Monday, 16 July 2012

Timon of Athens - National Theatre, Friday 13th July 2012

Synopsis:
Timon of Athens likes nothing better than to please his friends. He lavishes gifts on them, holds entertainments for them, grants dowries to them. The word around Athens is that if you ask Timon for something, you shall receive it in abundance. Give Timon a gift, and he shall give you one with triple the value. So it is that the citizens of Athens flock to him to flatter, praise, and esteem him.
One citizen, the cynical philosopher Apemantus, warns Timon that his friends are parasites who care only for his gold. If Timon continues to squander money on them, Apemantus says, he will bankrupt himself. Timon’s honest and loyal steward, Flavius, also cautions Timon that his extravagance will one day lead to his ruin. Ruin eventually arrives in the form of unpaid bills.
When Timon turns for help to the very people upon whom he showered his favours, they give him only cold shoulders and excuses. Their friendship, it seems, is as empty as Timon’s purse. He then announces a great banquet and invites these same people to partake. Believing he must have come into new wealth, they gladly accept his invitation. However, after they arrive, Timon serves them only rotten meat and cold water, Throwing dishes at them, he drives them out of his house and then quits Athens vowing never to return. Turning to look at the wall of the city one last time, he heaps a soliloquy of curses upon Athens and its citizens.
Taking up residence in a cave near the sea, he lives off the land and spends most of his waking hours bitterly denouncing fickle humankind. One day, while digging for roots to eat, he finds gold, a great cache of it. He is rich once again. It so happens that General Alcibiades, who has also been wronged by the Athenians and has been banished from Athens, comes upon Timon in the woods near the cave.. When Alcibiades mentions that he is gathering an army to make war on Athens, Timon sees an opportunity for revenge and gives him gold to finance the venture.
Word of Timon’s new-found gold spreads, and three bandits descend upon the cave to it. Timon does not shrink from the robbers; nor does he try to protect his cache of gold. Instead, he willingly gives them gold. His hatred for humankind is so strong that it nearly shocks the bandits into becoming honest men. After the bandits leave, the good and worthy Flavius arrives at the cave seeking the company and love of his master. At first Timon rebukes him, too. Later, when he realizes that Flavius has come in search of companionship, not gold, Timon praises him as the only honest man on earth, then gives him a large portion of gold and bids him adieu.
Representatives of the Athenian senate arrive and praise Timon and then ask for gold to purchase the means to shore up their defenses against the invading army of Alcibiades. But Timon dashes their hopes when he explains that the kindness he has in mind is an invitation to Athenians to come out and hang themselves on a useless tree that he plans to cut down. Timon then dismisses the senators. Thus, their only recourse is to prostrate themselves before Alcibiades and beg mercy. Back at the walls of Athens, Alcibiades agrees to spare the innocent and destroy only those who wronged him and Timon. A soldier then arrives with news that Timon has died.
Cast:
Timon of Athens – Simon Russell Beale
Flavia, his Steward – Deborah Findlay
Flaminia – Olivia Llewellyn
Servillius – Tim Samuels        } Timon's staff
Philotus – Alfred Enoch
Lucillius, an errant slave – Stavros Demetraki,Apemantus, a philosopher – Hilton McRae
A poet – Nick Sampson
A painter – Penny Layden
A jeweller – Jo Dockery
Lucullus, a banker – Paul Bentall
Sempronia, a politician – Lynette Edwards
Alcibiades, a rebel – Ciaran McMenamin

Creative team:
Director: Nicholas Hytner
Designer: Tim Hatley
Lighting: Bruno Poet
Music: Grant Olding

No doubt you will have heard me rant on about modern-dress productions of Shakespeare before. If so, you won’t need to be reminded that I don’t generally approve, believing as I do that it’s a cheap and easy cop-out by a director not only wishing to ease up on his costume budget but who has scraped the bottom of the barrel for some production ideas and hasn’t really come up with anything, glossing over this fact by saying “it makes the play more relevant to today’s audience” (I wonder why nobody has ever set a Shakespeare play in the future? You know, by having the TARDIS appear on stage and a couple of lost time-travellers staggering out of it to start the action of the story rolling?). So my heart sank like the proverbial stone when we pitched up at the theatre to find that this was yet another modern-dress production. And then….some magic happened. The play started and it was about today. A small army of the dispossessed live in tents while bankers, commercially-successful artists, celebrities and politicians quaff champagne and nibble canapés, pat each other on the back, and attend glamorous receptions in art galleries. A man over-reaches himself financially through lavish entertainments for people he thinks like him, goes to those friends for a short term loan and finds himself turned down for credit by all and sundry. Forced to admit that his “friends” are worthless parasites, he has to lay off his staff, sell up his home and sleep rough, while the dispossessed riot in the streets. Inside the barricades, the parties continue unabated as the bloodsuckers find fresh victims to suck dry.

Oh Shakespeare, you clever clever man, you really did have a TARDIS all the while, didn’t you? You travelled forward in time, saw what was happening and left us a clue to show you had been here. For once, the dark suits, modern hairstyles and contemporary settings became starkly relevant to the action as the story unfolded, and I found myself literally clinging onto the timbers of the raft as it swept downstream through the white waters of the first act, throwing me up against a sandbank signposted “INTERVAL” and leaving me gasping for breath and picking twigs out of my hair. The lights went down, I took a deep breath and plunged back in – and found no rapids but a slow, eddying pool of murky and slightly rank water in which I bobbed up and down for the next 45 minutes and barely moved.

