Shrek The Musical with music by Jeanine Tesori and book and lyrics by David Lindsay-Abaire is back in a new production by Samuel Holmes and Nick Winston. Antony Lawrence and Joanne Clifton are the leads. Following a short tour, it has arrived in London but it seemed most of the critics, posting the worst reviews of the year so far, would be happy to send Shrek straight back to the swamp.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Aliya Al-Hassain at LondonTheatre (3★) was the only mainstream critic who seemed to have any time for it, calling it a ‘buoyant stage musical adaptation’. She picked out Antony Lawrence’s performance as Shrek for praise.
Chris Wiegand in The Guardian (2) experienced ‘sludgy monotony and often unmemorable songs’ in a ‘show often feels flatly unadventurous’. Theo Bosanquet from WhatsOnStage (2★) was disappointed that ‘a production that relies so much on laughs just simply isn’t as funny anymore’. Kirsten Grant for the Telegraph (2★) called it ‘a cheap attempt to cash in on a cult favourite’ but she did draw a crumb of comfort from ‘a stand-out performance from Cherece Richards as Dragon, whose powerhouse vocals momentarily lifted the production’.
Labelling the musical ‘an atrocity’, Anya Ryan for The Times (1★) said ‘Their love story is in crying need of chemistry — instead, everything is shouted at a torturously loud volume.’ Nick Curtis in The Standard (1★) called it ‘pretty lame’. ‘The sets are a skimpy collection of poorly projected animations and flown-in flats,’ he said.
Critics’ Average Rating 1.8★
Value Rating 24 (Value Rating is the critics’ average rating combined with the typical ticket price)
The Hot Wing King at the Dorfman Theatre. Photo: Helen Murray
It doesn’t look like Katori Hall‘s Pultizer Prize winning comedy about race, masculinity and homophobia will be winning many awards this side of the Atlantic, if the predominantly three star reviews are anything to go by. The critics like the characters and the comedy in Roy Alexander Weise‘s production, as four black gay men in a Memphis kitchen prepare for a hot wings contest, but they found it overlong and some craved more depth.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Observer’s Kate Kellaway (5 ★) found it ‘a heartwarming, refreshing and original show’. Frey Kwa Hawking at WhatsOnStage (4★) found it long ‘But the characters are so likeable, and being in this house with them is so irresistible, that slowness can’t really be resented.’
Andrzej Lukowski’s review in Time Out (3★) made a similar point: ‘Hall’s play is a pleasure, but there are moments where it feels like an endurance test’. A similar thought came to Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (3★): ‘Hall’s flavours may not always mix and the bombastic jauntiness makes the melodramatic moments feel drawn out by contrast, but so what. This is a summer comfort watch.’ Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) felt something similar: ‘Though overlong, this is a tasty, stimulating experience.’
The Times’ Clive Davis was warm rather than hot in his review in The Times (3★) saying it ‘trundles along merrily enough without justifying its ample running time.’ Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) enjoyed the ‘humour, Black joy and relationship drama – in that order.’ Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (3★) found much to appreciate, ‘Weise’s production savours both the playfulness and the emotional truths in the plot, and his cast all give affectionately observed and beautifully rounded performances.’
Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (3★) felt that Hall ‘in the end opts for feelgood emotion’. Dave Fargnoli for The Stage (3★) said, ‘As charismatic and vividly-drawn as these characters undoubtedly are, Katori Hall’s Pulitzer prize-winning culinary comedy tells an overstretched, overfamiliar story.’ Tom Birchenough for The Arts Desk (3 ★) concluded, ‘there’s richness of writing here, and the sheer enjoyment evident from the ensemble cast carries it resoundingly.’
Caissie Levy in Next To Normal. Photo: Marc Brenner
A suburban American family cope with a wife/mother with bipolar disorder in Tom Kitt and Brian Yorkey’s musical Next To Normal. It is becoming almost commonplace for new musicals to take on heavy subject matter and the critics have been complimentary to this one for the way it uses music to convey the woman’s state of mind. The British production started at the Donmar Warehouse and has now transferred to the West End. Some of the critics had more reservations than others about the musical but it was generally agreed that Caissie Levy was exceptionally good in the lead role. Michael Longhurst directs.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Tom Wicker for Time Out (4★) said, ‘Where this show unambiguously succeeds is in its sympathetic but clear-sighted depiction of a family buckling under buried grief and an impossible present…As Kitt’s attention-grabbing score and Yorkey’s lyrics wheel through differing genres, we get an aural sense of the characters’ messy kaleidoscope of feelings.’
Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4★) called it a ‘harrowing, tough-minded musical,’ saying it ‘rips out your heart and hands it back to you, bruised but overflowing.’ The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (4★) declared it was ‘Wonderfully sung and staged’.
Olivia Rook for London Theatre (4★) said, ‘The ‘musical soars in the hands of such an accomplished and connected cast.’ Abbie Grundy reviewing for Broadway World (4★) described it as ‘a delicate yet gut-punching exploration of mental health and grief’. He said, ‘The cast is as strong vocally as they are within their acting, giving justice to the punchy score.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (3★) found it a paradoxical show. He described it as ‘simultaneously sophisticated and plodding‘ and said he ‘found this tale of breakdown and potential recovery went from utterly persuasive to oddly shallow.’
Other reviewers caught it at the Donmar:
Marianka Swain in an earlier review for LondonTheatre (4★) said it ‘really puts you through the wringer in its raw depiction of mental illness and family disconnection. But this courageous and deeply moving piece provides ecstasy as well as agony, light as well as darkness.’ Suzi Feay writing for the Financial Times (4★) said it ‘stirringly depicts a woman’s steeply deteriorating condition and the havoc it wreaks on her family’.
Emma John writing for The Guardian (3★) found the main character Diana was ‘compellingly portrayed by Caissie Levy’. Her main reservation was that ‘the second half still feels overlong, as songs crash into each other without any concomitant plot development’.
Average critics’ rating 3.8★ Value Rating 44 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Imelda Staunton in Hello, Dolly! Photo: Manuel Harlan
Jerry Herman‘s 1964 musical about a matchmaker in late 19th century New York is given a lavish revival by Dominic Cooke, with an all-conquering Imelda Staunton in the title role. The critics lavished praise on every aspect of the production but saved the highest marks for Ms Staunton.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Fiona Mountford in the i (5★) said, ‘The Palladium stage is cavernous, but the diminutive Staunton commands it utterly’. She declared, ‘It is delightful to be able to say that right here is a landmark theatrical production that will be talked about for years to come.’ Aliya Al-Hassan at Broadway World (5★) echoed the thought, ‘An immaculate Staunton is the heart of this production, but there is so much to enjoy about this truly joyful show. It will be spoken of in years to come’.
Marianka Swain for LondonTheatre (5★) called it ‘the show of the year’. She explained, ‘Every element is pitch-perfect, from Rae Smith’s delectable costumes…to Bill Deamer’s dreamy choreography…It’s like a Golden Age MGM movie come to life.’ ‘“My heart is about to burst,” the chorus sings. Same here’, said The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (5★). She explained, ‘this production casts a magic spell. Dominic Cooke’s production is immaculately performed and slowly, beautifully life-affirming, with humour that reins in the schmaltz.’
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (5★) said, ‘Staunton brings her own blend of splinter-sharp comic timing and emotional depth to the part’. She was impressed that director Dominic Cooke ‘throws everything at it the vast Palladium stage can handle, relishing the chance to savour musical comedy at its bonkers best’. If that wasn’t enough, ‘Cooke and his cast find rich emotional truths and salient points in the story’. Kate Kellaway in The Observer (5★) said, ‘Staunton’s star quality…depends on her miraculous ability to stay genuine and intent, no matter how far-fetched the goings on around her. Naturalness and charm make her a joy to watch.’
Nick Curtis at the Standard (4★) described Imelda Staunton as ‘the driving force of Dominic Cooke’s sumptuous, effervescent production, even bringing a note of pathos to the story’s wry wit and knockabout daftness.’ Neil Norman in the Express (4★) declared that Imelda Staunton brings ‘light and shade to Dolly that only a serious actor at the top of her game could achieve.’ Patrick Marmion in the Daily Mail (4★) claimed, ‘Staunton has the musical wattage of a nuclear power station.’
The Independent’s Alice Saville (4★) described the production as ‘a lean mean entertainment machine’ and praised ‘Bill Deamer’s appropriately high-spirited choreography’. Holly O’Mahony in The Stage (4★) described it as ‘Sparkling with joie de vivre and running on a boisterous charm that prevents this safe but loveable production becoming overly sentimental’. Caroline McGinn reviewing for Time Out (4★) called it ‘a terrific old-fashioned show’.
