What Shadows - Chris Hannan

[joem]

This is apparently on at the Birmingham Rep. Has anyone been to see it?

[Deleted]

Joem has apparently created a thread. Has anyone bothered to reply to it?

[Deleted]

Honoured Guest has apparently written a witty reply. Has anyone even done a pity-laugh at it?

[joem]

Interesting idea to check on how Enoch Powell's pronouncements in the sixties relate to the modern debate on immigration. In the end, though, there is something missing in this play.

The idea of introducing a modern dimension where two academics of different races have had previous due to different interpretations the "Rivers of Blood" speech but now look for ways in which they can work together is introduced for dramatic tension, to create another story arc. But you're left a bit frustrated by these fictional characters. Enough happened in real life without having to graft them into the story.

Admittedly Hannan isn't writing a straightforward biplay. He is trying to establish (did anyone say Brexit?) if it is possible to have dialogue between radically opposing views. So it is certainly an ambitious play, probably worth toruing in my view.

[joem]

Given the overwhelming response last time I know there will be cheering and dancing in all thesp households in the capital when they learn that this is being done at the Park Theatre for a month from late September.

[Deleted]

I saw the play last year, Ian McDiarmid was superb as Powell. A couple of the original cast are reappearing too. A couple of characters could have been described as racial stereotypes but that is a minor gripe. Certainly worth seeing for Ian doing the famous speech alone.

[showgirl]

Indeed. I booked for the Park Theatre run as soon as tix went on public sale and am looking forward to this. Due to devious previous behaviour on the pricing front, I no longer book ahead for either space in that venue except in cases such as this where the production has a good track record.

[peelee]

Having missed a couple of plays at the Park Theatre in the past because I left it too late to book what I wanted — one in particular that I'd like to have seen was about Charles de Gaulle and, I think, Marshal Petain of Vichy Government notoriety, and I was just as intrigued by Madame Rubinstein — I got my booking in for this months ago while it slumbered unnoticed under 'What's On'.

[peelee]

This is a fascinating play, holding the attention from its opening scene between two women: an academic retired prematurely and against her will from the profession, and a younger academic who led protests against her questioning of shibboleths about 'race' and identity. They are invented characters, designed to justify the book that one wants them jointly to research and write on the controversies with which this play is concerned: 'identity' and the historical role of Enoch Powell and his attention-grabbing speech of 1968 that led to his sacking from the cabinet by Tory prime minister Edward Heath.

Thus do Joanne Pearce and Amelia Donkor whet the appetite for an unfolding story that moves back and forth between different points in years 1992 and 1968. Waled Akthar and Ameet Chana play several types of Pakistani immigrant and established characters between them, making serious points in the process while also providing some ironic, comic relief to indicate their changed circumstances over the years. All the aforementioned play several roles, as does Paula Wilcox, and play them well, leaving two actors to play a role each: Iain McDiarmid as Enoch Powell, and Nicholas Le Prevost as liberal Clem Jones his local acquaintance and newspaper editor friend.

So the cast comprises several actors whose qualities are long established and can be depended upon, and whatever the character they play they prove a delight to watch and listen to. Outstanding among them is Iain McDiarmid. Between all in the cast is presented a story that, while about way-back-then, proves so contemporary. The play structure is fairly conventional, and sound and stage design are quietly effective, while it is what characters say and do that grips the audience. I'd booked tickets some time ago once I saw that Iain McDiarmid was to play the brilliant, provocative, controversial, poetry-loving classicist Powell, and that trust proved justified. He is shown both at his strongest and when ailing physically — and we are reminded by the playwright that Powell had various unexpected views on issues other than that for which he is most remembered — McDiarmid revealing the whimsical and magnetic through to the waspish and marginalised Powell. A complex character to present, a type that some would have been tempted to pass off as a pantomime-villain, yet the performance is a tour de force by McDiarmid.

The play presents arguments and the dialogue certainly does crackle. It is going to be up to whoever is in the audience at any given performance to think about what they have seen and heard, when making up the minds which will be turning over with all sorts of thoughts about the play on their way home. Well done to everyone concerned in writing, acting, designing and producing this play.

[lynette]

Thanks peelee. I thought this would be a good 'un. I was in Birmingham in '68. A babe in arms of course. Enoch Powell went to my old school, the boys' part, 'other side of the drive. I'm looking forward to this.

[showgirl]

Oh hell, mine will probably be the only dissenting voice again; am still trying to formulate my minority verdict.

[lynette]

Sept 30, 2017 13:55:44 GMT showgirl said:

Oh hell, mine will probably be the only dissenting voice again; am still trying to formulate my minority verdict.

O go on, minority away! I'm seeing it next week. We can have a proper ding dong then though I might not end up liking it of course. 😉

[wiggymess]

Slightly odd question for those who have seen:

Is there much swearing?

I'd like to take my Dad along to this, but he's fairly old school in that regard and I know it'll ruin it for him if there Is a lot of strong language.

Ta

[showgirl]

Well, the first scene was excruciating and it's hard to believe it survived even to the final version, let alone for the whole of the original run. Unless it was an attempt to make everything which followed look better (unlikely), it seemed a textbook example of how not to do exposition: very crude, with the two characters concerned given such cliched, improbable and would-be portentous lines that I don't know how they delivered them with a straight face. Also quite unnecessary and dispensing with it would improved the play.

