1984 ***

Playhouse Theatre, London
EXCERPT: "I reckon that, for an adaptation of 1984 to be successful, it is necessary to focus more on the visual spectacle – set design, lighting, sound, inventive ensemble work from the cast – than character depth. Although one changeover scene was technically stunning, it showed us the potential for the production rather than realising it."


Plot summary
April, 1984. 13:00. Comrade 6079, Winston Smith, thinks a thought, starts a diary, and falls in love. But Big Brother is always watching. Orwell’s ideas have become our ideas; his fiction is often said to be our reality. The “definitive book of the 20th century” (The Guardian) is re-examined in a radical new staging exploring surveillance, identity and why Orwell’s vision of the future is as relevant now as ever.  

Cast and Creatives
A co-production with Headlong and Nottingham Playhouse 

Adapted and created by Robert Icke & Duncan Macmillan
Design Chloe Lamford
Lighting Natasha Chivers
Sound Tom Gibbons

Mark Arends - Winston
Tim Dutton - O'Brien
Stephen Fewell - Charrington
Christopher Patrick Nolan - Martin
Matthew Spencer - Syme
Gavin Spokes - Parsons
Mandi Symonds - Mrs Parsons
Hara Yannas - Julia

Thoughts

1984 was only in its third performance at the Playhouse Theatre when I saw it. Transferring to the West End from the intimate Almeida Theatre is always going to be a bit of a challenge, but even more so when Robert Icke and Duncan Macmillan’s adaptation of Orwell’s classic dystopian novel hinges so much on creating an atmosphere of claustrophobic fear. I was also up in the Gods, which I don’t think helped things, but – for me, at least – there was a palpable lack of tension in the auditorium.

I reckon that, for an adaptation of 1984 to be successful, it is necessary to focus more on the visual spectacle – set design, lighting, sound, inventive ensemble work from the cast – than character depth. Robert Icke and Duncan Macmillan’s adaptation of the famous novel seems to agree. I liked how Natasha Chivers’ lighting design was used for rapid scene changes to make characters suddenly appear on stage, and the fact that, apart from electrocuting him, we didn’t see Winston being tortured – the imagination can be far more powerful than actually seeing something happen on stage. Tom Gibbons’ sound was good at creating discomfort without being repetitive, though perhaps more ominous music could have been integrated into the performance – it can be such a powerful device in films. Chloe Lamford’s set design comes into its own when the Thought Police discover Winston and Julia’s hideaway and take them to the Ministry of Love – the scene change here is extremely impressive and made me wish there had been more of them to shake up the production a bit. I really liked her use of digital projections too, Curious Incident of the Dog style.

However, I felt quite a few of Chloe Lamford’s decisions – in tandem with Robert Icke and Duncan Macmillan’s – were detrimental to the overall impact of the production. At the beginning, I think we needed to get a much stronger sense of how much the State invaded Winston’s life. One bit of dubious quality video footage was not enough. His life should have been visually represented as incredibly sparse; he should have been shown to be a lot lonelier; and the sense of his privacy being invaded should be paramount. By contrast, the bedroom he and Julia find should be a haven of domesticity and comfort, so that when it is destroyed we relate to that loss of a home. I think it’s a real mistake to film these scenes, rather than show them to us: although we recognise the irony in that they keep saying they’re not being filmed while we’re watching them on the film, it makes the Thought Police’s abrupt invasion far less forceful and puts us on the side of the Thought Police, looking in at them, rather than on Winston and Julia’s. I also think that the representation of the Ministry of Love could have been more powerfully done. It would have been good to create a stronger sense of claustrophobia and foreboding, perhaps with walls moving in and a lowering ceiling. I also think there would have been room to experiment with the use of lighting to symbolise how Winston’s mind was being invaded and changed by the State – similar to the way it was used in Pests at the Royal Court. All in all, although the changeover scene was technically stunning, it showed us the potential for the production rather than realising it.

I also found the lack of chemistry between Winston (Mark Arends) and Julia (Hara Yannas) problematic: if you can’t believe in their relationship, it becomes difficult to care about them and their fate that much, or for their decision to have the appropriate political import. I especially thought that Yannas was too shouty and over-exaggerated, something that was exacerbated by such a lot of video footage. And whilst I liked the framing of the story at the beginning of the play, I’m not sure that providing that framing at the ending was necessarily a good decision. From my understanding of The Turn of the Screw, a great deal of uncertainty and unease can be created by leaving things more open-ended. At the same time, I did quite like the suggestion that (within the context of 1984 as a reality) Winston is an entirely fictional character, making us feel a bit unsure about anything we had just seen.