Speed the Plow – Sydney Theatre Company

After the week we’ve had and the blow it’s been for women and minority groups everywhere, the idea of escaping to the theatre – that great equalising arena, frequent champion of love and acceptance – is appealing. So it’s a huge disappointment when there’s no relief to be found. Sydney Theatre Company’s Speed-the-Plow just picks up those misogynistic attitudes and (as though a mirror) reflects them back at you, endorsed.

Rose Byrne and Damon Herriman. Photo by Lisa Tomasetti
Rose Byrne and Damon Herriman. Photo by Lisa Tomasetti

On David Fleischer’s minimalistic set (a half-renovated new office), we meet the freshly promoted film exec Bob (a driven turned compassionate and conflicted Damon Herriman) and Charlie (an over-zealous Lachy Hulme), an old collaborator eager to pitch an idea for a new film. The film proposed is the typical Hollywood blockbuster, a prison film starring a popular actor and filled with sex, violence and titillation.

Bob’s temporary assistant Karen (Rose Byrne, comically earnest) is the only thing standing in the way of this film being made when she attempts to convince Bob to make a film with real substance instead.

Speed-the-Plow depicts Hollywood as it was in the 80s (and likely still is): a man’s world fuelled by money and greed, where a sure-fire hit will always win out over a risky film with a more meaningful message. This play almost feels like it could have something powerful to say right now, if treated in the right way. It could be a stark reflection of the state the world was in 30 years ago, and, after the events of this week, seems to still be in today. It could challenge the misogyny inherent in this Hollywood world and use Karen’s optimistic passion as a voice that cuts through that bullshit and cries out for change. Instead, through Upton’s direction and treatment of Byrne’s Karen, who is largely positioned as a naïve woman who doesn’t know any better, this production merely endorses the unbridled misogyny that drives Mamet’s play.

Rose Byrne and Damon Herriman. Photo by Lisa Tomasetti
Rose Byrne and Damon Herriman. Photo by Lisa Tomasetti

While Mamet’s script has a fast pace and natural wit, this comedy is rarely funny: most of the laughs come from sexist attitudes and casual degradation of women. Women are treated as inexperienced players in a man’s world who could not possibly understand the way commercialism works, and the audience seems encouraged to agree with this thesis. Karen’s ideas are treated as foolish attempts to bring meaning into this stark vision of Hollywood and in a horrific final scene, she is reduced to her body, using ‘sexual power’ to get ahead.

This play echoes everything we’ve seen said about women in the shocking outcome of the US election and the promise of a President Trump, and at a time when these abhorrent views have shown to be widely tolerated, this play’s endorsement of these values is sickening.

Apart from the rampant misogyny at play, it is difficult to invest in these characters. While Herriman delivers a powerful performance of a man torn between his values and his understanding of the world, the tale of a white man’s burden of too much pressure in a high business position is not one we need to see again. The stakes escalate far too quickly, with a fight scene seeming unnatural and the only laughable moment in the show. Watching two men fighting for more money, privilege, and power, all the while demeaning women, it was hard to care about which movie they chose and if their friendship survived. It was hard to want to spend any time with them at all.

Speed the Plow is marketed as a satire, but the purpose of a satire is to challenge and undermine the values it presents. This play feels more like an acceptance of the shocking attitudes within it, rather than a powerful undermining of them, and after this week I’m not having a bar of it.

Bec Caton

Bec has a diploma in musical theatre and is currently completing a Bachelor of Arts majoring in English. She is a freelance theatre writer in Sydney.

Bec Caton

4 thoughts on “Speed the Plow – Sydney Theatre Company

  • I don’t want to see this. As the writer says, do the STC actually want women to buy tickets? We’re heartily sick of being sneered at, especially considering current world events.

    Reply
  • I really don’t understand why STC is reviving this. Misogynistic (as the reviewer says) but homophobic too. It’s all just so shallow and superficial. The characters are paper thin, the dialogue is forced – I know some people like Mamet’s artificial dialogue and find it crackling – I find it laboured and tedious. Of all the exciting new plays out there, what a pity the STC resources have been wasted on this.

    Reply
  • Thank you for the review.
    It seems my reply would be too long to repost, it is in here: https://www.facebook.com/anna.sokolova/posts/10154944997986907
    Though I would prefer to copy here several replies to some statements in the Review. Hope it is fine.
    “Women are treated as inexperienced players in a man’s world who could not possibly understand the way commercialism works, and the audience seems encouraged to agree with this thesis.”
    I do not agree.
    The only woman there knows very well what she is doing. Even more. I would not divide characters by a gender. There are three human beings, each of them represents a falling, pure side of a building of values in our current society. All three of them are the same pitiful at the times.

    “It could challenge the misogyny inherent in this Hollywood world and use Karen’s optimistic passion as a voice that cuts through that bullshit and cries out for change.”
    The problem is that Karen by herself is choosing printed bullshit to argue her point. There is no bright references in her. Intuitively, she is following something more humanistic than Charlie. But there is no value in a source she is quoting.

    “she is reduced to her body, using ‘sexual power’ to get ahead.”
    The only mentioning of real sex has been made when Charlie asked her would she sleep with Bob if he would not agree to film the book. She said “no”, which means her manipulating and hurting Bob. That was the point Bob got converted back. If she would really into him, she would stand for him, but she was only into a film. Why? It is unclear to me. Here I would like to see more about herself as a character.

    “Watching two men fighting for more money, privilege, and power, all the while demeaning women, it was hard to care about which movie they chose and if their friendship survived.”
    I could not see there demeaning women. With the same success they were demeaning themselves. There was no friendship from the beginning. Both movies would be crap. As I said before – this is a mirror of the general society. No high values, disregarding to gender. Everyone is ready to step on each others heads to reach up the top, and none of them has a noble high style reason to realise how dirty all that is and stop it.
    It is nothing to do with not evenly weighted genres, it is about all of us who need to stop, reflect and realise that if the performance is really reflection of the society, we must think what to do.

    Reply
  • “I would not divide characters by a gender.”

    The gender of the characters is brought to the fore repeatedly throughout this play. The text is reminding us of the genders of the characters repeatedly. It cannot be overlooked.

    “I could not see there demeaning women”
    A large section of the plot centers on a bet between two men as to whether one can bed his temp secretary. That’s not demeaning?!?!?!?!?!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *