The theatre

[SteveDave]

The Motive And The Cue at the Noel Coward Theatre

Gielgud vs Burton in a clash of big actors.

Mark Gatiss and Johnny Flynn star as them two with Flynn doing a great Burton impression (though it doesn't quite have the gravel of Dick)

From the blurb I thought the actual production of "Hamlet" they're rehearsing for never actually happened as in, it all crumbled before it got to the stage but it did.

A beautiful production centred mostly around the rehearsal room and Burton and Taylor's hotel suite. During set changes (where I could hear the whirring of whatever was being used to move stuff up and down/around) actors would be in front of the curtain doing a bit of "Uncle Bill's" "Hamlet"

[flotemysost]

^ ah nice, I've been tempted to check that out but tickets have always been a bit steep on dates I can make - it sounds good though, cheers for the review!

Rock n' Roll by Tom Stoppard, Hampstead Theatre - big review here for a big play. I went in expecting something fairly intellectual and thesp-y, and in many senses I wasn't wrong. Stoppard's script is characteristically wordy, broaching some hefty themes - the fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia across the latter half of the 20th century; balancing the personal with the political; illness and ageing; and of course, pop music and what it means to us.

In the first half the performances definitely felt a little bit stilted, overly enunciated and theatre school-y to me, which I found a tad grating (possibly bolstered by the nagging shame that I definitely should've paid more attention in History at school, as I basically had no idea what the fuck anyone was talking about).

However Jacob Fortune-Lloyd was charming as Jan, the wide-eyed Czech idealist and rock music fanatic, excited by the promise of cultural freedom; while Nancy Carroll packed a punch as Eleanor/Esme (I'll admit the split casting was one of the things that confused me a bit, couldn't figure out who was who or how they were related).

Music underpins the play's themes; although it's soundtracked by bands I take for granted as having a place in the "rock snob canon" - The Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, Beach Boys, The Doors, etc. - it did make me realise it's a privilege to have access to this stuff, and I can only imagine how important pop music would've been to people in that environment (albeit a point that's hammered home fairly unambiguously in the play).

(shout out for the nice little sound design moment where someone on stage plays a frenetic acoustic arrangement of the intro to Thunderstruck by AC/DC, in a way that makes it sound a bit like it could be a Slavic folk song)

The play's emotional heart came through in the second half, where family and political tensions come to a head. This is more a criticism of the text rather than the production, but I did get the sense sometimes that the women in the play were either" long-suffering stoic wives" or" peripheral girlfriend" characters, and I've got limited patience for yet another plotline about

Spoiler alert

an ageing male academic trying to have an affair with his young enthusiastic female student, yaaawwwnnn

[close]

- however the cast injected real depth and emotional charge into the characters, sometimes very movingly.

So yeah, I still feel extremely thick and convinced I know absolutely nothing about history BUT it was quite good.

[Small Man Big Horse]

The Motive And The Cue at the Noel Coward Theatre

Glad to hear that you enjoyed it SteveDave, I've tickets to see it in March and am very much looking forward to it.

Rock n' Roll by Tom Stoppard, Hampstead Theatre

That was a fascinating read, and I'm not sure it would have been my cup of tea, I like the idea of it but have to confess to not being a big fan of any of the bands you mentioned, and it seems like an awful lot of big themes have been thrown together. I could of course be completely wrong, but unless I can blag a cheap ticket I'll probably give it a miss.

Also, I've just realised that bar his film work I've only ever seen Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, what would you say is his best play?

The Time Traveller's Wife The Musical at the Apollo Theatre - Well this was all a bit odd, there were parts that I enjoyed an awful lot and parts which dragged. I went in knowing nothing about it apart from a friend having commented that Steven Moffat plausibly had been influenced by it when writing the relationship between The Doctor and River Song in Doctor Who, and I can see what he meant though this is far more conventional.

I don't know if this is something the novel suffers from or if it's just the adaptation, but there are aspects of this which are just really weird. The initial set up is that for unknown reasons Henry starts time travelling from a young age, and has no control over when he might suddenly leap from one time period to another, and at first it's always to see his mother who died when he was young, but then to see Clare, the titular wife. But the old (well, forties) Henry spends a lot of time with Clare when she's ten years old, and then when she was a teenager and clearly fancies him a bit, but then mysteriously he doesn't reappear until she's in her twenties. Also, every time he time travels only his body does so, which is why he's naked when he first arrives in the new time period, and has to find some clothes and money. This is passed off as a mixture of comedy and drama, but bar a couple of occasions whenever we meet a new Henry he's fully clothed and it's then not commented upon.

The first half is an occasionally amusing rom-com that I actually quite enjoyed, but then the second half becomes more of a tragedy, and it was here that the play seemed most misjudged / mad, as at a visit to the doctors

Spoiler alert

the audience learn that Clare has had six miscarriages, and the explanation is that around the two month mark the foetuses start time travelling just like their dear papa. So presumably at some point in the past or future a bit of blood and tissue suddenly appears on the ground, and someone might step or slip in it. Henry's terrified that the time travelling foetuses might hurt or even kill Clare, so he has a vasectomy without telling her, but then he thinks he should, and there's a really long song where Clare's friends tell him to lie as she'll fucking hate him if he doesn't. Naturally he ignores their advice, she's furious for months, until a younger version of Henry turns up and she fucks him in a car and gets pregnant again, though for some unknown reason this time everything's fine and the child is born and doesn't time travel...until she's ten years old. And presumably wherever she travels to, she's naked...Which is, well, obviously horribly fucked up, but again there's no exploration of this element of time travel, and Clare's just happy her daughter can do this as it means she gets to spend some time with her Dad in the past.

