Ben Whishaw in Bluets at the Royal Court. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
Bluets is not a theatre show, it’s an unusual hybrid of stage and screen. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone, particularly those who love pure theatre. On the plus side, it’s not like far too many recent gimmicky stage productions where video is used to provide close-ups or scenes of what’s happening off-stage. Normally I would avoid that sort of thing, but this is something special.
It’s the making of a film, live, with the actors reciting words from Maggie Nelson’s book Bluets, while carrying out actions that are projected on a large screen. I admit this sounds more like something you might see at Tate Modern, and without the presence of Ben Whishaw, maybe it wouldn’t have made it to the stage of the Jerwood Downstairs theatre at the Royal Court. Having said that, director Katie Mitchell does have a long and distinguished record of creating what she calls ‘live cinema’. But, if it does sound strange, or even off-putting to you, I can only say I found Bluets both fascinating and deeply moving.
Let’s start with the words. After all, it is based on a book of what could be called short prose-poems, in which Maggie Nelson describes and meditates on three recurring themes- the effect of and gradual recovery from the breakup of a relationship, a close friend’s reaction to becoming a quadriplegic, and her fascination with the colour blue, which is genuinely interesting.
Kayla Meikle in Bluets. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
The language- its rhythms and metaphors- is poetic and moving. It’s also quite funny in a self-deprecating way. For example, she is excited to come across a book called Deepest Blue (I think) in a bookshop, only to find it’s about depression. She hastily puts it back, only to tell us she bought it six months later – pause- ‘online’.
Ben Whishaw will have sold many of the tickets and he does deliver, with a sad voice and a twinkling eye, but so do the other two actors Emma D’Arcy and Kayla Meikle. The trio sit in a row, sharing the lines, so that the words are delivered almost staccato by their alternating voices. The effect is to make you concentrate and hear every word. I found that the varied voices and personas made the author and her highly personal subject matter seem more universal.
Emma D’Arcy in Bluets at the Royal Court Theatre. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
Then there is the videoing. Each actor has a table next to them, a camera in front of them, and a monitor behind them. The film, shown on a big screen above them, illustrates what is being said. The actors sometimes stand in front of the monitors, as if they are green screens, and this, thanks to superb lighting by Anthony Doran, converts onto the large screen as them seeming to walk down a street, drive a car, or dry their hair in a changing room. Often, the actors’ heads or hands are viewed in close-up as they rest on a pillow, or touch each other, or handle blue objects. It is an extraordinary experience to watch them talk and move, sometimes in synch, and then see this, combined with some pre-recorded moments, become a movie before one’s eyes.
Cinema, which is usually immutable, becomes a live performance. The way it can change in small ways from night to night suggested to me the way our mental lives -feelings, memories, dreams- change with each circumstance and in each moment. The live video is a masterpiece in coordination, designed by Ellie Thompson and directed by Grant Gee.
The adaptation of Maggie Nelson’s book by Margaret Perry is a fine work in itself, and the soundtrack by Paul Clark, which mixes music, nature and street sounds, is as disturbing and reflective as the language.
Bluets is only 70 minutes long but it has the timeless quality of a dream or a memory.
This is the opening production of the first season by the Royal Court’s new artistic director David Byrne. After a lacklustre period under Vicky Featherstone, when I all but stopped going to the Royal Court, I am now looking forward to some exciting times ahead.
Bluets can be seen at the Royal Court until 29 June 2024
After the scale and complexity of The Burnt City, Punchdrunk are back with a more intimate immersion piece in which the audience are led six at a time through a series of rooms listening to a story narrated by Helena Bonham-Carter, and there are no live actors. Co-directed by Felix Barrett and Hector Harkness, it tells of a search for a doomed teenage princess.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Guardian‘s Arifa Akbar (5★) loved it: ‘it inspires so much puzzling wonder that you want to go straight back in to find other undisturbed paths in the search for Viola.’ She explained that it ‘hovers delicately between bedtime story, fairytale, children’s game and nightmare…The story does not follow rational logic but turns into a weird kind of liminal babble dealing in unnameable fear, and you feel it as you travel through ever darker, narrower spaces.’
Andrjez Lukowski at Time Out (4★) was impressed: By its climax I felt like a character in a horror film, not least because of the tremendous soundtrack relayed by Gareth Fry’s extraordinary sound design…It might be short, but in those 45 minutes you’ll live a haunted lifetime.’
For Dominic Cavendish in The Telegraph (4★), ‘it cast a simple, singular spell. Like Viola, I couldn’t quite bear to tear myself away; and in surrendering to feeling lost there lies an intoxicating sense of self-discovery.’ The Stage‘s Sam Marlowe (4★) said, ‘this is a beautifully wrought enchantment that skilfully blends the exquisite and the sinister.’
