Review Round Up: Interview, Riverside Studios

(C) Helen Murray

Broadway World: *** “Interview is a potentially electric production, which begins with great possibility but ends without enough novelty or impact.”

Arts Hub.co.uk: “Leonard and Hughes handle the verbal jousting convincingly and manage to keep the fiery pace going for the full 90 minutes without a break.”

All That Dazzles: *** “There is a lot to like about Interview when the show is at its best, with barbs tossed between Katya and Pierre and some truly engaging explorations of the nature of celebrity and how a person’s public persona can differ from the person beneath. Unfortunately, these themes, though they make up the undercurrent of the production, don’t always get the level of focus they deserve. Still, for those willing to fill in the thematic gaps for themselves, the multiple twists and visually engaging projections mean that the show is certainly never stagnant, and there are plenty of laughs to be had at the expense of both characters.”

Everything Theatre: **** “It’s a work that asks a lot of questions about our relationship with the press and celebrities, and for once, also contains some intriguing answers.”

London Theatre 1: *** “Both actors do very well in what becomes a cat and mouse game, even if neither of their characters are civilised, let alone likeable, let alone endearing. There is, despite a direct relevance to the plot, an over-reliance on video technology – to the point where the ‘no phones’ announcement before the show started was “to ensure the smooth running of all the technological aspects of this performance” – the enjoyment of it by fellow patrons be damned. Would Katya (who doesn’t, despite fame and fortune, appear to have a publicist) really have agreed to a national newspaper interview in her own home, after hours? Why not at a bar or some other neutral venue?”

The Guardian: *** “It is a clash that sparks discussions about gender, celebrity and who really has influence. Sure, they’re knotty issues but it’s hardly new ground, and the script would benefit from a shot of something fresh. Leonard and Hughes make the stage into a battlefield; both are careful not to expose the wrong things. Their fast-paced spurs and spats are electric.”

Theatre & Tonic: ***** “This is an excellent adaptation that has fully adapted to the modern era and is poignant in its reflection on world politics, power dynamics between men and women and an insatiable lust for power and control over others’ perceptions. If you enjoy tense thrillers with excellent actors, then this is the perfect show for you.”

The Standard: ** “There’s a grinding inevitability to the way this 90-minute piece unfolds and the barrage of pat lines becomes wearing. “I can only be real in front of the camera,” Katya tells Pierre. “Reach doesn’t equal worth,” he prissily informs her – the dying cry of print media. His mouth, she sneers, tastes of “Scotch and failure”. If I deployed even a tiny number of the cliches used here in a celebrity interview, my editor would demand a rewrite.”

London Theatre.co.uk: *** “Interview offers plenty to chew over in our shifting media landscape. If only its characters could keep up too.”

The Reviews Hub: **** “Interview is a tense, fierce duologue that romps through its runtime without much fluff. The claustrophobic tussle between the pair, and their completely different worlds, collides at such a striking pace that this brutal, verbal bout leaves both seemingly metaphorically bruised from their encounter. A gripping power play between the pair, Katya tells Pierce she won’t ’forget this night’, and by the end, neither will those watching on.”

Time Out: “But for all the technical wizardry, the commentary the show wants to deliver – via these clips, yes, but mostly through the script – lacks any conviction or nuance. Huge topics, both on a personal and political level, are tackled, and yet amount to nothing. By the time we have built to Pierre and Katya’s moment of ‘mutually assured destruction’, we should be invested. Somehow, the relationship between them is so lacking that it feels all for nothing.”

The Spy in the Stalls: *** “‘Interview’ is a technological marvel with a political and social edge. Some elements soar; others stumble. Katya could use a modern edge, but at least she’ll ignite debate on gender and power.”

WhatsOnStage: ** “Sadly, it’s hard to truly see the intricate dance of power, sex and ethics at the heart of this play behind all of those extra screens.”

OnceaWeekTheatre: “Interview wants to say lot to say about truth – online, in the news, surrounding celebrity – and how this triad relates. You might side with Pierre or see Katya’s POV. Maybe who you prefer depends on who you deem to be less irrelevant. But I’m afraid you won’t hear anything that you haven’t heard before and there’s little challenge or excitement. Maybe that’s a reflection on our times. But all we have here is battle of wits between two narcissists, neither of whom are as clever as they think they are.”

First Night Magazine: ** “Interview may encourage audiences to raise a few questions. However, those will unlikely stem from its invisible thought-provoking energy, and certainly more from the doubts about the production’s readiness to be onstage.”

Lou Reviews: **** “Interview is a compelling piece of theatre surely set to kick off discussion about numbers, reach, engagement, cancellation – and where people fit within an online melting pot that is quick to boil over.”

Theatre Vibe: ” This play has two very fine performances, the anger of a sidelined journalist and the vacuity of his interviewee with hidden manipulation.  They are not people you can value which is their tragedy.”

The Stage: ** “Plodding, frustratingly superficial two-hander explores celebrity and self-importance in the internet age.”

Theatre Weekly: ** “Van Der Sluijs’ take on Interview is by no means a bad one; it benefits massively from having two capable leads and a brilliant production team. However, the tragedy of this Riverside Studios adaptation is that these positives are undermined by a cluttered script that fails to bring the source material into the modern age in a way that feels definitive or substantive.”