The Inheritance - YV

Some spoilery thoughts about the play, which I saw weeks ago, but still think about. . .

To me, this feels like Easy Rider, the movie. In that movie, Two Bikers try to break free of what they see as a corrupt capitalist system, except the film begins with a very capitalist cocaine deal, the proceeds of which the pair live off for the rest of the movie. Effectively, they've blown it before they've begun.

This show feels just the same. Our egalitarian heroes circle the stage to tell their story, but they choose E M Forster, and his novel Howard's End, as their framing device. Since Howard's End is a story of class divide, they have blown their egalitarian status even before they begin. The rest of the show is about how badly they've blown it, and how much of their humanity is salvageable.

The Howard's End of this show is SO MUCH NEATER than the real "Howard's End." Because same sex sexuality makes it easy to chain lovers one to the other in a succession of descending class status (like how John Cleese was "better" than Ronnie Barker, who was "better" than Ronnie Corbett in the classic Frost Report comedy sketch), what we get here feels even more focused on the evils of class than the original work.

Andrew Burnap's Toby blows life the worst, and boy, was Andrew Burnap exciting to watch on stage. He brought so much snappy excitability, and effortless charisma, to irredeemable actions that I truly loved his character, despite myself loathing his actions. At the top of the class chain, John Benjamin's Hickey was equally disconcertingly charming and terrific as the Trump apologist, viewing freedom through his Ayn Rand selfish goggles, rather than realising what a horrendous lack of freedom was experienced at the bottom of the chain by poor old Sam Levine's Leo. What a trio of actors.

But it's the middle class chap, Kyle Soller's Eric, who ached for those above him, and those below him, in the class food chain, that gave this play it's heart. Soller really has an ability to radiate compassion, to really listen on stage and pay attention to other people. I loved him.

What pushes this play up the chain of plays, generally, is the meta element of Paul Hilton's E M Forster.  This allowed us to contrast his class system with our class system, his experience of sexual difference with our experience of sexual difference. Hilton's ability to be stiff, to be gentle, so perfect in depicting this character. I wanted to share a pint with Hilton's Forster, so convincing was he in his depiction, and also in the depiction of Forster's own enduring humanity and value.

Should there have been more female characters in the play? Maybe, but I think this play justifies including only one, as it tracks back in time through gay male experience to the origin of everyone: a mother. Having one woman in the play, having her be a mother, having her a symbol of a former prejudice now turned toward enlightenment, having her appearance be brief and concise, allows Redgrave's character to fill a huge space in the play, with a magnified and laser like focus, on what it is to fail, and to redeem, oneself. The light of of potential redemption, for the characters, and for the audience, is magnified by the lopsided gender casting, which enhances it's power. The fact that Vanessa Redgrave references the film, Howard's End, is also clever, as the play itself references the book, Howard's End, and it's author. So the whole hall of mirrors between present and past is beautifully bookended.

All in all, this was a terrific play and production, and though I begrudged the final Driving Miss Daisy reminiscent (actress, tone, etc) and sentimental music padded finale it's hammering of it's final moments, I forgive that indiscretion in the light of the brilliance that came before.

4 and a half stars.

I've got a lucky dip ticket for tomorrow, what time should I arrive? Do I join a queue or head straight to the box office?

Thanks to Steve for some very thoughtful comments. I like your take on the VR role. Very thought-provoking.

I am really tempted to see this again. Maybe I shall wait until the transfer.

Agreed - but then one of my biggest criticisms of the writing (and overall I thought it was an extraordinary achievement, but I did have a few holes to pick, and this is one) was the scene in which

You know that end of part 1 thing everyone has been going on about?

The best ending to a show I’ve ever seen. I am done.

I think the contrast when he mentioned Stonewall was telling though: he was making the point that other gay men were willing to risk jail to further the cause.

Yes, certainly, but I think Lopez stops just short of taking that conversation where it needs to go. The way several of the (younger) men in the play talk about politics, LGBTQ rights etc is glib, and part of Lopez's point is clearly that these characters have inherited privileges that the generations before them did not enjoy, and that some - not all - of them don't know how lucky they are. As I said, in that conversation about 'Maurice', the overwhelming impression is of men who would not have been brave enough to face those consequences themselves.

I went to the two part day today.

Firstly, the big positives - the acting was excellent all round, and Kyle Soller in particular as Eric at the heart of the play.

No weak links whatsoever, and after reading the concerns about Vanessa Redgrave, I thought she was fine with her monologue, although her accent strayed into Australian I think. Having seen her in the Year of Magical Thinking years ago, she remains one of the foremost actresses of her generation (I shall overlook her performance in Richard III at the Almeida) in my eyes. I liked Samuel H Levine particularly in the difficult roles of Leon (and Adam).

The staging was very effective indeed, great, simple lighting and bare stage meant this encouraged the actors to shine even more, although the model house was a little disappointing.

My main negative though is the writing - I just felt it was overindulgent and surprisingly narrow for such a long play. In fact there weren’t that many characters or stories being told, and my knowledge of Howards End (inevitably from the film and recent TV series, neither of which I loved that much), was probably a burden in trying to spot the links, equivalent characters and divergences. Even the “in” jokes of a long play were a bit misjudged.

Some of the writing seemed lazy - the debate between the liberals and Republican Henry, and I started to play “spot the Trump” reference. I’m afraid I couldn’t empathise with Toby at all - his story just didn’t involve me that much in its extremeness, and for such a major character, that’s a shame.

It’s rather inevitable to compare this to Angels of America. I felt that even the dislikable characters had more to say there (mostly Part One). Also, compared to the York Realist, which I saw multiple times, that moved me much much more because of the chemistry between the leads, and the context of the family which was so much more personal to me. This play hardly mentions family, with one exception for one character, so for me some of the context was lost. This is surprising since Howards End is as much about family, but I suppose the modern family of gay friends replaced that here, which was narrow.

Perhaps also, the construct of characters narrating their feelings and actions is, for me, a distancing device. It works when you can see how they think and contrast that to what they say, but just added that extra layer away from naturalness.

I did wonder whether this review makes me a “bad” gay (joke), or it would be better to mull things over and write this a few days later, or I shouldn’t have had such high expectations - I expected to be in bits in Part One and disappointed in Part Two based on comments here, but conversely Part One only hit in the last few minutes and I found Part Two more varied in scenes. Or, whether watching in one day was too much...

It makes it sound like I hated it. Not at all. Very solid 8.5 out of 10.

A fun pattern is that people who saw the two parts in different days seem to have enjoyed it more than those who had the marathon experience. I did the latter and I agree, at points part two can be a real let down.

The artist boyfriend was a bit of navel-gazing, I think - all of that art and truth vs beauty stuff - but I sort of think it was there to give Henry a moment to be not-awful before he descends into politics. It’s really hard to understand why Eric is with him if you don’t give him a moment - it’s easier to understand in Howard’s End because of the obvious constraints on women of the era, and because there’s a sense that Margaret is trying to ‘improve’ Henry and fully expects to expand his mind. Eric can’t really have that expectation, given what Walter has told him about Henry already, and his attempts to move Henry to some sort of charitable or philanthropic endeavour are really half-hearted.

This is why I wish they’d moved a little further away from the Howard’s End template after Forster is initially dismissed by Toby - his work does have to be understood as a product and portrait of his time, so transposing it to a modern context makes the character motivations harder to understand.

Personally, I don’t think it helps knowing too much about Howard’s End. I kept on playing spot the differences rather consciously which didn’t help. Coming to it blind would be better in my opinion - a play ought to work as a stand-alone piece, and I think it does.