Exploring recent history holds much promise, yet some potential remains unrealised.
The media landscape is teeming with content centered around the royal house, spanning from plays to series and movies, captivating the commoners’ fascination with the royal lifestyle. One intriguing subject for exploration is the 1995 Panorama interview where Diana exposed the royal family, conducted by Martin Bashir. Particularly compelling is the fact that 25 years later, with the release of Lord Dyson’s report and analysis of Bashir’s methods, this piece of media resurfaced in the public consciousness.
However, the question arises: is this historical snippet from the world of media, and undoubtedly the royal family, deserving of a dramatic exploration of history? Does it serve as a platform to reexamine topics such as power, accountability, and freedom of speech? Moreover, is it fair to solely blame Bashir, as implied by the play, for the surge in fake news and conspiracy theories? After all, his unconventional methods are still observable today in the coverage of other significant subjects.
Let’s begin by acknowledging the remarkable technical elements of this production. The choice of a recorded play appears to be a more fitting medium for capturing the essence of the interview’s story. The framing of interactions is skillfully executed, enhanced by Emily Irish’s compelling lighting that incorporates spotlights and torches, infusing the play with an air of mystery. Barnaby Race’s almost immersive audio cues further contribute to the atmospheric experience. Sami Fendall, without the use of doors and walls, ingeniously crafted an intimate, almost secretive space out of seemingly nothing.
However, the use of black and white alongside color in the production raises questions. I find myself pondering whether scenes shot in color could have been employed more effectively to underscore a more significant message within the narrative of the plot.
The cast delivered an exceptional performance as well. Yolanda Kettle convincingly portrays Diana with a recognizable combination of stoicism and vulnerability, featuring an airy voice and distinctive vocal tics. On the other hand, Tibu Fortes embodies a cunning Bashir who endeavors to connect with everyone, utilizing every tool at his disposal, including invoking the memories of deceased individuals, to propel his career forward. Despite this, he exudes an electrifying charisma and an unyielding drive for advancement. Matthew Flynn’s portrayal of Paul and his role as the narrator adds a brilliant touch as the voice of reason. Completing the ensemble, Naomi Frederick as Luciana and Ciarán Owens as Matt/Steve contribute seamlessly to the overall performance.
While I cannot find fault with the performers, I do have reservations about the direction. Tonally, the play consistently defies expectations, encompassing topics ranging from M&S ready meals to the Northern Ireland peace talks. This results in an uneven delivery of characters, occasionally bordering on mockery, especially in the portrayal of Diana. The retrospective sarcastic undertone, such as a royal member suggesting they can “ditch and go to America,” appears tonally discordant. By the end of the show, I found myself questioning whether I should have approached this production about “the woman who gave it, the man who made it happen, and the institution that broadcast it” as a satirical take with a more generalistic perspective.
Perhaps my most significant qualm with Maitland’s entire production lies in the utilization of a deceased person’s memory to moralize a social construct. While I understand the inclination to label Bashir’s actions as reprehensible and deserving further scrutiny, especially given his persistent portrayal of himself as an outsider to gain proximity to Diana, I felt profoundly uneasy when the late Diana was exploited to criticize her own son. Furthermore, the blatant suggestion that this incident served as the gateway to the post-truth era amounts to a logical fallacy.
It is undeniable that “journalists aren’t meant to be boy scouts,” yet I strongly believe that the nuanced dynamics, the power shifts between Diana and Bashir, should have been crafted with more subtlety and power. The translation of Maitland’s research onto the stage and the resulting hasty conclusions felt unsatisfactory. The play raises compelling questions about responsibility, morality, the definition of an outsider, and who holds the authority to define such a status in the current context. However, these themes could have been theatrically approached with more tact and, dare I say, more taste, particularly when invoking the memory of a deceased mother to moralise an idea.