Synopsis A satirical farce set in a modern day courtroom exploring subjects ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, sexual fidelity, and world peace.
In 1997 a little musical arrived in London from Broadway called Romance Romance, and it quickly inherited the name that gossips there had dubbed it, "No chance no chance" (and promply lived up to it, folding just seven weeks later). David Mamet's new play, simply entitled Romance and now at the Almeida after its New York off-Broadway premiere in February this year, could in turn be accused of having no substance.
This paper-thin courtroom farce has neither an anchor in reality nor a respite in humour. Hot on the heels of visiting the scene of an American military courtmartial in Aaron Sorkin's A Few Good Men, Mamet's play now takes us to a far more implausibly constituted New York courtroom, where a Jewish chiropractor (Nigel Lindsay) is on trial. We never discover why: there's something to do with his having been in Hawaii on 10 November the previous year, and a drawing in his diary of a rabbit is put forward in evidence, but we never find out what for.
Mamet has always been fond of breaking rules in his plays, and now breaks another: that farce should follow some kind of inherent logic, with a sense of order that's rigorously established and then anarchically broken down. Here, without the facts, we have nothing to go on. So what precisely is at stake?
In fact, quite a lot, it seems. Mamet uses the warring factions of the courtroom as a microcosm of the difficulties of the Middle East peace process, a conference for which is simultaneously taking place in New York while the case unfolds. As Bernard, the gay lover of the prosecuting lawyer who has a whole lot of grievances of his own to unload onto his partner, shouts when he storms in to the court, "How can you have peace in the Middle East when you can't have peace in your home?"
But if the formula for peace in the bedroom, courtroom or the Middle East eludes them - despite a novel idea from the chiropractor - the play ultimately lacks enough of a dramatic or comic spine to engage us. Instead, Lindsay Posner's frenetic production plays it loud and fast in the hope that it'll all pass by so quickly and noisily that we won't notice the absence.
Posner's expert cast rise to the challenge above and beyond the call of duty, lobbying Mamet's trademark verbal volleys at each other with enough energy (and volume) to drown out the absence of laughter. Frasier's John Mahoney - previously seen on the London stage in a short run of Steppenwolf Theatre's production of The Man Who Came to Dinner - mugs to good effect as the befuddled, pill-popping judge, with Colin Stinton and Nicholas Woodeson as the opposing lawyers and Paul Ready as the prosecutor's boyfriend valiant in the face of the adversity of the play itself.
Two stars awarded for actors making the best of what they had to work with. Unfortunately, they did not have a great deal of scope. This is a play of bon mots, it goes nowhere and has little substance. As a lesson in comic acting it is excellent but as drama, I think not. Disappointing and, by the end of the evening, rather irritating. - 217.36.28.3)
20 Oct 05
Good performances all round, but truly an empty play. Comedy is more than shouting insults. Cliches are only exposed if one doesn't pander to them too directly. All the good qualities of this are due to the actors and the production. It's not even real farce, or even drama to be honest just a great deal of shouting. - 62.255.32.15)
08 Oct 05
Shortly after the curtain went up at the Almeida I fell asleep and woke up 1 hour 40 minutes later to hear the applause. Well, that's what it seems like, as this can surely only have been a dream - so absurd is Mamet's farce. You can't fault the performances, the design or the direction; but what on earth is this all about? - 81.157.178.43)
27 Sep 05
At first I was a bit irritated by this; in the first half it came across as some odds and ends plucked from Mamet's files of unused material and loosely woven around a courtroom setting. It came together in the 2nd half though, and ended up making some sense for me, plus the better lines and comic moments seemed weighted towards the end too. Performances are all good and overall it's enjoyable, but I'd have been annoyed if I'd paid more than the £6 for my ticket, and I'm convinced that were it for not for this being a Mamet play, it would never have found a home. - 194.80.238.40)
26 Sep 05
