Ben Whishaw in Bluets at Royal Court theatre. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
In her book, Maggie Nelson writes numerous short pieces that explore pleasure, pain, and her love of the colour blue. In Margaret Perry’s stage adaptation, three actors create small moments for ‘live cinema’ as the director Katie Mitchell calls it. The drama might have been marginalised as an art installation, except the actors in question are Ben Whishaw, Emma D’Arcy and Kayla Meikle, and this is the first production at the Royal Court under its new artistic director David Byrne.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) was the most enthusiastic reviewer: ‘Both in live action and screen picture, the actors have a sense of intent purpose. However complex the technical demands made of them, they give a performance that is utterly unified and entirely believable.’ She summed up, ‘it is stylish, and full of wonder, a compelling portrait of sadness that somehow finds its way to acceptance and even hope.’ Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (4★) was also impressed, ‘Incisively adapted for the stage by Margaret Perry, the elusive text feels like an ideal match for director Katie Mitchell’s signature cinematic style, which blends performance, live video and pre-recorded footage to extraordinary effect.’ He concluded, ‘it’s a challenging, yet deeply rewarding watch, suffused with wistful beauty.’
Like many of the reviewers, Dominic Cavendish of the Telegraph (3★) seemed more impressed by the way it was done than the effect: ‘As a technical feat, it’s impressive: how do Whishaw, along with Emma D’Arcy and Kayla Meikle, each focused yet frenetic amid an obscuring array of equipment, get so much done, without slipping up?’ Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) was of a similar mind: ‘As ever with Mitchell, the text is interesting, but the real action lies in admiring her virtuosic staging – the cast are good, but they’re skilled cogs in Mitchell’s prodigious machine.’ The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) thought it was ‘cool and accomplished. More intriguing than disturbing.’
Arifa Akbar of The Guardian (3★) was stirred but not shaken: ‘there is still a sense of morsels of thought being offered which never metabolise into anything bigger…Ultimately, it is an odd night at the theatre, but not an uninteresting one.’ She said of the actors, ‘D’Arcy, Meikle and Whishaw perform with smooth, speedy synchronicity.’ Fiona Mountford at i-news (3★) thought the same but was more blunt, ‘It’s all very technically impressive, of course, but quite what this incessant faffing about adds to the text itself is another question entirely. My overriding feeling at the end of the 80 minutes was that Bluets is not a quarter as profound as Mitchell thinks it is.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (3★) said, ‘I’m so glad I saw Bluets. Without more story to sustain its 80 minutes, though, I was also so glad when it ended.
Aliya Al-Hassan atLondonTheatre (3★) felt ‘the overall look and feel is often more art installation than theatrical performance’ but ‘the cast work incredibly well together, moving deftly as they convey the stream of consciousness‘. Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) thought ‘Perry’s adaptation…keeps many of its most beautiful lines, and having the added textures of the film…creates…a theatrical piece unlike much else in London at the moment.’ He concluded with a backhanded compliment, ‘it’s a slog, even at 80 minutes. But my goodness it’s a beautiful slog.’
Not so beautiful for The Times’ Clive Davis (2★), who was having none of it: ’80 minutes begins to feel like eight hours. Whishaw and his colleagues are reduced to the level of well-drilled marionettes’.
Average critics’ rating 3.1★
Bluets can be seen at the Royal CourtTheatre until 29 June 2024. Buy tickets direct from royalcourttheatre.com
Tom Holland & Francesca Amewudah-Rivers in Romeo & Juliet. Photo: Marc Brenner
The hordes of Tom Holland fans may have little interest in Jamie Lloyd’s production of Romeo and Juliet, or even in the acting, but the critics had plenty to say about both. It’s not unusual to have mixed reviews but rare that they range from 5 stars to 1 star. What divided them was the multi-media production which thrilled some and alienated others. Reviews of Mr Holland were mainly complimentary, although it was Francesca Amewudah-Rivers’ Juliet that took the acting laurels.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (5★) was taken to the heights. ‘The West End hasn’t ever really seen an R&J like it,’ he claimed. He described its Hollywood star as ‘beefy of bicep, but pale, achingly tender, at times teary and then cheery, all hormonal vulnerability’ but reserved his greatest praise for Juliet: ‘Amewudah-Rivers, 26, is a huge find, by turns understated, coy, comically off-hand, and defiantly passionate.’ He praised director Lloyd for ‘placing the lyrical language centre-stage.’ His conclusion? ‘The street-wise, star-cross’d lovers hold us in their spell, stamp the play with a 2024 freshness’
Patrick Marmion in the Mail (4★) went all weak-kneed: ‘Sometimes, it even feels as if Lloyd is deliberately trying to throttle the life out of the febrile passion that normally drives this headlong love story. And yet, cometh the hour, cometh the (Spider) man… all 5ft 8ins of him. Damn, he’s a buff and good-looking bloke. His commanding cheekbones and curving jaw suck the breath from the audience and keep us wrapped in his dreamy gaze.’ The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (4★) asserted, ‘They’re the most spellbinding star-crossed lovers I’ve seen in years.’ Tom Holland, he said, ‘gives us an impressive foreshadowing of the classical actor he could become.’ Of the production, he told us, ‘The action is sliced, diced and interspliced into a brisk two hours, laced with occasional anachronisms, blinding lights and jagged bursts of industrial music.’ In defence of Jamie Lloyd, he said, ‘the narrow view of Lloyd’s productions as mere star vehicles ignores his always-detailed ensemble work and the way he promotes new talent. Freema Agyeman and Michael Balogun find rarely-plumbed depths in the Nurse and the Friar here.’
