SEX WARS III

COMMENTS LEFT BY THE PUBLIC 

"Good dialogue! But true!!" 

"Had me howling with laughter- thought that the comic timing was spot on" - Nick 

"Excellent - forgot they were girls!" - Paul 

"Really sparky script, deserves a great venue and strong publicity" - P. Matt 

"Faultless script, great acting, haven't laughed this much in a while" - Yemi

REVIEWS: 

"an elegant paced and intelligent dissection of modern day relationships"

Sex Wars, or to give the play its full title: Sex Wars: Revenge of the Sixty Nine is the first play by Alan Francois to be made, albeit haphazardly, into a fully fledged production. Don’t be fooled, it’s not as disposable as the title, which even as the review is being written, is racing towards the cultural relevancy graveyard. No, the play itself is made of sturdier stuff that withstands the fickle trends of popular culture. Its formula is simple, and on paper perhaps looks clichéd; four friends, one sofa and a lot of discussion on phallocentric nature. That is to say, the play revolves around ‘dick’. It would be improbable that a play that attempts to scratch the surface of the heterosexual male’s psyche should downplay such an issue, but it makes for uncomfortable viewing for the male audience members (excuse the pun) when a conversation takes play between the central couple about the size of an ex boyfriend’s penis. It is not only male fears that are tapped into, but female anxieties too, as the play’s only female character is reduced to tears when the discussion takes a turn towards, how should I say this? Vaginal elastication. It is a memorable scene as Francois chooses his comic moments carefully, accentuated by director John Le Brocq, piercing the tension with a laugh out loud gag, providing a much needed release.

The all female cast is strong, with the male characters excellently portrayed, offering richly detailed portraits of masculinity. Harry’s slight oddness benefits from Olivia Corrie's nuanced characterisation. Sara Pascoe as loveable put upon boyfriend riddled with anxiety and insecurity is a joy to watch. Even the desperate machismo of Joanna King's Richard is brilliantly acted, without once stirring a foot into the realm of parodic drag kingdom, instead offering for a richly layered and complex character that the audience both sympathises with and detests. Ultimately it is Shelley Halstead that works as the play’s lynchpin, confident sex kitten until her own weaknesses are exposed, winning over the audience with her direct address causing a few men to shift uneasily in their seats and reconsider their faith in stereotypes.

The poster outside the small theatre space, a pub in Colliers Wood more accustomed to comedy nights than forty minute drawing room comedies, informs that this is “the perfect comedy for the easily offended” but if you’re expecting an Artaudian assault to the senses, then you’ll be disappointed, as ultimately Sex Wars III is an elegant paced and intelligent dissection of modern day relationships. - Louise Brailey

"so it's amazing that not only does the play deal with these sorts of issues, but that it manages to pull it all off with the most hilarious scenes" 

The initial premise of Sex Wars is that one of the characters, named Harry, has written a play and wants his friends (Jane, Tom, and Richard) to act it out... and it's not long before his script-reading friends stop Harry to ask:

"Hang on - is the entire play about porn?"
"What if it is?" he asks innocently...

...and so begin the tiffs between friends, as the subject matter of Harry's script brings up all sorts of sexual issues.

We don't really know whether it's part of Harry's script, or real life issues existing between the characters, due to the clever blurring of the boundaries Francois and LeBrocq have been able to pull off with this intelligent piece of drama that's essentially a play within a play. You may be thinking it sounds like a very dirty play but it never actually feels like a low-brow or titilating production. For instance, I initially feared I might turn up and be greeted by porn on a massive screen, playing live as the actors talked about it - but the audience's perspective doesn't permit them to see the TV around which all the discussions take place. Rather, the audience's focus is where it should be - on the actors. We become fascinated therefore with the very human reactions to what the characters are seeing on-screen and how they respond to it, and the points of discussion it brings about amongst the characters.

In a way it almost becomes like Beavis and Butthead, but replacing music videos with porn. Where characters sit on a sofa and discuss what they see on screen. Although thankfully the characterisation has far more depth to it than the rather shallow likes of Beavis and Butthead...

