The Authenticator at the National Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner
After great success with Rockets and Blue Lights, Winsome Pinnock returns to the National Theatre’s Dorfman Theatre with a play that looks at ‘the legacy of enslavement for both those who were responsible and those who are descendants of the enslaved’ (WhatsOnStage). Most of the critics thought it was amusing, but messy.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar summed up: ‘It all courses along with a lightness of touch that works. What a disarming way to serve up important contemporary questions around investigating histories, facing up to toxic legacies and atoning – or at the very least apologising – for them.’
Franco Milazzo for BroadwayWorld noted: ‘The real electricity comes from the triangular combat between Fenella, Marva and Abi, each circling the others with intellectual vanity, professional insecurity and something far more primal beneath.’ He pointed out: ‘This is not quite the gothic thriller it promises. But as a tense, talky, quietly incendiary three-hander about race, legacy and intellectual power, it cuts deeper than any jump scare.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
WhatsOnStage’s Sarah Crompton called it ‘a pacy and surprisingly witty three-hander which explores the legacy of enslavement for both those who were responsible and those who are descendants of the enslaved.’ She concluded: ‘Billed as a “gothic psychological thriller”, there are moments of comedy, drama and real pathos, alongside some investigative scenes that feel a bit Scooby Doo in tone. There’s much to enjoy in this production, but it needs to be more focused to authenticate its own identity.’
Holly O’Mahony for LondonTheatre opined: ‘Pinnock confronts the politics of racial identity head on. But is laughter the best medicine for tackling troubling ghosts of the past? I’m not so sure.’
Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski was convinced that: ‘whatever contrivances there may be to get there, the questions The Authenticator asks are salient enough to justify it all, and it’s an enjoyable – if bumpy – ride to get some answers.’
2 stars ⭑⭑
Although Fiona Mountford is still billed by The i as their Chief Theatre Critic Telegraph, lately she has been doing more reviews for The Telegraph. She was critical of the play: ‘The 90-minute running time of Miranda Cromwell’s traverse production is too short to explore adequately everyone’s motivations and to explain away plot implausibilities, yet wearyingly long enough for trite dialogue and a few half-hearted haunted-house-style jump scares.’ She thought: ‘As one might expect from this type of dramatic set-up, secrets are (sort of) unearthed and conclusions (sort of) reached, yet there remains the unmistakable whiff of a script that has been continually and unsatisfactorily edited.’
The Times’ Clive Davis was damning: ‘Is it a satire, a polemic, a detective story or a pseudo-gothic thriller? Winsome Pinnock’s play about researchers wandering a stately home seems to shift directions every ten minutes. The three actors, Rakie Ayola, Cherrelle Skeete and Sylvestra Le Touzel, do their very best to keep The Authenticator on course…but in the end it’s a lost cause.’
Johannes Radebe in Kinky Boots. Photo: Matt Crockett
The critics agreed that Strictly star Johannes Radebe is a success as drag queen Lola in this revival of Cyndi Lauper’s musical. While reviewers complimented co-star Matt Cardle’s singing, most were critical of his acting. Opinions varied on the quality of Harvey Fierstein’s book but it was agreed that Nikolai Foster‘s production was spectacular.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
Tom Wicker for TimeOut had plenty of good things to say about the show: ‘Foster’s staging is gorgeous…Leah Hill’s choreography is playfully breathless…(Radebe) brings an intensity to this larger-than-life character that’s operatic in pitch and disco-fabulous in tone‘. The only weakness was Matt Cardle ‘whose stiff and hesitant performance turns Charlie from everyman into nowhere man’.
Paul Vale at The Stage commented; ‘In Foster’s production, Lola is a goddess of defiance and rebellion. Radebe amps up the dance and doubles down on fabulous. That could imbalance the piece, but it actually brings cohesion to a musical that’s always struggled with its own identity.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
Lindsey Winship’s review for The Guardian starts on a high with praise for Johannes Radebe, saying he is: ‘utterly magnetic on stage, and when he’s dancing you can’t take your eyes off him.’ But ends on a more downbeat note: ‘It’s an enjoyable night out, and a brilliantly unlikely story, but in terms of the craft of musical theatre, Kinky Boots leans towards the pedestrian.’
The Times’ Clive Davis reported : ‘As you’d expect, the physically imposing Radebe nails all the moves in Leah Hill’s high-energy choreography and brings a winning vulnerability to a character who has had to come to terms with being an outsider. Cyndi Lauper’s songs have stood the test of time. What a Woman Wants, with its echoes of Gotan Project techno beats, delivers crisp tango flourishes.’
The Telegraph’s film critic Tim Robey praised Johannes Radebe: ‘This is stage presence: anyone who has paid purely to come and see him dance will be mesmerised.’ But he noted: The problems come down more to Harvey Fierstein’s book, based on the 2005 film. For the man behind such landmark gay writing for the theatre as Torch Song Trilogy and La Cage aux Folles, he did a weirdly nervous job all round here.’
Theo Bosanquet at LondonTheatre was happy: ‘there’s plenty to enjoy from this latest popular musical to play theatreland’s largest venue…However well-worn those red boots may now be, there’s an undeniably nostalgic enjoyment about slipping into them one more time.’
BroadwayWorld’s Aliya Al-Hassan found it ‘fails to capture the energy and vigour of its previous iteration.’ There were aspects that pleased her: about Radebe, she noted: ‘Leah Hill’s choreography allows him to shine throughout, with rapid-fire footwork and pirouettes off stage.’ And ‘Matt Cardle shows off some nice vocals’. However, she was not alone in reporting: ‘The main issue with this show is the sound, which is tinny and echoing throughout.’
2 stars
The Standard’s Nick Curtis was blunt: ‘A fierce, fabulous performance from Strictly star Johannes Radebe is the unlikely saving grace in this misconceived revival of the 2012 musical about footwear and self-acceptance. Despite winning a Tony, Olivier and Grammy award, Kinky Boots has always been a small and deeply mediocre show, and an oddball, hybrid work.’
