"Things Between Heaven and Earth" is a new play by Jun Noh, I had the pleasure to see at the Hen and Chickens Theatre as part of the Camden Fringe, before it makes its way to the Edinburgh Fringe. It is a psychological thriller, that follows the reunion of two old friends, under less than ideal circumstances.
Fantastic play that will leave you wanting more. While the acting and staging were excellent, what really stayed with me was the play itself, the script. It is an excellent, authentic, snippet of human connection. Check them out at the Fringe.
From the promotional blurb "A psychological thriller with echoes of The Talented Mr. Ripley and Rosemary’s Baby: female "hysteria" vs sexual identity." does not do this play justice in the least. I would say the blurb is borderline misleading even. While sexuality plays a large role in the story, I feel like it's akin to presenting Michelangelo's David as marble. In the way I saw this it's so much more. It cuts to the core of human relationships and attachment. Whether this was intentional or just a result of how I perceived the play, I do not think it matters. To me the relationships portrayed, exist beyond sexual identity. They exist beyond sexuality in itself. And I feel the snapshot of humanity this play portrays hits so hard at the core of how complex inter-human love is, and it needs not be defined by sexuality or sex.0 There is a purity of the love between May and Eric, as friends, with a long shared history, and shared grief.
I also admit, I was expecting an absurdist play. I don't know exactly why, but I did. If I were to classify it as anything, I would put it in the realms of a naturalist play. The characters are extremely authentic, in both their emotional states and their interactions. Throughout the play it feels like we remove layers and layers to the point we get to the core of the relationship of the two characters.
So you see how I think this play under promises? But then, it's a good place to be. Definitely don't want it to be the other way around.
I will not as a result judge it based on its blurb, but the fantastic play I saw. The execution was both emotionally and intellectually exhilarating.
The interaction between Eric and May is pure relational psychology gold. For context (and this is not a spoiler), Eric visits May in London, at the anniversary of her husband's death. Eric had been living in Vienna for approx. 5 years1, if memory serves. This is a long time and the relationship between them is awkward. This is done beautifully.
I also have to enthuse about this particular tidbit. It may be just me, but the way that Eric does the echolalia after May's outburst, which proceeds to them both laughing is such a perfect example of what Drs Julie and John Gottman2 name a repair attempt. From a relationship theory perspective it's such a beautiful example. In a play that stylistically stays very true to human interaction in its most authentic form this is genius. Why? Narrative wise, it's kinda awkward. Repair attempts are often inside jokes, and the audience is not in on the joke. So, it does seem at first that Eric is escalating the argument, when in fact he's repairing it. I love it. Yeah, I'm a geek.
Then, to stay true to the style, what would usually be the grand monologue of the main character becomes a flashback to an interview. And I loved how meta the entire thing was. But I am biased, I am a sucker for meta. I adored the social commentary on religion, minorities, creativity, sexuality, how they all go together... Chef's kiss. But what did it for me is that it all got backed up in the interactions outside the interview. It's not just theoretical or philosophical, it impacts "real" life.
Despite the play's numerous strengths, as with any production, there are always areas that leave the audience craving more. With fringe productions there's a limit to 50-60 minutes, and I now want a full length play. That is not to say that the play was not enough. It was, because the pacing was just right. And sometimes it is better when you leave your audience wanting. Maybe I am entirely experiencing this. Leaving things open for interpretation ultimately allows people to have their own perspective on the themes based on their own life experiences. And that's ultimately what art is about.
Nonetheless, there were a few themes (grief, not of losing a husband, but a friend; guilt) that I would have liked to have seen more exploration on. Could they be done in a two-person play? I don't know, probably not. Even more unlikely in a Fringe show. But who knows, maybe we'll see them on the West End in a few years.
And for the chalk on the ground. I so wanted it to change throughout the play. I would not have made sense, given the play, but I sure wanted it to be something more... razzle dazzle.
As I wrote this review, I realised just how much more I loved this play than when I had just come out of the theatre.
I wish them the best of luck at the Edinburgh Fringe and beyond. If you do happen to be in and about Edinburgh for the fringe do check them out, they're worth it
0 With the more popular discourse around polyamory nowadays, there is the question of how deep friendships play a part in attachments and love. I personally see them as a form of love, and ultimately polyamorous in their nature, despite me being deeply monogamous when it comes to romantic relationships. From a psychology perspective I think Polysecure by Jessica Fern is a good reference.
1 This is an interesting number because I remember reading in a book that 5 years is how long it takes for friends to become strangers. I tried to find the research paper to cite, and couldn't after both a Google search and going through all my highlights on the books on my shelf, so I now think I am hallucinating this metric.
2 Founders of the Gottman Institute which is basically the Gold standard for relationship research at the time of writing this review.