Imposter 22: A Response

Imposter 22

Created by Access All Areas Associate Artists. Royal Court Theatre, London. 23 September to 14 October 2023.

Zoë Glen

Zoë Glen.pdf

Download PDF • 73KB

As Imposter 22 begins, we are assured this is a relaxed performance. As an audience, we are free to move, make noise, and do whatever makes us comfortable. It is worth noting that this show offers relaxed performances for the entire run, which is unusual; the Royal Court typically schedules only a few daytime performances for neurodivergent people. At the time of writing, the theatre’s website has only one relaxed performance planned for each of the three other shows on the programme, all of which are matinees. Imposter 22’s commitment to continuous access raises the question of why only theatre about neurodivergence is being made accessible to neurodivergent audiences.

During a metatheatrical pre-show chat in front of the curtains, two performers suggest that this performance is intended for a neurotypical audience despite the venue’s access measures. The show sets out to educate its ‘neurotypical’ audience on the experiences of learning-disabled people, challenging stereotypes around learning-disabled experiences of sexuality and mental health. Through a murder mystery set-up, a group of friends who have learning disabilities try to solve the disappearance of their ‘neurotypical’ friend Joe. They enact various memories to work out what happened, giving us a peek into their lives. The group takes us through various scenes, from drama workshops and home settings to an island the characters regularly visit. In the re-enactment, Joe’s character is played by a homeless man named Danny.

The piece, however, takes on a distinctly neurodivergent aesthetic. In its structure, pace, and staging, the performance showcases neurodivergent ways of thinking. The narrative makes connections that may seem illogical to someone not neurodivergent and incorporates design features—such as a giant hamster wheel—that are not necessarily there for obvious, ‘logical’ reasons. Ways of making performing accessible for the actors are put on stage, too, with creative support workers providing prompts. There are often long pauses between lines and responses, accommodating performers’ processing needs.

This neurodivergent-led theatre experience is a joy to behold, but it also poses a challenge to neurotypical audiences, who are not used to seeing these traits in performers due to the lack of neurodivergent representation in theatre. The production’s unique staging creatively explores the possibilities of learning-disabled and autistic processing, resulting in a performance that sits outside the confines of what audiences are used to seeing on stage.

The piece’s reviews reflect its distinctive staging. The Guardian reviewer, for instance, writes that ‘at times we are not entirely sure what is happening, or why’ (Akbar), and The Reviews Hub’s write-up reads:

it is perhaps accidental poetry that stops this show from being a stand-out smash. The show begins with a rigid structure and finally dissolves into a farce of mixed and unexplained metaphors (a vast hamster wheel is produced and then never referenced again), faux-forgotten lines and then actually forgotten lines and a lacklustre stab at a plot. (Cusack)

The need for audiences to understand what they see is perhaps symptomatic of most theatre staged in major venues appealing to neurotypical ways of doing.

The criticism of this piece reveals more about what audiences have been conditioned to perceive as ‘good theatre’. For instance, when the play is criticised for lacking logical coherence, it implies a preference for neurotypical ideas of logic and linearity. Furthermore, critiquing performers for being prompted or forgetting lines reinforces the idea that good performers must have exceptional memory capabilities. In criticising a pace that stalls and stilts, ideas of crip time are ignored, and differences in pacing are equated with a lack of skill.

However, although the piece aims to represent neurodivergent perspectives, it is not exempt from valid criticisms—and, indeed, certain aspects ultimately detract from the play’s representation of neurodiversity. For instance, throughout the show, a binary between neurotypical and learning-disabled individuals is posed, with both playful and serious comments about ‘neurotypicals’ in opposition to those with learning disabilities. This lands in a strange way, given that the show has an entirely relaxed run of performances, which attracts audiences across a range of neurodivergent identities. As someone who is autistic but not learning-disabled, it is an unusual experience to feel more welcomed in a show that is providing access for neurodivergent individuals while also not belonging to either identity centred within the piece.

The presentation of narratives from individuals with learning disabilities is crucial, even if neurotypical audiences struggle to engage with them. However, the positioning of learning-disabled and neurotypical people as opposite categories is confusing. This is furthered by the suggestion, in the text, that both of the non-learning-disabled characters—Joe, whose death the friends attempt to recreate, and Danny, whom the group recruits to play Joe in their re-enactment—struggle with their mental health. Both characters, therefore, seem to fall within the spectrum of neurodivergence.

Ultimately, Imposter 22 showcases how learning-disabled creativity can produce interesting and joyful theatre, and how neurodivergent ways of doing form a distinct aesthetic when they are staged. However, reviews of the performance reveal how deeply neurotypicality is engrained within both theatre production and reception. The rarity of accessible theatre spaces and neurodivergent narratives in the theatre means that audiences are not accustomed to seeing learning-disabled people on stage. As a result, neurodivergent theatre is still viewed through a neurotypical gaze, which has clouded the critical reception of this piece.

Works Cited

Akbar, Arifa. ‘Imposter 22 Review—Deconstructed Detective Story Never Quite Comes Together’. The Guardian, 1 October 2023. www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/oct/01/imposter-22-review-royal-court-london-access-all-areas.

Cusack, Serafina. ‘Imposter 22—Royal Court, London’. The Reviews Hub, 1 October 2023, www.thereviewshub.com/imposter-22-royal-court-london/.