Critics’ average rating 3.1⭑
Value rating 31 (Value Rating is a combination of the critics’ rating and the typical ticket price)
Lesley Manville and Aidan Turner in Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Photo: Sarah Lee
Christopher Hampton wrote his play Les Liaisons Dangereuses, based on a scandalous 1782 novel, back in 1985 when it came across has a rebuke to Thatcherism. He adapted it into a film in 1988 which starred Glenn Close and John Malkovich. Quite a few critics didn’t feel comfortable with the play and the production, despite both author Christopher Hampton and director Marianne Elliott trying to make it acceptable to a modern audience more sensitive to men’s behaviour towards women, than when it was written.
The reviews were full of praise for Lesley Manville as Marquise de Merteuil and, to a slightly lesser extent, Aidan Turner (surprising to find at least three misspellings of his name among the reviews) as the Vicomte de Valmont, who play a nasty game in which the female victims are seduced and humiliated.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
LondonTheatre‘s Marianka Swain liked the actors, describing Lesley Manville as ‘magnificent’ and Aidan Turner as ‘a comic force … (he) also has a good line in wolfish lust, though stops short of convincing as a truly sociopathic predator, and is deeply affecting in the story’s latter stages as Valmont succumbs to heartbreak and despair’. She also liked the play: ‘Hampton’s tweaked script gives the women slightly more agency, while maintaining the queasiness of the exploitation and continuing cycle of abuse. Valmont and Merteuil operating as a coercive double act brings to mind vile contemporary examples like Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Beneath the play’s Wildean bon mots, champagne and glamour, there lurks a dark heart and all-consuming destructive devastation.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis was disappointed in both the play and the production: ‘In this precise, stately, sometimes ponderous revival by Marianne Elliott, the script is more self-consciously aphoristic than I remember. Many of the lines sound like they’re designed to be quoted rather than just spoken.‘ Fortunately he loved the acting: ‘As the Marquise de Merteuil, a widow who breaks hearts and ruins reputations for her own wicked pleasure in 1780s French society, the implacable, raptor-ish Manville absolutely owns this show. She has strong support from an amusedly saturnine Aidan Turner’.
Aliya Al-Hassan at BroadwayWorld commented on the stars: ‘Manville is magnificent and really gets her teeth into the woman who is both cruel and highly manipulative, but also keenly senses her own fading youth and allure…Aidan Turner…treads a fine line between a flirtatious lothario and a darkly sinister rake as Valmont. Keeping his own Irish accent seems to add to his charm and persuasiveness, which is slightly problematic, as it lessens the character’s biting cruelty. However, the chemistry between him and Manville crackles with authenticity; both palpable and powerful, treading that ever-fine line between love and hate.’
Unlike some reviewers, WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton felt ‘Marianne Elliott’s production subtly reconfigures Christopher Hampton’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses for the MeToo generation. In a world where love is a battle of single combat, a hand-to-hand struggle for survival, women are constantly melding themselves to the shapes and behaviour demanded by the men, who still hold all the cards’. She continued: ‘There’s no doubt that its themes have become more troubling as time has gone on. But Manville and Turner are simply superb, their performances deep and thoughtful. They make the characters fallibly human, and Elliott makes the evening sing.’
The Independent’s Alice Saville declared: ‘the greatest strength of Hampton’s reworking is also the biggest triumph of this production: the icy brilliance of Merteuil, powered by Manville’s wonderful performance. It’s terrifying to watch her scrutinise her corseted, black-lace clad body in the mirror, assessing her sexual effect like an engineer checking over an instrument of war. And it’s impossible not to root for her, especially when her campaign of destruction claims her as its final victim.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar compared Aidan Turner with John Malkovich who played the part in the movie: ‘Turner as Valmont is an Irish-accented serial seducer, louche and playful rather than truly dangerous: an affable rake who does not summon Malkovich’s snake-like menace. His seduction scenes do gather in power, though’. She noted that when he is forced by the Marquise to give up someone he loves, ‘he finally drops his playfulness and becomes truly tragic.’
The Times’ Clive Davis was critical: ‘What’s often missing, though, is the sense of abject cruelty that ought to lie at the heart of this story of cold-blooded seduction.’ In particular, he felt Aidan Turner was too comical: ‘By the very end, the marquise and Valmont both face retribution for their sins. Her anguish is palpable. Do we care as much about Valmont? No. The dandy has outstayed his welcome.’
The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe liked the stars: ‘Manville is formidable. Turner’s Valmont is hardly less lethal, relentlessly performative, ruthlessly switching from romantic lovesick swain to boyish to bully as tactics demand. But it simply doesn’t feel as if there’s enough at stake here.’ She explained: ‘This revival by Marianne Elliott…lacks bite and atmosphere, the intricate symmetrical plotting of its torments, temptations and scandals less shocking than mechanical.’ She concluded: ‘Elliott’s production never really makes a convincing case for the play’s importance in the here and now. As a drama, it emerges as elegant and divertingly nasty; it needs to matter more.’
Claire Allfree in The Telegraph asked: ‘How to stage Christopher Hampton’s glittering adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses about the nihilistic sex wars of the French fin de siecle aristocracy in the post Me Too era?’ She wasn’t satsified that Marianne Elliott had the answer: ‘Elliot’s insistence on turning the play into a spectacle of irredeemable decay doesn’t always reap dividends. Those allergic to the use of interpretative ballet (several scenes are choreographed, as though every character is trapped in a dance they can’t stop) won’t find their prejudices allayed. Hampton’s play demands a lightness of touch, not the whiff of heavy melodrama. I admired this production but I can’t say I enjoyed it.’
While praising the cast, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski had serious reservations about the play: ‘Hampton’s play has endured in large part because it’s titillating – a rare quality in theatre – and some of it now feels wildly out of step with the times. I think if you were to adapt De Laclos today, you’d interrogate the treatment of women rather more probingly. What can I say: it’s a really good production with two sensational leads, of a play that has long stopped being a sexy novelty and now kind of sits as a guilty pleasure. I don’t want to preach, I just question whether Les Liaisons really has enough going for it to justify this sort of lavish revival at our flagship theatre.’
Demetrios Matheou at The Arts Desk got to the heart of the problem with reviving this work: ‘The amorality at play is positively delicious, not least when the culprits feast on each other. But how does that appeal work, as entertainment, at a time when real-life morality is under more constant, and more rigid scrutiny? Will Christopher Hampton’s celebrated stage adaptation become darker, more powerful, or simply leave a bad taste? … it’s led to a bit of a muddle, a determined dressing up of the play that has simply diluted its drama – a liaison lite, if you will.’
