Morning:
6°c
Fiona Mountford's rating
, Two hours of tedium from The Prisoner of Second Avenue
By
Fiona Mountford
14 Jul 2010
Two Hollywood names in a drama about financially stressed times by a popular playwright: it should have worked a treat.
Kevin Spacey obviously thought it would, as he chose this 1971 Neil Simon black comedy, later turned into a film starring Jack Lemmon and Anne Bancroft, to be the Old Vic’s first West End production.
Any hopes that Spacey’s theatre would repeat the success of the Donmar Warehouse’s recent knockout year in the West End are, however, swiftly dashed as Jeff Goldblum and Mercedes Ruehl, Oscar winner for The Fisher King, drag us through two effortfully unfunny hours.
They play Mel and Edna Edison, married middle-aged New Yorkers living in a noisy 14th floor apartment on the Upper East Side.
Advertising executive Mel has a briefcase full of sub-Woody Allen-style neuroses about city living, while Edna manages to stay chirpy despite a string of disasters that sees Mel getting fired and the Edisons burgled in just one week. Bad things may keep happening and good men and women may keep losing their jobs, but the dry, flip tone of the piece mitigates against any audience sympathy. Perpetually emotionally unengaged, we don’t want to laugh, or cry, at what we’re witnessing, an insurmountable problem that the occasional witty one-liner can’t begin to tackle.
One might at least have expected Terry Johnson, accomplished director (and also playwright) that he is, to have established a workable rhythm, but pitched here in the swampy terrain between drama and comedy it’s all awkward timing and jagged pacing. Ruehl clomps about uneasily while Goldblum, looking increasingly like a staffer from the Ministry of Silly Walks, grandstands unendingly with a series of exaggerated reactions seemingly chosen at random from a theatrical pinball machine. Memories of his fine double act with Spacey in Speed-the-Plow at the Old Vic a couple of years ago seem very distant.
Mel eventually suffers a full-blown nervous breakdown, which at least has the benefit of giving us a few minutes’ respite from Goldblum, but the downside is a lethally unamusing scene with Mel’s bickering and peculiarly aged siblings. They bandy the word “nervous” about so often that we begin to think of jumping from a great height ourselves.
It was during this scene that I convinced myself one of the characters was surely going to leap up and finally reveal the whole piteously unconvincing scenario to be some sort of elaborate charade, and that the narrative would, at long last, head off in more fruitful directions. No such luck. The joke, if there is one, is most definitely on us.
Until Sept 25. Box Office: 0844 412 4663. www.nimaxtheatres.com
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (4)
I'd like to add my thanks to Joanna and Crispian having spent a most enjoyable evening at the theatre thanks to their positive reviews (and Mario, if I had to choose between being a nerd and being a gentleman I'd always go for the latter, especially when dealing with something which was almost certainly just a slip of the keyboard).
Now, here's a question. Ms Mountford writes: 'Perpetually emotionally unengaged, we don’t want to laugh, or cry, at what we’re witnessing'. Why the use of 'we'? Is she speaking for the audience or is she related to royalty? The view of a critic is simply a personal view, however experienced they may (or may not) be. Like Joanna, I am uneasy at reading a review who seems to be (a) reporting on the feelings of an entire body of people (b) telling future audience what they WILL (not might) feel. Seems like an abuse of power to me.
- Rufus, London, 19/07/2010 15:56
Report abuse
This seems to be the case wherever you look: tepid reviews, yet good or excellent audience reactions. I haven't seen it yet, but what caught my interest were the two leads, whom I admire a great deal. Then I read the reviews, and they put me off a bit. But my initial gut feeling was that it would be entertaining, so I started to look around for audience reactions, and I'm glad I did - people seem to have enjoyed it, and thanks to their input I think I can get a fairly balanced view of what the play will be like.
The audience may be overly positive because they have goodwill towards the performers and want to be entertained, and critics may be overly negative because they're going in there thinking, "convince me it's funny". The truth probably lies somewhere in between...or maybe critics lack a sense of humour.
So thank you, Crispian and Joanna, for taking the time to balance out the negative reviews. I'm still planning on seeing this. Oh, and PS, Joanna: I think you mean "affects", not "effects". Sorry, I can't help it, I'm a bit of a word nerd. But it's with all the best intentions. 
- Mario, London, 19/07/2010 13:13
Report abuse
I fully agree with Crispian. I saw the show last night too and the audience loved it and laughed hugely throughout. For my own part, I enjoyed it very much - a couple of tiny flaws perhaps, lack of audibility and energy on the part of a couple of the supporting actors (I was sitting way up in the Gods) which caused a slight drop in pace during the second half and my friend and I both felt there was a lack of affectionate tactility between Mel and Edna to physically support their evidently happy marriage. Other than that though, it's a well chosen and pertinent piece of theatre with laughs and pathos aplenty. Jeff Goldblum and Mercedes Ruehl were both on top form and proved themselves well deserving of their accolades and status within the industry. I read Fiona Mountford's review on the train on the way home and was rather shocked. What bothers me is that the review sounds cruel, rather than professionally distant, and is also distinctly out of touch with the audience reaction. It makes me uneasy to think that if I'd read the review before booking the play it would probably have put me off going. At a min of £20 a ticket you don't want to take the risk with your money. But to discover first hand a review so disparate from the actual experience makes me wonder at the power critics have, how much it is misused and how much it effects our struggling theatrical industry.
- Joanna, Brentwood, Essex, 15/07/2010 17:33
Report abuse
I've just come home from seeing this play and can only say how incredibly upset I am after having read the standard review. Other than saying that I and my guest truly enjoyed the performances and found the play very funny and indeed everything you could ever wish for from a Neil Simon play, I have to say that the rest of the audience really seemed to have enjoyed themselves too! Throughout the whole play the audience laughed and finally gave the gave the performers a wholehearted applause for several curtain calls. Believe me, bad plays never get this good a reaction. I don't know what the standard reviewer was experiencing during his viewing of the play but it certainly didn't match up to the rest of the paying audience. I would heartliy recommend seeing this , especially if you can appreciate the talent that Niel Simon is. A big YAY to the play and a big BOO to the Standard reviewer!
- Crispian, london, 14/07/2010 22:59
Report abuse