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) loved Imelda Staunton’s performance: ‘The way this actress can expand to fill a space even while standing still, can have you hanging on the smallest look, whether expressive of beaming mischief, beady assertion or quiet vulnerability, and can raise the roof without breaking into a sweat, reaffirms her as one of British theatre’s greats‘ However, ‘the show itself is like a parade, a succession of scenes that don’t dig very deep’.
Dominic Maxwell in the Sunday Times (4★) was another who wasn’t that keen in the musical but was sold on the production because ‘Staunton owns it all, dances the dance between sad and silly, romantic and frantic. She makes grand conceits seem easy-peasy and serves it up smiling so it hits the back of the room with a satisfying thwack. She’s a true great.’
Critics’ Average Rating 4.4★
Value rating 49 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Olivia Washington and Kit Harington in Slave Play. Photo: Helen Murray
‘Is London ready for this?’ asks the publicity material for Slave Play by Jeremy O. Harris. We’re promised- sorry, trigger-warned- about racist language, sexual violence, and of course a naked Kit Harington. There’s even a high-tech solution to stop you taking a picture of Kit with his kit off: you’re given a piece of sticky paper to cover your mobile phone’s camera lens. So, is this the most shocking play in the West End?
Well, I wasn’t shocked but, if you are of a sensitive disposition, this may not be the play or indeed the review for you. More to the point, before you read on, I will be revealing a number of plot twists which may not be shocking, but, if you are going to see Slave Play, will spoil the intended surprises. What surprised me is how funny the play is.
The first thing you see is Clint Ramos‘ set. You immediately notice that the back of the stage is covered in mirrors. This means you can see some of your fellow audience members, plus a painting of a Southern States plantation owner’s house that is fixed to the front of the circle. Why the mirrors? Perhaps it’s so you can see who’s finding the discriminatory language funny, and who’s uncomfortable with it. Or maybe, so you can how many black people are in the audience, to which the answer is, definitely more than usual in a West End theatre. Or, given that we the audience are still predominantly white and the slavemaster’s house appears to be in our midst, it could be to remind us that this play is intended to be about us, white as well as black, even if we think it isn’t.
‘Work’ is the name of the first act. A couple appear, played by Kit Harington and Olivia Washington (she’s Denzel Washington’s daughter by the way). Some of the Broadway cast have come over, along with original director Robert O’Hara, but both these actors are new to the play.
Judging by what they are wearing and their drawling speech, we seem to be in a pre-Civil War, or antebellum, Southern state. She’s a black slave, but she’s gyrating to a Rihanna song called Work, as she does her chores. This strikes one as a little odd- a bit Bridgerton maybe. He’s a white overseer but not a slave master, as he is at pains to make clear.
There’s a sexual relationship in which he dominates and she submits. He throws a melon on the floor, which he describes as a watermelon, and tells her to get down and eat it. She corrects him, pointing out it’s a cantaloupe. (The poster for the play cleverly turns a cantaloupe melon into a sexual image.) This seems slightly off kilter, as she appears to be more like his equal, maybe even taking the lead. Nevertheless, as instructed, she eats it off the floor. The scene ends with him eating her.
In the second scene, a mature Southern Belle seduces a mixed race (or ‘mulatto’, as she describes him) servant, who could pass for white. She produces a family heirloom- a large black dildo, which she proceeds to use on him. Like all the sex in this production, it is simulated but quite graphic for the stage, and also laugh-out-loud funny (or maybe not, depending on your sensitivities). For me, the stilted Southern accents and porn movie dialogue made me think it could be called Carry On In The Cotton Fields or perhaps Carry On Up The Khyber might be more appropriate.
Scene three and couple number three: two men, one black, one white. The white man is shifting bales of cotton. He is an indentured servant who eventually licks the boots of his black boss. It is by now fairly obvious that there is some kind of role play going on in which the couples are acting out domination and submission fantasies. We are reminded in the programme of the quote by J N Benjamin: ‘everything is about sex, except sex which is about power’. But it could still, just, be early 19th century America. Act One culminates with all three couples having sex. Then Kit Harington’s character calls out ‘Starbucks’, which turns out to be a safe word, and everyone stops. Two women with clipboards enter and we move from farce to satire.
Act Two is called ‘Process’. It turns out that all three couples are on the fourth day of a therapy group- it’s fantasy day, hence the title Slave Play. The black partners are suffering from anhedonia, the first of many conditions I had never heard of. Some of these are made up but anhedonia does exist and, put simply, is lack of arousal.
