Did you know Oscar Wilde was gay? I’ll be surprised if you didn’t, but after seeing Max Webster’s production at the Lyttelton, you’ll be in no doubt. His subtle references to the Victorian gay community are circled with a pencil, underlined with a marker pen, and coloured in with a fluorescent highlighter in this panto style production.
The generous view would be that Mr Webster has turned the familiar classic into a Pride Party. To me it was like saying the Mona Lisa is smiling, so let’s make that clear by painting a big toothy grin over her mouth. Fortunately, Doctor Who’s Ncuti Gatwa and Sharon D Clarke save the day.
We start with a scene in which Ncuti Gatwa appears in a slinky dress in the middle of what appears to be a gay party. Then the curtain goes up on Oscar Wilde’s actual play, but with added text, added gestures and added modern touches.
Whenever Max Webster’s production sticks to the text, it works really well. The central character Algernon is a kind of proxy for Wilde himself: decadent, amoral and bubbling over with cynical epigrams. Even people who have never seen the play before will probably know some of them, such as ‘In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity is the vital thing.’
Ncuti Gatwa is a very good Algie: cool, laid back, with a mischievous smile, which he often employs in the direction of the audience. He delivers those epigrammatic lines as they are meant to be- clear and confident, defying argument. That he wears colourful tight-fitting clothes and poses like a cat is all we need to suggest a fluid sexuality. But we get a lot more.
His friend Earnest is played by Hugh Skinner projecting the same kind of puppyish naivety he brought to the character Will in W1A. Both the young men have secrets that will inevitably be exposed.
Earnest, whose real name is Jack, is in love with Algy’s cousin Gwendoline. The main obstacle to their marriage is her mother Lady Bracknell who cross examines him for suitability and discovers that he was abandoned as a baby in a railway station in a handbag, leading to the most famous two word line in theatre history.
With all due respect to other members of the cast, Sharon D Clarke is the saviour of the evening. Her Lady Bracknell is every bit as imperious and formidable as she should be, which of course is what makes her pronouncements about the rules of society so funny. You know the sort of thing: ‘Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever.’ Making the character Caribbean in origin is inspired. Her slight lilt gives extra weight to every word. She is as good as any Lady Bracknell I’ve seen, including the legendary Judi Dench.
Before long, Algy too is in love with a woman, namely Jack’s ward Cecily. The girls have in common that they can only love a man named Earnest. I won’t say any more about how the plot rolls out and resolves, in case you’re unfamiliar with it.
Part of the joy of Wilde’s dialogue is that you are left in no doubt that the young women are physically attracted to the men, and more predatory, without actually saying it. Yet, Ronkẹ Adékọluẹ́jọ́ and Eliza Scanlen as Gwendoline and Cecily respectively are required by the production to make clear their sexual arousal with shuddering bodies and flicking tongues. Gwendoline rolls her eyes and gives the audience lascivious looks, while Cecily talks like Miranda Richardson playing the randy Queen in Blackadder.
Far from trusting the audience to pick up the subtext, bits of business are added throughout. And I’m hard pressed to find one addition that doesn’t actually take away from the play’s effectiveness. Here are some examples. To a list of overdue bills from The Savoy is added Dalston Superstore (a contemporary gay bar). When Algie and Jack come through a door, they are singing James Blunt’s You’re Beautiful. Faced with having to ask Lady Bracknell for help, Jack mutters ‘crap’. The celibate Canon Chasuble and Miss Prism, played with gentle affection by Richard Cant and Amanda Lawrence, won’t admit they are attracted to one another. Their skirting around the subject is what makes their relationship amusing, not Canon Chasuble hiding an erection under his hat, which belongs in a 1970s farce. When volumes of books which each cover a letter of the alphabet are picked out, the first three are G A and Y. Subtle it ain’t.