2 stars ★★
The Sunday Times’ Dominic Maxwell rated the chemistry between the two stars: ‘Well, I won’t quite say they look as if they only just met at a break-the-ice brunch for the company earlier that day. Yet the mutual heat is strictly gas mark 3.‘ He ended his review: ‘ it should all be so much funnier, sexier, nastier and zippier than this.’
Critics’ average rating 3.5⭑
Value rating 38 (Value rating combines critics’ average rating with typical ticket price)
Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe bring passion to Robert Icke’s Sliding Doors Shakespeare
Harold Pinter Theatre
Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe in Romeo & Juliet. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Romeo & Juliet is a play in which the lovers race to their tragic end . Radical director Robert Icke has fixed on time and timing being crucial to story and tells it in what a number of critics referred to as a Sliding Doors style, showing what might have happened to the lovers alongside what did. Mostly the critics liked this, although some thought it didn’t always work and some found it over-the-top. The reviews all praised Sadie Sink (famous for Stranger Things) and Noah Jupe (last seen in Hamnet).
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
Brooke Ivy Johnson for The Metro noted: ‘to watch the audience — many of whom might more readily identify as fans of Stranger Things than of Shakespeare — sit rapt, laughing, weeping, blushing, and generally utterly absorbed, is to understand exactly what this show achieves. This Romeo and Juliet captures something essential about the play’s emotional core: that its tragedy lies not only in its ending, but in the beautiful, reckless, funny intensity of youth that drives it there.’ She explained: ‘what is most striking about his Romeo and Juliet is its emotional accessibility. This is a production that understands that the tragedy only works if you believe, wholeheartedly, in the reckless sincerity of young love’.
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
‘It’s a richly rewarding evening’ declared Claire Allfree in the Telegraph. She said the production ‘has a near metaphysical preoccupation with the vagaries of time that lends this most callow of stories a rare gravitas.’
The Standard‘s Nick Curtis weighed straight in with his assessment of the stars and the production: ‘Sadie Sink…is a magnificent Juliet in Robert Icke’s powerful revival of Shakespeare’s tragedy, physically delicate but with a steely passion. She is matched by Noah Jupe, the young British screen talent making an assured stage debut as an impetuous, boyish Romeo. Rarely has the brutal speed of the play’s events, and its juxtaposition of sudden violence and bombshell love, seemed as clear as it does in Icke’s staging.’
WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton explained: ‘Noticing that the play is built on coincidence and is full of “what if”s that could have turned tragedy into comedy, Icke creates a sequence of sliding door moments, marked by blinding flashes of light, that actually show an alternate version of the play.’ She commented: ‘Sink is at her best when she’s at her stillest and most earnest, gazing into her lover’s eyes with feverish excitement and determination; Jupe has moments when his boyish exuberance is tempered by a growing wonder. But the chemistry between them seems to dissipate as the mood grows darker.’ She also picked out other members of the cast: ‘Clare Perkins is magnificent as the Nurse, bustling and full of self-importance, but also of wisdom and warmth.’
The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe described how ‘With Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe as the impassioned teenage couple gleaming with youthful potential and poignantly vulnerable, it’s moving to imagine how their story might have ended under different circumstances. Icke’s concept agonisingly points up how precarious their fate is – how cruelly close they come to contentment, together or apart. A sharp new spin on the familiar tale, it’s a reminder of what a lottery life and love are for us all.’
Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld noted: ‘This is an investigation of fate, and definitely not your traditional Romeo and Juliet. Though he punctuates the mise en scène with huge digital clocks that tick relentlessly towards the lovers’ demise, Icke feverishly tries to rewrite the narrative. Just as the story starts diverging from its natural path, blinding flashes à la Men in Black “Neuralyzer” rewind the scenes, bringing it back to its fatal route. It’s clever and original, making this an utterly thrilling vision.’ Of the lovers, she said: ‘Sink and Jupe are simply tremendous. The Broadway veteran conquers her first Shakespeare with sophistication, introducing a Juliet who’s far from being a wilting flower. She’s in charge, bubbly, and headstrong; she knows what she wants and she knows how to get it.’
At LondonTheatre, Olivia Rook described Sadie Sink: ‘(She) is luminous as Juliet, capturing the headiness of first love, as well as its ability to make you impulsive and awkward. Sink finds the humour in the balcony scene, navigating the new relationship with fluttering, hesitant speech and interrupting Romeo as he makes grand proclamations. She also knows how to plumb the depths of despair, appearing half mad as the Friar’s potion slips down her throat.’
The Independent‘s Alice Saville concluded: ‘This is a richly emotional, brilliantly intelligent take on a classic – one that’ll plunge a knife into your heart so skilfully that you hardly notice the pain.’
Referring to what he called the Sliding Doors moments, Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski noted: ‘you can easily imagine a world where things worked out better for them, and in acknowledging this Icke elevates the plot’s sillier moments. However,…he overplays his hand in a final scene that teeters on the mawkish. It would have made for a more elegant production if he’d left it be, but auteurs are gonna auteur.’ He jokingly ended: ‘But much as I am a fan, I can’t help but think there’s a parallel universe out there where he didn’t try the Sliding Doors thing (or reined it in a bit) and that that led to an all-timer Romeo & Juliet. In our branch of the multiverse, we’ll have to settle for one that’s merely very good.’
CityAM‘s Adam Bloodworth said Icke ‘delivers a technically cool, youthfully exuberant production that comes with a shocking twist.’ He went on: ‘It’s solid stuff, but everything pales by comparison to the finale, which dares to rethink everything you know. Who on earth would rethink the finale of Romeo and Juliet? Robert Icke, a man who has a good enough grasp of subtlety to know when to come out all guns blazing. It’s a risk, and blimey, every hair on both of my arms stood up.’
The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming said:’ It’s a production charged with adolescent passion and buzzing with fresh insights. Icke overplays his hand on occasion, but he brings a raging, compassionate eye to this awful tale of wasted life.’
