Imelda staunton & Bessie Carter in Mrs Warren’s Profession. Photo: Johan Persson
What is Mrs Warren’s Profession? Well, she’s a highly successful owner of brothels across Europe, sometimes called a ‘madam’. Not that the word “brothel” is mentioned once nor “prostitute”, but we know what the text is alluding to, and so did the Lord Chamberlain, the official censor back in late Victorian times. He banned George Bernard Shaw’s play and it wasn’t publicly performed in Britain until 1925.
It’s what’s known as a ‘problem play’, and the problems in society that it addresses remain relevant today. Shaw uses a conflict between mother and daughter to examine all kinds of issues- in particular, the lack of opportunity and subsequent poverty that forces women into prostitution; and the role of capitalism which sees all workers exploited.
And, in a marketing dream, Mrs Warren and her daughter are played in this production by real life mother and daughter Imelda Staunton and Bessie Carter. So before we delve any further into the play and the production, let’s address the question of whether we gained from the genetic connection. I’m going to say, ‘no.’ Of course, I don’t know what intuitive understanding the two may have, but, for me, this could have been any pairing of a great actor and an up-and-coming one. Interestingly there is little physical resemblance between them, Ms Carter being much taller and angular than her mother, which makes their characters’ similarly strong wills more of a surprise.
Imelda Staunton in Mrs Warren’s Profession. Photo: Johan Persson
Imelda Staunton was, as you might expect, phenomenally good. I can’t begin to tell you the complexity and depth she brings to the role. Her Mrs Warren speaks with that affected accent that people of working class origins often adopt when finding themselves in high society- vowels slightly stretched, a nasal tone- and it’s an accent that slips every so often when she’s stressed.
She carries herself stiffly, for the same reasons, but sometimes her shoulders drop along with her defences. She is firm and imperious, with a tight smile, but she is wary of her daughter, whose approval and understanding she craves. So she can be vulnerable, shown most in her widening eyes and loosening jaw. That’s just touching the surface of what she does, constantly offering subtle insights into her character’s feelings.
The daughter Vivie has all the benefits of being the daughter of a rich mother. She has just graduated from Oxford, is a star mathematics scholar and, while at this point society would expect her to marry, she is interested in pursuing a career. She is presented to us as a New Woman, a quasi suffragette who is not interested in such feminine traits as romance and subservience. She buries her emotions and is self contained.
There are two key scenes between mother and daughter. In the first, Mrs Warren, with whom Vivie has had minimal contact during her childhood, wants to get to know her child with the idea that they can be close and she can grow old with the support of a dutiful daughter.
She decides to explain where the wealth came from. She talks of the deprivation of her childhood and the limited choices available to poor working class women. Vivie is shocked but understanding and sympathetic. It’s a scene in which so many layers are stripped and both women, hardened by their lives, show touching emotion. It is especially a moment for Bessie Carter to shine when she reveals both trauma and compassion breaking through her normally buttoned up exterior.
Not for long. As the play progresses, Vivie discovers that the business was not a thing of the past from which her mother retired, as she assumed, but continues to thrive. A second scene is a confrontation in which both show their similarly strong will and stand their ground- Vivie idealistically deploring the immorality involved in prostitution, Mrs Warren pragmatically defending it as a way of becoming and staying rich.
Will Vivie accept the harsh realities of the world? Will Mrs Warren sacrifice her business, and thereby her status, for her daughter? I’m not going spoil any more, if you’re not familiar with the play.
Fabulous looking
Instead, let’s look at the production. I might have liked it to be less static to counter the almost constant adversarial dialogue but Dominic Cooke directs with considerable finesse. The action is moved forward a couple of decades to 1913, a time which seems less divorced from today than the late Victorian period, and the dresses from that time do look fabulous.
Bessie Carter in Mrs Warren’s Profession. Photo: Johan Persson
As does the set, also designed by Chloe Lamford. It’s far more minimalist than the naturalistic set Shaw might have intended. We start in a garden filled with a few chairs and lots of flowers. It seems everything is coming up roses. Then the flowers are removed slowly but surely by a troupe of women in period underwear, reminding us of the anonymous exploited prostitutes. At the end we are left with one bouquet of flowers dumped in a waste paper basket in Vivie’s office, dominated by a large desk and surrounded by blank grey walls.
Here’s the thing about Shaw. He may have been a socialist who wanted to write a play exposing a hypocritical society that devalued and exploited women but he didn’t simplify the problem. He created two rounded, flawed characters, who are more than ciphers.
His hero and chief protagonist Vivie is a woman obsessed with work and money, with no apparent love of life, not even theatre. It appears she considers her mother’s profession immoral, not because she has exploited women but purely because it involves sex work. On the other hand, the villain, if you like, has acted out of what to her was necessity and, from her point of view, has done her best for the daughter she loves. His genius is to turn their conflict into a complex drama, that conjures passion, sympathy, anger and laughter.
