Adjectives used to describe the Globe's latest offering range from compelling to uncomfortable. Rebecca Fox talks to its director about the play's history.
Director Keith Scott sits on the edge of his seat as he describes his latest play.
''It's not a comfortable play,'' he says of Look Back in Anger by John Osborne.
In fact the play, which premiered in England in 1956, is credited with changing British theatre and alienating many theatregoers.
''The play surprised people. There was only one critic in '56 that thought it would become a great work, and he was right,'' Mr Scott said.
''The play has its place in the canons of 20th-century drama.''
In the words of British writer Alan Sillitoe, ''John Osborne didn't contribute to British theatre: he set off a landmine called Look Back in Anger and blew most of it up. The bits have settled back into place, of course, but it can never be the same again''.
That was partly because the play covered working-class views, Mr Scott said.
''It was a kitchen-sink drama. A play about stark reality.
''It's about ideas, a savage satire on the economy, society, religion and politics of mid-20th century Britain.''
The play will get its first airing in Dunedin in nearly 30 years, with The Globe's latest production, he said. The Globe last did the play in 1986.
''It's about time.''
It was chosen partly because it was set in a squalid bedsit, a set suited to The Globe's temporary home in the Athenaeum while its theatre was being renovated, he said.
Look Back in Anger's main characters are Jimmy, played by Oscar Macdonald (in his first titled dramatic role), and Alison Porter, played by Helen Fearnley. He is working-class but university educated. She is from the upper middle class.
Joining them are Cliff Lewis (played by Brook Bray), a friend who lives in the same building and a friend of Alison's, Helena Charles (played by Kimberley Buchan), also from the upper middle class.
''She's Jimmy's enemy.''
Jimmy gives voice to what became known as the ''angry young man'' anti-establishment views of the time.
''He lashes about at the politics, the economy, at the middle class, whom he despises and in doing so destroys the relationship with those he loves the most.''
Mr Scott believes the play still resonates today as there are still those who are disenchanted and disenfranchised by the Establishment, he said.
''People express their frustration through anger and it's happening more so.
''Jimmy's honest enough to say what he thinks, while these days people hide behind social media and nom de plumes to be vicious.''
Essentially Jimmy was a misplaced man who did not belong in his time, so raged against life and blamed everyone around him for that.
However, there was a contradiction in his views, as Jimmy was the type of person who needed to have something to rage about.
''He doesn't want to change. If you took it away from him he'd be lost without it.''
In that way the play was a social satire which explored the contradictions of human emotions, he said.
''It's a very challenging and confronting play.''
The play challenged the audience, as they were watching Jimmy ''behave abominably'' at times. The audience is put in a situation of helplessness.
''You want to walk on stage and say, `Sort yourselves out'. ''It was not without its comedic moments, as Jimmy often sent himself up, Mr Scott said.
The play was a challenge for its cast as well, as the characters were so at odds with the people themselves.
''I think it packs a punch, takes no prisoners.''
