‘A comedic stab at the act of negotiation’
The concept of a play within a play is no stranger to the avid theatre-goer, however, this production of Winner’s Curse takes this one step further, presenting the audience with what I can only describe as a ‘play within a Ted Talk’. This talk would take us on a prolonged two and half hour trip, enlightening us about the act of negotiation.
As the play begins, the production makes no distinction between the hustle and bustle of the pre-show and its opening act. With house lights still on, a charming Clive Anderson steps out onto the stage, much to the delight of the older patrons in the room. (I for one as a younger viewer had no previous recognition of the broadcaster). Instantly the illusion of theatre is shattered; we are addressed by a charismatic character, Hugo Leitski, thanking us for coming along to his acceptance award for his ‘lifetime achievement in negotiation’.
The premise of the play, though simple on paper, has a rocky execution. Leitski, looks back to his first case as a budding diplomat, unravelling a conflict between two fictional countries that are negotiating over a strip of land. A seemingly simple story to navigate? Not quite. Instead, the audience is swung back and forth like a yo-yo between the typical convention of theatre storytelling and a Ted-Talk-style lecture. The idea, I came to the confused conclusion of, was to give the audience the feeling of an educative experience, similar to that of Leitski’s younger self in the story. Perhaps the Ted Talk element, as I’ve coined it, was a stab at fleshing out the play with a dash of originality but instead, it offered a shoehorned attempt of spontaneous comedy where it didn’t belong. And of course, with any interactive theatre, the uncertainty of the audience’s reaction was ever-present in the air. Some patrons stayed shy from Anderson’s direct address, others, over eagerly taking their ten seconds of spotlight a tad too far, requiring the actor to re-gain the reins of this already structurally shaky show.
Amid the corny interactive sections, the audience could just about grasp the direction of the story, following the hurdles and hindrances young Leitski faced with his elder negotiator, Korsakov (Michael Maloney). It was Maloney that kept this play afloat, presenting us with an effortless comedic performance as a dry-witted peacemaker, companioned by his young apprentice. The earlier scenes between Maloney and fellow actor, Arthur Conti (playing the young Leitski) gave us genuine comedic relief, driving the plodding pace along with sparks of slapstick-styled comedy. One gag saw a comedic montage of the pair travelling along a revolving stage, the simply sweet illusion was already appealing until craftily, Maloney stops – and whilst spinning motionlessly blurts out “I feel like we’ve been going round and round in the circles!”. So simple, but a big hit with the audience, the duo’s interactions became some of the favourite moments in the show.
However captivating the revolving stage may have been, unfortunately, it echoed the monotonous (round and round) structure of this show. Right as the audience was on the cusp of investing themselves in the story, suddenly the illusion was yet again shattered, and we found ourselves somewhat unwillingly, back in the world of a negotiation Ted Talk. And sadly, it was Anderson who fared the brunt of the play’s instability the most.
In his moments of audience interaction, Anderson boasted a confidence flair, giving us quick wit and selling us a strong, humble performance. Moments later, as the play returned to its plot, Anderson seemed to be struggling to uphold the basic need of the craft: Coming in too early, speaking over transitions and most notably, fumbling over his lines. At first, these fluffs were forgivable, leaning into a sort of fumbling naturalism that complimented his ad-lib, but as the play went on, these initial styled-out stumbles became ever the more painful.
In the second act, we are introduced to an eccentric American mediator – brought in after the two conflicting countries fail to settle. They have till midnight to reach an agreement, and the doomsday deadline finally gave us some long-awaited dramatic tension to spice up the plot. Even still, the play still managed to deflate the tension, returning to its earlier back and forth – round and round motif that we had been humouring for the previous two hours.
The play’s attempt at delivering a message, (whatever that may have been), would have been better served without the interactive interruptions, sold perhaps as a dark-satirical play. I must give credit to the energy, commitment and aliveness of the cast. After getting over the initial motion sickness of the performance’s jolted nature, it was refreshing to see actors on stage having a great time. In turn, for those who looked past the clunkiness and frankly gave up on waiting for the lightbulb moment of the play, they too seemed to be having fun.
With some heavy-handed tinkering, (and maybe an extra tech rehearsal or two) this has the potential to become a tight production. I say this in mind of our current climate where war and negotiation are rife in our day-to-day life. But unfortunately, as it stands, this stab at comedy was a stab in the wrong direction, though with how dizzy the play makes you feel, who can blame anyone for missing the shot?
Reviewed by George Yarsley