Other characters are more two dimensional. Sir George Crofts, who was an angel investor in Mrs Warren’s business and has made a fortune from it, is an arch capitalist who points out the business is no different to all the other enterprises that exploit their workers. Robert Glenister portrays brilliantly the man’s cringingly condescending attitude. The Reverend Samuel Gardner represents the hypocrisy of the Church, since he has previously used Mrs Warren’s services. I liked Kevin Doyle’s All Gas And Gaiters interpretation (that’s one for older viewers). His son Frank Gardner, played by Reuben Joseph, is a profligate looking around for a woman to marry so he can appropriate all her assets, as was the law in those days. Mr Praed, played by Sid Sagar, is an architect, but more importantly represents the aesthetes who put art and beauty above all else, including right and wrong.
So, is Mrs Warren’s Profession relevant today? The battle between world weary parents and holier-than-thou children is eternal, and we all face an internal conflict between doing the right thing and putting a meal on the table. Capitalism continues to be a dominant force, making a tiny elite very rich and, yes, bringing wealth to many, but also continuing to exploit an underclass, often these days in China as much as online order delivery drivers. Add to that, exploiting the planet. Women have gained many equality rights but continue to be discriminated against in male dominated industries. Has the hypocrisy regarding work involving sex changed? Clearly not as much as we might like to think. Just last week an male athlete was banned from the 2028 Olympics for raising money through ‘spicy’(his word) videos on OnlyFans.
So there’s plenty to chew on, and, if you’re familiar with the play, you might find a little less fat, since Dominic Cooke has made some judicious edits, which speed it up and remove some of the long-winded bits. The hour and 50 minutes without interval flies by. It certainly whetted my appetite to see more of Shaw, a great dramatist, who seems to be a bit unfashionable at the moment.
I would also like to see more of Bessie Carter. Her mother is one of our greatest stage actors, but she herself has shown in this production that she has the potential to reach that pinnacle too.
The Frogs at Southwark Playhouse. Photo: Pamela Raith
The Frogs was not Stephen Sondheim’s finest musical, as he himself admitted. The reviews all gave this new production three stars except The Stage which couldn’t manage more than two. The critics considered the songs to be worthy of the musicals master but agreed the book, first written by Burt Shevelove and then expanded by Nathan Lane is lacking, despite a decent effort by director George Rankcom.
The cast led by Dan Buckley and Glee’s Kevin McHale were praised. The story, taken from Aristophanes, sees Dionysos traveling to Hades to choose between GB Shaw and Shakespeare as the playwright who can save the play and change the world.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton, while conceding ‘The show is full of good things and some terrifically clever songs’, found it ‘overlong and overinsistent.’
David Jay for The Guardian observed, ‘Burt Shevelove’s book makes scenes feel more like skits…but however stodgy the setting, the songs still shine.’
Anya Ryan at LondonTheatre noted, ‘Rankcom’s ever-surprising production is basically as good as The Frogs can get; it is topical and lighthearted, with no weak link. Still, there is a reason why the show remains one of Sondheim’s lesser-known works. For all its eccentric charm and spark, it remains a curious, slow-moving beast.’ Tim Bano for The Standard concurred: ‘Rankcom and a strong cast bring excellence in flashes, but they’re too swallowed by the messiness of the whole thing.’ For Gary Naylor on The Arts Desk, the music saved the day: ‘We get over a dozen strong songs given full value by a fine set of singers’.
Clementine Scott of BroadwayWorld described the book as ‘a jarring blend of mythological pastiche, physical comedy lifted verbatim from the original Greek text, and attempts to link Aristophanes’s central theme – the role of art in society – to the present day. A stellar cast…commit exuberantly to all of these ideas, but don’t manage to connect them coherently.’
Chris Omaweng of LondonTheatre1 had a personal gripe: ‘The cast worked hard, but the show was a bit of a slog for me…And for a show called The Frogs, shouldn’t the frogs in question have more to do and say?’
2 stars ⭑⭑
Paul Vale in The Stage found it ‘meandering and awkwardly shaped.’ Bit like this roundup, then.
Imelda Staunton and Bessie Carter in Mrs Warren’s Profession. Photo: Johan Persson
George Bernard Shaw‘s play was controversial when written because its subject was prostitution and the position of women in society. These days, its points about our patriarchal society are still relevant but Shaw is considered by many to be hectoring and verbose. Director Dominic Cooke has cut the play down to less than two hours with no interval and modernised some aspects., which made many of the reviewers very happy. However, the production is still set in the appropriate period, leaving some critics puzzled by what exactly had been modernised. No reviewer questioned the power of Imelda Staunton‘s acting but most liked her sparring with her stage daughter played by her real life daughter Bessie Carter. The scenes in which the privileged young woman comes to realise the source of her mother’s wealth, and her parent tries to explain the realties of women’s position in society were felt to be the strongest.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
Alexander Cohen of BroadwayWorld loved the play, even in its abridged form: ‘despite the star power and polished performances, it’s Bernard Shaw’s eloquent political prowess that commands the spotlight in this quietly bruising revival.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton was impressed: ‘the great virtue of the production is it allows the women to shine. Staunton’s Kitty is a close relation of her Mama Rose, monstrous in her own way, but more understandable and with more pathos…(Carter) brings to the stage an honesty, a clarity of expression and thought.’ She approved the choice of mother and daughter: ‘The result is an extraordinary tour de force that brings the play to vivid and compelling life.’
