Second Review!

The second review panned the evening. A polite comment questioning the accuracy of the review was posted but then someone deleted it.

Therefore I am posting the whole review here and the comment that followed.

The review appears here...


Short play evenings have long been a mainstay of London theatre, with a host of companies booking a couple of nights in London's smaller theatres, rooms above pubs or more inventive spaces to showcase a selection of material from established and up-and-coming writers. The format encourages experimentation and allows for some variance of material. 

Oxford-based company Almost Random's latest effort manages the former pleasantly while having some trouble with the latter. Loosely collected under a theme of deity, but more often feeling like "thorny issues", the three pieces in Heir of the Dog are a smorgasbord of tone: Hugh Allison's Call on Me has two minor celebrities cynically tear apart their lives, Michael Dickinson's Circles modernises the Jesus story, while Chris Sivewright's Wonder is a long collection of po-faced pop psychology, loosely couched in a story of loss. 

The issue across all three is the writing, which is rather raw. Dialogue doesn't sound natural or believable, which may be part of the point of Circles' semi-biblical tone, but is a major stumbling block for both Call on Me and Wonder. In Call on Me especially, the angry cynicism feels less observed and more imagined; a grim stab at celebrity that doesn't quite hide an intense fascination that, probably, would have made for a more rounded and interesting piece if it were acknowledged. 

Emilia Petryszyn gets the brunt of it, a decent actress reduced to strutting around the stage in her bra alongside Stephen Cheriton's muted and cowed delivery – if celebrities debasing themselves is so bad for their career, why would the writer/director ask the same from his actors? 

In Wonder, the problem is more basic – these are not lines normal people would ever say. With one casually thrown away riddle of human existence followed by another for a good fifteen minutes, no argument or idea is given any space to breathe or be examined. This feels less like a play about the big questions, and more about the banality of its characters: four vacuous individuals who wandered up a hill to watch the sun set. There's a temptation of a plot arc in Denholm Spurr's sad widow, but it's all hidden behind a piece that could be reduced to a long list of hokum chestnuts. 

Only Circles feels like something more meaty, but its status as an excerpt means there's not really enough to take in from the five minutes we see between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The modernisation of the story feels calm and unforced, surprisingly for a story where this can often feel shoe-horned, but there isn't enough material here to be able to judge it on any level of detail. I can't help but feel that a more striking or important scene would have been better for a short play evening. The evening is held together by MC Richard Ward, resplendent in tails and a dickie bow. His calm, composed and stentorian approach to the job makes the whole evening feel very professional and well orchestrated. While the lighting design is basic and poor (one light aimed loosely) and there's no sound or set, there's a pleasing clarity to this evening. With a better selection of pieces, this could have been a really quite pleasant short play event. However, with such a low quality of material, it's hard to be very positive. 


 The comment is as follows: I have never heard St Augustine's words described as 'po-faced pop psychology' or perhaps you were referring (wrongly) to the work of Ludwig Godlewska? As far as the other criticisms you made of 'Wonder' let me, as the author, respond. You say these are not lines 'normal' people would say. Well, one of the characters (Tom) is grieving, in a state of melancholy. He is quite likely to be questioning the nature of God. Another character is a Philosophy student and also quite likely to debate. Another character is a comedian and thus likely to talk about round pizzas and square boxes. Another character is polish and keen on quoting proverbs - not that unlikely, I suggest. You say, 'no argument or idea is given any space to breathe or be examined'. The purpose of the play is to sow seeds, to cause the audience to wonder. To consider whether Allah's name is on the back of their hand, whether the argument for a 'good' God could be reversed and even, through thought experiments such as looking down on stars, to reconsider some of their own views. This is not supposed to be a play about big questions - in half an hour??? - but asking a few within the overall theme of 'wonder'. You say: ' four vacuous individuals who wandered up a hill to watch the sun set. ' No they didn't. ONE wandered up to be alone and another three, out for a walk, bumped into him. Whilst they were chatting they saw the sun set - but there is nothing in the play to suggest that was the purpose of the three. You say, 'There's a temptation of a plot arc in Denholm Spurr's sad widow', no. The slight temptation is the flirtation between Paul and Claudia but in reality the play is about a group of people who by meeting up with someone reliving a tragedy, start asking questions about the meaning of existence. Just start, that's all. These are questions philosophers still puzzle over - hardly 'hokum chestnuts'.