hang (NHB Modern Plays)

Product Information

random (Royal Court Theatre, 2008, dir. Sacha Wares; Royal Court Theatre Local, 2010, dir. Sacha Wares) So that just leaves the work, which is always provocative, original and written in an unmistakable voice.

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. A highly talented cast, a “what would I do?” theme and some trenchant writing combine to provide seventy minutes of gripping (if traumatic) drama. Each of these women is beautifully realised: the brash youngster whose justification is that she has "paid" and is therefore entitled; the sad older woman so unloved at home that she falls for drinks laced with sweet talk and convinces herself that a monetary transaction is romance; the local who hates the trade but who also colludes with it. Good acting; short, sharp and pungent theatre.Programmes – Discovery – Second Coming". Archived from the original on 5 June 2015 . Retrieved 5 June 2015. Arendt, Hannah (reissued 2006) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (London: Penguin). The unorthodox plot has us guessing and reassessing for much of the first part of this intermissionless play. The tension mounts as THREE seeks information from the employees of this institution, whose struggle to remain human is burdened by so many rules and protocols that they begin to lose the battle. All attendees are required to present proof of vaccination or a recent negative (within 48 hours) Covid test, ID, and remain masked throughout the performance. I think the best playwrights will allow the audience or the reader to inject the anger, and then the construction of words and sentences will inflict tje violence. There are some truly Shakespearean-level alitterations in this text.

Director Kolbrún Björt Sigfúsdóttir is not afraid to home in on the play’s disconcerting nature. There are often moments of uneasy silence, particularly as Williams makes her decision official by filling out scores of paperwork. Amplifying this unsettling atmosphere is Alisa Kalyanova’s set design paired with Benny Goodman’s lighting. Clinical in nature, the strobe lights, white floors, and plastic chairs are all cold and unwelcoming. As Williams becomes more agitated, the glitching lights and Tom Oakes ’ subtle but destabilising soundscape intensify the situation, and it seems to only be a matter of time before Williams implodes. Set Construction and Get-In : Keith Syrett, John McSpadyen, Alex Burton, Alexander Kampmann and members of the cast and crew 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. I’m not entirely sure what One and Two are – family liaison officers, perhaps, given how much they know about Three and her circumstances. More than a bit too much, as it turns out, and much to Three’s chagrin. Tweedleone and Tweedletwo, as I started calling them in my mind, are like those mortgage ‘advisers’ who can’t, officially, actually dispense anything that could be reasonably construed as advice. The play asks if the criminal justice system can truly be impartial, or even if it should be. When One and Two point out that some of Three’s questions are answered in some ‘literature’ (that is, an information pamphlet), Three replies that the literature would have been written by someone. That someone would have an opinion, as is their right. The logical conclusion is that true impartiality is an impossible dream.

Alert

Its proper dramatic craftmanship, digging further into a seemingly ordinary situation. Merging the most unimaginatively cruel fates for public institutions with the mundane and almost mechanical inevitabilities for humanly employement services; how we become so blind towards the execution of our jobs, that we can make any profession seem like the most ordinary task - this juxtapostion creates a striking metaphor for the experience of injustice in the face of government social services or other state services, and their interactions with the lower classes. Cryer, Robert (reissued 2011) Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Her latest play, hang, does not make as much impact as it might. She has written it in a cryptic fashion which means the audience does not understand the setting or central dilemma until the last few minutes"

hang offers a form of imaginative counter-history, as well as implicitly putting the audience (in the Royal Court Theatre where it premiered, overwhelmingly a white demographic) in the position of moral arbitration between right and wrong deeds.And it is a procedure. For all the scripted sympathy and underlying safety nets, all the 'can we get you anythings' and the cups of tea in cheap Ikea mugs, this is callous and routine. One and Two are just doing their jobs. Three is ending a life. It takes five minutes for anyone to ask how she's been. When they do, the humanity of the question comes as a jolt. 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. About a third of hang’s 70 minutes is given over to a minute dissection of bureaucratic inadequacy in the face of grief and anger. The jargon of transparency and auto-empathy is neatly caught – but there is not much new there. Nor is there much urgency in the stylised dialogue, with floating half-sentences masquerading as interrupted thought. Boycott, Owen (2014) ‘Extra Support for Victims of Crime Announced by Government’, Guardian [Online], 15 September, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/15/support-victims-crime-government-chris-grayling-justice. Accessed 23 May 2018. 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.