Does this classic play work in the age of #MeToo?

Lyttelton at the National Theatre

Christopher Hampton wrote his play Les Liaisons Dangereuses, based on a scandalous 1782 novel, back in 1985 when it came across has a rebuke to Thatcherism. He adapted it into a film in 1988 which starred Glenn Close and John Malkovich. Quite a few critics didn’t feel comfortable with the play and the production, despite both author Christopher Hampton and director Marianne Elliott trying to make it acceptable to a modern audience more sensitive to men’s behaviour towards women, than when it was written.
The reviews were full of praise for Lesley Manville as Marquise de Merteuil and, to a slightly lesser extent, Aidan Turner (surprising to find at least three misspellings of his name among the reviews) as the Vicomte de Valmont, who play a nasty game in which the female victims are seduced and humiliated.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

LondonTheatre‘s Marianka Swain liked the actors, describing Lesley Manville as ‘magnificent’ and Aidan Turner as ‘a comic force … (he) also has a good line in wolfish lust, though stops short of convincing as a truly sociopathic predator, and is deeply affecting in the story’s latter stages as Valmont succumbs to heartbreak and despair’.  She also liked the play: ‘Hampton’s tweaked script gives the women slightly more agency, while maintaining the queasiness of the exploitation and continuing cycle of abuse. Valmont and Merteuil operating as a coercive double act brings to mind vile contemporary examples like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Beneath the play’s Wildean bon mots, champagne and glamour, there lurks a dark heart and all-consuming destructive devastation.’

The Standard’s Nick Curtis was disappointed in both the play and the production: ‘In this precise, stately, sometimes ponderous revival by Marianne Elliott, the script is more self-consciously aphoristic than I remember. Many of the lines sound like they’re designed to be quoted rather than just spoken.‘ Fortunately he loved the acting: ‘As the Marquise de Merteuil, a widow who breaks hearts and ruins reputations for her own wicked pleasure in 1780s French society, the implacable, raptor-ish Manville absolutely owns this show. She has strong support from an amusedly saturnine Aidan Turner’.

Aliya Al-Hassan at BroadwayWorld commented on the stars: ‘Manville is magnificent and really gets her teeth into the woman who is both cruel and highly manipulative, but also keenly senses her own fading youth and allure…Aidan Turner…treads a fine line between a flirtatious lothario and a darkly sinister rake as Valmont. Keeping his own Irish accent seems to add to his charm and persuasiveness, which is slightly problematic, as it lessens the character’s biting cruelty. However, the chemistry between him and Manville crackles with authenticity; both palpable and powerful, treading that ever-fine line between love and hate.’

Unlike some reviewers, WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton felt ‘Marianne Elliott’s production subtly reconfigures Christopher Hampton’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses for the MeToo generation. In a world where love is a battle of single combat, a hand-to-hand struggle for survival, women are constantly melding themselves to the shapes and behaviour demanded by the men, who still hold all the cards’. She continued: ‘There’s no doubt that its themes have become more troubling as time has gone on. But Manville and Turner are simply superb, their performances deep and thoughtful. They make the characters fallibly human, and Elliott makes the evening sing.’

The Independent’s Alice Saville declared: ‘the greatest strength of Hampton’s reworking is also the biggest triumph of this production: the icy brilliance of Merteuil, powered by Manville’s wonderful performance. It’s terrifying to watch her scrutinise her corseted, black-lace clad body in the mirror, assessing her sexual effect like an engineer checking over an instrument of war. And it’s impossible not to root for her, especially when her campaign of destruction claims her as its final victim.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar compared Aidan Turner with John Malkovich who played the part in the movie: ‘Turner as Valmont is an Irish-accented serial seducer, louche and playful rather than truly dangerous: an affable rake who does not summon Malkovich’s snake-like menace. His seduction scenes do gather in power, though’. She noted that when he is forced by the Marquise to give up someone he loves, ‘he finally drops his playfulness and becomes truly tragic.’

The Times’ Clive Davis was critical: ‘What’s often missing, though, is the sense of abject cruelty that ought to lie at the heart of this story of cold-blooded seduction.’ In particular, he felt Aidan Turner was too comical: ‘By the very end, the marquise and Valmont both face retribution for their sins. Her anguish is palpable. Do we care as much about Valmont? No. The dandy has outstayed his welcome.’

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe liked the stars: ‘Manville is formidable. Turner’s Valmont is hardly less lethal, relentlessly performative, ruthlessly switching from romantic lovesick swain to boyish to bully as tactics demand. But it simply doesn’t feel as if there’s enough at stake here.’ She explained: ‘This revival by Marianne Elliott…lacks bite and atmosphere, the intricate symmetrical plotting of its torments, temptations and scandals less shocking than mechanical.’ She concluded: ‘Elliott’s production never really makes a convincing case for the play’s importance in the here and now. As a drama, it emerges as elegant and divertingly nasty; it needs to matter more.’

Claire Allfree in The Telegraph asked: ‘How to stage Christopher Hampton’s glittering adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses about the nihilistic sex wars of the French fin de siecle aristocracy in the post Me Too era?’ She wasn’t satsified that Marianne Elliott had the answer: ‘Elliot’s insistence on turning the play into a spectacle of irredeemable decay doesn’t always reap dividends. Those allergic to the use of interpretative ballet (several scenes are choreographed, as though every character is trapped in a dance they can’t stop) won’t find their prejudices allayed. Hampton’s play demands a lightness of touch, not the whiff of heavy melodrama. I admired this production but I can’t say I enjoyed it.’

While praising the cast, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski had serious reservations about the play: ‘Hampton’s play has endured in large part because it’s titillating – a rare quality in theatre – and some of it now feels wildly out of step with the times. I think if you were to adapt De Laclos today, you’d interrogate the treatment of women rather more probingly. What can I say: it’s a really good production with two sensational leads, of a play that has long stopped being a sexy novelty and now kind of sits as a guilty pleasure. I don’t want to preach, I just question whether Les Liaisons really has enough going for it to justify this sort of lavish revival at our flagship theatre.’

Demetrios Matheou at The Arts Desk got to the heart of the problem with reviving this work: ‘The amorality at play is positively delicious, not least when the culprits feast on each other. But how does that appeal work, as entertainment, at a time when real-life morality is under more constant, and more rigid scrutiny? Will Christopher Hampton’s celebrated stage adaptation become darker, more powerful, or simply leave a bad taste? … it’s led to a bit of a muddle, a determined dressing up of the play that has simply diluted its drama – a liaison lite, if you will.’

