This site now acts as an archive only. For the latest news, opinion, blogs and listings on disability arts and culture visit

Disability Arts Online

> > > Review: imove - LeanerFasterStronger

26 May 2012

image of a man running against a black background

Poster image for Kaite O'Reilly's LeanerFasterStronger

imove - Yorkshire's cultural programme for London 2012 commissioned Kaite O’Reilly’s new play 'LeanerFasterStronger' focusing on diversity and the interplay between sport and art. Jo Verrent reviews a performance at the Sheffield Crucible

I have to come clean here, I don’t get sport. Don’t watch it, don’t participate and never get as far as the back pages in a newspaper. Yet Kaite O’Reilly’s Leanerfasterstronger had me thinking and talking about sport all the way home – and that’s an hour and a half from Sheffield. Bit of a record.

The play is set at a conference where sport scientists, athletes, journalists and sponsors have gathered for cross cutting dialogue and debate. At the end of the day over a meal, four delegates are arguing about the moral, political and aesthetic future of sport.

The performances were great and the level of ideas presented was complex and fascinating  - new takes on bio-engineering and medical science sparking off every minute. If we could genetically engineer changes in sexual behaviour and make people less promiscuous, would we? Will countries with lax legislation become destinations for enhancement surgery? How exactly do we define human in relation to sport?

I’m quite into immersive theatre at the moment and wondered if the work could have been pushed more in this direction? How would it have felt to be at the dinner table with the characters? To have been an actual part of the debate? To have had the chance to answer back and add my own perspective?

I’m looking forwards to taking part in some online debate around these issues as part of imove and perhaps this is the idea? (The piece is presented as part of Yorkshire’s cultural programme for London 2012 – imove – and its strand called ‘Extraordinary Moves’ focusing on diversity and the interplay between sport and art).

As it was, the play was presented in the round, with eight blocks providing the staging – a circle, which divided into four segments, and four square blocks. Personally, I found the staging unhelpful. I wanted chrome, glass and plastic – echoing the brave new world I was hearing about. I got grey painted wood. The materials used to create the final image – a man pedaling furiously on a gleaming bike, creating the spark of life - were more successful for me. There was also projection – on a circle in the ceiling and on the table and/or floor depending on where the staging was, but again, I was unsure of its purpose within the piece as a whole.

Kaite’s work is always rich in language, tone and concept – and this work didn’t disappoint. Almost like a radio play, the characters were fixed by excellent vocal characterisation, and simple movement elements. The work was theoretical – stretching thought and opinion - which can make for static theatre. I was drawn to the more emotional stories – the brother and sister furiously competing for whose life had suffered the most due to his excellence on the track. I wanted more of their story, more on the human impact, to help me contextualize the ideas and make them more concrete.

And so to the big question the piece raises. An elite sports person, having peaked at the top of their performance and about to lose their sponsorship, adulation and the focus of their life … would they deliberately choose surgical enhancement to remain competitive? Basically, would they fake an injury to join the brilliant ranks of elite athletes with impairments?

It's an interesting one, but possibly presented without some of the social context around disability that I think is so important – especially at the moment as benefit and care cuts bite, disability hate crime statistics rise, and access and inclusion appear to slip further down the agenda more than ever before. Yes, there are advantages to the diversity that impairment brings, and we may well be moving technologically towards a world where enhanced bodies can be leaner, faster and stronger – but I think we are a long way from seeing ‘disability’ as desirable within our society.

Leanerfasterstronger presents a fascinating glimpse into a brave new world. It certainly provides plenty of food for thought. So go and get your mind enhanced! It’s running until the 2nd June at Sheffield Crucible as part of imove, Yorkshire’s cultural programme for London 2012.

LeanerFasterStronger is a Chol Theatre and Sheffield Theatres co-production.
To book, call 0114 249 6000 or visit
23 May – 2 June 2012 at 7.45pm
(no performances on Sundays)
Matinees: 2.15pm 31 May
& 2.15pm 2 June

The June 2012 BBC Ouch! podcast featured an online debate about cyborgs and cures with playwright Kaite O'Reilly [go to the last twenty minutes of the podcast to listen].

LeanerFasterStronger has attracted reviews on the Sheffield Theatre's website and from the Guardian. You can read Kaite O'Reilly's responses to comments about the play and questions raised about the Olympics on her wordpress blog


Colin Hambrook [ED]

12 June 2012

Dear Molly Marnie

Thanks for taking the time to comment on our review of LeanerFasterStronger.

I think a bit of UK context is worth acknowledging. Currently, the UK has two polar opposite situations. On the one hand, London is hosting the Olympics, and the Paralympics and time, money, resources, taxes, etc. are being lavished on this. On the other, the most savage cuts to funding, benefits, support services, education, employment protection for disabled people that have ever occurred are taking place.

Our reviewer quite rightly put this play in the context of this situation, since this dichotomy is at the front of everyone's mind at the moment. The 'hate crime' aspect (which is hardly 'most of the review') is important because due to the government's spin in order to justify these cuts, the media have taken on the role of branding disabled people scroungers. This has led to hate crime and vilification of people with disability, putting back the fight for disabled rights years if not decades.

Regarding our reviewer's comments about wanting to be immersed. I read this as enthusiasm; wanting to be in the debate. The context for this is imove, which is an educational and artistic programme which is celebrating human movement and the body, which she makes clear, and we provided a link to elucidate how her comment should be seen in this context even further.

DAO has a policy of never merely patting people on the back when it comes to disability art and art about disability, so no review on DAO will ever say a play or work of art was 'great' JUST because a disabled person made it or appeared in it. In this context, our reviewer has every right to talk about the staging not meeting her expectations. If you look her up, you will find she a person of standing in the disability theatre world in the UK and is very well placed to make such observations. One art of writing a review is actually to initiate a dialogue with producers, actors, etc. The criticisms in here are constructive and not merely negatively commenting.

Another art of review writing is like you say, to not make it about the reviewer. Nothing of the reviewer is in here other than her knowledge, experience, excitement at finding interest in a topic she explains she didn't think she would, and wide-ranging thinking while she experienced this clearly thought-provoking play.

Again, thanks for your comments. Our editorial team considered your points and we feel this review gives a good picture of a play which will be going on to tour and points to how and why it will flag up many issues on its way.

We strive daily to meet a wide range of audiences with our content and we are always aiming higher. So it was helpful to be able to take some time to reflect on this following receiving your comment.

Regards, The DAO editorial team

Molly Mamie

11 June 2012

Sorry, but this is not a good review. I thought reviews were supposed to describe and comment on what the play actually was, not what the critic would have liked to see, which has nothing to do with the actual thing.

What has the reviewer's like of immersive plays got to do with this production? This clearly wasn't that kind - nor was it about hate crime, so why spend most of the review describing something that wasn't what you were sent to see and feed back on?

I didn't see this play (I'm in the US) so I can't comment more, but I get pissed when I see reviews which are more about the critic and their importance than what they were asked to comment on.

This is like being sent to review Romeo and Juliet and then complaining it wasn't West side story. Poor. Should really do better.

Add a comment

Please leave your comments. They will display when submitted. DAO encourages critical feedback, but please be considerate. DAO reserves the right to edit or remove comments that don't comply with our editorial policy, which you can find on DAOs 'About' pages.

Your e-mail address will not be revealed to the public.
HTML is forbidden, but line-breaks will be retained.
This can be a URL of an image or a YouTube, MySpaceTV or a Flickr page (we'll handle the media embedding from there!)
This is to prevent automatic submissions.