by James Harle
‘Ten Days’ is a play with issues. Somewhat adventurous in subject matter, it seems as though writer and director Qaisar Siddiqui has faced a myriad of problems from the outset – problems which are overcome with varying success.
Set in a post-apocalyptic future, the play is essentially a work of science fiction. As such, it faces the problem of that genre: how to give information to the audience. On the one hand, characters constantly referring to the events and developments which lead to the imagined future can be very grating, and make the dialogue seem forced. On the other hand, avoiding issues of setting and context can alienate an audience, and prove inaccessible. This was handled with some grace on Siddiqui’s part: his characters gave little away, but slowly revealed the bigger picture. As for the set and costume, they were functional and interesting to look at, but perhaps a little unimaginative.
As the play went on, however, it became clear that although the idea had potential, the writing and directing were sadly lacking. Although initially inclined to be forgiving on the basis that the subject was fairly original, the last quarter of the play was difficult to endure. Lines such as “I can’t bury another baby,” “You’re already dead,” and “this madness has to end,” followed mercilessly on each others’ heels, giving the impression of a lazy writer. Apart from anything else, this relentless torrent of overly-dramatic speeches leeched any significance from the play’s conclusion.
In terms of acting the play didn’t produce anything spectacular. Anjali Vyas-Brannick and Ryan Hall both gave solid, creditable performances as Sarah and Isaac respectively. Joe Williams was grasping at something very effective in his portrayal of Icarus – the fact that he fell short, along with the fact that Vyas-Brannick and Hall’s performances were steady but uninspired, are flaws that I am inclined to lay at the feet of the director. Looking at these performances, the potential is obvious; the raw materials are here, but ultimately it is the director who sculpts these into a cohesive and nuanced whole. His role as an external observer is absolutely critical, and here the lack is sadly evident.
Florence-Anne Stratton and John Askew, however, are exempted from this – but for different reasons. Stratton, who played the role of Dahlia, a bawdy prostitute, was out of place in this piece. Her acting style jarred with the rest of the cast, and her delivery would have been more suited to an episode of Eastenders. Hers became not a character, but a caricature, and was soon a chore to watch. Askew, conversely, suited the role of Quintus perfectly. The cornerstone of the performance, he approached brilliance in a couple of interactions supported by Hall – namely because of his subtle, sensitive and disarmingly simple approach to the character. It was the contrast between this approach and the extroverted raging of the rest of the dialogue which made Askew’s moments so striking.
All told, here was an original concept let down by overly sensational writing and inattentive directing. Although it seems unlikely that these are difficulties that can be ironed out overnight, it is clear that there is a lot of potential here. With more time, and possibly a re-focussing of the script, this play could be very moving.
Fair enough. Good review, Mr. Harle.
Although I disagree with you saying Dahlia was a ‘chore to watch’. That just ain’t right.
Although I agree with some points of the review here – especially relating to the script – I have to say I disagree with your comments on the actors. I thought all five actors gave convincing and enjoyable performances, which can’t have been easy with a script which demanded a huge amount of energy and emotional intensity. Florence-Anne Stratton and Joe Williams, in my opinion, were perhaps the two cast members who had the most difficult characters with the highest moments of drama to sustain. I don’t usually comment on reviews but I felt that – script issues aside – both were a joy to watch and I was suitably impressed.
Did you even watch this play? Dahlia wasn’t “a bawdy prostitute”, she lived in a society where breeding of people who didn’t have AIDS was forced – so she was forced to get pregnant by Icarus. You also failed to mention any of the complex references to philosophy, science and knowledge which littered the entire script, instead picking the few lines that were supposed to be climactic anyway.
Complex references to philosophy, science and ‘knowledge’ do not make a script more intelligent, they just point out that the writer has some grasp of these ideas.
A very well written review.
Siddiqui should takes these points into account when writing in future.
“Dramasoc Veteran”, “Siddiqui should take these points into account when writing in the future” – I don’t mean any disrespect, and yes the play certainly had its flaws, but I assume like the writer you are also a student? ‘Dramasoc veteran’ or not, comments (and a username) like that make you sound like a bit of a twit. We’re all learning here and nobody’s an expert – University is surely the time to try things and ‘have a go’.
By the way, as someone who’s also been involved in DramaSoc for the last three years, one of the things I’ve always loved is the fact that students have been encouraged to write and put on their own plays, and the support the society gives in giving them a chance to realise their vision. I appreciate that some student writing is better than others – or may appeal to you more than another play – but let’s not get too petty.
This review reads as naive and purposely critical. I think perhaps it would be fairer to say that this play wasn’t to your taste as your attitude makes you seem delusional. The play is a complex subject matter and as such will never be universally loved. But that isn’t the point of a play like this. This play will encourage discussion for weeks, or months… It is not the power of the final act that is important, but the lasting emotion of the ideas which will resonate forever. I found that the writing and originality of this piece was courageous and made me question, and isn’t that what it is really about?
I read this review before going to see Ten Days last night, as did quite a few people, and all it did was put us on edge – make us think we’d misplaced the small amount of money spent on a ticket. Thankfully, we couldn’t have been more wrong – you talk about teh first half as though it were simply an hour’s worth of plot exposition, but it really wasn’t; Qaisar took all these complex relationships he ahd carefully constructed and laid them down on the line for us in a processed, methodical way. Don’t get em wrong, it wasn’t as though we were sitting there thinking “okay, first half, meeting everyone, get a move on”, it was genuinely a pleasure – we wanted to know more about them as it went on. As for the second half; careful culmination of plot events, and even though you criticise the dialogue, you’ve got to put it into context (the fact that you didn’t is one of the reasons we were expecting disappointment) – there weren’t any gigantic gunfights or outrageous sex scenes, so he made it dramatic with the dialogue, which actually suits it in the moments he put it in. Yeah,mno-one’s perfect, but I think you might have been expecting Fallout 3 from the premise, and surprise, it wasn’t.
You really have been way out of line here. There were faults, there are faults with any student-written play, but you seen to have just vented for a whole page. I’d get it if you’d just listed what was wrong with it and then said that it wasn’t for you, but really it just looks like you’re trying to put people off on purpose. I honestly hope student writers (myself included) come out of their dark little holes, writing plays which are all virtually about the same thing, and take a leaf out of Qaisar’s book by writing truly original stuff and pushing the boundaries of what can be done in that tiny little barn.
This review was incredibly well-written and I would really like to see more from this writer in the future. It was a fair, methodical and honest review and he meant no disrespect; he was just doing his job.
Ten Days wasn’t a brilliant play, and no, it wasn’t as bad as all the hype led me to believe. Qaisar has done an incredibly courageous thing here and should be applauded for it. It was an ambitious premise and for a first time playwright in the Barn, I was pleasantly surprised. I don’t think that all faults can be attributed to him, though, of course. The actors did what they could with the script, which left a little to be desired in terms of character development (but then, really, who can write an incredible, complex script complete with perfect characterisations on the first attempt?), but in the case of certain actors – Anjali Vyas-Brannick and Ryan Hall – they really gave no variation to their characters at all, and although that is something that could be remedied with more careful directorial input, it is also something that is, in part, up to the actor. Give Siddiqui a break – he’s done a very brave thing, and done it well. The whole point of the Barn is for people to try out new things, and this was in no way a waste of the space.
I’d like to add that I thought the set and design were fit.
Amazing last night.