Olivia Rook at London Theatre (4★) called it ‘a sexy, intense, and haunting piece of theatre.’ ‘Holland’s assured performance…graduates from laddish confidence to rippling rage. His talent is easily met by rising star Francesca Amewudah-Rivers.’ Sarah Hemming writing for The Financial Times (4★) had this analysis, ‘this is a compelling production: vivid, sad, restless. It brings home forcefully — and perhaps this is its point in today’s world — that death is not romantic.’
Andrzej Lukowski In Time Out (4★) decided, ‘this is a show about dead people. It’s staged like a particularly stylish radio play, the cast frequently standing static but artfully framed, talking into old fashioned floor mics.’ As to the actors, ‘Holland has a powerful stillness to him’ and Francesca Amewudah-Rivers ‘has a beautiful voice, an elegant lilt that works perfectly in a production that eschews physical business.’ He advised, ‘adjust to its fugue state and it’s deeply compelling.’
Susanna Clapp in The Observer (4★) said (and she’s seen a few) Francesca Amewudah-Rivers ‘is one of the best Juliets I have seen…I have never heard “What’s in a name?” considered with such precise wonder.’ Tom Holland is ‘light but concentrated, not soggy with romanticism but slipping easily in and out of tears…Together they fizz, often humorously, pointing up the verse with 21st-century inflections.’
Then come the reservations about Jamie Lloyd’s production. Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) found ‘the use of mics is inconsistent and seems to serve no particular purpose, and some of the filmed footage is equally confusing.’ Nevertheless she thought ‘Lloyd’s production is an arresting vision of an inequitable society in freefall, and of lost young people desperately attempting to navigate the disintegration guided by nothing but their own confused and fervid feelings.’ Arifa Akbar of The Guardian (3★) thought ‘Holland and Amewudah-Rivers are perfectly cast, wired with an awkwardly cool teen energy, she a mix of innocence and streetwise steel, he jittering with sweaty-palmed earnestness’ but ‘Actors speak their lines – in a line – at the audience, a recurring tic in Lloyd’s work, now more insistently puzzling in its distancing, anti-dramatic effects, and too stilted to let loose the play’s passion.’ In the end, she felt that ‘The deliberate underplaying of emotion ultimately leeches the play of its tragedy.’
The Times’ Clive Davis (3★) declared himself ‘more perplexed than gripped‘. He explained, ‘What we get here is auteur theatre in which the actors are reduced to chess pieces to be nudged here and there by an invisible hand.’ It was, he said, ‘a conscientious but colourless radio drama’ in which ‘characters often address microphones rather than each other’. However he had positive words about Tom Holland: ‘This Romeo is quiet, fresh-faced and sensitive. In the opening scenes he really does convince you that he is an adolescent adrift, waiting to abandon himself to a doomed romance’.
’I was always interested, but I can’t say it made feel much,’ said Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (3★).
After that, it gets worse. Hugh Montgomery of the BBC (2★) found it ‘a depressingly lifeless affair, which somehow manages to be both overstated and underpowered.’ ‘What really sinks things,’ he said, ‘is the continuous use of live camerawork.’ ‘Rather than the thrill of an unmediated live experience, the audience is dislocated from the performers, the performers are dislocated from each other, and there is little sense of a coherent world in which the characters exist.’ Tim Bano in The Independent (2★) called it ‘a Romeo & Juliet muttered through head mics, housed in a shell of industrial chic – or it was chic the first time Lloyd did it.’ As to the star-crossed lovers: ‘Holland’s acting skills are abundant in all the bits when he’s not speaking…he acts best with his face, she with her voice.’
Neil Norman of The Express (1★) didn’t mince his words: ‘Absolute drivel.’ He explained, ‘how quickly the trademarks of a Jamie Lloyd production have become clichéd and predictable.’ He didn’t like the star attraction either, ‘As Romeo, Tom Holland is a charisma free zone, achieving the unlikely feat of being both buff and weedy.’
Average critics’ rating 3.3★ Value Rating 21 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Romeo & Juliet runs at the Duke Of York’s Theatre until 3 August 2024. Buy tickets direct from thedukeofyorks.com
If you’ve seen Romeo & Juliet, please add your review and rating below
Giles Terera in Passing Strange. Photo: Marc Brenner
A middle-aged African American played by Giles Terera looks back on his life and how, as a young musician, he went on a musical odyssey to find himself and his place in the world. It’s a semi-autobiographical work by Mark Lamar Stewart, co-composed with Heidi Rodewald.
Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (5 ★) loved it: ‘this rock musical about a young man who leaves his religious upbringing to devour the 1970s punk scenes of Berlin and Amsterdam stirs the soul.’ He continued , ‘It does so in a way I haven’t quite seen before: the story of the unnamed ‘Youth’ is delivered by a live rock band’s fourth-wall-breaking singer-narrator, played with a velvety confidence and almost frustrating suaveness by Giles Terera’ ‘There are some astonishing pieces of choreography.’ His conclusion was, ‘There’s nothing quite like this on the London stage right now.’
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) was enthusiastic: The show was ‘so wildly, and often loudly, offbeat that there’s never a dull moment.’ He ended, ‘Not revelatory, perhaps, but invigoratingly strange, and bittersweet.’
