Dave Malloy’s award-winning sung-through musical version of a short but eventful section of Tolstoy’s War and Peace has taken ten years to travel from Broadway, but the critics thought it was worth the wait. With some exceptions, they loved the music, the production (directed by Tim Sheader) and the performances. So, another hit for Mr Sheader in his first season as Artistic Director of The Donmar.
[Links to the full reviews are given but some websites may be blocked unless you have a subscription]
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (5★) was captivated: ‘both epic and intimate, vast and tiny. It is magnificent, infinite riches in a little room.’ She concluded, ‘It’s a riveting journey, true to Tolstoy’s themes yet compressing his mighty thoughts into one of the best new musicals for years, both hugely entertaining and deeply intelligent.’
Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre (5★) described it thus: ‘Dave Malloy’s gonzo, knowing, blisteringly funny and wildly creative chamber opera only takes one small section of the novel, and although it is undoubtedly, excitingly ambitious, this big-hearted show invites the audience into his dazzling world.’ She continued: ‘the most luminous element by far is the fantastic cast and onstage band laying into Malloy’s magpie score, which brilliantly fuses Slavic folk with EDM, rock-pop, jazz, and yearning ballads.’
Claire Allfree for the Telegraph (5★) said, ‘Malloy’s score is a gypsy carnival of sound…The singing throughout is outstanding and allows for expressive individual moments’.
Debbie Gilpin at BroadwayWorld (5★) found ‘The heady mix of ballads and uptempo numbers, not to mention drama and comedy, in the relatively intimate environment of the Donmar makes for a unique musical theatre experience.’
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (4★) called it a ‘dynamic new production, which has stratospheric levels of energy’ but tempered her praise by saying, ‘the show is held back by its own polished larkiness though it is hugely and amusingly original all the same.’ She concluded, ‘this is a terrific creation and at its best it soars.’
‘Sparkling and strange, Dave Malloy’s EDM-fuelled rock opera is a thing to marvel at’ declared The Independent’s Alice Saville (4★). She went on, ‘Malloy’s … musical is a masterclass in prosody, with its often-thin lyrics given emotional heft and depth by orchestration choices, which elicit their meaning.’
Laurie Yule writing for The Stage (4★) picked out ‘Most notable, though, are the jaw-dropping performances from an energetic and passionate ensemble.’ Andrzej Lukowski of Time Out (4★) called it ‘one of the great musicals of our day’.
There were dissenters. The Standard’s Nick Curtis (3★) described it as a ‘massively audacious, massively pretentious musical’. Clive Davis of The Times (3) was unmoved: ‘if its sheer theatricality is never less than dazzling, the relentlessly quirky tone…kept me at a distance from the characters. I laughed, I grinned, but I never really felt inclined to shed a tear.’
Lillian Hellman’s classic play from 1940 is rarely performed nowadays because its hectoring style, unsympathetic hero, and even its subject matter are considered dated. This view was reflected in the reviews, with many critics wondering why it was being revived.
The story concerns a family that has made a fortune from slavery and cotton. The men of the family have all the money and are looking to make more. Their sister Regina, like all women at that time (1900), has no inheritance but is determined to have her share. Her machinations tear apart the greedy family.
The acting was praised, particularly that of Anne-Marie Duff, but director Lyndsey Turner’s updating the period from the late 19th century to the 1950s, and Lizzie Clachan’s beige set caused some heads to be scratched.
[Links to the full reviews are given but some websites may be blocked unless you have a subscription]
The Standard’s Nick Curtis (4★) was bowled over: ‘A fine ensemble is anchored by a standout performance from Duff. She mines pathos and empathy from the character of Regina Giddens’. He declared, ‘I basically loved it’ and joked that he ‘also admired the audacity of the timing. Family tensions, rampant capitalism, excessive drinking, someone falling over. Yes, this is definitely a Christmas show.’
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) said, ‘Little Foxes may be old-fashioned, but it still packs a desolate and depressing punch.’ She pointed out, ‘it has at its heart an absolute stunner of a role for an actor – Regina Hubbard, disempowered wife of the weak and sick Horace, who is manipulating her way to a share of the spoils of her brothers’ business machinations. It’s a role …that Anne-Marie Duff seizes here with charismatic power.’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (4★) found ‘Hellman’s writing has a masterly restraint. Her characters hide threats and double meanings behind a veneer of crisp manners and affected politeness, which they break only in the greatest extremity, consummately constructed masks slipping to reveal the violence and viciousness boiling beneath. Director Lyndsey Turner controls the tone of the piece skilfully, gradually and inexorably building tension with an unhurried but never slack pace’. Included in much that he liked was ‘The stylish set, designed by Lizzie Clachan’.
JonThan Marshall for LondonTheatre1 (4★) concluded, ‘As bleak as it all might sound, there is a satisfyingly soapy melodrama to the play we can’t help but buy into. Due to its occasionally archaic writing, it’s clear that a high-calibre cast is needed for the piece to stand up in 2024. This incarnation of The Little Foxes pleasingly does just that.’
