Antigone (on strike) written and directed by Alexander Raptotasios offered an exciting premise. The Greek classic reimagined into an all too relevant exploration of “the online court of public opinion”. Antigone, sister of an Isis bride righting for her remittance into the country. The likelihood of this, swayed by audience participation. You vote for how the story will turn out. A though provoking premise and a story of serious importance. Unfortunately, it sorely under delivered.
Antiya is troubled by the loss of her sister. Not dead, rather at risk of a horrible fate, Esmeh is stranded in a refugee camp with her citizenship cancelled by the UK’s home secretary – Creighton. Having ran from home and joined ISIS at the impressionable age of 14, she is now forced to reckon with the consequences. Fuelled by the injustice of it, Antiya launches a hunger strike to bring her home, causing media frenzy which consumes her and the Home Secretary’s family in a dangerous PR game no one is sure how to play. ‘Set in an interactive media studio where you vote and affect the story’s direction’ is the claim of the performance. The audience are complicit too.
This is not, however, what appeared to take place.
Staged in traverse, with a great white-painted resurrection of the House of Commons the stage’s central feature, an interesting space was disappointingly misused. Directed without much acknowledgment of the audience, ironically for an audience interactive play, much of the action occurred with actors backs to the audience or was directed toward the theatre walls. This was a baffling choice, considering the most obvious directorial choice would have been to open the drama to the banks of seats, and only served to obstruct. The wall in question, which the cast spent much of their time speaking to, was a blank canvas for projections. These ranged from google-image-search scene setters (such as a high rise office view), to scrolling social media posts and – most notably – PowerPoint slides of questions for the audience to respond to. I say most notably, as this gimmick was the premise of the show.

With keypads handed to the audience to ‘vote’ on questions, rather than drastically affecting the plot, the results are the vote are instead displayed on a cheap PowerPoint pie chart and barely acknowledged by the action on stage. In moments of audience interaction – asking individuals if they agreed or disagreed with the debates in the on-stage House of Commons, their answers were rarely properly engaged with. The actor’s response to a ‘no’ felt no different to what would have been said for a ‘yes’. I felt the outcome would have been remarkably similar had they answered either way.
Paired with the disappointing execution of the interaction, a lack of design contributed to the low quality of the production. It was hard not to be underwhelmed watching a comic sans PowerPoint asking for you to vote on your stance toward human rights issues. The content of the play necessitated that the aesthetics be adequately thought through. This was an issue across the board. Lighting was poor, with distracting shadow cast across actors faces in crucial moments and sound was distractingly loud, mismatched to the action on stage. Beethoven was a constant feature – pointedly so, as supposedly it helps you absorb information – though in reality it merely swallowed the sound of the actors and meant you could not absorb what was said.
In a way, the low quality of the production meant it was difficult to judge the quality of the acting. Sound regularly overpowered voices and facing the wall it was hard to be recipient of their physical performance either. That being said, Phil Cheadle playing Creighton was a stand-out. The troublingly devious Home Secretary, Cheadle captured the complexity of his character in a brilliant way. Moving between the seedy and sincere with ease, giving the play the emotional depth it desperately needed.
The script would have benefitted from leaning into emotion more and facts/statistics less, with the constant barrage of information hindering the impact of the story. Often, it felt like a seminar rather than a play. At its best moments, however, there were some killer lines which stimulated both emotion and intellectual food for thought. When justifying her hunger strike, Antiya’s defiant response “so that those in power cannot look away from their victims” particularly struck a chord.
Ultimately, the sincere intentions of this production cannot be doubted. However, in the sincerity of intention, and the desire to lay all the facts bare, an emotional depth was lost as the play refused to trust the power of what is left unsaid. Moreover, marketed as an audience interactive exploration of how to sway public opinion, for all its sincerity, it did not achieve what it set out. A great premise, nonetheless.
Running 3rd – 22nd February, buy tickets here: https://parktheatre.co.uk/event/antigone-on-strike/
Reviewer: Sadie Pearson
Reviewed: 3rd February 2025
North West End UK Rating: