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.‘
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.’
Dominic Maxwell complained in The Times ‘I just wish we could hear them better’ (something Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre 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 3.7
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.’
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)
Olivia Lindsay and Julian Moore-Cook in Conversations After Sex. Photo: Jake Bush
Mark O’Halloran’s Conversations After Sex is about a woman throwing herself into 12 months of casual anonymous sex. Having won the Irish Times Best New Play Award, it is receiving its UK premiere at the Park90 Theatre. The intimate venue is ideal for watching such private conversations. The set is essentially a bed with a small amount of space around it, and the audience closing in on three sides.
There are something like twenty short scenes in which the character referred to as ‘She’ and played by Olivia Lindsay has just had casual sex and then chats with the man in question. Sometimes he is a returning lover, although even then they don’t know each other’s names; more often he’s a passing acquaintance. All are played by Julian Moore-Cook. There are occasional scenes, just as brief, between ‘She’ and her sister played by Jo Herbert.
It seems ‘She’ has engaged upon a series of one night stands after a traumatic event involving her partner, about which more is gradually revealed in the course of the play. The meaningless sex is a kind of self therapy, both a distraction and a way of moving on. I doubt it’s a form of therapy any counsellor would recommend but, over twelve months, she does reach some kind of understanding.
Despite the conversations being post-coital, they are rarely about sex. Nor do we see the sex that preceded them. We join them at the moment when the participants’ defences are down, thanks to both the anonymity of the liaison and the abandonment involved in sex. So, the men are inclined to be more honest than they might otherwise be, when they have an image to project and protect.
Julian Moore-Cook conveys the multiple male characters with great skill. Without the aid of costume changes, he goes from puppyish young man to emotional jilted boyfriend to self confident cheat. His face is a valuable tool that he manipulates through boyish smile to bewilderment to jutting pride.
Olivia Lindsay and Julian Moore-Cook in Conversations After Sex. Photo: Jake Bush
The men tell tales of their adventures- one has had sex with half his neighbours, although he qualifies this by saying he lives in a cul-de-sac. They talk about their betrayals, like the one who gave his girlfriend chlamydia. They get upset about having been criticised. They rarely show self awareness as they reveal their self absorption. It is certainly an insight into the male psyche.
‘She’ seems glad of the company, and amuses herself (and us) with ironic comments. Some of her more serious remarks suggest she is looking for more than escape: ‘you remind me of someone,’ she says, as if these representatives of the male sex might offer a key to understanding her former lover.
Olivia Lindsay has a great way with an arched eyebrow and wry smile. Every so often, something triggers ‘She’ to remember her pain and her own emotions spill out. Again Ms Lindsay conveys these bursts of sadness with great feeling.
Revealing portraits & questionable nudity
I can’t say whether this is an accurate portrayal of the world of casual sex but, in the confined space of this play, these sad, amusing and occasionally angry encounters come across as believable. The dialogue and structure are well nigh perfect. Although much of the conversation is on the level of a chat, every so often the men, stripped of their defences, reveal grief over the death of parents or departure of lovers. What emerges clearly is that the real theme of the play is loss. Even the Sister is experiencing a loss.
Despite their tears, the men don’t impress us. This is partly because they seem peripheral, but also because they are portrayed as so narcissistic. By contrast, the ever present woman’s raw emotions as she navigates her grief touch your heart. The production is tightly directed by Jess Edwards, with splendid performances by all the cast.
But I have to question the use of nudity in this production. Nakedness on stage can be gratuitous, but in this case it is an important element of the story. The author’s intention in the script was that both main characters should start off naked. They soon get dressed, at least into their underwear, and remain so for the rest of the play, but I think this starting point is important because it symbolises the vulnerability of the characters in this situation, and reinforces why they are so honest about their thoughts and feelings. However, in this production, while Julian Moore-Cook is first seen completely naked, Olivia Lindsay is not.
I don’t know whose decision that was, and I’m not saying it ruined the production, but I do think it was a mistake, because the difference in the two characters’ first appearance created a misleading dynamic between them, suggesting only the man’s defences were down, which is far from the case.
Nevertheless Conversations After Sex is a fine piece of writing in a strong production and I would urge you to get to the Park Theatre and treat yourself to this little gem before it closes.
Lola Shalam and Roman Asde in Romeo & Juliet at The Globe
A comedic version of Shakespeare’s most famous love story, set in the Wild West, went down well with the critics. The young stars Lola Shalam and Roman Asde made a strong impression in Sean Holmes‘ production.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
Fiona Mountford, writing for the Telegraph, said ‘Holmes’s vision is no dispiriting instance of a classic play being shoe-horned into an outlandish concept, but something quite the opposite: it makes perfect sense for the Capulets and Montagues to be warring tribes in a place of barely suppressed lawlessness’.
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar declared it to be ‘a rare production where high concept meets high-class execution.’ Tom Wicker for The Stage said, ‘Sean Holmes brings a light touch and plenty of humour to his staging of William Shakespeare’s enduringly popular tale of doomed romance’. As for the star cross’d lovers: ‘Shalam gives a star-making performance as a complicated and well-rounded Juliet…Asde does a good job of capturing Romeo’s bluster but also his vulnerability’.
Julia Rank for LondonTheatre noted, ‘Sean Holmes’s nifty production is set in the Wild West of the 19th century, where everyday violence pervades, and he also extracts the full comic potential of the play’. She praised the leads: ‘Asde speaks beautifully and nails the character’s impulsiveness, suggesting a young actor to watch. Fellow newcomer Lola Shalam is also eye-catching as Juliet, a strong-willed frontier girl who has been coached in what to say and feel but can’t contain her outspoken nature’.
Miriam Sallon for WhatsOnStage thought ‘The chemistry between Asde’s Romeo and Lola Shalam’s Juliet is brilliant in that they’re just two horny teenagers who happen to have landed on each other as targets.’
TheArtsDesk’s Rachel Halliburton noted, ‘Great ensemble work from the cast buoys the atmosphere of this giddy seesaw ride between life and death’. She enthused, ‘It’s a joyous, flamboyant launch to the Globe’s 2025 summer season’.
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
Isobel Lewis writing for Time Out was concerned that ‘There are parts, however, where this comic focus doesn’t work‘. For her, ‘it’s the undeniable chemistry between Asde and Shalam that’s the star attraction.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times said ‘there is a vivid sense of youth here that keeps the show fresh, even when overthought or oversold.’
Tom Rosenthal and Lloyd Hutchinson in The Government Inspector. Photo: Ellie-Kurttz
Chichester Festival Theatre has pulled out all the stops for the launch of its 2025 season: a legendary director, a complex set, and a stage filling cast, plus three musicians as a bonus. In the end, this production of The Government Inspector turns out to be slightly less than the sum of its parts, it’s not for want of trying, and I thoroughly recommend it if you’re looking for a good night out. This satire on government corruption is still relevant, and there’s a moment of physical comedy that anyone who sees it will never forget .
Gogol’s The Government Inspector is a copper bottomed classic, revolutionary when it was written nearly two hundred years ago and still an enjoyable satire on corrupt local officials. Constant revivals and more contemporary plays inspired by it – Accidental Death of an Anarchist springs to mind- may have blunted its sharpness but its depiction of politicians’ greed, bullying and cowardice still strikes a chord. And no wonder in an era of the Covid scandals and a US President who humiliates and attacks his closest allies.
This production is helped by a febrile new translation by Phil Porter, but most of all by the decision of former RSC Artistic Director Gregory Doran to turn up the physical comedy to boiling point.
Some of the slapstick had me in stitches: there’s an extraordinary moment when someone falls through a roof and crashes onto a bed, which I still can’t believe happened. In fact I was too shocked to laugh straightaway. On another occasion, a character feels ‘weak at the knees’ and then walks as if his legs are made of rubber
The story is pretty simple. There’s a report that a Government Inspector is due to visit a town full of corrupt officials. A con man called Khlestakov is mistaken for the investigator and the frightened civic chiefs try to mollify him with flattery and bribes. The truth is eventually revealed but by then he has squeezed a fortune out of them and gone on his way.
