Breaking up Book

I vaguely knew of Michael Frayn, but hadn't seen or read any of his plays or novels. But I know what he looks like so I have probably seen him talking on the TV. His breakthrough came in the early 1980s with Noises Off and Benefactors: Benefactors had successful runs in London and on Broadway and won some prizes as best play of its year. (Although the American production had the same director and set designer as the British original, its cast was American: I don't know if the play was Americanized, placed in New York rather than London, or whether the American actors played it as English.) Reading Benefactors I quite liked it, thought it was quite interesting, quite amusing and that it seemed to want to say something serious about social housing but doesn't quite manage it. David is an architect in charge of a rehousing project: the only way he can think to overcome a series of practical problems is to build two tower blocks. But this isn't really what the play is about. It is more than one of Alfred Hitchcock's McGuffins, it's more than a plot device that enables the interesting stuff, in that it holds important symbolic values, but it's not at the heart of the drama. The heart of the drama is the relationships between the four characters: David and Jane, his wife and assistant; David's old university friend Colin and his wife Sheila. David and Jane are successful, Colin and Sheila are comparative failures. Colin and Sheila live nearby and are constantly dropping in. While David is an optimistic, positive character, Colin is always contrary. And it is here that the building project is important: for David it is a positive act, an act of improvement, but Colin is cynical - there is no sense that he has any deep objection to the project, he is just in opposition because David is enthusiastic. Jane is highly competent, a problem solver, but has doubts about the project. Sheila lacks self confidence, but, on Jane's suggestion, David gives her a job as his assistant and she gains in confidence and takes an idealistic view of the project. Tensions arise within the couples and between the friends. The form of the play is interesting: characters talk to the audience, filling us in on events off stage - this allows a spritely pace, the character narrations acting as bridges between the many short scenes. But after a while it just became a device - nothing wrong with that, but not that interesting. And that was the problem with the play, it was diverting enough, seemed to be asking serious questions, but didn't really do that much - and while its questions seemed to be serious their seriousness ducked away when I tried to pin them down. If the term wasn't now unfashionable and frowned on as snobby, I would call Benefactors 'middle brow'.