Regeneration - York Theatre Royal

Regeneration – York Theatre Royal

Three/Five

First off, as a disclaimer, any knowledge I have of the First World War comes pretty much from primary school History and History Boys by Alan Bennett. We always studied Europe up until WWI and mainly dismantled Nazi Germany each year I did History GCSE and A-Level (so maybe I’d be better off with Albert Speer). Fortunately, a play about Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen seemed within my reach – although I spent the whole thing waiting for Little Drummer Boy so clearly I didn’t pay much attention to History Boys.

Secondly, I find that, when it comes to History, I follow in Irwin’s footsteps and am peculiarly detached. World War I is a senseless loss of life but it’s hard to get your head round that amount of (seemingly) needless death. So sentimental performances seem more like moving tributes rather than theatre per se.

The play itself, then, begins with Sassoon reading his ‘Declaration’ to the board – denouncing military conflict – after serving in the Army and discovering his poetic voice. He is then moved to a War hospital (specialising in shell-shocked soldiers) where he meets several other patients, and eventually, Wilfred Owen, a promising young poet with a hero-worship love of Sassoon. His doctor, Rivers, is a neurologist, interested in rehabilitation and treating men like human beings and they bond over their disillusionment with the current war.

Regeneration captures the anti-war feeling of Sassoon and I guessed early on that War would come out badly in the whole thing. There were not two sides to this play; we are told exactly where we are heading and I found myself wanting a bit more ‘grey’. After seeing 1984 last week, I realised how important subtlety can be to an argument. In Regeneration, the dialogue between the characters often leant towards being speech-y and lacked any nuances. It’s not that I personally feel pro-War, it’s just that the best discussions are often two-sided.

What I loved about Regeneration was that it pushed to the forefront a couple of important issues that felt relevant today: mental illness and the ‘war’ effect. I think that the line is thin between being a historical, sentiment play and presenting us with relevant themes but, on the whole, I found myself thinking a lot more about the impending vote on troops in Iraq and airstrikes on ISIS than I did about Sassoon’s tragedy.

The people the play shows us, all officers, are scarred from their experiences of war. Owen, who is pitched perfectly by Garmon Rhys by the by, spent three days lying amongst the dead bodies of his friends. Sassoon and Prior also struggle with the guilt of surviving the war so far – that Sassoon’s nickname was ‘Mad Jack’, because of his reckless feats of bravery, shows his mental state towards the end of the war. The scenes that show other types of ‘cures’ at the time are particularly shocking, both in their brutality and their lack of empathy for the patients.

While some of the themes were explored thoroughly and presented very well, some of the themes that I find myself interested in were missing or under-explored: lions led by donkeys, class inequality, xenophobia etc. Sassoon was placed on a bit of a pedestal for me, his flaws being the type of flaws that you don’t really care about. Similarly, I found the acting to be very mixed; there were some really great performances but any scene with more than two characters in felt stilted, and very unnatural. I wanted to believe it was a directorial choice but there seemed no evidence of that. Dinnertime at the Ward, for example, was devoid of the warmth you might expect to accompany the dialogue.

I thought Simon Godwin’s direction was good, though I wasn’t too keen on the War flashbacks that seemed intent on making an audience jump rather than being insightful to the plight of these men – see Peaky Blinders’ version of the same idea with Danny Whizz Bang. The lighting and set (Lee Curran and Alex Eales) were simple and did the job they were intended to, mixing together the often short scenes with speed and ease, and Godwin’s transitions managed to keep the atmosphere of the scenes that preceded them – a nice touch I thought.

Overall, a nice piece but I found myself wondering if a piece about war should ever just be entertainment. The effect on the soldiers is clear but the production lacked the bite I would have hoped for, in order to make its point more effectively.

The aftermath of 1984

After seeing 1984, the themes have really been running round my head. Do we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to the media? How much do we ignore the government's hand in hand relationship with the media? Why on earth are we letting government's pass agendas like TTIP, giving multinational corporations the power to sue our country and leaving the NHS further open to privatisation threats?

****

For me, one of the trippiest ideas that came out of 1984 was the idea that (*deep breath*) censorship was overthrown by the government to lull ourselves into thinking that we have free speech when actually the opposite is true. 

Woah. Bit paranoid isn't that? 

Governments don't still torture people, do they?

Armies in Iraq: LOL, no, course not

The media can't print its own agenda under the guise of free speech, can it?