[close]

There are so many other things I could comment on, and complain about, but I've already written more than I originally planned. Overall this is another musical which has a fairly enjoyable first half but then the second half is duller and suffers from a lack of an interesting narrative until close to the end. The first half does have some great scenes (and a surprisingly affecting song between Henry and his elderly father) and is quite appealing, but as a whole it's messy and just plain odd. As a lover of musicals I'd rate it 3.25/5 - but I don't think I'd ever actually recommend it to anyone, not unless they were in to the genre as much as I am and also got a ticket for £15.

[flotemysost]

That was a fascinating read, and I'm not sure it would have been my cup of tea, I like the idea of it but have to confess to not being a big fan of any of the bands you mentioned, and it seems like an awful lot of big themes have been thrown together. I could of course be completely wrong, but unless I can blag a cheap ticket I'll probably give it a miss.

Also, I've just realised that bar his film work I've only ever seen Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, what would you say is his best play?

Aw, thanks! You're asking the wrong person, to be honest; I have a dim memory of seeing Simon Russell Beale in a production of Jumpers, yeeaarrss ago (I'm guessing it might've even been a school drama trip?), and I remember thinking it seemed very clever but I didn't really understand it; and I've listed to a radio production of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, and I thought it seemed very clever but I didn't really understand it (you might be noticing a theme here).

I suspect I'm not alone in this, as the audience yesterday were doing that deeply irritating thing of letting out peals of very mannered, genteel laughter at bits that weren't particularly funny, as if to prove that they "got it"; I mean, it was a weekday matinee in fucking Hampstead so you can probably guess what the audience was like, but yeah I imagine among the performative chin-stroking at these things there must be some other people thinking "I have no idea what's going on. What's for tea?".

Still, it was interesting, and on a personal level it's made me realise how little I know of recent history (bit of a tangent, but I have an old family friend who's Czech and grew up during that era, and it did make me think "God, I really know nothing about what he must've experienced"). I'm no great fan of most of those musical artists either and I tend to baulk at obvious rock snob fan-worship, but it made me appreciate my privilege in even being able to have an opinion on this stuff at all.

So yeah, not sure I'd recommend it necessarily, but I don't regret going.

The Time Traveller's Wife sounds like a bit of a hot mess, if one with some interesting moments. I have yet to read the book or see the film; your summary goes some way to clarifying it, but I imagine going in cold would be pretty confusing. I'm glad it wasn't a completely wasted trip anyway!

[Small Man Big Horse]

Aw, thanks! You're asking the wrong person, to be honest; I have a dim memory of seeing Simon Russell Beale in a production of Jumpers, yeeaarrss ago (I'm guessing it might've even been a school drama trip?), and I remember thinking it seemed very clever but I didn't really understand it; and I've listed to a radio production of Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, and I thought it seemed very clever but I didn't really understand it (you might be noticing a theme here).

I suspect I'm not alone in this, as the audience yesterday were doing that deeply irritating thing of letting out peals of very mannered, genteel laughter at bits that weren't particularly funny, as if to prove that they "got it"; I mean, it was a weekday matinee in fucking Hampstead so you can probably guess what the audience was like, but yeah I imagine among the performative chin-stroking at these things there must be some other people thinking "I have no idea what's going on. What's for tea?".

Still, it was interesting, and on a personal level it's made me realise how little I know of recent history (bit of a tangent, but I have an old family friend who's Czech and grew up during that era, and it did make me think "God, I really know nothing about what he must've experienced"). I'm no great fan of most of those musical artists either and I tend to baulk at obvious rock snob fan-worship, but it made me appreciate my privilege in even being able to have an opinion on this stuff at all.

Rightly or wrongly (and probably wrongly) I'm often sceptical about the work of famous British playwrights from the 70's onwards, not all by any means but many of those who are highly regarded. I know it was his first work but I remember a lot of fuss about Shopping and Fucking by Mark Ravenhill and then saw it and felt unimpressed, and while I admire Alan Bennett's Prick Up Your Ears and The Madness of King George, The History Boys did nothing for me in the slightest. And the same sort of applies with Stoppard, there's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, and he co-wrote Brazil, but he's also the man behind Shakespeare In Love and so he's clearly capable of writing crap too!

The Time Traveller's Wife sounds like a bit of a hot mess, if one with some interesting moments. I have yet to read the book or see the film; your summary goes some way to clarifying it, but I imagine going in cold would be pretty confusing. I'm glad it wasn't a completely wasted trip anyway!

It opens with a bit of really clumsy exposition so it's not too difficult to follow, it's just that I'm such a sci-fi nerd I'm very aware of the complexities of time travel fiction, and this contains a lot of ideas that fall apart if picked at even briefly.

Going back to Stoppard and co, I'm very sure that the worst of any of those mentioned above is one hundred times better than...

Peter Pan at the Hammersmith Apollo - I managed to get a fairly cheap ticket for this (£15, in the circle but near the front) and I fancied something a bit different, and this panto had received some good reviews so I thought I'd take the risk, especially as it claimed that along with the comedy there'd be some impressive acrobatics and Boy George as the villain.

It's not the first time I've seen Peter Pan as a pantomime either as Henry Winkler and Bobby Davro did a surprisingly great version in 2006, Winkler made for a fantastic Captain Hook in what was a far more nuanced performance than you'd normally get, and I have to say that Bobby Davro did a great job as Captain Smee as well, yeah there was some tacky innuendo for the adults but most of the time he was on hand to come out with daft gags and handle the audience participation side of things.

In this production Peter Pan was played by Jordan Conway (and why yes, the production's producer Jon Conway does appear to be related to him!) and while he was full of confidence and energy, he was often painfully unfunny as well. It was a kind of "Everything and the kitchen sink" sort or production but some of it was so dated I'm amazed they thought it acceptable to put in such material. For instance, some of the routines were older than I am (a take on "Who's On First?" was especially bland) or lazy and uninspired (Peter takes a phone call and it's the "You don't say / You don't say / He didn't say" gag), while the pop culture references were often really dated, I suppose an "Avengers Assemble" reference might have just about been understood by some of the kids here, but unless Steven Spielberg's suddenly become popular with eight year olds including the Jaws quote "We're gonna need a bigger boat" felt bizarre and if it was something for the Mums and Dads, well, they didn't laugh at it.

