When: 10th February 2024 (Matinee)
Where: Harold Pinter Theatre, London
Writer: Jez Butterworth
Director: Sam Mendes
(Spoilers ahead)
The Hills of California follows 4 sisters, both in the present as their mother is dying, and in the past when they were in a singing quartet. Set in a Blackpool guest house, the play explores lost hopes and dreams, along with family tensions.
The first thing you notice when you walk into the auditorium is the set. Immediately the random assortment of things and chairs, a bar with a straw roof and a broken jukebox, transport us into this world of broken dreams. The atmosphere radiated by the set highlights the messiness, but hopefulness that the story portrays. Then there are the collection of staircases which lead to the rooms upstairs, and further into a dark abyss created at the very top of the proscenium. I thought this was brilliant, the images created by watching characters ascend into this abyss, or appear from it, were striking and spoke to the atmosphere of the house and story as a whole. I also think it emphasised this idea of the ghostlike figure of the mother, of whom we never actually meet in the present, being upstairs, above us. I loved the way the set then rotated to show the private parlour on the other side of the stairs. My favourite thing about this was the way the stairs above, which didn't move, had been designed, it meant that the corridors above were always on the correct side at the top of the staircase for the direction we were viewing it from. It was something that often would just be ignored, or argued away by creative license, yet it made the house feel even more real and immersive. Overall the topsy turvey feeling of the house, the business of it, worked perfectly at immersing us into the world and reflecting the essence of the play.
This was the first Jez Butterworth play I have seen, and I wasn't fully sure what to expect from it, but I had high hopes. I wasn't let down, the writing was amazing. It took me a while to get into the style of it. In some ways it felt very traditional, almost Arthur Miller like, whilst it was naturalistic on stage, and he used a lot of colloquialisms, it still felt theatrical. Unlike a lot of modern theatre that I've seen recently, it was very wordy, whilst I think it very quickly found it's flow and I became immersed in it, there were a couple of lines towards the beginning that felt a little out of place. For example I'm not sure I've ever used "moreover" in an informal conversation. That being said I really enjoyed the style of it. The other defining feature of the script was Butterworths reliance on the audience to pick up on small details. It takes a lot of skill to have characters refuse to answer questions, or react in a certain way that means the audience know exactly what they are thinking based on knowledge given to them throughout the course of the play. For the most part this worked really well, and the satisfaction of being able to decipher a characters actions speaks to the depth at which these characters have been created. However there were a couple of moments where I felt a little unsure, perhaps I had just missed a few things previously, or they did need explaining a little more in the story, either way in a theatre small details often get lost and if that hinders an audiences understanding of a piece, perhaps things need to be made a little more obvious. I think going to watch this play again now I understand the overall narrative would be fascinating, being able to pick up on small details that I likely missed this first time around.
I want to discuss the overall style of the play, whilst I've mentioned above how it felt very traditional in the sense that it was a play. There was also something filmic about it. Exploring ideas of the music industry and almost an American Dream from a British working class family, they very much looked up towards the glamour of LA and the California Hills, clear in the title of the play itself. This was reflected in the style of the piece as a whole. Specifically, the way in which scenes moved between the present and the past. We watched as the lighting changed, pouring a deep orange glow onto the characters of the scene just finished, as they walked into the new scene in the past, following the rotation of the floor. They weren't exactly gone, there was still a sense that they were there, reminiscing and mourning their younger selves. It was very similar to the way we see characters watching themselves when they were younger in films. The way in which the scenes melted together, never suddenly changing, made the piece feel massively cohesive, placing each period with the same importance in the story. Not showing them as flashbacks, but as one story that takes place across two periods of time.
I've seen people discuss the final act, saying it was the weakest and/or felt out of place, different the style of the first two acts. Yet, I found this the most interesting Act. When Joan returns from America, she brings with her the sense of Glamour that they had all being reaching for throughout the course of the story. The play begins to lean in fully to the style of LA, bringing its music and fashion into this Blackpool hotel. Yet, just as in the rest of the play, it juxtaposes this. Not with the setting, but with Joan's explanation of how unglamourous her life really is. It highlights the idea that the dream that they all were hoping for, even the sister they thought had reached it, never found it. They were sold a lie, perhaps even by their own mother.
The music throughout the play again, immerses us into the period. It also adds this spectacle aspect to the play, a spectacle in an unspectacular setting. Again for me this highlighted the dichotomy of everything.
The final point I want to discuss is the characters and their portrayal. The entire cast were brilliant, even the children playing the sisters when they were younger. They all fully understood their characters inner dilemmas and portrayed them beautifully. The relationships between each character were shown with care and relatability. I think the construction of the characters was great, but I think perhaps a few of the characters were a little too similar, particularly some of the male characters lacked differentiation. I felt that the comedy or almost dumbness of all the men was a little one note at points. I also want to shout out their dialect coach, Daniele Lydon, the way in which the actors so easily moved between American and Blackpool accents was impressive.
Overall I adored this show. I don't think it's perfect, there are a few things that need a little development but overall its a brilliant example of what makes theatre so special. It's a work that everyone involved should be proud of, and I had a really great afternoon watching it.
Comments
Post a Comment