Actor Simon MacCorkindale helps Kerry Ann Eustice unravel the mysteries of Anthony Shaffer's play Sleuth, before it opens at The Churchill next week

Were you aware the play coincides with the release of the modern Sleuth movie on DVD?

Oh god, does it? I'm surprised they're even bothering to release it. I suppose they've got to make some money somehow. It's been a bit of a disaster.

Have you seen the recent film version?

I haven't. Deliberately didn't want to see it at this time. But I do know an awful lot about it and they've not got it right.

Do you think the poor reception and reviews for the film will have any impact on your stage version?

We don't know if it had any impact on our production at all. It's possible it might in a negative way. There might be one or two people who think that's what they're coming to see.

But I don't think there are that many people who've been to the cinema to see it, to be honest. I'm not sure if that directly is a problem because so few people have seen the movie, so the idea they are not going to see the play as a result, is not particularly significant.

There will be a lot of people who'll be aware that the film came out and wasn't successful and that's all they'll know.

They might say why would I want to go and see that play when the new movie is not that successful? Maybe the play is dated, maybe it doesn't work'.

So I think we may be slightly tarred by a negative brush which is a terrible shame because the movie has absolutely no bearing at all on the play.

"I'm amazed they can even call it Sleuth, there's nothing about the recent movie that resembles the play at all."

It's completely different. There's a hardly a word of dialogue that's the same. The very basic premise is the same but that's as much as it is. It's modernised and has a completely different flavour to it.

Anything anybody has read or seen about the current movie Sleuth has nothing to do with what they will see in the theatre.

Tell me about the production and how it differs from the film?

We are doing exceptionally good business and everyone loves it. People have forgotten or don't know the play is also extremely funny and it's a full evening of entertainment. It's not just a thriller in the true sense of the word thriller.

The modern film has no humour in it whatsoever; I gather it's a relentless thrashing of two people being fairly unpleasant to each other. By nature of the fact it is a film, it isn't as riotously funny as it is when you see it happening in front of you on a stage.

I don't think many people, if we talked about Sleuth as the 1970s film, would think of something with a lot of humour in it. So that part of the evening is not evident until you come to the show.

Were you a fan of the original film?

Yes, I was absolutely. I loved the play completely and loved the movie. I only ever saw it once and still have some very strong images from it, I still can remember. I saw it back in the 1970s, it's not as if I have seen it recently. I deliberately haven't seen it recently; I wanted to be as fresh with my own version as possible.

Quite rightly it was a popular and highly acclaimed piece of work. But it doesn't have the same flavour the play has. I think it's a very important ingredient in selling it to your audience that what they come to is a complete evening of entertainment.

"I only saw the 1970s film version of Sleuth once and still have some very strong images from it."

There are laughs in the first speech and virtually laughs in the last speech and bits in the middle which are pure farce. Everything you could want from an evening in the theatre.

What do you specifically enjoy about the piece?

It's wonderfully crafted. Anthony Shaffer has done a fantastic job with what he set out to do, which was to write the pastiche of all pastiches of all detective stories. That's what he's done and in doing so has written something very funny.

Do you get to do much stage work?

I haven't done as much as I'd like to have done which is one of the reasons I've gone back into it. I did quite a lot of theatre when I was younger and then got into TV and film and had a period of 20 years when I didn't do anything on the stage.

It was only last year I came back with The Unexpected Guest.

How have you found your return to the stage?

Fantastic. I took to it like stepping back on a bike last year which led them to asking me back this year. I really wanted to do it. It's a great opportunity but I haven't done an enormous amount in recent years.

Did you leave Casualty to pursue more stage roles?

Absolutely. It all came together. I'd been in Casualty a long time and I thought it was time for a change. I did The Unexpected Guest last year and they gave me a sabbatical from Casualty for five months so I was able to fit the play in. And that was a very deliberate choice to do a play at that time, to get back into the saddle and from that they asked me if I'd like to do this.

"I'd been in Casualty a long time and I thought it was time for a change. The play came up and I was beginning to think it was time for me to move on."

I said yes, I would like to do this and stretch myself again. Particularly since it's not just another play, it's a complete evening in the theatre and from an actor's point of view; it makes you earn your keep.

Was it a hard decision to make?

These things are always big decisions. I was still enjoying it enormously and have great respect for the show and people. I just felt, there comes a point when another opportunity comes. You weigh them up and I didn't want to get stuck.

I didn't want to get into a situation where I felt I wasn't enjoying it as much as I was, and not being able to contribute in the same way and be as much value to the show. So I thought get out while you are, as it were, on top.

"It's not an easy decision because turning down regular work and all those sorts of things is difficult, particularly with a show you love."

