Blind Summit and BAC Theatre Review
By Conrad Landin / Spinebreakers Crew
Caution needs to be taken when adapting any work by George Orwell, if only to ensure that the adaptation lives up to the quality of the original writing. In this, Blind Summit and the Battersea Arts Centre’s 1984 has, at least partially, succeeded.
Within the framework of the production, we see an agitprop piece ‘the Party’ has supposedly put out to ensure we learn the lessons of the story of ‘the thought criminal’. Thus it raises the questions the novel covers through lecturing the audience, agitating us to consider these questions ourselves. Whilst this is a very skilful way of analysing totalitarianism, it was somewhat overdone in the employment of narration of what was plainly obvious on stage. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to present through such narration a distortion of the reality?
The play certainly does not stick to the conventions of theatre, with minimal props and artificial sound effects used, allowing us to focus on the message. Some characters’ parts are even substituted for puppets – skilfully controlled and perhaps giving the audience some advance warning of the true nature of the seemingly-harmless antiques dealer, Mr Charrington. We also see some elements of humour added to what might be seen as the least likely candidate, which makes a welcome addition, particularly combined with the minimalist staging.
But there was definitely something missing. What I find is always the most difficult element of brilliant writing to translate to stage and screen is the individual touch the writer adds to the character of the novel. Orwell protagonists are always frustrated with modern-day life, whatever that may be. Simon Scardifield’s Winston was certainly this, but in a somewhat superficial way which let down his otherwise strong performance.
Nineteen Eighty-Four in original novel form earns its place among my favourite novels of all for another reason too – for the points when emotions are so vividly conveyed, particularly when these are contrasting to the mainstream emotions of the characters. The speed of theatre is, unfortunately, a limit to this. Perhaps the impossibility of seeing this fully on stage or screen is a testament to the power of the 20th century’s greatest writer.
Whilst these disappointments did remain with me, it was pleasing to see a fresh development of Orwell’s themes, and the additions, in the play’s ironic agitprop, puppetry and humour were worthy substitutes for what was lost.