Every Review & Article

Posted on

Reviews Roundup: Guys And Dolls

The Bridge Theatre

The cast of Guys And Dolls at the Bridge Theatre London dance on stage
Guys And Dolls at the Bridge Theatre. Photo: Manuel Harlan

Frank Loesser’s 1950 classic musical Guys And Dolls is given a significant makeover by Nicholas Hytner at The Bridge Theatre. His ‘big idea’ is to produce an immersive production in which some of the audience stand in the middle of the auditorium while sets rise and lower around them. Most critics liked the atmosphere this created although there was some disagreement about whether it helped or hindered the story, which is based on Damon Runyon’s humorous tales of New York street life. Bunny Christies’s set and the (Olivier winning) choreography by Arlene Phillips and James Cousins were also well received.  There may be some variations in opinion but no review awarded less than four stars. Since the opening night reviews appeared, there has been a change of cast so the many highly complimentary remarks about the singer/actors have been omitted from this summary.  (The new cast has also been praised.)

Susannah Clapp in The Observer (5★) led the charge: ‘Fuelled by Bunny Christie’s design, Tom Brady’s musical supervision and choreography by Arlene Phillips with James Cousins, it swings up, down and sideways, enveloping the audience without ever dimming the dazzle of performance.’ ‘This is immersive theatre with real point,’ she continued, explaining ‘the story ‘needs city jostle and faces from the street.’ The choreography, she said, ‘whisks across small spaces without seeming cramped, and has more flare than flounce, more expression than attitude.’

For Clive Davis in The Times (5★), it was ‘sheer bliss’. ‘On a cold, wet night, we had found our little corner of heaven,’ he purred, and noted ‘Bunny Christie’s neon-trimmed design is as stylish as the period costumes’.

Quentin Letts in The Sunday Times (5★) exulted in his idiosyncratic way about the ‘Joy, laughter, liberation from all the ghastly priggishness of the 21st century.’ Helen Hawkins reporting for The Arts Desk (5★) called it an ‘exuberant new production’. John Nathan in The Jewish Chronicle (5★) described how ‘The air is thrillingly charged with a frisson of danger and the energy of the in-yer-face performances.’ ‘it is the ambition of the evening that astounds’ he said.

For Nick Curtis in The Standard (5★), it’s a ‘near-flawless’ production. ‘I can’t stress enough the meticulousness and care that has gone into every aspect of this show. Blissful and exhilarating,’ he said. and ‘The choreography, by Arlene Phillips and James Cousins, in these tight and elevated spaces, is astonishing. Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (5★) declared it to be ‘a definitive and joyous piece of theatre. It is an absolute triumph, not to mention a blast.’ Throughout, the choreography by Arlene Phillips and the co-director James Cousins, fills the space with movement that is both classy and cool…  It is a wonder and a tonic.’

Dominic Cavendish in The Telegraph (5★) loved the way ‘Hytner’s box of tricks, the Bridge, unleashes the show all around you if you’re one of the 380 punters standing in the thick of it. Even when seated, you’re gazing upon an extravaganza that explodes every which way.’ He liked ‘Hytner’s impeccable feelgood escapism’ and was impressed that ‘The choreography (Arlene Phillips and James Cousins) is fast and fluid, not too fancy, using spatial constriction to evoke a joyous hustle and bustle.’

Isobel Lewis in The Independent (4★) was much more enthusiastic: ‘The staging may be inventive, but this production already feels like a classic, knowing when to rock the boat and when to stick to what works. And boy, does it work.’ Sam Marlowe at the Stage (4★) thought, ‘The staging doesn’t reframe the show in any revelatory new way.’ Thus disagreeing with Susannah Clapp at The Observer (above) who said it had ‘a real point’. On the whole though, she declared that the production ‘sure is one swell time.’

Arifa Akbar from The Guardian (4★) in the seated area had a different view (in both senses), grumbling, ‘It was clear that the promenading audience was experiencing the show differently’. She was an outlier when it comes to the choreography, which in her opinion, ‘never quite flies, maybe owing to the slightly cramped size of the sets.’ Comparing it unfavourably with the Young Vic production of Oklahoma!, she said it is ‘an emphatically traditional enactment of the story itself, with period dress (costumes by Deborah Andrews) and exaggeratedly cartoonish characters.’   She acknowledged that it is ‘a feat of innovative staging’.

Guys And Dolls is running at the Bridge Theatre until 4 January 2025.   Click here to buy tickets direct from the theatre

Average critics’ rating 4.7★
Value Rating 49 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)

Link to Paul Seven Lewis’s review of Guys And Dolls

If you’ve seen Guys And Dolls, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Reviews Roundup: The Ballad of Hattie and James

Kiln Theatre

Sophie Thompson and Charles Edwards in The Ballad of Hattie and James. Photo: Mark Senior

Emma John writing for explained the plot of Samuel Adamson’s new play: ‘two friends reconnect late in life, and what follows is a journey backward and forward through their timeline, exploring the love of music that brought them together and the events that have pushed them apart.’

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

Marianka Swain in The Telegraph 4 ‘a spellbinding showcase for the perfectly in-tune Sophie Thompson and Charles Edwards.’ ‘this is a rich reckoning with our younger selves, with talent, desire, art and absolution, led by two actors who together create a great emotional symphony.’ She concluded: ‘the revelation of the moments that have made them, as well as the missed connections that define them, are a powerful reminder of what we owe to each other.’ The critics nearly all agreed that the two central performances were powerful but disagreed about whether the time-jumping script worked or confused.

