Pornography - Recommended

This was not the play I expected, and I'm still not sure how I feel about that. One thing I can say for certain is that I wish I had seen it with friends so we could debrief afterwards. For that reason it lingers in "Recommended" land, but clearly tottering between "Highly Recommended" and "Somewhat Recommended."

Pornography by Simon Stephen is mounted with great skill by the Steep Theatre Company. Declared to be about the 2005 bombings in London, it seems to have little to do with either that terrifying day or pornography. Or does it? (As a disclaimer, my daughter was in London that day, and not far from the King's Cross bombing when it happened. So I have more than a little attachment to the topic).

Presented as six vignettes - four monologues and two dialogues - all that the characters share is the common time frame of the bombing, and the fact that all of them are touched by it in some way, if in some cases only indirectly. One of the terrorists is one of the characters, but if you did not know he was the terrorist, he would not be the most disturbing character you encounter.

The program notes give the logistics of, and asks a half-dozen pointed questions about, the bombing - none of which are directly addressed by the play. Which is all pretty much an unrealized teaser: we are promised a look into the dark underside of humanity, an exploration of what forces are at play to create events such as these, and instead, we are given six carefully drawn vignettes of 8(+1) characters who happen to be touched by three common events: the selection of London as the site for the 2012 Olympics, the Live 8 concert, and the terrorist bombings.

The staging and acting are excellent. The use of television screens to punctuate the vignettes is well-executed, and the images that flash through the major transitions are intriguing. One of the most successful technical aspects was the lighting of the six spare mini-stages: it is fluid and dynamic, and becomes a vital part of the grammar of each presentation.

Each of the characters is elegantly drawn and superbly realized. There is no doubt in my mind that - with the possible exception of the terrorist - these are very real people who happened to step into the play and expose themselves to us in a very intimate manner. The one exception is the terrorist, who seemed far too distant from the mission he was on, in a manner that I expect was an attempt to humanize him but for me simply made him less believable. Mind you, I wasn't expecting frothing fundamentalism, but the absence of any political dialogue seemed, well, wrong.

So where is the pornography? Is it a wry reflection on what the playwright thinks is necessary to draw people to a play? Who among the characters was obscene? With the possible exception of the first character, each seemed engaged in something that society would frown upon, even if it was merely the vulgar language of an 83-year-old woman.

There are many other questions to be mined from this play, but as I said before, they are best addressed with friends who attend the show. Left to an internal monologue, it's not clear if they are the desperate search for quality in a muddied script, or the enticements of a genuinely rich undertaking.

So see the play, and let me know what you think!