This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2013/may/07/passion-play-review

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Passion Play – review Passion Play – review
(5 months later)
It's a well-known fact that Peter Nichols's play, which first appeared in 1981, forms part of an unofficial trinity of dramas about infidelity: it came after Pinter's Betrayal (1978) and before Stoppard's The Real Thing (1982). But what the three plays have in common, apart from their technical ingenuity, is that they all dwell on the anguish of adultery; and it is when Nichols's play pushes the pain into prominence that it comes most alive.It's a well-known fact that Peter Nichols's play, which first appeared in 1981, forms part of an unofficial trinity of dramas about infidelity: it came after Pinter's Betrayal (1978) and before Stoppard's The Real Thing (1982). But what the three plays have in common, apart from their technical ingenuity, is that they all dwell on the anguish of adultery; and it is when Nichols's play pushes the pain into prominence that it comes most alive.
For the first half of David Leveaux's revival I was no more than mildly diverted. I appreciated the quiet skill with which Nichols sets up the situation. James, a picture restorer, and Eleanor, an enthusiastic amateur chorister, find their 25-year-long marriage disrupted by his affair with the youthful Kate.For the first half of David Leveaux's revival I was no more than mildly diverted. I appreciated the quiet skill with which Nichols sets up the situation. James, a picture restorer, and Eleanor, an enthusiastic amateur chorister, find their 25-year-long marriage disrupted by his affair with the youthful Kate.
Nichols also doubles the couple's dilemma by giving them alter egos, Jim and Nell, who articulate their private anxieties. But Kate emerges as little more than a heartless predator in silk lingerie.Nichols also doubles the couple's dilemma by giving them alter egos, Jim and Nell, who articulate their private anxieties. But Kate emerges as little more than a heartless predator in silk lingerie.
Nichols's rancid comedy, which allows James to dismiss the art of photography by saying "give a chimpanzee a camera for a few hours", also gets muffled; and that matters because James's remark is not only provocative but a way of deflecting his antsy interest in the artsy Kate.Nichols's rancid comedy, which allows James to dismiss the art of photography by saying "give a chimpanzee a camera for a few hours", also gets muffled; and that matters because James's remark is not only provocative but a way of deflecting his antsy interest in the artsy Kate.
After the interval, however, the play enters another dimension. That's partly because Nichols ups the ante to show the corrosive consequences of betrayal, partly because I found it impossible to take my eyes off Zoë Wanamaker's Eleanor. What you see is a once-confident woman whose life is destroyed by doubt. When her alter ego buoyantly declares that James's affair gave their marriage a shot in the arm, Wanamaker mutters "That's not right", as if her bullshit-detector is on full alert.After the interval, however, the play enters another dimension. That's partly because Nichols ups the ante to show the corrosive consequences of betrayal, partly because I found it impossible to take my eyes off Zoë Wanamaker's Eleanor. What you see is a once-confident woman whose life is destroyed by doubt. When her alter ego buoyantly declares that James's affair gave their marriage a shot in the arm, Wanamaker mutters "That's not right", as if her bullshit-detector is on full alert.
The more James blusters, the more Wanamaker disintegrates: urged to forget her errant spouse, she cries "he's half my life" as if it's too late to withdraw her emotional investment. Wanamaker has the expressive features of a natural comic. Here, however, her eyes acquire a hollow vacancy and her face resembles a once-illuminated city suddenly plunged into darkness as she gives us a riveting portrait of the ravages of deception.The more James blusters, the more Wanamaker disintegrates: urged to forget her errant spouse, she cries "he's half my life" as if it's too late to withdraw her emotional investment. Wanamaker has the expressive features of a natural comic. Here, however, her eyes acquire a hollow vacancy and her face resembles a once-illuminated city suddenly plunged into darkness as she gives us a riveting portrait of the ravages of deception.
It helps that she has Samantha Bond as her other self. At times Bond acts as a counterpoise to Wanamaker's despair; at other times, as when she voices Eleanor's escalating insecurities, she brings her own tragic intensity to the role. The dual-performance reminds one, in fact, that Nichols's play is weighted very heavily on the side of the wronged wife. Owen Teale and Oliver Cotton as James/Jim do their level best to show that the husband has his share of suffering but, with his multiple justifications for adultery and his glib dismissal of Christian iconography, which seems unusual in a picture restorer, he can't help seeming a bit of a jerk.It helps that she has Samantha Bond as her other self. At times Bond acts as a counterpoise to Wanamaker's despair; at other times, as when she voices Eleanor's escalating insecurities, she brings her own tragic intensity to the role. The dual-performance reminds one, in fact, that Nichols's play is weighted very heavily on the side of the wronged wife. Owen Teale and Oliver Cotton as James/Jim do their level best to show that the husband has his share of suffering but, with his multiple justifications for adultery and his glib dismissal of Christian iconography, which seems unusual in a picture restorer, he can't help seeming a bit of a jerk.
If the play still works, it is because it reinforces the point made by Pinter in his own infidelity play: that betrayal doesn't stop in the bedroom. And, even if this production could do with a few more first-half laughs to set up the tonal contrast, it is elegantly designed by Hildegard Bechtler and gets good supporting performances from Annabel Scholey as the under-written Kate and Siân Thomas as another wronged wife seeking vindictive triumph. But it's Wanamaker who gives the evening its distinction by showing, with vivid particularity, how loss of trust in one's partner numbs the sense of self.If the play still works, it is because it reinforces the point made by Pinter in his own infidelity play: that betrayal doesn't stop in the bedroom. And, even if this production could do with a few more first-half laughs to set up the tonal contrast, it is elegantly designed by Hildegard Bechtler and gets good supporting performances from Annabel Scholey as the under-written Kate and Siân Thomas as another wronged wife seeking vindictive triumph. But it's Wanamaker who gives the evening its distinction by showing, with vivid particularity, how loss of trust in one's partner numbs the sense of self.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.