An adaptation by Ben Power (The Lehman Trilogy) of Charles Dickens’ last completed novel Our Mutual Friend, with songs by P J Harvey, must have seemed like a surefire winner. Running through the typically Dickensian larger-than-life characters and complex plot about money, poverty, death and resurrection is the River Thames itself. Sadly for the National Theatre, the critics were not swept away. On thecwhole, they found the script shalloe but Bunny Christie’s set which evoked the river went down well. PJ Harvey’s song proved a sticking for most critics. So, Ian Rickson’s production was greeted with three and two star reviews with just one critic enthusiastic enough to award four stars.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
That was Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (4★). ‘The performance space becomes the Thames – the effect is majestic and disconcerting (I felt a bit seasick in places),’ he shared. It was, he said, ‘Dickens’s late class drama turned into a work both elemental and righteous.’
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) found it ‘light on the satire and heavy on mood, strikingly staged as a kind of 19th-century noir.’ She concluded: ‘The play winds up to a melodramatic end, with its potboiler elements exposed, but it still retains a curious power, and performances shine.’
Sarah Hemming at the Financial Times (3★) admired the ‘restless, intelligent, absorbing production’ but thought, ‘as drama it is held back by sheer narrative bulk.’ Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) decided: ‘Ian Rickson’s production aims to be more than episodically charged, to explore the life of the city that is not contained by character. It is not sufficiently wraparound-vibrant to achieve this.’
For Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) ‘emotional impact is a casualty’ and ‘its characters don’t quite come to life, drowning in the politics and plot mechanics’ but she did appreciate ‘The performances are sinewy and direct, with Ellie-May Sheridan scene-stealing.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) agreed: ‘the laurels go to the transfixing stage debutante Ellie-May Sheridan, who seems to have stepped out of Dickens’s imagination.’ Otherwise, for him, it was a ‘five-star wow bobbing in a three-star show.’
Fiona Mountford in the i (3★), like many others couldn’t resist a watery metaphor: ‘we emerge from this theatrical river feeling slightly soggy and mildly bewildered.’ Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★) also took a dip: ‘it feels bogged down in the shallows, never quite plunging into the depths of the story’s meaning or fulfilling its own intelligent and honest intentions. It’s full of integrity, but lacks drama.’
And so to the ones who really took against it. Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★) said: ‘reduced to its naked mechanics, the exposition laden writing lacks the lustrous life blood that so warmly flows through the veins of Dickens’s literary worlds.’
Clive Davis in The Times (2★) came out fighting, calling it ‘this weirdly misconceived adaptation’. He didn’t pull his punches: ‘Ian Rickson’s lumbering production is anything but a page-turner.’ And a final kick at the ‘crowded, undernourished melodrama.’
For David Benedict at The Standard (2★) it was ‘a leaden three-and-a-quarter hours.’ His analysis of the failings of the adaptation included this comment: ‘where Dickens’ contextualised writing allows coincidence to thrive, in dialogue as bald as this, the coincidences just feel contrived.’ He concluded, ‘Near the end, Rokesmith sings “Why, why, why, why, why…” Indeed.’
PJ Harvey’s songs
It seems you either like PJ Harvey or you don’t, and the critics didn’t, except for the Time Out reviewer who is clearly a fan: ‘Harvey’s songs are integral…the poised drama they provide feels vital to a show which is bigger on storytelling than emotions and might have felt flat without its spine-tingling tunes.’ The Guardian had a foot in both camps, describing the songs as ‘anti-ballads’ whose ‘seriousness gives the story a lugubrious depth but also undercuts Dickens’ satire and levity.’
No-one else had a good thing to say about them. Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) noted ‘as the story gets more interesting and the characters richer, the songs remain the same – each character stands centre stage and sings out at the audience – until you can’t help sighing a little when another one strikes up, knowing another dirge is on its way.’ The i had a similar thought: ‘It’s a fine idea, but one that plays to decidedly diminishing returns as the mournful, almost identical-sounding numbers mount up.’
The Financial Times said the songs ‘add to the ballast and, often in a gloomily low register, are challenging to deliver.’ For WhatsOnStage, ‘the songs, which are dark and relentless as well as impressive, have a tendency to stop the action rather than move it on.’ The Telegraph agreed: ‘those ditties often impede the action, without adding much ambience.‘ ‘It sounds as if Harvey is constantly recycling the same two slender, indie-flavoured themes,’ said The Times.
For The Observer, ‘They supply a dark, rough undertow but they don’t push on the drama. Rather, like a tide, they simply recur.’ To the ears of The Standard: ‘Harvey’s ceaselessly repetitive, deadeningly slow rhythms and mostly stolidly unchanging harmonies – unhelped by Powers’ flat, earnest lyrics – never make a case for songs being in the show whatsoever.’ Broadway World too could have done without them and didn’t let politeness stand in the way of a good insult. The ‘sludgy dirge’ was a ‘bloated concoction of subdued power ballads paired with painfully superficial lyrics are such a tagged-on afterthought that the production couldn’t just go on happily without it, but would actively improve if it were abandoned.’
Thank goodness for Bunny Christie’s set
Time Out gave a vivid description: ‘At first the performance space looks virtually unadorned. Soon though, the entire ceiling – or rather a series of poles the lights are attached to – starts to undulate, rising and falling like the tide. Eventually it’s joined by the very surface of the stage, which ripples and heaves.’
The Independent recorded: ’50 spotlights hanging over the stage in receding strips, each undulating slowly, giving the queasy impression of the river somehow reflected in the sky, rather than the other way around.’ The Observer said: ‘Christie’s set – with iron lighting rigs that rise and fall – is evocatively adamantine, when not looking like decor for a 21st-century loft.’
The Stage referred to ‘a flinty, hard-edged staging‘ and the i called it ‘striking’.
London Tide can be seen at the National’s Lyttelton Theatre until 22 June 2024
Average critics’ rating 2.8★
Value Rating 41 (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. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
If you’ve seen London Tide, please add your review and rating below
Tamara Lawrance and Anthony Welsh in The Comeuppance. Photo: Marc Brenner
Most critics agreed that Branden Jacobs-Jenkins’ new play The Comeuppance didn’t reach the heights of An Octoroon. Nevertheless they greeted the story of a group of American millennials now in middle age who look back and face mortality (literally since Death appears) with 4 and 3 star enthusiasm.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Let’s start with the high markers. Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★) was beguiled. She said it was ‘a play about death which is both high comedy and a melancholic exploration of the vagaries of memory and the weight of nostalgia on 30-somethings surviving in a post-Covid landscape’ and described it as ‘a magnificent drama, truthful and haunting.’
