The Motive and the Cue

Noel Coward Theatre, 22/02/24

Credit: Mark Douet

Final rating: ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

Theatre buffs and thespians unite, this is a play that taps into all the pretentiousness you might find when you take part in – and watch – theatre.

Based loosely on a true story – we’re taken on a journey through the souring relationship of legendary actor-turned-director Sir John Gielgud and young enthusiastic actor Richard Burton during rehearsals of a modern dress Hamlet on Broadway in 1964. The pair clash at almost every turn – each with a differing view on how to interpret Shakespeare’s most performed play – having a detrimental impact on the rest of the cast.

Each scene begins in front of a screen, with a projection to indicate how many days into rehearsal the cast is when we watch them. The effortless transition from an actor mid-line in front of the screen, to the square curtain opening up and the scene continuing seamlessly, is a joy watch. Mark Gattiss is particularly excellent as a withering Sir John, aware of his age. His politely dismissive reactions to suggestions by the cast during rehearsal will feel all too familiar to any actor taking part in a play – they provided many comic moments. And this is – indeed – a play with lots of funny lines. He went on to win an Olivier for his performance.

But it is also a play that felt too long. Some scenes served only one purpose – to give the audience a greater insight into the mind of either Sir John or Richard (Dick), and of course, I understand why this is necessary. However, sometimes these moments dragged and felt sidetracked from the main event. Similarly, the side characters (or, the rest of the cast in the Hamlet production) suffered from a lack of any character at all. Some had little to no lines, and any time they did it almost felt as if the playwright suddenly remembered the character had been on stage for a while and thought they ought to have a line. In a reduced version, perhaps the parts would be necessary extras rather than their own characters, which would allow for some scenes (such as the meeting between Rosencratz and Sir John) to be cut for time. Moreover, the scene between Sir John and the male prostitute was absolutely terrific for its comic value and also frank openness about being homosexual in the time period – but again it did feel a bit shoehorned in for nothing other than character development. That’s not necessarily a problem, but it is if it’s blatantly obvious.

I have to say that where Gattiss excelled, I was underwhelmed by Johnny Flynn. His accent was murky at best, which became a distraction. Burton - the man - was Welsh, but the performance was taking place on Broadway – was it meant to be an amalgamation of both? I’m really not sure but it didn’t work for me. Other American accents by the side cast were significantly better – particularly by Tuppence Middleton as Elizabeth Taylor. The women in this play were notably absent – with the roles serving only as a function to further the dynamic between Sir John and Dick – but in this case I don’t think that detracts from the play as it openly admits it is solely focussed on that male relationship.

The set was terrific, often minimal but precisely what was needed. I enjoyed the music throughout each transition too. And I think the ending deserves a distinct mention: the moment with Sir John and Dick on stage, finally a recognition of the fact that the pair constantly clashed but that their differences could finally be put aside. It was a delightfully satisfying moment, as was the dramatic lighting up of the stage at the end to thumping drums and an energetic choir, watching Dick pick up the iconic Hamlet skull as his moment finally came. It was over-the-top, but after watching the cast overindulge in Hamlet monologues for 2.5 hours, it was the audience’s turn to indulge in some spectacle.

The facts displayed on the projection screen at the end tied the whole thing together, and it felt inspiring to learn that the real John Gielgud had performed his own Hamlet on the very stage we were sat before. This was a play which was written for those who like theatre – and in particular those familiar with Hamlet – with a tongue-in-cheek look at what goes in to putting on a performance. But, I fear, it’s not a play that will resonate as well with part-time theatre-goers – not least due to its length and overindulgence. The comedy was scattered throughout, and though there were some strong acting performances, I did feel at times the play struggled to get out of second gear, and just left me craving something more.