Armed with as little fore-knowledge about this play as possible, and without having seen the film nor read the novel, I was hoping for the evening of suspenseful murder mystery to enthral, which in the main, it did, although not as much as I had hoped. I had already correctly deduced the evil-doer long before the script gave us the clues to be able to work it out for oursleves. Maybe that is because I have been brought up on Agatha Christie and her ilk, or maybe that is down to poor scripting - or even an assumption that everyone already knows?!. I would like to think it is poor scripting, since it was not the only problem I had with the script. The stage adaptation by Rachel Wagstaff and Duncan Abel was mediocre in the extreme, and if it hadn't have been for some sterling and flawless acting, it would have been a terrible watch.
The end - no spoilers - was a huge anticlimax and both untrue to the novel and Rachel's character. [I have now done a little research!] If the ending needed to be changed (why?) then finishing at the end of the penultimate scene with the train lights would have been preferable. The final scene was seemingly wrong on every level. Combine this lacklustre script with a poor and repetitive set design (James Cotterill), which wasn't as sturdy as it looked and took forever to change each scene, along with moody but slightly jarring music, and some dim lighting in most scenes, obviously trying to set the atmosphere for suspense and mystery but not quite hitting the mark; and with all of this I was feeling rather disheartened and bored and was not enjoying the play at all... That is, until I started focussing on the acting and the superbly nuanced performances that these performers were displaying.
Samantha Womack's portrayal of Rachel Watson was understated to perfection. It would have been so easy to 'ham up' a character like this; dependant on alcohol, suffering from memory loss and blackouts, obsessed with and romanticising about people she sees on her train journey to a job she lost 6 months' ago. Instead the characterisation was solid, real, believable, restrained and subtle proving that Womack is a consummate actress.
No lesser talents came in the form of supporting cast, whose every move, gesture, and inflection seemed perfectly placed. Oliver Farnworth's Scott, Adam Jackson-Smith's Tom, Lowenna Melrose's Anna and Kirtsy Oswald's Megan were all superbly placed characterisations. It was the design, the script, or maybe even the directing (Anthony Banks) which was sluggish. John Dougall as D.I Gaskill and Naeem Hayat as Kamal offered strong and believable support, both adding greatly to the dynamic changes in the script.
In summation, the play took a long time before it grabbed my interest but once it did I was captivated by the quality of the acting and became interested and engrossed in the story, despite some rather distracting and poor design choices.
Reviewer - Matthew Dougall
on - 1/4/19
No comments:
Post a Comment