 |
| Photo by Anna Shvets (CC0) |
The Effect was great fun: entertaining (for the most
part) to watch, with some good ideas. The plot is quite straightforward. Connie
and Tristan, two twenty-somethings, have joined a medical trial which involves
them being given increasing doses of an antidepressant drug. They interact, and
the question is, is their interaction caused by the dopamine released by the drug,
or is it a natural attraction?
That would be quite sufficient for a theme, but it’s not
sufficient for a full West End play, which requires two hours. So the plot is,
in my opinion, rather artificially thickened, to no great effect. The subplot
is that the two doctors, one in charge of the trial (Dr Toby Sealey) and the doctor
actually carrying out the trial (Dr Lorna James) had an affair some years ago. I
found this subplot less convincing, perhaps because I was watching a student performance,
in which the younger roles are always easier to cast than parts for 40- or
50-year-olds.
Prebble has a fine ear for dialogue, and writes some
sparkling exchanges between the two young participants. It’s the classic
contrast of higher-educated versus lower-educated, with all the corresponding
differences in attitude and expectations, and performed brilliantly by the young
actors, who are on stage most of the time. It reminded me of Shaw: the ability
to construct a lively dialogue out of the simplest of scenarios.
There are some interesting puzzles to clarify, possibly just
the clever decisions by the playwright to challenge your expectations. Of
course the young man tries to get off with the young woman. Of course, the
young woman is suspicious. But everything about the boy is not what it seems.
He’s called Tristan, unlikely for someone from Wood Green in Essex, although it
no doubt ticked a significance box for the author. More surprising, he turns
out to be a believer in God, unlike her. And when rejected, he makes it clear
that this is not a quick affair, but the love of his life. This is, for me,
where the play begins to break down. I don’t see any justification for the two
to stay together for life; I just can’t see it working. Where did eternal love
come in? She has studied psychology and sociology, while he appears to be from
the University of Life, although he is clearly an excellent learner.
The need to extend the play led to the introduction of some
less essential material. Once the couple had got involved, their subsequent
discussions were, for me, somewhat convoluted – what did they need to talk
about? Even more cumbersome was the situation of the junior doctor, Lorna
James. Whatever her background, her character didn’t quite gel for me, and it didn’t
seem to matter too much to me if she did or didn’t resolve things with the
older doctor.
The play throws in references to the ethics of medical
trials (“you’re only interested in a side-effect if you can sell it!”), depression,
and as I mentioned, attempts a subplot between the two doctors. But the main
story is what gripped me. Its theme is summed up in a marvellous exchange
between the two principals. She claims he is only attracted to her because of
the drug. She says that if he were drunk and made a pass at her, she wouldn’t
take it seriously. He replies that males only make a pass when they are drunk
because they are too shy to open up normally. Of course, there is some truth in
both arguments. Prebble’s achievement is to combine the two so that both are
believable – until they fall in love for ever.
Posts
