The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - Apollo Theatre

Curious Incident of the Dog poster

*I wrote this review yesterday and was shocked to hear this morning about the ceiling collapse at the theatre that occurred yesterday evening. I hope everyone injured recovers quickly and that the show resumes as soon as possible!*

This theatre trip was a birthday surprise! I didn't know what we were going to see until we walked into the Apollo. I hadn't read the book but I knew it was about a teenage boy with Asperger Syndrome, who tries to solve the mystery of who killed his neighbour's dog after discovering its speared corpse. 

The boy, Christopher Boone, is a mathematical genius who loves train sets and star-gazing, and dreams of being an astronaut on a spaceship in which he can live and work separately from other people. He is very literal, dislikes most forms of physical contact, and finds it difficult to fathom peoples' behaviour.

The production was fast-paced and energetic, alternating swiftly between humour and pathos. The supporting cast members were on stage nearly all the time, sitting on white boxes that represented a number of items throughout the play (e.g. microwaves, computers, suitcases), when they weren't in a scene. I think Christopher (Mike Noble) was in every scene, which made it a pretty intense role, especially given the length of the play (2.5 hours not including interval). There were several twists in the plot, none of which I had anticipated.

The set was an intriguing mathematical grid covering both the stage and the three walls. I loved the use of lighting in this play. The opening was dramatic; from pitch darkness, a spotlight suddenly illuminated Christopher examining Wellington, the dead dog, then the light went out again, and when it came sharply on again you saw Christopher in a different position, before the light was extinguished again, and then it came on for a third time. It happened later on in the play, too. No, I don't know the technical term for this effect. One of my favourite parts was the end of the first act, when the elaborate miniature railway that Christopher had been building during his sessions with Siobhan started working independently - the train began moving along the track and the lights in the toy houses came on. It was quite wonderful.

People on the autism spectrum are often portrayed as cold and unfeeling and difficult for 'ordinary' people to relate to. The character of Christopher was easy to relate to, and I enjoyed the concern that he showed for his pet rat, and the adorable new puppy. His different relationships with his parents were plausible. The characters of the parents were properly fleshed out; they weren't simply ciphers. I liked the character of Siobhan, Christopher's teacher, and his respect for her and her teaching. It is Siobhan's voice that Christopher hears in his head when he is panicking over what to do next.

I preferred the second act to the first. The scenes in which Christopher tries to navigate the London underground were my favourites. They were humourous and it was interesting to see the tube - something I use almost every day - through the eyes of someone with autism. I  find it pretty stressful myself, so I can sympathise with Christopher's panic.

This was the third play in a row that I have seen that used animal actors! I am including the Doll's House baby in this count. I definitely recommend this play.

Next: I'm seeing this at the weekend

The Cherry Orchard at Hampstead Parish Church

Set of interior of house in The Cherry Orchard

I'd been looking forward to seeing this for a while, and it didn't disappoint. It was performed at the beautiful Parish Church of St John-at-Hampstead by The Hampstead Players, a renowned amateur dramatics group.

I have to admit, the play itself wasn't one of my favourites. There wasn't much in the way of a plot; it was almost entirely character-driven. The main plot consisted of a relatively impoverished upper class family vacillating over whether or not to sell their titular cherry orchard. Strong and varied emotions were expressed towards the end of the play at the outcome of this decision (or lack thereof). Despite my reservations about the play, it was performed extremely well in this instance and was genuinely absorbing and immersive in places.

It took me a while to get into it due to the complicated Russian names and having to concentrate hard to work out the relationships between the characters. I thought at first that Lopahkin was a footman rather than a rich merchant, but that was partly my fault for only having glanced through the programme.

It was the character of Gayev (Adam Baxter) that really drew me into the play. The brother of the female matriarchal protagonist Lyubov Andreyevna, Gayev was a sweet, eccentric, endearing character who was often gently mocked for talking too much. The affectionate way in which Gayev related to his nieces, Anya (Michaela Clement-Hayes) and Varya (Hoda Ali), and vice versa, was convincing and enjoyable to watch. As a feminist, I also appreciated the fact that, for once, it was a man who was criticised for talking too much. Regarding someone else who talked a lot - Trofimov, the student (Matt Williams) - I think I would have appreciated this character more if I'd had a greater understanding of the context of the play. But I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant. About rural Russia circa 1900, anyway.