An anonymous reviewer at Time Out admired the two stars: ‘Carter’s Vivie is the centre of the play, and Carter imbues this unconventional woman with the appropriate mix of modern and traditional sensibilities’. As for her mother, ‘Staunton is too smart, too empathetic an actor to aim to overpower her fellow actors. Her Mrs Warren is a walking contradiction rather than a larger than life archetype…These two-hander scenes are where the real mastery of Staunton’s performance is made apparent. There is so much subtle pain in her voice’. The reviewer remarked contentiously, ‘they don’t make actors as interesting as Staunton anymore.’
The Independent’s Alice Saville approved: ‘Cooke’s pared-back production lets… modernity shine out, scrapping all that tedious late-Victorian stage business of tablecloths and rattling teacups in favour of a simple circle of greenery – ravishingly imagined by designer Chloe Lamford’. She confirmed, ‘Staunton is on tremendous form as this faintly cockney-accented grande dame, a hard head under her fluffy coiffure. “Women have to pretend to feel a great deal that they don’t feel,” she says, to audience murmurs of approval, as she styles sex work for survival as just one of the many moral compromises required by female members of a patriarchal society.’
LondonTheatre‘s Marianka Swain declared, ‘Staunton gives formidable voice to Mrs Warren, the latest in her line of indomitable grafters (from Mama Rose to Dolly Levi). She lends fascinating complexity to a woman who is both victim and perpetrator…Carter is outstanding as the robustly pragmatic Vivie, whose assured sense of self is shattered by a series of revelations’.
Now that The Observer has uncoupled from The Guardian, it has its own website, and it’s a pleasure to find one of our finest critics Susannah Clapp posting when she sees a show, as opposed to having to wait until Sunday. She was struck by Staunton ‘s daughter: ‘In a performance that made me eager to see her again and again on the stage, Carter gleams with candour and intelligence, yet is also touched by chilliness.’ Ms Clapp no longer gives star ratings but I assume 4 stars.
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar ‘Both mother and daughter give dignified performances, Staunton the more subtle and formidable with an edge of the dandy while Vivie is plainer and more upright. The play flares fully to life in their duologues but the scenes around them feel filled with extraneous, thinly drawn characters and plot.’
The Times’ Clive Davis had some choice words for Shaw’s words: ‘The torrent of words beats you into submission. Even with a text that has been cut down and clarified by Cooke himself, you still sense Shaw’s hectoring presence.’ He pointed out, ‘Fine actress though she is, Staunton struggles to step out of the great man’s shadow, although it’s intriguing to see her sparring with her real-life daughter, Bessie Carter’
The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish found ‘Dominic Cooke’s briskly efficient, interval-free revival courts seeming a bit anodyne’. Fortunately, Staunton can ‘still rivet attention with just a glance or a twitch of the shoulders’ and ‘The big scenes between mother and daughter are quietly tremendous, and crackle with a genuine sense of a familial bond without becoming cosy’.
Fiona Mountford in the i was lukewarm: ‘The production offers up occasional moments of huge emotion, all of which come from Staunton’. The Mail’s Patrick Marmion thought, ‘The diminutive yet ferocious Staunton is a mouse that roars. And the Amazonian yet graceful Carter is a gazelle that purrs’, but didn’t approve of the editing, saying Dominic Cooke’s ‘expurgated version occupies safe moral high ground in a production that strips the colour and gaiety from the original.’
Olivia Garrett at Radio Times praised the two stars, ‘The delivery of their duologues is pitch-perfect, lines pinging off one another, and yet, both play with pauses and stillness in a way that feels utterly authentic.’
2 stars ⭑⭑
Tim Bano writing for The Standard was not a fan: ’Cooke’s slimline text and his lavish production turn a remarkably punchy 130-year old play into exactly what you fear an evening of Bernard Shaw might be: worthy and dull’. Even the great Imelda Staunton disappointed him: ‘It’s Staunton doing what she does well, and has done before. Staunch, slightly terrifying. Every line a masterclass in technical precision, in full commitment. And here, it doesn’t work. She’s in a melodrama while everyone around her is in a pleasant garden comedy. She tramples over the humour, the fun, and that means the serious bits don’t stand out.’
The Stage’s Sam Marlowe spent much of her review recounting the plot, often a sign that there is little to say about the production. She did observe, ‘although… Imelda Staunton and Bessie Carter are focused and meticulous as Kitty and Vivie Warren, and while there’s plenty of gristle to chew on here, there’s somehow a lack of bone, blood and, ultimately, heart.’
Critics’ Average Rating: 3.3⭑
Value rating 35 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Shucked at the Open Air Theatre. Photo: Pamela Raith
The critics couldn’t resist the opportunity to provide a corn-ucopia of puns to match the corn-based one liners on stage. This very American story of a self-contained corn-growing town which seeks outside help when their crop fails might have seemed unlikely to travel well. However, The Open Air Theatre‘s new Artistic Director Drew McOnie decided its silly wordplay and rather good country music tunes would appeal to audiences this side of the Atlantic, and he was right. Many, but not all, reviewers wallowed in the silliness. But for some, it was just too silly. The combination of a good rating from the critics and relatively low ticket prices have made this the Best Value Show in the West End, at the time of writing.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
After his 1 star experience at 1536, The Times’ Clive Davis clearly needed cheering up, and this was the show to do it. It covered all the bases for him. ‘The songwriters Brandy Clark and Shane McAnally are steeped in Nashville values, which means that every song, even the occasional straight one, has an authentic ring.’ ‘Robert Horn’s book is a thing of beauty. The storyline may be slender but it’s crammed with in-jokes and sly nods and winks, all stitched neatly into place by the show’s Broadway director, Jack O’Brien. The phallic implications of corn on the cob are never far from anyone’s mind, and the two mischievous narrators, played by Monique Ashe-Palmer and Steven Webb, gleefully chip away at the fourth wall on the designer Scott Pask’s lopsided barn.’
