Steve Pemberton & Reece Shearsmith in Inside No 9: Stage/Fright
Inside No 9 ran for a highly successful nine (of course) series. The spin-off stage show is clearly one for the fans but it embraces the medium of theatre, according to the critics. Some of them found it inventive and frightening, others thought it was funny but not that original.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
‘It isn’t to be missed’ declared a besotted Katelyn Mensah for Radio Times (5★). And in case you missed the message, she ended her review ‘it’s a thrilling ride that shouldn’t be missed.’
For Dominic Cavendish of the Telegraph (4★) was more measured: ‘this is an evening that tallies the need to give us a good laugh and a valuable fright – encapsulating their relish for the absurd and macabre – with reflections on mortality and loss.’
For The Guardian (4★), Brian Logan called it ‘a slickly produced spooky wheeze, distinguished by Shearsmith and Pemberton’s clearly personal obsession with the double-act dynamic and old-school entertainment, and with theatres and their ghosts.’
‘There’s a lot that’s absurdly funny, as well as one sequence that is genuinely hair-raising. Meanwhile a deeper, more moving thread works through the piece about the interplay between acting, memory and haunting,’ said Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (4★).
The i-paper’s Culture Editor Sarah Carson (4★) took on reviewing duties for this show, calling it ‘riotously fun’ and ‘raucously entertaining’. She praised ‘ writing and wordplay that is so clever and quick that it is impossible not to miss every reference.’ Not sure that’s what she meant to say but you get the message.
‘It’s not radical, or even as ground-breaking as the television shows which have spawned it. But it is great, all-encompassing fun,’ said Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★).
Annabel Nugent for The Independent (4★) said, ‘if nothing else, this is one play you won’t be checking your watch in. Tonight, on stage, the spirit of Inside No 9 is alive and kicking.’
Anya Ryan from LondonTheatre (3★) seemed like she was hoping for more originality, nevertheless: ‘Recycled gags? Tick. An element of surprise? Tick. And the cherished pair giving it their everything? Oh absolutely.’
The Stage’s Sam Marlowe (3★) said, ‘It’s a show in need of a stronger sense of purpose and identity: it’s not quite funny, emotionally involving or frightening enough, even though it has flickers of all those elements.’
Nick Curtis of The Standard (3★) called it ‘a mix of the intelligent and the obvious – part smart reinvention and part lazy cash-in.’ Patrick Marmion had a similar reaction in the Mail (3★): ‘The show has a distinct feeling of using up the comedians’ off-cuts, out-takes and left-overs for the amusement of themselves and their fervid fan-base. ‘
At the start of 2025, it seemed that The Times’ Clive Davis (2★) had made a New Year resolution to be nicer to the shows but, if he did, he hasn’t stuck to it. In his latest outing, he reverted to the hard-to-please, sting-like-a-scorpion critic that we know and love. In a review was more frightening than the show, he warned, ‘Prepare to be underwhelmed… by this laboured set of ghoulish sketches’
Critics’ average rating 3.6★
Value Rating 42 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Nadi Kemp-Sayfi and Gabrielle Brooks in Cymbeline at Shakespeare’s Globe. Photo: Marc Brenner
William Shakespeare’s Cymbeline is one of his lesser known works for the very good reason that it’s a bit of a mess but director Jennifer Tang has made a good attempt at making it work, according to the critics, especially by swapping the genders of the eponymous lead and some of the other characters. Even so, some remained unenthusiastic about the play itself.
Matt Wolf for LondonTheatre (4) praised ‘Tang’s ability to find an emotional throughline to a sometimes wayward text’ ‘The vagaries of romance between Gabrielle Brooks’s superb Innogen and Nadi Kemp-Sayfi’s impassioned Posthumus, raised within the royal household, drive the newly queer narrative.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (4★) found it ‘gets a bold, vivid production from Jennifer Tang that matches its hectic mix of comedy, horror and absurdity. ‘
Miriam Sallon writing for WhatsOnStage (4★) declared ‘if a lesser-loved, mishmash, three-hour, tragi-comic Shakespeare isn’t going to sell it for you, you should absolutely just go for the music. Led by composer Laura Moody, the musical trio, completed by Heidi Heidelberg and Angela Wai Nok Hui, are mesmerising all on their own.’
