fri 22/09/2017

Hang, Royal Court Theatre | reviews, news & interviews

Hang, Royal Court Theatre

Hang, Royal Court Theatre

Latest play from debbie tucker green is powerful, but lacks both drama and story

Time to decide: Marianne Jean-Baptiste in 'Hang'Stephen Cummiskey

One of the most talented playwrights to emerge in the 2000s, debbie tucker green is a law unto herself. The best word to describe her is uncompromising. When I interviewed her in 2003 she refused pointblank to answer any questions about her West Indian background and since then she has steadfastly declined to discuss her work in the media. Like Caryl Churchill, she doesn’t do publicity. So that just leaves the work, which is always provocative, original and written in an unmistakable voice.

Her latest, Hang, is a short 70-minute piece about a middle-aged black woman whose family has been the victim of a violent crime. Set in a parallel universe, which the playtext describes with worrying hyperbole as “nearly now”, all the action occurs during a meeting between this woman (played by the superb Marianne Jean-Baptiste) and two officials, an older woman and a younger man, both working for an unspecified agency that is responsible for recording her decision about what method of execution she has chosen for the perpetrator of the crime.

The deliberate ambiguity is increasingly frustrating and annoying

If all this sounds vague it is because green has deliberately written the play in this way. Jean-Baptiste’s character is called Three, the officials are Two (Claire Rushbrook) and One (Shane Zara), and no details are given about the crime, about the perpetrator or about where and when any of this is happening. Okay, I know that this deliberate ambiguity is valued in some new writing circles, but I found it increasingly frustrating and annoying. It also makes any sensible debate about the morality of the play very difficult – green doesn’t want us to think; she just wants us to feel. To me, this is a cop-out.

So Three gets all the best speeches, beautifully crafted monologues that are accusatory, descriptive and wrenched from the gut. Her descriptions of the effects of the unspeakable, but completely obscure, crime are riveting, and Jean-Baptiste finds impressive depths of feeling as she articulates her character’s pain and anger. Clutching a wet wipe with unsettlingly nervous fingers, her tone of scorn as she attacks the bureaucratic platitudes of the officials burns in the air. Their empty formulations – variations of “It’s okay, as long as you’re okay” – provoke her beautifully bitter ripostes.

Gradually, a highly emotional picture of Three’s family life emerges: her hard-working husband, her sister Suzette, her traumatised children Tyrell and Marcia. As well as true, hard feeling, the text here has a brutal, burnished poetry, its repetitions and reiterations glowing with the heat of an acutely imagined experience. By contrast, the language spoken by Two and One is banal, bland, evasive, and usually in bad faith. When they tangle themselves up in a particularly stupid, but entirely typical, lie, there was a gasp from the press-night audience as the deception was revealed.

But the main set-piece of the evening is when Three has to choose the method of execution for the guilty man. As One describes, once again in bureaucratic language, the options of lethal injection, gas, firing squad, beheading and finally hanging, one of the neon strips in Jon Bausor’s atmospheric design begins to fizz. As you’d expect, the details of the mechanics of capital punishment are horrendous and appalling.

At the same time, it also feels as if green is lecturing us, telling the Royal Court’s notoriously liberal audience something they surely already know: that the death penalty is hateful. Since she deliberately gives no details of the crime, nor of the judicial system, nor of the world in which these events are happening – and worst of all since there is no real story here – you leave the theatre frustrated rather than provoked.

Despite Jean-Baptiste’s nuanced and commanding performance, green’s own production (pictured above) lacks drama just as her text is short on intellectual stimulation. There is no real conflict here, and the system’s officials are cardboard Aunt Sallies – targets for the audience to laugh at – rather than individuals with a valid point of view. It’s a one-person play with a one-dimensional mindset. Watching it is a powerful experience, but not an enlightening one. Sometimes being a law unto yourself just leads to self-indulgence.

Comments

What a strange and oddly bitter review. Your comment that Green was trying to elicit feeling rather than thought (which in your words was a 'cop out') strikes me as bizarre as I am not sure how you have one without the other. Secondly the omission of a defined era or crime or legal authority struck me as a clever, deliberate devise that asked us focus to on the failures of the system as a whole, rather than the irrelevant detail of the particular, or any clearly defined reality. It heightened the morality of her decision, not weakened it. Thirdly your comments about the show's focus on capital punishment misses the real truth of the play, which for me delved into the intense and lasting impact of violence to individuals and their families, and the system's inablity to deal with emotion or ambiguity or psychological distress. It's an illuminating, powerful, angry, heartfelt, personal, and memorable piece of work. Worth seeing.

Well said, Emma Stone! Quite how Sierz both dismisses and accurately describes the heart of the play - Three's emotional devastation and that of her family in the wake of the unspecified crime - is a wonder to me. For the playwright to detail the crime itself would be to miss the point, and the discomfort green creates by the omission forces the audience to pay greater attention to what IS shown and told. For the man that coined the phrase 'in-yer-face theatre', Sierz seems surprisingly conventional in his tastes. Perhaps he finds the work of Beckett and Caryl Churchill equally mystifying? Is Martin Crimp as 'frustrating and annoying'? Or does he trust that these writers (like green) respect the capacity of their audiences to do some work? Finally, given Sierz's enduring resentment over green's wish to define which aspects of her life and work are open to public discussion, and Simon Hattenstone's vile hatchet job on Marianne Jean Baptist in a recent Guardian piece, green was probably wise to resist questions on her 'West Indian' (sic) background and to avoid discussing her work with the media. Meanwhile, her plays, including 'hang', never fail to inform, impress and provoke - emotionally, linguistically and intellectually. I hope theatre-goers will go and see for themselves; I am certain that those who engage their hearts and their minds will not be disappointed.

Add comment

Subscribe to theartsdesk.com

Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 10,000 pieces, we're asking for £3.95 per month or £30 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take an annual subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters