Review – Equus, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 31st May 2026

One of the most outstanding plays of the 20th century, Equus, Peter Shaffer’s intricate but vivid enactment of a true story, retains an immaculate reputation, bolstered by extraordinary productions in the past. It deals with the inexplicable blinding of several horses by a teenage boy, a story told to him by a friend who died shortly afterwards, with no first-hand knowledge of the crime or perpetrator at all; Shaffer filled the gaps with his imagination. I saw the original production, when it transferred to the Albery, as part of a school trip (!) and we sat on benches on the stage. At the time it was the most thrilling experience I’d had in a theatre and it opened my 16-year-old mind to appreciate some of the extraordinary things that theatre can achieve. I’ve seen it twice since, including the famous Daniel Radcliffe production, and it never fails to astonish. Seeing it again now in the intimate setting of the Menier Chocolate Factory was a no-brainer for me.

Long suffering psychiatrist Martin Dysart is told about the actions of 17-year-old Alan Strang by Hesther Salomon, the magistrate at his court case. With no apparent cause, and with no previous blemish on his character, Strang blinded six horses on a rampage in a stable. Hesther realises he needs help rather than just punishment, so reluctantly Dysart agrees to take him on. Initially obstructive, Strang slowly starts to open up as together they explore the reasons why he did what he did. As the play progresses, we see vignettes from his family life, his introduction to the stable and stable-mate Jill, and his instant infatuation with the horses. Shaffer saves the re-enactment of the blinding for the final scene, one of the most visually and emotionally shattering moments in 20th century drama.

One of the reasons why it’s always a thrill to see a production at the Menier is that you never quite know how the stage and seating will be configured. For Equus, Paul Farnsworth has created a black wooden stage, featureless apart from four benches in the corners, a black wooden walkway around the stage and what appears to be a centre revolve that they don’t use (looks it a bit odd, to be honest). In keeping with the original production, the offstage actors sit in vacant seats scattered around the front row of the audience, which emphasises how we’re all part of the same shared experience. Entrances are crisply made from those seats, the actors circling the edge of the stage until they walk onto it; if you’re used to stretching your legs out in the front row, you can’t do it in this show, or you’d trip everyone up.

At the back of the stage sit the horses, in their stable. Actors from a dance background, they’re motionless for much of the first act, but when they come to life, they roll, they writhe, they stagger, all with elegant choreographic grace. They create the illusion of individual horses, unless they come together when they portray Nugget, the Equus God, in whom Strang is so besotted. They exude an unpredictable strength; they’re not beautiful to watch, but they are mesmeric, eerie and unsettling. There’s no doubt that this presentation underlines the homoerotic nature of the play; it was always there, but in this production it’s beyond question.

It’s a first-rate cast who throw themselves into the production with full commitment. Colin Mace and Emma Cunniffe are excellent as Alan Strang’s parents, Frank and Dora. Both find it hard to express their feelings towards their son. Frank is a traditional man’s man who doesn’t go in for “emotions”, works long hours and refuses to allow a TV in the household, and Dora’s love for God comes first. Both give great portrayals of essentially good people who are totally bewildered by what their son has done.

Bella Aubin is superb as Jill, Alan’s confident young stable colleague, seeking to push Alan gently towards a relationship despite his internal conflict and immaturity. As Hesther Salomon, Amanda Abbington creates a palpable character out of what is really a shoulder on which Dysart can cry (and vent his spleen), advocating powerfully on behalf of Alan to protect whatever future he has. There’s also great support from Paula James as the no-nonsense nurse, David Rubin as stable owner Harry Dalton and Ed Mitchell as Nugget and the horseman.

Toby Stephens’ Martin Dysart is at the end of his tether from the start. Dysart should be embarking on a tremendous journey of self-discovery during the course of the play, reflecting on his homelife and his marriage, coping with an ever-growing workload, exasperated at himself, his very essence, his clients and the world at large. We know that Toby Stephens is a superb actor, with terrific technical skill, an imposing stage presence and the ability to conjure up all levels of emotion. However, I didn’t sense that this Dysart went on much of a journey, or that there was any significant character development. I didn’t feel his dark night of the soul, there were no penny-drop moments as he works out who he is. This is a play where all the characters should emerge at the end profoundly changed from how they were at the beginning, but for Dysart, it all felt strangely on one level. I know I’m in the minority here.

Noah Valentine, however, as Alan Strang, gives a truly great performance, riveting from the very start, combining insolence with vulnerability, aggression with passivity. Physically, it’s inspired casting; Shaffer’s only description of Alan in the stage directions is that he is a “lean boy of seventeen”, and indeed, Mr Valentine cuts a slim, slight figure, a powerful contrast with the muscular nobility of the horses. His expressions throughout are superb – you don’t need to hear this Alan speak in order to know what he’s thinking. Strang is still just a boy, and Mr Valentine truly convinces as a wayward, uncertain teenager who defaults to impudence and disobedience under pressure; and who could crack at any time. It’s a terrific performance – not to mention one of great bravery – and he will certainly be a name to follow in the future.

