Standing At The Sky’s Edge @ Gillian Lynne Theatre, London

I came away from this musical feeling conflicted. The staging, singing, music, performances were astounding, as was the imaginative integration of dance and three generations living in the same flat at once! Even in how they moved around each other, having meals at the same time! We began with an incredible sense of place — with dancing in a shopping trolley, artistic carrier bags and scooting through dancers mixed in! At the same time, I ended up with huge reservations about the portrayal of two of the ‘love’ relationships in the drama, and wanting more politics in the second half.

The musical features a ‘streets in the sky’ pioneering tower block from the 1960’s on stage. The live band are placed through two stories of it, and the balconies and stairs utilised by the cast to dance, sing and add background character. We even get a searing guitar solo on a balcony at one point. It is a wonder! The lighting is equally amazing. The main stage becomes an open flat, in which three generations interact unknowingly at three different time points; sometimes all at the same time, about the same tasks. They lay the table ‘together’, eat ‘together’, ‘cook’ together, wash up ‘together’, move in ‘together’ and move out ‘together’. I have no idea how they work around each other and ignore each other as actors — but they do! It’s stunning. Surrounding backstage pillars, and paths formed by strip lights at the front of the stage, become the local area. Indeed, the cast utilise the whole auditorium at points, dancing all over it and running through it, dancing on and jumping off tables!

But is this musical about the working class, the shame of the cut-price and shoddily maintained Le Corbusier inspired blocks which were meant to be an end to slums and poverty and create modern communities in the sky? About failing fireproof cladding? Under-resourcing and wasted resources? About local communities not being heard or seen, and how they’ve been used by council/private housing provision and abused by the media? Or is it about relationships? Is it about a place or people? It can’t quite seem to decide, so at times, events are hinted at through conversations, but never followed through. We go through the emotions of industrial cut backs and the Miner’s Strike, which deeply impacts the yougest steel factory foreman and his wife, and then suddenly move into two frankly messy ‘love’ stories. It’s still an incredible drama, but I think I was expecting something more searingly political given the way blocks have been treated (such as Grenfell’s cladding) and block communities treated abysmally at points in redevelopments. Even the demise of council house and affordable community housing which forces the latest generations of long term residents to move away, local churches to close, the shameful lack of community-guided resourcing, instead interventions which are frequently well-intentioned, but very much from the outside looking in. More of Bleasdale or Loach the musical, really.

The block has amazing views, it’s a place of hope and dreams, as well as fear and a fortress mentality, of watchers and the watched. But it’s also a place of gratitude — people ‘should’ be grateful for running water, a fridge/freezer, a hob, more than one room, one bedroom, for roofs, walls and strong locked doors. The lack of resources, opportunities and maintenance are swept-away because ‘be grateful’. The paternalism of this policy (also reflected in the creation of council housing in some places, where there was huge discussion over the provision of front rooms or fenced off gardens as an unnecessary luxury) is interrogated really well. The first half ends in a roar of class rage and destruction.

But after Margaret Thatcher gets into power, the musical drops this in favour of relationships. Maybe it’s too painful, maybe it’s too difficult to dramatise — but the central government policies which have removed work, opportunities, aspirations and led to destroyed communities weren’t really examined beyond a few hints. Why was there a ‘tent city’ in this particular area? Who were they? Why were residents forced out by developers? Why did the block move from something beautiful to something unsafe and scary? Also what about the resilience and fight back from block communities — at the end you’d come away thinking that block living is all dire and terrible, full of strife, war zones. Yet, at the same time, there are really strong communities fighting back to reclaim their blocks, restore their peace, get what they deserve in terms of maintenance and upkeep (and justice). And they deserve better representation.

I came away really worried by two of the relationships. In one, a girl fleeing fighting in Liberia had ended up living in the block with her two cousins as adopted parents. Her romance with a protective, decent local guy started well. However, due to her own trauma, not explored in the musical, she became super controlling and resistant to change — such as moving, or listening to her partner’s ideas or wishes. Her loving partner expressed ideas of bettering himself, of working away, of moving away. All his ideas were shot down, and he had to centre himself around her wishes, becase ‘this is what love is — where you are’. This was presented at deeply committed love — but is it? It seemed very controlling and unhealthy. One partner was developing themselves (though a nursing qualification), but utterly resistant to the dreams of her partner. It’s even implied that the girl deliberately got herself pregnant to keep her partner from a better paid job on an oil rig, from leaving the area and leaving her, out of her own fears. This was not the only manipulative relationship on view.

Another relationship featured parted partners, one of whom behaved in destructive, obsessive and stalking ways, refusing to take no for an answer, or to leave their former partner alone. Again, this was portrayed as love — instead it seemed deeply unhealthy, attention seeking and wanting a legal injunction, not reconciliation and re-entering into the relationship. The aggrieved partner acknowledged that they didn’t know how to ‘love their partner’ or deal with their big emotions. But why should they — it was really unhealthy and they wouldn’t leave them alone! Not so much romantic , as creepy. But again celebrated at the end, and that really concerned me that we were honouring two really unhealthy relationships as expressions of ‘love’.

In contrast, a loving husband and wife who suffered childlessness, eventually having a child, was better portrayed as the husband suffered long term unemployment, depression and addiction. His bitter misery was portrayed realistically, as was suggested domestic violence. We also saw his wife walk away, protecting herself and their son, and refusing to put up with his loss of dreams, bullying and hectoring. Inspite of her husband, she kept on with her own life and sense of self. She also remained proactive in the community, honouring striking Miners forced to return to work publicly, and remaining in contact with friends. Whilst it was so hard to see the husband crashing, this relationship was much healthier. The relationship between mother and adult son was beautifully shown.

But I hoped for more.

Enjoyed reading this article?! Support my writing at: https://ko-fi.com/susanadventuresinculture