Author: Paul Lewis

Posted on

Theatre reviews roundup: Disney’s Hercules

Hero or Zero?

Theatre Royal Drury Lane
Hercules at Theatre Royal Drury Lane. Photo: Matt Crockett

Taking the stage left empty by the departure of Frozen, Disney’s Hercules didn’t impress the critics as much as its predecessor, let alone the benchmark Lion King. Despite two 5 star and three 2 star reviews , it was generally received politely but without enthusiasm. There was disagreement about whether the book by Kwame Kwei-Armah and Robert Horn (of Shucked fame) helped or hindered. Not that the rush of little feet through the doors is likely to be affected by the critics’ opinions.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Five stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Olivia Garrett for Radio Times couldn’t have been more on board: ‘This lustre-dusted show-stopper of a musical is everything you could want.’ She expanded: ‘We all know half-measures is not a term they’re familiar with at Disney HQ, but the size and scale of this production still manages to surpass expectation.’ She continued: ‘The leads are also exactly as you’d hope them to be. Luke Brady is a doe-eyed Labrador who lights up the scenes with his big cheeky grin, while Mae Ann Jorolan is a cutting, cynical Meg, who manages to be just as much of a hero as Hercules in this version.’  Her enthusiasm knew no bounds: ‘It’s got glitter and spectacle coming out of every pour [sic], but manages to match that with heart and soul in abundance.’

‘With thunderous flair and lightning-fast wit, Hercules storms the stage at Theatre Royal Drury Lane in a heavenly display of theatrical might,’ declared Theatre Weekly‘s Greg Stewart. ‘Visually, the production is a triumph. Dane Laffrey’s scenic design, complemented by George Reeve’s video work and Jeff Croiter’s lighting, creates a dynamic and immersive world’. He concluded: ‘It’s a show that embraces its mythological roots with a wink and a smile, delivering a thunderously entertaining evening. Hercules is a heroic hit, complete with tunics, thunderbolts, and toe-tapping tunes.’

Four stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

‘Casey Nicholaw’s production packs in big tunes, gorgeous costumes, and plenty of groan-worthy laughs,’ said Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre. She had ‘no doubt this feel-good family show will delight Drury Lane’s youngest audience members.’

Three stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar gave a thorough analysis of this ‘conveyor-belt musical’. She described it as a ‘sturdy enough Disney vehicle, with strong songs and plenty of splash. The characters are not so much divine as 2D, although the sound and optics are always eye-popping, the swivelling set designs intent on moving heaven and earth.’ Among the positives were the lead: ‘Luke Brady is an incredible singer’. But, in the end, ‘this feels like old-school Disney, its hero not quite self-mocking enough… and the earnestness heaped heavy.’

WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton declared: ‘It’s a show where it’s perfectly possible to have a good time. Yet something is missing. The wit and warmth that made the 1997 classic rather endearing have been replaced by something much more mechanical and heavy-handed.’

Andrzej Lukowksi of Time Out described it as ‘a sturdy action-adventure romp that absolutely does the trick and is eminently worth taking The Kids to during the hols.’ He cautioned: ‘Dane Laffrey’s sets and George Reeves’s video design are often impressive, but they never don’t look like a themed restaurant’. He suggested: ‘accepting it’s not a screechingly ambitious piece of work then perhaps all it really lacks is a big showstopper moment’.

Kat Mokrynski for BroadwayWorld found it ‘a fun, flashy, yet not-so-faithful adaptation of the original film that lacks the flair and (literal) fire that made the 1997 film so special. It’s an enjoyable theatrical production, but struggles to find the sweet spot between being a silly show for kids and a more adult musical about finding your place in the world.’

Clive Davis of The Times found it ‘hard to work up much enthusiasm about Casey Nicholaw’s musclebound production…True, the temperature rises whenever the five muses deliver hand-clapping gospel fervour…otherwise this is a show which ticks along competently enough. The new numbers are efficient but unmemorable’. He thought ‘A trip to Mount Olympus ought to leave you gasping, but this version of the home of the gods looks more like a Vegas theme park on a quiet Sunday afternoon’ and ‘The puppet reincarnation of the movie’s fearsome hydra is underwhelming’.