Daily Mail: LOL, no, what are we - gay? God forbid that - am I right Jan Moir?

The government doesn't censor anything unless it's harming though, does it?

DC (and the lads): LOL, as if we would! We've blocked 20% of the most 100,000 viewed sites to HELP you parent your children.

Gee, thanks, I was having a real hard time indoctrinating them myself, there's only so many bedtime stories you can get out of The Mail Online. (For my money, my favourite bedtime story would be "Woman goes to gym" dailym.ai/1wtQpR2 < I'm still waiting for part 2)

****

While I'm glad that there is theatre which blends big, modern questions with entertaining and engaging storytelling, something about the performance left me thinking that maybe it's not always the best thing for an audience. Yeah, I felt that way after it, but did everybody else get that? Because surely Orwell wanted his message heard and discussed.

If you confront somebody with a truth, particularly one they don't really want to hear, then they will always look for a way out. Out of the people who see the performance each night, how many leave talking about the issues it raises? More likely, how many people see 1984 and go out discussing Orwell and his merits - or the wonders of multimedia in theatre?

In a theatre like York, which takes a lot of touring theatre, where are the difficult questions coming from? Repeated productions of Shakespeare and Ibsen? Who is feeding the collective theatregoers of York's ability to be questioned by theatre? Or to have society probed? Maybe we only enjoy looking at things once everyone's agreed they're right. 

Oh yes, I see the merits of allowing theatre to produce what it wants without being controlled by a central authority. Bravo censorship-challenging 60's plays!

Spoiler: the government still doesn't. If you don't control it, don't feed it #artscuts

As a final note, there is provoking theatre going on. The reaction to Little Revolutions at the Almeida has been mixed but it has sparked discussion at least. Privacy at Donmar did the same. 

Which is great for London. 

But I'm studying in York. 

And I want some pressing, shit-my-pants theatre, dammit. 

1984 - Headlong Theatre (tour)

Headlong Theatre’s 1984 - York Theatre Royal

Four/Five

When a production opens with a voiceover, a large screen using live camera and the actor acknowledging both the voice and the audience, I always try to decide whether or not the balance will be right. Too much going on to really understand the plot, use of set and technology rather than any connection to the characters. What followed the first few minutes of 1984 was, however, as thought-provoking, intelligently staged and enlightening as anything I’ve seen this year.

Headlong’s dive into George Orwell’s world tackles the main difference between the novel and other art forms - that the novel is an individual experience that gives you an insight into a single character’s life. The production does this, using lights and sound effects to confuse and disorientate the audience (and the lead character, Winston). For those unfamiliar with the novel, the script takes the time to reveal gradually throughout the play, rather than fit ten minutes of exposition at the start. Starting out in a book club discussing the novel, the play twists and turns, each time letting you think that you have finally realised the truth before turning the world upside down.

What I rated most highly about the production was the way in which comparisons to modern life were eked out. At no point were direct influences mentioned but little jibes (“What year is it?” “I don’t know, 19…2000….?”) and character’s opinions (“it can be applied to any period”) reminded the audience that this play is definitely as relevant now as it was when first published. The highly-effective multimedia placed the audience as Big Brother; the live camera stream showing us the “safe place” of Walter and Julia.

Excellent paced throughout, the last 20-25 minutes of the production absolutely roared through, leaving questions and ideas with no real answers, as well as the doctrines of the Party (“War is Peace” “Ignorance is Strength”), firmly in the audience’s mind. As Winston, the man who’s story is unfolding before us, Matthew Spencer was superb, excelling in the early scenes, as well as the more gruelling torture scenes. Martin (Andre Flynn) and O’Brien (Tim Dutton) were also excellent in their respective roles, Flynn in particular showing great characterisation throughout. The outstanding set design by Chloe Lamford was the first aspect mentioned by the people I saw the play with but Robert Icke and Duncan MacMillian (joint direction and adaptation) have blended so many visuals and ideas together that I had to marvel at how well they succeeded in executing the entire piece.

Though it never quite gets you poised on the edge of your seat, 1984 is an engaging production that almost clarifies some of Orwell’s subtler ideas and leaves audiences in no doubt as to its relevance in today’s society. 1984 can as easily be 2014 as it can be the near-future and Headlong gives no answers for the problems it suggests but guarantees everybody will be discussing the issues of censorship, power and indoctrination as they leave this piece.

Headlong’s 1984 is currently at York Theatre Royal, the first stop on its nationwide tour.