Alice Saville in The Independent (3★) said, ‘Duff is a fascinatingly nasty creation here, exuding a brittle glamour in her blood-red gown’. ‘Turner’s staging makes the calculated decision not to romanticise this family, showing them as the grasping parasites they are.’ ‘Turner heightens the story’s early moments of violence, which dims its power to shock later on.’
Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski (3★) found ‘In Lyndsey Turner’s elegant revival, Anne-Marie Duff …is icy-cold and laser focused’. ‘It’s a grim story, lacking in catharsis. But it’s impressively done.’ However, he had a complaint: ‘The strangest thing about Turner’s revival is the aggressively beige ’60s boardroom aesthetic to Lizzie Clachlan’s set and costumes. The play is very, very definitely set in the Deep South of 1900 and it feels somewhat jarring to, on the one hand, remove this from the production visually, but on the other hand replace it with something relatively non-specific.’
The i’s Fiona Mountford (3★) had many reservations: ‘For all the excellence of the performances, Lyndsey Turner’s production stubbornly refuses to coalesce into a compelling whole…It doesn’t help that the action unfolds on Lizzie Clachan’s long and unlovely set of unadorned beige walls, which provides no anchoring sense of time, place or family history. The greater problem, however, lies with the script’s structuring: too many key events happen offstage and are reported to us second hand, stranding us at one crucial remove from full involvement.’
Natalie Evans for The ArtsDispatch (3★) said, ‘This is, for all intents and purposes, a fantastic production of impeccable quality.’ However, ‘I simply cannot bring forth an answer to the question of ‘Why this? Why now?’ Hellman wrote this piece 85 years ago when it would no doubt have been groundbreaking. However, in 2024, nothing overly new is said, or even implied here.’
Patrick Marmion in the Mail (3★) said, ‘Despite top-of-the-range acting and portentous sound effects, urging us to feel the tension, Hellman’s writing is simply too schematic to make us care about the outcome.’ Holly O’Mahony at LondonTheatre (3) called it ‘a tricky, hard-nosed play that seems to hold its audience at a distance.’ The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish (3) called the production ‘fuzzy, unfocused’.
The Times’ Clive Davis (2★) was ground down: ‘A steely-eyed Anne-Marie Duff drips venom as Regina. Steffan Rhodri is persuasive as the charmless Oscar…Anna Madeley’s character, a sort of proto-Blanche DuBois is, in fact, the most interesting of all of them…In the end, however, she, like the rest of the cast, is ground down by the gears of the clockwork plot.’
Helen Hawkins writing for The ArtsDesk (2★) was also highly critical: ‘Turner’s production doesn’t really present us with a play focusing on American racism or the iniquities of the South. These issues are in the text but not at this staging’s core. Ditto feminism. What we are left with is a patchwork: a plot about family finances and double-crosses yoked to a melodrama – emphasised by the ominous rumbling sounds that accompany the climax. As a tragedy of failed dreams, though, it doesn’t engage.’
Critics’ average rating 3.2★
The Little Foxes can be seen at The Young Vic until 8 February 2025 Buy tickets direct from the theatre youngvic.org
If you’ve seen The Little Foxes at the Young Vic, please leave a review and/or rating below
It’s been a while since Mel Brooks‘ one-time megahit musical has been seen in London. There was much surprise that such a spectacular show should be produced at the small Menier Theatre. Nevertheless, the critics were universally impressed by the witty, faithful direction of Patrick Marber, the stage-filling choreography by Lorin Latarro, and the all-round excellence of the cast. Some managed to praise the two stars Andy Nyman and Marc Antolin while also saying they weren’t as good as the originals but most thought they brought a great chemistry to the roles of two producers trying to put on a loss-making show in order to keep their investors’ money. The most famous song Springtime For Hitler seems to have lost little of its hilariously funny bad taste. No reviewer gave it less than 4 stars, the main reservation seeming to be that it’s a little dated.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Aliya Al-Hassan in BroadwayWorld (5) gave top marks: ’It’s far from subtle, but is funny, irreverant and witty.’ She praised the stars: ‘Nyman revels in his lank-haired, slightly chaotic persona. He has a palpable chemistry with Marc Antolin‘s adorably coy and neurotic Bloom.’ And the creative team: ‘Patrick Marber shows astute direction in his first musical. LorinLatarro’s vibrant choreography defies the constrictions of the space, never seeming to be over-crowded or too busy.’
Helen Hawkins on The Arts Desk (5) called it ‘an uproarious adult panto.’ She said, ‘Andy Nyman is the dynamo of the show, a convincing wheeler-dealer…His Leo Bloom, Marc Antolin, is spot on too, nervous and silly, but equallyamiable’
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4) said, ‘Still so original, and delightfully – daringly – funny, it is revived by director Patrick Marber with such vigour, sparkle and controlled wildness that it renders itself the London show of the festival season – funnier, camper and more outre than pantomime.’ She found it ‘irresistible, absurd and joyful, both celebrating and sending up the power of theatre. A blast of a show.’
WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton (4) declared, ‘It’s not at all subtle, but speeds along with such pleasure at its own absurdity that it’s hugely entertaining.’ She said, ‘Nyman and Antolin anchor the show while everyone else goes so far over the top that the roof is in danger of coming off. Both Harry Morrison as the Nazi-loving author of the show and Trevor Ashley as the fabulously gay director Roger de Bris are unleashed into wild excess’.
Matthew Hemley for The Stage (4) pointed out, ‘this is a musical that still guarantees laugh after laugh after laugh, with a genuinely brilliant score from Brooks.’ He continued, ‘Marber keeps the show whizzing along, and Lorin Latarro’s slick choreography makes brilliant use of a tight space’. He described the stars: ‘Nyman and Antolin work delightfully together, Nyman a ball of frustrated energy, Antolin on top form as his nervy, blanket-hugging sidekick. They sing and dance wonderfully, and they’re very funny, too – both the physical and verbal comedy is a genuine treat.’ He went on, ‘The highlight, however, comes in the form of Trevor Ashley’s Roger De Bris, the director tasked with helming Springtime for Hitler, who eventually finds himself playing the Nazi leader…(his) expressions, voice and comic timing are spot on. His Judy Garland-infused Hitler is a wonder.’
The Financial Times‘ Sarah Hemming (4★) said, ‘director Patrick Marber, choreographer Lorin Latarro and the versatile cast go at it with unadulterated glee, plundering every cliché in the book and mischievously pickpocketing the musicals tradition.’ She continued, ‘At its heart are Nyman and Antolin, both terrific and a wonderful double act’ and concluded, ‘Despite all the absurdity…it’s rather sweet: a ridiculous love-letter to friendship and to the sheer craziness and passion of show business.’
Over at LondonTheatre (4) Olivia Rook showered praise all round and picked out various members of the cast: ‘Trevor Ashley is perfectly cast as the scene-stealing director Roger De Bris…Harry Morrison also gives a stand-out performance as the crazed Hitler fanatic Franz, spitting out his words with relish in a throaty German accent, and Joanna Woodward’s endearing, Marilyn Monroe-esque Ulla is a delight.’
Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski (4) decided, ‘The Producers is a bit dated, a bit slow in getting going… But its pillorying of fascist iconography remains hysterically funny and steely sharp – perhaps sharper than it was before.’
Although Dominic Cavendish at The Telegraph (4) spent a chunk of his review comparing Nyman and Antolin unfavourably with the stars of the original movie, nevertheless he found it ‘perfectly suited for the festive need for cheer’.
Louis Chilton in The Independent (4) commented, ‘as a satire both of fascist nationalism and showbiz, The Producers remains ever-relevant. Directed by Patrick Marber … this production does a lot with a small, intimate stage; Lorin Latarro’s choreography is showy and dynamic – but lets the comedy rightfully hoard the focus…The jokes are rapid, the satire outrageous. How could it possibly fail?’
Critics divided over The Glorious French Revolution
New Diorama Theatre
The Glorious French Revolution (or why sometimes it takes a guillotine to get anything done), to give it its full title, is the latest production from experimental theatre company YESYESNONO. Directed and written by company founder Sam Ward, it uses five actors to tell the story of what happened in Paris in 1789 and just after. The critics were thin on the ground but neatly divided between three that thought it was entertaining and exciting, and three that thought heads should roll.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (4★) called it ‘part-potted history, part-grotesque pantomime, and – in its most effective moments – a stingingly relevant social critique.’ This ‘is an enthralling rollercoaster of a work,’ enthused Franco Milazzo of BroadwayWorld (4★). Monica Fox for The Reviews Hub (4 ) said it was ‘a bold, imaginative, and entertaining piece of theatre.’
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (2★) commented, ‘it could be a five-star show, but in its current state it is an intelligent mess.’
The Times’ Clive Davis (1★) dismissed it as ‘An excruciatingly simple-minded romp through the events leading up to the Terror…I’m tempted to describe it as Horrible Histories for Brechtians, but at least those children’s books deliver decent jokes.’
Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski gave no rating but concluded, ‘ultimately there is no real insight here, and no attempt to explain why this show exists or what the Revolution meant to its makers. Stylish hipster theatre, about the coolest of the big Western revolutions, but it’s about as profound as a Che Guevara t-shirt.’
Critics’ Average Rating 2.8★
The Glorious French Revolution (or why sometimes it takes a guillotine to get anything done) can be seen at the New Diorama Theatre until 14 December 2024. Buy tickets direct here.
If you’ve seen The Glorious French Revolution (or why sometimes it takes a guillotine to get anything done) at the New Diorama Theatre, please add your review below
Some critics thought this black comedy about Hull trawlermen dealing with the loss of a ship in the 1970s was one of Richard Bean’s best. Others liked it but were not keen on the contrast between the comedy of the first act and the more serious, spooky second half. Anna Reid’s detailed sets were highly praised.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Telegraph ‘s Claire Allfree (4★) declared, ‘this is a richly, even bravely old-fashioned play, one of Bean’s very best, which puts its faith in exquisite characterisation and extends a profound humanity to its subject, and as such, a rare treat.’ In Time Out (4★) Andrzej Lukowski) called it ‘an elegiac ‘serious comedy’. For The Standard (4★) Nick Curtis described it as ‘Gritty, spooky and enthralling’.
The Times’ Dominic Maxwell (3) who sees a lot of comedy said it had ‘more fizzingly funny lines than you’ve heard all year’. Julia Rank for WhatsOnStage (3★) was not so convinced: ‘This isn’t one of Bean’s finest efforts but it is watchable – it’s mostly a shame that the potential of act one isn’t followed through.’
Over at The Arts Desk (3★) Aleks Sierz was hoping for better: ‘the slackness of the plotting makes this more of a love letter to old Hull than an exciting well-plotted drama.’ The Stage‘s Dave Fargnoli (3★) found it ‘elegiac snd overstretched’.
It sank for Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (2★) who thought it was ‘baggy and aimless’.
Critics’ Average Rating 3.3★
Reykjavík is at the Hampstead Theatre, London, until 23 November 2024. Buy tickets directly
If you’ve seen Reykjavík at the Hampstead Theatre, please add your review and rating below
Based on the true story of an innocent man who spent 22 years on death row, The Fear of 13 stars Oscar-winning Hollywood star Adrien Brody. The actor was highly praised by reviewers, and there were laudits too for Miriam Buether’s set which turned the Donmar auditorium into the round and immersed some of the audience in the action. Some critics found the play itself by Lindsey Ferrentino a little flat.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Clive Davis in The Times (5★) said, ‘Brody delivers an intense, soul-baring performance in his London stage debut.’ Fiona Mountford in the i (5★) concurred, ‘This is an actor at the top of his game and it is a privilege to watch him up close in this space as we reflect upon the ultimate fairness, or otherwise, of justice.’
Matt Wolf in London Theatre (5★) found, ‘Brody is the real deal – a simmering, soulful theatre animal’. He ended, ‘I surely wasn’t the only one who watched the curtain call misty-eyed at the restoration of justice and in awe of Brody’s impassioned commitment to this story of snatching victory from the jaws of psychic defeat.’
Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (5★) noted, ‘(Brody) combines a bewildered, swaggering, teenage vulnerability with a growing gnawing despair … His consummate performance has the audience on side every step of the way.’
Helen Hawkins at The Arts Desk (5★) said of Brody, ‘His face, with its characterful eyebrows, was built for pathos, his rangey physique to embody suffering; but here his features can also radiate a sunny kind of joy as Yarris discovers love, and that freedom means the freedom to love’.
Alex Wood at What’s On Stage (5★) was impressed that ‘under the creative eye of director Justin Martin and designer Miriam Buether, the auditorium is transformed into the round – generating an oppressive, claustrophobic sense of confined space that is disarmingly flexible when required.’
The Observer‘s Susannah Clapp (4★) also praised the production: ‘Miriam Buether’s design – a bare space for jail and a cosy house trapped behind a glass screen – punches home the distance between inmates and the outside world: like two hands on a prison visit unable to touch.’
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (4★) praised Brody, ‘He’s charismatic, funny and a born storyteller, but Brody also finds a more ambivalent, reckless streak that suggests the damage within. It’s a spellbinding performance’.
Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (4★) commented, ‘It is, above all, a cracking piece of storytelling, that exists because Yarris is a fascinating man who has lived a remarkable life, and because Brody has the tortured oddball charisma to bring that to the stage.’
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) thought Adrien Brody ‘is a beguiling presence here but is not given enough space to flex his actorly muscles. Action takes the place of atmosphere.’ Nick Curtis in the Standard (3★) called him ‘Tousled, impossibly lean and charmingly wolfish, Brody surfs each twist and turn of a script that is mostly preoccupied with the stories we tell ourselves as individuals or as a society.’
Alice Saville in The Independent (3★) described how ‘the profound bleakness underlying this story is constantly kept at bay with jokes, soul singing, and the bustling of guards and prisoners coming and going on its busy stage. It’s engrossing and poignant, even if it’s afraid to let the dark in.’ Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) was muted: ‘Brody is mesmerising’ she said but ‘it’s a straightforward retelling without much subtext or theatrical texture.’