They gather for discussion and analysis led by the two researchers, played by Chalia La Tour and Irene Sofia Lucio, both from the Broadway cast. They turn out to have encountered the same problem in their own relationship, which they believe can be overcome using what they call ‘Antebellum Sexual Performance Therapy’. This begins an initially hilarious satire as they spout more and more psycho babble, while being at times over sensitive to feelings and at others ignoring them, sometimes shutting down people for saying the ‘wrong thing’ and at others embracing whatever is said and attempting to integrate it into their theory.
Farce and satire are followed by a disturbing climax
To my way of thinking, these couples are simply incompatible, or bored with their relationship. Not so, say the therapists, they maintain that the black participants are feeling the legacy of their ancestors having once been slaves and subject to white imperialism. This is said to affect their sexual relationships with their white lovers. They propose acting out fantasies involving slavery as a solution.
I am assuming from the way the play mocks the researchers that their theory is poppycock. I suspect this extreme kind of unaccredited group therapy is more familiar to Americans than us British. In fact, it’s only a few months since I was at the National Theatre watching Annie Baker’s Infinite Life, another American play about a group of people being conned by bogus therapy.
Slave Play. Photo: Helen Murray
I was amused at first by this central and dominant part of Slave Play, but it is like a satirical sketch that has been stretched out until it stops being funny. A bit like when a pleasant hug carries on until you feel trapped in the embrace.
After a while, I began to wonder how much more humour could be wrung out of these parodies of quack therapists, no matter how well the actors were nailing their techniques. I started to wish there was a safe word I could call out to get us on to the next scene. After all, this play is over two hours long without an interval.
Then, there is a change of gear from comedy to disturbing drama. Despite, rather than because of, the therapists, the black characters overcome what the therapists describe as ‘racialised inhibiting disorder’ and ‘alexithymia’ (guess which term is invented for their difficulty in talking about their emotions). They begin to recognise the true root of their problem, different in each case but with one thing in common.
It has already become clear that the white people are doing a lot of the talking, even though the sessions are supposed to be for the benefit of their black partners. Particularly funny in this respect is the way a middle-aged woman Alana, acted with a wealth of shocked facial expressions by Annie McNamara (from the Broadway cast), constantly speaks for Phillip. He is played with wide-eyed shyness by British actor Aaron Heffernan. She says she doesn’t even think about his colour, until he eventually speaks up and declares that he has been mistaken in thinking that his ability to pass for white is a good thing and that he’s at his most fulfilled when he is seen as being black. He mentions that he was excited by the way they met, when he was brought in by her then husband to fulfil the latter’s cuckold fantasy of seeing his wife have sex with a black man.
Gary, played by British actor Fisayo Akinade, eventually sees that he was wrong to regard a white partner as a kind of prize. Dustin, a flamboyant actor played for laughs by James Cusati-Moyer, who acted the part on Broadway, doesn’t want to think of himself as white. Gary becomes furious that this attitude denies the importance of his own ethnicity. It is one of the most emotional moments in a play that is otherwise more often melodramatic than realistic. The chemistry between them is electric.
Kit Harington‘s Jim, a British white man, is the most skeptical of this so-called Process, and says that he is uncomfortable with role playing a slave master. After some reflection, he observes that his partner seems to regard him as a virus. It is a turning point for Olivia Washington’s Kaneisha, who recognises that her anhedonia has developed because she does see white people that way.
So, at its heart, this play is about an on-going power struggle between white and black people, of which slavery may be the supreme example. The sexual relationships in Slave Play are intended to illustrate that, because white people are used to a society in which they are supreme, they fail to see that they are part of the problem that has caused their black partners’ sexual inhibition.
In the final act, called ‘Exorcise’, the mood becomes more serious. We are back in the bedroom with the couple who opened the play. Kaneisha asks Jim to listen, which he does as she explains to him he needs to recognise that he, as a white man, carries this so-called ‘virus’, because he has inherited a legacy of imperialism, colonialism and, of course, enslaving other races. Then, in a gesture which I took to mean that, this time, he wasn’t simply putting on a costume to play a part, he takes off all his clothes. The lighting is a little subdued as he walks around the bed but it is clear that his body is completely exposed, just as his deepest feelings are now fully acknowledged and revealed.