Fiona Mountford in the i (4★) declared, ‘Passing Strange is most definitely a musical, but it’s not like any musical I have ever seen before – and what a thrill it is.’ She continued ‘Passing Strange delights in toying with our expectations and casually breaking the fourth wall when it fancies, and Liesl Tommy’s tremendously self-assured production pulls it all off with conviction and panache.’
Dominic Cooke of the Sunday Times (4★) said ‘it is a vivid tale of a young man’s search for authenticity that knows authenticity is both liberation and bunkum. Pitched between rock gig and musical, memoir and performance art, it’s musical theatre that even those who don’t like musical theatre can love. It’s satirical, stirring, tuneful, tender, awkward, alive.’
Marianka Swain writing for LondonTheatre discovered (4★), ‘this form-busting show is still a distinctly singular experience, but surrender to its idiosyncratic rhythms and it’s a soulful, rich, witty wonder.’ She praised its star: ‘Terera is a total rock star in a role that could have been tailor-made for him.’ Kate Wyver in The Guardian (4★) offered a paean to the lead: ‘You can’t take your eyes off him. The script for this autobiography of an artist isn’t always nuanced but Giles Terera as its narrator is sublime, filling every line with the weight of time passed, every move with the knowledge of mistakes made. And he has a cracking turn on the electric guitar….He holds the years in his gaze, the longing, the loss, the what-could-have-been. He doesn’t just play the part, he lives it.’
Tom Wicker at Time Out (3★) found ‘Liesl Tommy’s staging of the show has charisma to spare…Terera is the lynchpin here, tying emotional loose ends together with effortless dexterity.’ His reservation was: ‘This production wants to have its cake and eat it, expecting us to laugh at everything in, but to take its own brand of earnestness seriously.’ For Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (3★), ‘It is so exhilarating and Giles Terera so charismatic’. She liked the way it is ‘powered by a rich score (co-written by Stew and Heidi Rodewald) that mixes musical styles’. Where it fell down for her is that the ‘second act and the energy vanishes like air from a balloon…the lessons learnt by a young man on his life’s journey are replaced by platitudes about life and art’.
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) said Giles Terera gave ‘a beautifully relaxed, melodious performance.’ But, ‘the production never quite lands its art vs life message, while insistently making it‘. Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) said it’s ‘simultaneously familiar, sketchy, self-indulgent and pretentious, but it’s told in Liesl Tommy’s new production with undeniable verve and brio.’
Anya Ryan in The Stage (3★) said, It’s a messy voyage of self-discovery…it feels somewhat self-indulgent.’ However the star did not disappoint: ‘Terera once again proves himself to be one of Britain’s most versatile actors working today, with charismatic confidence and a voice as sumptuous as ever.’
For Clive Davis in The Times (3★), ‘Some of the numbers, co-written with Heidi Rodewald, have a genuinely anthemic quality. It helps that the cast are quite capable of crashing through the fourth wall and joshing with the audience. And Stewart’s script contains zingers…It’s just a shame that the show runs out of ideas in the second half and turns mawkish at the end. Until then, it’s a blast.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.6★
Passing Strange can be seen at Young Vic until 6 July 2024. Buy tickets directly from youngvic.org
If you’ve seen Richard III, please add your review and rating below
Michelle Terry as Richard III. Photo: Marc Brenner
The Globe’s Richard III arrives on a wave of controversy because of the frequently misogynistic criticism of its non-disabled artistic director Michelle Terry taking the lead role. As it turns out, references to the murderous king’s disability have been excised and attention is on his toxic masculinity in Elle While’s nearly all-female production.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Tim Bano in The Independent (4★) described how ‘Michelle Terry takes Richard III and turns him into the kind of swaggering, entitled, entirely self-regarding mop-haired misogynist man that we’ve seen way too much of in positions of power in recent years.’ Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (4★) called her interpretation ‘a textbook reading in imaginative authenticity’. The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4★) pointed out, ‘Elle While’s direction turns it into a play about toxic masculinity of the highest order.’ ‘the play’s shocks hit in all the right places,’ she said, ‘Ultimately, it is a fast-paced, energised and entertaining production, the humour sometimes overplayed and hammy, but nevertheless a hugely compelling picture of corrupted male power.’
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) said, ‘Terry’s king is a lethal child. She outshines everyone else in a stimulating, patchy evening.’ Anya Ryan in Time Out (3★) declared, ‘As a Shakespearean actor, Terry really is as good as it gets.’ Her reservation was that ‘There is solid thought behind this production that pushes The Bard’s classic into the modern day. But, this is Terry’s show and hers only.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis (3★) found her ‘horrifyingly compelling in the lead’ but thought ‘Elle While’s production is shouty and unfocused. It also strains too hard for contemporary relevance.’
Isaac Ouro-Gnao writing for LondonTheatre (3★) said, ‘for the most part, Richard III offers up stinging comedy at the hands of a talented and diverse cast, guaranteeing a laugh even during its darkest moments.’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (3★) called the production ‘bold, uneven’. On the whole, he was impressed: ‘Although While’s strikingly modern style feels chaotic at times, this ambitious production offers an intriguing, under-explored angle on Richard’s familiar story.’
According to Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld (3★), ‘Richard is the all too human anti-hero of Shakespearean canon. Here he is more concept in a wider societal conversation about gender roles post #MeToo.’