As for Boy George, well I can only guess that maybe he had a bad cold or something as his performance was so limp, at one point there was a joke about Strictly Come Dancing, the theme tune played, but instead of doing a dance Boy George took three steps backwards and then looked embarrassed. Comments about his time on I'm A Celeb were met by silence, and the only time the crowd seemed excited to see him was when he sang "Karma Chameleon", though that featured the whole cast charitably trying to drown out his vocals.

There were a few new songs performed by other cast members which were very average and a couple of bits of audience participation, but with a venue this size (3665 seats, apparently) it was largely only booing Boy George or shouting "He's Behind You", and as for the advertised acrobatics, in the first half we got a very average bit with a small trampoline, while two women swung around a bit using aerial silk, but it was all a bit embarrassing given the scale of this play. At least you could see where the money was spent, with a giant pirate's ship sliding on to stage, a cinema screen backdrop with some very average cgi, and a bunch of props (including Captain Hook's crocodile nemesis) were impressive, but the script let it down time after time.

At one point I checked my phone to see we were 80 minutes in (with it supposed to be two hours in total, with a 20 minute interval) and shortly afterwards the interval began, and I just couldn't face going back even if the second half was far shorter, so for only the second time of my life I walked out of a production.

Potentially it could have been a huge mistake, maybe all the funny bits were in the second half, maybe Boy George would be forced at gun point to put some oomph in to his performance, and maybe Jordan Conway tripped over and broke his leg and his brilliant understudy took over. But I'll never know, I just couldn't face any more of this shit, and when it comes to big productions like this I really need to start looking up reviews, as going in blind has lead me to seeing a few too many dodgy shows recently. 1/5

[flotemysost]

he co-wrote Brazil

Theatrical hat fucked! I didn't know that.

[lauraxsynthesis]

Another here who doesn't get what the fuss is about Stoppard. Jumpers at the NT bored me rigid. 25 years ago I somewhat enjoyed the film of R&GaD with Oldman and Roth though probably primarily because of the actors rather than the text. Should give that another watch.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Guys & Dolls at The Bridge Theatre, London Bridge - Despite the stellar reviews and personal recommendations I'd been ummming and ahhhhing a lot about seeing this, mainly as I watched the film about five or so years ago and only quite liked it. But then I found out I had the afternoon off on Thursday, and everything else that had a matinee performance I'd either seen or was too expensive, so when I found a ticket for (just) under £20 I decided to go along. I'm really glad I did too, I was in the upper gallery in the back row but still felt pretty close to the stage, and this was much more fun than the film is. Even though with an interval it was three hours the whole thing flew by, and the cast were fantastic - and it was only during the interval when I bought a programme that I realised it was Daniel Mays in the lead role, who I'm really fond of but just didn't recognise him with an American accent. The songs seemed better too, I can't quite explain it but I've never been a fan of Luck Be A Lady Tonight but this version worked for me, and the way it's staged is superb too, albeit with a minor caveat I'll mention in a minute. But yeah, for me this really does deserve all the acclaim it's received, and I'd highly recommend it. 4.75/5

I think the only complaint I'd have is the nature of the immersive elements, essentially the stage has been converted in to blocks which rise and fall as and when they're in use, and when they're not audience members can stand on them and stare up at the actors on stage, and there's a few occasions where the cast interact with them. It's not a device I had any problem with other than that every so often the stage management crew (dressed up as New York cops) would be tasked with moving the audience around so that a block could rise up in to the air and some of the cast perform on it, and there were a few times I found it a bit distracting, especially when an audience member didn't move back far enough and had to be asked to step back a few times. It's such a minor thing and it didn't spoil the play in any way, but I did find myself wishing it had been staged in the same way but with all of the audience seated.

[lauraxsynthesis]

A couple of recommendations:
Keith Waterhouse's Jeffrey Barnard is Unwell is being revived in an hour-long version taking place at the actual Coach & Horses. That's the pub used by and often depicted in Private Eye. I saw a previous revival at the Old Vic with Peter O'Toole and the chance to see it at the actual pub sounds fun so I'm going on 18 Feb:  https://jeffreyplay.com

Gemma Whelan, the actress who mentioned CaB in Inside No. 9 is playing Charlotte in a play about the Brontë's that looks like it might be a comedy. It's at the National and stuff there is generally worth seeing in my experience. I'm going on 12 April.  Underdog: The Other Other Brontë
https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/underdog-the-other-other-bronte/

[Small Man Big Horse]

A couple of recommendations:
Keith Waterhouse's Jeffrey Barnard is Unwell is being revived in an hour-long version taking place at the actual Coach & Horses. That's the pub used by and often depicted in Private Eye. I saw a previous revival at the Old Vic with Peter O'Toole and the chance to see it at the actual pub sounds fun so I'm going on 18 Feb:  https://jeffreyplay.com

Gemma Whelan, the actress who mentioned CaB in Inside No. 9 is playing Charlotte in a play about the Brontë's that looks like it might be a comedy. It's at the National and stuff there is generally worth seeing in my experience. I'm going on 12 April.  Underdog: The Other Other Brontë
https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/underdog-the-other-other-bronte/

Jeffrey Barnard is Unwell is well out of my price range, but if by April there are still some cheap tickets available and my mental health's levelled out a little I'll try to see the Bronte play as that does look intriguing.

[neveragain]

A mate of mine is in the Bronte play, it's his first job at the National and he's a bloody good actor so good luck to him!

