
It must be admitted that it was not till this point in the play - about ten minutes before the end - that I realised the women might not be Brits working their way across Europe but immigrants seeking safe haven in Alexandria. This is because How to Hold Your Breath is low on context from the first scene onwards. This problem is offset to some degree by Maxine Peake's superb performance as Dana. She's mesmeric; but her Dana is as 3D peachy pale as the average Royal Court audience, and has a designer haircut I admired all the way through, and does not look even vaguely East European, let alone Middle-Eastern or African, which is the usual type seeking first world kindness. Why is that? Would no swarthy or dark-skinned actor prostitute themselves to take the role, or is the choice ironic: the director favouring what we know, and lip service being enough?
Someone cleverer or better connected than me will unpack How to Hold Your Breath and explain it at some point, and it may be worth holding on for that before buying a ticket because the blurb on the Royal Court website, which is all I had, did not aid my understanding one jot. Zinnie Harris's play is described as a twisted exploration of how we live now in which the protagonists discover the true cost of principles. Is it personal or international principles, and what do we learn about our insularity and limited world view (and therefore empathy) that isn't ironically listed on the Twitter hashtag #firstworldproblems?
In conclusion: How to Hold Your Breath is intriguing and is beautifully staged by Vicky Featherstone and Peake is excellent, as are Michael Shaeffer and Peter Forbes. There are funny moments and the stage is used to full effect, but there is too much blind exploration and too little exposition. For this reviewer, it was too much hard work for too little reward.
References:
Royal Court, Tickets
Royal Court Theatre, Sloane Square, London SW3. Run ends 21 March
Erm, you might want to consider spoilers as an issue for people reading reviews before they see something.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to review this particular play without referring to the framework as that, for me, was what worked against it, but I have blurred some of the detail in response to your fair point. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteA generous review for what I thought was a very badly written play. It had some good ideas but these were repeated relentlessly and some just felt completely inappropriate in the same play. Great acting but a mess.
ReplyDelete