Review: 4.48 Psychosis
4.48 Psychosis; a 45 minute sombre, poetic and thoroughly unsettling suicide note exploring the suffering, the anger, the frustration of living with clinical depression.
Performed in the 'Arto' style of theatre, Sarah Kane's 4.48 Psychosis plays out like an interactive E.E. Cummings poem, a stream of consciousness barraging a silent audience with a curious tingling feeling running up their collective spines as the cast gently caress their necks and faces during bleak monologues detailing the personal hell of the main character.
This is a play that relies almost entirely on its gloomy and oppressive atmosphere, the dread it imbues within each of the spectators which was achieved immaculately on both nights at Llanover Hall save for the childish giggle here or there from those with little respect for the play and its ultimate message, "after 4.48, I shall not speak again".
Both the cast and director did astonishingly well in crafting a believable universe in which the audience is taking part in some pioneering new medical therapy, the cast being comprised of Celyn Grosvenor, Hannah George, Chloe Jenkins and Malcolm McRobbie and the director - Joe Roach, all of which are talented in their own right and who I look forward to seeing again.
Those who suffer from depression will no doubt pick up the recurring language and motifs which highlights the way in which sufferers become imprisoned in repetitive loops of uselessness and the desperate clawing desire for peace prevails again, and again, and again.
I would definitely see this particular production again, it's rare I feel so connected with a character or voice in a play and so gripped by the acting simultaneously. Sheer brilliance with a sinister edge. Amazing.
Photos: Ed Townend
3 Comments – Post a comment
Pasternak
Commented 66 months ago - 25th November 2010 - 14:26pm
Even before the play started I found this unsettling. I turned up early hoping to get a good seat, and as soon as I walked into Llanover Hall I was greeted by a group of men in white coats who carefully warned me about the 'safety procedures' to avoid 'startling the patient'.
I think that not having a clear beginning and end (when it finished people in the audience were just sort of looking at each other, trying to decide whether this was the end or not) kinda worked considering the atmosphere of the play. However one thing I did feel could have been improved was the accreditation of the cast: once the show had definitely 'finished', the cast came onstage to take a bow (which was great as it was the first time I'd been able to see them clearly as the entire play was very dark). But as nobody had been given programmes, the director really should have introduced the cast and told us their names.
I'm guessing the writer of this review either knew some of the cast personally or found out their names through the Facebook page, but I think it would have been more professional for the director to have just taken a moment to tell the clueless members of the audience who the talents actors and actresses **were** as they deserve a lot of credit for such a powerful (and disturbing!) performance.
PS - Was the blonde girl Cassie from Skins? Or just someone who looked and sounded remarkably like her?
cynicforhire
Commented 66 months ago - 25th November 2010 - 14:38pm
Yeah, I know the cast.
And as for 'programmes' I think the actress' names could have been worked into the sheet that was handed out at the start as to maintain the 'clinical trial' vibe the play had yet crediting the cast at the same time, so I understand for someone who didn't know the cast that must have been annoying.
FlyingSheep
Commented 66 months ago - 25th November 2010 - 15:39pm
Hmm I agree I should have gave the actors more credit as they did amazing.
I thought I could try and work it in to the letter but the main theme is that we refered to them as one patient.
Thankyou for the review :)
And I did try to get cassie but all I could find was the chloe (blonde girl)