Critics’ Average Rating 4.2★
The Fear of 13 can be seen at The Donmar Warehouse Theatre until 30 November 2024. Buy tickets directly here
If you’ve seen The Fear of 13 at the Donmar, please add your review and rating below
Who would have thought that a forgotten play by a seldom-performed Victorian playwright would be one of the funniest theatre shows of the year?
Arthur Pinero was one of the most popular playwrights of his day- he was even given a knighthood. He made his name with farces and then with more serious plays on social matters like The Second Mrs Tanquery– one of the few that people may have heard of. While he may not offer quite the sharp wit or tight plots of his contemporary Oscar Wilde, Pinero too mocked the Victorian upper class.
I think it’s fair to say his plays haven’t aged as well as Wilde’s, but with a little attention from adaptor Nancy Carroll, The Cabinet Minister scrubs up very well. She’s simplified the story, cut the anachronisms, and added lashings of innuendoes.
What is the plot? Unbeknownst to him, a government minister’s wife and son have run up enormous debts. The latter is a gambler, the former has bought far too many expensive dresses on credit. If the debts aren’t paid, the minister already under pressure to resign, will be disgraced and forced to retire to that fate worse than death (to his wife, anyway) the countryside.
The dressmaker and her moneylender brother intend to use the debts as leverage to gain entry into high society, and, in the brother’s case, to use insider knowledge to make a stock market killing. The wife’s solution is to marry off her children to rich spouses. They have different ideas- they would like to marry for love.
A rollicking farce
So, it has all the ingredients of a comedy of manners and a rollicking farce. Nancy Carroll, director Paul Foster, designer Janet Bird and a well chosen cast have cooked them up into the comedy of the year. Nicholas Rowe plays the government minister Sir Julian Twombley. Tall and patrician, and so cynical about politics he gets his butler to write his speeches, he provides the still centre for the shenanigans.
Nancy Carroll not only adapted the play, she stars as his wife Lady Katherine Twombley. She knows how lucky she is to be part of high society, and doesn’t want that luck to run out. In Ms Carroll’s hands, she carries herself haughtily, throws out barbed one-liners, and panics wholeheartedly, as when she tries to strangle her nemesis Bernard Lacklustre. He’s the main creditor and, played by Laurence Ubong Williams, is a Del Boy character failing at every turn to blend into upper class society.
His sister Fanny Lacklustre is a tradesperson in the morning and a lady in the afternoon, such are the complexities of the class system. Lady Katherine may feel contempt for her, and shows it, but she cannot resist the pressure to bring her into her world. Phoebe Fildes gives a great turn as the thick-skinned schemer, ignoring sleights, ever smiling and pressing on with her plans.
Then there are the children. I particularly liked Rosalind Ford as a naive, confused Imogen Twombley. She is in love with Valentine, a hairy, smelly explorer who won’t settle for domesticity, and played by George Blagden with panache. Unfortunately, her parents have promised her to a rich Scottish laird, Sir Colin McPhail. And here we come to the highest comedy of the evening. Sir Colin is taciturn and shy. Played by Matthew Woodyatt, he’s a lumbering giant ties himself in knots trying to proclaim his feelings, while his mother Lady MacPhail speaks for him and at times the whole of Scotland. Played by Dillie Keane, best known as part of Fascinating Aida, she is an over-the-top Scot forever banging on about the glens and hills of her beloved country.
Attempting to matchmake is Dora, the Dowager Countess of Drumdurris. She constantly appears and disappears through the two doors in classic farce fashion. Sara Crowe was indisposed when I saw the show. While her last minute replacement read the lines well from a script, we lost some of the speed that I am sure was intended by movement director Joanna Goodwin.
Members of the cast play musical instruments. This device is used regularly by The Watermill Theatre and by Pride and Prejudice* (*sort of). It is highly effective in establishing mood and sometimes character and can also help keep us the audience at bay in a play where we are deliberately distanced from being emotionally involved with the characters.
I mentioned Nancy Carroll has packed her adaptation with innuendoes. If you’d like an example, I’ll give you one. At one musical moment, Fanny offers to fiddle with flute playing Sir Julian.
The sets and costumes by Janet Bird are terrific. The Menier stage area is quite small but versatile. On this occasion, the audience is on two sides, creating an intimate drawing room feel. The costumes are sumptuous, looking fin de siecle and subtly reflecting the characters. The Twombleys’ home is decorated minmally but with a chintzy late Victorian style including a chaise longue and of course a piano.
The portrait of high society and its fragility, as well as the seriousness of debt, would have been much more recognisable to a Victorian audience, but we are still a class-ridden society and the characters’ many pretensions hit home. And without it ever needing to be stated explicitly, the references to corrupt politics and donations in exchange for influence show times haven’t changed as much as we might hope. I’m sure the rumours that Lord Ali gave Sir Keir tickets for the opening night are entirely without foundation.
