Guys and Dolls - Savoy Theatre

Knitted dice

I was very excited to see this production of Guys and Dolls as it starred Jamie Parker (as Sky Masterson), of whom I am something of a fan. Interesting to hear that he's been cast as Harry Potter in the upcoming stage play! Anyway, Guys and Dolls was everything I had hoped it would be: exuberant, fast-paced, uplifting and very funny. 

Listening to Jamie Parker sing is like having a shower in hot, gently melted dark chocolate. I found a few of his spoken lines difficult to understand with the New York accent, but his singing was sublime. He and Sarah Brown (Siubhan Harrison) made a believable, sympathetic duo and I enjoyed watching their romance unfold. I loved the Havana scene in which Sarah loses her inhibitions and is tossed around by various people in the dance sequence, including the excellent 'Havana Diva'.

I'd forgotten how much I appreciate the humour in G&D. I love Nathan's increasingly frantic search for a location in which to hold the craps game, and the bit where the gamblers pretend they're attending a bachelor party when the police inspector shows up. Big Jule, the notorious milk-drinking gangster from Chicago has to be one of my favourite characters; he has some very amusing lines (Lieutenant Brannigan: 'Where are you from, sir?' Big Jule: 'East Cicero, Illinois!' Lieutenant Brannigan: 'And what is your occupation?' Big Jule: 'I'm a scoutmaster!' Lieutenant Brannigan: 'Don't ever help my mother across the street!'). My favourite scene is 'Luck be a Lady Tonight', down in the sewers. The audience went wild for 'Sit Down, You're Rockin' the Boat', which was also extremely good and energetic. Excellent singing from the General of the Mission.

The gender stereotypes can be grating in this musical - the way the women are desperate to get married while the men aren't bothered - but the non-gender-stereotype-related humour more than compensates for this. Plus, it is set in the 50s. Plus, the characters, when played well, are endearing, which diffuses any irritating attributes. The character of Miss Adelaide always has the potential to be more irritating than entertaining, but in this production (as played by Sophie Thompson) she grew on me and was genuinely likeable.

I would strongly recommend!

photo credit: Knitted Dice Roll via photopin (license)

Next: The Nutcracker

Pride and Prejudice - Hampstead Parish Church (Guest post)

Elegant Regency figures

The much-awaited and much-delayed guest review of Pride and Prejudice has finally arrived. My sincere apologies for the long wait, o fans of Alice’s London Theatre Blog – especially those in Russia who must be particularly desirous of the comfort and homely succor that this blog provides now that the Winter Solstice is upon us. I actually saw this production twice in one day. While the main reason for this was a plethora of visiting friends and relatives, my enjoyment was only magnified by the repetition – a testament to its energy and depth.

As it happens, I very nearly auditioned for this myself, but chose not to in the end. When the cast was announced, I was filled with an overwhelming sense of regret, such that only an experienced am-dram acting diva can feel, because I knew it would be a fantastic performance that I could no longer be part of. My expectations proved entirely correct.

Hampstead Players’ stalwart Sarah Day was perfectly cast as the concomitantly virtuous and sharp-witted Elizabeth Bennet, as amused by the world’s foibles as she is quietly dedicated to reposting them. Jon Waters seemed equally sincere as the congenitally arrogant Mr Darcy, his stiff pride providing much of the production’s comedy.

Two more stand-outs for me, amongst this very large and strong cast, were Rosie Wheat as the conceited alpha female Caroline Bingley, floating about the stage in a graceful haze of obnoxious self-satisfaction, and Matt Williams, whose perfect timing and facial expressions made for a Mr Collins so deluded that he was as painful as he was hilarious to witness. Special mention also goes to Margaret Pritchard Houston who, in addition to creating many of the impressive costumes (well done to the Players for going all out on this, you really can’t have a Jane Austen play without the textile eye candy), managed to make her handful of appearances as a put-upon servant laugh-out-loud moments, without ever being distracting or implausible.

I was also particularly taken by Alice Lambert’s unique rendering of Mary Bennet. The middle Bennet is generally portrayed as something of a fool, clumsily attempting pompous sermonizing to compensate for her plainness. This Mary, though clearly not immune to wanting to fight her own amongst her sisters, stood out as naturally elegant and swanlike, serenely gliding about the stage and providing what to her seemed like genuine aid to her less enlightened fellow mortals, delivered directly from the higher plane of philosophical abstractions which fortune had made her mind’s natural terrain. The tragi-comedy came from her more earthbound sistren’s reaction to these convoluted and cluelessly timed pontifications, and Mary’s hurt and incomprehension at being constantly rebuffed.

