This is a terrible play directed in a dreary unimaginative way. Kevin Spacey must bear the major responsibility for choosing this play and directing it so poorly. Why the actors wanted to be in it is a complete mystery. As for Richard Dreyfuss, he got through the lines but it's a sad reflection when that's all that you can say about a performance. At the curtain call, he seemed extremely embarrassed. I'm not surprised. - fred
21 Feb 09
DIRE! And as it has already been so eloquently reviewed by Joesmith, and others here, I shan't bother wasting anymore of my valuable time commenting on it. Mr Spacey what the hell were you thinking of - GET A GRIP! - rds
20 Feb 09
Perhaps Michael ought to get out less!! I thoroughly enjoyed this play. Both Dreyfuss and Suchet excellent. Well Done, Mike Best. - Mike Best
04 Feb 09
When I got back to the car there was a discussion on the news about whether Britain was complicit in the rendition flights taking suspected terrorists to countries where they were severely tortured. As this is the story at the heart of Joe Sutton's play it is easy to see why Kevin Spacey thought it an appropriate choice for the Old Vic. Unfortunately it is not a great drama of American politics, a US Gethsemane, rather a frequently ponderous examination of a journalist's protection of his source or his duty to protect society and his family's self-interest. Complicit is a courtroom drama without a courtroom scene and includes one character (Elizabeth McGovern's Judith) who is alsmost completely irrelevant. Richard Dreyfuss (who did not appear to need his earpiece) and David Suchet do their best with the material but are faced with characters who contradict themselves, sometimes in the same scene. Complicit is not as bad as the reviews suggest and there are some complex issues explored but Sutton seems as confused about his stance as his main character. If the playwright cannot decide if an extreme response might be justified in the face of an even more extreme terrorist threat it is difficult for an audience to fully engage with the play. Judging by the running time in the programme the play has been heavily cut which may explain why Kevin Spacey's direction helps to confuse rather than enlighten. - David Baxter
04 Feb 09
It seems to have become very fashionable very quickly to have a very specific reaction to this play. This seemingly consists of:
1) Hating it violently
2) Hating Dreyfuss and McGovern
3) Praising Suchet as the only glimmer of light
4) Finding the politics trite, obvious and confused
Well I'm going to be the only dissenting voice in this forum. I quite liked it. I agree it's a mess of a play. The first half is tedious and Dreyfuss obviously forgot many of his lines at the preview I saw (Sat 24 Jan) causing what momentum there was to disappear repeatedly. And the wife character is horribly underwritten. I also disliked the staging. All the video montages of Bush and Guantanamo come across like awful meaninglessly didactic undergrad installation art.
Contrary to everyone else who's seen this I thought Suchet was clunky and heavy handed, and I thought Dreyfuss quite good in the second half. Nothing I've read anywhere about this seems to grasp what this play is actually about. It's confusing I admit, but surely this is a play that deals with several very complex questions.
1) Why did so many liberal, left leaning Americans (many children of the sixties) have such a kneejerk, patriotic reaction to September 11?
2) The Dreyfuss character talks about a country he loves, about the original conceptual framework for America as laid out by Jefferson and the founding fathers of a benevolent, free, democratic nation. The concept of the 'principled democratic world power' in stark opposition to autocratic imperialist Europe. The play for me explores how blinded men can be to protect cherished principals, and how in the process these principals can be violently contradicted and lost.
3) How did America can to comprehensively lose sight of its founding principals?
Almost every scene in the second half alludes to these themes, but every review I’ve read seems to have comprehensively missed ALL of them, far too busy patting each other on the back and agreeing on it’s innate crapness.
- Jim
30 Jan 09
MR DREYFUSS' NERVOUS TWITCHING PERFORMANCE MAY SUIT THE TORTURED CHARACTER BUT ALSO SEEMS GENUINE NERVOUSNESS. SUCHET IS BRILLIANT AND HELPS DREYFUSS TO STEADY AND SHARPEN HIS STAGEY ACTING. RD WEARS A PROMPT EARPIECE WHICH CONVEYS HIS INSECURITY. THE PLAY IS NOW OUTDATED BY OBAMA ALTHOUGH HAS SOME HISTRIONIC VALUES. ADMIRABLE AND DISCIPLINED DIRECTION BY SPACEY.ALTHOUGH VERY WELL PLOTTED THE THEME IS DATED, AND OF moMORESIGNIFICANCE TO AMERICANS.STRANGE CHOICE FOR OLD VIC - STAR ATTRACTION ? - ALEX GREEN
25 Jan 09
Dreyfuss.....idiot! - R.D.