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis called it ‘pacy and family friendly, full of cheery songs and snarky jokes’ and decided it ‘chugs along agreeably enough’, but ‘there’s no real sense of threat or danger. If only scriptwriters Robert Horn and Kwame Kwei-Armah had put as much effort into the plot and emotion as they do into the one-liners.’

Over at the Express, Stefan Kyriazis clearly liked the original movie and admitted this stage version is ‘undeniably often hugely entertaining. Families will love it.’ But he noted: ‘the new stage production has ditched all the edge and rolled out the full cheese trolley.’ He lamented: ‘Where’s the big budget and jaw-dropping spectacle of the staged Aladdin and recent Frozen’?

Two stars ⭑⭑

Patrick Marmion of The Mail was underwhelmed: Hercules has ‘been reduced from legendary hero to close to zero by a laboured new musical version of his derring-do’. ‘(T)he superhero action sequences are lugubriously undercharged’, he said, and ‘Music and lyrics by Alan Menken and David Zippel are audaciously bland.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville gave a review from hell. She said ‘this stodgy new stage version…hits the expected beats without capturing the lovable zaniness that makes Hercules a fan fave.’ Considering its chances of a long run, she claimed: ‘Hercules has two things stopping it from going the distance: a lack of stagecraft to create moments of real awe and wonder, and a lack of consistency in a script that doesn’t really have a cohesive take on who these mythic figures are, and why we should care about them.’

Over at the i-paper, Fiona Mountford was even more blistering, describing it as a ‘hideous grab-bag of classical mythology’. Among her many criticisms, she blamed the script: ‘Robert Horn and Kwame Kwei-Armah have collaborated on a new book and the resulting two charm-free hours exist in a state of almost constant narrative bewilderment.’ She had much more to complain about but concluded: ‘it’s a dismal evening. Alan Menken (music) and David Zippel (lyrics) have expanded upon the film’s original score, yet very little sticks apart from “Go the Distance”. I would recommend that you go quite some distance to avoid this.’ (Ouch!)

Critics’ Average Rating 3.2⭑

Value rating 40 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)

Hercules can be seen at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane at least until 28 March 2026. Click here to buy tickets direct from the Theatre Royal Drury Lane

If you’ve seen Hercules, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Theatre reviews roundup- 4:48 Psychosis

Suicide play splits critics

ROYAL COURT UPSTAIRS
4:48 Psychosis. Photo: Marc Brenner

The 25th anniversary production of Sarah Kane’s play reunites the cast, director and venue from when it was first performed one year after she took her life. It explores suicidal feelings in an experimental style. Some critics found it had lost impact, others thought it had gained in power.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

5 stars ★★★★★

WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton was overwhelmed. Her review analysed in detail why the play is a classic, and she lavished praise on the production: ‘The  acting is intense, spare, and watchful. Every line has meaning, every movement has intent. It is an overwhelming experience.’

‘I found myself revelling in the brilliance and wit of the mind it conjured,’ wrote Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski. ‘Madeleine Potter is gravelly and cynical; (Daniel) Evans is lighter and more morally flexible; Jo McInnes is droll and down to earth but capable of the most volcanic emotional peaks. They take us on a journey: for all the text’s abstractions, it’s quite easy to follow what’s going on here’.

Jonathan Marshall for LondonTheatre1 said: ‘The artists and creatives behind the production truly understand the work and its nature of nonlinear form. We sense all are aboard here in showcasing the swansong of a great.’

Four stars ★★★★

Holly O’Mahony for LondonTheatre noted: ‘There is more sense of ennui than psychological distress…It verges on being mechanical in places; overly conscious of protecting its original features like a precious museum artifact. And yet this allows Kane’s words, rather than the performances, to remain the posthumous star of the show.’

The Stage’s Sam Marlowe declared: ‘This is a stark, brave drama from a truly remarkable playwright; 25 years on, it still devastates.’ But not perfect: ‘The text is often overwrought, the metaphors clunky and the language self-conscious.’

Three stars ★★★

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar described the design: ‘Jeremy Herbert’s set is a white square with functional table, chairs and an overhanging mirror that reflects the audience and the protagonist’s selves which acquire more fractured counterparts in shadow.’ She felt the production lacked impact: ‘dramatically it is sedate. You wish for something messier, louder, angrier’.

Nick Curtis of The Standard admitted: ‘I came out of the Court feeling subdued, sad and unenlightened, but writing this hours later in a bright dawn, I find the play’s combative humanity and its striking final image of escape have stayed with me.’