‘it’s Bruce Springsteen meets Chekhov, delivered with waspish humour and the modern irritations of missed texts and faulty GPS,’ said Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (4★), calling it ‘clever, funny and compelling: part social comedy, part danse macabre.’ She added: ‘there’s something poignant about this wry, sad encounter with the inevitability of mortality.’
Debbie Gilpin for Broadway World (4★) was impressed by the way ‘it broaches the trauma of the COVID pandemic in an original and thought-provoking way.’ She also liked the way ‘the blend of humour and drama allows the play to remain engaging.’ ‘Every member of the company has excellent comic timing, as well as great dramatic chops,’ she said, adding’Tamara Lawrance and Anthony Welsh stand out’.
The rest of the pack were more reserved. Fiona Mountford at the I (3★) praised ‘the all-round excellence of the five-person cast’ but said ‘we spend too much of the two-hour running time waiting for Eric Ting’s production to shake itself out of a state of suspended animation and hit full flow.’ Arifa Akbar The Guardian (3★) commented: ‘the production never becomes quite savage enough; the unleashing of rage seems a little polite.’ However, she concluded: ‘Even with its off notes, The Comeuppance is good theatre with eloquent outbursts and awkward wit.’
Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) had this to say: ‘Finely acted, ‘The Comeuppance’ is a dark, droll, somewhat contemplative comedy about how a generation gets old (or at least, middle-aged).’ Tim Bano in The Independent (3 ★) was even more succinct , calling it ‘two hours of listening to middle-aged millennials feeling sorry for themselves.’
David Benedict in The Standard (3★) praised the ‘warm, carefully paced production’ but found ‘In place of engaging subtext, there’s merely withheld information dragged into the open at convenient moments like in an awkward thriller.’ The result? ‘the play lacks focus and tension evaporates’.
Dzifa Benson for the Telegraph (3★) was disappointed: ‘Jacobs-Jenkins is a fine playwright…On this occasion, however, he doesn’t land his mark.’ He observed: ‘Jacobs-Jenkins doesn’t seem to know what to make of all these calamities.’ For Aleks Sierz at the Arts Desk (3★) ‘the play remains inconclusive and, for me, unsatisfying.’
‘It’s a melancholic, meditative piece with a dash of gallows humour’ said Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★), ‘it’s as if we’re watching them through a fine veil, groping among its allusions for more solid and penetrating meaning.’
Clive Davis in The Times (3★) was forgiving if its perceived faults: ‘If you can’t help sensing that all the characters are types rather than three-dimensional beings, Jacobs-Jenkins’s sharply sculpted dialogue teases out the tensions that exist beneath the bonhomie. Natasha Chivers’s crepuscular lighting design adds to the sense that we are caught somewhere between reality, a dream and a nightmare.’
The Comeuppance can be seen at The Almeida until 18 May 2024. Buy tickets directly from almeida.co.uk
Average Critic Rating3.3★
Value Rating 65 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating moderated 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. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
If you’ve seen The Comeuppance, please add your review and rating below
Gemma Whelan is a winner in this romp through the lives of the Brontes
★★★
Adele James, Gemma Whelan, Rhiannon Clements in Underdog_ The Other Other Brontë. Photo: Isha Shah
It might be better if you know nothing about the Brontës and simply watch Sarah Gordon’s play Underdog as a portrait of the competition and mutual support that often co-exist among sisters, and of the challenges of being a female novelist in early Victorian times. If you do know a bit about them, you may be annoyed at the liberties taken by this interpretation of their relationship. On the other hand, like me, you may find it jolly good fun. It certainly gains from having the mightily talented Gemma Whelan as Charlotte Brontë.
Let’s start with Ms Whelan. It’s only right, since she begins the play. She enters through the auditorium, chatting to audience members about the Brontë novels. Unexpectedly, for the author of one of those ‘dour’ books, she’s wearing a bright red dress. She goes up on stage and explains that we are going to hear her story.
As promised, Gemma Whelan and her character dominate the whole evening. She is cocky and nervous, knowing and naive, likeable and unpleasant, and very funny. Supported by Natalie Ibu’s sharp and speedy direction, she holds us- and her sisters- in her grip throughout the evening.
This is a good point to tell you about the set. I know we don’t buy tickets to see the design but Grace Smart’s is impressive. At the beginning, there is a thick carpet of moorland gorse and heather. Almost as soon as Charlotte has mounted the stage, this flies upwards until all we can see is the mass of brown roots underneath. Three black walls are revealed that, combined with the ceiling, represent wonderfully the claustrophobia and earthiness so often associated with the Brontë sisters.
One nice touch is the use of a revolve to indicate more frantic activity, or at the start of act two the long slow coach journey to London, complete with theatrical coconut shells clip-clopping. The set has one more surprise at the end of the play when the back opens up to indicate that Charlotte and the other Brontes are nowadays known to the whole world.
The Other Other Brontë of the title is not the middle sister Emily, who wrote Wuthering Heights. Emily’s character isn’t explored so deeply as the other two but then she was the most keen to preserve her anonymity and she died young. So less is known about her. That doesn’t stop Adele James making a good fist of playing a middle sister who challenges the elder and defends the younger.
No, the other other Brontë is the youngest sister Anne who wrote the less well known Agnes Grey and The Tenant Of Wildfell Hall. Anne is played by Rhiannon Clements with an excellent combination of inner strength and outer submissiveness.
The play suggests Charlotte was jealous of Anne’s talent, that she stole the premise of Agnes Grey for her own novel Jane Eyre, and that Anne let her eldest sister walk all over her. Charlotte waivers between undermining her youngest sister and giving her love and support. In fact, this is the greatest joy of Underdog, the way in which many sisters close in age are both competitive and supportive. (This subject has become almost a theme at the National lately, with the great Till The Stars Come Down, The House of Bernarda Alba and Dancing At Lughnasa all featuring sisterly rivalry and solidarity.)
There is a scene, where Charlotte confident of her work but not of her looks, is welcomed into London’s literary grandees’ club (shown as a kind of disco- just one of many amusing anachronisms). On a high because her talent has been recognised, she shrugs off Anne’s concerns. But when she is insulted for her lack of femininity, she turns desperately to her sisters for reassurance. By the way, the sisters’ ‘coarseness’, which at that time was how many perceived their writing and therefore the women themselves, is given substance in the play by their use of modern expressions and a huge amount of swearing, all to great comic effect.
