Martin Bridgeman

Full disclosure: I went in simply to attend and and ended up being a (small) part of the performance, but let me say that it did not affect my overall experience. We were asked to volunteer for speaking parts while we waited to go in and were handed scripts to read. Luckily for me, I ended up with relatively little to say but this participation actually added to the overall experience in my view as I was longer a passive audient but a participant.

This was a highly powerful, thought-provoking and engaging theatrical experience. The use of non ‘performer’ voices motivated us subtly to really engage and listen. One or two minor audio quibbles aside (the large performance space did undermine the relative volumes here and there), you felt compelled to listen carefully, given the diversity of the voices and accents. Very quickly you forgot that there were various (necessary) technical aspects. The ‘set’ design disguised them beautifully and the overall design and style was subtle but noticeable and helped to engage the audience further. We quickly forgot were in a non-theatre space.

The setting also helped us to settle quickly, as we were scattered around the room, with multiple points of focus (as opposed to a more traditional theatre seating). In my opinion, this helped to reduce the potential for passivity and removed the performer/audience distance . There was no fourth wall. We were all in it together.

What followed was a fascinating conversation and exchange of ideas and words. It was a heady mix of speech and silence, almost every sentence heavy with meaning and questioning. We were in a world of extreme self consciousness on the literal and perceived meanings of words, on the power of silences, on the nuances of accent, of understanding and communication. Each exchange was heightened and charged and this increased in intensity as the performance progressed. Throughout, we got a sense of how language can define and determine understanding and how subtle our engagements are with each other. Accents, pronunciations, comprehension, judgement and prejudice were laid bare and, while occasionally uncomfortable, was a refreshing opportunity to reflect on how we listen to each other in our search for meaning and acceptance.

The latter part of the performance was a type of question and answer session with room for comment. This led to one (of a number of interesting discussions) on silence. As it happened, there were a number of radio professionals present and involved and so their perspective in silence was intriguing, i.e. that its power lay in duration. Often a silence on radio (for a listener) indicated consideration of a question, sometimes reticence and occasionally heart stopping drama. For the radio professionals, it could also provide significant challenge. Given that this performance was also a simultaneous radio broadcast, this was a particularly appropriate discussion.

Accent also proved an interesting discussion point, especially around local dialect (and perhaps dialectics), around word choices and usage and the sometimes subtle unconscious prejudice that can be felt. It was intriguing and instructive to note that this is a more common experience in many other countries, with Eszter’s experiences being vital to that understanding.

Overall, this was a hugely rewarding theatrical experience. Despite the seeming self conscious nature of the scripts (by which I mean that we were listening to words, in some cases reading them out loud and having a simultaneous consideration of their meaning), it never strayed in to ‘meta’ territory. There was no undermining of the power of the piece and the staging methods heightened the effect.

In the notes, the intent is described as opening a space “for conversation and the politics of speaking and listening voicing and belonging and how this relates to integration, emancipation and xenophobia’.

The production, helmed by Niamh Moroney was subtle but hugely effective. The setting was intriguing but did not impact negatively not interfere with the overall experience.

The script by Eszter Némethi wove a narrative that was strong without being polemical and really left a mark. It was truly engaging theatre, leaving no room for complacency and indifference. The programme notes were not needed to engage but did provide a richer understanding of her own experiences across language and the consequences of it.

It succeeded in all respects.