Democracy

[atm711]

I was really looking forward to seeing this play; I thought Frayn's "Copenhagen" (which only had four characters) was a powerful play. Democracy is about Willy Brandt and Frayn has ten characters. It was a big hit in London, but I and the three people I went with were disappointed. Brandt was a very charismatic leader, but he did not come off that way. I am not sure if it is the playwright's fault or the actor (James Naughton)---I am inclined to think the former. I wonder if anyone saw the London performance? One of the best actors in the piece was Richard Thomas (yes, John-boy, and Barbara Fallis' son). His character was somewhat of a nerd---and he brought to mind Stephanopolous.

[Kate B]

I saw Democracy in London, and enjoyed it very much.

I think perhaps the Willy Brandt character did not seem so charismatic to modern viewers because the play was very much set in the past, in another era, so what would appeal in the 1960s would be very different to the political leaders we have today.

[scoop]

I loved Democracy when I saw it in London this spring. The actor who played Willy Brandt, Roger Allam, was just dynamite. He really gave you a sense of Brandt's charisma, as well as his melancholy. I didn't know anything about the real-life incident on which it was based, and found the play totally gripping. There was something Shakespearean, almost, about how Brandt's downfall was treated.

[Ari]

I saw Democracy last week and had the same reaction as atm. Moreover, I came away wondering exactly what the play was about. On the surface it's about an aide to Willy Brandt who was, until he was unmasked after many years, a Russian spy. But I couldn't figure out what aspect of the situation interested Michael Frayn. The play's title and some of its dialogue, and a program note by Frayn, suggest that he was pondering the nature of democracy (as opposed to a totalitarian ethic like Communism?), but this wasn't developed. This was an odd contrast to an earlier Frayn play, Copenhagen, which had almost too many ideas emanating from an essentially static dramatic situation.

I also wondered about James Naughton's performance. He can, I am pretty sure, be charismatic (I didn't see him as Billy Flynn in Chicago, but he sparkles on the CD), but in this play, despite what all the characters say about his tremendous rapport with the voters (and women!), he comes across as a somewhat ineffectual, slightly ridiculous figure whom it was easy to bamboozle.