All the characters are caricatures and none have any redeeming features: in fact, the longer the play goes on, the more nasty they are revealed to be. Even the fake inspector, while he might be a hero for exposing and humiliating the officials, is no better than them in his unpleasantness to everyone around him. His arrogance and general amorality is offset by his confidence and charm which are perfectly portrayed by an imperious, smiling Tom Rosenthal.
Leading the duped is The Mayor, a bustling little man and a classic bully, condescending and sometimes vicious to those below him, obsequious to those he considers his superiors. You can feel the mounting frustration and fear in Lloyd Hutchinson’s portrayal.
The Judge, an unashamed womaniser proud to take bribes, is a huge man, played by Joe Dixon with northern bluntness and silly walks. Christopher Middleton as the Head of Schools is a wide-eyed nervous wreck. Oscar Pearce is The Charity Commissioner who is the most self serving and disloyal of all, and that’s saying something given the competition.
Comedy heights
Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky could be straight out of Munchkinland- Tweedledum and Tweedledee might be another way of looking at them. They are on the outside of the corrupt group, trying to get in. Wearing almost identical dapper suits, these social climbers are constant rivals in their desperation to impress. Played by Miltos Yerolemou and Paul Rider, they provide the best verbal and physical comedy as well as the only moment of poignancy in the entire play, when they reveal to the fake inspector their chronic need for social status.
The Mayor’s wife is a familiar character from comedy down the ages. Think Mrs Bennet or Sybil Fawlty, and any number of other ambitious middle class snobs. Sylvestra Le Touzel wrings plenty of laughs out of this stereotype. Her daughter, who is both subservient and a rival to her mother, is given a nicely judged performance by Laurie Ogden. Both are pursued by the indiscrimately libidinous Khlestakov.
Assisting him is another trope- the kind of clever, resourceful, put-upon servant that must have been a cliche even two centuries ago, but Nick Haverson throws himself into the role as if it was a fresh idea.
And that’s just half the cast.
The Government Inspector. Photo: Ellie-Kurttz
In what seems like a rarity these days, this classic is set in the original time and place- Russia in the early 19th century. This endows distance and means you can draw your own parallels with any government anywhere any time. Better still, it allows for some colourful period costumes from designer Francis O’Connor, including the musicians playing between acts in what looks like traditional Russian folk dress. He also provides a surreal set that uses filing cabinet drawers overflowing with papers not only as part of the walls but also along the apron of the thrust stage. The effect is of chaotic bureaucracy bursting out of an old fashioned office.
The slapstick reduces in the second act as we discover the true barbarity of these comic characters, which frankly isn’t funny, but there is still time for an hilarious climactic fight involving almost all the cast. Congratulations, Movement Director Mike Ashcroft.
There may not be quite as many laughs as the opening scenes promise, nor is there a single twist you didn’t see coming but The Government Inspector at Chichester is still a a lot of fun, and as shockingly relevant today as it has ever been. Seeing those terrible politicians getting their comeuppance is worth the price of the ticket alone.
Is The Brightening Air a comedy with a serious message or a drama with humour? Either way, it’s great entertainment showcasing outstanding acting.
If you’re thinking that a mixture of comedy and profundity sounds a bit Chekhovian, you’re right. Indeed, if you’re familiar Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya- and the playwright Conor McPherson certainly is, having directed a memorable production- you may recognise elements of the plot about a dysfunctional family stuck in the past that is forced to confront change by the arrival of a relative.
A mature brother and sister live in a run-down Irish farm in the 80s. Stephen is a failure as a businessman, Billie is unreliable due to what I take to be autism. With them, almost a lodger, is their sister-in-law Lydia, still in love with their long departed brother Dermot.
He is a successful owner of cafes, a business so perfect as a symbol of the rise of individualised consumerism. His arrival at the farm with a much younger girlfriend Freya in tow, sets off a chain of events that blows apart all the characters’ dreams and self delusions.
There is one other significant arrival, back from the outside world as it were. Uncle Pierre, their father’s brother, is a blind priest, relying on Elizabeth, his housekeeper, companion and a little more besides, who needs a man she can control as much as he needs her care.