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

Tim Bano of The Independent (4★) was one of those who loved it, calling it ‘a big sweeping symphony of sexual identity and music…really good, really funny and really smart’. ‘Adamson writes brilliant dialogue,’ he said. He reserved special praise for the two leads: ‘It’s amazing to see the way they spin around each other during these long scenes, like magnets, sometimes attracting and sometimes repelling.’ ‘

Tom Wicker at Time Out (4★) also found them impressive: ‘As Hattie, a charismatic Thompson seems to disrupt the very air around her, sandpaper raw in a world determined to box her in. Edwards holds himself with excruciatingly effective tightness, clipping his lines with the simmering precision of a desk clerk who might be about to throw his typewriter out of the window.’

Clive Davis in The Times (3★) also praised the stars but with a caution: ‘Charles Edwards and Sophie Thompson make such an intense combination that you’re almost willing to overlook the script’s wilful, self-referential tangles.’ He also found fault with the way ‘Richard Twyman’s production rushes through too many key scenes.’  Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (3★) also felt the actors were better than the play. They, she said, ‘find a spiky, intense chemistry’, and she did say the play was ‘richly textured, witty and original’ before adding, ‘it does suffer at its own hand: it’s very dense and packed, and the impressionistic whirl of periods and events sometimes makes it harder to anchor scenes, blurring their emotional impact’.

Emma Johnson commented in The Guardian (3★): ‘the revelation of the moments that have made them, as well as the missed connections that define them, are a powerful reminder of what we owe to each other.’

Lucinda Everett at WhatsOnStage (3★) disagreed about the lead actors: ‘Hattie and James’s connection never quite gets off the ground.’ She was also put off by the narrative: ‘thanks to all of the decade-hopping, the events that buffet their friendship feel oddly timed.’   Theatre Weekly‘s Oliver Valentine (3★) thought: ‘neither the characters or the play’s cliched middle-class dilemmas are interesting enough to drag out the epic saga that Adamson indulges in.’ Franco Milazzo in Broadway World (3★) was another who was unimpressed: ‘Some will find the final scene disappointingly overly sentimental, others a tearjerker of a goodbye. My hankie stayed where it was.’

Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (2★) found much to criticise: ‘(director Richard) Twyman does little to make the elusive story feel coherent, with an unevenly paced staging that rushes through the densest dialogue but slows to a crawl during poignant scenes.’

The Ballad of Hattie and James can be seen at The Kiln until May 18. Buy tickets direct from kilntheatre.com

Average critics’ rating 3.1★
Value Rating 77 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)

If you’ve seen The Ballad of Hattie and James, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Reviews Roundup: Two Strangers (Carry A Cake Across New York)

The Criterion

Sam Tutty and Dujonna Gift In Two Strangers. Photo: Tristram Kenton

The musical Two Strangers (Carry A Cake Across New York) underwent considerable development over the last few years before arriving at The Kiln in London where it mopped up enough critical and audience acclaim to justify a transfer to the West End. This two-hander tells the story of two 20-somethings in New York for a wedding. Sam Tutty plays an enthusiastic British man who believes all the cliches about the Big Apple, and Dujonna Gift is a cynical New Yorker who puts him right. The plot is essentially as it says in the title.

The reviews for its West End reincarnation (average 4.3★) were even more enthusiastic than those for its Kiln run (average 3.8★). This is particularly interesting because many review outlets chose not to visit the show a second time, and leads one to question whether this best serves the readers. Sam Tutty and Dujonna Gift received high praise, Jim Barne and Kit Buchan’s script is frequently complimented for its comedy and for being an unpredictable rom-com. Their score is generally- but not universally- liked, as are Tim Jackson’s direction and Soutra Gilmour’s set.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Alex Wood at WhatsOnStage (5★) thought it was ‘heartfelt, intimate, messy and utterly endearing’. He proclaimed:  ‘Barne and Buchan’s book is up there with the funniest in the West End right now – both Tutty and Gift have the audiences in the palms of their hands with every wisecrack, wordplay and whimsy.’ And he liked the music: ‘The tunes themselves are for the most part big, catchy and chipper.’  Theatre Weekly’s Greg Stewart (5★) was also full of praise for them: ‘our leads have perfectly mastered the comic timing required to pull off the delicate balance between humour and pathos.’ And he loved the music: ‘Barne and Buchan’s spectacular score, which is constantly surprising, and consistently satisfying’. He was in no doubt, ‘it will melt your heart’.
Caroline McGinn at Time Out (4★) found the musical rom-com ‘not too sickly, but perfectly sweet.’ It was, she said, ‘carried joyfully onwards and upwards by the wit and charm of its excellent cast, its upbeat music and outstanding libretto.’
The cake failed to rise for Olivia Garrett at Radio Times (3★). She described it as ‘fresh, funky’ but also ‘muddled and tonally confusing’, explaining ‘the story moves from happy to sad to silly and back again’. Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (3★) concluded: ‘Tutty and Gift excel, and earn their standing ovation. Yet the contrivances pile up, and there is a sense of almost-there about an appealing yet underplotted show. ‘

