A Father's Shadow Looms Large, But Does This Production Let the Light In? The National Theatre is known for its bold programming, and their latest offering, a revival of Terence Rattigan's Man and Boy, is no exception. While Rattigan is a titan of British theatre, this 1963 lesser-known work is given a fresh, and some might say radical, staging. It’s a play that delves into the dark underbelly of ambition and the fractured bonds of family.
The core of the story revolves around Gregor Antonescu, a once-powerful Romanian financier whose empire is crumbling under the weight of corruption charges. His world collides with that of his estranged son, Basil Anthony, who has deliberately distanced himself from his father's name and is trying to forge his own path as a songwriter. Gregor's sudden reappearance, desperate and exposed, throws Basil's life into turmoil.
Director Anthony Lau has opted for a highly stylized interpretation, transporting the narrative to a 1930s Greenwich Village basement apartment. This setting is brought to life with Georgia Lowe’s evocative set design, which directly references the silver screen. Imagine art deco-style credits appearing on a wall, illuminating the stage as characters enter – a clear nod to the golden age of Hollywood. This visual flair, while striking, unfortunately, tends to overshadow the emotional core of the play.
But here's where it gets controversial... The production embraces a strong sense of artifice. The stage is often bare save for a central table, and the use of green baize around the space evokes the feeling of a giant snooker game. Is the intention to suggest that the characters are merely pawns in a larger, perhaps cynical, game of life? The title of the gangway, 'Knock Knock,' further blurs the lines between reality and performance. It makes you wonder if the entire play is a grand, theatrical jest.
The first half, in particular, feels weighed down by this ambitious reinvention. The performances, while grand, can feel almost operatic, creating a distance that prevents the audience from truly connecting with Rattigan's subtle explorations of human nature. Laurie Kynaston as Basil conveys a sense of bewilderment and anger, but it's difficult to fully grasp his emotional journey. The play's most harrowing moment – Gregor's desperate attempt to pimp out his own son to an American businessman, Mark Herries (played by Malcolm Sinclair), to save himself – gets lost in this conceptually driven production.
Some characters lean into a more cartoonish portrayal. Basil's girlfriend, Carol Penn (Phoebe Campbell), with her exaggerated accent, and Herries's sharp lawyer (Leo Wan) add moments of levity, but at the expense of genuine depth. Gregor's wife (Isabella Laughland) delivers a compelling performance as a former typist turned 'fake countess,' but her character feels more like a trope than a fully realized person. The overall movement, especially Gregor's, is deliberately stylized, creating a peculiar blend of screwball comedy and financial thriller.
And this is the part most people miss... The play begins to resonate more deeply when some of the elaborate theatrics are pared back, though this happens a little too late in the performance. Gregor, at times, feels like a darker echo of Jay Gatsby, a figure whose immense ambition leads to his downfall. However, the emotional distance created by the production makes his ultimate self-loathing and rejection of his son's love something we understand intellectually rather than feel viscerally.
It's a real shame because the story itself is explosive, touching on the corrupting influence of capitalism. In today's world, with echoes of figures like Jeffrey Epstein, the play's themes are incredibly relevant. Yet, the elaborate concepts employed by the director unfortunately smother the raw drama that lies at the heart of Rattigan's work.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe that bold, conceptual reinterpretations of classic plays enhance or detract from their original power? Let me know in the comments below!