The true star of the piece was of course Jane Austen’s dialogue and the fascinating world to which has created a window, and through which we can see a strange intermingling of graceful pleasures and stiff hierarchy, strong individualism embedded into family honour, where women are permitted and expected to dazzle and shine as honourable and “accomplished” persons in their own right, all with the ultimate goal of proving their price at their family’s stall at the genteel marriage market.

It was this world that director Jane Mayfield was able to summon to the 21st Century, through an excellent adaptation of the book, delightful sets, an engaging pace with fast transitions, and some wonderfully choreographed (credit to Cristina Bancora) ballroom scenes, providing just the backdrop to the verbal sparring that we all want and expect from a great Jane Austen adaptation. It had none of the modern intrusions and frothiness of the 2005 film adaptation, and all of the the verve and dexterous philosophising of the 1813 book. Well done!

by Nicolas Holzapfel

Next: Guys and Dolls

Othello - Bridewell Theatre

Tower Theatre company's image

This was my first experience of Othello in any form. I'd never even read it before. Not good for an ex-English student, I know. The Tower Theatre Company's compelling production proved an excellent introduction to the play.

The transformation of Othello (Ray Johnson) from sympathetic, loving bridegroom (albeit not without problems: prejudice and the disapproval of his father-in-law) to desperate, vengeful maniac was plausible and disquieting. The plausibility of his descent into jealousy was aided by Martin Maynard's believable performance as the manipulative Iago. Iago was played in a subtle, understated way, certainly not as a stereotypical villain. He came across an an 'ordinary bloke' who happened to be a sociopath. Which is how most male sociopaths probably come across, hence why it is difficult to identify them.

Amy Wackett was sympathetic as the innocent Desdemona and I really enjoyed Emily Carmichael's performance as the put-upon Emilia, wife of Iago. The development of Emilia's relationships with Iago and Desdemona were interesting to watch. It was a relief when Emilia defended Desdemona.

This was a very physical production with kisses, extended fights, bum slaps, stabbing, (spoiler alert) smothering, strangling...It was all performed to an impressive standard. Incidentally, Othello's physical manifestations of torment were uncomfortably reminiscent of my mental state towards the end of my last job but one.

Every part was well-played; one felt that even the unnamed characters had definite personalities and stories. I enjoyed the relationship between the messenger (Mai Le Dinh) and soldier (Ken Thomson) - was it a burgeoning romance? I also liked the serious, slightly pompous military attache (Nicolas Holzapfel).

The set was minimal, with three 'levels' and a basic 'house' with doors facing the audience on the second level. It had a metallic, forbidding feel to it, which suited the atmosphere of foreboding. The costumes worked well; while it was a 'modern dress' production they weren't strongly tied to any particular era and were different enough from contemporary fashions to allow one to easily imagine the action taking place in an alternative universe*. The costume colours tended to be dark and muted and were very well co-ordinated, particularly in the women's outfits. I loved Desdemona's purple get-ups. Even the shoes matched!

The use of mobile phones and iPads was innovative and amusing. A ringtone is heard. 'What trumpet is that?' Iago checks his mobile. It was all done in a suitably subtle way; there was no shoehorning of modern accoutrements or references.

My only 'criticism', if you can call it that, is that I would've liked to have seen more evidence of the fact that this was taking place in hot climes. I think more suggestion of the heat would have added to the atmosphere of tension.

*With the slight exception of the John-Travolta-in-Saturday-Night-Fever outfit that appeared in the second half.

Next: Not sure. I know I said I was expecting a Pride & Prejudice review...well, I'm not sure whether that's ever coming. Sometimes, like many of the characters in Othello, you just can't have what you want or expect.

Nell Gwynn - Globe Theatre

Sumptuous set of Nell Gwynn

Having seen Blue Stockings two years ago, I was excited to see Jessica Swale's latest offering. Following Nell's journey from humble theatre orange seller to successful actress and mistress of Charles II to aspiring playwright, Nell Gwynn was a big ball of wit, exuberance, ribaldry and joy. It was definitely my favourite Globe production of the year.

Gugu Mbatha-Raw was sympathetic and engaging as the courageous, determined, witty Nell. After being persuaded by actor Charles Hart (Jay Taylor) to try her hand at acting, Nell discovers she has a gift for it and quickly becomes indispensable to the company of players, much to the discomfort of Edward Kynaston (Greg Haiste), the company's established actor specialising in female roles. When the King shows an interest in Nell she is torn between her rewarding theatrical career (and Charles Hart, with whom she is romantically involved) and the prospect of a more comfortable - albeit potentially insecure - life with Charles II (David Sturzaker), with whom she has fallen in love.

