Theater review: Vincent River

by Clyde Berry of John Garcia's The Column

There are several noteworthy things about Theatre Britain's current offering of Vincent River, by Philip Ridley (now playing at the KD Studio Theatre in Dallas). This is the first formal co-production between Theatre Britain and Uptown Players. It's always great when theaters learn to network, we can support the arts by supporting each other. Also, Theatre Britain originally ran a four performance run of this show to critical and popular acclaim, and brought it back for a longer run. The author Ridley, is also the writer/director of the cult film The Reflecting Skin and a TV version of Vincent River for a French network. To maintain accuracy, many of the props in the show were flown in from England, including grocery sacks, boxes, magazines, and cigarette packets. The attention to details is always a good sign of a quality show, and Vincent River does count as one.

That is not to say however, there aren't some debatable aspects about the production, and after watching the opening performance last night, my friend and I spent the hour return trip debating what we had seen. But I'm getting ahead of myself, let's cover what I can of the basics, as the story unfold with some revelations that are best not given away here. So, be warned, after a certain point in this review, those of you who hate spoilers should stop reading (I'll let you know when). The official teaser from Theatre Britain says "Set in the East End of London this...drama is about a bereaved mother and the anguished young man who crashes into her life. In the aftermath of a hate crime, Anita and Davey search for the answer....Why?"

Darryl Clement's set design is basic, minimal - yet detailed, and everything needed for the piece. He's built enough to fill the KD Studio space and still have the focus be on the actors who fill the space he's created. Adam Hughes' lights are appropriate, and I especially like the train effect. Sue Roberts-Birch's soundscape compliments nicely the environment. Robin Armstrong's costumes work well. Had I not read in the press packet about Roberts-Birch getting her hair color sprayed nightly, I would never have known it wasn't hers. Clearly Don Hall knows what he's doing with Hair Design.

James Chandler plays the teenage Davey opposite Sue Roberts-Birch as Anita, the mother who suffered the death of her son three months prior. The two have good chemistry with each other and shift well from moment to moment in the piece as the tone moves from a serious beat, to awkward, angry, and cathartic in the cycle that makes up the body of the long one-act show. The 90+ minute piece builds steadily in tension and unfolds each nugget of plot in an enjoyable manner working its way towards its conclusion. Robin Armstrong's direction is very good in that the piece moves quickly and solidly, never letting one character's long monologue bog down the pace. The actors both do well listening and reacting to these narratives, invested in the moment, and making subtle and strong choices. Physically, this pair does quite a lot of work with gestures and body language, and have also done well with the style of British speech patterns. Some of the confession-style monologues have theatrical dialogue in which the characters complete each others thoughts/sentences. These moments are nicely executed both in performance and direction. After all, the piece is a real-time scene in which two people basically talk in a living room for almost two hours. It could get very boring very easily, and it never does.

******PLOT SPOILERS COMING*****STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW******

There's a line in a Police song from a depressed and disgruntled speaker that goes "there was something, somehow, wrong somewhere" before he finds a solution to his apathy. That sentiment describes the inability to put my finger on what just didn't seem to click in this performance. The script is quite good, and the more my friend and I debated our takes on the evening, the more parallels we found in it. We both decided that we liked the show, and thought it was good, but it didn't start well. However, we couldn't, and I still can't, figure out what exactly was off. Direction? Performance? Script? Really any of these are a matter of personal preference and taste. When reviewing a show there's always the trap of "If I were doing it, I'd do it *that* way", which is dangerous and inappropriate as my task is to critique what is there.

Still, in looking at the story, Anita has lost her son in a vicious way, and with public embarrassment, learning about his private life in a shocking manner. Davey has lost his mother from illness quite recently, and his lover three months ago. Yes, Davey is the boyfriend of Vincent River, Anita's son who was murdered. Vincent was closeted. This prompts a series of questions that one wants answered in the story telling.

Why was Davey stalking Anita for three months? Was it to come clean about his relationship with her son? Was he part of his murder?

Why does Anita, who knows she's being watched, invite her "stalker" inside? Did she know her son was gay? Did she figure out there was a connection between Davey and Vincent? Does she think it was a good one or bad one?

Davey has been holding on to his feelings for three months. Why go into the flat, except to get them off his chest? But, is he there to confess guilt about hiding the crime? Shame over seducing Vincent?

Will Anita adopt Davey to take the place of the son she lost, and Davey the mother he lost?

If Davey is feeling guilty, what has prompted his need to confess?

If Anita suspects something, why does she wait so long get answers?

The opening scene in this piece is very important as it is supposed to set up the cat-and-mouse pattern of confession and interrogation. This is where things weren't clear to me.

The direction the story and character development heads is based on why the actors/director think the characters do what they do. In the opening 10 minutes, it is hard to tell, or guess, at some motivations, even if the guess is wrong. So, the question then becomes, what was missing? Was it just an off night? Perhaps the audience size discouraged the cast that evening? The curtain call seemed to show a little frustration. Over what? A small house? Self-criticism for a perceived mistake? I hope it wasn't over the slow response of the audience at the end of the piece. Davey's confession at the end hits the audience hard, and you'll sit in shock for a bit processing before applauding. The end of the show does answer some things, but it also leaves you with a few still questions and wanting more. I think the last moments before the blackout could be massaged more, but it is also worth discussing what happens to these characters the next day, which Ridley doesn't give us.

In any event, the beginning doesn't show us either character setting up the other, or getting the guts to try to and get the resolution they both need. Or if it did, I missed it. As I mentioned before, this depends entirely on what you, as the audience believe is the motivation for the character and how you believe they are manifesting their emotions (whatever you believe them to be). This isn't Oleanna, in as much as it is more like Doubt, and the audience will argue over the characters. But then, this script does provide clear answers, so should we even be debating? After all, you may see the end coming, but it's the getting there that is interesting in theater.

Vincent River is a show that I'd like to see again just to see if what I thought was there, was really there, or if I'm just trying to justify my interpretation. This is not a community theater comedy, nor angsty art piece. It does what theater, I think, should do, entertain, enlighten, and get you talking. Vincent River is a great alternative offering to the standard fare, and you should grab a few friends and see how intriguing it is.