Big Brother is Still Watching :: Tim Dutton on '1984,' the Stage Play

You may not be entirely familiar with the plot of George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four," but you are certain to know the references that have become ingrained in our culture. The novel is a work of dystopian speculative fiction, a combination of keen political drama and scathing social commentary.

In creating the novel, Orwell -- who was writing in post-World War II London, and who set the novel in a futuristic version of that city -- contrived a top-down, rigidly hierarchical and tightly controlled society in which the top two percent run, and own, almost everything. Democracy has been replaced with rigid obedience to Party dogma and to a cult of personality centered around "Big Brother" -- a dictatorial personage whose likeness is everywhere (and so, via constant surveillance, is his gaze), but whose existence is uncertain. Big Brother might be an actual person -- then again, he might be a construct and a personification of watchfulness and control.

It's in this system that a man named Winston Smith spends his life, working as a functionary for a division of the government that re-writes news and censors (or even erases) matters and personages of public record. Like everyone else, Winston buys into the paradoxical concepts of the age: Using a language scrubbed of subversive elements, the power structure has managed to re-write the terms of human existence so that, in the novel's famed formulations, "War is Peace" and "Freedom is Slavery." Sexual fulfillment is forbidden, and so are private thoughts that deviate from political purity; Winston finds that, almost despite himself, he is a rebel on both counts. Among his crimes: He falls in love with a woman named Julia, and he starts keeping a secret diary.

Eventually, Winston makes contact with a man named O'Brien, whom he believes is associated with a resistance group call the Brotherhood. O'Brien provides Winston with a copy of a forbidden book by a man named Emmanuel Goldstein -- who, as a sort of anti-Big Brother, is equally questionable in terms of whether he is a real individual, or a politically expedient invention. Goldstein's book purports to dissect the propaganda and other means of mental chokehold that the government uses to confuse and subjugate the population. But Winston never gets through the book; he and Julia are both taken into the custody of the feared Thought Police, and when Winston is delivered to the dreaded Room 101 -- a room where prisoners are subjected to torture -- he finds that his interrogator is none other than O'Brien.

The novel was adapted for film in 1956 following a 1954 television adaptation, but the most famous film version was the one released in 1984, a project for which director Michael Radford drew on the talents of cinematographer Roger Deakins and actors John Hurt and Richard Burton to bring Orwell's bleak and troubling vision to the big screen. The film turned out to be Burton's final role; he played O'Brien, while Hurt played Winston. (The film was recently released in a re-mastered home video version by Screen Archives as part of their Twilight Time line of limited-edition Blu-rays.)

Though British in origin, the language of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" has been adopted by American politicians, with both Left and Right inveighing against the opposition for resorting to Orwellian "doublespeak" and "Newspeak" (which generally translates to political spin and political correctness, respectively), accusing one another of acting in a manner akin to "Big Brother" (by imposing too much surveillance and exercising too much control over society) and acting as "Thought Police" (on the Right, this is another term referring to political correctness, but it also ties into the Right's recurrent shows of concern for "religious freedom" in America).

Those on the Left would argue that the "Orwellian" nature of our current cultural climate runs deeper than the lexicon Orwell invented; the way Goldstein's book describes the social order, and its means of exacting social compliance from the masses, seem to fit today's heated arguments about one percenters, the evaporating middle class, and the outsized influence over our political system by super-wealthy individuals such as the Koch brothers.

The American Repertory Theater is bringing a new stage adaptation of Orwell's novel -- numerically titled in this case, as "1984" -- from London's West End to the Loeb Drama Center near Cambridge's Harvard Square. Written and co-directed by Robert Icke and Duncan MacMillan, the stage version is, text at the A.R.T. website notes, "Presented in association with Headlong, Almeida Theatre & Nottingham Playhouse." (The theater company Headlong originally produced the play at the Nottingham Playhouse, and in 2013 "1984" was staged at the Almeida Theatre; a British tour followed in 2014.) The A.R.T. production will run Feb. 14 - March 6, and is set to feature English actor Tim Dutton in the role of O'Brien.

Dutton has appeared in a number of plays in London's West End, but has also graced international film and television screens with roles in "Tom and Viv," "The Infiltrator," and "The Bourne Identity." His television work includes a role on "Ally McBeal," a show that was set in Boston but filmed in Vancouver.

As it happens, the A.R.T. gig will be Dutton's first time visiting Boston. That tidbit emerged during a recent telephone chat between Dutton and EDGE, along with the important observation that this adaptation -- unlike those before it -- makes crucial use of the novel's appendix, an explanation of "Newspeak" that sheds more light on (but also raises more questions about) the content of the story proper. Dutton pointed those things out while being careful to avoid spoilers.

