‘Heroes’ by Gérald Sibleyras
The Brief
Write a production analysis of ‘Heroes’ by Gérald Sibleyras (translated by Tom Stoppard) performed at the Wyndham’s Theatre on Monday 24th October 2005. The cast was Richard Griffiths, John Hurt and Ken Stott.
‘Heroes’ by Gérald Sibleyras (translated by Tom Stoppard)
Introduction
The following is an analysis of the production of “Heroes” which I attended a performance of on Monday 24th October 2005. My analysis will include my thoughts on the direction, casting, set, costume, characters, acting and themes. I will also briefly comment on reviews I have read of the play since seeing the performance. Finally, to complete my analysis I will draw my conclusions on the play based on the content of my analysis.
Synopsis of Play
‘Heroes’ is set in a French military hospital and the action for the whole of the play takes place on a small terrace on the hospital grounds during the months of August and September 1959. There are four characters; Gustave, Philippe and Henri are three ex-soldiers who are all First World War veterans. The fourth character is a stone statue of a dog which inhabits the terrace. The other characters react with it in various ways and it becomes an integral part of the quartet and the play. The play is about the characters dreaming of and planning their escape from the hospital. This is partly brought on by the news that another terrace in the hospital grounds may be closed leading to other people invading their terrace. Gustave first suggests they escape to Indochina, Henri then suggests going for a picnic. They finally come to a compromise and settle on going to the poplars at the top of the hill.
The Characters
As I mentioned above, there are four characters:
Firstly, the character of Gustave who is played by John Hurt. John Hurt is best known for his large body of film and television work (e.g. The Elephant Man). Gustave is a war hero and has been a patient in the hospital for the shortest time of all the characters (six months). He shows no physical signs of illness but it is revealed during the course of the play that he is agoraphobic. Gustave is the only character who has ever been married. However he is now divorced as his wife ran off with an apothecary.
At the start of the play I felt Gustave came across as quite cynical and cantankerous and this was (I believe) illustrated by his speech (which was quite an amusing start to the play) in which he begins by saying “I hate the month of August”, but then goes on to admit that he hates every month of the year. He also bemoans “Is there to be no end to this mania for celebrating birthdays?”, his response to the news of an impending birthday party for Lieutenant Chassagne to be held that very night. However, my opinion of Gustave changed as the play progressed. During the course of the play I began to warm to him and also feel sorry for him because you learn about his agoraphobia, his wife leaving him and his need for routine (i.e. he never leaves his room apart from visiting Henri and Philippe on the terrace and having his tepid soup). We find out that Gustave is an aristocrat, as he says “I’m a scion of the highest nobility” and I believe as such he is very articulate and speaks with confidence and authority. However, I feel that this is just a show and that underneath he is a frightened and self-conscious man. He also shows a poetic side of his character when he makes up the short poem in honour of Chassagne’s birthday.
Next is the character of Henri who is played by Richard Griffiths (previous stage work includes “The History Boys” by Alan Bennett at the National Theatre). Henri has been at the hospital the longest of the three characters (25 years). Interestingly, during the play Gustave compares Henri’s 25 years in the hospital to being dead and says “Like with you – you committed suicide twenty-five years ago.” He is a large overweight man who has a gammy leg and walks with a stick. He has never been married and I feel holds women in awe. For example, he refers to the young female school teacher whom he encounters on one of his constitutionals as “a rose”, “a flower” and “a lily”. He wanted to be a picture framer when he left the army but didn’t do so because of his injured leg. He is terrified of Sister Madeleine. He proudly admits that he (as opposed to Gustave) is a son of the common people.
I liked Henri right from the beginning of the play. He was warm and curmudgeonly and someone who I would like to have as an uncle. He seemed to be someone who was both sensitive and also sensitive to other’s feelings (as opposed to Gustave). Henri seems the most practical and level-headed of the three men. He is the character who lives more in the real world and this is illustrated by his attempts to stop Gustave’s and Philippe’s crazy ideas from getting the better of them all. For example, he is the only one to point out that taking the dog with them when they escape from the hospital is an impossible idea.
Next, the character of Philippe who is played by Ken Stott (previous stage work includes “Art” by Yazmina Reza at The Wyndham's Theatre). Philippe has been at the hospital for ten years. He sustained a shrapnel injury during the war and subsequently he is given to passing out on increasingly regular occurrences. Philippe has never been married but shows a healthy sexual appetite. He makes a pass at a laundry maid and also writes in his journal about his inability to get a good erection for six months. He also believes that being able to make a woman laugh is as important as being able to make her climax.
