Pinter's No Man's Land was first put on at the Old Vic by the National Theatre (as it was then) in April 1975. Nearly twenty years later Harold Pinter himself played the role of Hirst in a run at the Almeida Theatre in November 1992.
       The play contains four magnificent roles and each character has some of Pinter's most telling lines, particularly Spooner the rather spurious poet-cum-barman. He helps out collecting glasses at the Bull's Head in Chalk Farm, but only on the basis he is a friend of the landlord, if you believe a word of what the sleazily dressed character is saying. The play crackles with innuendo, menace and false leads. Given the references to meeting on Hampstead Heath, at first one convinces oneself that Hirst, a well-to-do intellectual in his sixties, has picked up Spooner at the Jack Straw and brought him home for sex, probably a one-night stand. Hirst is profoundly drunk. But this is a false lead, at least one thinks so, as the characters dance around the subject of sex (Spooner seems to be twig-voyeur but does not ‘voyeur' sex on the heath). It gradually transpires that both are married and prolonged their encounter because of mutual literary interests. Hirst's drunken decline in Act One, despite his domineering manner, seems only too open to be highly articulate ingratiations of Spooner. But these roles change in Act Two, when Hirst sobers up and we have met his two, now obviously gay, helpers, Briggs and Foster who are respectively in their thirties and forties. They are very protective of Hirst and are correspondingly suspicious of Spooner, whom they lock in the sitting room over night. But what are their motives? How did they come to be there as part of the household? We don't know, we can only suspect? Are they there to assist Hirst or sponge off him. Are they really sitting around to inherit his evident wealth? But then what about the family Hirst mentions many times? Nothing is spoken, all is suggested, and the audience is invited to pursue one red herring after another, if red herrings they be. Who knows?
       This underlying uncertainty about what the truth of any matter is lies at the heart of the play and enables its shift from comedy to menace at the drop of a line. It also presents the actors and producers with what must be conveyed by the various personae, the setting, the timing and all the other theatrical elements.
The production of the play is in almost all respects superb. Michael Gambon plays Hirst, the role created by Ralph Richardson. He is at once absent-minded (drunk) and astute. He manages to make pauses eloquent with rumination, yet following remarks funny through inconsequentiality. He also is full of implanted courtesies such “Would you be so kind...” Gambon has Hirst to a tee. His contempt is audible through the look on his face when Spooner relates a ‘conversation' with an aristocratic émigré who drank... Pernod. Hirst guzzles vodka, Spooner drinks whisky and in Act Two champagne. Hirst changes to whisky. One cant' image the drinks are without significance. Gambon conveys Hirst's successful swagger now much lubricated, even overwhelmed, by alcohol perfectly. For much of the first Act he has little to say, but his listening is almost audible. When in the second act he re-appears snappily dressed in a pin-stripe suit, like the first act with a prominent pocket handkerchief he is much more voluble and aggressive. The handkerchief is one of the many touches of detail that enrich the outstanding production.
       David Bradley's Spooner is an equally successful performance. His extraordinarily articulate dialogue (“It takes a man of intelligence and perception to stick a needle through that posture and discern the essential flabbiness of the stance. I am such a man”….”I am a poet. I am interested in where I am eternally present and active”) contrasts with his seedy outfit, which itself is a counterpoint to Hirst's rather conservative elegance (blazer in the first act, suit in the second). Was Spooner wearing slippers throughout? Spooner remains constant always alert to changes in his relationship to the other characters. Like a courtly chameleon, he must change to suit, but like Polonius he is almost a victim of his works, the very thing he thinks will enable to escape any situation. David Bradley's Spooner was a joy from beginning to end. His timing, his voice, his actions, his slender vulnerability were all Spooner to a tee. The best scenes were his encounters with Hirst which were amongst the best theatrical interplay the stage has to offer at present. It's worth going to the play just for that.
       The rather questionable duo of Briggs and Foster, played by Nick Dunning and David Walliams, were good but not as good. Nick Dunning's camp attendant, Briggs, was excellent. Costume and action were just right. He manages to threaten Spooner without actually hitting him. From the moment Spooner mentions a pressing meeting elsewhere to set up a new literary magazine, Briggs conveys his suspicions.
       David Walliams, on the other hand, was less good. Neither dress (certainly in Act One) seemed quite convincing, and it was hard to feel that Walliams had quite pictures who Foster should be. The youngest on set, was Foster Briggs' pick-up of yore. Was he needing to watch his position while menacing Spooner's? None of this came over, as Walliams could not modulate his voice and manner enough to move beyond seeming to speak the lines. Unlike Gambon's, Bradley's or Dunning's, Walliams's character never seemed to suggest a real life person, even a composite characterization. Surprisingly for such a famous comic actor, his timing of lines to bring out their innuendo was less well tuned than any of the others.
       Many things go to make this production magnificent. The lighting (Neil Austin), especially when the curtains are blindingly opened at the beginning of Act Two, or the side-lights are turned on putting the characters into a sharp chiaroscuro is always telling and apt. And Rupert Goold's production is beautifully razor-sharp. It is full of telling details and subtleties. All in all this production is a magnificent revisiting of a classic play by a modern master at his very best. It was an enthralling evening's experience.
Roderick Swanston