Greg Stewart of Theatre Weekly was in awe of it: ‘What makes Shucked so endearing is its refusal to take itself too seriously. It’s a show that revels in wordplay and absurdity, yet never loses sight of its emotional core. Beneath the corny jokes and humorous asides lies a sincere message about embracing change, challenging tradition, and finding strength in community.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
Alun Hood at WhatsOnStage warned, ‘If exchanges like “what’s happenin’ brother?” “I just passed a huge squirrel…which is odd cos I don’t remember eating one” make you groan not guffaw, Shucked isn’t for you.’ It seemed it was for him: ‘It’s not elegant but if you’re in the right frame of mind, or maybe mindlessness, it’s pretty funny…Like that ubiquitous yellow vegetable, it’s only moderately nourishing but it’s sweet and surprisingly delicious.’
For Chris Omaweng at LondonTheatre1, it was ‘Very silly but very entertaining, it’s a satisfying evening of escapism.’ He explained, ‘There’s plenty of toilet humour, jokes about what goes on down below, and a large collection of puns and random thoughts that range from profound to puerile.’
The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish was impressed: ‘Robert Horn’s book chases laughs but its undercutting wit sharpens the experience rather than hollowing it out. Resembling breathing spaces, some songs may be corny in sentiment but also impart homespun truths.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis said, ‘This knowingly ridiculous story is winningly sold, with a good deal of winking and smirking, by the alchemical double-act of Monique Ashe-Palmer and Steven Webb as Storytellers 1 and 2’.
Matt Wolf of LondonTheatre liked the way ‘the material even at its most outré (which is quite often) always regards its characters with respect.’ And he loved the script: ‘I can’t recall another production in recent years with so many lines ripe for the picking. I remain partial to the proviso from the ever-winning Seadon-Young’s Gordy: “Like the lazy dentist said, ‘Brace yourself’”.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
The Stage’s Sam Marlowe enjoyed its silliness: ‘this is all romantic moonshine and capering nonsense. Make no mistake, it’s super stoopid. But at its best, it’s also sorta super – an uncomplicated good time.’ Alice Saville at The Independent had reservations about the show, finding it ‘very very American’, but the songs were ‘unabashedly gorgeous’ and she concluded it was a ‘dizzying dose of good old-fashioned corn syrup.’
For Chris Wiegand of The Guardian, it was too much: ‘everyone shares the compulsion to deliver bon mots, lollipop stick jokes and small-town homespun humour. It’s ultimately exhausting and not only flattens character but reduces dialogue to the same pattern of setup, pause and punchline (many of which you see coming), slowing down Jack O’Brien’s rambling production.’ But he did like the music: ‘it’s Brandy Clark and Shane McAnally’s songs that often blow you away: hoedowns, lonesome ballads, stagecoach rhythms, loud and proud show tunes, with a five-piece band heavy on the guitars and giving a percussive boost to the humour.’
Cindy Marcolina of BroadwayWorld was underwhelmed: ‘Every inch is tropey and formulaic, with quips that are either the low-hanging cob or the most extravagant sexual innuendo, missing the sophistication of well-calibred humour altogether. It has plenty of moments of brilliance and the company is overwhelmingly excellent, but the material isn’t as dazzling.’
Time Out‘s Andrjez Lukowski enjoyed the jokes but that wasn’t enough for him: ‘Shucked is very, very funny. When the laughter stops, you’re really not left with much of substance, but if you’re in the market for turning off your brain and laughing at corn for two-and-a-half-hours, this is clearly the show for you.’
I suspect there will be plenty of people who will settle for an insubstantial good laugh.
Critics’ Average Rating: 3.8⭑
Value rating 58 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Martin Freeman & Jack Lowden in The Fifth Step. Photo: Johan Persson
The Fifth Step appears to have joined Cyprus Avenue and The Ulster American as one of David Ireland’s finest plays, judging by the critics’ response to it. In this two-hander, Jack Lowden, best known for TV’s Slow Horses, is Luka, a new member of Alcoholics Anonymous, and Martin Freeman (Sherlock, The Hobbit, The Responder), is James, longtime sober, who agrees to be his sponsor. The ‘fifth step’ involves confessionals, and that’s where the relationship starts to fall apart in stories of drink, sex and religion. All the critics raved about the two stars’ performances, and most were knocked out by the wit and drama of Ireland’s writing, but a few found the play subdued.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
BroadwayWorld’s Cindy Marcolina was full of praise: ‘Plays like The Fifth Step don’t come around often. Those whose layered philosophical exoskeleton sublime their own dramatic contradictions into quietly superb theatre. At its core, though less pure black comedy and more complex introspective drama coated in dark irony than what you’d expect from David Ireland, it has that delicious push-and-pull that only Ireland can write.’