25 Jan 09
I thoroughly enjoyed this play. Timely, thought provoking, and on the whole well presented.
I had front row tickets so had an opportunity to watch the actors from close up. Both David Suchet and Richard Freyfuss were excellent, both entirely believable. Dreyfuss in particular was fascinating to watch, I saw real soul searching, arger and anguish. Elizabeth McGovern did her best what seemed to me to be a more one dimensional character. I wasn't entirely convinced by her declarations of love-despite-all and trying-to-understand.
Despite the earpiece, there were only maybe 3 occassions where I thought Drefuss may have fluffered lines, but if they were, they were covered well. I didn't feel like the drama was lost, or I was suddenly aware I was watching an actor rather than the character. Despite all that he was by far the most watchable, perhaps not surprising given his character's emotional rollercoaster.
Can't comment on previous perfomances, so its difficult to know whether work has been done and difficulties overcome, but in any case based on what I saw, I would recommend this. - Neill Robbins
25 Jan 09
Beyond bad. Dreyfuss is appalling, despite being fed the lines by earpiece. Wouldn't even deserve a season at the Garrison Theatre, Guantamano Bay. www.blowstar.blogspot.com - JohnnyFox
22 Jan 09
Suchet.....Idiot! - D.S.
22 Jan 09
I enjoyed this thought provoking play, a piece very much of the moment. I also thought the production was very good and that the “in the round” format worked really well. David Suchard was excellent and totally convincing. Richard Dreyfuss was OK. I agree with many of the other comments that there is a weakness with the female role. It was badly written and very unconvincing. I saw this yesterday and have a much more positive view compared to earlier audiences so I suspect the play is gradually being knocked into shape. The audience response that I observed seemed very positive also with two long generous rounds of applause given at the end. - David
22 Jan 09
I enjoyed this thought provoking play, a piece very much of the moment. I also thought the production was very good and that the “in the round” format worked really well. David Suchard was excellent and totally convincing. Richard Dreyfuss was OK. I agree with many of the other comments that there is a weakness with the female role. It was badly written and very unconvincing. I saw this yesterday and have a much more positive view compared to earlier audiences so I suspect the play is gradually being knocked into shape. The audience response that I observed seemed very positive also with two long generous rounds of applause given at the end. - David
22 Jan 09
This isn't really a play - its a series of comments, observations, meditations on a subject which are presented in a pretentiously obtuse way in an attempt to give them weight. It doesn't illuminate the subject, it doesn't present the arguments and it goes absolutley nowhere. The staging and performances aren't bad, actually, though it's difficult to know how much of Dreyfuss' stumbling style is intentional and how much is waiting to be fed the next line through the earpiece. Unfortunately, knowing about the earpiece means you can't take your eyes off it whenever it's in view! A huge disappointment. - GarGar
20 Jan 09
DREADFUL play - would have to be completely rewritten to be worth watching. David Suchet excellent which at least helped endure the thing. - jo
18 Jan 09
This is a REALLY bad play. Everything is wrong but especially Richard Dreyfuss who gives one of the worst performances I've ever seen. Is he planning to do another runner I wonder and is that why they're delaying the opening....while Kevin Spacey learns the part? - coral
18 Jan 09
Saw it last night, still needs some work, especially with the female role. David Suchet wonderful and entirely convincing, Elizabeth McGovern unfortunately not, but not helped by the script which wrote her as a hopelessly small minded woman. Richard Dreyfus not a good start, improving in the 2nd half, but did not prove himself as a stage actor.
- Penny
18 Jan 09
No wonder they've pushed back the press night, this is a stinker almost of the magnitude of Resurrection Blues. The writing is naive, old hat and incredibly boring and many of the geriatric US audience slept through it last night. The direction is not much better being so sluggish that you're likely to be looking at someone's back for large sections of the show. Both are as nothing compared to the horrific performances (excluding Suchet of course, but he unfortunstely has nothing to do). Ms. McGovern is inaudible and looks terrified as well she might with the prospect of trying to act with the disgracefully bad Richard Dreyfuss. He gives us the full gamut of his emotional range from A to ...well A and is so incompetent that he has to have his lines fed to him via an earpiece. It is however fascinating to glance up at the TV screens which show recorded segments during scene changes and demonstrate his skill with a camera. Did nobody learn anything from the 'Producers' fiasco? This man needs to stick to what he knows. Meanwhile preview audiences are being charged full price for this debacle, and it ain't going to get any better, no matter how long you put it off Kev. - Joesmith