For this is a strange chimera of a play. A note in the programme explains that:

“In 1623 the publisher of the first collection edition of Mr. Shakepeare’s Comedies, Tragedies and Histories was having trouble securing the rights to print Troilus and Cressida which was supposed to follow Romeo and Juliet in the “tragedies” section. The printers delayed as long as they could and then grabbed Timon of Athens to fill the gap. Apparently never polished into a final version, perhaps long forgotten, probably never performed, possibly never intended to be in the First Folio, this odd play [was] written by Shakespeare and his younger contemporary Thomas Middleton”
So what we have here is a botched committee job, only half formed, sent into the world before its time. And by god does it show. The first half of the play is electrifying, scarily relevant to early 21st century London and could have been written yesterday. The second half of the play descends rapidly into weary and tiresome speechifying that reminded me of the worst excesses of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot – not that I have ever seen Waiting for Godot but this is what I imagine the worst excesses of it would be like. You know, one mad, shambling old tramp maundering on to himself, finding a horde of buried treasure and then killing himself. Rather than, as I found myself fervently hoping, taking back his place in society, shouting “I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you” and doing so in a variety of interesting and humiliating ways. Damn. Timon doesn’t even have the good grace to stick around to the end of the play, merely shambling off stage and topping himself. What a cop out. I felt like going to the box office and demanding half my money back.

The first half moves along at such a pace that it is hard to keep up with the clever, yet simple set changes. An enormous picture (El Greco, if anyone should care to remark that the play is set in Athens) is covered with lavish drop curtain which then rises to reveal that the picture has disappeared and that the frame is now the proscenium of a small stage, which then disappears and the picture frame becomes a window frame, through which can be glimpsed the shining towers of Canary Wharf or the Houses of Parliament (confusingly pinning the play’s location to London instead). A dining table set for 14 glides on and is serviced by an elegantly choreographed team of waters. A couple of elegant leather sofas cleverly mark out a location as the reception area of a posh-git hedge fund. Its all very spare, yet very elegant in a reductive 20teens way. Costumes are the usual blend of sharp city suits and elegant designer dresses (a style which would normally bring on a fit of the heebie jeebies for me but which is here entirely and frighteningly appropriate, for possibly the first time in my theatregoing experience).

And the cast, with one or two notable exceptions, is really good. Yet there remains the problem of the second half, which is a problem that cannot be overcome. It really is a play of two halves; one is fast-paced and exciting in a way that I have rarely experienced before (and extremely rarely in Shakespeare) and the other is a rambling disappointment. After a good half an hour of maundering, the ending feels rushed, tacked on and incomplete. If I had had to leave at the interval, I would have come away feeling cheated of the rest of the evening. As it is, I saw the second half and felt cheated of what could have been Shakespeare’s most exciting play had he ever got round to finishing it.

Highlighs from the Chicago 2009 Festival of Shakespeare production:

Tuesday, 3 July 2012

A Dolls House - Young Vic, Friday 29th June 2012

Synopsis:

Nora Helmer is, for once, enjoying life. Mrs. Linde, an old friend stops by hoping to find a job. Nora's husband Torvald recently earned a promotion, so Nora recommends Mrs. Linde’s services to her husband, Torvald. Nora, however, is carrying a dark secret. When Torvald was very ill, she forged her dead father's signature in order to illegally obtain a loan to support the family, and has secretly been paying back the loan in small installments saved from her housekeeping money.
Nils Krogstad, an employee at Torvald’s bank, collects the debt payments and knows Nora’s secret, as he has a copy of the loan agreement. Trying to consolidate his position at the bank, which he has obtained with difficulty after being arrested himself for forgery in order to gain money, he attempts blackmail. Nora manages to conceal her guilt from her husband and from Dr. Rank, a kind yet sickly friend of the Helmers.
Suspicious that Krogstad has criminial tendencies, Torvald attempts to remove him from his post and replace him with Mrs. Linde; Nora is forced to try to dissuade him. She attempts to gain Dr. Rank’s confidence and help, but is repulsed when she finds that Rank has always loved her.
Mrs. Linde tells Nora that she had a romantic attachment to Krogstad in the past, and that she can perhaps persuade him to relent. However, Krogstad does not sway in his position. It seems that Torvald is bound to discover the truth and Nora contemplates suicide. She believes that if she does not commit suicide, Torvald will bravely assume responsibility for her crimes, going to jail on her behalf.
Krogstad and Mrs. Linde are reconciled, and the loan agreement is destroyed. However, Krogstad’s letter of denciation is still in the glass-fronted mailbox, where Nora can see it but not retrieve it.
After returning from a party , Nora and Torvald unwind at home. Torvald discusses how he enjoys watching her at parties, pretending that he is encountering her for the first time. Dr. Rank interrupts them, hinting that he will be shutting himself up in his room until his sickness finally wins.
Torvald discovers Krogstad's incriminating note. He declares that Nora is immoral, unfit as a wife and mother. The irony is that moments before, Torvald has been discussing how he wished that Nora faced some sort of peril, so that he could prove his love for her. Yet, once that peril is actually presented, he has no intention of saving her, only condemning her actions.
Krogstad drops another note saying that he has rediscovered love, and that he no longer wants to blackmail the Helmer family. Torvald rejoices, declaring that they are saved. He then, in a moment of sheer hypocrisy, states that he forgives Nora, and that he still loves her as his little "caged song bird."
In a flash, Nora realizes that Torvald is not the loving, selfless husband she had once envisioned. With that epiphany, she also comes to understand that their marriage has been a lie, and that she herself has been an active part in the deception. Torvald desperately begs her to stay.