Two stars carry a play across London

For more opinions, we must turn to the reviews of the run at The Kiln. We won’t count the ones who sent a reviewer to both venues, like Alex Hood at WhatsOn Stage who awarded 3 stars (as opposed to the more recent 5 from his managing editor), or Greg Stewart at TheatreWeekly who saw it twice and gave it 5 stars on both occasions.
Kate Kellaway in The Observer (5★) describing it as ‘fresh, funny, ironic, inventive and moving’, analysed it thus: ‘its charm is in an intelligently calculated magic that does not lose sight of real life in all its bittersweetness and struggle.’  She concluded: ‘Tim Jackson’s production – no conventional romcom – is flawless. This show rings – and sings – true.’
David Jays in The Guardian (4★) took a similar view: ‘Funny, heartfelt but unsentimental, it’s a charmer…just the right mix of sugar and sour.’ He observed, ‘Soutra Gilmour’s set design, two skyscrapers of frost-shaded luggage circling on an endless carousel, perfectly captures the mood.’
Marianka Swain in The Telegraph (4★) thought the show was ‘a total charmer’. As for the stars, ‘They have contrasting but beautifully complementary voices – one sweet and fluting, one rich and powerful.’  At The Standard (4★) Nick Curtis noted: ‘the knowing schmaltz of Jim Barne and Kit Buchan’s script and score is undercut with larky wit and a determination to not always do the obvious.’
Patrick Marmion at the Mail (4★) thought ‘Tim Jackson’s production is pitched perfectly between fantasy and reality on Soutra Gilmour’s set of high-rise suitcases.’ For The Independent’s Alice Saville (4★), ‘the jokes land like a blizzard of falling snow. ‘
Cindy Marcolina writing for Broadway World (3★) was not won over. She liked the stars: ‘They both excel in the roles,’ and praised the director, ‘Tim Jackson orchestrates remarkable comic timing’ but ‘It’s the material that’s, regrettably, nothing special.’ Paul Vale in The Stage (3★) was another who thought ‘too few of the songs live up to the drama’.
Clive Davis in The Times (3 ‘★) got close to loving it: ‘What a tantalising near miss.’ He saw in it ‘lots of charm and impressive central performances from Dujonna Gift and Sam Tutty…The songs are tuneful enough, and the lyrics are subtle, but in the end the (writers) don’t quite make you care enough about what will happen to the two characters.’ That ‘near miss’ might have become a hit had he attended the West End opening night: one of his readers commented recently: ‘I’ve just seen it again, at the Criterion this time, and was delighted to see that they have improved the show since its run at the Kiln.’
Two Strangers (carry a cake across New York) is running at The Criterion until 31 August 2024. Buy tickets directly here

Average critics’ rating 4.2★
Value Rating 61 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)

If you’ve seen Two Strangers, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Much Ado About Nothing – Watermill – Review

Shakespeare’s supreme comedy is slapstick fun

★★★

Two actors playing Benedick and Beatrice wearing masked ball disguises in the Watermill production of Much Ado About Nothing
James Mack and Katherine Jack in Much Ado About Nothing. Photo: Pamela Raith

Much Ado About Nothing is my favourite Shakespeare comedy. I’ve seen many productions, so believe me when I say that, if you’re in the Newbury area, The Watermill’s new slapstick version is well worth your time.​

The play has two, maybe three plot strands. There is a comic romance between Benedick and Beatrice which is probably as perfect as any ever written. Parallel to that, there is a more ‘serious’ relationship between Benedick’s friend Claudio and Beatrice’s cousin Hero. There’s also a lot of funny business involving the Night Watch having knowledge of a crime but being so pompous and stupid as to not recognise the significance of the evidence they have.
The ‘Nothing’ in question is not simply as we understand the word today. In Shakepseare’s time the word noting sounded the same as nothing and related to observation. So the two romances hinge on hoaxes in which the lovers observe false reporting. In the comical thread, Benedick and Beatrice, who spend the early part of the play covering their feelings by insulting one another, are brought together; but there are terrible consequences when Claudio is led to believe Hero has been unfaithful.
The former is the highlight of the evening, with Benedick and Beatrice in turn hiding, while their friends pretend they don’t know they’re there. The adaptor Tom Wentworth and director Paul Hart have chosen to emphasise the comedy of this to the point of slapstick. This is overdone at times but mostly it makes for an amusing evening, especially since James Mack as Bendick is superb at physical comedy. He has a cheeky smile when he delivers his barbs against Beatrice, and he submits his body to numerous indignities, not least having his face daubed with blue paint.
We get a double dose of farce in this production, as there already much built-in silliness in the form of Dogberry, the man in charge of the Night Watch, whose self importance and misuse of language (‘O villain! thou wilt be condemned into everlasting redemption for this’) is always a joy. Hayden Wood uses his rubbery face and lanky stature to great comic effect.  He even includes a comedy routine for those who stay in the auditorium during the interval, followed by humorous interaction with members of the audience.
Something is lost in this concentration on farce. Augustina Seymour playing Don John, who conducts the plot against Hero, is given little opportunity to establish her malevolence, and we don’t gain enough insight into why Claudio, played by Fred Double,  goes from being head over heels in love with Hero (Thuliswa Magwaza) to turning against her so easily, when his love is tested.
His failure needs to be given proper weight, to make all the more moving Benedick’s reaction when his love for Beatrice is tested.

Beautiful speech and sublime singing

 Shakespeare takes great joy in Benedick and Beatrice’s language, both their witty insults and their heartfelt romance, and I was pleased to hear James Mack and Katherine Jack speaking the words beautifully.
Priscille Grace in Much Ado About Nothing. Photo: Pamela Raith

The production is set in 1940s Hollywood, which is a mixed blessing. Designer Ceci Calf does miracles in fitting onto The Watermill’s small stage so many props and flats to help the comedy and suggest film sets, but not enough is done to conjure up the glamour of the period. That’s left to the gorgeous costumes. More of a problem is the lack of clarity about exactly how what you might call the ‘real life’ scenes were supposed to integrate with scenes that were apparently being filmed for a movie. Dogs have had more coherent dinners.