Anna James at WhatsOnStage (4★) praised ‘Impeccable design, labyrinths both literal and figurative, and a deep fascination with storytelling, intimacy and ritual maintain that ineffable Punchdrunk feel.’ The Observer‘s Susannah Clapp (4★) concluded: ‘Though often exquisite, sometimes apparently folkloric, Viola’s Room is sophisticated in its paradoxes. Its story is about compulsion and loss of control, yet this is the show in which Punchdrunk has most evidently controlled its own audience.’
Franco Milazzo reviewing for BroadwayWorld (3★) decided that, compared with The Burnt City, ‘Viola’s Room is overall a tighter work which offers a far more cohesive theatrical experience but, unlike many of the Punchdrunk productions before it, does not have enough wow factor to justify a second viewing.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) was underwhelmed. ‘Visually and atmospherically, it’s a work of rich detail, executed with elan…Unfortunately the story itself, by Booker-shortlisted novelist Daisy Johnson, is a thin, by-the-numbers assemblage of darkly symbolic fairytale tropes with a sensual modern topspin.’
The Times‘ Clive Davis (3★) was blunt in his response: ‘It’s pointless, I suppose, expecting much in the way of substance: Punchdrunk, you see, are masters of visual muzak. Viola’s Room resembles a fairground ghost train for hipsters, only there’s no train.’ Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times summed up, ‘Fabulous trimmings, needs more meat.’
George Simpson for The Express (3★) said, ‘Punchdrunk certainly lean into the sensory aspects of this piece over the substance of the narrative…It’s not for everyone, but if this is your bag you’ll get lost in wonder for 45 minutes.’
Fiona Mountford in the i (2★) was disappointed, ‘So underwhelmed was I by the whole set-up that I increasingly found myself longing to be frightened: anything for an enlivening dash of excitement…It’s an experience so evanescent as to leave barely any trace in our memory.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★
Viola’s Room can be seen at One Cartridge Place, Woolwich, until 15 September 2024. Buy tickets direct from punchdrunk.com
If you’ve seen Viola’s Room, please add your review and rating below
Barry Sloane in Boys From The Blackstuff. Photo: Alistair Muir
James Graham, the modern master of political drama, was one of the few playwrights who could possibly bring Alan Bleasdale’s class TV series Boys from the Blackstuff to the stage. The critics agreed that he has succeeded, although there was some disagreement about how well it lived up to the original. The Royal Court Liverpool production, directed by Kate Wasserberg, opened in the city where the series was set, before transferring first to the National Theatre and then The Garrick. The whole cast was praised but all eyes were on the most memorable character Yosser Hughes. Whether or not Barry Sloane ever said to the producers, ‘I can do that’, there was universal agreement that they were right to give him the job.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Hemming writing for The Financial Times (4★) called it ‘a funny, punchy, humane two-act play’, but she thought, ‘Sometimes the narrative feels unclear and bittier than it might have if Graham had written a stage drama from scratch.’ Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (4★) found it a stirring play’ even though ‘Graham’s adaptation can’t quite escape the fact that he’s adapting an anthology-style TV series that didn’t have a single storyline running throughout its whole length.’
Calling it ‘flawed but stirring’, Nick Curtis in the Evening Standard (4★) said, ‘While Blackstuff has his customary, vigorous blend of hard politics and demotic entertainment, it’s not his subtlest work.’ He liked the way ‘Wasserberg keeps the action brisk though, and the acting is full-throated and vivid.’ As a Liverpudlian who lived in the city during the period depicted, Gary Naylor at BroadwayWorld (4★) offered a personal perspective on the characters and events. As to the play, he found it ‘too episodic, too rooted in its specificities of industrial, northern, working class male culture teetering on the brink, too tied to its source material.’ It was he said, ‘An all-time great television show becoming a pretty good play is perhaps as much as one could have hoped for.’
Olivia Rook at LondonTheatre (4★) was more positive about James Graham’s play, proclaiming he ‘perfectly translates Bleasdale’s naturalistic drama to the stage.’ She pointed out, ‘Despite the inevitable bleakness that surrounds their lives, this is also a play with heart, warmth, and camaraderie.’ Heather Neill at The Arts Desk (4★) also felt the play worked in its own right: ‘the building of an ensemble under Kate Wasserberg’s direction, while losing something of the visceral anguish of the television series, brings a greater sense of the whole community in free fall. Liverpool is itself a presence underlined by Amy Jane Cook’s set, backed by Jamie Jenkyn’s video of the restless Mersey.’
Clive Davis in The Times (3★) wasn’t so sure. ‘Graham and the director Kate Wasserberg haven’t quite solved the problem of how to squeeze a five-part saga into a single piece. Much of the detail is lost in a blur of scene-setting.’ Then again, ‘Barry Sloane comes impressively close to reproducing the intensity of the late Bernard Hill.’ Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) had mixed feelings. ‘The strength of Bleasdale’s material is a blessing and a curse. Graham feels the need to preserve it, but that stops the play becoming something that coheres in its own right,’ he said. ‘‘Too often…it’s a tribute to a series from 40 years ago, rather than a play for today.’ However, ‘Graham nails it, not on the structural level but in its guts’
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (3★) was one of a number who felt ‘Its compression means that it becomes episodic.’ She said, ‘it doesn’t have the same visceral impact as the series. …Nevertheless, it is a thoughtful and moving piece of writing.’ She praised the director: ’Kate Wasserberg directs with a smart sense of the liveliness.’ Sam Marlowe of The Stage (3★) had similar thoughts: ‘The staging feels diffuse, the overlapping stories failing to cohere or acquire momentum. But although it doesn’t hit us hard enough where it hurts, there are still moments that stir to anger or grief.’ She observed that Yosser Hughes was played by ‘Barry Sloane as a muscular, vibrating, snarling mass of rage and pain.’
As is often the case, the two Guardian titles decided that, having reviewed it when it opened in Liverpool, they needn’t bother with its London transfer. Back then, Susannah Clapp in The Observer (4★) said ‘it lands in the present with a punch.’ Mark Fisher reporting for The Guardian (4★), having praised said, ‘It adds to a richly enjoyable show, funny, incendiary and humane.’ Mark Brown for the Telegraph (4★) wrote, ‘Graham has crafted aspects of Bleasdale’s work into a brilliantly honed two-and-a-half hours of theatre.’
Average critics’ rating 3.7★ Value Rating 50 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Boys from the Blackstuff can be seen at the National Theatre until 8 June, and then at the Garrick Theatre, London, from 13 June to 3 August 2024.
If you’ve seen Boys From The Blackstuff, please add your review and rating below
Izzard Hamlet at Riverside Studios. Photo: Amanda Searle
Is this the worse show in London? The Izzard Hamlet, in which the stand-up comedian and actor (now using the pronoun ‘she’) plays every role, has been greeted by extraordinarily bad reviews, including two 1 star ratings. The theme seemed to be that she failed to provide any depth to the characters.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
The Telegraph‘s Dominic Cavendish (3★) was one of the few critics to award more than two stars, and he was far from complimentary- ‘The dividends…in a daunting test of stamina, textual focus and gender-flipping, seem pretty minima,’ he said. He continued that the acting was ‘efficiently and lucidly executed, but lacking much interiority and passion’. Cheryl Markosky at Broadway World (3★) enjoyed her evening, ‘You’re right there with Izzard, a lone figure on stage who makes Hamlet real and vital.’
Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times (2★) commented, ‘any reading of Hamlet is hard to fathom. There is little interiority, little sense of the agony or gravity of his predicament nor the huge issues at stake.’ Dominic Maxwell at The Times (2★) had the same thought: ‘what Izzard doesn’t do is bring inner life to these ricocheting ruminations…Without more solidity, the performance is only as good as its last well-spoken line.’ He didn’t hold back: ‘this is indulgent nonsense’.
Fiona Mountford at inews (2★) hitout: ‘Izzard’s take is simply too frenetic, little more than a glossy vanity project, an impressive feat of line-learning.’ ‘What is entirely lacking,’ she said, ‘is any sense of Hamlet’s grief, soul-searching and existential angst.’ Georgia Luckhurst in The Stage (2★) was also unimpressed, ‘after landing heavy hitters like “to be, or not to be”…she adopts a hasty delivery that suggests an insecurity about the play’s supporting characters.’ She concluded, ‘if you like your Hamlet less harried, this may not be for you’
The Guardina’s Arifa Akbar gave what for her is a rare 1★, saying, ‘Izzard diligently channelling words rather than any meaningful interpretation of the role.’ ‘Most frustratingly,’ she vented, “Izzard uses the same tone for every character’. Nick Curtis gave a no-holds-barred critique in The Standard (1★), calling it ‘risible’ and ‘an act of colossal vanity and hubris, hung on the skimpiest artistic justification’. He complained, ‘Izzard musters barely any characterisation, emotion or grandeur’. He ended with a heartfelt: ‘Why? That’s the question you ask yourself throughout.’
