“…read around what you are told.” Lucinda Borrell on ‘Us Two’

As Us Two is your debut play, how have you found the process of bringing a script to life?

So obvious bringing Us Two to life is still a work in progress, but it’s been really exciting. The final version of the play is very different – much tighter than the first draft, so the evolutionary process of writing it has been very insightful. Obviously I write as a journalist, so I’m used to re-drafting etc but this is a different level because there’s so much of it. I think for me, the key “wow” moment was actually at the auditions when we had all these amazing actors reading out the parts and for me it was really the first time I’d heard the lines read aloud for the first time in someone else’s voice. It was actually really emotional.

You’re an investigative journalist, your character Lizzy is also an investigative journalist. Would you be friends, or strictly colleagues?

That’s a really difficult one, because their are moments with Lizzy where in my head I’m like ‘girl you are being pretty mean right now’ but a lot of that is for good reason. Sometimes I’m like ‘wow you really do care a LOT’. I think the one thing Lizzy and I both have in common is a fighting spirit and it could go either way. If we were on the same team? I think we’d work well together – and because high pressure environments can be so intense – you often find you forge friendships with the people you work well with even if in the ‘real world’ you might not naturally be drawn to one another. Some of my closest friends to this day have been formed in ‘baptism of fire’ situations. If we were pitted opposite each other I don’t think that friendship would form but I definitely think we’d have a mutual respect for one another – like we wouldn’t be double crossing each other and stabbing each other in the back.

With a background so rooted in finding the truth, how have you found creating two fictional characters?

​Surprisingly easy actually. I think all good fiction is based on a grander universal truth. Particularly with something like Us Two which is so character driven. While both characters are obviously not real, the psychology behind their belief structure is something that is pretty genuine. I think understanding people is quite important in journalism. For example, there are certain things in my life that I’ve never experienced, or I don’t agree with, but if I’m interviewing some-one or writing about a movement, I think its so important to understand what it is psychologically that leads them there – and that’s something people have commented on previously that I’m able to do. Its why a lot of people trust me with their stories – that and the non threatening accent lol.

I think with Us Two and creating these characters, even though they aren’t real, its been about applying that understanding of human psychology to a fictional situation and then suddenly these two characters just appeared in my head.

I think something like Harry Potter is a prime example. Now I bow down to Rowling’s talent and I’m not saying I am anywhere near as amazing as she is, but the whole grander ethos behind Harry Potter and the Dark Wizards vs inferior muggles kind of stems from real prejudices in our society. and Rowling generally seems to understand where they come from pretty well.  Even within the text there are a lot of holocaust references and imagery – so all of these characters stem from real world issues and beliefs. While obviously that doesn’t guarantee a work is going to be a masterpiece it does give a writer a good solid foundation upon which to build characters if they have the skill to do it. I’m hoping audiences think I have that skill.

I guess the same principles apply to all fictional writings whether that’s a best selling children’s novel to a small show at The Space theatre.

The #MeToo movement is incredibly emotionally charged, yet you’ve been able to communicate two very plausible perspectives and differing views on it, how hard is it to remain impartial as a writer?

Thanks for the compliment – I’m glad you think they are plausible. I always worry that I see things a certain way and the rest of the world is going to be like “awe sweetie – just, NO”

To be honest, I don’t feel I have remained THAT impartial as a writer. I think as a writer I’ve been less impartial than I am as a journalist. However what I think has happened is that each time I write or read the script, the character I am biased against flips. So at some points in the writing process I was less favourable towards Beth – and interestingly in the first few drafts her story arch was a LOT weaker. Then next draft I was less inclined to like Lizzy, so Beth had a stronger arch. Each time I read the script I side with a different character – so I would say I’m not impartial at all. Its just that my bias towards one character over the whole creative process totals the same level of bias I hold towards another at different points. So it cancels out. Does that make any sense at all?

When casting the show, each actor initially came in to read for their opposite number but you cross-cast, why did you make this decision?

Because we are evil! Just kidding. So our director Therese pretty much ran the audition process and she has some amazing visions for the show. We asked each actor to prepare one part specifically – the one they wanted to audition for. We then made them read for both part. I think the idea behind this was to see what acting choices were made when actors had a chance to really think about it, and what choices they made instinctively. We did this as a group audition We then had one on one chats about their choices after the audition.

There were two things interesting that I found about the process. Firstly the majority of the actors on the older end of our casting range chose to read for Beth having identified with her more and this was something that they openly discussed throughout the process. However the actors on the younger end of the spectrum all prepared for Lizzy. More interesting a large portion of the younger actors when we spoke to them after about which part they preferred and why were like “I’m going to be honest, I’d prepared for Lizzy, she is my preference, at a push but after reading Beth as well in the audition process if I HAD to choose I think she’s now my preference because …”

Actually I was a bit worried that making the actors read something they hadn’t prepped would make the audition a bit too stressful for them. But actually when I was grabbing them for the one on one interviews they were all upstairs in the bar socialising. I think half of them swapped numbers and things like that. There were a lot of comments on how pleasant an experience the whole thing had been which was lovely to hear.

And finally, in an age of fake news and mistrust, do you have any words for people who still seek the truth?

​I would say read around what you are told. So if you are told a story from one source of info – lets say The Sun look for the same story in other papers or websites with different biases and you can figure out what’s legit and what’s not by the bits being reported that they have in common.

Also please do trust in experts. A prime example I’ve got is recently a dude on twitter (the most unreliable source ever by the way, a dude on twitter) told me the gender pay gap didn’t exist. I pointed to a number of Government figures and economic research that proved it did and his response was that “it didn’t exist because women have babies.” Now if he’d said it existed BECAUSE women had babies we could have engaged in a sensible discussion on whether the current reporting was fair or whether I agreed with what he was saying. But he simply said “the experts are wrong”.

Which leads me on to another thing. Don’t trust social media as your only source of news. Naturally on social media sites you are going to follow people who you identify with or like. So if you are liberal, the majority of your newsfeeds will have a natural liberal bias because you follow people who think like you and share information that adheres to their ideals. The same if you are more to the right of the political spectrum. This is part of the problem as to how fake news spreads so quickly.

Having said that, I do follow Katie Hopkins. She’s just so ridiculous and irrelevant to the world and to be honest her hate filled tweets always cheer me up a bit if I’m feeling down about something. Its like looking at something and being like ‘well things are bad right now, but at least I’m not HER’. Also any facts she tweets out – take with a pinch of salt.

January 21st – 25th

BOOK HERE