Still, the setting was worth it, if only because if provided the opportunity to weave in some songs from the 40s like When I Fall In Love, It Had To Be You and I Can’t Give You Anything But Love. As is traditional in Watermill productions, the actors play instruments but, in this case, nearly all the singing is done by Priscille Grace. Her sublime phrasing and the range of her voice are so good that I felt a frisson of excitement every time she approached the microphone.
Even if this production doesn’t quite do justice to depth of Shakespeare’s play, it is an enjoyable evening’s entertainment. I thoroughly recommend Much Ado About Nothing at The Watermill.
Much Ado About Nothing can be seen at The Watermill until 18 May 2024
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre.
Follow Theatre Reviews With Paul Seven on Instagram, X, Mastodon, Threads and Facebook
Posted on

Reviews roundup: Machinal 4.4★

The Old Vic

Rosie Sheehy in Machinal. Photo: Manuel Harlan

They loved the play, they loved the production, but most of all they loved Rosie Sheehy in Machinal, now transferred from the Ustinov Studio in Bath to London’s Old Vic. The 1928 play by Sophie Treadwell, directed by Richard Jones, delves into the mind of a woman who murdered her husband, but let Time Out tell you why it’s so good.

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

Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (5★): ‘Jones’s hyper-stylized production is audacious from start to finish…a tale of one woman standing up to the system turned into a pulverising rapture.’ For him, every element worked: ‘Hyemi Shin’s retina-searing set is unforgettable, Benjamin Grant’s sound design skin-crawling unnerving, Adam Silverman’s lighting exquisitely unsettling, Sarah Fahie’s movement ravishingly creepy.’ About the star, he said: ‘Sheehy is astonishing. There’s something almost Hogarthian about how each scene sees her nail a different aspect of alienation’

The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (5★) was deeply moved: ‘(Richard) Jones’s staging is singularly complete: every sinew alarmed, from the snap of a black rubber glove to the glimpse of a flower trapped in a glass bowl; everything galvanised by a first-rate performance from Rosie Sheehy.’

David Nice was just as enthusiastic on the Artsdesk (5★) ‘You rarely see such meticulous, detailed work in the theatre,’ he said. Again the lead actor stood out in a stand out show: ‘Sheehy…is central, visceral when she needs to be yet precise and controlled – the sort of performance you wonder how an actor can sustain night after night.’ He concluded: ‘this is theatre that demands so much of team and audience, maybe even changes your perspectives. Unmissable.’

Awarding yet more full marks, Sam Marlowe in The Stage (5★) proclaimed: ‘It’s a mind-bending, inexorable helter skelter into hell, surreal as a nightmare yet terrifyingly real.’ For her, Rosie Sheehy acted ‘with such raw anguish and fury that it almost hurts to watch.’

Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (4★) reported: ‘In Richard Jones’s super, stark production, (the play) tears off the stage as if written yesterday, led by an outstanding performance from Rosie Sheehy.’ She had more to say about her: ‘It’s a brave, searingly physical performance.’ She summed up the production as ‘a staging of hallucinatory force.’

Nick Ferris in the Telegraph (4★) was also full of praise for the star: ‘It is a masterclass in how to play a character at the end of her tether. Sheehy is matched with a stellar supporting cast’ in what he called ‘an exceptional production’. For Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4★), ‘Some scenes go on a good chunk after you’ve got their point’, but ‘The outstanding acting makes up for much of that. It’s motored by a star-making performance by Rosie Sheehy as Helen. ‘

The one party pooper was Gary Naylor at Broadway World (3 ★) ‘Coming in at a gruelling 100 minutes all-through, the play is not an easy watch. Whether it’s worth the emotional investment required on both on sides of the fourth wall for its equivocating payoff is moot.’

Two major outlets decided their reviews of the original pre-transfer Ustinov Studio production were sufficient. Back then, Anya Ryan in The Times (5★) said: ‘this is a damning, dehumanising picture of industrialisation and sadness.’ And The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4★) concluded: ‘We walk away in horror, just as we should.’

Machinal is at the Old Vic until 1 June 2024. Click to buy tickets direct from the theatre

Average critics’ rating 4.0★
Value Rating 66 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60.)

If you’ve seen Machinal, please add your review and rating below

Posted on

Reviews Roundup: London Tide at The National 2.8★

  • Lyttelton Theatre
Bella Mclean in London Tide. Photo: Marc Brenner

An adaptation by Ben Power (The Lehman Trilogy) of Charles Dickens’ last completed novel Our Mutual Friend, with songs by P J Harvey, must have seemed like a surefire winner. Running through the typically Dickensian larger-than-life characters and complex plot about money, poverty, death and resurrection is the River Thames itself. Sadly for the National Theatre, the critics were not swept away. On thecwhole, they found the script shalloe but Bunny Christie’s set which evoked the river went down well. PJ Harvey’s song proved a sticking for most critics. So, Ian Rickson’s production was greeted with three and two star reviews with just one critic enthusiastic enough to award four stars.

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

That was Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (4★). ‘The performance space becomes the Thames – the effect is majestic and disconcerting (I felt a bit seasick in places),’ he shared. It was, he said, ‘Dickens’s late class drama turned into a work both elemental and righteous.’

Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) found it ‘light on the satire and heavy on mood, strikingly staged as a kind of 19th-century noir.’ She concluded: ‘The play winds up to a melodramatic end, with its potboiler elements exposed, but it still retains a curious power, and performances shine.’

Sarah Hemming at the Financial Times (3★) admired the ‘restless, intelligent, absorbing production’ but thought, ‘as drama it is held back by sheer narrative bulk.’ Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) decided: ‘Ian Rickson’s production aims to be more than episodically charged, to explore the life of the city that is not contained by character. It is not sufficiently wraparound-vibrant to achieve this.’

For Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) ‘emotional impact is a casualty’ and  ‘its characters don’t quite come to life, drowning in the politics and plot mechanics’ but she did appreciate ‘The performances are sinewy and direct, with Ellie-May Sheridan scene-stealing.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph  (3★) agreed: ‘the laurels go to the transfixing stage debutante Ellie-May Sheridan, who seems to have stepped out of Dickens’s imagination.’ Otherwise, for him, it was a ‘five-star wow bobbing in a three-star show.’

Fiona Mountford in the i (3★), like many others couldn’t resist a watery metaphor: ‘we emerge from this theatrical river feeling slightly soggy and mildly bewildered.’ Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★) also took a dip: ‘it feels bogged down in the shallows, never quite plunging into the depths of the story’s meaning or fulfilling its own intelligent and honest intentions. It’s full of integrity, but lacks drama.’

And so to the ones who really took against it. Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★)  said: ‘reduced to its naked mechanics, the exposition laden writing lacks the lustrous life blood that so warmly flows through the veins of Dickens’s literary worlds.’

Clive Davis in The Times (2★) came out fighting, calling it ‘this weirdly misconceived adaptation’. He didn’t pull his punches: ‘Ian Rickson’s lumbering production is anything but a page-turner.’ And a final kick at the ‘crowded, undernourished melodrama.’

For David Benedict at The Standard (2★) it was ‘a leaden three-and-a-quarter hours.’ His analysis of the failings of the adaptation included this comment: ‘where Dickens’ contextualised writing allows coincidence to thrive, in dialogue as bald as this, the coincidences just feel contrived.’ He concluded, ‘Near the end, Rokesmith sings “Why, why, why, why, why…” Indeed.’

PJ Harvey’s songs

It seems you either like PJ Harvey or you don’t, and the critics didn’t, except for the Time Out reviewer who is clearly a fan: ‘Harvey’s songs are integral…the poised drama they provide feels vital to a show which is bigger on storytelling than emotions and might have felt flat without its spine-tingling tunes.’ The Guardian had a foot in both camps, describing the songs as ‘anti-ballads’ whose ‘seriousness gives the story a lugubrious depth but also undercuts Dickens’ satire and levity.’

No-one else had a good thing to say about them. Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) noted ‘as the story gets more interesting and the characters richer, the songs remain the same – each character stands centre stage and sings out at the audience – until you can’t help sighing a little when another one strikes up, knowing another dirge is on its way.’ The i had a similar thought: ‘It’s a fine idea, but one that plays to decidedly diminishing returns as the mournful, almost identical-sounding numbers mount up.’

The Financial Times said the songs ‘add to the ballast and, often in a gloomily low register, are challenging to deliver.’ For WhatsOnStage, ‘the songs, which are dark and relentless as well as impressive, have a tendency to stop the action rather than move it on.’ The Telegraph agreed: ‘those ditties often impede the action, without adding much ambience.‘ ‘It sounds as if Harvey is constantly recycling the same two slender, indie-flavoured themes,’ said The Times.

For The Observer, ‘They supply a dark, rough undertow but they don’t push on the drama. Rather, like a tide, they simply recur.’ To the ears of The Standard: ‘Harvey’s ceaselessly repetitive, deadeningly slow rhythms and mostly stolidly unchanging harmonies – unhelped by Powers’ flat, earnest lyrics – never make a case for songs being in the show whatsoever.’ Broadway World too could have done without them and didn’t let politeness stand in the way of a good insult. The ‘sludgy dirge’ was a ‘bloated concoction of subdued power ballads paired with painfully superficial lyrics are such a tagged-on afterthought that the production couldn’t just go on happily without it, but would actively improve if it were abandoned.’

Thank goodness for Bunny Christie’s set

Time Out gave a vivid description: ‘At first the performance space looks virtually unadorned. Soon though, the entire ceiling – or rather a series of poles the lights are attached to – starts to undulate, rising and falling like the tide. Eventually it’s joined by the very surface of the stage, which ripples and heaves.’

The Independent recorded: ’50 spotlights hanging over the stage in receding strips, each undulating slowly, giving the queasy impression of the river somehow reflected in the sky, rather than the other way around.’ The Observer said: ‘Christie’s set – with iron lighting rigs that rise and fall – is evocatively adamantine, when not looking like decor for a 21st-century loft.’

The Stage referred to ‘a flinty, hard-edged staging‘ and the i called it ‘striking’.

London Tide can be seen at the National’s Lyttelton Theatre until 22 June 2024

Average critics’ rating 2.8★

Value Rating 41 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen London Tide, please add your review and rating below

 

Posted on

What is the point of the Oliviers?

What is the point of the Olivier Awards? They purport to celebrate theatre but end up looking like self congratulatory lovie love-ins. The awards, organised by the Society of London Theatres, are meant to be a shop window for the best shows, performers and creatives. But what kind of shop displays goods that are not on sale? Want a ticket for the multi-Olivier winning Sunset Boulevard? Sorry, it’s closed. Perhaps you’d like to see the Best New Play? I’m afraid not, the final whistle has blown for Dear England. The curtain has come down on Best Actor Mark Gatiss’ John Gielgud. Vanya, the best play revival, has gone back under the dust covers. Quick! You can still catch Sarah Snook in The Picture of Dorian Gray, Stranger Things, Operation Mincemeat and Guys And Dolls. At least all the Oscar winners have an afterlife of DVDs and streaming.
Let’s not even debate the ridiculous proposition that there is such a thing as the best. For example, Mark Gatiss thoroughly deserved his award as Best Actor but any of the otger nominees- Andrew Scott, James Norton, Joseph Fiennes or David Tennant- would have been just as deserving.
Inevitably, once you invent an award someone has to win it. But who could possibly have decided that Guys And Dolls only merited one award? One? Who made the decision to give almost every Olivier to Sunset Boulevard. Did Tom Francis really give a better performance than the phenomenal Charlie Stemp in Crazy For You? You couldn’t choose between their voices, so did Nicole Scherzinger offer as subtle an acting performance as Marisha Wallace did in Guys And Dolls to win Best Actress in a Musical?