Cast:
Torvald Helmer, a banker – Dominic Rowan
Nora, his wife – Hattie Morahan
Helene, their maid – Yolanda Kettle
Anna, their children’s nurse – Lynne Verrall
Dr Rank, a family friend – Steve Toussaint
Nils Krogstad, a junior colleague of Helmer – Nick Fletcher
Kristine Lind, an old friend of Nora – Susannah Wise

Creative Team
Original text by Henrik Ibsen
Adapted by Simon Stephens
Director – Carrie Cracknell
Design – Ian MacNeil
Costumes – Gabrielle Dalton
Set by Miraculous Engineering

This play is set in Norway. This may well explain why the Young Vic had the air conditioning turned up to such an extent that people were sitting in the auditorium shivering with the cold. Take a coat. Or a blanket. Or both. Try not to laugh ironically when one of the characters complains “how hot it is tonight”.

This play also has a baby in it. A real live baby. Get ready for the baby’s appearance as you will be able to coo appreciatively with the vast majority of the rest of the audience. Comments elsewhere on this blog about live animals in productions are now superseded in favour of the appearance of a human baby on the set if you want your audience to go home talking about the show.
“What was the play like?”

“It was OK. But there was a BABY in it! A REAL baby! It was soooooooo cute! It was being carried by someone! In a blanket! It was soooooooo cute! It had a nose! And eyes! And little hands! And some hair!”

Really? Wow!”
Try not to mix this play up beforehand with other Scandinavian plays by the same author. Ones about syphilis. You will be disappointed when it is not mentioned. Acknowledge the fact that he was well ahead of his time in a) writing great parts for women and b) tackling important social issues from a female point of view. Afterwards, try not to snigger as Him Indoors says that “The play sees life through a different prism”. Try not to get pissed off when Him Indoors says “Have you never seen another Ibsen play? Well, its not surprising; after all, you don’t have any theatrical pedigree do you?” Remind him that you did, in fact, once see Juliet Stephenson playing Hedda Gabbler at the National.

Admire the set. It is very, very lovely and very clever. It is another revolving house, and allows parents to play games of hide and seek with their children and suchlike, while opening up the action from what could be a very static production if done on a set representing only one room, as the original stage directions dictate. It also allows you little glimpses of what is going on elsewhere in the house which add to your appreciation of the plot, and also becomes a character in the story in its own right. It is elegant, yet claustrophobic (there is a marvellous scene played out in the cramped confines of the hallway between Nora and Krogstad), and the inhabitants are permanently on view, both to ourselves and to the other inhabitants. There is little privacy. It is, in fact, A Doll’s House. Try desperately not to get irked by the fact that, although it is 1878, there are incandescent gas filaments along the hall but both an electric light switch on the wall of the main living room and a modern table lamp on the bedside cabinet, the flex of which can be seen clearly coiling under the bed. Try to screen out the hideous modern plastic Christmas tree, lest you be thought a nit-picker. Try to blank out the articles of furniture which are obviously modern and instead convince yourself that they are from the 1877 IKEA catalogue and that the Norwegians were obviously 120 years or so ahead of everyone else in terms of furniture design, because the set is still very pretty and very clever regardless of these points. It allows for some very clever and “filmic” direction because, as it revolves, you will be able to see someone’s back as they walk from one room and then their face as they stick their head round the door to speak to the occupant of another room. Try not to hope desperately that, as the set revolves, two characters who are entering the house will miss the front door as it passes and have to wait for it to come round again, because that would be childish. Admire and applaud the director for their set design and for cleverly incorporating 360 degree directing into the play, bringing a sense of film to the theatre stage.

Amuse yourself for a couple of seconds thinking how much piss the West End Whingers are going to take of the “on stage meal” (they are obsessed by these, and also by garden benches, for some obviously Freudian reason) when said on stage meal consists of a single slice of smoked salmon wiggled onto a plate. No lemon juice? No black pepper? No brown buttered bread? Tight bitch.

Try frantically, but vainly, to blank out the fact that a major plot device is a lockable mailbox with a clear glass front, through which an important letter can be seen but frustratingly (and vitally important to the plot) not retrieved, because you will not locate the mailbox anywhere on the set, but only see a modern front door with a letterbox from which the covering metal flap has been removed and replaced with a strip of Perspex each side. This is apparently now the lockable mailbox, and although it is only 9” or so wide and the thickness of the door in which it is set, it is apparently capable of holding about three days’ worth of post within it. Do not mention this point to Him Indoors afterwards as you will be told you are a nit-picker.

Do wonder why the male characters are wearing business suits of a 21st century style and cut, and whether women’s fashions of the year 1878 really did consist of tightly fitting bodices with no sleeves. Wonder why a period-correct costume is being worn by the female lead on the cover of the programme when she is not wearing one on stage. Do, however, admire the costumes which are of the correct style and cut for the period.