Matt Wolf at The Arts Desk said, as if anticipating the review in The Times: ‘Some may reisist the apparent tricksiness of devices that include repetitions or reprises of scenes, as often as not accompanied by searing flashes of light separating out what might have happened (if, say, Friar Laurence’s letter had not gone AWOL) as opposed to what in fact does. But … Icke makes clear that time waits for no one. Small wonder that Juliet famously exhorts nightfall to “gallop apace” so that she can be with Romeo once again: this is a play whose title characters are undone by a velocity of feeling they can’t control’.
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
The Times’ Clive Davis warned: ‘assured though she is, Sink can’t quite redeem a production which is overrun with distracting tics, from that ever-bleeping clock to painful explosions of light that burn their way into your retina. Slab-like sliding doors on Hildegard Bechtler’s austere set trundle back and forth, hinting at paths and decisions left untaken.’ He got through it but: ‘By the end, you find yourself hoping that Sink will try her hand at more Shakespeare, only with a different director.’
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar declared`: ‘What makes the production effective, ultimately, in spite of the overbearing directorial stamp, are the two central performances. Sink makes for an intense teenager, quirkily neurotic, who brings comedy to the balcony scene. She is so strong a presence that Juliet at times seems the play’s central protagonist. Jupe’s Romeo is dramatically mopey in his unrequited love for Rosaline at the start, and earnest in his passion for Juliet. They have a sweet, pure chemistry that encapsulates the urgent and uncompromising nature of first love, so absolute in its adolescent ardour that it is worth dying for. Both speak the verse without straining for effect, too.’
Critics’ average rating 3.9⭑
Value Rating 40 (Value Rating is a combination of the Average star rating and the typical ticket price)
John Proctor Is The Villain at the Royal Court Theatre Photo: Camilla Greenwood
⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
It’s set in rural America. It’s about teenage girls in a high school. It has a point to make and it makes it. There are many reasons why I shouldn’t like Kimberly Belflower‘s play John Proctor is the Villain. And yet I loved it.
Why? Well, let’s begin at the end: an uplifting, liberating finale for the young women whose world we have inhabited for the last couple of hours. The previously mundane classroom lighting becomes a euphoric light show as the girls dance to Green Light by Lorde, defiantly in unison ,and unified behind the abused women of The Crucible. I had a tear of joy in my eye.
If you’re anything like me (old white male), it may be a world you’ve scarcely encountered before. For women, the girls’ friendships, their passion and their early encounters with sex will likely resonate more. It doesn’t matter. One of play’s defining strengths is the authenticity with which it draws these young women, compelling you to care about them, regardless of your age, gender or background. The dialogue is believable, and often very funny, inviting us to laugh both with and at the girls. It captures the angst and rapture, the confidence and vulnerability, of standing on the brink of adulthood.
So where does the play begin? The year is 2018. We’re in a high school classroom in a ‘one-stoplight town’ in Georgia. A class of four 16 to 17 year old girls, and a couple of boys, are studying Arthur Miller’s The Crucible under the guidance of a charismatic teacher called Carter Smith. He’s approachable, affable and speaks their language. Unsurprisingly, they adore him.
Momentous events unfold, but don’t expect subtext and intricate layers. The girls are who they are and don’t really change. They are affected not by internal transformation of the kind John Proctor undergoes in The Crucible, but from the external circumstances that confront them.
What evolves in the play is their perception of society- both their immediate environment and the wider world. This is the time when the #MeToo movement is at its most visible and influential. The girls form a feminist group. All is going well until Shelby returns after several months of unexplained absence. Tensions rise. Raelynn is far from pleased: the two had been best friends until Raelynn’s boyfriend Lee cheated on her with Shelby. Lee remains in the class. Oh, and Ivy is in a predicament because her father, whom she reveres, has had an affair with his secretary.
Through the prism of #MeToo and their own lived experiences, they begin to recognise both the ways in which a male-dominated society seeks to diminish them and the power inherent in their identity and friendship. To Mr Smith, The Crucible‘s John Proctor is one of the great heroes of literature, admired for defying the Witch Trials, until Shelby prompts a re-evaluation. Does this married man’s affair with a young servant, who he later calls a ‘whore’, make him less a hero, more a villain? The subsequent discussion ends in a bombshell.
Miya James and Sadie Soverall in John Proctor is the Villain. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
The young women deliver remarkable performances. The future of British acting is safe, if they are anything to go by. A standout is Sadie Soverall as the troubled but clever Shelby. Miya James brings a rare stillness and intensity to Raelynn. Lauren Ajufo is Nell, the girl who comes from a big city, Holly Howden Gilchrist is the swot and ‘teacher’s pet’ Beth, and Clare Hughes is the straightlaced Ivy. Much credit is surely due to director Damya Taymor (who also directed the Broadway production) for eliciting such nuanced work.
The other actors complete a formidable ensemble. Dónal Finn is entirely convincing as the smiling, superficially charming teacher. He’s a magnetic actor, who seems ubiquitous at the moment, having appeared on stage in Hadestown, is also currently to be seen on screen in The Other Bennet Sister and Young Sherlock. Charlie Borg makes the most of the smaller role of Lee, a representative sexist male. Reece Braddock as the dopey but sympathetic Mason and Molly McFadden as the inexperienced young counsellor are both making their professional stage debuts, but you really wouldn’t know it from the quality and confidence of their acting.
The design, by AMP featuring Teresa L. Williams, initially presents a naturalistic classroom complete with blackboard, fluorescent lights and daylight filtering through the windows. Yet appearances are deceptive. Natasha Katz‘s lighting isolates characters in moments of revelation, while the ecstatic final sequence, when the girls challenge the male hierarchy, plunges the room into chaos through jarring projections and a striking mauve wash.
It’s sadly true that #MeToo doesn’t seem to have made more than a small dent in the ways of the world. We remain surrounded by stark examples of male toxicity: figures such as Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Mohamed Al Fahed are high profile examples, but far too often, in everyday life, those in positions of authority- teachers, fathers and other men take advantage of women and girls. In a city near me, a number of male teachers at a girls’ school have recently been prosecuted for sexually abusing their students.