I’m fully at ease with modernising classics. It can breathe new life in them, it can add to our understanding of them. And I also think it’s great that we should honour Oscar Wilde as a gay man who courageously exposed Victorian hypocrisy and was persecuted for it. I like challenging work but, frankly, this production does Wilde and the audience – even non theatregoing Whovians- a disservice by seeming to treat the play as if it’s too subtle for its audience to appreciate.
This production is running over Christmas which may explain the decision to turn it into an adult pantomime. In fact, it’s great fun if you ignore the assault on the play. There’s even a panto style walk down in which all the cast wear glittering sexy costumes and enter to beat music, encouraging clapping along rather than applause.
By the way, all the dazzling costumes and the sets, designed by Rae Smith, are fabulous. They are recognisably Victorian within a false proscenium arch, so the design pays homage to the style of a late Victorian stage play while using bright light and colour to open it up, in a way that the direction aspires to but doesn’t.
Oscar Wilde triumphs despite the production, thanks to Ncuti Gatwa, Hugh Skinner and Sharon D Clarke doing justice to his witty, perceptive script.
Paul paid for his ticket. He saw the last preview before the official opening night. This review was slightly revised on 2 December 2024 for the purpose of clarification.
The Importance of Being Earnest is at the National Theatre until 25 January 2025. Tickets from nationaltheatre.org.uk
It’s a legendary show from the Golden Age of Musicals. It’s one of the most successful shows of all time in terms of awards and performances. Yet (whisper it) Hello, Dolly! isn’t very good. Michael Stewart‘s book comprises a ludicrous plot and is saved only by the amusing machinations of its main character. Jerry Herman contributed hardly any memorable songs except the title number and Dolly’s other great song Before The Parade Passes By. Worse, the score also features the execrable It Only Takes A Moment.
Its greatness lies in two redeeming features: the opportunity to put on magnificent chorus numbers, like Put On Your Sunday Clothes (which I admit has a nice hook) and the title number; and providing a vehicle for a female musical star to shine. Fortunately, if a production can get those right, that’s all it needs. And this new production, directed by Dominic Cooke who was responsible for the National Theatre’s legendary Follies, does get it right.
For a start, it is a sumptuous production in the great tradition of the Golden Age. The large London Palladium stage is not only packed with people, it is filled with Rae Smith‘s set and costumes that conjure up the glamour of the end of the nineteenth century. Among its delights are a conveyor that stretches the width of the stage and creates even more movement, a full-size train that is jaw-dropping in its execution, and an enormous staircase to accommodate the arrival of Dolly for her big number.
The choreography was originally by Gower Champion, who wowed Broadway and gets a credit to this day. Bill Deamer is named as choreographer of this production, and his chorus numbers are magnificent in their scale, co-ordination and vitality. There are something like three dozen members of the company but, in case you’re wondering, there’s not much opportunity for individual brilliance on the dance floor.
Then there’s the star. Carol Channing first played Dolly, the matchmaker and all-round entrepreneur, to massive acclaim. Since then, many top musical stars have added it to their cv, including Ethel Merman, Mary Martin, Pearl Bailey, Bernadette Peters and of course Barbra Streisand in the film version. Can any have bettered Imelda Staunton? I don’t see how. She has a great voice that hits the back of the circle when it needs to, but also an ability to plumb a depth of pathos you didn’t even realise was there in a potboiler song like Before The Parade Passes By. Plus she injects the whole proceedings with a level of energy that could single-handedly power the government’s new Great British Energy company.
Fans of her film and television work would probably have no idea of her ability as a singer, but she has played the Baker’s Wife in Into The Woods, Miss Adelaide in Guys And Dolls, Mrs Lovett in Sweeney Todd, Sally in Follies, Gypsy Rose in Gypsy, and now Dolly Levi. All triumphantly. Only Mame remains before she has a full house of the great musical roles for mature women.
