ScotsGay Magazine

**

Was this a drama? Or a full-on farce? Or soft porn? Clarity of tone was not a strength. Probably I would have been more indulgent towards this play if I had been watching it in the 70's, but now the self-loathing in which all the participants are immersed is dated. And the gay drama I saw in the 70's was much more upbeat and self-accepting than this. Are we meant to take this soft-porn fairy tale with even a pinch of seriousness? The programme note asks, "Have you ever been to a male prostitute?", in a way that could make you think, "This is a revelation of sordid reality". But that would have required much more intensity and commitment on stage plus credible characters.

Given a choice between character and titillation, the show repeatedly come down on the side of titillation, yet it is not nearly as raunchy and hard-core as I had thought likely from the publicity. Included is the silliest Irish priest I have ever seen. Is he meant as comic relief? When incest is announced it seems like the inevitable final cliche, and is almost funny. The fairy-tale framework hobbles the play: I really don't think that framing a tale of gay male prostitution inside Jack and the Beanstalk works. Maybe, if this idea was just in the writer's subconscious and not shouted aloud. One of my jobs is that of counsellor, and I know the hell in which lads like Jack can live. This show does such guys no favours. It doesn't really do gay men any favours. Alister Barton as Jack is well worth looking at, and he evokes off-stage scenes such as those in Giant's flat very effectively. But I think it must be back to the drawing board with this one.

Tony Challis

Back to Fringe Review Index