth pausing to think what this new production company means and why indeed we need more like it. Something of a ‘power house’ company formed of Marianne Elliott and Chris Harper. Both coming from the National Theatre- as Director and Producer respectively- there’s a real understanding of both the craft of theatre and the audiences that do- and don’t- come to it there. And theatre made by and produced by theatre people, in the commercial realm. That’s potentially very exciting.








Firstly, the act of two theatre people who really love theatre, really understand theatre both from an audience point of view and an artistic point of view. Secondly, one of the UK’s best directors striking out on her own to make theatre on her own terms. Thirdly, and you bet it’s an important factor, a woman artistic director. It’s all exciting, and has the potential, …

Angels at the National (a reflection before the review)

I had to do a Kushner and give this post a long subtitle.

When I called my PhD thesis "Angels at the National" (I write terrible titles I know) I never thought I'd be able to say it again. Of course, the Gods like to have a laugh at my expense so mere months after I bound the copy, Rufus Norris and Marianne Elliot got together and decided that I clearly hadn't had enough to write about. 


But how does it feel to have the thing that has lived in your head for so long, back, brought to life in front of you? As much as I love the plays, I'm also conditioned to be hyper critical. I know every line (I amazed/freaked out Elliot herself with my ability to know exact quotations on demand). And of course, I have my own expectations about how it should be. How then would it feel to go back? 



At the end of Part 1 I found myself leaning on the railings by the Thames, trying to compose myself and my thoughts enough to move. At the end of Part 2, I'm sure I had forgotten how …