✭✭✭✩✩

by Anna Chatterton, directed by Andrea Donaldson

Tarragon Theatre, Tarragon Theatre Mainspace, Toronto

January 13-February 14, 2016

“Through a Glass Darkly”

The Tarragon Theatre has lavished the world premiere of Anna Chatterton’s Within the Glass with a handsome production, fine direction and an ideal cast that delivers superlative acting.  The subject is the aftermath of a mix-up at an in vitro fertilization clinic.  The problem is that in such an event protocols for patient confidentiality are in place such that the meeting between the affected couples that makes up the action of the play would be unlikely to occur.  And even if such a meeting did take place, the laws, at least in Ontario, seem sufficiently clear that there is nothing for the couples to dispute.

Chatterton’s title, Within the Glass, is an English translation of the Latin in vitro, a type of fertilization where a donor egg is fertilized outside the body of the female with donor sperm and then implanted in the womb of the intended parent.  Before the action of the play, one couple, Linda (Nicola Correia-Damude) and Scott (Paul Braunstein), and another, Darah (Philippa Domville) and Michael (Rick Roberts) have both gone to the same fertility clinic.  The fertilized egg that was supposed to have been implanted in Darah has been implanted in Linda, and that meant for  Linda has been implanted in Darah.  The egg did not take in Darah, but it did in Linda.  The result is that Linda and Scott have nothing for their efforts and Linda is now carrying a fetus that is genetically not hers. 

When the clinic realized the error, it offered Linda a termination, but she refused and insisted on bringing the child to term.  The action of the play begins when Linda and Scott arrive at the luxurious house of Darah and Michael, who have invited them over.  Darah and Michael apparently want Linda’s assurance that she plans to bring the baby to term.  Linda, however, surprises the couple and her own husband by announcing that she will bring the baby to term but will also file to adopt it. 

What follows is a long series of  pleading and negotiating on the part of all four individuals to get what they want.  Darah and Michael, who have been trying to have a baby for six years see the fetus inside Linda as their one chance ever to have a family.  Scott, who already has a daughter by Linda, is quite happy not to have another child.  (In fact, one wonders why he went to the IVF clinic in the first place.)  Linda, however, already feels that she has bonded with the fetus and that it is therefore hers.  It’s ludicrous that no one questions Linda’s threat to adopt.  If she gives birth to the baby she’s carrying, it will already have two genetic parents who want it and therefore will not be available for adoption.  

Chatterton uses the situation to satirize several trends in modern society such as the fetishization of babies and the romanticizing of parenthood in general and motherhood and fatherhood in particular.  As a feminist, Chatterton clearly does not see motherhood as a woman’s fulfilment the way Linda and Darah do.  Chatterton also satirizes the class differences between the art-oriented Linda and Scott and the business-oriented Darah and Michael and the gulf between the the three carnivorous adults and the vegetarian Linda.  Chatterton also works in the increasingly bizarre attraction of Michael to Linda, presumably because she is going to be the mother of his child, and because she is younger, more robust and voluptuous than his nervous, borderline anorexic wife.

The first problem with Chatterton’s set-up is that there is no way that the two couples would know each other’s names.  The IVF clinic may have made a mistake in implanting eggs, but to let the recipients know the names of the real donors is a serious breach of patient confidentiality.  Just because the clinic has made a procedural error does not mean it will also break the law.  Even in the case of babies switched after birth, hospitals cannot divulge the names of the parents who have mistakenly received each other’s infant.

Second, Chatterton has both couples acknowledge that in this case the law gives Linda only two choices – to abort the fetus or to give up the baby after it is born.  Since she refuses the first option, she legally, at least in Ontario, has only the second option.  If Darah and Michael want to have a baby, they merely have to wait for Linda to deliver.  If she will not give up the baby willingly, then Social Services will step in and take it from her.  It seems that Chatterton would like to write a comedy on the difficult problem of gestational rights versus genetic rights, even though the issue is not inherently funny since it involves so much emotional suffering.

In a much-publicized case in Ohio in 2009, Carolyn Savage learned that she had been implanted with the wrong egg four days after she found she was pregnant.  When the clinic realized the error it recommended abortion but the Savages’ moral beliefs precluded that as a possibility.  Savage was told that if she brought the child to term, she would have to hand it over to the biological parents.  And she did so not only because legal precedent was against them but because, as the Savages said, if another woman had been carrying the Savages’ egg they would expect her to give them their baby.

To make such an unhappy situation funny, Chatterton has to distract us into other areas.  Her first ploy is to have us focus on the general humour of Darah and Michael, obviously nervous, worrying about every detail of how they present themselves and how it will affect the visiting couple.  We laugh at the low-key nature of the couple when they arrive since it contrasts so much with the uptightness of their hosts.  Chatterton lingers so long on the comedy of embarrassment and contrary impressions that she delays bringing up the real topic of the play for at least fifteen minutes or more. 

She does this next by having Linda retreat in anger and confusion to the washroom.  After some persistent knocking Scott follows her in.  When they emerge Linda has made a complete turnaround in her position and seems content with it.  What Scott could possibly have said to persuade her is something we never find out and is a flaw in the play.  The humour from this point on is that Darah and Michael become so extreme in their gratitude that we fear it will push Linda back in the opposite direction. 

Chatterton’s third ploy is to have Darah and Michael show Linda the contract their lawyer drew up for her to sign a copy of which they too conveniently have right there in the living room.  It is this inappropriate document with all its dos and don’ts that pushes Linda back to her original position and causes Chatterton to have everyone repeat what they had already said earlier in the play.

What holds our interest despite the script’s many improbabilities, the the extraordinarily fine acting of the entire cast.  Domville is forceful as the obsessive-compulsive Darah who can barely disguise her fury at the situation.  She nevertheless is able to win our sympathy when she expresses the poignancy of a woman condemned to barrenness.  Roberts garners much laughter through Michael’s over-conciliatory manner that seemingly knows no bounds in trying to keep Darah from Linda’s throat.  He is also very funny in his apparently unconscious attraction to Linda that is, however, all to obvious to Darah and Scott.

As Linda, Correia-Damude does wear the glow of pregnancy that Michael so praises and for much of the play shows the deep imperturbability of an earth mother acutely aware of her internal processes and of her place in the world order of nurturing life.  Yet, she is sensitive enough that Darah’s description of barrenness brings her to tears and Darah and Michael’s opposition brings her to despair.  Scott is supposed to be a popular, published poet, but Chatterton writes him and Braunstein plays him as if he were a truck-driver without a poetic bone in his body.  Braunstein’s role is primarily as a humorous commentator on the action that involves him only insofar as he has to deal with Linda’s mental state no matter what she decides.

For the set Julie Fox has designed an impeccable nouveau-riche living-room dining room, quirky yet minimal, furnished it would seem from one of the Italian design stores on King Street.  Her costume design instantly tells us how completely distinct the outsider bohemian couple is from the trendy, uptight couple who live in this space. 

People with strong views on the side of either gestational or genetic rights may be offended by Chatterton’s glib approach to the subject and the satire she applies equally to both sides.  One can enjoy the play for the excellence of the acting and Andrea Donaldson’s whip-smart direction.  But for many, the artificiality of the situation and its many improbabilities will inhibit their full enjoyment.

©Christopher Hoile

Note: This review is a Stage Door exclusive. 

Photos: (from top) Rick Roberts, Philippa Domville, Nicola Correia-Damude and Paul Braunstein; Paul Braunstein, Philippa Domville, Nicola Correia-Damude and Rick Roberts. ©2016 Cylla von Tiedemann.

For tickets, visit http://tarragontheatre.com.