Jonathan Marshall for LondonTheatre1 declared, ‘Ireland is in his own lane when it comes to playwrighting. The script is meticulously constructed with our expectations constantly subverted. In the wrong hands, the idea of spirituality could come over as trite and clichéd. Here it is depicted with an authentic rawness that we buy into and believe.’ The Mail’s Patrick Marmion also gave top marks, ‘mobilising four-letter, weapons-grade repartee, Ireland is never merely gratuitous and has a genius for embarrassing moral dilemmas.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
Theatre Weekly’s Greg Stewart noted, ‘Ireland’s script dances around a myriad of different themes, yet remains sharp, laced with biting humour and moments of aching vulnerability, deftly navigating themes of addiction, masculinity, and the elusive nature of faith and religion without ever slipping into sentimentality.’ As for the actors, ‘Freeman delivers a stand-out performance as James, a man whose calm exterior masks a storm of guilt and regret. His every pause and glance is loaded with subtext, making his eventual unravelling all the more harrowing. Lowden, meanwhile, is magnetic as Luka—volatile, charming, and deeply wounded.’
Holly O’Mahony of LondonTheatre said, ‘It’s a serious subject matter, but scorching one-liners, usually delivered by a deadpan Lowden but sometimes a quick-to-bite Freeman, ensure the play remains surprisingly funny at every turn. And the pair bring compelling opposing energies, with Freeman’s initially upbeat, delicately curious James a delicious contrast to Holden’s blunt, unfiltered Luka. Whether tender or troubling, chemistry always bubbles between them as they ping-pong through Ireland’s terse script.’ For Chris Wiegand in The Guardian, ‘The timing is impeccable throughout but…both give unsettling performances in a drama that specifically interrogates the role of a sponsor yet applies to multiple positions of authority and influence’.
Sarah Crompton of WhatsOnStage summed up her perceptive review by saying, ‘Freeman and Lowden spar like champions. The Fifth Step, carefully directed by Finn den Hertog, spins through many moods and multiple questions but it never loses its grip. It is a fascinating study of men with lives out of control, and the danger of the ways they seek to exert their power over others and themselves.’
Nick Curtis of The Standard proclaimed, ‘It’s seriously good to see these two actors back in a theatre in such challenging material, on an open stage that offers nowhere to hide’. He gave an added incentive: ‘There’s also an absolutely magnificent final, visual gag that’s almost worth the price of admission alone.’ Dave Fargnoli of The Stage disagreed about the ending, it seems: ‘Although the writing is baggy in places, and never really finds a satisfying conclusion, Ireland opts to leave the piece feeling deliberately messy and unfinished, just like his complex characters’ journeys towards sobriety.’ However he called it a ‘knotty, introspective two-hander…Directed with unsettling, slow-burning precision by Finn den Hertog’.
‘Lowden is staggeringly good as a young loner, Luka,’ reported The Times’ Clive Davis, ‘all jitters and tics and swear words, who is trying to pull himself out of an alcoholic spiral. Freeman impresses too as James, the adviser who is trying to help his protégé through the 12-step programme to sobriety.’ Helen Hawkins at The Arts Desk found ‘Lowden, as is usual with this exceptional actor, totally inhabits (his) wired character’.
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
For the Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish, ‘despite bubbling with hard-won authenticity and again displaying Ireland’s flair for nifty, surprising dialogue, the short evening… winds up seeming curiously flat.’
Andrzej Lukowski of Time Out is not a fan of David Ireland’s provocative writing. He described this play as ‘uneven and didactic. Dialling down the outrage exposes the fact Ireland’s not exactly a man who writes deeply nuanced chracters. But it’s also funny, weird, well acted and provocative in a much more profound way than the nihilistic button pressing of old. And if Ireland has mellowed, its only so far – the intrinsically caustic nature of his writing has allowed him to write a play about the human yearning for spirituality that isn’t unbearably cringe.’
Alice Saville for The Independent was disappointed: ‘Director Finn den Hertog stages things simply, in the round. You’d expect a set-up like this to offer plenty of emotional punch, plenty of space for characters to unfurl, but the tension between these two performers doesn’t simmer as it should…this is a production that puts its hands firmly round your neck without ever delivering the expected throttling.’
Kait Kerrigan and Bree Lowdermilk are established musical theatre writers in the US but The Mad Ones is their London debut. It’s the story of a teenager driving her new car with her mother, her boyfriend and her dead best friend, and going back in time to wonder what she’s doing with her life.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
Paul Vale for The Stage rated it highly: ‘It’s refreshing to see such an experimental structure in a musical: it jumps around in time while playing fast and loose with the fourth wall. This format seems to allow the writers far more scope for creativity, each scene informing the narrative, as if they’re applying a fine wash to a painting, leading to a much greater depth of colour. It’s backed up by a beautifully crafted, compelling score that veers confidently between searing, heartfelt ballads and quirky comedy with whip-smart lyrics.’ He continued, ‘For a small-scale show in a studio space, Lloyd’s flawless production punches well above its weight, from the pitch-perfect cast to Reuben Speed’s ominous, fragmented glass set design, which mirrors Sam’s shattered life.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
LondonTheatre1‘s Chris Omaweng described it as ‘A charming journey that calls its audiences to consider what really matters in life, it’s sweet but not saccharine, multilayered but not overly complex.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
Tom Ambrose at LondonTheatre wasn’t so impressed: ‘Although there is enough here to have an enjoyable, thought-provoking evening of musical theatre, it is not always clear what the point of the story is and, worse yet, The Mad Ones doesn’t know when it has outstayed its welcome.’