Billie is gifted with much insight but is not taken seriously because her autism causes her to shout and go off at tangents, like reciting the details of railway timetables. Rosie Sheehy, after her sensational starring role in Machinal, once again shows her greatness as an actor who can inhabit extreme emotions. For all the strong qualities of the other actors, it is her you can’t take your eyes off.
Stephen, played by Brian Gleeson, is depressed, lamenting his failure both at business and love. Also living in the past is Lydia, forever hoping that Dermot will return to her.
Dermot is cringingly sleazy. Chris O’Dowd is on top form as a self-centred alpha male. Not only has he abandoned the family farm to his younger sublings, he has no ability to commit to relationships, and chases after young women. How old is this one? ‘In her twenties, well twenty… next birthday.’
Since it is the 1980s when Ireland, once a backwater on the western edge of Europe is becoming the Celtic tiger, Dermot could be seen as representative of the booming economy and its detrimental effect on a traditional way of life.
Other members of this superb cast are Derbhie Crotty as the scheming passive-aggressive Elizabeth, Aisling Kearns as a wide-eyed Freya and Eimhin Fitzgerald Doherty as the young exploited farmworker Brendan.
The design by Rae Smith occupies every inch of the huge Old Vic stage. Although a shimmering grey curtain appears every so often at the back, the action is entirely downstage in one perfectly realised room of the farmhouse. I think this might signify the vastness of the world surrounding this small community but for me it had an alienating effect. I suspect the play would work even better if it was done in a more intimate set and auditorium.
After the interval, a metaphorical bomb explodes. I won’t spoil the plot but, suffice to say, all the characters’ lives are turned upside down. All three siblings are forced to reassess their situations and Father Pierre has an experience that’s the polar opposite to St Paul on the road to Damascus. In a tremendous monologue he explains God is a psychopath and that he will lead a new religion. His transformation is one of the highlights of this eventful play, although maybe he doesn’t change that much.
Exquisite comic timing
Rosie Sheehy in The Brightening Air. Photo: Manuel Harlan
There may be a message here, particularly relevant in a country that was dominated by the Catholic Church until this point in time, that there are always people willing to exploit others’ spiritual needs. Played with exquisite comic timing by Seán McGinley, Pierre’s behaviour to others is both hilarious and chilling. I should say, there are several moments in this play where a character’s needs are shaped or satisfied by their belief in mysticism or magic, including for example whether drinking certain water can make someone fall in love
So the characters’ dreams are crushed. The phrase ‘the brightening air’ is from a poem by WB Yeats and refers to the moment dreams meet reality. Another line from the great Irish poet springs to mind: ‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world’.
The play nears its end with another terrific monologue, this time from Billie, talking about the destructive nature of change, and the need for deep loving relationships. ‘In each other, we saw the face of God’ she says, and points out ‘how much of living is really just forgetting’.
Along with the laughs, there’s a lot to think about in this play, maybe a little too much, but It’s a fine piece of writing and wonderfully acted.
The Brightening Air can be seen at The Old Vic Theatre until 14 June 2025.
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre
Another Hollywood star fails to shine on a London stage
Elizabeth Debicki and Ewan McGregor in My Master Builder. Photo: Johan Persson
Lila Raicek’s new play is inspired by Ibsen’s The Master Builder but puts more emphasis on the wife Elena (Kate Fleetwood) and a young woman Mathilda (Elizabeth Debicki) from an earlier relationship, than the ‘starchitect’ himself (Ewan McGregor). The critics found that McGregor’s character was too nice in this version, leaving him little room to show his acting skill, but Kate Fleetwood as a vengeful woman impressed them.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar concluded, ‘The focus on the women is interesting and intriguing, even though it means Henry feels rather spare to the drama. This is a story not of genius men building castles in the air for their princesses but of what destruction they wreak in their homes in so doing. Really, it is the drama of The Master Builder’s Wife.’