[Small Man Big Horse]

Unfortunate - The Untold Story of Ursula the Sea Witch A Musical Parody at
Southwark Playhouse Elephant - I only went to see this as I really fancied catching a matinee performance and everything else was either sold out or way too expensive. I had a shit seat as well (H1 - Most of the rest of the balcony would have been fine, but I had a chunk of the set blocking some of my view) and at 160 odd minutes (including an interval) it's too long, yet otherwise I really enjoyed it. Unlike a good few shows I've seen lately the second half is better than the first, there's some really funny songs, many of which come with a nicely pointed message, and the ending's particularly strong. I'd cut twenty minutes from the first half but otherwise I was impressed by this, and may well at some point try and see it from a decent seat. 4.25/5

[lauraxsynthesis]

For some reason, 11 years after the centenary of his birth, there are two separate plays on about Benjamin Britten at the moment. Yesterday I saw Turning the Screw at the King's Head Theatre in Islington. The King's Head has a long association with LGBTQ theatre and has just opened a new, bigger space with good raking round the back of the pub.

It's a short play - less than 90 minutes - about David Hemmings' experience age 12 creating the role of Miles in Britten's The Turn of the Screw. I knew a bit about Britten and Peter Pears, Hemmings and Hemmings' experience and there's extra layers in the production for folks with background knowledge. As one example, I and several audience members enjoyed Britten's impromptu 1-1 A Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra lesson for young David. There is a lot packed into the play - Britten's relationship with his assistant Imogen Holst, fears of consequences for Britten and Pears in 1954 when homosexuality was still illegal, Britten's paedophilia, the creation of the opera and Hemming's role as a muse, the life of the artist to name a few. At the box office there was a content warning about "victim blaming" which was a first for me. It's certainly there. I'd heard before about Hemmings' sexual precociousness but was surprised how much it was foregrounded in the play. I was also surprised that the play itself, not just some characters, seemed to put some blame on a 12 year old for a 40 year old's obsession with him. It was a good decision though to start the play with the adult Hemmings reassuring us that nothing happened between them.

The performances were great, the use of music was surprisingly little but great. I left the play wanting to revisit Britten's major works, read some Britten biographies (I think Humphrey Carpenter's and John Bridcut's are particularly recommended) and also to see the other play. That's Ben and Imo which Mark Ravenhill wrote for the centenary in 2013. It's about Britten and Imogen Holst and is on at the RSC in Stratford. The radio play is also currently on BBC Sounds.

Turning the Screw is on until March 10th.

[flotemysost]

^ cheers for that write up, sounds like an interesting and ambitious take on a dicey subject. And thanks for the reading/listening recs too - I can imagine the Mark Ravenhill one might be pretty colourful, will check that out at some point.

[lauraxsynthesis]

Jeffrey Barnard is Unwell by Keith Waterhouse - done as an hour-long performance in the actual pub where it's set - the legendary Coach & Horses in Soho.

Some facts for the interested and anyone who doesn't already know all of this which might be none of you: Barnard was a hard-drinking journalist and Soho character in the last decades of the 20th century. The title of the play is taken from the text that the Spectator sometimes printed when he was too drunk to turn in his column. He's referred to in scores of comic strips by Private Eye's Michael Heath set in the Coach & Horses, which also tended to feature Norman - "London's rudest landlord". For decades Private Eye had team lunches in an upstairs room, and as far as I know still do. I love a bit of Private Eye lore and the pub's walls have several Heath comic strips and things like a lovely photo of a youngish Willie Rushton outside the PE offices. In the early '90s when Barnard was still alive I occasionally went to the Coach and Horses, but I never spotted him. I did once ask Norman for a job.

In the 1999 revival of the play I saw Peter O'Toole reprise the role at the Old Vic and I was curious what would be cut out for this version. I correctly anticipated it would include the bit

Spoiler alert

at the start of act 2 when JB has accidentally set fire to a pub booth and tries to beat it out with his jacket.

[close]

There is plenty of other action in this production though - a cat race with audience participation and the showstopper trick with an egg, matchbox and biscuit tin lid.

Barnard is played by Robert Bathurst and it's the second time he's done this production at the pub. He spends much of the time moving around the room which helps keep up the energy of the piece as well as involving everyone in a rather long, narrow space. His Barnard has more pathos, fatalism and less self-justification than O'Toole's. Bathurst's impression of Norman was fun and other characters appear as voiceovers or cassette tapes he plays to torment himself. I'm pretty sure the voice of a customs officer was Stephen Fry. The play is a comedy, though it's about an alcoholic gambling addict with several illnesses and 4 ex wives. It's basically a series of anecdotes held together by a plot of Barnard having been locked into the pub and trying to reach Norman on the phone so he can be released. So much happens that on reflection it makes even very good hour long stand up shows seem unambitious. I'd like to see more site-specific and theatrical comedy hours like this. It also adds something that it was essentially theatre in the round, and with the lights up most of the time so it was more of a shared experience.

I wasn't the only JB nerd in the audience - someone younger than I am had brought a copy of the essay collection Reach for the Ground: The Downhill Struggle of Jeffrey Bernard. However it's an interesting tale very well told so one can certainly come to the play with zero knowledge.

A short doco for anyone who wants to know more about the man himself.

And another from the end of his life which might help anyone who wants some inspo to give up the booze.

A bit from the 1999 production.

[Small Man Big Horse]

For some reason, 11 years after the centenary of his birth, there are two separate plays on about Benjamin Britten at the moment. Yesterday I saw Turning the Screw at the King's Head Theatre in Islington. The King's Head has a long association with LGBTQ theatre and has just opened a new, bigger space with good raking round the back of the pub.