2 stars ★★

The Sunday Times’ Dominic Maxwell rated the chemistry between the two stars: ‘Well, I won’t quite say they look as if they only just met at a break-the-ice brunch for the company earlier that day. Yet the mutual heat is strictly gas mark 3.‘ He ended his review: ‘ it should all be so much funnier, sexier, nastier and zippier than this.’

Critics’ average rating 3.5⭑

Value rating 38 (Value rating combines critics’ average rating with typical ticket price)

Les Liaisons Dangereuses can be seen at the National Theatre until 6 June 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen Les Liaisons Dangereuses at the National Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe bring passion to Robert Icke’s Sliding Doors Shakespeare

Harold Pinter Theatre

Romeo & Juliet is a play in which the lovers race to their tragic end . Radical director Robert Icke has fixed on time and timing being crucial to story and tells it in what a number of critics referred to as a Sliding Doors style, showing what might have happened to the lovers alongside what did. Mostly the critics liked this, although some thought it didn’t always work and some found it over-the-top. The reviews all praised Sadie Sink (famous for Stranger Things) and Noah Jupe (last seen in Hamnet).

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Brooke Ivy Johnson for The Metro noted: ‘to watch the audience — many of whom might more readily identify as fans of Stranger Things than of Shakespeare — sit rapt, laughing, weeping, blushing, and generally utterly absorbed, is to understand exactly what this show achieves. This Romeo and Juliet captures something essential about the play’s emotional core: that its tragedy lies not only in its ending, but in the beautiful, reckless, funny intensity of youth that drives it there.’ She explained: ‘what is most striking about his Romeo and Juliet is its emotional accessibility. This is a production that understands that the tragedy only works if you believe, wholeheartedly, in the reckless sincerity of young love’.

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

‘It’s a richly rewarding evening’ declared Claire Allfree in the Telegraph.  She said the production ‘has a near metaphysical preoccupation with the vagaries of time that lends this most callow of stories a rare gravitas.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis weighed straight in with his assessment of the stars and the production: ‘Sadie Sink…is a magnificent Juliet in Robert Icke’s powerful revival of Shakespeare’s tragedy, physically delicate but with a steely passion. She is matched by Noah Jupe, the young British screen talent making an assured stage debut as an impetuous, boyish Romeo. Rarely has the brutal speed of the play’s events, and its juxtaposition of sudden violence and bombshell love, seemed as clear as it does in Icke’s staging.’

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton explained: ‘Noticing that the play is built on coincidence and is full of “what if”s that could have turned tragedy into comedy, Icke creates a sequence of sliding door moments, marked by blinding flashes of light, that actually show an alternate version of the play.’ She commented: ‘Sink is at her best when she’s at her stillest and most earnest, gazing into her lover’s eyes with feverish excitement and determination; Jupe has moments when his boyish exuberance is tempered by a growing wonder. But the chemistry between them seems to dissipate as the mood grows darker.’ She also picked out other members of the cast: ‘Clare Perkins is magnificent as the Nurse, bustling and full of self-importance, but also of wisdom and warmth.’

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe described how ‘With Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe as the impassioned teenage couple gleaming with youthful potential and poignantly vulnerable, it’s moving to imagine how their story might have ended under different circumstances. Icke’s concept agonisingly points up how precarious their fate is – how cruelly close they come to contentment, together or apart. A sharp new spin on the familiar tale, it’s a reminder of what a lottery life and love are for us all.’

Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld noted: ‘This is an investigation of fate, and definitely not your traditional Romeo and Juliet. Though he punctuates the mise en scène with huge digital clocks that tick relentlessly towards the lovers’ demise, Icke feverishly tries to rewrite the narrative. Just as the story starts diverging from its natural path, blinding flashes à la Men in Black “Neuralyzer” rewind the scenes, bringing it back to its fatal route. It’s clever and original, making this an utterly thrilling vision.’ Of the lovers, she said: ‘Sink and Jupe are simply tremendous. The Broadway veteran conquers her first Shakespeare with sophistication, introducing a Juliet who’s far from being a wilting flower. She’s in charge, bubbly, and headstrong; she knows what she wants and she knows how to get it.’

At LondonTheatre, Olivia Rook described Sadie Sink: ‘(She) is luminous as Juliet, capturing the headiness of first love, as well as its ability to make you impulsive and awkward. Sink finds the humour in the balcony scene, navigating the new relationship with fluttering, hesitant speech and interrupting Romeo as he makes grand proclamations. She also knows how to plumb the depths of despair, appearing half mad as the Friar’s potion slips down her throat.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville concluded: ‘This is a richly emotional, brilliantly intelligent take on a classic – one that’ll plunge a knife into your heart so skilfully that you hardly notice the pain.’

Referring to what he called the Sliding Doors moments, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski noted: ‘you can easily imagine a world where things worked out better for them, and in acknowledging this Icke elevates the plot’s sillier moments. However,…he overplays his hand in a final scene that teeters on the mawkish. It would have made for a more elegant production if he’d left it be, but auteurs are gonna auteur.’ He jokingly ended: ‘But much as I am a fan, I can’t help but think there’s a parallel universe out there where he didn’t try the Sliding Doors thing (or reined it in a bit) and that that led to an all-timer Romeo & Juliet. In our branch of the multiverse, we’ll have to settle for one that’s merely very good.’

CityAM‘s Adam Bloodworth said Icke ‘delivers a technically cool, youthfully exuberant production that comes with a shocking twist.’ He went on: ‘It’s solid stuff, but everything pales by comparison to the finale, which dares to rethink everything you know. Who on earth would rethink the finale of Romeo and Juliet? Robert Icke, a man who has a good enough grasp of subtlety to know when to come out all guns blazing. It’s a risk, and blimey, every hair on both of my arms stood up.’

The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming said:’ It’s a production charged with adolescent passion and buzzing with fresh insights. Icke overplays his hand on occasion, but he brings a raging, compassionate eye to this awful tale of wasted life.’

Matt Wolf at The Arts Desk said, as if anticipating the review in The Times: ‘Some may reisist the apparent tricksiness of devices that include repetitions or reprises of scenes, as often as not accompanied by searing flashes of light separating out what might have happened (if, say, Friar Laurence’s letter had not gone AWOL) as opposed to what in fact does. But … Icke makes clear that time waits for no one. Small wonder that Juliet famously exhorts nightfall to “gallop apace” so that she can be with Romeo once again: this is a play whose title characters are undone by a velocity of feeling they can’t control’.

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Clive Davis warned: ‘assured though she is, Sink can’t quite redeem a production which is overrun with distracting tics, from that ever-bleeping clock to painful explosions of light that burn their way into your retina. Slab-like sliding doors on Hildegard Bechtler’s austere set trundle back and forth, hinting at paths and decisions left untaken.’ He got through it but: ‘By the end, you find yourself hoping that Sink will try her hand at more Shakespeare, only with a different director.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar declared`: ‘What makes the production effective, ultimately, in spite of the overbearing directorial stamp, are the two central performances. Sink makes for an intense teenager, quirkily neurotic, who brings comedy to the balcony scene. She is so strong a presence that Juliet at times seems the play’s central protagonist. Jupe’s Romeo is dramatically mopey in his unrequited love for Rosaline at the start, and earnest in his passion for Juliet. They have a sweet, pure chemistry that encapsulates the urgent and uncompromising nature of first love, so absolute in its adolescent ardour that it is worth dying for. Both speak the verse without straining for effect, too.’

Critics’ average rating 3.9⭑

Value Rating 40 (Value Rating is a combination of the Average star rating and the typical ticket price)

Romeo & Juliet can be seen at the Harold Pinter Theatre until 20 June 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre 

If you’ve seen this production of Romeo & Juliet, please leave a review and/or rating below

Vivid play about reaching adulthood

Royal Court theatre

Kimberly Belflower’s 2022 play John  Proctor is the Villain was a sensation on Broadway and looks like being one over here. The same production directed by Danya Taymor, but with a British cast, has arrived at the Royal Court theatre to an exceptional three 5 star reviews and four 4 stars. This gives it the second highest average rating for Limited Run Shows, at the time of writing. The critics liked the portrait of teenage schoolgirls in a strict religious community discovering adulthood at the same time as the #MeToo movement broke. Some loved it (‘joyous, blazingly intelligent’ FT) while others liked it but found it too obvious. They all praised the young women in the cast.

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

5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑

Sarah Hemming wrote a detailed, insightful review in The Financial Times (such a shame her reviews are hidden behind a very expensive paywall). She declared: ‘what a joyous, blazingly intelligent play this is: at once a restless interrogation of the role of art in defining and expressing who we are; a compassionate, funny portrayal of what it means to be a teenage girl; and a furious appraisal of the way power games repeat across generations. It’s staged with irrepressible energy by Danya Taymor and her terrific young cast.’
‘What really makes the play is its vivid and touching depiction of young women trying to navigate their way to adulthood against this roiling backdrop. They’re played with great affection and aching authenticity here.’

Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre declared: ‘if there is any justice, it will soon bring its whip-smart, potent, gloriously funny and remarkably affecting drama to the West End.’ She remarked: ‘Belflower beautifully captures the way that adolescent girls (and especially those in a small, insular, religious community) are simultaneously knowing and innocent, playing out fantasies of adulthood but still, heartbreakingly, just children.’ She ended: ‘It all culminates in the most extraordinary, heart-pounding, viscerally cathartic climax I’ve ever experienced, brilliantly utilising Lorde’s song “Green Light” along with an interpretive dance that moves from kooky to joyful to a full-on rebellion. This play likewise makes me want to scream, laugh, cry, and dance. It’s not just a drama: it’s a revolution.’

Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld couldn’t fault it: ‘Belflower’s work is perfectly plugged into the rippling effects that cause societal disruption. The script is as emotionally intelligent as it is fun and casual, but it also reveals a proclivity for fostering debate. She questions the nature of authority, debating the need for it and addressing the abuse of power. Her characters are smart, provocative, proactive, and unapologetically proud of who they are. Most of anything, they feel real.’ She concluded with a call to action: ‘The production is relatable, accessible, poignant, and bursting with ideas. Beg, borrow, steal, but get yourself into this utterly galvanising room!’

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

An underlying anger pulses through Alice Saville’s review in The Independent: ‘if you want to really understand the millions of small, hidden dramas that erupted in the wake of #MeToo, plays like this one are the way to do it. And its frenzied, Lorde-fuelled dancefloor climax is the perfect outlet for anyone who feels a bit crazy thinking about everything we’ve forgotten, as the world’s brief mass feminist awakening is replaced by deadening silence.’

Claire Allfree at the Telegraph praised ‘a gifted young British cast’, noting ‘Miya James is both unshowy and mesmeric as Raelynn; Saltburn’s Sadie Soverall is horribly compelling as the wild and glowering Shelby.’ She admitted: ‘There are quibbles. Modern readings of The Crucible already cast doubt on Proctor’s behaviour; he’s no longer quite the fully paid-up canonical hero Belflower needs him to be. The play feels a little thin, too. It relies on an emotional charge rather than a thorny argument… But it nails absolutely the timeless fury of female adolescence.’

The Standard’s Nick Curtis described it as ‘a terrific piece of provocative entertainment.’ He wrote: ‘Though the play is mechanical in the way it works through #MeToo issues, with some scenes straining credibility, Belflower is acute on the way women and girls are manipulated and gaslit. And on victim-blaming and the excuses people make for predators.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski explained: ‘what Belflower does do brilliantly is nail the intersection between the relatively brief apex of the #MeToo movement and a generation of smart, naive school girls who would have been the right age to absorb its rhetoric at the precise moment they’re discovering what it was a reaction to’. He reported: ‘Danya Taymor’s production…is an absolute blast, the many serious issues raised all of a piece with its breathless ebullience and Belflower’s endlessly witty text. As much as anything else, it’s a wholehearted celebration of teen girl dorkiness and a rebuttal to the idea their lives should be viewed through a sexual lens, even in sympathy.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe said the play was ‘at pains to spell out its themes and subtext, sometimes to a declamatory, over-explicit fault. But, in a tenderly handled production by Danya Taymor, it has a huge, pulsing heart and captures something of the thrilling, almost unbearable intensity of adolescent girlhood, building to a wildly emotional conclusion of mingled defiance, joy, rage and hope.’ She concluded: ‘Belflower’s play is, in many ways, one familiar story wrapped in another; but it’s done with wit and leaves us, with its final, glorious act of rebellion, on a high of irrepressible optimism.’

The Times’ Clive Davis questioned whether the play is the ‘modern classic’ some claim; ‘There’s certainly plenty to savour in Danya Taymor’s high-energy production, recast for London audiences, which burrows deep inside the overheated psyches of teenagers. At its sharpest, the dialogue generates waves of laughter too.’  Unlike some other reviewers, he found the ending a letdown: ‘Belflower can’t quite resist forcing home her message in the closing scenes. Ambiguity goes out of the window’.

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar called it ‘a moving play… (that) catches the mood of 2018 for a bewildered generation of girls growing into womanhood in the shadow of Weinstein.’ She liked the way: ‘Belflower’s dialogue captures the way girls talk to each other with humour and pathos, as well as how they internalise the world’s micro-aggressions towards women.’ But she had reservations, one of which was: ‘the relationships here are flattened by their cuteness, rather than sharp-edged and gritty, as this cusp of girlhood and adulthood so often tends to be.’

Critics’ average rating 4.0⭑

John Proctor Is The Villain can be seen at the Royal Court Theatre until 25 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre. Transferring to Wyndham’s Theatre from 2 February until 24 April 2027.

Read Paul’s review of John Proctor is the Villain here

If you’ve seen John Proctor Is The Villain at the Royal Court Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Self Esteem boosts vintage rock drama

Duke of York’s Theatre

Rebecca Lucy Taylor, better known as pop star Self Esteem, grabbed the critics’ attention in this revival of David Hare’s 1973 play about a fading and disillusioned 1960s band. She plays Maggie, the drunken, troubled lead singer on the night of a chaotic gig. The critics loved her performance (‘sensational’ WhatsOnStage) but had differing opinions as to whether the play was ‘dated’ (Standard) or ‘feels current’ (Independent). Daniel Raggett‘s production was generally appreciated as capturing the mood of a live gig.

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

Four stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Times’ Clive Davis gave us a précis: ‘David Hare’s play about music, ambition and burn-out takes place in that most English of settings, a May Ball at a Cambridge college. Cult singer Maggie Frisby is having another dark night of the soul, and her disgruntled musicians are going through the motions.’ Rebecca Lucy Taylor, he said: ‘gives a formidable portrayal of a talent in free fall, fighting off her demons while making life just about impossible for everyone around her.’ As for the production: ‘Daniel Raggett…captures the frenetic mood of a night where the performers are struggling to hold everything together.’

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton loved Self Esteem: ‘Taylor is sensational as Maggie, full of self-loathing and fight in almost equal measure, staggering around the stage but never going down. When she sings…she is mesmeric, holding the audience in the grip of her hand while never losing sight of her character’s pain and her inability to quell it.’ She admitted: ‘It’s not a perfect play, sending sparks in all directions, but it is both witty and wise. Because Hare tackles serious themes, it’s easy to forget how funny he is’.

Holly O’Mahony writing for LondonTheatre noted: ‘if this period piece is not exactly hard-hitting in 2026, it’s still a well-paced play running on a whip-smart script that’s very entertaining in all its salty sarcasm.’ She was impressed by the stars: ‘Taylor’s Maggie grows more self-assured each time she gets behind the microphone. Her vocals are familiarly powerful and raw – and those booking for the sheer chance of seeing Self Esteem up close on stage won’t be disappointed on this front. Chloe Lamford’s set design sends the band’s own stage sliding right to the front each time they perform, which increases the intimacy.’

The Independent‘s Alice Saville didn’t think the play was as dated and irrelevant as some of the 3 and 2 stars below did. Instead: ‘Half a century on, Hare’s play feels current in a different way, capturing the vampiric nastiness of an industry that still picks up talented musicians, tours them til they break, then declines to pick up the pieces.’ She was also keen on the production: ‘Daniel Raggett’s staging makes the most of Hare’s witty one-liners without sacrificing the essential bleakness of this story.’

Three stars ⭑⭑⭑

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski was unmoved: ‘…Hare’s words feel glaringly lacking in serious engagement with a half-century of musical, cultural and feminist discourse. Daniel Raggett’s gently absurdist, lightly Beckettian production eschews fussy period details and indeed Chloe Lamford’s set is effectively styled like a gig. But it feels like it has more in common with John Osborne’s cracked vaudeville The Entertainer than with the rock business.’ He concluded: ‘you’re left with Rebecca Lucy Taylor pouring her heart into the semi-broken body of a play that would never get commissioned today.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar found: ‘the dialogue does not have enough meat on its bones. This seems like a play with no centre, though it has plenty of anarchic spirit and humour. Both the emotional intensity and intellectual focus are missing…It is as if the script itself is waiting for the songs to arrive.’ She summed up: ‘come for the play and stay for the astounding music.’

The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe liked the star: ‘her casting in Daniel Raggett’s production gives the entire undertaking credibility and thrill.’ But: ‘the problems with Hare’s play persist. Part proto-punk gig theatre, part elegy for the hippie dream of the 1960s, it’s a vague, meandering piece, stuffed with self-conscious philosophising and semi-formed stereotypes. The wafty writing is at odds with the bludgeoning, full-frontal energy of the songs and the situation’.

The Sunday Times’ Dominic Maxwell confessed: ‘I ended up admiring Taylor’s performance but not surrendering to it.’ He expanded: ‘Taylor is good. Slowed down, she may be terrific. Yet I suspect you need a great performance to emit the palpable sense of damage required here. And the frisson of having a real rock band on stage is not what it might have been 50 years ago.’

There haven’t been any theatre reviews in The i for over a month, so it was a pleasure to see their once regular reviewer Fiona Mountford popping up at The Telegraph. She began by asking: ‘Does it have anything of burning import to say to us in 2026? The awkward answer is a resounding “No”’ She then declared: ‘I have long held the view that David Hare writes mouthpieces rather than three-dimensional characters and this play only serves to confirm my hypothesis.’ Good to have you back, Fiona.

Two stars ⭑⭑

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis had a few sharp questions too: ‘Why revive this dated piece about a minor-league rock band combusting at Jesus College Cambridge’s 1969 May Ball? Why do it with a pop star who’s only had one previous major stage acting role, in Cabaret at the Kit Kat Club? And why is everybody shouting?’ He found the play: ‘coarse and lumpen in Daniel Raggett’s unmodulated production’.

Adam Bloodworth at CityAM found many faults: ‘too many of the narrative arcs, fights and breakdowns feel contrived and surface-level…The band members feel fairly tropey…You end up wondering what the central narrative drive or jeopardy is supposed to be.’ He did concede: ‘Self Esteem’s live performances with the band…are compelling’.

