Buy the book

The Man Who
Pleasance Theatre, London

Ruth Sheldon

Suprisingly, acclaimed neurologist Oliver Sacks begins his famous collection of case studies, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, with this quote from Nietzsche: 'As for sickness: are we not almost tempted to ask whether we could get along without it?'.

Sacks adopts the words of a philosopher who questions the very basis of scientific objectivity and subverts the meaning of health and sickness, a figure whose genius, according to many, cannot be extricated from his syphilitic symptoms. In using these words Sacks pinpoints his interest in the relationship between neuroscientific explanation and human experience, or as he puts it 'the bringing together of the scientific and the romantic'. Sacks is concerned with the relationship between scientific theory and artistic expression; his studies explore the intersection between physiological processes and biography, fact and myth, theory and drama, and it is in this context that Peter Brook's decision to dramatise his case studies was so fascinating.

The PepperPot Theatre Company's rare revival of The Man Who is an ambitious production of this play that explores the relationship between neurological, psychological and philosophical accounts of existence. The piece is set in a sterile hospital room; five actors transform themselves from doctors to patients, presenting a stream of people with a variety of neurological disorders. All these patients have experienced damage to the frontal lobes, the part of the brain that is considered our emotional control centre and home to the personality. This is an exploration of memory, recognition and identity that raises the age-old question of the relationship between the 'brain' and the 'mind'.

The Man Who is a difficult play, and that is perhaps why it has so rarely been performed. At moments the tragic figures it presents elicit a helpless sense of pity; at other times one feels like a voyeuristic observer. The speed with which the cast transforms into different characters creates a montage of physical symptoms that, at times, depersonalises the patients.

Sacks' writing is deliberately subjective, he writes as a doctor deeply involved with his patients. In contrast, the doctors in this production are sympathetic yet detached. A patient with hemi-inattention, who has lost the idea of 'left' is asked to shave by a doctor who then takes a photograph. His cry 'Why are you doing this?' leaves the audience with an uncomfortable sense of ogling a freak show. The play is a struggle on these occasions when the audience is alienated from the patients, experiencing them as the embodiment of symptoms rather than as individuals. Whilst this reflects these patients' own inability to connect, it fails to capture the essence of Sack's writing; his interest in these patients, not as diseased organisms to be pitied but as complex human beings who provoke profound questions about the nature of personal identity.

Like Nietzsche, Sacks raises the question of what constitutes a pathology; he insists that neuroscientific explanation reaches its limit when it tries to account for judgement. This is beautifully articulated in his title story where Sacks, observing his patient's (Dr P in the book) artwork, judges his progression from naturalism to abstract art to be the patient's pathology advancing. He is criticised as a philistine by the patient's wife, who insists that this is artistic development, upon which Sacks muses: 'There is often a struggle, and sometimes, even more interestingly, a collusion between the powers of pathology and creation' (p16). Sacks is fascinated by the relationship between Dr P's musical inner life and the loss of his sense of representation. Strangely in the play, the character describes his musical inner life to the audience; there is no real attempt to communicate his internal world using music. We are not invited to share Dr P's experience, and therefore we remain external, 'sane' observers.

This production is most engaging when it does invite the audience to challenge the 'health' of their own perspective; an ambition suggested by the wastepaper basket that hangs from the wall of an otherwise minimalist set. Lorenzo Martelli's portrayal of 'The Ticker Man' is exceptional in the humanity that he brings to this character. His wit, energy and his anger is both symptomatic of his Tourette's and a response to it. Significantly, in Sacks' study this patient decides to take his medicine during the week, but at the weekend allows himself the creative and wild surges he experiences as intrinsic to his personality. Brook's Ticker only expresses hatred for his 'disease', but it is a testament to Martelli's performance that he creates a rounded and humorous personality, and successfully conveys the complexity of the relationship between his Tourette's and his identity. Significantly, the relationship between doctor and patient has more depth here, and this is expressed by Ticker's provocative claim: 'Doctor Sacks, you just ticked!'

The questions raised by these patients cannot be reduced to or resolved by physiology. One patient insists that he is asleep, dramatically enacting the problem of philosophical scepticism; who are we to judge him mad? And Sacks claims that the story of Dr P may serve as a parable for science itself: 'Our cognitive sciences are themselves suffering from an agnosia essentially similar to Dr P … of what happens to a science which eschews the judgmental, the particular, the personal and becomes entirely abstract and computational' (p19).

But in portraying these patients in a rapid clinical fashion, Brooks' adaptation leaves little room for exploring the complexity of the doctor/patient/audience relationship. The play is most engaging in those moments when the audience's objectivity is challenged, moments when characters come alive as complex personalities. Yet, in contrast to Sack's writing, this production too often places the audience in the position of detached observer, pitying these patients rather than reflecting on the profound questions they raise.

The Man Who is at the Pleasance Theatre till 9 May 2004.