2 stars ★★

The Times’ Clive Davis suggested it ‘ isn’t a play at all, rather the random, agonised reflections of a mind that has passed beyond its breaking point…There’s wave upon wave of self-loathing, icy anger and mangled religiosity, yet flashes of mordant humour too…Bleakness is piled upon bleakness. But…the words begin to turn in a monotonous circle. This production is an exercise in the actor’s craft, an exquisitely wrought gilt frame surrounding an empty canvas.’

Critics’ Average Rating 3.9★

4:48 Psychosis can be seen  at the Royal Court (royalcourttheatre.com) to 5 July, and then at the RSC Stratford 10-27 July 2025 (rsc.org.uk)

If you have seen this production of 4:48 Psychosis, please leave your rating and review below

 

Posted on

Theatre review: Natalie Dormer in Anna Karenina at Chichester Festival Theatre

Game Of Thrones star soars in clipped Tolstoy

⭑⭑⭑

Natalie Dormer in Anna Karenina. Photo: Marc Brenner

For the second time in less than a week, I’ve sat through a play more than three hours long. Stereophonic which I saw a few days ago was, for me, too long. But Anna Karenina was actually too short. It barely gave Tolstoy or Natalie Dormer the chance to show off their brilliance. It was a good try but fell short of doing justice to a great novel.

At three hours, this stage adaptation by Phillip Breen can only hope to present a fraction of Tolstoy’s novel which runs to 38 hours on Audible. Mr Breen has chosen to try to tell the stories of all three of the main women: Anna, Dolly and Kitty. As a result none of them get a full swing at their characters in the time available.
Nevertheless the actors give impressive performances, not least Natalie Dormer as Anna who, within the scope she is given, brings a tornado of emotion to the role, so much so you find yourself longing for her next moment on stage. She has a rich colorata voice like a full bodied red wine, and her piercing eyes and curling mouth give passion to her words.
Naomi Sheldon as Dolly is wonderfully over the top as she harangues her useless philandering husband, bemoans her ageing body and rails against everything with a tirade of very modern expletives. Incidentally I thought the use of contemporary, particularly sexual, terms, while anachronistic, did work well as shorthand for the characters’ feelings.
Kitty was the most one dimensional of the main protagonists but Shalisha James-Davis made the most of this woman constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown, as she assesses her obsessive suitor-then-husband.
The actors certainly convey the essence of their characters but inevitably much colour is lost. A great deal of narrative is also lost to what much of the time becomes a plot summary.
So, what is the plot? Anna is dissatisfied with ordinary family life and her husband Karenin, a seemingly nice, tolerant chap, and nicely played by Tomiwa Edun. She leaves him for a more passionate life with her lover Vronsky, whose fire cracker character is beautiully conveyed by Seamus Dillane. However, this being the mid 19th century, and she finds herself ostracised from society and separated from her children. Worse still, she begins to doubt Vronsky’s faithfulness. In fact all the men seem to have a roving eye whether they act upon it or not.
Two other unhappy relationships are explored. Levin, played with passion by David Oates, loves Kitty but she resists him. She thinks he will be unfaithful because of his past record of bed hopping. Eventually she is reassured and marries him but her doubts continue right up to a traumatic childbirth.
Dolly is already well into a marriage and has many children. Her husband Stiva gambles and womanises, in a splendidly spineless characterization by Jonnie Broadbent, and she constantly rails at him and at her own lack of attractiveness.
The problem with this filleting approach is that we lose much of the complexity of the characters and their lives. Rather than the flesh, we get the bare bones of the plot. When it comes down to it, plot is only the structure on which good novels or plays build their characters’ development. In this adaptation we are given three women who don’t trust their partners, shout and cry a lot, and end more or less happier than they began. And Tolstoy’s novel is a great deal more than that.
Anna Karenina at Chichester Festival Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner

The other challenge is how to design it. The open Chichester stage doesn’t allow for solid scenery, except at the very back. So how to present horses and trains, very important components of this story? Since the adaptor Phillip Breen is also the director, we can assume he had a hand in the approach.

