The Real Thing (Old Vic 19/4/10) 18 May 2010

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

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.

Love Never Dies (Adelphi Theatre 8/10/10) 14 March 2010

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.

A Man of No Importance (Arts Theatre 16/2/10) 19 February 2010

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

Six Degrees of Separation (Old Vic 8/2/10) 9 February 2010

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) 7 February 2010

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)

The Little Dog Laughed (Garrick Theatre 12/1/09) 19 January 2010

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) 13 January 2010

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).

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Novello Theatre 8/12/09) 9 December 2009

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.

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

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) 1 November 2009

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) 30 October 2009

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.

Speaking in Tongues (Duke of Yorks 22/9/08) + Streetcar - More Desire (Donmar 17/9/09) 20 September 2009

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.