thisstage

The Real Thing (Old Vic 19/4/10)

2010-05-18T00:11:00.000+01:00

Confession time...I was sitting in the theatre, flipping through the pages in the programme when it dawned on me, I had never seen a Tom Stoppard play. It feels as if I had, his name has been synonymous with classic British theatre for decades and I have seen him around town numerous times but I never saw any of his plays, revival or not. And I don't have an answer for how that has come to pass.

Here we have a real classic. Premiering in the West End in 1982 , The Real Thing went on to win the Evening Standard Award for Best Play and subsequently premiered on Broadway in 1984 and won the Tony for Best Play. It would be easy to assume that subsequent productions would have to deal with either keeping in set within the era it was written or make some attempt to update it to reach a more contemporary audience, however what's so wonderful about this play is that it doesn't need either treatment to be relevant or 'contemporary'.

The Real Thing engages the audience from the start, giving us two scenarios which keep us wondering which is the real thing? Back to back we have two scenes with one common element - the same woman is in each and we're left wondering for a while how the two fit - was one or both just a scene from a play written by Toby Stephens (A Dolls House at the Donmar, The Country Wife in the West End, TV- The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Cambridge Spies, Film - Die Another Day) playwright character Henry?

Characters collide, home truths are dished out and once the dust settles the play gets a more conventional tone, for a while. We are left with two of the originating characters - Henry and his other half as they navigate through their relationship. Considering how much of the play is essentially a two hander it is never less and captivating. Discussions about what is real ring true, whether it be the truth in relationships and what one needs from their partner or (what I found to be the pinnacle of the night) a conversation about what makes a good play. The basis of that conversation was a discussion about a play by a non playwright, one character thinks its a bad play and the other feels it says what it needs to say which gives it validity. It's that age old argument questioning the concept that there is good and bad art - some think it's simply a matter of taste and effectiveness and others feel its more prescribed than that.

In The Real Thing Stoppard uses a cricket bat to get his point across, explaining the craftsmanship that goes into making a cricket bat separates good bats from bad. A wonderfully crafted bat will elevate a players game where as a bad bat will bring it down. It's a wonderful argument and makes complete sense in context although, to be fair, making a cricket bat does not entirely equal full on creativity but then we could ask if Henry's plays are also indeed, the real thing.

I could run on and on with this 'real thing' concept and I think that's why the play works so well, It's tightly constructed and everything is there for a reason, feeding into the central concepts and thought processes.

Down to specifics - Toby Stephens is very effective as Henry. He's a middle class snob who, I believe, and based on my big ears during the interval, you could sympathise with or simply detest. It's a fine line he has to walk and he does veer a little too much on the negative side for me but it's necessary for the character I guess. As the two women in his life - Fenella Woolgar (Time and the Conways at the National, Motortown at the Royal Court, films Vera Drake, Bright Young Things and Stage Beauty) captures the slightly cynical and funny Charlotte while Hattie Morahan (The City at the Royal Court, Time and the Conways,... some trace of her, Three More Sleepless Nights - all National Theatre) took a while to capture my attention. There was a wonderful moment when I realised that her character had been influenced by Henry through a subtle switch in a conversation. Very subtle and difficult to do so hats off to her. Barnaby Kay (Closer, Man of Mode at the National Theatre, The Herbal Bed in the West End, Dying For It at the Almeida and A Streetcar Named Desire as the Donmar) as Max was wonderful. He brought a very playful, open quality to a character that only appears in the first few scenes of the first act.

The only downside for me was the introduction of additional characters in the final third of the play. I understand why they were there, I felt they were necessary for the development of other characters but a few of them were directly out of stage school and although fine, their lack of experience shown.

I'm no director but I would imagine that directing this play would be a tricky affair. It balances and counter balances so many ideas and character flaws that allowing the production to tip too much in one direction could throw the whole thing off. It's the careful point / counterpoint effect that is believably created and entirely entertaining that makes this a must see, especially if you consider yourself a 'thoughtful' person. I can't imagine anyone looking for a heavy duty storyline full of mystery and suspense to really hook into the magic of Stoppard's writing. If in doubt, give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Speaking of surprises...as I was writing this I realised that I had seen a Tom Stoppard play - Rock and Roll in the West End. And surprisingly, I didn't like it. I felt it relied too much on intellectual banter along with political and cultural references that to a point eluded me.That's not the case with The Real Thing. All the preparation you will need is your mind.

The Real Thing
with Tom Austen, Louise Calf, Barnaby Kay, Hattie Morahan, Toby Stephens, Fenella Woolgar, Jordan Young
Director: Anna Mackmin
Designer: Lez Brotherston

New Writing Part Four: Polar Bears (Donmar 17/4/10)

2010-05-02T23:06:00.002+01:00

Polar Bears is the second new play of the current Donmar season, the first being the phenomenally successful Red by John Logan which recently transferred to Broadway. I'm not sure where to start with this one. Thinking about it there really isn't much to say, which is sort of how I felt about Polar Bears. Again, drawn by the promise of another production directed by Jamie Lloyd I expected to at least be entertained, and I was, somewhat, but overall it was a slight evening.

I've never read The Curious Incident of the Dog In the Night, the bestselling novel by Mark Haddon who has written this play. All I know it was a huge hit and as a result didn't really think twice about his first play premiering at The Donmar as all the productions are of such a high quality. I figured that there must have been something about Mark Haddon's writing that cried out 'playwright', why else would the Donmar take such a risk as they aren't known for championing new work? I have a suspicion but let's move on to the actual production.

For quite a while I didn't know what the play was about. I was intrigued, that's for sure. With a title like Polar Bears it could have gone into any direction really, but I finally pinned it down to a story about a woman with bi-polar disorder. Nifty. I like how he pulls that together. Then, from what I could tell the structure of the play was unconventional and seemed to be splitting audiences. I personally enjoy unconventional plotting and structure so I was up for the challenge.

The story itself is pretty straightforward - a bi-polar woman meets and falls in love with a philosopher, much to the dislike of the woman's mother and brother. I say, dislike because they aren't so much against the union as suspicious that the woman's disorder could prove too much for the man. So, how do we make this story more interesting? You start at the end. I'm all for that as it forms a basis to really explore the various characters needs and desires. Unfortunately, that didn't come to pass. We did get the ending first (I am now giving you plenty of notice by typing a very long sentence to alert you that a major spoiler is on it's way. Even though it's the first thing that happens in the play I still think that many would prefer to not know. - *SPOILER* the man confesses to the brother that he has killed the woman in what could be thought of as a crime of passion by pushing her down the basement stairs - *END OF SPOILER*).

What makes this story more complicated structurally is that it doesn't then go back to the beginning and trace the events that lead up to the ending, it replays events out of sequence. Normally I would have found this intriguing but in this case it comes off as a device for the sake of having a device. With such a non sequential structure I expect there to be a reason for presenting scenes out of order such as illuminating issues and actions in a different way. To know the outcome of actions prior to the inciting events should give those initial events a different spin. Not so with Polar Bears. I didn't really see any reason for the structure other than possibly making the story more interesting.

Actually, it's sad to say, and I don't like having to say it, but, one of the main problems was the central performance of the woman Kay, by Jodhi May (Blackbird - West End, The Talking Cure - National Theatre, Platanov - Almeida). Everything hinges on her actions. There wasn't any real extreme in her actions and her performance was just that, a performance, to the point that I could see why her man did what he did, and not for the obvious reason. There was probably a thought that by not playing th extremes we, like the the characters in the play, would wonder if the character really had a disorder. It didn't work.

The mother, Margaret played by Celia Imrie (Rivals - Southwark Playhouse, Acorn Antiques - West End, Film - Bridget Jones; Star Wars, TV - Cranford) is very clear in her warnings to the husband John played by Richard Coyle (After Miss Julie, Proof - both Donmar, The Lover and The Collection - West End, The York Realist - West End and TV's Coupling) that Kay's emotional swings are very difficult to handle and is continually challenging him in his insistence that it will be fine. The brother, Sandy played by Paul Hilton (The Wild Duck - Donmar, Riflemind - Trafalgar Studios, On the Third Day - West End, Mourning Becomes Electra - National Theatre) is also sceptical about John's ability to commit to what could be such a volatile relationship. These points are driven home through every scene that includes John with either the mother or the brother.

Theoretically this pressure that John is under is what the audience would be looking out for after knowing how it all ends. None of warnings actually carry any weight because we never experience Kay's extreme mood swings nor do we ever feel any real connection with either side of her personality. Everyone else does their best , with Richard Coyle giving the greatest performance, but without seeing and feeling what all the fuss is about it ends up being empty storytelling.

To be fair, even is the central performance was better I don't think it all would have added up to much. I looked into Mark Haddon's experience (his programme biography is very slight) and it seems the majority of his writings are for young people with only two being for an adult market and this is his first play. Polar Bears feels like a first play and there are a few parts - namely two extended monologues one from Kay and the other from John - that feel very literary, as if someone was reading from a book. The dialogue is handled well but nothing is very illuminating and I felt much of it became very repetitive. There was an odd choice of having Jesus Christ having a conversation with Kay and then having the same actor, still looking like Jesus, also play Kay's ex-boyfriend. This was an obvious deliberate choice which probably has more meaning but I stopped looking, partly because I find using Jesus as an obvious device that I no longer find interesting.

It was all directed very well as to be expected from Jamie Lloyd, and Soutra Gilmour's split level minimalist set really hits the mark but it's a shame that there aren't more interesting ideas and characters to make it a more worth while experience. Which lead me to think, why this play? What was the process for choosing this play to be part of a Donmar season?

The Donmar have produced new plays in the past - John Logan's Red, Frost/Nixon by Peter Morgan and The Cut by Mark Ravenhill immediately come to mind. Up until now the pattern seemed to be producing new plays by selected established playwrights. Polar Bears has changed this. From what I can tell, Mark Haddon has never written a play before so what was this choice to produce his first play at the Donmar all about?

I realise likes and dislikes are a very subjective thing but for some reason my dislike of Polar Bears didn't stop me from wondering about the decision to produce the first play by a mostly children's book writer about an adult with bi-polar disorder on the Donmar stage. I have nothing against children's books writers, it's, I'm sure, a very specific skill but how that skill translates into the ability to write for the stage, especially a world renowned stage, is a topic that interests me.

I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that show business is indeed that - a business. Of course, the creative aspects of the 'show' part exists, and it would be safe to say that most everyone involved in the 'biz' started out with mostly creativity on the mind. But to survive, to be able to feed that creativity the 'biz' becomes a major part of the game. And it is a game. It's a business, like most businesses, where you have to figure out a way to keep working, and that comes down to marketability, how much money you can make for someone.

I've never, in my mind, equated the theatre world with the world of show business. That has always been the realm of film and television. Why would I? Those involved in producing theatre don't make near the amount of money of those other two industries but there are the odd exceptions, Cats and Phantom of the Opera have made their creators very wealthy but that took years. Those involved in theatre are involved mainly for the love of theatre. You have to be in love because you can make loads more money in other fields, doing the same thing.

Because of this love I want to think that the art comes first, with a keen eye on the finances coming second. Finances are a major part of West End productions, it has to be but it still has that sense of love and passion lurking in the background (there are a few exceptions which I won't go into). Whereas the arts council funded enterprises have less to lose so the quality (the love) tends to be higher. Also with these funded organisations there are usually a team of workers, leading, guiding, suggesting, crafting and creating work of a standard that they feel is worthy to put before an audience. I'll go out on a limb here and say that their ultimate goal is not West End but sold out houses - an indicator not just of financial gain (sometimes) but of audience engagement.

So we have a culture that now bemoans the inability to reach theatre audiences with new writing, but that seems to be shifting a little. I think we are seeing that interesting writing can still draw the audiences and not just on the back of celebrity names. We are slowly building back a stable of creatives that are associated mainly with theatre and their names stand for quality - Mark Rylance, Rupert Goold and Michale Grandage have helped to create new theatre royalty, artists whose association with theatre alone can sell tickets. This is true for venues as well with the The Royal Court and the Donmar really gaining momentum. So, with all this power why would you take a chance on a new play by a new playwright who has only written, from what I can tell, only one play? And not a great one at that?

I think there's something going on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of. Is the money monster rearing it's ugly head in the off west end world? I could be completely wrong but someone seems to have struck a deal somewhere or personal interest has cancelled out common sense. I'm not saying that a first time playwright / successful novelist can't have their first produced but I question the stage on which this happened. Surely someone would have questioned quite a few things about the piece and maybe they did but if so, someone trumped them. Who and why? I think of all the great playwrights who are struggling to be heard and then I see this play that, though not bad and really not good either, get produced on a major stage. I don't want to believe that the deciding factor was the hope that Mark Haddon's name would help sell tickets. That would be a big letdown.

It's all very confusing - I know that the Donmar has an association with American Producer Arielle Tepper Madover (to be inspired - listen to her interview on the Downstage Centre podcast a few years back - she is the founder of the Summer Play Festival in New York. I wish someone would model something similar in London - Podcast is here ) and there are annual residencies at the Donmar from American playwrights associated with the Festival so why not produce one of their plays instead?

I know I shouldn't complain, it has absolutely nothing to do with me but I just hate to see real theatre talent get pushed to the sidelines. Normally I would chalk it up to 'someone took a chance and it didn't work out' but with Polar Bears something smells a bit fishy.

Tennessee William's Spring Storm (National Theatre 13/4/10)

2010-04-18T23:01:00.001+01:00

Breaking News! Tennessee Williams long forgotten play Spring Storm, on its first trip outside of the US has been involved in a serious head on collision. Miraculously, or predictably, it has emerged - unscathed.

This is a great testimony to the genius of Tennessee Williams. Here we have a play that few have seen and even fewer are even familiar with, in a production that if it were a lesser playwright, would have been dismissed as a potential flash in the pan. That's not to say that Spring Storm is a masterwork, I don't think it is, but there's enough of what Tennessee Williams does best to rise above, even the most lazy and uninspired of productions.

Tennessee Williams wrote Spring Storm when he was in his 20's, it was never produced. Interestingly enough it was written in 1937, the same year he wrote The Fugitive Kind (the precursor to Orpheus Descending) and then a year later Not About Nightingales. The play was found amongst The Tennessee Williams Collection in Texas and received it's first public reading in New York in 1996 followed by publication.

This production currently at the National's Cottesloe Theatre is Royal & Derngate Northampton's transfer of two seminal American playwright's early work - the Young America Season. Spring Storm is paired with Eugene O'Neill's Beyond the Horizon which admittedly I know nothing about with the exception that it, like Spring Storm, was an early work.

Let's look at the foundation. Tennessee Williams was an amazing playwright. His style immediately puts the viewer into a zone, the Tennessee zone. The plays are witty, clever, heartbreaking with astoundingly good dialogue and often tackled complex issues. All those points are present in Spring Storm, but make no mistake, it's not one of his best and it's pretty clear that it's an early work. Some of the elements don't come together. Some of the themes and characters he was exploring aren't fully explored - I got the sense that he wasn't really sure of some of the characters himself.

Here's the story, Spring 1937 in Mississippi. A young woman from a good family, Heavenly has to choose between local tradesman Dick Miles, a man below her social class, and the son of the towns wealthy family Arthur (who is Heavenly's mother choice for a suitor). There's also the dowdy 30 year old library assistant Hertha who also has a dream of finding something better as does Dick. Just from those descriptions I'm sure you can weave a story of how these characters might interact and for the most part that's where Tennessee Williams takes the audience. What makes it less obvious are the twists he throws in that make these relations much more complex, mostly to do with Heavenly's character.

Heavenly is a conflicted character, she wants to be with Dick, makes it clear to her Mother that Arthur is not for her, yet in his presence she shows interest in him. Because she's had 'relations' with Dick she has become the talk of the town. It doesn't help that she drinks, smokes, really enjoys that new product called Coca Cola and is not embarrassed about any of it. Arthur also seems to be conflicted, he wants to be with Heavenly or so it would seem, but makes a play for Hertha early on. Dick is more straightforward, he just wants to get out of the town and is hoping Heavenly would join him but will leave regardless. All very complex, emotional conflicts are poised to run high, however, what I have just retold I got from hearing the words, not from the individual performances.

For me, the performances were pretty much way off the mark. Here are a few examples. The opening scene has Dick looking down at the Mississippi River, equating it with his need to leave town and experience another place. As far as I could tell, the actor was looking at the ground and just saying the words. I never got the sense there was a river there. Tennessee's words did all the work. A few scenes later Arthur is talking to Hertha. He is retelling a story that could be construed as a pick up line of sorts, which Hertha asks about and takes his word that it was not. Later in the play, a drunk Arthur confronts Hertha at the Library. He overpowers her and she struggles then gives in. It's a violent scene where the overtones are rape. So, why does she give in? She gave absolutely no indication of having any feelings for Arthur. She would have if the actress had played the earlier scene differently.

Here's a good one. I'm going to set up a scenario - now think of what you would do in the same situation. It's late at night and you are awakened by sounds of conversation in another room. You go down the hall to investigate and turn into the room where you thought you heard the voices. You enter, see a family member and ask who they were talking to? Out of curiosity, your natural instinct would be to look at the various doors in the room to see if you saw anyone, right? Same scenario in Spring Storm. What does the actor asking the question do? Look behind him, at the door he just entered through. That really stood out to me - I thought 'you just came through that door, you know no one's there because you were just there yourself, so why look back to investigate?' It reeked of acting school scene work.

Finally the big laugh of the night came from the woman playing Heavenly's mother. She has a scene where she is trying to impress the wealthy Arthur and it turns into (for all of you familiar with this British TV show) Keeping Up Appearances fused with some Noel Coward comedy. The audience roared. I wept.

I wondered if there was any preparation made regarding Southern lifestyles, locales and accents (on the latter - there is a dialect coach listed but I fear much of the instruction fell on deaf ears.) I never got the sense of location, era or society. The performances were mannered in that acting school sort of way and universally, there were no real connections to the imagery they were describing (which Tennessee is so famous for) or the other characters.

I sat in the Cottesloe and tried to figure out what the problem was. Was it the actors or the director? As I tried to unravel the problem (also a bad sign that I was going through such a lengthy thought process during a show) and came to the conclusion it must be the director as it would be near impossible to find such uniformly poor performances in the same production. Then I realised that I didn't like anything about the production (my friend liked the shoes). I wondered if it was intentional to not have anything ring true or logical.

Director Laurie Sansom - also Artistic Director of Royal & Derngate Southampton, has included voiceovers (by a voice assumed to resemble Tennessee's) of the stage directions and scene introductions at the start of most scenes and most irritatingly, at the end where we hear - 'end of play. Curtain.' It immediately alerts you to the fact that you are watching a play. Was the director trying to tell us that the production should be viewed as something other than a finished work and we as audience members need to be reminded that it is just a play and no semblance of reality should be inferred?

If this is true then they've hit the nail on the head as I am hard pressed to point out a performance that transcended the actors ambition. In fact, they pointed out their own deviations from the original character description. At the opening, the voiceover introduces the main characters with a physical description. For the most part, none of the descriptions matched the actor playing the role. Gun, foot, shoot.

There is one saving grace. During the second act it dawned on me that this was most likely an early version of A Streetcar Named Desire with Heavenly as a young Blanche. This could also point to Blanches attraction to Stanley. In Spring Storm, there's a scene at the end where Dick, covered in mud, tries to convince Heavenly, dressed in white for a party, to go away with him. They embrace, getting Heavenly's dress all muddy. The image of Dick as Stanley Kowalski came into my head. Dick leaves without Heavenly and you could imagine her never getting over it - this could be transferred to Blanche's the attraction to Stanley as a Streetcar back story. I've heard this mentioned before but I had forgotten about it until that scene.

What did I get from my evening? Hearing and seeing an unknown Tennessee Williams play that although not one of his best was still enjoyable in that Tennessee Williams way. There could have been much more made of it, if only the production had been up to it. I long for someone to have a real go, if you cast extremely talented actors this could be amazing. I know all the reviews have been raves, I'm not sure if they are reviewing the play or the production. Either way, Tennessee emerges fit as a fiddle and the production - DOA.

BBC's Over The Rainbow (Fountain Studios 23/3/10 + 10/4/10)

2010-04-11T23:45:00.006+01:00

I got a strange reaction from people when I told them I was going to a recording of Over The Rainbow. I wasn't sure if it was because it has all those things stereotypically associated with musical theatre or the fact that it has that 'friend of Dorothy' element about it. Either way, I didn't feel it was anything to be ashamed of. I have always found backstage and 'the road to (insert production name here)' stories interesting. Okay, this isn't exactly as straightforward as some, there's a great deal of TV gloss and just a little bit of desperation about it all but I still really enjoy it.

Over the Rainbow wasn't my first Andrew Lloyd Webber in search of...recording. I was at two live shows for How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria? (once in the front row next to the family of one of the Maria's who I wasn't supporting and had to wave goodbye on that particular week - very uncomfortable), I missed out on the Any Dream Will Do - couldn't get a ticket, was at the final of I'd Do Anything and just attended my second Over the Rainbow. Strangely enough, for a programme that's seen by many as just a piece of fluff, it's been steadily in the news and has had its fair share of controversy.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?
The search for Maria in The Sound of Music

1. It made news first by being such a risky venture (what if the voting public choose a Maria that's not up to it?
2. As a safety precaution they hired seasoned actress Emma Williams to basically split the performances with the eventual winner).
3. Went under attack by actors equity about it's casting process.
4. Winner Connie announced she would be able to do most of the performances - Emma Williams then left the production as she would be relegated to a matinee only schedule.
5. Connie gets ill and blows her voice proving she wasn't as up to it as she thought.
6. The production went on to get wonderful reviews, make the producers loads of money and introduce many to the theatre.

Any Dream Will Do
The search for Joseph in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat

1. Contestant and eventual winner Lee Mead had been in the West End as an understudy in Phantom of the Opera which seemed to go against the productions intention of finding an unknown fresh face.
2. Joseph and The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat received so so reviews but still did great business and gets more theatre newbies in.
3. Lee Mead weds Any Dream Will Do panelist Denise Van Outen.

I'd Do Anything
The search for Nancy in Oliver!

1. Old Vic Theatre Artistic Director Kevin Spacey makes a public denouncement of the programme stating that he feels the BBC were promoting Oliver! through a 10 week advert. He feels the the same attention should be given to other theatre.
2. Oliver! producer Cameron MacIntosh and Andrew Lloyd Webber announce on the final programme that they feel contestant Jesse Buckley is their favourite. Jody Prenger wins and everyone seems uncomfortable.
3. Jody Prenger is given a great deal of preparation time and training including a short stint in the West End's Les Mis.
4. Oliver! has record breaking sales and respectable reviews.
5. SOLT - Society of London Theatre - announces the West End experienced it's best year ever and reality shows like I'd Do Anything are cited as a contributing factor.

Over The Rainbow
The search for Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz

It's still early days but...

1. None of the previous Panelists return fueling speculation that John Barrowman and Denis Van Outen (now pregnant with Lee Mead's child) were sacked.

Personally I feel that these programmes have had an impact on West End ticket sales. Of course there will always be naysayers stating that audiences are coming for the wrong reasons but I know from experience that this sort of thing actually works. Years ago ,one of my first theatre jobs was for a theatre that relied mainly on subscribers. When I started they were just finishing an extended run of Phantom of the Opera (extended as in years) which had made it's first non New York appearance. My job was to ring those who attended Phantom and encourage them to become subscribers. Initial thoughts were in the vicinity of - good luck - but I was very surprised at the number of people for whom Phantom was their first theatre experience and were very interested in trying others. There was a second smaller theatre that produced straight plays also on subscription and many, many people became subscribers in the smaller house. It's the equivalent of casting out a big fishing net, there may be a large number of fish initially but when you pull it in there will be a great deal less, but you just have to keep throwing out the net.

I wonder if the tag 'reality show' is putting people off. I don't get it to tell the truth. Reality show? It contains real people but does that make it a reality show? To me a reality show is something like Cops where the audience is following something that would be happening with or without the cameras. All the others I would call either game shows or competitions. If there is a process that pre selected people go through in order to win or gain something at the end then it's a game show. Look at something like Mastermind. Contestants compete week after week, with big winners making it through to the semis and then the finals. It is a long process and someone wins at the end. Big Brother is the same thing as is X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent and Over The Rainbow. They're just flashier than Mastermind or Master Chef.

Anyway, to the experience. I'll save you loads of detail but just pull out some interesting bits.

It's a very different experience seeing it live. Being in the studio gives a better sense of how the contestants would be on stage. You get the whole picture and are able to see and focus on what grabs you. I've seen some really good performances in the group numbers that the TV audience don't get to see.

If you've ever watched Simon Cowell on American Idol or X-Factor you will probably be aware of his 'when you watch this back...' phrase, usually accompanying a performance that everyone else thought was great but he wasn't so keen on. He is so right. On Saturday night I thought Bronte was pretty good and was very surprised when she got the least votes. It wasn't until I watched it back that I could see why she would have not been a favourite. I think that the one who wins has to be able to come across well on stage and on TV.

From the Dorothys that didn't make it, Teghan was my favourite (She comes across much better live) and I think the Leading Ladies (first show mentors Kerry Ellis, Ruthie Henshall and Tamsin Outhwaite) who were present during that first show which whittled it down to ten Dorothys, she was their favourite as well. After the announcement of the final 10 and the group was split into two, there was a short filming break. Tegan was very upset and all the Leading Ladies got her attention and gave her a private pep talk.

Both the live show and the results show are filmed back to back. It's a long evening especially after queueing for quite a while before getting into the studio. As with all of those variety type shows there's the warm-up guy, a semi comedian who gets the crowd enthused by making everyone stand up and dance, clap along to dance tracks and have to endure the 'which side can scream louder' competition. Unfortunately it's been the same warm up guy since I'd Do Anything, along with the same tired jokes. Especially wearisome was the tossing chocolates into the audience bit where he encourages a woman to catch chocolate in her cleavage in order to win a prize - this week, an Over the Rainbow mug. Anyway, part of the routine is to instruct the audience to clap along (and if you are in camera shot - as we were - they really want to ensure you keep the clapping going to look good). The audience is also encourage applaud high notes and interesting vocalisations. I now forgive all the audiences I've damned from the comfort of my sofa.

We spent alot of time on Saturday waiting while a huge Great Dane couldn't be trained to sit still. I think it was supposed to be part of the results show to tie in with the search for Toto. The dogs lead was tied to Lord Webber's chair and almost took the Lord with him as he dashed to his owner. Each time they brought the dog in they had to take away the podium with the ruby slippers. This in and out with the slippers prompted someone to let us know that the slippers are worth over £2000. They didn't say what they were made of but Graham Norton said they were a size 6, the average size of all the Dorothy's. He could have been joking about the size. Not really sure.

Halfway through the results show taping, the Lord whispered to Charlotte Church and John Partridge. He seemed to be quite upset. John whispered it to Sheila Hancock and they all seemed shocked. I think they found out who was in the bottom two which makes sense as I had wondered why Lord Webber never had the look on his face which comes from hearing such news for the first time.

There are three Dorothy's that I think would work - Steph, Stephanie and Jessica. All three come across really well live which is what I'm looking for.

If you want to apply for tickets the are still taking requests for the final three shows as of this posting - you'll have to register at The Applause Store.

That was pretty much it - oh, for the moon effect - the girls are not strapped in - just holding on for dear life.

New Writing Part Three: Word:Play 3 - Box of Tricks (Theatre503 30/3/10)

2010-04-06T20:20:00.000+01:00

Here we are at part three. In addition to the LPC evening the week before, I bought a ticket to Box of Tricks Theatre Company's Word:Play 3. Box of Trick is 'a new writing company committed to developing and producing the best new work around; discovering, nurturing and promoting the next generation of playwrights. We are drawn to plays that have an immediacy and relevance today: stories that need to be told, the voices that need to be heard.' (click the blog title for more)

Word:Play 3, as the title suggests, is the third in their Word:Play series where six new playwrights are commissioned to write a 15 minute plays based on a single word. This year the word was - obsession. I have never really considered the idea of short plays as something I would find interesting. I've never found short stories to be as fulfilling as say a full length novel or novella so I figured I would have the same sort of reaction to a short play. I figured I'd give it a go.

Back to Theatre503, a full house again (I neglected to mention that fact for the LPC evening) but the atmosphere was different. I was sure there were more people in attendance not directly associated with the production.

Unlike the LPC's Crash Test Audiences, Word:Play was unencumbered by an existing on stage set. The stage was bare with the exception of black chairs and tables carefully piled in a corner and a large collage of newspaper clippings on the black back wall, not entirely legible with the exception of certain words.

First up - Shove by Kenneth Emson, directed by Hannah Tyrell-Pinder.

'And I started to feel like I was about to fall. Like I was about to come crashing to the floor and this feeling took me over'

This solo piece explored the feelings surrounding a particular incident involving being in a crowd, feeling people behind you and eventually being shoved to the ground. At the time I couldn't figure out what the incident was but once I settled into that I enjoyed it as a meditation on thoughts and emotions. Simon Darwen was wonderful in the role and the lighting and direction very appropriate to the switch of emotions throughout the piece. Honestly though I think I admired it more than enjoyed it. I'm not a fan of solo pieces, preferring interaction between two or more people to spark my imagination. I discovered later through one of Box of Tricks Theatre's tweets that it was about the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 riots last year.

Next - That Dark Place by Anna Jordan, directed by Adam Quayle

Nathan can't find his pen. He wants to write his confession. Constance fears the repercussions in a small community. But why are they guilty?

For this this one was a mixed bag. I really liked the story - a man wants to confess to something he probably didn't do, his wife has been trying to talk reason to no avail. What worked for me was Jonathan Harden's performance as Nathan. I believed his obsession and he played it as quiet desperation as opposed to wild crazy frenzy. What didn't work was his wife. I felt that her obsession - trying to convince her husband that he didn't do it - wasn't strong enough. And going by the snippet of information about the piece, she is supposed to be obsessed with what the neighbours are saying and thinking. I didn't get that at all as she seemed to be a foil for the husband. Also, I wasn't entirely convinced by the dialogue, I have an issue with characters over using the names of the person they are speaking to - people rarely do that. But, great story and good direction.

The last piece before the interval - With (Toxic) Love from Anna by Elinor Cook, directed by Hannah Tyrell-Pinder

Anna's new to London. But she left her heart in Australia. A funny and heartbreaking tale of a lonely girl in a big city.

What I really liked about this was that it looked at a few different issues. Most of us, I would imagine, have spent at least one relationship waiting by the phone, waiting for 'that' call. Times have changed and we now spend that time waiting on our computer, connected to many, waiting for one. And while we wait we interact with 'friends' both real and virtual. Without realising it we are basically attached to our computers in a way that's far more personal than we ever could have imagined. With (Toxic) Love From Anna looks at a young woman from Australia, in London on her own who is hoping her 'boyfriend' will miss her and get in touch. While she waits she sets up camp in the land online and pretty much cuts herself off from any real human interaction. A nice touch was the separation anxiety she suffers when her laptop is taken away for repairs.

I enjoyed the immediacy of the content but wished the performances were pushed a little more. We understand the pain of waiting for that email or having your computer taken away for repairs which can leave you with the most desolate feeling but that sense of urgency, the obsessive nature of the situation was missing. We got the sense of the situation through the writing but the performance didn't push it to the level I felt it needed to be seen as obsessive. I have to note that I attended the first of week long performances and I suspect it got stronger through the run. All the signs were there.

The first piece of part two - Awake by Hannah Nicklin, directed by Hannah Tyrrell-Pinder

Flo is lost. So is Jon. A story about new ways that we connect, disconnect, reconnect and plug ourselves into the digital age.

I had a problem with this one. Although I loved the premise, a woman wakes up in a place she doesn't immediately recognise. The only other person present is a man who speaks with in a strange stilted manner. We discover that they are in an online game and the man is the gaming character the woman has created. Great premise but I suspect the author had issues with constructing a story around it. We get stories about the woman's troubled relationships with family but it never really goes much further in relating that to the gaming character and understanding how that particular moment is important in her life. To be honest, I felt it was a bit clumsy in the writing department and ended up being fairly run of the mill and the obsession part didn't come through. Pity because the elements were - premise, direction - there but the writing let it down.

Next - Struck by Love/Train by Evan Placey, directed by Adam Quayle

Sarah fell in love today. Before she fell under a train. But she needs to break up with her husband. One woman's journey to find true love on the London underground.

This one was a great tour de force. A woman on a tube platform observes her dead body on the tracks below as she recounts the many different times she fell in love while riding the tube. She had recently fallen in love with a fellow passenger and tries think of ways to let her husband know. This had a wonderful stream of consciousness air about it with some very funny lines and great observations. I really got the sense I knew this woman. We all knew that he was in a sad state but it ever ventured into pity due to the direction and the performance by Natasha James who really inhabited the character but unfortunately fell into the trap of speeding through some of her lines to the point where they were lost. As with some of the others this was more than likely rectified and I wish I could have seen it again later in the run.

The last piece of the evening - Safety by Marcelo Dos Santos, directed by Adam Quayle

Ben's new to all this. Mark's a grizzled veteran. Olly's in love. Someone pass the tea. A daring black comedy set in swinging South London.

The evening concludes with a bang. Mystery, sex, sleaze and ultimately love collide in a very surprising piece. Two men and a boy sit in a flat, one of the men seductively whispers in the others ear. We're not entirely sure what's going on but based on the seductive quality of the man doing the whispering, Mark, we feel it's something sexual. What transpires is a game of sorts. The other man, Ben, has answered an ad but we're not sure what the specifics were. We are aware that part of the deal was getting the boy, Ollie, who at that point is with Mark and there seems to be the added extra of domination. Mark controls the situation, taunting and instructing Ben, using Ollie as a pawn and prize. It seems like an almost straightforward transaction, Ollie moves from Mark to Ben, but it gets more complicated. Mark has grown attached to Ollie, something that moves beyond the parameters of their situation and Ollie has fallen for Ben. This could have been just a quick look at the games people play but it's Jonathan Harden's performance as Mark which gives this piece depth. Portraying quite the different character from his performance in That Dark Place, he moves from being the sexual manipulator, the dominant force in the transaction to the one most hurt by the situation. A very subtle shift. Excellent. Of all the pieces this had the most elements to navigate and it was all done beautifully.

Overall a wonderful evening. There was a great attention to detail, not just in the individual pieces but as a whole, no clumsy set changes here, they were carefully thought out and made the evening seamless. I've come away a fan of the short play, not only can they be great launchpads for new writers, directors and lighting designers but also as a standalone theatrical experience.

One thing I paid attention to as well as the LPC performances was the audience reaction - the level of attention, the applause at the end.We are all acutely aware of how live performance affects audiences and vice versa and I wonder if we as arts practitioners should pay more attention to this because it's very difficult to fake an immediate response. I wonder if this could be more useful than filling in pieces of paper.

When we are more willing to accept that there might not be an enthusiastic reaction during or after a performance then we all could be a little more mindful of what we put on stage. There will always be a argument for and against how much one should pander to the audience but that's not what I'm speaking of. Writers write because they have something to say, because they want to communicate something to an audience. Whether or not this is communicated will usually be felt on the night. Putting everything in place to allow audiences to have the pieces affect them is a good start.

As the two artistic directors of Box of Tricks Theatre were also the two directors for all the pieces I feel it safe to say that they chose writers and pieces they believed in. They worked on them to give audiences the best possible experience of the highest quality. They proved that limited resources does not equal shabby and thrown together and they've shown me the value of theatre shorts.

How about this? Until pieces are completed how about presenting a 15 minute self contained (ish) segment as a finished short work and then listen, look and hear how audiences react. If we want the audience's attention we must pay attention to them.

New Writing Part Two: London Playwrights Collective (Theatre503 22/3/10)

2010-04-02T23:48:00.017+01:00

Here we are at part two of my new writing month. I went to Theatre503 - the self proclaimed home of fearless writing and the theatre that was first to put on this years Olivier winning best play The Mountaintop - twice. The first for an evening of new writing from The London Playwrights Collective I figured that I keep going on about new writing and figured I had to make more of an effort to support it. I had been intending to go to Theatre503 for some time and when I went onto the website to see what was on I discovered London Playwrights' Collective - a collaborative supportive ad proactive community for writers. Taking chances is what it's all about, right?

When I first read about this one-off evening of new writing my expectation was to see extracts from new work. I figured it would be about showcasing four new writers by giving a peak at their full length plays. The fact that this ended up only being partially true was not a huge problem but I only wished I had known in advance what I was letting myself in for prior to attending, so I could get into the right frame of mind.

As mentioned, this was my first proper visit to Theatre503 and I have to say it exceeded my expectations. For those who have been to the Gate Theatre is Notting Hill, imagine the same with 10 times the amount of foyer space. After I collected my ticket I received a programme from what I believe to be the organiser. She let me know that there was a questionnaire and asked if I could complete it at the end. I had no problem with that but it sort of took me by surprise. For me to give feedback I would have to quickly adjust my head from punter to critic. I took a look at the programme which gave a good deal of information - play titles, cast lists with biographies, playwright biographies and a bit about the evening. Here it is:

'The Platforms are opportunities for the playwrights to go beyond the relative comfort of the writers' group an get a real taste of the theatre making process. More than a simple showcase, it is a crucial step in the development of the playwrights and their work both through working with directors and cast but most importantly by the immediate response of the audience.

These exciting platform performances are the result of a 4 month development period where our writers came together during specially designed LPC workshops, generously pooling resources and sharing knowledge in order to support each other in the creation of their piece. Once selected, the playwrights we given feedback and recommendations from the Theatre503 selection panel and got rewriting. They were then each paired up with a specifically appointed professional theatre director, who, through proactive feedback and dialogue, provided additional support in the conceptualisation of the piece whilst fully involving them into the directorial process. The directors were selected by the LPC artistic team out of the forty plus who applied!'

It sounds as if a great deal of work and energy went into the evening, but unfortunately I had difficulty seeing that work onstage, much to the detriment of the plays themselves.

The evening started on a promising note. The first piece The Inappropriate Conversation by Reen Polonsky, directed by Jackie Kane was a two hander involving an teenage girl and an older man. What I liked about it was the aspect of not knowing if these two were lovers. It was eventually revealed that the man was the girls god father but the girl obviously really fancied him. This story could be spun off into an interesting dissection not only of Lolita style attraction but, as was hinted at here, the differences between age groups. The actors were off book and although I found the performances to be a little stilted and actorly, not entirely convincing, I could still see see the play beneath.

Next up The Lesson Before We Break by Colin Bell, directed by Alexander Summers. Unfortunately I found this one to be a bit of a disaster.

This play concerned an elderly teacher who it seems in the past was convicted of a relationship with a younger male pupil (we sit through an interrogation scene where it is revealed the male officer knows the teacher). He befriends a young male student who is new to the school while he is reading 'Catcher in the Rye'. During a school assembly the teacher verbally insults a female student after she laughed during a bit about the holocaust. It seems that he had been forced to wear a pink triangle during WW2 (This can't be confirmed as we only really see him putting on an armband with the pink triangle). This young female student is 'inner city tough' and files a complaint in a scene where she, accompanied by another teacher, confronts the elderly teacher. She has knowledge of his prior conviction and threatens him with spilling the beans.

Along the way, this female student meets the new kid and tries to get him on her side by threatening violence, he is not interested. He gets a lesson in the 'Catcher in the Rye' from the teacher who dissects the books characters names - Holden Caulfield becomes - Hold On (with all that implies) and Caul - the membrane around a baby - blah blah blah. (I think Catcher has already been done to death). Finally, the girls gang beats up the boy and he goes to the teachers home for help. The teacher is afraid that he will be seen as having a relationship with the boy so tries to get him out. At this point the student brings up how he is scarred by his father being in Afghanistan. I can't really remember how it ended. Mind you, this was just an extract. It was very long and everyone was on book and there were a great many 'scene' changes which made it very difficult to watch and follow. Honestly, just two of those issues raised could make for an interesting play but it was all too much.

After the interval came Cold Hands by John Anderson, directed by Anna Brownstead. This one was partially off book, but I really couldn't figure out what was going on. It's hard to say whether a few scenes were shoved together to give a bigger picture of the story or we were just dropped into it. This concerned something about a cryonics laboratory. Here's the description - 'When the Director of a cryonics firm finds his business world shattering into shards around him, he finally confronts his won personal grief.'

There was something very cold and distant about this, as if it was written by someone from the medical profession. It got a bit too technical at times and I really didn't see the personal grief. Again, it seemed very under rehearsed and this got in the way of seeing the play. From what was presented on stage I didn't find it very interesting.

Finally, the best all rounder of the evening - Waterton's Wild Menagerie by David Bottomley, directed by Daniel Burgess. Here's the description - 'Charles Waterton 1782 - 1865, a traveller, naturalist and benefactor to the local poor. He created the world's first nature reserve at Walton Hall, his ancestral home. This extract recalls his encounter with a group of starving beggars and supposes what might have occurred had he invited them back to eat bread with him at Walton Hall.' Although all actors were on book, it never interfered with the story or performances. It was well directed, very simply relying on the actors to tell the story. It was also funny, witty and well observed. The only downside for me was that for an extract, it seemed to go on for quite some time.

I opted out of filling in the questionnaire. I considered starting it during the interval but I didn't have a pen and then when I had a proper look at the sheet I realised it would prove an impossible task. There was only a very small comment space for each play accompanied by a 'rate this' from two to five section. It also asked which of the pieces I would be interested in seeing as a full length version. Because of the presentation I couldn't comment on the play without commenting on the direction and acting. Did I not like the play because of the directing? or were the actors so under rehearsed that it showed the play in a poor light? I didn't know and there wasn't enough room on the sheet to explain.

Although the intentions were honorable I fell this was a good example of why some 'scratch' type performances don't work. I like to know what I'm getting myself into, how I am supposed to experience the evening. I was never made aware, as a punter, that I would be seeing such unfinished extracts. The plays themselves may have been considered finished but the presentations were so fussy, unimaginative and under rehearsed I felt the only people that would have really gotten anything out of them would be the playwright and those also involved in each writers writing group. In fact, I have the feeling the audience was mostly made up of those two groups and those associated with LPC. There was a very 'in crowd' feeling about the evening, as if they all knew what was to come and I was the only one out in the cold.

What would have made this evening work for me?

1. An introduction on stage to each extract - giving a small overview of where it fits within the whole of the play - finished or not.
2. Better rehearsed actors so not to distract from the play itself.
3. Unfussy direction so the audience could concentrate on the play and not get bogged down with fussy blocking and set pieces.
4. Allowing on side of an A5 sheet of paper for each play and a way to either send in your comments later or email them through.

I think LPC were trying to straddle two worlds by trying to make both playwright and punter happy. I can't imagine the average punter being that interested in seeing something so unformed. Although these were works in progress I feel they should have been shown as finished works with more time put into presentation. If this is what is to be expected from scratch performances I can't see myself attending more unless I am associated in some way.

I wonder if what's keeping scratchs from being an integral part of the process is how the writers view their work. This came up during my 'Devoted and Disgruntled' session. Either you can present something as a work in progress or as a finished piece. My feeling is that there aren't many people who are interested in works in progress but as theatregoers are aware that as with all types of art, things can change. It's all about your intention.

In the present format I'm not sure I will be attending another of LPC's evenings. Funny enough they waited until you arrived to let you know what you were in for. Unlike the description on the website, the evening had a title, it was printed on their programme - Crash Test Audience 2. Enough said.

New Writing Part One: Eigengrau (Bush Theatre 13/3/10)

2010-04-02T23:30:00.001+01:00

This past month has been heavily populated by new things for me. A new play at the Bush Theatre, two evenings of new writing and with the first of the two, the first time I had been to Theatre503. Add to that my finding out that I will be starting a new job in May (Marketing for Arcola Theatre - which now marks a self imposed embargo on Arcola blogs) and it all adds up to a pretty momentous month. My original intention was to discuss each of the three new theatre works individually but in my mind they always seemed to come together as three parts of one conversation so that's how I have decided to approach it this time around.

Back at the end of January, beginning of February I attended Improbable Theatre's Devoted & Disgruntled weekend where, using Open Space Technology, participants set the agenda. If you had a topic you wanted to discuss then you made it, titled it and scheduled it into one of the predetermined time slots. It was your responsibility to act as moderator of your 'session' and take notes as a record of the discussion.

One session I attended has a direct correlation to these new works and the thoughts I've had surrounding them. There was a woman who has been presenting her work at scratch performances for years and felt she was has fallen into a scratch circle. Can you scratch too much? I had never been a part of a scratch evening as a participant or viewer so I thought it would be interesting to hear if it was something I should pursue for my own work and if so maybe I would find out some of the pitfalls to avoid. The one thing that stood out for me was the question - when is your play or work finished and ready for a real production? This one went back and forth quite a few times until one of the participants - an Improbable regular - finally said - when you say it's ready.

That seems an obvious answer but it wasn't something that many had considered - partly because we are all used to having the 'powers that be' tell us when something is finished or possibly we as artists sometimes don't have enough faith in what we produce. Either way it was something to chew on.

Keeping all that in mind, I approached this month of new writing with the thought that all of the artists involved (as well as the powers that be) feel that, unless otherwise noted, the work on show is the finished deal.

Here is Part One.

Production 1: Eigengrau by Penelope Skinner at The Bush Theatre, Directed by Polly Findlay

Following on the heels of the stonking The Whisky Taster , to my tastes, Eigengrau had alot to live up to and on many levels if fell way short. I tend to have a thing about booking the final preview performance before a press night, the reasons being that for larger productions I can take advantage of a preview ticket price and ensure I'm getting the press night quality of performance. Also, I like to see things earlier on so not to be swayed or influenced by word of mouth and reviews. Unfortunately in this day and age, the press performances tend to be a bit fluid so I found myself surrounded by reviewers, the only ones I recognised were Mark Shenton and Lyn Gardner. Oh well.

For those who don't know, Eigengrau tells the story of two men and two women whose lives are intertwined. There's Cassie (Alison O'Donnell) a radical feminist and her flaky flatmate she found through Gumtree, Rose (Sinead Matthews - Our Class and The Women of Troy at the National, The Wild Duck at the Donmar and The Birthday Party in the West End), and on the male side there's Rose's city boy almost one night stand Mark (Geoffrey Streatfeild - Pains of Youth, The History Boys and The Bacchai - all National Theatre, Journey's End in the West End and Henry VI 1, 2, 3, Richard III, Henry IV 1, 2 and Henry V - all RSC) and his slacker flatmate Tim Muffin (John Cummins - A Stab in the Dark at the Kings Head, Edward II at BAC and The Beaver Coat at the Finborough).

Once all the characters and situations have been established, you can see how they will be interacting a mile off. City boy Mark has had a brief fling with Rose and runs into her flatmate Cassie the next morning in the flat. Cassie challenges Mark with her feminist views. Rose who has become obsessed with Mark, goes to his flat and meets Mark's flatmate Tim Muffin who in urn takes a shining to her. Mark starts fancying Cassie and it all gets a bit brit-comesque.

Going one step further each of the characters has a 'thing'. Cassie, as mentioned, is a feminist and is actively involved in the movement. Tim Muffin's grandmother has recently died and he keeps her ashes in a teddy bear shaped urn. Cassie is a flake and early on seems to be the eternal optimist but is revealed to be a bit psychotic in her single visioned pursuit of Mark, against all odds and signs to the contrary. And then there's Mark, the city boy. That's it. He's a city boy with all the trappings that one would expect - a bit laddish, a bit middle class with a dark side of liking to dominate sexually. No surprises there.

There's not much else to say about the actual storyline other than things happen and you can't really figure out why because they're never explored or brought up again. After a night of domination sex Cassie never speaks of feminism again. We learn that Rose has a history of not paying bills but is that a reason for her excessive behaviour? She refuses to see reason in regards to her pursuit of Mark, justifying every action in her favour, she debases herself by giving Mark the longest onstage blowjob ever (complete with the spitting out of sperm) to help secure their relationship, then goes onstage at a karaoke club and sings a complete song off key which concludes with self mutilation, only to bounce back at the end to her almost original self. And there's Tim Muffin, the only character with two names, (most likely for the humour factor) who we find out at the end has been devastated by the death of his grandmother. How that gives reason for his pursuit of Rose and his general slackerishness is beyond me.

Basically nothing seemed to add up. Yes, there were some wonderful comic touches and lines which the audience ate up but when you got to the end you just weren't sure what you just saw and why you saw it. At the end, two things came to mind - either the characters were poorly written or the director (Polly Findlay - Thyestes at Arcola, Romeo and Juliet at BAC) or the actors didn't assist enough in the creation of the characters.

Kind of sidestepping for a moment - I was working at a theatre in Los Angels during their pre Broadway run of August Wilson's Seven Guitars. At that point it was still a work in progress and I was fortunate enough to be able to sit in on a discussion between the actors a group of young people for one of the theatre's outreach programmes. They told the eager listeners about all the cuts that had been made throughout the production.

The actors performed the previous version of the script for quite a while but it became evident that the play was running too long and many of the scenes were dragging down the pace. As a result, there were some major cuts - mostly involving character backstory. Some of the kids wondered if the cuts made the actors work more difficult. The reply was that it made their work easier because although they didn't perform those scenes anymore the information that they imparted became part of their performances, they informed how the characters acted and reacted within the scenes. It was something I hadn't considered before and has since stayed with me. (Unfortunately to the extent that I have issue with seeing replacement casts for long running productions). Having that much information is a luxury and that the majority of actors (and directors) have to get that sort of information on their own. It may be difficult at times to figure out but I think it's a necessity to gaining well fleshed out characters.

With Eigengrau I would say the lack of fully fleshed out characters are a result of the writer, the actors and/or the director not realising that something was missing. The writer introduced many elements that were either dropped without explanation or not explored beyond one or two lines. There is the possibility that the actors had worked on their characters stories but unfortunately this work never appeared in their performances (with the exception of Sinead Matthews who gave a wonderfully heartfelt performance which in fact revealed the flaws of the text). If they had worked on their back stories then I would say it was the director who failed to realise that the physics of cause and effect were not in play here.

Physically, the space itself was just a small traverse with audience on both sides. With the exception of a fast food stand where Tim Muffin briefly works, four chairs were used in various configurations to determine settings with a shelf on one wall for the teddy bear urn to indicate when they were in Mark's flat. The scene changes were a little clumsy and there were times when I had to think a little too much about where the characters were supposed to be. It mostly wasn't as obvious as it should have been.

Afterwards, I thought about Eigengrau, not for the good reasons that stimulating theatre can do but wondering what determines a finished play? Does it read better than it plays? Who could have read it and not seen all the missing pieces? Have I missed something? Am I crazy? I don't know. The audience I saw it with laughed up a storm, I didn't find it funny. A little humorous but too obvious for my tastes. Most of the reviews were glowing but I did read one that had the same questions about not following through with storylines. It is almost a deja vu situation. It reminds me a little about a certain play I blogged twice that was pipped to the post of a major award. It's almost like the title of the play exclaims - eigengrau: the colour seen by the eye in perfect darkness. Like the character of Rose it may seem the world only wants to see the good. I can excuse alot but I love theatre too much to wear rose tinted spectacles.

Stay tuned for the continuation of the new writing discussion with London Playwrights Collective and Box of Tricks' Word:Play 3 at Theatre503.

The Sanctuary Lamp (Arcola Theatre 12/3/10)

2010-03-21T00:30:00.001Z

Here is a surprising gem. It's not what I expected but that's not a bad thing. Actually, I'm not sure what I expected but sometimes if you just dive in you can be surprised.

Surprises always abound when entering Arcola Theatre's Studio 1, you never know how it will be configured. For b*spoke theatre company' production of The Sanctuary Lamp you immediately feel as if you are in a church. The five or six rows of seats flank one long side while the other is half of a church interior, dimly lit - about six pews, a confessional, pulpit and the titular sanctuary lamp - with a smoky haze effect diffusing the light (design by Monica Frawley). There is also some wonderful sound design that hits you from the get go - a reverb, echo that gives the impression of being in a large empty place that continues throughout the production (sound design by Ivan Birthistle and Vincent Doherty). Subtle yet effective.

What happens then reminded me of getting involved in a good book. Harry (Robert O'Mahoney) an ex circus strongman meets the churches Monsignor (Bosco Hogan) and as he has nowhere to go is hired as a sort of a church custodian / security guard and one of his duties is keeping the sanctuary lamp lit by changing the candle.

Now, I didn't know what a sanctuary lamp was, it was discussed a bit in the play, so I looked it up, and to save you the bother:

'The General Instruction of the Roman Missal in the Catholic Church, for instance, states (in 316): "In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honour the presence of Christ." The sanctuary lamp is placed before the tabernacle or aumbry in Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, and Anglican churches as a sign that the Blessed Sacrament is reserved or stored.' - Wikipedia

As the confessional is now used a storage cupboard, Harry takes to using the sanctuary lamp to confess his problems with his wife and his once close friend Francisco as part of a small circus that performs for private parties. This is a longish segment which initially worried me as it seemed the pace and story were going to be very slow going. I wasn't entirely sure where all the talk was going and I had difficulty seeing when the actual story was going to emerge. However, like in the recent Serenading Louie at the Donmar, the longish start pays off. All the information given in that beginning makes the rest of the story all the more powerful because you get a sense of who the character is and what his station in life has become.

Interesting side note - both Serenading Louie and The Sanctuary Lamp first premiered around the same time, the early 70's, and although from two different countries, have that same aesthetic, the longish opening segment whose purpose is not to necessarily dump you in into the story but to set the tone, give the audience a sense of the characters lives. This seems to definitely have been of an era as I can't remember any recent plays giving that sort of breathing space, everything seems to drop you right in the middle of the action. It made me realise how the theatre has pretty much gone the same way as film.

Have a look at films pre Jaws, they were well structured stories with great characterisations which were not so much concerned with the immediate hook but in allowing time to build the scenario which makes subsequent events resonate even more. Post Jaws, box office became more important and so did quick hooks and thrills. To an extent I feel that plays went this same route. I guess it also comes down to talent - it's difficult to write expository dialogue that doesn't give you the feeling of reading a quick summary or programme notes before the actual story starts.

But I digress. A second character is introduced properly, we've seen glimpses of young girl. Once found by Harry, we hear the story of Maudie (Kate Brennan) who has also sought sanctuary in the church. After many tentative steps Harry gains Maudie's trust and she reveals her secrets, the reasons why she has gravitated to the church. The final piece in the puzzle, a man (Declan Conlon) looking for Harry becomes the third in the triad of people seeking refuge.

On the surface it seems rather straightforward and predictable. At least that's what I was thinking when in fact this is furthest from the truth. Based on what was revealed early on, I assumed many connections and events that never came to pass. It's a play that never goes where you expect and doesn't set itself up to lead the viewer down the wrong path only to throw a spanner in the works. What evolves is very heartfelt and genuine, dealing with the complexities of forgiveness, truth, faith and spirituality versus religion and church. It's never heavy handed and never absolutely damning of one or praising of the other. It never preaches, it engages.

Like Arcola's last production Heldenplatz, there seems to be an agenda, something that the author has to say for or against something. In Heldenplatz it was Austria, in The Sanctuary Lamp the church and maybe more generally - organised religion. From what I have read this play caused quite a stir when it was first produced. Seeing how explosive and anti-church ideology can be today, I can imagine it could ruffle some collars. There is however, a big difference between Heldenplatz and The Sanctuary Lamp. Whereas Heldenplatz seemed to be created to condemn and work solely on an intellectual level, The Sanctuary Lamp's ideology is born organically from the characters while engaging the mind and the heart.

Considering the author Tom Murphy has also directed this production, I find the plays ability to 'argue' it's points in a balanced way surprising and is a testament to why it works. More often than not, there is a loss of objectivity when a playwright directs their own work. That's definitely not the case here. Just the opposite. Like reading a good book, or seeing an engaging 70's film, I got lost in The Sanctuary Lamp and it kept me thinking for a good few days after.

Love Never Dies (Adelphi Theatre 8/10/10)

2010-03-14T23:40:00.001Z

First things first. I've never seen Phantom of the Opera on stage. Ever. I've kind of seen the film version, I made my way through it from beginning to end once, but didn't really concentrate. I tried it again but never got all the way through it. So, what I'm trying to say is that I came to this sequel without any baggage. Also, let's get this out there as well. I love Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita (seen the original American cast three times), Cats and Sunset Blvd, so there is no bias there.

Unlike some in the internet world, I didn't come to the show with any expectations of loving, hating or being indifferent to the production. I heard a few musical excerpts on TV and they were nothing to write home about but often songs written for the stage don't work as well out of context. So, onto the show.

Much of this will sound familiar if you've been keeping up with reviews. First off, on the whole, nothing moved me, provoked me, made me think, made me want to hum along or made me forget that I was in a theatre. That last one was a very strange experience. For 98% of the show, I was very aware of my surroundings, the lights, the proscenium...that's always a bad sign. It didn't suck me in and there are a few reasons for this.

There has been alot of chatter about the story - it takes place ten years since the end of Phantom of the Opera, and since Christine has seen the Phantom. Since then, he has moved to New York's Coney Island and is still obsessed with her. Anonymously he invites her to the amusement park to perform but unfortunately for him, she is now married to Raoul and has a 10 year old son. That's the story. I personally didn't find it a problem. What I did have a problem with was the script. Not only was very pedestrian it also, and I don't care what anyone says, relies on having known the story of Phantom of the Opera.

Coming to it as I did, I wasn't aware of how the original story ended - I'm guessing that Raoul and Christin were married at the end but it could have happened between parts one and two. I'm guessing that Christine had to choose between Raoul and the Phantom, who knows. I may have to give the film another go. Anyway, to script - as it stands doesn't start as a whole new story, it is just a continuation of Phantom. It's as if there was really long interval and we have taken our seats for acts three and four. I just didn't get the importance of all these characters to each other and as a result, I didn't get involved or really care. And it has to have one of the worst endings I have ever had to bear witness to. Not so much the story but the direction. Director Jack O'Brien (the amazing Hairspray, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Full Monty and Broadways The Coast of Utopia) must have run out of time during rehearsals to figure out how they should handle that scene, It was embarrassing and it had the longest death scene I can recall. At one point I was thinking 'just die already'.

I didn't find the music that enjoyable. Having said that, there were two exceptions - 'Dear Old Friend' from act one is a humorous take on reuniting with people you don't really like and 'Devil Take the Hindmost' from act two which explores that darker sides of the main characters. Other than that I can't really recall any other except the title song which unfortunately has one of those melodies you have to work at to get out of your head.

I was mostly disappointed with the performances and some of the casting. Let's start with the Phantom, Ramin Karimloo (Phantom in Phantom of the Opera, Les Miserables, Miss Saigon, Sunset Blvd). He has a majestic voice, as can be expected, however, now don't take this the wrong way, I thought he was a little too short. I had a difficult time believing he was this powerful force, the manipulator of all, maybe I was expecting the movie Phantom. Christine (Sierra Bogess - Christine in Phantom of the Opera, The Little Mermaid, Les Miserables) also has a wonderful voice but there never seemed to be any urgency in her portrayal of the love torn character. In an early pivotal scene, she meets the Phantom for the fist time in ten years. I would think that her reaction would be 'shock, horror, oh my god!', what we got was 'goodness - it's you'.

Of the other three leads I found Liz Robertson as Madame Giry (original A Little Night Music, Side by Side by Sondheim and Eliza Dootlite in May Fair Lady at the Adelphi) suitably devious although she was given some really dodgy direction at one point. Summer Strallen (Maria in the recent Sound of Music, Janel Van De Graaf in The Drowsy Chaperone, Maisie in The Boyfriend) as Meg Giry and Joseph Millson (The Priory - Royal Court; Judgement Day - Almeida; Every Good Boy Deserves A Favour and Pillars of the Community - both National Theatre) as Raoul were entirely wasted. They do the best with what little they were given.

The sets were nice, the effects wonderful, the evening - flat.

There's nothing much else to say but I would like to comment on all the hubbub that was happening on the internet during previews. I am of two minds about the controversy surrounding early online blog and message board reviews. First, I find it really sad that people who purport to be theatre fans would write a review of the first preview or any other preview and not put it into the proper context. We all know that things change during those performance so not giving the show a chance to evolve is irresponsible, hurtful and unfair. On the other side, the producers cannot expect to go into previews, call them previews, not discount them and expect the audience to not think what they were seeing was the finished product.

Somewhere along the way, I think that some theatre fans have taken a wrong turn. More and more internet related activity is reported in on TV and in the broadsheets and I wonder if the 'power' has gone to the heads of some. I hope that we all can remember why we love theatre and support it no matter what.

Exhibitions: The Half - Simon Annand / Theatre and Performance Gallery (V&A 5/3/10)

2010-03-11T22:00:00.000Z

'Whatever theatre actors do during the daytime, each evening they go on stage to give a performance as "somebody else".

The dressing room is a physical space that allows for concentration and privacy so the psychological negotiation between the actor and this physical character can take place.

When "The Half" is called over the loudspeaker backstage, it signals the start of a 35 minute countdown to facing the audience. There is no escape.

It is rare to see actors in this point in their work.

Over 25 years Simon Annand has been give unprecedented access to photograph this in-between world that the audience never sees.' - V&A Exhibition Introduction

The Royal Court Theatre tipped off its Facebook and Twitter followers to this exhibition about a month ago. Simon Annand has been one of it's main production photographers for years. I did a little looking around on his website and was intrigued at the idea behind his non production photographs. You don't need a trained eye to differentiate between great, average of poor production photography. Just think of what attracts your eye when seeing the photos in relation to an article or review. There are some that you can get lost in and make you want to see a show and there are others that, possibly unintentionally, reveal a production on a low to nil budget. Great and interesting production photographs are really important as they are the ones that get published in publications like Time Out and ultimately help sell show.