She is supported by a strong cast but the characters don’t give them much to get their teeth into. In fact, the term ‘character’ may qualify as misinformation. Andy Nyman is an excellent actor but as Dolly’s prospective husband, the rich but miserable Horace Vandergelder, he has little to do except be irascible while his suitor draws him into her web. The same goes for Jenna Russell as Irene Molloy, Dolly’s friend who has her own romantic ambitions: she does what she does very well but she hasn’t much to do. Irene’s romantic interest Cornelius Hackl is a traditional (for which read ‘cliché’) ‘juvenile lead’, with little to do except look pretty and behave cheekily. Harry Hepple handles the role well. Their friends Minnie Fay and Barnaby Tucker are supposed to be the comical parts but remain resolutely unfunny despite the Olympian efforts of Emily Lane and Tyrone Huntley.
With due respect to all of company and creative team, the evening belongs to Imelda Staunton.
I’ve watched quite a few recordings of theatre shows since the Lockdown and the more I see the less sure I am that that they’re a good advertisement for theatre. By which I mean, what works on stage often doesn’t work on film.
At the heart of live performance, there’s a conspiracy between audience and actor. We all know we’re watching someone acting out a story. So we accept the artificiality, the theatricality if you like. That unnaturalness is exposed when we are forced to stand back from it and view it through the medium of film. So when the actors in This House race up and down the stage, it looks exciting in the flesh but on screen it just looks a bit silly. When actors speak loudly on stage, it’s riveting, on screen it’s a bit shouty.
Films and television dramas are more artificial than theatre but they do everything they can to make it seem like it’s real- the photographically detailed set, the convincing makeup and so on.
What we want in theatre is simply to watch those actors telling us that story with their words and actions. Film wants to show us flashbacks and dreams. It has to provide something to keep the eye interested: you can’t have a detective go question somebody without that person carrying on with their gardening or car repair.
We theatregoers want to use our imagination, just as we did when our parents or teacher told us a story as a child. We conjure up images of, as Shakespeare said, ‘the cloud-capp’d tow’rs, the gorgeous palaces’- not to mention pitched battles and shipwrecks. We don’t need imagination for film and TV drama because they do it for us. In This House, as the Labour Whips desperately try to get MPs back to give them the votes they need, a silhouette of a helicopter appears at the back of the stage, to great comic effect. That’s all we need. In a film, we would expect a real chopper.
Theatre is on a human scale (with the odd exception where the director insists that the production will be better for using video screens). We may like the odd spectacle but only because we can really appreciate a barricade built on a stage in front of our eyes. Generally, we like engaging with people who are not small and removed from us on a TV screen or larger than life in the cinema but people who are the same size as us, alive in front of us. For that reason, recorded theatre works best when following one character close up, like Fleabag or Sea Wall, or a small scale play dominated by one person like Cyprus Avenue.
Thrilling production from Jeremy Herrin and Rae Smith
When watching a live performance, our brains and eyes are remarkably good at seeing detail, even from a distance. On TV, we either view the whole set and miss the detail or the camera hones in on our behalf and creates its notion of what we should see. In theatre, we may be nudged by the script or the direction but we still make the choice to look at the person talking or the one listening or a detail of the set. Rae Smith’s set for This House is brilliant. She uses a traverse stage with green seats on either side creating both the sense of gladiatorial combat and the close intimacy of parliamentary politics. Not so great when you’re not one of the people sitting on one side looking at the other side.
So, no, I didn’t think the NTLive recording conveyed the quality of This House. It’s a superb piece of theatre deserving four or even five stars, reduced to maybe three at the most. What saves it is the wonderful script by James Graham and the great way it’s acted.
This House tells the story of the time in the 1970s when the Labour government was hanging on with small or nonexistent majorities. The play may be about politics which you might think boring but it is actually thrilling as the Labour whips tried to find the MPs’ votes to keep the government going and the Conservative whips tried to bring it down. And it’s funny, as when they drag in a dying member to vote.
It’s also a very good explanation of how parliament works- and sometimes doesn’t work- and an advertisement for respect and compromise at a time when extreme positions are in danger of bringing down democracy.