You can say it’s all a matter of opinion and taste, but I return to my question: who makes the decisions? The answer is surprising. David Benedict explained in a recent article in The Stage that a panel of ten experts cast their votes. This would be reassuring except for the fact they are slightly outweighed by the 238 votes cast by members of the Society of London Theatres, in other words, theatre owners and producers, the larger of whom have multiple votes. Fortunately, they are all honourable people who vote objectively and wouldn’t dream of favouring their own shows. Even so, if the general public knew that the awards were potentially given to people voting for themselves, I doubt there would be any interest at all.

So, if we are to take the winners with a pinch of salt, I go back to my question: what is the point of the Oliviers? Rather than being anything as lofty as celebrating the best in London theatre, I suggest it’s marketing plain and simple. If that’s the case, the Awards are doing a decent job. The ceremony was covered in the news media from the nominations to the red carpet to the results, albeit not interesting enough to be broadcast on TV.
And, talking of marketing, the Lloyd Webber empire of theatres and productions must be pleased to be able to boast so many Oliviers in the publicity for the Broadway opening of Sunset Boulevard.

Posted on

Reviews Roundup: The Comeuppance

The Almeida

Tamara Lawrance and Anthony Welsh in The Comeuppance. Photo: Marc Brenner

Most critics agreed that Branden Jacobs-Jenkins’ new play The Comeuppance didn’t reach the heights of An Octoroon. Nevertheless they greeted the story of a group of American millennials now in middle age who look back and face mortality (literally since Death appears) with 4 and 3 star enthusiasm.

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

Let’s start with the high markers. Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★) was beguiled. She said it was ‘a play about death which is both high comedy and a melancholic exploration of the vagaries of memory and the weight of nostalgia on 30-somethings surviving in a post-Covid landscape’ and described it as ‘a magnificent drama, truthful and haunting.’

‘it’s Bruce Springsteen meets Chekhov, delivered with waspish humour and the modern irritations of missed texts and faulty GPS,’ said Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (4★), calling it ‘clever, funny and compelling: part social comedy, part danse macabre.’ She added: ‘there’s something poignant about this wry, sad encounter with the inevitability of mortality.’

Debbie Gilpin for Broadway World (4★) was impressed by the way ‘it broaches the trauma of the COVID pandemic in an original and thought-provoking way.’ She also liked the way ‘the blend of humour and drama allows the play to remain engaging.’ ‘Every member of the company has excellent comic timing, as well as great dramatic chops,’ she said, adding’Tamara Lawrance and Anthony Welsh stand out’.

The rest of the pack were more reserved. Fiona Mountford at the I (3★) praised ‘the all-round excellence of the five-person cast’ but said ‘we spend too much of the two-hour running time waiting for Eric Ting’s production to shake itself out of a state of suspended animation and hit full flow.’ Arifa Akbar The Guardian (3★) commented: ‘the production never becomes quite savage enough; the unleashing of rage seems a little polite.’ However, she concluded: ‘Even with its off notes, The Comeuppance is good theatre with eloquent outbursts and awkward wit.’

Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) had this to say: ‘Finely acted, ‘The Comeuppance’ is a dark, droll, somewhat contemplative comedy about how a generation gets old (or at least, middle-aged).’ Tim Bano in The Independent (3 ★) was even more succinct , calling it ‘two hours of listening to middle-aged millennials feeling sorry for themselves.’

David Benedict in The Standard (3★) praised the ‘warm, carefully paced production’ but found ‘In place of engaging subtext, there’s merely withheld information dragged into the open at convenient moments like in an awkward thriller.’ The result? ‘the play lacks focus and tension evaporates’.

Dzifa Benson for the Telegraph (3★) was disappointed: ‘Jacobs-Jenkins is a fine playwright…On this occasion, however, he doesn’t land his mark.’ He observed: ‘Jacobs-Jenkins doesn’t seem to know what to make of all these calamities.’ For Aleks Sierz at the Arts Desk (3★) ‘the play remains inconclusive and, for me, unsatisfying.’

‘It’s a melancholic, meditative piece with a dash of gallows humour’ said Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★), ‘it’s as if we’re watching them through a fine veil, groping among its allusions for more solid and penetrating meaning.’

Clive Davis in The Times (3★) was forgiving if its perceived faults: ‘If you can’t help sensing that all the characters are types rather than three-dimensional beings, Jacobs-Jenkins’s sharply sculpted dialogue teases out the tensions that exist beneath the bonhomie. Natasha Chivers’s crepuscular lighting design adds to the sense that we are caught somewhere between reality, a dream and a nightmare.’

The Comeuppance can be seen at The Almeida until 18 May 2024. Buy tickets directly from almeida.co.uk

Average Critic Rating 3.3★

Value Rating 63 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen The Comeuppance, please add your review and rating below

 

 

 

Posted on

Underdog: The Other Other Brontë – National Theatre- Review

Gemma Whelan is a winner in this romp through the lives of the Brontes

★★★

Three actors Adele James, Gemma Whelan and Rhiannon Clements gather round to read a letter in a scene from Underdog: The Othe Other Bronte at the National Theatre
Adele James, Gemma Whelan, Rhiannon Clements in Underdog_ The Other Other Brontë. Photo: Isha Shah

It might be better if you know nothing about the Brontës and simply watch Sarah Gordon’s play Underdog as a portrait of the competition and mutual support that often co-exist among sisters, and of the challenges of being a female novelist in early Victorian times. If you do know a bit about them, you may be annoyed at the liberties taken by this interpretation of their relationship. On the other hand, like me, you may find it jolly good fun. It certainly gains from having the mightily talented Gemma Whelan as Charlotte Brontë.