We have an all female cast, so it's fantastic that the three actors playing male characters have managed to put on such convincing male roles. The characterisation is also done really well: you can identify with each character - Richard is the arrogant macho male, - full of ego, has a problem with commitment, has one night stands, very arrogant, but whilst this rendition of a typecast helps the audience both immediately identify and understand the character after just a few lines spoken on stage, and perhaps casts their minds to at least one person they know like that in real life ( my mind drifts back to one of my ex-flat mates who slept with a different girl every week for a time ), the characters aren't just stereotypes, and are fleshed out and given real depth. Much like my ex-flat mate had emotional issues, so too we delve into Richard's character later on in the play, as an excuse to contrast issues of sex against issues of love - the necessary probing into personal matters done by Harry's character.

So what's fascinating about this play is that we have an array of different characters each of which has a very different persona and characterisation, so that there's a broad range of characters, guaranteeing that you'll identify with at least one, and then the play probes into these characters and issues of sexuality. It's testament to the genius of the writing of Francois, that we manage to get through so many different sexual issues in such a short space of time.

Exploring such issues - anxiety over breast size, or dick size, baggy pussies, relationship honesty, indirect gayness, feminism v.s. notions of macho, love v.s. quick shags, - it could all get quite serious on internet forums, or help groups, or other places of debate....so it's amazing that not only does the play deal with these sorts of issues, but that it manages to pull it all off with the most hilarious scenes and sketches that will see you laughing out loud, and chuckling to yourself. Simply put, it is immensely entertaining. With all these issues being discussed, Tom finally gives us a beautiful little speech about everything tits and pussy can do, with pussy able to pounce and wrestle cock to the ground...but cock is only able to crow, and crow, and crow...a nice way to articulate the male's often futile striving to get laid - at least that was my reading of it.

 But in terms of my reaction as part of the audience, just when I was really enjoying it, it seemed to just stop short all of a sudden. And I was just left - no pun intended - gagging for more. Walking out of cinemas, it's always a sign of a good film, when you're left wanting more. Better to be left calling out for encore at a concert too, rather than having an act drag on for too long ad nauseam. But having spent almost £30 coming down on the train from Swindon to London, especially to see this, I did feel a bit miffed it had ended so suddenly.

One thing I should point out is that when issues are explored, there's no stubborn moral viewpoint. In the section that deals with indirect gayness and homophobia, there's nothing said against homosexuals. When exploring issues of fucking V.S. love making, there's no right or wrong. The whole play feels very human, and it's those human characterisations that bring it to life. So are we laughing at the play's characters, or with them? Or laughing because what they say seems so true? (There are parts of the play we can all relate to).

Whatever the case, hats have to go off to the brilliant acting - when Richard leaps from the sofa, the look on his face alone, as Harry is winding him up, is absolutely hilarious/priceless. The character of Tom is done to a tee also...the mopey, quiet, but nice guy...yet sometimes saying things that get used against him by his girlfriend Jane...he reminded me of that teenage character the female plays in the Harry Enfield sketches...yet all the characters are very down to earth still. You'll instantly see some of your friend's traits in some of them, and think of various people you know who may be similar, or have experienced some of the issues dealt with.

So the play gets you to attend with it's premise of sexual antics (sex sells),
but once lured in, thankfully there's nothing too shocking to make you feel ashamed of sitting in the audience, or embarrassed to recommend it to your friends.
The characters are portrayed in a way so as to be instantly identifiable according to society's popular stereotypes, allowing you to understand who is supposed to be what, and to make the play easy to sit back and take in/understand/interpret. Yet as very personal (and sexual) issues are explored, the character depth is revealled, to add substance and depth to proceedings, and to give you the impression this is a very clever, and wittily written intelligent script, as opposed to a sellout to pull punters via porn. The handling of sensitive issues and the exploration of certain themes, despite being so easy to identify with in real life, is represented in such brilliant comedy, that there's never a moment of audience awkwardness with the subject matter. You're just there, watching good drama, and having a real laugh.
And that's how it should be.

As the piece wrapped up then, there was an appropriate roar of applause from the small audience gathered. Much deserved indeed, as the actors lined up to take their bows. It was a shame this premiere night felt a little modest in the sense of having quite a small audience. It made for a good atmosphere, being as it was, cosy and intimate, but to see my reservations that this might be a cheap, titilating, embarrassing-to-attend production, completely swept to one side by a top quality, intelligently written, and highly entertaining drama, made me instantly sad there weren't more people in the room appreciating it, and joining in the applause.

I can only hope then, that in the days ahead, when it is double billing with The Right Man, that the double bill will double the audience, and certainly, I wish I had been more pro-active in seeking to invite friends. This was really good drama, and more people ought to see it. I'm sure they would enjoy it. =)  Andrew Mehta