John Lithgow in Giant at the Royal Court. Photo: Manuel Harlan
Some of the best reviews this year greeted Giant at the Royal Court. It’s the debut play by long-established director Mark Rosenblatt, directed by theatrical giant Nicholas Hytner. Giant tells the story of what happened when Roald Dahl was exposed as anti-semitic. The critics were unanimous that John Lithgow as Dahl was ‘terrific’. They agreed that the play started well but some thought it lost drive in the second act.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Times’ Clive Davis (5★) described the play as ‘subtle, intelligent and stylishly crafted’. ‘Lithgow is astonishing,’ he said… ‘he gives us a celebrity who is a perplexing mixture of old school gent, jester and bully.’ He spread his praise in all directions: ‘Hytner keeps the direction brisk’. Tim Bano in the Evening Standard (5★) proclaimed: ‘It’s hard to think when the Royal Court last staged a play that felt so dangerous, or one so spectacularly good.’
In Time Out (4★), Andrzej Lukowksi declared, ‘It’s one heck of a debut play – well-made and sturdy, exquisitely tense, and scrupulously fair, less trying to damn Dahl than understand him.’ John Lithgow gave ‘a towering performance … His Dahl is magnetic: frail and malignant, cruel and kind, righteous and monstrous’. Alice Saville in The Independent (4★) praised ‘Nicholas Hytner’s simmering, tense production’ but said the play ‘ultimately lacks tension, because it’s clear from the start that Dahl is deeply but lazily prejudiced, with no intention of changing’.
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) said Lithgow’s ‘terrific performance is a compelling reason to see this play’ but ‘It’s a play that doesn’t quite decide where it stands in that argument about whether you can loathe the man and admire the art’.
Patrick Marmion in the Mail (4★) described how ‘At moments last night Lithgow’s brilliantly, brazenly unapologetic performance reduced the theatre to shocked, breathless silence.’ He found ‘The play goes off the boil after the interval’. The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4★) agreed. She said it had a ‘slowly brilliant first act, stupendously performed by its cast’ but ‘By the second act, his antisemitism is glaring, and the drama seems to not know where to go from here’.
Describing the play for BroadwayWorld (3★), Gary Naylor said, ‘It starts ugly and stays ugly – a tonal issue the play, even under Nicholas Hytner’s direction, never resolves, hobbling its dramatic potential.’ He continued, ‘Dahl’s shocking words – are drawn directly from sources. That does beg the question as to why so little of the plot rings true.’ Julia Rank at LondonTheatre (3★) thought: ‘John Lithgow is terrific’ but ‘The weakest elements are the characterisations of the “help” characters. ’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (3★) concluded ‘Though the writing could be tighter and more sharply focused, Rosenblatt tackles this thorny subject with the right mix of journalistic balance, insight and rightful condemnation.’ Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (3★) thought the play ‘can’t escape the limitations of its fair-minded format’.
Critics’ Average Rating 3.8★
Giant can be seen at the Royal Court Theatre until 16 November 2024. The run is sold out but watch out for returns or extra performances, or hope for a West End transfer.
If you’ve seen Giant at the Royal Court, please add your review and rating below
David Oyewolo in Coriolanus. Photo: Misan Harriman
A wide range of opinions greeted the new production of Coriolanus on the large Olivier stage at the National Theatre. There was a five star review in Time Out and two stars from The Times. David Oyewolo was widely welcomed back after a long absence from the English stage. There were mixed feelings about Lyndsey Turner’s production. Some thought the way she concentrated on Coriolanus as a soldier out of step with Rome’s patricians and plebeians was an exciting interpretation, others found it lacking drive. That feeling extended to Es Devlin’s monumental set, which for some captured Rome’s power and for others dominated too much.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Time Out’s Andrjez Lukowski (5★) thought it was ‘tremendous’. He said, ‘it’s supercharged by an outstanding central performance that deftly walks the line between sympathetic and repellant.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis (4★) praised ‘Oyelowo’s relentless, driving conviction…His naturally benign face seems to harden and warp as Coriolanus’s arrogance consumes him. He speaks Shakespeare’s verse with rare fluency. He’s also a convincing combatant in excellent fight scenes.’
For Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (4★), ‘LyndseyTurner’s vaulting revival…thrillingly aligns the play’s tricky contours with a modern, ill-at-ease Britain.’ She talked of ‘Devlin’s formidable concrete set design’ and of Oyelowo’s ‘alert, sensitive performance reveals a man both tormented and infuriated by his increasing alienation from a world he doesn’t understand.’
Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld (4★) liked the production’s approach: ‘confluences of history weave together through myth and tear apart time: a tyrant in a toga is no different to one in a suit and tie.’ He was wowed by the way it looked: ‘Es Devlin’s set is dazzlingly labyrinthine, brutalist concrete blocks cascade from the rafters shattering the boundaries of performance.’ He loved the star: ‘David Oyelowo plays the eponymous anti-hero with viper fangs hissing venom in all directions’. He did have one criticism: ‘It’s a shame that the rest of the supporting cast feel sidelined…. Without their weight to counterbalance him, the production just struggles to maintain its blockbuster propulsion to the bitter end.’
Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (4★) referred to ‘Lyndsey Turner’s mighty production…led by a terrific, deeply troubled David Oyelowo, which fuses past and present, public space and playing space, to brilliantly eloquent effect.’ Fiona Mountford at the i (4★) was impressed by Oyelowo’s ‘towering performance of coiled intensity, as well as notable verbal dexterity.’. She noted: ‘Productions of this play are usually very certain about where right and wrong lies, but Turner thrillingly throws all that into doubt. She makes us interrogate the motives of the rabble-rousing tribunes’.
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (3★) was impressed by ‘a thrilling central performance by David Oyelowo’, but thought it was ‘weighted down by a set by Es Devlin that makes every scene look sensational, but also like a spread in The World of Interiors’ not to met ‘a score by Angus MacRae that loads each moment with ever louder significance.’ She found, ‘Lyndsey Turner’s direction is claustrophobic and tightly controlled, when sometimes the emotions of the play seem to cry out for breathing space.’ She concluded, ‘it’s a slick production rather than an involving one.’
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) thought, ‘Turner’s production is monumental rather than fully articulated or driving…The set pieces are tremendous but they lack an internal central motor.’ As for the star: ‘.David Oyelowo is forceful but uninflected; as unvarying as a bullet.’The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (3★) said the drama ‘is woodenly underpowered and never evokes quite enough feeling’.
‘The crowds rule in what is arguably Shakespeare’s most complex political tragedy,’ said Anya Ryan at LondonTheatre (3★). ‘In Lyndsey Turner’s production…they arrive, angry and holding placards, as if fresh from the scenes of a modern day protest…It is their presence that carries Turner’s vision and brings Shakespeare’s tragedy wholeheartedly up to date.’
For Helen Hawkins at TheArtsDesk (3★) ‘this is a super-dynamic production that hardly pauses for breath’. Saying it is ‘minus a key item: a hero whose end is tragic’, she observed: ‘We are watching a lucid examination of a process working itself out, not a dense study of a flawed nobleman in extremis.’ Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (3★) was unmoved, calling it ‘ingenious, diverting and tension-free.’
The Times’ Clive Davis (2★) found much to criticise: ‘there’s no fire at the heart of this production.’ He declared: ‘Part of the problem with Lyndsey Turner’s curiously flat production is that you spend a lot more time casting an eye over the levitating grey slabs of Es Devlin’s characteristically chic set design than admiring the stiff-necked grandeur of Oyelowo’s doomed warrior.’ He had a problem with the latter too: ‘this soft-spoken general has the quietly exasperated manner of a middle manager overwhelmed by a late-night pile of spreadsheets.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.6★
Value rating 48 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
David Oyewolo in Coriolanus. Photo: Misan Harriman
David Oyelowo has been rarely seen on stage in the last twenty years, thanks to the lure of Hollywood. I am pleased to report he does not disappoint. As for the production, this is a Tragedy of Coriolanus without the tragedy.
The problem with this particular Shakespeare play is that we never really get inside the head of the lead character. Unlike protagonists elsewhere in Shakespeare’s tragedies, he has no soliloquies. So we don’t understand and empathise with him in the way we do with, say, Hamlet or Macbeth.
He is a Roman soldier, but more than that he is a weapon, created by Rome’s military culture and specifically by his mother (the only human being he seems to care about). At the beginning, he establishes his military credentials in warfare. After that, it’s all about Rome trying to control this missile they have launched.
Actual physical fighting takes up a small but, in this production, memorable part of the play. Mostly we watch people talking about Coriolanus, trying to persuade him to be what he can’t be, which is to say someone who bites his tongue, compromises and flatters, and fatally underestimating him.
When he returns to Rome a hero, he seems an obvious candidate for a peacetime leader. The trouble is, he can’t hide his feelings of contempt for people and politics. Rome turns against him, then finds the missile pointed at them.
Coriolanus is up against the two great forces of Rome at that time, the plebeians and the patricians, and Shakespeare appears to have little time for either. The former are a rabble who are easily swayed, the latter are self-serving: ‘the herdsmen of the beastly plebeians’.
Coriolanus at the National Theatre. Photo: Misan Harriman
On the face of it, Coriolanus is a simple soldier, a man of principle who refuses to play the political game and seeks revenge when betrayed. As in any tragedy, his actions lead to his downfall but we are uncertain whether they are a symptom of arrogance, pride, humility, or simply a soldier’s rigid ideas of right and wrong? Lindsey Turner‘s production doesn’t discount or endorse any of these possibilities, leaving us with his inability to empathise and his black-and-white view of the world.
David Oyelowo provides us with a Coriolanus full of power and subtle feelings. He is undoubtedly a man of action. No-one in a Shakespeare play can be said to be a man of few words, and certainly Coriolanus bestows sone of Shakespeare’s finest metaphors in on those who let him down. Still, by the Bard’s standards, he is positively tight-lipped. Mr Oyelowo speaks the poetry clearly and fluently but it’s through his face and body that he most expresses his puzzlement and anger at what he encounters.
From the start, Mr Oyelowo conveys nobility- but he is a soldier first. As another soldier says: ‘Let me have war…it exceeds peace as far as day does night.’ He has a soldier’s bearing and bluntness. He bares his ripped body more than once, which contributes to the sense that he is very much an alpha male in a world of betas. In Rome during peacetime, he walks and sits awkwardly. He only seems comfortable when fighting. And the sword fight scenes are pretty exciting, as choreographed by Sam Lyon-Behan.