Sarah Hemming at WhatsOnStage (2★) wasn’t impressed: ‘There is some richness to be found in exploring the ways in which misogyny and tyranny almost always walk hand-in-hand, boosted by the use of an almost all-female or gender-fluid cast, but it often has all the subtlety and nuance of a bejewelled codpiece.’ The Times’ Dominic Maxwell (2★) felt the same: ‘Not for the first time here [at The Globe] the bright ideas are ahead of the production’s ability to sell them…It’s a strategically shallow reading that makes one of Shakespeare’s most fascinating villains into a 2D commentary on a certain kind of male.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3
Richard III can be seen at Shakespeare’s Globe until 3 August 2024. Buy tickets directly from shakespearesglobe.com
If you’ve seen Richard III, please add your review and rating below
Following his triumph as King Lear, Danny Sapani is back as another fading patriarch, this time he’s a retired New York cop who had previously been badly injured by a white colleague. As the occupant of a Manhattan apartment, he takes in a variety of misfits while resisting eviction in Stephen Adly Guirgis’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (4★) was full of praise: ‘Director Michael Longhurst revels in the text’s rollercoaster, tragicomic structure and draws rich, believable performances from the cast as a bunch of messy, messed-up people trying to keep their lives on track. Sapani is excellent, switching from warmth to wrath in an instant: infuriating one moment and endearing the next.’ Marianka Swain in the Telegraph (4★) said Danny Sapani is ‘titanic here as this sly, savagely funny, belligerent patriarch whose authority is ebbing away.’
Alun Hood at WhatsOnStage (4★) was impressed by ‘Michael Longhurst’s sizzling, thrillingly acted production’. It was, he said, ‘a warm, intriguing play, as wise as it is outrageous, as funny as it is grim, and in this UK premiere, it looks like a modern American classic.’ Franco Milazzo At BroadwayWorld (4★) described it as an ‘intelligent, intimate and ultimately optimistic study’
Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) experienced ‘a meaty watch, a pungent, spikey mix of laughs, tears and doomed defiance that centres on a multiracial group of misfits.’ Matt Wolf writing for LondonTheatre (3★) said, ‘Michael Longhurst’s production courses with the empathy found in the writing, not to mention a characteristic alertness to the storytelling swerves.’ For Arifa Albar in The Guardian (3★) it didn’t deliver as much as it promised, ‘In a production snappily directed by Michael Longhurst, there is much half said about institutionalised racism’ Nevertheless, ‘The performances are so strong, especially Sapani’s, that they propel the drama with lively, jibing humour’
The Times’ Clive Davis (3★) was another who felt the play fell short. While describing Danny Sapani as ‘a brooding central presence’, he also observed ‘too many underdeveloped characters’ are jostling for attention’ and ‘a nagging sense of implausibility.’ He said, ‘There are two or three plays crammed in here; for all the jokes, Guirgis never makes us care enough about any of them.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) had many reservations but came through the evening feeling positive: ‘This is a tricksy, rigged piece of drama, with a distended denouement. It’s still headily enjoyable, though.’ Dave Fargnoli writing for The Stage (3★) said the ‘knotty dramedy is overstuffed and tonally inconsistent – yet still gripping.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★
Between Riverside and Crazy can be seen at Hampstead Theatre until 15 June 2024. Buy tickets from hampsteadtheatre.com
If you’ve seen Between Riverside and Crazy, please add your review and rating below
Fawlty Towers is so well-loved, there was always a danger that a stage adaptation would disappoint. For some critics, it did, but most found that John Cleese’s theatrical version of three classic episodes honoured the original. Opinions varied on whether the actors were making the characters their own or simply doing impressions but they did their job well and, crucially, Adam Jackson-Smith impressed as Basil Fawlty.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Neil Norman in The Express (4★) thought it was ‘the funniest show in town.’ He said, ‘Director Caroline Jay Ranger ensures that the comedy timing is immaculate’ and ‘Jackson-Smith is well nigh perfect.’ Fiona Mountford of the i (4★) ‘emerged two hours later, giddily and delightfully weak from laughing’. Clive Davis, an avowed fan of the TV series, declared in The Times (4★) ‘this genial condensing of three episodes delivers a hugely entertaining blast of unadorned nostalgia.’
Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre (4★) positively wallowed in the nostalgia. ‘This brand of farce, building from comedy-of-manners to manic slapstick, is also very much of its time.’ ‘with not a single word wasted, and some of the best punchlines ever written.’ ‘Caroline Jay Ranger keeps the pacing brisk and maintains the original’s zany energy and pin-sharp timing.’ Aliya Al-Hassan at BroadwayWorld (4★) called it ‘a very funny and entertaining evening, one that is remarkably faithful to the original material.’ She thought, ‘The cast is superb, landing every joke and intonation expected of them’ and picked out the main character, ‘Adam Jackson-Smith is the reincarnation of Cleese’ She was pleased with ‘the incredibly deft comic timing and old-fashioned and very British entertainment.’
In The Sunday Times (4★) Dominic Maxwell overcame his fears about putting a beloved TV show on stage: ‘This is a celebration, not a museum…This stuff still works. And it is done here with love as well as a laser focus. It is nothing I haven’t seen before, but it made me laugh a lot.’ It may not seem like it but Patrick Marmion in the Daily Mail (4) was happy that it replicated the TV show: ‘Caroline Jay Ranger’s production offers her company all the creative freedom that Kim Jong Un grants the people of North Korea.’
