Theatre Reviews Roundup: Look Back In Anger / Roots

Almeida Theatre

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

Theatre Reviews Roundup: A Tupperware of Ashes

Dorfman, National 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, ‘I
mages 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.’

Critics’ Average Rating 3.6★

A Tupperware of Ashes is at the Dorfman in the National Theatre until 16 November 2024. Buy tickets direct from the theatre.

If you’ve seen A Tupperware of Ashes at the National Theatre, please add your review and rating below

Theatre Reviews Roundup: The Cabinet Minister

Menier Chocolate Factory

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.’

Critics’ Average Rating 4.4★

The Cabinet Minister is at the Menier Chocolate Factory to 16 November 2024. Click here to buy tickets direct from the theatre.

If you’ve seen The Cabinet Minister at the Menier, please add your review and rating below

Reviews Roundup: Giant

Jerwood Theatre Downstairs – Royal Court Theatre

Actor John Lithgow sits reading the Literary Review
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

 

 

 

Theatre Reviews Roundup: A Night With Janis Joplin

Peacock Theatre, Sadlers Wells

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’.

Critics’ Average Rating 3.3

A Night With Janis Joplin can be seen at the Peacock Theatre until 28 September 2024. Click here to buy tickets direct from the theatre  

If you’ve seen A Night With Janis Joplin at the Peacock Theatre, please add your review and rating below

Theatre Reviews Roundup- Death of England: Closing Time

@sohoplace

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’.

Critics’ Average Rating 3.5

Death of England: Closing Time can be seen at @sohoplace until 28 September 2024. Click here to buy tickets direct from the theatre  

If you’ve seen Death of England: Closing Time at @sohoplace, please add your review and rating below

Antony and Cleopatra

The Globe Theatre

Nadia Nadarajah and John Hollingworth in Antony and Cleopatra at The Globe. Photo: Ellie Kurttz

In the Globe’s new bi-lingual production of Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the Egyptians speak in British Sign Language, while the Romans speak in English. Surtitles are provided for both languages. A couple of reviews labelled it a success, but many of the critics, while praising the actors, had doubts about whether the mix of languages worked, and some decided it definitely didn’t.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

The Stage‘s Dave Fargnoli (4★) praised the production, ‘Director Blanche McIntyre and associate director Charlotte Arrowsmith – who, like a significant portion of the cast, is deaf – make the transitions between signed and spoken segments almost seamless.’ He liked the leads: ‘As Antony, John Hollingworth makes clear the general’s inner struggle between duty and desire. He is vapid and changeable, yet there is no doubting the intensity of his fascination with Cleopatra. Deaf actor Nadia Nadarajah ably ties together the Egyptian queen’s many contradictions. Sometimes regal, sometimes outrageously extra, she is never less than a commanding presence.’

Lucinda Everett for WhatsOnStage (4★) was positive about the use of BSL: ‘the cast’s signing powerfully brings to life Shakespeare’s imagery.’ ‘The way the languages and captions are used,’ she explained, ‘mixed, withheld, chosen above one another – becomes symbolic of many things…diplomacy…pain…death…love.’ She was concerned that ‘John Hollingworth’s Antony seems a touch too level-headed. Although his commanding physicality and charisma still make him a compelling watch.’ However, ‘Nadarajah’s Cleopatra meanwhile is a pint-sized powerhouse. Mercurial and witty, as all good Cleopatras are, but also charming, fierce, and at times delightfully petulant.’

Kate Wyver reported for The Guardian (3★) ‘Nadia Nadarajah is a regal Cleopatra. Obsessive and quick to temper, she is rash and romantic’, and referring to the surtitles, ‘Far from being distracting, they offer a strong case for such visual aids becoming a permanent fixture in the theatre.’

Other critics had more reservations and some were downright hostile.

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (3★) was both impressed: ‘To have brought something so bold and complex to the stage at all is a technical triumph for director Blanche McIntyre. And disappointed: ‘Her production captures granular relationships but misses the big picture.’ ‘The whole thing,’ he declared, ‘is a mishmash of the thrillingly radical and the ridiculous.’

Julia Rank for LondonTheatre (3★ ) noted, ‘the production is most effective in building the relationship between Cleopatra and her ladies-in-waiting’. Despite acknowledging that the use of BSL sent out a ‘powerful contemporary message’, she said she found it ‘something of an endurance test’.