Critics’ Average Rating 2★
Izzard Hamlet can be seen at the Riverside Studios in Hammersmith, London, until 30 June 2024. Buy tickets direct from riversidestudios.co.uk
If you’ve seen Izzard Hamlet, please add your review and rating below
Ben Whishaw in Bluets at Royal Court theatre. Photo: Camilla Greenwood
In her book, Maggie Nelson writes numerous short pieces that explore pleasure, pain, and her love of the colour blue. In Margaret Perry’s stage adaptation, three actors create small moments for ‘live cinema’ as the director Katie Mitchell calls it. The drama might have been marginalised as an art installation, except the actors in question are Ben Whishaw, Emma D’Arcy and Kayla Meikle, and this is the first production at the Royal Court under its new artistic director David Byrne.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (4★) was the most enthusiastic reviewer: ‘Both in live action and screen picture, the actors have a sense of intent purpose. However complex the technical demands made of them, they give a performance that is utterly unified and entirely believable.’ She summed up, ‘it is stylish, and full of wonder, a compelling portrait of sadness that somehow finds its way to acceptance and even hope.’ Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (4★) was also impressed, ‘Incisively adapted for the stage by Margaret Perry, the elusive text feels like an ideal match for director Katie Mitchell’s signature cinematic style, which blends performance, live video and pre-recorded footage to extraordinary effect.’ He concluded, ‘it’s a challenging, yet deeply rewarding watch, suffused with wistful beauty.’
Like many of the reviewers, Dominic Cavendish of the Telegraph (3★) seemed more impressed by the way it was done than the effect: ‘As a technical feat, it’s impressive: how do Whishaw, along with Emma D’Arcy and Kayla Meikle, each focused yet frenetic amid an obscuring array of equipment, get so much done, without slipping up?’ Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) was of a similar mind: ‘As ever with Mitchell, the text is interesting, but the real action lies in admiring her virtuosic staging – the cast are good, but they’re skilled cogs in Mitchell’s prodigious machine.’ The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) thought it was ‘cool and accomplished. More intriguing than disturbing.’
Arifa Akbar of The Guardian (3★) was stirred but not shaken: ‘there is still a sense of morsels of thought being offered which never metabolise into anything bigger…Ultimately, it is an odd night at the theatre, but not an uninteresting one.’ She said of the actors, ‘D’Arcy, Meikle and Whishaw perform with smooth, speedy synchronicity.’ Fiona Mountford at i-news (3★) thought the same but was more blunt, ‘It’s all very technically impressive, of course, but quite what this incessant faffing about adds to the text itself is another question entirely. My overriding feeling at the end of the 80 minutes was that Bluets is not a quarter as profound as Mitchell thinks it is.’
Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (3★) said, ‘I’m so glad I saw Bluets. Without more story to sustain its 80 minutes, though, I was also so glad when it ended.
Aliya Al-Hassan atLondonTheatre (3★) felt ‘the overall look and feel is often more art installation than theatrical performance’ but ‘the cast work incredibly well together, moving deftly as they convey the stream of consciousness‘. Tim Bano in The Independent (3★) thought ‘Perry’s adaptation…keeps many of its most beautiful lines, and having the added textures of the film…creates…a theatrical piece unlike much else in London at the moment.’ He concluded with a backhanded compliment, ‘it’s a slog, even at 80 minutes. But my goodness it’s a beautiful slog.’
Not so beautiful for The Times’ Clive Davis (2★), who was having none of it: ’80 minutes begins to feel like eight hours. Whishaw and his colleagues are reduced to the level of well-drilled marionettes’.
Average critics’ rating 3.1★
Bluets can be seen at the Royal CourtTheatre until 29 June 2024. Buy tickets direct from royalcourttheatre.com
Tom Holland & Francesca Amewudah-Rivers in Romeo & Juliet. Photo: Marc Brenner
The hordes of Tom Holland fans may have little interest in Jamie Lloyd’s production of Romeo and Juliet, or even in the acting, but the critics had plenty to say about both. It’s not unusual to have mixed reviews but rare that they range from 5 stars to 1 star. What divided them was the multi-media production which thrilled some and alienated others. Reviews of Mr Holland were mainly complimentary, although it was Francesca Amewudah-Rivers’ Juliet that took the acting laurels.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (5★) was taken to the heights. ‘The West End hasn’t ever really seen an R&J like it,’ he claimed. He described its Hollywood star as ‘beefy of bicep, but pale, achingly tender, at times teary and then cheery, all hormonal vulnerability’ but reserved his greatest praise for Juliet: ‘Amewudah-Rivers, 26, is a huge find, by turns understated, coy, comically off-hand, and defiantly passionate.’ He praised director Lloyd for ‘placing the lyrical language centre-stage.’ His conclusion? ‘The street-wise, star-cross’d lovers hold us in their spell, stamp the play with a 2024 freshness’
Patrick Marmion in the Mail (4★) went all weak-kneed: ‘Sometimes, it even feels as if Lloyd is deliberately trying to throttle the life out of the febrile passion that normally drives this headlong love story. And yet, cometh the hour, cometh the (Spider) man… all 5ft 8ins of him. Damn, he’s a buff and good-looking bloke. His commanding cheekbones and curving jaw suck the breath from the audience and keep us wrapped in his dreamy gaze.’ The Standard‘s Nick Curtis (4★) asserted, ‘They’re the most spellbinding star-crossed lovers I’ve seen in years.’ Tom Holland, he said, ‘gives us an impressive foreshadowing of the classical actor he could become.’ Of the production, he told us, ‘The action is sliced, diced and interspliced into a brisk two hours, laced with occasional anachronisms, blinding lights and jagged bursts of industrial music.’ In defence of Jamie Lloyd, he said, ‘the narrow view of Lloyd’s productions as mere star vehicles ignores his always-detailed ensemble work and the way he promotes new talent. Freema Agyeman and Michael Balogun find rarely-plumbed depths in the Nurse and the Friar here.’