Do applaud the stunning performance by Hattie Morahan as Nora, as it will leave you wondering how anyone would be able to give such an intense performance of roller-coaster emotions 8 times a week for the next month and not need psychotherapy (or at least a damned good holiday) afterwards. Do wonder if Nick Fletcher is playing his part that way because he thinks that villains should be cold, inaudible and emotionally sterile or whether it is merely because he is the worst actor you have ever seen on stage and has all the acting talent of a potted chrysanthemum. Do wonder why the character of Dr. Rank, who is apparently old and frail and dying of some terminal illness, is played by a youngish man seemingly in complete and vital full health according to the way in which he bounds around the stage. Do bemoan the fact that Ms. Morahan is not given a solo bow at the end, but has to take her bow with the entire cast, even though some characters have five lines or less in the entire evening. Thank your lucky stars that the baby does not come on to take a bow.

Enjoy your evening. But get your tickets quick because this looks like a hit.  Wait a couple of days for the opening night reviews.


Thursday, 21 June 2012

One Man, Two Guvnors - a postscript

I was having a nap this afternoon (still feeling somewhat grotty) when there was a ring on the doorbell and a delivery man from Amazon on the mat.  Perplexed, I took the proferred parcel and thought "This must be a mistake, I haven't ordered anything from them lately".

I open the box to find a rather expensive book from my Amazon wish list along with the following message:

Dear XXXX
I do hope you enjoy this small gift.  I am the father of James Corden and guilty of giving you a little grief over your review of his NT play last year.  Enjoy, and thanks for your forbearance. 

Matthew Corden.

Well, if you are reading this, Mr. Corden Snr., thank you very much.  Your kind gift is much appreciated, and can be said to be a rare example of something which rendered me completely speechless for a number of minutes.   I do, however, stand by my review, as I have always done, despite the shedloads of abuse received (not all of which was suitable for consumption by a family audience and therefore not published on this blog) for expressing my opinions and which continues to come in some 12  months or more after publishing my review.  However, it is nice to know that someone feels sufficiently guilty about their attack to take the time and effort to send a gift.  Should anyone else who felt it necessary to be vicious feel similarly contrite, then the link to my Amazon Wish List can be found here .  Until then, I salute the generosity of Mr. Corden Snr., and accept his apology.  Your son has many fans, Mr. C; it is however such a shame that they express their feelings with such vitriol and contempt for the opinions of others. 

Henry V - Shakespeare's Globe, Wednesday 20th June 2012

Synopsis:

Henry hears the legal arguments in favour of his claim to the French crown, and tells the French Ambassador that he will reclaim the former English possessions in France.

In London, the old companions of Henry’s youth – Pistol, Bardolph, Nym, Mistress Quickly and Falstaff’s former page- lament Falstaff’s death. The men and the boy decide to seek their fortunes in the King’s campaign, but are more interested in looting than in fighting. The town of Harfleur is taken, and at the French Court, Princess Katherine learns English from Alice, her lady in waiting. The French send a great force to meet the English army.

At Agincourt, Henry visits his soldiers by night and in disguise. He rejects all representations from the French for ransom and, against enormous odds, engages them in battle and takes Agincourt. When the French regroup, Henry orders the execution of his French prisoners, while the boys left behind to guard the English camp are killed by the French in retaliation.

To reinforce his right to the throne, Henry woos and wins Princess Katherine.

Cast:
Chorus/Queen – Brid Brennan
Exeter – Nigel Cooke
Pistol – Sam Cox
The Dauphin - Kurt Egyiawwan
Gower – Matthew Flynn
King of France/Nym – David Hargreaves
York – Beruce Khan
MacMorris – James Lailey
Fluellen – Brendan O’Hea
Henry – Jamie Parker
Bardolph – Paul Rider
Boy/Katherine – Olivia Ross
Mistress Quickly/Alice – Lisa Stevenson

Creative Team:
Director – Dominic Dromgole
Designer – Jonathan Fensom
Choreographer – Sian Williams


This is, by necessity, a mini-review. I was feeling distinctly unwell, and perhaps should have stayed home in bed. I wasn’t really in the mood for sitting through a three hour play, and didn’t have the energy to do anything except sit passively in my seat and let the words wash over me. I always find a trip to the Globe a bit of a chore at the very best of times, what with the problems with sightlines (I always seem to end up sitting slap behind a pillar), audibility (theatre “in the round” always means that some of the actors are going to be facing away from you at any given point – when the theatre is open to the elements, this problem is intensified tenfold), uncomfortable wooden seating and the constant tooing and froing of “groundlings”. Last night, a group of sulky teenagers (who turned out to be French, so no wonder they were sulky given the play’s subject matter) with an enormous collection of paper and plastic shopping bags between them were a major distraction, parading in and out and rearranging their shopping at every conceivable opportunity. So my critical facilities were really in “standby” mode for most of the evening, and I think I may even have dozed off at one point.

The rest of the audience, however, seemed to be having a good time, so I guess the production was fairly decent. There were a couple of excellent performances, notably that of Jamie Parker as Henry, who seemed the epitome of English gilded youth, striding about the stage as if he owned it during scenes ambassadorial and battle, yet with a gawky, bashful charm in his long and important final scene with the Princess of France. His impassioned yet quiet and calm “St. Crispian’s Day” speech seemed to bring the entire auditorium to a reverent hush – perhaps in some surprise as this is a great “rabble rousing” speech and is usually delivered at the top of one’s lungs and with all arms flailing. Olivia Parker was an excellent Princess, played much younger and far less coldly regal as a consequence than I believe is the norm, and the famous “learning the English language” scene was a joy, helped terrifically by Lisa Stevenson as a wonderfully pompous Alice. Kurt Egyiawan deserves mention as his Dauphin was perfectly delivered acoustics-wise; you could hear every word even when his back was turned, and showed a great understanding of how projection can overcome the difficulties of playing this challenging space.

I did find the “low comedy” characters even more irritating than normal, probably exacerbated by the fact that I was feeling lousy. I did see a very creative and enjoyable performance of this play a while back, in which most of the Nym/Bardolph/Pistol/Fluellen subplots were cut completely and thought that this tightened up the play no end. Otherwise Henry V is an incredibly wordy play, with so much of the dreary “comedy interludes” that turn people off Shakespeare for good. Even the current production has a three hour running time, although great chunks of it have been jettisoned because they are Very Bloody Boring – Him Indoors always and without fail reminds me that the opening scene in which the Archbishops set up the legal and ambassadorial background to the action is one of Shakespeare’s most wordy, static and tedious. Here, however, it has been thankfully pruned to the necessary minimum, and further lightened by having both stuffy clerics take turns on the close stool while speechifying; possibly the first time at the Globe that actors have had to lift up their cassocks and wipe their backsides while in full view of the audience, although I am happy to be corrected on this point if necessary!

Battles are always difficult to portray convincingly on stage, even though Henry V is the one play of Shakespeare’s in which your powers of imagination are called upon most (the Chorus effectively pleads your indulgence throughout the text) and again the director has turned the battles into stylised dance sequences, which somehow fail to provide the necessary spark. Personally I would like to see Agincourt done in the manner of Stomp – or perhaps not portrayed at all on stage and left completely to the imagination by sound effects and pyrotechnics.

Anyway, as I said before, the rest of the audience seemed to have a good time and the other reviews have been more or less in praise of the production, so Dear Reader, let their opinions guide you on this occasion.

What the critics said:





Wednesday, 20 June 2012

The Last of the Haussmans - National Theatre, Thursday 14th June 2012

Synopsis:
Anarchic, feisty but growing old, high society drop-out Judy Haussman remains in spirit with the Ashrams of the 1960s while holding court in her dilapidated Art Deco house on the Devon coast.

After an operation, she’s joined by wayward offspring Nick and Libby, sharp-eyed granddaughter Summer, local doctor Peter, and Daniel, a troubled teenager who makes use of the family’s crumbling swimming pool. Together they share a few sweltering months as they alternately cling to and flee this louche and chaotic world of all-day drinking, infatuations, long-held resentments, free love and failure.
Cast:
Libby: Helen McCrory
Nick: Rory Kinnear
Summer: Isabella Laughland
Judy: Julie Walters
Peter, Matthew Marsh
Daniel: Taron Egerton

Creative Team:
Written by Stephen Beresford
Director: Howard Davies
Designer: Vicki Mortimer
Lighting: Mark Henderson

How to get your first play seen by thousands of people:

1) Write a part in it for Julie Walters. If the part is broadly similar to how Julie Walters is anyway, so much the better

2) Once she has accepted it, offer it to the National Theatre

However good, bad or indifferent your play is, it will receive national coverage in the reviews and be an almost guaranteed sell out at the box office. If you can manage to base your play on something that has already been written, a lot of your work will already have been done for you by someone else. You can set it in the same provincial town, adapt a lot of the dialogue, re-tread many of the same basic ideas and POW – you will have the punters storming the box office, laughing fit to wet themselves every time your leading lady twitches her left eyebrow. You might further decide to adapt the basic premise of a hit TV show such as “Absolutely fabulous” by having three generations of women all cooped up in the same house throwing one-liners at each other, and further plagiarise the idea by writing in a “gay son” character. Throw in a mysterious doctor (Is he all he seems? Which of the characters is he shagging/will he be shagging?), a cute young boy with “plot device” written all over his Speedos (which of the characters will fall prey to his masculine charms first?) a few problems with paying for the upkeep of the house and a bit about the evils of “equity release”, mix in a bit of Chekovian angst along the lines of “a long hot summer – the last in the old family home before society as the occupants know it breaks down” and all you have left to do is pen a few decently funny lines and you can then pat yourself firmly on the back and tell everyone you have “arrived”. The fact that your play remains as essentially empty and as devoid of any real story as Coward’s Hay Fever need not trouble you as the applause rings in your ears and the box office receipts roll in. Until, of course, people with some kind of critical facility view your play and start to think “hang on a minute….”

Now, I fully realise that this kind of review isn’t going to go down well with some people. Having dragged me to the theatre willingly or unwillingly over the space of the last ten years and thus self-cast himself in the role of Dr. Frankenstein, Him Indoors has started to realise that he has created a monster; one with a rapidly developing critical sense and which he cannot necessarily influence any more. So the interval conversations (the ones which start with “Well, go on then – propound”) are starting to get a bit fraught (to the amusement and/or annoyance of people sitting nearby) and reviews are skimmed through and dismissed as “overly picky”. I don’t expect that he will like this one, either. And perhaps neither will you, dear reader. No doubt in the past you have chortled away at some of my more outrageous offerings but the beast seems to be mutating and I admit that it is becoming harder and harder to write “laugh a minute” reviews. This might be seen as A Bad Thing in some quarters. I try to put the occasional flash of humour or bitchy comment in sometimes, but they ain’t coming so easily these days. Perhaps I am getting old and cynical and should take a long sabbatical from this blog….. don’t think I haven’t considered it.

