A Stage Without Anchors: Laughs Abound but Mystery Falters

Murder on the Links, an Agatha Christie murder mystery, adapted by Stephen Dietz, is being staged by Vertigo Theatre till the 21st of December. The plot follows detective extraordinaire Hercule Poirot and his steadfast comrade, Captain Arthur Hastings, as they delve into the enigmatic mystery behind the murder of the secretive millionaire, Paul Renaud. The rich array of characters in the show captures the archetypal qualities and psychological intricacies that make Agatha Christie’s work so enduring. Beneath the seeming civility of these characters lies a seething reservoir of deviant and criminal appetites. Murder in the symbolic ecosystem of Christie’s works serves as a metaphorical rupture of the social structure. The symbolic significance of murder in a pre and post-war society may have had something to do with the inherent tension between the seen and the unseen, an ideology of secrets and surfaces, where social elites were no longer perceived as noble emissaries of moral authority, but rather, a class that potentially harboured dark and secretive ambitions. Stephen Dietz has created an adaptation that draws on two impulses, the historical and zany tradition of the Commedia Dell’arte (16th-century form of theatre performed by travelling troupes, rooted in exaggerated and exuberant performances), and a modern fast-paced cinematic rush that intersperses space and time, breaking the dramatic laws of unity of time, space, and action. This was expertly complemented by Julia Kim’s set, a modular design that bends the boundaries of space on stage, transporting the audience across different settings. This multi-role performance and fast-paced ensemble-theatre style of the cast artfully twinned the rapid scenic transitions on stage. The scalability of, both, the performances and the set created a relentless transformation of space and identity, immersing the audience in a kinetic spectacle.

That being said, this production struggled deeply with maintaining the delicate balance between narration and the modularity of action on stage. Unlike a traditional murder mystery, the play employs boisterous and febrile humour to elevate the dramatic anxiety on stage, offering an almost avant-garde representation of a conventional genre. The physical comedy was excellent, exhibiting an almost ironic deconstruction of the ridiculousness of the genre, tacitly skewering its historical tropes but also paying homage to the wide appeal of the genre. The comedy as excellent as it was seemed to bring an uneven dynamic to the surface - the comedic pacing seemed to outrun the narrative. This effect may be deliberately intended, one could call it a sort of story drift (the narrative being pulled off course by the relentless external action on stage), designed to underscore the fluidity and wildness of the art. As riotous as this is, there is a feeling of disjointed immersion - one is greatly entertained by the humour but simultaneously yearns for some cohesion and grounding of the narrative. The fatal flaw in this production is the fact that the cohesion of the narrative has given way to the enormity of the comedy. At times, it feels like one is watching wildly entertaining vignettes (standalone scenes), but scenes that are unmoored from the unity of the drama. It is a very funny play but something along the way is sacrificed to the humour - the dramatic foregrounding of the story becomes wholly secondary. The play could benefit from moments of reflection or pause, allowing the audience to, both, take its time to interpret key plot points, and to understand the elective affinity between Poirot and Hastings. I suspect that this is a structural issue with the script, in such a situation the production must run with whatever dynamic the script is predicated on - run with it they did, with sincere intent and energy.

The performances were excellent as demonstrations of individual talent. Trevor Rueger as Hercule Poirot crafted an excellent vocal profile for the character and complemented it with distinctive mannerisms that encapsulate the deductive and incisive prowess of the character. Unfortunately, the structure of the play leaves us little of his character to really chew on (the character has more than enough lines but the dramatic space given to us to truly understand this character is cramped and compressed), the farcical humour in the play outpaces the dramatic action that Poirot is supposed to be driving forward. As a result, there is very little of Poirot's allure that we are left with. The same problem abounds with Javelin Laurence’s depiction of Captain Hastings. This character is constituted wholly of their differentness from Poirot, Hastings is a rather simple character compared to the eccentricities of Poirot, but historically this has worked well in other depictions. Hastings in this script is flat and anodyne, at no stage does one feel anything for this character, and we should because Captain Hasting's engages in a great deal of on-stage narration for us, but the narration comes across as wholly extraneous, an almost foreign intrusion and poorly developed contrivance when perceived through the tilted dynamic of the play.

Hastings will shine only when Poirot will shine, and unfortunately, this is not the script or the production for either of these characters to do it. The current conception of the central characters simply does not work within the dramatic ecology of this adaptation and production. Either the inner dynamic of the script fails to lend any latent distinctiveness to these characters, or the characters have to be entirely reimagined for the remainder of this production.

The rest of the ensemble brought fierce comedic energy to the stage, it is this dynamic that entirely upends the main characters of the play, the strength of the ensemble actors (by virtue of the script) leaves us witnessing a play without any real central characters.

Heidi Damayo was electric, playing her characters with verve, her physical comedy was brilliant, and she crafted her characters with sharp outlines that left a lasting impression. Todd Houseman was affable, exhibiting characters that were charming and downright buffoonish. The stand-in replacement of the night, Ayla Jean (20th November) was exceptional. She came onto the stage with a script in hand and performed with a level of wild finesse that was riveting. Balancing the script in hand while delivering stellar performances was nothing sort of remarkable. She exhibited staggering talent. Graham Percy was an adrenaline machine, bringing boundless energy to the stage with multiple characters. Individual talent in this production was deeply impressive, but the on-stage chemistry between the characters was completely non-existent, primarily because this is supposed to come from Poirot and Hastings, it never does and this has a ramified effect across the entire production.

Jolane Houle and Kathryn Smith did an excellent job with the costumes and the lights, the former effectively captured the sartorial style of that age, and the lighting like the set was executed with modular brilliance.

Jenna Rodger’s has an adept hand at comedy, the orchestration of the relentless chaos and rapid transitions on stage were masterful. As stated above though, the dynamic imbalance between the dramatic narrative and the comedy was glaring, it is obvious that the director’s focus was turned towards elevating the brilliance of individual scenes but at the cost of sacrificing the play's overall gestalt. The play reflects the imprints of a technically dexterous director, but on the whole, this production falls far short of aggregating individual moments of performative brilliance into a resonant and cohesive artistic statement. Uneven pacing and depthless central characters hold this production back from being exceptional.

A play worth seeing nonetheless, the performances and creativity merit it for a good night out.

Rating 6.5/10