While the parts of the family and their friends were all performed very well, it was the servants' personalities and storylines that I found more intriguing. My favourite scene was the one in the open fields near the house, in which Charlotta, the governess, disturbs the tryst between Yasha (Nicolas Holzapfel) and Dunyasha (Sarah Day) to talk amusingly and poignantly about her own life. This was a very absorbing scene...I forgot about the chilly interior of the church and was transported to a pleasant outdoor place in summer. I imagine the lighting people were partially responsible for this; well done, lighting people. Charlotta (Emma Lyndon-Stanford), the eccentric governess, was one of my favourite characters. One felt that there was a lot more to learn about her character than what was shown. She was sometimes accompanied by an incredibly cute little dog, which certainly added to my enjoyment of the play. 

The interactions between Dunyasha and Yasha were interesting and entertaining. Much of the development of their relationship was conveyed non-verbally, to great effect. I enjoyed watching their non-verbal interactions - particularly in the party scene when Yasha initially dances with Dunyasha but later refuses to dance with her and spitefully looks on - although I found it quite painful near the end, when Dunyasha desperately tries to catch Yasha's interest while he ignores her, languidly sipping champagne. A convincing portrayal of unrequited love.

The music, performed by a clarinettist and guitarist belonging to a klezmer band, added favourably to the atmosphere of the play. The dancing was excellent!

The ending was jarring in its tragedy and abruptness.

And so ends this review.

Next: Qui sait?

A Doll's House - Duke of York's Theatre

I was in a £12 seat for this one (Upper Circle, Row G) and was expecting to have to squint and peer over people’s heads, but the view was actually extremely good. The only annoyance was that the seat was a bench and not being able to lean back became a bit of a pain after a while.

I was looking forward to seeing Hattie Morahan play Nora after seeing her as Elinor in what I consider to be the best adaptation of a Jane Austen novel I’ve ever seen: the BBC’s 2008 Sense and Sensibility mini-series. I was also interested in seeing Dominic Rowan as Torvald, as I had enjoyed his performances as Touchstone in As You Like It and Henry VIII in Henry VIII at the Globe.

The set was almost perfect; just the kind of set I would expect and want to see for A Doll’s House. It consisted of the rooms of the Helmers’ flat on a round revolving stage – a living room, study, entrance hall, bedroom and kitchen. It was very effective when the stage did several full revolutions (or should that be rotations?) and you could see the different activities taking place within the flat, e.g. Nora getting ready for a party in her bedroom, the maid rushing about, Torvald standing in the hall. One of my favourite bits was when Nora playfully chased her two sons through the rooms as the stage turned. I’m a sucker for big, elaborate sets, and since the house/flat is an important part of the play (all the action takes place within it) I think it should be shown in a reasonably detailed manner, evoking an atmosphere of cosiness, security and restrictiveness. My only set-related quibble is that I would have preferred the living room to look overtly Victorian.

I thought Hattie Morahan as Nora was good overall, but her put-on baby voice made it hard to understand what she was saying at times. I wasn’t sure about her in the first scene – she made Nora exceedingly annoying – but I warmed to her. When I read the play (which was a long time ago) I saw Nora as consciously assuming the unthreatening, childlike role to a much greater extent than she was portrayed as doing in this production. However, her speech at the end of the play indicates that she had been unconscious of dumbing herself down and that she had never really developed a personality of her own, so Morahan’s interpretation would appear to be legitimate.

Talking of baby voices, there was a REAL baby in the play! The baby was excellent: unfazed by the cooing of the audience at its entrance and exit, not minding being passed between the nurse and Nora, and – AND – when Nora passed it back to the nurse after cooing over it, the baby actually reached out its little hand to her as though it wanted to be held again! It was almost as good as the puppet baby in Matthew Bourne’s Sleeping Beauty.

Krogstad I didn’t think was sufficiently sinister. I know he’s not supposed to be evil so much as a victim of circumstance, but I would have preferred his scenes to have contained a greater sense of foreboding. He didn’t come across as genuinely threatening at all.

The music was well-suited to the play. I particularly liked the bit where Nora danced the tarantella to Spanish music, which slowly morphed into a Donnie Darko-esque moody, ominous instrumental.

