- Email: [email protected]
Incognito: what makes us human?
In Context
narrative is a story based on a patient known as HM, who had a bilateral medial temporal lobectomy in an attempt to cure epilepsy. HM’s case was important in the theoretical study of how the brain functions in relation to memory and the effect of the surgery, which left him with severe anterograde amnesia. Martha is also treating a patient with a similar condition and speaks about the liberation of not remembering who you are, meaning that you are “not really anyone anymore”. As we watch HM struggling with disassociated memory, we see the same scene played out repeatedly; poignantly, a moment where he greets his wife with a loving kiss and she asks him to play the piano, convinced that this might bring him back to his former self. The sense of loss is quite tortuous for the audience, however, and it is most likely our fears around memory loss and neurological damage that plague us—we cannot help but to imagine what it would be like to be robbed of a past and a future. As the play progresses, the break between scenes lessens and towards the final scenes the actors cut into the next moment, becoming someone else in an instant. This is undeniably a play for actors to experiment with their craft and it is executed with great skill. Payne is recreating the illusion that Einstein calls reality, and just as science can inform and enlighten, theatre can manipulate and test the imagination by questioning what we know to be true and perhaps the value of discovering who we are, if at all possible. Are we defined by what we remember because the brain creates a narrative that leads us from moment to moment or is it simply that there is no me, there is no you, and there is no self? These are ideas that the play engages with and the production is a highly accomplished theatrical study of science and humanity.
Lancet Neurol 2014 Published Online June 10, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1474-4422(14)70073-0 Incognito is currently playing at Bush Theatre, London until June 21
Jules Morgan
www.thelancet.com/neurology Published online June 10, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70073-0
Bill Knight
Nick Payne’s new play Incognito is a clever and engaging hookup between science and theatrical drama. There is a neurological context—studies of the brain, specifically of Albert Einstein and a lesser-known individual referred to as HM—but ultimately it is a performance that explores character and ideas; the creative scope of the play offers more than just a scripted story, the production and stage direction also contribute to unravelling the content. There are three concurrent stories—one in the present (today, London): Martha, a clinical neuropsychologist, attempts to unchain herself from her work, a seemingly impossible case of a patient with amnesia, and engage in a love affair after the breakdown of her marriage; and the other two set in the 1950s, USA, and England: pathologist Tom (Thomas Stoltz Harvey) who stole Einstein’s brain after the autopsy and Henry (HM) who has pioneering brain surgery for severe epilepsy that permanently damages his neurological functioning. There are only four actors, and short scenes are broken by the interludes of music or dimming of lights, allowing the actors to morph into the multiple identities that they inhabit on stage, mainly distinguishable by the different accents they adopt. The play addresses the human perplexity “who am I?” with invigorating pace and ingenuity, reminding us of Einstein’s conviction that “reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”. The brain offers a way in, but it cannot truly define us or provide a definitive solution to such a cerebral question. The stage itself is sparse, with two pianos set on a wooden-slated floor and a metal grid-like frame that hangs above, evocative of a molecular or DNA structure. At the start of the play the constant shifts between story lines make it challenging to follow, compounded by the actors changing roles but not changing their costumes or appearance. However, with time, there is a sense that the story itself is not as important as the observations elicited by the characters—as Payne stated in an interview, “I am not a scientist” and his motivation was not to remain faithful to history, but more to the themes that emerged. Research informed his knowledge of neurological studies and discoveries, both past and present, but beyond that he happily divulged that he “made everything up”. Harvey’s passion and obsession for discovery (unlocking the secret of what makes a genius by studying Einstein’s brain) consumes him and his lifelong commitment to this study emulates Einstein’s belief in the imagination as a real factor in scientific research. An interview in 1929 records Einstein saying “I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am”, and Harvey’s unrelenting conviction in the value of his work appears to adhere to this statement. Alongside this
Bill Knight
Theatre Incognito: what makes us human?
1
narrative is a story based on a patient known as HM, who had a bilateral medial temporal lobectomy in an attempt to cure epilepsy. HM’s case was important in the theoretical study of how the brain functions in relation to memory and the effect of the surgery, which left him with severe anterograde amnesia. Martha is also treating a patient with a similar condition and speaks about the liberation of not remembering who you are, meaning that you are “not really anyone anymore”. As we watch HM struggling with disassociated memory, we see the same scene played out repeatedly; poignantly, a moment where he greets his wife with a loving kiss and she asks him to play the piano, convinced that this might bring him back to his former self. The sense of loss is quite tortuous for the audience, however, and it is most likely our fears around memory loss and neurological damage that plague us—we cannot help but to imagine what it would be like to be robbed of a past and a future. As the play progresses, the break between scenes lessens and towards the final scenes the actors cut into the next moment, becoming someone else in an instant. This is undeniably a play for actors to experiment with their craft and it is executed with great skill. Payne is recreating the illusion that Einstein calls reality, and just as science can inform and enlighten, theatre can manipulate and test the imagination by questioning what we know to be true and perhaps the value of discovering who we are, if at all possible. Are we defined by what we remember because the brain creates a narrative that leads us from moment to moment or is it simply that there is no me, there is no you, and there is no self? These are ideas that the play engages with and the production is a highly accomplished theatrical study of science and humanity.
Lancet Neurol 2014 Published Online June 10, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1474-4422(14)70073-0 Incognito is currently playing at Bush Theatre, London until June 21
Jules Morgan
www.thelancet.com/neurology Published online June 10, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70073-0
Bill Knight
Nick Payne’s new play Incognito is a clever and engaging hookup between science and theatrical drama. There is a neurological context—studies of the brain, specifically of Albert Einstein and a lesser-known individual referred to as HM—but ultimately it is a performance that explores character and ideas; the creative scope of the play offers more than just a scripted story, the production and stage direction also contribute to unravelling the content. There are three concurrent stories—one in the present (today, London): Martha, a clinical neuropsychologist, attempts to unchain herself from her work, a seemingly impossible case of a patient with amnesia, and engage in a love affair after the breakdown of her marriage; and the other two set in the 1950s, USA, and England: pathologist Tom (Thomas Stoltz Harvey) who stole Einstein’s brain after the autopsy and Henry (HM) who has pioneering brain surgery for severe epilepsy that permanently damages his neurological functioning. There are only four actors, and short scenes are broken by the interludes of music or dimming of lights, allowing the actors to morph into the multiple identities that they inhabit on stage, mainly distinguishable by the different accents they adopt. The play addresses the human perplexity “who am I?” with invigorating pace and ingenuity, reminding us of Einstein’s conviction that “reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”. The brain offers a way in, but it cannot truly define us or provide a definitive solution to such a cerebral question. The stage itself is sparse, with two pianos set on a wooden-slated floor and a metal grid-like frame that hangs above, evocative of a molecular or DNA structure. At the start of the play the constant shifts between story lines make it challenging to follow, compounded by the actors changing roles but not changing their costumes or appearance. However, with time, there is a sense that the story itself is not as important as the observations elicited by the characters—as Payne stated in an interview, “I am not a scientist” and his motivation was not to remain faithful to history, but more to the themes that emerged. Research informed his knowledge of neurological studies and discoveries, both past and present, but beyond that he happily divulged that he “made everything up”. Harvey’s passion and obsession for discovery (unlocking the secret of what makes a genius by studying Einstein’s brain) consumes him and his lifelong commitment to this study emulates Einstein’s belief in the imagination as a real factor in scientific research. An interview in 1929 records Einstein saying “I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am”, and Harvey’s unrelenting conviction in the value of his work appears to adhere to this statement. Alongside this
Bill Knight
Theatre Incognito: what makes us human?
1