Image via Wikipedia

A Reading of Joe Sutton’s new play Complicit shows signs of a great production; tense through-line of action, an emotional tie between husband and wife fitted together in a piece filled with the ever stimulating art of montage. However, Kevin Spacey’s Old Vic production of the play does not thrill as one might expect.

The plot rotates around three characters; Journalist Ben (Richard Dreyfuss), his wife Judith (Elizabeth McGovern) and Ben’s Lawyer, Rodger (David Suchet). Ben finds himself in trouble with the government after publishing a controversial book on US torture techniques containing confidential information. He must make the agonising decision whether to take the “hard road”; conceal the source he obtained the information from and face a lengthy prison sentence, or the “easy”; confess who his source is and walk free but without  his dignity and probably, his job. We flitter between outside court hearings, domestic life between husband and wife and phone conversations between the trio as we wait on Ben’s decision and the consequences of this.

Perhaps a failing of the production could be the timing; a looming ‘credit crunch’ and rising unemployment rates dominating the forefront of the media is closer to the public’s mind than the ongoing “war on terror”. An audience whose jobs are at risk are far less likely to feel sympathetic for a journalist who has over crossed the line than they would have perhaps a year ago when raging terror attacks seemed the biggest threat to society. Furthermore, with Bush’s Republican government firmly replaced with a new figure of ‘inspiration’ in Barack Obama, the long term criticism of the American government that has taken place over the past few years seems firmly behind us. Praised for his work as artistic director of the Old Vic by many critics on already established plays, Spacey has been damned for his choice of new works and one could argue this an example of it. Political dramas can become outdated very quickly and before us we have the perfect example of a new play that has already lost the majority of its strength in relevance; the wrong play at the wrong time for the wrong audience.  

However, if this is the case, why has the nation’s love affair with political playwrights like David Hare and Howard Brenton not ended? Hare’s Gethsemane, which looks at similar issues as Complicit, and Brenton’s  look at past prime minister Harold MacMillan, Never So Good both achieved much critical acclaim only last year. Indeed, the faults of the Old Vic’s Complicit cannot be pinned simply to the play itself, the production has notable gaps.

One of the key themes in Complicit is the husband/wife relationship of Ben and Judith. Judith, as a mother and a wife, should be worried about the consequences of her husband’s actions and when reading the play, one can see a vast majority of the tension created from this. McGovern’s performance completely lacks in the emotional strength  as a deliverer of lines for the other two to bounce their performances against. Towards the end of the play, when tension should be at its greatest, Judith cries “He’s throwing away our lives” in a state of angst to lawyer Rodger about Ben’s reluctance to give up his source. However, the only thing thrown away at this point is these lines; stood in the same awkward position, arms kept in the same rigid, pointless state as every other sentence spoken, McGovern delivers these lines in the same flat, unmoving tone and pitch as the rest as her dry performance. There is no evidence of any fear, love or even uncertainty.

It could even be fair to say the only time we see any sign of life in the actress is when a dreaded swear word comes out. Her voice suddenly amplified her body moving and her pitch changing for the one expletive. However frequent swearing may be in the play, which indeed it is, it is not frequent enough to cover the dire, dull and simply dreadful performance that brings down the rest of the production. Judith’s thus created apathy creates apathy in the audience; how can one care about the lives of characters that are not being shown to us.

Contrasting entirely with the emotionless and wasted Judith, Suchet’s perhaps slightly stereotypical lawyer enthrals the audience from the offset. His voice strong and powerful, his words considered and with reason, whatever clichés  lie in the pinstripe suited city lawyer are completely overthrown by a sure belief in his character. Despite having a tough deal on stage with the flat McGovern, Suchet excels and provides what little of the tension in the play exists as well as comical moments. He too brings out the best in Dreyfuss who, while lacking occasionally in the scenes with his wife, combined with Suchet provides the perfect chemistry. Spacey’s direction for the two works well; Rodger always keeping the higher status of the two. Standing with a certain conviction,  with one arm placed behind his dead straight back at times and sitting with good posture but still relaxed, he is in control. Flaking Ben, however, is always stooped and arched. Even when Rodger is sitting and Ben standing, Rodger keeps the higher status of the two, his chair placed so Ben turns to him with bent knees and an arched back, signs of a broken man. The Lawyer therefore, like in the story itself, is always in control of what is happening while the client, like in the play, has no control.

However captivating his scenes may be with Suchet, Dreyfuss is nothing more than mediocre in the rest of his performance, sometimes even less.  An obtrusive ear piece on the actor begs the question whether he has learnt his lines, some even arguing trouble with lines the reason his 2004 appearance in The Producers did not take place. Even that aside, the relationship between Dreyfuss and McGovener as husband and wife simply does not work; a lack of chemistry thwarts any attempt by the actor to create the bond and the duo look more like employer and employee than a loving married couple with children. At one point in the play, Ben asks Judith if she loves him to which she replies “Very much”. This is meant to be an emotional moment of the play, however McGovern responds with a flat tone reflecting neither love nor doubt and is unbelievable.

Aside from the acting, the play stays close to the text for the majority. As the first performance of a new play, there is perhaps little incentive to bring out anything extra from the text and so it runs pretty much as the script does. It seems the only changes made from the original text are ones that are more applicable to a British audience. In the play we hear the voice of a chat show interviewer talking with Ben, in the production this is changed to a video recording of an interview between Andrew Marr and Ben. While this may bring the story ‘closer to home’, it is inconsistent with the rest of the play which is set in Washington DC. Why would an American talking about American issues go on an English chat show? It would have made little difference to the connection between the audience and the piece had the English chat show host been replaced with a more fitting American.

The staging, however, is particularly effective. Staged in-the-round, the actors are surrounded on all sides by the audience with televisions above and below the stage. This represents Ben’s position in the play well; surrounded by what he has done and the consequences of this, eyes are on him everywhere judging. The rest of the set is fairly un-extravagant (three oak chairs are placed at parts of  the stage) due to the staging and the issue with sightlines, however this works well and combined with the simple yet atmospheric lighting by Howard Harrison, the appropriate tone for each scene is created.

Joe Sutton, the playwright, comments that his work aims to create “a forum; a place for a community to come together and debate its most difficult problems” however this production does neither this nor is it a “thrilling look at our current political climate”. While somewhat entertaining, the play therefore seems to fail in its key aim. Some may put it down to the current climate not ripe for such a topic but it seems the production itself has faults. An emotionally lacking performance from McGovern leaves the strong idea of family in the play broken while other oddities such as an English talk show for a play set in America niggle and make it seem all  that less real.  Despite the intimate and effective set up (the closest audience members less than a metre away from the stage) the play doesn’t succeed in its aims. It doesn’t act as a “forum” as Sutton wishes; the audience leave no more provoked than when they arrived, it is simply a piece of entertainment.