Theatreworld Internet Magazine
Hugh Allison

October 2003 (online)

When I write reviews, from time to time they get quoted in the play's publicity. I don't believe that this will be the case with regards to this specific review - far from it. Camarilla is, in fact, so good that so many newspapers have got in before me and there would thus be no room on any fliers for my humble words of praise to be squeezed in.

Camarilla, literally meaning "small room", follows the lives of an extended family following a terrorist attack on a prominent London building. Maggie (Lois Norman) is present for this attack, as isher daughter Rebekah (Caroline O'Kerr). Neither Maggie's husband John (David Farrington), nor his son David (David Abeles) are present, giving rise to a beautiful tableaux at the start of the piece of a mother comforting semi-unconscious daughter, surrounded by shards of glass.

As the play is stylised in a Brechtian fashion, the glass is not seen. Its presence is not doubted by the audience, due to the strength of the acting. Norman shows a convincingly panic stricken Maggy here, trying desperately to keep in control of the situation, worrying she wasn't doing enough for her daughter.

The play then moves along with newspaper, radio & television reports used between (and occasionally during) scenes to inform the characters, and us, of the developments within the terrorist case. A mention of 9/11 is thrown in, presumably a nod to the fact that although the World Trade centre inspired the piece, the situations in the play are not a specific metaphor to parallel with those events.

We gradually find out the political views and reactions to the crisis of each member of the family. Maggy, who is noted for her public speaking, wants to air her views whilst Rebekah believes that "those in power don't listen if you talk. They listen if you act." David is mysteriously quiet about his beliefs, while John prioritises his dinner.

The most interesting insights into these characters is not these reactions, but instead the way they try to analyse what is causing them to have such opinions. Rebekah, who quit a Student Union for her principles, cites her mother as her inspiration, although does not feel Maggie is doing the optimum.

John is accused of wanting to appease David with his beliefs (the son has been in the United States for the past 12 years) but this leads into an Ibsenesque look at the secrets and lies which make up their family history.

There are still several questions left unanswered. Would the characters all react differently if it was a different combination of them caught up in the initial attack? Why did Rebekah want to enter into a sexual affair with David? Why didn't he want to take her up on this offer, after being so suggestive for three weeks? Which group exactly was behind the bombings? Would John have been more concerned if her knew (or was told) who was to blame for the attacks?

I do not consider myself to be alone in asking questions about what I saw tonight. I believe Van Badham intended to give the audience plenty to think about, in order that they too would consider their political ideologies, how far they would go for them, and what influenced these.

The play was so well directed and came off perfectly, almost manufacturing the emotions that the audience felt. The audience looked deep in thought during such complex moments, embarrassed during John and Maggy's argument (which is how Rebekah was shown as visibly feeling), aroused when the two youngsters stripped to their underwear - "Desire to hum relatives is one of the core values of human society" - and shocked, yet angered, by the play's outcome.

It was pleasing to see, and hear, an audience member gasp during the closing minutes of Camarilla. I would have gasped too, but I was considering my political ideals too deeply.