Brian Logan in The Guardian (3★) was quite enthusiastic: ‘this Fawlty Towers redux is no pale imitation of the original, but a very vivid one.’ Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (3★) seemed to like it despite himself: ‘it’s better than you’d think.’ He ended, ‘it might not be challenging theatre, but it’s a nostalgic joy.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★), while saying it was ‘indisputably funny’, cautioned ‘the show falls far short of its peerless source material.’ ‘You admire the fidelity of the impersonations,’ he said, ‘while still pining futilely for the genuine article.’ He felt the comedy had worked better on television back in the 1970s: ‘the use of farcical elements…looks decidedly creaky today’
It was all too familiar for Tom Wicks in Time Out (3) : ‘We’re left anticipating old laughs rather than being surprised by new ones.’ Theo Bosanquet for WhatsOnStage (3) thought the same: ‘it inevitably struggles to feel like anything more than a kind of waxwork impression.’
For Nick Curtis in the Standard (3★) it was an ‘efficient and energetic stage adaptation’ but an ‘oddly soulless affair’. Twisting the butter knife, he continued, ‘it feels like an exercise in zombie nostalgia.’ While others revelled in its fidelity to the original, for Nick, ‘Caroline Jay Ranger’s production, overseen by Cleese, is too loyal to the source.’ I think we know the answer when Nick found himself ‘wondering if there were any artistic rather than purely commercial justification for this stage adaptation.’ As Manuel might say, ‘¿Qué’
Fawlty Towers The Play can be seen at the Apollo Theatre until 28 September 2024. Buy tickets directly from FawltyTowersWestend.com
Average critics’ rating 3.6★ Value Rating 40 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
If you’ve seen Fawlty Towers, please add your review and rating below
Denise Gough in People, Places & Things. Photo: Marc Brenner
It’s a bit like bands playing their greatest hits. Last year Mark Rylance revived his performance as Rooster Byron in Jerusalem. This year we have Denise Gough returning in Duncan Macmillan‘s People, Place & Things. The revival recreates the exact 2015 production with the same director (Jeremy Herrin) and set designer (Bunny Christie) with critics agreeing that Ms Gough is every bit as good and, in some opinions, even better, as the actress who lies to others and herself as she struggles with addiction.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Susannah Clapp in The Observer (5★) declared, ‘Jeremy Herrin’s tremendous production, with tremendous Gough, is even better second time around.’ Anya Ryan in The Times (5★) said, ‘as nauseating and adrenaline-spiking as it gets, this is also theatre at its most vivid.’ It was, she declared, ‘an unforgettable night.’ Sam Marlowe in The Stage (5★) pulled out every adjective in her dictionary to praise the play and its star. ‘Duncan Macmillan’s drama is a hurtling exploration of addiction, existential crisis and identity, at once visceral and brainy, and Jeremy Herrin’s staging…is electrifying: a sensory immersion galvanised with euphoria and panic, rage, fear and pain.’ As for Denise Gough, her character’s struggle against addiction ‘is conveyed with such sweaty, nauseous, wracking vividness that, watching it, you almost forget to breathe.’ There are yet more adjectives: ‘Gough is blazingly charismatic, combining pugnacious swagger, fierce intelligence and raw vulnerability’
Alun Hood at WhatsOnStage (5★) also thought it was better than ever: ‘While you can’t improve on perfection, you can still surround it with such levels of excellence that its lustre seems magnified so that it shines even brighter.’ He listed the components: ‘Andrzej Goulding’s unsettling video designs, Bunny Christie’s clinical tiled set (featuring audience members onstage as though taking part in a particularly elaborate group therapy session) and above all Tom Gibbons’ sound and Matthew Herbert’s music…conspire to suggest a life tumbling out of control.’ He concluded it was ‘A painful pleasure, and a must-see all over again.’ It was not to be missed, agreed Aliya Al-Hassan at Broadway World (5★): ‘Staging, writing and acting meld into a pretty perfect production. However, this is very much Gough’s show; her mesmeric and urgent performance is a must-see.’
Jessie Thompson, Arts Editor at The Independent (5★), thought Denise Gough was better than ever, saying her performance ‘appears only to have grown in richness and exquisite fragility’. She praised the production as ‘a celebration of the healing power of art and theatre. It’s an electric communal experience. The play can now be regarded as a contemporary classic, Gough’s performance confirmed as one of the greatest of her generation.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (5★) brought out the superlatives. ‘I’ve rarely seen a show where script, production and star mesh so perfectly. Bursts of pumping techno express moments of chaos and abandon. Bunny Christie’s antiseptic rehab-centre set is a blank canvas for staticky video projection and sudden eruptions: it frames a bank of audience members on the stage behind, so we can all have a good, hard look at ourselves.’ Even more than that, ‘it’s Gough’s navigation of a gamut of emotion, from withdrawal jitters to defensive truculence, disinhibition to raw vulnerability, that drives the evening. She’s magnificent.’ Olivia Rook for LondonTheatre (5★) agreed, ‘Gough’s titanic performance is still the beating heart of this play.’
Fiona Mountford at the i (4★) said, ‘this is Gough’s show and she is, once again, quite simply magnificent.’
Both the star and play wowed Time Out‘s (4★) Andrzej Lukowski. ‘Gough is magnificent and absurd in equal measure, a performance that’s simultaneously high comedy and high tragedy.’ He had reservations about the play but went on to say: ‘the first half’s whiff of cliche feels like an effective way of lulling us into a false sense of security before a second half that has to rank as one of the greatest in twenty-first century drama.’