Alexander Cohen for BroadwayWorld (3★) said, ‘Tang’s directorial vision alone charges it with the momentum it needs. She has a solid grasp of a slippery play.’ Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (3★) seemed to agree, ‘Although the production’s bold ideas don’t all gel, this is an original and engaging reinterpretation that offers thought-provoking new perspectives on Shakespeare’s contrived historical drama.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (3★) opined, ‘while you’d be pushed to say that the director Jennifer Tang’s female-led sometimes resexed retelling of this romantic mishmash is either very tragic or very funny, even at almost three hours long, it keeps stubbornly finding ways to be interesting.’ The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (3★) wasn’t sure what to make of it: ‘it felt like a play trotting from one plot-turn to another to reach its exhausting end.’
David Byrne‘s first season as Artistic Director of the Royal Court continues to impress. His latest offering is Amy Jephta‘s play is set in South Africa where a middle-aged white couple enlist wealthy black neighbours whom they’ve previously ignored to improve the effectiveness of their bid to remove an unauthorised shack in their enclave. The critics mostly liked it but were split between those who thought it was ‘perceptive provocative fun’ and those who thought it didn’t quite convince.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) found it was a play with layers: ‘Do they want to be insiders at all or remain wilful outsiders, keeping a connection to the imaginary invaders in the shack – and their own past geographies? How does being on the “inside” compromise the integrity of their identity politics, as well? The layers to this line of questioning are what gives this play its depth.’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (4★) liked the way the director Nancy ‘Medina takes a methodical approach, allowing conflict to escalate gradually, the debates eventually descending into rapid-fire shouting matches. This allows for some brilliantly judged comic timing, as the residents twist themselves into exquisitely awkward knots, trying to mask their toxic entitlement with hollow civility.’
The Times‘ Clive Davis (4★) began ‘this quirky domestic drama sends you home with awkward questions buzzing around in your head.’ He was happy that ‘there’s an intensity to all the performances that keeps agitprop at bay. Jephta’s mischievous portrait of life in a far-away country has a universal flavour.’
WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton (4★) called it ‘fast-moving and very funny, puncturing assumptions and attitudes with swift and searing observation’. The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (4★) said, ‘This isn’t perfect but it’s perceptive, provoking fun.’
Aleks Sierz at TheArtsDesk (3★) said it was ‘perceptive and provocative, but it’s also an imperfect mix of styles and topics.’ While calling it ‘a worthy exploration of prejudice and privilege’, Holly O’Mahony at LondonTheatre (3★) decided, ‘this play, with its cracking premise, still has room to grow.’
Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★) was disappointed, describing it as ‘A case of never being more than the sum of its parts, even if those parts have promise in themselves.’
Lionel Bart’s Oliver! is one of the few, perhaps the only, bona fide British musical from the Golden Age when shows were packed with memorable songs. The legendary producer Cameron Mackintosh has loved Oliver! since childhood and returned to it again and again. His latest production was praised in many 5 star reviews for Matthew Bourne‘s choreography, Paule Constable’s dramatic lighting, Lez Brotherston’s intimate set, Simon Lipkin‘s portrayal of Fagin and for being a little darker than past incarnations. But some found it too old-fashioned and lacking in bite.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre (5★) delivered her customary thoughtful analysis: ‘Bart’s musical can be something of a tonal challenge: steeped in the darkness of Dickens’ novel, yet simultaneously packed with jaunty tunes and cockney knees-up dance numbers. Bourne (who choreographs and co-directs with Jean-Pierre van der Spuy), manages that balancing act perfectly, giving us plenty of grime and grit alongside transporting pleasures.’ She declared ‘the true star is Paule Constable and Ben Jacobs’s sublime lighting design, which brings quite literal light and shade to the production. It’s genuinely terrifying when the villainous Bill Sikes looms out of the smoky darkness, his menacing shadow the first thing we see.’
WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton (5★) noted, ‘Its quality lies in the way that the collaborators … make a contrast between constant movement and stillness, allowing the focus to slide from broad, bright dance scenes full of life, to powerfully arresting moments of peril and sadness.’ Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (5★) declared, ‘director and choreographer Matthew Bourne has surely opened the musical of the year with his astounding dance sequences. It’s especially the ensemble numbers that are sheer staggering feats of imagination, offering insane levels of detail to bring Victorian London back to life.’
Helen Hawkins on the Arts Desk (5★) praised the ‘impeccable singing and dancing, teamed with a brilliant set, atmospheric lighting and a Poor Theatre design that makes the staging oddly intimate’. Allya Al-Hassan at Broadway World (5★) pointed out, ‘Whilst retaining the joy and exuberance of Bart’s music, it does not shy away from the dark heart of child poverty, exploitation and violence of Charles Dickens’ story. It also manages to have moments of pure theatrical comedy. It is a deft and masterful achievement.’
Neil Fisher for The Times (5★) added a star to his colleague Clive Davis’ previous Chichester review: ‘you can’t fault the verve with which Bourne drills the big numbers, nor the cast’s bonhomie.’ Of the show’s Fagin, he said, ‘Lipkin captures both the plight of the traumatised immigrant – and of anyone trying to lead a good life in a dark and devious world’. The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish (5★) enjoyed ‘dollops of theatrical delight’, and said ‘the whole thing is delivered with such tightly choreographed panache’.
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4★) described how ‘Matthew Bourne’s sumptuous production at the Gielgud Theatre in London gives us a Victorian London of shadows, spotlights and smoke. It looks dangerous, but gorgeous. Nice job.’
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (4) picked out ‘Superb lighting by Paule Constable and Ben Jacobs shows the action as if through Oliver’s eyes: a harsh glitter of grey over the workhouse; a deceptive golden glow for Fagin’s den.’
The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe (4★) described how ‘Designer Lez Brotherston delivers a murky London of steel gantries, pawnshops, pubs and coffee houses, bustling with picture-perfect denizens: self-important men with mutton chops, moustaches and stovepipe hats, and purse-lipped women in mob caps with formidable bosoms. Bourne’s buoyant, nimble choreography is wrapped around darker drama that makes its mark in broad strokes.’
Not everyone was so impressed. Fiona Mountford at i-news (3★) said ‘rarely have I felt so awkwardly aware of a piece’s fundamental pretence…Everything here looks precise and lovely, immaculately well-drilled, but it’s almost impossible to feel emotionally invested.’
Andrjez Lukowski at Time Out (3★) felt it lacked punch. Take Simon Lipkin’s Fagin: ‘Making him so nice he won’t offend anyone is certainly one idea, but it does further defang Dickens’s yarn.’ He contended ‘The biggest flaw, though, is one that’s haunted the show for decades: Oliver himself is just pretty bland.’
Having reviewed it in Chichester, The Guardian decided the production didn’t require a second review
Critics’ Average Review 4.4
Value Rating 46 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Luren Drew & cast members in Titanique at the Criterion. Photo: Mark Senior
It started as a one-off cabaret concert and became a Broadway hit. However Titantique has never lost its roots as a gay parody of the film Titanic (as well as of musicals and much else), which features ‘Celine Dion’ recounting her experience as a passenger on board the fated ship. Lauren Drew impressed as Dion, as did Layton Williams.
The show sounds, and is, crazy, but most of the critics found it fun (to a greater or lesser degree) except one. The term ‘mixed reviews’ is often used in these roundups, but it’s rare for a show to receive both a five and a one star review.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Our most curmudgeonly critic The Times’ Clive Davis (5★) loved it: ‘Raiding the Canadian singer’s back catalogue, the show delivers a demented jukebox musical. An inspirational cast led by Lauren Drew, playing Dion in all her sequinned glory, rises to the challenge of delivering a script that turns the madness up to 11 and beyond. It’s Airplane! with a musical theatre twist.’ In the Daily Mail (5★), Patrick Marmion wrote, ‘This is one of the merriest performances I’ve seen in the West End’.