Olivia Rook at London Theatre (4★) called it ‘a sexy, intense, and haunting piece of theatre.’ ‘Holland’s assured performance…graduates from laddish confidence to rippling rage. His talent is easily met by rising star Francesca Amewudah-Rivers.’ Sarah Hemming writing for The Financial Times (4★) had this analysis, ‘this is a compelling production: vivid, sad, restless. It brings home forcefully — and perhaps this is its point in today’s world — that death is not romantic.’
Andrzej Lukowski In Time Out (4★) decided, ‘this is a show about dead people. It’s staged like a particularly stylish radio play, the cast frequently standing static but artfully framed, talking into old fashioned floor mics.’ As to the actors, ‘Holland has a powerful stillness to him’ and Francesca Amewudah-Rivers ‘has a beautiful voice, an elegant lilt that works perfectly in a production that eschews physical business.’ He advised, ‘adjust to its fugue state and it’s deeply compelling.’
Susanna Clapp in The Observer (4★) said (and she’s seen a few) Francesca Amewudah-Rivers ‘is one of the best Juliets I have seen…I have never heard “What’s in a name?” considered with such precise wonder.’ Tom Holland is ‘light but concentrated, not soggy with romanticism but slipping easily in and out of tears…Together they fizz, often humorously, pointing up the verse with 21st-century inflections.’
Then come the reservations about Jamie Lloyd’s production. Sam Marlowe in The Stage (3★) found ‘the use of mics is inconsistent and seems to serve no particular purpose, and some of the filmed footage is equally confusing.’ Nevertheless she thought ‘Lloyd’s production is an arresting vision of an inequitable society in freefall, and of lost young people desperately attempting to navigate the disintegration guided by nothing but their own confused and fervid feelings.’ Arifa Akbar of The Guardian (3★) thought ‘Holland and Amewudah-Rivers are perfectly cast, wired with an awkwardly cool teen energy, she a mix of innocence and streetwise steel, he jittering with sweaty-palmed earnestness’ but ‘Actors speak their lines – in a line – at the audience, a recurring tic in Lloyd’s work, now more insistently puzzling in its distancing, anti-dramatic effects, and too stilted to let loose the play’s passion.’ In the end, she felt that ‘The deliberate underplaying of emotion ultimately leeches the play of its tragedy.’
The Times’ Clive Davis (3★) declared himself ‘more perplexed than gripped‘. He explained, ‘What we get here is auteur theatre in which the actors are reduced to chess pieces to be nudged here and there by an invisible hand.’ It was, he said, ‘a conscientious but colourless radio drama’ in which ‘characters often address microphones rather than each other’. However he had positive words about Tom Holland: ‘This Romeo is quiet, fresh-faced and sensitive. In the opening scenes he really does convince you that he is an adolescent adrift, waiting to abandon himself to a doomed romance’.
’I was always interested, but I can’t say it made feel much,’ said Dominic Maxwell in The Sunday Times (3★).
After that, it gets worse. Hugh Montgomery of the BBC (2★) found it ‘a depressingly lifeless affair, which somehow manages to be both overstated and underpowered.’ ‘What really sinks things,’ he said, ‘is the continuous use of live camerawork.’ ‘Rather than the thrill of an unmediated live experience, the audience is dislocated from the performers, the performers are dislocated from each other, and there is little sense of a coherent world in which the characters exist.’ Tim Bano in The Independent (2★) called it ‘a Romeo & Juliet muttered through head mics, housed in a shell of industrial chic – or it was chic the first time Lloyd did it.’ As to the star-crossed lovers: ‘Holland’s acting skills are abundant in all the bits when he’s not speaking…he acts best with his face, she with her voice.’
Neil Norman of The Express (1★) didn’t mince his words: ‘Absolute drivel.’ He explained, ‘how quickly the trademarks of a Jamie Lloyd production have become clichéd and predictable.’ He didn’t like the star attraction either, ‘As Romeo, Tom Holland is a charisma free zone, achieving the unlikely feat of being both buff and weedy.’