Philippe struck me as the comic relief of the play. As mentioned above, he frequently blacks out and every time he comes round from one of these episodes he shouts at the top of his voice “We’ll take them from the rear Captain”!! This invoked a huge amount of laughter from the audience and myself when this happened. What made it even funnier for me was when Philippe revealed that the “Captain” was in fact a woman he used to have a relationship with, who would get excited at being referred to as “Captain” and not (as both I and Henri both assume) a reference to the war and how he got his head wound. I felt that Philippe was the catalyst between the characters and that he would act as a calming and compromising force between Gustave and Henri. I found it quite amusing that he had come to the conclusion that Sister Madeleine doled out the medication to the patients according to date of birth and that if your birthday fell on the same day as someone else, then you would have to be gotten rid of! He has a strained relationship with his sister because he does not get on with her husband and thinks he is a “moron”. So much so that he gets Gustave to open all the letters that she sends to him. To make this even more strange and funny, Gustave actually replies to the letters and signs them in his own name. Further comic relief is gotten from the character of Philippe by his conviction that the stone dog moves and that the terrace regularly pitches up and down like the deck of a boat.
The final character is the statue of the dog. Even though the dog is made of stone, does not move or make any sound, as the play progresses it becomes an integral part of the play. As mentioned above, Philippe believes the dog moves and, in addition, Gustave sits and talks to it. The dog also acts as a catalyst between the characters. So much so that the planned escape is called off because Henri thinks it is crazy to even suggest taking the dog but Gustave is insistent that they cannot go without it.
As well as the characters mentioned above there are many other characters which are referred to during the course of the play but are never seen. For example, Sister Madeleine (the head nun), a young female school teacher (encountered by Henri on one of his daily constitutionals), Lieutenant Chassagne, Lieutenant-Colonel Pinteau, Philippe’s sister (Denise) and his brother-in-law. I liked that all these additional characters were referred to and I enjoyed hearing the stories about the interesting encounters which the three characters had had with these people that the audience never sees. I enjoyed the idea of Philippe pretending to fall asleep into his soup because his brother-in-law was so boring. I also found myself imagining these encounters (e.g. Gustave “Biffing” Sister Madeleine. I feel these unseen characters gave the play more depth. Additionally, it made me contemplate what all these characters would look and sound like. Finally, it gave me an insight into the three characters and how they interacted with people besides each other.
With regards to the way the three characters interacted, I thought they did this very well and I could tell straight away the pecking order of the characters. For example, as the play opens the three characters are sat on the terrace in three separate places. Gustave comes across as a strong and confident character as he sits in the middle seat of the terrace (almost commanding the space). Whilst in contrast, Philippe has his back turned to the other two and is hunched over a newspaper. He does take part in the conversation but keeps his back turned for the first new minutes of the play. This struck me as the body language of someone who was self-conscious. Finally, Henri sits on the other side of the terrace and sits confidently. He also starts the conversation and has the first line of the play. You gather that there is a strained relationship between Henri and Gustave as during the whole course of the play they never sit next to one another. They are always either on opposite sides of the terrace or otherwise Philippe is sat between them to act as a buffer. One of the reasons for this is that Henri may feel threatened by the fact that Gustave reads and replies to the letters which Philippe receives from his sister. After all, Henri has known Philippe for ten years whilst Gustave has only known him for six months. Another reason that they may not get on is that they come from totally different social backgrounds (as mentioned above) and they both have their own very strong opinions. Henri and Gustave seem to have no aversion to challenges one another. For example, (p33) Henri challenges Gustave to leave the hospital and even says “you won’t get past the gate”. Whereas, Philippe prefers not to have to get involved or take sides e.g. (p33) he says “Don’t make me take sides, I can’t stand it”. Philippe and Gustave are similar as they feel threatened by the thought of other people invading their small terrace and this makes them want to defend it. As Henri says “Barbed wire, sandbags, trenches, it’ll be like old times”.
Casting
I feel that the roles were well cast and that each actor fitted their character. However, I do feel that John Hurt and Richard Griffiths were very much playing to “type” and that they had played similar characters before (e.g. Richard Griffiths in roles such as “Pie in the Sky”). I would be interested to see the actors swap characters and would particularly like to see John Hurt and Richard Griffiths swap the roles of Gustave and Henri respectively.
Acting
I felt that the acting was of very high quality and very natural. All the characters were well rounded and totally believable. I could quite easily identify traits that I have seen both in myself and my family and friends. I liked the characters and felt that they were all three-dimensional, clearly defined and that the actors had put in a lot of work to bring their characters to life. I personally wanted them to succeed with their plan of escape even though it was totally impractical.