Liberty-taking, laughter-inducing
Gemma Whelan in Underdog. Photo: Isha Shah
Here’s some of the historical background. Back in the first half of the 19th century, women novelists were expected to write romances set in polite society. It was unacceptable to many critics that novels that involved class discrimination, male violence, substance abuse and more, as the Brontes’ did, could be written, or read, by women. Therefore, all three sisters submitted their first novels to publishers under male pseudonyms, something Charlotte and Anne were keen to give up, but which Emily clung to.
Charlotte outlived her younger sisters. After their deaths, she did stop a reprint of Anne’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, despite its success. She also seems to have been the most determined among the three to gain respect in literary society, and worked with Elizabeth Gaskell to this end.
Sarah Gordon uses these facts to support a thesis that Charlotte was ambitious and competitive, while the other two were not, and that Charlotte pushed her own work at their expense. The reality may be different, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And it is a good story, full of comedy and a little pathos, and some interesting ideas.
The many other parts are played by a small group of men, including Nick Blakeley as a snooty Elizabeth Gaskell, Julian Moore-Cook as the slimy publisher George Smith and James Phoon as the the Brontes’ troubled alcoholic brother Branwell.
Underdog is primarily about three sisters, and 19th century attitudes to women, but there is an undertow that questions how what we know or think we know about artists influences our appreciation of their art. However, apart from the boisterous relationship of the sisters, everything else is touched on lightly, and the main emphasis is on fun. Which it is.
Underdog can be seen at the National Theatre’s Dorfman studio until 25 May 2024 and then at Northern Stage in Newcastle Upon Tyne (7 to 22 June).
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre
Ian McKellen and Toheeb Jimoh in Player kings. Photo: Manuel Harlan
With Sir Ian McKellen playing Falstaff in a new play directed by Robert Icke and adapted from William Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts One and Two, the critics expected the theatrical event of the year. They got it. 4 and 3 star reviews told us that, even if they didn’t think it was a production to go down in theatrical history, they were not disappointed. They loved Sir Ian (although some seemed more impressed that he was doing it at all at his age), the rest of the top class cast, and the director. Most of the critics thought the second half didn’t match the first in this nearly four-hour marathon.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish (4 ★) summed up: ‘This account may not be one for the annals, but we surely exit eternally grateful that McKellen added the challenge to his bucket-list; a must-witness.’ He said, ‘an unmistakable aura of elegy and mortality hangs over his largely delightful and affecting turn as old Jack Falstaff.’ As for the direction, ‘Though it can incline to the briskly efficient, Icke’s production..is intelligent and beautifully bookended.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4 ★) said ‘McKellen’s rendition of this familiar role feels astonishingly fresh and rewarding…a performance that is, in itself, crammed with observations about some traditional traits of the national character, many of which are not pretty.’ She wrote perceptively about the way Icke’s ‘thoughtful, needling and often very entertaining’ production is ‘skewering of the mythology of Englishness and patriotism, a shrewd overview of the current state of the nation and a piece of premium classical theatre’. It was, she said, ‘A play for today; a performance to remember.’ Like other critics, she felt ‘The pacy first half gives way to a certain amount of languor in the second.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (4 ★) was possibly the most enthusiastic of all about Sir Ian’s performance, saying he ‘attacks the part ..with relish and superb comic timing…it’s a remarkable feat of skill, swagger and stamina for an 84-year-old…His rheumy, phlegmy Falstaff demands time and attention.’ Fiona Mountford at the i (4 ★) noted, ‘Sir Ian’s Falstaff, mighty of belly and bragging and snuffling like a pig, has a nasty edge.’
For Sarah Hemming of the Financial Times (4★) ‘McKellen, nearly 85, is magnificent. It’s a performance that confirms once again the depth, breadth and acuity of this great actor’s skill.’ She continued: ‘It’s a brilliant portrayal: magnetic, constantly shifting, often funny, yet fundamentally sad.’ She liked the production: ‘Icke drives through his staging a febrile uncertainty and sense of transience.’ Despite her high rating, she felt ‘The second half is choppy and loses momentum, and some of the comic warmth goes missing.’ However, she ended, ‘at the heart of the show sits McKellen’s unforgettable portrayal of a big player drinking in the last-chance saloon — a Falstaff for our times.’
‘It didn’t feel like nigh on four hours’ for Susannah Clapp in The Observer (4★). For her both Falstaff and Hal are outstanding: McKellen is ‘a mighty actor at the peak of his power’ and ‘Toheeb Jimoh is a completely radiant presence’.
It wasn’t too long for Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (4★) either, who said it ‘goes in a flash, feeling constantly pacey and surprising.’ In line with his peers, he said: ‘you simply can’t take your eyes off of magnetic McKellen, leering around the stage.’
Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (4 ★) called Sir Ian ‘excellent as a Falstaff whose essential failure in life obviously weighs heavily on him. It’s a funny role, and McKellen gets some big laughs.’ He gave the production high praise: ‘it’s a pretty much faultless turn from the director, a reminder of his uncanny ability to get to the psychological heart of a classic text.’ He continued: ‘it’s a terrific take on one of the greatest plays ever written (plus its decent straight-to-DVD sequel) blessed by two tremendous – and tremendously original – lead performances.’ Like others, he enthused about all the actors: ‘a supporting cast to die for.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4 ★) observed: ‘McKellen has a unique capacity to play it big and hardly appear to be acting at all.’ He described Toheeb Jimoh as a ‘sensation-in-waiting’.
The critics all had good words for the rest of the cast. Alex Wood at Whats On Stage (3★) , while piling on the bouquets for the lead- ‘McKellen delivers one of the best stage performances of the year’- added ‘Toheeb Jimoh…is an enthralling presence.’ His main reservation was that ‘it all comes apart in a staid second half (shorter in length yet feeling longer), where both Shakespeare’s text and Icke’s choices feel much more lacklustre and uninspired…There may be mighty players, but this occasionally feels like less than the sum of its parts.’
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (3★) agreed: ‘There is a shift in tone between two parts: the first is staged as a gothic thriller, of sorts, with long shadows and suspense. The shorter latter half feels oddly anti-climatic.’ But she praised ‘McKellen’s is a richly complex portrayal’ and liked the ‘slick modern dress production with a magnificent brick-backed set designed by Hildegard Bechtler’.
