Caroline Horton in Islands at the Bush Theatre. Photo: Tristram Kenton

Caroline Hortons Islands at the Bush Theatre has well and truly put the cat among the pigeons.

Most of the critics have had their claws out, slating it as self indulgent and toothless. A few, though, have raised their voices in defence, arguing eloquently that the bloated, grotesque nature of the piece is a powerful statement in itself. As Stewart Pringle writes, Meeting obscenity, Horton matches it with the obscene.

Andrew Haydon meanwhile neatly argues that its all about context. A very French form of satire one that is ugly, scatological and messy inspires Hortons bouffon show. It is directly opposite to what the English appreciate as satirical tidy, cerebral, whimsical.

Having interviewed Horton about the project, I think Pringle and Haydon are bang on. They have met it on its own terms. The others appear to have marked it against criteria it wasnt attempting to meet.

Speaking to a colleague about this, he argued it was partly to do with the marketing of Islands: much has been made of Hortons links with John Christensen from the Tax Justice Network and his role as advisor, so in the context of this factual, no nonsense, public service background, her opaque response is doubly shocking.

I think this is partly true people went along expecting an issue drama and were faced with something much more violently visceral but it was also there for anyone who wanted to dig a little deeper.

As Horton told the Independent:

There are some brilliant books about tax havens that are accessible so what is it that this show might do that those dont I think its about something grotesque and visceral that can potential horrify but will also make us feel something, something about this issue, an issue that is deliberately designed to put us off thinking about it.

Even in the face of misleading marketing, you cant say she didnt warn us.

Visit link:

Fringe Focus: Context, Grit and Islands