Machinal - Ustinov, Bath / Old Vic

I can easily imagine a great drama inspired by Ruth Snyder's life. It would be exactly like "Double Indemnity," in which a woman insures her husband, then murders him together with her lover to collect the loot, which is what Ruth Snyder did. Billy Wilder made a smashing job of that story, which is almost as good as "Sunset Boulevard."

And I agree that this piece lacks all the moment-to-moment nailbiting qualities of a drama like that.

Some spoilers follow. . .

But Sophie Treadwell did things differently: an absolute pioneer of a woman reporter who interviewed the Mexican Revolutionary, Pancho Villa, reported on World War 1, marched with suffragettes, refused to take her husband's surname and wrote AND directed for the New York Stage!

I suppose she didn't want to write a conventional drama about Ruth Snyder that's forgotten about as soon as the dramatic ride is over, and wanted to be a bit pioneering about this play too (though Eugene O'Neill had already written an Expressionist play for the New York Stage with a male protagonist, "The Hairy Ape.")

So, yes, she writes "deliberately two-dimensional stereotypes," and names her protagonist, "Young Woman" and denies every character in the play a name except the antagonist, "George H Jones," the husband who dares to have individuality but reduces her only to her "pretty little hands."

Treadwell adopts the Expressionist technique of 9 panels, like the "Stations of the Cross," though her panels end not with Resurrection but with Crucifixion, because she is not creating moment-to-moment drama at all, but showing us a horrific vision of our life as objects, caricaturing us as machines to reveal how we are trapped in a great big capitalist unfeeling machine (just like in Sheena Easton's video lol).

The triumph of Richard Jones's production is how clearly and cuttingly he illustrates Treadwell's vision, how claustrophobic and revelatory he makes it.

Unlike you, I agree with drmaplewood that Rosie Sheehy finds an "incredible" amount of humanity in all the robotic motions she has to march through.

I really think there is a place for a revelatory dark Expressionist vision of humanity like this, alongside typical dramas, written by a pioneering feminist who could see the coming of AI and machines taking over the world more than a hundred years ago.

Obviously don't put it on at the Gielgud though.

I agree with your analysis.

For me, the fact that Sheehy humanises her to such a massive extent despite this, and despite her terrible choices, is why this is such a powerful production for me.

Spoilers follow. . .

I think Treadwell's point is that society is even more terrible than the "Young Woman" is.

We know she's shallow, like you say, cos she is fixated on "wavy hair" lol.

A fetishistic dream she has because all this mechanised society does is compartmentalise everybody for their parts, and she's been brought up to be part of this machine.



It's such a great pioneering play, so willing to do things differently. It's hard to fathom even now, a hundred years later.

I completely understand your response, but I can't help thinking the current production is close to perfect.

Two of my friends thought this was literally the worst thing they'd ever seen - which I sort of understand in a way.

It's right on the edge for me if not working at all, but I still thought Sheehy was very good so ended up with 3 stars.

I think your thoughts are excellently expressed. Thank you.

I saw this last week from the front row of the dress circle , which afforded a picture book view.
The lighting, sound, staging and choreography were as superb as others have said so full marks to them
Rosie Sheehy provided the human element in this expressionistic nightmare with a bravura performance.
As you can tell I was very impressed with it as a piece of theatre but just failed to connect with it on an emotional level.
Perhaps if my view had been the front row of the stalls my reaction would have been different

This is a magnificent depiction of an unknown condition that subsequently became known as high functioning autism. Sophie Treadwell must have worked incredibly hard to try and understand – in a time when it had no name, no medical treatments, no understanding; a choice between straight up mental asylum (probably with EST) or social oddball (an ostracised, mistreated, outsider). Or for those who saw no other way, death.



As a society, we also didn’t have a clue about this until the 1990s, and the beginnings of an understanding not much more that 15 or so years ago (mass MRI helped a lot).

Blew me away this afternoon : 1928 for goodness sake!

Well played Rosie Sheehy.

There is nothing I can add to all the extremely articulate comments already made about this, just that I was very impressed with the set design (amazing) and by Rosie Sheehy- and in general. I had not seen any previous production and didn't know what the story was about until I read the programme's article. It's astonishing that this was written in 1928! I can see how some people might not like this, it is not a naturalistic dialogue - for lack of a better destription...but it's not meant to be, it's supposed to be representing how people are stuck in routines and repetitions- and how this young woman struggles with it all. It did take me a few minutes to understand what the play was trying to say, and to appreciate Rosie's acting (which for a bit I found OTT, until I realised what she was doing). Others have already remarked on Rosie's performance- she is incredible and so intense that even the other actors are looking at her in awe at the end. I've already recommended to some friends.

I thought this was incredible, totally recommend.

I don't think you'll regret it.

I've just left tonight's performance and I can only echo what the others have already said - totally worth seeing!

You don’t ask for opinions so I will add a view in case it assists anyone else.

Both seem possible or not important. Also, the scene might serve as a metaphor for her life; people constantly telling her what she should do, what is normal, what is correct behaviour (taking the hospital scene literally, for her to bond with the new born). But she cannot do what society expects, and sometimes demands. She cannot comprehend the urgings, her brains is wired differently. She is not capable of the bonding.

When the crescendos of criticism come, she hears only a wall of intrusive, hostile noise. She doesn’t hear individual voices. She quickly feels the need to flee - because she knows from long experience that judgement is quickly followed by condemnation and, often times, bullying. Others don't understand she has only one way of being, and she doesn't understand why they don't understand (and won't, she is a century too early for meaningful diagnosis).

Imo, the scene is an interesting doorway into the world of autism written by an empathetic person who doesn’t know she is describing autism but appears to be unusually intuitive.