sat 13/07/2024

Broken Glass, Vaudeville Theatre | reviews, news & interviews

Broken Glass, Vaudeville Theatre

Broken Glass, Vaudeville Theatre

Antony Sher and Tara Fitzgerald shine in static West End transfer of Miller play

Face to face: Tara Fitzgerald and Antony Sher in ‘Broken Glass’John Haynes

Arthur Miller is one of those geniuses whose plays are metaphor-rich even when their storytelling is slow. First staged in 1994, Broken Glass is surely his best late-period drama, and this revival, directed by Iqbal Khan, arrives in the West End after originally opening at the Tricycle Theatre last year. This time, the ever-watchable Tara Fitzgerald joins Antony Sher in the cast.

Set in Brooklyn in 1938, the play is like a case history from a cabinet in Sigmund Freud’s practice. A middle-aged woman, Sylvia Gellburg, suffers from a sudden and mysterious paralysis of her legs. She is confined to a wheelchair. Is her condition a result of her identification with the suffering of the Jews in Nazi Germany, and especially a reaction to the violence of Kristallnacht (referred to in the play’s title), or is it due to a growing fear of Philip, her husband, and his own self-loathing?

Sylvia’s case is taken on by Dr Harry Hyman, a doctor who must have missed the ethics class during his training because soon he is openly attracted to his patient. He makes a sharp contrast to Philip. Whereas Philip tries to hide his Jewishness, Harry isn’t bothered; while Philip is impotent, Harry is a bit of a ladies man. In fact, so much so that his wife Margaret has to keep a keen eye on him.

Miller writes with heartfelt sincerity, and his picture of Jewish life in 1930s New York is fascinating. Each of the characters, and especially Philip and Sylvia, experience the twin pressures of anti-Semitism (real or imagined) and assimilation (successful or fantasy). Miller shows how the sense of a person’s identity can be affected by events many miles away, and how the 1930s were a time of emergency. He also indicates that we all inherit humanity’s problems as well as its joys. Yet here the road of regret leads to redemption.

There’s plenty of dramatic irony when the Philip character seeks to ingratiate himself with his boss, a WASP, and in the horrifying and climactic moment when he reveals his fear of anti-Semitism quite unnecessarily. In seeking to assimilate, he ignores the fact that few people deign to shake his hand. Such humiliations are then passed onto his wife. Only Harry’s sound good sense can effect a dramatic cure. It is a fiction after all.

Khan’s production has an ugly set by Mike Britton, all peeling sickly green walls and unattractive wooden furniture. But his actors shine — up to a point. Sher’s Philip is excellent, especially his grotesque contortions and the scene when he collapses is played with such intense grace that it vividly etches itself on the retina. By contrast, Fitzgerald’s Sylvia beautifully suggests the strength that the sick and vulnerable sometimes possess.

As her doctor, Stanley Townsend is a towering bull of a man, oozing sexual power and arguing with passionate intensity. He is well matched by his wife (pictured above right), played with bubbly charm by Caroline Loncq. Given that these performances are so good, why didn’t the evening take off?

The first reason must be that all the actors struggled with their Brooklyn accents, and so much energy went into this that it took a good hour before the performances really settled down. The second reason is that Khan’s directing concentrates on creating perfectly balanced stage pictures, and these lack dynamism, giving an overall impression of inertness. A piece where an onstage cello player, Laura Moody, thrillingly conveys the frayed nerves and jangling emotions of the characters deserves a much more fluid production.

Miller’s play is strong enough to survive, but — a bit like Philip’s condition — it’s an unnecessary struggle.

  • Broken Glass is at the Vaudeville Theatre, London
The play is like a case history lifted from a cabinet in Sigmund Freud’s practice


Editor Rating: 
Average: 3 (1 vote)

Share this article


The second photo (apparently of Stanley's wife) appears to be a negative. I'm intrigued as to how or why this is.

This is a very fair review and fuller than those in the 'Guardian' and 'Telegraph'. When I saw the play, on 30 November, the staging was quite dynamic and effective. The set was not ugly by then, either, though there was a strange kind of blurred mirror at the back of the stage. The point about the Freudian connection is well made, and likewise about Caroline Loncq's 'bubbly charm' as Margaret. She has some the funniest dialogue, and the play is in fact very droll at times. On 30 November she raised a hearty laugh when Margaret complained, near the beginning, about 'all these strikes'. That might not have happened on any other day... The acting was generally very engaging, without noticeably bad American accents (I think). The only unconvincing part, for me, was Philip's death scene, in which Anthony Sher, at that time anyway, seemed rather too deliberate. However, he conveyed Philip's mounting insecurity and near-paranoia very powerfully. Something I found highly convincing was Harry's dismissive attitude towards Sylvia's fears over Nazi Germany. It was no doubt natural in 1938 to believe that the Germans were too cultured for such barbarity. The play brings out the difficulty, if not impossibility, of seeing one's own time in any kind of historical perspective.

Add comment

Subscribe to

Thank you for continuing to read our work on For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 15,000 pieces, we're asking for £5 per month or £40 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take a subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a gift subscription?


Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters