Edinburgh Festival 97 / The Cocktail Party King's Theatre

International festival

Adrian Turpin
Wednesday 27 August 1997 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Philip Franks has set himself a challenge with his revival of The Cocktail Party for the Royal Lyceum Company. By any standards, TS Eliot's 1949 verse drama (premiered at the third Edinburgh Festival) is an eccentric mix: Forties drawing-room comedy, veiled Greek myth, High Anglican mysticism, and masochistic expiations of guilt. With its portrait of a crumbling marriage and its supernatural stranger who turns up at a party uninvited to shake up everybody's lives, The Cocktail Party glances back to the plays of JB Priestley and forward to those of Harold Pinter. Yet it has never achieved the popularity of either. Audiences long ago embraced Pinter as the acceptable face of modernism, while Stephen Daldry's money-spinning production of An Inspector Calls has proved that Priestley's brand of pessimistic humanism still has appeal. By contrast, bits of The Cocktail Party appear as remote and strange as an Inca incantation.

Well, if the play is a test of a director's powers of reinvention, Franks passes with flying colours. At 195 minutes, this is a long evening in the theatre, but it really feels like one hour. Franks teases the humour out of the text, assisted by an outstanding central performance from David Bamber as Edward Chamberlayne, the barrister who descends into a personal hell as his marriage falls apart.

A natural comedian, Bamber (the oily Mr Collins in BBCtv's Pride and Prejudice) brings an uncustomary lightness to the role while never losing sight of his character's self-obsession. Of all the cast, he's the one who copes best with Eliot's verse, effortlessly disguising its slippery rhythms, making the artifice of the language apparent only when he wants to hammer home a point. When he spars with his wife Lavinia (the excellent Suzanne Burden) there's a terrible rawness to their conversation.

That is the greatest strength of this staging: it sidelines Eliot's off- putting metaphysics (Edward's lover, Cynthia, achieved a state of grace by being crucified on an ant hill) to bring out the play's human side. Edward and Lavinia's marriage becomes a real marriage, with real suffering, not just a theoretical testing ground for Eliot's speculations about salvation and redemption.

To Saturday. Booking: 0131-220 4349

Adrian Turpin

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in