What separates a professional production photographer from the rest is the professional can shoot all levels of productions and get wonderful pictures no matter what physical space, costumes or lighting is available. What also separates them is the ability to identify and capture a specific moment with a production that can speak volumes - usually the actors expression or a subtle interplay between two or more actors. This ability to genuinely understand a production or more specifically actors is the reason why The Half, Simon Annand's 'in-between' photos are so wonderful.

I kind of divide the photos into three categories - resting, active and waiting. The 'resting' photos could sometimes be mistaken for posed shots. Two examples come readily to mind. There's a lovely serene photo of Obi Abili leaning against a black brick wall backstage at the Old Vic during Six Degrees of Separation. At first glance it could be mistaken for a fashion shoot but it perfectly captures a moment when he just happened to be leaning against a wall while mentally preparing for his scene. There is another photo of Christopher Eccleston with a cigar (see photo above) which could seem staged but there's something about what is going on behind his eyes that says otherwise.

The 'active' photos come in two forms - actively preparing to go on via makeup or costume which, although interesting to see, didn't reveal as much about the actor as the others, and the physical process actors engage in prior to going on. My favourite of these is of Ruth Wilson, I think from her performance in Philistines at the National, lying on her back on the floor of her dressing room, doing mild stretching exercises. The moment that's captured almost has a religious quality, partly due to her costume and the pose. Finally, I find the 'waiting' photos the most revealing. They could almost be grouped with 'resting' but there's something active about them although their physical pose is passive. You can see the mind working. There's a great one of Cary Mulligan sitting on stairs backstage during the 2007 Royal Court revival of The Seagull where you can almost see her thoughts.

There is another division beyond this. The photos on the three walls of the gallery are all black and white, covering productions basically from 2008 backwards. In the center of the gallery there is a temporary mount with all colour photos from recent productions - some just finished and a few still running - Breakfast at Tiffany's, Over There, Six Degrees of Separation and Annie Get Your Gun to name a few. These are glorious. The colour captures an added essence.

The final element of the exhibition is the moving image. There's a looped short film that gives a little background information about Simon Annand and (my favourite bit) a filmed 'half', backstage at the Royal Court during the recent production of Cock. It alternates between filmed images in the dressing room, and moving images of the same period of time. It then goes onto the Cock stage to show three of the actors doing warm-ups consisting of stretching and running around. It ends in the hallway leading to the performance space as they wait to go on. If you go onto Simon Annaud's site (click this blog title above to go there) you can see the video. There's a portion that isn't on the website, a slide show of more recent production photos - some are also in the exhibition.

If you love theatre or are just fascinated by what goes on backstage than you'll really enjoy this. Simon has a book also called, funny enough, 'The Half' which has been out for a while. Most of the photos in the exhibition are included with the added extras of additional photos of the same subject. The more recent productions however, aren't included.

If you have never been to the V&A or the Theatre and Performance Gallery you more than likely will have to ask for directions. To be honest, I was a bit thrown as I had completely forgotten that the V&A now housed the contents of the old Theatre Museum in Covent Garden. The exhibition itself has not been heavily promoted and the listing for it on the website and in their literature is not obvious.

Before I headed into 'The Half' I looked around the Theatre and Performance Gallery. It has a few interesting things to see with my highlightbeing one of the horse heads form the original production of Equus. Unfortunately, the entire gallery only mildly diverting and one gets the impression that either there isn't alot to put on display or there isn't enough space to put everything out so only the items that pertain directly to the 'theme' of a specific section are there - 'rehearsal', 'design', 'costumes' etc...However, that proved to be a bit problematic because the theatre items are interspersed with costumes and items from the music world - a smashed Pete Townsend guitar, Adam Ant's Prince Charming costume, an early Mick Jagger unitard (god he was small), an early Elton John costume (with platforms) and a replication of Kylie Minogue's Wembley dressing room. It must be a nightmare trying to tie all the various elements together and it's not an easy fit. Overall I would say it is very run of the mill and think it was designed as an general theatre introduction. We can only pray that Theatre gets its own comprehensive museum in the future but until then this is all there is but the good news is - it's free.

Nation (National Theatre 23/2/10)

2010-02-28T21:00:00.001Z

What took so long? I hear you ask. I had a £10 Travelex ticket for Nation back in November, but had to give it up when I took ill and wasn't able to make it. Well, I didn't really give it up but was able to bank it as a credit with the National Theatre. After this time I became more aware of the buzz surrounding the show - not really good. To be honest I don't recall anything extremely negative or damning but more - perplexing. As a result, I didn't rebook.

As the production continued into the new year I noticed more and more promotion with ticket offer popping up and I immediately thought 'that's not a good sign'. A week or two ago they made an offer that I couldn't resist - £5 for the best available seat. When I checked online I saw I could get a primo stalls seat in the Olivier for £5 I took the chance and booked. I figured that if I didn't like the production I wouldn't feel I was cheated.

Nation is directed and co-designed by Melly Still. I first came across Melly in the late 90's when she - along with her then partner, the then Artistic Director of the Young Vic, Tim Supple, were renowned for putting on the best productions at Christmas. These productions were revolutionary at the time partly because they provided a Christmas entertainment that wasn't panto and appealed to both children and adults. Grimm Tales and More Grimm Tales set the standard by which most Young Vic Christmas productions from that point modeled themselves on to some extent. These productions were based on stories or fairy tales that had somewhere along the way been Disney-fied. What they did so well was go back to the original story which usually included elements of blood and guts along with mild ribald humour and never shied away from presenting those elements to audiences of all ages. What they found was the young children were not only not scared by the violence but really enjoyed it.

Melly and Tim created true theatrical experiences - there was usually a strong storytelling narrative, with the actors narrating bits directly to the audience as well as scenes being acting out, as well as live music to accompany the action. Additionally they used economic theatrical devices normally seen in physical theatre productions that engaged the imagination such as using a large blue cloth, stretched out and held by the actors to replicate an ocean or large body of water. These were not just productions but theatre experiences and events held within the confines of the intimate Young Vic theatre space. If someone had their hand chopped off, you could see it wasn't real although there would be loads of blood but you were thrilled just the same. When the actors narrated the story or offered a brief aside to the audience, you felt it was intended for you to hear. The intimate space allowed for this wonderful audience actor interaction.

As I mentioned this model for children / family shows continued past the Tim and Melly productions - most notably in Dominic Cooke's Arabian Nights which has recently been revived - and has come around again full circle as Melly Still has gone 'solo'. Melly had a hit with Coram Boy at the National a few years back (it didn't do as well in it's Broadway transfer) and although I didn't see it I got the impression it had many of the same elements found in those early productions. And then came Nation.

Unlike those earlyYoung Vic productions Nation has been adapted by someone not known for adaptations or Melly's particular style of direction - Mark Ravenhill - who to date is best known for writing the controversial Royal Court hit Shopping and Fucking. That's not to say that a playwright should stick to what they're best known for, but you have to admit, he's a surprise choice. You could also say that when the National produced His Dark Materials as their Christmas production they were taking a very risky gamble by adapting a complicated and controversial book for the stage but as we all know now, that gamble paid off. I thought that Nation would be in the same vein, but alas this gamble doesn't pay off and there are some tangible reasons for this.

The National's Olivier Theatre is known for being a bit of a beast of a space. There's no proscenium which opens it up and brings in the audience to an extent but it's quite cavernous and its productions need to be big in order to fill it. Nation is big. There's a central 'island' which is also half a globe that rotates and three large framed screens behind it which are used for projections as well as providing alternate views of events through puppet work and actors on wires. Although I can see why they are used, you have to reach the rear seats, but it means the production becomes more literal.

During one scene at the start the now obligatory blue cloth comes out with a miniature boat in the centre to replicate a storm at sea. Behind it and behind the screens we see actors on wires plunging into the sea. For me it's a matter of having your cake and eating it too. On one level we have theatrical invention and on the other there's an almost cinematic experience. When this happens on stage I find it difficult to suspend disbelief and the pure theatrical elements just appear false.

On that note, there're dual elements in the structure of the play itself. I've never read the Terry Pratchett source novel but from what I understand it touches on many themes and is complex in thought. It's near impossible to ever translate all of a novel's elements to a stage production so what Mark Ravenhill did, which seems right to me, was just use the basic storyline - two young people from two very different cultures, both having lost their foundations - the girl, British Daphne, through a shipwreck which leaves her stranded on a remote Island with a boy, Mau, who is the only survivor from his nation - learn to communicate, grow up and forge a new nation. There are other elements thrown into the mix - the islanders religion and the ideologies of the Daphne's conservative middle class family who are searching for her. Unfortunately, I feel the Mr Ravenhill has tried too much to stay faithful to the book.

There's a sense that he went through and picked out important moments that would satisfy both sides - fans of the novel and the theatrical story. Ultimately what we get is a strong set up with all the characters intentions revealed and then a series of scenes and events that sometimes seem unrelated to the whole. I think there may have also been a fear of being too explicit in his dialogue, of having the characters state what is happening or narrate the story. Unfortunately in this sort of play, that's an important element, as there is a fairy tale 'moral' conclusion. The character arc is either missing or is not clear. We get a general sense of how some of the scenes and adventures contribute to the characters development, but when they tell us in the end (with some really bad dialogue I might add - many around me couldn't stop giggling) you have to wonder why they didn't let us know earlier or at least give us some sign posts. Under normal circumstances this would be a no go area but this sort of production demands it.

The old Melly Still /Tim Supple structure is there but the direct narration element is gone as was an attempt to incorporate it into the dialogue, which didn't work. There is one character that spurts rude comments and slightly comic asides - the parrot which is played by a human. It's somewhat funny but seems more necessary to break up the seriousness of the play than make any considerable contibution to the story.

Lastly, there is live music by Adrian Sutton (Coram Boy and War Horse) which is pretty unmemorable and sometimes turns into a little sing song by the natives of the island. Irritatingly so. It doesn't move the story forward or shed any light on the Islanders lives than we already knew. I think it could have been stronger without the songs.

Basically, it just didn't work. It looked great and the actors seemed to be enjoying themselves which is aways infectious, but it couldn't figure out what Nation was supposed to be - storytelling or straight ahead narrative. It fell somewhere in the middle and neither was strong enough to connect with the audience. I'm glad I saw it this late in the run (it's only on for a month more I think) because I know I'm not seeing a work in progress. Although I wasn't bored or clock watching (2 hours and 45 minutes!) it just wasn't engaging or clear enough for me to say I enjoyed it.

Serenading Louie (Donmar 20/2/10)

2010-02-25T23:00:00.001Z

Considering all that I've blogged about recently I have begun wondering if the main point for enjoying a play is memory - memory of people you've known or come across, memory of places you've been and times gone by. What I never realise is how much memory I've got stored up in my grey matter, memories of little things that come racing back when I come across a similar situation or person. Sometimes being reminded of incidents and people can be such a powerful thing that one tends to ignore everything else surrounding it.

Memory can also be a dangerous thing for artists when without realising it you have injected your art with bits and pieces of someone else's art - many times called 'being influenced'. There were many times during Serenading Louie when, for me, memories came flooding back and I was prepared to ignore everything else in favour of being thankful for a good time.

Serenading Louie takes place in the early, early 1970's Chicago, where we meet two couples, the men friends since college are now married and living out the lives they were expected to. Unfortunately things aren't going so well and it's not only their marriages that are falling apart.

On the surface this would seem to be a typical 'look at how our lives have run away with us' play but if you look closer it's about much more.

What makes this play a bit of a curio is that it's, like John Guare's Six Degrees of Separation, a play written in the era in which it takes place. As a result it never comments but just exists . To an extent, if you are not familiar with those times socially, some detail might escape you but that's a minor note as having that knowledge only enriches the experience not define it. Here's one example that come to mind. The two couples go to the cinema to see the film Deep Throat - which for those who aren't familiar, was the first main stream hardcore porn film, a huge sensation in its time that almost single handedly heralded a new sort of sexual revolution. This in itself is almost inconsequential as it doesn't have a direct impact on the story but it does colour it a bit. It's great having that knowledge but not having it doesn't change the dynamics of the characters lives as their issues are not solely based on what was happening around them.

Generally, there isn't a great deal that happens in this play, it's a slight story. The enjoyment comes form the fine tuned performances and the attention to period detail. Designer Peter McKintosh (Be Near Me, Chalk Garden - both Donmar, The 39 Steps - all productions, Prick Up Your Ears at the Comedy) has, I think, taken a leaf out of the Mad Men notebook and created a picture perfect replication of an American middle class home in the early 1970's. It's not the sort of design that one would immediately conjur in their mind when asked what a 1970's home looked like (if you were around then) as those memories tend to get jumbled with what you remember and what you think you remember. What he has done, at least for me, is bring back the actual memory.

Mr Mackintosh and director Simon Curtis (Otherwise Engaged - Criterion, Road and A Lie of the Mind - Royal Court) have worked some magic on the Donmar stage. There are two very specific moments in the staging tapped into memories long since forgotten. First, one of the female characters opens her bags and takes out her house keys. She gets a little impatient and begins jingling them. Sounds inconsequential, right? Not to me. One thing that I had forgotten is that American keys have a different sound to UK keys. You would never find chubb keys on US key rings so all the keys are smaller and lighter, which when jingled together make a noise, slightly higher in pitch. I hadn't heard that in years. Second - after the two couples have finished their post cinema outing at one of their houses one couple readies to leave. Now this will be difficult to explain but the way it's written is that the two couples are at the front door and have split into two groups - male and female. Each group carries on its own discussion which in itself is just idle banter, which happens simultaneously. While they are conversing coats are being put on along with all the accoutrements that go along with the party exit. Again, it was really strange seeing and hearing that exchange, it reminded me of the many times my parents entertained and as the evening started to come to an end everyone gathered at the front door with various last minute conversations. Memories.

What is also very interesting is wondering how many plays or playwrights author Lanford Wilson (Burn This, Talley's Folly, 5th of July, The Hot L Baltimore) has influenced. There are times when the characters directly address the audience - asides and brief inner thoughts. It works really well and although it breaks the fourth wall which is probably the intention, it's never jarring. This same sort of device is used in Six Degrees of Separation written almost two decades later. I wonder if John Guare saw an early production and that device somehow seeped into his memory banks? I also thought about who Lanford WIlson was influenced by. My first thought was Tennessee Williams. The opening scene between Alex (Jason Butler Harner in his UK theatre debut, numerous plays in New York and the films Changeling, The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3, TV's John Adams ) and his wife Gabrielle (Charlotte Emmerson - Therese Raquin, The Coast of Utopia and Baby Doll - all National Theatre) reminded me of the opening of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

Alex returns home from work and is besieged by Gabrielle, talking almost non stop trying her best to reach out to the indifferent Alex, in effect digging for for the truth. It's almost a monologue and very reminiscent of the opening of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with Maggie trying to reach her husband Brick, also digging for the truth. Is this a chicken or egg situation? One could argue that John Guare was influenced by Lanford Wilson who was influenced by Tennessee Williams. I wonder if it was an obvious choice or if the memories of the influential plays were so deep that unknown to the authors, they were unleashed in their own writing. Who can really say? I also wonder how the fashion world tends to all have the same idea season after season - stripes, long, short - is it cosmic of just stealing?

This is a great production to see if you enjoy great acting. Not the sort that screams acting but the sort that fully realises an actual human being. The two standouts for me were Jason Butler Harner and Geraldine Somerville (Power and Blue Remembered Hills at the National Theatre; Lily Potter in all the Harry Potter films) as Mary, the wife in the second couple. Both command the stage with a naturalness and ease as well as bringing the characters off the page with a simple gesture. Wonderful.

Also in the cast - Jason O'Mara (The Homecoming - National Theatre, Jew of Malta - Almeida Theatre; The John Simm role in the American version of Life on Mars) as Carl - Mary's husband. He plays the bruised sensitive male very well although I wasn't entirely convinced by the turn of events at the end as he portrayed them. Charlotte Emmerson came into her own with her final big moment. Like with Jason O'Mara I wasn't entirely convinced of her opening scene. Where it seems that the audience should at once find her a little irritating but also pity her, I found the scene primarily irritating. This still worked because it sets up the couple's lives and makes her husband's description of her a few scenes later all the more interesting.

I'm not sure if this is a play that everyone will enjoy. I loved it for it's subtlety and the way it built. It seems to be going nowhere in the beginning but as it progresses more layers are uncovered. It's a slow burner that provided great conversation after and allot to ponder in the days following.But, saying that, I also don't think the production would stand up as well without the team involved in this one.

My favourite from the play that says allot about memory - 'I didn't love him then, but I loved him then now'. Ponder that.

A Man of No Importance (Arts Theatre 16/2/10)

2010-02-19T23:15:00.010Z

For anyone who has ever had to put together and or edit a theatre programme will know trying to get all the information to fit within a given number of pages can be a real nightmare. You start with 'x' number of pages and little by little you fit in the various pieces only to discover you have two choices - cut down the biographies, which will usually upset at least two people, or increase the number of pages. That second option has its own set of problems as you cannot add just one page but two - four if you count printed pages as opposed to panels. You only needed about half a page to get it all in but now you have three and a half empty pages to fill. Oh the drama.

I bring this up because I find that programmes can tell you allot about the workings of a production. Not what's ultimately per say but the mechanisms that existed to bring that work to the stage.

I've never heard an actual reason for the importance, or not, of biographies. It's an odd thing, if you think about it, to read biographies of the real people who are portraying imagined people on stage. One could argue that it really shouldn't be important. There probably isn't one all encompassing answer to that question but many personal ones. For me, as a frequent theatregoer, I enjoy putting things into context, connecting the dots, recognising names from other productions I've seen. This would also be true for the writers, directors, designers and also producers. I've also wondered how those whose biographies are included view their inclusion. I suspect it's about getting that next job, selling yourself and quite possibly showing how accomplished you are. Just a guess.

Anyway, I aways buy programmes when I go to the theatre (with the exception of shows that I don't really like) and the A Man of No Importance programme was no exception. As I mentioned, I have had to put together a fair number of programmes - from the 'desktop published then colour photocopied and sold for about £1' variety to the more glossy. I understand having to cover costs and maybe get a little profit, as well as serving the audiences needs and this is why I paid £2.50 for the A Man of No Importance programme. It definitely wasn't photocopied, more a semi glossy eight page colour mini magazine.

Everything seemed to be there - basic cast list with the band and actor/musicians listed, a note from the writers, the list of creatives and acknowledgements. This is followed by seven pages of cast biographies, with photos, and two pages of creatives biographies, followed by four pages of ads - all with a direct connection to the originators of this production, the wonderful Union Theatre, the producer and the production. But wait, something was missing. It wasn't until I was attempting to relay to my friend the composers and writers other theatre credits that I noticed the information was nowhere to be found. Then, we were discussing the musical numbers and really couldn't go further than trying to remember the lead up scene or faintly humming what we could remember because the musical numbers weren't listed either.

From experience and habit, I instantly started reviewing the programme from an editing point of view and realised that the actors biographies were way too long. Generally, most of them really haven't done allot of work that would instantly ring a bell or sway a casting person, director or producer. It's a rookie mistake. First instinct is usually to try and keep your actors happy by including everything they submit but it also needs to be balanced by 1. reality and 2. remembering who the programme is for - the audience.

I bring up the rookie mistake element not to be condescending but to try and explain how I felt about the production. I didn't think it was a mistake to transfer this musical but I think how it has been presented in it's new West End home hasn't been fully thought through.

As usual here's the quick rundown. It's a musical based on the 1995 movie A Man of No Importance starring Albert Finney an here's a synopsis I found online: 'Dublin bus conductor Alfie Byrne is content reading Oscar Wilde poetry to his passengers and staging plays in his local church. But when forced to confront a lifelong secret, Alfie must learn to face his true nature and finally take a stand in the world. With a powerful story, lovable characters and a stunning score, A Man of No Importance celebrates the genius of Oscar Wilde, the boisterous streets of Dublin, and the bumps along the road to self-discovery.'

What I will remember most of all about this production is it's smallness. That would seem to be a contradiction in terms for a production with seventeen actors but I always felt it was far away, somewhere off in the distance. It's at the Arts theatre which only has around 350 seats total, so not a cavernous beast, I was pretty center around seven or eight rows back and yet the production didn't reach me. I could easily understand how it was so successful at the Union Theatre, it has an intimate charm to it. The production is filled with colourful characters, each individually carved by a very capable cast, however I felt it was being performed as if it was still in the tiny Union and not adjusted for a larger house with a proscenium stage. There were so many moments to treasure such as the eccentric amateur acting troupe preparing for their controversial production of Oscar Wilde's Salome, but they never took off the way you thought they should. This could have been a fear of going over the top but turning up the volume (overall performance) some would have been a great benefit.

The music on whole wasn't my cup of tea and without a list of songs I didn't have much to grab on to.There were two numbers really stood out. The first was performed by the character Alfie's sister Lily (Joanna Nevin) who, although doesn't have a traditional music theatre voice, delivered with great conviction (a conviction that many with traditional music theatre voices sadly lack). The second was a wonderful song, touchingly and movingly delivered by the character Baldy (Anthony Cable) about his relationship with his deceased wife. Other standout performances were by Roisin Sullivan as Adele the new girl in town, Jamie Honeybourne as Ernie Ally, the Amateur performer with little to no talent, and finally in the small role Breton Beret, a man who flirts with our hero Alfie in a bar - Dieter Thomas avoided cliche and turned in a very believable performance.

Overall, the music was not a favourite,it was just not my thing. The songs hardly ever felt like songs, more like dialogue that was set to music (but what do I know, I'm not a fan of opera) and it didn't make sense to me that so many characters could change their stripes, so to speak,in the last minutes. It seemed very - convenient. But again, like the programme, I think it was a matter of transferring a production from the Union to a larger house. The performances had to be adjusted and it didn't feel like that happened enough. From the few reviews I read before it transferred,it seemed the intimacy of the Union Theatre played a big part in it's success. I wished I had seen it there.

For the record, here are the writers credits:

Book by Terrence McNally - Plays: The Ritz, the Lisbon Traviata, Master Class, Love!Valour! Compassion!, Corpus Christi; Musicals: Kiss of the Spiderwoman, Ragtime, The Rink, The Full Monty

Lyrics by Lynn Ahrens and Music by Stephen Flaherty- Ragtime, Once On This Island

Heldenplatz (Arcola Theatre 12/2/10)

2010-02-14T23:00:00.001Z

I've always wondered what goes on in the mind of a translator. Not so much the translators that immediately translate conversations from person to person but those employed to translate a literary piece of work from one language to another. Do they intend to keep the English version as close to the original as possible or do they translate the essence for the original into a work that's accessible to English speaking audiences? Either way, I find translations problematic. I can usually tell it something was originally in a different language, as there is usually a stilted quality about it, an English as a second language quality about it. There's nothing wrong with that but there are always elements that are either lost in translation or remain obscure to the likes of me unless I've done some proper research in advance.

All of these issues lie at the heart of Heldenplatz. It's very evident during the first long, almost monologue (clocking in at close to an hour). As the play takes place in Austria and is addressing social and political issues within the country, it makes numerous references to specific locations and buildings. Without any knowledge of these places and buildings I could only guess at what the characters were on about. Add to that very mannered and stilted dialogue and you have what I found to be an impenetrable play.

Before I go any further I have to confess that I didn't buy a programme (which was also a play text) so I have absolutely no idea who played who or what the characters names were. For the record here are the actors:

Hannah Boyde, Paul Brightwell, Daniel Curshoen, Andrew Hawkins, Caroline Horton, Petra Markham, Barbara Marten, Jane Maud, Clive Mendus and Holly Strickland.

Also, I think it fair to give you the description (from the leaflet):

'Heldenplatz by Thomas Bernhard
Translated by Meredith Oakes and Andrea Tierney
Directed by Annie Castledine and Annabel Arden

Austria, 1988. For the Schuster family - intellectual, Jewish, Viennese to the core - the country remains as uninhabitable as it was when they fled in 1938. Forty years on from World War ll, irrational hatred, neurosis and decadence still reign.

Bernhard explore the shared isolation of people who have lost their bearings along with the most of their illusions. Condemned in his homeland when it was first released, the play delves deep into Austria's historic alliance, exposing the right-wing sensibilities of some of the country's most prominent citizens,'

Without going into too much depth, the play is divided into three sections. In the first are we encounter two female maids in the household of the recently deceased boss - the Professor. The elder speaks to the other about the Professor and her life with him. He seemed to have hated almost everything and was always torn between a home in what I think is the name of a place and not a household in Vienna (and funny enough even after having it repeated at least, no exaggeration, a hundred times during the course of the evening I still can't remember the name - the word 'Ibuprofen' always comes to mind) and Oxford in London. That wasn't a metaphor by the way, but how the name translated phonetically in my mind.

Also repeated was the fervidly polishing of the Professors many, many pairs of shoes by the younger maid and the ironing of a shirt by the older maid while discussing how the Professor liked his shirts to be ironed. The shirt would get folded, continuing with how the Professor liked his shirts to be folded and then the maid would shake the shirt out, iron it again, then fold it again... you get the picture. What else were they talking about? That there were still Nazis in Vienna after all this time and that it's difficult to know who to trust.

Scene two - three more people, two women and an older man, who are also throwing Viennese names around so I had to guess that the two women were mother and daughter as they were always referring to father and grandfather. I finally figured out they were sisters and the old man with then was their Uncle, the brother of the deceased. They basically talked about the same things covered in the first part.

Interval.

Scene three - the meal after the funeral. Everyone from the first act plus some additions were in attendance. The maids set the table and their presence upsets the equilibrium a little (evidently, the elder female maid was left one of the Professor's houses in his will and the fact he had a will was a surprise to many). The discussion? Pretty much the same as in the first half - with the mention of 'ibuprofen' so many times, a friend and myself had to stifle giggles. The Professor's wife comes in, making a mini scene, she hears the sounds of the Nazis in Heldenplatz square (which their home overlooks) then abruptly dies in her soup.

End of play.

Imagine sitting in a pub in a Country you know little about with a few people you don't really know but who know each other very well. These people have a few issues they feel passionate about, mainly dealing with relatives and their fellow Countrymen. Over the course of the evening they have quite a few pints, loosening them up a bit, and the passionate topics of conversation get more intense. After the fifth pint and the umpteenth time around the subjects at hand your initial interest in trying to decode their conversation begins to wane as you discover they are just covering the same ground, over and over. That's how I felt during the performance. It was interesting to watch in the beginning, but then after hearing the same thing five, six, seven times I lost interest and began thinking of ways to make it shorter.

As you can probably tell, I didn't get very much out of it. I get the feeling this play is very much in a German tradition of playwriting of some sort. For me it had echos of Chekhov and I think there were echos of other literary traditions that I just didn't get.

Finally, the translation. Going back to what I said in the beginning, it seemed that the translators were very faithful to the original German. Was that wise? For me no. Or possibly yes. It depends on the audience. I guess there would have been only two choices in the matter - translate it as faithfully as possible or throw in a few things that would make it more understandable to the layman. Either way I feel to fully enjoying Heldenplatz would have required a good knowledge of Vienna, it's history, some German, classic literature and drama on a semi academic or 'really a big fan' level, or extensive notes in a programme. I don't really think that much studying should be done to enjoy a play unless the evening is being promoted as a form of theatre new to these shores. If the latter were true you would know what you were letting yourself in for and would take tit upon yourself to get clued up before attending. Otherwise, you could be, like me a little lost in translation.

The Whisky Taster (Bush Theatre 10/2/10)

2010-02-12T00:05:00.001Z

We've struck gold!

Let's be honest, there aren't many of us theatregoers who will take many chances on untried, untested theatre i.e. hasn't played regionally or at Edinburgh (translation - doesn't come with reviews). Other than knowing someone involved there has to be something about the play that catches the imagination and usually it's just the marketing description. Never dismiss the power of the description. Here is the one for The Whisky Tasters:

'Barney and Nicola are advertising wonder kids. They win accounts with wit, charm and a secret weapon - Barney's ability to feel, smell and taste colours, and to translate these sensations into words.

Lately Barney had been finding things way too colourful and wished his full throttle London life was more black and white, but Nicola is hell bent on winning accounts at all costs.

When the two hire an old Scottish Whisky Taster to help them with a new campaign, his strange wisdom slows the Londoners to a stop, just as the deadline looms.'

Now, to me that sounded really interesting and pair that with the urge to take a chance I booked. Luckily enough I didn't revisit the description so when I was finally settled in my seat at the Bush I was completely open to what was going to happen on stage, completely unencumbered by preconceived thoughts. This was a good thing because ultimately what happened was allot bigger than any description could ever capture on a leaflet.

What else did I get? Characters that are at once bigger than life and entirely recognisable with uniformly knockout performances, a script that mines the curiosities of personal and work relationships, and direction that understands the writers style and transfers that understanding to all the plays many detailed elements to create what I feel was one of the most wholly enjoyable evenings I've spent in the theatre.

Let's break it down. The performances. Amazing. I was only familiar with two of the actors - Samuel Barnett (Olivier and Tony nominated as Posner in The History Boys - and on film) and Simon Merrells (recently seen as the lead in On the Waterfront at the Theatre Royal Haymarket). Samuel plays Barney, the one with the special talent and Simon is his boss. I saw The History Boys twice at the National and remember Samuel Barnett very well. I thought he was really good but wasn't entirely sure why he was singled out so often as being exceptional. Close up at the Bush it's evident why. His character is not the funniest of the lot and is not supposed to be, but he delivers a finely drawn performance as a young man not willing to let go. We feel every twist and turn his character goes through. Also, he has the ungodly difficult task of letting us, the audience, see and feel what it's like to feel smell and taste colours. You try it.

Simon Merrells delivers an hilarious performance as his overly expressive boss. There are hints of Ricky Gervais in The Office but they are only hints.

There are three other actors - Chris Larkin, John Stahl and Kate O'Flynn. Chris Larkin (The Lady from Debuque,TR Haymarket; His Dark Materials, National Theatre; Midsummer Night's Dream / Much Ado About Nothing, Open Air Regents Park) as Christopher the client, turns in a very subtly funny performance that will seem very familiar to anyone who has had to pitch to a client, John Stahl (Othello, The Globe; The Crucible, RSC; The Weir, Royal Court) is the Whisky Taster and is suitably enthusiastic, obsessed and mysterious and finally, what could be my discovery of the year Kate O'Flynn (A Miracle, Royal Court; House of Special Purpose, Chichester) as Nicola. She turns in a stonkingly amazing performance. From the get go, she inhabits her Croydon native character with such gusto and humour that you immediately warm to her. She allows us to see all sides to her character - gutsy, funny, strong, determined and driven as well as the tender, insecure and vulnerable side. It's true tour de force. In one scene she leaves in a huff then reenters and while standing still, a single real tear falls from her eye, it was magical. She spoke volumes without saying a word or indicating her emotions. It was very powerful.