Sarah Hemming of the Financial Times (3★) pointed out, ‘This is a knotty, wordy play, brimming with great poetry. That makes for a great deal of intricate text, quite long to sign, and some passages, such as the countryman’s gag-riddled speech near the end, fell flat. Unless you know the play by heart, you find yourself reading the surtitles a lot, at the expense of experiencing the performances fully.’

Time Out‘s Andrjez Lukowski (3★) found it ‘fun’ and thought ‘Nadarajah is excellent: she plays Cleopatra with her whole body, and her heady physicality and total sense of living in the moment sets the whole stage alight.’ However he summed up, ‘It’s a spirited and breezy take on Shakespeare’s oft-dense tragedy that I’d say doesn’t quite work.’ He explained, ‘the production’s switching between languages has a tendency to disorientingly change the energy of the show’.

Debbie Gilpin for BroadwayWorld (3★) also didn’t think the mixing of two languages worked and she too found it an ‘endurance test’: ‘Unless you fit in the Venn diagram of hearing person and BSL fluent, if you want to know what’s going on you need to spend at least half of the play reading big chunks of text – and the whole thing with Shakespeare is that it has a far greater effect on you if you get the words direct from the actor. This is why teachers bring students to the theatre, rather than just making them read the script.’

The Telegraph‘s Claire Allfree (3★) agreed somewhat: ‘Blanche McIntyre’s admirably well intentioned production struggles to achieve lift off. Surtitles are a necessary irritant in theatre, regardless of what language is being translated; here, they end up badly marginalising individual performances.’ She blamed its failure primarily on ‘a production that, simply put, lacks ideas.’

Fiona Mountford at i-news (2★) was more blunt, ‘Unfortunately, the finished product is dismal, nigh-on incomprehensible and with almost no depth of characterisation.’ Referring to the surtitles, she observed, ‘Essentially, the evening entails a speed-read of this towering tragedy and that is a tough ask even of those intimately familiar with its shifting allegiances. Shakespeare without the aid of spoken tone and inflection is a considerable challenge.’

Clive Davis in The Times (1★) was even less impressed by what he called ‘Blanche McIntyre’s woefully unfocused bilingual production’. ‘Much of the time…the drama is played out like a clumsy, leering sitcom,’ he said. ‘Nor is there any sense of electricity between Nadia Nadarajah’s Cleopatra and John Hollingworth’s Mark Antony.’

Critics’ Average Rating 2.9★

Antony and Cleopatra can be seen at the Globe Theatre until 15 September 2024. Click here to buy tickets direct from the theatre

If you’ve seen Antony and Cleopatra at the Globe Theatre, please add your review and rating below

 

The Years

Almeida Theatre

The Years at The Almeida Theatre. Photo credit: Ali Wright

The Years, based on Annie Ernaux’s autobiographical book Les Années, features Findlay, Romola Garai, Gina McKeeAnjli Mohindra and Harmony Rose-Bremner playing the same character at five different stages of her life, as well as the other people they encounter. The play is adapted and directed by Eline Arbo. Sex, like a river, runs through a play which includes much humour and a harrowing abortion scene. The critics were generally impressed by the acting and the way the story was told, but some dissenting reviewers found it didn’t take off.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Holly O’Mahony in The Stage (5★) described it as ‘an exploration of womanhood that is as riveting as it is reflective, passionate yet void of sentimentality, and rebelliously sexual from start to finish. It is simultaneously a personal story, a generational one and universal in its depictions of the female experience.’ She said, ‘It’s a woman in her own words, unfiltered, impassioned and sincere.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (5★) extolled its many virtues: ‘Wit and whimsy sits alongside darkness and you feel the protagonist’s blackest moments keenly but there is sisterliness, too, as other versions of the woman acknowledge the trauma of the moment’ and ‘While this woman’s life is full of compromise, it is in no way a disappointment. Sexual expression and joy become key across the ages and it is joyous in itself to see this enacted so uninhibitedly on stage.’ She concluded, ‘you feel the passage of time, both in this protagonist’s life and your own. It leaves theoretical questions around history, memory and love in the mind, long after its end. There is so much emotional depth, surprise and theatrical virtuosity here that it holds you rapt across the ages. What an accomplishment.’

