Morbid Curiosity
Play: Morbid Curiosity
Writer/Director: Dominic Allen
Rating: * * *
Postmodern drama poses a specific problem for the audience: nothing is ever the point. Dominic Allen sets his blackest of comedies in a dystopian near-future. I hesitate, conscious of indulging the critical cliché, to use the word Orwellian, but Morbid Curiosity is decorated by many of the fundamentals that the term connotes: a watchful civil service, a murderous police force, the transparently propagandist ‘happy minute’ and the idea of a united trans-Atlantic nationhood in which America plays a nebulous, almost mythical role in the minds of the ordinary people.
Differences exist between Orwell’s Oceania and Allen’s ‘British Colonies’. For a start, the dominant political structure has more in common with Neo-Fascism than Orwell’s IngSoc. But as intricate as Morbid Curiosity’s political climate is, it is not really ‘the point’. Nor is it really ‘the point’ that an amateur-sleuth narrative (the case of the missing livers) dogs the play from beginning to end. Although the play’s conclusion depends, to some extent, on the resolution of this mystery, you would not say Morbid Curiosity was a whodunit.
Other aspects of this play that are not the point include the love affair between the main character, Erasmus Hart (Matt Springett), and his colleague’s wife, only fleetingly explored, the marital psychosis of the government inspectors (Lucinda Farrett & Jamie Wilkes), a rich source of comedy throughout the performance, and the latent insanity of the chief mortician, Vincent Leach (Simon Maeder).
The play is, in fact, composed exclusively of subordinate plots. The only motif that received consistent attention throughout was the playwright’s apparently unshakeable conviction that violence is funny. In this enlightened era of GTA 4, I believe this is a conviction we all share.
Criticulated
Right, now that we’ve spent over two hundred words having the author’s socio-political credentials laid before us: what did he actually think of the play?
This isn’t a review - it’s a synopsis of themes.
Dom Allen
“The play is, in fact, composed exclusively of subordinate plots.”
A lot like this review.
Just to briefly offer readers my own personal background behind writing the play, I never originally intended to answer any of the questions raised in it. It was only until a very late draft that even the issue of the missing livers was resolved by the end.
The reasons for this are mainly because the creation of the play was very organic. In fact, the first draft was a one act play not set in a dystopia. As a result, it is indeed TRUE that the play is made up entirely of subordinate plots. But, so what?
Finally, in my defence, I don’t find violence unshakeably funny, as I’m sure Anthony Burgess didn’t when he wrote ‘Clockwork Orange’ (which Belt Up will be doing at Theatre Royal, Wk9, incidentally… just thought I’d mention that). I find the pleasure the Civil Servants get from torturing people amusing. Not in a good way, mind. After all, they are the antagonists. And, ultimately, I don’t find Leach’s victimisation funny. By the end of the play, I often find I have immense sympathy for the pathetic wreck of a man that he is.
I can’t pretend that I’m not a little disheartened that the only critique the reviewer can offer is a sweeping reference to Orwell and a popular video game, especially after the hard work that I and my cast have put in. So, for future reference, I wouldn’t mind something a bit more constructive just so I can become a better writer. After all, I already know what my play’s bibliography is.
Anonymous
I think this ‘review’ says more about the reviewer than the actual play. Should people see it or not? That’s all we want to know.
Matthew Lacey
I am tempted to describe this as the least effective review I have ever read, but since it contains no critical judgement or opinion, to describe it as a review at all seems overly generous. If anything, it is the antithesis of a review, in that the author appears to have no intention or interest in discussing the content of the production.
Instead we are presented with an unenlightening diversion into the reviewer’s thoughts on post-modernism and the writings of George Orwell, as a result of which we learn one thing: this play is not by Orwell. This play isn’t a park bench or the sound of children’s laughter either, so I suppose we should be grateful that we were all spared a digression into the provision of public furniture or the nature of youth. Given that space on the arts pages is at a premium, how is it in any way useful to waste so much on such a pointless and self-defeating exercise as talking about what a play is NOT?
I have often been critical of Nouse reviews in the past, chiefly because both the newspaper and DramaSoc are close to my heart, and I do not feel either is well served by the publishing of substandard copy. A negative review is one thing, as Dom suggests in his response fair, constructive criticism is often hugely beneficial. A bad review, however, serves no purpose, and this is the comfortably one of the worst.
James MacDougald
Dom,
I’m sorry you feel the need to offer a defence, since this was never intended to be an attack. On the contrary, I meticulously avoided value judgments of any kind.
You’re quite right. There’s nothing wrong with the play being a network of sub-plots. Nor did I ever mean to suggest that this was a flaw - simply to observe that it was the case. As for the reference to GTA, that was an approval, albeit an ironically-phrased one, of your play’s macabre humour. I was not reducing it to the level of low popular culture. Allow me a sense of humour at the very least!
After watching plays like Morbid Curiosity, people often leave the theatre feeling confused about what the play’s ‘purpose’ or ‘message’ was. As an English literature student, I feel just about qualified to shed some light on the best way to approach plays like yours.
I am most definitely not qualified to discuss the making of theatre or to tell you how you might become a better writer. Furthermore, I think your suggestion that in future I should critically assess your writing skills is not a little disingenuous, as I cannot imagine you would take kindly to such criticism from a journalist who is, broadly speaking, ignorant about theatre.
I appreciate and do not doubt that you and your cast and crew worked very hard, as always, to put the play together and, to clarify, I enjoyed the performance and was laughing hard throughout.
I am given 250 words and a short space of time to summarise the content and nature of the play. 250 words of my very subjective opinions of the actors, director and writer is a waste of what little space I have. Better by far, I think, to give people an idea of what the play is about so they can decide if it interests them. This is, after all, a review, not an advertisement.
Good luck for the last night.
James
Will Heaven
First off, it should be taken into account that reviews are primarily for the theatre going public - they are not for actors, writers or directors.
Secondly, I am mildly disturbed by the thought that Nouse should be dictating how writers should write their plays. (I would suggest that Dom Allen ask his DramaSoc colleagues for advice on these matters.)
But why the upset? There is nothing in this review which suggests James didn’t enjoy the play. Indeed, he admits to sharing in the conviction that violence is funny, indicating that if the play contains violence, which it does, he found it funny!
There is, admittedly, a problem with this review: it lacks much critical judgement. But it is therefore pretty harmless.
I suspect that James avoided a lot of critical judgement to avoid becoming involved in yet another DramaSoc/Nouse spat. I completely understand this - if a mere observation, that the play is formed “exclusively of subordinate plots”, can be taken as a slight, then I sympathise with the reviewer’s dilemma.
I’m glad you enjoyed the play, James. And congratulations to all the cast and Dom on what has, by all accounts, been a great success.
Criticulated
James,
I’m confused: if you are “broadly speaking, ignorant of the theatre”, why are you writing a review?
Regarding William Heaven’s comment: the general public is not likely to want to know the ‘purpose’ of a play, or its literary context, at the cost of a few words of advice as to whether the critic liked the show and would encourage them to go, or not. With respect, I wouldn’t class a review without “critical judgement” as worthy of the name. I come back to my first point - this is not a review at all, harmless or not.
James MacDougald
By ‘ignorant’ I mean I don’t have in-depth insider knowledge of how plays are rehearsed and directed. I also write food reviews, although I’ve never worked in a restaurant kitchen.
Most theatre performances/art exhibitions/music gigs, etc will receive a range of reviews offering different opinions as to the quality of what is being reviewed. I can only speak for myself when I assert that the right sort of violence is a source of comedy; perhaps you don’t find violence funny - perhaps you find it distasteful. I’ve told you that the play contains comic violence - so go and see it if that’s your thing. If not, stay at home.
Anonymous
“After watching plays like Morbid Curiosity, people often leave the theatre feeling confused about what the play’s ‘purpose’ or ‘message’ was. As an English literature student, I feel just about qualified to shed some light on the best way to approach plays like yours.”
I think people should maybe decide for themselves what the purpose or message is ONCE they have either been encouraged or discouraged to see it. To suggest that you hold the ‘best way’ to approach a play is arrogant at the very least. In any case, people who go to the theatre as entertainment (which is the majority I feel) don’t want to ‘approach’ a play. They want to sit and experience an enjoyable evening. A review should be written in light of this.
“I suspect that James avoided a lot of critical judgement to avoid becoming involved in yet another DramaSoc/Nouse spat.”
Oh good, just what the play-watching public want: personal vendettas to affect a ‘review’.
John Shepherd
(I apologise in advance if I’ve somehow misunderstood what the situation is here.)
Why is this not the review that got printed in the hard copy? This is the second time, as far as I’m aware, that Nouse has shown a lack of faith in its reviewers. The first time was with last term’s production of ‘The Balcony’, which was slightly doctored to make sure nobody was too offended by the scathing nature of the review. This time, the review has been entirely replaced! This must be a grave insult to James MacDougald, and if I were him I would never write for the paper again.
James’s review may not to be everyone’s liking (and at least two of the critical comments are from people involved in the play, bear in mind), but it is a defensible and lucidly written review. It’s hardly full of unwarranted racist sentiments, or anything else that would merit a replacement. The replacement of one provocative review with an identikit gushing review (as in the hard copy) is what causes accusations of biased reporting and nepotism. Some of the Nouse team will inevitably be personally involved in some of what gets reviewed, but that should not get in the way of the articles, which are meant to be totally cool and impartial. Nouse should accept the review that their appointed(?) reviewer delivers, or else face the danger of alienating potential reviewers in the future.