Critics’ average rating 3.2 ⭑

Value Rating 26 (Value rating combines critics’ rating with typical ticket price)

Teeth ‘n’ Smiles can be seen at the Duke of York’s Theatre until 6 June 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen Teeth ‘n’ Smiles at the Duke of York’s Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

 

Fast moving comedy about capitalism

Hampstead Theatre

In Aaron Loeb‘s new play, directed by Chelsea Walker, two venture capitalists (Lloyd Owen and Millicent Wong) meet a scientist (Letty Thomas) with abhorrent views but who has the means to eradicate cancer and more. They see the opportunity to do good or make a lot of money. Disappointingly, not many of the professional critics turned out for it. Those that did enjoyed the exploration of moral dilemmas but some found a few too many issues being covered.

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

4 stars ★★★★

Gary Naylor at The Arts Desk summed up: ‘Loeb’s play sparkles when these moral dilemmas are front and centre, the nexus between capitalism and science continually poked and probed, the profit motive necessary but, er, cancerous. They’re stirred into a heady mix of raw racism and doomsday geopolitics with the carapace of ethical boundaries proving to be of little effect against the tsunami of money rolling in and the sweet tang of White Supremacism spicing up the action.’

‘I was thoroughly entertained and provoked throughout every fast-talking, big-thinking moment’ said The Standard‘s Nick Curtis. He continued: ‘There’s something thrilling about the way global subjects and vast moral dilemmas can be addressed by four actors in a small room.’

Dave Fargnoli of The Stage was hooked: ‘Challenging, thought-provoking and sometimes gasp-inducingly close to the bone, this relentlessly twisty slice of speculative fiction…digs into some profoundly prescient ethical dilemmas.’

3 stars ★★★

The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar found: ‘Aaron Loeb is a businessman as well as playwright and it shows: his play zings with quickfire patter between May and Paul, a certain Mamet-esque sparring reminiscent of Glengarry Glen Ross. Its aim to show us what might happen when a big scientific breakthrough is funnelled through the machinery of venture capitalism is ambitious but a little too hectic.’ She expanded: ‘It’s all rather hard to digest in around 100 minutes. There are more than a headful of ideas, while the personal stories are too brief to pull at your emotions.’

For Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld: ‘Working around an ethical discourse is fun if it’s matched with a solid story, but the narrative lacks the appropriate pull to properly propel the philosophical side forward.’

The Times’ Clive Davis found it ‘rattles along at such a manic pace. Events unfold over several years, yet the effect is like watching an entire TV mini-series on fast-forward.’ He noted: ‘In cold print it all sounds slightly dotty…another character (here played by Sarah Lam) makes a last-minute entrance, yanking the script in another direction. Walker’s breezy direction just about keeps us hanging on, and Hayley Egan’s video design adds depth. A sombre Duke Ellington piano miniature, Melancholia, bookends the action, but the piece often has the aura of a screwball comedy.’

Critics’ average rating 3.5★

R.O.I. (Return On Investment) can be seen at Hampstead Theatre until 11 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from hampsteadtheatre.com

If you’ve seen R.O.I. (Return On Investment), please leave a review and/or rating

Middle classes’ overlong search for meaning 

Olivier Theatre, National Theatre

Gorky‘s rarely performed play from 1904 takes up where Chekhov left off and shows members of the new middle class enjoying a summer break. Many of the critics enjoyed the parallels with today’s professional class among the 23 well-acted characters. Quite a few thought it was a bit long, although that was mitigated by Moses and Nina Raine‘s lively adaptation and Robert Hastie‘s direction.

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

5 stars ★★★★★

‘The new regime at the National has delivered its first bona fide hit’ declared The Times’ Clive Davis. ‘Robert Hastie’s glorious revival is rich in period detail yet the modern turns of phrase in Nina and Moses Raine’s version conjure up visions of 21st-century families bickering over what to watch on Netflix in a Tuscan Airbnb.’ He was clearly swept away: ‘the moments when they talk about the sense of rootlessness that haunts them even after they have risen in the world are almost unbearably poignant. This is a play that blends laughter with tears.’ 

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis summed up: ‘This sumptuous, bittersweet slice of turn-of-the-20th-century Russian life is just the sort of thing the Olivier stage was built for. Director Robert Hastie has assembled a stunning acting ensemble, bringing shade and texture to Maxim Gorky’s 1904 skewering of a feckless educated class, caught between Tsarism and the coming upheavals. Their travails are agony to them, hilarious to us, and it all unfolds on a gorgeous set by Peter McKintosh where the sun-bleached ribs of a summer dacha give way to a dappled, forested stream.’

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton declared: ‘the Raine siblings have provided a contemporary translation full of humour and vigour, bringing some 23 characters to clear life and the production has an excellent cast, including Doon Mackichan as a hapless poet, Justine Mitchell as a crusading doctor and Paul Ready as a high-living lawyer, who are expert in the fine calibration of comedy, landing their words with precise force.’

Hearther Neill on The Arts Desk liked the way the Raine’s had trimmed the play’s length: ‘Speed serves the comedy well under Robert Hastie’s beautifully modulated direction, with characters constantly on the move, forming and dissolving small conversational groups, rarely at rest on the Olivier stage. This is a sprawling ensemble piece, featuring 23 well-distinguished characters, all of them dissatisfied with life, either longing for love or desperate to escape unsatisfactory marriages.’ She continued: ‘These people are almost all ridiculous and heading for a tragedy that they seem to intuit but not understand,which makes them at least recognisable, even forgivable. Peter McKintosh’s sets suggest simple interiors and a forest of tall plank-like trees. He has introduced very real water, however, for paddling and taking a dip, perhaps to emphasise the isolation of this group from what is happening in the world beyond their disappointing idyll.’

Gary Naylor for BroadwayWorld found: ‘It’s hard to like any of this menagerie of misanthropes, but it’s easy to be amused by them, Nina and Moses Raine’s adaptation sparkling with the language clever people use to talk to other clever people’. He saw the parallels with today’s audience: ‘There we were, like Vavara’s soi disant friends, ex-working class made good (well, goodish) by education and luck, grateful for the health and wealth it has brought but slightly perplexed as to why it doesn’t feel better’.

The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish was pleased to see it back on stage: ‘Robert Hastie presents this valuable curiosity, laced with a timely sense of collective dread, in terrific, painterly, ensemble style.’ But…’The slight drawback? The script, by brother and sister Nina and Moses Raine, is loaded with distracting modern vernacular and some swearing (including the C-word).’

Dominic Maxwell of The Sunday Times praised the acting: ‘Is the cast…the most exciting ensemble of actors you’ll see all year? Well, after watching them spend three hours quipping, spatting, seducing, repulsing, making points and missing the point, I can only say good luck finding any better.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

LondonTheatre‘s Anya Ryan still found it a bit long: ‘At its centre lies a pressing question: does anything really matter when the world is falling apart? Yet, despite the hazy glow of this new version by siblings Nina Raine and Moses Raine, it’s a message that lands with a heavy hand. Over its lengthy three-hour running time … a cast of 23 characters cycles through the spotlight, each reaching for some sense of meaning.’

Dave Fargnoli of The Stage announced: ‘Seething with secret tensions and simmering resentments, this faithful yet ponderous adaptation captures the anxiety, humour and heartbreak of Maxim Gorky’s piercingly prescient 1904 study of the indolence of the bourgeois.’ He expanded: ‘It is a sprawling, deliberately slow-moving piece, with director Robert Hastie taking time to gradually build an atmosphere of suffocating, inescapable ennui. And although the production never achieves the necessary sense of impending doom, the play’s world remains intriguing: believable, feverish, stifling as the muggy heat of a summer day.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski found it ‘overwhelming at first: it feels like you’ve been plunged into a sprawling existential soap opera, teeming with characters and plot lines that have been running for years that you’re having to familiarise yourself with on the fly.’ He went on: ‘The pleasures are pretty soapy throughout: essentially three hours of compulsive people watching.’ He commented: ‘Hastie’s production at best has a bucolic but beautifully deadpan rhythm. As with his recent Hamlet, though, I couldn’t help but feel that he’s not that good at seizing control of large ensemble casts: Rundle electrifies the stage anytime she steps on it, but apart from that it can feel like a freewheeling blur of similarly dressed people bickering for three hours. The Raines’ adaptation is modern, witty and at best bracingly pungent but it feels a bit inbetween-y in tone, neither really quite set in 1904 Russia, nor our present’.

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar reacted with faint praise: ‘At almost three hours, it is ambling but with sparks of intensity – rather like a summer’s day. One character gives a hostile review of The Cherry Orchard: “Went on too long. Didn’t like it.” This goes on a little too long as well, although it is likable enough.’

The Independent and its reviewer Alice Saville returned to the theatre after a few weeks’ absence but she may wish she’d delayed her return: ‘Gorky’s play wears its themes on the surface. And its lack of subtlety doesn’t feel especially well-served by Robert Hastie’s production, which relies on broad performances and an open, cluttered-feeling set that doesn’t allow for more intimate moments between its warring characters. The structure is strange, too, with a tighter first half followed by a ballooning second part that never reaches the catharsis we seem to be building to…Still, the best moments of Summerfolk shine out, strikingly modern.’

Critics’ average rating 3.7⭑

Value rating 53 (Value rating combines the critics’ rating and the typical ticket price)

Summerfolk can be seen at the Olivier, National Theatre, until 29 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from nationaltheatre.org.uk

If you’ve seen Summerfolk, please leave a review and/or rating below

Tense and transgressive but too long

Marylebone Theatre

Forget the Barbra Steisand version, this adaptation goes back to the original short story by Isaac Bashevis Singer. The reviews ranged from 4 to 2 stars for this story of a young woman called Yentl, played by  Amy Hack, (‘driven and wholly believable’ The Stage) living in a restrictive turn-of-the-20th-century Jewish community where girls are not able to be formally educated, who disguises herself as a man in order to become a scholar. The production by the Australian Kadimah Yiddish Theatre and directed by Gary Abrahams was considered tense but also too long because of an excess of exposition (‘more subtext, less exposition’ WhatsOnStage). Nevertheless the play’s discussion of such modern issues as gender and inequality were appreciated. Much praise was bestowed on the narrator played by Evelyn Krape.

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

4 stars ★★★★

Gary Naylor of BroadwayWorld discussed Evelyn Krape’s narrator as being ‘the agent of transgression, the counterweight to a society that values conformity (Tevye’s “Tradition”) above both honesty and joy. And that’s where the play punches 2026 in the solar plexus (…) the play demands that its audience confront what are today called culture wars. What is the damage wrought by insisting… that individuals deny their specific manifestation of humanity in order to conform to another’s version of what they should be?’

3 stars ★★★

Paul Vale at The Stage found it ‘both richly theatrical and refreshingly uncompromising’ and ‘a potent story, told with imagination and flair’. He described the way ‘Yentl’s journey becomes a pressure cooker of desire and frustration. Through Hack’s marvellously driven and wholly believable Yentl, we get a real sense of that tension building and the dangers they face on the road they have taken.’

Miriam Sallon for WhatsOnStage summed up: ‘It’s a fun yarn, and the cast and crew are clearly trying to tell Yentl’s story in earnest. But perhaps because of the original short format, or perhaps because half the play is in Yiddish with English surtitles, there are so few moments in which someone isn’t explicitly explaining what’s happening. This is understandable given the audience has to contend both with the Yiddish and the many Jewish customs that are key to the plot. But if you’re going to make a short story a two-and-a-half-hour play, it’s going to need .’

2 stars ★★

The Times’ Clive Davis was the harshest critic: ‘Cut 30 minutes or so from the script, and it might take flight. As it stands, this otherworldly tale becomes the equivalent of a long day in the seminary.’

Critics’ average rating 3.0⭑

Yentl can be seen at Marylebone Theatre until 12 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from marylebonetheatre.com\

If you’ve seen Yentl at Marlebone Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Jewish family drama waylaid by big issues

Menier Chocolate Factory

The revival of Ryan Craig‘s 2011 play The Holy Rosenbergs was well received by the critics. Most felt the ‘issues’ were laid on a bit thick at times but all agreed it covered important matters (‘brave and intelligent’ – WhatsOnStage), was funny at times (‘sitcom-funny’ – Standard), and well acted (‘finely wrought performances’ – The Times). Many brought attention to its similarities to the plays of Arthur Miller, particularly All My Sons. The cast is led by Nicholas Woodeson and Tracy-Ann Oberman  as the couple preparing for the funeral of their son, lost in Middle East war. Woodeson’s character is also struggling with the failure of his business. Dorothea Myer-Bennett was praised for her role as a lawyer controversially investigating human rights abuses in the war on Gaza. Lindsay Posner‘s direction ‘sets a cracking pace’ (The Stage) but most critics felt the ending was a let down.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton said: ‘the play’s strength is that it grounds its arguments so firmly in a family, bound by tradition and love but separated by politics.’ She also declared: ‘The cast are simply superb’. She ended: ‘the final confrontation between Ruth and her father doesn’t quite ring true. But Posner and his cast make sure the tension never lessens.  The Holy Rosenbergs is an imperfect play, but a brave and intelligent one too.’

