Ents: Arts

Review: It's Alright Ma

By Sarah Cooper
Published: 23/03/2009

It’s Alright Ma was suTCo’s latest offering of student writing and it was… Well, it was alright.

In this conceptually sound piece of theatre, the revolutionary decade of the 1960s is juxtaposed with the 21st century. The most effective manifestation of this contrast came in the form of initially disorientating musical interludes.

These choreographed moments, complete with glitter ball, smoke and strobe lighting, were in stark contrast to the realistic narrative and seamlessly linked scenes, while providing some comedy.

The humour of this visual motif was, however, undermined slightly by the self conscious smiles that crept over some of the actors’ faces. Nevertheless, the symbolic onstage stripping from 1960s costume to modern day dress further enhanced the many switches between the two eras, and encouraged a comparison between them.

The play confronted a comprehensive selection of contemporary issues, including knife crime, alcohol and clubbing, through humorous conversations and a familiar rendition of the popular drinking game ‘Roxanne’.

However, while these overt references to both contemporary and 1960s issues were necessary to negotiate between the two eras, they were sometimes at risk of becoming patronising.

The characters that inhabited this fragmented world were well written, but not always convincingly acted. The feuding duo, Mary and Alan, opened the play with good pace. Tim Williams gave a witty and sensitive portrayal of the hen-pecked husband with a talent for making sandwiches (but apparently not for using cutlery).

In contrast, Sarah Raine’s portrayal of his vicious wife was almost demonic, with a lack of light and shade that caricatured the perpetual anger of the character and was not entirely convincing.

Jennifer Ball played the ostensibly innocent daughter, Victoria, whose teenage protest against her parents is compellingly mapped on to her protest against society as a whole. Unfortunately, her character was reduced to a symbol, condemned to continually spout feminist, activist rhetoric.

Issues such as women’s rights were laboured in the various intellectual debates that permeated the plot and became slightly monotonous and frustratingly didactic. However, James (Joe West) and Simon (Glenn Moore) provided a welcome break from the play’s political agenda with their humorous and well-timed contributions, unlike Guy Gibson and Stephen Hall, who failed to make a lasting impression.

Despite a few stumbles over lines and one disappointing lapse in character (due to some spilt scrambled egg) the piece was generally well performed.

The significance of the set was augmented after the interval when it was stripped of all pretence, leaving only the exposed skeleton of the scaffolding. The audience was reminded that it was watching a play through the use of various other Brechtian distancing devices, including the fact that the house lights remained on for much of the second act, while characters gestured to the sound box and occasionally interacted directly with the audience.

These techniques promoted an analysis of, rather than empathy for, the characters on stage and forced the audience to recognise the problems inherent in contemporary society.

he technical elements of the play were faultless. The lighting complemented the thoughtful staging, whilst the aural elements were impeccably timed throughout. The music cues were particularly impressive as they often coincided perfectly with the minute action of a character turning a dial on stage and culminated in an alarming explosion.

The play came to a satisfying, if not clichéd, conclusion when 1960s society stood staring at the present day and the audience came face to face with the culturally deficient past and present.

It was consequently a thought-provoking concept, but one that left you feeling flat and only thinking ‘yes… and?’

To read our interview with the play's writer, Patrick Hinton, click here

Rate this article