How do we, as a society, improve when things aren’t working as they should? Do we demolish and rip down the problems, and start again? Or do we stay, and try and fix what’s broken?

This is the big question asked by Michael Frayn in his play Benefactors, a comedy-drama about an idealistic architect trying to redevelop a declining London suburb, despite opposition from the public and his loved ones. While something like a faulty building might be (theoretically) easy to rip down and rebuild, something more complex like a marriage, or a friendship, is a lot harder to ‘fix’. 

Frayn’s script, which won the Olivier Award for Best New Play in 1984, explores these two intersecting debates— fixing ‘broken’ housing and fixing ‘broken’ relationships— through the complex relationship between four wealthy middle-aged friends in 1960s London.

These friends consist of two couples who live in neighbouring homes: David (Gareth Davies) and Jane (Emma Palmer), David’s schoolmate Colin (Matt Minto) and Colin’s wife Sheila (Megan Drury). At the start of the play, David runs an architecture firm with Jane, while Colin is a left-wing journalist, and Sheila is a stay-at-home mum. The group regularly hang out at David and Jane’s house with their children (unseen), in a stylish living room set designed by Nick Fry.

The narrative is told through alternating monologues and flashbacks, with functional lighting design (by Matt Cox) operating as the main artistic tool to convey these time shifts. This writing choice meant that, despite Frayn’s obvious ability to write smart, punchy dialogue, it was very hard to get ‘sucked in’ to the drama of the play. We were constantly being pulled out of the moment, and the consequential tone was very stilted and jarring, particularly in the overlong first act. After interval, the monologues reduced in frequency and the form started to resemble a more-traditional four-person drama, and I enjoyed it a lot more.

Director Mark Kilmurry made the bold decision to keep all four actors on stage most of the time, even when they’re not all ‘in’ the scene, and I believe it worked well, and suited the non-naturalistic style that Frayn is implementing with his monologues. Seeing as so much of the play involves two people gossiping about the other two, this worked really well to heighten the tension. I was reminded of when Jamie Lloyd did a similar thing in 2019 for Harold Pinter’s Betrayal starring Tom Hiddleston, with great success.

I think writer Michael Frayn is under the impression that Sheila is the most interesting character of the foursome, but she’s actually the worst-written by a mile. I know Benefactors was written in 1984; but in 2023, I really struggle to connect with the ‘vaguely mentally ill, dissatisfied housewife’ character because I felt like Frayn had no real empathy for her. Frayn was too busy making Sheila the butt of other character’s jokes, that he didn’t give her enough specificity to tell us why she is feeling and acting this way. Megan Drury tries to do her best with not-great material but the character ultimately feels shallow.

It’s a shame that the Sheila character is so distracting because most of the other scenes are smart, witty, and well-performed, particularly by Davies and Palmer who are standouts with their lived-in chemistry and fond repartee. As a drama, Frayn delivers four (mostly) fleshed out characters who all have complex, well-written relationships with each other. When Frayn gets out of his own way with the monologues, and just lets the characters talk to one another, what follows is rich and thoughtful dialogue about progress, social change, friendship and marriage. Frustratingly, the overlong first act, excessive time jumps and poorly written female character dampen the potential of the writing.

I had a perfectly nice time at the theatre watching Benefactors, and then I didn’t think about the play again all weekend, until I sat down to write this review. It’s good for a ‘night out at the theatre’ but it’s unlikely to stay with you long after the curtain call.

Jo Bradley