Whenever he leaves the stage, the temperature drops. None of the other characters emerge with much credit or force, although the actors do. Peter Forbes as Menenius, the wily politician trying to pour oil on troubled waters, is suitably patrician. Stephanie Street and Jordan Metcalfe as the devious populist tribunes Sicinius and Brutus are appropriately slimy. Kobna Holdbrook-Smith as Aufidius is also a successful soldier but, in contrast to his sworn enemy Coriolanus, he can play the political game. Pamela Novete as Coriolanus’s domineering mother has the right hectoring tone and, judging by the way she influences him into his fateful decisions, gives us another major clue to Coriolanus’s character. He respects, even fears her, but there’s no hint of love between them.
Lindsey Turner’s production brings out the contrast between the soldiers, who built and protect Rome, and the inhabitants who take for granted the benefits of peace that the army’s feats bring them. Her production begins with a video projection, designed by Ash J Woodward, where people are shown from high above scuttling around like ants.
Es Devlin provides an impressive set that continues this theme. It dominates the production and the people- maybe a little too much. The story may speak about war and democracy, heroes and the populace but it is told on a human scale. The huge set distracts from the humanity. On the other hand, when those massive marble blocks descend to create a feeling of the power and history of Rome, we get the sense that the current Romans, both the elite and the people, are like the ants we saw earlier.
There are many artefacts on tables which suggest a museum, perhaps indicating the past was once the present, that this story will soon be history, and that history constantly repeats itself. After all, we can see many examples today of populism and political ambition threatening democracy, and of people who would rather fight than compromise. This is underlined by the way the actors are in modern dress. There is a moment at the end that indicates fighters like Coriolanus will always be needed and always remembered.
A sense of hubris- that the character has brought his fate upon himself because of decisions he made deliberately- is essential to tragedy. In presenting Coriolanus as a soldier who has no interest in democracy or even other people, we lose any sense of him making a decision. In his mind there is no choice. At the Donmar a few tears ago, Tom Hiddleston made Coriolanus an arrogant aristocrat, which is one of many possible interpretations. The audience could see he’d brought his fate upon himself by choice. To me, that is why, despite David Oyewolo’s brilliant performance, this production is flat, a situation compounded by making the plebeians and the patriachs so pathetic that you wouldn’t blame Coriolanus even if had made a conscious decision to fight them.
With all the other characters reduced in stature in this production, the drama of conflict is diminished. No-one really tests him (except maybe his mother). It becomes very much about how Coriolanus is a misfit, and he’s a one trick pony, a single-minded soldier with no inner conflict.
It remains an interesting evening, but not I think one for the history books, despite an unforgettable performance from David Oyelowo.
Coriolanus can be seen at the National Theatre until 9 November 2024
Arthur Hughes and Peter Sandys-Clarke in The King’s Speech. Photo: Alex Brenner
One of the best things about where I live is that my closest producing theatre is the Watermill in Newbury, which was named The Stage’s Theatre Of The Year. The venue is quite a miracle really because it has a tiny stage and it no longer receives an Arts Council grant, yet it consistently knocks out excellent shows and occasionally an absolute banger- like The King’s Speech.
One of the challenges of mounting a play like The King’s Speech is that you, as an audience, know what’s going to happen. If you’re not familiar with British history pre-World War Two, then you’ve probably seen the film. This means the drama is not in what’s going to happen, but how it happens.
The King’s Speech was originally written as a play, even though it was first produced as a film, and you can easily imagine, when you watch the screen version, why it succeeds so well on stage: most of the action takes place in small rooms. By the time we get to Westminster Abbey, we’re so absorbed, we don’t even think about the missing grandeur. Well, I didn’t anyway.
The triumph of David Seidler’s script (he also wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay) is in the portrayal of two men from very different backgrounds- one a member of the highest family in the land, the other a commoner, and a colonial commoner at that- who form a bond. Prince Albert, as the future King Edward VIII’s brother, is being forced onto centre stage, to use a theatrical metaphor, but he is terrified of public speaking because he has a stammer. Lionel Logue is an Australian who has made a career as an outlier in the profession of speech therapy but has ambitions to be an actor.
At first the Prince is stiff and tetchy, not to mention skeptical of the process. He is played by Peter Sandys-Clarke who is every bit as good as his predecessors in the role- Colin Firth in the movie and Charles Edwards on stage. We feel his frustration, panic and the gradual thawing of his frigid persona. He communicates this so well, that you are at times on the edge of your seat wondering if he will get out a particular word, at others almost tearful when, even momentarily, he manages to overcome his affliction.
The relationship between the two blossoms partly because of the Prince’s desperation to be cured but as much because of Lionel’s lese-majesty. He treats the future King as an ordinary person, calls him ‘Bertie’ and thus builds friendship and trust. Arthur Hughes, with a believable Australian accent, is an extraordinarily good actor. He brings to the role an ability to look both indifferent to being rejected and caring about his client simultaneously, using a bend of the head, an intense look and a cheeky smile.
Another reason that they bond is that both are flawed. They are sensitive men who were bullied by their fathers and consider themselves failures. There is a particularly moving scene when Lionel cries in the arms of his wife. So, the success of the treatment would represent redemption for both of them.