It's a short play - less than 90 minutes - about David Hemmings' experience age 12 creating the role of Miles in Britten's The Turn of the Screw. I knew a bit about Britten and Peter Pears, Hemmings and Hemmings' experience and there's extra layers in the production for folks with background knowledge. As one example, I and several audience members enjoyed Britten's impromptu 1-1 A Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra lesson for young David. There is a lot packed into the play - Britten's relationship with his assistant Imogen Holst, fears of consequences for Britten and Pears in 1954 when homosexuality was still illegal, Britten's paedophilia, the creation of the opera and Hemming's role as a muse, the life of the artist to name a few. At the box office there was a content warning about "victim blaming" which was a first for me. It's certainly there. I'd heard before about Hemmings' sexual precociousness but was surprised how much it was foregrounded in the play. I was also surprised that the play itself, not just some characters, seemed to put some blame on a 12 year old for a 40 year old's obsession with him. It was a good decision though to start the play with the adult Hemmings reassuring us that nothing happened between them.

The performances were great, the use of music was surprisingly little but great. I left the play wanting to revisit Britten's major works, read some Britten biographies (I think Humphrey Carpenter's and John Bridcut's are particularly recommended) and also to see the other play. That's Ben and Imo which Mark Ravenhill wrote for the centenary in 2013. It's about Britten and Imogen Holst and is on at the RSC in Stratford. The radio play is also currently on BBC Sounds.

Turning the Screw is on until March 10th.

Thanks to one of the ticketing sites I'm off to see the matinee performance tomorrow and am really looking forward to it, and also booked Flashbang at The Lion and Unicorn Theatre in the evening as that was cheap too.

[sevendaughters]

why do I keep neglecting one of my favourite threads? I have tickets to see Picture of Dorian Gray with Sarah Snook next month that I'm looking forward to, despite the 1 star review in anger-baiter The Spectator.

In February I had a couple of weekends of Shakespeare, darling.

First was All's Well That Ends Well at the Rondo in Bath. Student production that was strong up to the interval and then seemed to get a bit baggy and lack clarity in the second half. Person I was chatting to was well informed and said it had been put together in 4 weeks, and I guess it kind of showed. That said, the funny bits were funny and two or three of the actors definitely have a future in the game if they carry on. 7 - but a student production seven (so, five?).

Then the following weekend I went to the Almeida in Islington to see King Lear.  Arguably Shakespeare's most complex play and one I've only ever really seen hugely adapted ie. Ran by Kurosawa rather than performed, not even seen the BBC version yet.

This take on it goes for bombast - big performances, loud explosions, ambient score, on-stage music, occasional crosstalk - and a lot of it works to keep it entertaining and filled with momentum (went in sleepy and it woke me up and kept me going) - but when I woke up this morning I kept thinking about the small issues it had with clarity.

Like, I was a bit lost when Cordelia returned fighting for the French and realised the bit where the King of France has married her has been cut. It's a few lines in the play, but here made a lot of difference. Similarly, when the Earl of Kent returns in disguise, he was wearing less of a 'costume', and therefore it wasn't clear what he was doing. And again for the off-stage suicide of the eldest daughter. I could go on.

The production was well-cast - Danny Sapani genuinely scary as Lear as he goes from physically imposing monarch to melted-mind toddler man, Clarke Peters (ie. Lester from the Wire) was a good playful fool, and best of all for me was Michael Gould as the wretched Earl of Gloucester. I just think, quite often, directorial decisions traded subtlety away for impact.

Dotted through this version, characters will be occasionally singing before the scene meets. The ending brings all these lines together and it turns out they were all singing bits of A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall. That's how it ends, with them all singing a mournful version of it. Personally I didn't see how that was better than a blind Kent rejecting the throne as his mad son laments. But what do I know? Maybe a 7/10.

[Small Man Big Horse]

why do I keep neglecting one of my favourite threads? I have tickets to see Picture of Dorian Gray with Sarah Snook next month that I'm looking forward to, despite the 1 star review in anger-baiter The Spectator.

In February I had a couple of weekends of Shakespeare, darling.

First was All's Well That Ends Well at the Rondo in Bath. Student production that was strong up to the interval and then seemed to get a bit baggy and lack clarity in the second half. Person I was chatting to was well informed and said it had been put together in 4 weeks, and I guess it kind of showed. That said, the funny bits were funny and two or three of the actors definitely have a future in the game if they carry on. 7 - but a student production seven (so, five?).

Then the following weekend I went to the Almeida in Islington to see King Lear.  Arguably Shakespeare's most complex play and one I've only ever really seen hugely adapted ie. Ran by Kurosawa rather than performed, not even seen the BBC version yet.

This take on it goes for bombast - big performances, loud explosions, ambient score, on-stage music, occasional crosstalk - and a lot of it works to keep it entertaining and filled with momentum (went in sleepy and it woke me up and kept me going) - but when I woke up this morning I kept thinking about the small issues it had with clarity.

Like, I was a bit lost when Cordelia returned fighting for the French and realised the bit where the King of France has married her has been cut. It's a few lines in the play, but here made a lot of difference. Similarly, when the Earl of Kent returns in disguise, he was wearing less of a 'costume', and therefore it wasn't clear what he was doing. And again for the off-stage suicide of the eldest daughter. I could go on.

The production was well-cast - Danny Sapani genuinely scary as Lear as he goes from physically imposing monarch to melted-mind toddler man, Clarke Peters (ie. Lester from the Wire) was a good playful fool, and best of all for me was Michael Gould as the wretched Earl of Gloucester. I just think, quite often, directorial decisions traded subtlety away for impact.

Dotted through this version, characters will be occasionally singing before the scene meets. The ending brings all these lines together and it turns out they were all singing bits of A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall. That's how it ends, with them all singing a mournful version of it. Personally I didn't see how that was better than a blind Kent rejecting the throne as his mad son laments. But what do I know? Maybe a 7/10.

That's interesting to hear about Lear, I studied it at University and have vague memories of enjoying it, but I don't think I've ever seen any of the film or tv productions, and really should remedy that one day.