Of course non of these performances would have been possible without a wonderful script by James Graham (Eden's Empire, Finborough Theatre; Tory Boyz, Soho Theatre; suddenlossofdignity.com, The Bush). He has a very keen ear for dialogue and infuses his characters conversations with current cultural references. I like the way his mind works. Throughout his story we get the pleasure of hearing a debate on what was better to watch as a youth - CBBS or CiTV, finding out how whiskey is made and hearing more about the London tube map than I knew before. It may sound dry but these various elements are intricately sewn into the whole, it really is a tapestry of characters and ideas and it never gets out of control. All the elements have a very specific reason for being there and as a result the characters are as rich as the whisky of the title.

Extra special mention to director James Grieve (Artefact, The Bush, National Tour, Off Broadway; Comfort, Old Vic New Voices 24 Hour Plays; The List, Arcola; and Associate Director of the Bush and recently appointed Artistic Director for Paines Plough).

This is always a difficult one for me. I connected with his style. There are certain directors whose 'style' I immediately connect with and I am not sure if I can get the 'why' across. For me it's about how the actors interact with each other, how they deliver the dialogue and get across the plays ideas and elements. Anything too showy or 'unauthentic' and I tend to shy away. This play has alot of quickfire dialogue, sometimes heavy with ideas and thoughts. Characters cut each other off and often react and comment without saying a word. Of course much of this comes from the actors but it's the director that keeps it all on track and ensures that what happens on stage remains true to the story and style of the playwright. James Grieve does all the above, with panache, and I will be seeing more of his work.

My last mention will be the designer Lucy Osbourne who has actually found a way to immerse the audience in the felling and colours that Barney experiences.

I really can't say enough good things about The Whisky Taster. It was quite full the night I saw it and I couldn't help but think that it should have been packed out. From what I could tell the audience, pretty much loved it and many dashed out during the interval and after the performance to buy a play text. I think that's a great testiment to the writing.

If you are in London or can be here before the the end of February I strongly urge you to get a ticket. You don't want to be that person who will have to regret, out loud, to all those who were fortunate enough to see The Whisky Taster ' I really wish I saw that'. You have until the 27th of February. I took the chance and struck gold.

Six Degrees of Separation (Old Vic 8/2/10)

2010-02-09T23:35:00.000Z

I've always loved John Guare's Six Degrees of Separation. I read it long before I finally saw the production, oh so many years ago. It was in LA, the touring version with Marlo Thomas as matriarch Ouisa ('wee-zah') the role made famous on Broadway by Stockard Channing who later reprised the role in the original London production. I enjoyed that version but it didn't really hit me as I thought it would. Possibly because I had read it so much my vision of the performances overshadowed what I witnessed on stage.

A few years later we all had the opportunity to see Stockard Channing play Ouisa when the film version was released. Filming this play was always going to be difficult prospect as the structure is very theatrical in it's presentation. As a result it didn't transfer well. What also didn't transfer well was the central performance by Will Smith as Paul. I have always been bemused at the laudits bestowed upon his performance as it was just not right (I always thought the critics and the public were actually saying that they loved Will Smith attempting serious drama).

The role of Paul is the hook upon which everything else must hang and I am very pleased to report that in this Old Vic production, Obi Abili excels. He has not only managed to find all the nuances of character but has the acting chops to make the character his own. Paul is a very complex character and to play it well you have to play all your cards very close to your chest and be absolutely convincing with each card you reveal. I more than anyone, am surprised to be saying that, especially since he was the one reason I originally didn't want to see this production. I had seen Obi in the recent-ish production of Angels in America (one of my all time favourites) at the Lyric Hammersmith and I wasn't impressed with his performance - at all. (see my post of Prick up Your Ears for more on this and it's director Daniel Kramer).

For those of you who aren't familiar with Six Degrees of Separation I'll give you a quick rundown of the story - but will leave out some of the developments that I think are best left to discover for yourselves.
John Guare's play is loosely based on an actual situation where a con man, pretending to be the son of a famous actor, swindled some wealthy New Yorkers out of money. I say loosely based because Six Degrees of Separation delves into the relationships between all involved parties, notably the parents and their children. The main couple are Ouisa (Lesley Manville - All about My Mother, Old Vic; Pillars of the Community and His Dark Materials, National Theatre) and her husband Flan (Anthony Head - Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer; Rope and Chess in the West End) unconventional Manhattan art dealers who are all consumed with the next big art deal and maintaining their wealthy existence. Into the story comes Paul, a friend of their children who are away at college and who may be too good to be true.

One thing I love about this play is how its formed and structured. We enter the story directly after a disturbing event where Ouisa and Flan think they have been robbed. It then moves back to the events leading up to that moment and then moves forward to what happens after. Ouisa and Flan also directly address the audience in a manner in keeping with how they relate to each other, stopping and correcting the other. Like with the recent Midsummer: a play with songs, I have never been a fan of this technique but in certain circumstances (Midsummer and this play) it works a charm. Mainly because it furthers the story and helps develop the characters. It's also useful for stories that span a great length of time. In Six Degrees, it's used sparingly but to great effect.

Lesley Manville is wonderful as Ouisa and Anthony Head is really good as Flan. In fact, all the performances are good. I have been asked if it's a three actor play. Not at all. In total it's a cast of sixteen, and they are all wonderful. This is a somewhat stylised play that requires sometimes heightened versions of reality - such as Ouisa and Flans children and their friends. Each character is wonderfully delineated and no one slips into stereotype (and have really good American accents).

I had a concern going in that this play, which was written in and takes place in the late 1980's, might not hold up in 2010. There are elements that are definitely of that time - technology of course, and cultural references - most notably to the musical Cats - but director David Grindley (Philanthropist, Donmar; Some Girls and Journeys End, West End) has wisely retained the late 1980's setting and it doesn't come across as a period piece.

I may sound a bit vague about this play but as I mentioned before, there are many little elements which though not a huge 'shock' surprise (except one - and the little touch of wearing a condom was genius) I feel not knowing what is going to happen or where the story is going will only add to the enjoyment. It's a little like a detective story as more and more elements and details are uncovered as you go along. I think that many feel they should be moved by the various stories and situations that crop up but I don't feel that's true. It works mainly on an intellectual level, in that it deals with the subjects of race, family, parenting, wealth, sexuality and trust, but that's not to say that it has it's emotional elements as well. A I think it's well worth seeing and you would be hard pressed to find many plays as well structured and written as this. I don't like seeing the joins when I go to the theatre and I find this seamless. But of course, there are two sides to every story.

Addendum: The Little Dog Laughed (Garrick Theatre)

2010-02-07T00:05:00.010Z

When The Little Dog Laughed performances were announced with Jamie Lloyd directing I opted to buy a ticket independently instead of attending the what I assumed to be scheduled, Whatsonstage.com outing. These outings usually cost less, include more and have an exclusive post performance discussion. The reason I didn't wait was I figured, based on previous experiences, that Jamie Lloyd would not be attending. Imagine my surprise when I saw the partial transcription of the WOS Outing Post Performace discussion that Mr Lloyd was there after all. Oh well. That aside, I was still able to read about his experience with the play and get some insight into its origins.

In my original The Little Dog Laughed blog I wrote that I felt the impetus for writing the play came from an anger at Hollywood. At least that's how it felt to me. What I have now learned is the story came from writer Douglas Carter Beane's original idea to write about the experiences of a New York rent boy. The fleshing out of that story, so to speak, moved on to include a closeted politician (which evolved into the agent played by Tamsin Greig) and eventually became the current story with the closeted Hollywood star.

I don't know if this changes anything for me. It's always interesting to hear directors and actors talk about the process of developing performances and too often I find myself sliding along with them into the land of justification when I do. Hearing the 'whys' always makes sense in terms of process but outcome is another matter entirely. I tend to second guess myself, thinking I must have missed something or just didn't 'get it' - whatever the 'it' is.

After all is said and done I still get the issues presented in The Little Dog Laughed and I think it's an interesting subject to explore. The origins are simply an interesting side note that I wanted to clarify but I still don't feel it gives the audience enough to care about.

(click the title to go the Whatsonstage The Little Dog Laughed page)

Midsummer: a play with songs (Soho Theatre 4/2/10)

2010-02-06T22:53:00.003Z

At last! Against all odds here's a play (with songs) that defies expectation. A play about 'relationships' between a man and a woman, with occassional songs accompanied only by acoustic guitar that actually works. It works because it never falls into the trap of being cute, overly sentimental or most importantly predictable.

It was more than likely that I would have passed this one up as I do with with many Edinburgh Festival transfers (of which this is one - later than usual). The idea of a two person play about relationships with the addition of music conjured in my mind sweet 'knowing' interchanges between the two characters punctuated with gentle folksy guitar strumming. Not really my thing but, I was strongly urged by a friend at work to go and as is the case, again, I'm really glad I did.

It's a difficult production to explain because if you just state the basics it sounds like a million things you've seen before - a man and a woman meet in a bar and embark on what may or may not be a lasting relationship as they try to come to terms with reaching their mid thirties. But, and that's a big but, it's done in such a clever and fresh way that the end result stands heads and shoulders above anything else in the same genre.

Sure, it treads familiar territory but it's the flourishes of reality that give it punch and bite. It's not afraid to go places many wouldn't dare to even recall except to their closest friends. Here's an example: there's a great scene early on when the pair agree to get extremely drunk and have sex (so they wouldn't remeber the encounter the next morning). While having sex (and it is sex, not lovemaking) the audience is privy to their inner thoughts which inhibit their performance. The man - Bob (Matthew Pidgeon - The Wonderful World of Dissocia, National Theatre; The Lying Kind, Royal Court and the film The Winslow Boy) keeps having to remind himself to concentrate on the act and not let his mind wander while the woman - Helena (Cora Bissett - Electra, Gate Theatre London; Caledonian Road, Almeida Theatre) is also having a difficult time concentrating and realises she isn't being pleasured so figures she will have to fake her moans of pleasure. The next day as she arrives hungover at her sisters wedding to be a bridesmaid, she throws up on the steps to the cathedral and ends up drawing so much negative attention she has to flee. This is not your typical love story, in fact, I wouldn't really call it a love story at all as it is more concerned with looking at emotional attraction and what brings people together.

Throughout the rest of the 100 minute play we are taken on a car swindle deal, a big night out which includes getting tied up with ropes by a Chinese bondage expert (the outcome is meant to be psychological not sexual) and a foot chase as Bob goes on the lam, running from some heavies he's done a deal with. All this is punctuated by the ocsssional song, some touching in their simplicity and others very funny - like the 'if my hangover was a city - it would be Belgium'. For me, the music works because the songwriter (Gordon McIntyre - a member of the band ballboy) has as his musical references bands like The Jesus And Marychain (the character Bob is looking to busk around Europe singing Jesus and Marychain songs) so they never get too cloying and sweet, staying away from faux folk. Also, Cora and Matthew are great singers, not vocal 'powerhouses' a la Cion Dionne and the like (thank god), but real, emotional singers with good voices.

I was a little worried during the first five minutes or so because the characters directly address the audience and that's not my thing. I always figure that if you can't incorporate that information then why bother. However, I soon realised that I was getting information that added and enhanced the story. It's another example of how clever Midsummer is in using convention and making it work. Big thumbs up to writer and director David Greig (responsible for the amazing adaptation of Albert Camus' Caligula at the Donmar starring Michael Sheen in 2003) who has written a wonderful piece that doesn't draw any easy conclusions and keeps all the various elements and stories flowing so effortlessly with his direction. Funny enough I hadn't bought a programme so I was in the dark or a while about who was involved and had assumed that Midsummer was written and directed by real life couple Cora Bissett and Matthew Pidgeon based on their own experiences. Imagine my suprise when I discovered that not only did they not write or direct it but are not a real life couple. I think that's testiment enough.

Side note: Unfortunately, as I write this, it's the final performance of Midsummer at Soho Theatre. If I get any information about additional performances at Soho or elsewhere then I'll post it here.

Jerusalem (again) (Apollo Theatre 1/2/10)

2010-02-02T21:40:00.000Z

I went back for more although I wasn't impressed the first time. An opportunity arose to see it again without anything to lose (but time). So, I went for it and to be honest, there were some extenuating circumstances that clouded my first viewing and I wanted to be sure I gave it a fair shot, especially after it has been praised to the skies as the best play of the previous decade.

Here were the extenuating circumstances. I was dead centre in the first row (finances) and as many of you may already be aware, the Jerusalem set has really brought the outdoors in - real grass, real trees. Add to that a huge caravan and a large cast and I wondered if I was too close, I could smell the fertiliser and watch tiny flying insects just above the grass. Second, I had a bit of a hunger issue on that day which manifested itself as tummy rumbles. Nothing to be embarrassed about - unless you are dead centre in the front row and the actors are performing a quiet scene three feet away (act 3). So, to try and alleviate the systems I was squirming a a bit and trying to apply, covert pressure on the areas where I thought the rumblings were coming from. Needless to say, my concentration waned. Lastly I distinctly remember getting double vision, the kind you get when you are over tired and are trying at all costs to keep your eyes open. So, I figured by eating before the performance, ensuring I wasn't tired, and not sitting in the front row, I could eliminate all those obstacles which lead me to not enjoy it the first time. What did I learn from all that preparation? Those external obstacles were not the problem.

While watching it this time, I realised the Jerusalem is like watching an extended version of a TV sketch show. I think there's an argument there. Most TV sketch shows (think Little Britain and to a greater extent The Catherine Tate Show) have recurring characters. What sketch shows don't do is expand those characters into fully realised people, because, that wouldn't be funny. That's not what we watch them for. We want the quick, clever comedy that comes from obvious character traits - an immediate level of recognition.

In Jerusalem, just like a really good sketch show, the razor sharp dialogue comes fast and furious, one funny line after another - one put down after another - one funny situation after another - one too many after another. It's relentless and repetitive (like sketch shows when the character has outstayed their welcome). What we learn from a few exchanges is repeated in various forms, numurous times. Indeed, it's a laugh fest - for a while - but then each successive exchange gets more and more obvious. It seems like I'm digressing but I'm just trying to plant an image in your head so if I say that playwright Jez Butterworth is a great sketch show writer you will understand where I'm coming from.

It must have been hard work for the actors, each trying to make their character an individual but, no matter how much work they put into it, they will remain stock characters, enitrely interchangeable. At the Royal Court, their version of a programme is the playtext which I have from my first visit, so I looked into the writers descriptions of his characters. Usually, there's a little snippet of information that will give a clue as to who these people are. Here is Mr Butterworth's about four of the main characters:

1. Ginger played by Mackenzie Crook

Enter Ginger from behind the trailer singing....he puts his hand to his ear and air-scratches on an air-turntable.

2. Lee played by Tom Brooke

A young man, Lee, suddenly sits up from the couch, gasping.

3.Davey played by Danny Kirrane

Enter Davey, in big shades with an accordion.

4. Pea and Tanya played by Jessica Barden and Charlotte Mills

From beneath the trailer crawl two sixteen year old girls, Pea and Tanya.

That's pretty much all we get. All other traits were obviously created by the actors, the costume designers and the director. The most realised character is Johnny played by Mark Rylance and here's his description -

Wiry. Weathered; drinkers mug, Bare chest. Helmet. Goggles Loudhailer. Despite a slight limp he moves with the balance of a dancer, or animal.

It's now easy to see why, in addition to being a great actor, Mark Rylance rises head and shoulders above everyone else.

The entire cast from the original run have trasferred with the production and the same problems I had with four of them at the Royal Court I have at the Apollo. They aren't very good. And if you are having to carve your character out of a void you had better be real good. Maybe the lack of experience in those actors was a smokescreen to hide the lack of character?

I have three final gripes before I leave you in peace. First - these characters, although familiar and funny in their own way, come across as hilarious. These are drug taking, foul mouthed, unachievers who think of nothing to partake in a few lines of coke with teenagers. The audience continually whoops it up on the laughter front. Are they laughing with them or at them? Is it really funny or rather sad? I find it a misstep. Second - as has been proved in other Jez Butterworth productions I've seen - notably Parlour Song at the Almeida - he doesn't write women well. Actually he doesn't write them at all. They just exist and say some lines. They are just foils as is the case of one major female figure in Jerusalem, she makes a speech daming Johny then does what he does. Owing that we know nothing about her other than her realtionship to the main character this really makes no sense. Thirdly, it's really long, way too long for what it is. I kept thinking during the performance (not a good sign) of what they could have cut. Finally, I found that each of the three act was less interesting than the one before it. When we finally arrived at what seemd like the end I was begging for it to be over but, no. There were about three false endings. It was like Michael Meyers in Halloween, just when you though he was dead... but Halloween was at least interesting.

I can understand admiring parts of this - the set, the mostly clever dialogue, Mark Rylance - even Mackenzie Crook, Tom Brooke and Danny Kirrane are very good, but how can you just ignore the really bad parts - lack of characterisation, excessive repetitive length and some really clunky performances? Could it be a sheep mentality? Who knows, but like my friend said - 'You couldn't pay me to sit through that again'.

Best Theatre Podcast: American Theatre Wing - Downstage Center

2010-01-28T23:36:00.003Z

'Go in depth with the leading artists and professionals working on stage today when you go Downstage Center. Downstage Center is the American Theatre Wings acclaimed weekly theatrical inteview programme that spotlights the creative talents on Broadway, Off-Broadway, across the country and around the world with in depth conversations that simply can't be found anywhere else.'

That's the official description of what I consider to be simpy the best theatrical podcast I have heard and I've been a loyal listener since 2005. I can't for the life of me remember how I came across it but if you're into theatre, want to or currently work in theatre or just enjoy post performance discussions then this is the podcast for you.

What sets Downstage Center apart is threefold - The interviewer(s), the production and creative talent at the top of their game. I'll adress each in order.

Interviewers and the Production

In the beginning there were two. When I first started listening to the Downstage Centre, it was presented in association with and broadcast on US Satellite Radio XM 28 On Broadway. The two men responsible for the interviews were John Von Soosten - Programme Director of XM28 On Broadway and Howard Sherman - Executive Director of the American Theatre Wing. What a great double act they made. John,with the deeper voice, came across as the 'everyman', the audience member who occasionally asked a question or picked up on a passing guest comment (although he went solo on various occassions). Howard was always the seasoned theatre practioner with an unbelievable wealth of knowledge backed up with hearty research. Together you got a complete package.

What I absolutely loved about them was the absolute lack of pretense. There was always a thirst for knowledge and a genuine interest in their guests stories. The questioning always stayed on topic but the format was never confining to the guests who often side lined answers with interesting anecdotes. John and Howard's interview style was never about John and Howard. It was about their guest and the absolute interest in their stories.

The format for each interviewv was and is basically the same. It starts out with questions, observations, stories and background about a current project or production that each guest is involved with and then goes back to the circumstances that originally shaped the guest's interest in their particular theatre discipline. From that point it moves progressively forward to the present through stories and antecdotes of their theatre career and sometimes their lives.

Sometime in the summer of 2009, Downstage Center went on hiatus. I wasn't sure when they would return as there wasn't an exact date listed, however it took alot longer than I expected and to be honest, I went into serious withdrawl. I looked forward to my weekly dose of Downstage Center and found it to be an inspiring link to the world of theatre. The show returned two or three months ago with a few changes. One, it's no longer broadcast on XM radio, it is now exclusively available online or as a podcast download available through itunes or directly from their website and two, as a result XM Radio's John Von Soosten is no longer presenting, it's just Howard now.

To be fair, Howard was always the main person and listening to him present on his own you begin to really understand how talented an interviewer he is. I would say he's the best presenter of this type of long interview format that I've heard (each interview averages around 60 minutes, straight through) - warm, accomodating, knowledgable and direct with a pretty easy going style. He does a marvellous job in keeping the procedings on track as well as providing quick explanations and background when a particular reference could be too obscure for some listeners. It never becomes cloying or gossipy. Its more like hearing all the best bits about a persons life and career directly from the source - with all the theatre related questions you've been dying to have answered.

The Creative Talent

What also hooks me into this podcast is the talent they attract. There's a mix of big theatre heavy weights along with up-and-comers and those you may have heard of but don't know much about. I find every story interesting - no two stories are the same, and everyone has their own take on working in theatre. If you are in a certain frame of mind you could learn alot but it's not just about that. If you are a people watcher then you'll love it as well.

And...it's not just about actors. Here's a list of categories represented by those who have been interviewed:

Actors / Advertising Execs / Artistic Directors / Authors / Casting Directors / Charitable Organisations /
Choreographers / Composers / Critics / Dancers / Designers / Directors / Executive Directors / Lyricists / Musical Directors / Press Agents / Producers / Recording Executives

And...here is a selection of past guests:

Tom Stoppard / Doug Wright / Douglas Carter Beane / Len Cariou / William Finn / Stephen Sondheim / Tracy Letts / Phylicia Rashad / Beth Leavel / Hunter Foster / Tony Walton / Liev Schreiber / John Doyle / Rita Moreno / Anthony Rapp / Kristin Chenoweth / Angela Lansbury / Bob Martin / Oskar Eustis / Galt McDermott / Arielle Tepper / Des McAnuffe / Billy Crudup / Michael Mayer / Rosemary Harris / Michael Boyd / Stephen Lang / Michael Ball / Maria Friedman / Alfred Molina / Audra McDonald / Tonya Pinkens / Vanessa Redgrave / Dori Berinstein / Edward Albee / Christopher Durang

...the list goes on. I've picked out names that many will immediately recognise and that's a good place to start, but I've found some of the most interesting interviews were from people I never heard of before. Thier stories are just as fascinating.

Downstage Center is part of The American Theatre Wing (based in NY), an organisation 'dedicated to supporting excellence and education in theatre'. ATW is also the creator and owner of The Antoinette Perry Awards for Excellence in Theatre - aka The Tony Awards. When you go to their webiste you will find a host of other interesting theatre realted links. The most immediate is inthe Audio/Video section. In addition to the podcasts you can find videos of discussions they have hosted. Here's what you can watch:

Working in the Theatre
'Bringing together performers, directors, playwrights, designers, choreographers, producers and behind-the-scenes personnel from the American and international theatre, the program offers a rare opportunity for students and audiences to see the people who create theatre engaged in thoughtful conversation with one another.'

In the Wings
'Focusing on the people who are almost never in the news but who are essential to the making of the shows we all see and love, In The Wings explores the talents and stories behind the scenes, from the costume and scenic shops to the rehearsal room to the stage itself, with designers, artisans and craftspeople explaining their unique contributions to theatrical art in their own words.'

Career Guides
'A series of one-on-one video interviews with the theatre's leading artists and professionals, explaining each specific discipline in the theatre and what it takes to pursue that specialty and make a career in the theatre.'

It's a bevy of information. For the dedicated theatre lover it is certainly the most in depth and broad ranged podcast you will find. And it's all free. I can't recommend it enough. To hear the end of Howard's fantastic recent interview with Stephen Sondheim when he is genuinely giving his thanks to the great composer for providing many years of enjoyment, could be reason enough to start listening.

The title at the top is a link directly to the Downstage Center page and you can find the additional sections I mentioned through links onthe right side of that page. There is also a link in the link sections to the right of this post.

Mamma Mia at the O2 - Singalong (24/1/10)

2010-01-24T19:07:00.020Z

Yes, it was the film of Mamma Mia and yes, the West End cast (most of them) were there to perform, and yes it was a sing-along but for me the star of the day was the actual screen.

They weren't kidding about it being the biggest screen. 100ft! It spanned the width of the O2 arena floor and seemed about half that length high. At the pre screening performance, the live cast was dwarfed beneath it, but, the clarity and resolution of the film itself was 100% Maybe even more. I don't know how they did it, but it was impressive. (see pics at end for size)

I wouldn't have normally thought to go to this sing-along (£25 a ticket but I got a pair for free through SeeFilmFirst). Not that I'm against sing-alongs or don't like the film but Mamma Mia doesn't, in my mind, automatically lend itself to a group sing along in the vein of The Sound of Music or Grease. Years ago, I was at the very first Sing-Along-a Sound of Music at the NFT and in my mind, the experience can never be equalled or bettered. The statements being thrown back at the screen and the essentially camp atmosphere was something that no one there could have ever anticipated. It was one of the funniest afternoons I have ever had in the cinema and it was all improved. People did dress up - AND - there were actual Nuns in the audience which only added to the experience. Since then, it was made into a franchise and as a result has become a very formulaic experience, distributing props and things to do and say. All enjoyable in it's own way but non of the 'throwing caution to the wind' anarchy of that first screening event.

One thing I really noticed about Mamma Mia which never really occured to me before is how much of it is - for lack of a better term - a woman's film. Not that it's only for women but it's pretty much from a woman's perspective. This is especially noticeable in the lyrics to the songs. They are pretty much all from a very specific perspective and I am sure many of the men in the audience would find it strange to sing and mean them. Another clue (which could also point to the fact that I have been late in this realisation) was who was in the audience. Granted, it was the matinee showing - there were two, a matinee and evening - but there were quite a few families. Mainly mothers with their daughters - of all ages, I would say from around 7 or 8 years old and up. When I really thought about it I realised that the images of mature women who are just getting on with things and not ready to pack it all in, are really good things for young girls to see.

Back to the concept. Another reason Mamma Mia wouldn't really work within the sing-along realm is there is nothing really ridiculous or stupid about the lyrics or the story. There isn't anything you could take the piss out of, the film is already doing that for you. The only exception is Pierce Brosnan whom many think has one of the worst singing voices going, and to be honest, I think that's unfair. He is fine and no one that I could hear was laughing during his songs. Also, there were some people dressed up in Mamma Mia gear but if you think about it the only thing you can do is dress up in garrish 70's garb, like the characters. Well, you can come in shorts and short sleeves but why? (or you can be an anarchist and dress up like characters form the other Grease. Get it?)

Finally, on the sing-along aspect - although we had the lyrics on screen, which changed colour to show which word to sing where, many, and I mean many people were tripped up, singing the original Abba version and not the dramatic version in the film. There was singing, albeit very quiet, but the crowd didn't come alive until the final credits. If you haven't seen the film, the closing credits are very entertaining. It's pretty much additional staged footage of the cast singing 'Dancing Queen' and 'Waterloo'. The crowd were on their feet.

Opening the afternoon was the current West End cast of Mamma Mia. We had good seats and for us they were just dancing ants on stage. They did about four songs in quick succession. The first had the three female leads holding microphones but it would be hard to convince me they weren't miming. Then we had a few more numbers with all the dancers (I've never seen the stage show but there seemed to be about 30 of them - I know that's an exaggeration but that's how it seemed). No one was holding a microphone, I couldn't detect any mics on any kind so I will have to say they weren't actually singing as well. Lastly the three female leads came out in their 70's gear and did 'Dancing Queen'. Again holding mics. (Again, not really singing me thinks.)

Anyway, I love the film. I love Meryl's performance of 'The Winner Takes It All' (which received applause form the audience) and seeing it for the first time on a big screen was an absolute treat. I don't know if they are planning on doing this again in smaller theatres but if they do I can't really see it taking off. You'd probably have as much film at home watching and singing along with friends (or alone with a bottle of wine).

Full screen view and West End cast takes to the stage (to give perspective on the size of the screen)

News: Improbable: Devoted and Disguntled

2010-01-23T13:40:00.011Z

From the articles I follow on Google Reader I tend to always read Lyn Gardner's Theatre Tips which is not soley focussed on current productions and events but gives as the title suggests, tips on interesting items forthcoming. This week she mentioned Improbable: Devoted & Disgruntled - here's her mention:

'There's still time to secure tickets for Devoted and Disgruntled, which tkaes place over the last weekend of the month in London. It is a brilliant way to get connected and find out what people are thinking and talking about.'

I clicked through on the provided link (which by the way is also provided to you by clicking on the title of this post) and found an event that has what I would consider potential.

From what I can see, this is the 5th year of the event (there's also one in New York which seems to have recently happened). Something that's been running that long is bound to be interesting - right? I hope so. What I'm sceptical about is how it's managed. It's all fine to voice your opinion but coming to a consensus (if indeed that's where this is going) about a certain topic is bound to be frought with difficulties and bruised egos. And to be honest, I've come across quite a few egos in theatre but I guess that can be said about any profession - but as the word 'theatre' implies, it can get a bit - theatrical. However this event is also about connecting with people with the passion and working on individual projects:

'Devoted and Disgruntled 5
What are we going to do about theatre?

Five years ago I sent out the first invitation to "Devoted & Disgruntled". I'd become aware that, passionate as I was about theatre, I found myself frustrated at how we make it, how we communicate with each other and how little the existing structures supported us to feel part of a genine community. Since that first inviation to others who were devoted and disguntled, this has become an extraordinary annual event...

On past experiences of D&D, the more diverse our group, the more creative and exciting the work has been. All sectors and genres: Fringe, West End, Off West End, London based, regional etc etc are invited. If you've never been to D&D we need your voice, if you've been to every D&D we need your voice. Whatever your connection to theatre; on stage, back stage, off stage, in the audience, you are invited.

In it's fifth year we still don't know where D&D is headed - and I think this uncertainty is exciting and i am passionate about opening the space again. I'm excited by the opportunity D&D5 gives me and you to reconnect with UK theatre and the wider arts community. To continue building on the work we have begun and generate new initiatives. And to reconnect without cynicism and lethargy but rather with renewed energy. - Phelim McDermott - co-Artistic Director, Improbable'

Sounds good. Pushing my scepticism aside, I do have high hopes for this. One aspect that I'm really interested in is the bringing together of theatre practitioners and audience members. There's potential from some real eye opening discussions and exchanges. I often feel that for some in the 'biz', the audience rarely figures in the final equation. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

If I can get my mobile tweeting skills up to par I'll be tweeting from the event. Even if it's not a blow by blow update it will at least be highlights and I'll post a full overview here the following week.

Improbable: Devoted & Disgruntled
30 January 2010 at 10am - 1 February, 2010 at 2pm
York Hall
Old Ford Road
Bethnal Green, London

The Little Dog Laughed (Garrick Theatre 12/1/09)

2010-01-19T22:39:00.001Z

I had high hopes, on two levels. One - it's my favourite director Jamie Lloyd and two - it stars Tamsin Greig. I wasn't disappointed but I wasn't elated either. Somewhere in between. It was funny, sometimes clever, interesting story and generally fine performances but it didn't catch fire nor did I get emotionally involved. A little bit of this, a little bit of that.

There are four characters - a Hollywood 'boy next door' actor/star who is repressing his homosexual urges, his agent, a witty, slightly condescending woman, a hustler who sleeps with men for money and then goes home to his girlfriend and the girlfriend. The hustler and the actor end up in a relationship of sorts which threatens the actors career if it ever gets out and threatens the relationship of the hustler and his girlfriend. Basically, the story is about maintaining a lifestyle and/or a career and the perils and pitfalls that come along with that.

I think the story on a whole is interesting because in this day and age of living in a celebrity obsessed culture, we hear loads of speculation about who is gay. This is something that I can't recall being delt with on stage in this way, exploring the reasons why it's not safe to come out and what is done behind the scenes to ensure that it doesn't. What gives this story a more human aspect is that the agent is a lesbian so that shuts out the 'you don't understand me' argument which thatnkfully never crops up.

