Dealer's Choice premiered at the Royal National Theatre, London, in 1995 and subsequently transferred to the West End. It won the 1995 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy and, the Writers' Guild for Best West End Play.
'An exceptionally accomplished first play . . . though I know nothing about poker, I testify to the compulsive grip this play exerts and to the accumulation of meanings it ignites in your head.' Financial Times
'Patrick Marber's enthralling close-up of the demons which drive compulsive gamblers is among the finest new plays in many a year.' Daily Mail
Patrick Albert Crispin Marber is an English comedian, playwright, director, puppeteer, actor and screenwriter. After working for a few years as a stand-up comedian, Marber was a writer and cast member on the radio shows On the Hour and Knowing Me, Knowing You, and their television spinoffs The Day Today and Knowing Me, Knowing You... with Alan Partridge. Amongst other roles, Marber portrayed the hapless reporter Peter O'Hanrahahanrahan in both On the Hour and The Day Today.
His first play was Dealer's Choice, which he also directed. Set in a restaurant and based around a game of poker (and partly inspired by his own experiences with gambling addiction), it opened at the National Theatre in February 1995, and won the 1995 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy.
After Miss Julie, a version of the Strindberg play Miss Julie, was broadcast on BBC television in the same year. In this, Marber moves the action to Britain in 1945, at the time of the Labour Party's victory in the general election, with Miss Julie as the daughter of a Labour peer. A stage version, directed by Michael Grandage, was first performed 2003 at the Donmar Warehouse, London by Kelly Reilly, Richard Coyle and Helen Baxendale. It later had a production at the American Airlines Theatre on Broadway in 2009.
His play Closer, a comedy of sex, dishonesty and betrayal, opened at the National Theatre in 1997, again directed by Marber. This too won the Evening Standard award for Best Comedy, as well as the Critics' Circle Theatre Awards and Laurence Olivier awards for Best New Play. It has proved to be an international success, having been translated into thirty languages. A screen adaptation, written by Marber, was released in 2004, directed by Mike Nichols and starring Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Clive Owen.
In Howard Katz, his next play, Marber presented very different subject matter: a middle-aged man struggling with life, death and religion. This was first performed in 2001, again at the National Theatre, but was less favourably received by the critics and has been less of a commercial success than some of his other work. A new production by the Roundabout Theatre Company opened Off-Broadway in March 2007, with Alfred Molina in the title role. A play for young people, The Musicians, about a school orchestra's visit to Russia, was performed for the National Theatre's Shell Connections programme in 2004, its first production being at the Sydney Opera House.
Don Juan in Soho, his contemporary rendering of Molière's comedy Don Juan, opened at the Donmar Warehouse in 2006, directed by Michael Grandage and with Rhys Ifans in the lead role.
He also co-wrote the screenplay for Asylum (2005), directed by David Mackenzie, and was sole screenwriter for the film Notes on a Scandal (2006), for which he earned an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.
In 2004, Marber was Cameron Mackintosh Professor of Contemporary Theatre at Oxford University.
I actually think that the rhythms of dialogue in this play are more aesthetically pleasing than in Closer. It doesn't have the same sense of grandeur perhaps, but I prefer it. I always felt that Closer had a touch of cod profundity about it, for all it's well crafted and highly quotable aphorisms. This instead demonstrates Marber's debt to Mamet (at his best).
It's also very much a 90s boys play, but it's no worse for it. The characters are perhaps a little similar, but this does seem like an accurate snapshot of the high-stakes world they inhabit. Lots of female characters might have felt forced, or like unnecessary extra cast members squeezed in there. Also, Marber's experience as a poker player shines through as he's able to use the terminology with accuracy but with a casualness too that makes it all feel very naturalistic. He also has a good eye for comedy. E. G. A drunk refrain of 'Deemonds!' every time a diamond is called. There's a lot of truth in the claim that comedy is well-timed repetition.
Marber is certainly not breaking new ground here: we are definitely in Mamet/McDonough/McPherson territory of testosterone-fueled drama, and the "poker is life" trope is beyond cliche. Even so, this is a fine play, and Marber actually plays things a little more lightly than some of his colleagues, which allows the sadness of the end to have some real bite it. Yes, the play is overstuffed with plot lines that remain underdeveloped, but these are vivid characters you wouldn't mind spending some time with.
Very good. Fast paced and funny, there's a good tension through-out the play, the characters are quite decently motivated. The ending is fine, although a bit more open-ended than plays usually but I believe there's a point there.
Summary: Set in a restaurant, this play focuses on a group of restaurant workers who like to play poker. Stephen is the owner and he seems to be obsessed with the game. One of the waiters, Mugsy, has dreams of opening up a restaurant of his own with Stephen's son, Carl. But he needs money and wants to ask Stephen for a loan. Carl is meant to help persuade his father to give them the money. Meanwhile, Carl owes money to this guy named Ash who turns up at the restaurant to collect but Carl doesn't have the money so he offers to let Ash join their poker game. Carl doesn't want to play but his father insists. Once the restaurant is closed, the men get to their gambling. Ash is winning for the most part but then loses a big hand to Stephen. Stephen realizes that Ash is not Carl's teacher but that his son owes money to him. Ash offers to flip for it with a coin. He gets his money and leaves. Stephen critiques Carl that he could do better with his life but then Carl says he'll see him next week for the game. Review: I think I wasn't minding this one up until the poker scene, which maybe is better if you actually understand the game but even then it just seems a bit boring. Anyway yeah I think it was okay. Grade: C-
Definitely a relic of the in-yer-face era, albeit not as sensationalist or violent as things like BLASTED or MOJO. Poker as a dramatic/theatrical metaphor really works, on the whole, though dramatically this feels a little low-stakes. Still would see in production, though.