Clive Davis in The Times (3★) also saw it as a play of two halves: ‘It’s in the first half of the evening, a full two hours long, that the drama is at its sharpest. After the interval, there’s a sense of events being allowed to pile up almost at random.’ However he did like Sir Ian’s voice which ‘still paints in rich colours’ and he too was impressed by the supporting actors: ‘Toheeb Jimoh, lean and athletic, makes a likeable prince. Richard Coyle’s King Henry possesses suitable gravitas.’
Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) was the least enthusiastic. He had mixed feelings about Sir Ian’s performance: ‘He’…soaks up all the attention when he’s on stage; basically, he’s as brilliant as ever. But he also feels like a cartoon splotch on an otherwise realist production. McKellen’s approach is outsized and incongruous, especially in those early scenes when he’s alongside Toheeb Jimoh’s joyous Prince Hal.’ And he certainly wasn’t keen on the production: ‘the whole thing tips into naffnes… McKellen meets Icke could have been magic. In spurts, to be fair, it is. But as Falstaff toddles off into the wings, the overriding sensation is one of trying to convince yourself you’re not disappointed.’
Player Kings continues at the Noel Coward Theatre until 22 June 2024, then touring without Ian McKellen. For details and tickets, go to playerkingstheplay.co.uk
Average Critic Rating 3.7★
Value Rating 42 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
If you’ve seen Player Kings, please add your review and rating below
Adele James, Gemma Whelan and Rhiannon Clements in Underdog. Photo:: Isha Shah
The Brontë sisters are re-examined in Sarah Gordon’s comedy Underdog: The Other Other Brontë, which won the Nick Darke Award in 2020 and is now given an outing at the National’s small Dorfman Theatre. Most critics occupied the middle ground, finding it funny but shallow, but the i gave it a rare 5 stars while The Stage could only find a curmudgeonly two. Gemma Whelan from Game of Thrones and Upstart Crow stands out as Charlotte in a story of sibling rivalry also featuring Rhiannon Clements as put-upon Anne, and Adele James as marginalised Emily.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Let’s start with Fiona Mountford in inews (5★). Describing it as ‘ebullient’, she said it was ‘as joyously invigorating as a brisk walk over the Yorkshire Moors’. She liked the ‘robustly 21st-century critique of sisterhood, ambition, reputation and gatekeeping’ and said, ‘Whelan is in her element as the uncompromising Charlotte, witty, selfish and magnificent with it.’
Neil Norman in the Mail (4★) liked the sisters: ‘Arresting performances from Whelan as the deeply unsympathetic Charlotte, Clements as the independent-but-withdrawn Anne and James as the stoical Emily keep Gordon’s spirited play alight.’
And so to the three star reviews. Here’s Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★): ‘Directed with pace by Natalie Ibu…Gordon’s script bounces along, albeit with some glaring modern-day lessons on masculinity and inequality tacked on. It is quick-witted and amusing’, then comes the iron fist in the velvet glove, ‘though it never deepens enough for the emotional punches to land.’ She praised the look of it: ‘the exposure of envy and competition beneath the Brontës’ sisterliness is mirrored in the visual metaphor of Grace Smart’s set which consists of a verdant floral mound uprooted at the start to reveal dark matter beneath.’
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) talked of a ‘canny, but in my view overly perky, portrait of the siblings’. He expanded, ‘It’s as if in fearing to make the past dull, it must be brought alive in primary colours. In avoiding the clichés of the Gothic…she errs towards the goonish.’ His final comment suggested he was judging the show by the standard of an imaginary play in which ‘the novels, in all their richness, … speak for themselves.’ On the plus side: ‘It’s very stylishly designed by Grace Smart, pacily staged by Natalie Ibu, and winningly played across the board.’
For Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★), ‘Natalie Ibu’s direction (is) confident and fleet…Whelan…is commanding as she turns Charlotte into a monster…Adele James brings deep emotion to the under-written part of Emily, author of Wuthering Height.’ However, she seems to be having the same thought as the Telegraph critic: ‘what goes missing amidst the humour and the sisterly squabbling, is the sense that the Brontës did actually deserve their place in the literary canon.’Nick Curtis used plenty of complimentary adjectives in his review in the Standard (3★)- ‘rumbunctious’ ‘playful and visually witty’ but he also damned it as ‘slender’.
Heather Neill at The Arts Desk (3★)felt ‘Natalie Ibu’s speedy direction fits the light-hearted, often caricatured storytelling, the audience always knowingly acknowledged…Whelan is a fire-cracker, rarely still, very funny.’
Clive Davis in The Times (3★) described it as ‘hyperactive burlesque’, and ‘a short story posing as a novel.’ In compensation, he found ‘Gemma Whelan’s salty performance always holds your attention’ and he appreciated ‘All the salty language, not to mention the unashamedly anachronistic jokes’.
Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★) also liked Gordon’s script and Gemma Whelan’s performance: ‘(the) dialogue is blunt, funny and wilfully anachronistic..the supremely watchable Whelan devours her part whole’. Although he liked ‘Natalie Ibu‘s larky, visually inventive production’ and thought ‘Underdog is a very funny play,’ he felt, ‘That funniness doesn’t always work to its advantage. It has nuanced points about authorship, legacy and family that are obscured by the sound of laughter.’
Lucy Kenningham at CityAM (3★) took it quite personally. Having told us she has a sister, she ended her review: ‘Short and ambitious, it hurls ideas into the Yorkshire air, many of which land flat. But examinations of sisterhood are depressingly rare, so when those ideas are explored, they hit hard.’ (She clearly missed Till The Stars Come Down, The House of Bernarda Alba and Dancing At Lughnasa, all recently at the National, and all exploring sisterly relationships.)
While Sam Marlowe in The Stage (2★) made many of the same points as her fellow critics, she was less forgiving. She referred to it as being ‘reductive to the point of becoming glib and cartoonish’. ‘There’s nothing deeply felt and scant sense of character, in a play more invested in winning easy laughs,’ she said. ‘The actors are game and hard-working, and at best it’s mildly entertaining. But as an exploration of women who left us such sinewy, sexy, courageous writing, it feels like a sadly wasted opportunity.’
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (2★) had little time for the show: ‘where in this mechanical modernisation is the imaginative power that makes the sisters worth attending to?’ although she did concede: ‘Natalie Ibu’s strenuously comic production gets lively perfs from Rhiannon Clements as Anne…Adele James as vibrant Emily, and Gemma Whelan as domineering Charlotte.’
