Greetings, all!! I know you’ve just been aching for another fun blog post from me, but I’m afraid this one will not be it. Today I will be discussing the production of Long Day’s Journey Into Night that we saw last night at the Wyndham Theatre. Spoiler alert, I was not a fan. The show promised to be incredibly compelling. With a world class script and a stellar cast including Brian Cox and Patricia Clarkson, how could it not be? At the end of Act 1, I had hope that the rest of the show would be great because there were some beautiful moments. However, about a third of the way through Act 2, I was ready to go home. The design elements for the show left so much to be desired, the directing was not good, and the only saving grace were the actors. I think they were the only reason I was able to convince myself the show might be good at intermission. Unfortunately, in the end, even they were not enough the rescue this production from becoming a monotonous, tedious, drag. On a good note, the theatre this production was housed in was beautiful. However, the state of the building should not be one of the only things I look back on in a good light after seeing a show.
I will start by addressing the unclear, confusing, and ineffective design elements of the show. Get ready.
The lighting. Okay, the lighting for this script is incredibly important in telling the story, and I was so curious to see how it would be done. The show takes place over the course of one (very long) day, and this needs to be reflected in the design. While the lighting designer did try to convey the passage of time through moving the angle of light as the sun would move, that was about all it was good for. (And even that was done is a very jarring way.) The main problem I had with the lighting was that the actors were never well lit. At first, I could believe this was a choice. Sometimes, it can convey an effective, powerful message to have certain characters “in the dark,” so to speak. However, it was not being used specifically. All of the characters throughout the show could not be seen clearly. The lighting conveyed a mood, and while that mood fit the script at times, it also dragged the whole show down during the times when things were not as dark and hopeless. This show is not joyful, and it’s not meant to be. However, to set such a dark tone from the beginning (before things have gone far downhill) indicates the ending of the show to the audience.
The set for this show was also very plain. I have mixed feeling about this because I can understand what the designer was going for. Mary talks throughout the show about how the place has never been a home to her, so making the set rather bare plays into that idea well. However, it was a very literal, unoriginal interpretation, and I think it could have made those lines more impactful if the place did look like the home O’Neill so vividly describes in his script. For the place to appear as a home and not be one is more impactful than saying, “Oh. Yeah. This barren house with no books, decor, or life is not a home.” I understand that designers and directors like to create new interpretations of the work they read, and there are times when I encourage that. That said, when a playwright is incredibly specific about what they need or want the set to look like for a show, I think it is wrong to ignore it. They know the script better than anyone, and they know what is needed to give the story the necessary emotional impact. That becomes lost so quickly when people strip back everything the playwright wanted, and I see it almost as a disrespect to the writer to so blatantly flout their ideas as this production did.
The last design element I’m going to talk about (for this blog, at least) is the sound design. I initially thought the sound design had a lot of promise, but in the end, it was ineffective and confusing. The cues written into the show (such as the foghorn) were done well. I think it went off at appropriate times, and the volume level was enough to be noticeable without pulling attention. It was the added sound cues that drew me out. This production made use of underscoring, and the first few times it was used I liked it. I found it effective in conveying the gravity of certain moments. However, it eventually became distracting, as it was used too much, and they were using it in moments that didn’t make sense. I was confused as to why and how they were picking moments to use underscoring, and it started to feel like trying to put a movie on stage. The underscoring was a very cinematic technique, and it can be very effective in movies (and at times, on stage), but in this case, it did not translate well.
