Review of Max Morgan’s Fetid

Oxford theatre can be a hit or miss affair in which audiences are provided with the pot luck of having to decide which of the dozens of plays performed in a term that they choose to attend. Personally, I try to see as many as possible, but we will forever prioritise those which work through expert marketing capture our attention. In the case of Max Morgan’s new play, I have been aware of it existence since last term and have followed the hype surrounding it with anticipation. With so much energy poured into the marketing of a project, there is always the fear that the play itself may fall short. This was very much not the case with Fetid.

From the moment the audience stepped into the theatre they were transported into a small allotment with as many personal village dramas taking place as there were vegetables growing. The fake grass sliding beneath the feet of the audience instantly welcomed us into the setting, while the shed and small felt vegetable patches completed what can only be described as an expertly designed set. This in itself would have been plenty; however, add to this the gently playing country music and actors silently tending to their produce and the play was bordering on perfection before it had even begun. The play itself was a slow burn piece filled with characters intrinsically connected to each other in the way that only happens in small villages. To describe itself as ‘The Archers on steroids’ was probably a fairly accurate description. The was that feeling of being at your grandparents house while an episode is playing – you have no clear idea of the relationship politics at stake as you try slowly to piece the backstories together. To say, however, that the plot was a challenge to follow would not be true. The story unravelled at its own pace: enlightening you at, possibly, the same speed as the barely noticed but always present eighteen years old Chris. It is the tale of a village fete in which every character seems to have a stake, whether that be the overwrought and pregnant farm owner Sue; her drunken and courgette devoted husband Mark; the separated wife Polly; her replacement Yvette or the peaceful Anna. In the midst of the debates about stall locations and cake, is the arguably central story of a man whose affair cost him his wife and daughter. The character of Jim is central to most of the action happening on stage and yet he is more interested in his book and keeping the peace. Tom Pavey’s performance of the character was well executed, perfectly conveying his almost lazy apathy. Likewise, both Juliet Imbert and Edie Critchley as the two women in his life were played expertly, balancing their various frustrations towards each other, vegetables and, of course, Jim. They both played the contrasting roles dynamically, helping the audience to understand the nuances of their complicated history.

Sharing the stage were Cormac Diamond and Lily Carson’s Mark and Sue. This divide was partly achieved through highly successful freezes and partly through and separation of scenes. While this implies that the characters equally shared the attention, it is easily arguable that this relationship was less developed. Whether Morgan had decided that it was merely a secondary plot, or whether it was simply less complex is unclear. Yet, this does not mean that the characters’ performance are worthy of any less praise. Diamond and Carson executed the roles of drunken gardener and overwrought farmer excellently, with one eliciting the audience’s laughter and the other the audience’s sympathy. The most comedic moments of the play certainly belonged to the character of Mark, who was consistently drunk throughout the play. This was a light relief amongst the emotional tensions of the other characters and the slow pace of the play. Yet, there was an unexplained tragedy to the character, as is often the case in comedy. Perhaps it would have been nice to see a little more of him beyond the headphones, drunken episodes and throwing of courgettes. Sue, equally, was not quite as drawn as she could have been. Yet, by the end we understand the tragedy of her existence in taking over the farm from her deceased and dearly beloved brother and possibly how long the couple have had to wait in order to have children.

Throughout the alternating storylines of the relationships, there remains the two constants Anna and Chris… and the somewhat nervous vicar Mark (played by Sam King). Chris, the angry and difficult eighteen year old daughter of Polly and Jim, is a silent observer for much of the action – seen behind the shed putting up bunting. The character was played somewhat formulaically; almost a caricature of an unhappy teen. On only one occasion we see more than this one side of the character, which is due to the character of Anna. Played by Avania Costello, the character is sweet in a way that is far from straightforward. If any of the characters in this dysfunctional village was written to be a role model it would be Anna, who never once waivered from her sweet nature. Costello played this genuinely and unironically, leading audiences to trust in this character and her ability to bring out the lighter side of every character – even the spikey Chris. This was undoubtedly a reminder in the strength that it takes to be kind, for the character seems to have lost more than any other. It would be unfair to focus on all but one character and, therefore, to briefly return to the anxious vicar I will say that the character was played well. He was a believable depiction of that well intentioned vicar that I think we can all imagine exists in small British villages. Popping in and out, usually trailing the powerful character of Sue, he was a reassuring presence that suggested just as much that the community as the character were in a safe pair of hands.

In the immediate aftermath of a performance it is easy to rave about the scenes still running through your mind and the vivid moments in which you thought ‘wow! This is good!’. But, of course, no performance is perfect… especially one where a projectile courgette hits an audience member! Yet, from observing the director’s reactions, it is clear that the play was a realisation of his vision. Personally, I would have liked to learn more about the drunken husband and his reasoning behind being more emotionally engaged with his little plot of earth than his wife. That does not mean to say that his story was not explored at all and as an audience we could certainly piece together the reasoning behind his resentment to his wife’s attachment to her brother’s farm. Likewise, it could be argued that the play was a little slow. This is mainly an argument of taste, however, and while it may have taken my busy mind a little time to adjust and slow to the pace of the play that does not justify a negative review. I would say that as writer and director, Morgan did not set out to make a fast paced piece and the audience reactions speak wonders for the realisation of project.

Fetid is an example of the raw and developing talent to be found within Oxford University Drama Society and should be celebrated for not only its set and direction, but also the talented actors who were the faces that brought this vision to life. From the moment audiences stepped through the door of The Pilch they were transported into a village allotment surrounded by all of the dramas of every day people seeking to navigate life. This play was a strength in the portfolio of all those involved and I look forward to seeing how the director-producer ‘dream team’, Max Morgan and Jemima Chen, tackle the challenges of their film Breakwater.