The stage production 'Safe Haven' offers a sombre portrayal of the 1991 Kurdish uprising in Iraq, replete with diplomats and high-stakes negotiations. However, it falls short in its execution, failing to deliver an engaging narrative that truly captures the complexities of the conflict.
At the heart of the play are characters Clive and Catherine, two British diplomats navigating the intricacies of international politics, but their personalities remain woefully underdeveloped. They serve more as archetypes than fully fleshed-out individuals, with dialogue that feels forced and predictable. The introduction of Al-Tikriti, a character with potential to add depth, is instead relegated to a brief cameo.
The true heroes of this production are the Kurdish people themselves, who are given short shrift in terms of representation on stage. We catch glimpses of Najat's desperation as she clings to life amidst the chaos, and her brother's quiet bravery as he advocates for his community's plight. Yet these powerful moments are snatched away from us all too soon, leaving the audience wanting more.
One cannot help but feel that this production is, at its core, an exercise in diplomacy rather than drama. The tension builds slowly, with characters making calculated moves and trading blows of rhetoric. It's a far cry from the intense action we might expect in a play about war and resistance.
The director, Mark Giesser, seems to have prioritized exposition over emotional resonance, resulting in scenes that feel more like an information dump than genuine character moments. Even the setting shifts between Whitehall, press conferences, and isolated mountain peaks, each one feeling more like a prop than a lived-in environment.
Ultimately, 'Safe Haven' feels like an overlooked chapter in Iraq's turbulent history, eclipsed by more prominent events like the invasion of Kuwait or the US's subsequent occupation. It deserves better – more nuance, more depth, and above all, more focus on the experiences of those most affected by it. As it stands, this production is a missed opportunity to explore the complexities of war and resistance in the region.
At the heart of the play are characters Clive and Catherine, two British diplomats navigating the intricacies of international politics, but their personalities remain woefully underdeveloped. They serve more as archetypes than fully fleshed-out individuals, with dialogue that feels forced and predictable. The introduction of Al-Tikriti, a character with potential to add depth, is instead relegated to a brief cameo.
The true heroes of this production are the Kurdish people themselves, who are given short shrift in terms of representation on stage. We catch glimpses of Najat's desperation as she clings to life amidst the chaos, and her brother's quiet bravery as he advocates for his community's plight. Yet these powerful moments are snatched away from us all too soon, leaving the audience wanting more.
One cannot help but feel that this production is, at its core, an exercise in diplomacy rather than drama. The tension builds slowly, with characters making calculated moves and trading blows of rhetoric. It's a far cry from the intense action we might expect in a play about war and resistance.
The director, Mark Giesser, seems to have prioritized exposition over emotional resonance, resulting in scenes that feel more like an information dump than genuine character moments. Even the setting shifts between Whitehall, press conferences, and isolated mountain peaks, each one feeling more like a prop than a lived-in environment.
Ultimately, 'Safe Haven' feels like an overlooked chapter in Iraq's turbulent history, eclipsed by more prominent events like the invasion of Kuwait or the US's subsequent occupation. It deserves better – more nuance, more depth, and above all, more focus on the experiences of those most affected by it. As it stands, this production is a missed opportunity to explore the complexities of war and resistance in the region.
it's like they took the essence of the Kurdish uprising but didn't really dig deep enough. The characters are so 1D, you know? Clive and Catherine are just your standard diplomats with no real backstory or motivation. And Al-Tikriti, the one with potential, comes in and out without making any impact. Meanwhile, the Kurds themselves are basically ignored... 
I mean, Najat's desperation is palpable for like 2 seconds and then it's over? It feels like they're just using them as props to convey the politics of the situation. The tension builds up slowly, but it's all so predictable. The director seems more interested in info-dumping than actually creating emotional moments. It's like watching a history lesson, not a drama 
, it felt like you could be right there in Whitehall during the negotiations. But what let it down was the characters, I just couldn't connect with Clive and Catherine, they felt more like caricatures than real people 
. And don't even get me started on Al-Tikriti, he deserved so much more screen time! 
The Kurdish people's story is so important to tell and I was disappointed that it got short shrift on stage. It felt more like a lecture on diplomacy than an actual drama 
. With some tweaks, this could have been a really powerful play but as it stands... 
. I mean, where's the emotional connection? We get a glimpse of this amazing woman Najat, but it's not enough - she deserves more screen time! 
And what about the rest of the Kurdish people? They're the ones who are really fighting for their lives, but we barely see them on stage 
. The director seemed to focus too much on explaining everything instead of making us feel something 
. I want to see more character development and emotional connection between the actors 
. We need a show that takes risks and tackles the tough stuff, not just a historical reenactment 
. And yeah, Najat's storyline was a highlight for me too 
- it feels like her character deserved way more development 
. The director must've been going for a slow-burning tension vibe, but it just comes across as boring 
...
It was so underwhelming. First off, the characters were so flat, like cardboard cutouts. Clive & Catherine were just your generic diplomats, no depth or development at all. And don't even get me started on Al-Tikriti, he came and went like a fleeting thought. The Kurdish people were barely represented on stage... it was like they were an afterthought.
. And don't even get me started on the setting – it feels like they just threw some random locations together without thinking about how they'd impact the story 
safe haven sounds like a super underwhelming experience to me - who needs diplomats as cardboard cutouts when you've got actual people suffering on stage?! let's give more love to the kurdish people, not just their experiences but also their stories and struggles. it's just so frustrating when a play falls flat like this 
.
. The tension was slow-burning, but it just didn't feel like it was building towards anything impactful. It felt more like a dry lecture on diplomacy than an actual drama.
. It's just not an enjoyable watch, you know?
. I know it's hard to capture everything, but Najat's scenes felt super brief... what did they want us to take away from those moments? 
! I get what the director was trying to do with all the diplomacy and negotiation scenes, but honestly it's just kinda dry reading. Where's the emotional depth? The tension? It feels like they prioritized info dumping over actual character moments 
.
they must've poured their hearts into this production but it just didn't quite come together 
it's like they were trying to convey a powerful message but got lost in the details 
they're the real heroes of this story 
. The whole thing just feels like a dry recitation of events instead of an actual drama 
. I was expecting some real tension and conflict, but it was all so... diplomatic 
. The Kurdish people deserve so much better than to just have a few seconds on stage 
. This production is missing the point entirely 
But for me, it felt like it was more about info-dumping than actual character development 
You get these epic scenes where characters are makin' deals and whatnot, but it's all so... detached 
But to me, 'Safe Haven' feels like an opportunity that went untapped 
. And don't even get me started on the director's choice to make everything feel like an info dump