What do you think?
Rate this book
Hansard
Hansard; noun The official report of all parliamentary debates. It’s a summer’s morning in 1988 and Tory politician Robin Hesketh has returned home to the idyllic Cotswold house he shares with his wife of 30 years, Diana. But all is not as blissful as it seems. Diana has a stinking hangover, a fox is destroying the garden, and secrets are being dug up all over the place. As the day draws on, what starts as gentle ribbing and the familiar rhythms of marital sparring quickly turns to blood-sport. A witty and devastating new play. Hansard premiered at the National Theatre, London, in August 2019.
96 pages, Paperback
Published June 9, 2020
6 people are currently reading
44 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 13, 2019
Update: Having now seen the NT Live film of the play, I can unequivocally state it is absolutely unmissable. Jeffries and particularly Duncan are brilliant and I would not be surprised if they, and the play itself, swept all theatre awards in London this year.
Recently premiered at the National Theatre, Woods' debut two-hander play seems an unlikely amalgamation of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Private Lives (a determination I had come to on my own, but then saw at least two reviews had reached the exact same conclusion!) Although those reviews were decidedly mixed (the Guardian churlishly objected to a bit of fun at their own expense!), and I did have a bit of a qualm whether the relentlessly witty banter might grow wearisome over the brief running time of the play, I am sure the original cast of Lindsay Duncan and Alex Jeffries were able to cover over such slight deficiencies. Being a Yank, a few of the UK references flew right over my head, but I don't think that detracted much from my enjoyment. And the brilliance of the last few pages and the final coup de grace were genuinely touching and unexpected.
Recently premiered at the National Theatre, Woods' debut two-hander play seems an unlikely amalgamation of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Private Lives (a determination I had come to on my own, but then saw at least two reviews had reached the exact same conclusion!) Although those reviews were decidedly mixed (the Guardian churlishly objected to a bit of fun at their own expense!), and I did have a bit of a qualm whether the relentlessly witty banter might grow wearisome over the brief running time of the play, I am sure the original cast of Lindsay Duncan and Alex Jeffries were able to cover over such slight deficiencies. Being a Yank, a few of the UK references flew right over my head, but I don't think that detracted much from my enjoyment. And the brilliance of the last few pages and the final coup de grace were genuinely touching and unexpected.
November 20, 2019
(4.5)
You don't catch the mood of the electorate. You create it.
Is that right?
You teach them what to want. And then you promise to give it to them. You. Your newspapers. You create anxiety and then you exploit it.
Oh my God, it's like spending the day with Noam Chomsky.
Because your words matter. You people in politics. Why can't you see that?
You don't catch the mood of the electorate. You create it.
Is that right?
You teach them what to want. And then you promise to give it to them. You. Your newspapers. You create anxiety and then you exploit it.
Oh my God, it's like spending the day with Noam Chomsky.
Because your words matter. You people in politics. Why can't you see that?
October 13, 2019
went to see this last night at the National Theatre and was left in tears.
made me angry and upset and longing for more.
a few waffily moments, but well executed!
bought the script and read it (I need to stop treating plays as “audiobooks” when I see them just to up my reading pile haha 😂)
made me angry and upset and longing for more.
a few waffily moments, but well executed!
bought the script and read it (I need to stop treating plays as “audiobooks” when I see them just to up my reading pile haha 😂)
March 10, 2025
Slightly contrived plot and melodramatic spatts (must have been exhausting to see live?) and yet, a good read!
March 1, 2024
Woods offers witty quips. But his plot, with its contrived twist, is weak. It swerves from comedy to melodrama, leaving his characters seeming unconvincing.
July 22, 2020
This quiet, startling play is nominally a contentious tête-a-tête between a conservative member of parliament and his liberal wife. Verbal sparring gradually peels the onion of a marriage revealing long-buried pain. This highly moving and personal tale is couched in a political debate about the state of affairs in 1988 UK, but could just as easily be today thematically.
June 11, 2022
I didn't think it was possible to love a two-hander, but here we are.
I thought this was brilliant. It got under my skin hilariously, slowly, steadily, and then all of a sudden everything dropped out and I was not ok, and it just kept going until it burst into a very theatrical moment (of a film projection, ironically enough), and then it ended and I was in tears, devastated.
Anyway, this is good.