He once again goes through the ritual of treating her as a slave but this time with sincerity, flinging her, fully clothed, on the bed on her front and climbing on top of her. His aim is not to pleasure her, as in the first scene, but to force himself upon her. All the while, we focus on her calm face and, via the mirrors, and thanks to the bleaching effect of a bright light, at his very white buttocks rising and thrusting. When it’s over, she thanks him, but she is looking at the audience, so it seems she is also thanking those of us who are white for listening and recognising our racial heritage.
Mr Harington does well to convey a character who goes from confident to confused to broken. Ms Washington acts with passion. But, like the rest of the excellent cast, they are portraying characters who too often are ciphers rather than real human beings, and who offer melodrama in place of emotion.
Slave Play may mean more to Americans whose experience of race is different to the British one, so it may not have hit me as forcefully as intended. For me, the points about the psychological effect of white power that Jeremy O. Harris finally teases out in Slave Play, while interesting and provocative, are undermined by the earlier mockery of the psychiatrists. They also take too long to emerge and are less effective than they might be because the narrative is so obviously subservient to an agenda. On the plus side, there is much to enjoy in the sex romps and the send-up of the psycho-therapy industry.
You can see Slave Play at the Noël Coward Theatre until 21 September 2024. Buy tickets direct from the theatre.
This comment was made about the video on the Theatre.Reviews With Paul Seven YouTube channel. It is reproduced with permission:
Thank you for this review. I saw the Broadway production five years ago, and I own a copy of the script, which I subsequently read after seeing the play. So I want to make a few points from the perspective of an American audience member who has quite deep knowledge of the American history of enslavement as an economic institution of domination and exploitation. I should preface this by stating that I’ve volunteered for years for an historic property that is New England’s main site that served as essentially a Northern “plantation.” (The Royall House & Slave Quarters.)
So I think your review is very insightful, but I also think this play is deeply American in a way that probably won’t read the same for a British audience. I deeply appreciate your respectful attempt at having equanimity and reviewing the play on its own terms. However, there are aspects of this play that probably don’t land the same in London. Our particular, awful history with enslavement as an economic institution that formed a backbone to this country’s economy is a deeply American pathology. It really was like a virus that infected us, to borrow the words that the character at the end of the play says out of sorrow and rage. Plantations really do feel like haunted places. Especially the ones whose structures remain in the South. Consider that these sites are sometimes used as wedding venues for white people – how revolting is that? That’s just one example of how the play directly confronts the legacy of this institution. But I don’t even think it is only about that, or enslavement is the antagonist of the play per se.
I think the Carry On reference – which I understand minimally but I imagine you are saying that the sketch comedy aspect feels broad and silly like something called Carry On – is apt. However, I think there is quite a bit more encoded into the seeming humor and whimsy. As another example of the layers this play is operating on and peeping back: the Black characters play surreal versions of harmful Black stereotypes that began during enslavement. These are numerous, and American audiences recognize them right away as integral to our cultural identity. Though they are consigned to the dustbin of history now, it really wasn’t that long ago that these stereotypes carried violent weight. My grandparents’ generation grew up with the colloquial saying, “Eeny, meeny, mynie, mo/catch a __ by his toe/if he hollers, let him go” I’m sure you can imagine the word that goes into the blank, which I could never bring myself to say because it’s so horrifying and destructive. But I’m sure you can deduce what it is from the topic at hand.
When this play came out in 2019 on Broadway, white audiences – even supposed liberals – were getting overheated and angry enough that some of them would scream and yell during the talkbacks. It was the show that introduced “Blackout nights,” where people of color could attend the show among their peers without the intrusion of the White gaze. (Which is something Slave Play addresses – the White gaze – hence the mirror, in case you were wondering why there’s a mirror.) In our country, states are making it illegal to tell the truth about the brutality of enslavement as a racist system of exploitation and appropriation and commodification of the Black body. Even though the public records available in our country will tell us how brutal this system was. In the town in Massachusetts where the farm/plantation was that housed many enslaved people in the years prior to Massachusetts abolishing enslavement, there are public records that list Black/African people as simply property. You can see evidence of these human beings being sold. And bounties being placed on them when they attempted to flee to freedom. This was in Massachusetts, a supposed liberal bastion.