Nick Curtis in the Standard (4★) explained why it cheered him up: ‘It comes from the American school of wilfully schlocky, sloppy gay parody, packed with pop culture references, always seemingly on the brink of hysteria and collapse.’ Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) said, ‘it is quite frankly, riotously absurd. But it’s also endearing. And although neither quite as clever or hilarious as it sets out to be, it is so strongly sung and energetically performed under the direction of Blue and the musical direction of Adam Wachter, that it is impossible not to have a good time.’
’Fans of the film will certainly be satisfied, but there is no doubt that Titanique is largely a show for pop-culture-loving, queer theatre kids,’ advised Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre (4★). She drew attention to ‘Drew as Dion who is a revelation’ and Layton Williams who ‘gives one of the show’s stand-out performances, taking on a variety of roles from camp museum guide and a suggestive Seaman (plenty of double entendres here), to a Tina Turner-inspired “Iceberg B-tch”, who sets the stage alight during a rendition of “River Deep, Mountain High”.’
City AM’s Adam Bloodworth (4★) declared this ‘is probably the most brazenly weird thing on in the West End right now.’ He explained, ‘This is more like an east London queer cabaret show than heteronormative homage.’ Despite finding it exhausting, he said, ‘I’ll admit I do want it all over again.’
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) called it ‘a big queer cabaret with renegade energy. Outre and amped up to 11 in pace and humour, it is billed as “camp chaos.” That’s an understatement.’ Andrzej Lukowski for Time Out (3★) wasn’t so impressed. What it made exceptional for him was the portrayal of Celine Dion: ‘‘ultimately it’s an affectionate, funny and thoroughly lovable turn from Drew, who lights up the stage every time she steps on it.’ However, ‘it’s undeniably a fun way to start 2025’.
Paul Vale for The Stage (3★) ‘There’s little to disguise the fact that this is essentially a fringe show…But it’s relentlessly funny’. The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish (3★) had reservations (‘My enthusiasm sank as the disconnect between mirth and tragedy became inescapable’) but decided that ‘on its own terms, guying epic cinema with a shoestring theatricality, it’s hard to fault’. Fiona Mountford in the i paper (3★) pointed out it is ‘not the most heteronormative show you will ever see’. She said she ‘was by turns amused and bewildered, but I did not constitute the optimum audience demographic.’
Gary Naylor on The Arts Desk (1★) didn’t like it at all: ‘The vibe, on a rudimentary set that suggests, but no more than that, a generic liner, is of an undergraduate show brought to Edinburgh for a boozy midnight house. Worse still, just when you think you can consign panto to the back burner for 11 months, the fourth wall collapses, the dread fear of audience participation descends on the front rows and the double, though more often just single, entendres start to batter your ears in wave after wave. That they are crude is fine, that they are devoid of wit isn’t.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.5★
Value Rating 45 (Value rating is the Critics’ Average Rating divided by the typical ticket price)
Anne-Marie Duff is chilling in 20th century classic
★★★★
Anne-Marie Duff & Mark Bonnar in The Little Foxes. Photo: Johan Persson
Like me, you probably see more acting on TV than in the theatre. That means I’m always interested to see whether a favourite actor can make that transition from screen to stage. The Little Foxes at the Young Vic was packed with faces from British television. Mark Bonnar who you will have seen in Shetland and Guilt; Steffan Rhodri best known as Dave Coaches from Gavin & Stacey; Anna Madeley who is Mrs Hall in All Creatures Great And Small; and one certifiable star in Anne-Marie Duff most recently seen in Bad Sisters.
I have seen all these actors on stage before, but it is still a thrill to be reminded that, like so many other screen actors, they are often only giving us a glimpse of their skills when they’re in front of a camera. The real test of their acting ability comes when they are trapped in the time and space of a theatre show, communicating directly with a live audience. This cast passed the test with distinction.
