Sister Act The Musical. Photo credit: Manuel Harlan
A gangster’s moll sees a crime and goes into a witness protection in a nunnery where she teaches the nun choir to sing, and generally enjoy life a little more. The production has toured and played the Eventim Apollo in 2022 which is where it was reviewed by the London-based critics. Beverley Knight returns in what we inevitably think of as the Whoopi Goldberg role until 8 June 2024 when she is succeeded by Alexandra Burke. This roundup will be revised after the official opening night of the latest run. The critics previously loved Beverley Knight’s singing, although some had reservations about her skill as a comic actor. Other well-liked members of the previous cast return for the current run including Clive Rowe and Lesley Joseph. Ruth Jones is a newcomer as the Mother Superior.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Adam Bloodworth in CityAM (5) awarded the first 5 star review, calling it ‘simple, straightforward fun channelled through a production that is so precision-tooled that every moment becomes either a huge laugh or a visual spectacular.’
In her review of the opening night of the current run, Marianka Swain in The Telegraph (4) said ‘the Dominion Theatre is a perfect fit for Bill Buckhurst’s warm hug of a production.’ She picked out newcomer Ruth Jones playing the Mother Superior as ‘another reason to make a bee-line for Sister Act tickets.’ She concluded: ‘Watching the sisters in full flow, boogieing away in rainbow-sequinned habits, is sheer theatrical bliss.’
Franco Milazzo st Broadway World (4) also welcomes Ruth Jones: ‘What the Gavin and Stacey star lacks in lung power, she more than makes up for in sheer charisma.’ He also pays tribute to ‘a sterling cast, Menken and Slater’s songs and Morgan Large’s ingenious set.’
The earlier reviews were generally appreciative of the feel-good nature of the musical without being carried away by it. There were some notable exceptions. ‘This revival is heavenly’ said Nicole Vassell in The Independent (5★). ‘Alan Menken and Glenn Slater’s uplifting score is excellent,’ she wrote, and concluded: ‘the show’s an irresistibly great time.’ Neil Norman writing in The Express (4★) stated: ‘It puts a smile on your face that refuses to leave.’ About Beverley Knight, he said: ‘Not only is that voice goosebumpingly glorious, she has … impressive comedy chops.’ He also liked ‘Morgan Large’s simple but effective stained glass set design.’ Alex Wood for Whats On Stage (4★) agreed about Large’s ‘glittery menagerie of set pieces.’ He had mixed feelings about the songs: ‘“Fabulous, Baby!”, “Take Me to Heaven” and “Raise Your Voice” are all veritable ear-worms’ but ‘For every “Raise Your Voice” there’s a much more forgettable number.’ However, he was bowled over by ‘a deluge of sugar-rush sentimentality and spirited vim’ and concluded: ‘The revival lands squarely in the “feel-good and proud of it” camp.’
Andrzej Lukowski’s reaction in Time Out (3★) was more typical: While praising Beverley Knight – ‘she is an extraordinary singer’, he damned the first half with faint praise – ‘It’s a sturdy enough comic romp ‘- and damned the second half with no praise- ‘bloated and ponderous.’ It’s ‘an okay musical, he concluded. Natasha Tripney in The Stage (3★) took an opposite view of the musical’s progression: ‘Bill Buckhurst’s production takes a while warming up in the first half…but the pacing and energy levels improve significantly in the second half.’ She agreed about Beverley Knight, saying ‘She brings vocal heft and requisite presence to the role.’
Ryan Gilbey in The Guardian (3★) described Beverley Knight as ‘full-throated, comically twitchy’ but dismissed the plot, saying it ‘could be scratched on a sacramental wafer’. While he found ‘inspiration flags’, he conceded ‘good humour sees it through.’ The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (3★) enjoyed Beverley Knight’s ‘storming voice and personality’, but like most of the others thought ‘The plot is reduced to a skeletal framework on which to hang musical or comic set pieces’. He wasn’t too keen on Alan Menken’s score either, describing it as ‘only occasionally soulful and never funky’.
Clive Davis writing in The Times (3★) admitted ‘There are some inspired hot gospel belters’. Otherwise he was unimpressed: ‘The script, though, slips into automatic pilot after an engaging first act’, and ‘Morgan Large’s set design is a little basic’. The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish (3★) decided: ‘The joy is preordained but it’s joy all the same.’
Average critic rating (out of 5) 3.4★
Value rating 38 (Value rating is the Average critic rating divided by the most common Stalls/Circle 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.)
The American star of The Morning ShowBilly Crudup makes his West End debut in a monologue written by David Cale which has already been a hit in the US. Mr Crudup plays among other characters a shy gay American who, as well as pretending to be English himself, invents an alter ego, a Cockney ‘geezer’ called Harry Clarke.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Clive Davis in The Times (4★) described the play as ‘a shaggy dog story, and a thoroughly entertaining one.’ ‘Leigh Silverman’s direction is tightly observed yet unobtrusive’,’ he went on to describe Crudup as ‘utterly hypnotic’. ‘It’s very funny indeed,’ agreed Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (4★). She continued: ‘It’s a real tour de force of storytelling and performance, an old-fashioned pleasure with a modern twist.’