The Play
I am a big fan of comedy plays and I enjoyed the gentle humour of “Heroes”. I liked that the play was humourous from the start and that the humour was maintained throughout but that the playwright was still able to balance this with a great deal of pathos. Additionally, I was glad that Tom Stoppard had kept the character’s French names. It may seem like a small and insignificant thing to comment on, but some translators might have felt obliged to give the characters British names to pander to a British audience, but I think it would have lost something in the translation. I felt that the play worked well as a one-act play. The story was good enough to keep me interested throughout the play. I think it would have spoiled the feel and pacing of the play if it had been cut into two acts.
Themes explored in the Play
I felt that there were many themes explored during the course of the play. Some of the themes I identified were;
Firstly, human mortality; the three characters and most of the people around them were ill and/or nearing the end of their lives and were faced with their own death (e.g. Lieutenant Chassagne committing suicide just after his 85th birthday and then Henri falling into Chassagne’s empty grave).
Another theme which identified was that of resisting change. The characters were angry and defensive at the thought of other people encroaching onto “their” terrace.
Another theme that I identified was that of escape. They wanted to escape from the confines of the hospital (and Sister Madeleine) and go somewhere different. I felt this was beautifully illustrated in the final scene where the three characters watch the flying geese migrating. They even raise their arms in an attempt to imitate the geese’s flight and perhaps their own escape.
Direction
The play was directed by Thea Sharrock and I felt that she directed it with a light hand. The play flowed well and this made it feel like a very natural situation that we were having a chance to view. She made good use of the set and of the lighting design.
Set Design
As mentioned above, all the action takes place in the terrace on the grounds of a French military hospital. The set was designed by Rob Jones and I thought it was excellent. As soon as the curtain rose I felt that I had been transported to that terrace. Everything looked so real and as if it had been there for many, many years. I began to imagine myself sitting in one of those seats and enjoying the view past the cemetery to the poplars on the top of the hill. I was also intrigued to know what lay beyond the wooden gate at the back of the terrace. I liked the effect of the leaves falling from the trees to signify the coming of autumn. It reinforced the sadness I felt for the three men whose plan to escape had failed.
Lighting
The lighting was designed by Howard Harrison and I felt it worked well with the set and the flow of the play. The lighting was very subtle and was mostly used to signify the end of one day and the start of a new one. I felt that the lighting was used well to show the move from August through to September and I am sure that there were very subtle changes in the lighting to reinforce this impression.
Costume
Jack Galloway was the costume supervisor and I felt that he had chosen the right costumes to help reinforce each of the characters.
Firstly, there is Henri with his comfortable woolly cardigans. This gave him the feel of a father or perhaps an uncle figure to me. It also gave him the air of being understanding, friendly and welcoming.
Next there was Gustave at the other end of the clothing spectrum. He was always impeccably dressed and was always seen dressed in a three-piece-suit. This gave him an air of authority, superiority and distance. It was almost as if he used it as a barrier to warn people away and dissuade them from talking to him.
Finally, Philippe was dressed somewhere in the middle. He wore a shirt and waistcoat but always managed to look slightly dishevelled and disorganised. I feel Philippe’s costume matched his character perfectly and his dishevelled look matched his emotional state.
Music and Sound
The music was by Steve Parry and the sound was designed by Simon Baker and Alan Lugger. I felt the music, which was slow and meandering classical music, suited the feel and pace of the play and was never obtrusive. Aside from the music I do not have anything specific to comment about the sound for the play.
Comments on other reviews of the Production
At this point, just before I draw my conclusion I would like to make some comments on reviews of “Heroes” that I have read since seeing the play myself.
The first review that I would like to refer to is the one written by Peter Hepple and which appeared in The Stage. Peter begins his review by saying “While watching heroes it was difficult to erase memories of Art”. I agree totally with Peter, Heroes definitely has a similar feel to that of Art (including being a translated French play about the relationship between three men). I also agree with Peter that Heroes is a better play and that the characters are more easy to empathise with.
The second review that I would like to comment on is the one written by Michael Billington which appeared on the Guardian Unlimited website. Michael’s view of the play was quite different to mine and that of Peter Hepple (above). Whilst I agree that it was a pleasure to watch “three highly skilled actors at work” I do not feel that that was all the play had to offer. One phrase from Michael’s review which I would particularly like to comment on is “but the play toys with our emotions rather than fulfilling them”. I believe this does the playwright, the translator and the actors an enormous disservice. Just because we are amused at these characters’ disabilities or foibles it does not mean that we do not feel for them and I definitely never felt my emotions were being toyed with. For me, the best way to deal with subjects such as death and illness is to laugh about them.
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, I enjoyed the production of “Heroes” that I saw. It was well written and translated and also well performed by three renowned British actors. It had a nice flow and there was a good marriage of direction, acting and lighting.
I was glad to be able to have the chance to watch three of my favourite British actors perform. I had never seen any of them perform on stage before and was glad that I got a chance to see them share a stage.