Reasons to be Happy - Neil Labute, Hampstead Theatre

[partytentdown]

Just announced. A companion piece to 'Reasons to be Pretty'. From March 17th.

[Phantom of London]

I wonder if it help to see Reasons to be Pretty first? Which I haven't.

[Deleted]

Yuck, LaBute. I shall skip this one, thanks.

[vickster51]

LaBute is a bit hit and miss for me but I enjoyed Reasons To Be Pretty at the Almeida so I'll give this a go.

[Snciole]

I am bit disappointed by Hampstead announcements so far. I am far looking forward to their festival rather than any plays!

[mallardo]

It was about four years ago that the new kinder, gentler Neil LaBute was introduced to us via the funny, angst ridden four hander, Reasons To Be Pretty, at the Almeida. Now we have the sequel, Reasons To Be Happy, and, coincidentally, the characters have moved on about four years in their lives.  And it's (as they say) deja vu all over again.

Quite deliberately this play is a mirror image of its predecessor; the structure is the same - it opens exactly the same way with an argument in a parking lot - the sets (Soutra Gilmour) are the same, the director (Michael Attenborough) is the same, and, fortunately, the leading man (Tom Burke) is the same. Burke is a wonderful actor and he fits the part of Greg, the upwardly mobile member of this little blue collar crowd, to perfection. In this instance, more so than in the first instalment, he basically carries the show. For there's no denying the sense of sequel-itis here. Things have moved on in somewhat predictable ways, it's less fresh, there are fewer surprises. Which is not to say it doesn't work - it does.

LaBute writes great extended scenes; he has the finest ear around for how Americans actually talk and his Mamet-ish dialogue with its stops and starts and overlaps and hesitations is as real as it gets. It does, however, make requirements of the actors that are not entirely met here. Burke is superb and Lauren O'Neil, who plays Steph, the girl who dumped him and now is having a rethink, is almost as good, possibly because most of her scenes are with Burke. The other two are not on that level and it's a bit of a problem. On the other hand this was a preview and they're still working their ways into the LaBute idiom.

Is it important to have seen (and remembered) the first play in order to fully "get" this one? I would say it helps but it's not necessary - this one stands alone. And, actually (according to the programme) there's going to be another one - it's a trilogy. The finale will be called Reasons To Be Pretty Happy - look for it in about four years.

[Steve]

Saw yesterday's matinee, and agree with everything Mallardo said. I do think that the performances of all four are now excellent.

Neil LaBute has a thing with trilogies, doesn't he? I had thought "Reasons to Be Pretty" was the conclusion of his body-image trilogy, which featured "The Shape of Things" and "Fat Pig." Now it turns out to have been simultaneously the first of another trilogy, each featuring the same 4 characters, as well as an amelioration of LaBute's hard-edged cruelty.

I have fallen in love with Tom Burke's Greg, the Hamlet of relationships, his endless procrastination and laconic speech patterns even more endearing in this episode than in the first. Of course, he's infuriating to the other characters, and that's funny.

For me, episode 3 MUST feature Tom Burke as Greg (he OWNS this role), and be directed by Michael Attenborough, so that his continuity can be kept to the resolution. That's the downside of having seen the first two plays, that although they are designed to stand alone, if you've seen the first two, you're really NOT going to want to see another actor take over the role.

Burke is remarkable, when you consider his versatility. As Dolokhov in "War and Peace," he was the opposite of Greg in every way: determined, callous, decisive and urgent; and yet in both that and this, I buy him 100 percent!

As Mallardo implied, despite the advance of four years in the characters' lives, and increased maturity of all of them, one thematic undercurrent suggests that "plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose." This builds anticipation for the conclusion of the trilogy, as the ultimate theme and resonance of all three plays will be defined by Episode 3, where we will discover if Greg will triumph over his indecision or if it will bring him down, whether Steph can rein in her impulsiveness, whether Kent will evolve from his brutishness. . .

Carly is the one character I don't get (yet). In "Reasons to be Pretty," she was an interfering busybody, critiquing motes in the lives of others, while ignoring the beams in her own. In "Reasons to be Happy," she seems serene and philosophical, like she had a personality transplant. While I put that down to her having a child, dramatically, her character seems more like a mechanism for exploring the issues of the other characters, rather than someone on a recognisable journey of her own. I liked Billie Piper's Carly in Episode 1, and I liked Robyn Addison's utterly different Carly in Episode 2, and I just hope that Episode 3 can get to grips with what is essential about this character.

I loved this, and can't wait for the finale.

4 stars.

[Phantom of London]

Wouldn't Hampstead of been better off doing Reasons to be Pretty first, then move on to be reasons to be Happy?

[Latecomer]

Really enjoyed this today with rather elderly matinee audience around me "Oh, the playwright is American then?" , "What's happening now?" " The box is rather good isn't it" etc etc. I felt like I had secret extra knowledge, having seen the first part at the Alemida all those years ago! It was quite surreal as the box set was EXACTLY the same and the scenes were even in the same places so it was a tad freaky as it was now in another theatre and I didn't remember the set in detail until I saw it! Loved the way the characters had changed and that the dilemmas were all turned on their heads a bit...and yes, quite Chekhov in places...useless indecisive men, letting down sassy women all over the place! Looking forard to part 3. Wouldn't it be great if the women decided to rule the world and not just hang around waiting for the men to love them?
Oh and a play that had one interval and had finished and thrown us all out onto the street 2 hours 15mins later! Hurrah! (Yes Old Vic, I'm looking at you!)

[mallardo]

Mar 30, 2016 19:14:57 GMT Latecomer said:

Really enjoyed this today with rather elderly matinee audience around me "Oh, the playwright is American then?" , "What's happening now?" " The box is rather good isn't it" etc etc. I felt like I had secret extra knowledge, having seen the first part at the Alemida all those years ago! It was quite surreal as the box set was EXACTLY the same and the scenes were even in the same places so it was a tad freaky as it was now in another theatre and I didn't remember the set in detail until I saw it! Loved the way the characters had changed and that the dilemmas were all turned on their heads a bit...and yes, quite Chekhov in places...useless indecisive men, letting down sassy women all over the place! Looking forard to part 3. Wouldn't it be great if the women decided to rule the world and not just hang around waiting for the men to love them?
Oh and a play that had one interval and had finished and thrown us all out onto the street 2 hours 15mins later! Hurrah! (Yes Old Vic, I'm looking at you!)

Speaking as a useless, indecisive man, I think you're being a bit harsh on us, Latecomer.  As this play demonstrates, we do get it together eventually. 

[foxa]

There were a few good moments in this, but not for one minute do I think this would have been staged at Hampstead if it hadn't been written by LaBute or someone of his pedigree. I found much of this maddening - the whole meeting in the kitchen area of a workplace where only one of the characters worked - what was that about? One guy had to keep excusing his presence ('I know I don't work here anymore, but, uh, I'm delivering some cups' and then the really laboured 'I wanted to meet you here to symbolise how far I've come.') I groaned (inwardly, I don't want to make it onto the Bad Behaviour topic) every time that darned set was wheeled out.

2.5*