EDGE: How did you come to be cast in this new stage version of the George Orwell novel?

Tim Dutton: Just through normal channels. I always wanted to work with Headlong, and the script came in to my agents. So I went in and met the directors, and we really clicked. I'm very pleased to be part of it.

EDGE: Orwell's book has touched a nerve, culturally, to the point that many of the words and phrases he invented have become part of our lexicon today. But has "Nineteen Eighty-Four" possibly immunized us to the dangers of allowing our societies to descend into fascism, fanaticism, and other forms of tyranny?

Tim Dutton: I don't know that we're culturally immunized. I think that every generation sees themselves reflected in the book. I think We've had audiences whose ages range from high school kids to people in their 70s and 80s; they've all seen their own generation reflected. I don't know if you can be completely immunized against what's going in the world. I don't know if people become desensitize; it's not for me to say. I've no idea. I certainly know that every sort of generation of theatergoers who have come to see the show really relate to it. It's an extraordinary novel for what it conveys.

EDGE: There's a quote somewhere in the A.R.T.'s press materials, a quote from the British newspaper The Guardian, which describes "Nineteen Eighty-Four," the novel, as being "the definitive book of the 20th century." It's true that a lot of terrible things happened in the 20th century, but when it comes to manipulating public opinion and public passions, contemplating the reach of mass media, and considering the ramifications of ever-growing surveillance, isn't "Nineteen Eighty-Four" really more terrifying if we think of it as a prognostication for the 21st century?

Tim Dutton: I think that's what so extraordinary about the novel; it's what I just said, it's related to so many different generations since it's been written. I guess the themes that are dealt with are just very human themes of control and manipulation and censorship -- I guess those things have been around since, oh gosh, Greek times, really. All through history.

EDGE: As you see it, what does the new adaptation by Robert Icke and Duncan MacMillan bring to the work that speaks to our time in particular?

Tim Dutton: I think in a time when there's a certain degree of apathy about theater going among certain generations, I think one of the main missions for Rob and Duncan was, "How do we get a 17-year-old away from his X-Box and into the theater?' That was very much a thought as to how to make theater...And theater can be, great big seminal works can be, when they are put on stage, such dry experiences. A bad dry play is interminable, and Rob and Duncan were very mindful of making this play an extremely exciting and immediate and challenging piece to watch on stage. What they've taken, really, is they've distilled one of the main themes of Orwell's book, which is "doublethink," and constantly throughout the play the audiences are made to consider what they are hearing, what they are seeing, and to have that challenge every part throughout the play: What are they seeing? What are they seeing? Can they trust what they are seeing? Can they trust what they are being told? Can they trust their own feelings about what they are seeing? They've distilled the essence of "doublethink," and -- without any spoilers -- I think they have done it extraordinarily well. It really makes the audiences uncomfortable and complicit. It's certainly one of the most exciting pieces I've been involved with.

EDGE: "Nineteen Eighty-Four," in all its forms, is a story that makes us uncomfortable, and I think that's why we are attracted to it. There's a magnetism about the story.

Tim Dutton: Certainly. When I first read "Nineteen Eighty-Four," I was 15, 16. Like most people do, [I read it] at school, [and] really didn't fully understand all the themes. I thought that I understood it to the level that I needed to for the exams, but reading it as an adult is striking...The novel constantly challenges the reader, all the way through -- particularly with the appendix, which I certainly didn't read when I first read [the novel]; I just thought it was an appendix, of no significance or import. But it's such an important part of the novel for Orwell that he absolutely fought to keep it in when [the novel] was offered to be published outside of Britain without the appendix, even losing a very big publishing contract when the publisher said, "Well, we don't want the appendix."

The notion of the appendix, and the notion of the ideas on the appendix, applying that to the novel and to the stage production is a very important part of the evening. Having missed it before, and re-visiting and reading it, it calls into question every point in the novel. I'm questioning what I'm reading -- completely questioning whether, in terms of the book, it's a document, whether it's recollections, whether it's a projection -- what exactly am I reading? Is this Winston's mind? Is this a party member's mind who has written a report afterwards?

The appendix tells us that the novel is written from a perspective that is beyond 2050, which is something that was completely lost on me when I first read the novel. A lot of people don't realize that. So, that notion of questioning throughout the book as you are reading it, and then getting to the end...You're referred to the appendix on, I think it's page 407 of the book, [with a note] about Newspeak -- what it was, how it was invented, and it mentions how the party had fallen by 2050. And so, when you read that, you are then questioning everything you are reading [after that] -- is it a flashback? Are you seeing things through Winston's eyes? Is it a document that has been found somewhere?

