Synopsis Rosa and Eric Sabato are exiles. They were imprisoned, tortured and finally expelled from Chile by the Pinochet regime in 1974. She's a war correspondent and he's an analyst. Twenty years later in Paris, Rosa's novel, Present Shadow, has just been published. It's the first time she's drawn from the experience of the coup, when their son was taken away from them. Twenty years later, they still can't find him. Downstairs
Blood is billed as a tale of two political exiles from Chile who, in the confusion of escape, lose their son and spend the ensuing years trying to find him. In fact, it's writer Lars Noren’s attempt at updating the Oedipus story, but he does so in such a literal and heavy-handed manner that it becomes extremely hard to take seriously.
The idea that the Royal Court limits itself to violent and gratuitous pieces of writing with the intention of shocking audiences is unfounded, but Blood conforms to that cliché. We watch journalist Rosa and psychiatrist Eric try to “pull themselves out of the grave” and continue with life. As the predictable Oedipal plot unfolds, it's punctuated with sexual and violent episodes.
It seems Rosa has a ‘fetish’ and begs her husband, not for sex as we first suspect, but ritual humiliation and beating akin to that she received at the hands of her captors in Chile. This opens up possibilities for an interesting exploration of the nature of relationships and her reasons: is it because she wants to punish herself for losing her child? Does she enjoy it? None of this addressed, and once the scene is over, it's never referred to again. In a similar way, the possibility that Eric’s male lover may be HIV positive is thrown up, but once again quickly dismissed.
It seems Noren was so captivated with the idea of updating Oedipus, he followed his plan rigidly and, unfortunately, failed to take advantage of the opportunities the play offered along the way. The result is a predictable, unconvincing piece of writing. This, teamed with sluggish scene changes and too many props, makes the piece feel overlong.
So the actors are fighting a losing battle. Nevertheless, under director James Macdonald’s steady hand, they deliver some interesting performances. Francesca Annis has a quiet, calm dignity throughout the proceedings, never rising to the piece’s melodramatic potential. Nicholas Le Prevost struggles valiantly but is woefully miscast and unpersuasive, particularly in the sexual scenes with his lover Luca.
And as Luca, Tom Hardy has the toughest job, finding motive and truth in his character’s sketchy journey. He hits the spot at the most unexpected moments making imaginative and exciting choices, but ultimately it’s a patchy performance because the material lets him down.
If only this wonderful cast and director had put their talents into a wonderful rather than mediocre play.
Rather peculiar, and not the best thing that I've seen at the Royal Court, but it wasn't as dire as some of the reviewers made out. 'Very Scandinavian' was how one friend described it, and I can see what they mean. Good performances from the cast... at least, they made the most of the material. It's a shame, though, that the highlight was seeing Tom Hardy with his kit off. My God, that lad is fit. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.130.127.205)
14 Oct 03
As a fan of Francesca Annis went to see this yesterday. All I will say is this is a very strange play, not as bad as I had anticipated though. However was very disappointed after seeing her in The Vortex earlier in the year- the woman is better than this.
However that said I think the acting was a lot better than the actual script, at times is was so embaressing very strong language and graphic sex scenes. Not one of the best plays I have seen. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.34.180.65)
05 Oct 03
I agree completely with your review. I cannot see why anyone could have thought that this play was worth doing. It is dire and, had there been an interval, I would have left at it. This is not the kind of play that one expects to see at the Royal Court. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.93.34.13)
26 Sep 03
James Macdonald the Director has done a middling job putting this very peculiar play together, but in the end it is missing something fundamental in the writing. I feel the writer was more interested in making his middle class audience gasp at sexual torture, become indignant at homosexual love affairs or simply wretch at the idea of sex (actually a clearly shown image) between mother and son, not to mention father and son.
- USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.35.62.168)
The first theatre opened as The New Chelsea on 16 Apr 1870. Changed name to Belgravia. Re-opened as Royal Court 25 Jan 1871. Demolished in 1887. New theatre opened (current, slightly different site) 24 Sep 1888. Famous for supporting and commissioning new writing. Probably the first UK Theatre to regularly include their URL in advertising. Member of the Society of London Theatre. In 1996 the theatre closed for redevelopment, funded by the National Lottery. The refurbished theatre at Sloane Square re-opened in February 2000 including two theatres the 389 seat Jerwood Theatre Downstairs and the studio style Jerwood Theatre Upstairs.
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.