Man and Superman – The National Theatre, London
Actually, I think the length was part of the reason it worked so well. For all the grumbling about audience attention spans (mostly true, I for one am an avid attender of cultural events who balks at the thought of a long run time), sometimes a good build up to the cathartic moment can be a very good thing. In this case, there is a romantic story at the heart of the play which is what you might call a slow burn, mainly due to unwillingness, differing political opinions and a lot of long monologues getting in the way. The couple, middle class revolutionary Jack Tanner and his ward Ann Whitefield, are certainly more Beatrice and Benedick than Romeo and Juliet, and there is a similar level of audience satisfaction when they finally overcome their own objections and get together at the end, if the hearty applause was anything to go by.
If I had to pick the second reason I enjoyed this play so much, I would unhesitatingly select Tim McMullan in the role of a Spanish brigand and then the Devil. What a part. What a performance. He was like Inigo Montoya with even more swagger and an underworld to govern. He certainly lifted what could have been a confusing or boring second act, in which comedy makes way for philosophy and Ralph Fiennes, now playing Don Juan rather than Jack Tanner, debates the future of the world and the merits of heaven and hell with the Devil.
Having read the programme, I now know that Man and Superman was first published in 1903 as a work of comedy and philosophy, complete with revolutionary tracts supposedly by Jack Tanner in the appendix. If anyone’s looking for a Christmas present for me, a copy of that would do. Anyway, Shaw saw it as being composed of sections which could be lifted out and performed, namely the comedy as one and the philosophy as another (sometimes referred to as ‘Don Juan in Hell’), and the first and third acts were performed as such at the Court Theatre in 1905 with Shaw directing.
I think the strength of this revival is shown by the fact that it works, in its entirety, and even with something of an update to modernish dress and technologies. This is partly down to performances: McMullan as previously noted was excellent, Fiennes carried a very challenging and unsympathetic role, and Indira Varma carried off the role of Ann, despite its feminist difficulties. I could quibble about the 11 year age gap between actors whose characters were reminiscing about shared childhoods, but I enjoyed myself too much to be really annoyed about anything. Part of the reason I love the National Theatre is the fact that they do stage works which could be unfashionable or not commercially successful. If someone had pitched a revival of Man and Superman to me I don’t know what I would have said (except that I always like a Marxist revolutionary), but I’m glad that there are institutions with the vision to see how relevant and enjoyable a work like this can be.