47 - 13, National Theatre

I was very excited to see 13 because Earthquakes in London was one of my favourite plays of last year. However 13 did not quite have the emotional punch of Earthquakes. I think this was because Earthquakes concentrated on presenting a terrifying view of climate change, confronting us with a selfish present and a dystopian future that was very close to the bone. 13 on the other hand tried to represent a much wider issue of belief and apathy in today's society. Although the points about whether we can change our world in a big way or whether it is best to compromise to affect the changes we can were interesting, the issues were a bit too broad and therefore lacked impact. I didn't really like the way religious faith was associated with demanding political change through protest because I don't see a link between those things in real life people.

It was slightly unsatisfying to watch the idealist and symbol of hope in the play be confronted with the harsh reality. His protest, a result of his speeches in Hyde Park going viral on YouTube, arrives at Westminster and he is granted a meeting with the Prime minister. The PM is a popular liberal conservative who also happens to be the mother of his friend who died as a result of a drunken stunt a couple of years previously.

The resulting negotiations are too complicated for the audience to choose a side, these issues are not black and white. But while that might be very realistic, it doesn't make for the most satisfying play to watch.

What did make the play great to watch were the sparkling snappy clever dialogue you'd expect from Mike Bartlett and the colourful realistic characters who you just had to empathise with. The overarching metaphor of peeking inside the box was brilliantly realised with an enormous revolving box which made up the set in the first half which the characters would act around and inside. I felt a bit bereft when this box was removed in the interval because I liked it so much.

The touches of London that crept onto the stage made the production feel very contemporary, at one point a Barclays bike whizzed across the stage. However the play's claim to be set in a slightly alternative London where strange things happen did not make sense to me. There was nothing explicitly supernatural going on, many of the characters and events were certainly bizarre, like the brilliant old lady playing and singing a Rhianna song on the piano. But the real London is full of bizarre characters doing funny things, so the only reason to set the play in "a dark and magical landscape, a London both familiar and strange" was so the play could portray a realistic London but include a Prime Minister, US envoy etc without satirising real people. I thought this was a bit of a cop-out for the playwright.

Reading this post back, it seems a little negative. I actually loved this play, it was funny and deep and engaging and contemporary. I'm being a bit hard on it because I loved Earthqakes so much. And this is not quite as brilliant as Earthquakes.