When I read A Doll’s House at school, a friend and I thought it would be cool if, during the big showdown at the end, Nora suddenly pulled off her Victorian garb to reveal modern clothing and started lip synching to this song:

While I still think that would be kind of cool, I no longer think it would be a good idea for reasons relating to the erosion of dramatic tension etc. etc. So, anyway, the Showdown between Nora and Torvald was...pretty good. In a way I wanted it to be more dramatic. But it was realistically done. Even when you know she’s going to leave, it’s still something of a surprise when she does.

Performance/production rating: 4/5

My enjoyment rating: 3.5/5

I don’t have anything lined up theatre-wise until the end of November, unfortunately. I’m sorry to disappoint all (one) of you, but sometimes the creation of one’s own art must take priority over experiencing that of others.

Next: The Cherry Orchard

Blue Stockings - Globe Theatre

Set of Blue Stockings

My last visit to the Globe this season, I had high hopes for this play, and I wasn't disappointed. Well, actually, I was disappointed in one thing: the weather. It rained continuously. Continuously! It started raining while I was queuing outside the theatre.

I enjoyed the play very much despite the rain. It was excellent; witty, fast-paced, exuberant and uplifting. It followed four young women ("bluestockings") studying at Girton College, an all-female College at Cambridge University, in 1896-97. Having had to persuade their parents to allow them to go to university in the first place, the women faced ostracism and disparagement from male students and lecturers, not to mention society at large. Men who supported the women's right to study could face negative consequences themselves, in the form of (for example) being held back in their careers. The play showed the run-up to and the outcome of the vote that was held in 1897 in order to determine whether women should be allowed to graduate from the university. As it stood, women were allowed to study and attend (most) lectures, but could not graduate. No women were allowed to vote; it was open only to the University of Cambridge Senate and graduates.

Great performances by all; many members of the cast had been in A Midsummer Night's Dream, so it was good to see them again. Off topic, but this year's Globe version of AMND was probably the best I've ever seen. On topic, I liked the relationships between the four women students and the fact that, while they were all highly intelligent, passionate and determined people, their distinct personalities shone through. The tension between openly promoting women's rights and the fear of being seen to be too radical and harming the progress made thus far was shown to good effect.

A variety of male attitudes towards the higher education of women were touched upon, which I thought helped make the play realistic. There were men who were completely and utterly opposed to women's presence at university, men who supported it, and men who were somewhere in between - some respecting the women's determination to study while considering them ultimately misguided; others simply bemused at why the women would want to study when they were unable to graduate.

Set of Blue Stockings with banner informing
audience that women won the right to
graduate from Cambridge in 1948

There was more audience participation in this production than I have ever experienced before at the Globe. When Dr Henry Maudsley (Edward Peel), retrogressive psychiatrist, gave a speech right at the beginning about women not being suited to intellectual pursuits, there was a reasonable amount of booing, followed by cheering when Miss Welsh (Gabrielle Lloyd), a female lecturer/Mistress of Girton (?) had her say. I enjoyed the audience participation. It heightened the atmosphere and created a sense of community/common feeling among the groundlings without becoming pantomimic. I wish it could happen more often in plays at the Globe; I imagine it's people's reverence for Shakespeare that holds them back during his plays.

There's a lot more I could say about this play...music and costumes were good, 1890s jig was excellent...Highly enjoyable play about what is sadly still a pretty current, relevant issue.

Globe Theatre Groundling Etiquette

The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous
regiment of impolite groundlings

The one, cardinal rule of groundling* Globe etiquette is, as far as I am concerned, the following: 

If you would like a good stage-leaning position, you must be prepared to queue for it. 

Nothing annoys me more at the Globe than a person who didn't bother to queue, sidling up behind me as I stand in my excellent leaning position FOR WHICH I HAVE SPENT AT LEAST THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF QUEUING, and imploring me to squeeze up in order to grant them leaning space beside me. 

Usually the person who does this is short and thinks that they are entitled to a good leaning position by virtue of their height. But no, sorry, short people with entitlement issues - if  you would like a good leaning position you must queue for it just like anyone else. If you are capable of standing for two and a half hours to watch a play, you are capable of queuing. And if you can't be bothered to queue but still feel you desperately need to lean, you can generally obtain leaning positions at the less desirable sides of the stage. 

