Author: Erifyli Gigante

It’s been a hot minute since we last saw a Rory Mullarkey play on a London stage, but Mates in Chelsea is here to prove that during this five-year absence Mullarkey has merely been sharpening his knives (or pens).

Witty, absurd, and painfully relevant, Mullarkey’s portrayal of the British upper (and at times one would argue middle) classes has the auditorium of the Jerwood Theatre roaring with laughter. 

Theodore “Tug” Bungay is living what he considers to be the perfect life in his lavish Chelsea apartment as a “professional viscount”. He has nothing to worry about other than planning his next summer escapade with his best friend Charlie and choosing between flowers or biscuits as an apology gift to his upset fiancée. However, he is suddenly faced with a conundrum, when his dear Mama informs him that he has spent all his inheritance on champagne and smoked salmon and so she has made a deal to sell his beloved Dimley Grange castle to an unknown, undercover Russian oligarch. Tug’s attempt to salvage his favourite place on earth triggers a domino effect of escalating chaos and confusion, perfectly orchestrated by Sam Pritchard’s masterful direction.

The production is perfectly cast. Laurie Kynaston’s Tug is the perfect blend of arrogance and naïvité and he somehow manages to keep us totally invested in the story of a character for whom we develop very little sympathy. Showcasing his exceptional comedic skills, as always, George Fouracres is arguably the star of the show as Charlton “Charlie” Thrupp, Tug’s ridiculously wealthy, and wildly culturally inappropriate best friend. 

In this astute dissection of British society, each character serves almost as a different component of a very problematic whole. Driven by their own selfish motives, the characters relationships are purely transactional, devoid of any feelings, and Rory Mullarkey is not scared of exposing the hypocrisy that lies beneath the infamous British etiquette. Major focus is placed on England’s immigrant community and on all the ways in which the elite benefit on their expense, from investing in “migrant accommodations” to appropriating language and fashion on a daily basis. This sharp criticism of English entitlement and cultural ignorance is present throughout the play and culminates in a brilliantly written (and very uncomfortable) moment where Mullarkey holds the mirror up to the audience by having Oleg, the Russian character, break the fourth wall and invite the audience to clap along while he performs his “Russianness”, exclaiming “I know this is what you want!”. And, of course, the majority of the audience happily obliges, unaware of the striking irony. 

Overall, Mates in Chelsea strikes the perfect balance between funny, sophisticated, and uncomfortable and is brought to life through a beautifully designed and executed production. Absolutely not to be missed. 

Ever since the first whispers of her relationship with Charles, back in the 80s, the media have always been drawn to Diana Spencer’s story like moths to a flame. Princess Diana’s famous BBC interview in 1995 was watched by approximately 200 million people across the globe and sparked controversy that continues to this day. Twenty-eight years later, the public’s appetite seems to still be yearning for the next exposé. 

If by going to see The Interview, you’re hoping to be made privy to some previously unearthed information on the late Princess of Wales, you will find yourself disappointed. While trying to stay as true to the facts as possible, Jonathan Maitland aims, judiciously, not to expose some untold version of Diana’s story, but rather to present the bigger, universal questions that emerge from the chain of events leading up to her interview and its aftermath. And he definitely succeeds in that.

The first half of the play is heavily focused on Diana and her relationship with BBC’s Martin Bashir, conductor of the famous interview, as well as with other characters close to her who influenced her decisions. We quickly understand that the interview itself is merely a means to an end, an end that varies significantly for each one of the characters. 

The second half focuses more on Martin Bashir, who rose to fame after the interview aired. His days of glory however were short lived, as his morally questionable methods sparked a series of accusations and criminal investigations that only died down a couple of years ago. Michael Fentiman’s clever direction echoes those events as he subtly shifts the tone of the piece from interview to interrogation, making us almost feel like we’re observing a trial, as each character “takes the stand” to defend their choices. 

Yolanda Kettle creates an utterly mesmerising version of Diana and settles more and more into the character as the play progresses. She does an exceptionally good job at balancing Diana’s soft-spoken personality with meeting the acoustic demands of a full auditorium. Tibu Fortes is brilliant as Martin Bashir, whose unwavering conviction in the righteousness of his personal crusade makes it impossible for the audience to paint him, as with any of the other characters, in black or white, which is of course the entire point.

As the play itself suggests, the impact of a story varies depending on the context within which it is being told. Therefore, watching this play today, it feels impossible to separate its themes from the current socio-political climate. In a time when access to masses of information is easier than ever before, when virtue signalling serves as the ultimate currency for morality and when social media justice crusaders are ready to condemn anyone who dares to sit anywhere other than on either end of the spectrum, the questions that arise from The Interview seem more relevant than ever. Does such a thing as “objective truth” even exist? How much can we rely on information that reaches us after it has been edited, polished, and rephrased by an array of people, all with different agendas, let alone make decisions based on that information? Is it impossible to see the full picture of something while it is happening? Is doing the wrong thing better than doing nothing?Who can tell what the answer to those questions is, but it is more important than ever that we ask them. And The Interview definitely does that.