Dramatists and architects are alike in that each labours to give tangible form to their conceptions. Sir John Vanbrugh, a member of both professions, excelled at this task whether in the visceral intimacy of a theatrical performance or in the vistas of the English countryside. When creating drama in the theatre grew tiresome and less lucrative, he turned his hand to architecture, first as assistant to Nicholas Hawksmoor, later branching out on his own. Some of England’s finest historic buildings, such as Castle Howard and Blenheim Palace, remain as a testament to his skills, so that today he is known more for his country houses than his comedies.

Like Seaton Deleval Hall in Northumberland, his last architectural commission (he was to die before its completion) in which he produced some of his finest work in a comparatively small house, The Provok’d Wife is the little gem in Vanbrugh larger dramatic oeuvre. The play was first performed in 1697 and in modern times is less frequently staged and less well-known than The Relapse of 1696. The work’s date means that it is counted as one of the very last pieces of so-called ‘restoration drama’, even if it appeared in the reign of William III. It is a bawdy comedy of manners in the vein of Congreve or Wycherley, but with a dark and harsh underbelly of cynicism, which perhaps responds to the waning of the Stuart dynasty at the turn of the century.

Despite its age, the central message of The Provok’d Wife – that a marriage will not be a successful partnership unless based on mutual respect – resonates strongly with modern audiences. It is perhaps appropriate then that Go People, the production company behind this latest London version, is a young company, seemingly with no member over the age of thirty, bringing young eyes to this period drama. If these eyes occasionally fall victim to solecisms, such as incorrectly elevating the central character, Sir John Brute to the peerage in the programme, it is nevertheless fascinating to see which aspects of the play are given prominence in this judiciously cut-down production of ninety-five minutes.

On the evening that I saw it, this touring production took place in St-Giles-in-the-Fields in Holborn. A church, especially the Palladian eighteenth-century space of St Giles, built between 1730 and 1734, seemed a peculiarly appropriate venue for Vanbrugh’s discussion on the tribulations of the married state. The actors’ words reverberated clearly about the sacred space as if taking issue with God himself over the difficulties inherent in marriage.

The play revolves around the unhappy marriage of Sir John and Lady Brute, who – as we discover in the first scene – have married for the wrong reasons: he to satiate his lust and she for his estate and position. Their union, as was not unusual at a time when marriage for advantage was a common occurrence, has resulted in neither stable contentment nor the growth of love between them. On the contrary, Sir John’s harsh treatment of his wife has led her to contemplate seeking solace in the arms of the gallant Constant. This man, despite loving Lady Brute from afar for two years, is not however free from more cynical motives in his wooing of the virtuous gentlewoman.

This dark entanglement at the heart of the play is balanced by the antics of Constant’s best friend, Heartfree, who is pursued by the vainglorious and vapid Lady Fancyfull. The eventual marriage of the sensible Heartfree, not (thankfully) to Fancyfull, but to Lady Brute’s niece Belinda adds something of a happy ending. However, neither Heartfree nor Belinda are entirely sure that the married state will suit them and both enter it with trepidation at its risks, despite their love. Marriage, throughout this piece, stands as a bond for life, and as the opening preamble for the Solemnization of Matrimony says, ‘is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained’. Vanbrugh’s main characters, the Brutes, have obviously failed to heed this warning and at the end of the play are continuing to pay a heavy price.

Sir John Brute, one of the great comic roles of the English stage, notably played by David Garrick, is a difficult character to inhabit. He must be cruel and harsh yet also sustain a vital comedic presence. This tricky part was not always convincingly filled by Oliver Kaderbhai, although as the evening wore on he appeared to grow into the role, displaying both comic power and pathos when adorned with cuckold’s horns. I was given to understand that Mr Kaderbhai also directed the production and took over the role at short notice which perhaps explains his uncertainty in the first half. His words, often directed with menace rather than bluffness, led to a different reading of the character than is usual and this was emphasised by two scenes of domestic violence towards Lady Brute (at home and at Spring Gardens in Vauxhall, where she is disguised and he mistakes her for a strumpet). The original stage directions show Sir John shouting but not physically laying hands on his wife and it is perhaps reflective of modern preoccupations that his hearty, often boorish masculinity is here represented as vicious and violent misogyny.

Lady Brute, the provoked wife, is also a difficult character in a difficult position, asking late in the play for example, ‘Can his faults release my duty?’ In other words, is her husband’s unkindness sufficient excuse for her to break her marriage vows? Lucy Eaton was serene and well-placed in this part, although I would have liked to see more depth of feeling in displaying the emotional turmoil beneath her calm countenance. Rose Riley as Belinda was witty and wise-cracking, inhabiting her role with feeling and fervour. Freddie Hutchins as Heartfree was a delight: cynical yet wise, with both breadth of emotion and excellent comedic attributes, and his double act with Mark Donald as Constant was meaningful and emphatic. Mr Donald also made excellent work of the conflicting emotions we see in Constant as his physical desires compete against his possibly genuine feeling for the maligned Lady Brute.

Lady Fancyfull, who provides much-needed comic relief, is a malicious and unpleasant character whose affectations make her both ridiculous and a clearly unworthy future partner for Heartfree. I was unable to establish whether Greer Dale-Foulkes who plays the role is American by birth or played Lady Fancyfull with a flawless American accent. Her performance, whilst amusing and light, was also exceptionally reminiscent of Alicia Silverstone as Cher in the 1995 film Clueless and I could never quite stop expecting her to break out into Cher-isms such as ‘As If! I lead a way normal life for a lady of quality!’ at various points during the performance. Her interplay with Suzie Preece, playing Mademoiselle, was excellent and I liked Ms Preece’s sultry charm and very French aplomb. As so often in restoration-style comedy, some of the best lines went to the smaller characters and Amelia Clay and James Mack proved the maxim that there are no small parts, only small actors. Ms Clay’s facial expressions and stage business showed particularly exquisite comic timing.

The church interior was an excellent backdrop for the play, and the actors inhabited the space well, using the church galleries and minimal props to create scenes. The in-the-round format enabled the audience to feel part of the production but more care needed to be taken both with vocal projection and blocking, which sometimes led to lines being lost. The audience were segregated by gender, presumably to represent the central storyline, but this idea, while interesting, went underused. The play was not period-dress but the costumes and hairstyles were a fun mishmash that suggested the shapes of the period whilst adding a slightly crazy, Alexander McQueen look to the players. I especially liked the recurring feather motifs used to link the costumes together. Music, although minimal, was classical with modern bass notes and added to the atmosphere.

In conclusion I would certainly recommend this version of The Provok’d Wife. It’s great to see period drama being revived with a modern twist and the production has the additional merit of being suitable for children and teenagers as well as those with a taste for Vanbrugh’s work. All in all, a good evening out and I went home thankful for the kindness and consideration of my own husband as compared to Sir John Brute. He may occasionally be provoking, but has never, as yet, been arrested whilst drunk and wearing women’s clothes.

The Provok’d Wife was presented by Go People (www.wearegopeople.com) and tours in various innovative venues in London until March 23rd. Go People will also perform private productions – email enquiries@wearegopeople.com.