David Jays for The Guardian began: ‘A death in the family is always a reckoning. In this absorbing revival of Ryan Craig’s play from 2011, it is also an unravelling, one in which morality and geopolitics play out on a highly patterned carpet in a Jewish suburban dining room.’ He pointed out: ‘Craig describes his plays as “comic tragedies”, and there’s certainly humour in Lindsay Posner’s finely acted production as the Rosenberg parents, never knowingly under-catered, frantically paper over the cracks. Goujons are lauded, macaroons and marble cake foisted on the unwilling.’

Matt Wolf for LondonTheatre looked back at the original National Theatre production of 2011: ‘The difference is a production from Lindsay Posner that cuts far more deeply than the text did first time round, coupled with a realisation that the central issues of the play occupy today’s headlines with a gathering ferocity reflected in the commitment of Posner’s first-rate cast.’ He noted: ‘Words, of course, can wound as well, and it’s been some time since I’ve been to a play where one remark or another made a rapt audience so audibly draw breath.’ He recorded: ‘You watch enthralled at Craig’s skill in layering the debate, all the while lamenting the seeming eternal nature of the arguments here laid forth.’

The Times’ Clive Davis was amused as well as moved: ‘This is an evening where a debate about Israel, the morality of war and the meaning of community can suddenly land a sharp blow to the funny bone(…)Time and again, you find yourself laughing through the pain while admiring the finely wrought performances from a cast led by Tracy-Ann Oberman.’

Aleks Sierz at The Arts Desk called it a ‘brilliantly provocative play’. He noted: ‘Lindsay Posner’s well-focused production, which balances pain with humour, is set in a recognizably real suburban interior, designed in detail by Tim Shortall, and fields some emotionally truthful acting.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Franco Milazzo for BroadwayWorld concluded that it was ‘a sturdy, occasionally engaging examination of family, faith and political conscience. Yet in trying to say everything at once, this revival ends up diluting its strongest ideas. In a play so preoccupied with the question of who we are, the most surprising thing is how hard it is to pin down exactly what this one wants to be.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis summed up: ‘This is a serious, and at times seriously funny, bid to show how events in Gaza impact Jews elsewhere, but also a clumsy one.’ He explained: ‘On one level David and Lesley Rosenberg (Nicholas Woodeson and Tracy-Ann Oberman) are a sitcom-funny, kvetching suburban couple but they are also preparing for the funeral of their son Danny, a pilot with the Israel Defense Forces, killed in the first Gaza War’ and ‘the way argument is loaded into the play feels forced, particularly in a blatantly engineered second-act showdown’.

Dave Fargnoli of The Stage thought: ‘Though Craig’s writing is contrived – with various authority figures dropping in at the Rosenbergs’ Edgware home to deliver eloquent speeches advocating specific viewpoints – the piece remains thought-provoking. Director Lindsay Posner sets a cracking pace that never flags, smoothly segueing between each set-piece debate while drawing out the text’s sly, dark humour.’

Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski noted: ‘Posner’s production is conservative in its naturalism – the songs are the most flamboyant thing about it – but he gets fine performances out of his cast, particularly Dorothea Myer-Bennett as Ruth, whose fiery dedication to justice masks her vulnerability as a human being.’ Like other critics, he pointed out the similarities to Arthur Miller’s writing: ‘There’s a Miller-esque tone to the domestic side of it, with Woodeson’s struggling caterer David having a whiff of Willy Loman to him as he blithely fails to grasp that he’s yesterday’s man.’ He complained: ‘The trouble is that for all its bracing relevance, the Israel/Gaza stuff is so bombastic as to overwhelm the more nuanced family tragedy.’

Critics’ average rating 3.7⭑

The Holy Rosenbergs can be seen at The Menier Chocolate Factory until 2 May. Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen this production of The Holy Rosenbergs, please leave a review and/or rating below

Soaring singing but pedestrian script

@sohoplace

The script of Marie & Rosetta by George Brant does not do justice to the thrilling story rock’n’roll godmother Sister Rosetta Tharpe and her protege Marie Knight, according to the few critics who have reviewed its transfer to @sohoplace. However the performances by Beverley Knight and Ntombizodwa Ndlovu were highly praised. I’ve added some reviews from its opening at Rose Theatre. They reached the same conclusion.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Theo Bosanquet at LondonTheatre applauded the stars: ‘it features, in Beverley Knight and Ntombizodwa Ndlovu, two powerhouse vocal performances that amply convey the talents of the two women they portray.’ Less so the script: ‘Brant’s script has an unfortunate tendency to feel like filler, the production only really sparking to life during the musical numbers and deftly choreographed moments of physical intimacy…But it’s a poignant story nevertheless, the tension between the free-spirited master and her god-fearing apprentice richly drawn, and their romantic chemistry never too far from the surface, culminating in a deeply moving finale.’

While praising the singers, Clementine Scott at BroadwayWorld pinpointed the problem with the production, ‘Being as constricted as it is to one setting, and one point in time, inevitably sometimes Marie & Rosetta runs out of steam. Much of the dialogue that veers outside the dressing room feels awkward, unfortunately including Rosetta’s account of racism and segregation in the American South, a clumsy historical reference rather than an emotional personal anecdote. Marie’s account of her failing marriage is emotively performed, but lacks some of the specificity of the women’s intellectual and musical conflicts.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Maygan Forbes for WhatsOnStage raved about the Ms Knight: ‘The evening’s undeniable centre of gravity is Knight. Her portrayal of Rosetta is charismatic, funny and commanding, but it is her singing that truly stops the show. Knight performs with such ferocious power and clarity that the music feels almost otherworldly. At several points, her voice genuinely raises the hairs on your arms…The sound alone is worth the ticket.’ Otherwise: ‘Ultimately, Marie and Rosetta is a production elevated by extraordinary musical talent but held back by a script that never quite matches its subject’s legacy.’