Value Rating 48 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating moderated 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. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
Brian Cox & Patricia Clarkson in Long Day’s Journey Into Night. Photo: Johan Persson
Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey Into Night is one of the great American plays of the twentieth century, some say the greatest. The latest West end production, directed by Jeremy Herrin, brings together Succession star Brian Cox as the paterfamilias James Tyrone, and Patricia Clarkson as his morphine-addicted wife Mary. It is she, even more than he, who got the critics excited. This is a long play, as most of the reviews reminded us. ‘For three and a half hours, the four members of the Tyrone family – a morphine addict, two alcoholics and a consumptive – shout and mope and recriminate’ (to quote The Independent). The supporting cast of Laurie Kynaston, Daryl McCormack and Louisa Harland (recently seen in Ulster American) were all well received.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) praised both stars. About Brian Cox he said: ‘this verbose, confined epic calls for vocal clout and physical heft. Which he has.’ Then: ‘the terrific American actress Patricia Clarkson as the stricken matriarch generates an increasingly hypnotic force of unstable energy.’ The play is, he said, ‘a heart-rending mirror of forsaken souls in which we may all glimpse our own familial griefs.’ He ended with one word: ‘Recommended.’
Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★) had this to say about the duo: ‘Cox, all bark and ferocity, plays up the character’s fury, his sense of betrayal, his anger at the world and himself’ and ‘In Patricia Clarkson’s eagle-sharp interpretation, Mary (is) a dominant force, whose evasions, untruths and occasional moments of absolute knowledge prevent her family from confronting their own demons.’ She was impressed by ‘The clarity and directness of Herrin’s production and the way that the cast both speak and listen with absolute intent brings it to vivid life once more.’
For Nick Curtis in The Standard (4★) ‘Cox is magnetic as Tyrone, volcanic one moment, maudlin the next. He’s well-matched by Clarkson whose prim body language and sly evasions betray the wariness of the secret addict.’ The rest of the cast hold their own: ‘Jeremy Herrin’s production is full of pathos and ruined grandeur, with superb performances all round.’ He noted ‘Kynaston…brings great delicacy and watchfulness to Edmund: he also resembles Clarkson in profile. McCormack…brings a malign, defeated charisma to Jamie. Derry Girls’ Louisa Harland turns the caricatured Oirish servant Kathleen into a gust of light relief.’ He had praise too for the look of the production: ‘Designer Lizzie Clachan emphasises the oppressive, inescapable nature of their tragedy with a cramped box of a set.’
Louise Penn at Broadway World (4★) didn’t find it too long: ‘not a second is wasted in Jeremy Herrin’s fine production, which features a delicate showcase of addiction, longing, and despair from Patricia Clarkson.’ She also thought Brian Cox gave ‘a mesmerising performance’. She shared with other critics an admiration for the way ‘Lizzie Clachan’s set and costumes capture the sense of a prosperous past while providing muted hues which fit well with Jack Knowles’s lighting.’ She clearly loved the play: ‘Long Day’s Journey Into Night is the mirror into which we can see our souls.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4★) thought it was ‘faultlessly performed’, but reserved her highest praise for the two stars: ‘A serene smile battling with tiny nervous gestures, her eyes increasingly somnolent and vague as the drug kicks in, Clarkson is shattering. Cox’s James combines an ox-like bulk and power with the silver-haired, self-conscious elegance of an old stager.’ She concluded: ‘It’s a demanding experience, which Herrin allows to accumulate its force slowly, but the acting here is dauntless: a monumental testament to domestic agony.’ Matt Wolf at The Arts Desk (4★) centred his review around Patricia Clarkson: ‘Jeremy Herrin’s slow-aborning if properly sorrowful production confirms a sense confirmed by experience that this text really does belong to Mary’. (‘Aborning’ is an American word for being born.)
Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) thought not only was it long but also didn’t half the impact it should: ‘Jeremy Herrin’s production is careful, slowly gathering – and three-and-a-half hours long. The opening scenes are muted, not so much anguished as anxious.’ She continued, ‘Solo confessions are the motor of the play but they gain in intensity with a greater sense of family…than there is here. The wounds look grave, not – as they should – fatal.’ However, she was impressed by ‘the sheer force of writing and of acting’.
Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) described how ‘Herrin turns this into a showcase for Big Acting, with no distractions. The stripped-back approach is really exposing, and there are moments when it doesn’t bear up to the scrutiny.’ Even though he found ‘some scenes in the second half feel really bum-numbingly long,’ the play is, he said, ‘very impressive, often mesmerising and – when it hits right – really profoundly moving.’ About Patricia Clarkson, he said she ‘has an extraordinary ability to flitter in and out of reality, sometimes just with her eyes.’
For Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★), while ‘Cox is, as always, thrilling to watch’…’it is Patricia Clarkson…who steals the show…hers feels like a true, infuriating, compassionate portrait of an addict.’ She was not entirely won over by O’Neill’s play: ‘Some scenes glitter with dark energy, and are truly tragic. Others feel protracted, the play’s old-fashioned exposition exposed, and the over-used device of characters narrating memories feeling like lengthy confessions.’
While all the critics loved Patricia Clarkson, some were less sure about Brian Cox. Fiona Mountford in inews (3★) said: ‘Clarkson is magnificent, giving the performance of the evening, shaping Mary into a figure of almost ethereal radiance, present but also absent’ but ‘Cox struggles to shift register sufficiently and convinces us a little less of the weight of the wounds he bears, especially in comparison to Clarkson’s deep mining of truth.’ She found ‘The almost three-and-a-half hours of Jeremy Herrin’s production do weigh heavily.’ Andrezej Lukowski in Time Out (3★), while praising ‘a superlative turn from …Patricia Clarkson’, opined, ‘Cox doesn’t quite nail the role of James Tyrone’. He also had reservations about the direction: ‘mostly this is a very straight production… It’s a daunting play, yes, but it shouldn’t be a museum piece.’
