Marys Seacole - Donmar

This is not the play title.

Marys Seacole is the play title.

Dreadful. Best thing about it was that it was only 1h45 long.

I thought this had some interesting ideas, that didn't quite fit together into a coherent play, but was worth seeing. It was largely about the way that black women have done the (often invisible) mental and physical work of caring for others, so that those others can live fuller lives undiminished by having to devote themselves to all that effort; and also the broader theme of caring (paid or unpaid) and the toll it takes on women's lives. It tried to go into the nuances of this - racism, social class, white carers, the irony of black women having to do paid care in order to support their own children who they then can't personally care for because they are caring for others' relatives.

Mary S was shown as a problematic figure, celebrated (and presented by herself?) as a positive image of black woman as carer - independent, resourceful, powerful, maternal, clever, capable. But that this image has also contributed to a stereotype that doesn't allow for the grim reality that caring is a low status, low paid job that can suck the life out of those who do it. I liked the way her character was played, not as a heroine, but someone more complex, who achieved a lot, blew her own trumpet and had a few flaws/blind spots too. 

But in some ways it was a bit of a mess. I think we were meant to see the portrayal of MS as a symbol of ongoing hypocrisies and stereotypes about how we see care work, but it was trying to say too much, with too many different characters and narratives going on, and not enough of those were fully developed. But I liked it for trying to get to grips with the realities of a really complex social issue that I haven't seen a play about before, particularly the personal toll on the lives of carers and putting that into a political and historical context.

Couldn't agree more with david. Anyone who's expecting to learn about this amazing woman's life and struggles is in for a big disappointment. First off, the accent was a little difficult to follow so I spent the first twenty minutes just getting used to that. It didn't help that the first 15 minutes were a monologue; I guess I would have comprehended better if things were shown rather than told.

And then the play goes in a completely bizarre direction. (Minor spoiler) At one point Seacole was playing world of mines (or is it Minecraft? or Warcraft? some such ridiculous game) on her phone and complaining about her battery dying. Really? It felt like the writer just wanted a laugh at the audience's expense.

One woman in the audience had the audacity to give a standing ovation at the end of the performance. Wonder if she was a friend or family of the cast. Even then, a standing ovation for a performance like that is akin to just spitting on the concept of theatre.

One of the worst 1 hour and 45 theatre minutes (without interval) of my life.

There was a wonderful stage play which was a straight bio of Mary Seacole on the fringe a few years ago, starting Cleo Sylvestre (the first black woman to star at the National). Such a shame strong traditional playwriting with solid performances that just tell the story, don’t get programmed for larger venues, while fancy stuff with lazier storytelling does.

Going for the first time is not the key metric.

How many return for a second, third or tenth visit to the theatre is far more important.

Now this play has closed, it is worth saying several seat filling companies were offering this 8 shows a week and they weren't even able to give the seats away to fill the house. The Donmar has really lost its status.

I think people are spelling out doom too soon. There are exciting, interesting productions on the horizon and they should hopefully perform better. It still attracts "names" very easily. Though I do think the Mendes + Grandage eras had it punch far beyond it weight, and it's muted a little since then.

I suppose if you want to sell out, and you don't want to rely on critics and/or word of mouth, you've either got to cast a star or you've got to programme a popular title (and if you do both, tickets will be like hen's teeth at such a small theatre).

I imagine many of the 40 percent new to the Donmar were black people, as it was my impression that the percentage of black attendees the day I saw it was much higher than usual, and that has to be a good thing, to speak to experiences not often spoken for or about, especially at a theatre that takes public money.

This show would have sold out in a second if Mary Seacole had been played by Whoopi Goldberg, for example. She would have been hysterical in it, as the central part is a comedic role in what is otherwise a tragedy. People would have raved lol.

As it was, I found Kayla Meikle tremendous in the central role, and her part and comic performance in this, were wonderful, and are what made my trip worthwhile. Seacole is written as a mighty ego who gets absolutely no respect, and no matter what humiliations she suffers, she just keeps on boasting and bragging and bigging herself up. She's as inspirational as any Beckett character that rages against the dying of our light. Meikle's prideful and indignant delivery, of what is essentially a Rodney Dangerfield comedic skit, made me laugh out loud.

But this wasn't enough to make this a good play, in my opinion, and it really suffered in comparison to other plays.

Primarily, it suffered in comparison to "Fairview," by the same playwright and director, which was an astonishing, engaging and revelatory piece of theatre, that wrongfooted the audience by making them laugh at stereotypical rubbish and then electrified them by questioning why they were laughing, and then exploded into an unforgettably involving climax. This show doesn't involve the audience, and makes no challenges beyond asking them to understand jumpcuts thorough history, confusing but with no payoff, as the historical comparisons were merely illustrative of black women's experience through the ages, without really engaging or challenging the audience. The idea that black women are straightjacketed as carers, throughout history, was never coherently argued, but instead was presented as a fait accompli.

The play also suffered in comparison to the Almeida's "Daddy," playing at the same time, which excavated a black male's experience in the way this play wanted to excavate a black female's experience. "Daddy" was also experimental (choruses, monologues, swimming pool, characters in stop motion) and funny (George Michael's "Father Figure" will forever make me laugh now), but unlike this play, told a coherent and fascinating story with a convincing argument about how racism poisons humanity to the extent it's impossible to care about anybody any more. It was the rollercoaster ride of theatrical experiences that this show failed to be.

And having failed to be sufficiently experimental, this show also failed, for some, in comparison to the imaginary conventional biopic of Mary Seacole this could have been, alerting us to her amazing role in history. Instead of course, this play (cleverly and ingeniously, in my opinion - I just wished the rest of the play worked as well) reduces Seacole to a Beckettian comedy skit.

So, for me, I'm glad I went, for Kayla Meikle's comedic performance, but I wish the rest of the play had been as good.

3 stars from me.