Amy's View
by David Hare
Directed by Colin Smith
February 9th - 16th, 2002
The Tower Theatre performing at the Tower Theatre, Canonbury
Cast List
Dominic : Martin Jackson
Amy : Nikki Smith
Evelyn : Denyse Macpherson
Esme : Sue Lacey
Frank : John Field
Toby : James Easey
Production Team
Director : Colin Smith
Set Designer : Steven Hyndman
Lighting Designer : Hilary Allen
Costume Designer : Kate Fearnley
Stage Manager : Martin Brady
ASMs : Tom Brown, Annie Connell
Lighting Operator : Heather Dalton
Sound Operator : Lisa Kelvey
Set Construction : Keith Hill, John Morton, Dimitrios Moudatsos, Robert Myer, Keith Syrett, Lesley Wigham
In-house review by Richard Pedersen
Richard Pedersen saw his first play at the Tower thirteen years
ago and has lost count of the number he's seen since then.
He will shortly be popping up all over the place in Macbeth.
"Amy's View" was a magazine which Amy used to produce
as a schoolgirl and then sell to her parents' friends in Pangbourne.
It was also, of course, her opinion on any number of things, which the
characters in David Hare's play would quote during the action.
The irony of it all was that Amy's view didn't really count for that
much when compared with that of her opinionated mother and equally
opinionated partner.
In this production, director Colin Smith
presented us with a multi-layered piece of drama. It was not an easy play -
David Hare is not an easy playwright - but it gave its audiences much
food for thought. Yet I was left a little frustrated at not being able
to get fully to grips with what the author really wanted to say.
But then I'm not here to criticise the oeuvre of one of the country's
leading playwrights, others far more worthy than me can do that.
Amy's View is a very recent piece, only premiered in 1997, and it provided
a wonderful star vehicle at the time for Dame Judi Dench. In the Tower's
production Sue Lacey had the task of making the role of Esme her own,
and she succeeded brilliantly. The part is that of a West End actress,
a light comedienne whose decline over 16 years we witness painfully.
At the start she is returning home after an evening's performance, by
taxi all the way from London to Pangbourne. Sue Lacey erupted on to the
stage, the total actress still rapturous for an audience's applause.
Then the parts dry up. Plays for the likes of Esme Allen cease to be West
End fodder, and she is reduced to playing a nurse in something that
sounded remarkably like Casualty. At the very end, totally broke, her
cosy world having vanished, she is starring in an avant garde production
in a small theatre.
As much as anything, Amy's View is about theatre and David Hare's
own view of it. He appears to have little time for the Cowardesque
world which Esme originally inhabits, and yet her passionate defence
of theatre is very much the author talking. The counterpoint to the
argument is provided by Dominic, the partner of Esme's daughter Amy,
a tricky role which was expertly handled by Martin Jackson. Dominic's
rise counterbalances Esme's fall. At the start he is the somewhat
diffident boyfriend, paying a first visit to Amy's flamboyant mother.
By the end he is a highly successful film director in the Guy Ritchie
mould. Martin Jackson expertly handled the changes in his character
over 16 years, both in terms of look and mannerisms, and in the way
that he was affected by events.
In the middle was Amy, delightfully played by Nikki Smith.
Once again we followed the character on a believable journey
over 16 years from her early twenties, newly pregnant, towards
an increasingly miserable 30s and 40s. Her death was a total
surprise to the audience. Was it suicide, or merely a tragic accident ?
Amy's Grandmother Evelyn showed an even starker decline into Alzheimer's
and a semi-comatose state. Denyse Macpherson didn't put a foot wrong in
portraying this character, with her charming fussing over photographs
and the reheated cottage pie at the beginning, and then eventually
spending an entire act practically motionless in a wheelchair.
John Field returned to the Tower fold to play the part of Frank,
Esme's financial "adviser". He blustered beautifully and made
almost a comic turn out of his drinking. He was also believably
fond of Esme which showed up the paradox of the fact that he was
solely responsible for her financial downfall.
At the very end of the play, with two characters already dead and
one sent packing we met Toby, a young actor starring with Esme in
a fringe production. James Easey was good casting as a final partner
for the declining Esme. Quite what the very end of the play signified
totally eluded me. The two actors Esme and Toby, in white shift
and tiny loincloth respectively were drenched with water and faced
the audience centre stage. Is this the future of theatre in David
Hare's eyes? I can't criticise any of the performances; without
exception they were top notch. However, none of the characters
was that sympathetic, so despite everything I felt that the
audience didn't really care about the outcome of the play, which
was a great shame. But then that's David Hare's fault.
The set by Stephen Hyndman worked well, particularly in the change
of location towards the end from the living room in Pangbourne to
Esme's dressing room and thence to the stage of the theatre. This
was rather oddly described in the programme as a small Victorian
theatre in London which sounded a little strange. The designer
made very clever use of the white painted proscenium arch flats
which did not jar with the Pangbourne set but then came into their
own in the dressing room. My only quibble with the set was the
steps leading up to the French windows. I know, I've acted on sets
like this before; raised doorways enhance entrances and exits,
but they looked totally misplaced. Somehow one half of the set
had a "who's for tennis" look about it, which was maybe significant
given Esme's past history.
Costumes can prove a problem in a play set in the recent past.
