Most people are familiar with the plot of this play through the award-winning 1944 American film starring Ingrid Bergman and a very young Angela Lansbury.
This was not the original, however. British writer Patrick Hamilton wrote it as a stage play first entitled Gas Light, in 1938. It was performed in the United States under two different names, Five Chelsea Lane, and Angel Street.
The first film adaptation was in 1940, a British version, followed a few years later by the American version that is most familiar.
The version of Gaslight that my wife and I saw at Bakersfield Community Theater is a modern adaptation of the original play, in this case by Steven Dietz.
I am not entirely sure of all of the changes that were made, since I haven’t seen either of the movies or the original play. I did avail myself of Wikipedia, and it appears that the ending is slightly changed, in a way that appears to give Bella more agency.
The term “gaslighting” has definitely entered the vernacular in the 21st Century, although, like a lot of psychology terms, it is overused and often used incorrectly. The play is where the term came from, however, and it does describe a particular technique of abuse in the play. It is a useful term, if used accurately and in moderation.
I hesitate to say too much about the plot. Jack and Bella Manningham are an unhappily married couple who have recently moved into a somewhat sinister house in London. Jack’s behavior has become increasingly abusive, with him flirting with the servants, coming and going at odd hours, and accusing Bella of losing things.
She also has noticed that the gas lights dim when Jack is gone, and there are strange noises coming from an upper floor.
It becomes clear early on that Jack intends to put Bella in an asylum, accusing her of losing her mind.
One day when Jack is out, however, a police detective, Sargent Rough, appears, and Bella begins to understand that Jack is not what he seems.
Further than that, I will not go.
Going into this play, I wasn’t actually certain if it would be a tragedy or not. And I certainly didn’t expect that it would be quite humorous.
I mean, gaslighting and psychological abuse are pretty serious, and not the happiest of topics.
But in this case, Sargent Rough is a fascinating and humorous character. Yes, he is a sleuth on the right track, but he is also a bit feckless, and written broadly. He seems a bit of a caricature of a copper, and his interaction with Bella is a bit ludicrous.
So the play feels a bit like a cross between a comedy and a mystery-thriller.
The Steven Dietz version felt a bit abbreviated - it was a bit shorter than the average play, and the second half in particular felt like it went quickly. Having not seen the original, I am not sure how it compares.
The basic plot points are all there, of course, and it really isn’t changed in any major way.
What I think probably was different is that some of the ideas about women were updated for modern times, and Bella is allowed to think for herself a bit more. This is speculation, but I think, given the dialogue, this was probably an update.
This particular production had some interesting choices. First, the set, by Roger Upton (who supposedly retired a few years ago, but seems to be involved in as many plays as ever…) was quite something. He brought to life a Victorian luxury apartment, with so many details. For a low-budget community theater, this was impressive. (To be fair, BCT has created so many great sets over the years - they know what they are about for sure.)
The play was written with a small cast, but BCT expanded it a bit by including pantomimes for the street characters alluded to in the dialogue. The interior drama gained an exterior. I certainly understand trying to include a few more people - it’s a community theater, so inclusiveness is essentially free. It worked fine.
The drama turns essentially on five characters. There are the Manninghams and Rough, and the two servants, Elizabeth and Nancy. The rest are ensemble parts with brief appearances.
Bella is on stage nearly all of the time, so she definitely has to carry the play. I think this is the first main character I have seen Missy Fulmer play. Overall, her acting was fine, but occasionally, her lines got lost in the roar of the air conditioning. What I did like was that she captured the ambivalence of not being sure if she was going crazy or not. Facial expressions and body language were key to this, more so than the words.
Opposite her was Josh Carruthers as Jack. He has played a variety of parts over the years, including villains. Add a thin moustache, and he was appropriately oily and villainous in the part, with a sharp edge of cruelty.
Unsurprisingly, though, Scott Deaton as Rough kind of stole the show. He is always excellent on stage, and has the ability to project his lines to the back of any auditorium without sounding loud or forced. He really seemed to be his character throughout.
Good work was done as well by Pea Harrison (Elizabeth) and Alex Franklin (Nancy) as well as the various ensemble actors.
I think my final thought on this play is how the gaslighting works. It isn’t just that Jack is hiding things and blaming Bella for it.
It is that he is couching his cruelty in the terms of kindness. Everything is “for her own good,” even as it is self-serving and cruel. I myself have experienced more of that kind of gaslighting than I would ever want to experience.
In fact, I think one of the hallmarks of abusive behavior is this claim that the abuser really has the ultimate good of the victim in mind. That’s how abusers justify their abuse, including to themselves.
If you want to see this play in person, it runs this weekend as well. bctstage.org for information and tickets. (You can also get tickets at the door.)
No comments:
Post a Comment