In their Angry And Young season, The Almeida has revisited two plays from the 1950s that helped revolutionise the English stage. Both concern working class people and are set in kitchens (hence the nickname ‘kitchen sink drama’?). Atri Banerjee directs John Osborne’s Look Back In Anger and Diyan Zora directs Arnold Wesker’s Roots. Each critic had a favourite, while often not liking the other: where some saw a striking portrait of anger and misogyny in Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger, others were merely disturbed; some admired Roots‘ defiant Beattie, others thought the play lacked passion. All admired the stars Billy Howle and Morfydd Clark. I’ve separated comments about the two plays but the star ratings sometimes covered both, and sometimes star ratings were omitted.
Look Back In Anger
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (2★) was on the attack: ‘watching it now is a curiously cold anthropological experience’. ‘John Osborne’s pugilistic sweet-stall seller…looks like a charmless, self-pitying tyrant here who weaponises his working-class chip against his wife.’
Patrick Marmion in the Mail (2★) joined in, ‘There’s a strong seam of misogyny in all Osborne’s writing — and Howle does little more than lend this sullen, self-pitying exponent a babyish whimper. The play has little to teach us, and does less to amuse.’
The Times’ Clive Davis (3★) felt ‘watching the endlessly self-pitying Jimmy complain about his wife, Alison, is like watching a thoroughly one-sided boxing match’. Sam Marlowe in The Stage said, ‘The unrelenting verbiage of Jimmy Porter, as he assaults Ellora Torchia as his upper-class wife Alison with a battery of taunts and insults, is heavy going and quickly begins to seem like overkill.’
Fiona Mountford in the i (3★) called it, ‘this interminable bore of an often misogynistic rant’. Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3) took a similar stand: ‘Billy Howle dazzles as Porter: as raw and ranging as Poor Tom on King Lear’s heath. But for all their force, his speeches are puny: Osborne glorying in his misogynistic power.’
Andrjez Lukowksi of Time Out (3★) commented, ‘antihero Jimmy Porter’s abusive treatment of his upper middle class wife Alison is deeply problematic. It was doubtless meant to be so at the time as well, but it was written in an age with a different attitude towards domestic violence, and I think the passage of years has made Jimmy an increasingly repulsive, harder to emphasise with character. ‘ He didn’t like with the way the production moved away from the original’s naturalism: ‘At the end of the day a Pinteresque take on Osborne neither conveys the shattering impact of Look Back in Anger’s original incarnation nor, crucially, can it out-Pinter Pinter.’
Aleks Sierz at The Arts Desk (4★) took a more positive view: ‘What’s exciting theatrically is Osborne’s truthfulness in depicting masculinist attitudes which are as prevalent today as they were some 70 years ago. Yes Jimmy rants; yes, he’s unbearable (we have all surely met his type); yes, his opinions are disagreeable. But, boy, does he light up the stage.’
Tim Bano in The Standard (4★) called it ‘a crackling piece of drama’. For him, ‘Banerjee pulls the tension tighter and tighter, a nasty, thrilling tension, in which Porter expresses his vile, misogynistic, insulting views, shoving them at his wife and friend Cliff because there’s nowhere else for them to go.’
The Telegraph‘s Dzifa Benson (4★) said, ‘Howle portrays (Jimmy) as a coercive abuser, with a nervy, febrile energy that always feels dangerously on edge and ready to explode at any minute.’
Matt Wolf for LondonTheatre (4★) said, ‘you shiver at Jimmy’s weaponising of verbal finesse – language from his mouth cuts arguably more deeply than a knife – even as you sense a lost and haunted manchild adrift in a world that, as Jimmy knows full well, doesn’t give a damn.’
Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (4★) declared, ‘It’s a blazing production of a tough, ugly, angry, desperate, sad play.’ Sarah Crompton at Whats on Stage (4★) observed, ‘(Howle’s) Jimmy really is lost and by emphasising that, Banerjee subtly counteracts Osborne’s unbearable desire to see this ruthless man-child as a hero.’
For Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (5★) was the most enthusiastic, ‘To experience John Osborne gut the audience like a fish, all their grotesque innards splayed out in front of you is as intoxicating as it is nasty…Banerjee makes it clear as day: his clenched indignation is even more pathetic in 2024.’
Roots
The Guardian (4★) said, ‘It is a static play but there are masterful subtleties around class and interplay of characters built into its pace, alongside humour.’ The Observer (4★) called it ‘an extraordinary piece of work: intimate and visionary’.
The Times (4★) noted, ‘Morfydd Clark is utterly convincing in this role. Beatie’s tragedy is that she patronises her folks yet has acquired all her new values from a bohemian boyfriend’. LondonTheatre (4★) called Clark ‘a stonking star turn’.
Dzifa Benson in the Telegraph (4★) said, ‘Morfydd Clark lends (Beattie) a breezy charm and resilience that seem to belie the raw vulnerability she displays when Beatie’s mother gives her a dressing down.’
