We can all come to some agreement about a definition of bread, but what on earth is \u2018love\u2019? That\u2019s the question troubling retired estate agent Michael Smith at the centre of Robert Gillespie\u2019s new play (which premiered last year)Love, Question Mark.<\/p>\n
Happily widowed for three years and devoted to his stamp collection, Michael doesn\u2019t go out of his way to extend his search for love.\u00a0Be-cardiganed, middle-aged and beige, he\u2019s (on the outside at least) conforming to society\u2019s expectations of him, but he can\u2019t bring himself to identify with the label of respectability and a peaceful widowerhood. Inside he\u2019s left questioning if his ordinary, bland marriage that received wisdom tells him was the definition of love deserves to have been called anything of the sort. Unable to suppress a late sexual awakening, Michael\u2019s curiosity about the nature of love isn\u2019t the only thing that\u2019s aroused within him.<\/p>\n
Enter Maria, the beautiful younger woman shipped over at great expense from Argentina. She\u2019s endured an unimaginably tough upbringing and been the victim of male brutality and rape throughout her young life as a direct result of her physical beauty. In return for food, shelter and witty repartee, Michael asks only for on-demand sex from the sensual young woman who is, their differing financial situations aside, way out of his league.<\/p>\n
The story develops as a fascinating power play between Michael and Maria. The sands of their unequal relationship slowly shift so that Maria, dependent upon Michael for survival and shackled to him by circumstance, essentially has the status of a prisoner (arguably not unreflective of many actual marriages). Her pleas to be allowed out of the house to pop to Tesco for some milk comically but concisely highlight that even the mundane, when denied, can enter the realm of fantasy. Having so carefully picked out the polar opposite qualities of Michael and Maria, Gillespie later reverses them for dramatic effect as the boundaries between the two become blurred.<\/p>\n
Love, Question Mark\u00a0is a complex and in many ways unorthodox play. It opens with an address to the audience by Michael, and the fourth wall is broken periodically by both characters as a direct challenge to one\u2019s prejudices. Whilst ideas are bounced off the audience, the emotional core remains the province of the two leads, who periodically break off into other characters from their respective histories to illustrate the ways in which their differing worldviews have been shaped.<\/p>\n
A hugely enjoyable character trait is Michael\u2019s interest in the scientific explanations for love, and he has some glorious monologues about the breeding habits of chimpanzees (humans\u2019 nearest cousins in the evolutionary tree of life) as well as about the chemical reactions that occur in various parts of the brain that form the physical basis of our emotional lives. Throw in a hand-written email about the pair-bonding of swans that floats down from the heavens at the act-one climax (and who sends that? After all, the recipient Michael doesn\u2019t believe in a creator…), and you have an imaginative piece that leaves myriad possibilities for the second half. If you go in for straightforward and predictable, then\u00a0Love, Question Mark, which successfully and unapologetically challenges ideals of love through lively and inventive theatre, might prove too richly brewed for your blood.<\/p>\n
A complex play like\u00a0Love, Question Mark\u00a0demands good performances in order for it to work; and the fact that it\u2019s a two-hander makes the casting all the more crucial. Thankfully, both actors play their parts brilliantly, and the sparkle between the two is captivating. Stuart Sessions is instantly endearing as Michael. He may be playing Mr Ordinary, but his comic timing is spot-on, and he comes across like a creature from an Alan Bennett play but with edges rough enough to take out a few unguarded eyes. The subtlety and surface pleasantness with which he condemns Maria to sexual servitude was a very brave decision by Sessions, and this pays off hugely in the second half when Michael, losing control of Maria, his temper and his mind, becomes more sympathetic the further he is pushed towards base brutality.<\/p>\n
Clare Cameron\u2019s Maria is equally captivating. She plays Maria\u2019s inherent sensuality and romanticism with evident relish. The far greater challenge for her is to retain the audience\u2019s sympathy when Maria slips into malice, wishing to inflict revenge on the easily-manipulated Michael for all the wrongs that men have perpetrated on her. It\u2019s a clever twist on the gaoled becomes the gaoler theme; but Cameron never loses sight of Maria\u2019s vulnerability. Together, Michael and Maria are flawed, and at times unpleasant, unpredictable and unwilling to admit they\u2019re wrong. In capturing two identifiable humans (rather than the poetic ideal of humanity) Gillespie crafts a rewarding emotional journey for both of his characters that cements in his exploration of love a readily identifiable core.<\/p>\n
Simple, and consequently effective lighting and sound effects, coupled with an uncluttered space is a commendably confident way to allow the performances to carry the show. A discreet screen, with the word \u201clove\u201d emblazoned across it as an ironic nod to the decor of emporiums of a lascivious nature, provides a natural boundary for \u2018what goes on behind closed doors\u2019 at the back of the stage.<\/p>\n
There are plenty of wonderful one-liners to enjoy, as well as a deliciously satirical view of the conventional wisdom on the subject trotted out by religious authorities and their ilk.\u00a0Love, Question Mark\u00a0is often laugh-out-loud funny; though in Brechtian style there are moments of humour that leave you questioning your taste and morals.<\/p>\n
The theme proves to be one ideally explored in the theatre, and precisely what the stage is for.\u00a0Love, Question Markprobes the nature of sexual relationships with wit, honesty and raw emotion. It may not provide any easy answers, and the frank depiction of the implausibility of the western ideal of monogamy \u2013 and the equally frank messy reality, can be as discomfiting as it is thought-provoking. It\u2019s the kind of play that leaves its ideas reverberating in your head for some time afterwards. That it\u2019s very funny is the perfect way for the show to draw you in and keep you hooked.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Our favourite theatre show of 2011. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":3547,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[675],"tags":[1265,1086,1266,1083,1267,1268],"yoast_head":"\n