Another annoying thing is when groundlings try to save leaning positions at the stage for their fellows. This happened recently on the famous three-plays-in-a-day day for Henry VI Part 2. Someone tried to save leaning positions for two or three other people when we were actually inside the Globe, at the stage. I didn't know whether the people for whom she was saving places had even queued at all, or whether they had gone to the toilet at the critical juncture of groundling entry into the Globe, or what. But whatever the reason, it's not fair to expect groundlings who have unambiguously queued to have to pass up their long-awaited places for people who aren't there at the moment of entry into the Globe. 

Summary: Queue, queue, queue if you want a good stage-leaning position. And don't leave the queue (apart from at moments when the queue is not about to go into the Globe).

*audience member who stands rather than sits in an Elizabethan-style theatre

Gabriel - Globe Theatre

Set of Gabriel

This afternoon found me once more at Shakespeare's Globe, to see the final performance of Gabriel, starring trumpeter Alison Balsom. Again, I didn't know anything about this production other than that it was set in seventeenth century England and would feature a reasonable amount of Baroque trumpet music. It's fun going to a production knowing very little about it beforehand.

Set in 1690s London, Gabriel turned out to be a series of vignettes featuring a variety of characters covering the spectrum of society  - Queen Mary II and her sickly nephew, the Duke of Gloucester, coarse watermen, musicians, a theatre director, a tapster...What these scenes had in common was that they all referred to the trumpet in some way. One of the themes of the play was the idea of people who felt voiceless being able to give expression to their thoughts and feelings through a musical instrument (namely the trumpet). Each scene was followed by music by Purcell or Handel.

Did I enjoy it? The first half felt very promising to me; the first fifteen minutes in particular were funny and exuberant and exciting. The costumes looked authentic and I couldn't fault the music and singing. However. There was a lot of bawdy and lavatorial humour, which I generally find funny in small doses, but in this production it was too much. It felt gratuitous. It seemed as though the writer was trying to compensate for the seriousness and grandeur of the music by making the non-music speaking bits as light, frivolous and farcical as possible. There was a big contrast between the music and the spoken vignettes, which featured flatulence (this scene I actually found pretty funny), full-frontal male nudity (more than once) and simulated oral sex.

I thought the second half dragged, but I enjoyed the scene with Queen Mary II (Charlotte Mills) and William, the Duke of Gloucester (Joshua James), which was amusing and poignant. The starling given to William by the Queen as a pet was well done and enjoyable to watch - it was a model bird manipulated by an actor. There were lots of little touches that added favourably to the atmosphere of the piece, such as the wooden boards representing London landmarks that were held up while a boatful of musicians was being punted down the Thames, to represent the movement of the boat. I also liked the parody of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I suppose vignettes are almost inevitably unsatisfying as it's hard to give the characters much depth or show development. At the end Dominic Dromgoole, Artistic Director at the Globe, came on to give a little history of the show, and because of it being the final performance, the cast members threw roses into the audience. Finis.

Next: Blue Stockings 

The Cripple of Inishmaan - Noël Coward Theatre

I'd be lying if I claimed that my desire to see this play had nothing to do with the fact that Daniel Radcliffe was in it. I knew next to nothing about The Cripple of Inishmaan before going - other than that it starred Daniel Radcliffe - and was a dark comedy set in Ireland.

It took me a while to get into it as I didn't find it particular funny at first ('Has the egg-man been?' 'He has but he had no eggs.' Sorry, I still don't find it funny). But I was drawn into the story as more characters appeared  - my favourite scenes were those featuring violent, potty-mouthed Helen (Sarah Greene) and her long-suffering brother Bartley (Conor MacNeill) - and one learned more about life on the desolate island of Inishmaan and the mystery surrounding the deaths of Billy's parents.

Yes, Daniel Radcliffe was playing an orphan for the nth time. I thought he was very good as 'Cripple Billy', an intelligent, sensitive young man who was sick of being continually mocked for his physical infirmities; his understated performance certainly evoked my sympathy. I thought his speech was slightly less distinct than that of the other actors, though. I sometimes missed bits of his lines.

