The Lady in the Van

Most of us will be aware of the 2015 British comedy-drama film The Lady in the Van, directed by Nicholas Hytner and starring Maggie Smith and Alex Jennings. It is based upon the memoir of the same name created by Alan Bennett and it tells the true story (with some dramatic shaping) of his interactions with Mary Shepherd, an elderly woman who lived in a dilapidated van on his driveway in north London for 15 years (and not the 3 months originally offered!) Having previously published the story as a 1989 essay and 1990 book, Hytner himself directed the 1999 stage play at the Queen's Theatre in London's West End, earning Maggie Smith a Best Actress nomination at the 2000 Olivier Awards.

With plays in particular, I do like to start a report with what I think my understanding of the play is. Its longevity may be to do with the situation it dramatizes - a kind of middle-class suburban nightmare: a homeless person, irrational, smelly and endlessly importunate – plus bulky vehicle – camped in a nice, well-meaning person’s front garden and that person – that is, us – is somehow powerless to do anything about it. The Lady in the Van has also been described as a depiction of homelessness, the treatment of the elderly, mental illness and absolution from sins, whilst avoiding the trappings of sentimentality, though it does skirt the deeper issues involved and their motivations. However, The Lady in the Van is also about Alan Bennett himself – and his ambivalence – as it is about Miss Shepherd. Their extraordinary relationship, which for Bennett was a source of intrigue, frustration and compassion, he addresses through including two versions of himself to help illustrate the story - Alan Bennett the writer who sits at his desk and writes (reflecting on life and turning it into drama) and Alan Bennett the disgruntled landlord who has to deal with the consequences of Miss Shepherd's occupation of his driveway through interactions with the outside world. It’s not that he feels sorry for her, nor that allowing her to stay year after year is some act of saintly charity – it’s more ambiguous than that. He uses this strange event to create a play that reveals many insights in to the mind of Bennett himself - his strained relationship with his mother who was becoming senile, his insecurities and his sexual identity. It has also been described as Pinteresque struggle over territory (Pinter’s The Caretaker is referenced) as the solitude-famous Bennett needs his outward-facing self to defend his turf and lay down a few boundaries that limit how far Miss Shepherd can invade. There is certainly more to this play than I originally thought!

This was my first time to the Tacchi Morris Theatre and what a wonderful performing space and auditorium you have. I am very conscious this is a touring production, with a range of venues to perform in and you needed a set that could fit into anyone of them. Thus, your choice of Alan Bennett’s office on one side and the Van (and wall) on the other worked well. The office was of sufficient detail, quality and of the period to supported your depiction of Alan and his lifestyle. Some edging around the raise platform would have perhaps just finished this off. The van was a real highlight – the detail of the setting inside really helped with the story telling. The disguised rear entry/exit point worked well, as did the window that could be slid for conversations from the inside.  Scene changes were well-managed by the cast (or crew disguised as cast) – the high-visibility jacketed crew were a particular highlight. Entrance and exits were used effectively and promptly. Properties were realistic (some perhaps a little too much is terms of the feces and the incontinence pad!)  and were well-controlled too.

The lighting design and application was really impressive, particularly considering the time probably available to set, focus and cue it. There was some occasional LED flicker which was well-managed when it did. The gobos used enhanced the overall effect. The lighting changes to cut between scenes was pretty complex but worked very well on the whole. Though you probably had very little time for the special effect at the end with the appearance of the ‘angelic’ Miss Shepherd, it was very successful. The floor-light generated a simple, but dramatic effect for the soliloquys from the van. Sound was good too. The principals were not amplified as far as I could tell, and though Alan Bennett 2 was the most quietly spoken, I could hear every word. Supporting music was well-cued and volumed and the sound effects used worked well – particularly the car accelerator!

Costume, Hair and Make-Up were generally excellent. Miss Shepherd was suitably attire-stained and dirty and in-keeping with our expectations of the role. The costumes and appearance for both Alans matched each other well and our knowledge of the writer, supporting our acceptance of them being two aspects of the same person. For the other characters there was suitable detail in their attire for the 1970s to late 1980s. Mam’s wig did look like a wig (which may have been the intention for an older lady), but overall, costumes, hair and make-up really enhanced and supported the production.