Among many fine performances in Jeremy Herrin’s production at the National Theatre, I would pick out Charles Edwards and Reece Dinsdale as the ruthless but mutually respectful deputy whips, Phil Daniels as the conspiratorial cockney Chief Whip and Lauren O’Neill as the newcomer who grows in confidence and stature as the years go by.
I would definitely advise you to give it a watch, despite all my caveats, but I am glad I originally saw This House live on stage.
Avengers star Hayley Atwell is forceful co-star with Tom Burke
[usr=5]
Rosmersholm is about wanting to pursue passion and change but being held back by the past – the political system, religion, inhertitance.
At the beginning, everything is covered in dustsheets in this stately home- Rosmersholm. The walls show signs of flood damage at the lower levels. It’s murky. Until Hayley Atwell playing Rebecca West starts pulling the sheets off and letting the light in.
It’s a year since Rosmer’s wife committed suicide in the lake and clogged up the millwheel, thus causing a flood.
Her death raised questions, the main one being why did she do it? Rosmer is weighed down by his past. Not only the recent tragic event of his wife’s death but his whole inheritance. The high walls of Rae Smith’s brilliant set are covered in paintings of his ancestors staring down. He is expected to keep the line going.
We are on the eve of an election and people are looking for a lead from Rosmer. But his disillusionment with the political system, where everyone is in it for themselves is profound. He renounces his traditional party- the conservatives, whose representative is superbly conveyed by Giles Terera as the likeable but ruthless Kroll who views women and the working class with contempt. So it seems Rosmer should back the radicals but both sides take against him. Both own newspapers that lie about him. You see there are many modern parallels.
Mildly spoken Tom Burke as Rosmer pefectly conveys the uncertainty that alternates with his passion for Rebecca.
Good as Mr Burke is, the evening belongs to Hayley Atwell as Rebecca. She is the force of change and she is a force on the stage. Her performance is bravura but always believable. However even Rebecca is dragged down by the past.
This is an excellent cast. Lucy Briers is the housekeeper, representing the dour working class, still mired in superstition and believing what she reads in the papers. Jake Fairbrother is the radical newspaper editor, previously driven out of the town by holier-than-thou outrage, led by Rosmer, who is now the victim of the same high mindedness himself. Peter Wight is the faded leftwing revolutionary who is violently rejected by the workers he wishes to empower.
Nothing in Ibsen is straightforward and, as in his earlier An Enemy Of The People and The Wild Duck, naively believing that all you need is truth is a sure recipe for disaster.
Ultimately the politics gives way to the personal. Hope and heartbreak mark the love between John Rosmer and Rebecca West and, as this is Ibsen, a happy ending never seems on the cards. There are many questions and no easy answers in this masterpiece but there is much to thrill to as emotions once constrained begin to burst free.
Ibsen is famous for his revolutionary realism and Ian Rickson’s production and Duncan MacMillan’s adaptation triumph in making the characters in this 130 year old play seem totally real.
Also realistic are the set design by Rae Smith and lighting by Neil Austin which emphasise the claustrophobic setting and changing moods. Rae Smith‘s final contribution (which I won’t reveal), as the curtain metaphorically is about to come down, is a coup de théâtre that underlines what has happened and gives final proof of how much the design is another actor in this terrific production.
Finally a quick word of praise for producer Sonia Friedman. Again she has brought a play to the West End that might have been expected to stay in the domain of subsidised venues and, although she has used star names from film and TV, the stars are stage actors of the highest calibre. Commercial producers often look for safe, audience pleasers but Ms Friedman stretches and challenges her audience and, on this occasion, has rewarded them with an evening of extraordinary theatre. Click here to watch the review on YouTube
SPOILER ALERT! This is a complaint about the publicity material. Rosmersholm is one of Ibsen’s least produced plays (although this may change after this powerful production), so audiences are unlikely to know how it ends. However, having seen the picture on the posters and adverts, they are likely to have a good idea as the play progresses.