I liked the sets. I much prefer detailed sets over minimalist ones. Much of the action took place in the shop belonging to Billy's 'pretend' aunts, which included shelves stocked with produce (mainly tins of peas).

I think I preferred the second half of the play. There were a surprising number of twists and turns plot-wise as many of the characters told lies, sometimes for their own benefit, and sometimes in an attempt to spare others from pain. In the second half especially, the mood kept lurching from hope to despair and back again. Dark, cruel humour isn't usually my thing, but I did find this play funny, probably because it clearly had soul, too. It wasn't cynical; it was very touching. Finally discovering the truth about the demise of Billy's parents - or at least, what appeared to be the truth - was shocking and moving.

Next: Gabriel

Henry VI - Globe Theatre

Harry the Sixth 

Last weekend (27 July) I went with a friend to see Henry VI Parts 1, 2 and 3 as a groundling (i.e. standing in the yard) at Shakespeare's Globe. Physically it was easier than we'd expected - easier, actually, than standing for Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 in 2010. We wondered whether they'd abridged the plays significantly in order to fit them all in on one day. I hope not.

Anyway, Play 1, Henry VI Part 1, Harry the Sixth. It was a lot better than I'd expected. I went knowing nothing about the play itself and only a little about the historical figure of Henry VI. Since the three plays were among Shakespeare's first, I had been concerned that they wouldn't be up to his usual standard and - dare I say the b-word - boring. But no, I was very impressed. Henry VI (Graham Butler) was portrayed well as a very pious, naive person who was aware of his ineptitude as King, but who wasn't made into a caricature or a figure of fun. He was a complex character.

Given his small role in the first play I thought it worked very well that Henry VI was visible pretty much all the time - even in scenes where he had nothing to say - sitting reading on the scaffolding 'throne' in the background, and reacting with fear at certain points. One had a reasonable insight into his character before he spoke his first lines.

Joan of Arc (Beatriz Romilly) was amazing. I loved the scenes in which she performed some very skillful sword-fighting with various men - and won. I spent much of the first half thinking how incredibly progressive Shakespeare must have been to have created this strong female character, to whom he had given some of the best lines, and through whom he was clearly making a point about how women who break the patriarchal mold have, in the past, been assumed to have derived their powers from some demonic source. Until she did actually turn out to be a witch, summoning evil spirits to help her. I was more than a little disappointed. Why did you have to do that, Shakespeare?

The Houses of York and Lancaster

Play 2, The Houses of York and Lancaster, Henry VI Part 2. We didn't get as good leaning positions for this one. We were right on the edge of the stage. OK, this was the one where the Duchess of Gloucester (Beatriz Romilly) was shamed after helping to perform some kind of dark magic to see into the future. That was one of the major storylines. The other was Jack Cade (Roger Evans), a commoner who wanted to be King. There was a song about Jack Cade in the second half, which was good. The use of the scaffolding to make percussive music was clever and evocative. I liked the Jack Cade song. It was my favourite part of this play. I was kind of hoping he would become King.

The True Tragedy of the Duke of York

Play 3, The True Tragedy of the Duke of York, Henry VI Part 3. This was another very good one; I preferred it to the second play but didn't enjoy it as much as the first. The first half was extremely dark, involving a prolonged scene showing the psychological and physical torture of the Duke of York (Brendan O'Hea) at the hands of an almost pure evil Queen Margaret (Mary Doherty). It was uncomfortable to watch and made darker and more tense by the fact that it was performed during a thunderstorm (we were protected from the rain by the edge of the Globe roof, so could enjoy the dramatic effects of the storm without being personally affected by it - queuing for a ridiculous amount of time does pay off!). In the second half there was some light relief in the form of Lady Bona, played by a man (David Hartley), and a very camp King Louis XI of France (Brendan O'Hea), who stormed about the stage bashing all the musical instruments (drums, cymbals etc.) when he didn't get his way. Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Simon Harrison), later to become Richard III, played a big part in the second half of this play, killing poor Henry VI.

The final play was followed by a good, energetic jig. The preceding two plays had not contained jigs, so I was glad that the one at the end of the third play was of an admirable quality. When we left the Globe we were soaked to the underwear within approximately twenty seconds.

Next: The Cripple of Inishmaan