The Racket

Two monologues on the war in Iraq are compelling, but offer no new insights

Review by Liz Rawlings | 18 Aug 2007
The 2007 Fringe line-up is unsurprisingly packed with plays exploring the relationships between terrorism, war and the media. All of them vye to win the battle of hearts and minds as the hardest-hitting, post-Iraq production. The Racket is certainly a contender.

Richard Walker’s one-man play tells the story of two men who have both lost loved ones in Iraq. In the first half Walker plays Simon, a war correspondent in Baghdad who has become increasingly disillusioned by war. After the interval Walker’s second persona Kenny takes over the stage. Kenny is a father who has lost both his children in the conflict. He is also an idealist who embarks on a mission to spread the theory of an American general who believed that war is a "racket."

It is this theory which is fundamental to the production, and ingeniously links the monologues and streams of consciousness of Simon and Kenny. The Racket is compelling viewing, delivered with conviction and sensitivity by Walker, exposing the profit motive behind warfare. It is also brilliantly written, capturing and dramatising public opinion on the Iraq war to perfection.

This however, is also the major flaw in the production. The fact that business interests have commercially benefited from the war in Iraq is well known and The Racket offers nothing new on the subject. With stiff competition from other productions exploring new angles of the War on Terror, The Racket is not quite innovative enough to challenge them.