The play was bawdy but not gratuitously so. Nell's humour was so infectious and her character so sympathetic that you couldn't help laughing along with her. The humour wasn't restricted to bawdiness; it was very witty and contained modern references (e.g. King Charles' anti-austerity remark). Kynaston was extremely funny as a stereotypical thespian, keen to demonstrate all the moves he had learned at 'fan school' in an attempt to intimidate Nell, and insisting on having an incredibly detailed backstory for the minor character he ended up playing. Nancy (Amanda Lawrence), the menial responsible for mending the company's costumes, was also a source of much of the play's humour. I loved it when it transpired that she had a perfect understanding of French as a result of having worked in France under Molière. 

My favourite scene was that in which Nell mocks the King's new mistress, Louise de Keroualle (Sasha Waddell), during a performance attended by the King and Louise. After Louise boasts to Nell that she intends to come to the performance wearing a 'grand chapeau' that will reduce Nell to insignificance, Nell comes on stage singing a song in French making fun of Louise, accompanied by other actors carrying an elaborate hat too gigantic to be worn.

The set was wonderful, complete with Royal Box and other theatre accoutrements. The costumes were excellent, including the many wigs. The music was great; songs entertaining.

One of the main themes of the play was the dearth of complex female characters in plays; once admitted into the company Nell tries to get Dryden (Graham Butler) to write more realistic and believable female characters. It was interesting to see this theme in the context of a play set in the seventeenth century, as it is of course still very relevant today.

Next: Probably Pride & Prejudice (guest post)

Secret Cinema - Star Wars

Me as a Starfighter Alliance Corps pilot

This wasn't a 'theatre' experience as such, but it did involve live performances by actors, so I thought it merited a post. I won't go into detail about it so as not to give too much away.

I am not a Star Wars fan. Before going to this event my Star Wars exposure consisted of watching Episode 1 at the cinema and a bit of one of the other films (can't remember which) at home. I don't think we even finished watching the one at home because I got bored. I just don't like things set in space. When given the opportunity to go to this event I was reluctant because I didn't think it would be worth it for me. But I ended up enjoying it a lot. 

One of the first things you do after obtaining your ticket is to complete a short online questionnaire to determine your role in the Rebellion. I got 'Starfighter Alliance Corps', and my partner, who was the driving force behind my going, set about acquiring a suitable outfit for me. The chosen outfit was a second-hand homemade one and was pretty good. I thought the front control box looked a bit primitive until I actually saw the film, and realised that the 'real' ones looked similarly basic. The Starfighter outfit was the most distinctive of the possible costumes.

The Secret Cinema experience involves entering and immersing oneself in the world of the event's theme - in this case Star Wars - before watching the film in question (in this case The Empire Strikes Back). Here are some of my thoughts and recommendations:

• It was definitely worth dressing up. It made the experience a lot more immersive and I have never been given so much respect in my life as when I was dressed as a Starfighter Alliance Corps pilot. One of the actors at the event greeted me with 'It's good to see you again, pilot', while another told me I should congratulate myself.

• When you reach the planet destination I would recommend looking around properly, soaking up the atmosphere and interacting with or at least observing the characters there. It's easy to be seduced by the food stalls and spend too much time queuing and eating. If you're not a massive fan of the films, it's especially important to make the most of this part of the experience because it's probably the bit you'll enjoy the most. There's a lot going on. 

• I discovered that it's 'Han Solo', not Hans Solo.

• My criticism of the experience was that there wasn't any follow-up or continuity on the mission we were supposed to be accomplishing. There was a lot of build-up but it was never fully realised. I may not be a Star Wars fan, but I do like my experiences of this sort to be properly immersive and complete. 

• Spend some time in the bar after watching the film. There was a good atmosphere and music.

Next: Nell Gwynn

As You Like It - Globe Theatre

Set of As You Like It complete with earth
piles for burying recently deceased
Duke

I always forget how long this play is and how many elements it contains...When I think of it I always think of Orlando wooing Rosalind as 'Ganymede' in the forest, but that only starts in the second half of the play! The best time to see a production of As You Like It at the Globe is on a warm, sunny Spring day. Conditions were not optimal when I saw it (cold and cloudy), but I still manged to get into the spirit of it.

The costumes at the Globe are always of a high standard, but I was particularly impressed by those in this production. The women of the court all had late Elizabethan double-bump hairstyles and Rosalind and Celia's first outfits and wedding outfits were extremely elaborate and, in the latter case, dazzling.