Isobel Lewis for The Independent (5★) said, ‘a tapestry of history is weaved, constructing the full, extraordinary image of a life that is, in many ways, totally ordinary. The play captures these contradictions, finding laughter in tragedy and devastating detail in mundanity. It moved me in ways theatre often tries to but rarely achieves.’

Fiona Mountford at the i (5★) told how ‘The five performers mesh together mesmerically; they are all Annie, as Annie, like everyone, is a permanent palimpsest of memories. These superlative two hours make us reflect profoundly upon our own position in, and transition through, this procession of photographs, memories and life stages.’

‘I shall remember The Years for many a theatre season to come,’ declared Matt Wolf for TheArtsDesk (5★). He described how ‘We sense her adolescent awakening, sex and sexual desire a leitmotif throughout, and the way in which age confers wisdom and enlightenment alongside a bewilderment at a younger generation whose shared lexicon may not be available to their elders.’

The Observer‘s Susannah Clapp (5★) was impressed that the production ‘gives new life to the uneasy relationship between page and stage, showing that adaptation can be not simply piggybacking but revelation. Arbo’s reimagining…cleaves open an important piece of literature and makes its significance glow.’ About the cast, she said, ‘these actors make everything count.’

‘With minor reservations, I absolutely loved this,’ said Nick Curtis in the Standard (4★). He expanded, ‘Findlay may be less well known outside theatre circles (despite a strong screen career), but her presence is a guarantee of quality. McKee’s blend of nuance and swagger here made me think she should be the next Doctor Who. Garai is commandingly brilliant. Mohindra and Rose-Bremner are bold and charming. A winner.’ His reservation? ‘It’s yet another play where a writer bangs on about writing and showcases their own impeccable cultural taste’.

Time Out‘s Andrjez Lukowski (4★) thought it was ‘a playful couple of hours, fluidly directed by Albo. There are harrowing moments but it’s also full of humour and humorous interplay.’ He said, ‘the performers are charismatic, fierce, playful’, and observed, ‘none of what we’re seeing is really ‘the past’, ‘the future’ or ‘now’; it’s a human life, which includes all these events equally.’

Dominic Maxwell in The Times (4★) wrote, ‘The longer it goes on, the more joyous it feels, even as it looks decay and obsolescence in the face. Other characters are deliberately sketchy. You leave, though, understanding this woman’s place in the world — and by extension your own — in a new way. It’s a real eye-opener.’

Patrick Marmion in the Mail (4★) was complimentary: ‘Between them, the five women create a frank, unsettling and thoughtful performance that might best be described as a game of cherchez la femme.’

Alun Hood for WhatsOnStage (3★) had mixed feelings about it: ‘I found myself torn between being moved by its female driven authenticity and the consistent vision of one woman navigating seismic times, then utterly frustrated by its elliptical nature. It’s certainly not a good play by any traditional standards, but it has a haunting insistence that can’t be written off.’ He described it as ‘a bewildering mixed bag as a piece of theatre, but it’s strangely magnificent. It’s tremendously self-indulgent, sometimes clumsily staged… but it’s also gamely, sometimes stunningly, performed and full of roaring life.’

Dzifa Benson writing for the Telegraph (3★) found ‘(Arbo’s) reverence for her source material hampers its execution on stage; she doesn’t quite manage to slough off its limitations, which prevents the play from becoming a truly adventurous take on Ernaux’s work. In this production, it’s the acting that saves the day.’

Gary Naylor in BroadwayWorld (3★) was blunter, calling the story ‘a middle class life, one insulated from poverty by money and education, one blessed with friends and family and achievement, but also presented as unfulfilled, paralysed by ennui and hobbled by unsatisfactory men,’ but acknowledged that if you put that aside you might find it ‘a moving and thought-provoking two hours’.

Critics’ Average Rating 4.2★

The Years can be seen at the Almeida Theatre until 31 August 2024. This production is sold out but check the theatre’s website for returns.

If you’ve seen The Years at the Almeida Theatre, please add your review and rating below

Theatre Reviews Roundup: The Hot Wings King

Dorfman, National Theatre

The Hot Wing King at the Dorfman Theatre. Photo: Helen Murray

It doesn’t look like Katori Hall‘s Pultizer Prize winning comedy about race, masculinity and homophobia will be winning many awards this side of the Atlantic, if the predominantly three star reviews are anything to go by. The critics like the characters and the comedy in Roy Alexander Weise‘s production, as four black gay men in a Memphis kitchen prepare for a hot wings contest, but they found it overlong and some craved more depth.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

The Observer’s Kate Kellaway (5 ★) found it ‘a heartwarming, refreshing and original show’. Frey Kwa Hawking at WhatsOnStage (4★) found it long ‘But the characters are so likeable, and being in this house with them is so irresistible, that slowness can’t really be resented.’