Least convinced was Clive Davis in The Times (2★): ‘O’Neill grinds us into submission with dialogue which turns in achingly slow circles,‘ he said. ‘Cox is always watchable,’ he admitted, ‘but he’s still not able to prevent long-winded confrontations and confessions from slipping into melodrama.’ He didn’t like the production either: ‘Herrin’s prosaic approach doesn’t supply much in the way of light and shade. Lizzie Clachan’s austere set design offers little to please the eye, either.‘
Value rating 23 (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. This rating is usually based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
If you’ve seen Long Day’s Journey Into Night, please add your review and rating below
Julian Ovenden and Giles Terera in Power of Sail. Photo: Manuel Harlan
In Paul Grellong’s play, directed by Dominic Dromgoole, a Harvard professor invites a racist, holocaust denier to a symposium. Various people are up in arms, freedom of speech is evoked, but as the would-be thriller travels back in time, it reveals there is more to various protagonists’ motives than their stated positions. There may have been an almighty row on stage, but in the stalls the critics showed a rare moment of unity (until a late review appeared). David Mamet is mentioned frequently in the reviews, both for content (remember Oleanna) and language, but the critics found Power of Sail fell short of greatness because there were too many twists to the plot. By the way, the title refers to the rule that says engine-driven ships must give way to sail boats. None of the critics came up with a satisfactory explanation of its relevance to the story.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (3★) found much of interest: ‘Paul Grellong’s intelligent if schematic play incorporates themes of cancel culture, Nazi legacies and the intersection between freedom of expression and hate speech.’ ‘it grips with its adrenalised dialogue,’ she said. ‘But,’ she said, ‘this is coupled with a briskness in plot – one twist after another – that pushes it forward at a rate of knots, while almost all of the characters turn out to be appalling in ways that feel too flat.’ Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) agreed, even using the same adjective: ‘It’s an enjoyable and provoking watch, though the number of issues Grellong crams into 100 minutes means it’s necessarily schematic.’ Like others, he found ‘The rollercoaster of “aha” moments gradually shows diminishing returns.’
Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★) was on the same track. She said it ‘takes a fascinating subject and then via various unlikely plot twists, so muddies the water that its impact is blunted.’ Like the others, she found it superficial: ‘It ends up skating along the surface of a hugely important debate rather than digging deep.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★) was yet another who felt ‘the subject-matter cries out for more time to unpack.’ He clearly thought this was a shame because it was ‘a timely look at freedom of speech and the perils of taking sides at university, smartly directed, as ever, by Dominic Dromgoole.’ He found space to praise the lead actor Julian Ovenden, describing him as ‘convincingly acerbic’.
Clive Davis in The Times (3★) appears to be more positive: ‘Not content with setting up a fast-paced debate about the limits of academic freedom, the American playwright catches us off balance with a shifting chronological structure which, in the second half, continually asks us to reassess the motivations of his main characters.’ But his positivity ran aground on the same rocks observed by the other reviewers: ‘It’s just a pity that Grellong tries to rush through many plot twists, some of them less than plausible.’ Did Patrick Marmion in the Mail (3★) take a different view? No: ‘Grellong also loses the dramatic focus of his would-be thriller by digressing.’
Mica Blackwell at Broadway World (3★) joined the procession: ‘Grellong’s snappy dialogue and Dominic Dromgoole’s direction keep the play punchy, but it feels too short to fully discuss the topics with the true nuance they deserve.’ ‘Maybe those conversations will be better discussed after watching the show,’ she added hopefully. Like the other critics, she praised the look of the show: ‘Paul Farnsworth’s sleek set captures the prestige of an Ivy League campus.’
But the critics’ unity was shattered when, a little after the others, Caroline McGinn’s review appeared at Time Out (4★) and told us why it was ‘Brisk, well-made and punchy’. ‘It has a genuinely exciting plot and a full-spectrum moral awareness of the murky motives and pitiless passions of identity politics…both together are an absolute treat.’ The ‘terrific’ play is, she said, ‘wisely and craftily directed by…Dominic Dromgoole.’
Value rating 59 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating moderated 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. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
If you’ve seen Power of Sail, you are welcome to add your review and rating below (but please keep it relevant and polite)
Despite the Arts Council withdrawing its grant, Hampstead Theatre continues to present new work. The Divine Mrs S is a new comedy written by April De Angelis, directed by Anna Mackmin, and starring Rachael Stirling. It tells the story of the great 18th century actress Sarah Siddons as she tries to break free from the control and exploitation of the men around her. Stirling’s performance went down well with the critics. However the play itself was at one extreme an ‘absolute hoot’ and at the other ‘unfunny’; the direction was ‘fleet footed’ or ‘without pacing’; and it was a ‘drama that makes you burn at the injustice’ or else it was ‘pointless’. Unusually, it was a night on which the female reviewers outnumbered the men, and it would be neat to say the women liked it and the men didn’t, except the harshest critic was a woman.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
For Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (4★), ‘A pitch-perfect Rachael Stirling brings an air of fruity exasperation to Siddons.’ She described the play as ‘beautifully skewering the entrenched hypocrisies surrounding female roles both on stage and in real life, The Divine Mrs S is an absolute hoot.’ As for the production, ‘Anna Mackmin’s fleet-footed production keeps the play’s light and dark tones and anachronistic sensibilities in fluent balance.’ Anya Ryan at Time Out (4★) was another enthusiast.: ‘To merge sharp comedy with drama that makes you burn at the injustice is no mean feat, but De Angelis has done it marvellously.’
Frey Kwa Hawking of Whats On Stage (3★) awarded one less star but still enjoyed her evening: ‘Anna Mackmin keeps things moving at a great clap, and harnesses the fun De Angelis is having with her language.’ She was also impressed by the way ‘Siddons, her life and enduring, existential questions about what to play and how to play it are done loving justice.’
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (3★) was more reserved in her praise: ‘ the larky comedy is good-natured and clever, but it does not deepen enough… and might have benefited from sharper pacing.’ ‘Rachael Stirling as Siddons puts fire into Anna Mackmin’s fitful production,’ said Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★)
Cindy Marcolina of Broadway World (2★) didn’t like it at all, describing it as ‘a load of… silliness.’ ‘Very little happens,’ she complained. She went on, ‘It’s aimless and confused as well as riddled with static figurines who avoid going on any kind of personal journey.’ It is, she concluded, ‘a tired, unfunny comedy that doesn’t have a point.’
And so to the male critics. For The Standard’s Nick Curtis (2★), it was ‘Disappointing.’ ‘Rachael Stirling’s imperious, high-comic performance as Sarah Siddons is the saving grace of this aimless and tiresomely in-jokey play,’ he said. He didn’t like the direction, saying the play was ‘left to meander without pacing or purpose’. He conceded, ‘Many of the jokes are very funny but they rob the story of weight.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (2★) also found a redeeming feature in the ‘highly watchable’ Rachael Stirling. Thank goodness, because, ‘Beyond that, the feminist satire, the handsome staging and the forcible fun of the playing add up to less than the sum of their playfully mock-Georgian parts.’