While feeling that the playwright could dig deeper into the psychological issues he raises,’ Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (3★) praises ‘the slippery skill of Cale’s writing’ as well as ‘Crudup’s consummate, magnetic performance’. Chris Wiegand in The Guardian (3★) found ‘the script lacks the motor of a thriller and there is little at stake in this slight story’ but praised ‘Crudup’s vocal skill’. The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe (3★) took a similar view: ‘Leigh Silverman’s production is smartly paced, with a bravura solo performance from … Billy Crudup. But the play is effectively a series of Escher staircases leading nowhere, ingenious but inconsequential.’ Some reviewers (see below) criticised Crudup’s way of speaking English accents but for Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★), the plot is such that ‘it makes sense that he sounds like an American doing an English accent’. He concluded: ‘it’s trashily entertaining and Crudup is magnetic.’ Billy Crudup gives ‘ a truly riveting performance’ agrees Claire Allfree in The Telegraph (3★) but, as to the play, ‘while, with its high-gloss blend of excess, madness and fabulous wealth, it flirts with the trappings of a thriller, there is precious little actually at stake’.
Fiona Mountford in the i (2★), advising her readers to save their money, criticised Billy Crudup: ‘a self-satisfied and showboating sort of performance’ in which his English accent ‘makes him sound like a strangulated minor royal’. She didn’t like the play much either: ‘the script, full of holes where plot logic ought to be, offers almost no sense of jeopardy.’ The Independent‘s Alice Saville (2★) agreed about the English accent: ‘his tones drifting from East End to Essex to New York like the world’s most incompetent Uber driver.’ The script disappointed her too: ‘the promised darkness never quite arrives, and nor does any kind of underlying message or shock twist.’ The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (2★) also criticised the script: Cale’s play, he said, ‘has almost no psychological depth’ but ‘Never mind the thin, shaggy dog-story of a plot: this monologue is all about Billy Crudup’s mercurial, showboating performance.’ He did agree with his fellow two star reviewers that Billy Crudup’s English accents were ‘terrible’ but, he added, ‘It doesn’t really matter.’ The theme continues over at Broadway World (2★) where Alexander Cohen criticises ‘a meandering script’ and was thankful for Billy Crudup: ‘Without him the show would crumble.’
Average critic rating (out of 5) 2.8★
Value rating 37 (Value rating is the Average critic rating divided by the most common Stalls/Circle 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.)
Roger Evans, Michael Sheen and Sharon Small in Nye. Photo: Johan Persson
A man is dying in a hospital bed. He is flanked by his wife and his oldest friend. Heavily sedated with pain killing morphine, his brain takes him back to significant episodes in his life. And what a life. Because this Aneurin Bevan known as Nye who spearheaded the foundation of the National Health Service.
In the course of the evening, while we do learn something about how the service came into being, much more to the point we discover why it was so important to this man and what made him into one of the Labour Party’s most powerful figures.
Playwright Tim Price’s concept is superb. For the entire play, Nye is on stage in his pyjamas and often in his hospital bed. This may remind you of Dennis Potter’s TV drama The Singing Detective, and there is even a sequence in which Nye sings Get Happy to the backing of a brass band. Whatever the inspiration, it’s a highly effective device.
It may be fair to say that, because of the constant presence of Nye, the production would not succeed without an actor of exceptional brilliance in the role. Fortunately, in Michael Sheen, it has one. He never overplays the part, tempting as it must be when portraying one of the twentieth century’s great orators. Nye himself may have had a huge ego, he may have been disloyal, and these characteristics are hinted at, but what we are given by Michael Sheen is a man scared by his present condition and wondering desperately whether his life has been worthwhile. It is a magnetic and moving performance.
Michael Sheen and the cast of Nye. Photo: Johan Persson
Vicki Mortimer’s clever set uses green hospital-style curtains to open to reveal a whole ward of beds, and close to provide the intimacy of a single room. The beds and curtains also move around to create a schoolroom, the House of Commons, a library, the local council chamber and a parliamentary tea room. A low ceiling from which hang the lights emphasises depth and human scale. The lighting designed by PauleConstable enhances each scene: flat fluorescent for the ward, green laser for the coal face, and so on.
So, we encounter Nye bullied by a teacher because his stammer, and receiving solidarity from his friends including his lifelong friend Archie Lush, given a solid portrayal by Roger Evans, and it’s he who helps him overcome his stammer by introducing him to the miners’ free library where he learns alternatives that avoid the traps of words beginning with ‘s’. And of course, it’s his wide vocabulary that helps him become one of the great orators of his time.
