[Performance Analysis:] SEX CHAT GRANNY, Etcetera Theatre, London.
Sex Chat Granny was performed at the Etcetera Theatre by its writer, Harriet Waterhouse, and was directed by Kaarina Kendall.
Beyond Stacey Dooley or degrading Channel 4 documentaries, the wondrous premise of this performance rarely sees the light of day, making it a most unique and intriguing play concept. However, I do not feel that the fact of sex chatting truly aligned with, supported or gave rise to the play’s content. Presented rather casually, it remains a recurrent motif and something to fall back on when monologue segments dealing with other subject matter come to a close. It is a quirky bonus feature, adding flavour and intrigue to the main plot and to the character we are presented, but it is not a fact that truly presents her any problems or solutions or that leads to plot events or character developments.
I posit: is it wise to have ‘sex chat’ in the title, to start the play with the unnamed character, the Woman, in mid–sex chat, and thus to lead an audience to believe that the main focus will be the Woman’s work as a telephone sex worker, when, ultimately and truly, this is a story of a woman [who merely happens to be a telephone sex worker] losing her mother to dementia? I say this due to the increasing focus on the Woman’s mother, her illness, and their relationship, and due to the close of the play, which should in performances like this be a climax or a denouement, being focused on the final moments of her mother’s life and how the two will say goodbye to each other.
In this way, there seems to be a disconnect between context and plot, meaning that the text feels unfocused and imbalanced. Even studying the fact of the Woman’s sex work itself, we find a few discontinuities. For instance, she remains non-judgemental and understanding throughout her encounters and explicates the humanity, feelings and intimate desires of all her clients. Yet, she explodes at one in the latter part of the play, drawing attention to the nonsensicality of these desires and how they frustrate her. This explosion seems not to be simply a random emotional eruption after the discovery of her mother’s moribundity but is targeted and opinionated. She deliberately and consciously condescends the client and shatters all fantasy in drawing attention to her mundane life, the reality of her ‘unsexy’ and ‘ageing’ body, and the lengths to which she must go to comfort herself for all of this — huge underwear or a structured enjoyment of laundry, for example.
Of course, we could read further into this and deduce that she feels purposeless, that in allowing her clients to live their fantasies, she also lives hers as someone desirable, powerful and successful — and this does seem to be the desired reading, given official descriptions of the play. However, this is only an intellectual deduction; studying the content sees insufficient evidence for this. As indicated above, the text does not elucidate that this is, indeed, an emotional eruption after the discovery of her mother’s imminent death, and there is no graduality in her frustrations or lack of understanding and empathy towards her clients. There are bizarre requests from her clients, indeed, but these are only ever descriptive and explanatory, never seeing her reflect upon how this truly affects her (beyond the practicalities of how to pretend she is complicit in fantasy realisations). The radical shift in perspective and attitude that we see in this eruption, from supporter to attacker, is far too abrupt and forceful; there is no coherent or gradual lead-up, thus the narrative feels disjointed, rushed and incomplete.
This lack of focus is also mirrored in the absence of certain necessary theatrical techniques. For example, as Waterhouse delivers her monologue, transitions from the character talking to us about her life to talking with her clients on the phone are left unmarked, particularly when the Woman interjects her business conversations to give us extraneous details. When subject matter and addressees change in this way, Waterhouse’s ambit of gaze does not change and remains restrictive — i.e. she does not adjust her sightline — neither does she adjust her posture, and she rarely moves to a different point of the stage. The only thing marking some content shifts is a negligible, undefined and shortlived silence. This is insufficient. Especially with performances like this that see one character talking endlessly, for clarity in subject matter as well as for audience engagement retention, these marks are incredibly important and necessary, whether these be a change in lighting state or marked by the ringing of her business phone, etc.
The only lighting state change — from a natural wash, as it has been for the entire performance, to a light-blue wash — also feels unnecessary and unaligned with the text. Blue is a fantasy colour, a dreamy or ghostly colour; it does not fit the sincerity of the scene and disturbs the intended naturalism. Similarly, to have the table littered with socks is a peculiar choice — why socks and not just general laundry, for example? Of course, she ‘enjoys doing laundry’, but the aggression with which she throws them onto the table at the beginning of the performance is incongruous with this and the overall mood of the setting. Something more substantial, revealing of the character, should consume her mundane time alone.
The description, ‘this is a play about stories: the ones we tell for other people’s benefit’, is a very intriguing mission statement, and I would have liked to have seen this substantiated further in the play itself. Currently, it does not feel that the character tells these stories to the detriment of her autonomy, experience or life events; it simply feels that too much focus has been given to external factors and that her character has not been revealed or enriched enough. This detriment should be extremified, and the sense of benefiting other people beyond herself should be elucidated and drawn out through emotional developments, discoveries and allusions-turned-outpours.
These significant points raised, with fine-tuning, this play definitely has great potential. Presenting more of the Woman’s personal story and how it is at war with the stories she tells to others, with more focus on the effects of her environment upon her, her emotional in-/stability, etc., all elements are present to make this a viable and engaging performance. My primary recommendation would just be to ensure that focus is managed well throughout — what content do we imagine as the denouement, and how can we work towards this from the very beginning of the play? What questions or problems arise at the beginning, and how are they answered/solved or left impactfully open at the end?
Waterhouse’s portrayal of the character is consistent and credible, and she has great conviction during moments of emotional outpouring. Clear and audible, my only significant recommendation is the aforementioned attention needed to be given to her ambit of gaze and to dealing with shifts in subject matter.
“A unique and enjoyable performance but unfocused both semiotically and in its content.”
Want a technical analysis for your own live performance? Private and public analyses are requestable by any artist and for any live performance type. For more information, please click here.
Artists from across the UK and [online] across the globe can also benefit from guidance, support and training in the form of consultations and/or workshops as part of my work as a live performance mentor.
Comments