Value rating 52 (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. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
If you’ve seen The Divine Mrs S, you are welcome to add your review and rating below (but please keep it relevant and polite)
Myles Frost in MJ The Musical. Photo: Johan Persson
MJ The Musical has been a money-spinning success on Broadway, now it hopes to repeat the magic in London’s West End before conquering the rest of the world. The book is by double Pulitzer Prize winner Lynn Nottage who wrote Sweat. She covers Michael Jackson‘s life and career up until the eve of the Dangerous tour. This has the advantage that no mention need be made of the allegations of child abuse which were first publicised during that tour. That doesn’t stop all the critics mentioning the ‘elephant in the room’. But how did it affect their reviews? They were largely divided between those who can put the allegations aside and those who can’t. If you belong to the former, there is clearly much to enjoy in Christopher Wheeldon‘s choreography and of course Michael Jackson’s music, brought to life by the original Broadway star Myles Frost.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Neil Norman in The Express (4★) had a nifty way of justifying his concentration on the show: ‘Any attempt to cancel a man who has already been cancelled by God is a redundant exercise. The music stands. The songs are amazing. Let that be enough.’ And, pre-empting the criticism that this is just another jukebox musical: ‘Some may consider this a hollow, vacuous enterprise but this is show business, folks, and it is his artistic, not personal, legacy that is being celebrated.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4★) was similarly accommodating. He accepted that it’s ‘a partial account’. ‘As drama it only goes so far. As spectacle, as a celebration of what he achieved in song and dance, it’s pretty much sensational.’ Earlier in his review, he praised it as ‘a jaw-droppingly well staged, fabulously sung and fluidly choreographed act of necromancy.’
The Independent‘s Alice Saville (4★) felt there was ‘enough darkness’ in the story up to that point. She was impressed by the way Lynn Nottage’s script ‘exposes Jackson through his songs, showing how he increasingly danced to the rhythms of past traumas’ (referring to his childhood). She liked the way Myles Frost ‘moves with a dreamy, fantastically eerie lightness’ and she praised ‘Derek McLane’s impossibly lavish scenic design and a universally strong cast.’
Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★) found that ‘it not only swerves the controversies surrounding him, but also never begins to reach the mystery that made his music so magical and yet the man so opaque.’ The quality of the production and its star seemed to compensate: ‘staged by Wheeldon with such energy and panache that the trajectory is breathtaking.’ (Frost’s) impersonation of Jackson’s choreography is razor sharp..but even more impressively he does manage to conjure something of the tortured soul behind the image.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (4★) concluded: ‘You leave ravished by the spectacle of it all, with countless earworms lodged in your head, and then the moral dubiousness of the enterprise sinks back in.’ He explained why it is possible to get carried away and temporarily ignore what he calls ‘the elephant in the room’: ‘That the show still works is largely down to the half-quicksilver, half-machine performance of Frost…Christopher Wheeldon’s production is a superlatively directed and choreographed piece of absolute pizzaz…writer Lynn Nottage gets to deftly intertwine Jackson’s life and his art.’
For Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★), ‘the omission of any allusion to his friendships with children feels… noticeable’, but concluded ‘A big commercial musical is probably never going to be the medium for the great Michael Jackson drama.’ He loved the ‘jaw-droppingly talented original Broadway star Myles Frost.. Jackson’s arsenal of moves were so singular – and so technically dazzling – that it doesn’t feel dated at all.’
While acknowledging that the show is ‘impossible to view today entirely outside the prism of the allegations’, The Telegraph‘s Claire Allfree (3★) was another critic who focussed on enjoying the show: ‘it’s arguably guilty of magical thinking in casting him exclusively as a victim. But does this make his art – as so beautifully honoured here – any less intoxicating? I’m not sure in the end it does.’ What intoxicated her most was Frost ‘capturing precisely Jackson’s sublime, peculiarly agitated grace, his limbs seemingly made from tensile liquid as he thrusts and coils, shimmers and spins, like a man made from air and light, dancing on water. Blending a pop-video aesthetic with simply superb choreography’.
In The Times (3★), Clive Davis was more cynical about the standard of the production: ‘If the day comes when musicals are created by artificial intelligence they may well resemble this jukebox show. It’s proficient, but oddly soulless.’ In a classic praise sandwich, he said: ‘Christopher Wheeldon’s production offers an immaculately choreographed evening of 24-carat karaoke anchored by the sleek dance moves of..Myles Frost.’
Anya Ryan in The Guardian (2★) was not seduced. She admitted ‘the stage becomes a hub of neon and gravity-defying dance moves’ and that Myles Frost is ‘a shapeshifting force’, however ‘Some might be able to separate Jackson’s art from the artist. But…I felt queasy – bad, even.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (2★) was another who felt ‘the glaring omission of any confrontation of the allegations against Jackson of child sexual abuse…makes its smooth, glossy, hagiographic tone feel hollow, if not plain dishonest.’ She was also more critical than some reviewers of the main elements of the show: ‘Lynn Nottage’s book is, at best, workaday and, at worst, excruciatingly contrived…dramatically, it’s all very bland.’ For her, in a statement that will shock Michael Jackson fans, ‘even the groundbreaking music..becomes a little monotonous.’ Taking an opposite view to The Standard (see above), she said it was ‘sounding strikingly dated’.
Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★) says it all in his opening paragraph: ‘At its best MJ: the Musical is a tribute act populated by a mixtape of Michael Jackson’s greatest hits and the signature silky angularity of his choreography. At its worst this slathered-in-schmaltz hagiography is like watching the Zone of Interest: you know the disturbing stuff is always just out of view.’
Ludovic Hunter-Tilney in the Financial Times (2★) chose a more sarcastic approach: ‘not since Jesus Christ Superstar has the West End hosted such a saintly protagonist as the hero of MJ the Musical.’ He had no illusions: ‘the production’s main rationale is to get as many songs on the jukebox as possible.’
After her success in Shirley Valentine and Funny Girl, the much-loved Sheridan Smith‘s latest stage appearance was much anticipated. Whether her fans got what they were expecting is doubtful or, as The Independent put it, anyone hoping for ‘thespy, Funny Girl-style razzle dazzle is in for a serious shock’. Ivo van Hove‘s adaptation of a classic John Cassavetes movie focuses on a fading star rehearsing a play, and features his trademark live video centre stage. The critics were split between those who thought it was unique and special, and those who found it baffling, with very few taking the middle ground. There were also mixed opinions about Rufus Wainwright’s music. Word of mouth has been poor and the production will be closing over two months early, on 18 May.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Let’s start with the positive reviews. For Time Out‘s (4★) Andrzej Lukowski, ‘There is truly nothing else like ‘Opening Night’ in Theatreland at the moment – not even close.’ He meant that as a compliment. He went on to say that the live video screen ‘display is at least as important as watching the actors directly’. ‘It unquestionably has a heart – a buoyancy and belief in humanity that’s lacking in the original film.’ He was full of praise for Sheridan Smith, saying her ‘performance is heartfelt but also surprisingly wry and mischievous’.
