Our staging for the Edinburgh production at the Underbelly was a deliberate attempt not to simply replicate the 'four chairs' scenario done at the Royal Court. The space we used was a square, with C and B sat on the floor at the front, A and M behind. Each of us had our own space which was just big enough to move around in when sat down, with a small number of objects for each. A had a chair with some two books (some Alistair Crowley and the Bible I think), M had a clock (running out of time) and a mirror behind her that was partially shattered (ideas of a fragmented self and also about confronting her own aging). C was wrapped in a small duvet, as if she had woken up in the middle of the night (maybe 4:48am who knows!) plus a music box just outside her space that was just out of reach (relating to childhood memories that "she cannot remember but cannot forget... and has been hurtling away from ever since" that she reached for once before breaking away). B had a bottle of vodka and a packet of cigarettes I more or less chain-smoked throughout. Costume: A had smart trousers and a waistcoat, M a dress for a night out (Lucie who played the role once thought of M having just come back from a night on the town looking for men and seeing herself in the mirror and just going "what am I doing"), B clubbing gear and C pants and a top. Though each outfit was quite individual, each incorporated the same blueish material somewhere (e.g. the top I wore) to suggest they were connected in some way.
In terms of physicality, we debated how much action we could get away with but agreed that attentions to the rhythms of the text were most important; too much movement could have been distracting and have detracted from the overall musicality which we wanted the audience to pick up and be carried along by. Rather than going for complete minimalism, the central part of our set was deliberately designed to offer a contrast to the quite realistic 'spaces' each of us had. Basically, a beaten up trash can was in the centre of the stage, with fibre optic lights spilling out from it into the four spaces along with barbed wire. The spaces for each voice were divide by a floor covered in broken glass: the idea being that if any one of us tried to reach the other then we would cut ourselves. The set also gave the impression that we were all floating in a sea of glass. The overall effect we were looking for was the suggestion of an almost womb-like space, populated by entities (either independent OR belonging to the same individual) who could not connect or fully escape from each other. Having seen productions where sequences had been delivered as character dialogue, we decided to make it more ambigous by directing everything out to the audience. For example, even during the possible B/M sections, both Lucie and I still delivered the lines out though our body language could suggest we were talking. This wasn't designed to be a cop-out in not choosing a definitive interpretation of what the situation actually was, but rather something open-ended enough that people could make up their own minds. It was also effective having A directly behind C and M directly behind B, especially during the love speech. Lighting was kept to four spotlights and the muted fibre-optics, but we played with those a bit: in the long yes/no section for example, the spots flickered as if to suggest that the entity was literally 'breaking down' in some sense. The lighting also built as to be almost blinding towards the end of the play.
In terms of M being an older C, A an older B, it's certainly useful having a look at this possibility. In rehearsal we tried to make sure that most readings of the text could still be applied, and there is a lot between the older and younger characters that could be connected. Both A and B answer to the name of David, and one could plausibly imagine that a young B, having endured rejection by M, could adopt a more abusive attitude a la A. However, this on its own is too reductive. The possible abusive history of A and C could have started much earlier (C talks about playing on a climbing frame at the age of six, then describes a "handsome blonde fourteen year old" who arrives that could be A - this could have been when they first met,and the suggestion of a shared memory between the two is deliberately HINTED by both referring to "eyes full of the sun" - oh the possibilities). Ultimately, we saw the A/B relationship as a means for Kane to interrogate modern masculinity : B is full of bravado to begin with ("all things to all men", the cocky "are you a lesbian?") that breaks down into dependence on another. A has found a limited form of power through abuse, and this maybe something B aspires to, maybe not. M could also be an older C who has concluded that a child is a means of carrying on, but her constant assertions that "I'm not your mother" to B then C are ambiguous: C has a mother who is "dead to me... someone has died who is not dead" - their is a whole faintly outlined past concerning C's family, with the suggestions of an abusive mother/father relationship. Maybe C sees in her parents (the father "beating my mother with a walking stick") a template for her relationship with A, and the fact that she has found herself in the same position as her mother is something she blames her for.
Interestingly, as well as making the play simply more 'universal', the foreign quotes B comes out with also could relate to countries that Britain have conquered in conflict through the (very masculine) exercise of war (Spain - Armada, Serbia - Bosnian conflict, Germany - WW2); their presence could partly be allusions to a masculine power B half harks back to in oder to combat his craving for M.
Apologies for all this, Crave is still very much in my system and I think always will be after having worked on it so intensively. I don't claim to have found any 'keys' to unlocking the play, and all of the above are merely suggestions, not confident assertions. I could go on and on about the play (plus the other four), and worryingly am still able to recite the entire bloody thing well after the summer - I'm stuck with it for life maybe. Thanks to those who liked our production: praise is always good for massaging the ego. We got a lot of good reveiws in Edinburgh, but perhaps the thing that will stay with me most is the very different reactions we got EVERY night. Some people would find the text extremely funny and applaud like crazy at the end, , most would watch it in a kind of stunned silence that would continue well after the final line. Memories of me sitting on the (cold and dank) Underbelly floor when the lights went down for a good five/ten minutes while the audience just sat their refusing to leave are still very much with me. Hope the above is in someway useful xx chris
Archive 22-11-2002
