When We Have Sufficiently Tortured Each Other - Play Review

The Cate Blanchett play at the National Theatre

As it wraps its run, the new play at the National Theatre, When We Have Sufficiently Tortured Each Other, (known hereafter as the 'Cate Blanchett play') has left many bewildered, gobsmacked or just plain shocked. With reports of people fainting in the front rows and others just walking out in disgust, this is my take on what exactly I went to see.


First things first, whilst I do love going to the theatre, this play in particular would not have enticed me to travel 155 miles, just to see it were it not for the small fact that Cate Blanchett (of Lord of the Rings, Carol and Thor: Ragnarok fame) was in the leading role.


So the play. I know that it is meant to be various variations on Samuel Richardson's Pamela, mostly because that's the second part of this play's outrageously long title. Martin Crimp, the playwright, admits that he was particularly inspired by the production of discourse that occurs within the original novel, and it seems clear to me that the lengthy scenes of dialogues and writing in the novel were the basis for the way in which the play was constructed.


Blanchett in the leading role is phenomenal in the usage of her speech, bringing to life Crimp's version of Pamela through her impressively lengthy dialogues and also the over exaggeration of movement as she works her way across the stage. Impressive too, was the layout of the stage, a garage that had the fourth wall removed in order for the audience to voyeur upon the character's world. An Audi A6 took up the left third of the stage, and every prop (used or not) was effectively placed in order to seem almost as if the audience really were looking in on a real garage.


However, not even the sublime Cate Blanchett could make this play anything other than the very, VERY strange beast that it is. The best way I can find to describe it is as an orgy of sex and violence, wherein the two main characters seem - not to be falling in love as is depicted in the original text - but merely parodying domestic abuse of two characters who are supposed to be falling in love, but neither actually seem to know what love is.


In my personal opinion, I think the play is simply trying to be too clever and out there. It's attempts to satirise toxic masculinity just emphasise those traits that the male character does present, and its attraction to LGBT punters (namely Cate Blanchett wearing a strap-on) occurs right at the very end of the play and does nothing to really contribute to the 'story' of the play at all. Not to mention that aside from Cate Blanchett and Stephen Dillane, the supporting cast do not add to the action of the play much at all, rather they are placed in full view, on stage throughout the majority of the play, only to spend most of their time standing silently watching Blanchett and Dillane verbally sparring and swapping clothing.


Overall, I admit myself disappointed, and wish that I had researched the play a little further before spending £48 on a ticket. Then again, its not everyday you can say that you were in the same building as Cate Blanchett and what's more, saw her wearing a black, strap-on.


-The Act of Writing-