Average critics’ rating 3.3★ Value Rating 21 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
Romeo & Juliet runs at the Duke Of York’s Theatre until 3 August 2024. Buy tickets direct from thedukeofyorks.com
If you’ve seen Romeo & Juliet, please add your review and rating below
Giles Terera in Passing Strange. Photo: Marc Brenner
A middle-aged African American played by Giles Terera looks back on his life and how, as a young musician, he went on a musical odyssey to find himself and his place in the world. It’s a semi-autobiographical work by Mark Lamar Stewart, co-composed with Heidi Rodewald.
Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (5 ★) loved it: ‘this rock musical about a young man who leaves his religious upbringing to devour the 1970s punk scenes of Berlin and Amsterdam stirs the soul.’ He continued , ‘It does so in a way I haven’t quite seen before: the story of the unnamed ‘Youth’ is delivered by a live rock band’s fourth-wall-breaking singer-narrator, played with a velvety confidence and almost frustrating suaveness by Giles Terera’ ‘There are some astonishing pieces of choreography.’ His conclusion was, ‘There’s nothing quite like this on the London stage right now.’
Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (4★) was enthusiastic: The show was ‘so wildly, and often loudly, offbeat that there’s never a dull moment.’ He ended, ‘Not revelatory, perhaps, but invigoratingly strange, and bittersweet.’
Fiona Mountford in the i (4★) declared, ‘Passing Strange is most definitely a musical, but it’s not like any musical I have ever seen before – and what a thrill it is.’ She continued ‘Passing Strange delights in toying with our expectations and casually breaking the fourth wall when it fancies, and Liesl Tommy’s tremendously self-assured production pulls it all off with conviction and panache.’
Dominic Cooke of the Sunday Times (4★) said ‘it is a vivid tale of a young man’s search for authenticity that knows authenticity is both liberation and bunkum. Pitched between rock gig and musical, memoir and performance art, it’s musical theatre that even those who don’t like musical theatre can love. It’s satirical, stirring, tuneful, tender, awkward, alive.’
Marianka Swain writing for LondonTheatre discovered (4★), ‘this form-busting show is still a distinctly singular experience, but surrender to its idiosyncratic rhythms and it’s a soulful, rich, witty wonder.’ She praised its star: ‘Terera is a total rock star in a role that could have been tailor-made for him.’ Kate Wyver in The Guardian (4★) offered a paean to the lead: ‘You can’t take your eyes off him. The script for this autobiography of an artist isn’t always nuanced but Giles Terera as its narrator is sublime, filling every line with the weight of time passed, every move with the knowledge of mistakes made. And he has a cracking turn on the electric guitar….He holds the years in his gaze, the longing, the loss, the what-could-have-been. He doesn’t just play the part, he lives it.’
Tom Wicker at Time Out (3★) found ‘Liesl Tommy’s staging of the show has charisma to spare…Terera is the lynchpin here, tying emotional loose ends together with effortless dexterity.’ His reservation was: ‘This production wants to have its cake and eat it, expecting us to laugh at everything in, but to take its own brand of earnestness seriously.’ For Sarah Crompton at WhatsOnStage (3★), ‘It is so exhilarating and Giles Terera so charismatic’. She liked the way it is ‘powered by a rich score (co-written by Stew and Heidi Rodewald) that mixes musical styles’. Where it fell down for her is that the ‘second act and the energy vanishes like air from a balloon…the lessons learnt by a young man on his life’s journey are replaced by platitudes about life and art’.
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) said Giles Terera gave ‘a beautifully relaxed, melodious performance.’ But, ‘the production never quite lands its art vs life message, while insistently making it‘. Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) said it’s ‘simultaneously familiar, sketchy, self-indulgent and pretentious, but it’s told in Liesl Tommy’s new production with undeniable verve and brio.’
Anya Ryan in The Stage (3★) said, It’s a messy voyage of self-discovery…it feels somewhat self-indulgent.’ However the star did not disappoint: ‘Terera once again proves himself to be one of Britain’s most versatile actors working today, with charismatic confidence and a voice as sumptuous as ever.’
For Clive Davis in The Times (3★), ‘Some of the numbers, co-written with Heidi Rodewald, have a genuinely anthemic quality. It helps that the cast are quite capable of crashing through the fourth wall and joshing with the audience. And Stewart’s script contains zingers…It’s just a shame that the show runs out of ideas in the second half and turns mawkish at the end. Until then, it’s a blast.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.6★
Passing Strange can be seen at Young Vic until 6 July 2024. Buy tickets directly from youngvic.org
If you’ve seen Richard III, please add your review and rating below
Michelle Terry as Richard III. Photo: Marc Brenner
The Globe’s Richard III arrives on a wave of controversy because of the frequently misogynistic criticism of its non-disabled artistic director Michelle Terry taking the lead role. As it turns out, references to the murderous king’s disability have been excised and attention is on his toxic masculinity in Elle While’s nearly all-female production.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Tim Bano in The Independent (4★) described how ‘Michelle Terry takes Richard III and turns him into the kind of swaggering, entitled, entirely self-regarding mop-haired misogynist man that we’ve seen way too much of in positions of power in recent years.’ Claire Allfree in the Telegraph (4★) called her interpretation ‘a textbook reading in imaginative authenticity’. The Guardian’s Arifa Akbar (4★) pointed out, ‘Elle While’s direction turns it into a play about toxic masculinity of the highest order.’ ‘the play’s shocks hit in all the right places,’ she said, ‘Ultimately, it is a fast-paced, energised and entertaining production, the humour sometimes overplayed and hammy, but nevertheless a hugely compelling picture of corrupted male power.’
