I, I wanted there to be a really strong contrast between Acts 1 and 2, Act 1 is expansive. It's quite playful, it's full of possibilities. It's full of people's dreams and ambitions. The direct address gives it a sort of overtly kind of story like quality. And then Act 2, I wanted it to feel as though we'd come down to earth with a bump, that we were in a much more real world, that we were in the middle of something, somewhere where things were disappointing, where there was a huge amount of compromise involved, where all the possibilities seem to be closed down. In performance, obviously there's, it's, we closed it down in that, in the first half there was this sort of sense of fluidity and just the odd little bit of furniture to suggest a certain space. Or a certain, you know, that we were, wherever we were in Jamaica, in a yard outside the house, or whether we were in Queenie's sitting room, there'd just be one or two bits of furniture. In the second half, we had much more structured, solid iterations of rooms and spaces of Queenie's house, of the front room, of the bedroom, et cetera. Because we wanted to get that sense of this being a much more, a much more grounded, realistic, as it were sort of approach. So yeah, I come back, I did, I cut out the direct address until right at the very end when all of them just say a few lines to the audience and there's that kind of acknowledgement of the fact that this has also been part of the story. But there's a more straightforward, kind of realistic structure to the scenes in the second half. And yeah, there's, there isn't that, that sort of luxury of the direct address.