Alice Saville in The Independent declared, ‘(the) play sweeps you along, into a breezy study of a great man whose scheming wife gets the last laugh. She noted, ‘Ewan McGregor brings serious charm to the role of the titular architect Henry Solness, but his star power is entirely outshone by Kate Fleetwood’s formidable acting chops as his furious wife Elena, bent on bringing his dreams crashing down to the ground. Ironically, given it’s a play about an architect, she didn’t like the design: ‘Director Michael Grandage and designer Richard Kent’s evocation of this play’s setting on the moneyed Hamptons feels a little stuffy, with an overly fussy attempt at modern architecture cluttering the stage’.
The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish found McGregor ‘struggles to attain the intensity required’. It seems the play was at fault: ‘What should deepen and tauten the drama alas throws up inconclusive thoughts on empowerment and a ton of emotional overstatement.’
Andrzej Lukowski of Time Out felt the star casting imbalanced the production: ‘it feels like McGregor hogs the lines and the stage time, while the women hog the bits where Raicek actually has something interesting to say.’ He dismissed McGregor’s role as ‘just a nice guy blundering through a genteel midlife crisis’.
Olivia Rook for LondonTheatre agreed with the other critics that ‘Despite being the play’s headline star, McGregor is outshone by the women on stage’, however she was kinder than most about the play itself: ‘it remains exciting to see old work interrogated and transformed into something new.’
2 stars ⭑⭑
The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming called it ‘curiously wooden and inauthentic’ explaining ‘the situation feels oddly contrived and the dialogue often stiff and airless’. She said McGregor ‘struggles to animate some cloying lines’. The Times’ Clive Davis called the play ‘a painfully windy psychodrama…which grinds its way to a wildly implausible conclusion’. He described McGregor as ‘likeable, but anodyne’.
Sam Marlowe of The Stage concluded, ‘McGregor’s Henry ends up as little more than the fraying ball of wool batted about in the catfights…It’s Fleetwood who supplies the stellar turn here, by turns vengeful, maudlin and magnificent. I just wish she had something more flavourful and substantial to sink those sharp teeth into.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard protested at the ‘glib, howlingly pretentious script’ and said McGregor is ‘out-characterised and out-emoted by his female co-stars. Kate Fleetwood plays Solness’s wife Elena in full-on, steel-eyed Valkyrie mode, slashing through every scene she’s in. Elizabeth Debicki…has a cool, languid abandon … and is so tall and slender in a silver dress she resembles a thermometer.’ He ended: ‘I laughed at this star vehicle, not with it.’
Critics’ average rating 2.6 ★
Value rating 28 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Alfie Allen and Hammed Animashaun in Dealer’s Choice at The Donmar. Photo: Helen Murray
To celebrate its 30th anniversary, Patrick Marber’s first play returns to the Donmar. The story of a regular all male poker game in a restaurant basement resonated with critics who enjoyed the tension and humour in its depiction of insecure masculinity. They praised the cast which includes Alfie Allen and Brendan Coyle but Hammed Animashaun’s performance stole the show. Such criticism as there was centred on the contrived plot.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
Laurie Yule for The Stage called it ‘A gripping production of a play that’s as brilliant as it is enduring.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
’What a blisteringly good play Dealer’s Choice is!’ proclaimed Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage. ‘A sharply funny, acutely insightful study of male insecurities, of the toxic relationships between fathers and sons, friends and colleagues, of the impulse to gamble a life on the turn of a card.’ She found the revival ‘beautifully cast and the direction taut’.
The Standard’s Nick Curtis felt it ‘holds up extremely well as a savagely comic study of compulsion.’ He was pleased with the latest cast: ‘Allen is good as the underwritten Frankie, a cocksure wide-boy who suddenly snaps. Barklem-Biggs is full of barely suppressed fury as Sweeney, while Coyle has a sleepy menace as Ash…Animashaun’s Mugsy is a delight from start to finish: charming, hilarious, irrepressible even when slighted.’
Claire Allfree for the Telegraph found, ‘Three decades on, Marber’s brutal comedy remains a masterclass portrait of lonely little men wishing themselves into being better people than they are…Dunster’s muscular production gives full reign to Marber’s blokey banter and apparently off-the-cuff wit.’