We see how he organises the mine workers in his home town Tredegar. How he was a lone and unpopular voice opposing that other great orator WinstonChurchill during World War Two. Tony Jayawardena giving a very amusing version of the wartime leader as a charming persuader, symbolically dancing light on his feet.
In the post-War Labour government, Nye becomes Health Minister and forces through the National Health Service against considerable opposition both from within his own party (a egocentric patronising Herbert Morrisson is played by Jon Furlong) and from the doctors. He sues tactics learned from his youth, his brief time in the mines and his time in local politics, as well his power of persuasion. Although in the end the doctors are brought round by throwing a lot of money at them. The use of a stark black-and-white video created by Jon Driscoll is hugely effective. First it shows the myriad challenges facing the new universal health service and overwhelming Nye, especially when people step out of the screen to tell their personal story. Then it shows the faces of the doctors harsh, greedy and recalcitrant.
On a personal front, we learn how his poetry-loving mineworker father who died from coal dust in the lungs influenced him. And how he met and wooed his wife and fellow MP Jenny Lee. Sharon Small is wonderful as the far left feminist, sharp of mind and tongue.
A worthy swansong for Rufus Norris
There are elements of a history lesson, but ultimately this is the story of a man and his mission. It is told with humour and compassion. Director Rufus Norris, in his last production as Artistic Director of the National Theatre, uses the stage to the full, creating a feel that is both epic and intimate. There are complex scenes choreographed by Steven Hogget and Jess Williams, there are small moments of passion and poignancy.
Now, you can say, as some critics have, that the other characters have little depth, and that may be true but this is a play about Nye Bevan. You may even say that it is not a full picture of him or the full story of the formation of the NHS. That may also be true, but why expect it to be something that it doesn’t claim to be? What we are given are the episodes that stand out in a life as remembered by a dying man.
When death finally arrives, he asks plaintively: ‘Did I look after everyone?’ It is a moment that brought tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat, and I was not alone. Tears for the loss of someone who we have come to care about, and maybe also for a health service that was started with such high ideals.
Coincidentally on the same day as I saw Nye, I also watched The Human Body at the Donmar Warehouse in which Keeley Hawes as a local GP and Labour politician is involved in ushering in the NHS at local level while having a Brief Encounter-ish affair with a film star played by Jack Davenport. If you’d like to know what I thought of it, click here.
Keeley Hawes and Jack Davenport rise above a messy play
★★★
Keeley Hawes and Jack Davenport in The Human Body. Photo: Marc Brenner
The Human Body at the Donmar Warehouse in London tells the story of a middle-aged love affair to the background of the birth of the NHS.
Lucy Kirkwood‘s inspiration is Brief Encounter and other British films of the immediate postwar era that looked at women in a changing society. To hammer the point home, there are multiple occasions in the production when the action is videoed and shown on the back wall as a black-and-white film. Video has been used quite a bit in theatre productions recently, notably in Ivo von Hove‘s A Little Life and The Picture of Dorian Gray, but Ivo von Hove this isn’t. For me, the filming was a distraction, not a reinforcement, made worse, much worse, by having cameras and camera operators on stage, getting in the way, and killing the moment.
Maybe Lucy Kirkwood and the directors Michael Longhurst and Ann Lee meant us to be alienated so that, rather get too tied up in the love story, we could observe from a distance the parallels between the revolution in health care and women’s desire to abandon pre-war traditional behaviour.
The argument for universal health care is strongly made, the case for an affair between a rising politician and a fading movie star more uncertain. She rarely goes to the cinema and he is disinterested in politics, albeit able to quote Charlie Chaplin’s inspiring anti-fascist speech from The Great Dictator. Perhaps part of the attraction lies in each being outside the other’s world.
There is certainly a physical attraction between the two- the dice are definitely loaded by having them played by Keeley Hawes and Jack Davenport– and they do have in common that both are unhappy in their marriages, but, as in Brief Encounter, good old fashioned guilt and duty threaten to pull them apart. The echoes of the film are many but with some crucial changes. She, not he, is the GP. Both have greater reasons than a simple morality to stick with their spouses. And the sense of guilt and duty, in her case, extends beyond her family to take in the Party and her patients. The physical consummation of their affair is more satisfactory, shall we say, than in Brief Encounter.
Lucy Kirkwood’s dialogue is touching, heartfelt and funny and it’s an absorbing ‘will she, won’t she’ story. Ben and Max Ringham‘s score works well, sounding more like the tense background to a 1940s thriller than the stirring Rachmaninov piano notes of Brief Encounter. If only the production was as fast or exciting as the music.
Keeley Hawes plays a multi-tasking modern woman, not only a GP and would-be Labour MP, but also a wife and mother. Her husband has been disabled when fighting in the war. So, whether to save her marriage is just one of many choices she has to make. This makes the story more interesting as well as giving Ms Hawes many opportunities to display a middle-class stiff upper lip hiding a volcano of emotions. Often, when containing her feelings, she adopts a tight smile, but when she laughs, it’s as if an extra light shines on the stage. Her speech in favour of the new socialism and an end to Victorian values was so passionate, it actually received a round of applause from the audience. At all times, she commands the stage.