Michelle Terry was a vibrant, exuberant, self-assured Rosalind. Because she naturally has a low voice her 'transition' into a man wasn't as dramatic or played for laughs to the extent that it is in most productions, which was refreshing. I enjoyed the development of Rosalind's relationship with Orlando (Simon Harrison). The fact that the actors playing Rosalind, Celia and Orlando were on the more mature side of the age spectrum for their characters (i.e. in their 30s rather than 20s) gave the characters a stronger, more confident quality. Orlando is usually portrayed as naive and slightly vulnerable; in this production he came across as quite worldly wise and dominant. I think he guessed that Ganymede was Rosalind early on.

I thought the production could have made more of the bucolic nature of the Forest of Arden. How? I don't know. I'm influenced by the first AYLI I saw at the Globe, which made me feel as though I truly was in a forest. Maybe it was just the weather. But no, I think it was also the music in the first production and their use of a fire. They may have had pretend trees, as well, but maybe that was just my imagination.

At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, I wasn't keen on the inclusion of modern props for entertainment's sake. A modern map, an umbrella and one of those shopping bags on wheels made an appearance. Oh, and a bicycle. I don't have a problem with actors making modern cultural references during a comedy (e.g. riding on brooms pretending to play Quidditch in A Comedy of Errors) - it doesn't detract from the spirit or atmosphere of the play. I can imagine actors in Shakespeare's time making ad lib references to current events to amuse the audience. But using modern props in an otherwise authentically costumed and 'propped' play seems to defeat the purpose of the Globe. It's supposed to be as it would have been in Shakespeare's day! 

I really enjoyed the tap dance, though, performed by two of the men of the forest, so maybe I'm being inconsistent. The parts featuring Touchstone (Daniel Crossley) and Audrey (Sophia Nomvete) were some of my favourite scenes in the play (they were in the tap dance scene). In this production Touchstone genuinely seemed to care for Audrey, which was nice. He was an understated Touchstone, but funny nonetheless.

Next: Secret Cinema presents Star Wars

Richard II - Globe Theatre

Another throne...set of Richard II

Despite arriving earlier than usual at the Globe AND there being a tube strike, the groundling queue was sizeable when I got there, comprising a party of around twenty American students. However, on being released into the Globe, the students, sheep-like, gravitated towards the end of the stage build-out, allowing me to slide triumphantly into the exact place I would've chosen had I been first in the queue! Yesss!! It's these little Globe victories that I enjoy nearly as much as the performances themselves. Well, not really.

The stage build-out was one of the most interesting I've experienced at the Globe. There was a short runway leading from the main stage to another stage, leaving a 'corridor' on either side for groundlings to stand sandwiched between both stages, if that makes sense (see picture below). I was next to the runway, meaning that I was surrounded by three walls, allowing me to lean backwards as well as forwards. It was a roomier position than usual.

Anyway: Richard II. It began with the coronation of the child Richard II in a shower of gold confetti. He clutched a wooden toy horse that was to make a poignant reappearance later on in the play. The adult King emerged as the last flakes of confetti floated to the ground, dressed in the same cream outfit as his youthful counterpart. In a bigger size, of course.

Charles Edwards did a good job of portraying Richard's evolution from narcissistic, capricious, pampered monarch, complete with parasol and band of sycophantic followers, to a broken, imprisoned, (almost) friendless, deposed king. After Richard exiles his cousin, the hard-faced Henry Bolingbroke (David Sturzaker), for six years, and seizes his father's land, Bolingbroke takes advantage of Richard's ill-advised trip to Ireland, returning to England with an army. Things quickly go downhill for Richard from that point. His friends melt away and he ends up having to hand his crown over to Bolingbroke - literally.

I enjoyed the scenes where Richard is flanked by his tittering, fashionably-dressed, flattering courtiers. The four courtiers gave excellent performances in their transformations from complacent favourites to desperate, fearful people (dead people, in some cases).

One of my favourite scenes was the one in which Richard visits his dying uncle (Bolingbroke's father), John of Gaunt (played by William Gaunt!). Richard is unsympathetic towards his uncle and looks forward to taking his possessions after his death. Gaunt is witty on his deathbed and strikes unease into the heart of the King by describing him as a 'dying man' - Richard initially thinks Gaunt is talking about himself, but he isn't! It was good to see a vulnerable person verbally socking it to Richard.

The comic interludes featuring gardeners, real plants and the parents of former Richard II favourite Aumerle (Graham Butler) shuffling on their knees towards the new King were a welcome relief from the seriousness of the rest of the play.