That questioning throughout the novel, I think, has been put very skillfully on the stage in their version. We, I think, are the first production to have included the appendix in a stage production. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

EDGE: To what degree does the staging of this play feed into that?

Tim Dutton: Oh, very much so, right form the outset. And again, the audience are really taken on a roller coaster of doublethink and challenging what they are witnessing. I can't give too much away, but a great deal of attention has been paid throughout the entire show to not answer any questions. Orwell doesn't answer any questions in the book. He throws out a whole bunch of questions, and we don't presume to make any decisions. Everything is completely from the book. In terms of staging, the audience are made to feel "can they trust what they see?" right from the outset.

EDGE: Something about "1984" and other works of British dystopian speculative fiction, like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," strikes me as being particularly British or like the sort of thing more prone to arise from the British mindset. Do you have that sense at all?

Tim Dutton: Oh, I wouldn't know how to answer that... I don't know. Clearly, yes, literature all around the world is idiomatic, and it's about that writer's particular experiences and knowledge of the culture, so yes, it's quite geographically specific, but I couldn't make a wider comment on that.

EDGE: You play O'Brien, which is also the role Richard Burton played in the Michael Radford film made in 1984. O'Brien is something of an enigma... is he a pragmatist? A nihilist? An ideologue? Or in some way could he be a subversive? How are you approaching this role?

Tim Dutton: Oh, that is fantastic that you pick up on that, because to all that is, "Yes." It really is. The last thing that Orwell wrote was a two-dimensional character, like a big boo-boo bad guy. [O'Brien] is a wonderfully subtle and extraordinary character, and all those things that you picked up on are absolutely all there.

EDGE: As an actor, you must be having a ball with the character.

Tim Dutton: I absolutely love it. And it's challenging as an actor. I do remember saying about the fifth or sixth day or rehearsal, in a moment of desperation, 'Is it actually possible for an actor to exist in doublethink?' Because that is exactly what I've been encouraged to do in rehearsals. Actors like to know and pin down and structure their characters in rehearsal, and with this character that's the last thing you can do.

It's fantastically enjoyable, because I'm encouraged to bring all those facets to the character. Some nights...I don't know how to say it, really...it's [a matter of] keeping all those possibilities alive every night, and ambiguous, and drawn enough so that there's clear ambiguity there, and clear doublethink within the character. Certainly, he could be the head of the establishment, weeding out an appalling terrorist such as Winston, and making the system work; or it could be that, as we're told, the party has fallen by 2050, and that could only happen if there were people working from the inside of the party [to bring about its downfall] -- could it be that O'Brien [is part of that]?

Winston doesn't even do that one thing he's asked to do, which is to read Goldstein's book, which is the one thing which would make him a part of the Brotherhood -- so he's a failure in that, as well. He doesn't finish it, sort of like lots of readers don't finish [Orwell's] book because they don't read the appendix. All these wonderful little tricks that Orwell puts in. There is the possibility that O'Brien indeed is a very high part of the organization that brings the party down. There are those two very polarized and distinct possibilities, and that's the genius of Orwell's writing -- that none of those are answered. It just depends sometimes, on your mood as a reader. Is it this or is it that? Everybody has an opinion about that, and everybody's opinion is valid.

EDGE: I have to say, I am especially looking forward to seeing your performance together with Mathew Spender, who plays Winston. What's the creative chemistry like between you two?

Tim Dutton: We get on absolutely terrifically, which is great. We had some very dark moments when we had to explore the notion of torture in rehearsals. It's quite grim to be rehearsing for three or four days straight, back to back, torture [in Room] 101, and the dark places you go in rehearsal to explore the nature of what that relationship is. But we got through it. We're having an absolute ball now. It's such a great piece to put in front of an audience. It really is very exciting, and Matthew does a terrific job, he really does.

EDGE: Do both Robert Icke and Duncan MacMillan direct, or is one taking the lead sometimes and the other taking the lead at other moments?

Tim Dutton: Gosh, you know what, they are both quite extraordinary. I've had the experience of working with two directors before, and it's always an interesting dynamic. They were absolutely extraordinary together. It was a seamless experience from the word go. They are both fiercely bright men, and very talented, and have great vision. They had their "Starsky and Hutch" days, their good cop and bad cops days, but they complimented each other magnificently. You can see the result of that on stage.

EDGE: I hope you'll be able to take in a little of our fair city while you here.

Tim Dutton: I really hope so. We've got a couple of days off when we get into town next week, so I'm looking forward so much -- I've never been to Boston before, and I just can't wait!

"1984" runs as the Loeb Drama Center, located at 64 Brattle Street in Cambridge, from Feb. 14 - March 6. For tickets and more information, please visit http://americanrepertorytheater.org/events/show/1984