Admittedly, she is probably too glamorous for the ordinary woman she is meant to be. In fact, there is an unintentional moment of humour when her husband says ‘I hate your body’. There were audible intakes of breath from some people in the audience on the night I was there, as if they couldn’t believe anyone would reject the immaculate Keeley Hawes.
Top Class Cast
Tom Goodman-Hill, Siobhan Redmond & Pearl Mackie in The Human Body. Photo: Mar Brenner
All the actors are top class. Jack Davenport was full of self deprecating charm as a gone-to-seed film star. Siobhan Redmond, Pearl Mackie and Tom Goodman-Hill excel in multiple parts. Thank goodness, because they save the evening.
I can’t help feeling this play was not designed for the Donmar. Fly Davis‘ mainly dark blue set design with a revolve creates a sense of the monochrome austerity of the late 1940s and, with the audience on three sides, she wisely keeps the props to a minimum. However, unless you sit in the centre block of seats, your view of the high-up screen will inevitably be partially obscured. Much more detrimental than this, though, are the many scene changes which should have been fast moving and fluid but are slowed down by mobile props- tables, chairs and so on- being trundled on and off the empty stage via the aisles in the auditorium. Worse than the time this consumed in an already overlong play is the distracting noise of the wheels and of technicians whispering into headsets.
Earlier in the day, across the river at the National, I had seen Nye, the epic story of the Labour politician who was the driving force behind the creation of the NHS. The Human Body might have been a counterpoint, offering a microcosm about the creation of the health service at a local level. Instead, while strands of the story do offer insights into the struggles within the Labour Party, and the resistance of the medical profession and the need for free healthcare, these are not the focal point. However, along with the other distractions, they are enough to take the focus away from the conflicted love affair.
Nye tells the life story of the Labour minister who drove the formation of the NHS. While most reviewers plumped for 3 or 4 stars, there was one 5 and one 2 star review. In the title role is Michael Sheen who received widespread praise. He performs the show in pyjamas as a patient dying in an NHS hospital. Nye’s delirious moments in which he remembers a fantasy version of his past reminded quite a few reviewers of The Singing Detective. Director Rufus Norris‘s swansong production as Artistic Director of the National Theatre was also warmly received, as was Vicki Mortimer’s set. A number of critics were disappointed with Tim Price‘s script.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
However, not Fiona Mountford reviewing in the i (5★). She complimented ‘Tim Price’s satisfying meaty, yet never less than nimble study’.
Sarah Hemming at the Financial Times (4✭) described Nye as ‘unashamedly, a play about principle, passion and compassion, driven by a fantastic ensemble and an electrifying performance from Sheen. ‘ She continued: ‘Director Rufus Norris stages all this with wit and drive.’ For Clive Davis in The Times (4★), ‘Sheen burns with passion’ adding ‘His charisma fills the gaps in the script.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) was also taken with Michael Sheen’s performance, saying “Sheen is in his element here…by turns down to earth and messianic, tender and full of clenched tenacity.’ Gary Naylor for Broadway World (4) had reservations- ‘flawed, sprawling and unmanageable – but when it works, it’s magnificent.’ Michael Sheen is given considerable credit: ‘carrying the play and the man with equal passion’ Mr Naylor also picked out ‘Jon Driscoll’s video work is as good as I’ve seen in a theatre, a tour de force.’ Neil Norman’s review in the Express (4★) described Nye as ‘a moving but unsentimental portrait of the man who changed British healthcare’.
Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski (3★) found it hard to get excited at what he called ‘a fairly conventional drama, jumbled up’ but was compensated by the fact that: ‘Sheen is a delight’ and ‘if the whole isn’t quite there, most of the individual scenes are scintillating.’ Alice Saville in The Independent (3★) had a similar thought: ‘a bit of a tired theatrical set-up, to have an ageing famous figure reliving his life in convenient vignettes,’ but she said: ‘Norris’s direction keeps things nimble and strange.’ Nick Curtis in the Evening Standard (3★) was unimpressed by the ‘lumpy and obvious script.’ ‘the narrative is too long-reaching and schematic’ complained Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★). Possibly alone, she had reservations about Michael Sheen’s performance: ‘He brings a curious fey playfulness and vulnerability but does not plumb the depths of his commanding character.’