Andrzej Lukowski’s review in Time Out (3★) made a similar point: ‘Hall’s play is a pleasure, but there are moments where it feels like an endurance test’. A similar thought came to Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (3★): ‘Hall’s flavours may not always mix and the bombastic jauntiness makes the melodramatic moments feel drawn out by contrast, but so what. This is a summer comfort watch.’ Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) felt something similar: ‘Though overlong, this is a tasty, stimulating experience.’

The Times’ Clive Davis was warm rather than hot in his review in The Times (3★) saying it ‘trundles along merrily enough without justifying its ample running time.’ Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) enjoyed the ‘humour, Black joy and relationship drama – in that order.’ Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (3★) found much to appreciate, ‘Weise’s production savours both the playfulness and the emotional truths in the plot, and his cast all give affectionately observed and beautifully rounded performances.’

Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (3★) felt that Hall ‘in the end opts for feelgood emotion’.  Dave Fargnoli for The Stage (3★) said, ‘As charismatic and vividly-drawn as these characters undoubtedly are, Katori Hall’s Pulitzer prize-winning culinary comedy tells an overstretched, overfamiliar story.’ Tom Birchenough for The Arts Desk (3 ★) concluded, ‘there’s richness of writing here, and the sheer enjoyment evident from the ensemble cast carries it resoundingly.’

Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★

The Hot Wings King can be seen at the Dorfman, National Theatre until 14 September 2024. Click here to buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen The Hot Wings King at the Dorfman, please add your review and rating below

Theatre Reviews Roundup: Alma Mater

Almeida Theatre

Justine Mitchell in Alma Mater at the Almeida Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner

Kendall Feaver‘s drama covers the many ramifications of a sexual assault at a top university. Justine Mitchell only replaced Lia Williams in the lead role at the last minute but received excellent reviews. Some critics found the many complications of the plot satisfying, others simply confusing.

[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]

Claire Allfree of the Telegraph (5★) declared, ‘Directed with pincer-like sharpness by Polly Findlay and beautifully performed, Feaver’s drama is one of the best yet to grapple with today’s culture wars’. She said Justine Mitchell brought to the lead role ‘magnificent, acid-tongued, arrogant flamboyance’.

The Financial Times‘ Sarah Hemming (4★) declared, ‘It’s not a perfect play — it is too schematic in places — but it’s a compelling, sharply resonant ethical workout.’ Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) found it ‘utterly absorbing and very powerful’. The characters, she said, ‘are always fully alive in their humanity and their shifting positions.’

Matt Wolf at London Theatre (4★) praised the new lead, ‘Is there a more quietly essential actress these days than Justine Mitchell…who illuminates every production in which she appears’? He liked the director too, ‘(Deborah) Findlay steers it with a cool, keen eye for the heated rhetoric it contains’. He pointed out, ‘Like any good play of this sort, you find yourself nodding in assent to one point of view only to soon be taken by another perspective altogether’, he continued.

What Matt found ‘satisfyingly labyrinthine’, others found confusing. Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (3★) thought, ‘Alma Mater gets a lot right, but also puts too many irons on the fire’. Ryan Gilbey for The Guardian (3★) found ‘so many skeletons tumbling out of closets that the stage resembles a crypt rather than a college.’ Nick Curtis in the Standard (2★) was notably put off: ‘it’s undermined by Feaver’s desire to constantly wrong-foot the audience and cover every base. Think this is about assault? No, it’s about race. No, privilege. No, the power-dynamics of student-teacher relationships. No, the internal fault-lines of feminism.’

Two critics looked rather than loved it. Holly O’Mahony writing for The Stage (3★) felt the play was ‘guilty of intellectualising its subject matter instead of making us feel for it.’ Dominic Maxwell of the Times (3★) gave this advice: ‘You may not surrender entirely to the fiction, but you’ll have plenty to talk about afterwards.’

Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★

Alma Mater is at the Almeida until 20 July 2024. Buy tickets direct from almeida.co.uk

If you’ve seen Alam Mater at the Almeida Theatre, please add your review and rating below

×