Absolute Hell - NT

Rodney Ackland’s Absolute Hell has the curious distinction of having had three different names. Originally entitled The Pink Room, and subtitled The Escapists, it's the latter which points us towards the theme binding the characters in the play...

Because every one of them, in or around the club, is escaping from something. Or someone. Hugh’s trying to get away from “mummie”; Julia’s avoiding lonely evenings in “Earlsie Courtsie”, and Ziggy's had a narrow escape when he managed to dodge the Nazis.

And each has found their own means of escape: a lot go in for drink. Quite a bit of it. Some like the sex. The kind they wouldn’t get elsewhere. Mrs Marriner loves to lose herself in a book, any book. As long as it helps to take her away from reality. And towards the end of the play it’s clear that some will resort to moving abroad, to try yoga or to assist the “displaced” population who in turn have escaped the horrors of the concentration camps.

In a line I don’t recall from yesterday’s performance, Doris, Christine’s exploited dogsbody, can’t understand the club’s members who she sees in “just one long never-ending effort to escape from reality”.

All this when Britain was about to change- the Conservatives would finally be ousted and places like La Vie En Rose would soon be crumbling along with the rest of bombed out London.

I remember this being rather good when I saw it back in 1995, coincidentally in the same venue. The cast was excellent, and the production cleverly evoked the period with its seedy setting. I loved it so much that I went out and bought the script, followed by the rest of Ackland’s collection, and over the years I’ve travelled to various venues up and down the country to see a fair few of them on stage.

I think Absolute Hell is a bit of an overlooked gem.

So what’s gone wrong?

Quite a bit, in my opinion.

For a start, this recent revival has the curious distinction of adding a new dimension to the central theme: a lot of the audience are taking the first opportunity to escape at the interval. And I really don’t blame them.

I can’t say I wasn’t forewarned, having read the press reviews and comments from fellow posters on here.

From the off I could tell all was not well… It opens with a song which isn't in the play. The entire company line up and sing La Vie En Rose for us, but it’s all a bit awkward, and they look like children being made to perform in front of an old auntie. Rose? It’s probably an attempt to show us the actors before they become their characters… And this alienation effect continues with the set design which is revealed as the pink curtain rises. It’s vast, and far too big to suggest some seedy tucked away drinking den in 40s Soho. We see exposed lighting, the side and back walls of the stage area. It’s all a bit Bertolt Brecht. And the individual stories become lost in it as voices are thrown away in all directions without ever letting us in on the quieter conversations.

In fact this production bears little resemblance to the play I remembered. The biggest gripe is that the director hasn’t settled for one medium. Some of it is played straight, but it seriously lacks pace. Some of it is stylised- some of the highlights in fact- so we get the actors rushing around creating tableaux. But I’m not sure why. There are segments that simply aren’t in Ackland’s work as written: the Act One finale comes out of nowhere, playing like a nightmare sequence which is at direct odds with most of what’s preceded it. Equally ridiculous is the opening of Act Two, which recreates a scene straight out of Morecambe and Wise. By the end of the three hours we’ve had a bumpy ride, and it’s this unevenness that jars.

There are too many liberties being taken here, and they’re doing the play no favours. There are some glaring examples of miscasting: Kate Fleetwood is no Judi Dench, who played Christine with a world weary resignation but who still made us roar with laughter with her exaggerated, exotic-sounding spin on “Spaghetti Bolognese”. Christine’s flirtations should be rather desperate. And her dependency on her members she constantly berates should be obvious. Kate Fleetwood seemed to be forever running around, throwing each line away as if it didn’t matter. Anita Reynolds’ Bill lacked conviction as did Prasanna Puwanarajah’s Nigel... sadly misguided performances here, particularly the heart-breaking moment when we see Hugh and Nigel embrace, here played for laughs. What a waste… Even Jenny Galloway, usually reliable, isn’t quite the larger than life character she’s supposed to be. Having reread the script fairly recently, I’m pretty sure some of her lines had been cut, as had many belonging to Treacle Queen whose role was more or less reduced to shouting profanities. The standout performance was delivered by Charles Edwards- I believed his situation, felt his desperation, understood why he’ll never get out of his mess, the way Ackland would have wanted.

I’m all for re-imaginings. But a director’s personal vision is one thing; it shouldn’t be at the expense of a play. I was left with the impression that by extending some scenes, cutting others, exaggerating a few here and there, Joe Hill-Gibbins was more of an attention-seeker than a director. The decision to spotlight the non-speaking prostitute, endlessly walking in front of the main action, is a case in point. We already understand Ackland’s point that in this period many of the country’s women were working – Fifi stalks her patch, the typist across the way day toils day and night for the Labour cause; Doris and Cook work their fingers to the bone to keeping the club afloat. It was all a bit OTT and unnecessary.