The Financial Times (4★) enjoyed ‘Diyan Zora’s deftly paced and beautifully acted production of Roots … She keeps Wesker’s punctilious naturalism and yet frames the drama as a memory play.’
The i (3★) said, ‘Wesker lets out an impassioned cry for working-class liberation through greater curiosity and captures the timeless emotional theme of the facility with which children blame their parents for their own failings. Beatie has strong roots in this limited but loving place; a top-quality 100 minutes of drama shows that she also has a winningly defiant mind of her own.’
The Stage thought, ‘Clark makes Beatie’s eventual epiphany powerfully moving.’ As to the production, ‘overall, it’s a brisk staging that serves the play well, and if it does so without any particular innovation, it’s crammed with texture and feeling.’
Whats On Stage (3★) took a different view: ‘The problem is that Wesker’s writing lacks the ability to leap into the family’s minds; it’s a sociological study rather than a drama. Diyan Zora’s stylised, non-naturalistic staging pushes them further away.’ For the Mail (3★), ‘Wesker’s play…works best as social history.’
The Standard (3★) didn’t find much to get excited about: ‘The anger is deadened, drowned out in a society that’s far angrier, and far louder. Zora’s revival goes some way in cracking open the slightly dry carapace that surrounds the piece, and there are undoubtedly great moments, but too often it feels like an experiment in reviving a forgotten play, too much like homework.’
Critics’ average ratings: Look Back In Anger 3.5★ Roots 3.6★
Look Back In Anger and Roots can be seen at The Almeida Theatre until 23 November 2024. Buy direct from the theatre
Opinions varied quite considerably on just how good Tanika Gupta’s new play was, but the critics all praised Meera Syal’s performance as a woman developing Alzheimer’s. For some, the play covered familiar ground, for others it was poetic and profound. They were all impressed by the way the many elements of Pooja Ghai’s production combined to create a sense of how the disease feels from the inside.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Miriam Sallon for WhatsOnStage (5★) was impressed: ‘Tanika Gupta manages to include not just the plainly heartbreaking…but the profuse life already lived, as well as the many lives left to go on without protagonist Queenie. Her end is incredibly sad, but it is not her sum total, not even close.’ He said, ‘Meera Syal as Queenie is especially potent, her charm and dynamism morphing into belligerence and revilement and, later, into confusion and fear.’
A hyperbolic Anya Ryan in The Guardian (4★) said it ‘feels like a knife has been dug into your soul and twisted’. As for the star, ‘Syal shatteringly embodies Queenie, her movements gradually changing with each scene.’
Dave Fargnoli at The Stage (4★) said, ‘Images of flowing water and thematic echoes of King Lear ripple through this bleak drama… which unflinchingly depicts the guilt and frustration of caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s’. He found, ‘Syal brilliantly charts Queenie’s deterioration, beginning with small hesitations and irritable flashes, moving through terror and cruelty, until she is a diminished, almost non-verbal shell of her former self.’
Debbie Gilpin at BroadwayWorld (4★) declared, ‘to be able to quickly switch from guttural rage to tearful confusion to childlike enthusiasm is no mean feat, but Syal pulls it off expertly.’ She called the production ‘entertaining, informative, and affecting.’
For the Telegraph (4★), Tim Robey said about Meera Syal’s performance ‘It’s angry. Visceral. Sometimes shockingly abrasive.’ He was also impressed by the production: ‘touches of stagecraft, poetic in their own right, capture a life unravelling’.
Aleks Sierz on TheArtsDesk (4★) commented, ‘Gupta’s writing mixes flashes of comedy even in the most tragic circumstances. But the general tone of her writing in this play is beautifully empathetic, with a really personal sense of deep emotion, carefully balanced between expressions of love and of loss.’
Julia Rank at WhatsOnStage (4★) said, ‘It could be unrelentingly bleak – and it doesn’t hold back in showing just how debilitating the disease is and how the pandemic robbed countless families of the chance to say goodbye to loved ones – but it’s a highly watchable piece given the subject matter. The tone is remarkably well-balanced with the right amount of light and shade and culturally specific jokes that have universal resonance.’
Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) disagreed. ‘Bleak’ was his word for it. He called it ‘an interesting but unsatisfying production.’ He said, ‘The second half is a pretty tough slog through her decline, which manages to be both depressing and a bit dull.’
For Tim Wicker at Time Out (3★) ‘Syal brings Queenie vividly to life’ but ‘The Lear-ness of it all also compacts the rest of the family’s relationships into a final international road trip that feels rushed…That said, this production still hits some powerful emotional beats as Queenie disappears into herself.’
The Times’ Clive Davis (3★) liked the production: ‘The dialogue is often flat and functional, with the underwritten subsidiary characters all slotted into place. But Pooja Ghai’s production oozes colour. The designer Rosa Maggiora creates a serene, Rothko-like backdrop…that places us somewhere between reality and the inside of Queenie’s jumbled mind. At moments when her faculties crumble, Elena Peña’s artfully muffled sound design and Matt Haskins’s nuanced lighting enhance the sense of disorientation. Nitin Sawhney’s percussive score evokes thoughts turning in circles.’
