Tennessee William's Spring Storm (National Theatre 13/4/10) 18 April 2010

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.

Nation (National Theatre 23/2/10) 28 February 2010

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.

Fiona Shaw in Mother Courage and Her Children (National Theatre 20/10/09) 20 October 2009

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

Gang of Four - intimate gig (The Macbeth 24/8/09) + Three More Sleepless Nights (National Theatre 24/8/09) 26 August 2009

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.