This project is about what happens when a play has two different directors for two casts in two different venues. Cut wasn’t much shorter and actually referred to the writer having cut the umbilical cord to the play she wrote by giving it to another director. She directed the Uncut version herself.

The play tells the story of a woman struggling to cope when her cheating husband has a stroke and she feels obligated to care for him. The afternoon show Cut was missing in humour and an altogether drab experience. The evening showing of Uncut, however, immediately presented a funny, sad, warm and troubling play and an all together engaging experience. Neither performance had a clearly defined ending, but at least the Bedlam audiences didn’t need to be prompted with bows….

It wasn’t the different venues, but simply that the Attic ensemble couldn’t carry the piece without the set or direction of the Bedlam performance. The good performances were the exception in the Attic with the Australian nurse, the husband after the stroke and the brave Audrey Tautou Look-a-like actor struggling to make the woman come alive. At the Bedlam it was the other way around where one minor male part could have done with some improvement.

The experience of the two plays was as black and white as the costumes chosen for both performances – you could argue the baby died once the umbilical cord got cut.

Should you still go see both as a complete project? I actually think you should. And see Uncut first as Cut makes no sense otherwise.

KGN

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 19th, 2006 at 10:02 am and is filed under Theatre Reviews 2006. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.