Admirably, there has been no attempt to update the play; the programme notes announce that the action takes place in the early 1970s, so Alan Strang’s incessant singing of television adverts is the same as it was fifty years ago. Advertising jingles today just don’t have the same iconic power!

However, there’s one directorial decision with which I completely disagree. Towards the end of the first act, Dysart encourages Alan to re-enact taking Nugget from the stable and leading him into the field. Shaffer’s stage direction states: “he mimes undressing completely in front of the horse”. However, director Lindsay Posner has Alan literally removing all his clothes, so that his final scene before the interval is performed naked. Obviously, this makes a great sudden impact, but in so doing, it detracts from the more significant final scene, the true climax of the play, where Alan is running, jumping, hurling himself about the stage naked whilst viciously jabbing the pick into the horses’ eyes.

To reinforce that final impact, Paul Pyant’s lighting design has to go full manic strobe, and effective though it is, that final scene ought not to need any additional lighting tricks to create its shock. But here it’s necessary because we already have a visual memory of Alan naked with Nugget – the surprise has already been ruined an hour earlier. Call me a purist, but when Shaffer instructed that the first undressing should be mimed, I reckon he knew what he was doing.

Overall, a committed and powerful production of an outstanding play, but somehow it didn’t quite crackle with the electric energy that I would have expected. Nevertheless, there are some superb performances, and Noah Valentine is a star of the future. After the run at the Menier ends on 4th July, the production transfers to the Theatre Royal Bath, who have co-produced it, for two weeks from 14th July.

4-starsFour They’re Jolly Good Fellows!

Review – Proof, Menier Chocolate Factory, 7th April 2013

“What is it with this new trend of having to shout in order to prove you’re angry?” asked Mrs Chrisparkle slightly tetchily over our interval Pinot Grigio during last Sunday’s performance of Proof. “The young woman in this play shouts in just the same way the young woman in A Taste of Honey did. Makes my head hurt!” “Funny you should say that”, I responded, “as A Taste of Honey was directed by the same person, Polly Findlay”. Her eyes widened as if she had just stumbled over the most fabulous Eureka moment. “Well”, she concluded, “she needs to find another way to help actresses express anger”.

I have to agree. From the opening scene, where Catherine, played by Mariah Gale, is conversing with her father Robert, played by Matthew Marsh, it was instantaneously noticeable how many more decibels were emanating from Miss Gale’s diaphragm than from any of her fellow actors. I immediately got a sense of imbalance, and, although I got used to it after a while (quite a long while) I could never stop thinking that her performance was a bit shouty.

But really, I should start with the play. David Auburn’s Proof won the 2001 Tony Award for Best Play and that year’s Pulitzer Prize for Drama. It’s a tight, compact little play, with some clever twists and nice garden paths to lead you up. It tackles some interesting subjects – the inability to continue working when you’re suffering mental illness, the fine line between genius and madness, the inheritability of mental illness, sibling rivalry, and the question of how do you prove that you had a genius idea first or that someone else stole it. Helen Goddard’s set is a feast for the eyes and really accurately suggests a rather decrepit back patio. I also liked how the play manipulates time, with present, past and imaginary all having their place.

But I have two major problems with the play. It’s very slow to start – and, apart from the clever twist in the first scene, the first half hour or so is actually quite boring. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of dramatic intensity between the characters and simply increasing the shoutiness levels is no replacement. It doesn’t get going until the argument between the two sisters, which reveals much more of their characters’ natures. The character of Hal, played by Jamie Parker (who you can always rely to put on a fine performance), is very thinly drawn and you get precious little understanding of his character or motivations from the text.

My other problem is the ending. The whole basis of the play concerns the authorship of a brilliant piece of mathematical proof, apparently discovered by the ailing Robert during a burst of lucidity whilst suffering from mental illness. But did he really discover it, or was it actually the work of his – maybe – equally brilliant daughter? And how can you prove who came up with the proof? How much more intriguing it would have been if the ending had been enigmatic – suggesting one resolution, whilst giving evidence in the other direction, so that you kept on guessing during the train ride home. But no – Mr Auburn makes it very clear in the final scene exactly who it was that came up with the proof and frankly I was disappointed.

Mariah Gale’s Catherine has a very convincing abrasiveness when dealing with characters or subjects she doesn’t like and her mood swings are very well portrayed, shoutiness aside. However, we both felt much more in tune with Emma Cunniffe’s performance as the bossy sister Claire, determined to get her own way despite a pretext of caring about her sister’s well-being. She gave a great performance of controlled exasperation and bullying. Jamie Parker breathed as much life into the role of Hal as possible and was immensely watchable as usual. Matthew Marsh, who we enjoyed in The Last of the Haussmans, brought depth and understanding to the difficult role of Robert.

Not a bad production by any means, but sadly we both came away from this with feelings of general dissatisfaction.

P.S. Please, Menier, could you put the heating on? That auditorium was freezing! Mrs C kept her Danish High-Tog jacket on throughout the whole show and the man next to her was huddled in overcoat and scarf! When he nodded off we weren’t sure if it was boredom or hypothermia.