The Argus: fringe_2011_logo_red_thumbDavid Platt was brave to explore a theme of revenge as justice, braver still to do so through the character of a broken father, whose son was raped and murdered.

As if this is not enough, Platt also quotes heavily from Shakespeare, purportedly to justify his character’s motivation for revenge, as opposed to forgiveness as the Bible preaches.

The effect is contrived and the very thesis fails: in self-defence, Platt might just as easily have quoted “an eye for an eye”.

The performance was self-indulgent; Platt never really gets himself out of the way, over-dramatising his grief over his son’s fate, which is more than enough for any audience to take in. On the face of it, it’s impossible to suspend disbelief.

Who knows whether Platt was pleased with his own performance, but it seemed to be enough for him.

In a final flourish of self-indulgence he denied the audience, which had politely sat still for an hour, any opportunity to connect with him, making a final exit from the stage without returning for applause.

In these circumstances, left perplexed to manage our own return to reality, applause might have only been perfunctory.