Edinburgh Science Festival
A Number Royal Lyceum Theatre, Edinburgh
Neil Cooper
Four stars
There are rooms within rooms through the doorway of designer Fred Meller's cube-like construction for Zinnie Harris' production of Caryl Churchill's 2002 play. It may be smoke and mirrors that gives the illusion of infinity, but it's a telling pointer to what follows in a play born out of the scientific breakthrough in cloning by way of Dolly the Sheep.
Churchill's play opens just after a middle-aged man called Salter has revealed to his son Bernard that he is one of a number of clones. These were created by scientists seemingly without Salter's knowledge after he attempted to replace the apparent loss of his actual son. Both Bernards react in different ways, as one might expect of one child who was loved and another who was effectively dumped in a way one might do with an unruly pet. How the other nineteen versions of Bernard are getting on remains to be seen.
Revived by the Lyceum as part of Edinburgh International Science Festival, Churchill's play is an hour-long study in ethics that raises issues of nature versus nurture, and of the dysfunction and damage that can be caused by neglect or bad parenting. In Harris' hands, it becomes an intense psycho-drama, which focuses on the play's inherent plea for humanity in a tug of war between genetics and parental influence.
With two actors onstage throughout, it also wrings a gamut of emotions from the play's two leads as each meeting veers between confession and confrontation. Peter Forbes presents Salter as a confused and contrary figure, one minute wanting to make amends, the next wishing only to make some hard cash from his folly. It is Brian Ferguson, however, who is really put through the mill as both Bernards, as well as a third, more well-adjusted clone, Michael Black. In an impeccably nuanced performance, Ferguson switches moods and attitudes in an instant. As he does so, he peels back layer on layer of an an already multi-faceted dissection of human behaviour that reveals how society can shape it for better or worse.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article