In his introduction to David Foster Wallace's 1996 novel Infinite Jest, American writer Dave Eggers likens the book to a "spaceship with no recognisable components, no rivets or bolts, no entry points, no way to take it apart. It is very shiny, and has no discernible flaws. If you could somehow smash it into smaller pieces, there would certainly be no way to put it back together again. It simply is."When the Rain Stops Falling, Andrew Bovell's 2008 play, which already has a Victorian Premier's Award to its credit, and which has just enjoyed virtually simultaneous runs with the STC in Sydney and at the Almeida in London, warrants similar marvelling. I saw the latter production last week. This is a deeply moving piece of writing, realised by a freakishly talented cast. With it, Bovell secures his place as one of our most exciting creative minds.
The story of the play spans two continents and eight decades. As Diana Simmonds put it in her review of the world premiere Adelaide Festival production:
"Essentially, over the course of approximately two hours, WTRSF follows Henry, banished from England in the 1960s to the Coorong and thence to Alice Springs by his wife Elizabeth. At the same time, but nearly 20 years later, the audience accompanies his son, Gabriel, just seven years old at the time of his father's disappearance on his own journey to Australia in search of answers. He doesn't know what the audience knows, however, because as well as having seen him say goodbye to his bitter, prematurely-aged mother Elizabeth, her relationship with her young husband has already been enacted by her younger self. Are you still with me?
"In Australia, separate and synchronous, both Henry and Gabriel connect with a young girl, Gabrielle, and her adult self. Supposedly peripheral but actually central to Gabrielle's life is a local Coorong farmer, Joe. Concurrently and together the small incidents and coincidences of their lives combine to dramatically propel the story into the future—2039—when climate change seems to have taken a grip on human existence even as an older and sadder Gabrielle is losing her grip on her own. What happens in the course of the unravelling of these interlinked lives are the usual nothings and catastrophic everythings that constitute 'ordinary people'."
A fine description of an at times bafflingly complex plot. Equally important are the parentheses in which the story's framed. WTRSF’s is a world inverted: one in which the sky is a "carpet of stars", in which snow falls on Uluru, in which fish fall fortuitously from the heavens, in which the future screams at the past. A world in which men teach their fathers how to be sons, and fathers discover that, in fathering, they unwittingly bequeath their own shadows.
Forgive a dual filmic analogy, but it puts me in mind of Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men and PT Anderson's Magnolia. The former for its denial-spiked vision of an apocalypse nigh, a future dumbstruck with grief at its own passing; the latter for its parallel narratives, its insistence on meaning in coincidence, and its ominous mantra: "we may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us".
WTRSF shares tendencies with Bovell's breakout 1996 piece, Speaking in Tongues, which he later adapted for the 2001 film Lantana: the fugue structures, the ostinato'd aphorisms, the blinkered lives passing by truth in history's narrow, coda'd hallways. WTRSF, however, is a far more mature work. Bovell's technique, at times cutesy-clever in SIT, is now put to earnest work on an investigation of guilt and regret, of time's heavily overstated ability to heal wounds, of history's will to repeat itself, of the way our families both create and destroy us, of the slow rot of secrets kept; of the tyrannies of a certain kind of distance, and of how our dire need for change is goose-stepped by our inability to know how we must. His writing is incandescently intelligent. And it kicks you in the heart.
Perhaps my only criticism, born of this very praise: Bovell sometimes overcooks it. His line-by-line cleverness, his ear for that defining phrase, sometimes reminds us more of his presence than perhaps he realises. And while I enjoy these belletristic engine-revs, and want very much to annoy the woman next to me by trying to scribble them down in the dark, I don't for a moment believe they came from any other brain than Bovell's, and, as a result, they occasionally risk making mouthpieces of otherwise exceptionally rounded, painstakingly developed characters.
In this vein, you can almost always feel when a monologue's coming on. No matter how erudite these prove (one leans heavily on Diderot), or to what lapidary gleam Bovell’s polished them, they’re often prolix and almost always disruptive to the play’s BPM, and their threat to becalm the plot is averted only by the actorly chops of the cast. Point being, he might do better to lay off the urge to be ingenious once in a while, as these moments account for few of play's most satisfying—or, indeed, cleverest—, which are usually those more subtly executed; those in which we're beguiled by rhythm, disarmed by seeming effortlessness.
A number of the London reviews have commented on its length. The Independent's Michael Coveney, giving the play a mean-spirited two stars, complained that it "runs for a bladder-bursting two-and-a-quarter hours", with no interval. Which it does. But firstly (and with due respect to the unknowable health of Coveney's kidneys), it didn't feel like two-and-a-quarter hours to me.
Secondly, it strikes me that, as a formal choice, the absence of an interval is designed not simply to serve the pace and elegant musical structures at work. Bovell knows far too well how theatre works not to have considered that, unbroken, even the most entertaining two-plus hours is an ask of the old tookus and lumbar. It's my belief that he, like David Wallace, to at least some degree wants the show to feel long and hard, because what he's trying to get at is difficult to understand and takes place over long, hard-to-conceive-of periods of time. He wants his narrative vault to be exactly as unbreakable as the mysteries of his characters' lives; as inescapable as the inevitabilities to which their actions speed them.
This goes, too, for the initial difficulties the audience must face in establishing the connections between characters, decades: just as the recognitions with which the play is concerned elude us to the ruin of our own lives, so too do the connections that define us resist easy limning: connections between people, between places, between generations, between crimes that exist always inches outside our field of vision, or on the tips of our tongues.