Although Max Jones’ exciting design is busy with many chairs that are moved around, the most noticeable aspect is a nursery theme. Children’s toys are scattered round the stage- dolls houses, horses, a train set. It serves to emphasise, perhaps, that women in this period are still treated like children in terms of their rights. I’m pretty sure the doll’s houses were meant to remind us of Ibsen’s play about another woman trapped in domesticity, a part which Natalie Dormer surely must play. The train set reminds us that the world is changing: modern inventions such as the railways and electricity have arrived. While the former is central to the story, the latter is also given its moment in the spotlight, so to speak, in the form of tubes of light which descend and form, of course, a cage.
The wooden horses come in handy as substitutes for the real thing but frankly the sight of a man shooting an ‘injured’ one was comical- shades of Monty Pyhton and Spamalot. And when Les Dennis in a delightful cameo as the world weary servant Petka drives a carriage drawn by rocking horse, it’s silly rather than amusing. I would rather have used my imagination more, something which we had to do, when it came to the all important train.
I liked many of the effects. The trio of Japanese musicians who played Paddy Cunneen’s edgy music. The way the large cast ( and there are nineteen named actors) sat in chairs at the back of the stage, especially the moment they scraped cutlery together during a dining scene.
There are too many short scenes which become messy but there are some scenes which really hit home, like Anna’s secretive visit to see her son. A rare moment when you really understand profoundly what she has given up.
This adaptation of Tolstoy’s novel is a brave attempt but, like Scott’s trek to the South Pole, it falls short of total success.
Anna Karenina can be seen at Chichester Festival theatre until 28 June 2025. Buy tickets directly here.
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre.
Posted on

Review: Jack Lowden & Martin Freeman in The Fifth Step

Two screen stars excel in black comedy about addiction

@sohoplace

⭑⭑⭑⭑

Martin Freeman & Jack Lowden in The Fifth Step. Photo: Johan Persson

The most important thing to say about The Fifth Step is, it’s very funny. Yes, it’s about two recovering addicts, one taking the first steps in the Alcoholics Anonymous programme, the other his older sponsor. Yes, there are shocking revelations and even violence. Yes, it explores trust in authority, toxic masculinity, lack of self esteem, and self deception but it’s written by David Ireland, the master of black comedy responsible for Cyprus Avenue and The Ulster American. And it stars Jack Lowden, who’s River Cartwright from Slow Horses, and Martin Freeman of Sherlock and The Hobbit fame. I can’t imagine any pair of actors doing it a better job of balancing over-the-top humour and mental anguish.

Jack Lowden and Martin Freeman are on stage continuously for the entire hour-and-a-half. The wonderful in-the-round stage of @sohoplace has never been better used. Milla Clarke‘s set is minimal, with a few collapsible chairs and a table that can be brought out or tucked away, as needed. There is nowhere for the actors to hide, any more than their characters can, no matter how much they try. Director Finn Den Hertog choreographs the movement of the actors and furniture, like a boxing match. And, if we’re going for metaphors, there’s also a raised edge that the characters can walk along precariously between scenes. Because these are men on the edge.

Jack Lowden is Luka, a newly recovering addict nearing the fifth step of the AA programme, Martin Freeman is James, an older mentor who has been through it and offers his experience to the younger man. At first, Luka is man who needs help. He doesn’t know what to do or where to turn once he has given up drink. Jack Lowden gives Luka teary eyed desperation as he says, “I think I might be an incel.” James offers wisdom and advice, but whatever crutch Luka reaches for, like a bouncing puppy with wide-eyed hope,  James moves him on- ‘don’t go to the pub, don’t masturbate, don’t have an affair with a married woman, don’t believe in Jesus.’ These are some of the funniest moments, as when sexist Luka speaks in a filthy way about women, without seeing the problem, while an exasperated James makes wry, often cynical,

It turns out that neither of them are fully to be believed. The two actors excel at conveying and concealing layers of truth. At first Martin Freeman is smiling, firm in his pronouncements, with a gimlet eye on Luka, but there is something about his controlling manner and his pointing finger that make you wonder about him even from the start. The meetings between the two continue and Luka gains in self esteem, until they reach the fifth step, which is confession about the harm their addiction may have done.

It’s then that we see what happens when faith is exploited and trust breaks down.  The newly confident Luka challenges his mentor as revelations about James’ contradictory instructions and hypocritical behaviour emerge. When that happens, James starts to break down with an aggressive defensiveness that includes nasty insults and actual, truly shocking violence near the end (it drew a gasp form the audience and was one of the best choreographed fights I’ve seen). Questions about the nature and abuse of authority come to the fore, already primed by earlier references to abuse of children by priests.

