Rabbit

I went to see a play last night with A that was written and directed by a friend of mine Nina. It was a really great thought provoking play. It was only the second night and you could just catch the actors remembering their lines but overall they did a really good job. The play was about a girl whose father, whom she idolises, is dying of a brain cancer. He is dying in such a way that he is gradually losing mental capacity but holds onto enough to stubbornly refuse surgery which he believes will be ultimately pointless. The girl, Bella, wants her Dad to have the surgery but her argument is based wholly on sentiment. Her father points out the doctors are talking about a short addition to his life expectancy at a cost in suffering he is not prepared to pay. She tries to persuade him using all manner of tactics but to no avail and as his function declines she cannot bear to be around him.

This whole plot line is mixed, by a series of cut scenes/flashbacks, into another. The second stem to the story is the interaction between Bella and the guests at her 29th birthday party. This is set in a contemporary bar. The guests arrive gradually as the first act progresses. There are two old flames and two female mates. Of the two guys one was a significant ex who is a noisy barrister wanna-be writer and the other is a quiet smart city worker who turns out to be the man on the side that destroyed the barristers relationship with Bella. The girls are a pretty young junior doctor with a heart and a somewhat shameless scratch card addicted provocative sexual predatress writer. The characters are great with real depth and their attitudes lined up perfect for a good fight. The dialogue was fantastic with loads of venom and swearing. I loved the description of envy being like farts. “Everybody has it but you don’t let it out in public because it makes you smell bad and everyone moves away from you”. The rows were around the battle of the sexes who has it tougher men or women the usual but really good well argued stuff. Certainly the quality of the argument was far too good for the quantity of wine consumed. There was one cool part where Richard the barrister/writer was arguing that women treat men as sexual objects rather than men objectifying women. He bases this on the fact that women are prepared to share intimate details of their sexual conquests whereas men do not. The quiet bloke Tom chips in with a great point arguing that men want to own those details. That they brag with vague details but they don’t want to share details because they don’t want to share their women. Another cool bit was when the doctor explained how memory works. She described it as a room full of tuning forks so that when one rings it sets of the others with the same resonant frequency off and that’s how one memory causes others to pop into consciousness.

I met Nina when she was doing research at my hospital for another play about junior doctors. She is really serious about researching her topic and this play also contained loads of accurate medical knowledge.

Nina messes with your head by using lines of dialogue again in different contexts. This seems to happen when she wants to highlight contradictions in the character’s arguments. I can’t remember any examples but it’s really sneaky and unnerving. She also gave us no outcome to the who would end up with who question. But I guess you’re always supposed to leave the audience wanting more. Great play. I’m pretty sure A agrees but she is writing her own review on her blog.

A and I are going to see Nina’s brother’s play on Monday so there will be a real battle of the sexes. Which Raine can write the better play? My money’s on Nina.