I thought this was brilliant. It got under my skin hilariously, slowly, steadily, and then all of a sudden everything dropped out and I was not ok, and it just kept going until it burst into a very theatrical moment (of a film projection, ironically enough), and then it ended and I was in tears, devastated.
Anyway, this is good.
December 27, 2023
I can't say I understood all (or even most) of the 80s British political references but I was still super engaged. It's so sad but I am glad the play doesn't present the woman as necessarily in the right. I was completely entranced by her character and totally on her side until that ending, and I feel like it adds much more nuance and realism for both of the characters to be very much both flawed people. Really surprisingly good and twisty despite it only being one continuous scene.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 18, 2019
Clever, heartbreaking, and funny. For me, it ventures into didactism too much.
July 19, 2023
As wrenching to read as it was to see.
August 10, 2023
This one cuts to the core. Sharp, electric dialogue in this epic, domestic two hander. I drank in every last word as these two far away spouses come to terms with themselves, their country and the consequences of their actions.
Woods is deeply invested in the relationship between Robin and Diana. His stage directions read almost like a narrator, empathy pouring out at both ends, knowing just how the situation might be fixed but unable to do a thing about it.
Excellent theatre.
Woods is deeply invested in the relationship between Robin and Diana. His stage directions read almost like a narrator, empathy pouring out at both ends, knowing just how the situation might be fixed but unable to do a thing about it.
Excellent theatre.
November 6, 2025
excellent writing but depressing af
February 3, 2020
This play carries a lot of emotional weight. It follows a failing marriage ruined by a husbands ideology. This ideology is seen to be sparked by Thatcher-era conservatism.
The play holds a strong message that ‘section 28 of the amended local government act (1988)’ was the kind of pernicious ideology that crushes an individual. The young man’s death story told by his mother was harrowing, and as a root or explanation for their divide in marriage it was cohesive. It also carried a conclusive argument against the act- the fact that a young gay person lost the right to acquire help which they obviously need.
The play had little fault. It was a fast-paced read that enticed the reader to turn the page. It would’ve been even more exciting to watch. The marriage was also believable- with well crafted dialogue solidifying it in reality.
A very tight and emotional script. Very commendable.
The play holds a strong message that ‘section 28 of the amended local government act (1988)’ was the kind of pernicious ideology that crushes an individual. The young man’s death story told by his mother was harrowing, and as a root or explanation for their divide in marriage it was cohesive. It also carried a conclusive argument against the act- the fact that a young gay person lost the right to acquire help which they obviously need.
The play had little fault. It was a fast-paced read that enticed the reader to turn the page. It would’ve been even more exciting to watch. The marriage was also believable- with well crafted dialogue solidifying it in reality.
A very tight and emotional script. Very commendable.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 25, 2019
I feel like this play was very well constructed but ultimately lacked.... something. I don't know how to explain it but something wasn't all the way there. The dialogue felt very real and it was quick on its feet. But something about it felt like an exercise in playwrighting. I may have trouble empathizing with the main characters for spoiler reasons, which might have something to do with it. However, I do think Woods is very talented and I very much look forward to seeing how his work develops over his career.
The reason I have trouble empathizing with these characters is definitely to do with the fact that this was a play about the fall out of Robin and Diana Hesketh's son's suicide against the backdrop of his father voting in favor of Section 28. And I am personally exhausted with the "gay kids are just going to have a hard life and that's how it is" rhetoric of my parents and of Robin and Diana. It reminds me of how my own mother uses the "I can't be queerphobic my child is gay" excuse when she falls down on LGBTQ+ issues. I say this being well aware that Robin and Diana are my parents' age. But I definitely don't have much sympathy for them beyond acknowledging the pain of a child's suicide.
The reason I have trouble empathizing with these characters is definitely to do with the fact that this was a play about the fall out of Robin and Diana Hesketh's son's suicide against the backdrop of his father voting in favor of Section 28. And I am personally exhausted with the "gay kids are just going to have a hard life and that's how it is" rhetoric of my parents and of Robin and Diana. It reminds me of how my own mother uses the "I can't be queerphobic my child is gay" excuse when she falls down on LGBTQ+ issues. I say this being well aware that Robin and Diana are my parents' age. But I definitely don't have much sympathy for them beyond acknowledging the pain of a child's suicide.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews