Richmond Theatre – until 9 March 2019
Reviewed by Prachya Van De Gevel
4****
Art centres on 3 pivotal roles played by 3 middle aged men in a crisis over their viewpoints on a piece of art.
The scenery is very basic with each character defined by a different art or no art installed into their apartment. Curiously I found myself not worrying about the background or scene changes because of the superb acting by the 3 leads. The character of Mark played Denis Lawson sets the first scene in motion and has the most interaction with the audience. We all say that art is subjective and no more so than Mark’s view point on a recent acquisition by Serge, played by Nigel Havers, that seems to cause him great upset and turmoil, almost to the point that Mark is unable to fathom why he even has a friendship with someone that would consider the 200k masterpiece art. But it’s this relationship I have the biggest issue with.
Whilst I cannot deny the acting is wonderful and the experience of the actors shows to a point of being faultless. I find my mind drifting as to why grown men would take such issues to heart. On further investigation the play is written by a french playwright Yasmina Reza, who, whilst it has moments of wit and clever dialogue, draws out this 1 and a half hour play into an almost tedious back and forth exchange of words and emotions. To the point I kept thinking why are they sharing their deep emotions so much and why is a painting affecting them so much? If I imagine this scenario amongst friends, one would have a laugh at the painting, the other would say well its your money do what you want. Why the need for the painting to be a metaphor of how they perceive each other’s roles in their lives.
Thank goodness the play is lightened by Yvan, the middle man so to speak, played by Stephen Tompkinson. The character is clearly in some crisis and already attending therapy, he has enough on his plate through a crazy bridezilla and a the actions of his mother versus, well, everyone.
Stephen definitely has some of the longest monologues in the play and delivers these brilliantly much to the chagrin of the audience. His whole character is a welcome distraction to the bickering between Mark and Serge, which seemed endless and almost to my sense a bore. Perhaps I am not used to hearing men talk about their feelings so much and in some ways it almost felt uncomfortable. Therein lies the real issue – that perhaps society doesn’t seem comfortable with people airing their feelings and in particular men, and maybe this is why I still rate this 4****
I cannot fault the actors in their commitment and delivery of their lines, but there was plenty of times I was clock watching. I certainly was left stimulated in my thoughts surrounding the staging and the use of the props in their symbolism and how I was interpreting the scenes. Myself and friend actually discussed more in depth conversation behind the hidden metaphors of the small and subtle nuances that moved each scene along trying to find more to say about that and their relevance to each of the characters perspectives on the painting that had caused all the drama in the first place and all I can say is Art is subjective.