Then there were the bizarre tonal variations, from scenes of purple prose to others of group conversations but of the type when no-one is really listening/responding to anyone else but simply making pronouncements; choppy time shifts; cartoon-like minor characters and - I won't go on, other than to say that Iain McDiarmid was excellent, regardless of my views on the play itself, and that it was a shame to see Nicholas Le Prevost wasted.

The issues the play raises are scarily topical so imo it's a shame that it wastes the opportunity to do so more effectively.

[peelee]

I don't recall swearing, wiggymess. There were some muttered phrases that could have been swearing but their having been in Urdu or in Latin or Greek meant they'd have passed over our heads. The characters in the play aren't the sweary types. The language used is lively enough and measured. Now I think of it, one of the pleasures of the play was there wasn't a totally, absolutely, massively massively huge, completely and utterly outrageous, empty phrase to be heard from curtain up to closing remarks. The play moving back and forth between 1992 and 1968, and with characters wanting to say something that mattered to them, nothing was put in the way of understanding.

[dani]

I was under the impression this had officially opened, but I can't see any reviews of it, except dating back to 2016 when it was in Birmingham.

[theatrelover123]

Official press night was only last night so I imagine they will start trickling through

[showgirl]

The first one I've seen was on London Theatre 1, whose reviewer seemed to have a few criticisms but still gave it 4 stars.

[Snciole]

I also reviewed it and my criticisms were slightly harsher but it is still worth it for McDiarmid's scenes, an actor who not only gets Powell but gets why he did what he did. The issue I have was mostly production rather than script or acting, though it was running far longer than 2hrs 15 when I saw it viewfromthecheapseat.com/2017/10/04/what-shadows-park-theatre/

[dani]

Oct 5, 2017 9:40:34 GMT Snciole said:

I also reviewed it and my criticisms were slightly harsher but it is still worth it for McDiarmid's scenes, an actor who not only gets Powell but gets why he did what he did. The issue I have was mostly production rather than script or acting, though it was running far longer than 2hrs 15 when I saw it viewfromthecheapseat.com/2017/10/04/what-shadows-park-theatre/

This is a very interesting review. Thanks for sharing it. I think it's Chris Hannan, rather than Chris Hannah, and you've also got "Nicholas Let Provost".


I also didn't follow exactly what you meant by "Boris’s basic bitch articles are nothing compared to planning Powell made to make ‘Rivers of Blood’s the huge deal it became", but perhaps I'm just being stupid.

[Snciole]

Oct 5, 2017 9:48:09 GMT dani said:

Oct 5, 2017 9:40:34 GMT Snciole said:

I also reviewed it and my criticisms were slightly harsher but it is still worth it for McDiarmid's scenes, an actor who not only gets Powell but gets why he did what he did. The issue I have was mostly production rather than script or acting, though it was running far longer than 2hrs 15 when I saw it viewfromthecheapseat.com/2017/10/04/what-shadows-park-theatre/

This is a very interesting review. Thanks for sharing it. I think it's Chris Hannan, rather than Chris Hannah, and you've also got "Nicholas Let Provost".


I also didn't follow exactly what you meant by "Boris’s basic bitch articles are nothing compared to planning Powell made to make ‘Rivers of Blood’s the huge deal it became", but perhaps I'm just being stupid.

This is what happens when you write reviews on One Note after two glasses of wine and don't have an editor. Thanks

Have you not been following Boris's THIRSTY attempts to become the leader of a party that hates him even more than they hate May. It is mostly embarrassing rather than informative.  He someone managed to get one issue of The Telegraph dedicated to how amazing he is, not only by writing his own 'How I'd Brexit' article but also a load of columnists singing his praises. When that didn't work he did the same thing in The Sun a week later. The difference between Johnson and Powell is that Johnson was a journalist, perhaps a better journalist than he is an MP so he knows how it works and believes he can use it to his advantage.

Of course, people are more media savvy now. It is entirely believable Powell had no clue how the media worked and hence why the speech went down badly as well as it went down well. The masses loved that someone senior was saying what they were thinking but his own peers (who hated him anyway) knew it was provocative rather than helpful. Nobody would even get to the selection stage with that level of naivety today.

[showgirl]

A 3-star review from Carole Woddis:

woddisreviews.org.uk/reviews/what-shadows/

[joem]

What the Tory party hates is the possibility that a Boris blunder might stop it from retaining power.

Having said that I don't see the Powell/Johnson comparison as holding water, there is far more in common between Johnson and Corbyn.

[showgirl]

Another blog review, from Partially Obstructed View, who doesn't give star ratings:

partially-obstructed-view.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/theatre-review-what-shadows

[Snciole]

Oct 5, 2017 22:01:16 GMT joem said:

What the Tory party hates is the possibility that a Boris blunder might stop it from retaining power.

Having said that I don't see the Powell/Johnson comparison as holding water, there is far more in common between Johnson and Corbyn.

It is interesting but I am not sure I agree, just because Johnson never kept his head down and *quietly* disagreed and there just isn't the cult of personality that follows Corbyn amongst even Johnson's biggest fans.

Powell clearly was at odds with his own party, even if he wasn't as thirsty for leadership as Johnson clearly is, then he wanted to do something to elevate himself with not only his constituency but the British white working class? Why if he didn't want some sort of promotion.