LondonTheatre’s Marianka Swain called it ‘a gripping portrait of male relationships at their base, competitive level: in order to win, you must destroy.’ ‘Go all in on this darkly entertaining gem,’ she recommended.
The Times’ Clive Davis described ‘On Moi Tran’s sleek set, a revolve allows us to study each player in turn.’ He pointed out ‘Coyle’s body language is extraordinarily eloquent: he may seem a calculating operator on the surface, but his sagging frame and weary glances tell another story about the precariousness of his trade.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
Steve Dinneen for City AM felt it was a bit predictable: ‘It looks fantastic, with a rotating poker table and dramatic lighting but it plays out pretty much as you imagine, all macho outbursts and bitter recriminations.’
2 stars ⭑⭑
There was one dissenting voice: Ryan Gilbey for The Guardian. Having described the play as ‘superficially dazzling’, he went on to explain, ‘Two-thirds of the characters have no inner life, and half are prone to sudden outbursts which resemble artificial attempts to raise the stakes.’
Freema Agyeman scores in football-themed Shakespeare
⭑⭑⭑
Freema Agyeman & Nick Blood in Much Ado About Nothing. Photo: Marc Brenner
Dear England is playing at the National Theatre, and now our second most subsidised theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company, has a football themed play as well. But did Much Ado About Nothing score or was it a load of balls? And did Freema Agyeman from Doctor Who and New Amsterdam, and Nick Blood from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D as Beatrice and Benedick hit the back of the net?
First of all, spoiler alert, I will be talking about the plot of Much Ado About Nothing. You won’t be surprised that this production doesn’t set Much Ado About Nothing is set in modern times. Some people object to reimagining Shakespeare’s plays in other times and places. Personally, I find it can offer helpful insights, and this particular Shakespeare play needs them. Let me explain.
There are two parallel love stories in Much Ado About Nothing- a comic one which is probably what makes it one of the most popular of Shakespeare’s comedies, and a serious plot which can be a problem for a modern audience to comprehend.
Let’s look at the light-hearted element first- the relationship between Benedick and Beatrice, two people who are wary of hitching themselves to a partner. So, in all the time they’ve spent avoiding marriage, they’re become quite mature, and able to present a front of cutting cynicism. Shakespeare leaves no doubt there is something in each of them that is attractive to the other, except they won’t admit it, and they cover this by insulting each other. So the fun is in the way they’re eventually tricked by their friends into admitting that they do love one another, and then how love changes them. Benedick finds himself having to choose between his love and his comrade.
Freema Agyeman has only recently returned to theatre after a long spell acting on American TV but she is already building a reputation as a stage actor, and this performance will undoubtedly cement it. She speaks the lines beautifully. Her Beatrice gives as good as she gets, and offers apparent confidence to mask her inner emotions.
Nick Blood is a likeable Benedick with an appropriate swagger. However they don’t bounce off one another as much as you might hope: They should be like two Premiership footballers repeatedly tackling each another. Instead their dexterous verbal sparring never goes beyond a Sunday morning kickabout.
The darker plot concerns a young couple called Hero and Claudio- and it’s a can of worms, because it conjures a highly misogynistic society, which is hard to relate to, even though Shakespeare exposes the sexism among the men, and the unfair treatment of women.
We meet a veteran footballer Don John who’s essentially a mischief maker, someone who has no clear reason for causing trouble, and no complexity or depth. This makes him less interesting than many of Shakespeare’s villains, who are given motives or redeeming qualities. To be fair, this production does suggest that he’s jealous of his young rival Claudio, but that’s not pursued. Nojan Khazai plays him with an alpha male charm.
Don John uses deception- and this is a play that involves a lot of chicanery- to ensure that the relationship between two young fiancées- is torn apart on the eve of their wedding. He does this by tricking Claudio into believing Hero, far from being faithful, has a lover. As an audience, we find it hard to believe Claudio, even as a credulous young footballer (they’re not always renowned for their intellect) and her father, who both profess to love her, have so little faith in her. Even more unlikely is the moment when all is revealed (after even more trickery): he says ‘sorry’, she forgives him.
