Where do I start?! It was the best of times? Definitely not! It was the worst of times? Quite possibly! A number of the audience said that this was the worst show they had ever seen! In fact, about 50 or so walked out half way through the first act, and many did not return after the interval. Granted, this was the first preview, but I will give a show some allowances for that, and this had nothing to do first preview problems: this was the show itself. From the stage filled with shipping containers, the screens broadcasting blurry and flickering political images, and the costumes and trudging individuals, the political message was clear: anti-establishment, anti-Brexit and Britain should be inclusive and accepting, assisting displaced people, refugees and asylum seekers. But, this message wasn’t conveyed cleverly or artistically. It was done in a gratuitous and unnecessary manner, ramming the message down the audience’s throat. This is not the stuff you expect at Regent’s Park. Important note: know your audience. Subtly, art, magic and beauty is what Regent’s Park is known for and why people go there, not gritty, in-your-face and obscene productions. And the director has absolutely no excuse for not knowing his audience: Timothy Sheader is also the Artistic Director and Joint Chief Executive for Regent’s Park Theatre Ltd, and has been since 2007. I have no problem with a director or a writer trying to convey a political message, or trying to attract a new audience, so long as it doesn’t corrupt the medium and beauty of theatre; the more cleverly and artistically the message is conveyed, the more I appreciate the piece. This theatre’s production of A Midsummer’s Nights Dream cleverly protested about domestic violence and domestic abuse, but it was still a stunning and magical production; the mechanicals scene, which I find is usually one of the most unimaginative and tedious scenes, was truly fantastic, and received such a round of applause when I saw it that it stopped the show for a few minutes! Dickens was a social commentator - think ‘Oliver Twist’ (also to be seen at Regent’s Park this season) ‘Bleak House’ and ‘Great Expectations’. His novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ is also social commentary. It is not just about London and Paris, but the two different cities within Paris: the poor and the rich. Now, to completely invert the novel and portray that London and/or Britain is still two cities/two countries, that would have been clever, and I would have been interested to see that show. But, this is not the message that was conveyed through the adaptation and direction; or, if it was, it was lost on me and most of the audience!
Let’s just take a step back and consider the story and context of ‘A Tale of Two Cities’. The French Revolution. Poverty and destitution overthrow an oppressor and the noble aim swings to brutality, those poor and destitute becoming the oppressor themselves. The nobility flee to Britain, leaving the innocents (the seamstress) to suffer the new brutal regime. Does that make one sympathetic to the migrant cause? Does that not say that those who are fleeing are the ones who created the situation in the first place, and the people who really need our help and sympathy are still there suffering? And so this production’s emphasis on the migrant cause seems misplaced. It may think that by using the migrant cause it’s showing that there are still two worlds - that of the rich and that of those who have nothing. That would be a clever and poignant commentary and, although not necessarily my cup of tea and the escapism I look for in theatre, if that theme was followed through I could accept and appreciate that message and its portrayal. However, it definitely doesn’t feel like that is what the use of the migrant cause if trying to convey - it feels like a criticism of the audience and the British government for not being sympathetic to it, and not being inclusive and accepting enough; which is also reflected in Carton’s final monologue. If, however, this production is trying to show that there is still social inequality and poverty and destitution, then the anti-establishment message completely undermines it. The French Revolution was anti-establishment and look how bloody and brutal it became!
It feels like a political message was chosen and then this play selected for that message to be forced into; rather than choosing this play and then choosing the message to be conveyed through it. It was as though the production was trying to sell a message, but couldn’t make up its mind on which one to sell (the migrant cause or the social inequality that still remains), didn’t follow through on either of them, and so compromised the medium.
