The play is set in a Hertfordshire where Butterworth himself lived when younger, where all the houses on an estate were of the same design, so you could go into them and know your way around: a point he makes in the play. Butterworth is frequently drawn to portraying a sort of suburban hinterland, on the edge of the countryside and the town. As Dale says of the locale in the play, “you don’t have to drive far to see a cow”. Butterworth has also mentioned that he was listening to a lot of blues music at the time of writing, and that Parlour Song was simply the story of a blues song, specifically Make It Rain by Tom Waits, whose lyrics include “She took all my money and my best friend, you know the story, here it comes again”.

Demolition expert Ned lives in a nice new house on a nice new estate, constantly rerunning videos of his biggest blasts. He loves his job, barbecues, car boot sales and fitness programmes. Outwardly his life is entirely unremarkable. Not unlike his friend and neighbour Dale. So why has he not slept a wink in six months? Why is he so terrified of his attractive wife Joy? And why is it every time he leaves on business, Ned is convinced something goes missing from his possessions. Joy views his progressive breakdown with a mockingly sardonic eye and, suffering from the eleven-year itch, she yearns to escape and comes on to next-door neighbour Dale.

The overall production style, in the Barn Studio, was extremely well suited to the play and, I think, the style and the venue (as opposed to performing in the main auditorium) assisted the production. The acting area was a traverse stage: a long, central space with the audience on each side facing towards each other. The advantage of this staging was that, as an audience you feel closer to the stage, and more engaged in the piece. One often overlooked benefit of a traverse production is that it also enables you to see and enjoy the reactions of the audience on the other side, who are facing you, alongside the action. This works well for audience interaction and created an intimacy and a sense of shared experience, especially in the comic scenes.

The set, facilitated and built by Ian Bage, comprised a small sofa at one end of the acting area and a simple table and chairs at the other in Act I; in Act II the table was replaced by a double bed. This was all that was needed for the play and complemented the stripped-down style of the production. This design also left a reasonably large space in the middle, which was utilised well, for example in the training scenes, in what is a relatively small space overall. One issue was that from my seat near the sofa end, I could not always see the actor lying in the right-hand side of the bed, and I therefore missed actions and facial expressions which, as I could hear and see others laughing at, was a bit of a shame. The most noticeable example of this was when Ned was practising his sexual skills at the start of Act II. At other times in the production, I also noticed audience members opposite standing up, maybe they were having similar issues? I’m not sure there’s much you could have done, given the slope of your roof doesn’t allow for a steeper rake on the audience seats – maybe lifting the bed up a bit more may have helped?
Most of the other practical implications when using a traverse stage were overcome successfully: there can be a need for greater projection of voice, as when the actor faces one side of the audience, they turn their back to the other. However, given the size of the space and both the naturalistic style and the strong characterisations, even if sometimes individual words were lost, the underlying emotions were still convincingly conveyed. With only three actors, and often only two on stage at a time, even in such a small tight area I don’t think there were any issues with any sight lines across the stage, and the audiences on either side of the traverse didn’t experience a different show. There was also use of the area up to a side door of the studio which worked well when an outside door was needed in the action.

Tristan Cameron’s lighting design also successfully overcame the issues of lighting a traverse stage – as lighting from one side only will cast a shadow over the actors’ faces when viewed from the opposite side – by filling in with cross-lighting. Overall lighting was simple and effective and fitted the mood: there did seem to be a darkness in the first sofa scene that may just have been a missed cue, as it seemed to rectify itself mid-scene. Projections created by Ben Evenett were shown on two screens, one at each end of the traverse, which ensured visibility to all. Projection was used in the action when Ned displays his demolition videos, and in scene changes to provide the title of the following scene: using Scrabble tiles as letters in the projection was a clever tie-in to the board game which features in the action of the play.

Sound, also by Tristan Cameron, was appropriate and subtle throughout, with the exception of the wholly appropriate Rocky theme which greatly added to the humour of Ned’s feeble workout scenes. Props, by Sheila Grimmant, included convincing-looking meals and drinks including a beer bottle that erupted on cue to hilarious effect, as well as gym equipment which aided the comedy. Costumes, by Wendy Bage, were modern, casual and all fitted with the overall tone of the production. Other gym clothes and nightwear were all naturalistic and appropriate.

In terms of characters, the three actors gave fantastic performances and there was great support between the cast members working as team. As mentioned before, the performances were totally naturalistic, which can be quite odd considering the frequent use of monologues to the audience.

Rob Graham was totally convincing as Ned, the insecure destruction expert. He was blokeish with Dale, chipper and slightly desperate when trying to engage with Joy to save his marriage, and at other times in despair as a man who hasn’t slept for six months. This was an extremely difficult role but was always played with confidence. This actor also made the most of the physical humour in the workout scenes, which came over extremely well.

Michael Curry was car wash proprietor Dale, a narrator and Ned’s best friend, who lives a mere six feet away from Ned. This actor was perfect as the alpha male in the blokeish chat with Ned and undertaking the lion’s share of the monologues demonstrated great engagement with the audience. This was an assured performance, but it was not all chirpy bluster – this actor also portrayed the conflict within Dale, who is torn between comfort of the life he knows and the thrill of his sexual relationship with Joy.

As Joy, Emily Fairman portrayed a fantastic air of diffidence towards Ned in their scenes. In contrast, she also smouldered in her desire for next-door neighbour Dale. A highly convincing performance, for me I think the highlight was the fantastic seduction scene: “I’m thirsty Dale, why don’t you fetch me a lemon?” Who knew lemons could be so sexy? As well as the interplay with the men, her final monologue was a highly effective and moving speech.

Danny Swanson, assisted by Georgia Sutcliffe, directed an excellent production overall. As mentioned before, the realisation of the production clearly fitted the tone of the piece and the direction ensured the cast knitted well together and played evenly. There was minimal movement, but actually the play doesn’t require all that much: for example, people eating don’t get up all that often. Where there was movement, it was clearly motivated. The pace was fantastically secure – and the first half especially seemed to zip by in an engrossing blur. But the overall shape was not lost, and the directors had a clear understanding of the dynamics within the relationships as well as extracting all the dark humour. It’s a risk to stage such a pared-back production, as it all comes down to the direction and the performances without much technical wizardry to distract. In other hands this could have been a disaster, whereas here it was a triumph.

I can’t say that at the end I was exactly sure what actually happened – has Joy been stealing or is it all in Ned’s mind, a manifestation of his paranoia about their failing relationship? I’ve also seen this ambiguity said of other productions of this play, so it’s not a criticism of this performance. Maybe this is what the playwright was going for – and this uncertainty didn’t spoil my enjoyment of the play at all, and a ‘lemon’ this show certainly wasn’t. The company are to be congratulated.