The story of a Jewish family trying to reconcile tradition and the modern world and their settlement being driven out of Russia at the turn of the 20th century has become one of the most successful musicals of all time. The music by Jerry Bock and Joseph Stein and book by Sheldon Harnick appeal to all nationalities through the last sixty years. Inevitably the shadow of past productions, particularly those involving the great Topol as Tevye, hangs over any new one. The 5 and 4 star reviews by the London theatre critics were united in saying that Jordan Fein‘s open air interpretation is a triumphant reinvention that looks both forward and backward. Tom Scutt‘s set was seen as a winner in itself, silencing any jokes about Fiddler On The Roof being staged at the only large London theatre without a roof. Adam Dannheiser was widely praised for his toned down version of Tevye. Indeed, the whole cast including the actual fiddler received plaudits.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Calling the show ‘Absolutely terrific’, Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (5★) wrote, ‘The quality of Jordan Fein’s wonderful, emotional production is that it perfectly holds the balance of Fiddler on the Roof, neither tilting towards saccharine nor bitterness, towards schmaltz or politics.’ She was equally impressed by the cast: ‘At the heart of all this is the quiet underplaying and resonant voice of Dannheisser, who turns Tevye not into a Topol-style caricature but into a wry, ironic man, buffeted by events he cannot control, yet always finding it possible to assert love. He is matched by Laura Pulver’s Golde, full of emotion she doesn’t often express, but finding tenderness in gesture and stillness.’
Marianka Swain for The Telegraph (5★) called it ‘a masterclass in balancing innovation with tradition.’ She said, ‘in a stripped-back but exquisitely crafted production, Fein gets to the very soul of the work.’ She noted, ‘Fein’s staging is also beautifully attuned to the park’s natural magic. The shiver-inducing coup de théâtre is the sun actually setting during the bittersweet song Sunrise, Sunset. The bleaker second half then takes place in the dark of night.’
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (5★) noted, ‘its painful progression can suggest any group of people struggling with internal change, under threat from authorities, bullied into movement. It’s hard to imagine a production that would do so more powerfully than Jordan Fein’s. His is also the best use of the Open Air theatre I have seen for ages.’ Among the many aspects of the production liked by Mark Lawson in The Guardian (5★) were the way ‘Fein foregrounds comedy, setting the piece in the tradition of deflective Jewish humour’, and ‘Adam Dannheisser perfectly times the one-liners … but also conveys the character’s deep faith’.
David Benedict for The Stage (5★) was impressed by ‘Fein’s arrestingly intelligent second-act directorial decisions (which) deepen and darken the action and make the show richer and stronger than any recent London revivals.’ Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (5★) called it ‘Charming, heart-rending, and utterly gorgeous’.
Gary Naylor on TheArtsDesk (5★) handed out plaudits to the star: ‘Adam Dannheiser…brings charisma to burn to the role’; to the director: ‘maintains a breakneck pace (I cannot recall time passing so swiftly in the stalls) and uses the unique qualities of his stage beautifully’; and to everyone involved.
Tim Bano for Time Out (4★) called it ‘a production about reinventing a classic musical through small gestures and symbols, rather than radical high concepts’. He praised ‘using the sun almost like a design element. It’s all gorgeous evening sunshine for the earlier, happier parts of the story, but the haunting wedding tune ‘Sunrise, Sunset’ is designed to kick in just as the light fades, and then the bleaker second half takes place under black skies.’
Suzy Feay for The Financial Times (4★) wrote ‘Adam Dannheisser brings huge warmth but dials down the bombast as this timid man in a big man’s body’.
Neil Fisher writing for The Times (4★) was not entirely convinced by the star: ‘The paterfamilias of this story can be stoic, wry, fierce, anguished, uproarious, pious. The appealing Adam Dannheisser goes for something between all these things — not entirely convincingly.‘ But he had no doubt about the production: ‘Consider Jerry Bock, Joseph Stein and Sheldon Harnick’s masterpiece revved up rather than revamped. Underneath a mighty canopy of wheat — a dramatic set by Tom Scutt that shows us both the deep roots of this Jewish community and its fragility — Fein’s production is a fast-paced, ensemble-driven night.’ He pointed out, ‘perhaps Fein’s greatest work is to balance the joy with the pain’.
Aliya Al-Hassan at LondonTheatre (4★) said ‘(Fein) manages to bolster all the joy, humour and sense of community, then brings us back down to earth as the insidious creep of antisemitism destroys the integral fabric of this society. ‘The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (4★) called it, ‘a liberating, exuberant and humane production where the great songs – Tradition; If I Were a Rich Man; Sunrise, Sunset – touch you to the core. It also feels sadly contemporary without even trying.’ Fiona Mountford for i-news (4★) called it ‘a musical triumph’.
The Express‘s Stefan Kyriazis (4★) liked so much about the show: For starters, he loved the set: ‘I felt like I was dreaming.’ He observed, ‘The ensemble are strong, the musicians (tucked at the back of the set and costumed like villagers) wonderful and the dancers are a joy.’ As for the production: ‘Set against Tom Scutt’s magnificent stage and costume designs, director Jordan Fein beautifully treads the tightrope of respecting and celebrating the 1964 show while sensitively adding some modern nuances’. The ending, he reported, ‘is pure, powerful theatre’. His only reservation seemed to be about the star: ‘Adam Dannheisser has a rich singing voice and brings warmth and easy wit to Tevye’s innate charm. I just didn’t quite feel the sense of a weary towering figure struggling to keep himself and his family afloat.’
