Wife Cooks Husband in Devizes!

A wife cooked her husband on Thursday evening in Devizes. I watched the whole thing unfold, but would have politely passed off any offering of a plate, in favour of my funky KitKat Chunky (three for a quid at Derek’s Deals!) What do you know? I’m way too much like Kenneth for my own liking, for after all, the way to a man’s stomach is……

You can get ice cream at Devizes’ wonderful Wharf Theatre, but not at a dress rehearsal, which is what this was; my apologies if the headline deliberately deceived you! You are here now, and might as well read about me sneaking in my own snack, to watch this wicked black comedy from the writer of The Nativity film series, Debbie Isitt. Opening night is Monday 18th May and the final night is Saturday, 23rd. 

Directed by Alison Warren, The Wife Who Cooked Her Husband may have the conclusion given away in the title, but the lead up to it is an unnerving watch with poignantly satirical dialogue. Set in either the late seventies or early eighties, a time when the practices of patriarchy were being questioned via feminism for a younger generation, their elders upheld the traditions of married life. Ergo, for a middle-aged chauvinist to “part exchange” his older model wife, might find himself undone and exposed by his newer model’s more modern perceptions of marriage.

There’s only three characters in this play, sitting around a dinner table. Flashbacks builds a devilish narrative of a cheating husband, how it emotionally affects his ex-wife, and the new wife too. Jessica Bone plays the ex-wife, Hilary, vividly. The focal point of the play is her building concerns for her marriage, and realisation her suspicions were right. Defining her plight is the emotional rollercoaster which justifies her revenge.

Louisa Davidson is Laura, the scandalous, younger, hedonistic mistress, and she plays it with a realistic front. But as the play delves deeper into Laura’s psyche, and her expectations from her marriage, whilst more radically feministic, are of equal burden to Kenneth, the happy-go-lucky fellow, caught in this love triangle of his own making.

It becomes clear the antagonist was never Laura. Kenneth is the lovable charmer, a gluttoness Elvis fan. Hardly a master of deception, he fulfills his desires uncaringly; the basic caricature of an eighties lad with Peter Pan syndrome; me starting this review with what I ate during the show might well be proof! If Jessica’s abject and sentimental monologues are the backbone of the play, they’re contrasted by Kenneth’s playful ignorance, and therein lies the comedy, dark as it may be.  

Andy Bennett plays Kenneth with comic splendour. One who gets his dinner at home but his love elsewhere, and at this successful beginning there’s a scene of visual comedy gold, as the moment of him ingeniously switching from Hilary to Laura delights him. Once reality takes hold, holes in his lies are exposed, and whilst his thoughts on the matter are exposed too, they’re not nearly as nuanced as either Hilray’s or Laura’s. One could argue a writer creates more realistic characters of their own gender, and in this Kenneth’s characteristics are flatter. Another argument is, of course, that’s the fundamental difference between the genders!

Here is a play which either gender can enjoy, and it is very enjoyable, but after-thoughts might some cause healthy debate! That’s what makes this a great show. The production may not be the best I’ve seen at The Wharf, though that’s a high pedestal, but three days later I’m still pondering its details and the questions it raises; it’s a grower.

While it might appeal more to women, the tensions and stress on relationships caused by an affair should alarm the man more, and they should see it if only to find sympathy for the mess they would create, following their desires without consideration. Young men preaching hyper-masculinity and this manosphere concept, should note this play proves these ideas were standard not so long ago, and didn’t work back then. Because, and here’s the real hitter, Hilary ponders at the conclusion, Kenneth has decidedly average levels of chauvinism, passive with it, and is atypical rather than extreme, but still he’s a manipulator and cheat who deserved his comeuppance.

The macabre ending suggested by the title is therefore expected, but the wait for Kenneth’s fate and Hillary’s justifications are more intensely meaningful than the concussion. While this play is of a simple setup, with a simple and common premise, the more its deeper meanings roll over in my mind, the more I accept that The Wife Who Cooked her Husband is a must-see.  

The Woman who cooked her husband

---