And there is another thing that probably won’t register for an audience member who doesn’t identify as “Queer” or as a member of the LGBTQ+ communities: this play was written by a Black, queer-identifying person whose intersectional identities in both categories are doubly marginalized in this country. Even now, Black queer people in the US are murdered – just for being themselves and existing in public space. That is part of the reason the Rihanna song “Work” is heard in the show. Jeremy O Harris is making a point about the amount of unasked-for labor people with multiply marginalized identities have to carry in this country. That exploitative model is in part due to the legacy of enslavement. If you’ve read a Faulkner novel about these overall subjects, this play is a bit of an offspring of the ideas contained in those books.
I’ll end for now by pointing out: if you want to know just how personal this play is to the US context, a direct example from a current political figure is how white children were afraid to play with Kamala Harris when she was growing up in California. The legacy of this vile institution of enslavement is hundreds of years in the making, and it is America’s Original Sin. (Though colonialism/Other-ing/xenophobia are not unique to the US, of course …) I hope you find these thoughts useful to your consideration of the play.
Justine Mitchell in Alma Mater at the Almeida Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner
Kendall Feaver‘s drama covers the many ramifications of a sexual assault at a top university. Justine Mitchell only replaced Lia Williams in the lead role at the last minute but received excellent reviews. Some critics found the many complications of the plot satisfying, others simply confusing.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Claire Allfree of the Telegraph (5★) declared, ‘Directed with pincer-like sharpness by Polly Findlay and beautifully performed, Feaver’s drama is one of the best yet to grapple with today’s culture wars’. She said Justine Mitchell brought to the lead role ‘magnificent, acid-tongued, arrogant flamboyance’.
The Financial Times‘ Sarah Hemming (4★) declared, ‘It’s not a perfect play — it is too schematic in places — but it’s a compelling, sharply resonant ethical workout.’ Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) found it ‘utterly absorbing and very powerful’. The characters, she said, ‘are always fully alive in their humanity and their shifting positions.’
Matt Wolf at London Theatre (4★) praised the new lead, ‘Is there a more quietly essential actress these days than Justine Mitchell…who illuminates every production in which she appears’? He liked the director too, ‘(Deborah) Findlay steers it with a cool, keen eye for the heated rhetoric it contains’. He pointed out, ‘Like any good play of this sort, you find yourself nodding in assent to one point of view only to soon be taken by another perspective altogether’, he continued.
What Matt found ‘satisfyingly labyrinthine’, others found confusing. Cindy Marcolina at Broadway World (3★) thought, ‘Alma Mater gets a lot right, but also puts too many irons on the fire’. Ryan Gilbey for The Guardian (3★) found ‘so many skeletons tumbling out of closets that the stage resembles a crypt rather than a college.’ Nick Curtis in the Standard (2★) was notably put off: ‘it’s undermined by Feaver’s desire to constantly wrong-foot the audience and cover every base. Think this is about assault? No, it’s about race. No, privilege. No, the power-dynamics of student-teacher relationships. No, the internal fault-lines of feminism.’
Two critics looked rather than loved it. Holly O’Mahony writing for The Stage (3★) felt the play was ‘guilty of intellectualising its subject matter instead of making us feel for it.’ Dominic Maxwell of the Times (3★) gave this advice: ‘You may not surrender entirely to the fiction, but you’ll have plenty to talk about afterwards.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★
Alma Mater is at the Almeida until 20 July 2024. Buy tickets direct from almeida.co.uk
If you’ve seen Alam Mater at the Almeida Theatre, please add your review and rating below
Catherine Ashdown and Kadiesha Belgrave in Grud. Photo: Alex Brenner
Sarah Power‘s second play sees a teenage woman balancing home life with an alcoholic father and sixth form with a new friend. Jaz Woodcock-Stewart directs. Not many critics took the journey to Hampstead but those that did enjoyed it.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Chris Wiegand in The Guardian (3) called it an ‘emotionally acute drama’ but said it ‘would benefit from a stronger arc and a more richly detailed social backdrop’.
Katie Kirkpatrick at Broadway World (3) commented, ‘Power’s writing demonstrates a knack for realistic dialogue and humour, as well as compelling interpersonal dynamics. The issue with this particular project is that it fails to say anything new.’
Dave Fargnoli at The Stage (3) found ‘the play is lifted by the deep empathy, touching tenderness and charmingly offbeat humour’. Helen Hawkins for The Arts Desk (3) called it ‘an oddly refreshing evening’.