Daniel Adeosun gives a solid performance in the thankless role of Claudio. Eleanor Worthington-Cox does an excellent job as Hero. another difficult part as she is presented for much of the play as a voiceless victim- she doesn’t even defend herself against the false accusations. She does show a lively disposition in earlier scenes, where she is given more to do than in the original Shakespeare with some added songs, and at the end is given some added ambition.
Shoots but doesn’t score
It’s hard for a modern audience to comprehend such a misogynistic, male dominated society. So that’s the problem directors face: to find a modern parallel that we can relate to. Michael Longhurst, fresh from his Shakespearean success with the David Tennant/Cush Jumbo Macbeth, has chosen the world of elite men’s soccer as the setting- not the English Premiership which surely is a league of gentlemen after Gareth Southgate’s tenure as England manager (I know because I’ve seen Dear England.) No, Italian football.
After all, Shakespeare’s play is set in Messina and perhaps the men’s behaviour fits, no doubt unfairly, with our stereotypical image of a certain kind of Italian male. Leonato, the owner of Messina FC, is the spitting image of Sylvio Berlusconi which usefully reminds us of his Bunga Bunga parties, one of which seems to be taking place on stage. It’s a fine characterisation of a self-centredh millionaire by Peter Forbes.
We can see that the position of women in this world is mainly as trophy wives and girlfriends. Beatrice is not one of them. She is an ex-footballer turned commentator, and we don’t need reminding of very recent occasions when misogyny was displayed against female football commentators.
So setting the play in the world of football is a good concept, and it works well initially. Unfortunately it never quite hits the back of the net, because as the play progresses, the football becomes less and less in evidence, and less convincing as the plot darkens.
Much Ado About Nothing. Photo: Marc Brenner
When you first enter the auditorium, you see what appears to be a stadium stretching into the distance. Thus far a triumph for designer Jon Bausor. However, the thrust part of the stage is dominated by a communal bath. Unfortunately this doesn’t work as well as you might hope. It’s used to comic effect on a few occasions but otherwise tends to get in the way of the cast moving round the stage.
The women are objectified and verbally abused by the men, the paparazzi and in comments on social media which are flashed up on the auditorium walls. So, quite a lot of misogyny going on there- with manipulated photos and fake news offering trickery that Don John could be proud of.
The actors playing the footballers are all physically fit, so they look like they could be soccer heroes, and the women are all very glamorous and could be wags. They give decent performances, speaking the words well, as you would hope from the RSC, and creating a world of casual offensiveness and sexist banter that comes naturally out of Shakespeare’s prose. What’s missing is a certain nastiness that the text demands; it’s as if they are passing the ball rather shooting at the goal.
The Watch- here seen as security staff- who inadvertently discover the truth of Don John’s plot are sometimes cut from the play. A lot of people seem to find their antics unfunny, but here Antonio Magro makes an excellent Dogberry, speaking his malapropisms with a dignified , obsequious demeanour.
I do have one quibble. Let me ask you a question. What do you enjoy most about Shakespeare? I suspect that no matter how interesting the interpretation is, and how well it’s acted, at the end of the day, we’re going because we love Shakespeare’s language. Because, while he may steal his plots from here, there and everywhere, when he interprets that story for us, he has such an understanding of human nature, that he creates complex, interesting characters who express themselves through the most wonderful poetic language which conveys to us all the emotions that they feel and makes us feel them too. And who might you think would protect that language more than the Royal Shakespeare Company?
So, I felt let down that this production of Much Ado About Nothing messed with Shakespeare’s language. Okay, not in a huge way, but to actually change some of the words for modern references and expressions, for example, bringing the word “twerking’ or ‘vaping’ into the text. I just feel it was plain wrong. I know it may sound stuffy and reactionary, and some will say, you’ve got to bring Shakespeare up to date for a modern audience and so on. But there are plenty of ways of doing that through the interpretation. The words are our one actual connection with Shakespeare, and why you shouldn’t mess with them, RSC!
As the final whistle blew, I felt the fun wasn’t fun enough, and the serious stuff not serious enough.
Much Ado About Nothing can be seen at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon until 24 May 2025. Buy tickets direct.