The Observer’s Susannah Clapp (3★) said, ‘Terry’s king is a lethal child. She outshines everyone else in a stimulating, patchy evening.’ Anya Ryan in Time Out (3★) declared, ‘As a Shakespearean actor, Terry really is as good as it gets.’ Her reservation was that ‘There is solid thought behind this production that pushes The Bard’s classic into the modern day. But, this is Terry’s show and hers only.’
The Standard’s Nick Curtis (3★) found her ‘horrifyingly compelling in the lead’ but thought ‘Elle While’s production is shouty and unfocused. It also strains too hard for contemporary relevance.’
Isaac Ouro-Gnao writing for LondonTheatre (3★) said, ‘for the most part, Richard III offers up stinging comedy at the hands of a talented and diverse cast, guaranteeing a laugh even during its darkest moments.’
Dave Fargnoli in The Stage (3★) called the production ‘bold, uneven’. On the whole, he was impressed: ‘Although While’s strikingly modern style feels chaotic at times, this ambitious production offers an intriguing, under-explored angle on Richard’s familiar story.’
According to Alexander Cohen at BroadwayWorld (3★), ‘Richard is the all too human anti-hero of Shakespearean canon. Here he is more concept in a wider societal conversation about gender roles post #MeToo.’
Sarah Hemming at WhatsOnStage (2★) wasn’t impressed: ‘There is some richness to be found in exploring the ways in which misogyny and tyranny almost always walk hand-in-hand, boosted by the use of an almost all-female or gender-fluid cast, but it often has all the subtlety and nuance of a bejewelled codpiece.’ The Times’ Dominic Maxwell (2★) felt the same: ‘Not for the first time here [at The Globe] the bright ideas are ahead of the production’s ability to sell them…It’s a strategically shallow reading that makes one of Shakespeare’s most fascinating villains into a 2D commentary on a certain kind of male.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3
Richard III can be seen at Shakespeare’s Globe until 3 August 2024. Buy tickets directly from shakespearesglobe.com
If you’ve seen Richard III, please add your review and rating below
Following his triumph as King Lear, Danny Sapani is back as another fading patriarch, this time he’s a retired New York cop who had previously been badly injured by a white colleague. As the occupant of a Manhattan apartment, he takes in a variety of misfits while resisting eviction in Stephen Adly Guirgis’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play.
[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★) was full of praise: ‘Director Michael Longhurst revels in the text’s rollercoaster, tragicomic structure and draws rich, believable performances from the cast as a bunch of messy, messed-up people trying to keep their lives on track. Sapani is excellent, switching from warmth to wrath in an instant: infuriating one moment and endearing the next.’ Marianka Swain in the Telegraph (4★) said Danny Sapani is ‘titanic here as this sly, savagely funny, belligerent patriarch whose authority is ebbing away.’
Alun Hood at WhatsOnStage (4★) was impressed by ‘Michael Longhurst’s sizzling, thrillingly acted production’. It was, he said, ‘a warm, intriguing play, as wise as it is outrageous, as funny as it is grim, and in this UK premiere, it looks like a modern American classic.’ Franco Milazzo At BroadwayWorld (4★) described it as an ‘intelligent, intimate and ultimately optimistic study’
Andrzej Lukowski at Time Out (3★) experienced ‘a meaty watch, a pungent, spikey mix of laughs, tears and doomed defiance that centres on a multiracial group of misfits.’ Matt Wolf writing for LondonTheatre (3★) said, ‘Michael Longhurst’s production courses with the empathy found in the writing, not to mention a characteristic alertness to the storytelling swerves.’ For Arifa Albar in The Guardian (3★) it didn’t deliver as much as it promised, ‘In a production snappily directed by Michael Longhurst, there is much half said about institutionalised racism’ Nevertheless, ‘The performances are so strong, especially Sapani’s, that they propel the drama with lively, jibing humour’
The Times’ Clive Davis (3★) was another who felt the play fell short. While describing Danny Sapani as ‘a brooding central presence’, he also observed ‘too many underdeveloped characters’ are jostling for attention’ and ‘a nagging sense of implausibility.’ He said, ‘There are two or three plays crammed in here; for all the jokes, Guirgis never makes us care enough about any of them.’
