This one-man-play (that's two in the Traverse in one day, bit like buses really) consists of the reflections of an old man after his wife has died - the title probably gave that last bit away. It is a fiction, or perhaps more like an imagined future autobiography. While the performance has many problems, it is performed with joy and written with a passion and skill that is clear and undeniable.
Stefan, a septuagenarian, looks back over the trials and joys of a long life. He speaks with unflinching detail about disease, death, grief, sex and pain. The plot is the narrative of a life, so it's hard to break it down into a clear description, but it covers the making and breaking of family life - love, sex and death (not always in that order).
The play is sprinkled with references to "future living", like paperless books, iChip (which seems to be a step towards androidism; exciting), the trends "in the '20s" to wear sunglasses everywhere. It is endearing and makes for some funny moments, but you do wonder what the point is. The essentials of human interactions are the same, it seems, and considering that that is the point, more or less, then why not set it today, looking back over the last 70 years? Well, an artistic choice is just that, and that's fine. What I will say is that Stefan Golaszewski does not look, or sound or act old. I don't think it would have been a good idea to do a pantomime act of an old man, but just referring to your oldness doesn't make you old. I saw a thirty something year old fantasising about being an old man. And, I suppose, that is what we saw. That's ok, but what level of reality were we meant to view it on? Maybe we don't need to be able to answer that question. Either way, he does not have an old spirit, and that is disconcerting.
Another disconcerting this is that the character - and I hope not the writer-performer - seemed to equate sex with love. He appeared to indicate that possessions are the same as happiness. His wife - Pudding - really is something he wished to consume and could not stand another consuming her. At some moments it did feel a bit more imagination therapy, which is fine and didn't feel indulgent, but did create a very curious dynamic. At the core of this piece is a reflection on (by the audience, not the character) male possessiveness and inability to contextualise actions from another's point of view - essentially pointing out the male tendency to lack empathy.
I feel I am sounding harsher than I feel towards this piece. It was performed with great skill, and true joy - something rare enough these days. There was a great sense of the emotional dynamics - bringing us through the character's feelings of happiness, despair and everything in between. We may not have always liked the character we saw, but I do believe we understood him. The performance used repetition of movement and words to great effect and while pushing the physical and vocal limits in certain moments, still managed to feel understated. For that credit must surely go to Philip Breen, who also designed the show. I really did feel as though the emotional highs and lows were well supported and wholly appropriate. Overall, a very strong piece of theatre.
7 out of 10.
At the Traverse (Traverse 2) at various times.
- James Grogan
Stefan, a septuagenarian, looks back over the trials and joys of a long life. He speaks with unflinching detail about disease, death, grief, sex and pain. The plot is the narrative of a life, so it's hard to break it down into a clear description, but it covers the making and breaking of family life - love, sex and death (not always in that order).
The play is sprinkled with references to "future living", like paperless books, iChip (which seems to be a step towards androidism; exciting), the trends "in the '20s" to wear sunglasses everywhere. It is endearing and makes for some funny moments, but you do wonder what the point is. The essentials of human interactions are the same, it seems, and considering that that is the point, more or less, then why not set it today, looking back over the last 70 years? Well, an artistic choice is just that, and that's fine. What I will say is that Stefan Golaszewski does not look, or sound or act old. I don't think it would have been a good idea to do a pantomime act of an old man, but just referring to your oldness doesn't make you old. I saw a thirty something year old fantasising about being an old man. And, I suppose, that is what we saw. That's ok, but what level of reality were we meant to view it on? Maybe we don't need to be able to answer that question. Either way, he does not have an old spirit, and that is disconcerting.
Another disconcerting this is that the character - and I hope not the writer-performer - seemed to equate sex with love. He appeared to indicate that possessions are the same as happiness. His wife - Pudding - really is something he wished to consume and could not stand another consuming her. At some moments it did feel a bit more imagination therapy, which is fine and didn't feel indulgent, but did create a very curious dynamic. At the core of this piece is a reflection on (by the audience, not the character) male possessiveness and inability to contextualise actions from another's point of view - essentially pointing out the male tendency to lack empathy.
I feel I am sounding harsher than I feel towards this piece. It was performed with great skill, and true joy - something rare enough these days. There was a great sense of the emotional dynamics - bringing us through the character's feelings of happiness, despair and everything in between. We may not have always liked the character we saw, but I do believe we understood him. The performance used repetition of movement and words to great effect and while pushing the physical and vocal limits in certain moments, still managed to feel understated. For that credit must surely go to Philip Breen, who also designed the show. I really did feel as though the emotional highs and lows were well supported and wholly appropriate. Overall, a very strong piece of theatre.
7 out of 10.
At the Traverse (Traverse 2) at various times.
- James Grogan
Leave a comment