Lillian Hellman’s The Little Foxes was premiered in 1939 but this attack on capitalism focuses on a family of landowners from the American South around 1900. So, the first question you might ask is, why did Lillian Hellman, who was a communist by the way, set her play around 40 years in the past? I’m guessing it’s because 1939 was not the best time for an anti-capitalist message. America had just experienced successful state intervention in their free market system in the form of Roosevelt’s New Deal, so a mixed economy may have seemed more attractive than a communist one. More than that, communists, capitalists, rich and poor were in the process of uniting in a fight against fascism, or at least that was the perception. So it might have been easier to show unadulterated capitalism, raw in tooth and claw as it were, from a couple of generations earlier.
The first half introduces us to the Hubbard family. There are two brothers- Ben played by Mark Bonnar, cunning as a fox and arrogant as a peacock, initially strutting about the stage, nonchalantly shrugging off challenges. Ben boasts of the way his family, who were traders, took advantage of the Civil War to buy up property while the Southern grandees were being defeated, fighting for their principles. He is even proud of their exploitation of what he calls ‘coloured people’.
The other brother Oscar, a weak bully, is played by Steffan Rhodri with a rat-like blend of slyness and nerves. The lead character is their sister Regina played by Anne-Marie Duff. Her bravura performance dominates the evening, entrancing us with her hyperactive character, who is by turn charming, quivering with frustration or displaying a diamond hard will power that is genuinely chilling. Her sparkling eyes and wide smile are a mask that covers her amorality.
The brothers inherited their father’s money. When they have an investment opportunity that will make them a huge fortune, Regina is shocked and angry to find she has been left out of the spoils. She plots to get both her share and revenge, by using her ailing husband’s money to make up the additional investment her brothers need.
After a slow first half that establishes the characters and their situation, the play takes off like a SpaceX rocket, as these greedy siblings ruthlessly trick and use one another. Regina becomes more ruthless than any of them in her ambition.
It’s a savage expose of people whose greed trounces love, loyalty and all other moral values. But, is it relevant today? I guess the answer to that partly depends on your politics, but the fact is, capitalism remains the dominant system, despite regulation and the welfare state. Add to which, we appear to be entering an era of less regulation, in America at least, and we have seen the privatisation of public services in the UK. So I suppose it is a good time to be reminded that however high the quality of service or product we receive from companies, their number one priority is profit, not people.
Powerful performance from Anna Madeley
Anna Madeley in The Little Foxes. Photo: Johan Persson
The play presents some alternatives. Oscar’s wife Birdie is from an aristocratic family. She represents the ‘old values’ based on patronage, duty and responsibility. She is an alcoholic, bullied by her husband, and ghosted into a lack of confidence. She may be brittle- she laughs nervously, she looks down, there’s fear in her eyes- but still expresses her beliefs. It’s a powerful performance from Anna Madeley, showing Birdie beaten down but still proud. The quality and depth of her acting won’t surprise you if you’ve seen her as Mrs Hall, giving much-needed weight to the cosiness of All Creatures Great and Small.
Regina’s husband and daughter show that behaving morally is an option. They are played by John Light and Eleanor Worthington-Cox, the latter subtly showing how her character grows in strength as events force her to choose between standing up for her beliefs or standing by watching. In fact, the play’s strongest message is that most of us stand by watching bad things happening and do nothing about it. In stark contrast, Oscar’s son, played by Stanley Morgan, is morally bankrupt, like his father.
The black servants show two different sides of the class that has been most exploited and abused by this family. Freddie MacBruce as Cal goes about his job without question, but Andrea Davy’s Addie is firm in her opinions and tenderly loyal to those who treat her well.
Quite a few reviewers criticised the design, suggesting that its mid 20th century look was not appropriate, and even confusing, when used in a play set in 1900. On the contrary, I think Lizzie Clachan’s design is a stroke of genius. First and foremost, it doesn’t distract. A turn of the century design could have made the story seem of a bygone age, irrelevant to today. On the other hand, modern day clothes would have been too anachronistic for a play that’s set over a hundred years ago and mentions horses and carriages.