A portrait of the monarchy at a turning point
Arthur Hughes, Aamira Challenger and Peter Sandys-Clarke in The King’s Speech. Photo: Alex Brenner
Director Emma Butler uses the stage well, with characters entering from the back of the auditorium as if from the world outside, the would-be puppetmaster leaders appearing high up at the back of the stage, and the Prince moving right to the front when he speaks to the people, so you can see the rabbit-in-the-headlights look in his eyes.
The flaw in this play is in the use of the other characters. With the exception of the wives, they are there primarily to provide historical context. We need to know that King Edward VIII wanted to marry a divorced woman and this threatened a constitutional crisis- and if we were in any doubt about whether this was fair, we are also told he was a Nazi sympathiser. And we need to be informed that there was a lack of confidence among the elite about Prince Albert becoming King George VI just before the war, because he would need to be able to speak to the nation, in order to reassure them in our darkest hour.
The supporting cast provide us with fine cariacatures but inevitably there is no depth to them, and no matter how it’s dressed up, it feels like we’re being given a potted history lesson. Jim Kitson is Churchill, Stephen Rahman-Hughes plays Edward VIII and prime minister Baldwin, and Christopher Naylor is an excellent snobbish and waspish Archbishop of Canterbury. That reminds me that are a great many funny lines in this play, including the one where Churchill says to the Archbishop: ‘You may have been elected by God, but he only has one vote.’
The wives are important for the support they give but also because they are the people their spouses can speak to about their intimate feelings. Aamira Challenger is an amusing Elizabeth, and Rosa Hesmondhalgh brings out the frustration and compassion felt by Lionel’s wife Myrtle.
In this play, we find the monarchy at a turning point. The rise of radio, as well as a less subservient press, make it vital that the future King speaks confidently. He will no longer be a remote figure. Instead, he will be expected to talk directly to his people in their own homes, and will be seen by them as a human being. So, the sound, designed by Robin Colyer, plays an important part in the production, from the gramophone Lionel uses to help Bertie, to the microphone that looms in front of him, to the thumping of his heart over the speakers.
Breta Gerecke is the latest designer challenged with fitting a quart of set into the pint pot of the Watermill stage, and she does a good job. The floor is kept clear of all but essential furniture but at the back are three rising dominant structures which start as staircases and break up into planks of wood, symbolising the perilously disconnected structure of Prince Albert’s brain.
It’s an absorbing and uplifting production in which the script, the two principal actors and the intimate space of the Watermill combine to provide generous measures of tension and empathy. If you live anywhere near Newbury, you should go see it.
Adam Dannheisser in Fiddler On The Roof. Photo: Marc Brenner
Fiddler On The Roof opened on Broadway in 1964, and became the first Broadway musical to pass 3000 performances. Since then there have been tens of thousands of productions: there are said to be 500 amateur productions a year in the USA alone. Proof, if needed, that this story of a small Jewish Community in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century is an audience favourite, all over the world and across all races and faiths. But why does it touch so many hearts? And what is so special about this latest iteration at the Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre?
Fiddler On The Roof is built around the story of a milkman called Tevye and his conflicts with his daughters over who they should marry. If you haven’t seen Fiddler, or maybe even if you have, you might have the impression that this is all it’s about- a comedy in which Tevye talks to the audience, talks to God and even talks to the violin player about his dilemmas. The idea that it is a light-hearted musical has been reinforced by the cheeriness of the most famous Tevye, Chaim Topol, and the way all the best tunes are loaded in the first half.
We move through Tradition, Matchmaker and If I Were A Rich Man, almost while people are still taking their seats; Sunrise, Sunset follows rapidly, then The Dream which is performed hilariously in this production by all the cast dressed in white acting out Tevye’s apparent nightmare, and, at the climax of act one, the great Bottle Dance, based on Jerome Robbins’ original idea but in this production excitingly choreographed by Julia Cheng, best known until now for her work on the current hit production of Cabaret. All these most familiar moments are gone by the time you claim your interval drink. Which is not to say there aren’t some good numbers in the second act.
I don’t want to talk too much about the second half, in case you haven’t seen Fiddler, but it becomes much clearer that what the first act was setting us up for is the need to compromise our traditions as the world changes, wherever we live, whatever the time, and whatever our own age. And that this will help us face adversity, and not give in to despair. And while this is a positive message in this sometimes depressing world, it comes against a dark backdrop of a small impoverished Russian Jewish Community in 1905, living in relative poverty and threatened by antisemitism. That it still packs a punch today is a credit to the writer of the book Joseph Stein, the lyricist Sheldon Harnick and of course composer Jerry Bock who combined a traditional east European sound with modern music to make unforgettable show tunes.
I was a bit worried when I realised the director was Jordan Fein who was responsible for the downbeat version of Oklahoma! at the Young Vic. I do realise there is a dark undercurrent in Oklahoma! but I felt his gloomy treatment sucked all the joy out of the musical. But here, his ability to see the dark side of a musical is tempered by a lightness of touch, and the heavier theme is handled with sobriety rather than despair. He doesn’t labour the destruction of the community nor the modern parallels, any more than the musical itself does, but he doesn’t skate over them either, as previous productions have tended to do. You could say he has succeeded in balancing the traditional view of Fiddler with a modern sensibility.