Harry Bower at All That Dazzles observed, Thematically…it’s a crowded field—grief, maternal pressure, queerness, friendship, teenage angst and relationship struggle, academic expectation, the fragility of youth. All rich veins, but rarely mined in depth.’
Cindy Marcolina for BroadwayWorld called it ‘a sweet contemporary musical with a heart of gold.’
Tanya Reynolds, Siena Kelly and Liv Hill in 1536. Photo: Helen Murray
Four stars from many critics for Ava Pickett’s debut play, a product of the Almeida’s scheme to encourage new writing. It imagines the devastating effect on the lives of three ordinary women when Henry VIII executes Anne Boleyn. Modern parallels are inescapable when, throughout society, men are encouraged in their domination of women. The reviews suggested it tailed off a little at the end, otherwise it was high praise for a production directed by Lindsay Turner and starring Tanya Reynolds, Siena Kelly and Liv Hill.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
The Guardian’s Miriam Gillinson got straight to the point: ‘Set against the impending execution of Anne Boleyn, 1536 is an effortlessly funny, bold and ballsy play, which asks the question: just how much have things really changed for women today?’
‘it’s a terrific debut, with meaty roles for three of our finest young actresses, and plenty for an incisive director like Turner to get her teeth into. Bravo,’ proclaimed The Standard’s Nick Curtis.
The Stage’s Sam Marlowe wrote, ‘Kelly, Reynolds and Hill are deliciously natural together, funny, irreverent, tender and teasing…There is, perhaps, nothing startlingly new here; but there’s a freshness and an ease about Pickett’s ear for conversational gambit and character foible that makes the play eminently watchable’.
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage called it ‘an impressive, involving evening’. Time Out’s Andrjez Lukowski summed it up as ‘A fascinating feminist hybrid of EastEnders, Samuel Beckett and Wolf Hall’ or, to put it another way, ‘1536 is a droll and perceptive period piece that’s also a searing and unsettling contemporary feminist drama’.
Ella Duggan for The Independent declared ‘Pickett…has written a script that is lean but dense, rich in vernacular and laced with wit’ and ‘Director Lyndsey Turner orchestrates it all with characteristic finesse, guiding us from rolling laughter to horror with a barely susceptible gear change.’
3 stars
Clare Allfree for The Telegraph describing the play as ‘effervescent, extremely funny’ noted, ‘Pickett characterises her protagonists with eye-popping vitality and, thanks in no small part to outstanding performances from Reynolds, Kelly and Hill, in ways that vividly energise our understanding of historic female experience at the hands of men.’
1 star ⭑
The Times’ Clive Davis was mystified by the play’s appeal to others. He called it ‘the kind of simplistic, feminist-lite drama about the evils of patriarchy that you normally encounter in a one-hour slot at the Edinburgh Fringe, where my instinct would be not to write a review to spare the feelings of everyone involved.’
Tamsin Greig in The Deep Blue Sea. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Lindsay Posner’s production of Terence Rattigan’s play about a woman’s depression and breakdown was well received by the critics. They particularly praised Tamsin Greig who was said to have brought a rare emotional depth to the leading role of Hester. The show’s transfer from the intimate Ustinov Studio in Bath to the ‘cavernous’ Theatre Royal Haymarket was too much for some, who missed both intimacy and volume.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton gave a lot of background to Rattigan’s play which is worth a read in itself. As to this production, ‘Greig makes you feel every ounce of Hester’s desperation as she clings to a man she knows she doesn’t love her and is unable to match the feelings he has unleashed in her. The timing she has honed over years as a comic actress makes her a fine tragedian’. She concluded, ‘It’s a terrific production that reveals the extraordinary power in this slightly old-fashioned play that has outlasted many more modish works.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
‘Tamsin Greig is shatteringly good’ said Nick Curtis in The Standard. ‘Greig perfectly balances how much she reveals of Hester’s inner torment,’ said Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre, Posner directs Rattigan’s play with sensitive precision’.
For Greg Stewart at Theatre Weekly, ‘With Tamsin Greig at its centre, this production is a devastatingly intimate portrait of love, despair, and the quiet agony of emotional isolation. Greig’s portrayal of Hester Collyer is nothing short of beautiful. Known for her deft comic timing and nuanced dramatic work, she brings a raw vulnerability to the role that is both harrowing and magnetic.‘
Matt Wolf for The Arts Desk said, ‘Greig, as ever, is second-to-none in her ability to communicate a soul in torment’.
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
Dave Fargnoli for The Stage found, ‘Tamsin Greig gives a grounded, nuanced performance, finding believable need and vulnerability in a character who is obsessively, pathetically devoted to a man who cannot return her affections. Greig catches every detail with consummate skill, maintaining a facade of brittle politeness that barely conceals her withering disdain.’ He commented, ‘Peter McKintosh’s set is gorgeously gloomy, recreating Hester’s run-down rented apartment in detail.’
Anne Moloney for CityAM criticised the ‘plodding pace’ but said, ‘Greig’s performance as Hester is a triumph.’