Jane Prinsley at The Jewish Chronicle (4★) was not alone in thinking ‘this production is Golde’s, with Olivier-award-winning Lara Pulver’s sharp and knowing performance’. She was impressed that ‘Innovations never distract from the narrative, and the play’s relevance today speaks to its enduring power.’
Critics’ Average Rating 4.4★
Value rating 66 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Thomas Treadwell and Cherry Jones in The Grapes of Wrath.
John Steinbeck’s 1930s novel The Grapes of Wrath tells of a family’s trek across America lookibg for a better life it’s a grim story and this new production is faithful to it The critics were divided on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. Many praised xx’s grinding production but others were bored. Few had a good work for the old fashioned 1988 adaptation The cast were universally praised with US star Cherry Jones more than justifying her plane ticket.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Accepting ‘there is little joy here’, JN Benjamin for the Financial Times (4★) found solace in the acting: ‘(Cherry) Jones’s tender performance is like a warm embrace‘ and ‘Harry Treadaway is quietly fierce’. Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (4★) also centred on the actors: ‘Although the production feels perhaps overly reverent towards the source material, these powerful, heartfelt performances remain absorbing, channelling the desperation, hope and fury of Steinbeck’s story.’
Fiona Mountford for i-news (4★) said, ‘Carrie Cracknell’s sweeping and epic production of stylishly sculpted ensemble work…makes us uncomfortably, insistently aware of the modern-day parallels’. Julia Rank at LondonTheatre (4★) spoke of ‘a brilliantly striking production’ coupled with ‘a superb ensemble’. Claire Allfree in the Telegraph talked about a ‘stealthily exacting production’.
Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) worried ‘the melodramatic scenarios and the stylised dialogue threaten to tip over into parody’. Fortunately it was saved by ‘the elegance of Cracknell’s direction and Alex Eales’ set’. He found it ‘lacking in drama’ but said the cast ‘remain compelling to watch’. The Independent’s Alice Saville (3★) declared, ‘It’s brutal, powerful stuff. But somehow this production still doesn’t have the aesthetic or thematic boldness to link together its two halves’.
Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★) said, ‘It’s not awful or anything, but its reverence for Steinbeck’s text – and determination to retain most of his characters and much of his dialogue – leaves it feeling like a radio play’. He added helpfully, ‘Great story, great cast, great accents; but it’s not Cracknell’s most imaginative hour by a long shot – a fresh adaptation might have made all the difference.’
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (3★) found it lacking in boldness. ‘Slow-paced and with a lack of incident in the first half, it feels more like a stately procession than a moving, breathing piece of theatre,’ she said. Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (3★) called it ‘so, so slow and stagnant’
Alun Hood for WhatsOnStage (3★) summed up: ‘For all the astonishing and sometimes beautiful stage pictures, the understated brilliance of Jones’s performance, and the haunting musicality, I’m not convinced that this isn’t a story that is better told on page or screen.’
The Times’ Dominic Maxwell (2★) made his feelings clear: ‘What a miserable evening!’ Susannah Clapp in The Observer (2★) was equally scathing: ‘it is hard to feel the need for this theatrical version’.
Critics’ Average Rating 3.2★
Value rating 36 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Imelda Staunton and the cast of Hello, Dolly! Photo: Manuel Harlan
It’s a legendary show from the Golden Age of Musicals. It’s one of the most successful shows of all time in terms of awards and performances. Yet (whisper it) Hello, Dolly! isn’t very good. Michael Stewart‘s book comprises a ludicrous plot and is saved only by the amusing machinations of its main character. Jerry Herman contributed hardly any memorable songs except the title number and Dolly’s other great song Before The Parade Passes By. Worse, the score also features the execrable It Only Takes A Moment.
Its greatness lies in two redeeming features: the opportunity to put on magnificent chorus numbers, like Put On Your Sunday Clothes (which I admit has a nice hook) and the title number; and providing a vehicle for a female musical star to shine. Fortunately, if a production can get those right, that’s all it needs. And this new production, directed by Dominic Cooke who was responsible for the National Theatre’s legendary Follies, does get it right.
For a start, it is a sumptuous production in the great tradition of the Golden Age. The large London Palladium stage is not only packed with people, it is filled with Rae Smith‘s set and costumes that conjure up the glamour of the end of the nineteenth century. Among its delights are a conveyor that stretches the width of the stage and creates even more movement, a full-size train that is jaw-dropping in its execution, and an enormous staircase to accommodate the arrival of Dolly for her big number.
The choreography was originally by Gower Champion, who wowed Broadway and gets a credit to this day. Bill Deamer is named as choreographer of this production, and his chorus numbers are magnificent in their scale, co-ordination and vitality. There are something like three dozen members of the company but, in case you’re wondering, there’s not much opportunity for individual brilliance on the dance floor.
Imelda Staunton in Hello, Dolly! Photo: Manuel Harlan
Then there’s the star. Carol Channing first played Dolly, the matchmaker and all-round entrepreneur, to massive acclaim. Since then, many top musical stars have added it to their cv, including Ethel Merman, Mary Martin, Pearl Bailey, Bernadette Peters and of course Barbra Streisand in the film version. Can any have bettered Imelda Staunton? I don’t see how. She has a great voice that hits the back of the circle when it needs to, but also an ability to plumb a depth of pathos you didn’t even realise was there in a potboiler song like Before The Parade Passes By. Plus she injects the whole proceedings with a level of energy that could single-handedly power the government’s new Great British Energy company.
Fans of her film and television work would probably have no idea of her ability as a singer, but she has played the Baker’s Wife in Into The Woods, Miss Adelaide in Guys And Dolls, Mrs Lovett in Sweeney Todd, Sally in Follies, Gypsy Rose in Gypsy, and now Dolly Levi. All triumphantly. Only Mame remains before she has a full house of the great musical roles for mature women.
She is supported by a strong cast but the characters don’t give them much to get their teeth into. In fact, the term ‘character’ may qualify as misinformation. Andy Nyman is an excellent actor but as Dolly’s prospective husband, the rich but miserable Horace Vandergelder, he has little to do except be irascible while his suitor draws him into her web. The same goes for Jenna Russell as Irene Molloy, Dolly’s friend who has her own romantic ambitions: she does what she does very well but she hasn’t much to do. Irene’s romantic interest Cornelius Hackl is a traditional (for which read ‘cliché’) ‘juvenile lead’, with little to do except look pretty and behave cheekily. Harry Hepple handles the role well. Their friends Minnie Fay and Barnaby Tucker are supposed to be the comical parts but remain resolutely unfunny despite the Olympian efforts of Emily Lane and Tyrone Huntley.
With due respect to all of company and creative team, the evening belongs to Imelda Staunton.
Theatre de Complicite’s Mnemonic at the National Theatre. Photo: Johan Persson
Even now, as I reconstruct my memory of Complicité‘s Mnemonic in order to write this review, it has changed from my instant reaction after the show. Which is only right. This is a play about how memory works, the way it is constantly revised by new experiences, how it is vital for imagining the future.
But it’s more than a trip down Memory Lane: it’s a trip across Europe and a journey 5000 years into the past. It becomes a search for origins, and shows how our past, both personal and shared, informs where we are now and where we might go.
When I came out of the Olivier auditorium at the National Theatre, I was feeling I’d seen a familiar but nevertheless impressive use of mime to tell interesting but fairly simple stories. Now, I feel I saw something hugely important. Why the revision? Partly it’s because I’ve thought about it, but also it’s because the ongoing riots in Britain, which seem to be triggered by a desire to defend a vision of the past against change blamed on immigrants, have reminded me how Mnemonic is not an academic exercise but an examination through theatre of a contemporary issue that will affect all our futures.
I’m sure you know but, just in case, a mnemonic is any device or trick we use to jog our memory, from tying a knot in your handkerchief to using the first letters of words in a phrase to remind you of a sequence. For example: Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain for the colours of the rainbow. This production of Mnemonic itself could be a mnemonic for those who saw the original and are taken back 25 years to what will now be a memory revised by the intervening years and this reimagined version.
In the intervening years, Complicité‘s techniques have come to seem less experimental, some are even commonplace. Few West End musicals are as naturalistic as they once were: they expose how the show is constructed, they use mime. But the book usually takes precedence. Very few productions give equal weight, as Complicité do, to every aspect: sound, light, set, props and the actors’ bodies in what you might call ‘total theatre’ to tell their stories, with text simply the starting point.
We start with a bare stage and a chair. In the style of a rambling comic, a man gives an introduction to the physiology of memory: how each new memory draws on and changes our existing memories (thanks to the hippocampus since you ask). We are invited to put on an eye mask and remember our past, then imagine being a child with our parents and their parents and their parents’ parents, going back through 5000 years at which point everyone on the planet is one of our ancestors which relates neatly, too neatly perhaps, to a recounting of the real life discovery of a human body frozen in the Alps for 5000 years, the so called Ice Man.
Parallel to this is the story of Omar whose girlfriend Alice has left him abruptly to search across Europe for her long-lost father. Cue many fragmentary adventures on a journey which she remembers and recounts, possibly unreliably. In a bravura performance by Eileen Walsh gives a bravura performance as Alice, increasingly frantic and riven with grief, ploughs her way through the diaspora of Jews, Greeks, Arabs and more who have spread across the world to escape danger or find a better life. It seems we are all migrants or the descendants of migrants, and may yet migrate ourselves.
The many possibilities of her ancestry are laid on thickly but show the futility of latching onto one past when you have an almost infinite number, all of which inform your present and, most importantly, your future. The determination to cover so much ground in Alice’s story makes it hard to get involved but it is told with the verve that Complicité are famous for. In particular, there is a moment when her money is stolen, and the memory of someone bumping into her is repeated and repeated, with variations, until finally we see exactly how she was robbed.
A stand out performance from Khalid Abdalla
The tale of the 5000 year old Ice Man was also, on the surface at least, an origins story rather that one obviously about memory. In the gradual development of the archeologists’ understanding of who he was and how he died, we do see an analogy of how memory works. In a wonderfully satirical moment, the scientists are shown sitting in a row at a conference, each imposing their own beliefs onto their interpretation of the scanty evidence that has been uncovered- so the Ice Man is said to have been a shaman, a trader, a hunter and so on. More than that- and it’s rare that Complicité works only on one level- there is the implication that as our common ancestor, he is all the things we are.
At a time when politicians, populists and owners of social media use fear and division to their own ends, it is a good moment to speak up for our common humanity and the way all history flows into each of us and out again.
Mnemonic at the National Theatre. Photo: Johan Persson
But it would be pure didactics without Complicité‘s outstanding way of creating theatre to convey the stories. A bed, a table, a couple of chairs are all that was needed most of the time in Michael Levine‘s spare set. Dialogue is echoed, movements repeated, actors flow around the stage like migrants might flow around the world. A seemingly simple chair transforms into a puppet that takes the last steps of the Ice Man before he died.
At the climax of the evening, the various characters follow one another faster and faster round the stage, as if in a vortex, in which their individuality becomes blurred.
