I’d like to start by stating that I enjoyed this. The
writing was sharp and the acting was generally of a very high standard,
particularly Amy Ryan as Sandra, who made me squirm with her character’s
awfulness.
But a few things puzzled me – first, why weren’t some of the
references Americanized? I know that this is a very British play, but there’s
nothing wrong with adapting it for your audience, especially if doesn’t affect
the plot at all. For example, one character mentioned that she had a roommate
who she found on Gumtree. I think that’s supposed to have been a laugh/groan
with familiarity line, but literally no one in the room knew what the reference
was – craigslist would have been understood and is still London-appropriate.
During the first intermission, I had a conversation with my neighbor about how
I wondered if tuition fees (for university) were going to come up, to contrast
with the student grant that Kenneth was living on in the first act. He didn’t know
what I was talking about – a clear case of something missing its mark with an
audience less familiar with contemporary UK social issues. (I’m also not sure
why Mike Bartlett didn’t do anything with this later.)
Second, I struggled to figure out whether this play was
written for Boomers, for Millennials, both groups, or neither of them. Although
I kind of loathed having two intermissions, although I’m sure they were
necessary for the elaborate set changes, it was nice to have a chance to think
about what might be coming next for the characters. I was lucky enough to have
a great seatmate, who was up for chatting about these things.
For context, Love, Love, Love is a three-act play. The first
act takes place in 1967, where we are introduced to Sandra & Kenneth – both
students at Oxford, interested in drinking, smoking, getting high, and sex and
obsessed with not being trapped and getting the most out of life before they
eventually die. The next act is set in 1990, the night of Kenneth &
Sandra’s daughter Rosie’s 16th birthday. It is also the night that they
discover that they have both had affairs: Sandra unilaterally decides that
they’re going to get divorced and announces this to their children over
birthday cake. Apparently, they’ve both been feeling trapped (that word again)
in their cozy suburban life in Reading, where they and their children appear to
want for nothing (other than their parents’ love and attention). The final act
is set in 2011, where the now-37-year-old Rosie demands that her parents buy
her a house after a lengthy rant about how her parents are responsible for the
fact that she ended up nearly-40 with no stable job, living in a rented flat
with a random roommate, with no partner, and childless. Her parents refuse, telling
her that life isn’t fair and that they had to work hard for everything they’ve
achieved (e.g. her father is making approximately 3x Rosie’s yearly income,
even in retirement). They’re patronizing and still won’t listen to her. It’s all rather horrible.
I spent the first two acts thinking that the play was
written for Millennials, highlighting the fact that their parents’ generation
may owe a great deal of its success to both
luck – the luck to have been born into a strong welfare state (subsequently
decimated by Thatcher, New Labour, and Cameron) and era of booming economic
prosperity – and hard work. And then, when the playwright opened act three with
one Millennial who couldn’t stop playing games on his phone and another who
blamed all of her misfortune on her
parents, I felt like he was trapping his characters in all of the cliché
criticisms of my generation (let’s ignore the fact that at 37, Rosie is
actually too old to be a Millennial and graduated from university in the mid
1990s, a time of economic prosperity). Her parents were just as bad – embodying
every cliché about how Boomers selfishly bled the welfare state and the planet
dry, then razed a path of destruction in their wake, leaving nothing for the
generations that followed. Honestly, I don’t really think the act said anything
new about the tension between Boomers and their children, unless the audience
really hasn’t been paying attention at all (a distinct possibility, in which
case I withdraw this criticism…I recognize that not everyone will be as obsessed
with the Guardian’s generation gap coverage as I am).
Finally, and to tie it back into my first point – I’m not so
sure that the play, despite its excellent production and writing, really
resonated with the audience. I think there are significant differences between
the American and British experiences of generational tension and the play
assumes a level of familiarity with British references that the audience just
didn’t seem to understand. (I had just
attended a talkback session with the British director of The Cherry Orchard, Simon Godwin, who spoke extensively
about how much he had learned during rehearsal and previews about the
differences between British and American audiences and the ways different
things resonate with each of them…I think some of that sensitivity wouldn’t
have gone amiss at Love, Love, Love.)
Still, it’s well worth seeing and any piece of theatre that
leads me to write almost a thousand words afterwards isn’t a bad thing.
Thought-provoking is my favorite kind of theatre!