Olivia Washington and Kit Harington in Slave Play. Photo: Helen Murray
Jeremy O. Harris’ Broadway success arrives with a much-publicised warning: “Is London Ready for Slave Play?” Despite the use of sex as a way of exploring race and the legacy of slavery, it would seem from the reviews that the answer is ‘yes’. Although there are many references to the shocking content (including a naked Kit Harington), the critics themselves seem unshocked. While acknowledging flaws in the underwritten characters or overwritten satire, they generally praised this confrontational drama. The cast impressed them too, particularly Olivia Washington and Mr Harington. But the applause was not universal, as the two 2-star reviews show.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (4) said it was a ‘rollercoaster of emotions that this blistering, painful and provocative drama involves’ She described ‘A tough, troubling, revealing play: proof again that the stage has become an excellent place to grapple, collectively, with our fraught and freighted times and to help us listen better to our own responses.’ Alice Saville in The Independent (4) found the play ‘multi-layered and deft’, saying, ‘Harris’s play is full of a sharp satirical intelligence’.
Isaac Ouro-Gnao writing for LondonTheatre (4★) told us the play ‘grabs you by the scruff of the neck and refuses to let go for two uninterrupted hours.’ He praised ‘incredible performances from the whole cast’. He had one reservation, namely the final scene, which is ‘distasteful and gratuitously violent, sullying an overall brilliant production.’ Time Out’s Andrzej Lukowski (4★) took the opposite view, ‘In the end I felt ‘Slave Play’ is really made by its dynamite final scene…Intimate, tender, brave, repellant and gut wrenching’.
Nick Curtis in the Standard (4★) called it ‘challenging in the best way. It uses sex and therapy as metaphors for society’s wider inability to talk honestly about race and touches on the desensitisation of modern life.’ He said, ‘Harris’s ear for dialogue, and his ability to stoke tension and wrong-foot the audience are terrific. He’s not so hot on character.’ Sam Marlowe in The Stage (4★) found, ‘it is grotesquely funny and extremely disturbing, stunningly visceral yet punishingly verbose, brilliantly clever but at times dramatically frustrating.’ It ‘flings us between shock, hilarity and horror,’ she said. However, ‘the play feels overlong, and’ (agreeing with Nick Curtis above) ‘the sense of the characters as fully developed individuals is fitful’.
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4) decided ‘the play is too clever for its own good, throwing the subject matter in the air without quite landing it, and is an intense experience, in spite of its romping humour and trotting pace.’ She concluded positively, ‘It might be flawed but it is charismatic, needling theatre. An event.’ Neil Norman in the Express (4★) was also ambivalent: ‘It’s funny, clever and undoubtedly challenging, though neither as outrageous nor profound as it would like to be.’
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3) was another with mixed feelings: ‘The mood tips between the satirical and the earnest; the dialogue oscillates between groping babble and blinding revelation.’ Ke Meng at Theatre Weekly (3★) was disappointed: ‘Unfortunately, rather than being genuinely provocative, Robert O’Hara’s direction steers the show in a more comedic and funny manner—even in the erotic scenes.’ She also found the acting ‘a bit hammed’. Susannah Clapp in The Observer (3★) thought it was a bit obvious: ‘The discussions are so laden, so evident, that they drag down the drama.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (2★) said, ‘it boasts some acute moments and fine performances…(yet it) comes across as the sort of ideas-led piece that would stimulate over an hour but has instead unwisely swollen to two hours.’ Tomiwa Owolade reviewing for the Sunday Times (2★) decided ‘it is not provocative or daring’ and thought most people ‘will find the play occasionally amusing, but mostly tedious.’
Alexander Cohen at Broadway World (2★) cautioned, ‘What it considers outrageous, here in London in 2024, doesn’t feel all that shocking’ before going on to describe some of the content in shocking detail. The play was, he said, ‘too obsessed with conceptual naval gazing to the extent that it forgets that its characters are human beings.’ (I assume that’s a typo unless the play really is looking at maritime activities.) He decided, ‘it’s a structureless whirlwind of serious and silly’.
Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★
Value rating 38 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Four Detroit workers’ lives are devastated by redundancy in Dominique Morriseau’s 2016 play. Matthew Xia directs a UK premiere that was generally liked by the critics.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (5★) described it as a ‘funny, humane, deeply moving drama’.
Over at The Stage (4★) Dave Fargnoli called it a ‘powerful and humane drama’. The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (4★) said ‘The production itself thrums with life’. Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) talked of ‘the power and compassion of its analysis of the weight that unfettered pursuit of profit puts on the lives of ordinary men and women.’