Nick Curtis in The Standard (3★) had many reservations but came through the evening feeling positive: ‘This is a tricksy, rigged piece of drama, with a distended denouement. It’s still headily enjoyable, though.’ Dave Fargnoli writing for The Stage (3★) said the ‘knotty dramedy is overstuffed and tonally inconsistent – yet still gripping.’
Critics’ Average Rating 3.4★
Between Riverside and Crazy can be seen at Hampstead Theatre until 15 June 2024. Buy tickets from hampsteadtheatre.com
If you’ve seen Between Riverside and Crazy, please add your review and rating below
Fawlty Towers is so well-loved, there was always a danger that a stage adaptation would disappoint. For some critics, it did, but most found that John Cleese’s theatrical version of three classic episodes honoured the original. Opinions varied on whether the actors were making the characters their own or simply doing impressions but they did their job well and, crucially, Adam Jackson-Smith impressed as Basil Fawlty.
[Links to full reviews are included but a number are behind paywalls and therefore may not be accessible]
Neil Norman in The Express (4★) thought it was ‘the funniest show in town.’ He said, ‘Director Caroline Jay Ranger ensures that the comedy timing is immaculate’ and ‘Jackson-Smith is well nigh perfect.’ Fiona Mountford of the i (4★) ‘emerged two hours later, giddily and delightfully weak from laughing’. Clive Davis, an avowed fan of the TV series, declared in The Times (4★) ‘this genial condensing of three episodes delivers a hugely entertaining blast of unadorned nostalgia.’
Marianka Swain at LondonTheatre (4★) positively wallowed in the nostalgia. ‘This brand of farce, building from comedy-of-manners to manic slapstick, is also very much of its time.’ ‘with not a single word wasted, and some of the best punchlines ever written.’ ‘Caroline Jay Ranger keeps the pacing brisk and maintains the original’s zany energy and pin-sharp timing.’ Aliya Al-Hassan at BroadwayWorld (4★) called it ‘a very funny and entertaining evening, one that is remarkably faithful to the original material.’ She thought, ‘The cast is superb, landing every joke and intonation expected of them’ and picked out the main character, ‘Adam Jackson-Smith is the reincarnation of Cleese’ She was pleased with ‘the incredibly deft comic timing and old-fashioned and very British entertainment.’
In The Sunday Times (4★) Dominic Maxwell overcame his fears about putting a beloved TV show on stage: ‘This is a celebration, not a museum…This stuff still works. And it is done here with love as well as a laser focus. It is nothing I haven’t seen before, but it made me laugh a lot.’ It may not seem like it but Patrick Marmion in the Daily Mail (4) was happy that it replicated the TV show: ‘Caroline Jay Ranger’s production offers her company all the creative freedom that Kim Jong Un grants the people of North Korea.’
Brian Logan in The Guardian (3★) was quite enthusiastic: ‘this Fawlty Towers redux is no pale imitation of the original, but a very vivid one.’ Adam Bloodworth at CityAM (3★) seemed to like it despite himself: ‘it’s better than you’d think.’ He ended, ‘it might not be challenging theatre, but it’s a nostalgic joy.’ Dominic Cavendish in the Telegraph (3★), while saying it was ‘indisputably funny’, cautioned ‘the show falls far short of its peerless source material.’ ‘You admire the fidelity of the impersonations,’ he said, ‘while still pining futilely for the genuine article.’ He felt the comedy had worked better on television back in the 1970s: ‘the use of farcical elements…looks decidedly creaky today’
It was all too familiar for Tom Wicks in Time Out (3) : ‘We’re left anticipating old laughs rather than being surprised by new ones.’ Theo Bosanquet for WhatsOnStage (3) thought the same: ‘it inevitably struggles to feel like anything more than a kind of waxwork impression.’
For Nick Curtis in the Standard (3★) it was an ‘efficient and energetic stage adaptation’ but an ‘oddly soulless affair’. Twisting the butter knife, he continued, ‘it feels like an exercise in zombie nostalgia.’ While others revelled in its fidelity to the original, for Nick, ‘Caroline Jay Ranger’s production, overseen by Cleese, is too loyal to the source.’ I think we know the answer when Nick found himself ‘wondering if there were any artistic rather than purely commercial justification for this stage adaptation.’ As Manuel might say, ‘¿Qué’
Fawlty Towers The Play can be seen at the Apollo Theatre until 28 September 2024. Buy tickets directly from FawltyTowersWestend.com
Average critics’ rating 3.6★ Value Rating 40 (Value rating is the Average Critic Rating divided by the typical ticket price.)
If you’ve seen Fawlty Towers, please add your review and rating below
