Critics divided over The Glorious French Revolution
New Diorama Theatre
The Glorious French Revolution. Photo: Alex Brenner
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
The Cabinet Minister at The Menier Theatre. Photo: Tristram Kenton
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
Nicholas Rowe & Nancy Carroll in The Cabinet Minister. Photo: Tristram Kenton
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
Billy Howle in Look Back In Anger. Photo: Marc Brenner
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
Morfydd Clark in Roots. Photo: Marc Brenner
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
Meera Syal in A Tuppence of Ashes. Photo: Manuel Harlan
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.’
The cabinet Minister at The Menier Theatre. Photo: Tristram Kenton
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.’
John Lithgow in Giant at the Royal Court. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Some of the best reviews this year greeted Giant at the Royal Court. It’s the debut play by long-established director Mark Rosenblatt, directed by theatrical giant Nicholas Hytner. Giant tells the story of what happened when Roald Dahl was exposed as anti-semitic. The critics were unanimous that John Lithgow as Dahl was ‘terrific’. They agreed that the play started well but some thought it lost drive in the second act.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Times’ Clive Davis (5★) described the play as ‘subtle, intelligent and stylishly crafted’. ‘Lithgow is astonishing,’ he said… ‘he gives us a celebrity who is a perplexing mixture of old school gent, jester and bully.’ He spread his praise in all directions: ‘Hytner keeps the direction brisk’. Tim Bano in the Evening Standard (5★) proclaimed: ‘It’s hard to think when the Royal Court last staged a play that felt so dangerous, or one so spectacularly good.’
In Time Out (4★), Andrzej Lukowksi declared, ‘It’s one heck of a debut play – well-made and sturdy, exquisitely tense, and scrupulously fair, less trying to damn Dahl than understand him.’ John Lithgow gave ‘a towering performance … His Dahl is magnetic: frail and malignant, cruel and kind, righteous and monstrous’. Alice Saville in The Independent (4★) praised ‘Nicholas Hytner’s simmering, tense production’ but said the play ‘ultimately lacks tension, because it’s clear from the start that Dahl is deeply but lazily prejudiced, with no intention of changing’.
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) said Lithgow’s ‘terrific performance is a compelling reason to see this play’ but ‘It’s a play that doesn’t quite decide where it stands in that argument about whether you can loathe the man and admire the art’.
Patrick Marmion in the Mail (4★) described how ‘At moments last night Lithgow’s brilliantly, brazenly unapologetic performance reduced the theatre to shocked, breathless silence.’ He found ‘The play goes off the boil after the interval’. The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4★) agreed. She said it had a ‘slowly brilliant first act, stupendously performed by its cast’ but ‘By the second act, his antisemitism is glaring, and the drama seems to not know where to go from here’.
Describing the play for BroadwayWorld (3★), Gary Naylor said, ‘It starts ugly and stays ugly – a tonal issue the play, even under Nicholas Hytner’s direction, never resolves, hobbling its dramatic potential.’ He continued, ‘Dahl’s shocking words – are drawn directly from sources. That does beg the question as to why so little of the plot rings true.’ Julia Rank at LondonTheatre (3★) thought: ‘John Lithgow is terrific’ but ‘The weakest elements are the characterisations of the “help” characters. ’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (3★) concluded ‘Though the writing could be tighter and more sharply focused, Rosenblatt tackles this thorny subject with the right mix of journalistic balance, insight and rightful condemnation.’ Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (3★) thought the play ‘can’t escape the limitations of its fair-minded format’.
Critics’ Average Rating 3.8★
Giant can be seen at the Royal Court Theatre until 16 November 2024. The run is sold out but watch out for returns or extra performances, or hope for a West End transfer.
If you’ve seen Giant at the Royal Court, please add your review and rating below
Mary Bridget Davies in A Night With Janis Joplin. Photo: Danny Kaan
For music fans of a certain age, the legendary Janis Joplin, who died far too young, holds a special place. They should enjoy A Night With Janis Joplin which most critics heralded as an excellent (albeit slightly too loud) concert, thanks to an ‘uncanny’ performance from Mary Bridget Davies. However, the telling of her life story was criticised by many as being too thin and too vanilla. (Sharon Sexton appears instead of Ms Davies at selected performances.)