I felt the ending was silly, soft and rather sentimental, after such searing black comedy, and I could have done without so much reference to the importance of spiritual belief, even if there are some good jokes about it. Nevertheless, this is such a funny and profound play, and so well acted, I am happy to overlook those slight flaws, and thoroughly recommend The Fifth Step.

The Fifth Step is at @sohoplace until 26 July 2025. Buy tickets from the theatre here.

Paul paid for his own ticket.

Click here to watch this review on the YouTube channel Theatre Reviews With Paul Seven

Click here to read Paul’s roundup of other critics’ reviews of The Fifth Step.

 

Posted on

Theatre reviews roundup: Stereophonic

A long evening with flashes of genius

Duke of York’s
Stereophonic at the Duke of York’s.Photo: Marc Brenner

Stereophonic by David Adjmi comes from Broadway trailing the glory of a record number of Tony nominations for a play, and the Award for Best Play. If the reviews are anything to go by, it’s unlikely to repeat that success at the Oliviers. All the critics found it long but some were more absorbed than others by the story of a 70s rock band recording an album.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Five stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Alexander Cohen of BroadwayWorld loved it: ‘We feel like we are in the band, mixing harmonies, dubbing vocals, finding take after take exasperating. Writer David Adjmi accentuates the organic feel with conversations that overlap, slicing into each other with insecure ferocity, all finely tuned by director Daniel Aukin.’

Emma John for The Guardian was a fan: ‘At more than three hours, the run time can feel as indulgent as one of Pink Floyd’s longer tracks – but this is an extraordinary allegory for artistic perfectionism and the destruction it leaves in its wake.’

Helen Hawkins at The Arts Desk pointed out: ‘What makes this play greater than it might appear on paper is its approach to authenticity. Theatrical “reality” is often designed as a continuous stream of speeches and actions, until Beckett and Pinter et al upset that applecart. Stereophonic uses all the hiatuses, sometimes lengthy ones, that can punctuate a real event, especially one fraught with microaggressions that drive people offstage, forcing the action to stop until they return.’

The Financial Times‘ Sarah Hemming also advised that this was more than a typical drama: ‘Adjmi’s script comes in somewhere between Chekhov and the slow-burn dramas of Annie Baker, gradually building towards something much greater than the sum of its parts…in the end, this is a drama about the very human search for something bigger than ourselves.’

Four stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish was upbeat but with reservations: ‘While the balance between art and heart-ache, technical challenge and emotional clash, is well achieved, what’s missing are the specifics that might give the band a stronger inner-life. We’re left in the dark when it comes to the minutiae of their past, or the day-to-day logistics of their existence’.

Alice Saville’s review in The Independent doesn’t carry a rating but it was full of praise: ‘It romances its subject, caressing these bandmates with loving washes of golden light, dressing them in a lavish wardrobe of gorgeous 1970s blouses and flares, and letting us in on their intimate moments of silliness. These songs are private things, Adjmi shows us, scrawled in a diary in a moment of pain, trying to reach places ordinary words can’t reach.’

Antonia Georgiou for The Upcoming said: ‘Stereophonicis a triumphant celebration of the art of collaborative songwriting. With a soaring score and stellar performances, it’s a must-see for theatre and music lovers alike.’ The Standard’s Nick Curtis called it ‘a fine-grained, audacious work full of overlapping dialogue and bold use of silence and repetition amid the emotional flashpoints, not to mention some terrific songs’.

Three stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Clive Davis was disappointed: ‘The performances are first-rate, and David Zinn’s set really does make you feel as if you have a seat on the mixing desk. Yet at over three hours long it’s burdened with far too many longueurs.’

Sam Marlowe of The Stage said, ‘it’s insightful and crammed with texture…It’s sensitively directed by Daniel Aukin and the acting, from an ensemble that includes three of the original Broadway cast, feels faultlessly real and flavoursome. But in electing to give us a piece that dwells on the painful, mundane minutiae, Adjmi is authentic almost to a fault: with a protracted running time, the play has the languorous quality of an unedited documentary’.