Turning The Screw, King's Head Theatre - A really unusual play that explores the relationship between a twelve year old David Hemmings and the very adult Benjamin Britten during the time they spent working on an opera. It considers a lot of ideas about sexuality and control, the acting was absolutely sublime, and it was an unsettling insight in to a very charming man with a genius level intellect who could barely understand that his feelings towards twelve year old children were so terribly, horribly wrong. 5/5

Flashbang at The Lion and Unicorn, Kentish Town - The first half of this is a cliché ridden selection of monologues as four different male characters speak about their lives in an unnamed, dull, small city where nothing ever happens and they may well duplicate the experiences of their parents bar the music they like and the clothes they wear. Bar the occasional tale of drunken hedonism and acting out their love for clubbing and living for the weekends it's turgid material, but hanging over it all is the fact that the audience knows they used to be a gang of five kids, but one is missing and it's not explained why. Except until it is, as we learn how their accident prone friend Mikey lived in a high rise block of flats and while celebrating the news he was going to be a father he leaned over the edge of a wall and fell twenty five storeys to his death, even though I'm pretty sure high rise towers aren't designed like that. Thirty minutes of miserable grief follows, before there's a hint that the boys can recover, it will just take time. Perhaps it was because I was optimistic that it might do something original with the ideas that it played with that I didn't notice what was glaringly obvious until the walk back to the tube, where it became painfully clear that this had been trying to be a male Fleabag. Right down to the way the monologues were delivered and the attempts at humour, allusions to an undescribed trauma, and then the actual catastrophe itself, it's so unoriginal it hurts. The characters all seem identical, even though there's a lot of telling how different they supposedly are there's never any showing, or the tiny scraps we do get only made me sigh as they were so banal and hackneyed. It shoves its "Men need to talk about their mental health" message down your throat so hard that you'll choke and wish you could pass out, and maybe if this had been written thirty or forty years ago it might have had some value, but right now it's a case of far too little and far too late. Then right at the end it suggests we should celebrate those who despise their day jobs and live for the weekend, and who look forward to having kids so they can take them to McDonald's and lark about, and it is so at odds with every else in the production I presumed it must be someone's first ever play, though that turned out not to be the case at all. I only reserve one star ratings for shows which are actively offensive or upsetting, and this doesn't quite fall in to that category, but two stars feels far too high. Hmmmm. 1.5/5 I guess.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Double Feature at Hampstead Theatre - Written by Gladiator and Skyfall scribe John Logan this is initially set in 1967 where director Michael Reeves has pissed off Vincent Price during the making of Witchfinder General, but after about twenty minutes it switches to 1964 and Alfred Hitchcock is insisting Tippi Hedren spend the evening with him, and all four cast members share the stage throughout the rest of the production. It's quite an effective device, especially when elements of the stories intertwine, but for my money the Price / Reeves aspect was far more interesting, and better acted, I wasn't bowled over by Ian McNeice's take on Hitchcock and there was a distinct lack of tension until the final third. When Hedren finally has enough of being manipulated it finds its feet, but I still found myself more interested in the other part of the play. Hmmmm, I feel like I'm being very harsh about this given that I did enjoy a great deal, but the Price / Reeves part is a 4.5 star show whereas the Hitchcock / Hedren piece was only 3.5 stars. 4/5 then, I guess.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Cruel Intentions The Musical at The Other Palace - I originally had no intention of seeing this as I'm not a fan of jukebox musicals most of the time, and my memory of the film was that it was fairly weak stuff. But I'm on mailing lists for loads of cheap ticketing sites and have watched as the prices kept on declining, and last night I received one where it was £15 for a ticket which would normally cost £71.50, and as I had the afternoon off work thought, ah, sod it, for that amount of money even if I hate it I won't regret it. And to cut an already long story short, I thought it was pretty fun. If I'd paid the full amount I'd probably give it 3 stars, but at this price I'd recommend it, the whole thing is a very broad comedy yet the dialogue's amusing and I liked the way it recontextualised certain songs (Spice Girls' Wannabe becomes a gay love song, Ace Of Base's I Saw The Sign is all about a woman's first orgasm) plus including an interval it was only two hours long so didn't outstay its welcome. Again, I'm only rating this on the price I paid, but I'm glad I went to see it in the end. 3.75/5

[Small Man Big Horse]

The Dream of A Ridiculous Man by Fyodor Dostoevsky at Marylebone Theatre - The only Dostoevsky I'm familiar with is Crime and Punishment, which I read almost three decades ago, so I thought it was about time I changed that. Going in I presumed that this would be a fairly faithful adaptation, but it became apparent early on that writer / director Laurence Boswell had altered quite a lot of the short story as Greg Hicks' "Ridiculous man" reveals he's also referred to as "a fucking space cadet". He's also mocked by everyone he meets due to a dream he had, though he refuses to reveal what it was until the final third, and so for sixty minutes it's all about the man's bleak life in Hackney where his neighbours are an ex-squaddie crack dealer and his girlfriend is... well, I'm not sure where she was supposed to come from, but the accent Hicks put on sounded like a really crude impression of someone from Jamaica that I wasn't happy about at all. The man is also annoyed by a Serbian refugee who begs him for help from "the bad man", and when he loses his job he buys a gun and tries to decide when the best time for killing himself would be. In lowkey scenes where it explores the main character's depression Hicks is fairly impressive, but whenever he impersonates other individuals 50% of the time it's dodgy as fuck, and whenever the ex-squaddie / current crack dealer spoke the dialogue was so painfully embarrassing that I wondered if Boswell's only research had been watching straight to streaming British gangster movies. Despite that up until this point I wasn't hating it, but that soon changed when the dream was revealed and I can only presume that Boswell thought Ricky Gervais's Afterlife is subtle as he spelt out that the message of the play - the universe is sentient and benevolent, and human beings must be more kind - over and over and over again in a way that made quite angry. If it wasn't for the way it hammers home the message I might have considered this to not be a disaster, but jesus, the last half hour was agonising. 1/5

[lauraxsynthesis]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, a play about Benjamin Britten is on at the RSC in Stratford-Upon-Avon, and last night a couple of friends and I went to see it. As another friend said, "twice Britten, not shy".