Aaaaaaaaanyway, I enjoyed The Last of the Haussmans, as did the rest of the audience. This is a decent enough first play, although I think shares all the faults that first plays are subject to. Its too long, slightly too desperate to get its message across, slightly unsure what its message actually is and, most importantly, unsure whether it is a comedy with serious undertones or a serious play with lots of funny one-liners. It is, perhaps, un peu grandiose in many aspects. Beresford may well learn in time how to get a point across to his audience without Hammering It Home Repeatedly And With All The Subtlety Of A Brick, but he hasn’t managed this yet. What the play IS is most definitely a showcase for Julie Walters. If you are a connoisseur of a well turned bon mot a la Victoria Wood that you can throw into various conversations (“She sleeps all day and then gets up when she’s hungry, just like a fucking badger”) then you will like this play. If you venerate Julie Walters as A National Treasure then you will like this play (at this performance, quite a few people ovated and I would imagine that quite a few more ovulated). If you like Rory Kinnear you will like this play. If you are a fan of great set design you will like this play (there is a wonderful set – an entire 1930s Art Deco house complete with messy interior and a garden terrace so untidy and unkempt that I found myself fantasising about taking a bucket of hot soapy water, scrubbing brush, broom and pair of secateurs to it), because during the long, wordy, dull bits (of which there are quite a few) you can let your eyes wander all over it and appreciate how detailed it is (there are even stacks of old boxes in the loft). If that is all you desire from a night out at the theatre, that’s all well and good – you will come away happy and have had value for your money. And that’s exactly what many people want, and exactly what many people who see this play will get. Its funny, its bitter, its sad, there’s the great “each character will now make a long, violently impassioned speech giving us the key to their motivation” scene around the kitchen table, followed very quickly by the “we can solve all our problems if we just believe in each other and love each other” scene, ending in a group hug, lights fade to black moment. Many of the key dramatic moments are underscored with appropriate pop songs should you need them signposted for you. It's decently and competently directed.  But Hamlet it ain’t.

In ten years time the play will probably be a staple of the amateur dramatic scene for directors wanting to do something “a bit more edgy than An Inspector Calls yet again” – The Alexandra Players present The Last of the Haussmans, all this week at the Village Hall. Until then, Julie Walters has a sure-fire success on her hands. But personally I found it as hollow as an Easter Egg, prettily wrapped and well presented but with only the thinnest of chocolate veneers around a completely empty centre.

What the critics said:





Monday, 11 June 2012

Torch Song Trilogy - Menier Chocolate Factory, Friday 8th May 2012

Synopsis:
Arnold is a professional drag queen, known as "Virginia Hamm". While visiting a bar, Arnold meets Ed, who is uncomfortable with his bisexuality.  Their relationship is "on/off" and fairly turbulent. A year later, Ed has left and intends to marry his girlfriend Laurel. Arnold meets Alan, and the two settle down into a blissful existence that includes plans to adopt a child, until tragedy strikes. Several years pass, by which time Arnold is a single father raising gay teenager David, while Ed, having left Laurel and moved back in with Arnold, beings to find new aspects to their relationship. All three are forced to deal with the sudden arrival of Arnold's mother on a visit. 
CAST
Arnold Beckoff - David Bedella
Alan - Tom Harries
Mrs. Beckoff - Sara Kestelman
Ed Reiss - Joe McFadden
David - Perry Millward
Laurel - Laura Pyper

CREATIVES
Written by Harvey Fierstein
Direction - Douglas Hodge
Design - Soutra Gilmour
Lighting Design - Paul Anderson
Sound Design - Gareth Owen
Musical Supervision - Cathy Jayes

Warning to theatre-goers! Apparently many theatres are now amending their starting time to 8pm “for the Olympics” That the Olympics have not yet started is apparently neither here nor there, apparently. Any new show that is set to run through Olympic period is amending its curtain up time to 8pm to give you more time to get to the theatre through the traffic chaos. Which, of course, is still six weeks or so away. Regardless or not of the fact that there are still six weeks in which the public transport system could be expected to function relatively normally, I would recommend you check the running time of any show and the departure time of your last train home before booking to see a performance in the next six weeks.

A further warning. The Menier is not known for the generosity of its seat size. You are crammed onto a bench with no dividing arm rests and if anyone on your bench is built for comfort rather than speed, you may well find that the person next to you is encroaching on your space. Fortunately, there were a couple of unsold seats at one end of my particular bench, and as I was feeling a little cramped, turned politely to the two women (from their reaction to my request I cannot possibly describe them as “ladies”) and asked, if the spaces remained empty by the start of the play, if they would mind shifting along slightly to address the spacing issues. I considered this to be a not unreasonable request, but got a curt refusal on the grounds of “restricted view” and “we bought these seats, we want to sit in them”. I grant that the “letterbox” staging of the first act did make it slightly difficult for people near the end of a row to see things taking place at the other end of the stage, but what is a couple of inches between friends?

Personally, I would say that the set design is extremely bad in this respect – the set is initially one unbroken run of wall, the outer sections of which remain static while the large central section moves backwards to give an increased stage area in the middle. The static areas are in fact very little used and therefore almost completely superfluous, and inhibit sight lines badly. Ensure you are either seated towards the middle of the theatre or book seats next to politer audience members than we did. The odd staging does also push the excellent harpist who plays during the first two acts into a very strange position, and it is a great shame that she is not permitted to take a solo bow at the end.

This is a very long show. Just a smidge over three hours (although apparently cut down significantly)  including interval (see above and check the times of your last train!). And, in retrospect, a very strange show too, made up as it is from three one-act plays of wildly varying lengths, tones and formats. The first (and by far the shortest), The International Stud, is, for most of its length, a one-person monologue in which the only actor on stage switches constantly between addressing the audience directly and interacting with imagined other characters, until another character finally enters and the play becomes a realistic duologue. The second, Fugue in a Nursery, is a four-hander, set within the confines of an enormous bed, in which two couples interact with their other halves and occasionally with the other couple. The third, Widows and Children First, much the longest, is a realistic piece on a realistic set. This makes for a somewhat roller-coaster evening as the audience are constantly having to adjust their perceptions to suit each act’s particular style. Added to this unease is the fact that each successive play becomes rawer and more gut-wrenchingly emotional in tone, although all are leavened by flashes of great humour.

The success or failure of the entire evening rests with one person, and I have to say that David Bedla. l;ast seen at the Menier in Road Show, pulled off the difficult and emotionally exhausting role of Arnold with considerable aplomb, great acting skills and superb timing. Initially, I admit that I initially drew comparisons with Harvey Fierstein, who both wrote the piece and starred as Arnold in the film, but I very quickly regretted my short-sightedness as the evening progressed and Bedlla wrestled with Fierstein on his own ground and won on his own terms. I initially also thought that the role of Ed was ill-served by Joe McFadden as he seemed too immature (both in terms of actual age and emotionally) but I gradually warmed to him and he seemed to increase in confidence and stature during the evening (respect to the man for competently and quick-wittedly dealing with the complete disintegration of a vital prop).. I do, however, still think he is too young for the role by at least 10 years. By contrast, he was Laurence Oliver to Tom Harriess Alan, who played the role as a lisping, prissy, totally vacuous and occasionally vicious little queen, clearly cast by Douglas Hodge for his physique, perky nipples and outward appearance rather than for any vestige of acting talent he may or may not possess. On this showing, the answer is “does not possess”. I say this with the full knowledge that I compared him to Matthew Broderick who played this role in the film version and found him wanting, but there were times when I felt like marching up on to the stage and giving him a good hard slap. Larua Piper’s Laurel rather faded into the background for me as the least defined performance of the evening, but I acknowledge that the role is not a particularly great one. Perry Millward shows a considerably amount of geeky charm as David, but Sara Kestelman, who should have stalked the stage like a Jewish Medea appeared badly settled into her role, and, on this one occasion when the role requires “playing it Jewish” was necessary, seemed not to be taking the opportunity of doing so. That is not to say that I didn’t find her performance a good one, but lines written for a Jewish/Brooklyn character really do need to be delivered in a Jewish/Brooklyn accent and manner. As a consequence, the pivotal role of Arnold’s mother seemed somewhat diminished by her performance. I concede (again; I don’t usually make this many concessions as regular readers will no doubt agree) that this was a preview performance so perhaps she is still finding her way into the role.

There is much to be enjoyed here, particularly if you are a fan of the film (in which case you will spend most of the evening anticipating the next great line in your head, or even out loud – guilty as charged!), are of (or have friends of) the Grumpy Old Poof persuasion who were growing up and coming out in the 1980s, live within spitting distance of the Menier so that you can get home before midnight as a result of the late start time, or are extremely thin and can fit in your allocated space on a cramped bench. 

What the critics said:

http://www.theartsdesk.com/theatre/torch-song-trilogy-menier-chocolate-factory

http://www.whatsonstage.com/reviews/theatre/london/E8831339578910/Torch+Song+Trilogy.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/theatre/torch-song-trilogy-menier-chocolate-factory--review-7847419.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/torch-song-trilogy-menier-chocolate-factory-london-7847831.html

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

A Tale of Two Cities - Charing Cross Theatre, Monday 30th April 2012

Cast:
Seamstress - Rachel Wicking
Sydney Carton - Michael Howe
Jarvis Lorry - David Alder
Lucie Manette - Jennifer Hepburn
Miss Pross - Pippa Winslow
Defarge - Craig Berry
Madame Defarge - Jemma Alexander
Dr. Manette - John Fleming
Charles Darnay - Jonathan Ansell
Barsad - Mark Slowey
Stryver - Miles Eagling

Creative Team:
From the novel by Charles Dickens
Director: Paul Nicholas
Musical Director - Philip Shute
Lighting - Howard Hudson
Costumes - Suzi Lombardelli
Sets - Charlie Camm

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" is probably one of the most famous opening lines in literature (in fact, famous first lines are pretty uncommon and I had a go at coming up with some others and didn’t do spectacularly well. All I could come up with were the following:

Call me Ishmael..
Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderley again..
Marley was dead, to begin with..
Two houses, each alike in dignity..
To begin my life with the beginning of my life, I recall that I was born…
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God
(I’m not sure that “Once upon a time” really counts)