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) ‘Bunny Christie’s pulsating white set design shows Emma (Denise Gough) bared – a specimen to be examined through the speculum of the stage, while simultaneously taking us into her mind, with all its distorted perceptions. The configuration of the auditorium mirrors this duality, giving the illusion of an audience that is seeing itself from without as well as being within.’ It was, she said, ‘bleak – but also brilliantly done’
A rare vote of dissent came from Nick Ferris in The Telegraph (3★). He couldn’t deny the power of the lead: ‘Gough has lost none of her power in bringing this complicated antiheroine to life. It is truly a summit performance for an actor that should be studied at drama schools for years to come’, but he questioned the quality of the play. He said, ‘It is certainly entertaining, but achieves this end only through playing to the basic dark allure that stories of drugs and broken people have.’ Worse than that, ‘Act two, unfortunately, sees the plot lose its way, descending into a mix of cheap stereotype and unrealistic climax.’ ‘In the end,’ he lamented, ‘it feels a shame that the story cannot sustain itself to meet the heights of Gough’s performance.’
Average critics’ rating 4.6★ Value Rating 53 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)
People, Places & Things is at the Trafalgar Theatre until 10 August 2024. Buy tickets directly from Trafalgar Theatre.
A visceral performance from Rosie Sheehy in Sophie Treadwell’s classic expressionist drama
★★★★
Rosie Sheehan in Machinal at Old Vic. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Machinal was written in 1928 by Sophie Treadwell who based her expressionist play on a recent true crime story of a woman who had murdered her husband. In this review, I’ll try to define expressionist theatre and describe a performance that could be the launch of a stellar career.
But let’s start with the title. In recent years it has tended to be pronounced ‘MaSHinal’. The logic is that it’s a French word and that’s how the French pronounce it. However, the word means ‘mechanical’ so there is a logic to pronouncing it ‘MaCKinal’, if you want to convey the theme of a play in which a woman is crushed by a mechanised, soulless society. Indeed, that’s how it was pronounced during the original Broadway production back in 1928. Add to that, the current lead Rosie Sheehy says that’s how it’s pronounced, and since she is what turns this production from good to great, I would be happy to accept that. Except… the playwright Sophie Treadwell said it should be pronounced ‘MaSHinal’. And given that the play shows a woman being marginalised and ignored, it seems wrong to do that to the author. So, with due respect to Rosie Sheehy, I’m sticking with with ‘MaSHinal’.
Machinal tells the story of a young woman- named only at the end- who feels trapped by society, is repelled by what goes in around her, and is consistently betrayed by men. We see her feeling claustrophobic on a crowded train, in an office where she is struggling as a typist and mocked for her lateness by her colleagues, at odds with her unsupportive mother played by Buffy Davis, unhappily at home with her repulsive husband- a slimy businessman played by Tim Frances. Then, she is liberated by an affair. After that, there is no going back, and she frees herself from her husband- and stop reading now if you don’t want a spoiler, although I think it is expected by all involved that you will know she goes on to kill her husband- and is then tried by judge, jurors and lawyers who are all men.
All this is told as a piece of expressionist theatre. Expressionism is in many ways defined by what it’s not. What it is not is naturalistic or realistic- the dialogue, the acting, the sound, the whole production combine to evoke a visceral reaction from the audience. Of course, naturalistic theatre can evince an emotional response but that comes from our observation and identification with the drama.
A gripping production
Rosie Sheehan in Machinal. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Sophie Treadwell divides her play into nine scenes, although Richard Jones‘ production, which originated at the Theatre Royal Bath, adds an opening scene in which the Young Woman is entrapped on a train. Each scene has a generic title that is raised above the set, like ‘At Business’ or ‘Law’. While everyone else is sharp suited , wearing black or grey, and moving with precision, Rosie Sheehan’s character is sweaty and clad in an ill-fitting blue dress. She too doesn’t fit. She’s not even comfortable in her own body, moving jerkily and nervously. While not actually shy, when she speaks, she is often inarticulate and stuttering as she tries to express her need for freedom.
The machine-like life around her, driven by industrial capitalism, is shown, not only by the way people look, but by the way they move mechanically, and talk in repetitive language. The set, designed by Hyemi Shin, is a bright, sickly mustard yellow that forms a triangle on the stage with the apex at the centre back, reinforcing the idea of being trapped. The blank walls at times accommodate doors and apparent windows. Props are wheeled on and off.
Sound, designed by Benjamin Grant, is often sharp, discordant and industrial, setting us on edge- for example, a pneumatic drill accompanies the woman giving birth- although sometimes there is the more comforting sound of a spiritual. Adam Silverman‘s lighting design is stark, sometimes strobe, and on a couple of occasions disconcertingly pitch black. One of those times is the moment she experiences sexual ecstasy with her lover played by Pierro Niel-Mee. Significantly, this and other key transformative moments in the woman’s life are not actually shown, which means we are not distracted from the way she is abused and crushed by the men who rule her life and society as a whole.
It occurred to me that the scenes are almost like the Stations of the Cross which depict Jesus heading for his crucifixion.
