Even if I could not quite see their faces all the way up in the highest stalls, I still felt the zeal in every word, action, and nod to the audience, who were exuding the same passion from their seats as the performers on the stage. This was not just a show about iconic historical theatre professionals—but rather an examination of how theatre changes, influences, and drives the people engaged in it.
I will not deny my initial tedium toward the beginning of the play, questioning who these people were and why they are significant. (After some research, I now know!) But I did find aspects of it deeply intriguing, such as the banter between Irving and Terry, and seeing how they gained each other’s respect by speaking authentically. I thought that Irving’s sincerity when recruiting her to his theatre company was admirable and real, as he explained how Terry’s presence brings joy. Joy is necessary in the theatre, no matter what story or what ending, the audience should find at least an ounce of hope or happiness by the end of it, otherwise what was the point? I specifically enjoyed the scene where Terry spoke out against Irving’s unintentional ignorance toward her, as well as correcting him on some of his acting choices. As well as when she tested him by wearing black and posing certain changes of their Hamlet production. This kind of conversation is essential in the theatre, as if one feels no need for improvement or diversity, the flow of impact may go stagnant. I enjoyed seeing them “argue,” and felt it represented how the arts are so subjective.
Irving seemed to embody an opinion of theatre that will always remain, one rooted in tradition, discipline, spectacle, and reputation. This is shown through his production of only Shakespeare plays, his costume stringency, and his occasional outbursts in devotion. Meanwhile, Terry challenged him with her progressiveness and instinctively emotional beliefs within theatre.
Speaking to the differences again with Terry and Irving, I found the interpolations of their family life with their dedication to the arts was compelling. Irving learned that his son had attempted suicide just ten minutes before he was set to go onstage, yet he still performed without missing a beat. This moment raises a question: what do we lose when we give ourselves entirely to a passion, and what do we gain in return? As Irving suggests, performing became a kind of “distraction,” perhaps even a refuge from the pain that comes with real life. I thought this scene was a commentary on the cost of commitment. He was one of the greatest of all time, but his entire life was spent on the stage. I believe at one point he mentioned 700 roles, and when he added that he felt uncomfortable talking to women, it made me want to ask, does performing that many different characters make you lose a sense of your own? Not only did it feel like a love letter to theatre, but it also felt like a reflection on theatre’s power… how it shapes the people who devote themselves to it, how it influences culture, and how those same people help determine its lasting relevance.
One thing I wish the play had explored more deeply was the connection to Terry’s children. There did not seem to be much discussion of Irving and Terry’s impact on them beyond the opening idea that their mother’s life onstage made her daughter long to be ordinary, while her son wanted to revolutionize theatre in the same way Terry had transformed acting. While this was a strong starting point, it felt a bit underdeveloped. For a play so centered on Irving and Terry’s relationship and artistic legacy, I expected the children’s lives and stories to be more closely intertwined with that central relationship. Overall though, I still understood that message and meaning well enough, so that deeper exploration could just be a personal preference!
Theatre in London U of A 