While Sarah Crompton at Whats On Stage (3★) was impressed by ‘a central performance from Michael Sheen of charm and charisma, and an energetic and stylish production from Rufus Norris’. She was less happy with the script: ‘It’s engaging, never less than interesting, but it doesn’t always find the balance between great gobbets of historical information and reaching the heart of the man and his vision.’ For Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) ‘It’s crammed with information but remains surface-skimming’ although she did think: ‘Michael Sheen is a terrifically engaging Bevan’ and ‘Vicki Mortimer’s set is a kaleidoscope of green hospital screens’. The Sunday Times‘ Dominic Maxwell (3★) said it felt like ‘an artfully staged Wikipedia entry,’ commenting ‘while Nye gives its man some good lines, it goes light on big set pieces’. He didn’t feel ‘as if we’ve done more than traced the surface of an extraordinary man and his nation-changing achievement.’ Nevertheless, he concedes ‘there’s good stuff in Nye, and Sheen is tremendous’.
Susannah Clapp in The Observer (2★) called it ‘a wasted opportunity’. She said ‘the form is fractured, giddy’ and ‘interesting nuggets become mechanical explanation’. However she complimented Michael Sheen as ‘fiery’.
Average critic rating 3.4★
Value rating 38 (Value rating is the Average critic rating divided by the most common Stalls 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.)
A painting by Adolf Hitler discovered in an attic leads to debate, controversy and comedy in Marius von Mayenburg’s Nachtland. It’s directed by Patrick Marber and the cast includes Dorothea Myer-Bennett, John Heffernan, Angus Wright and Jane Horrocks
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Independent’s Alice Saville (4★) enjoyed this ‘destabilising, endlessly fascinating new play’ with its ‘uniformly strong cast’. David Jays in The Guardian (4★) praised ‘Maja Zade’s spicy translation and … an excellent cast’. He concluded: it ‘doesn’t go deep, but prods modern Germany’s sore spots with provoking vigour.’ ‘The hit the Young Vic needs’ said the headline to Dominic Cavendish’s review in the Daily Telegraph (4★) in which he called it ‘a canny, if not fully achieved dark comedy.’ ‘Downright funny and disturbing in equal measure’ said John Nathan in the Jewish Chronicle (4★)
Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) commented ‘Marber’s production smartly swerves between naturalism and surreal derangement – raising the question of whether the two modes are actually distinct’. She was concerned that ‘Von Mayenburg makes saying the unsayable look too easy.’ Sarah Hemming reviewing for the Financial Times (3★) thought ‘The characters are sketchy, easy to dislike (would they be more unsettling if pleasant?) and sometimes too bluntly become mouthpieces for points of view’ but Patrick Marber and ‘his excellent cast are very good at delivering the unnerving black comedy’. ‘There are excellent performances’ said Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (3★), ‘Heffernan is sublimely funny… Wright and Horrocks are gloriously weird’ but ‘but it often feels like the cast and Marber are more interested in being funny than the text is.’
The script came in for some criticism. The Stage’s Dave Fargnoli (3★) thought ‘Patrick Marber directs with a heightened, tongue-in-cheek tone’ but ‘cannot energise its overlong, artificial conversations.’ Theo Bosanquet on Whats On Stage (3★) said: ‘At times it can feel overly-arch, like agitprop, and as drama, it doesn’t really hold together.’ Adam Bloodworth at City AM (3★) noted: ‘It’s all slightly over-stuffed with ideas, both physical and thematic, and by the end there’s a slightly soupy feel.
‘For Nick Curtis in the Evening Standard (2★) it was ‘a disappointment’ explaining ‘After 100 minutes the play fizzles out, unresolved.’ Dominic Maxell in The Times (2★) was unimpressed: ‘For all the excellence of the cast, though, and for all the stripped-back poise of Patrick Marber’s production and Anna Fleischle’s thrust-stage design, I could never surrender to it as a piece of storytelling.’
Standing At The Sky’s Edge. Photo: Brinkhoff Moegenburg
With a book written by Chris Bush and music by Richard Hawley, both born in Sheffield, and direction by Robert Hastie, who is the Artistic Director of the city’s Crucible theatre where it began life, Standing At The Sky’s Edge is Made In Sheffield, just as much as the steel for which the city was famous. Yet it has a universal appeal, as shown by its the National Theatre and now to the West End.
Starting in 1961 and spanning nearly sixty years, the musical tells the story of three families who at separate times live in a high-rise flat in the huge Sheffield housing estate called Park Hill. Their narratives later intersect but initially it seems like a portrait of three discrete times adding up to a history of modern Britain. There’s the socialist optimism following the second world war; the decimation of industrial Britain and the destruction of working-class communities during the Thatcher years (Act One concludes with a shocking riot to the tune of There’s A Storm A-Coming); and today’s liberal-minded but materialistic services economy. I assume Chris Bush leans to the left but she wears her socialism lightly.
They all have their histories, their tragedies, and most of all their love stories. A neon sign says ‘I love you Will u marry me’ replicating the real sign on the flats which itself was based on a famous piece of graffiti.
The main interest is in characters who try to make the best of their situations, even if some fall through the cracks. Her dialogue flows as smoothly as the River Sheaf.