We don’t gain a lot of insight into the woman’s character. Although a modern audience might suspect she has mental issues of some kind, she is deliberately portrayed as quite ordinary, boring even. She is an Everywoman. The play doesn’t excuse her actions but it does explain the pressures that led her in the direction she took. What is great about Machinal and Rosie Sheehy‘s anguished performance is that we experience at a molecular level the woman being torn apart. Yes, there are moments when it becomes melodramatic, but the one hour and 50 minutes, without interval, fly by in this gripping production.
Coincidentally, there is a new exhibition at Tate Modern which looks at a group of expressionist artists from the early 1900s called Blue Rider that included Wassily Kandinsky, Gabriele Münter and Marianne Werefkin. Incidentally, given the feminist standpoint of Machinal, it’s interesting that Blue Rider included and respected female artists, which wasn’t the case with Sophie Treadwell working in theatre. The exhibition is well worth a visit, and the range of work, from the clearly representational to virtually abstract, shows that the common feature of expressionism is an attempt to use shape and colour to convey the feeling of a person or place, rather than the more visually accurate observations made by their predecessors, such as the Impressionists. There are times when you enter a room, it feels like the paint has been thrown in your face.
Anna Francolini In Twelfth Night. Photo: Rich Lakos
The show may take place outdoors but the critics seemed uncertain whether the setting of the play is a seaside cafe or a gay nightclub. Either way, a production-dominating Anna Francolini as Olivia owns it. Some reviewers complained that the added songs didn’t add much except time to Owen Horsley’s gender fluid production. They enjoyed Michael Matus’ Sir Toby Belch as a drag queen, and were moved by Richard Cant’s Malvolio.
Nick Curtis in the Standard (4★) said the show was ‘Stylish and surprisingly sexy…Owen Horsley’s production leans heavily into the themes of sexual and gender confusion in Shakespeare’s play. His staging is witty and seductive, only marred by an almost willful lack of pace.’
Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (4★) also had a pretty good evening. ‘I’m not sure Owen Horsley’s lengthy production finds any incredible new depths in Shakespeare’s greatest comedy. But it is, nonetheless, lovely stuff.’ He was not alone in liking Olivia: ‘in the show’s most entertaining turn, Anna Francolini stars as a Miss Havisham-alike, clad in elaborate veils of mourning, tottering about with her late brother’s ashes.’
Frey Kwa Hawking for WhatsOnStage (4★) found it ‘a dignifiedly twilight world, stylish and welcoming.’ Aliya Al-Hassan at London Theatre (4★) said ‘this inventive production is a thought-provoking delight.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) was less impressed: ‘as a whole the staging fails to ignite, its musical interludes decelerating scenes that, delivered with superficial, presentational sentiment, are often already in danger of becoming laborious.’ She wasn’t keen on the director’s interpretation: ‘while this is pleasant enough entertainment, its performative passions keep the drama’s pleasure and pain at arm’s length.’
Similarly Clive Davis of The Times (3★) thought it was laid on a bit thick: ‘director Owen Horsley unveils a vision of Illyria which, playing up the queer themes, ends up jabbing the audience hard in the ribs every time it aims to raise a smile. By the end of the night, you can’t help feeling a little bruised.’ And the end was a long time coming, ‘As the evening marches towards the three-hour mark… the surfeit of songs slows the action.’
Kate Wyver writing for The Guardian (3★) found enough to keep her happy: ‘There is much to delight in. Ryan Dawson Laight’s sumptuous costumes shine and Michael Matus gives a glorious turn in drag as Toby Belch, a bully towards Richard Cant’s proud Malvolio, who doesn’t deserve the level of cruelty set upon him.’
Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (3★) thought ‘Horsley’s overlong production struggles to cohere the play’s admittedly disparate elements.’ She said it ‘depends far too much for its energy on Sir Toby.’ For her, it was ‘Richard Cant’s astonishing Malvolio – a bony withered nerd in buttoned-up tweed – who steals the show.’
Average critics’ rating 3.5 Value Rating 58 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)
If you’ve seen Twelfth Night, please add your review and rating below
Spirited Away at London Coliseum. Photo: Johan Persson
It’s easy to see why risk-averse producers find stage adaptations of successful films tempting. There’s a readymade audience that already knows and loves the characters and the story. The question is, what will a theatrical dimension add to the original? The question loomed large among the reviews of this adaptation of Hayao Miyazaki‘s 2001 animated feature about a little girl’s adventure into a world of spirits, especially since a number of reviewers clearly loved the original. Another comparison cropped up frequently, namely how did it compare with the RSC’s celebrated adaptation of another Miyazaki film My Neighbour Totoro. The stage version of Spirited Away has already had success in Japan and comes to the UK intact, with added surtitles (reviews pointed out they are distractingly high up). There was much praise for the way John Caird (who directed Les Miserables) and Maoko Imai had reimagined the film for theatre, for the design by Jon Bausor and for the score by Joe Hisaishi. Opinion was mixed and, while there were no bad reviews and two awarded 5 stars, the high ticket prices brought down the Value Rating.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Louis Chilton in The Independent (5★) was not sure if ‘one of the greatest and most adored animated films of all time’ needed a stage version but, ‘If we must have an adaptation, it’s impossible to imagine a better one than this.’ ‘Spirited Away is three hours of constant, unpredictable spectacle,’ he wrote. ‘There are so many scenes here, so many locations and characters, all imbued with a tremendous visual flair and kineticism…it connects – not just on a sensory level, but on an emotional one too.’