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) was another fan, echoing Lukowski’s view that ‘It may be the most unusual thing on the London stage right now and is captivating in its glittering strangeness’ while calling it ‘every bit as eccentric as the film but … more vivacious in this musical incarnation.’ She liked the use of live video, noting that in a scene when Smith’s character ‘turns up drunk at the stage door on opening night, the screen shows her staggering at the back of the Gielgud theatre itself, a thrilling coup de hi-tech theatre.’ She had praise for the look of the production: ‘Jan Versweyveld’s set has a central sheer red curtain that captures the razzle of the theatre but also implicates our culture of celebrity voyeurism’, and for ‘Wainwright’s slowly gorgeous music’.
Alice Saville in The Independent (4★) was not quite so enthusiastic. She said it was ‘flawed, but intermittently haunting’. She was critical of Van Hove’s production, saying it ‘isn’t sturdily built enough to contain all this emotion: it flattens and muddles where it could heighten.’ She liked Wainwright’s music which ‘reaches new heights here’ but reserved her greatest praise for Sherdian Smith whom, she said, ‘radiates a raw hunger for love, attention and meaning’ before adding ‘her own part here is pitifully underthought’.
Patrick Marmion for the Mail (4★) didn’t much like Ivo Van Hove’s production but said ‘it’s thanks to the emotional wattage of Smith’s voice that the show really soars’, and he was ‘simply in awe of her acting’. He also gave thanks for Rufus Wainwright’s music: ‘True, it sometimes dwindles into semi-tonal burbling. But it also explodes with the singer-songwriter’s gift for doomed glory.’
The Times‘ Clive Davis (3★) occupied the middle ground, explaining: ‘The songs and the script are occasionally inspired, but more often maddeningly opaque.’ ‘Van Hove’s book piles confusion upon confusion,’ he continued, mentioning in passing ‘Jan Versweyveld’s untidy set’. However, he did think ‘Van Hove’s trademark use of video screens makes sense’, and he thought, ‘Some of Wainwright’s songs weave a haunting, chamber opera ambience,’ even if ‘too many are derailed by overly dense lyrics.’ Despite his criticism, he declared, ‘I’m still glad I saw this show.’
And so to the negative reviews. Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (2★) started by identifying Sheridan Smith’s qualities of ‘adorability, fragility and fighting-spirit’ before putting the boot into Van Hove’s production, criticising ‘his rough-and-ready mise en scène, which sets the action in a rudimentary back-stage environment’ and saying: ‘Although he pioneered the use of live video on stage, here he barely bothers to justify, dramatically, his use of a roving film crew.’ Wainwright’s score is, he said, ‘stylistically all over the place and many lyrics lacking rhyme or reason.’
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (2★) was happy with the star: ‘Sheridan Smith…gives a terrific performance at its heart…she brings great wit, infectious warmth and aching vulnerability’. As for the production, ‘The multi-layering becomes confusing and alienating…and seems to swamp the characters who remain one-note.’
For Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (2★), it was ‘a confusing mess… (it) seems to fail from the moment it begins. Other aspects of the production left her cold: she referred to ‘Jan Versweyveld’s cluttered set’ and said Rufus Wainwright ‘never provides is a truly memorable melody or a song that carries the meaning of the show.’ Even Sheridan Smith, she said, ‘struggles to make a mark with the dislocations in script and character.’ She concluded it was ‘one of the most baffling wastes of talent’.
Aliya Al-Hassan over at Broadway World (2★) said: ‘I’ve rarely seen a production more determined to confuse and frustrate an audience.’ It was, she explained, ‘disjointed, lacking clarity and losing all the spontaneity of Cassavetes’ signature style.’ Honing in on Sheridan Smith’s character, she said, ‘van Hove gives her no narrative arc and has written a woman who fails to convince as a real person on pretty much every level. It’s perhaps not surprising to note that the director, bookwriter, lyricist, composer and designer of this show are all men.’ Ouch! In Rufus Wainwright’s music, she noted, ‘There are meandering, downbeat, directionless songs, no particularly captivating melodies and there isn’t a single refrain or memorable piece of music to be found.’ As for the video screens, ‘they add little but a visual overload.’
You might think that was as bad as a review could be but… Stefan Kyriazis in the Express (1★) only found the show worth one star. How’s this for an opening paragraph? ‘This show actually opens with a car crash. Oh, the irony. The production is more like a multi-lane pile-up, complete with overturned leaking oil tanker, giant sinkholes and possibly an earthquake, asteroid or charging rhino or two.’ He drew attention to the live video relay that The Guardian so loved, calling it Smith’s ‘tiresomely attention-seeking Act 2 stunt of collapsing on the pavement outside…If only she’d stayed there.’ Was there anything he liked? Seemingly not: ‘Rufus Wainwright’s tuneless tunes, endless pointless and intrusive camerawork (enough, already), some atrocious acting and frustratingly bad staging.’
Fiona Mountford in The i (1★) delivered another damning verdict, calling it ‘bewilderingly terrible’ and ‘self-indulgent twaddle…through which a nasty vein of misogyny pumps insistently, and sections of which are devoid of even basic narrative sense.’ She also found ‘This overused video conceit appears increasingly tired now and adds nothing.’ Rufus Wainwright’s efforts didn’t impress her either: ‘the music remains awkwardly unembedded in the action and fails to add any depth to the woeful script.’ At least she liked Sheridan Smith’s ‘effervescent and full-hearted performance’.
A couple of American heavyweights weighed in but neither award stars. Nevertheless, it’s clear they were not fans. Houman Barekat in the New York Times said: ‘Van Hove has transformed a taut, subtly observed character study into a sludgy melodrama.’ He thought ‘Smith is miscast …Her onstage bearing exudes a homely approachability rather than high-strung poise or inscrutable aloofness.’ Add to which, ‘The songs, by Rufus Wainwright, are algorithmically bland.’ David Benedict for Variety called it ‘a mess’.
Opening Night can be seen at the Gielgud Theatre until 18 May 2024. Buy tickets directly from openingnightmusical.com/
Average critic rating (out of 5) 2.6★
Value rating 28 (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. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)
If you’ve seen Opening Night, you are welcome to add your review and rating below (but please keep it relevant and polite)