There are many wonderful things here - Tasmin Greig's agent Diane (God of Carnage, Olivier award for RSC's Much Ado About Nothing, TV's Green Wing, Black Books, Love Soup) is a delight. She handles her scenes with expert comic timing and provides a much need anchor. Rupert Friend as Mitchell, the actor (films The Young VIctoria, Pride and Prejudice) is making his stage debut and is very good in conveying the indecision and paranoia of the character. The girlfriend Ellen is played by Gemma Arterton (Love's Labours Lost at the Globe, Films Quantum of Solace, St Trinian's and TVs Lost in Austen) is very likeable and Harry Lloyd (A View from the Bridge in the West End, TV's Dr Who and Robin Hood) is Alex, the Hustler - another good performance. In fact, everyone was good. The problem weren't the performances (with the exception of some dodgy American accents - especially Tamsin Grieg's. I couldn't figure out where whe was supposed to be from), I think the play itself is the problem.

Playwright Douglas Carter Beane (the film To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar and the hit Broadway musical of Xanadu) is known as a funny man (I've heard him interviewed) and there are some really funny moments in The Little Dog Laughed, well, more funny asides. The humour comes out of funny lines as opposed to situations. He obviously has seen and experienced the Hollywood game first hand as the ridiculousness of certain situations ring true. It's difficult to know exactly what his Hollywood experiences have been but I suspect they weren't good. I get the sense that this play came from a place of frustration and the ideas and situations came first. From there it was a matter of filling in the the blanks.

I find it interesting that he named the four characters. I think it could have worked better if they were just called The Actor,The Agent, The Hustler and The Girlfriend, because they all seemed to be more archetypes than real people. We never find out much about any of the them, and what we do discover is ultimately inconsequential. There is a moment when the agents deep seated desire is revealed and that does help but unfortunately that moment spotlights what we don't know and will never find out.

There is one moment that gives the game away. The agent and the actor meet a playwright in a restaurant to discuss the possibility of getting the actor a job in the playwrights new hit play. The entire conversation is told and re-enacted by the actor and the agent and no one else is given a name - the playwright is basically called the guy who wrote the play, or something to that effect. This device is carried through the whole play making all ofstage characters archetypes. Perhaps it was to make tthe plays characters more human, but if that was the case it didn't really work. Another device used is having characters, most notably the agent, directly address the audience - to get across more story background information than is revealed in dialogue (For me this is never a good sign). This device gives the evening a storytelling feel.

The set by Soutra Gilmour (Three Days of Rain and Piaf in the West End, The Pride at the Royal Court) is a stage within a stage. There is an additional proscenium placed onstage with an additional playing area in front of it. The stage itself is pretty bare - a white wall at the back defines a generic room that with the placement of a table or bed is a flat, a hotel room or a restaurant. All these elements to me seem to suggest that this is a story not of specific people but of ideas.

I've seen most of Jamie Lloyd's productions (The Caretaker, Piaf, The Lover/The Collection, A House Not Meant to Stand, his piece at the 24 Hour Plays, The Pride, Three Days of Rain and soon to see his forthcoming production of Polar Bears at the Donmar) and I haven't ever been let down. I read in interviews that he takes alot of time exploring the characters before they start rehearsals proper so with this production I have to chalk it up to the play itself. Enjoyable, diverting, somehwhat thought provoking but unfocussed. A bit of a two and a half hour rant set to dialogue that pretty much says all it needs to say in the final moments. For those of us who aren't aware of the trials of being gay in Hollywood, this could open your eyes, for the rest of us there's Tasmin Greig.

Legally Blonde (Savoy Theatre 6/1/10)

2010-01-13T22:30:00.002Z

Back in 2006 the musical Hairspray rolled into London and took the town by storm, garnering perfect reviews across the board. Even the most cynical reviewer just couldn't resist and was swept away by its wit, sentiments, performances, direction and choreography. It made it very difficult to not come away with a smile. Well, it looks like we've got another one. Legally Blonde has all the elements to make it a hit, and even though I have a few quibbles (see the 'nit picking' section towards the end) I absolutely loved it.

For all those who haven't seen the Reese Witherspoon film from which this has been adapted, the story revolves around Elle Woods, a UCLA Delta Nu Sorority sister with a 4.0 grade average in fashion merchandising, and her quest to reconnect with her ex-boyfriend by following him to Harvard University's legal school.

Like many others I was immediately suspicious of another musical derived from a popular film. When Legally Blonde first made it to Broadway, I immediately dismisses it as a light and fluffy confection. I hadn't seen the film so I was just going on first impressions which in a way are correct. After I heard it was transferring to London I got ahold of the Cast Album and fell in love with it's humour and wit. It's very much in the same vein (humour wise) as Hairspray - one of my all time favourites. I then moved onto the MTV (USA) live video recording of the Broadway production and thought it was wonderful. I especially liked Laura Bell Bundy as Elle (she originated the role of Amber Von Tussle in the original cast of Hairspray) and thought the the choreography was fresh and exciting (same choreographer as Hairspray). Next step - rent the original film - which I did. In a strange turn of events the film left me sort of - cold. I felt the musical was actually - deeper than it's source material. It delves deeper into the characters, exploring their inner lives through the music and songs. The musical incarnation is actually much much better than the film.

So, here we are at the London incarnation. As with many, my introduction to the cast was through the Children In Need telecast where (prematurely) the cast performed a few numbers in medley format. Honestly, that performance cast a huge shadow of doubt on whether this London cast were up to the task. It was a bit of a disaster, I have to admit. I always suspected they weren't ready and to be honest - no one goes on those shows and comes away smelling of roses. There always seems to be some sort of sound problem or monitors not doing their job which causes people to sing off key or off pitch.I can happily report that performance was just a glitch and those dark clouds have been swept away by a fantastic production of a witty and fun musical.

From the opening number at the Delta Nu sorority where we are introduced to Elle and her sorority sisters, in particular the trio who reappear as a Greek chorus - Serena, Margot and Pilar (played by Susan Mcfadden - who won the Grease is the Word TV competition a few years ago to play Sandy in West End stage debut and is the sister of ex-Westlife singer Brian Mcfadden - Amy Lennox and Ibanabo Jack respectively) myself and the audience were whisked away on a facepaced rollercoaster of a journey. Along the way we meet the love of her life Warner Huntington lll (ex-Blue singer Duncan James), Professor Callahan (Peter Davison of Dr Who fame), her new friend Paulette (Jill Halfpenny - ex-Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing Winner and veteran of the musical Chicago), and the professor's teaching assistant Emmett (Alex Gaumond - We Will Rock You tour and Sunday in the Park WIth George at the Wyndhams). All are wonderfully cast and bring thier characters vividly to life. The most physically fit performance of the night had to go to Aoife Mulholland who plays a fitness guru who sells jump ropes through TV infomercials. She sings AND skips rope - at the same time - AND isn't out of breath in her next scene. Amazing. And, what a six pack she has. Some of you may remember Aoife Mulholland as the one who didn't win How Do You Solve A Probelm Like Maria, who eventually did get to play Maria in The Sound of Music then went on to great aclaim as Roxie Hart in Chicago.

The one person I have yet to mention is Elle herself - Sheridan Smith - a powerhouse of singing, dancing and acting talent as well as posessing the ultimate gift - absolutely perfect comic timing. I wasn't prepared to like her as my only exposure to her talents was through an unbearably long running sitcom - 2 Lagers and a Packet of Crisps, and then through a song she sang at the Whatsonstage nominations party a few years back when she was playing Audrey in the last West End revival of Little Shop of Horrors. I clearly remember everyone raving about her performance in that production but I wasn't sold by that snippet I saw. How wrong, wrong, wrong I was. Now I see what all the fuss was about.

What's really great about this show is that you start with a smile, you end with an even bigger smile and in between you are wowed by the choreography, the music and most importantly, you care about the characters and where they end up. It's hard to imagine a better Elle though, Sheridan navigates the slippery slope of musical theatre with aplomb. I think what most frustrates people who can either take or leave musicals or even hate them is how quickly and un-naturally emotions can shift. You have to be a skilled performer to make that work and Sheridan is more than up to it. Also, what keeps this train moving at it's non stop pace is good music and songs that actually move the story forward as well as expand on and explore the individual characters. This is really the key. One song after another that never stops the action dead.

Expanding on what I alluded to earlier - it's interesting how much in common this has with Hairspray - the same choreograher - Jerry Mitchell (who also directs) and it has that same irreverant attitude to the subject matter, has tongue firmly placed in cheek, has great songs, can be hysterically funny and has at it's centre a huge heart and big affection for it's central character.

I really don't want to say much more because if you've seen the film you know the story, if you haven't seen the film it's best to enjoy the story as it unfolds. I just want to add a few more credits - Music and Lyrics are by Laurence O'Keefe (Bat Boy: The Musical), Lyrics and Music are by Nell Benjamin (this is her first big musical) and the book is by Heather Hach (her first musical). (I have no idea what the difference is between Music and Lyrics and Lyrics and Music.) The set is by David Rockwell (Hairspray and the film Team America World Police).

Nit Picking - these are minor but they kind of anoyed me at the time.

1. The sound - I had heard about this ahead of time so I was prepared. Many times the music was louder than the vocals drowning out some of the great lyrics. (I have heard that this is no longer a problem).

2. The reflection - From where we were sitting in the stalls (centre- around 7 or so rows from the stage), we could see the reflection of the the monitor that's mounted under the Dress Circle - so the actors can watch the conductor - in the mirror of the beauty parlour set. It was so blatant we couldn't figure out how anyone missed it. It was very distracting during those scenes..

3. The flicker - On the same note, during the performance we kept noticing flickering lights in the stalls and eventually figured out it was the light from the monitors I just mentioned. Imagine a black and white tv turned on in a darkened room, behind you.

That's it. I hope it runs and runs. I'd love to see it again. And - It's not just for girls (my straight male colleagues wnat to see it again as well - there's alot for men to oggle).

My Full 2009 List

2010-01-01T17:10:00.002Z

I started this blog in June 2009 so for obvious reasons it doesn't include everything I attended in the year. There were, of course, things I saw before I started this blog, things I only saw part of (wink wink) and finally things that I really didn't have too strong an opinion about either way and chose not to blog. So, for prosperity's sake - here's the full 2009 list:

January 2009
On the Waterfront - Haymarket Theatre (play)

February 2009
Spring Awakening - Lyric Hammersmith (musical)
Woman in Mind - Vaudeville Theatre (play)
Wrecks - Bush Theatre (play)

March 2009
Three Days of Rain - Apollo Shaftesbury (play)
Priscilla Queen of the Desert - Palace Theatre (musical)
Over There - Royal Court (play)
Spring Awakening - Novello Theatre (musical)

April 2009
Parlour Song - Almeida (play)
Mrs Affleck - National Theatre (play)

May 2009
Hair - Al Hirschfeld Theatre (Broadway)(musical)
When the Rain Stops Falling - Almeida (play)
Amongst Friends - Hampstead Theatre (play)
Sister Act - London Palladium (musical)

June 2009
All's Well That Ends Well - National Theatre (play)
The Magic Numbers - Union Chapel (music)
Been So Long - Young Vic (musical)
Gay Icons - National Portrait Gallery (art)

July 2009
Blur - Hyde Park (music)
A Doll's House - Donmar (play)
Jerusalem - Royal Court (play)

August 2009
Helen - Shakespeare's Globe (play)
A Streetcar Named Desire - Donmar (play)
Three More Sleepless Nights - National Theatre (play)
Gang of Four - The Macbeth (music)
Futurism - Tate Modern (art)

September 2009
Vanya - Gate Theatre (play)
Thomas Paine - Shakespeare's Globe (play)
Judgement Day - Almeida (play)
A House Not Meant to Stand - Donmar (play)
A Streetcar Named Desire - Donmar (play)
Speaking in Tongues - Duke of York's (play)

October 2009
Raindance Film Festival - 5 films including opening and closing (film)
Sea Wall - Bush Library (play)
Mother Courage and Her Children - National Theatre (play)
Spanish Tragedy - Arcola Theatre (play)
Prick Up Your Ears - Comedy Theatre (play)

November 2009
24 Hour Plays Celebrity Gala - Old Vic (play)
Brand New Heavies - Shepherds Bush Empire (music)
The Priory - Royal Court (play)

December 2009
Cock - Royal Court (x2)(play)
Red - Donmar (play)
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - Novello (play)
Rope - Almeida (play)

Have a fantastic 2010.

Rope (Almeida 23/12/09)

2009-12-28T15:58:00.021Z

I did what you probably shouldn't do when seeing a play that has a film version - I watched the film first. Well, sort of. I started watching it then fell asleep. That's not to say that the film was boring but it didn't prove to be as exciting as I expected it to be. The film version of Rope of course is directed by Alfred Hitchcock and adapted for the screen from Patrick Hamilton's play by actor Hume Cronyn which in turn is inspired by true events. Luckily, by falling asleep I didn't see the ending which is important in this story as the audience already knows who, what, when, where and basically why, from the first scene. What is not known is - will they get away with it?

For the first time in Almeida history, the seating arrangement is in the round. I was seated in the first row of the circle, an excellent seat. What they have done is pull the stage forward into what is usually the first few rows. The back wall of the previous stage area is now lined with two rows of seats on tow levels, matching the existing circle and stalls. It's all seamless. If you hadn't been to the Almeida before you would never realy guess that it was a new configuration.

As the play opens, tow of the main characters Wyndham Brandon and Charles Granillo have just strangled a university friend to death with a rope and are stuffing him in chest in the front sitting room. The first ten or so minutes of Rope are played in almost complete darkness as the two characters discuss what has just happened and what will happen. What will happen is a party. They have invited friends of the deceased as well as his father who they assume will come with the aunt. There is a perverse thrill about having a party in such close vicinity of the dead body, and Wyndham (Blake Ritson - Arcadia for the National Theatre and the film RocknRolla) is relishing it. His partner in crime Granillo (Alex Waldmann - Laertes in Jude Law's West End Hamlet) is much less confident, in fact he is in full on panic mode.

When they finally feel safe to turn on lights the play proper begins. Instead of serving the food and drinks in the dining room they have opted to take their plan further by serving from the chest with the body in the front room. Their servant (this is late 20's, early 30's upper class London) Sabot arrives first to set the table. It's really a thankless part, with the character's only purpose being to help arouse suspicion and then exit. As played by Philip Arditti (England People Very Nice - National Theatre, House of Saddam for HBO) I think he is supposed to be North African or French. This is the one severly underwritten part in the play.

After Sabot, the others arrive one by one: Another university friend Kenneth Raglan (Henry Lloyd-Hughes - almost unrecogniseable from his stint as the bully on The Inbetweeners), another friend, socialite Leila Arden (a very well played and very funny Phoebe Waller-Bridge - 2nd May 1997 at the Bush, co-Artistic Director of DryWrite), followed by the father of the corpse Sir Johnstone Kentley (Michael Elwyn - numerous productions at the Royal Exchange Manchester and Open Air Theatre Regents Park as well as Tv's The Tudors) along with his sister Mrs Debenham who struggles to speak more than three words at a time (Emma Dewhurst - Medea, Jane Eyre both West End, The Invention of Love and Making History - both National Theatre). The general interactions between these guests are entertaining to listen to and watch. As directed by Roger Michell (Female of the Species - West End; Landscape with Weapon, Blue/Orange - both National Theatre; films include - The Mother, Enduring Love and Notting Hill) the characters move effortlessly around the circular set allowing each to emerge and establish themselves without isolating them from the central event.

The balance changes with the entrance of Rupert Cadell, another friend - an ex-serviceman from the first world war, who walks with a cane as a result of a war wound. As played by Bertie Carvel (The Pride at the Royal Court; Parade at the Donmar; The Man of Mode, Galileo and Coram Boy - all National Theatre) Rupert is a a visual and aural curiosity. HIs speech is clipped, with odd exagerations on various phrases and words, he walks with a limp and has a very camp, fey air about him. However, it's the hair - the hair is a marvel all it's own. Where did that come from? All I can say it's an early 1929 quif and it works. All in all, Bertie Carvell gives one of the finest performances of the year. He has an uncanny ability to make Rupert extremely funny as well as endearing although he can be bitchy and arrogant. No matter how funny he is, Carvell never allows the character to turn into farce, knowing when to pull back and allow the other characters to have their turn, he never overpowers the scenes. What is also very admirable is that no matter what volume he pitches the performance, Carvel always follows through with the many ticks of the character.

This can also be said of the entire production. There are many times where it becomes extremely funny, to the point where I had to wonder if it was turning out to be a great comedy and the thriler aspects were going to be secondary. This never happened, the production knew when to reign it in - the comedy came naturally from the characterisations so it was only funny when it should be. And the ending. I really loved the lead up to the final events. There are some really great and touching speeches, and some interesting theories to chew on without ever becoming pretentious and overbearing.

Compare and contrast time. This really has no bearing on my enjoyment of the production but I think these are interesting points to bring up. I'll start with the Hitchcock film as that was my point of entry.
Hitchcocks Rope takes place in the late 1950s in Manhattan. The number of characters are about the same but many have different relationships with each other and the servant has a much bigger part and is female. Keeping this in mind, imagine my surprise when in the opening moments of the play I am hearing RP.

Later that evening, when I returned home, I decided to look further into the Rope story. Lets start with the real story. The real killing took place in Chicago in 1924 by Leopold and Loeb. I 'm not sure why the play then took place in the UK other than the playwright may have felt more comfortable with all things English and was writing for that audience (his other famous plays include Gaslight - recently revived at the Old Vic, and Hangover Square). The other interesting fact is the sexuality of the two main characters.

Leopold and Loeb were gay. It was never called that back in the day of their trial, but they admitted to sexual relations. I find this information of interest because it explains a few things about the film. Of course, the 'love that dare not speak its name' was a no go area in the late 1950s, especially if James Stewart is one of your stars, but if you watch the film closely one does wonder why the two killers are standing so close together. It sounds odd but have a watch and you'll see what I mean. I think Hitchcock was inferring intimacy without making it an issue. Again, this was an issue that you wouldn't find in a 1929 play, so the closest you get in the play text (much like the film) is that the two characters are travelling out of town together for the winter. Flash forward to the West End revival of Rope in the 90's which famously opened with full frontal male nudity, intimating that the killing was part of a honey trapvmaking no bones about the characters sexuality.

In this current revival, it sticks to the text as is. I've never read it so I can't be sure how camp Rupert was written, but as with the film, the sexuality is inferred but off handed comments and physicality but never overtly stated. Ultimately, does their sexuality make a difference to the play? No, not one bit. It's just an interesting sidenote to an interesting and engrossing play which you should see (if you can).

Cock - Final Performance (Royal Court 19/12/09)

2009-12-28T14:52:00.012Z

With some forethought I bought a scond ticket for the final performance of Cock and I'm glad I did. Early on, I could tell from the cast and creative team that it would be a memorable production, especially with Andrew Scott playing one of the roles. So seeing it again be worth my time as well as a pre Christmas treat.

First off it was interesting to see changes from a front of house perspective. Obviously, as the show was popular (sold out before the run was even half finished) and word got around about the unusual seating, more people were queuing before the doors opened. This caused a little confusion for the attendees of the Downstairs performance of The Priory as the end of the queue extended into their balcony level's bar.

Early queues that snake down stairs and around corners do give an added level of excitement and anticipation to the evening, much like what it was for films, back in the day. Interesting enough, Cock director James MacDonald seemed very taken aback by the queue when he arrived for this final performance, something I thought odd. He must have been aware that it had been sold out. Maybe it was the fact that the audiences cared enough to queue early that surprised him.

There must have been some issues with getting people into the theatre and seated on time as tickets were now being torn while we were queuing. We were let in close to start time and could only go in one direction (which I discovered when I decided to go the oposite way and was stopped). Also, gone was smell of freshly cut wood. Once in the arena we were greeted, if you could call it that, by a female usher who seemed to be somewhere around nineteen years old, firmly barking orders as people. I was very intent on finding a seat which would give me a diferent perspective and when I located it I took aim.

In order not to disturb those already seated I stepped over the fixed cushions on the first level to take my solitary place to the far side next to the railing on the second level. At this point , the 'lovely' usher barked "Do not step on the cushions. Please use the centre stairs" which seemed an odd thing to request after the fact. I reassured her that I did not step on a cushion, which she replied "then use the centre stairs" which again, was strange seeng that I was already seated. I was surprised at the intensity of 'crowd control'. Crowd being a maximum of around 80 people which is taking into consideration that not everyone showed - there were empty places. I mentioned in my first post about Cock about how lovely the Royal Court staff were. I take it back.

I mention all this because I found it interesting that this little play, in the tiny Royal Court Theatre Upstairs seemed to almost have the feeling of a stadium gig for its final performance. That's saying alot about how audiences have reacted to Cock but also put pressure on the performers to deliver. I was afraid that as they had settled into their roles and as it was a final performance that the subtle aspects would be driven out and replaced by overt comedy but my fears were unfounded.

What was most magical about this performance to me was that all performances had grown in relation to each other. What I found awkward (for the wrong reasons) in the earlier performance - Paul Jesson's 'F' - now works well. His perfomance was no longer a charicature of an 'older generation' but a full fledged individual. This made his sections believeable and it didn't come across as being presented with 'theme' wrapped up in a bow and neatly presented to the audeince. It was integrated.

Of the other three actors, the one whose performance changed the most was Ben Whishaw's. Thinking about it, he may have had the most difficult role. Although he is the centre of the action and is in all scenes, his character is often at the receiving end, with the other characters driving the action forward. This can be difficult because you are always reacting to what is being thrown at you and it could leave you in the dust. Ben's performance found more of the humour and a little more strength than he had in the earlier performance.

All this aside, it was still Katherine Parkinson and Andrew Scott who shined - both finding every conceivable character nuance and flinging it into the arena without ever losing sight of the story. Both, as usual, were excellent but Andrew Scott was in top form. His line readings and takes on situations were beyond brilliant. I was sitting directly opposite the director and was watching his his reactions. Judging by what made him sit up and take notice, smile and laugh this late in the day having seen it umpteen times, I would say that Andrew Scott won. I hate bang on about this (well, I just hope you don't get too bored) but he really can push the boat out - not too far as to get lost over the horizon. He was on top form but never upstaged his fellow performers or lose sight of the characters intentions.

I'm glad a went a second time. The whole experience was alot edgier. Like a fine wine, it's aged well with time. I wondered if this was their peak. Would a longer run have turned it into a huge laugh fest in an attempt to keep it fresh and the actors from getting bored? Like with all theatre, we will never know. It's had it's moment in time and any additional productions would have their own slant, no matter who's in it or directed it. I'm glad I saw this one.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Novello Theatre 8/12/09)

2009-12-09T21:57:00.018Z

As has already been stated on here, I'm a huge Tennessee Williams fan. Seeing Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with such theatre heavyweights was, I thought, going to be a revelation but sadly, I was disappointed. Not in the play but in some of the performances.

In the story Brick, the heavy drinker around whom the story revolves, tells Big Daddy that he is waiting for the 'click' - a moment when the drink kicks in. That's how I felt when watching this production, waiting for the 'click'. Not the drink but that essence that sweeps you into the story and lives of the characters - the moment you forget you're in a theatre. Unfortunately the 'click' never really came. It was close a few times, but like in the story - it was continuously being thwarted.

On the surface it's difficult to not get involved to an extent as it's such a great play it would have to be performed by complete incompetents to be completely ruined. Tennessee Williams has written such rich dialogue and an intriguing story that no matter how it's performed there is always a level of enjoyment. Not too long ago I listened to a BBC radio version of the play and wasn't entirely satisfied because although the language was great I felt I was missing important visual interaction between the characters so it never really came as alive as I felt it should. This new West End production is the first time I have seen it on stage and it made me understand for the first time, what the characters intentions were. And, it also pointed out to me where the production failed.

Here's the story - Brick, a former college star athlete and later successful sports announcer, has fallen upon hard times after 'taking to the drink'. Mourning the death of his friend and fellow athlete Skipper, he breaks his leg while attempting to jump hurdles drunk and is somehwat temporarily immobilised with his leg in a cast. He is married to Maggie but there isn't any love or affection (or childrent) in the marriage. As the story begins we discover that Brick's father, the immensly wealthy Big Daddy, may or may not be dying and that issue of who would inherit the fortune is at the forefront of many family members minds. The most active in the quest for the monney is Brick's brother Gooper and his annoying wife Mae who have had many children to try and steer the vote in their favour. Of course that's the storyline but the real story is the question of Brick's relationship with Skipper - whether they were more than 'friends' - and how this unrecognised issue affects both Brick and those around him.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof has three main elements to the story. The first is Brick's relationship with his wife Maggie (the Cat of the title, also self proclaimed), the second is Brick's relationship with his father Big Daddy and the third is the story of the inheritance. For me the two most crucial elements are the opening almost monologue by Maggie and the later almost monologue of Big Daddy's. In each section Brick is trying to get the 'click' yet it's being thwarted by having these other two talk to and at him, incessantly. On one level it would seem that the two big performances get it right, they do but only on one level. Sanaa Lathan as Maggie (Tv''s Nip/Tuck and Tony nomination for her role as Beneatha Unger in A Raisin in the Sun) gets across the incessant chatter and you can feel the opressive nature of having someone talk at you but she doesn't get across the other elements. Maggie is a sex kitten and she is also a manipulator. Her entire opening scene is her attempt to get a rise out of Brick - emotionally, intellectually and sexually. She challenges him, not directly, but by presenting ideas and situations that she hopes he will either refute or accept. Ms Lathan never got the manipulation part. We got the chatter but not the intention.

Unfortuantely (again) I got the same from James Earl Jones as Big Daddy. In this play it's about what's unsaid. In the big scene between Big Daddy and Brick (which can be seen as a companion piece to the first with Maggie and Brick) Big Daddy goes on and on about himself and his less than satisfactory realtionship with Big Mama (and excellent Phylica Rashad who created a character very much unlike herself and threw herself into it). Brick often mentions that this incessant talk is something Big Daddy always does and that it never seems to go anywhere and that's how it came across to me. What was forgotten is for the scene to be important it has to be viewed as ' so why is this time different?'. What should have made it different is that Big Daddy pretty much knows about Brick and Skipper but is unable to come right out and say it. So he resorts to the same tactics as Maggie, trying to manipulate Brick through the telling of stories and the asking of seemingly unrelated questions. Mr Jones delivery baffled me as well, I found it hard to listen to and never got the intention. It was just rambling.

Now on to Brick. As written, Brick (played in this production by Adrian Lester (Tv's Hustle, the film Primary Colors and an Olivier award for his lead in the Sondheim musical Company) is dodging the truth by drinking. It's all made more difficult by having to dodge the bullets being fired at him by his family. It's a role that heavily relies on the assault. You have to really be assaulted to really have to dodge the bullets. As the assaults were minor, his retreat was minor and all he was left with was his back story and the drink. When he lashed out in reaction it came across as ' that was a bit over the top wasn't it?'. Not Adrian Lester's fault.

So, those are the basics. How was everyone else? Standouts for me were Peter De Jersey (Tv's Holby City and a recent stint at the RSC) as Gooper the brother and Nina Sosanya (loads of theatre, Tv's Teachers and the film Love, Actually) as Mae really hit the mark. Both balanced the humour and deperation of going full throttle for the inheritance and made their attacks on other family members understandable. Late in the play Gooper has a last desperate plea for why he should be entilted and Mr De Jersey nails it.

The scenic design by Morgan Large (Tick, Tick... Boom!, The Last Five Years, Fame and Footloose all West End) was fine and the direction is by Debbie Allen (Tv's Fame and on stage as the last Bob Fosse Charity in Sweet Charity). Other than it being serviceable, I have to wonder how many of the choices to not go after the visceral, manipulative elements were down to direction and not the choice of the actors. I have the feeling that there was an attempt to make the characters more likeable. That was a big mistake. Even in the darkest places you can find some light and to not trust Tennesee Williams Pulitzer winning masterpiece is a somewhat foolish choice. All the elements are there, you just have to mine a bit deeper to find the gold.

RED - 2nd preview (Donmar 4/12/09)

2009-12-05T19:27:00.013Z

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't have attended a second preview but this was the result of booking as a Donmar Friend for the first time and getting to grips with the booking form. Live and learn. However, it was the second preview and I kept that in mind.

This is the second play in a row that has greeted the audience with a scent (see Cock at the Royal Court for the other). Whether intentional or not, the space smells of artists paint which does set the scene nicely. The Donmar stage has been turned into a painters studio, the walls have been stripped bare with the only built set piece are doors leading out to one side. Hanging on a suspended wall, centre towards the back and dominating the stage is a Rothko painting - see above image for an idea of his work - which they change numeous times throught the production. Here lies problem number one, abstract expressionism can be difficult to get into, understand or appreciate. Either you do or you don't. As with many art forms, having information about them or doing some sofa research could help appreciate it, however if you come to Red with no prior knowledge it could be heavy going. Honestly, I think this is a major problem with this play but more on that after a quick rundown on the story.

It starts in Rothko's studio, 1958, as a young man - Ken (Eddie Redmayne - Now or Later at the Royal Court, films The Other Boleyn Girl and Savage Grace) meets Mark Rothko (Alfred Molina -films Frida, Prick Up Your Ears, Chocolat) for the first time as his assistant. The action takes place over a two year period as Rothko works on a mural for the restaurant in New York's ritzy Seagrams building. Rothko proves to be difficult in his relationship with his assistant as well as being overprotective about his work and how it's presented. That's about all there is to the actual story. The remainder of the play is filled with discussions about how Rothko feels about art, how he challenges his assistant and how he felt about his contemporaries and the art world in general.

I had heard on the by and by that Rothko was known for being very difficult. That's clear after the first scene. Unfortunately 100 minutes of a man being difficult is in fact difficult to listen to. Even more difficult is the language used and subject matter. All very high brow. I could have gone along if there was an ultimate purpose but it just waffled on and on, often repeating the same themes and points. Not much is revealed about either character with the exception of a brief 'tender' moment about two thirds of the way through and the very end which left me wondering even more - what's the point?

Keeping in mind it was an early performance, I couldn't help but wonder if it was in fact a 45 minute play stretched out to make a full evening. Each scene change is marked by two occurances - first, the painting on the suspended wall is changed by Rothko and Ken (this involves loosening ropes, lowering one painting, taking it off of hooks, walking it to the back wall, putting it down, taking a new one, walking it back, putting it on the hooks, putting it on the hooks and fixing the ropes again) and second, one of the two characters exits to change their clothes. There was one exception to this. One of the best visual scenes occurs as the two prime a canvas with red paint. It's a furious and visceral encounter of man, canvas and red paint - all done to an aria - that leaves them both covered in red. At this point Rothko goes offstage to clean up and Ken does his cleaning up onstage. So basically we sat there and watched Ken take off his shirt, wipe himself down, clean up and put on a new shirt. If they took out all the on stage, off stage, change the picture, stretch a canvas and mix some paint actions, it wouldn't have been nearly as long.