Dominic Maxwell complained in The Times ‘I just wish we could hear them better’ (something Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre and Matt Wolf at The Arts Desk also mentioned), ‘which is an awful shame because I’ve never seen a Hester whose depression is so tenderly drawn…And Greig’s comic timing is as world-class as ever.’
Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld was not impressed: ‘Lindsay Posner’s austere production is almost obsequiously faithful to the text. No high-tech high-gloss spectacles here please…A shame then that the gamble doesn’t quite pay off…Now transferring to a cavernous West End theatre, the audience are relegated to observers peeping in, not guests at the dinner table. Perhaps that is why Tamsin Greig’s performance doesn’t quite hit the mark. …Icy glares directed out to the audience are not enough to convince that she is teetering on the verge of suicide or fill the vast space with groaning melancholy’.
Critics’ average rating 3.6⭑
Value rating 37 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Mischief made their name with The Play That Goes Wrong. Their follow-ups have never quite reached the height of comedy of the original- until now, it seems. A spoof of 1960s spy films, The Comedy About Spies is a convoluted story of British, American and Russian agents looking for the plans of a top secret weapon. The plot is probably less important than the quality of the script by Henry Lewis and Henry Shields, the direction by Matt DiCarlo, the design by David Farley, and the ensemble cast, all of which were lavished with praise by the critics.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
Greg Stewart at Theatre Weekly declared, ‘This finely tuned machine of comic timing and theatrical chaos is possibly Mischief’s best work yet’. He wrote, ‘Writers Henry Lewis and Henry Shields have crafted a script that is both lovingly referential and gleefully absurd. The dialogue crackles with wit, and the physical comedy…is executed with military precision. Some jokes are smooth as a Shiraz: quick and easy, delivered seemingly off the cuff in response to a previous line. However, the real magic lies in punchlines set up several scenes earlier, making the payoff all the more rewarding.’
Aliya Al-Hussan at LondonTheatre was just as enthusiastic: ‘Politically correct it certainly isn’t, but huge fun it definitely is.’ ‘The wordplay is incredibly silly, but also very clever,’ she opined. ‘The cast is tight, with a zany energy. The chemistry is palpable…As ever, Lewis steals every scene in which he appears.’
The Mail‘s Patrick Marmion was left ‘in awe at how it’s possible to devise something so complicated… and actually pull it off on stage.’ Calling it ‘slick as an oil spill on an ice rink,’ he said it was ‘a 360, all-round, head-spinning winner’.
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
The Standard‘s Nick Curtis got very excited: ‘Finally, Mischief Theatre may have found a show to match the frenetically daft wit and precise physical comedy of their breakout hit The Play That Goes Wrong.’ He praised the ‘cartoonish levels of gurning and mugging to augment the physical horseplay and…the plot is pure nonsense. But it made me laugh out loud more often than just about anything else I’ve seen in the last 12 months and the characters are charming and winningly delineated. The fans will love it: I and other sceptics may be converted.’
Clive Davis of The Times proclaimed, ‘this is just the kind of outrageously inventive humour that the world needs at the moment.’ He said, ‘Matt DiCarlo’s intricately calibrated production is a miracle of comic timing and ensemble acting.’ He noted, ‘David Farley’s set is a joy, the scenery changes unfurling like a succession of Russian dolls.’
The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish warned, ‘if you don’t have a penchant for running gags flogged to death, rampant mugging, cheap sight gags and corny word-play then you may not be the ideal audience here. That said, even the most averse spectator will likely marvel at the gag-a-line detail, comic timing and sheer physical bravura of this company of fools’. He concluded,’I’d say it takes near genius to fashion something this incorrigibly goofy.’ ‘it’s escapism of the highest order, and in the end, hugely enjoyable,’ decided Chris Omaweng of LondonTheatre1.
Ryan Gilbey for The Guardian ‘was crying helpless tears of laughter within the first five minutes, and at several other moments throughout’. He provided his own humorous comment on the content, saying the show ‘offers farce, slapstick and multiple callbacks. So much of the script relies on linguistic misunderstandings (sweet/suite, need/knead, etc) that even the most tolerant viewer may become homophone-phobic.’ He noted, ‘David Farley’s doll’s-house-style cross-section set, which splits the hotel into colour-coded quarters in the first act, is glorious, but his designs grow fussy and over-dressed in act two’.
Franco Milazzo for BroadwayWorld, ‘the silliness is off the scale and the lexicon of laughs is explored every which way. There’s some excellent punning, running jokes and fantastical physical feats’. Tom Wicker in Time Out described it as ‘low-hanging fruit, of course, but ramped up by Mischief Theatre’s trademark ability to spin seemingly minor mishaps into total comedy meltdowns. Director Matt Dicarlo handles these set-pieces and Shields and Lewis’s penchant for fast-moving wordplay deftly, allowing us half a knowing wink before whisking us on to the characters’ next blunder.’
‘It is impossible not to be swept along by the giddily escalating mirth of Matt DiCarlo’s amiable production,’ claimed Fiona Mountford in the i.