Let’s start with Ms Whelan.  It’s only right, since she begins the play. She enters through the auditorium, chatting to audience members about the Brontë novels. Unexpectedly, for the author of one of those ‘dour’ books, she’s wearing a bright red dress. She goes up on stage and explains that we are going to hear her story.

As promised, Gemma Whelan and her character dominate the whole evening. She is cocky and nervous, knowing and naive, likeable and unpleasant, and very funny. Supported by Natalie Ibu’s sharp and speedy direction, she holds us- and her sisters- in her grip throughout the evening.

This is a good point to tell you about the set. I know we don’t buy tickets to see the design but Grace Smart’s is impressive. At the beginning, there is a thick carpet of moorland gorse and heather. Almost as soon as Charlotte has mounted the stage, this flies upwards until all we can see is the mass of brown roots underneath. Three black walls are revealed that, combined with the ceiling, represent wonderfully the claustrophobia and earthiness so often associated with the Brontë sisters.

One nice touch is the use of a revolve to indicate more frantic activity, or at the start of act two the long slow coach journey to London, complete with theatrical coconut shells clip-clopping. The set has one more surprise at the end of the play when the back opens up to indicate that Charlotte and the other Brontes are nowadays known to the whole world.

The Other Other Brontë of the title is not the middle sister Emily, who wrote Wuthering Heights. Emily’s character isn’t explored so deeply as the other two but then she was the most keen to preserve her anonymity and she died young. So less is known about her. That doesn’t stop Adele James making a good fist of playing a middle sister who challenges the elder and defends the younger.

No, the other other Brontë is the youngest sister Anne who wrote the less well known Agnes Grey and The Tenant Of Wildfell Hall. Anne is played by Rhiannon Clements with an excellent combination of inner strength and outer submissiveness.

The play suggests Charlotte was jealous of Anne’s talent, that she stole the premise of Agnes Grey for her own novel Jane Eyre, and that Anne let her eldest sister walk all over her. Charlotte waivers between undermining her youngest sister and giving her love and support. In fact, this is the greatest joy of Underdog, the way in which many sisters close in age are both competitive and supportive. (This subject has become almost a theme at the National lately, with the great Till The Stars Come Down, The House of Bernarda Alba and Dancing At Lughnasa all featuring sisterly rivalry and solidarity.)

There is a scene, where Charlotte confident of her work but not of her looks, is welcomed into London’s literary grandees’ club (shown as a kind of disco- just one of many amusing anachronisms). On a high because her talent has been recognised, she shrugs off Anne’s concerns. But when she is insulted for her lack of femininity, she turns desperately to her sisters for reassurance.
By the way, the sisters’ ‘coarseness’, which at that time was how many perceived their writing and therefore the women themselves, is given substance in the play by their use of modern expressions and a huge amount of swearing, all to great comic effect.

Liberty-taking, laughter-inducing

Gemma Whelan in Underdog. Photo: Isha Shah

Here’s some of the historical background.  Back in the first half of the 19th century, women novelists were expected to write romances set in polite society. It was unacceptable to many critics that novels that involved class discrimination, male violence, substance abuse and more, as the Brontes’ did, could be written, or read, by women. Therefore, all three sisters submitted their first novels to publishers under male pseudonyms, something Charlotte and Anne were keen to give up, but which Emily clung to.
Charlotte outlived her younger sisters. After their deaths, she did stop a reprint of Anne’s The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, despite its success. She also seems to have been the most determined among the three to gain respect in literary society, and worked with Elizabeth Gaskell to this end.

Sarah Gordon uses these facts to support a thesis that Charlotte was ambitious and competitive, while the other two were not, and that Charlotte pushed her own work at their expense. The reality may be different, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And it is a good story, full of comedy and a little pathos, and some interesting ideas.

The many other parts are played by a small group of men, including Nick Blakeley as a snooty Elizabeth Gaskell, Julian Moore-Cook as the slimy publisher George Smith and James Phoon as the the Brontes’ troubled alcoholic brother Branwell.

Underdog is primarily about three sisters, and 19th century attitudes to women, but there is an undertow that questions how what we know or think we know about artists influences our appreciation of their art. However, apart from the boisterous relationship of the sisters, everything else is touched on lightly, and the main emphasis is on fun. Which it is.

Underdog can be seen at the National Theatre’s Dorfman studio until 25 May 2024.
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre

Watch this review on the YouTube channel Theatre Reviews With Paul Seven

Posted on

Reviews Roundup: Ian McKellen in Player Kings

Noël Coward Theatre

Ian McKellen and Toheeb Jimoh in Player kings. Photo: Manuel Harlan

With Sir Ian McKellen playing Falstaff in a new play directed by Robert Icke and adapted from William Shakespeare’s Henry IV Parts One and Two, the critics expected the theatrical event of the year. They got it.  4 and 3 star reviews told us that, even if they didn’t think it was a production to go down in theatrical history, they were not disappointed.  They loved Sir Ian (although some seemed more impressed that he was doing it at all at his age), the rest of the top class cast, and the director. Most of the critics thought the second half didn’t match the first in this nearly four-hour marathon.