There may be an element of wish fulfilment in the rapid ideological awakening of these girls (and one of the boys) to feminism. Ordinarily, I would resist a drama whose message hammers me so hard on the head, but this joyous play is irresistible.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Royal Court Theatre, which in 1956 became the first British theatre to stage The Crucible. While John Proctor is a Villain may not possess the same depth and complexity as Miller’s masterpiece, it offers something equally valuable: a thought-provoking and thoroughly enjoyable night out at the theatre.
Paul was given a review ticket by the theatre. The review was slightly revised for clarity on 7 April 2026.
John Proctor is the Villain can be seen at Jerwood Theatre Downstairs at The Royal Court Theatre in London until 25 April 2026. Buy tickets direct from the theatre
John Proctor Is The Villain. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
Kimberly Belflower’s 2022 play John Proctor is the Villain was a sensation on Broadway and looks like being one over here. The same production directed by Danya Taymor, but with a British cast, has arrived at the Royal Court theatre to an exceptional three 5 star reviews and four 4 stars. This gives it the second highest average rating for Limited Run Shows, at the time of writing. The critics liked the portrait of teenage schoolgirls in a strict religious community discovering adulthood at the same time as the #MeToo movement broke. Some loved it (‘joyous, blazingly intelligent’ FT) while others liked it but found it too obvious. They all praised the young women in the cast.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑⭑
Sarah Hemming wrote a detailed, insightful review in The Financial Times (such a shame her reviews are hidden behind a very expensive paywall). She declared: ‘what a joyous, blazingly intelligent play this is: at once a restless interrogation of the role of art in defining and expressing who we are; a compassionate, funny portrayal of what it means to be a teenage girl; and a furious appraisal of the way power games repeat across generations. It’s staged with irrepressible energy by Danya Taymor and her terrific young cast.’
‘What really makes the play is its vivid and touching depiction of young women trying to navigate their way to adulthood against this roiling backdrop. They’re played with great affection and aching authenticity here.’
Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre declared: ‘if there is any justice, it will soon bring its whip-smart, potent, gloriously funny and remarkably affecting drama to the West End.’ She remarked: ‘Belflower beautifully captures the way that adolescent girls (and especially those in a small, insular, religious community) are simultaneously knowing and innocent, playing out fantasies of adulthood but still, heartbreakingly, just children.’ She ended: ‘It all culminates in the most extraordinary, heart-pounding, viscerally cathartic climax I’ve ever experienced, brilliantly utilising Lorde’s song “Green Light” along with an interpretive dance that moves from kooky to joyful to a full-on rebellion. This play likewise makes me want to scream, laugh, cry, and dance. It’s not just a drama: it’s a revolution.’
Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld couldn’t fault it: ‘Belflower’s work is perfectly plugged into the rippling effects that cause societal disruption. The script is as emotionally intelligent as it is fun and casual, but it also reveals a proclivity for fostering debate. She questions the nature of authority, debating the need for it and addressing the abuse of power. Her characters are smart, provocative, proactive, and unapologetically proud of who they are. Most of anything, they feel real.’ She concluded with a call to action: ‘The production is relatable, accessible, poignant, and bursting with ideas. Beg, borrow, steal, but get yourself into this utterly galvanising room!’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
An underlying anger pulses through Alice Saville’s review in The Independent: ‘if you want to really understand the millions of small, hidden dramas that erupted in the wake of #MeToo, plays like this one are the way to do it. And its frenzied, Lorde-fuelled dancefloor climax is the perfect outlet for anyone who feels a bit crazy thinking about everything we’ve forgotten, as the world’s brief mass feminist awakening is replaced by deadening silence.’
Claire Allfree at the Telegraph praised ‘a gifted young British cast’, noting ‘Miya James is both unshowy and mesmeric as Raelynn; Saltburn’s Sadie Soverall is horribly compelling as the wild and glowering Shelby.’ She admitted: ‘There are quibbles. Modern readings of The Crucible already cast doubt on Proctor’s behaviour; he’s no longer quite the fully paid-up canonical hero Belflower needs him to be. The play feels a little thin, too. It relies on an emotional charge rather than a thorny argument… But it nails absolutely the timeless fury of female adolescence.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis described it as ‘a terrific piece of provocative entertainment.’ He wrote: ‘Though the play is mechanical in the way it works through #MeToo issues, with some scenes straining credibility, Belflower is acute on the way women and girls are manipulated and gaslit. And on victim-blaming and the excuses people make for predators.’
Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski explained: ‘what Belflower does do brilliantly is nail the intersection between the relatively brief apex of the #MeToo movement and a generation of smart, naive school girls who would have been the right age to absorb its rhetoric at the precise moment they’re discovering what it was a reaction to’. He reported: ‘Danya Taymor’s production…is an absolute blast, the many serious issues raised all of a piece with its breathless ebullience and Belflower’s endlessly witty text. As much as anything else, it’s a wholehearted celebration of teen girl dorkiness and a rebuttal to the idea their lives should be viewed through a sexual lens, even in sympathy.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe said the play was ‘at pains to spell out its themes and subtext, sometimes to a declamatory, over-explicit fault. But, in a tenderly handled production by Danya Taymor, it has a huge, pulsing heart and captures something of the thrilling, almost unbearable intensity of adolescent girlhood, building to a wildly emotional conclusion of mingled defiance, joy, rage and hope.’ She concluded: ‘Belflower’s play is, in many ways, one familiar story wrapped in another; but it’s done with wit and leaves us, with its final, glorious act of rebellion, on a high of irrepressible optimism.’
The Times’ Clive Davis questioned whether the play is the ‘modern classic’ some claim; ‘There’s certainly plenty to savour in Danya Taymor’s high-energy production, recast for London audiences, which burrows deep inside the overheated psyches of teenagers. At its sharpest, the dialogue generates waves of laughter too.’ Unlike some other reviewers, he found the ending a letdown: ‘Belflower can’t quite resist forcing home her message in the closing scenes. Ambiguity goes out of the window’.
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar called it ‘a moving play… (that) catches the mood of 2018 for a bewildered generation of girls growing into womanhood in the shadow of Weinstein.’ She liked the way: ‘Belflower’s dialogue captures the way girls talk to each other with humour and pathos, as well as how they internalise the world’s micro-aggressions towards women.’ But she had reservations, one of which was: ‘the relationships here are flattened by their cuteness, rather than sharp-edged and gritty, as this cusp of girlhood and adulthood so often tends to be.’
