Synopsis In 1853 the celebrated art critic John Ruskin, his wife Effie, and the Pre-Raphaelite painter John Everett Millais depart in high spirits for the Scottish Highlands. When they return four months later, London is already beginning to whisper of the woman one man calls mad, and the other... The Countess. Gregory Murphy's play is based on one of the most notorious scandals of the Victorian age.
Gregory Murphy’s play, The Countess, was well received in the US, playing for 634 performances. I fear, however, it will fare less well in the West End.
I suspect American audiences were charmed by the piece’s strange British world, which occupies a middle ground between the catty drawing rooms of Oscar Wilde and the tightly laced restricted passion of EM Forster. This faux ‘Englishness’ probably won't appeal to a British audience, though the central performance - which is the production’s saving grace - should.
Effie, the Countess of the title, actually existed. She was married to the essayist and orator John Ruskin, and the events of the play surround several months in the 1850s, which the couple spent in Scotland, accompanied by the artist John Everett Millais. Ruskin was a huge fan of Millais’ work, and Millais was to paint him. Over the space of the play, we witness the couple’s dysfunctional relationship - what Ruskin refers to as Effie’s ‘moods’, in fact her unhappiness in the face of his sexual rejection of her - and the blossoming of an inevitable love triangle.
Murphy has closely studied the history of these events, including letters from all the principal players, and often bits of dialogue sound ‘written’ rather than ‘spoken’ – as if from a letter, they sound rather too considered to be spoken in life. Some scenes feel cut short and their intensity is broken by Dewey Dellay’s musical interludes.
There's also a distinct difference between the first and second half, the first set in Scotland, the second in London. It’s in the second that we get a feeling of an attempt to emulate Wilde (an impossible task), in particular through the interactions of Ruskin’s parents and other periphery characters.
On the whole, the performances have a little too much of the stiff-upper-lip about them and a wooden, unnatural air. That is except for Alison Pargeter, who is excellent as Effie, incredibly touching, dignified and passionate. Hers is a searing performance that holds your attention throughout.
However, the real problem with Ludovica Villar Hauser’s production, and Murphy’s play, is that we're offered a version of this world that we know; the men are chauvinistic, the women at their mercy. There’s simply nothing new or challenging for an audience to discover.
I saw this play yesterday and truly enjoyed it. I was captivated from beginning to end. Great acting throughout! - 84.9.16.24)
21 Jun 05
an awful play just about worth seeing for alison pargeter. never seen such a bad performance as jean boht's unless it is gerald harper's. how did this reach the west end? - 81.86.106.82)
15 Jun 05
i loved this play..and happened to also see it in california at the highly regarded south coast repetory theatre.
although it might not sit right with some englishmen and women (i suspect some territorialism here) i think that anyone interested in the art world, period pieces, fine acting and directing should run..not walk.. to this very fine production. hopefully word of mouth will prove the critics wrong, once again. - 217.205.242.57)
09 Jun 05
well the New York City critics didn't think it was dull. They lavished it with praise. I read the reviews on the internet and it doesn't resemble anything I saw.
Why ever would Ms. Villar drag the lighting and costume designer with her cross the pond and leave the actors on whom praise was heaped back in New York ?
Presumably the actors were Americans, why else not transfer them?
This is after all, the same production as appeared on Broadway excepting the cast.
I expect labour laws have something to do with it but one can only assume what elevated this corset drama to cult status was an exceptional cast of actors.
And if labour laws were preventing the transfer of cast, as often happens, why did the production employ foreign designers?
- 205.188.117.68)
08 Jun 05
u must have been watching a different show! saw this last week and don't no why it made it to the west end apart from a poor vehicle for Nick Moran. dull. badly done. the critics were right. - 62.53.14.223)
08 Jun 05
regardless of what the critics thought about the play, I loved everything about it, from the acting, directorship,costumes and even the venue where it was performed.A joy to see such a highly polished production, and it is a credit to Greg Murphy for meticulous efforts that he has put into writing this play, and Ludivica who has produced it both here and on Broadway. - 195.93.21.101)
An underground theatre which opened 21 Mar 1874. Excellent original tiled walls to stairs and public areas. 598 seats. Society of London Theatre member. An [ACT] member.
Whatsonstage.com - Discount London theatre tickets, theatre news and reviews, Theatre videos, Theatre discussion, National Theatre Listings. Covering London's West End, all of Theatreland and all UK theatre. The best
for London Theatre Ticket Discounts.