Going back to the 'prior knowledge' issue, unfortunately programmes were not available due to an error that was only discovered after they had been printed, but one can assume that there would have be some background information on Rothko, the times and the art world he was a part of. That would be useful to have but my feelings are that you shouldn't need that information to understand or fully engage with the play. There is so much information bandied around that assumes prior knowledge and I'm pretty sure those without it would not get the full effect. It's all about the art. Matisse's work is referred to, Pollock plays a major part (it seems there was some sort of rivalry), Picasso and the cubists and then Warhol and Lichtenstein. If you don't know these artists works then I wonder what the play would say to you I get the impression that there is an attempt to get to the bottom of Rothko's personality and desires but not much is revealed. Maybe it was intentional that what is revealed is almost in an abstract expressionist manner?

My last big gripe with the production is the use of the paintings. I think it would have been much more powerful to not have the paintings on stage, to let our imaginations set free by the characters descriptions. Seeing the paintings makes the production so specific that it's hard to grasp any universal meaning, message or theme. What was also odd was that the mural being painted for the restaurant, the painting that formed the thrust of the story, was never seen. What the audience gets (continuously) are two actors looking at the bottom of the dress circle as if they are looking at the mural.

Again, this was the second preview. The performances were at the place you would expect them to be on a second preview, and one would assume that with their talents they will develop as the run continues. My issue is with the play (by John Logan - known for his screenplays for Sweeney Todd, The Aviator and Gladiator as co-writer. It doesn't say much and the little of what it says is said with self- indulgence. It's the sort of play that many will probably see and come out raving about how fantastic it is - primarily because the language is literary and academic which many equate with being good theatre. It reminds me of those people who think an actors performance is fantastic primarily because they can memorise a five page monologue and rattle it off without error. For me it's not enough.

What I find suprising is that Red is directed by Michael Grandage who is one of the most respected and sucessful directors today. Again, early days, I'm not sure if he will be making any major adjustments, we'll have to wait and see how it develops. I could forgive the play for it's use of over intellectual language and thought but I spent 100 minutes in the company of two people who over think everything only to be told at the end that it's a bad thing. Oh well. Maybe I can get those 100 minutes back somehow.

Cock (Royal Court 1/12/09)

2009-12-01T23:36:00.017Z

Almost flawless. That's my feeling. There will always be preferences in performance, style, dialogue etc... but when you put all of that aside and just look at the mechanics and effect of Cock then almost flawless is the only thing that comes to mind. Almost - flawless. There's a little caveat which I will get to in a moment.

I'm going to start with the space itself. For any who have every been to the the Theatre Upstairs at the Royal Court, you will know it's a small space. What is surprising is that it's actually more flexible than one would think. Upon arrival for this show what I was hit with first was a strange yellowy light and the smell of freshly cut timber. There's a choice to walk right or left around a timber plywood wall and enter the playing space through a narrow walkway. A round wooden playing space, an arena with three seating levels has been constructed. It's a small space with the main playing area painted a billiard table green and above it what could only be described as a circular plywood lampshade, but as large as the central playing area. The only lighting (other than the yellowy light on the audience) is flourescent tube lighting from inside the giant shade. Because of the set up you were not only in close proximity to the person beside you but in full view of everyone else in the space.

The sparsness of the space designed by Miriam Beuther (Judgement Day, When the Rain Stops Falling at the Almeida, The Good Soul of Szechuan at The Young Vic, Six Characters in Search of an Author in the West End) extended to the production. Here's playwright Mike Bartlett's description from the play text:

The audience is raked down towards the actors.
There is no scenery, no props, no furniture, and no mime.
Instead the focus is entirely on the drama of the scene.

This sounds like it could make for a pretty dodgy evening of ACTING but it worked, beautifully.

Here's the basic setup. Through an opening arguement between a gay couple (John and his boyfriend only known as 'M; in the script) we discover that John is having an affair with a woman. We also see the other side of the story through John and the woman - only known as 'W' in the script. The thrust of the story is John trying to understand these conflicting desires and attempting to make a choice.

Many of the individual scenes skip the interactions that are not relevant with delineations between scenes audibly marked with a buzzer/bell. It's all very subtle but again, very effective as it's clear when the scene has changed. There are two very intimate scenes, both dealing with nudity and sexual exploration where clothes are never shed and the reactions never exploited but are in keeping with the intimatacy of the moment. It's all wonderfully directed by James MacDonald (Judgement Day at the Almeida at the Royal Court) in a manner that is at once very straightforward and choreographed. Where each individual is placed in the space and how they move in relation to each other speaks volumes, about as much as the dialogue itself.

I love coming across a play that has dialogue that is funny, touching and insightful. Playwright Mike Bartlett has an amazing ear for how people speak. At one moment you're laughing hysterically with recognition, and the next it feels as if you're privy to a very private moment, hearing things that aren't meant to be heard outside of private conversation. This effect is not only down to the writing but the actors as well. Each delivers such a connected performance, such an understanding of what they are saying that the marriage between script and performance is explosive. There is nothing showy in the performances, each serving the situation and defining the individual characters.

Of the main three - I would say, which is to be expected, that Andrew Scott (see my Sea Wall post) as 'M' comes out on top. As the betrayed lover he walks that fine line between bitchy, hurt and desperation, giving a fully fleshed out character that in the wrong hands could have just been a one note performance. Coming in a very close second is Katherine Parkinson (The Lightning Play at the Almeida, Other Hands at Soho theatre and TV's The IT Crowd) as 'W'. This role requires softness and a hard centre, an ability to stand up for oneself and also expose an inner need. She's wonderful in her delivery. You couldn't imagine anyone else playing that part. As John, Ben Whishaw (the films Brideshead Revisited, Poison The Story of a Murderer, I'm Not There) gives a good performance but I didn't feel it was as real or nuanced as the other two. There is a third characted 'P', an older gentleman who seems to be more of a representation of an older generation than a real person. I will have to read the play to figure out if this is intentional in the writing or down to the actor - Paul Jesson (The Seagull at the Royal Court, Awake & Sing at the Almeida, Mary Stuart in the West End, on film - TV's Margaret and the film Vera Drake).

We have now arrived at the point when I explain the 'almost' part of the 'almost flawless' statement. Without giving too much away as there is a strong 'what's gong to happen?' thread that runs through the story, there is a section towards the end when all the themes and conflicts merge to be confronted. It's abit clunky. What had previously been revealed through action briefly turned into a disertation drama on the nature of bisexuality and the fluidity of desire. It felt as if he had so many ideas to get out that it seemed to be the only option - for issues to be directly confronted. There is a danger in pounding home those sort of discussions in such an obvious way. I wished it had been handled more in line with the other revelations. It's all a matter of taste. That was the only real downfall to me. A small one, one that can be excused because although it became obvious it still made made think and consider the issues.

Another play that came to mind while watching this was David Mamet's Oleanna - a play where there is no clearcut right or wrong, it's up to th viewer to make their own decision who was at fault. There are circumstances in Cock that ask the same thing from the audience. Who is right? Who is wrong? Is there a right or wrong? I found myself taking sides but I think that was firmly rooted in my own value system and past experiences (not to be revealed here, thanks).

Unfortunately it's only on until the 19th of December and it's all sold out - there are only around 80 seats in the space. It would be great to have this remounted so more people could sexperience it. I'm going again on the closing night so I can see how it evolves.

Side note: Hats off to the staff at the Royal Court - the bookshop, the coatcheck, the ushers, the bar - all fantastic and made the trip even more enjoyable. They could be the best I've come across in London.

Follow me on Twitter - @thisbarry

Coming soon - Red at the Donmar, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof at the Novello and Cock again.

The Priory (Royal Court Theatre 25/11/09)

2009-11-26T19:34:00.011Z

The Priory - Written by Michael Wynne (People are Friendy at the Royal Court and and co-writer of the film My Summer of Love), Directed by Jeremy Herrin (Tusk Tusk, The Vertical Hour and That Face - all Royal Court)

I thought I'd be checking into an evening of self-revelation and exploration with a group of thirty somethings spurred on by what by many consider to be one of the emotional stressful nights of the year - New Years Eve. I must have checked into the wrong building because I ended up stranded in limp sitcom land. Was it a matter of intent not living up to execution or simply the fact that the description oversold the production? Either way, I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it or have a miseable time, I just found it odd to be witnessing something with so little depth or originality at the Royal Court.

I suppose it comes down to what you expect to get out of a theatre performance. Irrespective of the production there will always be the shared experience between actor and audience as well as audience member and audience member. That's a given. Going deeper, there's the play's story and characters to hook and grab you then resonate in some way. Had I been watching this production in say, 1975, when there really wasn't that much on TV then this would have been a welcome diversion, urging me to consider how the passing of time and getting older affects everyone. However, we are in 2009, this sort of story has been done many times over and I expect to discover something new and interesting. At the very least, some good comedy.

Basic story - woman had previously rented The Priory for a getaway her boyfirend prior to breaking up with him. After the breakup she decides to invite a few close friends to see in the New Year. Things don't go as expected when each friend brings a partner the evening gets thrown out of whack. This is an amiable set up but wat we are left with are pretty stock characters and situations. There's the gay one (Joseph Millson - Judgement Day at the Almeida, Every Good Boy Deserves a Favour and Pillars of the Community - both National Theatre) , the married one (Rupert Penry-Jones - TV's Spooks) with the wife (Rachael Stirling - A Woman of No Importance - Haymarket London and TV's Tipping the Velvet) who only can talk about her kids and the one who has finally got his life together (Alistair MacKenzie - TV's Monarch of the Glen) - or has he? - and the host - the getting older single female (Jessica Hynes - TV's Spaced).

There's not much else I can say about this, the dialogue tends to go on and on without purpose (I tuned out during one exchange and I was in the first row). The comedy is pretty run of the mill and the performances competent but nothing to write home about. The play has many farcical elements but was directed in such a straightforward manner that the elements didn't have the punch they should have. I would say the whole production wasn't sure of what it was supposed to be - farce? Drama? Tragedy? Social observation? It had elements of each but ultimately they all cancelled out the other.To sum it up, it doesn't present or explore anything that the majority of theatregoers haven't seen done much better on stage, on tv or in film. I guess I ask alot from my trips to the theatre and this fell short.

On a positive note - there is a storyline involving the gay one and someone he met online that is really interesting. It's the one aspect of the play that rises above the mundane and shows real emotion and pathos. If only the rest of the play followed that cue.

Follow me on Twitter @thisbarry.

Coming in December - Cock at the Royal Court, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof at the Novello and Red at the Donmar.

The Twenty Four Hour Plays Celebrity Gala 2009 (Part 2- The Experience) (The Old Vic Theatre 1/11/09 )

2009-11-02T18:00:00.014Z

It was expensive - it was a fundraiser after all, but utilising some Theatre Tokens the cost came down from £75 to £45. This would be an average price for an excellent to good stalls seat but for this gala I was up in the Lillian Baylis Circle - level three, aka as far up top as you could go - but it was a good cause and there were good people involved. (If I remember correctly - top price for stalls was £750. The information is gne offline no so I can't check).

One thing about these sort of events is that unless you have paid a whopping huge price for your seat you're never really sure how you should dress - would jeans be ok or would you stand out as the only person not dressed up for the occasion? I went half way and I'm glad I did. When I approached the Old Vic I was passing people in tuxes and party dresses. When I arrived in the foyer (packed) there was a mix of suits, casual and tuxes. Spotted - Hardeep Singh Kohli.

I had to climb to the top level and to do that you have to pass though level two which funnily enough seemed to be the dressiest of them all. Level three had a definite mix of those who figured there were just there to see the performances so no dressing up needed and those who figured therey were at a gala so dressing up was important. All in all, I felt comfortable. Important point as I was on my own.

All the performances took place on the bare set of Inherit the Wind which is currently playing at the Old Vic. With it's blonde wood floor and walls the set resembled a school gymnasium especially with the portable movie screen set up near the back. I was in the second row about five seats in from the aisle and the view was excellent. In my head I always imagine the top level at the Old Vic being miles away from the stage but it's actually alright. As we waited for the event to start we were treated to some music - B52's Love Shack, Guns and Roses Sweet Child O' Mine and Salt n Peppers Push It were the one's I remember. Tells you the age of the people at the controls.

As the auditorium filled I noticed quite a few empty places in the top section. I thought that strange seeing that there was a House Full sign posted out front. Graham Noton came on (very funny) and introduced the video after explaning the process from the previous 20 odd hours (you can see it here). Then one by one he introduced the plays, the writers and performers. Spotted - Stephen Mangan and Kieran O'Brien seated close by on empty benches watching the first half.

1st up - I Should Have Never Agreed To This.

They utilised part of the resident set for this - a bed rolled out from the side. In it snuggled together were Elliot Cowan and Nigel Lindsay. They wake up not knowing how or what they did and wearing each others boxer shorts. That's all they wore. The scene switched back and forth between them and Producer - Romola Garai and Director - Haydn Gwynne who are panicked because the Writer - John Light is stuck trying to write his play for the evening. He is writing is the other scene with Cowan and Lindsay. Everyone was very good and it was enjoyable trying to figure out where the Writer would take his two characters and if he would finish in time. Prop used - pink toilet seat cover.

Next - Ouch.

This was hysterical. All four actors start out in a line on stage, each with a single spotlight on the. Clive Rowe who is well know for his magnificent singing voice started with what we thought would be a gospel number and ended up being Britney Spears Hit Me Baby One More Time. We find out that a man - David Haig - was in a rickshaw in Soho when it hit and ran over a pedestrian - Rafe Spall. Also involved was a taxi driver - Clive Rowe and another car, driven by Hattie Morahan. Clive Rowe's singing voice is used once again for a very funny moment when Rafe Spall is describing how his earphoes becam jammed in his head when he fell over. As they were attached to an ipod Shuffle, all the music became scrambled together. This is where Clive cam in as he bounced back and forth through various songs to illustrate the problem.

The scene switches to Rafe Spalls hospital room where one by one those involved in the crahdcome to visit him at his bedside. Rafe's character is a seemingly naive eastender who ends up getting various things from each that visit him until the last - the woman driver who happens to also be an investigative reporter - has discovered that Rafe's character has done this before and therefore is a con. It doesn't sound especially funny in print but the performances (especially Rafe Spall) made this one an absolute joy. I think the prop was a hat like one would get when visiting the seaside on holiday.

Last one before the interval - Stop Blaming, Start Loving

Good idea but didn't come of especially well. I think it could have been funnier than it was. A lesbian couple - Lorraine Burroughs and Helen McCrory wait for the arrival of a therapist to help them through their rocky relationship. The therapist arrives in the form of Dominic West - who is a brash, sloppy and not very good therapist. He asks both banal and offensive questions, takes them through a play acting session and proves to be so uneffective the women leave. Prop used - a head massager.

Interval - I went downstairs but felt I couldn't stay very long because of the crush of people trying to go in all sorts of directions, looking for drinks or just stopping in their tracks. I ended up back at my seat. Spotted - Damien Lewis and director Jamie Lloyd. Dominic West came up and was going to sit where Stephen Mangan and Kieran O'Brien were earlier but then went one level down where I could see many of the actors from the 1st half seated to watch the rest of the performances - Lorraine Burroughs, Rafe Spall and Helen McCrory.

2nd Half

First up - Pencil

This was for me the best of the lot. An absolute joy and a very satisfying 10 minutes. The setting was a halloween party where William Houston was telling a typically spooky story to his partner - Ruth Wilson and another couple - Andrew Scott and Anna Maxwell-Martin. Andrew is well into it but Anna doesn't find the evening even vaguely interesting and her body language tells all. Ruth starts to tell a story and Anna knows it already and in her bored state, tells the punch line. She goes off to call a cab to leave the party early and we find out that Andrew hadn't known her very long and as they met on online, still is trying to impress her. Anna returns and tells them a story about a man who tried to attack her and how she escaped his clutches by jabbing a pencil into his neck. Then, in a very matter of fact and explicitly gory fashion, describes how he bled to death and dies. She then says in a very unemotional straightfoward manner, that as it was an excellent mechanical pencil she took it out of his neck and went on her way. This makes everyone see her differently and get a bit scared of her. Most of the humour came from Anna Maxwell-Martin's spot on performance. Prop used - a fack hatched that you wear on your head that looks embedded.

next up - Genius Bar

This was a huge let down. It didn't really go anywhere and many of he lines were missed which probably contributed. A man - Jason Isaacs, goes to the Apple Store Genius Bar to get his email programme fixed. The Genius attending to him - Ashley Walters, tries to tell him that he needed to do certian things to avoid the problem. The man sees this as a sales technique and is making too much bother about a mechanical object. He gets angry and a supervisor is called - Art Malik - who tries to council the man about his computer. The man thinks they are making too much of it and they call in the next higher up - Anna Chancellor. Unfortunately, Ms Chancellor got two lines in and forgot everything - the performance stopped as she told the audience that she needed to get the script, which she did, and was on book for the remainder. After hearing what she was supposed to have memorised it was easy to see why it was a near impossible task. Not much else of importance really happens in this play. I'm thinking the prop was a laptop.

Lastly - Marmalade

A bubbly young woman - Charity Wakefield, oohs and ahhs over her breakfast at the dinner table. Especially over the marmalade. The brother of her boyfriend - Stephen Mangan, sits nearby and engages her in not so pleasant conversation. She leaves the table soon after the mother of the boyfriend - Jane Asher, enters. Through the discussion between the mother and the brother we find out they both despise the girlfriend and have been doing everything they could think of to make her want to leave. The boyfriend enters - Kieran O'Brien. Stephen Mangan figures out a way to upset the girlfriend who had mentioned that she loves a man with a beard. He convinces Kieran O'Brien to shave his beard off- which he does - live onstage. This backfires when the girlfriend still likes him but the mother is upset. There were some uncomfortable pauses during this - I think people lines were missed and forgotten and they wer partly winging it. Also an entrance was missed which left the actors in limbo. Still, Stephen Mangan managed to hold everything together. Prop used - electric hair clippers.

After the performances the winner of a raffle for a trip for two to New York to the opening of Sam Mendes bridge Project on Broadway incliding first class flight and 4 star hotel (total value £10,000) was revealed. Grahan Morotn asked all the writers and directors who were seated in the audience to stand up ( I could only see two from where I was sitting) and all the cast came out for their bows.

Although the plays and performances fizzled out a bit towards the end it was still a wonderfully enjoyable night and well worth the money, If you love theatre and can manage to scrape together the money, I would well recommend it for next year.

You can follow me on Twitter @thisbarry

The Twenty Four Hour Plays Celebrity Gala 2009 (Part 1 - Process) (The Old Vic Theatre 1/11/09)

2009-11-01T00:17:00.015Z

This is the 6th annual 24 Hour Plays Celebrity Galas at the Old Vic, however the history of the format goes back to 1995 when the first 24 Hour Plays was mounted in New York where it has been happening annually every since. This Gala was in aid of the Old Vic's New Voices - developing the very best young and emerging talent and opening up the building to diverse audiences through education and community projects.

Here's a rundown of the specifics - how it works, who wrote, directed and starred:

The process:

Luckily we weren't watching 24 hours worth of plays but only an hours worth. Here's what happened during the previous 22 hours.

31 October

10pm - Actors, directors and writers meet at the Old Vic. Each was asked to bring an object which they shared with everyone. Each play must include one of the objects brought to this session. After the introductions - the actors and directors are sent home.

11pm - The six writers choose their actors from photos and are taken to a hotel to write a play throughout the night.

1 November

6am - The six 10 minute plays are taken and photocopied in preparation for the directors.

7am - The directors speed read the plays and choose their favourites.

8am - Actors gather to hear how they have been cast and receive their scripts.

9am - Rehearsals begin.

3pm - Each company gets 20 minutes of onstage tech time.

7.30pm - The performances begin.

The Plays, the writers, the directors and the actors:

I Should Never Have Agreed To This

Playwright - Ol Parker
Director - Jamie Lloyd
Cast: Nigel Lindsay, Elliot Cowar, Romola Garai, Haydn Gwynne, John Light

Ouch

Playwright - James Graham
Director - Josie Rourke
Cast: Clive Rowe, David Haig, Hattie Moraham, Rafe Spall

Stop Blaming, Start Loving

Playwright - Chloe Moss
Director - Patricia Benecke
Cast: Lorraine Burroughs, Helen McCrory, Dominic West

- interval -

Pencil

Playwright - David Nicholls
Director - Douglas Hodge
Cast: Anna Maxwell Martin, Andrew Scott, Ruth Wilson, William Houston

Genius Bar

Playwright - Nick Moran
Director - Angus Jackson
Cast: Jason Isaacs, Anna Chancellor, Art Malik, Ashley Walters

Marmalade

Playwright - Amy Rosenthal
DIrector - Annabel Bolton
Cast: Charity Wakefield, Stephen Mangan, Jane Asher, Kieran O'Brien

Although not all of the six plays were equally successful for one reason or another (yes, there were missed lines and one poor actor had to stop to run offstage and retrieve a script - all actors were off book), I enjoyed myself immensely from beginning to end, and it all ran like clockwork which was amazing.

The evening was hosted by Graham Norton and began with a short film that gave insight into the process from the previous 22 hours. The film was introduced (on film) by Artistic Director Kevin Spacey who couldn't be at the event as he had to fly to New York. For a film that was shot and edited over a 20 hour period with mulitple participants I found it extremely engrossing. It was great to see the actors and directors reveal the objects they brought. Here are just a few - electric hair clippers, an inflatable (inflated) Thomas the Tank Engine child's paddling pool and a pink toilet seat. Graham also mentioned that Dominic West forgot his but evidently it was a leather gimp mask. Hmmm. There was also a bit with each playwright as they settled into their swanky hotel rooms faced with the daunting task of writing a 10-minute play on the hoof. In fact, the whole project was daunting for everyone concerned, as was continually mentioned so hats off to everyone for bringing it all together.

I'll add to this soon with more detailed rundowns of each play.

Prick Up Your Ears (Comedy Theatre 29/10/09)

2009-10-30T21:27:00.008Z

This is one I almost missed. I've seen three previous productions that director Daniel Kramer has directed - all revivals of plays that I love - Hair, Angels in America, Bent - and I found his vision to be uber gay and tacky. Question - how do you make Bent, a play about debauched homosexuals and Nazi concentration camps gayer? Have Daniel Kramer direct it and turn a few of the Nazis into raging queens, that's how.

Anyway, I have been a big fan of Joe Orton (Loot, Entertaining Mr Sloane, What the Butler Saw) for years, ever since I stumbled across a copy of John Lahr's biography of Orton Prick Up Your Ears in the mid eighties. SInce then I've read it numerous times and have been fascinated by the relationship between Orton and his lover/friend Kenneth Halliwell - what kept them together and the steps leading to Halliwell bludgeoning Orton in the head with a hammer in 1967. For me it has high psychological appeal.

I wasn't entirely thrilled with Stephen Frears film version of the story because it lacked balance. Halliwell seemed to be more of a foil than a major player and there was too much emphasis on the peripheral charcters and the writing of the biography. It was all very academic and high brow which is certainly not what Orton was all about. So, I was thrilled when I heard a stage adpatation was coming to the West End, then I was somewhat put off that Matt Lucas of Little Brittain fame was playing Halliwell. When I found out that Daniel Kramer was directing that nailed the coffin shut. Surely it would be a debauched, superficially gay review of Orton's life. I vowed not to attend.

What eventually got me to go along? First Matt Lucas dropped out for personal reasons, then, Con O'Neill (who I have seen in other productions - and most recently in the film Telstar which is a role he created on stage and was Olivier nominated for) was announced as the new Halliwell. Finally, they really dropped the prices for this transitional period. Well not so much dropped but there were a few offers out there that made it a very attractive proposition - fourth row centre for £15. Excellent. So I booked, I attended and it was excellent. It had all the elements - great script, excellent performances, good set and yes, even good direction. I was wrong to have stayed away.

On a single set that reproduces Orton and Halliwells single room Islington flat, with only three characters (the third being the stupendous Gwen Taylor as their downstairs neighbour Mrs Corden) Prick Up Your Ears managed to cover all the major points of their story from the time right before Orton and Halliwell went to prison for 'redesigning' library books to the murder. What sets this production apart from the film is it gives depth of character to both Orton and Halliwell. It charts the elements that caused friction between the two and helps us understand what their relationship was like, on a physical and emotional level. Halliwell is given an equal voice to Orton's, which oddly enough is what was not present in their lives at the time. He doesn't come across as the irritating and despised monster that the film depicts. In a recent interview Orton's sister remarked that Halliwell wasn't a hated man. I'm glad they put this right because watching Halliwell grasp at straws in various attempts to get Orton to make him feel worthy and needed gives the story a whole new perspective so you sympathise with him. I'm not condoning the behaviour but you understand why things happened the way they did.

All of this storytelling would be nothing without three strong leads. Chris New (who was also in Kramer's Bent and Richard Eyers The Reporter at the National Theatre) gives an energetic, bouyant and cheeky performance as Orton, and as I previously stated Gewn Taylor as the Mrs Corden pitches what could have been a stock performance of the cooky older femail neighbour just right. In fact, all those who know the story will recognise her character as inspriation for some of Orton's characters. This is fact and it's good that playwright Simon Bent picked up on it as well as other details from Orotn's life that influenced his work.

Another nice touch was the use of dialogue to get across background information. This technique is used alot but in this instance it works a charm. Not once do you feel pulled from the flow of the story to listen to lists of background information. It's all organic. Again, in lesser hands it could have been a disaster because however great I think the script is I don't think it's actor proof.

Although all three actors are strong, however, everything depends on the final moments - the murder of Joe Orton by Kenneth Halliwell. Con O'Neill came up trumps and then some. No over the top hystrionics were on display, rather he plumbed the depths of his very being and connected in a way that one rarely gets to witness. During Halliwell's final moments of the play, after the murder, I felt really choked up. I felt his pain. I know it sounds cliche but I was a bit shaken and was wiping moisture from the corner of my eyes. And, it wasn't just me, I heard sniffling from a few others around me as well. When the actors came out for the curtain call Mr O'Neill himself was really holding back the tears, as if a flood of emotions that were stockpiled in the character of Halliwell were trying to burst forth from him. It was then that I realised that he had gone to a very real place in his performance and that reality had a real effect on the audience. A rare treat. Another big plus for live theatre.

I really don't want to say much more about this. One reason is that it seems to have divided the audiences. In my row there were about four or five people who didn't return after the interval. After the performance I saw a woman crying, bu them I overheard someone saying that they 'didn't come to the theatre to hear people argue onstage' and one young woman said that she thought it would be a comedy as it was on at the Comedy Theatre. Hmmmm. On a plus side, Stephen Fry was in the audience and he tweeted later that night about how fantastic it was. He even took Con and Chris out to dinner after the show.

If you see it and I recommend that you do, you have to listen. It's deceptivey simple, the structure, the story, but in reality it's been meticulously constructed. You have to listen.

The Offical Prick Up Your Ears Website

You can also follow me on Twitter @thisbarry.

The Spanish Tragedy with Dominic Rowan (Arcola Theatre 26/10/09)

2009-10-27T22:06:00.011Z

Deja vu - on so many levels. Where to start? There are three things that prompted me to see this. 1. It was at the Arcola which has done some great things and it's in my neck of the woods. 2. The image of a young girl in a party dress with a bloody axe was intriguing and 3. I have heard great things about featured actor Dominic Rowan. On a basic level I wasn't disappointed. I always like going to Arcola, wondering how the designer would get around the pillars in the Studio 1, there was a bloody little girl and Dominic Rowan pretty much lives up to his promise as the next big thing. What I had to contend with were uneven performances, not very visceral direction, and derivative design and storyline. Well, that last bit - derivative storyline - was the biggest issue. How was I to know?

From sometime between 1582 and 1592, this Elizabethan tragedy by Thomas Kyd was written in, you guessed it, language familar to Elizabethan's (and those with an ear for Shakespeare which I have mentioned in other posta can be hit and miss). For some reason this didn't click when I was reading the description so it turned out to be a rude awakening.

As those who have seen many Shakespeare plays will say, there are good versions and bad versions. For me, much of what determines good or bad is the delivery of the spoken word. It doesn't matter how many Shakespeares an actor has done or how much they have trained in Shakepeare, it all comes down to whether or not you can understand what they're saying. This was the biggest issue.

There were five different styles of delivery -The classically trained verse speech which lost any meaning or comprehension, the 'if I speak really fast it will sound like regular speech' method which again you can only get bits and pieces, the 'I'm not really sure what I'm doing but I will give it a go' method which surprisingly enough was more effective than the previous two, the 'I'll speak very quitely and slow' method which - well you can figure out how effective that was and finally the I know how to speak this language to make it understandable and emotionally satisfying. My favourite.

Keeping all this in mind, it took me a while to figure out what was happening and who was who. As it's set in Spain, and all the actors were suits, trying to figure out who Hieronimo was as opposed to Lorenzo and Balthazar took some work. Due to the variances in performance I only caught bits and pieces of what was going on however I did get to grips with the basic storyline. Someone died in battle, the love he left behid - Belimperia, falls for the son of Hieronimo who was one of the men responsible for saving the Prince in battle. The Prince falls for Belimperia, her brother orchestrates the murder of Hieronimo's son so Belimperia would be free to marry the Prince. Hieronimo vows revenge and gets it at a performance of a play within a play. There are a few more intrincacies to the story but that's basically it. There were also a few oddities which I couldn't figure out.

The girl in the bloody dress was there talking to, I think, the ghost of the Belimperia's original flame. They were always in and out saying things I couldn't catch. Also there was a show, puppet like but using the actors bodies with someone elses arms sort of thing. I think they may have been giving some background, didn't catch that either. However It was visually effective in its own way.

The space was set up with the audience on either side. Pendulum lights hung over the main playing space, there were two heavy black doors at either end and a working garage door with an additional playing space behind it. All actors were in modern dress, mainly dark suits (but why a few of them had brown shoes defied explanation). In addition to the story line this was another deja vu factor, this set was very reminiscent a production of Edward II I saw at Battersea Arts Centre - suits, pendulum lights used to focus light on specific scenes. I looked into it - not the same designer.

Directorily it was laclustre. I think the director, Mitchell Moreno, never really conquered the playing space. What seemed like intimate scenes between two characters were played with the actors as far apart as possible. There were big gaps between scenes, someone would exit at one end and there were a few too many beats before someone else entered, leaving the audience to keep watching the doors at either end to figure out where the action would resume. The play within a play at the end was very well done and very effective with the use of hanging mics and music however the murders got messy and the focus was lost.

I don't feel the actors were very committed to the production. They rose to the occassion when it was needed but there was something missing. I think it was a connection between the actors and as a result, the characters. Dominc Rowen was really good as Hieronimo and Patrick Myles as Belimperia's brother, orchestrator of all that is bad was also very good. Otherwise, it was akin to watching a summary of a story. The little girl who played the little girl was most effective as a visual incongruity but vocally was incomprehensible.