How to conjure up the period when we've probably still got clothes
of that vintage? In most cases I thought the costuming by Kate
Fearnley was fine, and looked right for the characters at the time.
All in all it was an enjoyable evening, if not the easiest.
I sometimes feel that David Hare is just a little too serious for
his own good, and this was far from being his best play. Now when
is the Tower going to tackle Teeth 'n Smiles?
Amy's View
by David Hare |
|
|
February 9th - 16th, 2002 |
The Tower Theatre performing at the Tower Theatre, Canonbury |
|
Cast List
|
Production Team
|
In-house review by Richard Pedersen
Richard Pedersen saw his first play at the Tower thirteen years ago and has lost count of the number he's seen since then. He will shortly be popping up all over the place in Macbeth.
"Amy's View" was a magazine which Amy used to produce
as a schoolgirl and then sell to her parents' friends in Pangbourne.
It was also, of course, her opinion on any number of things, which the
characters in David Hare's play would quote during the action.
The irony of it all was that Amy's view didn't really count for that
much when compared with that of her opinionated mother and equally
opinionated partner.
In this production, director Colin Smith
presented us with a multi-layered piece of drama. It was not an easy play -
David Hare is not an easy playwright - but it gave its audiences much
food for thought. Yet I was left a little frustrated at not being able
to get fully to grips with what the author really wanted to say.
But then I'm not here to criticise the oeuvre of one of the country's
leading playwrights, others far more worthy than me can do that.
Amy's View is a very recent piece, only premiered in 1997, and it provided
a wonderful star vehicle at the time for Dame Judi Dench. In the Tower's
production Sue Lacey had the task of making the role of Esme her own,
and she succeeded brilliantly. The part is that of a West End actress,
a light comedienne whose decline over 16 years we witness painfully.
At the start she is returning home after an evening's performance, by
taxi all the way from London to Pangbourne. Sue Lacey erupted on to the
stage, the total actress still rapturous for an audience's applause.
Then the parts dry up. Plays for the likes of Esme Allen cease to be West
End fodder, and she is reduced to playing a nurse in something that
sounded remarkably like Casualty. At the very end, totally broke, her
cosy world having vanished, she is starring in an avant garde production
in a small theatre.
As much as anything, Amy's View is about theatre and David Hare's
own view of it. He appears to have little time for the Cowardesque
world which Esme originally inhabits, and yet her passionate defence
of theatre is very much the author talking. The counterpoint to the
argument is provided by Dominic, the partner of Esme's daughter Amy,
a tricky role which was expertly handled by Martin Jackson. Dominic's
rise counterbalances Esme's fall. At the start he is the somewhat
diffident boyfriend, paying a first visit to Amy's flamboyant mother.
By the end he is a highly successful film director in the Guy Ritchie
mould. Martin Jackson expertly handled the changes in his character
over 16 years, both in terms of look and mannerisms, and in the way
that he was affected by events.
In the middle was Amy, delightfully played by Nikki Smith.
Once again we followed the character on a believable journey
over 16 years from her early twenties, newly pregnant, towards
an increasingly miserable 30s and 40s. Her death was a total
surprise to the audience. Was it suicide, or merely a tragic accident ?
Amy's Grandmother Evelyn showed an even starker decline into Alzheimer's
and a semi-comatose state. Denyse Macpherson didn't put a foot wrong in
portraying this character, with her charming fussing over photographs
and the reheated cottage pie at the beginning, and then eventually
spending an entire act practically motionless in a wheelchair.
John Field returned to the Tower fold to play the part of Frank,
Esme's financial "adviser". He blustered beautifully and made
almost a comic turn out of his drinking. He was also believably
fond of Esme which showed up the paradox of the fact that he was
solely responsible for her financial downfall.
At the very end of the play, with two characters already dead and
one sent packing we met Toby, a young actor starring with Esme in
a fringe production. James Easey was good casting as a final partner
for the declining Esme. Quite what the very end of the play signified
totally eluded me. The two actors Esme and Toby, in white shift
and tiny loincloth respectively were drenched with water and faced
the audience centre stage. Is this the future of theatre in David
Hare's eyes? I can't criticise any of the performances; without
exception they were top notch. However, none of the characters
was that sympathetic, so despite everything I felt that the
audience didn't really care about the outcome of the play, which
was a great shame. But then that's David Hare's fault.
The set by Stephen Hyndman worked well, particularly in the change
of location towards the end from the living room in Pangbourne to
Esme's dressing room and thence to the stage of the theatre. This
was rather oddly described in the programme as a small Victorian
theatre in London which sounded a little strange. The designer
made very clever use of the white painted proscenium arch flats
which did not jar with the Pangbourne set but then came into their
own in the dressing room. My only quibble with the set was the
steps leading up to the French windows. I know, I've acted on sets
like this before; raised doorways enhance entrances and exits,
but they looked totally misplaced. Somehow one half of the set
had a "who's for tennis" look about it, which was maybe significant
given Esme's past history.
Costumes can prove a problem in a play set in the recent past.
How to conjure up the period when we've probably still got clothes
of that vintage? In most cases I thought the costuming by Kate
Fearnley was fine, and looked right for the characters at the time.
All in all it was an enjoyable evening, if not the easiest.
I sometimes feel that David Hare is just a little too serious for
his own good, and this was far from being his best play. Now when
is the Tower going to tackle Teeth 'n Smiles?