The musical begins with a traditional British working-class couple moving in, thrilled to have all mod cons. Rachael Wooding as Rose is excellent as she goes from excited young wife to strong partner when her husband loses his job following the steelworks closures and to a weary acceptance when life often doesn’t work out as expected, exemplified in her heart breaking rendition of After The Rain. Her husband Harry, played by Joel Harper-Jackson, makes a journey too, starting as a confident provider, then falling apart as so many proud working-class men did without a job to give meaning to their lives.
Next, as the estate becomes run down, we see the arrival of immigrant refugees. Joy has been brought by her aunt and uncle from Liberia to the safety of Sheffield. Played by Elizabeth Ayodele, she undergoes a transformation as she rebels against the values of the old country and adopts the culture of Sheffield, including a change in accent.
Finally, we meet Poppy, perhaps the one with whom we will feel the most in common. She’s a marketing person from London who has headed north to get over a broken relationship. Although she has the least dramatic story, mainly relying on jokes about today’s middle class lifestyle, it’s hard not to be touched by Laura Pitt-Pulford as she conveys Poppy’s desire to be part of a community. Lauryn Redding as her desperate ex belts out a rousing version of Open Up Your Door.
Laura Pitt-Pulford, Elizabeth Ayodele and Rachael Wooding in Standing at the Sky’s Edge. Photo: Brinkhoff-Moegenburg.
Chris Bush’s witty, angry and moving script finds parallels in the different eras, so that all three families eventually appear on the stage at the same time, their conversations overlapping. It’s a real sense of how a building retains its history and a way to see how much ostensibly different people can have in common. It reminded me of some of Alan Aykbourn’s experiments in presenting more than one narrative simultaneously on stage. The disadvantage of this approach is that it’s harder to become involved with individual stories.
The selection of Richard Hawley’s poetic songs creates an impressive soundtrack for a rock musical but there is plenty of variation in style. A blistering bluesy version of the title number opens Act Two. The many excellent songs, angry, poignant or passionate, augment what’s happening on stage and are wonderfully performed but inevitably they seem too often as if they have been tacked on to the story rather than integral to it, like the blistering bluesy version of the title number that opens Act Two.
Robert Hastie moves these various narratives deftly around the set and at tiumes has the whoile cast of over thirty players interweaving on stage. Lynn Page’s clever choreography at times had the cast moving in a rhythmical walking motion and swaying embraces, uniting different times, generations and classes.
Ben Stone’s set is magnificent, filling the stage with a three storey section of a building with the features of a Park Hill high rise. The main action takes place on a basic but sufficient representation of a flat while the upper two floors are occupied by a large band. The flat apparently offers a glorious view of Sheffield but for us it is down-to-earth.
Standing at the Sky’s Edge is an excellent musical that not only has much to say but says it from the heart. It deserves a long life in the West End.
Standing At Sky’s Edge continues at Gillian Lynne Theatre until 3 August 2024.
Standing At The Sky’s Edge. Photo: Brinkhoff Moegenburg
The superlatives have been brought out, dusted and polished once again for Standing At The Sky’s Edge, the musical about three generations of residents in Sheffield’s Park Hill Estate, which has now transferred to the West End. Directed by Robert Hastie, Chris Bush’s book augmented by Richard Hawley’s songs and performed by an impressive cast has captured the hearts of nearly all the critics.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Stefan Kyriazis in the Daily Express 5★ repeated his previously expressed view that ‘this is the greatest new British musical for years.’ ‘Chris Bush’s note-perfect script tugs at heartstrings as much as it tickles funny bones,’ he said, and ‘Hawley’s exquisite compositions through the years are more like living poetry.’ As if that weren’t enough, he adds: ‘The entire cast is superb’. ‘Prepare to fall in love’ said Franco Milazzo in BroadwayWorld (5★) ‘Robert Hastie’s direction earns every laugh and tear ‘ he enthused, calling the show ‘an epic musical for (and about) the ages’.
Calling it ‘unmissable’, Alex Wood at Whats On Stage (5★)said: ‘It stands as a shining tribute to the combined power of both popular music and stage storytelling, and subsidised and commercial theatre.’
Caroline McGinn in Time Out (5★) was ‘blown away by the emotional power of this show’, dubbing it ‘an instant classic’. She picked out the female leads for special mention: ‘Rachael Wooding, Laura Pitt-Pulford and Elizabeth Ayodele and especially Lauryn Redding will break your heart with lungs of steel’. She summed up: ‘joy, lust, fear, sadness, despair, are crafted into an emotional edifice which stands nearly as tall as the place that inspired it.’