Unlike all the other reviewers I've read, I absolutely loved this. I found it crazy, manic, endearing, outrageously un-PC, with a serious undertow, and laugh-out-loud funny. True, ultimately I couldn't tell you what the point of it was, but I had so much fun I really didn't care. The audience last night were screaming the place down (in a good way). Lindsay Posner's production sparkles and the cast couldn't be bettered. John Mahoney's eccentric pill-popping Judge is a joyous masterclass in comc acting,and the supporting performances of Nigel Lindsay as the Jewish defendant, Colin Stinton as his anti-Semitic lawyer, Nicholas Woodeson as the gay prosecutor and Paul Ready as his (literally) screaming partner all have moments of utter bliss yet remain crucially rooted in a skewed form of reality. Short, sharp, shocking, hilarious....I though this was a real treat. - 195.82.123.181)
17 Sep 05
The performances are energetic, but it's all vicious cross-talk that's more plotless meandering than thoughtful theatre - the vehement exchanges are mostly blasphemous, shallow and vulgar - Mamet's catharsis - insulting everyone, including the expectant audience who laugh to overcome their embarrassment. Mahoney enjoys himself with a repetitive running gag about his pills that soon runs out of steam. Sad, bottom-drawer bits and pieces left over from major works. - 86.136.83.22)
15 Sep 05
Two stars for the performances and one scene (the second) but otherwise this is just an irritating mess with no plausible plot and no basis in reality at all. I saw this as part of the Whatsonstage outing and had looked forward to possibly meeting John Mahoney afterwards. However, I had to leave immediately because I couldn't face having to pretend I'd liked the show - even though his performance was very good. Impossible to believe that this is from the same writer as Oleanna, Glengarry . . , etc. - 62.6.139.13)
14 Sep 05
England had just taken the Ashes and so spirits were high as I entered this preview. I had good reason to be excited - a European premiere by the Pulitzer Prize-winning Mamet, surely one of the greats of 20th century theatre, played in one of London's classiest theatres by a reputable international cast. A fine way to end a terrific day, one would think.
Sadly, Romance was a major disappointment. The fault however lay not in the acting nor in the slick production values of the Almeida but in the muddled, unfunny script. It was difficult to believe that David Mamet - whose Glengarry Glen Ross attained a Miller-like level of dramatic truth - could have written this sorry, sketch-like bundle of ideas wrapped up and presented as a play.
In the first scene, a judge presides over a case between a district attorney and a defendant and his attorney. There is a 'peace conference' going on outside. The details of the case, the characters and the conference are left abstract whilst the senile judge continually disrupts the hearing with non-sequiturs and calls for his 'pills' - so far so sitcom. The 'strong language and themes' warned about on the stage door emerge in the second scene where, during recess, the Jewish defendant and his
Christian attorney insult each others' race in a variety of graphic bon-mots. The playwright's skill at one-liners is displayed here in all its witty glory ("Episcopalian? What's that, a Catholic with a Volvo?") but the play’s central conceit remains elusive. The third scene presents an argument between the district attorney and his boyfriend, a simpering gay stereotype who makes Will and Grace look progressive. Is it about the Middle East? Is it about American religious values? Is it about the old-fashioned corruptibility of the American judicial system? By the time the interval comes we’re still no closer to an answer.
The second half – and I won’t bother to précis it for consideration of those who are intending to sit through this – provides an answer: it’s about all of these things and consequently about none of them. Mamet just throws all his themes into the pot without worrying about clarifying or presenting coherent arguments for any of them. You’re left with an intentional nudge-nudge wink-wink at the politicos in the audience who, thinking they’re privy to knowledge that others are not, will consider themselves ‘in on the joke’. But there’s no discernible commentary or elucidation here, just a few pithy one-liners and some dropped references to the Middle East and the Catholic Church. Amidst the frantic mugging of the cast and the innumerate arbitrary plot-twists - it’s difficult to believe this is from the same dramatist who pieced together the intricate thrillers The Spanish Prisoner and House of Games - can be identified the sorry sight of a once-great master on auto-pilot. It’s difficult to imagine he rewrote any of this at any point. I wonder if he even read it through.
Political theatre is having a revival on the London stage thanks in part to the dedication of the National Theatre, the Tricycle Theatre and the Royal Court. All of these show it can be done simply, strikingly and with great power. Pseudo-intellectual lazy shows like Romance throw their efforts into sharp relief.
- 212.117.228.131)
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.