You can imagine this is no walk in the park for the actors. Nearly all are required to take on multiple roles, but also to mime and move with precise choreography. Tim McMullan is tremendous as a senior archeologist full of wonder, humour and enthusiasm. Richard Katz, Laurence Laufenberg, Kostas Philippoglou and Sarah Slimani are all superb.
But the stand out performance comes from Khalid Abdalla, whom you might recognise as Dodi Al Fayed in the TV series The Crown. He plays both Omar, falling apart as he misses Alice, and the Ice Man, picked apart by archeologists. In both roles, he spends much of his time naked, because that’s how the corpse was discovered, and because that’s how Alice likes to see Omar. In both cases, nakedness seems to become a symbol of humanity stripped of all defences and pretences. Without clothing, they are not part of a tribe or a profession or any group, they are Everyone, at either end of 5000 years. Just as the Ice Man is at the mercy of scientists, journalists and nationalists, so Omar’s future is subject to Alice’s wishes.
All of which may seem a long way from memory, or indeed a mnemonic, but what Complicite‘s artistic director Simon McBurney has pulled together, in collaboration with the company, is a piece of pure theatre- in the sense that it would not work as film or any other art form- that evokes how memory of the past is reformed in the present and gives us the possibility of moving forward together. What better way than through the shared experience of theatre to feel our common humanity? My memory says that, despite its weak stories, I witnessed something very special.
Mnemonic can be seen at the National Theatre until 10 August 2024.
Thomas Coombes in Death Of England: Michael. Photo: Helen Murray
The original Death Of England play by Clint Dyer and Roy Williams opened at the National Theatre in early 2020. It was followed later in the year by Death Of England: Delroy (the original being renamed Death Of England: Michael). A third play Death Of England: Closing Time came to the National in September 2023. Now all three plays are getting a run at Sohoplace. The first two, slightly updated, have opened, with Closing Time opening on 22 August. Each can be enjoyed separately or in any order. Michael and Delroy are best friends, one white, one black. Their monologues describe their experiences of class, race and masculinity. Thomas Coombes plays Michael, Paapa Essiedu is Delroy. The director is Clint Dyer. Some critics reviewed them separately, some together.
Paapa Essiedu in Death of England: Delroy. Photo: Helen Murray
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Death of England
Dzifa Benson in the Telegraph (4★) concluded ‘This blistering cycle of plays is a compelling case for why England needs fresh ideas. The overarching message seems to be: England is dead, God save England.’ She was impressed by ‘Coombes’ and Essiedu’s astonishing physicality and bravura performances portraying multiple characters through switching accents and mannerisms with convincing ease.’ For Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre (4★) ‘Thomas Coombes (Baby Reindeer) gives a startling performance as a confused young man, simultaneously rejecting and perpetuating his father’s legacy of prejudice’ and ‘Essiedu’s performance is incendiary’.
Anya Ryan for Time Out (4★) noted, ‘At its best, the script feels like poetry. Words are sung out in repetition, phrases are echoed as memories in future scenes.’ He felt that Delroy was ‘the stronger and fuller of the two plays…It is a vigorous, loud and exhilarating act from Essiedu’.
Suzy Feay for the Financial Times (3★) referred to ‘the performers’ charisma, stagecraft and mastery of the space’ but preferred Michael to Delroy. She said of Essiedy in the latter: ‘his speeches seem slangy, improvised, sometimes hard to catch; overall, the piece has much less structure.’ Whereas Michael, ‘with its less sympathetic protagonist, is for that reason the more interesting piece and the tougher task for the actor.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (3★) said, ‘The writing crackles with contemporary life, while Dyer’s staging artfully uses every inch of the playing area.‘ Thomas Coombes gives, he said, ‘an extraordinary display of energy, presence and outsized wit’. Paapa Essiedu the speed of his wit and the variety of the voices he uses in this garrulous role — Delroy, like Michael, is a funny guy — are phenomenal’.
Like some other critics, Fiona Mountford at the i (3★) had reservations about the writing. She said, ‘while the staging and performances are near faultless, the writing is more of a challenge, and not always in a positive way. For starters, the 100-minute running time of each piece is far too long, greatly outstaying its potency’.
BroadwayWorld‘s Alexander Cohen (3★) decided Thomas Coombes’ ‘unmodulated firing-on-all-cylinders-attack-from-all-sides method results in a scorched earth rather than a clinical strike and clean kill’. Sam Marlowe of The Stage (3★) described ‘raw, unstinting performances from Thomas Coombes and Paapa Essiedu’. She talked of ‘Essiedu’s charisma sets the tinderbox account ablaze; it’s a phenomenal turn, vivid, witty, agonising and exhilarating.’
Death of England: Michael
Theo Bosanquet for WhatsOnStage (4★) said, ‘Watching Michael unravel in the close confines of @sohoplace is a visceral experience; it’s like being strapped to a rocket powered by fury.’ Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) praised ‘an energetic central performance’ but said, ‘the tortured undertow of filial inadequacy, split loyalties between his father and his friend, Delroy, and jittery mournfulness, are not felt sharply.’ BroadwayWorld‘s Alexander Cohen (3★) thought ‘Roy Williams’s brilliance as a writer lies in the way he delicately coils intimacy into Michael’s soul’ but he decided Thomas Coombes’ ‘unmodulated firing-on-all-cylinders-attack-from-all-sides method results in a scorched earth rather than a clinical strike and clean kill’.
Death of England: Delroy
BroadwayWorld‘s Alexander Cohen (5★) wrote, ‘Essiedu really is a force of nature. Totally at ease, working the audience like a stand-up comic, then, with fox-like agility, backstabbing them with guttural force and working up to a symphonic crescendo.’
The Guardian (4★) said Paapa Essiedu’s ‘must-see’ performance ‘elevates this play into its own, one-man coup de theatre. Essiedu has astonishing poise, bringing tragic depth and integrity to Delroy but lilting joy and comedy, too. His enraged injustice, when it comes, is immense and you feel it burn. The sentimentality, when that comes, is transformed into a tenderness which brings tears to your eyes.’ Theo Bosanquet for WhatsOnStage (4★) declared, ‘Essiedu gives nothing short of a tour de force performance. He demands our focus and our judgment, literally turning us into his jury.’
Fangirls at the Lyric Hammersmith. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Fangirls is a musical by Yve Blake that originated in Australia. It concentrates on the experience of a 14 year old female fan of a boy band. It seemed those critics who best remembered what it was like to be a young fan loved it the most but all of them quite liked it. The original Australian director Paige Rattray is in charge of its UK premiere.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
‘For two hours and 30 minutes, you feel like a teenager again,’ enthused Olivia Rook for LondonTheatre (5★), praising it as ‘a celebration of young female expression’. Jessie Thompson at The Independent (5★) was another reviewer who revisited her teenage years: ‘although Blake succinctly targets the cynical capitalist exploitation of teenage girls, this celebration of vulnerability, bravery and self-acceptance will win you over for something more. Fangirls doesn’t just evoke the untamed inner life of being a teen, it reclaims it – making you wistful for when you felt things so deeply that they actually hurt.’
Charlotte Vickers at WhatsOnStage (5★) said, ‘Rattray’s direction … is impeccable, moving us between humour and the deadly serious on a knife edge’ and added, ‘All of the songs are really strong’. Katie Kirkpatrick at BroadwayWorld (5★) was a fan: ‘Fangirls has everything that you could want from modern musical theatre: it’s a visual spectacle, full of talented performers, catchy songs, impressive dance numbers, and an exciting story. It’s the definition of a feel-good night out at the theatre.’
Holly O’Mahony for The Stage (4★) found ‘Blake delves into the intense, insecure minds of young female fans, and ultimately serves them justice.’ Calling it ‘fantastic’, Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (4★) noted that ‘at its core is a sympathy for the disorientation and despair that can cloud teenage years, sometimes seriously.’ She was impressed by a cast ‘peppered with talent’. Isobel Lewis reviewing for the i (4★) called it ‘an impressive, bombastic production’.
Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (3★) told us not to worry about the ‘completely barmy plot’ because ‘what matters here is the punchy hip-hop routines’. She added, ‘Paige Rattray’s neon-lit production,(is) undeniably superbly executed’. The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (3★) concluded, ‘the musical goes from what might have been a penetrating exploration of young femininity to an absurdist comedy caper which never quite captures the quietly tortured ache of that first crush.’
The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (3★) said, ‘The dancing is dynamic, the singing largely good, the design a pulsating mix of music-video graphics and deranged close ups projected onto three curved screens. But the veil of kookiness covering a thin, derivative plot really bugged me.’ Clive Davis in The Times (3★) praised ‘the exceptional quality of the performances‘
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.’
Caissie Levy in Next To Normal. Photo: Marc Brenner
A suburban American family cope with a wife/mother with bipolar disorder in Tom Kitt and Brian Yorkey’s musical Next To Normal. It is becoming almost commonplace for new musicals to take on heavy subject matter and the critics have been complimentary to this one for the way it uses music to convey the woman’s state of mind. The British production started at the Donmar Warehouse and has now transferred to the West End. Some of the critics had more reservations than others about the musical but it was generally agreed that Caissie Levy was exceptionally good in the lead role. Michael Longhurst directs.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Tom Wicker for Time Out (4★) said, ‘Where this show unambiguously succeeds is in its sympathetic but clear-sighted depiction of a family buckling under buried grief and an impossible present…As Kitt’s attention-grabbing score and Yorkey’s lyrics wheel through differing genres, we get an aural sense of the characters’ messy kaleidoscope of feelings.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4★) called it a ‘harrowing, tough-minded musical,’ saying it ‘rips out your heart and hands it back to you, bruised but overflowing.’ The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (4★) declared it was ‘Wonderfully sung and staged’.
Olivia Rook for London Theatre (4★) said, ‘The ‘musical soars in the hands of such an accomplished and connected cast.’ Abbie Grundy reviewing for Broadway World (4★) described it as ‘a delicate yet gut-punching exploration of mental health and grief’. He said, ‘The cast is as strong vocally as they are within their acting, giving justice to the punchy score.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (3★) found it a paradoxical show. He described it as ‘simultaneously sophisticated and plodding‘ and said he ‘found this tale of breakdown and potential recovery went from utterly persuasive to oddly shallow.’
Other reviewers caught it at the Donmar:
Marianka Swain in an earlier review for LondonTheatre (4★) said it ‘really puts you through the wringer in its raw depiction of mental illness and family disconnection. But this courageous and deeply moving piece provides ecstasy as well as agony, light as well as darkness.’ Suzi Feay writing for the Financial Times (4★) said it ‘stirringly depicts a woman’s steeply deteriorating condition and the havoc it wreaks on her family’.
Emma John writing for The Guardian (3★) found the main character Diana was ‘compellingly portrayed by Caissie Levy’. Her main reservation was that ‘the second half still feels overlong, as songs crash into each other without any concomitant plot development’.
Average critics’ rating 3.8★ Value Rating 44 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Imelda Staunton in Hello, Dolly! Photo: Manuel Harlan
Jerry Herman‘s 1964 musical about a matchmaker in late 19th century New York is given a lavish revival by Dominic Cooke, with an all-conquering Imelda Staunton in the title role. The critics lavished praise on every aspect of the production but saved the highest marks for Ms Staunton.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Fiona Mountford in the i (5★) said, ‘The Palladium stage is cavernous, but the diminutive Staunton commands it utterly’. She declared, ‘It is delightful to be able to say that right here is a landmark theatrical production that will be talked about for years to come.’ Aliya Al-Hassan at Broadway World (5★) echoed the thought, ‘An immaculate Staunton is the heart of this production, but there is so much to enjoy about this truly joyful show. It will be spoken of in years to come’.
Marianka Swain for LondonTheatre (5★) called it ‘the show of the year’. She explained, ‘Every element is pitch-perfect, from Rae Smith’s delectable costumes…to Bill Deamer’s dreamy choreography…It’s like a Golden Age MGM movie come to life.’ ‘“My heart is about to burst,” the chorus sings. Same here’, said The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (5★). She explained, ‘this production casts a magic spell. Dominic Cooke’s production is immaculately performed and slowly, beautifully life-affirming, with humour that reins in the schmaltz.’
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (5★) said, ‘Staunton brings her own blend of splinter-sharp comic timing and emotional depth to the part’. She was impressed that director Dominic Cooke ‘throws everything at it the vast Palladium stage can handle, relishing the chance to savour musical comedy at its bonkers best’. If that wasn’t enough, ‘Cooke and his cast find rich emotional truths and salient points in the story’. Kate Kellaway in The Observer (5★) said, ‘Staunton’s star quality…depends on her miraculous ability to stay genuine and intent, no matter how far-fetched the goings on around her. Naturalness and charm make her a joy to watch.’
Nick Curtis at the Standard (4★) described Imelda Staunton as ‘the driving force of Dominic Cooke’s sumptuous, effervescent production, even bringing a note of pathos to the story’s wry wit and knockabout daftness.’ Neil Norman in the Express (4★) declared that Imelda Staunton brings ‘light and shade to Dolly that only a serious actor at the top of her game could achieve.’ Patrick Marmion in the Daily Mail (4★) claimed, ‘Staunton has the musical wattage of a nuclear power station.’
The Independent’s Alice Saville (4★) described the production as ‘a lean mean entertainment machine’ and praised ‘Bill Deamer’s appropriately high-spirited choreography’. Holly O’Mahony in The Stage (4★) described it as ‘Sparkling with joie de vivre and running on a boisterous charm that prevents this safe but loveable production becoming overly sentimental’. Caroline McGinn reviewing for Time Out (4★) called it ‘a terrific old-fashioned show’.
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) loved Imelda Staunton’s performance: ‘The way this actress can expand to fill a space even while standing still, can have you hanging on the smallest look, whether expressive of beaming mischief, beady assertion or quiet vulnerability, and can raise the roof without breaking into a sweat, reaffirms her as one of British theatre’s greats‘ However, ‘the show itself is like a parade, a succession of scenes that don’t dig very deep’.
Dominic Maxwell in the Sunday Times (4★) was another who wasn’t that keen in the musical but was sold on the production because ‘Staunton owns it all, dances the dance between sad and silly, romantic and frantic. She makes grand conceits seem easy-peasy and serves it up smiling so it hits the back of the room with a satisfying thwack. She’s a true great.’
Critics’ Average Rating 4.4★
Value rating 49 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Olivia Washington and Kit Harington in Slave Play. Photo: Helen Murray
‘Is London ready for this?’ asks the publicity material for Slave Play by Jeremy O. Harris. We’re promised- sorry, trigger-warned- about racist language, sexual violence, and of course a naked Kit Harington. There’s even a high-tech solution to stop you taking a picture of Kit with his kit off: you’re given a piece of sticky paper to cover your mobile phone’s camera lens. So, is this the most shocking play in the West End?
Well, I wasn’t shocked but, if you are of a sensitive disposition, this may not be the play or indeed the review for you. More to the point, before you read on, I will be revealing a number of plot twists which may not be shocking, but, if you are going to see Slave Play, will spoil the intended surprises. What surprised me is how funny the play is.
The first thing you see is Clint Ramos‘ set. You immediately notice that the back of the stage is covered in mirrors. This means you can see some of your fellow audience members, plus a painting of a Southern States plantation owner’s house that is fixed to the front of the circle. Why the mirrors? Perhaps it’s so you can see who’s finding the discriminatory language funny, and who’s uncomfortable with it. Or maybe, so you can how many black people are in the audience, to which the answer is, definitely more than usual in a West End theatre. Or, given that we the audience are still predominantly white and the slavemaster’s house appears to be in our midst, it could be to remind us that this play is intended to be about us, white as well as black, even if we think it isn’t.
‘Work’ is the name of the first act. A couple appear, played by Kit Harington and Olivia Washington (she’s Denzel Washington’s daughter by the way). Some of the Broadway cast have come over, along with original director Robert O’Hara, but both these actors are new to the play.
Judging by what they are wearing and their drawling speech, we seem to be in a pre-Civil War, or antebellum, Southern state. She’s a black slave, but she’s gyrating to a Rihanna song called Work, as she does her chores. This strikes one as a little odd- a bit Bridgerton maybe. He’s a white overseer but not a slave master, as he is at pains to make clear.
