- Stars (out of 3)= 3
- One-sentence review= “Don’t waste time reading this, just go watch it”
- Good for people who= think that Downton Abbey’s a fairytale masquerading as realism.
- Not good for people who= really love Downton Abbey.
- Would Alan Bennet like it = hell no.
It’s traditional when writing a review to open with a question to the reader, which you don’t answer until the final paragraph. To keep them reading, you fill the space in between with the basic facts of the show. By the time you answer your original question, the reader’s free to decide whether the show sounds like their cup of tea. But should I bother with traditions when they’re outdated and the alternatives are so much more fun?
Instead, here are three reasons why you should give two fingers to tradition and just go see the play.
1) There’re only two actors and they’re really good
“Steve is sleeping with Helen, and Sybil is sleeping with Les. But these aren’t two ordinary couples: Sybil is Steve’s nouveau rich wife, and Les is the private detective she hired to spy on her adulterous husband”.
So says the sales pitch. What it doesn’t mention is that two actors (Adam Whit Bell and Gemma Burgess) play all four roles. Each flits effortlessly between two complete, rounded, believable, hilarious and moving characters. If they’d just played one of these roles, I would applaud their acting. To cover both, with nothing more than a second or two of darkness and no costume change between switches, I give a standing ovation.
2) It throws tradition out the window
Most plays have a set, props, a detailed plot, heroes/villains, and all that gubbins.
This play has a sofa. Later, there are some chairs and a table.
That’s it.
Everything else – cigarettes, drinks, a galloping horse – are portrayed by the actors.
That sounds drama school, I know, you’re thinking of the old “I went to uni and spent three years pretended to be a tree” gag – but imagine this being done by two superb mimes of the bendy Rowan Atkinson-esque variety (and quality) – and you’ll get why I’m excited. Like, one scene takes place on a horseback hunt. A horseback hunt.
3) That whole “is it still relevant to our times?” question
There is a plot – I’ve covered it above – but really, this isn’t about whether the detective gets the adulterous husband. It’s about what it’s like to be rich, poor and decadent in 1980’s England (which is when Berkoff wrote it) and the highs and lows of all three lifestyles.
For those with long memories, it takes you back to a time when Thatcher was one person’s Saint George and another’s Dragon; when “Love Thy Neighbor” was still fresh in the memory of a TV-viewing population who were starting to question how acceptable it was; and when the full-bodied accent of an old Etonian would turn some people on and turn others’ legs to jelly.
Is it still relevant? Have things changed that much? Can I make it through this review without mentioning Brexit (and no, I abstained from the vote so that’s not a loaded question)?
You can make your own minds up if you go see it between the 3rd– 6thApril (with the caveat that you remember that some views expressed in the play belong to the characters, not the playwright or the theatre).
I would urge you to turn to the nearest able-bodied person, convince them to act as your horse, and ride them to https://www.southhillpark.org.uk/events/decadence/ where you can book tickets.