The direction of the production was very strong. Timing of lines and delivery was well-paced, allowing a long play to flow at a good speed, holding our attention completely throughout.

In reviewing the principal performances:

• Miss Shepherd. This was a quite incredible performance as the cantankerous, eccentric, opinionated yet often deluded central character. For an enormous part so associated with Dame Maggie Smith, you managed to maintain the essence of the role as well as adding you own interpretations. You mastered the 'stinging' delivery with the unmistakable tones of the English upper middle class with the required straightness and added in some superb facial expressions. You were also able to maintain the air of mystery about her which is revealed as the story progresses. Your soliloquies from the van were both compelling and moving. Very, very well done.
• Alan Bennett 2. With the two sides of the same character - Alan Bennett 2 is the older, colder side of him as the writer - knowing all the time that he will be compelled to write a play about his visitor exposing her pretensions, hypocrisy, and woeful hygiene regime.  You put in an excellent and very believable performance – as well as looking and acting like Bennett, you delivering his observations of her antics in his expected sardonic way and with the appropriate accent, often underplaying the delivery of the funny and rather sad in almost every line, with a straight face. You were able to portray Bennett’s dilemma of observing somebody suffering and responding with a great deal of patience and not a little material help. Great work.
• Alan Bennett.  Alan Bennett 1 is the side that actually communicates with Miss Shepherd. This is the literal Alan Bennett, the public persona, the nice fellow who simply cannot get rid of – or cannot think of a valid reason to get rid of - the eyesore van. Although he protests ‘I’m not nice!’ – his niceness is a crucial factor. It’s this that you played brilliantly as we sympathised completely with the character and his interactions with Miss Shepherd and the other characters involved. Your interactions too with the other Alan Bennett worked really well, where a lively dialogue between the 'two halves' of Bennett was much more interesting than a series of monologues. Well done.
• Mam. You played Bennett’s mother well, with the required compunction and direct Yorkshire manner. You performed her deterioration with skill too. Prompting happens to the best of us on occasion, but you got through it and stayed in character throughout.
• Rufus and Pauline. I’ve put you together as you were very much the double act as Bennett’s ‘concerned-but-pleased-she-wasn’t-on-their-property’ neighbours. You worked really well together, with the appropriate pathos and humour, effectively presenting how we might feel in our perception of proceedings.
• Interviewer & Mam’s Doctor.  Really enjoyed your performance, particularly as the Interviewer which gave you more to work in your interaction with Alan.
• Man / Ambulance Driver. Well-supported, particularly with two quite different roles to portray.
• Social Worker. The character should come across naïve and effectively as a cliché of itself and you played this really well.
• Underwood. You created a suitable level of menace and smarm as we realised you were effectively black-mailing Miss Shepherd.
• Lee Farichild & Miss Shepherd’s Doctor. Well-delivered and supported of the overall production in these parts.
• Others. Thanks to everyone else who supported from the crew in a variety of roles from Nuns to Workmen and Coffin Bearers.

In summary, this was my first visit to see the renown @2K Theatre and you certainly lived up to your excellent reputation. This was a quite brilliant production of The Lady In the Van. The performance was entertaining, thought-provoking, moving and laugh-out-loud funny – in all of the right places. All of the performance aspects, from the actors to the set, staging, lighting, sound, costumes and the music all came together in a coherent and impressive way, with a quite exceptional performance from Lorna Evans as Miss Shepherd as the centre-piece. Very well done to everyone involved for a great evening of very high-quality entertainment as well as the successful portrayal of the messages held within. Thank you for the invitation.

PLEASE NOTE:

Any observation made by the reviewer can only be based on what he sees at the performance in question.  The reviewer may have received information in advance of the performance and it is inevitable that his assessment will be effected by that knowledge.

The N.O.D.A. Representative’s intention is to give an objective critique of the overall production and in particular the performance viewed.  It should be remembered that any review of this nature can only be objective as far as the techniques used during the performance observed.  Any criticisms expressed may not have been valid at other performances, and are only made to encourage higher standards in Amateur Theatre.

It is hoped that the audience’s appreciation of your efforts will have given everyone a lift and encouraged you to greater achievements in the future and that the observations made by the reviewer will prove helpful in improving future productions.

 

 

­­

© NODA CIO. All rights reserved.