Answers below, and see if you can come up with some of your own). Anyway, A Tale of Two Cities is my favourite book by Dickens and as with all personal favourites, people get very protective about them. So it was with a fair amount of trepidation that I went along last night to the Charing Cross Theatre to see this new musical version of one of my favourite classics. Many moons ago, I saw a straight play version at Greenwich Theatre and it was truly awful and I wasn’t expecting last night’s offering to be any better, particularly when I found out that for some reason this production has been more or less ignored by other reviewers. A deafening silence usually means that a production is so dire that the majority of people think it kinder not to voice their opinion. When I realised that the auditorium was considerably less than half empty, my heart sunk towards my shoes and I braced myself for the worst. After seeing the show, however, I am quite happy to walk up and down the Embankment banging a gong and directing people towards the box office. Sure, there are things that I didn’t like about the production, and things I would like to have seen done differently, but on the whole this is a well-crafted, solid little production with some good people in lead roles, a range of excellent supporting performances and a refreshing simplicity in the way it tackles an incredibly complicated story. It certainly deserves a bigger audience than it currently seems to be getting.

Presenting this story, with its vast sweep, on a very small stage was always going to be a challenge, but in retrospect the space limitations merely seem to focus attention on the domesticity of this story and how huge historical events affect a small group of individuals caught up within them. If the venue had been larger and the cast more numerous, I would have liked to have seen some evidence of the “bigger picture” – what this musical cries out for is a couple of big “set pieces” in order to throw the smaller stories into sharper relief. For instance, the finale of Act I screams out for a bigger staging, as do the courtroom scenes of Act II. In the very final scene, the story really does need a multitude of revolutionary peasants baying for aristocratic blood and waving pitchforks, and the audience are desperate for the shadow of Madame Guillotine to loom across the stage. Failing that, we need at least a roll of drums and the sound of the blade falling, rather than just a blackout. (although the occasional train rumbling into Charing Cross overhead really does begin to sound like the roll of the tumbrels if you apply a little imagination). Certainly a larger production would benefit from a small orchestra rather than being played on two grand pianos crammed onto the stage – but this lack certainly doesn’t distract from the production as a whole. Given the small size of the show, two pianos actually do quite a good job.

There are some incredibly good performances going on here. Michael Howe is terrific as the disillusioned Sydney Carlton, managing to portray the agonies of unrequited love in a dignified and sensitive performance, and is superbly matched by Jennifer Hepburn as Lucie Manette, who takes a rather naff “romantic heroine” role and makes a believable and three-dimensional woman out of it. She has a lovely light soprano voice and gentlemen who appreciate a fine décolletage have much to be thankful for. They are very ably supported by Pippa Winslow in the somewhat thankless part of Miss Pross (please, Wardrobe Department, find her a nicer dress to wear) and David Alder as the spinsterish and fussy banker Mr. Lorry – fine and restrained performances both, with a good eye as to the comic possibilities of both roles without resorting to lazy mugging. In fact, they share a very touching scene in Act 2 which could have been somewhat mawkish in the wrong hands, but both handle this with aplomb and a certain dignity, circling each other like a pair of offended herons. This contrasts nicely with the well-judged OTT stage villainy of Mark Slowey’s Barsad, and a nicely shaded portrayal of Stryver the junior barrister by Miles Eagling. Jemma Alexander as Madame Defarge stalks the stage like one of the vengeful Furies of Greek tragedy although seems to have a somewhat smaller voice than the role seems to demand. She is also somewhat hampered by one of the shows poor wig choices, of which there are several. This particular wig seems an odd combination of over-elaboration and, ironically, poor execution. Worst Wig Award goes to Jonathan Ansell’s Charles Darnay, who seems to have one of the Bastille’s rats perched jauntily on his head.

Unfortunately Mr. Ansell is the weak link in this particular chain. Granted that the role does not give him much scope, he comes off a very poor second to Howe’s robust Carton, and one wonders why Lucie Manette prefers Darnay over him. I find Mr. Ansell’s top notes more than slightly shrill, and there is much to be learned by him in the way of acting. Particularly embarrassing are his several attempts at doing “being bundled off the stage” – he seems to be offering absolutely no resistance to his attackers and in fact seems all too keen to be assisting them drag him in the general direction of “off stage”.

There is some clever, understated direction by Paul Nicholas – particularly of the “interminable Sunday invitations to tea” section - and lighting is atmospheric and generally very well handled. I could find no credit in the programme for the programme design itself, which is not great. The cover shows a skyline of London with the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben (neither started until 1840 and therefore completely anachronistic with the French Revolution) and what I assume to be the Bastille, serving as a backdrop to the rear view of a reclining and scantily clad female figure. Surely an image of the guillotine or Liberty Leading the People would have been more appropriate and evocative? Or a knitted French Tricolour, accompanied by a skein of wool with knitting needles stuck through it? Or simply the novel’s famous opening lines in a suitably period font? I also have some issues with the use of the Christmas carol O Come All Ye Faithful in the production: although the music was indeed written in the early 1740s, the words as we know them today date from 1841 and are therefore as anachronistic as the picture of Big Ben on the programme cover. To any accusations of nit-picking I do have to plead guilty as charged.

These are minor carps about an evening which was very enjoyable, and considerably better than I had anticipated. A big thank you to the cast and creative team for an evening which turned out to be “the best of times”.

What the critics said:





The entire film, if you have a couple of hours free!



Answers to the mini-quiz:
Moby Dick
Rebecca
A Christmas Carol
Romeo and Juliet
David Copperfield
The King James Bible