They came together, so it became a relatively easy decision but at the same time it's not an easy decision because turning down regular work and all those sorts of things is difficult, particularly with a show you love. The moment just came.

Any chance you'll be going back to the show in the future?

The door has been left open, so yes. It's not my intention to and I don't think it's the BBC's intention to but you never know. You never say never. It's there as an option and if I was asked I'd be flattered. If there was good reason for it, it's not outside the bounds of possibility.

Is there any other work in the pipeline?

Nothing at the moment because we're doing this play and there's a vague possibility we might be coming to the West End, so until that decision is made we don't quite know.

That would be very interesting, I'd love to come into the West End with it and I think, judging from the reaction we're getting from audiences around the country, it has a real life in the theatre and should be there. It would do very well.

Was it tricky for you to step into a role Laurence Olivier once played? Did you think about it at all?

I thought about it a lot. And still do. It's a tricky one. It's tricky because the play itself is the thing here. It's been structured by Anthony Shaffer and the role has been created by him.

"It's very difficult not to play it with shades of Olivier because effectively that is the character. I thought about it a lot. And still do."

I'm not saying Olivier didn't add anything to it because that would be absolutely ridiculous, but in essence the body of Andrew Wyke is Antony Shaffer, not Olivier.

It's very difficult not to play it with shades of Olivier because effectively that is the character. Some of the things I thought, even when I saw the movie 100 years ago, before I even knew the play, I thought that's an Olivierism' but then I thought no its not that's what Antony wrote, it was Anthony's idea. So you end up feeling like you're slightly copying Olivier if you're not careful.

Trying to join it all together is quite difficult. Plus, I'm playing it 15 years younger than most people play it, including Olivier. I'm the youngest person to play it, I think, in this sort of professional arena and in a production of this level. Most people are 65, 70, not my age.

Do you think this has any impact on the action in anyway?

It's had an impact on the action, I suspect. It's always been an energetic piece, it may be a little more energetic perhaps it might have been if I were 10 years older. I'm closer in age to Michael who plays the other part and I think that's been interesting because it makes my character Andrew less of a bully and it's more of an even battle between the two men. I think this is of a benefit to the play, certainly in the modern idiom.

It just means Andrew is a mean, nasty person and not quite so much of a bully because the guy he is fighting against is more of an equal.

It is a plus in terms of how this works and I think it may also enhance the humour because people don't feel so uncomfortable about watching an older man being really unpleasant to a younger person. When it becomes even, the sparring becomes funnier.

It's interesting how such small changes can alter the outcome this way, don't you think?

It doesn't take much. This art form of acting is very interesting in just the sheer timing of a line if you get it right it's funny, if you don't it's not.

It's interesting how subtle those differences can be and it may not spoil anybody's enjoyment if they don't find it hysterically funny, they may just be mildly amused, but you can actually take them to the next stage of laughter by doing something in another kind of way, with a different kind of timing and so forth.

And yes any subtle changes in a dynamic do change the outcome of the piece. It's great, I love all that. As I say, there are some lightly amusing moments, there are some very funny moments, there are moments which verge on farce and there are some very nasty twists and turns as well.

You mentioned earlier the danger of copying Olivier in the Andrew Wyke role. For the recent Sleuth film, a few reviewers criticised Michael Cane for doing just that. Do you have any thoughts on his performance?

Well, I don't have real comment on that as I didn't see it. I am going to see the movie because I want to be better informed and be able to answer some of those questions.

I don't know whether Michael was copying Olivier. All I know, in theory, because the movie was so different from the original, there was no need for him to do that because it isn't Olivier's part.

"Bromley is a great venue and, knowing the Bromley audience, I think this is a perfect piece of material for them."

If you play Sleuth as written in 1969 by Andrew Shaffer, there is an invidious comparison with Olivier because that was the role that was written.

All of the twists and turns, ups and downs and funny voices and all of those things were written for the actor to play, they weren't necessarily Olivier's invention.

With Michael in the movie he did have the opportunity to be different because the whole material is completely different.

Is there anything else about Sleuth audiences should know?

I really want to stress that this is entertainment. It's not a thriller in the true sense of the word, you're not comparing this to Agatha Christie and Frances Durbridge. This is a much fuller evening, it's not just a mystery. You will laugh yourself silly.

"It's a festival of fun this piece. It shouldn't be underestimated."

Regional theatres want people to go and have a bloody good time, they are the centre of communities and incredibly important to fill up.

Bromley is a great venue, knowing the Bromley audience, after being there last summer with The Unexpected Guest. I think this is a perfect piece of material for them. It just unravels in front of the audience. It's a festival of fun this piece. It shouldn't be underestimated.

Simon will be appearing in Sleuth from April 14 to April 19 at The Churchill, High Street, Bromley. Box office 0870 0606620 (booking fee applies)