Theatre Weekly’s Greg Stewart was unconvinced: ‘Stereophonic struggles to justify its over three-hour runtime. The play’s fly-on-the-wall realism, while admirable, often comes at the expense of narrative momentum. There’s a sense that we’re watching a band rehearse rather than a story unfold. The emotional arcs, particularly the interpersonal tensions within the group, are hinted at more than fully explored.’

Scott Matthewman for Musical Theatre Review agreed: ‘In its long stretches of extraneous ennui, Stereophonic risks undoing what, when it is at full power, it succeeds in doing: acknowledging that the messiest of behind-the-scenes chaos can, just sometimes, produce sheer musical magic.’

Critics’ Average Rating 4.3⭑

Value rating 44 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)

Stereophonic can be seen at the Duke of York’s Theatre until 11 October 2025. Click here to buy tickets direct from the Duke of York’s Theatre 

Click here to read Paul Seven Lewis’s review of Stereophonic

If you’ve seen Stereophonic, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Theatre Review: Stereophonic at the Duke Of York’s

Long but rewarding look at the creative process

Stereophonic at the Duke of York’s.Photo: Marc Brenner

When I heard Stereophonic was coming to London, I was drawn to it like a moth to a flame. It holds the record for Tony nominations for a play and won the Award for Best Play.  So the light was attractive but it turned out that the destructive flame was my lack of interest in rock music, let alone the factory that produces the sausage. Once the three hour play began, I soon remembered why it was not likely to be my sniff of cocaine. So how did I get on with the story of a rock band spending a year in a recording studio?

If the Amazon Prime drama series Daisy Jones & The Six, or Get Back, the eight hour trilogy of films documenting the Beatles’ recording of Let It Be, whetted your appetite for delving into the Babylon of the 1970s that gave birth to some of our greatest popular music, then this show will be for you.
For me, interminable conversations between the various band members about their relationships, and about the recordings, that made up the first half were alleviated only by the songs themselves. Written by Will Butler, formerly of Arcade Fire, they are actually pretty good pastiches of seventies rock. To be fair, there was some witty dialogue by the author of the play David Adjmi.
The unnecessarily long first half sets up a much more interesting second half. As relationships break up, tensions between the band rise, and questions are raised about the nature of creativity, the play, directed by Daniel Aukin, becomes more and more gripping.
Here’s the plot: in the mid 1970s a rock band are recording their second album. The five members are a mix of British and American, and comprise two couples plus the drummer. As they begin their work in the studio, word comes through that a single from their first album and then the album itself are climbing the charts. Suddenly much more money is made available to them by the record company. This turns out to be a case of ‘be careful what you wish for’, because, without the discipline of a time limit, paranoia and perfectionism run unbridled, and the recording extends in length to a year.
The entire play, in four acts, takes place in the studio, so we as an audience feel as trapped as the band in this cramped timeless space, reminiscent of a scenario by Samuel Beckett. Three hours of repetition with the same seven faces start to seem like a year. Designed by David Zinn, the set is constructed in meticulous detail, with the recording booth behind glass at the back of the stage, and the mixer desk and relaxation area at the front.
The most interesting character is the band leader and driving force, Peter, given an edgy performance by Jack Riddiford. It is a stunning portrayal of an artistic genius, who is never satisfied with the quality of the work. His increasingly controlling nature, combined with an absence of social skills, annoys all those present. He combines long silences, lack of consultation, and cutting criticism with a self centred unawareness of his effect on others.
In particular he picks on his longtime girlfriend Diana, played by Lucy Karczewski. Not entirely coincidentally, she has written their hit single and is contributing as many songs as him to the new album. Whether it’s professional jealousy or his desire to dominate her, he deliberately undermines her confidence in both her writing and singing, leading to an increasingly fraught relationship.
Zachary Hart gives life to bass player Reg. His brain is so addled with alcohol he can hardly put one foot in front of the other but can still lay down a great bass line. His behaviour is to the detriment of his relationship with his wife and the band’s keyboard player Holly played by Nia Towle. As he begins to replace his addiction to drink with new addictions to various forms of lifestyle and philosophy, he becomes a proselytiser looking to buttonhole and bore anyone he meets with his New Age beliefs.
Simon the drummer has been away from his family for far too long, and, while he seems like the level headed one, exhaustion leads to moments of ego and insecurity. Chris Stack cleverly adopts a calm, slightly strangulated voice that hides his character’s anxieties. We also see why common sense like his will not get the best out of this creative process.
The two women are not respected by the men, despite the quality of their work, and ironically they are underdeveloped as characters in the play. Their generally down-to-earth behaviour with occasional outbursts only hints at their troubled lives rather than revealing what drives them. This especially applies to Diana whose talent for writing appears to come from nowhere. Her lack of confidence turns out to be the product of her destructive relationship with Peter, but we get little insight into how she would got herself into the situation or how she can get out of it.
Trying to hold things together is recording engineer Grover, a masterful portrait of nerves, obsequiousness and frustration, from Eli Gelb. His hapless assistant Charlie played by Andrew R Butler provides much needed light relief. Like Chris Stack, these two are from the original Broadway cast.
I don’t want to give the impression it’s all argument and mental breakdown, there is also humour in the bickering and banter of David Adjmi’s natural sounding conversations.
Eventually the album is finished but the battle to produce it has left many casualties. At times, I felt like one of them. However the second act goes a long way to redeeming the first. I think how highly you rate this play may depend on your interest in the subject matter because, unlike say Dear England and its exploration of leadership in a football setting, Stereophonic’s study of the creative process doesn’t take you far enough beyond its rock music context.
Stereophonic can be seen at the Duke Of York’s Theatre until 11 October 2025. Click here to buy tickets directly from the theatre.
Paul received a review ticket from the producer.
Posted on

