310 Play Review 1

Consent Review

The production of Nina Raine’s play Consent, written in 2017, currently being put on at the Harold Pinter Theatre is a truly moving piece. Directed by Roger Michell, this play leaped from darkly funny to deeply emotional and back again almost flawlessly. Together their production of Consent captured the isolation of rape, the heartbreak of cheating, and the comedy of trying to figure out what the hell is going on around you. While at times the humor seemed a bit offbeat or just too much for the situation, in the end, the ups and downs worked well to depict life as it really is.
    The balance of deep emotion with humor in this play is something that caught me off guard. I was not expecting this play to be as funny as it was or even to contain the kinds of jokes it did. At first, the joking manner in which the characters Ed (Stephen Moore), Jake (Adam James), and Tim (Lee Ingleby) talk about rape and its implications was a shock. It did, however, add a lot of depth to the play when it is revealed the Ed raped Kitty (Claudie Blakley) after one of their fights. It lessens the blow of this reveal and gives us a better understanding of Ed as a person. I do feel though that, at times, the humor took away from what could have been a very serious moment. For example, when complaining to Rachel (Sian Clifford) and Jake about Kitty falling in love with Tim, the way Ed played up the humor stood out a little too much. It made the character seem less sincere in the pain he felt.
    On the other hand, the actors were a big part of what helped this play go as well as it did. For the most part, they all did a great job portraying their roles and giving their lines in a natural way. Stephen Moore and Clare Foster (Zara) were the two actors whom I thought the most impressive. Moore was able to actually make me feel bad for the character of Edward—an impressive feat let me tell you. Not only did the emotion he brought to the scenes of him breaking down in front Rachel and Jake save the character of Ed in my eyes, but it also added a lot of depth to the scene. Foster’s portrayal of Zara as the over-the-top friend was perfect. Teetering over the edge of the line between quirky and annoyingly peppy, I got a real sense of who this character was meant to be.
    Gayle was played by the understudy, Emma Carter, and in my eyes, fell short of excellent. This is a part where the character should make me really feel for the character and the horrors she has been through. Unfortunately for me, and in a bit of irony with one of the themes of the play, I had no real empathy for the character of Gayle in this production. When she was opening up about what happened to her, the acting just wasn’t what I expected. It was almost as if it was too overdone. I could tell that she was acting, and I didn’t want that.
    The lack of empathy I felt for Gayle could have had something to do with the writing. Maybe it was too predictable or cheesy, but I do think most of the blame falls to Grant. I say this only because I felt the dialogue was so powerful in every other area of the play. The back and forth felt natural and I especially loved that in the scenes with arguments they would talk over each other. It really added a level of reality that is often missed when simply reading a text.
The only thing about the writing I did have a problem with was one line right in the opening scene. During a discussion about having kids, Rachel at one point says something along the lines of “hoping your kids a retard.” That line, while fitting in with the whole joking about rape theme, just isn’t acceptable in my book. There is a line between using your character's dialogue to foreshadow later events and then just being downright offensive. Unfortunately for Raine, she crossed it with that line. Overall though, I feel that Raine’s writing was perfect and executed well by almost all the actors.
    One of my favorite aspects of the play was the way they worked in the scene changes. A lot of it had to do with the lighting and lighting fixtures which I found very unique. Often times their scene changes happened with the actors still on stage silent,  being lit up by a spotlight while the others moved the furniture about. This helped to keep the attention on our main actors but still let us in on the secret of moving set pieces around. When the scenes/setting changed in a more substantial way than moving rooms in the house or when moving from act to act, the process was a little more complex. They would play music and have the various lighting fixtures and chandeliers hanging from the ceiling pulse and dim with the beat of the music. While not detrimental to the play it was a little thing that gave me joy in an otherwise boring part of plays.
    Their actual stage, in general, was also a really cool design. The motorized panel that lifted and lowered the couches, tables, etc. were part of what made not having an actual curtain so exciting. Getting to see the pieces lowered beneath the stage and replaced with different things was very entertaining. They also had a somewhat opaque screen in the background that allowed for a bit more depth to the scenes. Whether it was a Starbucks’ sign hanging up or a Christmas tree in the distance, it really added just that touch more detail to the play. Honestly, I’d see this play again just to watch the stage.
    In the end, I thoroughly enjoyed the Harold Pinter’s production of Consent. The good outweighed the bad and the set in and of itself was an amazing thing to watch. Despite the instances of bad jokes, out of touch humor, and over-the-top acting, I highly recommend you go and see it. The topic is important, the actors are amazing, and the writing can’t be beaten.