Fiddler On The Roof at the Open Air Theatre. Photo: Marc Brenner
Tom Scutt’s design is extraordinary. The costumes feel authentic, all loose simple clothes, that look handmade. The irony is not lost that The Open Air Theatre is the only major London theatre without a roof, but he has created a roof across the stage that looks like a wheat field, symbolising the way the community live off the land. It acts as the village’s protection, yet seems ready to crush them like a Venus Flytrap. The roof dominates but never distracts and it’s high up on that roof that the fiddler is first seen and heard. Raphael Papo is the talented violinist.
Adam Dannheisser banishes all thoughts of Topol
The choice of Adam Dannheisser to play Tevye is inspired. He has a great ability to convey his attempts to reconcile the previous way of matchmaking and the new way of marrying for love. His commanding physical stature helps him seem like an authoritative father figure, but this is accompanied by a world weariness, an uncertainty and a benign quality, expressed through his gentle eyes and gestures. Strong on the outside, soft on the inside, he articulates the inner conflict he feels in trying to reconcile tradition and the modern world. It’s an eternal conflict that audiences identify with.
It seems invidious to pick out other members of the universally excellent cast but I have to bring attention to Lara Pulver as Golde, who provides a strong willed wife for Tevye and has an superb singing voice, best illustrated in the bittersweet duet Do You Love Me?
All the daughters sing and act beautifully. The oldest daughter Tzeitel is played by Liv Andrusier with chutzpah. Dan Wolff is a suitably shy and awkward as her choice of husband Motel. Daniel Krikler is the passionate radical Perchik who wants to marry another strong-minded daughter Hodel, played by Georgia Bruce. Hannah Bristow is the bookish daughter Chava who falls in love with Fyedka, played by George Milne. Comedy is provided by Beverley Klein as the matchmaker Yente, and Michael S Siegel as the miserable butcher Lazar Wolf.
It’s a production that perfectly balances the humorous and the serious.
Fiddler On The Roof can be seen at the Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre until 28 September 2024
Paul paid for his own ticket
Click here to watch this review on the YouTube channel Theatre reviews With Paul Seven
It was the venue as much as the play itself that wowed the critics Agatha Christie’s courtroom drama was revived. The former London County Council building County Hall stunned most of the reviewers and is a major contributor to its continuing popularity with audiences. Some reviews are from the opening, and some coincided with the 2000th performance in early 2024. The cast changes every so often but has so far featured top quality actors.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Olivia Garrett for the Radio Times (5★) called it ‘a spine-tingling and mesmerising watch which messes with your mind perfectly.’
Michael Billington in The Guardian (4★) said it was ‘imaginatively staged by Lucy Bailey’. Tom Wicker for Time Out (4★) called it ‘a deliciously enjoyable revival’ and praised the director: ‘Bailey plays up the melodrama beautifully’.
Marianka Swain in the Telegraph (4★) described it as ‘pleasingly old-fashioned fare’. She continued, ‘Christie’s bravura twisty plotting is still second to none. Combined with Bailey’s inspired use of an historic location, it’s criminally entertaining.’
TheArtsDesk’s Heather Neill (4★) found herself in ‘a magnificent, atmospheric space, standing in for the Old Bailey.’ The Times’ Clive Davis (4★) agreed, ‘the best reason for seeing Lucy Bailey’s handsome courtroom revival… is the setting itself.’
’the entertainment here lies in the twists and turns of the plot,’ declared Sarah Hemming in The Financial Times (3★) However, ‘The production struggles more in the intimate scenes in legal chambers and falls awkwardly flat in the one episode outside the court’. Henry Hitchins for The Standard (3★) noted, ‘Lucy Bailey’s production relishes the conventions of courtroom drama, not least the emphasis on ritual’ but thought it ‘a bit slow-footed … and lacks a nagging element of mystery.’
Will Longman for LondonTheatre (3★) complained, ‘The audience isn’t given enough to go on, and so there isn’t an air of mystery to this murder.’ Theo Bosanquet at WhatsOnStage (3★) found ‘this Agatha Christie classic still provides twists and gasp-inducing reveals aplenty, even if its melodramatic tendencies somewhat undermine the emotional impact’. He was disappointed that ‘the climax – no spoilers, of course – is action-packed but left me rather cold. It feels like an almost pantomimic finale to what is until then a slow-burning thriller.’
Natasha Tripney reviewing for The Stage (2★) was one of the few reviewers who didn’t like the venue: ‘the sheer size of the room proves cumbersome and exposing’. She wasn’t keen on the production either which she called ‘disappointingly pedestrian’.
Critics’ Average Rating 3.5★
Value rating 47 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Lucian Msamati and Ben Wishaw in Waiting For Godot
Much excitement surrounded the star casting of Lucian Msamati and Ben Wishaw in a new production of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting For Godot. The critics were impressed.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
‘This is the best production I’ve ever seen, ‘ declared Nick Curtis in The Standard (4★). Ben Whishaw and Lucian Msamati bring a potent, tragicomic chemistry,’ he said. Sarah Hemming from The Financial Times (4★) commented, ‘I’ve never seen the play’s dance along the border between artifice and truth so meaningfully executed. Macdonald and his team relish the play’s philosophical brilliance and emotional depth while underscoring its chastening political power.’
Sam Marlowe at The Stage (4★) noted, ‘It’s not, perhaps, a revelatory staging, and its measured pacing demands patience and close attention. But as sensitively handled as it is here, the play is at once tragic, absorbing and oddly comforting’.