My standing place looking out into audience

Music normally plays a big part at the Globe but there didn't seem to be much of it in this production. Brass instruments.

This play wasn't one I'd particularly want to see again. The production was great; it was the play itself...it didn't fully engage me. It didn't have the drama and tension of (for example) the Henry VI trilogy, the humour of Henry IV or the utterly compelling protagonist of Richard III. There wasn't even a big battle scene, like in Henry V. There were no ghosts. Or proto-feminism. Or dancing. Apart from one 5 second dance near the beginning. Someone dressed in quasi Arabian garb? Or was that the dream I had last night? I felt a bit sorry for Richard towards the end, but wasn't that bothered about what happened next. 

I also would've liked a proper jig at the end. There was music but no dancing, as far as I can remember. The final music sounded at first like the Laurel and Hardy theme music. Which is not a criticism!

Next: As You Like It

The Turn of the Screw - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

Upstairs at the Gatehouse theatre

I wasn't able to see The Hampstead Players' Richard II last week, unfortunately, due to unavoidable job-related circumstances. However, I made up for it by seeing the Tower Theatre Company's The Turn of the Screw twice! It was performed at Upstairs at the Gatehouse, which, like most places in Highgate, is apparently haunted. The intimate, hot, slightly oppressive space of Upstairs at the Gatehouse was the perfect setting for a summer ghost story and psychological drama.

Set at the turn of the century, The Turn of the Screw is the story of a young governess who obtains a post at the country estate of Bly, where she is to look after two orphaned children, Miles and Flora Havelock. Full of good intentions, she quickly grows unsettled when she learns more about the former inhabitants of the house, namely the governess, Miss Jessell, and valet, Peter Quint. Who are DEAD! But who may or may not remain as ghosts, with whom the children may or may not interact. 

The attention to detail in this production was extraordinary. If you have read any other reviews in this blog you will know what a sucker I am for lavish sets and minutiae; I was all over the sets and props here. The main set comprised a door, bookcase and large window with long curtains. A translucent white curtain was periodically drawn across the above for scenes taking place outside the house. Most of the ghosts' appearances took place behind the translucent curtain or the window. The lighting on the ghosts' faces was used to great effect, rendering Miss Jessell's face skull-like and Peter Quint's craggy and unhinged. Things that particularly impressed me included the following:

• The stagehands were all dressed in servants' garb of the period rather than the traditional stagehand clothing of anything black.
• The letter from Miles' headmaster had a school crest on it! Which I could see through the paper, as well as the word 'School' in copperplate print!
• The old-fashioned, completely authentic-looking schoolroom desks.
• When the Governess and the children came in from the rain, they were actually wet.
• The bookcase that folded down into a life-sized wooden bed.

Emily Carmichael was excellent as the nameless Governess, believably turning from a determined, idealistic, self-controlled young woman into an obsessive nervous wreck (still determined, though). It was an extremely intense part and she remained focussed and engaging right up until her final scream. Miles and Flora (Isaac and Eliza Insley) were also very well played. They looked perfect for their roles - Miles really did look angelic - and they had an endearing, realistic sibling rapport, which perhaps wasn't surprising given that they were siblings in real life. Miles was properly precocious and creepy but also sympathetic, and did the best pretend piano playing I have ever seen. Flora's character was more fleshed-out than in the 2009 BBC adaptation of The Turn of the Screw (my only previous exposure to TTotS). She had an interesting personality of her own rather than just serving as the more innocent adjunct of Miles. They both had quite a few funny lines.

My favourite scene was Miles and Flora's show, which they performed in front of the Governess and Mrs Grose (Alison Liney). It was sweet and amusing but had menacing undertones. My second favourite scene was that in which Peter Quint (Nicolas Holzapfel) unexpectedly appeared in the Governess' bed, eliciting gasps and squeals from the audience, after having behaved amorously with Miss Jessell (Nina Tolleret) outside the window.

The only slightly weak element of the play was the Governess' alleged attraction to the Master (i.e. her employer, the children's uncle), Mr Sackville (Martin South). Given how much older he was than her, it just didn't seem plausible to me that she would have fancied him - especially after only one meeting - even if she was naive and inexperienced.

The piano music between scenes suited the tense atmosphere perfectly.

Next: Richard II (Globe version)

King John - Globe Theatre

King John set

Black-hooded monks, incense, organ music, candles aplenty...what more could you want from a performance of Shakespeare's rarely performed play King John? Robin Hood, perhaps? He didn't feature but the character of The Bastard provided one with all the outspokenness, courage and rebelliousness (albeit not against King John) that one might desire.