There’s a sexual relationship in which he dominates and she submits. He throws a melon on the floor, which he describes as a watermelon, and tells her to get down and eat it. She corrects him, pointing out it’s a cantaloupe. (The poster for the play cleverly turns a cantaloupe melon into a sexual image.) This seems slightly off kilter, as she appears to be more like his equal, maybe even taking the lead. Nevertheless, as instructed, she eats it off the floor. The scene ends with him eating her.
In the second scene, a mature Southern Belle seduces a mixed race (or ‘mulatto’, as she describes him) servant, who could pass for white. She produces a family heirloom- a large black dildo, which she proceeds to use on him. Like all the sex in this production, it is simulated but quite graphic for the stage, and also laugh-out-loud funny (or maybe not, depending on your sensitivities). For me, the stilted Southern accents and porn movie dialogue made me think it could be called Carry On In The Cotton Fields or perhaps Carry On Up The Khyber might be more appropriate.
Scene three and couple number three: two men, one black, one white. The white man is shifting bales of cotton. He is an indentured servant who eventually licks the boots of his black boss. It is by now fairly obvious that there is some kind of role play going on in which the couples are acting out domination and submission fantasies. We are reminded in the programme of the quote by J N Benjamin: ‘everything is about sex, except sex which is about power’. But it could still, just, be early 19th century America. Act One culminates with all three couples having sex. Then Kit Harington’s character calls out ‘Starbucks’, which turns out to be a safe word, and everyone stops. Two women with clipboards enter and we move from farce to satire.
Act Two is called ‘Process’. It turns out that all three couples are on the fourth day of a therapy group- it’s fantasy day, hence the title Slave Play. The black partners are suffering from anhedonia, the first of many conditions I had never heard of. Some of these are made up but anhedonia does exist and, put simply, is lack of arousal.
They gather for discussion and analysis led by the two researchers, played by Chalia La Tour and Irene Sofia Lucio, both from the Broadway cast. They turn out to have encountered the same problem in their own relationship, which they believe can be overcome using what they call ‘Antebellum Sexual Performance Therapy’. This begins an initially hilarious satire as they spout more and more psycho babble, while being at times over sensitive to feelings and at others ignoring them, sometimes shutting down people for saying the ‘wrong thing’ and at others embracing whatever is said and attempting to integrate it into their theory.
Farce and satire are followed by a disturbing climax
To my way of thinking, these couples are simply incompatible, or bored with their relationship. Not so, say the therapists, they maintain that the black participants are feeling the legacy of their ancestors having once been slaves and subject to white imperialism. This is said to affect their sexual relationships with their white lovers. They propose acting out fantasies involving slavery as a solution.
I am assuming from the way the play mocks the researchers that their theory is poppycock. I suspect this extreme kind of unaccredited group therapy is more familiar to Americans than us British. In fact, it’s only a few months since I was at the National Theatre watching Annie Baker’s Infinite Life, another American play about a group of people being conned by bogus therapy.
Slave Play. Photo: Helen Murray
I was amused at first by this central and dominant part of Slave Play, but it is like a satirical sketch that has been stretched out until it stops being funny. A bit like when a pleasant hug carries on until you feel trapped in the embrace.
After a while, I began to wonder how much more humour could be wrung out of these parodies of quack therapists, no matter how well the actors were nailing their techniques. I started to wish there was a safe word I could call out to get us on to the next scene. After all, this play is over two hours long without an interval.
Then, there is a change of gear from comedy to disturbing drama. Despite, rather than because of, the therapists, the black characters overcome what the therapists describe as ‘racialised inhibiting disorder’ and ‘alexithymia’ (guess which term is invented for their difficulty in talking about their emotions). They begin to recognise the true root of their problem, different in each case but with one thing in common.
It has already become clear that the white people are doing a lot of the talking, even though the sessions are supposed to be for the benefit of their black partners. Particularly funny in this respect is the way a middle-aged woman Alana, acted with a wealth of shocked facial expressions by Annie McNamara (from the Broadway cast), constantly speaks for Phillip. He is played with wide-eyed shyness by British actor Aaron Heffernan. She says she doesn’t even think about his colour, until he eventually speaks up and declares that he has been mistaken in thinking that his ability to pass for white is a good thing and that he’s at his most fulfilled when he is seen as being black. He mentions that he was excited by the way they met, when he was brought in by her then husband to fulfil the latter’s cuckold fantasy of seeing his wife have sex with a black man.
Gary, played by British actor Fisayo Akinade, eventually sees that he was wrong to regard a white partner as a kind of prize. Dustin, a flamboyant actor played for laughs by James Cusati-Moyer, who acted the part on Broadway, doesn’t want to think of himself as white. Gary becomes furious that this attitude denies the importance of his own ethnicity. It is one of the most emotional moments in a play that is otherwise more often melodramatic than realistic. The chemistry between them is electric.
Kit Harington‘s Jim, a British white man, is the most skeptical of this so-called Process, and says that he is uncomfortable with role playing a slave master. After some reflection, he observes that his partner seems to regard him as a virus. It is a turning point for Olivia Washington’s Kaneisha, who recognises that her anhedonia has developed because she does see white people that way.
So, at its heart, this play is about an on-going power struggle between white and black people, of which slavery may be the supreme example. The sexual relationships in Slave Play are intended to illustrate that, because white people are used to a society in which they are supreme, they fail to see that they are part of the problem that has caused their black partners’ sexual inhibition.