Right, so, let’s talk about the show itself. It has to be said that, in almost all respects, the second act is much better than the first act, so if you only turn up at the interval you will see a pretty good show and not have politics rammed down your throat. The use of the shipping containers to set the various scenes was a nice idea and clever stage device. However, they, and the ladders used to climb up and down them, will likely be treacherous in the rain. They also seemed awfully clunky and slow at times, and their positioning meant that the audience could see off into the back ‘wing’: you could see the cast and crew coming on and off, the children being told when to come on and where to go and, on occasion, a costume change. This distracted from the action on stage, and a glimpse of the foppish Monseigneur spoilt the impact of his reveal. Whilst on the subject of Monseigneur, his characterisation was reminiscent of Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar and, if I recall correctly, he even has the same colour scheme! The screens at the sides of the stage showing the anti-establishment videos were too small and a completely pointless distraction. They didn’t appear to show anything of substance or interest and they were showing things whilst there was action on stage, so if you looked at one you’d miss the other. The pace, especially towards the end of the second act, was painfully slow. Sometimes this was to allow scene changes, or as ladders were climbed, but some script pruning is also definitely required: the show went up 15 minutes late, and there was a 15 minute technical delay, but the show didn’t finish until 11.30pm! There are dance/movement sequences, some of which are to try and cover the slow scene changes, but they feel far too long and get repetitive and boring. For example, Monseigneur’s ride to the country was innovative but went on for far too long - long enough to allow 50 people to walk out! The acting, particularly in the first act, is wooden and there was barely any chemistry between the characters. You are at a complete loss as to how Lucie Manette (Marieme Diouf) and Charles Darney (Jude Oswusu) end up married, and why Sydney Carton (Nicholas Karimi) declares his love for Lucy: there is no real background to either storyline and so they come out of the blue. A consequence, I feel, of the story being made peripheral to the political message trying to be conveyed. A microphone was being passed around the cast to introduce particular scenes or for some speeches. I’m not sure if this was due to a sound/microphone pack/technical issues, but it was strange and distracting, and if there was a point, again, it was lost on me! The angle-grinding in the second act was atmospheric and menacing, but it was done at the same time as a scene was being played and completely drowned out the lines. It was also done by bare-chested men and I inhaled sharply as the first sparks flew and got very close to bare skin! I really liked the change from modern day to period costumes, with the second act almost entirely in period. This change felt a little too gradual, but I think that’s partly because members of the cast also play the ensemble, and so you’d see them as their character in period costume in one scene, and then as ensemble in modern clothing in the next. I don’t think this interchanging worked particularly well and think the production could have benefitted from an actual ensemble. After a massive point being made about the fact that there needed to be 52 prisoners for execution, there were then too many prisoners for the actual execution scene itself, so one prisoner was not executed. However, by far the most problematic part of this production was the casting of Darney and Carton. Put bluntly, their similarity in appearance is an absolutely pivotal plot point, and in this production Darney is black and Carton is white. I have no problem with colour-blind casting, but this felt like it undermined the integrity of the story. The audience we actually laughing in the scene when they are to compare Carton and Darney, so different are they. I suspect the message trying to be conveyed is that everyone is the same no matter what they look like; and that is an admirable message, but not when it is to the detriment of the fundamental plot point. This is again another example of the story being made peripheral to the political message trying to be conveyed.
Particular mention must be made of Claire-Louise Cordwell as Madame Defarge, who was by far the best thing in this production with her intelligent, brooding, menacing portrayal. My favourite scene was the one between Madame Defarge and Miss Pross (Lorna Gayle), with the former speaking French whilst the latter spoke English. It was brilliant and captivating to watch.
The novel is not only a social commentary but also a story about love and self-sacrifice. I cried when I read the novel. These major themes are all but completely missing from this production: there is only one scene, between Carton and the seamstress, which is truly moving and heart-breaking. As a result, I feel that this production misses the true beauty of the story and, as I have said, the story feels peripheral and as though it has been sacrificed for a political message to be conveyed.
The production as it is is too long, too politically blunt, too politically confused and painfully unaware of the beauty of the novel. I would be intrigued to see this production again after it has had its preview run and received its first night reviews to see if anything is changed.