Running at the Burton Taylor theatre until the 29th of January, Le Fay is not so much a play as a series of vignettes, based around the stories of Arthurian legend. The emphasis here is on the word stories, as the production focuses on the manner in which the stories are told as much as the stories themselves. Each scene in the production involves one of the tales of the Arthurian cycle being told in a particular style, and from a particular perspective or, more often, from two conflicting perspectives.
    So, for example, the tale of Arthur's conception is told by a mother relating the story to her daughters in classic fairytale style, and at the same time by a soldier relating the events first hand. The tale of Arthur's discovery of Lancelot and Guinevere's betrayal is presented both in what one might call "experimental" style (the cast holding ribbons, and speaking a few words each to form a sentence) and as a straight to-audience monologue from the lady herself.
    The play is called "Le Fay" and so does, for the most part, concentrate its attention on Arthur's half-sister. She is presented as a witch, a wise-woman, an ordinary noblewoman and at one point (in a rather tongue-in-cheek synopsis of the feminist reading of the cycle) a manifestation of the triple-goddess found in early matriarchal societies.
    It is this latter representation which presents the greatest threat to this production. Going into the play, I was faintly worried that it would take the easy (or at least politically correct) road out, and conclude that Morgan le Fay was an archetypal 'strong woman demonised by the evil patriarchy.' They avoid this, instead presenting multiple versions of every tale, conflicting in both viewpoint and style.
    The play is performed by a cast of four actors (Neil Ashdown, Gabi Jaffe, Katherine Jones and Claire Palmer) and directed by Katherine Maltby. Interestingly, it credits no actual writer.
    Like many of the plays at the Burton Taylor, this is a new piece by an amateur group, and as such it does have a slightly rough feeling about the edges. Occasionally the cast need to fight a little for an errant word. This is, however, only to be expected given the circumstances.
    The play is short, about half an hour, all told. This is precisely the right length for what it is - had it gone on any longer they would soon have been re-treading old ground. On the other hand, there may be people out there who want more than thirty minutes entertainment for a fiver. It is also rather experimental - not full on testing-the-bounds-of-the-medium, but experimental none the less.
    It's an entertaining enough show, and worth seeing if you don't mind going out at half past nine to see a show that only lasts thirty minutes. It is neither particularly mould-breaking nor terribly conventional. Take a look if you like to keep up with independent theatre in Oxford.

Daniel Hemmens 25/1/05