Fringe, Reviewed: Intimate Exchanges

[ theater ]

Intimate Exchanges by 1812 Productions

ATTENDED: Thu., Sept. 4, 8 p.m.; closes Sun., Sept. 21

Alan Ayckbourn’s sensational comedy of chance where each road taken is dictated by the audience.

WE THINK: The big selling point — and the nagging issue — of Mary Carpenter’s adaptation of Ayckbourn’s 1982 play is the inclusion of audience choice. Stage manager Tom Shotkin — who makes more on-stage appearances than any SM ever, which is great because he’s also a fine actor — explains beforehand that there are three decisions characters make in the play, and that we will actually decide for them. A distinctive musical cue and a spotlight will freeze the actors, then Shotkin will offer two choices.

The entire audience doesn’t decide, however — instead, a light isolates a different person each time. The choice he or she makes is instantly incorporated by the actors, not through improvisation, but as scripted by Ayckbourn. Since there are eight possible final outcomes to the story, actors Jennifer Childs and Tony Lawton (brilliant consummate professionals) had to memorize and rehearse all the choices. That’s an impressive — no, downright amazing! — achievement, especially since each also plays two to four characters, depending on the version performed, with all the requisite costume and wig changes, plus all the necessary props. Not only are the actors impressive, the backstage organization must be incredible.

This spontaneity is not in the original script; earlier productions decided beforehand which version to perform each evening. The attraction was to return again and again to see all the story’s permutations. That’s an option here, though we can’t know in advance what options will be performed.

But after all these machinations, one has to ask: How was the play? The version last night was, like a lot of Ayckbourn, an involving story about realistic relationships incorporating farcical elements while still revealing genuine characters. I never forgot that Lawton plays both gardener Lionel and stuffy headmaster Toby, and that Childs flips from Toby’s unhappy wife Celia to restless young Sylvie — but all four were believable characters. While the audience roared when circumstances allowed Lawton to converse with himself — “Lionel” worked under a platform, “Toby” stuck his head under, and then Lawton voiced both characters — the action between the characters ultimately mattered more.

Add the five-year jump in the story in all the possible versions —there’s an intriguing albeit vague chart in the program — and the director, actors, designers, and crew rise to a unique set of challenges with poise, skill, and artistry.

But there I go again, talking about the theatricality. How was the play? The version last night was a somewhat sad tale about people falling into and out of love, looking for permanent answers in relationships made temporary because people change. I enjoyed the scenes about theater, as Toby rehearses a school pageant with Sylvie and Celia, which you might or might not see if you go. Minus the unique theatrics, however, my day-after feelings, as if this version were the entire play, would probably be “meh.”

This is definitely a situation in which the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts.1812 devised a way to make the tricks of Ayckbourn’s mad genius a fulfilling and exciting evening of theater. We shouldn’t, and can’t, ignore what at first seems like gimmickry, and it actually explores rich issues about how each decision we make creates a new future.