The Times‘ Clive Davis (4★) said Msamati and Wishaw are ‘a beautifully paced double act in which the music hall humour is astutely balanced with dizzying glimpses into the existential abyss.’ He confessed, ‘If, like me, you’ve always been sceptical about the grandiose claims made for this play, Macdonald’s revival forces you to listen and learn.’ Wishaw, he said, ‘is in complete command as Vladimir ‘.
Cindy Marcolina for BroadwayWorld (4★) claimed, ‘This Godot is a bitter tragicomic farce, deeply philosophical but also genuinely funny. It becomes a reflection of staggering humanity in its continuous contradictions.’ She offered a qualified recommendation: ‘Go see it, but don’t break the bank in order to.’
Claire Allfree for the Telegraph (4★) ‘MacDonald’s capacious revival offers no new radical insight. Rather its strength lies in its resistance to any specific reading while simultaneously appearing to contain many. This is a Godot as spiritual allegory, as political parable, as absurdist tragic comedy and human cry in the wilderness, a production that seems to drag us too into its dreadful struggle against the dark.’
Time Out’s Andrjez Lukowski (4★) told us ‘The performances are the big thing and here they’re acerbically funny and infinitesimally tender, something backed up by the low key humanity of Macdonald’s production.’
Adam Bloodworth in CityAM (4★) thought ‘Lucian Msamati and Whishaw bring freshness to the leads’. ‘It is thrilling to have the opportunity to study this incomparable and mercurial actor live once again,’ said Fiona Mountford in the i (4★) of Ben Wishaw.
Critics also praised the other actors The Independent’s Alice Saville (4★) said, ‘Jonathan Slinger is as suave as a circus ringleader in the role of enigmatic stranger Pozzo, his cruelties as precise as his pencil-thin moustachio, while as his abused servant Lucky, Tom Edden moves with the wild-eyed stiffness of Charlie Chaplin after a century-long speed bender.’
The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (3★) was less impressed than the other critics: ‘James Macdonald’s production…seems greater parts comedy than tragedy…The comedy works in itself, and so do the dramatic moments, but the two seem slightly disconnected.’ She described’Rae Smith’s set…is a grey, razed landscape, rising up in the backdrop…It could be a post-apocalyptic landscape, a version of purgatory or the aftermath of war’ .
Critics’ Average Rating 3.9★
Value rating 46 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Waiting For Godot can be seen at the Theatre Royal Haymarket until 14 December 2024. Buy tickets direct here.
If you’ve seen Waiting For Godot at the Theatre Royal Haymarket, please add your review and rating below
It’s a Mystery why Witness For The Prosecution is a Success. Here are the Clues
★★★
Witness For The Prosecution at County Hall. Photo: Pamela Raith
It’s been on since 2017 but somehow I never quite got round to seeing Witness For The Prosecution. To be honest, there was a little bit of prejudice involved. Partly, much as I enjoy an Agatha Christie novel, I have seen her plays before and found them a little stilted. Secondly, it seemed a bit gimmicky to be presenting the play in the old County Hall. The mystery is, it works. So, I’ve engaged my little grey cells and I think I’ve solved the mystery of why it’s a success.
The first clue is the venue. County Hall, near Waterloo, and by the Thames, is a magnificent building. It was the home of the old London Council. Just entering is a stunning experience. The auditorium for Witness For The Prosecution is the former debating chamber. Consequently, it has very comfortable seating, with a terrific view- you wouldn’t expect anything less for the politicians running the capital city. It’s almost worth going to see the play just to sit in the chamber.
Although you can regard setting the play there as a gimmick, it may be more generous to call it ‘site specific’. The important thing is, it works. That’s partly because the auditorium has the grandeur you associate with the Old Bailey, where most of the play is set, and partly because the layout of the chamber with two sides facing one another matches the adversarial nature of a court case, which is the main subject of the play.
Then there’s the play itself. It starts with a scene in the chambers of a defence barrister Sir Wilfrid Robarts. This seems to confirm your worst fears. In 1953, when Agatha Christie wrote Witness For The Prosecution, theatre was changing- it’s the same year that Samuel Beckett’s Waiting For Godot premiered, and three years before John Osborne‘s ‘kitchen sink’ drama Look Back In Anger opened- both of which are being revived in the West End this year, by the way. But the style of this play looks backward rather than forward. The people are middle class, and everyone speaks as they ought to, rather than as they would. The dialogue is like any standard so-called ‘drawing room’ play- or film- from the early part of the century.
Then, we are taken to the criminal court. The place where to this day, they still behave like people from the 1950s, or 1850s even.
The clue here as to why Witness of The Prosecution is a success against the odds is in the talent of the creators of this production, director Lucy Bailey and designer William Dudley, to see the potential for this old building as a setting for a play mainly taking place in a courtroom. Chris Davey’s lighting is pretty impressive too- emphasising drama and contrast.
And the final clue: Agatha Christie herself. Now her characters may be ciphers, in the sense that they exist purely in the service of the twisty legal drama and don’t have a lot of depth, but the plot is grippingly good. It’s not just a clever story full of mystery and twists (although it is) but it’s also supplied with a lot of realistic detail. Ms Christie studied many court cases and had the help of a barrister to make sure the legal details are accurate.