Later that evening Iooked the play up online. Ahhh, ok now I understand why it seemed so deja vu-esque. The Spanish Tragedy predates Shakespeare and establised the revenge play as a new genre in English Theatre. Shakespeare's Hamlet is said to have it's roots in the play citing the ghost figure (Also, I found out that the girl is the embodiment of revenge and she along with the ghost are discussing how revenge will be taken on all those involved in his murder. The fact that it was a little girl was a device invented for this production. Why? Who knows).

Although the production isn't entirely succesful, kudos to Doublethink Theatre for mounting a play that is rarely seen and trying to bring something new to it. Unfortunately, it ends up being one of those plays that is most effective if you know where it sits within the history of theatre. Deja vu.

The Spanish Tragedy Online

Fiona Shaw in Mother Courage and Her Children (National Theatre 20/10/09)

2009-10-20T23:48:00.014+01:00

In a nutshell - I enjoyed it but didn't love it; I appreciated it but didn't admire it. I enjoyed the pagentry of the production, the music (once I settled into it), some of the performances and the general overall effect. I appreciated what Director Deborah Warner (Powerbook and Happy Days at the National, Julius Caesar at the Barbican) was getting at and it worked on an intellectual level, to a degree, but not enough to admire it. All in all a pretty mixed bag.

As with all of Deborah Warner's productions of recent memory, the production aesthetics kept me entertained. This was designed by her current regular designer Tom Pye with costumes by Ruth Myers who has mostly worked in film, big major film. I think this collision of ideas was the start of why I felt everything was almost right but just didn't hit the mark.

When you entered the theatre, the Olivier's mostly bare stage, was heavily populated by stage hands, seemingly working on getting the stage ready. I immediately thought that the production was going into 'play within a play' mode, but thankfully it never did. Banners were coming in, flying up, flying down - props moved in and out - all seemingly without any real need. It all seemed staged to appear as if they were preparing but the result was a hollow exercise.These stage hands were pretty much present onstage or just lurking off in the shadows for the entire production, they were even used as dancers (well, movers) in the distant background in one scene, and judging by some of their faces, reluctantly. Other times they were obviously there for health and safety reasons. One came in towards the end with a script and was mumbling something to one of the characters which didn't really have an effect one way or another. I coldn't figure out what this choice was trying to say.

As it settled into the first moments, one of the actors, dressed as a soldier who had been joking and clowning around during the setting the stage section, made use of a stand up mic set off to one side by performing an impromptu sound check, hitting some rhyming hip hop beats and testing a floor pedal next to the mic setting off sounds of an explosion. Throughout the production he would occasionally sit off to the side, watching, and then step up to the mic to provide sound effects or set up the scene we were about to see. This in itself was strange as I'm pretty sure the audience could figure it out through the action and dialogue that followed. This was also odd as there were projections starting each scene with hand written introductions which were read by Gore Vidal in a pre-recorded audio.

The settings throughout were hugely theatrical, with very few 'structures' as such, save Mother Courage's cart and a few tents which were flown in. There were huge beige canvases hung throughout each scene written with each scenes location. Very stark and minimal. On the other hand there were costumes which were pretty unremarkable and erased any clue as when this play was set. They were all true to each character but didn't approach or acknowledge the theatricality of the setting. Having said that, it was fun watching it all happen and I was never bored during the 3 hour running time (+ a 20 minute interval).

Continuing with another first, this was my first Mother Courage and my first Brecht. Many of us know the story - a woman and her children are able to use a war as their only income and salvation, bringing into question the validity of the acts and war. To be honest, there isn't that much more to it. I did know, however, that there was music and song interspersed. In this production, new music was written and performed (on stage) by Duke Special, whose blond dredlocked hair, flared trousers and slightly platformed shoes, added a cabaret feel. He is very good, and I really liked his voice. It took me about three songs in before I understood the role the music played - to comment on and to expand on particular moments.

Although there was an overall story - one by one each child leaves her until she is left on her own, while her own womanly needs are split between two male characters - the play seemed to be a series of moments. Each moment had a message or theme, which is fine but the performaces didn't really handle this aspect well. Fiona Shaw as Mother Courage was as expected very good but didn't knock my socks off. It's a difficult role. On one hand Mother Courage continually belittles her children to their faces and behind their backs, yet she mourns thier loss and absences. It's a difficult balance. You would have to find something about the character which is likeable so that you could empathise with her as she speaks of the love she has for the children she just called stupid. It didn't happen for me. The rest of the performances were just up and down, here and there while the older actors fared best (special mention to Charlotte Randal as Yvette the prostitute. She pitched her performace just right and provided the only genuine laughs and pathos of the evening). On the other hand many of the younger actors grated on my nerves. They relied on tricks and ticks taught in acting school. They could have been deliberate choices of style, to give everything a more theatrical feel, but I found it, especially with one actress who was only on in the final scenes whose hammy overating was a standout for the wrong reasons, unbearable at times.

As with all live theatre, much of the overall experience is decided by audience reactions. On the night I went I had the feeling that it was supposed to be funnier than it ended up being. Many times what should have been a big laugh kind of fell flat. Certainly this has to have an affect on the actors. There could be two choices for them in this situation, really go for it and play it for laughs or retreat and underplay it. I'm afraid, with the exceptions stated above, underplaying was the course for the evening.

The various elements individually had interesting elements - the set, the acting, the music, the direction, but as a cohesive whole it never made the statement I think they were going for. One of my heroes Tony Kushner (Angels in America and Caroline or Change) wrote the adaptation which premiered in New York at a Public Theatre production. I can't tell you how it stacked up next to previous adaptations or it's original German, but from what I heard I thought it was great writing, giving the production a balance between the traditional and the contemporary which the other elemnts failed to do. The vision of the director was the star of the evening with everyone and everything else going along for the ride.

Further information and full credits

Big Little Night: Sea Wall with Andrew Scott (Bush Theatre 14/10/09)

2009-10-14T20:12:00.016+01:00

Image: Andrew Scott in Sea Wall
Photographer: Simon Annand

This happened fast. There was no time to consider what I may be seeing, where I would be seeing it and finally would I get there in time. I was offered a ticket in the early afternoon and had 1 hour to get there after work - East London to West London. I made it, with time to spare. So, I was relaxed and able to take everything in. For what could be considered a 'small' evening (running time 30 minutes) it most definitely was full of surprises and revelations, on all counts.

Part of my initial aprehension about seeing Sea Wall was the location. The performaces were taking place in a library around the corner from the actual Bush Theatre and I wondered if we were going to have to stand throughout the performance. All doubts were laid to rest as I easliy found the space, right where they said it would be. There were three or four rows of chairs arranged within the large but initmate open main space - two sections of chairs faced each other and the third connected the other two leaving a small 'playing area'. Above our heads was a large skylight made of glass bricks and corner to corner windows in the two outside walls on either side were completely uncovered to the outside world and the elements.

I sat centre, and watched as the audience members entered and took thier seats while Andrew Scott calmly paced just beyond the chairs, also people watching. Occasionally I would see a Hammersmith and City train go by outside of one window and it made me wonder if the residents of the flats opposite the other windows watched the performance on a nightly basis. Time was ticking by and I got a bit antsy. As the start time approched there seemed to be a steady stream of people going to the toilet seemingly oblivious to the fact that the actor was there waiting to start. Then the strangest thing happened.

A man started to talk to me. He told me some things about a friend of his, older, a military man who had some interesting views on the existence of God. This man who was talking to me was a photographer with a wife and a small child. It was interesting hearing his story but it soon turned a corner and became dark. There was a tragedy in his life that he didn't seem to know how to come to terms with. The man was Andrew Scott and that was his performance. So natural, so intimate one quickly forgot that it was a performance. This is why I love theatre, to get an experience so intimate and personal that it transcends being just entertainment.

I had seen Andrew Scott once before in Christoher Shinn's Dying City at the Royal Court, Honestly, besides the set, Andrew Scott is the only thing I remember. He played twins, and I swear if you weren't aware that the same actor was playing both roles you would think it was actual twins on stage (but you would wonder why they were never on stage at the same time). He gets to the heart of a character, there is no showy 'hey look at me' behaviour, no posturing, no self awareness. He seems to be interested in telling the story, that particular story. Couple that with immense talent and skill and you have a magnificent actor. He makes it look easy but that's talent. It's always great to be in the presence of actors who are more intereted in the work than celebrity. Just take a look at what he's been doing recently - He just finished 2nd May 1997 at the Bush, is now doing this small unshowy monlogue Sea Wall which he also did at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival this year and is also in rehearsal for Mike Bartlett's Cock - Upstairs at the Royal Court. It seems obvious that with his talent he could take his career to 'big things' (he was in the Broadway version of The Vertical Hour) yet he chooses less splashy work. An actor after my own heart.

Sea Wall was written by Simon Stephens who just had a production of his play Punk Rock on at the Lyric Hammersmith. I had heard wonderful things about his writing and this was my first Simon Stephens experience. I enjoyed it, I think it was well written but I can't say more than that. As it's only about 30 minutes long I don't find that to be long enough for me to come to any conclusion about the writing. I have often felt unsatified by short stories and I kind of feel that this was the theatrical equivalent. Having said that, it has since resonated in my head, not on a profound level, but it's there. I guess that says something,

I think I will check out another Simon Stephens play in the future, it would seem wise to do so. In the meantime, there's still more Andrew Scott to come at the Royal Court. I have my ticket, I may need another for an additional visit. He's worth it.

Speaking in Tongues (Duke of Yorks 22/9/08) + Streetcar - More Desire (Donmar 17/9/09)

2009-09-20T02:03:00.018+01:00

It's difficult to know what to say. When I hear the phrase 'speaking in tongues', I think of someone possessed, speaking in a language that one is not familiar with or understands. I don't think the intention of the play Speaking in Tongues at the Duke of York's Theatre was on the demonic level but I certainly had the feeling that someone, somewhere was demonically possesed and as a result should not be held accountable.

Drawn by the cast more than the writer I had high hopes of seeing something new and interesting. It wasn't either. The play itself, written by Andrew Bovell has been around since 1996 and adapted into the film Lantana in 2001, is not new, not even to London having played at the Hampstead Theatre in 2000. I failed on that level. So that leaves interesting - yes it was, for fleeting moments.

Mr Bovell's most recent play When The Rain Stops premiered at the Almeida back in May. I saw that production. It was infinitely more interesting than Speaking in Tongues but was let down, in my opionion, and in a similar way, by some strange directorial choices. (And it was a long haul of an evening - around 2 hours with no interval).

Speaking in Tounges has four actors, each playing dual roles. In this production they are played by John Simm (Olivier nomination for Elling, the original Life on Mars); Ian Hart (see the Three More Sleepless Nights at the National post); Lucy Cohu (Blood Wedding at the Lyric Hammersmith, The Queen's Sister for Channel 4 for which she received BAFTA and Emmy nominations) and Kerry Fox (Cruel and Tender at the Young Vic, the films An Angel at my Table, Intimacy, and Shallow Grave). I don't think it's giving anything away to say that all characters are connected in some way. It's definitely not giving anything away because you can see the connections flying at you a mile away. The reveals that connect the characters were the biggest let down. Once that mystery disappeared all you were left with were style and perfomances.

The play is heavily stylised. HEAVILY stylised. I can go one step further and say that it was overly stylised. It's structure overshadowed everything else. The only thing that could have made it interesting would have been the performances but as this was a preview it was evident that the characterisations were still in the formation stage. This was especially true of John Simm who seemed not to know who his character was. Judging by the text I would say that of all the characters, his was probably the least defined. This is not to say that the others were better written but they had something about them that I think an actor could easily hook into and build upon - some tick or habit that could give a clue. Poor Mr Simm just had that he was a policeman in a bad marriage as a character.

To give an example of the style. The play opens with two sets of couples, each embarking on a one night stand. All four characters are in the same bedroom set, crossing back and forth and having a conversation with their chosen partner. However, if that wasn't difficult enough to follow, the dialogue is split between all four characters. Some start a line and it's finished by another - it could be their chosen partner or not. Other times two characters responded to a question by saying the same thing at the same time. This scene quickly became about the style of the delivery and not about the characters. As this was a preview I could tell that all four actors were concentrating heavily on getting the words and timings right. As a result, most semblances of character had to take a backseat. It's a neat trick but it gave me a headache and I can't ever rember saying that about a play. Not only did you have to keep on top of who was saying what, when, to whom and why they were overlapping, but visually it became a sort of tennis match (I was in the fifth row centre). Things calmed down in the two separate scenes that followed, each with only two characters, but I quickly lost interest in what the characters were saying. There was no real insight and once you got it, you got it.

Act 2 had four different characters. It opened with two characters, with a connection, telling the audience their thoughts, with alternating dialogue. They were speaking about the same event but from two different perspectives. Again, once you got it, you got . And to make it more difficult, each was seated at opposite ends of the stage which made following what was being said even more difficult. The natural human response to someone speaking is to look at them, so - it was definitely a Wimbledon game for this section. Through this act, more of the 'mystery' is revealed, but the audience pretty much already knows what's going to happen and how and to whom, and then it ends. Just like that. Over and out.

To be fair, the performances were good. You could see that with time it could all come together. Kerry Fox especially shown as the one who has most developed her characters, with Ian Hart coming in second, followed by Lucy Cohu. Normally I would say, it's a preview, give it time, but the play is set and it doesn't add up to much. Strangely though, for a 2 hour 20min play with one interval it really went by quickly. I can't figure that one out.

I think the director, Toby Frow, and designer Ben Stones may be partially to blame. It seems to me that for a play that is so complicated in its delivery, one would want to make it as clear as possible instead of adding to the confusion. And the set. I have the feeling that portions of it were remnants from the production of Tom Stoppard's Rock and Roll that was at the same theatre a few years back. The bare, black 'bricks' looked really familiar. There is also a heavy use of video images, especially in the second act. I felt like I may have slipped into a film showing my mistake. Considering the discussions about the differences between the film and the play in the programme, this was probably a way for them to speak to modern audiences and make it more 'accessible'. Just speculation.

At the end of one of the essays in the programme: "Frow states 'The play does not provide easy answers.' But he does hope that it will give rise to vigorous discussion, to communication on one level at least." This surely came to pass. During both the interval and after the play (after a lukewarm ovation) I overheard many discussions, mainly trying to figure out what it meant. I think people were thinking too hard about this one. Usually, if you think it's really complicated and you can't figure it out, it usually is because it isn't.

STEETCAR! I went back for a second serving of A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar. Mostly because I love the play but also I always find it interesting to see how a production has progressed during a run. As expected, it has moved, changed, developed and redirected itself. I loved it even more.

Here are the developments (all character based).

Elliot Cowan (Stanley - above) - has dropped his Polish-ised New Orleans accent. I didn't have a issue with it before but I have to say it took the focus off how he was speaking and allowed you to involve yourself with the character.

Barnaby Kay (Mitch) - more forcful, aggressive. Could have been a direct result of Rachel Weiss' performance.

Rachel Weiss (Blanche) - this was the biggest development. There was more definition in her flitting from reality to magic. A much bigger arc from the beginning to the end. Also, as a side note, she was still phlegmy (see original Streetcar post). Either she still has a bit of a cold after all this time or it's some sort of method acting.

On a whole, I would say the production and performances were more aggressive, they had a 'let's go for it' attitude which served it well. There is always a danger that it could tip too far to the other side and lose that delicate balance, like the one Blanche has in her mind. But, it didn't happen. It's also interesting to note that this was an evening performance on matinee day. I wonder if they boosted the energy level in order to get though a second performance? Just a thought.

Tennessee Williams' A House Not Meant To Stand - Dir. Jamie Lloyd (Donmar 14/9/09)

2009-09-14T23:06:00.013+01:00

This was a most pleasant surprise. Well, more than pleasant - joyous. I stumbled across this staged reading as well as an additional one on the 15th, when online buying a ticket earleir in the summer to my A Streetcar Named Desire return visit. Both Tennessee Williams' A House Not Meant To Stand and The Fugitive Kind were being mounted, each for one night only, at the Donmar as rehearsed readings. I know The Fugitive Kind - the precursor to Orpheus Descending which was made into the film starring Marlon Brando - The Fugitive Kind. I don't know A House Not Meant To Stand, and with the added bonus of being only £10, it was an opportunity that I didnt want to miss.

What I was also looking forward to was being in an audience with mainly Tennessee Williams fans. As there was no addtional information made available (Cast, Director) one had to be interested in the playwright to spend an evening on something that many won't be familiar with. I avoided reading anything about it online as I wanted to be surprised and not come in with any preconceptions. Now that I'm home I looked up a few things. Most significant is it was that last play Tennessee Williams wrote. Described as a 'gothic comedy' this tragic comedy comes up with the goods. But more on that in a moment.

As this was a reading there was no programme with additional information about the play but we did get a cast list. Other than the privelege of seeing a rarely performed and not well known Teneesee Williams play, this was the first idication that the evening would be special. The cast, and for me, the director Jamie Lloyd. I think he is the best director around, He really gets inside the work and gets very fine tuned performances from his casts. Here are his credits: Piaf (Donmar and Vaudeville Theatre), Three Days of Rain (Apollo Theatre), The Pride (Royal Court - Olivier award for Oustanding Achievement in an Affiliate Theatre), Harold Pinter's The Lover and The Collection (Comedy Theatre) and The Caretaker (Sheffield Crucible and Tricylce Theatre). All of which I've seen. All excellent.

Now the cast: Alun Armstong (Sweeney Todd at the National - Olivier award, Bleak House, Little Dorrit -both TV and Get Carter - film); Obi Abili (The Brothers Size - Young Vic, Angels in America - Lyric Hammersmith, Fabulation - Tricycle); Felicity Jones (The Chalk Garden - Donmar, That Face - Royal Court, Brideshead Revisited - film); Anton Lesser (A Doll's House - Donmar, The Vertical Hour, The Seagull - both Royal Court, Little Dorrit - TV); Tom Riley (The Verical Hour - Royal Court, Lost in Austen - TV); Alison Steadman (Abigail's Party - stage and TV, Gavin & Stacey - TV, Confetti, Topsy Turvy - both TV and Shirley Valentine - film); Tim Steed (Much Ado About Nothing - Regen's Park, The Pride - Royal Court) and Una Stubbs (La Cage Aux Folles - Mernier Chocolate Factory, Pillars of the Community - National Theatre, Eastenders - TV). These are by no means exhaustive credits but hopefully you will recognise some of these by the credits I chose.

Now the play. Here's quick rundown of plot from Wikipedia ( editing out bits that should remain a surprise should you ever see it) - ' The play is set during the Christmas holiday in a deteriorating Mississippi home of Bella and Cornelius McCorkle, who have just buried thier eldest son, a gay man Cornelius banished from the home years earlier. During a raging storm, heavy drinker Cornelius, who once had political aspirations, tries to get Bella, who suffer from mild dementia, to disclose where she concealed the considerable amount of money she inherited from her grandfather, who accumulated his wealth by making and selling moonshine. Whe she refuses to cooperate, Cornelius threatens to have her institutionalised, just as he did with thier daughter Joanie. Coming to her rescue is thier negligent youngest son Charlie who has returned home with is girlfriend in tow.'

It sounds like a pretty dire situation, not ripe for comedy, but add in a zany busybody neighbour who has recently succumbed to plastic surgery, her down home macho-ist husband along with wild revelations about the girlfriend and you have a great and very funny comedy. What's interesting is although it's the 70's and sex, pills, plastic surgery and foul language run rife - it is still very much Tennessee Williams. I would venture to say it may be the funniest Tennessee Williams I've seen or read. However funny it might be, as is Tennessee's way, there is alway a sad, forlorn undercurrent. In this play it's Bella's refusal to let go of the past. As she feels she is approaching death, and helped along by her dimentia, she longs more and more for the life she once had, when all three children were present and everything was good.

Keep in mind that this was a reading. There were only chairs on the stripped bare Streecar set and all actors were on book and one of the actors - Obi Abili - read all the stage directions. This element was a great success. Anyone who has ever read a Tennessee Williams play will know that his stage directions tend to be very detialed and he ususally uses the same wonderful use of language in these directions that he uses in his plays. Having them read laoud not only gave the audience a greater sense of the action, it was also entertaining to listen to.

Hats off to the actors. To be able to get such fully realised performances, complete with believable Southern accents in a reading is a testament to their skills. I am sure this is also due to jamie Lloyds direction. i would say that it must be a very difficult thing to get stage a reading, wth little rehearsal , no set and on book, in way that is also interesting to look at, and keeps the audience engaged and entertained. At over two hours with one interval, this reading flew by.

Of all the performances there were three that shone. Both Felicity Jones and Una Stubbs were absolutely hysterically funny and spot on with their characterisations, and the great Alison Steadman gave great humanity and pathos to the bewildered Bella. A close second would be Alun Armstong as Cornelius and Anton Lesser as the macho Emmerson. The only real issue was that although the stage directions were great to listen to, alot of the actors diction was garbled and I felt I was often missing elements.

As with all 'pop out of nowhere' productions I have to wonder why they did the reading. Jamie Lloyd was there, the first time I've seen him in person, as were from what I can tell, Donmar staff. To me it points to the possibility of a full production. That would be fantastic. I would love that and be the first in the queue for tickets. There are a few scenes, ones dealing with the more dramatic parts, that in a fully realised production would be heartbreaking. Elements that can only be hinted at in a reading.

However much I want a full production I have two concerns. One - Jamie Lloyd would have to direct it as it's very obvious that he 'gets' Tennessee Williams, and two - please, oh please let it not be at the Donmar. This play needs a big playing space and the Donmar isn't set up for this, at least without dodgy sightlines. It was great for this reading, but a full production, no.

A House Not Meant To Stand could have just been a nice added gift to the audience. It ties in nicely with Streetcar and there are alot of elements and themes that resonate with current times. So if that's the reason - then I'm extremely appreciative - thanks Donmar! But, I'm still secretly hoping for more.

One last thought. If Tennessee were alive and still writing today, I'm sure he would be writing about how the more things chage, the more they stay the same. Actually, unbeknownst to him, he already has.

Judgement Day (Almeida 08/09/09)

2009-09-09T23:11:00.007+01:00

We're back in adaptation land. I pointed this phenomenon out to my friend and it's now beginning to hit home. Originally I wasn't going to say anything about Judgement Day due to two issues that I faced while seeing it, but after a chat with a work colleague today who saw it the night before I thought it may be worth giving it a go.

As a preface, it's another adaptation but to it's credit, it's a play and a playwirght that don''t really get seen or performed (I had never heard of either). I did have an issue with either the adaptation or the direction, not sure which, but I'll come to that in a minute.

FIrst performed in Germany in 1945, Judgement Day is presented in a new version by Christopher Hampton (adaptations and translations include: God of Carnage, Art, Les Liaison Dangereuses, Sunset Boulevard; Screenplays include: Atonement, Dangerous Liaisons; Original work includes: The Philanthropist which was just revived on Broadway with Matthew Broderick)from the original by Odon von Horvath. The story takes place in a small German village in the 1940's. After a train crash which leaves many dead, the villagers speculate on who was to blame with the results of the trial leaving many in doubt. That's all I will say, I know it sounds somewhat vague, but saying any more would give too much away I feel.

So, what were my reasons for not wanting to discuss this initially? Firstly, it was a preview performance. I find there are two types of previews. One is where a production has been performed at another theatre already so those previews are ususally just ironing out issues with being in a new space, or it's in very good shape already (although I think the preview aspect should still be taken into consideration). The second are previews in which the production is still finding it's feet. I find writing about a performace viewed during the second set of circumstances unfair to all involved. Although productions do grow and mature during a run, those first performances should not be used as a measuring stick for its success or failure.This particular performance fell into the latter category as it was evident that there were alot of kinks that needed to be worked out, and performances that may not have found the right tone yet.

The second issue was the cast. We were greeted by the Almeida's Executive Director who explained that the actress who plays the part of Frau Leimgruber - Sarah Woodward - was unable to be there that evening and that the part would be played by Susan Brown. It was explained that since the Almeida don't employ undersudies Miss Brown only came on board at 4.30pm that afternoon and shet would be on book. (After I returned home ad properly read my programme I discovered it was slipped with Susan Brown's bio and a note stating that Sarah Woodward was granted compassionate leave. My best goes out to her).

So, here we are, a preview performace where one of the actors is a last minute substitute. My friend pointed out after the performance (we were seated behind the director James Macdonald - Dying CIty, Blasted, 4.48 Psychosis, Drunk Enough to Say I Love You - so there wasn't any discussion about the production, on our parts, inside the theatre) that it was quite possible tthe last minute change in cast effected the cast and crew.

The set is a real star. Part of it is a train platform complete with smoke when trains arrive and depart. The platform then, throughout the production, moves back and forth as well as rotates to give the whole production a very cinematic feel. Unfortunately things didn't really go all that smoothly. Nothing outrageously bad but just off kilter enough to notice - things like doors not sliding or closing correctly, missed cues for light fixutres to move - just a bit messy.

The perfomances were somewhat uneven, some more mannered than others (I'm not a fan of mannered performances). Here we are at an adaptation issue, or a directing issue i'm not sure. The entire play takes place in Germany in the 1940's. I think it's fine that decided not to have German accents but everyone was speaking with their natural British dialect. We had accents from Northern Ireland to the East End of London. I found that odd. I wonder what the reasoning was behind that. I kind of gave me the feeling that not enough effort was made athough I'm sure that's not the case. Just a strange decision.

To the play itself. I could see what teh playwright was getting at (clue in the title) but at times it seemed very vague in delivery, tmoving into predictable, then into a place no one could see coming. That was also the place where I lost any understanding of what was going on. My initial thought was that the play itself was not very strong. The circumstances surrounding it that evening didn't help.

I briefly discussed this with a work colleague the next day. She had seen it the night before, with full cast intact. From her description the perfomances were as different as night and day. In particular we discussed the end. Her take on it all made sense. Although I'm not sure if it's meant to be open to interpertation. She also thought it was a shame I didn't get to see Sarah Woodward peform the role of Frau Leimgruber as she gave a wonderful performance.

After all that I have concluded that due to unforseen circumstances, I was witness to an off performance and the production does deserve people's attention. That's not to say if I went back later in the run, all would be forgiven. There are still elements that I know I would have a problem with, such as characters ramdomly changing thier points of view. But, at a little over 90 minutes, I would say that it's worth giving it a shot. And with such theatre pedigree behind it, you will definitely get something out of it.

Vanya - Chekhov Redux (Gate Theatre 1/9/09)

2009-09-01T23:12:00.013+01:00

If it weren't for a Whatsonstage.com two for one ticket offer I probably wouldn't have seen this. (2 tickets for £16 is a good good deal). I had noticed it before, seen the flyer, saw it in their brochure but dismissed it as just another of the 'adaptations' that we've been thrown recently. But, on closer inspection (the description) I took a chance:

Vanya by Sam Holcroft, inspired by Anton Chekov's 'Uncle Vanya'

(So far so good. 'Inspired by'. Sounds like a new play. Here's the rest)

Uncle Vanya is an ode to unrequited love, dogged perseverance and strength of the human spirit. In Vanya, Sam Holcroft and director Natalie Abrahami strip away the bustles, samovars and supporting cast, to chart the inner lives of four of Chekov's most beloved characters.

Two men love the same woman. Two women love the same man.

Vanya explores the chaos and heartach that ensues when we fall in love.

Funny thing, as I was typing this I realised the anomaly in the copy. It's beeing sold as a new play, inspired by Uncle Vanya, yet they seem to be afraid that theatregoers will be angry at seeing a stripped down version so they let us know that a stripped down version is exactly what it is. Not a new play at all. Here we go again.

I think this points exactly to what the main problem is with Vanya, it doesn't know what it is. Is it a new play inspired by the classic? Is it a revisit? Is it a new take? It's all of these and none of these. They all cancel each other out.

Let's start with the peripherals - design and music. Great set on the tiny Gate stage. In fact, it's so sucessfull you never for a moment consider how small space it is. Basically the set is a box, a large crate that rotates becoming interior and exterior scenes in various rooms. I'm sure there is some symbolism that goes along with everything seeming to be under construction and with the one character who deconstructs then reconstructs it but I never figured it out.

It's all in modern dress. So far so current. Then, oddly, an old gas lamp is lit. A lamp like one you could find in a tradtional version of Uncle Vanya. This is replaced by something more modern later on. One of the characters puts a record on an old gramophone, the music is classical in nature and again evokes another, earlier era. Then, in various scenes more modern music is used.

On to the dialogue - again a clash of styles. On one hand there's a lyrical, almost poetic nature to some of the monologues, but as with everything else, this is placed directly again blunt, contemporary dialogue. it doesn't work - on may levels. The poetic lyrical dialogue seems forced and too much of a style that is attempting to echo another era. The contemoporary dialogue is clumsy and often rubs up agains the lyrical dialogue as if to point out that difference.

The story? I've seen an excellent Uncle Vanya directed by Katie Mitchell at the Young Vic about a decade ago and although I enjoyed it, I have to admit that the storyline didn't really stay with me. I remember not really caring that much about what happened. It was interesting but not enough to make me care. It seemed to be more concerned with the politics of the times, personal and otherwise, than with the immediate concerns of the characters. Just my opinion. I'm not a big Chekhov person so that may have played a part. I appreciated it but it didn't uncover any unchartered layers of the human psyche.

Anyway, I am very much of the opinion that one shouldn't need to know original source material to enjoy a play but I did get the impression that by stripping away any political motivation, which they did in Vanya, that one is not left with much. In fact, it seems that everything has been stripped away to the point that there are, If I remember correctly, 5 monlogues that reveal more about the characters than the story or dialogue. For some this might not seem alot but if you take into consideration that the play is only 90 minutes with no interval... well you do the maths. Oh, there was also another speech that could almost be considered a monlogue that the doctor gives, detailing his theories on relationships and attraction - I lost track of how long this was as I occasionally drifted. Throughout, characters are telling us what they think but there isn't enough information given to understand why? This is where knowledge of the source material would come in handy.

The performances were all solid. I personally prefered some over others but that's not to take anything away from them. Here's the cast: Fiona Button as Sonya (who reminded me of a blond Anna Maxwell Martin), Robert Goodale as Vanya, Susie Trayling as Yelena and Simon Wilson as Astrov.

Going back to my original point, this is not from what I observed, a play 'inspired by' Chekhov. This, again, is a basic reworking of a classic. What I will give them though is that they changed the name and used the word 'inspired', letting us know that it is not Chekov. Try as they might, this version doesn't uncover any new ground.

I don't understand why she (Sam Holcroft) didn't just write a new play. It tries so hard to make us understand the connection with the original that I couldn't couldn't consider Vanya as anything other than a stripped down, fiddled with version. The audience seemed to enjoy it, I don't know what they were reacting to but one person gave it a standing ovation. I can't help but think that they were applauding a new version of a classic and not a new play. If we had more of the latter I might consider standing.

