Too obscure to care
By
Fiona Mountford
18 Oct 2007
I really tried hard to like this. The Bush, after all, is London's most consistent unearther of worthwhile new writers, so there had, I kept telling myself despite growing evidence to the contrary, to be something in this script from Ian McHugh. Furthermore, this is the first production from artistic director Josie Rourke who, for my money, joins Rupert Goold at the top of the upcoming talent tree. Reader, I failed.
Initial plot obscurity gives way to further plot obscurity, as McHugh's three characters remain frustratingly, even comically, context-free. It's always a worry when the programme, rather than the action, reveals two key pieces of information, namely where we are (a bedsit in Great Yarmouth) and how old the characters are meant to be (17, although they look 25). Yet even the programme couldn't explain what merits might lay hidden in this strange, claustrophobic little account of bookish man-child Nick (Al Weaver) trying to whip up a magic storm straight out of The Tempest, using his friend (the programme again) Miranda (Emily Beecham) and pick-up William (Robert Boulter).
The three actors certainly give this muddle their all, bringing to mind what might happen to Harry Potter and his chums if they took a sudden lurch towards both the gothic and income support. But it's hard to care about the outcome when we understand nothing of what drives Nick to this frantic spell-making. Rourke and the Bush need to look elsewhere for the theatrical equivalent of rabbits from hats.
• Until 10 November. Information: 020 7610 4224. www.bushtheatre.co.uk
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (1)
Fiona is a little harsh and ungenerous. Looking too deeply into any art form for meaning and context can be unrewarding and allowing yourself to simply be immersed in what is happening on stage far better a strategy. So what that we don't ever have a definite idea of what and why when the action is powerful and the acting convincing. I equally didn't care that the actors may have looked a little older than their characters though again nowhere near awry as suggested. Just like the Crack at Tate Modern this piece leaves more questions than answers and yet it is a worthwile investment of 100 minutes. Deserves to be supported.
- Peter Newman-Legros, Lille, France, 21/10/2007 11:48
Report abuse
Afternoon:
9°c