Dominic Cavendish in the Daily Telegraph (4★) praised Richard Hawley’s beautiful songs full of melancholy, tenderness, warmth and yearning, hammering at the door of your heart, demanding to be let in.’ He concluded: ‘It’s hard to feel anything other than enriched and often deeply moved by it. It offers rare intellectual and emotional ambition, songs that should stay with you, and sustain you, over a lifetime; and frankly deserves to be a huge hit.’ Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (4⭐️) said: ‘it adds up to something special. I was more than happy to spend almost three hours letting Standing at the Sky’s Edge work its tender magic on me.’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (3★) was less carried away but still found it ‘a bittersweet, multigenerational epic’ in which ‘the big ensemble numbers … carry the production along.’ It was left to Clive Davis in The Times (3★) to bring the high-rise enthusiasm down to earth: ‘the script sometimes resembles a conscientiously assembled checklist of social issues’ the songs ‘sometimes seem to have been inserted into the action almost at random’
Standing At Sky’s Edge continues at Gillian Lynne Theatre until 3 August 2024.
Value Rating 51 (Value rating is the Average critic rating divided by the most common Stalls/Circle ticket price on a Saturday evening. 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.)
Keeley Hawes and Jack Davenport in The Human Body. Photo: Marc Brenner
The Human Body is Lucy Kirkwood’s latest play following such successes as The Witches, The Children, Mosquitoes and Chimerica. Starring Keeley Hawes and Jack Davenport, both returning to the stage after a long gap, it tells the story of the birth of the NHS at a local level, wrapped up in a Brief Encounter-style romance. Directors Michael Longhurst and Ann Yee incorporate film into the production, which didn’t please everybody. The two stars were universally loved by the critics but some found the play unfocussed.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls, and therefore may not be accessible]
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) wasn’t keen on the use of film but thought ‘Kirkwood’s script crackles with unspoken desires, disappointments, yearning and some fantastic humour’. Nick Curtis in the Evening Standard (3★) describes the production as ‘engrossing but meandering’, however ‘Davenport is very funny in it and Hawes is superb.’ The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe (3★) agreed calling the play ‘disjointed’ but saying it was ‘beautifully acted’. For Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski (3★) too, ‘the cast sells it’. Otherwise he is lukewarm in his praise of ‘a heartfelt but old-fashioned drama’. Dominic Cavendish in the Daily Telegraph (3★) felt it ‘urgently needs a scalpel to cut back excess flab’ but concurs with the general opinion that ‘There’s no faulting the leads’. Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) agreed about the acting (‘Hawes dazzles’) and about the need for some cutting, saying the play was a ‘fabulously rich piece of writing’ but ‘bogged down by an overstuffed production’.
Not even the acting saved the evening for Clive Davis in The Times (2★). Calling it a ‘sub-standard play’, he asks: ‘Is it a staid, semi-documentary celebration…Or is it a clever-clever meta-romance?’ before concluding ‘It fails on both counts.’
Lucy Kirkwood can take comfort from Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) who was forgiving of any flaws: ‘Kirkwood is such a wonderful writer and Longhurst…and Yee such confident, fluent co-directors that the occasional bagginess doesn’t matter.’ She too loved the acting: ‘The performances are a joy.’ It pressed all the right buttons for Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (4★). She thought it was ‘a gripping comic drama’ and liked how a ‘deft use of camera feeds combines with a genre-hopping and tone-shifting chameleonic script to make The Human Body a feat of movement direction.’ She concluded: ‘this is a show to see.’
Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma offer a glimpse of greatness
★★★★
Ralph Fiennes & Indira Varma in Macbeth. Photo: Marc Brenner
Ralph Fiennes wanted to take this production of Shakespeare’s Macbeth away from the traditional theatrical venues and audiences, so it has popped up in a warehouse-like hall in London’s Docklands. Apart from the possibility of attracting a new audience, there are other advantages to a venue like Dock X.
For a start, Frankie Bradshaw can begin her fabulous set design before you even enter the auditorium, by making the lobby or antechamber an immersive scene that conjures the aftermath of a battle. There’s a burning car, rubble and patrolling soldiers, as you might have seen on news reports from Gaza or Ukraine.
This is important because, although this production by Simon Godwin, constantly reminds you that you are in a war zone, the set itself, once you are inside the auditorium is a plain stage rising via wide stairs to a mezzanine, emphasising the domestic situations in which the play largely takes place, rather than battlefields.
The temporary seating is on three sides which adds an appropriate intimacy. I must say, though, I would rather sit in an actual theatre any day than this shed, into which well over a thousand people were crammed with apparently no consideration given to the torture caused by minuscule legroom and cheap plastic seats.
Anyway, enough of the venue, what about the show? Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies, surpassed only, in my opinion, by King Lear. Its supremacy derives from its complexity: the constant psychological battles between good and evil, duty and ambition, fate and free will, truth and lies, and so on. I go to every production hoping it will shed light on the play’s depths, and guide us through the states of mind of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, as they make their bloody decisions.
In this production, we are constantly reminded that we are in a war torn country, and, as the cast are in modern dress, that it could be one of today’s many conflicts. There has been a rebellion and an invasion, and Macbeth has played an important part in the King’s victory over the opposition.