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
Alun Hood for WhatsOnStage had a more lukewarm response: ‘it’s crowd-pleasing stuff, if seldom as inspired as the best of the “….Goes Wrong” franchise that first put Mischief on the map,’ said . He explained, ‘The material is weaker than the structure and mechanics.’ Holly O’Mahony at The Stage felt that ‘while the physical comedy is impeccably executed, the bare-bones story it’s running on will leave some craving a little more substance.’ In her opinion, ‘loyal fans of the company won’t be disappointed. It’s pure escapism: it doesn’t make you think and you’ll see the jokes coming before they land.’
Critics’ average rating 4.1 ★
Value rating 48 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Here We Are at the National Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner
Opinions on Stephen Sondheim’s final musical didn’t so much vary as go to polar opposites, from five stars to two. The show is a surreal critique of capitalism based on two films by Luis Bunuel, one of which was The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. In the musical, the bourgeoisie are Americans facing an existential crisis. Some critics thought it was deep, some found it shallow (feelings that were reflected in their view of David Ives’ book). Some heard music typical of Sondheim’s late great period, others felt he was not at his best. The fact that it was unfinished and notably short of songs in the second half didn’t bother some but ruined it for others. The reviewers all agreed it was a top class cast which included Jane Krakowski, Rory Kinnear, Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Martha Plimpton.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ★★★★★
Reviewing for TheArtsDesk, Matt Wolf, something of an expert on Sondheim, saw a perfection that others didn’t: ‘Musical theatre newbies may want more distinct numbers, not knowing that late-career Sondheim…some while ago dispensed with those. But those willing to meet the show on its own wacky, wonderful terms are in for a treat, and not just because the National has fielded a lineup of talent that is extraordinary, even at that address.’ Mr Wolf may look at his idol’s work through rose coloured spectacles, but it’s worth reading his insightful review.
4 stars ★★★★
The Times’ Clive Davis thought it was a ‘curate’s egg’: ‘The first part of the evening is quite simply extraordinary, the typically angular melodies delivered with panache by a first-rate ensemble…This show reminds us that (Sondheim) can also be very, very funny’. However, ‘It’s in the second act that something strange happens to Joe Mantello’s urbane production. An astonishingly deft piece of musical theatre slowly gives up on songs and becomes a mixture of comedy of manners and existential drama.’
Sarah Crompton of WhatsOnStage seemed pleased just to be there: ‘Here We Are is not anywhere near peak Sondheim, but…there are constant glimmers of his wit, and his ability to grapple with the secrets of the human heart. It feels like a late-career bonus, a curiosity but one that gleams.’
The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish was sanguine: ‘We can carp until doomsday about what it lacks but it’s a boon to have it over here. Sure, it’s no masterpiece, but a minor-league swansong from a giant of musicals is still a major deal.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times said it had flaws, ‘And yet: Sondheim’s songs, which nod to his back catalogue while always staying spry, still delight. Joe Mantello’s deluxe staging is swish, swift and surprising. The Anglo-American cast is sensationally good…When it’s just satirical, it’s so-so. When it surrenders to its strangeness, it’s an exquisitely unpredictable ensemble piece.‘
3 stars ★★★
Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski decided to be ‘quite indulgent’ because audiences were warned in advance that the musical was incomplete. He called David Ives’ book ‘deft, funny and perceptive’. He concluded with an element of irony: ‘as final unfinished works go, it’s pretty bloody good. Here We Are is a really, really great example of half a musical. The luxury casting doesn’t simply flatter flimsy material: what Sondheim actually wrote was very good, and Ives’s second half is hardly a hack job.’
Arifa Akbar of The Guardian was disappointed: ‘for all its interesting ideas on life and death, rich and poor, it melts away rather too quickly afterwards.’ Adam Bloodworth at CityAM observed, ‘Much of the comedy is mined from Fawlty Towers-style farcical faffing – but on a grand, complex scale. It’s the type of tomfoolery that might look silly but is pulled off vanishingly rarely.’ ‘As for (Sondheim’s) ditties,’ he said, ‘they serve as a function to enable the story rather than existing to entertain us in and of themselves.’
2 stars ★★
The Stage’s Sam Marlowe called it ‘a strangulated swansong.’ The Stage gave her the opportunity to write a ‘Long Review’ and she certainly took advantage to explain her reaction at length. The characters were part of the reason: ‘There is an immediate, and fundamental, problem: not only are these shallow idiots – here a bunch of vacuous urbanites in search of a place to have brunch – too thinly drawn to feel properly human, but there’s not a single compelling or convincing relationship between them.’ That’s not all: ‘It’s all pretty tedious, and although the score is immediately recognisable as Sondheim – that bouncy chromaticism, those rising modulations from major to minor – it’s not especially memorable. Still less arresting are the lyrics‘. And if that’s not enough: ‘you just feel as if the performers are flailing about helplessly, with no guidance from Ives’ aimless book.’
Alexander Cohen of BroadwayWorld took a similar line. ‘There’s little dramatic mileage to be milked from characters who are deliberately flimsy caricatures,’ he said. He continued, ‘At its worst David Ives’ book is a single punchline Monty Python sketch dragged out into an entire musical – that punchline being that the one percenters barely possess a brain cell between them.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis declared, ‘Here We Are is extremely sketchy and gets lumpier and messier as it goes on. The characters are barely-fleshed stereotypes’.
Critics’ average rating 2.9★
Value rating 33 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
