The production of The President currently at the Gate Theatre is the first presentation in Ireland of Austrian playwright Thomas Bernhard. According to the play’s Cork director Tom Creed, it is also the first time the play has been performed in English anywhere. I didn’t scour the internet to check the veracity of those claims, but I did try and fail to obtain a copy of the text beforehand, and ended up having to read it in a foreign language. This led me to a question that often happens in the theatre: why this play, here, now? The President was written in 1975; Bernhard, born in 1931, was familiar with dictatorships across Europe. Was it chosen in response to the recent resurgence of ‘strongmen’ in politics across the globe? It is certainly unsettling that this particular play is being held literally one hundred metres away from the site of the recent far-right riots. 

“Why this play, here, now?”

The play deals with a president/dictator (Hugo Weaving) and his wife, the First Lady (Olwen Fouéré), in an unnamed European country. (I should admit here that Weaving, in the form of Agent Smith and Lord Elrond, reappeared about a thousand times throughout my childhood, and it was satisfying to see such an established actor up close in an intimate Dublin theatre.) There have been numerous assassination attempts on the President, the latest of which inadvertently killed a colonel and the First Lady’s beloved pet dog. We meet the couple in the Presidential Palace as they prepare for the colonel’s funeral and torment their domestic servants all the while.

The play is broken into five acts, with a very short final act. The first four acts are essentially two long monologues. This is not a drama written with audience gratification in mind – many viewers could find it alienating. For example, there is a lot of repetition of lines. At first, this is confusing, then perhaps a little grating. Ultimately, however, I think it does serve to illustrate the self-absorption, the will to dominate, and indeed the anxiety of this couple who wield huge power. The First Lady seems on the verge of a breakdown as ‘anarchists’, one of whom may be her own son, close in on all sides. The President does a good job of capturing the obsession, the megalomania, the narcissism, of dictators. Both protagonists treat their ‘interlocutors’ with contempt, commanding them back and forth or haranguing them endlessly. Many audience members may be reminded of the persecution complex and egomania of a certain Donald Trump. I also couldn’t help but think of Fidel Castro’s infamous all-night speeches. 

“I think it does serve to illustrate the self-absorption, the will to dominate, and indeed the anxiety of this couple who wield huge power.”

Both lead performances are excellent. Weaving in particular shines, portraying the President with bottomless self-aggrandisement (“This country is too small for me”) and sleaze (he refers to his mistress, a third-rate actress, as “my child”). This is not just down to his talent: I believe his character’s lines give him more to work with than the First Lady’s, and there were certainly fewer drooping heads during acts three and four than in one and two – the play is not without its longueurs.  

There are many other strengths of this production. It maximises the potential for humour, spotting many opportunities I hadn’t noticed while reading. There are also good curtain lines throughout. The visually striking set from Elizabeth Gadsby is rather minimalist and does not indicate a presidential palace in 1975, helping to unmoor the temporality of the play and make it more accessible for a contemporary audience. 

“The President does a good job of capturing the obsession, the megalomania, the narcissism, of dictators.”

One small issue I had with this version was the ending. Unlike in Bernhard’s notes for the final act, here the audience is invited to leave the auditorium via the stage, past the President’s lying-in-state (yes, with the motionless Hugo Weaving still inside the coffin). For me, this was more gimmicky than successful, as I don’t see how it contributed meaningfully to the play. At the same time, at least it surprised the audience and offered some novelty.

Overall, this is another highly polished production at the Gate, with some real star power. If viewers don’t enjoy it, the fault will lie with Bernhard’s original.

WORDS: Michael Healion