Downstate - National Theatre

[Rory]

[martin1965]

Eighteen months away ffs!

[Rory]

Seems odd because it ends at Steppenwolf this November. Can't fathom why there's such a delay in bringing it to London.

[Rory]

Steppenwolf site says Spring 2019 for London, not Autumn.

[Rory]

I see Dominic Cooke is no longer attached to this.

[catcat100]

Well I've had my head slapped about recently with Cyprus Avenue a couple of weeks ago and Medea last week. And then this comes along and gives it another bashing.

Now, a play about four sexual offenders living in the same house is never going to be an easy watch and it would have been very easy to not represent all the issues properly but this play does do it and does it well.

We see 4 separate characters, who have committed different type of crimes, who you feel various levels of detest and repulsion for. You also have a victim which you feel real empathy for.

As the play goes along these levels of hatred, revulsion, empathy, sympathy start rising and falling as each characters history and actions unfolds.

The play questions a number of different topics, punishment, repentance, compassion, mental health and you may get different answers for each of the characters.

The fact that you are thinking all these things is a testament to the acting from all which is top notch. Can't be easy portraying these characters.

Overall another excellent show from the Dorfman just don't expect an easy ride.

[Steve]

Saw this tonight, and loved it, with reservations. A fantastic ensemble give must-see performances in a play that humanises paedophiles (and one of their victims) a whisker further than most people will be comfortable with.

Some spoilers follow. . .

I mean, theatre is the place you'd expect to get a more challenging and nuanced view of paedophiles, and their victims, than in the print-their-names-and-hunt-them-down tabloid press, or in lurid Jimmy-Saville-the-monster documentaries, or as diabolical villains in terrifying tv dramas like "The Missing," but crikey, does Bruce Norris here stack the deck against the "paedophiles are evil" trope present in all such media.

And, at a time when genuine victims fear they will not be believed, he gives us a genuine victim whose wholesale veracity we nonetheless have reason to doubt.

I hate myself for thinking prescriptively and mathematically about drama, but I feel that there are elements subtracted from the entire spectrum of human experience, by Norris in this play, that weight this play toward excessive compassion for paedophiles.

The set-up is that 4 paedophiles, of varying degrees of offence, have served their time, but nonetheless must live in a group home for their own and for society's safety. Now, one paedophile gets a visit from one of his victims. . .

Now, mathematically, had I written this play, one of these guys would have fit the irredeemable predatory sociopathic Saville mould. But here, no, Morris' paedophiles all feel redeemable to greater or lesser degrees. And mathematically, I would have included at least one victim that unquestionably was right in everything they say and do. By contrast, Norris gives us only the one victim, Andy, compellingly and movingly portrayed by Tim Hopper, but Norris casts a cloud over him.

So, on the appallingly anti-art, mathematics-of-empathy scale, by leaving out the worst kind of paedophile, and by leaving out the most empathetic kind of victim, this play weights toward excessive compassion for paedophiles.

Maybe that's fine, as there's plenty of art and media (see above) that skews the other way, but I worry what, say, Michael Jackson's accusers would make of this bent.

In any event, Norris' writing is otherwise exceptionally sharp, his characters are, individually (excluding the "mathematics" of the piece as a whole) beautifully drawn, and this ensemble is the best in London at the moment, as there is no weak link.

K Todd Freeman (the hapless Mr Poe from "A Series of Unfortunate Events") is phenomenal in expressing nuanced emotional depth, and electric in his moment-to-moment interactions, as a Kevin Spacey style actor-abuser of at least one underage actor; Francis Guinan manages the impossible feat of making his soft-spoken, gentle old paedophile, Fred, who abused Andy, sympathetic and non-creepy; and Aimee Lou Wood (Aimee in Netflix's "Sex Education") is transformed by hair and costume and her own superb performance into a hilariously wired and verbose girl who befriends the least paedophilic paedophile; and Cecilia Noble (my favourite performer of last year as Aunt Maggie in "Nine Night") simultaneously injects compassion and steel into Ivy, the overseer of this house of paedophiles.

The rest of the ensemble are also terrific, and had the subject matter not tumbled into over-compassion, I would rate this higher than the 4 stars I do.

For me, for the challenging nature of the show, and for the performances, I wouldn't miss this, but if the problematic maths of the show I mentioned earlier particularly grates on you, skip this. :-o

[catcat100]

I thought Fred was the creepy, saville type character. His sympathy seemed very false to me.

[foxa]

Seeing this tonight. Intrigued.

[mallardo]

Seeing Downstate virtually back to back with Jesus Hopped the A Train has been an instructive and unsettling experience. Both plays challenge the easy categorization of good and evil, the dismissive reduction of complex human actions into simple rights and wrongs.

None of the four inmates of Downstate's heavily supervised communal house can match the ghastly CV of Lucius, the charismatic serial killer of Jesus Hopped the A Train. He is deeply violent and they are not. They are tarnished with a different and, in some ways, more egregious stain - they are paedophiles. They have preyed on children.

As Steve has noted in his eloquent and persuasive review above, Bruce Norris has somewhat stacked the deck here. None of the four could be seen as truly dangerous - although the criminal justice system maintains otherwise. Their victims were all known to them, either students or family members or young colleagues, objects of affection, shall we say. I don't mean to suggest that these are not serious crimes - they are and these men have paid the price by having their freedom confined for so long and to such an extent that their lives have been destroyed.

