Katie Mitchell just can't help herself. Even in a relatively straightforward (for her) adaptation of a Jacobean tragedy she can't resist adding the choreographed scene changes which were so unintentionally funny in Pains of Youth. Even the two main female characters are picked up and carted around like props, although maybe that's supposed to symbolise their status as mere chattels - God knows, but it looks ridiculous. The decision to set the play in 1919 serves no useful purpose and means that references to a character being manacled in a dungeon of a debtor's prison absurd. Mitchell has, as usual, taken substantial liberties with the text, although thankfully without Martin Crimp's "help", meaning that the young wife's betrayal of her husband makes little dramatic sense. Mitchell has gained some excellent performances, which is not always the case with her shows; Paul Ready, Liz White and Gawn Grainger are particularly impressive, but Leo Bill basically repeats his shouty performance from Posh at the Royal Court. So the 4 stars must be a mistake. No, because despite all Mitchell's eccentricities I really enjoyed this play. Some of Thomas Heywood's rhymes may have brought some unintended laughs but his story of two women, one who destroys her marriage and loses her children and another who is forced into marriage with a man she despises to pay her brother's debts, has an intensity which holds the attention for all of the uninterrupted two hours. It's a superb drama given a rather odd production, but what else would you expect from such an eccentric director? - David Baxter
24 Aug 11
Katie Mitchell off on one AGAIN! Thomas Heywood's work has been turned into a performance piece. Perhaps Ms Mitchell should do what seems to be implied in her work and that is to make films instead. Heywood's play was submerged, smothered, by flights of fancy, some amusing, some stylish but others downright daft. The split staging only exacerbated the problem with actors who mumbled their lines and were either in one corner of the large Lyttleton stage or the other, much to the disadvantage of the audience. Does Ms Mitchell not consider there will be an audience in the theatre? I still can't fathom out how the NT let's her get away with it? The staging must have cost a fortune but was definitely needed to help hold the audience's attention during its bum numbing 2 hour run without an interval which is not uncommon for Ms Mitchell work and I think you can guess why. - rds
24 Aug 11
It seemed to me like a moderately inventive post-grad production: un-slick, tricksy & familiar physical moves stolen from any contemporary dance company & some frankly average and - yes - poorly enunciated acting.An engaging script from Heywood though. Style definitely superseded substance; quite beautifully in terms of set and costume.I have no problem with the up-date to post-1918 but I had a problem with the tag-on 1980s Feminist polemic. I should have known when one bride bled on her nightie and another wore bare feet with her wedding dress; French & Saunders should do a Katie Mitchell spoof. I missed lots, believed less and cared nothing at all for the tragedies which unfolded and that cannot be what was intended - by Mitchell or Heywood. - peta
23 Aug 11
As I left the Lyttelton theatre, I overheard an elderly man say to his companion "In all my years of coming to the National, that was the worst play I have ever seen!" I strongly disagree with him, but there's no doubt this play generates strong dislike among a significant segment of the audience. This is, I think, because Thomas Heywood is in fact Neil LaBute, give or take four hundred years. Both Heywood and LaBute get up people's noses by depicting extreme cruelty and extreme abuse of power, often inflicted for sport. If a woman is fat, as in Fat Pig, Neil LaBute will depict her lowly status being further demeaned. If she's deaf, as in Company of Men, then LaBute will show her demeaned. And even if she isn't fat or deaf, Thomas Heywood will still have a woman demeaned in some way. But distastefulness doesn't make it less true that power corrupts, and Heywood depicts some horrifying yet utterly believable abuses of power. The production is beautiful, dividing the story of two women between two stately houses, stage left (Sandy McDade) and stage right (Liz White). The two women give marvellous naturalistic performances that overshadow the more mannered performances of some of their male counterparts. Leo Bill, in particular, seems to think that clucking his head like a chicken will physically manifest his character's inner spinelessness, but it's too much. Liz White perfectly emotes a good woman carried away by temptation on stage right, and when she gets caught, her distress is palpable and painful. Sandy McDade's restrained brilliant performance on stage left, as a woman with very few options in life, is aided by directorial flourishes of moving her in slow motion, moving her backwards to retrace already constricted movements and having her be picked up and moved around like furniture when scenes change. Indeed, Sandy McDade's understated indignation builds up to a level of such internal fury that I'm still haunted her performance, and for me that's a sign of good theatre. - Steve
23 Aug 11
Generally a disappointing and confusing production. Set was magnificent but there was often too much going on to take it all in and I felt I often missed significant things. Much of the delivery still inaudible in August, too much gabbling. A few superb moments, but not enough to hold my interest. A shame. - Judith
09 Aug 11
A stunning stage and talented cast - a few tweaks here and there could make all the difference. However, it irks me that Wendoll's lines at a vital moment are re-assigned to Anne. - Anita Butler
22 Jul 11
An interesting production which I recognise not all will enjoy. Several critics have commented on audibility I sat in T stalls and seemed OK to me. If you like to be entertained but are prepared to take a risk on an interpretation that is radical then you might enjoy. At £12 a ticket as part of the Travelex season it is well worth a try. - Chris
21 Jul 11
I saw this in preview and unfortunately share the negative views expressed above. I am also a little surprised by the generally positive critical reaction. The audibility of a number of the main players was questionable, possibly emphasieed by the physical separation of the two storylines and staging, whch meant that the "action" often took place on the far side of the stage from where I was sitting. The device of scurrying servants rushing up and down staircases to cover scene changes became ultinately irritating, as did the fact that the language remianed antiquated even though the play had been reest to 1919. This was, I regret to say, the longest 2 hours 10 minutes I have spent in a theatre in quite some time. - Bryan
21 Jul 11
An inventive take with a committed cast, but overall doesn't really work. Problems with audibility and blocking at the preview I attended hampered my enggagement. Though I have been thinking a lot since about the themes it raised, which seems a good sign. An honorable failure. - Hilary
21 Jul 11
I really hated it. Leo Bill is inaudible for most of the time and the decision to set it in the early 20th Century is a major flaw, as the developments within the play are rendered completely incredible. This is one to play in its original setting and costume for it to gain any emotional impact with the audience. - DCH
21 Jul 11
too complicated, to much form over character, and when after one hour the actor finally are allowed to act the parallel stories are difficul to take in as the split set does not help - Elisabeth