Critics’ average rating 4.0⭑
John Proctor Is The Villain can be seen at the Royal Court Theatre until 25 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from the theatre. Transferring to Wyndham’s Theatre from 2 February until 24 April 2027.
Rebecca Lucy Taylor in Teeth ‘n’ Smiles. Photo: Helen Murray
Rebecca Lucy Taylor, better known as pop star Self Esteem, grabbed the critics’ attention in this revival of David Hare’s 1973 play about a fading and disillusioned 1960s band. She plays Maggie, the drunken, troubled lead singer on the night of a chaotic gig. The critics loved her performance (‘sensational’ WhatsOnStage) but had differing opinions as to whether the play was ‘dated’ (Standard) or ‘feels current’ (Independent). Daniel Raggett‘s production was generally appreciated as capturing the mood of a live gig.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Four stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
The Times’ Clive Davis gave us a précis: ‘David Hare’s play about music, ambition and burn-out takes place in that most English of settings, a May Ball at a Cambridge college. Cult singer Maggie Frisby is having another dark night of the soul, and her disgruntled musicians are going through the motions.’ Rebecca Lucy Taylor, he said: ‘gives a formidable portrayal of a talent in free fall, fighting off her demons while making life just about impossible for everyone around her.’ As for the production: ‘Daniel Raggett…captures the frenetic mood of a night where the performers are struggling to hold everything together.’
WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton loved Self Esteem: ‘Taylor is sensational as Maggie, full of self-loathing and fight in almost equal measure, staggering around the stage but never going down. When she sings…she is mesmeric, holding the audience in the grip of her hand while never losing sight of her character’s pain and her inability to quell it.’ She admitted: ‘It’s not a perfect play, sending sparks in all directions, but it is both witty and wise. Because Hare tackles serious themes, it’s easy to forget how funny he is’.
Holly O’Mahony writing for LondonTheatre noted: ‘if this period piece is not exactly hard-hitting in 2026, it’s still a well-paced play running on a whip-smart script that’s very entertaining in all its salty sarcasm.’ She was impressed by the stars: ‘Taylor’s Maggie grows more self-assured each time she gets behind the microphone. Her vocals are familiarly powerful and raw – and those booking for the sheer chance of seeing Self Esteem up close on stage won’t be disappointed on this front. Chloe Lamford’s set design sends the band’s own stage sliding right to the front each time they perform, which increases the intimacy.’
The Independent‘s Alice Saville didn’t think the play was as dated and irrelevant as some of the 3 and 2 stars below did. Instead: ‘Half a century on, Hare’s play feels current in a different way, capturing the vampiric nastiness of an industry that still picks up talented musicians, tours them til they break, then declines to pick up the pieces.’ She was also keen on the production: ‘Daniel Raggett’s staging makes the most of Hare’s witty one-liners without sacrificing the essential bleakness of this story.’
Three stars ⭑⭑⭑
Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski was unmoved: ‘…Hare’s words feel glaringly lacking in serious engagement with a half-century of musical, cultural and feminist discourse. Daniel Raggett’s gently absurdist, lightly Beckettian production eschews fussy period details and indeed Chloe Lamford’s set is effectively styled like a gig. But it feels like it has more in common with John Osborne’s cracked vaudeville The Entertainer than with the rock business.’ He concluded: ‘you’re left with Rebecca Lucy Taylor pouring her heart into the semi-broken body of a play that would never get commissioned today.’
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar found: ‘the dialogue does not have enough meat on its bones. This seems like a play with no centre, though it has plenty of anarchic spirit and humour. Both the emotional intensity and intellectual focus are missing…It is as if the script itself is waiting for the songs to arrive.’ She summed up: ‘come for the play and stay for the astounding music.’
The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe liked the star: ‘her casting in Daniel Raggett’s production gives the entire undertaking credibility and thrill.’ But: ‘the problems with Hare’s play persist. Part proto-punk gig theatre, part elegy for the hippie dream of the 1960s, it’s a vague, meandering piece, stuffed with self-conscious philosophising and semi-formed stereotypes. The wafty writing is at odds with the bludgeoning, full-frontal energy of the songs and the situation’.
The Sunday Times’ Dominic Maxwell confessed: ‘I ended up admiring Taylor’s performance but not surrendering to it.’ He expanded: ‘Taylor is good. Slowed down, she may be terrific. Yet I suspect you need a great performance to emit the palpable sense of damage required here. And the frisson of having a real rock band on stage is not what it might have been 50 years ago.’
There haven’t been any theatre reviews in The i for over a month, so it was a pleasure to see their once regular reviewer Fiona Mountford popping up at The Telegraph. She began by asking: ‘Does it have anything of burning import to say to us in 2026? The awkward answer is a resounding “No”’ She then declared: ‘I have long held the view that David Hare writes mouthpieces rather than three-dimensional characters and this play only serves to confirm my hypothesis.’ Good to have you back, Fiona.
Two stars ⭑⭑
The Standard‘s Nick Curtis had a few sharp questions too: ‘Why revive this dated piece about a minor-league rock band combusting at Jesus College Cambridge’s 1969 May Ball? Why do it with a pop star who’s only had one previous major stage acting role, in Cabaret at the Kit Kat Club? And why is everybody shouting?’ He found the play: ‘coarse and lumpen in Daniel Raggett’s unmodulated production’.
Adam Bloodworth at CityAM found many faults: ‘too many of the narrative arcs, fights and breakdowns feel contrived and surface-level…The band members feel fairly tropey…You end up wondering what the central narrative drive or jeopardy is supposed to be.’ He did concede: ‘Self Esteem’s live performances with the band…are compelling’.