Gary Naylor at The Arts Desk (5★) admitted to being a massive fan of the film, so his approval of the stage version is significant: ‘Though the puppetry and costumes are visually stunning, we never lose sight of the fact that we are watching a stage show and not a whizzbang hybrid of CGI and live action. The unique aesthetic is honoured.’ He concluded: ‘going through the tunnel with Chihiro, learning alongside her…and emerging older and wiser is the key to appreciating this landmark production…not everybody will get that, and that’s fine. For those who do, there’s nothing that compares.’
For Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (4★), it was ‘event theatre at its best.’ ‘It features astonishing visuals and sublime stagecraft alongside the beautiful, iconic score,’ she said. Like other fans of the film, she had concerns for the uninitiated: ‘While it’s a piece of spectacular beauty and curious philosophy, keeping everything in means that the 125 minutes of the movie have become three hours with an interval. Still, it rarely drags. It’s a chunky show geared towards those who stay entranced by the emotional pull of a story they already know and love.’ She offered further evidence that this is one for the fans: ‘There’s reverence in the approach and accuracy in the ideation.’
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) loved it: ‘This show is so transfixingly beautiful and so completely assured that it feels like balm; it’s almost hypnotically assured.’ She concluded, ‘Everything and everyone pull together to make the entire production into a very loving tribute to a deservedly acclaimed film. It’s captivating.’ John Nathan in The Jewish Chronicle (4★) described it as ‘a production that has made no compromises in creating some of the most astounding sights you will see on a stage’. The i’s Fiona Mountford (4★) said the ‘production, which is constantly revolving, swooping and lifting, is colourful and inventive.’ Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4★) preferred this to My Neighbour Totoro because it ‘keeps ringing the changes.’ It was, he said, ‘a spectacular piece of staging with an eerie magic all its own.’
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) was full of praise, too full as it turned out. It was, she said, ‘meticulous in its visual detail and choreography, delightful in its puppetry, both meditative and whirling in its speed, and packed full of comedy and adventure.’ ‘Sachiko Nakahara’s costumes stand out,’ she said. The music ‘adds sweeping emotion and an epic feel’ and ‘The physical movement is symphonic.’ However, she cautioned, ‘While superbly performed, it is a harder challenge to animate its emotional life because it is so dominated by action and spectacle.’ In the end, she found it a bit too much: ‘it is utterly magical but this banquet of a show also leaves you stuffed.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) is not a fan of the original film but conceded this adaptation is ‘superbly done’. He liked the way ‘The actors create credible relationships with serpentine dragons, giant, rotting godheads and tiny soot sprites, and there’s a core of emotional truth behind the story’s non-sequiturs and wild tangents.’ He said, ‘The show captures scale and perspective in a way theatre rarely achieves.’ But, ‘It’s too sappy and fairytale-ish to be entirely for adults, too discomfiting and grotesque for some children.’ It was far too long for him: ‘(it) starts to pall though as the story meanders through yet more bizarre twists and turns and the acting gets shoutier.’
Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) spent a lot of time comparing it unfavourably with My Neighbour Totoro: ‘this impressive but slightly starchy … production … doesn’t pull it off with the same panache and feeling of ground being broken as ‘Totoro’.’ And, ‘Although Toby Olie’s puppets and Sachiko Nakahara’s costumes are vivid and impressive, they aren’t the absolute showstoppers that the RSC’s gargantuan…constructs are.’ And, ‘where all the spirits in ‘Totoro’ are puppets, ‘Spirited Away’ … is reliant on human actors changing costumes a lot – sometimes it has the look and feel of an old fashioned song and dance spectacular.’ But he did like it, sort of: ‘(if) a true transposition of the film would have to take your breath away constantly, then for three hours it at least does it frequently.’
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) was another who preferred the RSC’s show. He described Spirited Away as a ‘sumptuous production’ but said, ‘Totoro has a simplicity and strangeness that works like a charm on stage. Here, the film’s shimmery sense of wonder has undergone a rather dutiful theatrical solidification.’ It’s fair to say, he was not spirited away: ‘At three hours, the dream-like narrative can feel at once stretched and too knotty, and less substantial than it initially appears.’ His conclusion was a downbeat comparison with the film: ‘A lavish labour of love, then, but the magical source-material transports you further, for less.’
The Times‘ Clive Davis (3★) had a disappointing evening: ‘during this meandering journey through the spirit world my inner youngster kept muttering: “Are we there yet?”’ He continued, ‘the colours and lighting are muted, and you miss the fluidity of the animated film.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) was also underwhelmed. She said it ‘often looks lovely. But it’s missing the emotional guts and sinewy connective tissue required to make it properly 3D, its swirling imagery and meandering narrative remaining stubbornly flat. There’s always something rich and strange to look at, always something fantastical happening; but we often don’t know exactly what, or why – and too often, crucially, we don’t much care.’ She ended: ‘It rarely taps into the transformative, imagination-sparking power of theatre as an art form – and ultimately, that begs the question: what’s the point?’ Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) made a similar point, saying what was not happening was ‘a transformation, a dissolve of one thing into another. That needs more than the skills which motor this production: it needs a jolt of feeling. Constant animation does not always mean vivacity.’
Spirited Away can be seen at the London Coliseum until 24 August 2024. Buy tickets direct fromspiritedawayuk.com
Average critics’ rating 3.8★ Value Rating 18 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
If you’ve seen Spirited Away, please add your review and rating below