Instead, Ms Clachan cleverly plumps for the neutrality of clothes of the time it was written. The dominant beige reinforces this. The absence of the trappings of the life of the well-off suggests these are people who want wealth for its own sake. They aren’t even that interested in enjoying the luxuries that come with it.
It’s a damning picture of capitalism but I think it’s unfair to suggest, as some critics did, that it fails because the main character doesn’t evoke enough sympathy. I found that I had plenty of sympathy with her over the way she was treated and therefore cheered her on as she exacted revenge. But that sympathy only heightened the shock of seeing just how far she would go and what sacrifices she would make. Yes, she does become a monster but it seems possibly sexist to me to suggest that this portrait of a greedy capitalist woman can only can only be of interest if we have sympathy for her. I don’t think you have to sympathise with the murdering Macbeth to get involved in his character and story, or with the greedy Lehman Brothers to find them fascinating. I didn’t like Regina as a human being but it was gripping to see how far she would go and whether she would finally realise there is more to life than money.
Director Lyndsey Turner delivers a powerful interpretation and the excellent cast squeeze every ounce of drama out of it. Before the interval I was wondering whether it was ever going to take off but when it did it was riveting. And if you love watching great acting, this is one not to miss.
For Black Boys Who Have Considered Suicide… Photo: Johan Persson
Looking back at this year’s reviews roundups, I see two of the best reviewed shows this year were returns: People Places And Things with Denise Gough and The Lehman Trilogy. They scored a critics’ average rating of 4.6★ as did the best new play of the year For Black Boys. The other big winners were The Open Air Theatre’s Fiddler on The Roof (4.5★), Imelda Staunton in Hello Dolly (4.4★), Til The Stars Come Down (4.4★), and The Cabinet Minister (4.4★).
This year’s turkeys were The Duchess (2.6★) with Jodie Whitaker, Barcelona (2.6★) with Lily Collins, and The Tempest (2.7★) with Sigourney Weaver, the latter being rated Worst Value of the year thanks to the eye-watering prices. The lowest average critics’ rating this year went to Shrek The Musical (1.8★) followed by Eddie Izzard’s Hamlet (2.0★).
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp is my Critic of the Year for combining insight, intelligence and wit. Add to which, she is the queen of the putdown. This is what she said about Barcelona: ‘the range of feeling remains small: from giggle to whimper’, and here’s her description of Sigourney Weaver: ‘not only unsure of her lines but apparently uncertain of what a line is’.
Dickie Beau and Simon Russell Beale in The Invention of Love. Photo: Helen Murray
In Tom Stoppard’s revived 1997 play, the poet and classicist A E Housman finds himself dead in Hades, meets his younger self and explores his memories. Simon Russell Beale as the older Houseman garnered great praise, but some of the critics found the play too clever by half.
Matt Wolf popping up at LondonTheatre (5★) noted, ‘Abstruse as Stoppard’s hyper-erudite text can sometimes be, it is suffused at every turn with feeling. You watch in continual awe – and perhaps occasional confusion – as classical references get lobbed across the footlights, only to clock the deepening ache of this near-definitive portrait of unrequited love.’
Tim Bano in The Independent (4★) said, ‘Blanche McIntyre’s subtle, uncluttered production…delivers a pretty good case for the play being …a bona fide masterpiece.’
The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish (4) was also impressed: ‘There’s more to chew on in two or so hours than at the amplest festive feast.’ He said Simon Russell Beale ‘makes every line resonate with fresh thought and feeling’.
David Jays in The Guardian (3★) said, ‘The quicksilver Russell Beale is a vocal glory, leaping in a breath from flute to poignant bassoon, from wit to sorrow.’
Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld (3★) also liked SRB but was unsure about the play: ‘this is Stoppard at his most frustrating: lapping tides of stuffy self-referentiality, self-congratulatory smirks, and pats on the back for every reference you can count pull you under the waves.’
Chris Omaweng for LondonTheatre1 (3★) wrote, ‘A demanding and yet not completely inaccessible show, it is at least consistent in its intense analysis of ancient works as well as the world inhabited by Housman and his contemporaries.’