Theatre reviews roundup: Just For One Day – The Live Aid Musical

Live Aid Lives Again

Shaftesbury Theatre
Just For One Day at Shaftesbury Theatre. Photo: Evan Zimmerman

Subtitled The Live Aid Musical (in case the original title didn’t make that clear), The Old Vic’s Just For One Day has moved to the heart of the West End. The musical by John O’Farrell covers the famine crisis in Africa, the creation of the song Do They Know It’s Christmas?, the Herculean effort to put on the concert and, of course, the day itself. The critics loved the music and singing , even if some of them found the strands of the story too messy.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

5 stars ★★★★★

Theatre Weekly’s Greg Stewart called it ‘a vibrant, emotionally charged tribute to a moment when music truly changed the world.’ He admits, ‘It’s a sprawling narrative, but director Luke Sheppard keeps the pace tight and the stakes high, ensuring the show never loses its emotional core. Whether you lived through Live Aid or are discovering it for the first time, the show captures the spirit of unity and urgency that defined that day.’

4 stars ★★★★

Theo Bosanquet at LondonTheatre said ‘the production feels well-honed and slick. It’s a high-octane blast of nostalgia pop’. Abbie Grundy for BroadwayWorld declared, ‘it’s a jukebox musical with real style and heart. While some songs feel shoe-horned in, they’re performed with such energy that you’re willing to forgive the slip in fluidity. In addition, this is one of the most talented ensembles I’ve seen in a long time’.

The anonymous reviewer from Rolling Stone UK was sure ‘This sublime jukebox musical will fill your heart and make you leave the theatre with the feeling that you could change the world too.’

3 stars ★★★

WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton had mixed feelings but the musical covers conquered her heart: ‘Best of all you get a terrific group of singers and an epic band, stacked in silhouette behind them in Soutra Gilmour’s stripped-back and flexible setting, roaring through hits…It would take a heart of stone not to have a bit of a good time… But then there is John O’Farrell’s book, at moments witty but dreadfully overinsistent and earnest for most of the time.’

Dominic Maxwell of The Times found it tried to cover too much ground: ‘when it’s so bitty there is little time for the music to build up a head of steam, to feel better than second-hand…When it does — on an extended version of Message in a Bottle or My Generation, say… it can take your breath away. Shame a rock musical doesn’t trust more in the power of rock.’

2 stars ★★

Tim Bano at the Standard was unimpressed, describing it as ‘this competent but frustratingly shallow reconstruction of Live Aid, which races through its origin story, cranks out its big hits and tells us, among other insights, that we can change the world if we work together’.

Critics’ Average Rating 3.6★

Value rating 40 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)

Just For One Day can be seen at Shaftesbury Theatre until 10 January 2026. Buy tickets directly.