And with this bombardment of his interpretation upon us, the individuals’ stories- what should have been the backbone of the piece- became lost. I can see why so many have felt little sympathy with any of the characters, as we simply weren’t allowed to get to know them. And as for the leitmotif of escaping, it simply... escaped us.

Disappointing.

As a footnote we experienced a rather strange curtain call yesterday afternoon. When the curtain came down, we seemed to be applauding endlessly, for much longer than the show deserved, and it got to the point where I thought the curtain wasn’t going to rise. When it finally went up many of the actors seemed to be talking and muttering to each other. They didn’t look happy. It was quite obvious. Not sure what all that was about. Strangely as we left the auditorium we could hear them all singing Happy Birthday backstage!

That’s a real shame, caiaphas. Sorry the revival didn’t live up to expectation, especially considering how much you love the play. Yeah, you were warned but at least you stuck to it, if only for the actors’ sake. I’ll give my verdict in just under 2 weeks time, and I won’t be afraid to point out any flaws, if there are any. It surely can’t be as boring as the last show I saw at the NT, which was Waste.

Also somebody on Twitter is enjoying telling everybody to avoid this play at all costs whenever the NT decide to tweet about it, even going so far as to rant to one of the AH actors informing them of the interval leavers. Why? What did they do to deserve that? How awful for the actor.

Yes OK you didn’t like it, fine. It’s a very Marmite play (at least this revival is). You hate the production to bits, fine. You have the right to vent, but you don’t need to go on and on and on and on and on CONSTANTLY.

I didn't find it boring, it just wasn't right. And I did feel for the actors, yes, as they're obviously a talented bunch but they're expected to do stuff in this they must know isn't right. I can't imagine some of them haven't thought, "Why are we doing it this way...? This isn't working... This doesn't make sense..."  Especially now the reviews are in.

I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid it; I just can't recommend it, I'm afraid.

Your 'chap' is rather good, as I said, but as others have remarked he's standing alone a bit.

Will be interesting to hear your views in a couple of weeks' time...

Hill-Gibbins forte is to be radical but here he is trying to be commercial and only a bit radical and that ends up pleasing nobody. Take his The Changeling or Measure for Measure; no holds barred reinventions that were highly theatrical and which got great reviews and audiences and were in my favourite productions of the years they were performed in. Maybe he thinks he needs to soften things up to be successful but it doesn't seem like his heart is in it. It doesn't seem like his sort of play to choose either, is it a case of play coming first and director later? My advice would be to go back to what you do well.

That’s totally fine. Tbh I feel like I’m going to be a bit like that at points, like “What was the director THINKING??” Hopefully I won’t be. It’s going to be a blessing and a curse to sit so close to the action but in the very cramped row B. If it’s engaging enough to make me sit in them seats for nearly 3 hours, it’s a ‘yes’ from me.

Also ‘my chap’? Oh well... I... Well, he’s not bad s’pose ☺️ Like yeah, I came for Charles, no question, but want to stay for the others. I did see one person somewhere say that they thought his character was annoying, always cutting himself off and whinging and that, apparently.

I saw it and that is why I booked this one.

TWO hours? What witchcraft is this?

I also saw it and that's why I didn't book this one!  But I am still considering doing so...

You can get "top non-premium price" tickets for £15 for all performances up to and including Saturday 12th - www.theatremonkey.com/CURRENTSPECIALOFFERS.htm#Absol

Note most of the stalls is "premium", despite this being a slow seller, but you can get the back few rows of the stalls for this.

I see there are a few such front row seats for this evening's play.

And a few for Nine Night in the Dorfman. Is that any good? Worth seeing?  

Toying with the idea of seeing this because of Charles Edwards, who as far as I'm concerned could read terms and conditions and I'd watch it...

...but Joe Hill-Gibbins is a clumsy director imho, and has caused my only interval walkout so far - Edward II at the National.

HMM.

I have to say I actually enjoyed it. Perhaps it's because my expectations were quite low after reading the reviews. I love Charles Edwards and Prasanna Puwanarajah (who doesn't love him?) so I had to see it anyway and I'm happy I did. While this isn't the best show I've seen this year, I liked the bitterness of this play, the decadence, as if everyone was just waiting for the world to end.
By the way it's only 3 hours now. Still long but manageable.