Dominic Maxwell of The Times (3★) said ‘it offers plenty of pleasures, not least a characteristically lucid and tender central turn from Simon Russell Beale. It’s wise, witty, dense, dazzling, opaque. And sometimes it’s a slog.’ To put it another way, ‘this is a play with great monents, not a great play ‘
The i-paper‘s Fiona Mountford (2★) found it ‘unbearable’. About Stoppard, she said, ‘too often his lofty intellect cowers audience members into submission’. But not Ms Mountford with her ‘Oxbridge classics degree’. She explained, ‘we have three hours of often indistinguishable men exchanging achingly arch lines about the minutiae of classical grammar and quoting screeds and screeds of Latin at each other.’ To put it more plainly: ‘it feels less like drama and more like intellectual masturbation’. Est quodest! as Fiona might say.
Daisy Edgar-Jones and Kingsley Ben-Adir in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof
Hopes must have been high at the Almeida when they announced Cat On A Hot Tin Roof. Director Rebecca Frecknall has had spectacular success with her previous productions of Tennessee Williams. Daisy Edgar-Jones, Kingsley Ben-Adir and Lennie James play, respectively, a sexually frustrated wife, an alcoholic, possibly gay husband, and a bullying, dying family patriarch. As the Time Out review said, ‘the horror here is the hell of other people. Everyone is trapped with everyone else’.
Unfortunately for The Almeida, a number of critics felt trapped by this long production, although most gave favourable reviews. Kingsley Ben-Adir and Lennie James received high praise but the reviewers didn’t agree about Daisy Edgar-Jones with comments ranging from ‘so good’ to ‘irritating’.
[Links to the full reviews are given but some websites may be blocked unless you have a subscription]
In fact, it was Time Out’s Andrjez Lukowski (5★) who loved it most of all. Daisy Edgar-Jones, he proclaimed, ‘is so, so good, inhabiting Maggie with a burning, vivacious swagger, alternatively self-mocking, self-pitying, compassionate and vicious’. Kingsley Ben-Adir displays, he said, ‘terrific acting, but sacrificing showing off to the greater good of the play.’.
The Standard’s Nick Curtis (4★) too praised the cast in this ‘striking and vivid interpretation’. He said Daisy Edgar-Jones ‘gives an intense and physically exact performance as a woman born poor and aware of the currency of her body and its fecundity. There’s intention in every tilt of her shoulders or arch or her bare instep.’ He talked of ‘Kingsley Ben-Adir, bringing nuance to stumbles and slurs’ and ‘Lennie James, terrifying…he’s magnetic.’
‘Performances are strong all round,’ agreed Holly O’Mahony for LondonTheatre (4★). The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming (4★) spoke of ‘Rebecca Frecknall’s bruising, claustrophobic production, in which bad faith seems to hang in the air like mist, pooling in the corners of Chloe Lamford’s coldly opulent set.’ ‘What a savage, poisonous, ugly work this semi-autobiographical piece proves anew in Frecknall’s unflinching, if overlong revival,’ observed Clare Allfree in the Telegraph (4★).
Siobhan Murphy for The Stage (3★) declared: ‘if baroque, red-in-tooth-and-claw intensity is what you seek from a Williams play, you won’t feel short-changed.’ Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) decided, ‘Ultimately this is a production that you admire rather than one that moves you.’ Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (3★) had a similar reaction: ‘illuminating, but strangely passive’.
The Independent’s Alice Saville (2★) didn’t like it: ‘Frecknall’s play runs long and slow at 180 minutes – and it feels unbalanced, too, with Maggie’s thin scenes outweighed by her husband’s bloated ones.’
Adam Bloodworth for CityAM (2★) found ‘this version of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof only skims the surface, rarely getting into the darkness at the heart of Williams’ play about trauma, ageing and identity.’ For him, ‘Daisy Edgar-Jones is irritating, never defusing from a perpetual state of angry-shouty indoor voice.’ The Times’ Clive Davis (2★) was another left cold by the Hot Roof: ‘this weirdly off-kilter production, alternately ponderous and manically overheated, could almost be a parody of Williams’s gothic manner.’