George Jones and Meghan Treadway in Witness For The Prosecution. Photo: Pamela Raith
That helps a lot. But so does her story. We begin with Leonard Vole, a handsome cockerney lad accused of murder. He protests his innocence and we believe him but he is clearly too honest and too naive for his own good. The cast changes every so often but currently George Jones plays him with conviction – sorry, that’s probably an inappropriate word, better to say, ‘convincingly’. Leonard had befriended an older well-off woman who was found dead one evening not long after he had visited her, and it turns out she’s left him her fortune.
It’s a challenge to defend him but Sir Wilfrid, with humour and a degree of arrogant self confidence, decides to take on the case. Oliver Boot nails the role and dominates the stage, as he should. Sir Wilfrid and Leonard’s concerned solicitor Mr Mayhew, played by Ewen Cummins, subsequently discuss the case with condescension, patronising humour, and a dash of misogyny.
And the case goes well. A benign and predictably stuffy judge Mr Justice Wainwright is played by David Killick with authority and a twinkle in his eye, as he watches Sir Wilfrid run rings around the exasperated prosecution lawyer Mr Myers, played by Gyuri Sarossy who keeps bouncing back like a punch drunk fighter. He destroys witness after witness including the forensic scientist Dr Wyatt played by Nicholas Chambers, and the vindictive housekeeper Janet MacKenzie, given an scene stealing turn by Veronica Roberts. Finally, Leonard’s wife appears as a witness for the prosecution and, under oath to tell the truth, demolishes Leonard’s alibi. It’s a bravura performance by Meghan Treadway.
Why has she done this? The second act reveals all. And you realise as twist follows twist just how much Ms Christie has misled you, maybe even taken advantage of your expectations of a traditional ‘drawing room’ play. You see that, dammit, just like the people who meet her character Miss Marple, you’ve underestimated the Queen of Crime.
It turns out to be a very satisfactory evening, well put together, well acted and well produced in a striking venue. Mystery solved.
Witness For The Prosecution can be seen at the County Hall in London for the foreseeable future.
Jo Foster and Leesa Tulley in Why Am I So Single? Photo: Danny Kaan
Why Am I So Single? is the much anticipated follow up by Toby Marlow and Lucy Moss to their global phenomenon Six (or should that be SIX?). It arrived at the Garrick Theatre to slightly mixed reviews. All the critics agreed that it was musically strong- perhaps even better than Six– but there was disagreement about the story. Basically, the authors have looked at their own love lives and riffed on various aspects of dating, some light-hearted, some serious, in a not always coherent plot. Judging by the various reviewers’ reactions, it may be that this musical will appeal more to a younger generation (Generation Z?) who have had similar experiences. The stars Leesa Tulley and Jo Foster were widely praised.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (5★) summed up, it’s ‘a fabulous show about two writers who are best friends and are recognisably you, trying to write a successful hit musical, while agonising about their unhappy love lives.’ She was struck by the way ‘its wry tone and its vitality is underpinned by a truthful portrait of just how difficult it is to find love in these modern, confusing times – and by the honesty and the relationship at its heart.’ She concluded, ‘Its hymn to the pleasure of friendship is what tethers its exuberance to the ground and makes it so moving as well as so funny. There are moments when it could be pulled back, and it is marginally long, but once you give it your heart, it holds you.’
Isobel Lewis for the i (4★) was fully on board: ‘Why Am I So Single? has all the conventional trappings of a classic musical: an earworm-stuffed soundtrack, pithy script, sharp choreography from Ellen Kane and dynamic central performances. But it’s also a show that constantly subverts expectations, sneaking in complex ideas about identity, nostalgia and grief alongside the tongue-in-cheek “men are trash” rants.’
The Financial Times’ Sarah Hemming (4★) wrote, ‘It’s wickedly self-referential and completely daft’, and said, ‘the show has so much effervescent joy, and is delivered with such energy and heart by Foster, Tulley and the terrific ensemble, that it’s irresistible’.
The Stage’s Holly O’Mahony (4★) called it ‘a whip-smart musical comedy’, saying ‘The show’s deft brilliance is in the lyrics of its songs. Eight Dates, about the brutal ghostings and last-minute cancellations rife in online dating, bottles the phenomenon superbly’.
The Standard’s Nick Curtis (4★) compared it to Six and found it ‘just as quirky and surprising and almost as good.’ He decided, ‘This zesty, in-jokey, crackerjack entertainment proves they’re certainly not one-hit wonders.’
Marianka Swain for LondonTheatre (4★), calling it a ‘more ambitious but still blisteringly entertaining second collaboration’, said it was, ‘a production packed with knowing winks to the audience: fourth-wall-breaking asides, quips about the structure of the show itself, and, happily for musical theatre geeks, tons of stagey references.’
Nancy Durrant writing for The Observer (4★) called it ‘A joy’ and said, ‘The writing is pin-sharp; stuffed with pop culture references, from Tracey Emin’s bed to LinkedIn, it pulls you up repeatedly with its intelligence and wit as Nancy (Leesa Tulley, exuding warmth) and Oliver (Jo Foster, hugely charismatic, with an astonishing voice), try to work out what’s wrong with them’.
Not all the veteran critics were alienated. The Times’ Clive Davis (4★) said, ‘there’s so much inventiveness on display This show is a laugh-a-minute feast.’