The play I saw the other week was about the creation in 1954 of The Turn of the Screw, and this tells a similar story of suffering to create opera but starts in 1952 and is about the 9 months Britten, much aided and supported by Imogen Holst, worked to have the grand opera Gloriana ready for Elizabeth II's coronation gala.

Mark Ravenhill's Ben and Imo is not quite the same as the radio version Imo and Ben by the same playwright. Onstage, it's a two-hander with much more swearing and drama, atmospheric sounds of crashing waves and plenty of music.

Lots of thought and care has gone into every aspect of the production. The set is surrounded by the stones of Aldeburgh beach, there's an original score by composer Connor Mitchell based on just two key notes from Gloriana. History Boy Samuel Barnett has Britten's curls and clothes and absolutely looks the part particularly from certain angles. Victoria Yeates portrays Holst

Spoiler alert

as committed and emotionally involved while never straying into lovelorn which would have been an obvious though tedious and limiting way of framing what became a professional relationship that lasted until Britten's death 24 years later.

[close]

It's quite a short play but a lot was packed in that I enjoyed -

Spoiler alert

the creation of various national arts organisations, the powerplays between the various figures in the art world at the time, Imogen Holst's community music projects that sound absolutely amazing. Remaining from the radio version is the attempt to get Ben to see that though he sees Peter Pears as a romantic hero, he wasn't right for the role of Essex wooing Elizabeth I. Surprisingly, there's basically no angst about being gay or loving boys, and though it doesn't feel the play particularly needed those things foregrounded, it was a bit odd to have zero jeopardy about Britten and Pears' relationship. Something I particularly loved were the conversations about how culturally, emotionally, and intellectually dull the Royals were. It wasn't played for laughs the night I went, but felt like a biting critique and even edgy so soon after our own recent coronation.

[close]

Central to the play

Spoiler alert

is Britten's cruelty and tendency to abruptly dump friends and colleagues. He explains early on to Holst that this is what he does, and at a couple of points in the play, she and we think that this is what he's finally doing to her, but there's a dramatic turn in the final act that changes the whole tone of the play and gives Barnett a chance to act his mismatched socks off. It all got so exciting that as soon as we got back to the car I had to put on that awesome ending of The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra for a bit of catharsis.

[close]

The two friends I brought with me knew nothing about opera, Britten, Pears, Aldeburgh etc and rarely go to theatre but thoroughly enjoyed the play which was a relief and I suppose is a sign that it's a very successful production. It felt like the rest of the audience were happy too. Over at 9.45pm so people within a sizeable radius wouldn't even have to stay the night. Well worth a trip to Stratford.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Given how much I enjoyed Turning The Screw I wish I could have seen that, but a trip to Stratford is a four hour round trip by train so I think I'd only do that for a very special occasion, but I'm glad you enjoyed it as much as you did.

The Long Run by Katie Arnstein at The New Diorama, London - When Arnstein's mother was diagnosed with cancer it was an understandably traumatic experience, though Arnstein reveals right at the beginning that she made a full recovery. And as much as this is a story about how Arnstein dealt with seeing a loved one suffering so much, it's also the tale of how she met a quite unique man, and why he seemed to be spending all of his time running around the hospital Arnstein's mother was being treated at. This is billed as a comedy drama about kindness that will move you to tears, and it was exactly that, comedy wise I'd rate it 3 and a half stars, but the dramatic side was easily a 4 and a half star show, making it overall a very solid 4/5.

And here's a lazy repost for a review I posted on my site.

What If They Ate The Baby by Xhloe and Natasha at The King's Head Theatre, Islington - I've often felt that plays in London are over long, that you could happily cut half an hour or more, and whether because tickets are so expensive writers feel they need to produce work that is two hours plus, and maybe even three if you include an interval. Either way, it's rare that I haven't finished watching a production having wished it was shorter.

But American comedians, writers and performers Xhloe and Natasha have written a perfect play, it's a taught, fascinating and thrilling ride that is 55 minutes long, and one which made me wish so many others had been too. It's the perfect length for the narrative, as it slowly builds up tension and creates an atmosphere that is electrifying, funny but occasionally devastating, and it's one of the best pieces of theatre I've seen in years.

After a silent beginning where Shirley (Natasha Rowland) is desperately cleaning the floor of her living room, neighbour Dotty (Xhloe Rice) arrives to return a now clean casserole dish, and it's a delightful comedy of manners as both try to outdo each other with politeness, though there are occasional hints that all is not okay, indeed it's far from it, with creaking sounds coming from upstairs and an unexpected knocking at the door.  Both actors are on incredible form, often mirroring each other as their characters attempt to play the perfect housewife, or the perfect Stepford Wife at least, where everything is splendid and wonderful even though the occasional glance and panicked look suggests this isn't the case.

Short, sharp and often brutally modern music interrupts scenes and during this we get to see another side of Shirley and Dotty's lives, and when we return to normality the performances and dialogue changes, and while not always the case it mostly become more naturalistic as we learn of the true relationship the duo have, a relationship which both desperately need and want and crave but which is fraught with danger. There are so many themes and ideas being experimented with that it's a breathtaking work, and for fifty five minutes I was captivated by this often very funny, disturbing, surreal but affecting production which explores how certain women attempt to survive in suburban settings, and what happens when they reject society's expectations.