Is it fair for Norris to choose these relatively benign paedophiles for his characters? I think it is. His interest, it seems to me, is at least as much in the punishment as in the crimes. If these men were serious threats to society they would never have been placed in such a house in the first place. And we would have no play. The point is the branding of these men, situating them in one all-purpose category, Paedophiles, when in fact there are degrees of predatory behaviour - as there are in everything else - and these guys are by no means the worst. If Norris wanted to have a discussion of the subject this was the only way he could go.

The other issue of the piece as, again, Steve has noted above, is the treatment of the victim of one these offenders. It is an unsympathetic portrait, hinting at other motives. "All victims tell the truth", the man shouts at one point but, clearly, for Norris, that belief is open to question. Given what's going on in society right now it's a pretty brave take on the subject and Norris does not shy away from the consequences of it. This aspect of the play, I'm sure, will be the most controversial one.

In any case, it's a great play (IMO) and a brilliant production, brought over intact from Steppenwolf in Chicago with at least four members of the original cast. They and their English colleagues are all superb. This is powerful theatre, deeply provocative and disturbing theatre. And isn't that what we want?

[partytentdown]

Mar 19, 2019 10:12:15 GMT mallardo said:

brought over intact from Steppenwolf in Chicago with at least four members of the original cast. They and their English colleagues are all superb. This is powerful theatre, deeply provocative and disturbing theatre. And isn't that what we want?

Interestingly, I believe it's exactly the same cast. They cast it equally between US and American actors to reflect the co-production nature of the show, coincidentally this ended up meaning all the males are American and all the females are British. 

[foxa]

As is so often the case, I think the reviews on this thread are more nuanced, knowledgeable and insightful than what we'll probably read in the press.

Great to say 'hello' to the Mallardos who also had a rare sighting of Mr Foxa. Mr Foxa was feeling a bit low, so obviously it was a genius idea to drag him to a play about pedophiles in a halfway house.

First off, the seats - though they were sold as 'restricted view' and were only £22, but L1 and L2 over to the side in the Pit were perfect seats. Slightly higher than stage level, a perfectly clear view - we were practically on stage.

All the performances were great, particularly Francis Guinan and K. Todd Freeman as the two older characters. Although his performance was fine, I worried about Tim Hopper's role as the victim. Having just watched 'Leaving Neverland' the week before, it seems clear the harm that can happen even to someone who is a protege. But this characterisation seemed to skirt that. I enjoyed the luxury of a large cast, including a

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler - click to view}
dog! Wearing little booties!

.

Otherwise, what Steve and Mallardo said above!

[Deleted]

I have never experienced such joy when clicking on a spoiler warning in my LIFE.

[londonpostie]

I'm on the booking site and holding a ticket for row A - the very front row - and it's cheaper so I assume there might be issues .. anyone sat in row A at the Dorfman? 28 minutes to decide ..

[londonpostie]

Thank you for that. I have booked it now - literally front and centre!

[lonlad]

Was there tonight - simply tremendous. The acting across the board is exquisite but Guinan and Freeman really are award-worthy -- not that the bloomin' Oliviers will have remembered them this time
next year!

[partytentdown]

I sat in Row A for this and the view was great. Ticket said restricted view but no idea why. Stage was pretty much eye level and everything happens in view. So close I could smell the new carpet smell!

[samuelwhiskers]

Exceptional. Not flashy or gimmicky but immaculately written and performed.

[partytentdown]

SPOILER: Click to show

And that dog

[partytentdown]

Mar 21, 2019 12:10:02 GMT @theatremonkey said:

Thanks for that partytentdown. Others had used tags before, and it would have been nice not to know. Put in tags now.

Please think of others, people, as many of us don't want anything given away before we see something. Thanks.

Oh I'm really sorry, genuine mistake. Apologies...

[bramble]

A Really good powerful play superb ensemble acting.Great

[Deleted]

Considering I was seriously thinking about returning my ticket once I thought I ought to have a look at what I'd booked and realised I'd got a Bruce Norris (ick) play about paedophiles (ick ick ick), I think they should be putting (spoiler) on the posters rather than us putting it behind spoiler tags!

[lonlad]

It's a superb play, superbly done. Societal vigilantes won't like it but their dislike simply plays into Norris's point.

[tmesis]

This is an excellent play with some exemplary performances. The only slight reservation was with Andy, who didn't quite ring true, particularly the opening scene where he is with his mother. With his second confrontation the drama is so tense that you don't really notice the shortcomings. It's to Norris's credit that the four sex offenders are so well drawn individually, with very different characters and degrees of abuse.

[showgirl]

I saw the matinee yesterday, having booked an excellent seat (side stalls, Pit Level, nearest to the stage and contrary to the warning, not in the least restricted) at short notice. Which was lucky as I'd given up my membership and this was the only production from the last booking season that interested me.

It's interesting and as entertaining as any play on this subject can be (similar reservations to the recent Sweat at the Donmar Warehouse in that respect), with some dark humour, but good as it is, I don't think it's anything like the masterpiece the reviews suggest and it has its flaws. And maybe I'm too thick-skinned (though I have spent my entire working/volunteering life dealing with the public in situations where they're not always at their best), but I didn't find the content any more shocking or offensive than most news items about paedophiles - so no surprises here unless you have always avoided the issue.

The characterisation is rather schematic but that concerned me less than the fact that I didn't find the development of the scenes between Andy and Fred plausible, especially towards the end. Nevertheless, definitely worth seeing, thought-provoking and probably necessary in tackling this thorny issue.