Coveney, in that same review, said, "There isn't much in the way of light relief, unless you count the repetitive and significant remarks about rainfall across the world". It's true. There aren't too many jokes. But who wants them? The cycles and symmetries that Bovell creates lend themselves to a far more adult humour. Think Kafka by way of Kushner. Bovell always puts his audience in the know ahead of his characters, without ever descending into melodrama or suspense for its own sake. The ironies of which this position grants us a view, from which everything as if it must happen thus, are a rare kind of gift: he makes of his audience an Olympus, complicit by premonition and bound spectatorship in the fates of those mortals living onstage. This is perhaps Bovell’s greatest strength as a writer, his greatest compliment to us as an audience: he knows how to entertain, but means not once to baby us.
Director Michael Attenborough moves the action around a single table and set of chairs (design: Miriam Buether). Colin Grenfell's lighting is subtle and consistent, helping draw together into a single universe the disparate periods in which the action is set. Rain falls in a fine, ethereal mist at several points during the show, to really eerie effect. If there's any real wizardry going on here, however, it's in whatever measures have been taken to avoid cast members slipping. Stephen Warbeck accents the scene changes and heralds woes to come with a haunting and increasingly discordant piano score.
Perhaps it's a case, though, of the production team having done their work too well. The absence of technical flash leaves us to focus on the players.
Simon Burke is revealed as a really seriously world-class actor. His performance is both muscular and sensitive as the appropriately named (i.e. average) Joe, who is by design a nonentity; less, in some ways, a character in his own right than a vector for another. There's a scene in which Gabrielle, Joe's wife of 25 years, appraises his development as a lover: having, at the start, come at her as if "shearing a sheep", he has now grown "tender". Both capacities are expressed in Burke's performance, each bubbling just beneath the surface of the other. His range aside, though, what really distinguishes Burke here is his deep understanding not only his character's pains and joys, and the compromises they demand, but also of where they fit in the story's topography. Rare to see a performance of this intensity not, whether by necessity or intent, elbowing everything else out of the spotlight.
Similar praise must go to Phoebe Nicholls as the emotionally hermetic older Elizabeth Law. This is really the character with whom we go on the biggest rollercoaster, and Nicholls has the goods to keep us with her every inch of the way. She has poise uncommon even in mature actors; a dignity whose backbone is in not caring a damn if we like her. As a result, her turn is totally uncompromising and scarily believable. Elizabeth's peripeteias are the play's most shocking; all the more so for Nicholls' near-feline ability to provoke an audience to do the hard work to access her.
Jonathan Cullen, as the doomed Henry Law, has one absolutely shattering scene midway with Lisa Dillon as the younger Elizabeth Law: characters tearing themselves and each other apart. This is the first moment in a lengthy sequence that finds careful plot setups efflorescing, the first domino in the chain to tip. It's a long, dynamic and demanding scene whose performance made my palms sweat. Tom Mison, an English actor who plays the younger Gabriel, is altogether too handsome and talented and tall and apparently likeable to not loathe utterly and immediately. He was playing a guy whose last name is Law, and he looks not unlike Jude Law, and his performance was impeccably crafted, and heartbreakingly authentic, and I wish him only all the ill in the world.
What's really interesting to consider is whether—or, better, to what extent—Bovell intends WTRSF as a work of allegory. I'm not sure how concerned he is with the slew of actual-factual cataclysms currently pending (e.g., I don't believe the aforementioned bladder issue is a cunning attempt to make us consider our emissions), but nor do I think the catastrophe to which WTRSF points is a purely personal one.
One theory: chuck out the specific ends—Armageddon in general will suffice—and we might read it as a cautionary fable directed not so much at people, but at citizens. At nations. Something at which no British critic has thus far been game to point, no Australian has likely bothered to think up, and whose fact Bovell himself has explicated only in the most oblique ways, is the striking manner in which WTRSF seems to refer to deep and old wounds in the relationship between Britain and Australia. So perhaps: a suggestion that whatever large and new problems the world has to face, they always abut its oldest ones, and these must be faced first, at last; a reminder that every apocalypse is a personal one.
I'd be willing to admit this is an imaginative overreach—the product of searching, like Bovell, for the best hidden and most significant connections—if I thought he believed in accidents. If he weren't in such control, and didn't seem so committed to encoding his work with clues—or things that damned well look like clues—at every level. If not for that non-sequitur in his writer's notes about being ashamed of England and Australia sharing a head of state. If not for his frankness in same: "our ancestors are, for some, those whom you sent away or those who sought to escape the constraints of British society. We are a nation of exiles. And like all exiles we yearn for the place from which we have been sent whilst regarding it with a degree of suspicion because on some deep level we know that it has rejected us".
Whether I'm even getting warm with this or not, there's a synchronicity at work in the dual Sydney/London productions that would not be out of place in the universe of the play itself, and it's one that sees WTRSF doing that to which all theatre ultimately aspires. Ironically, beautifully, the rules and signs that define its fictional world have transcended themselves; the play has grown into dialogue beyond its four walls, longer than its two-and-a-quarter hours. Its simultaneous appearance in the two countries its story inhabits, the two at which it might well be aimed, has rendered its text synecdochic of its own contents. It has become just what it describes and aims to incite.
WTRSF's characters keep telling us that having nothing to say is just another way of having so much to say that you don’t know where to begin. “In the end”, however, Bovell concedes in his notes, “the play must speak for itself of course and be responded to accordingly by its audience… without whom there is no theatre”.
Bovell has found a place to begin. If you didn't catch it, don't worry—you'll get another chance. When you do, go listen. Be that audience.
When the Rain Stops Falling by Andrew Bovell, Almeida Theatre, London, 14 May-4 July 2009.