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

The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish (4 ★) summed up: ‘This account may not be one for the annals, but we surely exit eternally grateful that McKellen added the challenge to his bucket-list; a must-witness.’ He said, ‘an unmistakable aura of elegy and mortality hangs over his largely delightful and affecting turn as old Jack Falstaff.’ As for the direction, ‘Though it can incline to the briskly efficient, Icke’s production..is intelligent and beautifully bookended.’

Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4 ★) said ‘McKellen’s rendition of this familiar role feels astonishingly fresh and rewarding…a performance that is, in itself, crammed with observations about some traditional traits of the national character, many of which are not pretty.’ She wrote perceptively about the way Icke’s ‘thoughtful, needling and often very entertaining’ production is ‘skewering of the mythology of Englishness and patriotism, a shrewd overview of the current state of the nation and a piece of premium classical theatre’. It was, she said, ‘A play for today; a performance to remember.’ Like other critics, she felt ‘The pacy first half gives way to a certain amount of languor in the second.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (4 ★) was possibly the most enthusiastic of all about Sir Ian’s performance, saying he ‘attacks the part ..with relish and superb comic timing…it’s a remarkable feat of skill, swagger and stamina for an 84-year-old…His rheumy, phlegmy Falstaff demands time and attention.’ Fiona Mountford at the i  (4 ★) noted, ‘Sir Ian’s Falstaff, mighty of belly and bragging and snuffling like a pig, has a nasty edge.’

For Sarah Hemming of the Financial Times (4★) ‘McKellen, nearly 85, is magnificent. It’s a performance that confirms once again the depth, breadth and acuity of this great actor’s skill.’ She continued: ‘It’s a brilliant portrayal: magnetic, constantly shifting, often funny, yet fundamentally sad.’ She liked the production: ‘Icke drives through his staging a febrile uncertainty and sense of transience.’ Despite her high rating, she felt ‘The second half is choppy and loses momentum, and some of the comic warmth goes missing.’ However, she ended, ‘at the heart of the show sits McKellen’s unforgettable portrayal of a big player drinking in the last-chance saloon — a Falstaff for our times.’

‘It didn’t feel like nigh on four hours’ for Susannah Clapp in The Observer (4★). For her both Falstaff and Hal are outstanding: McKellen is ‘a mighty actor at the peak of his power’ and ‘Toheeb Jimoh is a completely radiant presence’.

It wasn’t too long for Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (4★) either, who said it  ‘goes in a flash, feeling constantly pacey and surprising.’ In line with his peers, he said: ‘you simply can’t take your eyes off of magnetic McKellen, leering around the stage.’

Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (4 ★) called Sir Ian ‘excellent as a Falstaff whose essential failure in life obviously weighs heavily on him. It’s a funny role, and McKellen gets some big laughs.’ He gave the production high praise: ‘it’s a pretty much faultless turn from the director, a reminder of his uncanny ability to get to the psychological heart of a classic text.’ He continued: ‘it’s a terrific take on one of the greatest plays ever written (plus its decent straight-to-DVD sequel) blessed by two tremendous – and tremendously original – lead performances.’ Like others, he enthused about all the actors: ‘a supporting cast to die for.’

Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4 ★) observed: ‘McKellen has a unique capacity to play it big and hardly appear to be acting at all.’ He described Toheeb Jimoh as a ‘sensation-in-waiting’.

The critics all had good words for the rest of the cast. Alex Wood at Whats On Stage (3★) , while piling on the bouquets for the lead- ‘McKellen delivers one of the best stage performances of the year’- added ‘Toheeb Jimoh…is an enthralling presence.’ His main reservation was that ‘it all comes apart in a staid second half (shorter in length yet feeling longer), where both Shakespeare’s text and Icke’s choices feel much more lacklustre and uninspired…There may be mighty players, but this occasionally feels like less than the sum of its parts.’

The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (3★) agreed: ‘There is a shift in tone between two parts: the first is staged as a gothic thriller, of sorts, with long shadows and suspense. The shorter latter half feels oddly anti-climatic.’ But she praised ‘McKellen’s is a richly complex portrayal’ and liked the ‘slick modern dress production with a magnificent brick-backed set designed by Hildegard Bechtler’.

Clive Davis in The Times (3★) also saw it as a play of two halves: ‘It’s in the first half of the evening, a full two hours long, that the drama is at its sharpest. After the interval, there’s a sense of events being allowed to pile up almost at random.’ However he did like Sir Ian’s voice which ‘still paints in rich colours’ and he too was impressed by the supporting actors: ‘Toheeb Jimoh, lean and athletic, makes a likeable prince. Richard Coyle’s King Henry possesses suitable gravitas.’

Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) was the least enthusiastic. He had mixed feelings about Sir Ian’s performance: ‘He’…soaks up all the attention when he’s on stage; basically, he’s as brilliant as ever. But he also feels like a cartoon splotch on an otherwise realist production. McKellen’s approach is outsized and incongruous, especially in those early scenes when he’s alongside Toheeb Jimoh’s joyous Prince Hal.’ And he certainly wasn’t keen on the production: ‘the whole thing tips into naffnes… McKellen meets Icke could have been magic. In spurts, to be fair, it is. But as Falstaff toddles off into the wings, the overriding sensation is one of trying to convince yourself you’re not disappointed.’

Player Kings continues at the Noel Coward Theatre until 22 June 2024, then touring. For details and tickets, go to playerkingstheplay.co.uk

Average Critic Rating 3.7★

Value Rating 42 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price. In theory, this means the higher the score the better value but, because of price variations, a West End show could be excellent value if it scores above 30 while an off-West End show may need to score above 60. This rating is based on opening night prices- theatres may raise or lower prices during the run.)

If you’ve seen Player Kings, please add your review and rating below

Proudly powered by WordPress