Critics’ average rating 3.2 ⭑
Value Rating 26 (Value rating combines critics’ rating with typical ticket price)
In Aaron Loeb‘s new play, directed by Chelsea Walker, two venture capitalists (Lloyd Owen and Millicent Wong) meet a scientist (Letty Thomas) with abhorrent views but who has the means to eradicate cancer and more. They see the opportunity to do good or make a lot of money. Disappointingly, not many of the professional critics turned out for it. Those that did enjoyed the exploration of moral dilemmas but some found a few too many issues being covered.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
4 stars ★★★★
Gary Naylor at The Arts Desk summed up: ‘Loeb’s play sparkles when these moral dilemmas are front and centre, the nexus between capitalism and science continually poked and probed, the profit motive necessary but, er, cancerous. They’re stirred into a heady mix of raw racism and doomsday geopolitics with the carapace of ethical boundaries proving to be of little effect against the tsunami of money rolling in and the sweet tang of White Supremacism spicing up the action.’
‘I was thoroughly entertained and provoked throughout every fast-talking, big-thinking moment’ said The Standard‘s Nick Curtis. He continued: ‘There’s something thrilling about the way global subjects and vast moral dilemmas can be addressed by four actors in a small room.’
Dave Fargnoli of The Stage was hooked: ‘Challenging, thought-provoking and sometimes gasp-inducingly close to the bone, this relentlessly twisty slice of speculative fiction…digs into some profoundly prescient ethical dilemmas.’
3 stars ★★★
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar found: ‘Aaron Loeb is a businessman as well as playwright and it shows: his play zings with quickfire patter between May and Paul, a certain Mamet-esque sparring reminiscent of Glengarry Glen Ross. Its aim to show us what might happen when a big scientific breakthrough is funnelled through the machinery of venture capitalism is ambitious but a little too hectic.’ She expanded: ‘It’s all rather hard to digest in around 100 minutes. There are more than a headful of ideas, while the personal stories are too brief to pull at your emotions.’
For Cindy Marcolina at BroadwayWorld: ‘Working around an ethical discourse is fun if it’s matched with a solid story, but the narrative lacks the appropriate pull to properly propel the philosophical side forward.’
The Times’ Clive Davis found it ‘rattles along at such a manic pace. Events unfold over several years, yet the effect is like watching an entire TV mini-series on fast-forward.’ He noted: ‘In cold print it all sounds slightly dotty…another character (here played by Sarah Lam) makes a last-minute entrance, yanking the script in another direction. Walker’s breezy direction just about keeps us hanging on, and Hayley Egan’s video design adds depth. A sombre Duke Ellington piano miniature, Melancholia, bookends the action, but the piece often has the aura of a screwball comedy.’
Critics’ average rating 3.5★
R.O.I. (Return On Investment) can be seen at Hampstead Theatre until 11 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from hampsteadtheatre.com
If you’ve seen R.O.I. (Return On Investment), please leave a review and/or rating
Summerfolk at the National Theatre. Photo: Johan Persson
Gorky‘s rarely performed play from 1904 takes up where Chekhov left off and shows members of the new middle class enjoying a summer break. Many of the critics enjoyed the parallels with today’s professional class among the 23 well-acted characters. Quite a few thought it was a bit long, although that was mitigated by Moses and Nina Raine‘s lively adaptation and Robert Hastie‘s direction.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
5 stars ★★★★★
‘The new regime at the National has delivered its first bona fide hit’ declared The Times’ Clive Davis. ‘Robert Hastie’s glorious revival is rich in period detail yet the modern turns of phrase in Nina and Moses Raine’s version conjure up visions of 21st-century families bickering over what to watch on Netflix in a Tuscan Airbnb.’ He was clearly swept away: ‘the moments when they talk about the sense of rootlessness that haunts them even after they have risen in the world are almost unbearably poignant. This is a play that blends laughter with tears.’
4 stars ⭑⭑⭑⭑
The Standard‘s Nick Curtis summed up: ‘This sumptuous, bittersweet slice of turn-of-the-20th-century Russian life is just the sort of thing the Olivier stage was built for. Director Robert Hastie has assembled a stunning acting ensemble, bringing shade and texture to Maxim Gorky’s 1904 skewering of a feckless educated class, caught between Tsarism and the coming upheavals. Their travails are agony to them, hilarious to us, and it all unfolds on a gorgeous set by Peter McKintosh where the sun-bleached ribs of a summer dacha give way to a dappled, forested stream.’
WhatsOnStage‘s Sarah Crompton declared: ‘the Raine siblings have provided a contemporary translation full of humour and vigour, bringing some 23 characters to clear life and the production has an excellent cast, including Doon Mackichan as a hapless poet, Justine Mitchell as a crusading doctor and Paul Ready as a high-living lawyer, who are expert in the fine calibration of comedy, landing their words with precise force.’
Hearther Neill on The Arts Desk liked the way the Raine’s had trimmed the play’s length: ‘Speed serves the comedy well under Robert Hastie’s beautifully modulated direction, with characters constantly on the move, forming and dissolving small conversational groups, rarely at rest on the Olivier stage. This is a sprawling ensemble piece, featuring 23 well-distinguished characters, all of them dissatisfied with life, either longing for love or desperate to escape unsatisfactory marriages.’ She continued: ‘These people are almost all ridiculous and heading for a tragedy that they seem to intuit but not understand,which makes them at least recognisable, even forgivable. Peter McKintosh’s sets suggest simple interiors and a forest of tall plank-like trees. He has introduced very real water, however, for paddling and taking a dip, perhaps to emphasise the isolation of this group from what is happening in the world beyond their disappointing idyll.’
Gary Naylor for BroadwayWorld found: ‘It’s hard to like any of this menagerie of misanthropes, but it’s easy to be amused by them, Nina and Moses Raine’s adaptation sparkling with the language clever people use to talk to other clever people’. He saw the parallels with today’s audience: ‘There we were, like Vavara’s soi disant friends, ex-working class made good (well, goodish) by education and luck, grateful for the health and wealth it has brought but slightly perplexed as to why it doesn’t feel better’.
The Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish was pleased to see it back on stage: ‘Robert Hastie presents this valuable curiosity, laced with a timely sense of collective dread, in terrific, painterly, ensemble style.’ But…’The slight drawback? The script, by brother and sister Nina and Moses Raine, is loaded with distracting modern vernacular and some swearing (including the C-word).’
Dominic Maxwell of The Sunday Times praised the acting: ‘Is the cast…the most exciting ensemble of actors you’ll see all year? Well, after watching them spend three hours quipping, spatting, seducing, repulsing, making points and missing the point, I can only say good luck finding any better.’
