|
|
|
PETER BROWN Return to previous page Peter Brown's Review Index
Honour
16 Feb 2006 I get more confused trying to differentiate between Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg than any other people, or things for that matter. I blame the TV programme 'The Avengers', and the fact that both actors had a penchant in that series for wearing leather and duffing-up villains. So, my nightmare (well, one of them) is a play with the title 'Honour' starring Diana Rigg cast as a character called Honor. For me, it's the perfect recipe for unmitigated confusion. Nevertheless, I will attempt to retain my sanity in what follows, bearing in mind that Honor Blackman has nothing whatsoever to do with 'Honour'. When I entered the auditorium for this play, I was also confused by Liz Ascroft's set. With ranks of straight-back chairs set-out on steps surrounding the rear of the stage, I expected there to be a cast of thousands, or at least some dreaded audience participation. Not so. The chairs remained unoccupied for the duration of the show, their dumb existence as incomprehensible at the end as at the beginning. Supposedly a room in a Hampstead home, the set also has 2 enormous bookcases which would almost be too big for the Bodleian Library. George (played by Martin Jarvis) and Honor (Diana Rigg) have been married for 32 years and live in a comfortable, middle-class home in Hampstead (well-known as a residence for the intelligentsia: writers, artists, actors, intellectuals etc). George is a famous journalist who, as the curtain goes up, is being interviewed by a smart, bright, vivacious young woman, Claudia, who is researching a book on 'Movers and Shakers'. However, Honor is also a writer in her own right, but put her work on the back burner in order to give priority to George's career. Of course, it's telegraphed from the start where this drama is heading. And sure enough, George falls for Claudia and decides to leave Honor. For me, the plot hit rather too close to home for comfort since a divorce in my own family ran along similar lines - a male 50-something relative leaving his wife of 30-odd years for a much younger woman. So, I have considerable sympathy with Honor's position, though can't understand her reaction, which is unreasonably reasonable. Diana Rigg has all the best lines in 'Honour'. For example, after George has left her, he tells her he's not ready to die yet - 'What a shame', says Rigg. But that's about the intensity of the response from her as she faces the reality of losing her partner. Unbelievably devoid of any (totally justifiable) anger, even her daughter can't understand it, and is much quicker to call her father a 'fucking bastard' and to show signs of genuine emotion and hurt. 'What do you want me to do?' says Rigg to her daughter, Sophie, 'Cut up his trousers?' Well, frankly, yes! As the play proceeds, the various parties all meet each other in duologues, again all conducted with the utmost reasonableness with never a suggestion or merest hint of loss of composure. I'm not sure if the message of the play is that this is how women ought to react in order to preserve their 'honour', or if it's something quite different. Either way, one doesn't have to ram home the idea by giving the principal character the same name as the play, which to my mind seems rather trite, if not corny. Martin Jarvis seemed comfortable as the affable George prior to his departure from his wife, but afterwards appeared more challenged and ill at ease in the role. On the other hand, Diana Rigg's Honor was a model of dignified reserve, which is acceptable since there's nothing much else for her in the script. But I would have expected more in the way of unspoken reaction which was never really evident. As the career-obsessed seductress Claudia, Natascha McElhone produced a convincing performance, which just fell short of the totally hardboiled obsessiveness she needed to convey - there was a hint of girlishness about her which just took the edge off the portrayal. More on key was Georgina Rich as daughter, Sophie, whose dented self-image leads her to admire the person who has caused havoc in her family. It's a function of our throw-away, consumer society that we feel we can change partners just as frequently as changing our kettle, acquiring the latest DVD player, or the newly released model of an MPV. And in that sense, the play's subject matter is meaningful and important. If Ms Murray-Smith's intention was to show that a woman can survive separation with dignity, then the play can be considered something of a success. But it achieves it by expunging the reality of the pain, anger, suffering, bitterness and trauma women experience in these situations. And in that sense, it regrettably fails. Peter Brown
Return to previous page Peter Brown's Review Index
|
|
London Theatre Guide - Online
© Copyright: all rights reserved
|