It was good to be back at the Globe. Unlike usual, as soon as one entered the theatre - and, as a groundling who had queued for over 1.5 hours, I was one of the first to enter the theatre - there were people on stage - hooded monks - playing instruments and intoning religious chants. Combined with the incense, one immediately felt as though one was in medieval times in an ecclesiastical setting. I felt that the Globe went the extra mile for this production when it came to the music and props, perhaps in order to compensate for the fact that most people wouldn't be familiar with the play. The organ and Tibetan singing bowl in particular were used to excellent effect.

Most of the action took place in France, which I hadn't expected. King John (Jo Stone-Fewings), his mum, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Barbara Marten), and his recently-discovered illegitimate nephew, The Bastard (Alex Waldmann), set off for France with an army, because John feels threatened by his rather angelic young nephew, Arthur (Laurence Belcher), whose claim to the throne is strong. John allies himself with King Phillip of France (Simon Coates). John's niece, Blanche of Castile (Aruhan Galieva - who had a beautiful voice), marries Louis the Dauphin (Ciaran Owens) in a match that will strengthen John's claim to the throne. There follows a dramatic breaking of allegiances, an excommunication, a potential blinding with hot irons and a succession of deaths. There was a reasonable amount of sword fighting, which I enjoyed.

There weren't many female characters but the ones that there were were memorable. I often find myself pleasantly surprised by Shakespeare's parts for women. Eleanor of Aquitaine is portrayed as a formidable elderly woman, prepared to fight if need be. Blanche makes it clear that she's not happy with her marriage to Louis and that she can't automatically support his cause just because they're married. Constance (Tanya Moodie), Arthur's mother, is fiercely protective of her son and is determined to see him fulfil what she believes to be his destiny. None of them is reluctant to put forth their views in a forceful manner.

King John isn't portrayed as pure evil, as I'd expected. He certainly isn't a paragon of morality, but he is no worse than many of the shady, scheming monarch/courtier characters in Shakespeare's plays.

I loved the music, the costumes (wimples!) and the atmosphere, but wasn't overly keen on the plot. I've found other history plays, such as the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III much more exciting and tense. And...there was NO JIG. NO JIG at the end! Why not? Globe, if you can still find it in you to perform a jig after the carnage and destruction of Macbeth, why not after King John?? Songs are great, but don't make up for a jig.

Next: Richard II

Travesties - Bridewell Theatre

Me watching Travesties

'Travesties! When the feeling's gone and you can't go on, it's Travesties! When the morning cries and you don't know why...' The last Tom Stoppard play I saw was Arcadia, about fifteen years ago, which I didn't enjoy on the grounds of it being pretentious and difficult to follow. I was concerned I would have a similar reaction to Travesties when I read the blurb on its advertising leaflet: 'With all the pithy wit of Joyce and the literary virtuosity of Wilde, the political rigour of Dada and the absurdity of Lenin - Travesties is a whirlwind tour through politics, art and really great trousers. While the Great War rages across Europe, Zurich in 1917 is a battlefield of ideas and ideals. [...]' 

Anything that has the words 'Joyce', 'literary virtuosity', 'Dada' and 'battlefield of ideas and ideals' in its description has GOT to be pretentious, right?

Well, not necessarily, but this play certainly was.

I liked its basic concept: elderly man called Henry Carr (performed here by a Bruce Forsyth lookalike) reminisces about his younger days when he lived in Zurich, and the influential people he met. As he reminisces we see his reminiscences played out. However, his memories are faulty and sometimes confused, and there are times when the same basic memory is played out more than once but in slightly different ways. An interesting concept. The people with whom Carr interacts are James Joyce, Tristan Tzara (a founder of Dadaism) and Lenin. Carr played the part of Algernon in The Importance of Being Earnest while in Zurich and his memories are closely intertwined with this play.

The thing that annoyed me about Travesties - and Arcadia, too, as far as I remember - is that one's enjoyment of it depended almost entirely on whether one understood its myriad of social, political and literary references. In this case you had to have a reasonably intimate knowledge of The Importance of Being Earnest in order to understand half the script. Fortunately I happened to have seen TIoBE and listened to a radio adaptation of it recently [smug look] so I think I scraped a pass on that score. However, in order to wring the most enjoyment out of this play you would also have to have a good knowledge of Joyce, Ulysses, Dadaism, contemporary Russian politics...and probably a load of other things that I'm too goshdarned pig ignorant to even be aware of. Confession: I'd never heard of Tzara before seeing this play and it wasn't until the second half that I realised he was based on a real person, like Joyce and Lenin (yes, I had heard of them [wipes brow]).