Time and time again this left me (internally) squealing with delight. The performances are two of the best I've ever seen on the London stage, and it's a production which fascinated from the opening second right through to the end. It's a play where I wouldn't (couldn't!) cut a single thing, a work of art that I have a feeling will stay with me for a very long time, and one that shows just how modern, relevant and essential theatre can be in a way that I haven't seen in far too long. 5/5

[Small Man Big Horse]

And Then The Rodeo Burned Down at The King's Head, Islington - I'd have probably enjoyed this a lot more if I hadn't seen Xhloe and Natasha's latest play the night before, and to be fair I spent the first twenty minutes thinking "This is intriguing, but not as good as yesterday" before "This is awesome and almost as good as yesterday". Unfortunately it ended and my response was "Oh, I didn't quite get what they were going for" until I mulled it over and thought "Ah, okay, that makes sense, but I still feel a bit disappointed". 4/5, but on another day / year / dimension where I'd not seen "Baby" it might have been higher.

[lauraxsynthesis]

Underdog: The Other Other Brontë at the National Theatre, Dorfman.

The trailer suggested it might be something of a comedy, which seemed unlikely but actually it pretty much was until

Spoiler alert

the inevitable final act when Branwell, Anne and Emily die.

[close]

I believe the "other Brontë" is Anne, who's life and talent are held up more here than they generally have been. Charlotte however was very much the central character and was played by Gemma Whelan, she who is my profile pic and possibly the only person to say the name of this manor on telly? The Dorfman (formerly Cottesloe, the NT's most intimate space) had a more traditional setup than the round one often gets in there. At the start the stage was covered by a beautiful moor with heather etc. Charlotte came out and told us all to shout "Brontë!" which we did parroting the Yorkshire accent. She did crowdwork including asking people for their best Brontë novel. The correct answer was of course Jane Eyre. 

Some of the staging annoyed me but there were fun surprises like a male member of the chorus

Spoiler alert

suddenly transforming into a woman with a big bright orange dress.

[close]

Plot-wise, it was a commentary on the sisters' relationships with each other, their writing, their legacy and their attempts to control their legacy. Charlotte

Spoiler alert

comes off as a bit of a baddie for undermining her sisters both before and after death. One couldn't help but like her though, particularly considering the patriarchy she was up against.

[close]

It was quite a short play - just 2 hours 15 minutes 20 of which were interval. I'd have liked more about the substance of each woman's major work and their sometimes collaborative writing processes. What we did get though was a complex, funny, thoroughly engaging Charlotte and good performances all round. The spoken vernacular including frequent swearing was somewhat contemporary and there were a few deliberate anachronisms - it wasn't a standard period drama. Also, fun for us fans of her Inside No 9 appearance, Whelan did some asides to the audience such as when Branwell says he wants his paintings in the National Portrait Gallery

Spoiler alert

and Charlotte scoffs to us, "ironic". 

[close]

As generally the case at the National Theatre, the programme was well worth picking up...

The myth Gaskell made was so powerful that it wasn't really broken until, Charlotte's letters to Heger were published in 1913 and she went, overnight, from suffering angel to saucy minx.

Emily's...still the Brontë fans are most desperate to try to pin down; she's been diagnosed with autism, anorexia, agoraphobia and a whole alphabet of other conditions, while feminists have argued for her right to just be difficult.

Not the best play I've seen this year, but enjoyable.

[Ascent]

I have two tickets to see the Stranger Things play this weekend and unfortunately we're not going to be able to make it. They are for this Saturday (20th April) matinee at 1pm at The Phoenix theatre in London. They're cheap seats (£20) right up at the back in the Grand Circle. If anyone would like them please let me know and you can have them for free. They are PDF  tickets so I can just email them.

[Small Man Big Horse]

^ I'm working so can't unfortunately, though a friend has heavily hinted that tickets to see it will be a birthday present, so it seems I'll be seeing it at some point.

The Last Show Before We Die by Ell Potter and Mary Higgins at The Yard, Hackney -  Ell and Mary work together, live together and used to be together, but now they're just friends they aren't sure if they should still be doing the former. So they recorded a bunch of interviews about endings (largely concerning relationships and death) and produce sketches, monologues, dance, song or all round bits of oddness around them, and initially I thought it might turn out to be something quite special. But after about thirty minutes I felt it was a little too artificial for my liking, it was taking other people's experiences and emotions and confessions but not really adding much to them, and by the end the only message appeared to be that it was time for Ell and Mary to make adult decisions, which as they're in their late twenties felt a bit flimsy. Gah, I don't know, I enjoyed the first half of this a lot, but it was supposed to last an hour and went on for eighty minutes, and the last thirty I found myself... Not bored, I suppose, but less involved, and the final sequence didn't work for me at all. 3/5

Instructions For A Teenage Armageddon by Rosie Day at The Garrick Theatre, Charing Cross Road - According to the PR blurb this is supposed about how "After her sister's untimely death by a Yorkshire Pudding, a funny teenage misfit begrudgingly joins a flailing scout group to help her navigate the kicks and punches of adolescence with varying degrees of success." Except it really isn't, lead character Eileen (Charithra Chandran) does initially claim her sister died because of a Yorkshire Pudding that she herself had made, but within ten minutes we learn that in fact her sister was anorexic and died of a heart attack after refusing to eat said food. And what follows is an exploration of the ways grief and the trauma of losing a loved one effects a family, and while Eileen attending the Scouts is used as a device to explore her character and her social life, only some of it is funny, and this is largely a work about pain, about misguided parenting and the way friends may deeply damage a person. Charithra Chandran was astonishing throughout, it's a part which makes enormous demands upon an actor but she more than met them, and the story it tells is one that needs to be heard, one that needs to be told more often. But unfortunately the dialogue is full of cliches and often felt like a soap opera that had run out of steam, there were some great lines but also some quite poor ones, and it's a real shame that the script didn't go through at least one more draft. 3.25/5

[Ascent]

No worries, I'll stick them up on Facebook and see if anyone wants them.