The i’s Fiona Mountford (2★) talked of ‘myriad elements that misfire, that strain for gravitas yet fail to achieve it.’ Her damning conclusion was ‘This is, unfortunately, not a piece of new writing worthy of the National Theatre.’
There was no rating accompanying Lucy ‘s review at CityAM but she said it ‘isn’t just an excellent work of fiction, but a bleak, vital conversation about how we treat our elderly.’
Arthur Pinero’s The Cabinet Minister has been given a thorough overhaul by Nancy Carroll (who also performs in it). Paul Foster directs the production. The result is that this Victorian comedy about a government minister, whose reputation is under threat when the media discover he has massive debts, has received some of the best reviews of the year.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
LondonTheatre‘s Marianka Swain (5★) declared, ‘This is, hands down, one of the funniest shows in London theatre right now…this is primarily a total romp, jam-packed with witty one-liners, physical humour, sublime character comedy, and some very, very silly double entendre.’ She praised Nancy Carroll: ‘Carroll not only supplies this zippy update to Pinero’s work, but also gives a fabulously charismatic performance as the mercurial Lady Katherine’ and picked out two ther members of the cast: ‘the supreme scene-stealers are Dillie Keane (having almost indecent levels of fun) and Matthew Woodyatt as a doughty, overbearing Scottish matriarch and her tongue-tied son: they are absolute comic bliss.’
Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld (5★) loved it. She talked of a ‘captivating cast list under Paul Foster’s crisp direction, delivering a one-laugh-a-minute play bound to lighten up the dreariest autumn day.’ She reserved the highest praise for ‘Nancy Carroll, who ‘is dazzling both as adaptor and performer; she commands the stage with scrumptious irony, deliciously flawless comic timing, and double-entendres galore’.
Of Nancy Carroll, Alun Hood for WhatsOnStage (5★) picked out: ‘Dillie Keane, resembling a dyspeptic Caledonian version of Whistler’s Mother, steals every scene she’s in as bonkers Lady Macphail’. He noted, ‘everybody and everything from the sublime cast to Oliver Fenwick’s glowing lighting, Betty Marini’s elaborate wigs and the joyful dances by Joanna Goodwin, are on the same crazy page.’ Of Nancy Carroll, he said, ‘At her most adorable when she’s behaving most appallingly, it’s virtually impossible to take your eyes off her. She’s a highlight in an evening of rare, unexpected pleasure.’ He noted, ‘there’s a poignancy to The Cabinet Minister opening on the day Maggie Smith’s death was announced, since the production’s leading lady Nancy Carroll has, perhaps more than any other actress of her generation, inherited the dame’s mantle when it comes to high comedy.’
For Helen Hawkins on The Arts Desk (5★), it was the memory of another Dame that Nancy Carroll conjured up: ‘Something in the range and versatility of Carroll’s voice echoes Judi Dench’s. She can be all soft winsome charm, then pivot to an imperious snap with pinpoint-sharp comic timing. Her asides are mercurial; her way with innuendo, hilarious.’ Comparisons with both Dame Maggie and Dame Judi- praise indeed.
Lindsay Johns for the Telegraph (5★) said, ‘This delightfully pacy, elegant and stylish new adaptation by Nancy Carroll (who also stars as Lady Katherine Twombley) positively brims with vitality, full of salacious double entendres and unmistakable contemporary political allusions. With an enchanting set and period-costume design by Janet Bird, the four-act play…is directed with a winning combination of levity, riotous exuberance and occasional moral seriousness by Paul Foster.’
Clive Davis in The Times (4★) agreed. He was particularly pleased with the way Nancy Carroll had updated Pinero’s play: ‘the script is peppered with jokes, leering double entendres and music reminiscent of Isobel McArthur’s irreverent update of Jane Austen in Pride & Prejudice (*sort of)’… ‘This play is like a glass of fizz that hits the spot.’
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (4★) said it was ‘springy, silly and full of satirical sting’. She opined, ‘There is no stage comedy out there quite so funny, and this is as frothily enjoyable as it is pertinent.’
Holly O’Mahoney in The Stage (4★) added to the accolades: ‘Foster’s direction, with Joanna Goodwin’s concise movement coordination, ensures each player is in the optimal position on Janet Bird’s grandly dressed set to squeeze out every possible drop of comedy.’
Only Tom Wicks in Time Out (3★) seemed lukewarm about the show: ‘What stops this production from being truly great, as funny as some of its lines and scenes are, is the lack of that singular and relentless escalation you find in the best of the genre. In spite of Carroll’s changes, there’s too much going on, too many trifling side-plots, in every way. It doesn’t build to that perfect pinnacle of comedic disaster.’