Here are some reviews of the production from its opening at the Rose Theatre:

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

Ammar Kalia for the Guardian felt: ‘The music is immediate and brilliant, with Knight and Ndlovu reaching a soaring harmony on the swaggering Rock Me, rumbling into a sultry groove on Tharpe’s nightclub favourite I Want a Tall Skinny Papa and highlighting Knight’s mighty solo vocal on Didn’t It Rain.’ But like others, he thought: ‘The script, however, is a disappointment.’

Holly O’Mahony for The Stage said: ‘In George Brant’s intimate two-handed play, studded with rock and gospel hits and directed by Monique Touko, Knight digs deep to embody the Arkansas-born singer, who inspired the likes of Elvis and Johnny Cash but whose potential was stifled by a racially segregated America.’

The Times’ Clive Davis declared it ‘creaks in places, but Monique Touko’s production … is lifted by incandescent vocals from the R’n’B singer Beverley Knight.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis summed up: ‘The singing from both leads is magnificent, the acting passionate but the script by American writer George Brant is pedestrian and heavy on exposition.’

Critics’ Average Rating 3.7⭑

Marie & Rosetta can be seen at @sohoplace until 11 April 2026

If you’ve seen Marie & Rosetta at @sohoplace or the Rose Theatre, please leave a review and/or rating below

Strong performances in modern production of late Miller play

Young Vic

Following last week’s Bird Grove and Evening All Afternoon, another play where the acting seemed to outweigh the play and production. Arthur Miller‘s late play is set in Brooklyn 1938 and concerns a Jewish couple affected by events in Germany. The critics didn’t think it was one of his best but opinions as to its quality varied.  As did the reviews of director Jordan Fein’s ‘modern’ production. However, the actors were universally praised. Eli Gelb plays Philip Gellburg, repressed, self hating and desperate to fit in at his non-Jewish workplace. Pearl Chandra is his wife Sylvia who has been struck by a mysterious paralysis. Her physician is played by Alex Waldmann. The set designed by Rosanna Vize was generally liked even if some effects didn’t hit the mark.

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

4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar was blown away: ‘The interweaving of the personal, political, social and sexual seems inchoate, but there is so much emotive power in Jordan Fein’s production, such extraordinary performances by Gelb and Chanda, and so many chilling parallels to current political indifference to the horrors around the world, that the play’s lack of internal coherence becomes irrelevant.’

The Standard‘s Nick Curtis was on board for the ride: ‘Self-loathing and Freudian sexual unease haunt the story along with the thinly veiled antisemitism of gentile American society. It’s a peculiar, intense, talky brew with the yadda-yadda energy (and the gender attitudes) of a 1930s movie. Jordan Fein’s production leans stylistically into the play’s strangeness but features terrifically naturalistic performances, especially from Pearl Chanda as the off-centre Sylvia.’

The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish reported: ‘In a taut, timely and finely acted revival by American director Jordan Fein, a drama that might sound contrived and far-fetched becomes brilliantly gripping.’ He was concerned that: ‘under harsh office lighting, the mise-en-scène risks distracting us from the real source of the evening’s power: its nuanced performances.’ He described the latter: ‘Chanda is magnificently understated as the stricken Sylvia (…) Gelb … is superb, too, as her dowdy, defensive hubby – decent but with a bullying edge that explains Sylvia’s primal recoil from him as the fascist enemy within.’ He concluded: ‘Modish trappings aside, Miller’s tale carries a lasting sting of truth. It’s a play for today.’

WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton described Eli Gelb as: ‘extraordinary here, lending Phillip a buttoned-up physicality that finds release in twitching shoulders and nervous little hand gestures, and chin tucks. He begins as a great lumbering bully…and ends as a frightened child.’ She concluded: ‘Fein’s thoughtful direction holds and tightens the corkscrewing emotions and thoughts of the play in a production that is always gripping and often devastating. It’s a messy play, but an important one, compelling in the richness of its concerns.’

3 stars ⭑⭑⭑

Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski called the play ‘a seething Freudian stew, spiced with Jewish guilt, a heady, occasionally surreal blend of desire and regret.’

Dave Fargnoli for The Stage commented: ‘Full of powerful themes and brutally unvarnished emotion, this is a knotty, confronting piece, but it lacks the focus and tragic force of Miller’s better-known plays.’ ‘Director Jordan Fein works hard to create a deliberately awkward, uncomfortable atmosphere here, with actors stranded on stage for long stretches ignoring the action or variously crawling over, flopping on to or jumping up on the furniture in eruptive fits of emotion.’ ‘Pearl Chanda gives an intense performance as Sylvia, trying to maintain an air of calm composure, but liable at any moment to snap.’

Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld described the set: ‘the boundary between the Gellburgs’ Brooklyn interior and the streets of Berlin has dissolved. Scenes melt into one another; characters linger onstage long after their scenes have ended. Bright office lights are kept on for much of the show, washing the stage in a clinical glare and drawing half the audience into their torrid world.’

The Times’ Clive Davis joked: ‘Watching a fine cast go about their business over the course of two hours with no interval is like watching medics doing their best to keep a patient from slipping away.’ He warned: ‘anyone who has ever been irked by (Miller’s) moralising tendencies will find more to annoy them here. Everything is just a little too schematic.’

Tim Bano for the Financial Times noted: ‘Fein peppers the production with touches of oddness: actors stand zombie-like at the edge of the stage, lights suddenly extinguish with heavy thuds. These flourishes enliven what is otherwise sluggish. There is little emotional charge to the quieter, more tender scenes, but then Fein aces the later moments that take place at screaming pitch as Miller lets pure anguish take hold of his characters.’

The Independent’s Alice Saville found fault with the production: ‘Miller’s play is claustrophobic and intense, set mostly in the couple’s messy bedroom. In contrast, Fein’s production is deliberately bright and spacious, making their marriage explode across a big arena-style stage, every ugly detail highlighted by office-style fluorescent lights. Still, his attempts to refurbish this story get stuck at surface level.’ She conceded: ‘This revival feels worthwhile, without quite achieving the shattering contemporary relevance it strives for.’

Julia Rank for LondonTheatre found it ‘too meandering and repetitive’ but noted: ‘it has got several striking qualities with present-day resonance’.

Critics’ Average Rating 3.4⭑

Broken Glass can be seen at the Young Vic until 18 April 2026 Buy tickets directly from the theatre

If you’ve seen Broken Glass at the Young Vic, please leave your review and/or rating below