There were some parts that I found amusing, such as Carr's love of clothes even while fighting in WW1, but didn't find anything laugh-out-loud funny.

My dislike of the play aside, Travesties was performed admirably by the Tower Theatre Company, a well-known amateur group. It wasn't an easy play to perform, requiring a good sense of rhythm, especially in the poetry scenes. Now I have a better knowledge of some of the characters I'm impressed by how well the actors copied their appearances. The costumes were great, hairstyles impressive. The set was excellent. It was good to see consecutive sets containing divans!

Next: I don't know. Nothing by Tom Stoppard, though. For another fifteen years.

Candida - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

Candida book cover

I'm afraid I didn't see Eigengrau because I felt miserable that day and didn't feel like it. However, I've been reliably assured that it was amazing and I missed out.

This was my first visit to Upstairs at the Gatehouse. It's a theatre located on the upper floors of the Gatehouse pub; hence its moniker. It turned out to be a bigger space than I'd anticipated. With free seating (as opposed to designated seating) I was able to bag a seat in the front row.

The set was wonderful. I think it's vital for plays by the likes of George Bernard Shaw and Noel Coward to have properly detailed sets in order to convey the period atmosphere and give one something to look at during the long dialogues when one's mind inevitably wanders. This set was one of the most detailed I've ever seen. The play is set in the 1890s in the drawing room of a middle class home. Fireplace? Check. With GLOWING LOGS, even though they wouldn't have been visible to most audience members. Black and white photograph of a relative on the wall? Check. Divan? Check. Bookcase? Check. Low chair near fireplace? Check. Replica newspaper? Check. Oil lamp type thing? Check. Houseplant that I don't know the name of, but which looked authentic? (Bamboo?) Check.

The Reverend James Morell (Harry Meacher) has candida is married to Candida. A charismatic Christian Socialist preacher, he believes that their relationship is solid and happy and that she depends upon him for love and protection. Candida (Judi Bowker) returns from a lengthy sojourn away from home with a young aristocratic poet, Eugene Marchbanks (Sebastian Cornelius), who, it transpires, has fallen in love with her and wants to get together with her. When he learns of Marchbanks' feelings Morell is initially dismissive but when he speaks to Candida about them he is shaken to discover that she does not feel as he thought she would about not only Marchbanks, but his preaching career and him in general. The play culminates in a 'who will she choose?' scene, with surprising consequences.

Candida is refreshingly feminist in the way it acknowledges that, in many cases, the success of men should at least partly be attributed to the unseen work of the women in their lives (e.g. emotional bolstering work, undertaking a greater share of the housework and childcare etc.). Maybe this was undermined slightly by the incredibly unsubtle patronising nature of Candida - she speaks to her husband and Marchbanks as though they were about two, referring to them as 'big babies' and 'boys', and doles out some pretty harsh passive aggressive criticism - which makes one wonder why either of them is so desperate for her love and approval. But that was also refreshing in its way. It's like the opposite of the end of A Doll's House; in this case the woman chooses to remain with her husband and he accepts that he's a much weaker person than he had always thought and recognises and acknowledges how much he has always relied on her.

The actors playing Morell and Candida were older than I imagine GBS had envisaged (Candida looked about the same age as the man playing her father), but I didn't think it mattered, as everyone played their parts plausibly and well.

I liked the character of Eugene a lot. He was the kind of person I imagined my adult self falling in love with when I was about 13: poetic, profound, passionate, attractive, romantic and melancholic, with an 1890s bohemian dress sense. Nowadays I think I'd find him a little irritating.

Next: Travesties

Sunny Afternoon - Harold Pinter Theatre

'Sunny Afternoon'

Sunny Afternoon is a 'jukebox musical' depicting the formation and fortunes of 60s/70s British band The Kinks. I've been a fan of The Kinks ever since hearing 'You Really Got Me' and the one that sounds almost identical to 'You Really Got Me', 'All Day and All of the Night', on a Sixties tape in the car as a child. 'Death of a Clown' and the titular 'Sunny Afternoon' were, I believe on different tapes; the latter was also one of my favourite songs. This being the case, I had high expectations for the musical.

It was strange seeing John Dagleish as frontman of the band Ray Davies, having only seen him before as the winsome, accordion-playing Alf Arless in Larkrise to Candleford. But he was really good, both in musical terms and in conveying the complexity of the character (i.e. haunted by his older sister's death, a musical genius, a perfectionist struggling with depression etc.). I couldn't help feeling endeared to all the 'boys', despite some of their more obnoxious antics.

