Foxfinder by Dawn King, was the winner of the Papatango New Writing Award in 2011 and also won the Royal National Theatre Foundation Playwright Award. The playwright also won Most Promising Playwright in the Off-West-End Theatre Awards the same year.

The play is set in a possibly not too future England when resources are low and under government control, the weather is out of control with crops failing due to floods. Farmers have the most enviable of all lives with easy access to vegetables, meat and eggs but if a farm does not hit its targets it can be seized by the government and given to someone else. Then the failed farmer is made to work in the city factories and any children would be put in an orphanage. The government even has the right to ask questions about your sex life.

Judith Covey and her husband Samuel run a farm which has been in his family for generations. However, they are fearful because they have been requested to host a Foxfinder, looking for signs of the Nation's enemy. The government blames the fox for all of the nation's problems, including the weather. It is supposedly an honour to have a Foxfinder stay with you but to most farmers it feels like a threat, a sign of a lack of faith. Coupled with the fact that their main crop failed and Samuel was ill after the accidental drowning of their son in the middle of the night, all occurring in March and not reported to the Government, the Covey's are nervous about the reasons for this visit.

We discover, through Sarah Box, a friend and neighbour who, to save her own farm and family, tells William that Samuel did not have the flu. Instead she describes a deep depression in Samuel following the death of their son, leaving Judith to deal with everything on the farm in the midst of her own grief. Sarah also tells William that Judith lied to him about trying for another baby as William has not and will not touch her since the accident. It becomes clear that Samuel blames himself for their son's death and that his sanity is still very fragile.

Sarah is a believer that the foxes were driven out of England years ago and are being used by the Government as an excuse for everything that is wrong including the weather. She puts doubts in the minds of both William and Judith and eventually tells Judith her family is running away to escape William's threats against them. She wants her friend to join them but Judith will not leave Samuel.

Much of the humour in the piece comes from the juxtaposition of our own perception of the current world and the world represented by the play. For example, when the young Foxfinder, William Bloor arrives, he is very stiff and formal, refusing to enter without seeing identification and an invitation from the lady of the house. It was humorous because it was unusual and old fashioned and we were bemused and confused as were Judith and Samuel. Also, when William asks, completely straight-faced and without any embarrassment, which sexual positions are favoured in the household and how often, it made us laugh because it made us uncomfortable as it did the people being asked. So in effect we were also laughing at their discomfort when they could not possibly laugh for themselves. We also laughed at the seemingly absurd notion that a rabbit skull may be a message, that rabbits are our active allies against foxes and that sheep's wool caught randomly on a wire fence is a calculated sign showing where the foxes are. But most frighteningly is that if you do not believe in the foxes and do not admit to seeing signs of their presence, you may be found guilty of collaboration with them or be under their influence.

Foxfinders are raised much like Buddhist Monks; from five years old in very austere conditions, learning to live with very little and abstaining from everything which makes being human worthwhile. This is only William's third or fourth assignment and he has never actually seen a fox. According to the Foxfinder's handbook the 'enemy', the Fox, can bend the human mind to its will and in this way the son's accidental drowning may even have been caused by the foxes. As William spends more time with Judith we a see him struggling with his own sanity and purity, complete with whipping himself to drive out unclean thoughts. But he begins to believe this is the foxes' influence. In fact he is increasingly desperate for it to be the foxes and not his own inadequacy or impurity.

Samuel begins to believe as well but here is where the playwright plays with us slightly. Is Samuel's illness making him believe because he needs to believe the foxes are to blame for his son's death or is it a calculated plan to disarm William, making him doubt himself, at one point believing Samuel can see the beasts when he cannot? Matthew Vickers as Samuel intentionally played the role with little outward emotion, giving nothing away. Commendably, this gave a slight 'creepiness' to his portrayal, meaning we couldn't quite tell if he was actually sliding into madness or coldly planning to push William into insanity instead. This added an extra dimension to the production. Indeed when Vickers, as Samuel caught William 'raping' Judith, (with her grudging consent in order to save the farm), I could almost believe he had planned it to come to this, so that he could justifiably punish William and the Foxfinders in general.

Sarah Topley as Sarah Box and Vicky Harrison as Judith are both new members and were suitably rebellious and resourceful in different ways and quite watchable. I did appreciate that Vicky as Judith in no way tempted William or played the temptress in any way. However both young women could get slightly shrill when emotional, which was often, and I feel they need to learn to ground and centre their voices so that they are easier to listen to and fully understand. Still, I hope to see them in future productions as they are both fine additions to the company.

Christopher Sherwood as William did shine but this is partly because he was so perfectly cast. He does play very well, the serious, contained, restricted and conflicted characters. He looked the part perfectly in his almost Amish suit and hat. He did seem to inhabit this monk-like creature so completely. I was especially struck by one moment when he refused an offer of food from Judith. The extremely brief look of longing as the basket of bread passed by him was quite special mostly in that it was not played up or pointed out with any other movement and was quite possibly missed by much of the audience – but it was there.

Hats off to Director Anna Dimdore and her Assistant Director Tom Redican, for such a tight production of an interesting and potentially difficult-to-watch play. The scenes of William's self-flagellation must have taken some planning as well as the 'rape' and murder scene at the end. The 'rape' scene especially was well done, as it was brutal and animalistic and yet often such scenes can bring uncomfortable laughter from an audience.

And this brings me to the set, lighting and sound, as for me these were what brought the production to a higher level . The music, either found or perhaps written by Phillip Ley, certainly added to the atmosphere especially it wasn't (at least to me) over recognisable. The sounds of the forest also were not overdone. Andy Peregrine out-did even himself with the lighting, adding much to the mood of each scene whether indoors or out. So much is made in the writing of the wet, foul weather that it is almost another character and the lighting certainly assisted in this. However he was greatly aided by the amazing set. Rose Shipman – another new discovery – managed to transform Theatro Technis, as I have never seen it transformed before. The house was made of what looked like shipping pallets and there was an actual small forest of towering birch trees, the floor covered in dry leaves. It certainly created the mood and areas required. My only slight concern was that the house took up a little more depth than perhaps necessary and the platform with William's bed was slightly too straight on and perhaps a little longer than it needed to be, forcing the actors practically into the front row's lap many times as well as into straight lines straight on to the audience. This did cause issue with sightlines occasionally. But I am not a set designer and perhaps there were structural reasons for this that were not obviously apparent.

All in all I thought it a fine production of a compelling and difficult script.

Photography by Robert Piwko