Laura Rutkowski for the Radio Times (4★) wrote,’Yes, there are the big, outrageous musical numbers full of hilarious double entendres that make you want to just get up there and dance right alongside the cast, but it also touches upon queerness, shame, rejection, and loss in ways that feel representative and not tokenistic. Such was her enthusiasm that she declared, ‘I defy anyone not to have a massively enjoyable time at this musical. It’s uplifting, hilarious, and creative’. A few critics took up her challenge…
Arifa Akbar in The Guardian (3★) loved the score. ‘Moss and Marlow are without doubt the most talented musical songwriters out there,’ she declared. ‘What elevates the production is the score: every song is a powerhouse’. She was less keen on the story: ‘the first half about dating woes feels old hat as Bridget Jones, in spirit.‘ Taking the opposite view to The Stage’s reviewer, she found ‘The power of the drama hits in the second half as the characters become more vulnerable and intimate’.
‘Sweeter and frothier than pink prosecco, Toby Marlow and Lucy Moss’s new musical is squarely aimed at the girls, gays and theys,’ said Alice Saville in The Independent (3★). ‘Marlow and Moss are talents to be reckoned with, when they find a story that’s really worth telling.’ She concluded, ‘The first half erupts like a shaken bottle of prosecco, fizzing and flowing with astute hit after hit. And while the show flattens in the second, it’s still, quite probably, the defining musical of the dating-app age.’
Time Outs’ Andrjez Lukowski (3★) described it as ‘an endearingly quirky but preposterously self-indulgent parade of set-piece musical numbers with about three minutes of actual story in between.’ His review ended: ‘Good tunes, good cheer and good vibes from Moss’s larky, energetic direction – that makes extremely imaginative use of the ensemble – mean it all goes down quite agreeably. But ultimately Moss and Marlow’s rambling tribute to their own friendship seems unlikely to have the staying power of its predecessor: a curio, not a classic.
Gary Naylor on The Arts Desk (3★) explored the target audience: ‘Some will ache with recognition, as Oliver and Nancy dig deeper in deeper into their own psyches… Others will wonder how these two twenty-somethings can afford their lifestyles, why exactly Oliver! is their favourite musical and why they stick to amateur therapy when there are so many professionals out there.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (2★) offered the most damning review: ‘A bit of satire about modern dating mores gets us so far but beyond that the duo are soon staring inwards and repeating themselves. With jokes, with intelligence, with tunes. All of which would be enough for a one-act trifle, but stretches patience over a show that’s almost as long as Les Misérables.’
Variety doesn’t award stars but its reviewer David Benedict called it ‘fatally slack’, and said, ‘the target Gen-Z audience … might decide to go to a West End musical to see their lives reflected. But where “Six” long ago crossed over from the youth market to ticket-buyers of all ages, “Why Am I So Single?” riskily lacks appeal beyond its target audience.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.6★
Value rating 40 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Why Am I So Single? can be seen at the Garrick Theatre until 13 February 2025. Buy tickets direct here.
If you’ve seen Why Am I So Single? at the Garrick Theatre, please add your review and rating below
Mary Bridget Davies in A Night With Janis Joplin. Photo: Danny Kaan
For music fans of a certain age, the legendary Janis Joplin, who died far too young, holds a special place. They should enjoy A Night With Janis Joplin which most critics heralded as an excellent (albeit slightly too loud) concert, thanks to an ‘uncanny’ performance from Mary Bridget Davies. However, the telling of her life story was criticised by many as being too thin and too vanilla. (Sharon Sexton appears instead of Ms Davies at selected performances.)
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Charlotte Vickers at WhatsOnStage (4★) was not too concerned that there was ‘very little plot to keep the narrative going’, she was swept along by ‘the power of the performances, and the dedication of the production to making the night with Janis Joplin real.’
Adam Bloodworth for CityAM (4★) felt ‘A Night with Janis Joplin is best when it feels like a proper gig.’ He protested ‘It’s too loud’ but ‘Otherwise, this is a commendably raw ode to a legend.’
Will Hodgkinson reviewing for The Times (3★) found ‘Mary Bridget Davies’s embodiment of all things Janis for this cabaret-style show was uncanny’, but thought it an ‘entertaining but slight show in which such a wild spirit as Joplin proves an ill fit for the clean-cut constraints of the jukebox musical format.’
Franco Milazzo from BroadwayWorld (3★) liked Mary Bridget Davies’ performance but was unimpressed by the show: ‘at times, it feels that this show was created not to tour theatres than to provide cruise ship diners with some aural entertainment.’
Helen Hawkins at TheArtsDesk (3★) commented, ‘As a concert, it’s top-notch; as a theatrical piece about its subject, it could do with a stronger structure and a less forgiving spotlight’. She too praised the star: ‘It’s when Davies unleashes her phenomenal voice that the show really lives up to expectations.’
Matt Wolf for LondonTheatre (3★) said, ‘Davies is a wonder, even if the woman she is playing remains largely a cipher right through to the end.’
Paul Vale in The Stage (3★) described the show as ‘less a fully fledged musical than an immaculately performed tribute act’.
It may be fortunate for the rating, that Nick Curtis’ review in The Standard is not rated. He described the show as ‘a star performance in a shoddy vehicle’ and concluded ‘the overall effect is hollow’.