If you’ve seen Just For One Day, please add your review and rating below

 

Posted on

Theatre reviews roundup: A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Dream of a show

Bridge Theatre
A Midsummer Night’s Dream at The Bridge. Photo: Manuel Harlan

One of the Bridge Theatre’s greatest hits is back for a summer run. Nicholas Hytner’s immersive, gender fluid production brings out all the fun (and some darkness) of Shakespeare’s drug-fuelled, sex mad comedy about feuding fairies and hapless humans. It first played the Bridge to much acclaim in 2019.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Reviews from 2025

5 stars ★★★★★

The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish returned and found ‘The success here is to make a proven delight – the finest Dream I’ve seen – stir wonder again; even if you’re re-encountering the show, it still seems fresh and strange, a shared reverie you never want to end.’ He gave a detailed list of why it’s so good which included: ‘The space works like some hallucinogenic kaleidoscope; locations emerge through the floor and then, in the twinkling of an eye, submerge.’

The Standard’s Nick Curtis was another  critic who welcomed it back: ‘It’s beautifully staged and acted, thought provoking, technically brilliant, and ends up with a party. Seriously, what’s not to like?…I can’t remember enjoying a Dream more.’ Debbie Gilpin at BroadwayWorld felt ‘Hytner and his cast and creatives have found a way of bottling pure joy’.

4 stars ★★★★

Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski said , ‘the new actors are bloody great and the show remains a hoot.’ Kate Wyver at The Guardian observed, ‘Nicholas Hytner’s rollicking production of Shakespeare’s great comedy feasts on bawdy mischief and aerial antics.’

Katie Chambers for The Stage described the ‘kinetic set from Bunny Christie, bathed in green and amorous purple by Bruno Poet’s lighting. Lovers scamper through a forest of ivy-covered bunk beds.’ Julia Rank of LondonTheatre said, ‘It’s a play in which the whimsical and the serious intertwine and joy prevails.’

The Times’ Dominic Maxwell asked, ‘Will you feel much? I doubt it. Will you be too taken with the near-constant sense of expectations being monkeyed with to worry about that? I suspect so.’

Reviews from 2019

5 stars ★★★★★

The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish couldn’t have been happier: ‘combining eroticism and enchantment, levity and darkness, Hytner’s latest hit scales the heights.’ Henry Hitchings for The Standard was just as enthusiastic: ‘Poking fun at the vogue for immersive theatre while also embracing the genre’s potential for frenetic playfulness and immediacy, it’s funny, sexy and romantic.’

Kate Kellaway at The Observer went even further: ‘when, at the end, large moon balloons are tossed into the crowd, it seems the party will go on forever. I found myself calculating: five stars might not be enough. How about throwing in an extra moon?’

4 stars ★★★★

Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski described it as ‘messy, sprawling and quite glorious’. Paul Taylor at The Independent called it a ‘gloriously funny, immersive take on A Midsummer Night’s Dream’.

The Times’ Dominic Maxwell had a great time: ‘I am, most of all, having a lot of fun at Nicholas Hytner’s immersive, irreverent, spectacular, slyly feminist, sometimes properly dreamlike staging of Shakespeare’s summer special. Beds rise up through the floor, characters hop between them or fall through them, fairies fly above us.’

3 stars ★★★

The Guardian’s Michael Billington had reservations, calling it a ‘delirious party, I would have enjoyed it still more if it released the microscopic beauties of Shakespeare’s text as well as the play’s comic energy.’

Saying ‘This is hardly as radical as it seems to want to position itself’, Mark Shenton for LondonTheatre nevertheless called it ‘fast and fluid, fun and occasionally surprising’.

Critics’ Average Rating (2025) 4.4★

Value rating 63 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)

A Midsummer Night’s Dream can be seen at the Bridge Theatre until 20 August 2025  Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen this production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Theatre review: Imelda Staunton in Mrs Warren’s Profession

Mother Daughter Clash is Perfect Harmony

Garrick Theatre


⭑⭑⭑⭑

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.
Mrs Warren’s Profession can be seen at the Garrick Theatre until 16 August 2025. Buy tickets direct from the theatre
Paul paid for his ticket.
Posted on

Theatre reviews roundup: Sondheim’s The Frogs

Southwark Playhouse

Good songs, bad book

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 Georgie 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.

Critics’ average rating 2.9⭑

The Frogs is at Southwark Playhouse until 28 June 2025. Buy tickets from the theatre here.

If you’ve seen The Frogs at Southwark Playhouse, please add your review and rating below

Proudly powered by WordPress
×