The sound of artillery is frequent and loud. But does that explain the Macbeths’ ambition? I don’t think so. If anything, the reminder of today’s awful fighting is a distraction, because it is unnecessarily upsetting. I saw this show on the day of the 2nd anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Someone who was sitting near me and had experience of that war, didn’t return for the second half, apparently because they found it too traumatic.
The background of conflict seems to me irrelevant to a play primarily about the consequences of overthrowing a legitimate government (even if it’s one with which you disagree) and such themes as whether the end can justify the means, and how one evil act leads to another.
Perhaps this is a good point to run over the plot, if you’re unfamiliar with Macbeth. The Scottish lord and soldier meets three Weird Sisters, or Witches, who predict that he will become King. He’s quite excited by this prospect but seems prepared to let it happen naturally until his wife persuades him to take the opportunity to kill the monarch while he’s staying with them. The weird women also predict that his friend Banquo’s heirs will become Kings, so he decides to kill Banquo. MacDuff joins the English in opposition to him, so he puts out a contract on the MacDuff family. All very Putin. In the end, he suffers the consequences of his actions.
Ralph Fiennes in Macbeth. Photo: Matt Humphrey
So, what do Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma as the murderous couple tell us about the ‘why’ of all this? Both actors bring out the richness of their roles. We first meet Mr Fiennes’ Macbeth as he lumbers onto the stage. He talks like a blunt soldier. He’s slightly stooped, he looks tired, as if he is exhausted rather than exhilarated by his victories. Maybe this explains why he’s not in a hurry to embark on another round of killing and thinks he might leave his succession to the throne to ‘chance’.
His wife on the other hand, bright eyed, articulate, and sophisticated in dress and manner, can’t wait. Ms Varma is clipped and matter-of-fact as she pushes him toward the deed. It’s then we get the first of many speeches in which Shakespeare expresses Macbeth’s internal arguments, sometimes to others, sometimes to himself. At first, his objections seem to be to do with etiquette: he is the King’s subject, obliged to be against assassination; that he is his host, who should be providing protection.
Ralph Fiennes is magnificent at these moments. He rightly acknowledges the speeches for the powerful poetry they are, and almost stepping out of the body of the plain soldier, to address the audience and explain his thinking. He articulates the lines beautifully, yet sounds as if he’s just thought of them, and he conveys their meaning with clarity. It’s an absolute pleasure to hear Shakespeare’s poetry projected to the back of the auditorium without any apparent strain. And I know because I was in the back row.
Indira Varma’ injects a moment of black comedy when Lady Macbeth loudly castigates her shaken husband for bringing the bloody knives out of Duncan’s bed chamber.
There’s a lot in the play about being a ‘man’, not a weak ‘woman’. Having initially seemed emasculated by his wife, Ralph Fiennes’ Macbeth becomes almost giddy following his killing spree, laughing and dancing nervously between appearances of Banquo’s ghost in the middle of a dinner party. It’s a funny moment but Indira Varma’s eyes show Lady Macbeth’s concern that her husband is becoming unhinged and uncoupled from her.
Guilt affects them both in different ways, Lady Macbeth cannot escape the thought of the horror of the crime they have committed and is driven to madness and suicide. The scene in which she tries to wash invisible blood from her hands was chilling. In fact, Indira Varma almost stole the show, except…
Ralph Fiennes as Macbeth, having begun the play hunched and exhausted, becomes more and more frenetically alive, and more reckless, even as he perceives the futility of life: the ‘tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow’ speech, the last great examination of the consequences of his actions, is spoken to perfection, with the final conclusion that life ‘is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’, hanging in the air like a warning to us all.
The adaptation by Emily Burns makes the play move along at a pace, as it should, although she has excised the drunken Porter scene. I know a lot of people will be pleased to lose what they say is an incongruous piece of bawdy comedy in the midst of the murder of the King, but I think it offers a relief from the tension and a kind of parody of the chief villain’s antithetical way of expressing himself. I know you’ll want an example. So, a typical Macbeth declamation goes: ‘I should against his murderer shut the door, not bear the knife myself.’ The Porter uses the same form to say: ‘Drink provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance.’
I did like the way the Weird Sisters permeated the play. I find the supernatural nature of the Witches a difficult element of Macbeth, even though they are essential to driving the plot but here, in everyday clothes and played by Lucy Mangan, Danielle Fiamanya and Lola Shalam, they come across as ordinary young women, maybe even displaced citizens, whose looks of mischief suggest they are passing on their predictions to expose and undermine those in charge.
I’d also pick out the performances of Steffan Rhodri who gives the loyal Banquo, solidity and a skeptical eye, and Ben Turner as MacDuff whose heartbroken reaction to the murder of his family was palpable.
So, for me, a slightly disappointing production, and a terrible venue, but a glimpse of greatness in the performances of Ralph Fiennes and Indira Varma.
Macbeth toured the UK and performed in Washington DC in 2024