Gang of Four - intimate gig (The Macbeth 24/8/09) + Three More Sleepless Nights (National Theatre 24/8/09)

2009-08-26T08:05:00.021+01:00

At first glance it would seem that would seem that these are two very disparate events, but in reality they have one big thing in common, they both were about observation, one of society in general and one of human interaction and romantic entanglements.

I stumbled across Three More Sleepless Nights at the National Theatre when the flyer came across my desk one day. To be honest it was seeing that Ian Hart (Backbeat, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the American TV series Dirt) was in the cast that really interested me as well as the price (£10) and the author. It's an early play by Caryl Churchill who's best known for writing Top Girls and the more recentish A Number which I saw in it's original incarnation at the Royal Court with Michael Gambon and Daniel Craig. (It's the play about the clones which was made into a TV version either earlier this year or last)

On the whole, I have a hard time keeping up with what's on at the National - three theatres, each with multiple productions that perform in what I see as random repertory. Productions overlap start and end dates, some seem to pop back after you assumed they were over. This production seemed to make the situation even more complicated. Just a handful of performances, stuck in the middle sized National space, the Lyttlelton, over Helen Mirren's Phedra set. Litterally. Pushed as far downstage as possible, the set of an ordinary bedroom, was placed directly on the Phedra set. The back bedroom wall was almost nonexistent so the vista above and beyond was Phedra's grey stone set.

The majority of the start times for these handfull of performances were 6pm, with the occasional 8pm second show. At a short 50 minutes long, this seemed reasonable but I have been wondering what was in it for the National. All tickets were £10. You had to reserve your seat but no matter where you sat you paid £10. Very reasonable. I assumed at first that the early start time meant that they could still do Phedra later, but I don't think it could really have been an option as that would mean less than an hour to get the audience out, tear down the Sleepless Nights set and dress Phedra. Possibly, having not studied Phedra's performance times, there was a gap in the rep schedule and it wasn't feasible to remove Phedra.

I did study the cast and crew biographies for a clue. In addition to the wonderful Ian Hart (who by the way will be appearing soon in the West End with John Simm in Speaking in Tongues - the play version of the film Lantana - I'll be seeing it), the other actors were all, judging by their credits, accomplished and always working. They were Lindsey Coulson, Ian Hart, Hattie Morahan and Paul Ready. Maybe the clue was with director Gareth Machin. This was his first directing project on the National stages. He is associated with the National Studio and prior to that was the Artistic Director of Southwark Playhouse after Thea Sharrock (Equus). Maybe all the elements came together at the right time to make it possible to do a low risk piece. Great idea. Maybe not the right piece for the space though.

Here's the National's description of the play - 'An explosive play abouth human interaction and love tangled relationships'. I'd agree with everything except 'explosive'. As the title hints, the play is divided into three sections. Each section concentrates on a couple, either getting ready for bed or trying to sleep. The first features Ian Hart and Lindsey Coulson in tour de force performances of a bickering couple. A loudly bickering couple. Accusations are thrown, then thrown back, the tables turn, the characters intentions blur. It's a great feat to pull that one off. It was very believable, entertaining, funny and recognisable. Within the fast paced, overlapping dialogue you can hear truths, their truths, emerge, used as artillary to obliterate the other. Loved it - it kept me transfixed.

The second scene was the downfall. There were alot of silences as this couple slowly fall apart - literally and figuratively. This particular scene brought any shortcomings the production had to the forefront. I was in the second row as I had heard it was an intimate play and although it helped being closer it was still evident that it would have worked better in a smaller theatre. The enitre scene moved in and out of being very static. Many silences, including extended 'in bed not doing alot' moments.The scene started very much in contrast to the first scene. Any communication was passivly aggressive and only audible through series of grunts and groans as they tossed and turned. Interesting, for a second. Once you got it, you got it. I'm not sure if it was the actors but maybe more the direction and the space. How do you play silence? Especially when a couple are lying in bed with dimmed lights? Honestly, even at 6.30pm or so, I had difficulty keeping my eyes open.

It all comes to a good conclusion with the third scene, which effectively takes elements from the first two scenes and puts them into a scenario which makes everything that came before more clear. (I wondered, more than a few times, what the second scene was all about while I was watching it).

Overall I enjoyed it. It was interesting and I liked the structure. It was very much about observation as I doubt anyone would come away really caring for any of the characters. That would be almost impossible to do in 50 minutes. It was a good unpretentious evening, which is always welcome. Too bad it wasn't in the the smaller Cottesloe Theatre.

Directly after the performance I was on a bus, headed to Hoxton for an intimate pre Anniversary tour gig by Gang of Four. They are my 'friends' on MySpace which I use for keeping up with my favourite bands, and they had a competition for free intimate gig tickets. I didn't enter as you had to buy tickets to the main gig at the HMV Forum to win. I hadn't planned on going so I didn't enter. They posted another link about a week later through NME, this time no strings attached. I have to say that I hesitated for a moment thinking that they were having a difficult time shifting a few tickets to a small gig. Could that be a good omen? I knew that there were only two of the original four remaining. I went through that before when in the late 90's I saw The Brothers Johnson open for Isaac Hayes, Or should I say the Brother (singular) Johnson. As there were only two originally, this was a huge disappointment. Anyway, I took the chance, and was rewarded by being put on the list.

My exposure to Gang of Four was initally limited to the first couple of albums, YEARS ago. I won't say how long in order to protect the innocent. I wasn't living in the UK at the time and there never seemed to be much to be found about the band at the time, especially as this was pre internet. My interest was then revived when they released the excellent Brief History of the 20th Century, sort of greated hits, more overview album in 1990. Anyone wishing to get into their music should start there. For some time I sort of wrote them off after their foray into the more populast sounds of 'I Love A Man in a Uniform' (the irony was lost on popular culture as the song was adopted by any TV show, hen night or gay party as the anthem for oggling men in uniforms). After this they sort of disappeared from my radar. Every so often I'd play the Brief History CD, now with ipod it rotates more frequently. it wasn't unitl My Space that I really began to look more carefully at the band and what they were all about. To say all that prepartion in no way prepared me for how amazing they are live is an understatement.

Doors opened at 8pm and it stated in my email - get there early, band starts 8.30ish. I didn't have too much control over how long it took to get there. I arrived at The Macbeth pub in Hoxton Street around 8ish. There was no queue outside and only a handful of punters once inside. The Macbeth is a smallish pub dominated by the bar and at the far end of the room they built a stage complete with lighting rig. 8.30 came and went. By this time it was pretty full. The only thing that kept me sane during the wait (I was on my own) was the great music they were playing. A real mix from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Real quality. As those of us in the middle jostled for a good view without a supporting pole in the way as we reached 9pm. It was getting mighty hot in there and I wondered how long I would be able to hold out. Overall it was a great crowd. Mix of ages - obvious fans from day one mixed in with newer, younger fans. No uber fans in sight which was a relief.

They finally hit the stage close to 9.30pm and it was worth the wait. To an extent I find it difficult to describe a bands music with any justice. I never, ever consider descriptions that compare bands - I don't think it does anyone any good.Imagine chainsaw guitar, wall of sound guitars often using a rhythm guitar pattern, sometimes staccato mixed in with thumping r&b tinged basslines and powerhouse rhythmic drums. Vocals have a punk edge to them, conveying, thoughts in less of a sing-songy way than as statements - sometimes lyrical, sometimes authoritative and sometimes matter of fact. That's the best I can think of to describe it.

My fear of them being elder statermen trying to relive their youth was soon dispelled. The two original members - Jon King and Andy Gill - performed like their life depended on it. Jon King with his sometimes demonically possessed look (not forced) and Andy Gill's guitar playing were spot on, lifting what could have been a quick trip down memory lane to a first rate live music experience. It helps that their music has not dated. It sounds as fresh as it ever did. Live, great songs and musicianship is transformed into a energetic, visceral, heart pounding, and body bobbing good time.

They played all their well known tunes (with the exception of 'I Love a Man...' and the other song from that album which never really made sense to me within the Gang of Four canon - 'Is it Love?') - 'To Hell With Poverty!', 'Damaged Goods', 'Anthrax' and the fantastic 'What We All Want' being my highlights.

I love Jon's lyrics, very politically aware and wonderfully observational. He plays with words and references literature. Also, what I had to keep reminding myself that this sound was being made by only three instruments - Guitar, bass and drums. It was so full. A sound that many bands could not even begin to replicate with more. I must give a shout out to the two newest members of the band - Thomas McNeice on bass and Mark Heaney on drums (who became a father the day before - that's dedication). Both exceptional and integrate seamlessly into the band.

All in all, 90 minutes of excellent music. I have found of late that one could easily forget what a great live gig really is. This was the real deal.

During a few breaks Andy entertained questions from the audience. My favourite - 'Is it true you hate Coldplay (sic)?' - Andy 'Music for bedwetters'. I think that pretty much sums it up.

A Streetcar Named Desire - Rachel Weisz, Elliot Cowan (Donmar 6/8/09) + Helen (Shakespeare's Globe 5/8/09)

2009-08-08T12:23:00.025+01:00

Before I roll off the Streetcar I would like to mention the show I saw the night before, Euripides' Helen and more specifically the theatre where I saw it, Shakespeare's Globe.

I was at the press night performance of Helen which is unusual as I tend not to go to Shakespeare's Globe - there's one main reason for this, Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong, I think Shakespeare is just fine but what I've learned over the years is that I only seem to like certain productions. I've also learned that for me these certain productions are few and far between. To date there are only three I've truly enjoyed and not just appreciated that come to mind - the full length Hamlet with Paul Rhys at Plymouth and the Young Vic Theatre, the recent All's Well That Ends Well at the National and the film version of Titus directed by Julie Taymor (that's a cheat I know, but it was a film version of her original stage version so I'm counting it).

Anyway, I thought a Greek classic could be interesting, and it's not Shakespeare. Well, everyone seemed to enjoy it, mostly, but I didn't. Although it's not Shakespeare it still had that Shakespeare edge in it's style. It was mostly presentational storytelling and not much pathos, for me. I just couldn't connect. From what I understand this was a literal translation of the original Greek without much thought for the original poetry. That explained alot.

Strange thing about Shakespeare's Globe, the elements that make it special are the same that I don't really like. I was sat at the top with a pole blocking some of my view and that immediately took me out of that place I need to be in to concentrate. I think there are more partially obstructed views than not in the Globe. Plus, of course it's still light outside and everyone else in the audience is in plain view, so much in fact that there's almost no delineation between audience and production. I usually find the audience much more interesting and end up watching the groundlings and the blank expressions of those seated opposite me. As a result, I miss out on great chunks of what's happening on stage. It's great to experience the Globe a few times but I don't find it to be an ideal place to see theatre. And great reviews aside, I didn't notice alot of people enraptured by the production. I think if you generally enjoy Shakespeare you will enjoy Helen (and it's only 90 minutes with no interval).

On to Streetcar at the Donmar. I love Tennessee Williams. Let's get that out of the way first. However, that fact in no way clouds my reactions to the productions. Tennessee Williams is my Shakespeare. To date, in London, I've seen five productions of Tennessee Williams plays - two poor, two great, one excellent. First the poor - Night of the Iguana with Woody Harrelson. Boring and uninvolving. The other, Summer and Smoke - same experience. It just didn't work and quite possibly as I saw it at the end of a truncated run, the actors may have lost interest. The great - The Glass Menagerie with Jessica Lange in the West End directed by Rupert Goold along with The Rose Tattoo with Zoe Wannamaker at the National. And the excellent - A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar.

A word to those who have only seen the film version - nothing could prepare you for how visceral, sexual, shocking and moving it is on stage. It's been widely known that cuts were made to the film so it could pass the censors. Part of that footage was reinstate in recent DVD versions - the scene where Stella slinks down the stairs to Stanley after a bust up. It was deemed too sexually provocative by 1950's standards. I always forget that the censoring and strict standards applied to films in those years didn't apply to the stage. On stage Streetcar gets ugly, and real. I can't help but think how it must have felt to have experienced it during its original stage incarnation in 1947. It must have been like getting hit by lightning. If it feels electrifying now, it must have been a crazy force of nature type hurricane back then. It's a classic and won the Pullitzer for a reason.

I've always depended on the kindness of strangers. I don't want realism, I want magic. STELLA!
As with many classic plays there are tense moments when the classic lines appear. One false move and they can often take you right out of the moment. It's a dangerous line between remaining true to the text and character whilst giving 'those' lines a new spin. On top of that it's just getting Tennessee right.

What most of the American South based Tennessee Williams productions I saw were missing was an understanding of the American South and the Southerner. In addition, I would venture to say that his dialogue can be as difficult for some actors as Shakespeare's. Tennessees language is a mixture of poetry and straight ahead realism and humour. Getting that balance right can be tricky business. You really have to understand the character and get in the groove to sucessfully pull it off. It's so much more than just getting the accent right. This production gets it right. There's not one wrong note in it's style and delivery (although accents are sometimes shaky it doesn't matter - at all). I think much of this is down to the American director who is himself from the South.

I now realise I'm assuming you know the story. If you don't, here is the nutshell version (thanks Amazon)-

Fading southern belle Blanche DuBois is adrift in the modern world. When she arrives to stay with her sister Stella in a crowded, boisterous corner of New Orleans her delusions of grandeur bring her into conflict with Stella's crude, brutish husband Stanley. Eventually their violent collision course causes Blanche's fragile sense of identity to crumble, threatening to destroy her sanity and her one chance at happiness.

Back to the production, all of the performances are solid. I really believed that Blanche (Rachel Weisz) and Stella (Ruth Wilson) were sisters. Great casting there. I think the most difficult role is Stanley, mainly because every actor will always have to fight to get out of the original's - Marlon Brando - shadow. Elliot Cowan carves his own Stanley - frightening, lecherous, primal and sometimes conflicted. There were a few spots, however, mostly in the beginning where I thought he might have chosen to channel Brando's voice but this could have been a deluded expectation on my part. Strange side point - Mr Cowan's body is ripped beyond belief (mainly due to his personal atheletic interests) and although that's not my preference, I heard a great many 'Stanley's fit' statements during the interval and afterwards. I find this really strange some choose to ignore how brutish Stanley is and just see sex. Talk about parallels.

Luckily my friend and I were sitting stage right next to the aisle in the fifth (and back) row in the stalls so had a good view. I imagine however that If you were on the other side or sitting closer to the upstage area you may have your views impaired. The action takes place in two rooms, separated by a sheer curtain that is sometimes drawn. Sightlines seem to be an issue sometimes with the Donmar. I'm am seeing it again in September and will be on the other side so we'll see.

Another side note - a testament to the talent of Rachel Weisz. It was evident that she was suffering with a cold. She had to blow and wipe at her nose a few times and there were tissues and hankies available in various places on stage. Despite this there was not one time when it impaired her performance. She gave a full on, fully realised and touchingly accurate performance, bringing Blanche's inner world to life. Neither her energy nor passion ever flagged. I never for a moment felt that she was giving less as a result of illness. A true professional in every sense of the word.

Lastly, I have always been moved by the filnal scenes in the film. In this production those emotions were maginfied 10 fold. I 'felt' it. I was embarrassed, saddened, moved - I held my breath and fought back tears. Just thinking about it moves me even now. What a thrill. They have all done Tennesee justice. I loved it.

Jerusalem by Jez Butterworth - Mark Rylance (Royal Court Theatre - 27/7/09)

2009-07-29T21:54:00.016+01:00

I remember back in the day when a new play called Mojo was on at the Royal Court. It caused alot of buzz, was 'the' ticket to get and Hollywood celebrities were flying over to see it. Jez Butterworth was the man of the moment. I never got to see that production but all the same I was fascinated by it - by the image of the bloodied face, by the title , by the names of the characters and by the 1950's Soho setting. It wasn't unit many years later that I saw a production of Mojo at the small Rosemary Branch theatre in Islington. It was a good production but I felt a bit let down. It had great verbal sparring but I felt that it was lacking something. I wanted to know more about the characters, gain some sort of insight to help me care about them. With Mojo, and I am obviously in the minority on this as it won all sorts of awards, it just seemed to be bits of great verbal interactions strung together with a thread of plot. The emperors new clothes? Just a thought.

I tried to watch the film version but became so bored I think I only made it less than a third of the way in. I did however like his film Birthday Girl with Nicole Kidman and the great Ben Chaplin. It had heart. Funny enough though, there wasn't alot of the verbal sparring. More recently I saw Parlour Song at the Almeida Theatre. Evidently it was on Broadway but I don't remember hearing about it and I try to keep up. But hey, I'm no expert so, oh well. Anyway, Parlour Song was a strange ride. On one hand you have knockout uber hilarious performances from Andrew Lincoln and Toby Jones and on the other hand you get a semi forced story that concerns the wife of one of the characters. Nothing much comes of it and I came away feeling sorry for the poor woman who had to play the wife as Butterworth didn't seem to know or really care about her character.

I booked for Jerusalem on the strength of Mark Rylance being in the cast and knowing that if I booked sooner rather than later I could get a £10 ticket. So onwards and up...onwards and onwards to Jerusalem at the Royal Court Theatre, £10, front row, centre. Advance word was, as always is the case with Jez Butterworth, veering off the scale. 'Amazing', 'fantastic', 'genius' blah blah blah. I try my best to ignore this type of thing and I think I made a valiant effort to erase the plaudits from my mind.

Undeniably, the best thing about the production are the performances and every part is cast extremely well. This was not surprising as you have to have a certain skill to handle the verbal elements. Mark Rylance is fantastic, bringing his character Johnny Byron, a 40ish, drug dealing absentee father who lives in a 50's caravan on a plot of land earmarked for development, to life. Here's the basis of the play from the back of the playtext -

On St George's Day, the morning of the local country fair, Johnny Byron, local waster and modern day Pied Piper, is a wanted man. The council officials want to serve him an eviction notice, his children want their dad take them to the fair, Troy Whitworth wants to give him a serious kicking, and a motley crew of mates want his ample supply of drugs and alcohol. Jerusalem is a comic, contemporary vision of life in England's green and pleasant land.

The 'motley crew' get a special mention for being great. Mackenzie Crook (The Office) gives an expectedly touching performance and someone I wasn't familiar with, Tom Brooke who plays Lee the one emigrating to Australia, is a talent to watch. Honestly, there isn't one bad link.

Here is my act by act Jerusalem experience:

Act One - Great set by Ultz - a real 1950's silver streamline caravan in a real wooded area - trees, grass all real (I could smell the fertilizer in the front row and was dodging the occasional fly). Under the trailer there were real chickens and later a turtle. Interesting set up - very funny. We find out about most of the 14 characters.

Act Two - A bit more depth, we find out about the rest of the characters, most importantly Johnny's son and the mother of his son. Promising. By this point I wanted to know where it was going.

Act Three - This is where it fell down for me. The performances got very - slow and 'important'. Lots of long speeches. At the end of each I thought it was the end. But no, went on and on and on. It dipped into Mojo land with violence and blood, then still went on and on. (I was distracted for a moment by a mouse that bounded from the chicken coop and hid behind a set piece). Act three was when I realised Jerusalem wasn't really saying anything we didn't already know, or had heard on numerous Channel 4 documentaries.

Jerusalem is good in an observational sort of way. Again, the dialogue comes up trumps but I did think it felt a bit laboured this time around. I find it hard to believe that people can continuously spew funny lines. By then end I felt I had been hit over the head with a club called 'the point'. Get it? Got it. Good. It could have been edited into two acts, easily, without losing anything but you know what? With it's nods to Shakespeare (Midsummer Night's Dream and Lear), it's portrayal of a contemporary landscape and its great central performance by Mark Rylance, this will be nominated for everything and win a great many. Mark my words.

Ibsen's A Doll's House - Gillian Anderson (Donmar 16/7/09)

2009-07-18T20:48:00.021+01:00

I really like Ibsen. To date I've seen The Master Builder with Patrick Stewart (loved it), Pillars of the Community with Damien Lewis (loved it), Enemy of the People with Ian McKellen (didn't really impress), Rosmersholm with Helen McCrory aka Mrs Damien Lewis (didn't impress) and Brand with Ralph Fiennes (also didn't impress). So that's three to two against. Maybe I was a little quick with my praise for Ibsen, or it could have been the problems were the productions and not the plays.

There are two additions to that list, or possibly just one. I've seen two pseudo-Ibsen's so I will consider each as a half production. The first was Mrs Affleck by Samuel Adamson from Henrik Ibsen's Little Eyolf at the National and most recent, Ibsen's A Doll's House in a new version by Zinnie Harris at the Donmar. A 'new version'. Hmmm. That's a strange concept for a play. I think it's valid to update or adapt a play - pulling out various aspects to make an older piece more relevant to a contemporary audience, putting emphasis on other aspects that sometimes get lost in other productions - but to rewrite someone elses work, put your name on it and retain the original title is just a bit - rude.

Going back to Mrs Affleck. That was a disaster. I never saw Little Eyolf so I had nothing to compare it to but as a stand alone piece of work, it was pretty bad. The Director, Marianne Elliott, was there the night I saw it and from her expressions (this was the end of the run) she wasn't too impressed either (by the way, she also directed the Pillars of the Community I mentioned above). At least they retitled the play which is not the case with A Doll's House.

Again, I've never seen A Doll's House so there was nothing to compare it to. I read that it was not faithful at all to the source material, with characters missing or rewritten as well as the dialogue being stripped of its poetry. Without a comparison to the original I wouldn't have realised this but knowing made me think how unfair it is to Henrik Ibsen and his art. Mr Ibsen worked hard to invent characters, situations, dialogue and a story that would serve his message. A Doll's House is his work from top to bottom so you can't have a 'new version' unless you were Henrik Ibsen. You can have a new play 'based' on A Doll's House with a different title but calling your new version Ibsen's A Doll's House doesn't make sense (maybe if you were a conceptual artist making a statement about...). Enough of the soap box and on to the play.

For those who know the play I'll give you this one major rewrite - the setting has been changed from late 1800's Norway to Edwardian London 1909. For the rest who aren't familiar with the story here it is in a nutshell:

There's a woman Nora (Gillian Anderson) who is married to Thomas (Toby Stephens) and together they have two young children. Also involved in the story is Nora's old school friend Christine Lyle (Tara Fitzgerald) who comes to work for Thomas after the death of her husband left her destitute. Rounding out the homestead is family friend Dr Rank (Anton Lesser). Thomas is involved in politics and there seems to have been a problem with a struggle for power and standing with Neil Kelmann (Christopher Eccleston) who in turn has a past and present with both Nora and Christine. Nora has been very cunning in keeping her family ticking along and the main storyline concerns her keeping how she has done this from her husband. Of course there are other bits and pieces but that's basically the story.

As with all Donmar productions, the production is intimate, the sets and costumes are good and there is never the sense of reaching for more than the space will allow. However, ensuring all the actors were being seen from all three sides (the stage is a mini thrust) was a problem. From where I was sitting I saw most of Christopher Eccleston's performance via the back of his head.

I loved seeing this for one main reason - Gillian Anderson. She was phenomenal. I was very much taken aback. From her very first scene until her final minute, she was Nora. Every nuance, movement and vocal inflection was very much in keeping with the moment. I never once thought 'oh, it's Gillian Anderson'. It was always Nora. She made you care about her and her plight. I think that is very rare. She owned her performance and she commanded the stage. You couldn't stop watching her and this was also a problem with the production.

With the exception of Tara Fitzgerald, who was excellent as well, the other actors seemed very stilted next to Ms Anderson's pitch perfect performance. I discussed this issue with a friend who was with me at the performance. I attribute the jarring differences to the variances in how actors are trained. Here is my theory. The majority of what we see on stage in the UK is a direct result of very formal acting training. Although much revered throughout the world and having turned out some amazing actors, UK training is missing something. I would call it 'true emotion'. On the other hand US actors as we all know favour The Method which has been much maligned and misunderstood. The Method is fundamentally a connection with the characters emotions to ensure a truthful portrayal, truthful to both the characters emotions and reactions to surroundings, situations and other characters. However, what alot of US actors are missing is technique, especially stage technique which the UK has in spades.

I think of the most famous and respected UK actors as having a balance of both. This could be a result of their training mixed with pure instinct and talent or training mixed with having done a good amount of US films. On the other side of the pond, formal training, at least for the stage, is not as widespread or required as here in the UK. There is more of a reliance on Method to get you through. My favourite performances come from actors who combine both. Gillian Anderson combines both and I think it's because of her transatlantic career. The other actors in A Doll's House seemed to be doing what they should do as an actor as opposed to what they feel they should do, if that makes sense. It's not that they were bad, but it was a weird juxtapostion.

One final word about the 'version'. I'm not entirely sure if the stories are clearer in the original version but I wasn't following a few details, like Thomas' political situation and there is another coming together of two estranged people where I thought I had missed the backstory. I asked my friend and it was confirmed that I didn't miss it. I guess I was thinking it was more complicated. Although the play had some light funny moments, especially between the two women, there were times when I wasn't sure if the lines were supposed to be funny (the audience laughed) or they weren't supposed to be funny but the actors decided that they would deliver them that way because they were so ridiculous. And they were ridiculous. Example - one character proclaims their love for another. One asks the other to move in with them. The response was (sic) "will there be enough room for my children?", response (sic) "we may have to get more chairs". The chairs thing was also mentioned as they parted. Oh well. So much for new versions. But, thanks so much for Gillian Anderson's performance. I'll be seeing the next thing she's in.

Blur - A View From The Crowd (Hyde Park, Thursday 2/7/09)

2009-07-07T20:47:00.034+01:00

I was there for the first of two dates at Hyde Park and before I continue with this I just want to mention an - anomaly. When the dates were first announced it was billed as the 'reunion gig'. 'Exciting', 'Momentous' - all the sort of words associated with the return of Blur. Luckily I wasn't one of those huge fans who snapped up a few of the 55,000 tickets for the first announced date - Friday 3 July. Why lucky? Well, once that sold out, they added a second date - on Thursday, the day before.

It's all fine and dandy adding the second date to accommodate the demand for tickets, and presumably this was an option from the beginning, but it completely negated the original premise. I think those who immediately bought tickets were given the raw end of the deal because all of a sudden they were getting sloppy seconds. Then, to make matters worse, Blur have their official premier at Glastonbury - before both Hyde Park dates. So, the Friday people who bought tickets first were now getting sloppy thirds and Thursday people, sloppy seconds. I find that aspect really strange and as I said, if I were a huge fan, I wouldn't have been too pleased.

When I say I'm not a huge fan, I'm not saying they are just 'OK' and 'I can take them or leave them'. That's not the case at all. I think they are wonderfully talented and fall within my definitions of great bands. My definition of a great band? A band that sound like no one else. You immediately know who it is within a few notes, even without any prompting or intro. Other bands are compared to them, not the other way around. Of course as with all bands, you can occasionally hear influences, but when you hear Blur, you know it's Blur. It's the combination of voice, guitar, drums, bass, songs and arrangements and they sound like no one else.

I think I've said enough about the band, we all know how popular and loved they are so there really isn't much I can add to what has already been printed and discussed. What I haven't seen discussed or written about is what it's like being in a venue that large, with that many people, on a hot, hot, hot day so here it goes...

I got my ticket from a friend so I didn't have it on me to refer to the rules. I was wondering what the policy was regarding bottles and the like because as many of us know, there have been many instances of bringing a bottle of water only to have it confiscated under the no bottles or outside food law invented to force you to pay exorbitant prices once inside. I didn't want to take a chance so I brought nothing but a battery powered hand fan and a baseball cap, just in case, because as I said before, it was hot, hot, hot, hot. When we passed through security, which consisted of a brief look into bags and a quick squeeze on the bottom (of the bags!!) we were through, and I did see bins of discarded water bottles so I thought that answered my question.

So we're in. Without the throngs of people (it was still early-ish) it resembled a country fair. What I think used to be a grassy field looked more like what a barn would look like once you removed all the bales of hay. Lining both sides were numerous eating places - Mexican, four different burger outlets, Thai and Chinese food and of course the beer tent. We went there first, for me it was to get water (£2 for a small bottle). Good on the organisers though for providing free drinking water (next to the toilets - fragrant!) where you could refill your bottle.

We found a small patch to set up camp and tried to stay cool. It was so hot, my battery powered hand fan was only blowing hot air. I really wished we had real grass (grass that wasn't dead) to sit on instead of that hay. I think others would have hoped for the same as we all had hay remnants on our clothes and most unappealing were the numerous bum cracks with hay, due to the long slung trouser look.

One of the support bands were on (we missed the first one. Then there were the Crystal Castles (or Crystal Castle?) which I found irritating and pretentious - they sounded as if they were using a Kraftwerk backing track - then some other band as Friendly Fires pulled out - one of those Killers, Coldplay type of bands - and then Foals who I would have sworn were performing old Gang of Four demos). The people next to us pulled out this huge picnic - containers of fruit, guacamole, drinks - how did they get that stuff in? Of course this inspired my friends go in search of food. One came back with a £6.25 plate of Thai chicken on rice, the other got a Japanese vegetarian dish for almost £7. I saw a few Dominoes Pizza boxes go by and was told that there was a Dominoes stand, but I wasn't willing to pay £17 for a medium marguerita or pepperoni pizza nor was I prepared to pay £5 for a slice. I had an ice lolly.

Now to the Blur performance. Everyone stood up and there was plenty of room around us all. We were about halfway back so had to watch both the large screens and the stage. Here is where I started having problems. I have to wonder about people in general and what they consider a good time. First, there was the person way down nearer the front who made a flag out of what looked like an orange boiler suit and was waving it with glee, through the whole show. Why? Then there were the numerous bottles (all plastic, all with liquid still inside) that were thrown all over the place. It began to look like a bottle attack at one point. Lovely. Moving on to the two blond girls standing behind us, dressed as if they would be spotted by the band, who proceeded to scream and shout 'I love you Damon!' to the back of our heads. Now remember, we were in a crowd of 55,000 people, halfway back from the stage. Does this sound sane? I almost turned around to tell then ' you know he can't hear or see you'. It wasn't soon before we had the frantic dancing (if you could call it that) while wearing a full back pack. It became a battle to remain standing upright as the bags would push you every which way. We also had to contend with the continous flow of people plowing through the crowd from all directions - going to the front, coming from the front, to the right, to the left, all while this 'momentous occasion' was happening on the stage.

Finally, as the show went on and the sun left our weary heads, things sort of balanced themselves out. I looked around and noticed there were definite pockets of people who, like us, were there to enjoy Blur and had to contend with the drunken and insane minions that surrounded us. It does make you ask - why do all these people pay £45 to see a show then talk to and show off for their friends, pass out or just be plain stupid? Who knows.

After the show, we stayed and queued for merchandise - well, my friends queued, I gave them money for a bag and waited in less crowded surroundings. They ran out of posters so we had to go to another stand and queue there. I have to say the merchandise was pretty reasonably priced (with the exception of the £5 disposable Blur lighter).

All in all I still enjoyed the show, mostly after things settled down, and am glad I went. Will I go to another gig in Hyde Park? It would have to be someone I can't see anytime else. But I did say the same thing after going to Live 8. I guess that says something about Blur.