Saved at the Abbey

I saw Edward Bond's controversial play Saved at the Abbey last Thursday. While I feel I need to read the play before coming to certain conclusions about the play and the production, I feel confident saying there was some excellent work being done by the actors and a poor job done by the director. There was a striking set (which didn't entirely work for me) that required 2-3 minute scene changes between almost every scene thereby destroying any possible momentum between the scenes. I realize this may have been a directorial choice, but it didn't seem to serve the story or to fit with other production choices; it seemed there was a bold choice for the set of the home and that meant elaborate/lengthy scene changes.

I felt so sad for the actors, though, because they were working so hard to make the production work when the director has set these needless obstacles in their way. I have been fortunate enough to see some of these actors in other productions and continue to be impressed with the caliber of work. There was one scene between the characters of Fred and Len after Fred has just left prison and it left me without words it was so powerful.

One more directorial gaff and then I will let it go: violence is a mark of this play and why it continues to be controversial. There is a moment in the building to climax in which a wife strikes her husband on the head with a teapot AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT. It was so clear that there was no connection. There was no blood despite repeated lines about the blood. How can you stage a production known for its violence without treating the violence as a valuable and important part of the production?

I am interested to read the play to explore more of my conflicted feelings about the production. I can understand, however, how Edward Bond is one of the inspirations for Neil LaBute.