3 stars ⭑⭑⭑
LondonTheatre‘s Anya Ryan still found it a bit long: ‘At its centre lies a pressing question: does anything really matter when the world is falling apart? Yet, despite the hazy glow of this new version by siblings Nina Raine and Moses Raine, it’s a message that lands with a heavy hand. Over its lengthy three-hour running time … a cast of 23 characters cycles through the spotlight, each reaching for some sense of meaning.’
Dave Fargnoli of The Stage announced: ‘Seething with secret tensions and simmering resentments, this faithful yet ponderous adaptation captures the anxiety, humour and heartbreak of Maxim Gorky’s piercingly prescient 1904 study of the indolence of the bourgeois.’ He expanded: ‘It is a sprawling, deliberately slow-moving piece, with director Robert Hastie taking time to gradually build an atmosphere of suffocating, inescapable ennui. And although the production never achieves the necessary sense of impending doom, the play’s world remains intriguing: believable, feverish, stifling as the muggy heat of a summer day.’
Time Out‘s Andrzej Lukowski found it ‘overwhelming at first: it feels like you’ve been plunged into a sprawling existential soap opera, teeming with characters and plot lines that have been running for years that you’re having to familiarise yourself with on the fly.’ He went on: ‘The pleasures are pretty soapy throughout: essentially three hours of compulsive people watching.’ He commented: ‘Hastie’s production at best has a bucolic but beautifully deadpan rhythm. As with his recent Hamlet, though, I couldn’t help but feel that he’s not that good at seizing control of large ensemble casts: Rundle electrifies the stage anytime she steps on it, but apart from that it can feel like a freewheeling blur of similarly dressed people bickering for three hours. The Raines’ adaptation is modern, witty and at best bracingly pungent but it feels a bit inbetween-y in tone, neither really quite set in 1904 Russia, nor our present’.
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar reacted with faint praise: ‘At almost three hours, it is ambling but with sparks of intensity – rather like a summer’s day. One character gives a hostile review of The Cherry Orchard: “Went on too long. Didn’t like it.” This goes on a little too long as well, although it is likable enough.’
The Independent and its reviewer Alice Saville returned to the theatre after a few weeks’ absence but she may wish she’d delayed her return: ‘Gorky’s play wears its themes on the surface. And its lack of subtlety doesn’t feel especially well-served by Robert Hastie’s production, which relies on broad performances and an open, cluttered-feeling set that doesn’t allow for more intimate moments between its warring characters. The structure is strange, too, with a tighter first half followed by a ballooning second part that never reaches the catharsis we seem to be building to…Still, the best moments of Summerfolk shine out, strikingly modern.’
Critics’ average rating 3.7⭑
Value rating 53(Value rating combines the critics’ rating and the typical ticket price)
Summerfolk can be seen at the Olivier, National Theatre, until 29 April 2026. Buy tickets directly from nationaltheatre.org.uk
If you’ve seen Summerfolk, please leave a review and/or rating below
The BFG at Chichester Festival Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner
This joint production by Chichester Festival Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company is hugely impressive — no pun intended. If The BFGlacks quite the same tug at the heartstrings as that other celebrated Roald Dahl adaptation, Matilda, it more than compensates with its magical staging, inventive effects, and the delightful interplay between human performers and puppetry.
The set for The BFGis perfectly suited to the thrust stage at Chichester. We, the audience, are placed right in the heart of the giant’s world, as enormous figures loom out towards the front row and Chris Fisher’s illusions dazzle and surprise.
You probably know the story — the book has sold more than 40 million copies — but just in case: Sophie is a little girl living in an orphanage. One night she encounters a mysterious giant who is out collecting dreams. To preserve his secrecy he carries her off to Giant country, but the two soon become friends, and Sophie christens him the Big Friendly Giant.
The BFG explains that his nightly mission is to capture pleasant dreams and deliver them to unhappy children, while destroying nightmares. He also reveals that other giants roam the land — far larger and far less friendly — and that they have a taste for what he calls “human beans”. Together, Sophie and the BFG devise a plan to enlist the Queen’s help in capturing the fearsome giants.
John Leader in The BFG. Photo: Marc Brenner
Central to the success of this production is its ingenious use of puppets, designed by Toby Olié. At times the BFG appears as a puppet alongside a human actor playing Sophie; at others the roles are reversed, with Sophie represented as a puppet while the BFG is portrayed by an actor. The transitions between these forms are executed so seamlessly that you barely notice them happening.
The puppeteers are magnificent. The BFG puppet is operated by four performers, who imbue him with life through wonderfully subtle movements and gestures. When he appears at human scale, John Leader gives us a warm, endearing BFG, and much of the comedy arises from his exuberant ‘squiff-squiddling’ of the English language: wondercrump, winksquiffler, gobblefunking, and so on.
On the night I attended, Sophie was confidently played by Martha Bailey Vine, who navigated the character’s emotional journey — from fear and frustration to sadness and delight — with assurance. The adaptation by Tom Wells also introduces a friend for Sophie called Kimberley, excellently portrayed on that occasion by Uma Patel.
The Queen, played with relish by Helena Lymbery, is enormous fun, evolving from ceremonial figurehead to decisive leader. Indeed, this is very much a story in which females ultimately save the day.
Support comes from two hapless RAF men, played with great humour by Philip Labey and Luke Sumner. Sargon Yelda is Tibbs the butler, who begins stiffly formal but grows increasingly animated as events unfold. And there’s the villainous giant Bloodbottler, played at human scale by Richard Riddell, which creates another fascinating puppetry dynamic: the BFG becomes a small puppet, and Sophie an even tinier mannequin.
And this is perhaps where the production reveals both its greatest strength and its one slight weakness. As wonderful as the puppetry is, it can sometimes be harder to emotionally connect with the smaller puppets. The sense of danger is therefore somewhat diminished, along with the emotional stakes. That said, I suspect this may simply be the perspective of an adult — younger audience members are likely to be completely enthralled.
The BFG is a magical show from former CFT Director Daniel Evans, who is now at the RSC. Glasses of frobscottle all round!
The BFG can be seen at Chichester Festival Theatre until 11 April 2026 (buy tickets directly from cft.org.uk) and then in Singapore.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