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Charlotte Vickers at WhatsOnStage (4★) was not too concerned that there was ‘very little plot to keep the narrative going’, she was swept along by ‘the power of the performances, and the dedication of the production to making the night with Janis Joplin real.’
Adam Bloodworth for CityAM (4★) felt ‘A Night with Janis Joplin is best when it feels like a proper gig.’ He protested ‘It’s too loud’ but ‘Otherwise, this is a commendably raw ode to a legend.’
Will Hodgkinson reviewing for The Times (3★) found ‘Mary Bridget Davies’s embodiment of all things Janis for this cabaret-style show was uncanny’, but thought it an ‘entertaining but slight show in which such a wild spirit as Joplin proves an ill fit for the clean-cut constraints of the jukebox musical format.’
Franco Milazzo from BroadwayWorld (3★) liked Mary Bridget Davies’ performance but was unimpressed by the show: ‘at times, it feels that this show was created not to tour theatres than to provide cruise ship diners with some aural entertainment.’
Helen Hawkins at TheArtsDesk (3★) commented, ‘As a concert, it’s top-notch; as a theatrical piece about its subject, it could do with a stronger structure and a less forgiving spotlight’. She too praised the star: ‘It’s when Davies unleashes her phenomenal voice that the show really lives up to expectations.’
Matt Wolf for LondonTheatre (3★) said, ‘Davies is a wonder, even if the woman she is playing remains largely a cipher right through to the end.’
Paul Vale in The Stage (3★) described the show as ‘less a fully fledged musical than an immaculately performed tribute act’.
It may be fortunate for the rating, that Nick Curtis’ review in The Standard is not rated. He described the show as ‘a star performance in a shoddy vehicle’ and concluded ‘the overall effect is hollow’.
Death of England: Closing Time. Photo: Helen Murray
Closing Time is the final part of the Death of England trilogy which began with Michael and then Delroy. It features Sharon Duncan-Brewster and Erin Doherty as Delroy’s black mother and white girlfriend respectively in an emotional but also funny drama that explores race in Britain today. Currently, all three are performing at @sohoplace and, as The Telegraph said, the trilogy together ‘makes for the most layered and satisfyingly complete theatrical experience.’ But how well does Closing Time stand alone?
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Dzifa Benson for the Telegraph (5★) called it ‘a ferocious way to bring the cycle to a close’ and thought ‘what an astounding, kinetic force the pairing of Sharon Duncan-Brewster and Erin Doherty proves to be’.
BroadwayWorld’s Alexander Cohen (4★) proclaimed, ‘The political trumpets ring loud, but the humanity beneath it echoes louder.’ The actors ‘Doherty and Duncan-Brewster conjure combustible humour,’ he said.
Sam Marlowe for The Stage (3★) gave such a good review, it is hard to understand why she didn’t award more stars. She did say the play is ‘at times over-deliberate and unsubtle’ but she praised the acting to the hilt. She explained that the play ‘switches between fervid, direct-address confessionals and confrontational dialogue. Such is the scorching talent of Sharon Duncan-Brewster and Erin Doherty that the solo set pieces are riveting – but the writing reaches its most potent intensity when they interact. The acting is flawless’.
By contrast, Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) had so little to say that was complimentary, it’s a wonder she gave even 3 stars: ‘its emotional power is drowned out by exaggerated and flattening comedy, the women shouting and stomping so their hostility verges on farce…for too long the dialogue wanders aimlessly…the tone is too screamy for the tension to build, and some deliveries are so fast that lines are swallowed’.
Alun Hood at WhatsOnStage (3★) was thankful for ‘the opportunity to watch a pair of actresses of this calibre firing on all cylinders’. However, Duncan-Brewster and Doherty are probably better than what they’ve been given to work with here. The former is fiery, humane and affecting, while the latter finds a bruised, watchful vulnerability beneath all of Carly’s defensive bite. Neither actor hits a false note’. He elaborated his opinion of the play, ‘Closing Time is a captivating, troubling slice of modern British life that feels unsettlingly accurate, if never revelatory.’
Suzy Feay writing for the Financial Times (3★) was even harsher on the writing: ‘There are two skilled, high-octane performances to enjoy here, but with its talk, talk, talk and lack of character development or incident, this doesn’t feel like a play’.