In the final act, called ‘Exorcise’, the mood becomes more serious. We are back in the bedroom with the couple who opened the play. Kaneisha asks Jim to listen, which he does as she explains to him he needs to recognise that he, as a white man, carries this so-called ‘virus’, because he has inherited a legacy of imperialism, colonialism and, of course, enslaving other races. Then, in a gesture which I took to mean that, this time, he wasn’t simply putting on a costume to play a part, he takes off all his clothes. The lighting is a little subdued as he walks around the bed but it is clear that his body is completely exposed, just as his deepest feelings are now fully acknowledged and revealed.
He once again goes through the ritual of treating her as a slave but this time with sincerity, flinging her, fully clothed, on the bed on her front and climbing on top of her. His aim is not to pleasure her, as in the first scene, but to force himself upon her. All the while, we focus on her calm face and, via the mirrors, and thanks to the bleaching effect of a bright light, at his very white buttocks rising and thrusting. When it’s over, she thanks him, but she is looking at the audience, so it seems she is also thanking those of us who are white for listening and recognising our racial heritage.
Mr Harington does well to convey a character who goes from confident to confused to broken. Ms Washington acts with passion. But, like the rest of the excellent cast, they are portraying characters who too often are ciphers rather than real human beings, and who offer melodrama in place of emotion.
Slave Play may mean more to Americans whose experience of race is different to the British one, so it may not have hit me as forcefully as intended. For me, the points about the psychological effect of white power that Jeremy O. Harris finally teases out in Slave Play, while interesting and provocative, are undermined by the earlier mockery of the psychiatrists. They also take too long to emerge and are less effective than they might be because the narrative is so obviously subservient to an agenda. On the plus side, there is much to enjoy in the sex romps and the send-up of the psycho-therapy industry.
You can see Slave Play at the Noël Coward Theatre until 21 September 2024. Buy tickets direct from the theatre.
This comment was made about the video on the Theatre.Reviews With Paul Seven YouTube channel. It is reproduced with permission:
Thank you for this review. I saw the Broadway production five years ago, and I own a copy of the script, which I subsequently read after seeing the play. So I want to make a few points from the perspective of an American audience member who has quite deep knowledge of the American history of enslavement as an economic institution of domination and exploitation. I should preface this by stating that I’ve volunteered for years for an historic property that is New England’s main site that served as essentially a Northern “plantation.” (The Royall House & Slave Quarters.)
So I think your review is very insightful, but I also think this play is deeply American in a way that probably won’t read the same for a British audience. I deeply appreciate your respectful attempt at having equanimity and reviewing the play on its own terms. However, there are aspects of this play that probably don’t land the same in London. Our particular, awful history with enslavement as an economic institution that formed a backbone to this country’s economy is a deeply American pathology. It really was like a virus that infected us, to borrow the words that the character at the end of the play says out of sorrow and rage. Plantations really do feel like haunted places. Especially the ones whose structures remain in the South. Consider that these sites are sometimes used as wedding venues for white people – how revolting is that? That’s just one example of how the play directly confronts the legacy of this institution. But I don’t even think it is only about that, or enslavement is the antagonist of the play per se.
I think the Carry On reference – which I understand minimally but I imagine you are saying that the sketch comedy aspect feels broad and silly like something called Carry On – is apt. However, I think there is quite a bit more encoded into the seeming humor and whimsy. As another example of the layers this play is operating on and peeping back: the Black characters play surreal versions of harmful Black stereotypes that began during enslavement. These are numerous, and American audiences recognize them right away as integral to our cultural identity. Though they are consigned to the dustbin of history now, it really wasn’t that long ago that these stereotypes carried violent weight. My grandparents’ generation grew up with the colloquial saying, “Eeny, meeny, mynie, mo/catch a __ by his toe/if he hollers, let him go” I’m sure you can imagine the word that goes into the blank, which I could never bring myself to say because it’s so horrifying and destructive. But I’m sure you can deduce what it is from the topic at hand.
When this play came out in 2019 on Broadway, white audiences – even supposed liberals – were getting overheated and angry enough that some of them would scream and yell during the talkbacks. It was the show that introduced “Blackout nights,” where people of color could attend the show among their peers without the intrusion of the White gaze. (Which is something Slave Play addresses – the White gaze – hence the mirror, in case you were wondering why there’s a mirror.) In our country, states are making it illegal to tell the truth about the brutality of enslavement as a racist system of exploitation and appropriation and commodification of the Black body. Even though the public records available in our country will tell us how brutal this system was. In the town in Massachusetts where the farm/plantation was that housed many enslaved people in the years prior to Massachusetts abolishing enslavement, there are public records that list Black/African people as simply property. You can see evidence of these human beings being sold. And bounties being placed on them when they attempted to flee to freedom. This was in Massachusetts, a supposed liberal bastion.
And there is another thing that probably won’t register for an audience member who doesn’t identify as “Queer” or as a member of the LGBTQ+ communities: this play was written by a Black, queer-identifying person whose intersectional identities in both categories are doubly marginalized in this country. Even now, Black queer people in the US are murdered – just for being themselves and existing in public space. That is part of the reason the Rihanna song “Work” is heard in the show. Jeremy O Harris is making a point about the amount of unasked-for labor people with multiply marginalized identities have to carry in this country. That exploitative model is in part due to the legacy of enslavement. If you’ve read a Faulkner novel about these overall subjects, this play is a bit of an offspring of the ideas contained in those books.
I’ll end for now by pointing out: if you want to know just how personal this play is to the US context, a direct example from a current political figure is how white children were afraid to play with Kamala Harris when she was growing up in California. The legacy of this vile institution of enslavement is hundreds of years in the making, and it is America’s Original Sin. (Though colonialism/Other-ing/xenophobia are not unique to the US, of course …) I hope you find these thoughts useful to your consideration of the play.