Despite all these technical shortcomings, I had hope that the show might be saved by the incredible performances of the actors. Sadly, I was wrong, and some of their performances fell flat as well. I do believe this was in part due to the direction, but some of it was simply a matter of the actors not being dropped in. Brian Cox gave the most consistent performance of the cast. There was never a moment where I didn’t believe he was the character. He responded to everything with incredible truth, and I think he had a clear vision about who his character was and what his values were. Patricia also gave an incredible performance at times, and she had some of the most impactful, heartfelt moments. However, I would have loved to see more range and change in her performance. While there were moments when she would break down, scream, or act slightly different, I never saw her hope in the beginning. Had she leaned more into the idea of Mary’s slow decline, it would have been much more interesting to watch, but she ultimately fell into the rookie mistake of playing the ending of the show from the beginning. It was like she knew all along how everything was going to go. Maybe that was a character choice, but if it was, it was not a compelling or interesting one to watch. Patricia Clarkson did excel when it comes to having heart, but I think there was not enough thought put into the arc of Mary’s story. She was able to show her incredible talent for emotional moments, but that resulted in her playing the mood of the show rather than showing us the true impact each moment and discovery had on her character. Had she not played mood, but rather allowed her emotional state to decline as the family deteriorated, her performance would have been show stopping. All that said, I’m not sure how much of Mary’s performance was a result of Patricia’s acting or the director because the director is ultimately responsible for making sure that the show has a clear arc. The director has the power to give away the ending and set mood, and if they do that ineffectively, there is only so much the actor’s can do to fix it.
Speaking of Mary, one thing that stood out to me in watching the show even more than when I read the script is the way the men use Mary as a way to ignore their own problems. All the men in the show are addicts as well. They are alcoholics, yet they act as though they have any right to talk to Mary about her addiction to morphine. They talk about how it hurts the family and draws her away from them, but they never face up to their own addiction and the harm it has done to Mary and the entire family dynamic. I do believe that is a very purposeful decision of the playwright, as he is trying to show how blame and ignoring problems eventually leads to disaster, but it was interesting to see how that came across in this production. It was perhaps one of the only good things I got out of it.
The other actors also had good moments, and Louisa Harland as Cathleen was a breath of fresh air. She was the only actor in the show that didn’t give in to the obnoxiously depressing mood. She did have the blessing of playing the character that lends themselves to that mood the least, but it still would have been easy enough for her to take everything too seriously. However, she did not do that, and her comedic timing and delivery was refreshing. Harland also found the balance of bringing a lighter energy without making a joke out of a serious situation. That balance can be hard to find, but she nailed it. She understood when to step back and let things hit harder and when it was okay to be a little goofy, and I loved it. Her performance brought a much needed levity to an otherwise weighty play.
The brothers also had great moments, but their performances impressed me the least. I felt as though Daryl McCormack as Jamie was not fully dropped in throughout the show. I’m not sure if it was because he was uncomfortable with the accent or if it was an acting or directorial choice, but his voice had little changing inflection. He was always at the same loud volume, and it never seemed to change, even when the moment would seem to dictate that it should. It felt very “actor voice” like, so I had trouble believing that he understood the character well. Laurie Kynaston had some very compelling moments as Edmund, but there were also times when he seemed to fall victim to an awareness of the audience or something that kept him from staying dropped in. There were times when he was so alive, and I was enthralled by watching his emotions play out. However, there were also moments when I caught my thoughts drifting away from the show entirely during his monologues, as I couldn’t stay in it.
In regards to the brothers, I think some of their acting troubles may have been the result of the bad and unclear direction of the show. Being less experienced that Brain and Patricia, I could see where they would struggle more to make their character come alive without a clear vision and guidance. I think the main difference in the performances of the brothers and their parents was the lack of clear values and perspective. Whether I liked Patricia’s take or not, she and Brian both had very clear visions about who their characters were and the values they held, and the brothers seemed to be lacking that.
I went into this show with so much hope. The script is incredible, and it tells a compelling story about the dangers of ignoring your own struggles for the sake of others. Each of the characters are looking for an excuse not to face their issues, but they also deliberately make them out to be nothing because they do not want to worry each other (Mary in particular does this). They each think that the others’ struggles are more important, so they hide their own to the detriment of everyone. That is an incredibly compelling story concept based on something that many people can understand and relate to. I want to be able to recommend this show to everyone because of that, but sadly, I do not think this production tells the story effectively. I would absolutely recommend that people read this play, but I would not recommend this production to anyone. I would normally argue that a show like this is simply not for everyone because of its depressing nature but that it still has immense value to watch. However, this production does not seem to capture or convey the message the story presents, as much as it does the mood. It captures only the darkness with no room for light in the form of audience revelations they can take into their own lives. If a play is going to drag on as this one did, it needs to have more of an impact on audiences. Long story short, save yourself three hours of depression in an uncomfortable seat, and just read the script if you want to know the story. This production is not worth your time, but the story is.
Theatre in London U of A 