Fringe 25: 113

Rating: ★★

SPOILER-FREE BITESIZE:

Nothing itches my brain like a new take on dystopia, or using dystopia as a means for new ideas, but nothing shuts my brain down like already-seen dystopian trends with disappointing execution. Ethan McLucas’ 113 strikes out hard with some of its ideas, and uses well-known themes and motifs to back them up, however the general presentation of these plans falls short, through some awkward executions and inconsistencies. The play’s attempt at bold new strokes just doesn’t hit the mark, despite excellent acting, and might make for an enjoyable experience for some, but doesn’t yet garner the critical appreciation it seems to be asking for.

SPOILERS FROM HERE:

113 follows two characters; the apparently level-headed 49, played by Isobel Glover, and the furious and fiery 64, played by George Loynes, who share a wall between their two cells in what they assume to be some kind of prison. The play follows the two as they are wiped of their memories and traumatically forced to try and regain them. Glover and Lucas maintain a high level of acting throughout, which makes for the majority of the enjoyability of the play. For all the dystopian elements drawn upon in the play, it is interesting that it seems the largest influence on 113 is Dashner’s The Maze Runner. The anger at losing one’s name and identity, and the slow struggle to remember it whilst navigating an alien environment is a story that Dashner popularized with his book series, and indeed Loynes’ characterization in the opening scene could almost be inserted into or taken from Dylan O’Brien’s in The Maze Runner’s film adaptation. This isn’t a bad thing in theory – those books were a brilliant contribution to the teen dystopian subgenre – however, their role in the influence of this play doesn’t resolve into anything groundbreaking, and Lucas’ ‘Thomas’-esque delivery of the opening scene doesn’t seem to be contributing anything new.

To confront the elephant in the room when it comes to 113 is necessary. Throughout the performance, we are dominated by a wall which partitions the stage diagonally, with the audience arranged so that each half of the audience can only see one side of the stage, and can only hear the other. In my mulling over this bold staging choice, I was very close to calling this move ‘brilliant’, and it has to be admitted, it almost is, but in the production as it stands it falls just short of brilliant, and so unfortunately becomes ‘trying to be brilliant’. I watched the performance on 49’s side of the stage, and quickly realised this was a good choice, as in attempting to partition the audience’s view I could see most of Loynes’ performance as 64. It was, however, obvious that the other side could not see Lucas as 49, evidently the intention. When Loynes was out of sight, however, he became increasingly hard to hear whenever he was quiet. Furthermore, whilst the dialogue and roles of 49 and 64 were balanced, it became quickly apparent that 64 was the main character of the story and action, creating an imbalance in the audience. My conclusion being, therefore, that the wall is almost brilliant, or trying to be brilliant, and would succeed with some rethinking, some redirection, and a fresh pair of attentive eyes.

At various stages in the story a character called ‘J. Doe’ appears, played by Sali Adams, although the name ‘J. Doe’ can only be gleaned from reading the play’s advertisement, as this name never appears in the actual production. Their role is dubious, apparently a worker at the mental hospital they are in, but also taking on the role of Satre’s Valet in Huis Clos, with a splash of O’Brian in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Despite this mix, J. Doe isn’t in the least bit scary as a character. Their dialogue initially appears sticky and forced, and in the second half of the play, they appear to 49 in multiple hallucinatory moments where they slip between Southern US, English and Scottish accents. If McLucas has a vision with these scenes, I don’t see it, but was instead left confused and withdrawn from the action. To confront other immediate issues with the production would be to call out that 49’s jacket actually read ’65’ on the front, or to beg the use of fade ins and outs for the sound tech, where the cut ins and outs appear awkward and low-tech. Furthermore, the character of 64 was confused in regards to their violent nature. At the point where 49 tries to defend them against their self-loathing, 64 has already threatened them multiple times, such as saying ‘you’re lucky there’s this wall between us’ as they start out in rage. This male aggression met by female comfort feels exceedingly masculine, exaggerated by the fact that the two have never met – they face a blank slate that they are chalked onto by obviously male writing.

However when it comes to 49’s character, writing, and presentation, all is well executed. The craft and delivery of the character comes across well as she struggles between her beliefs and realities, and is entirely satisfying to watch. Glover is engaging as an actor, beginning slowly with acute characterisation and building throughout the performance, never letting up. From my vantage point, I could tell that Loynes was also a strong actor displaying his skill, but the literal wall between us prevents me from commenting further.

It is clear that McLucas is aiming high and striking hard with 113, however I can’t help but feel that this production doesn’t fulfil all that it could be, and doesn’t achieve what it wants to be achieving. With revision and further refining, this could be a stand-out performance, and whether it will yet be, we will have to wait and see.