Nick Curtis in the Standard (4★) talked of ‘a beautifully-observed, well-made comedy drama about hardscrabble existence, and Matthew Xia directs a fine cast with laid-back assurance.’ Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld (4★) called it ‘a pummelling emotional workout’. Helen Hawkins writing The Arts Desk (4★) commented, ‘Matthew Xia’s intelligent direction gets the best from the text and this fine cast.’
Lindsay Johns writing for the Telegraph (4★) said the ‘muscular, edgy dialogue…is shot through with tenderness, warmth and psychological veracity’. John Cutler at The Reviews Hub (4★) noted, ‘Absent much of a storyline, the piece works most effectively as a nuanced and finely crafted look at the dynamics of a found family, and at working class lives lived under the constant pressure of unwanted change.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Times (3★) said, ‘Skeleton Crew is full of bright exchanges about the characters’ grim forebodings. It’s a show that sets out to simmer more than come to the boil.’
Matt Wolf at London Theatre (3★) said, ‘even if Skeleton Crew sometimes dawdles when it might otherwise detonate, an exemplary cast foregrounds the need for dignity and compassion’.
Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out (assumed 3★) felt it compared unfavourably with the work of Lynn Nottage on similar themes but nevertheless ‘What Morriseau does extremely well is bring together four well-rounded characters (and) show their lives through the prism of work.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.8★
Value rating 69 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Mia Kobayashi and Zheng Xi Yong in Your Lie in April. Photo: Craig Sugden
A Japanese manga comic which became anime TV series has reached London theatre as a musical. It’s the story of a traumatised young pianist and a love that may save him. Huge praise for the young stars, Zheng Xi Yong and Mia Kobayashi, is offset by disappointment, mockery even, for many other aspects of the production The American music by Frank Wildhorn received a mixed reception. Reviews are trickling in slowly so do come back for an update.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Gary Naylor in Broadway World (5★) offered this advice (which plenty of reviewers didn’t take): ‘Fold your arms and harumph and you’ll miss the point; get dizzy recalling that first flush of adolescent desire and the agony of its not being reciprocated, and you’re in.’ He thought ‘the songs are plenty good enough to stand on their own two feet.’ He declared, ‘Mia Kobayashi…radiates superstar power.’
For Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre (4★) it ‘has a knocks-you-flat emotional force that you cannot resist. It will absolutely make you cry.’ The songs were key for her: ‘Each one of these sensationally catchy pop-rock anthems has a disarming sincere directness‘. It was, she concluded, an ‘impassioned, uplifting and deeply moving musical’
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (3★) listed all reasons she didn’t like it. The book? ‘full of cheesy cliches.’ The characters? ‘Americanised and schematic.’ The plot? ‘overdramatic, underexplained’. The design? ‘mystifying, with a thrown-together look.’ Fortunately, ‘the songs, along with spirited performances, become the show’s saving grace.’ Paul Vale for The Stage (3★) also liked the music: ‘this is Wildhorn’s best score of recent years, capturing both the spirit of manga and the power of music to restore the soul.’
Dzifa Benson writing for the Telegraph (3★) had a negative view of the music ‘let down by Frank Wildhorn’s generic show-tunes,’ but thought ‘All the performances…are spot on’.
‘Buyer beware,’ said Dominic Maxwell in The Times (3★), ‘it’s a cheesefest from start to finish. What can I say, though? Sometimes a platter of cheese is just what you fancy.’
The ‘show is overpowered by the crashing clichés of its story and the clunky Americanisms of Rinne B Groff’s English version,’ said Tom Wicker reviewing for Time Out (3★ assumed). He pointed out, ‘you’re in trouble with a musical when the songs are straining so hard to be inspirational that a plot-device bike ride gets as rousing an anthem as a character’s death.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (2★) hated it, and he didn’t pull his punches: ‘this emotionally overwrought Japanese musical…strikes me as absurd…it’s glib, mawkish and riddled with clichés.’ As for the music, ‘Frank Wildhorn’s score is dominated by gushy, eyes-aloft, mouth-agape anthems’. Here’s his knockout blow: ‘Anger, grief and anxiety are turned up to 11 for the most OTT songs before the tone slips back to the gurgling, simpering comedy of a teen sitcom.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.3★
Value rating 44 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Your Lie in April can be seen at the Harold Pinter Theatre until 21 September 2024. Buy tickets directly from yourlieinapril.co.uk
If you’ve seen Your Lie in April at the Harold Pinter, please add your review and rating below