One of my favourite scenes was that showing the 1965 gig in Cardiff that ended in a fight between Dave and Mick. Pete, the bass guitar player, tries to carry on performing after the other two have been taken off/run away respectively, playing the guitar and the drums at the same time. The script was genuinely funny; there were some laugh out loud moments. I particularly enjoyed the communist/socialist scene set in America.

The relative intimacy of the theatre meant that it was easy to get absorbed in the show. The runway running from the centre of the stage through the audience was mainly occupied by enthusiastic female dancers in classic 60s outfits. All the major Kinks songs were played. 'Tired of Waiting' wasn't played in its entirety, which I felt slightly disappointed about because it's one of my favourites, but it was alluded to in another song. The music fitted in well with the action; it didn't feel as though it had been crowbarred in. Lillie Flynn, who played Rasa, Ray's wife, had a really beautiful voice.

Given Ray Davies' involvement in Sunny Afternoon (he's credited under 'Original Story'), I wonder whether it portrays him in an unrealistically positive light. From what I've read, Ray's relationship with Dave was always volatile, while in the musical the animosity between Dave and Mick is highlighted and Ray is presented mostly as a concerned older brother in relation to Dave. Ray's relationship with Rasa is also probably idealized, to some extent, given that they ended up divorcing. However, I don't think it matters how much is true and how much is seen through rose-tinted spectacles if the story's good and the characters are interesting - provided there are no serious objections from the people it's portraying.

In conclusion it was funny, feel-good and absorbing, and I would recommend it. It had more 'soul', somehow, than Jersey Boys. Be prepared to be encouraged to dance at the end.

Next: Eigengrau

London Theatre Bloggers event

Last Friday I attended an event for London theatre bloggers (#LDNTheatreBloggers) organised by the vivacious Rebecca Felgate of Official Theatre, after having been kindly invited by Michaela of my stage is the world.

The event took place upstairs at Planet Hollywood and was co-hosted by Seat Plan, the 'definitive seating guide to London theatres'. 

Being my introverted, teetotal, slightly-deaf-in-a-noisy-room self, I was somewhat nervous about the prospect of spending several hours in a noisy room with a group of (probably mostly extroverted) strangers. However, I enjoyed myself. It was really good to be able to talk about theatre shows with people who had seen the same show (even on the same day, in some cases!). The food - sausages on sticks, mini hamburgers, potato wedges, pizza - was lovely. I particularly enjoyed talking to Laura of Loitering in the Theatre, whom, it turned out, shares my alma mater. 

King Charles III - Wyndham's Theatre

King Charles III  promotional material

Vivat Rex. This 2014 play by Mike Bartlett depicts the lives of key members of the British royal family in the period between the death of the present Queen up to and including the coronation of the next monarch. Charles takes over after the Queen's death, but is soon faced with a dilemma - should he sign into law a bill restricting the freedom of the press, even though he disagrees with it? Debate ensues between the King and politicians as to the limits of royal power, and what the consequences will be for the monarchy if he adheres to his principles. The play was written in blank verse, which gave it a poetic, Shakespearean quality. 

I enjoyed the actors' portrayals of the royals. Their voices and mannerisms were done extremely well and the costumes were recognisable. Tim Pigott-Smith was sympathetic as a principled and naive Charles III. 

Apart from the face, Kate (Lydia Wilson) looked exactly as she does in real life - glossy chestnut hair slightly waved at the ends, severe black dress showing off her very slim figure, stiletto heels...Her voice was perfect, too. 

Harry (Richard Goulding) was convincing, with characteristically rumpled hair and a desire to spend most of his time away from the palace. He forms a relationship with a stereotypical art student, Jessica. My favourite usage of blank verse in the play occurred when Jessica described her past indiscretion of sexting a boyfriend to a member of palace personnel, in the hope that he would stop the papers from hounding her. She described it as 'sending a token of my love' or something.

At the beginning of the play, William (Oliver Chris) and Kate came across as benign, benevolent and slightly condescending. But as the play progressed it became clear that Kate was more invested in the future of the monarchy than one might suspect and that she was playing the long game. Hilary Mantel was correct when she described the way in which Kate is depicted in the media: 'In those days she was a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore. These days she is a mother-to-be, and draped in another set of threadbare attributions. Once she gets over being sick, the press will find that she is radiant. They will find that this young woman’s life until now was nothing, her only point and purpose being to give birth.' 

It was refreshing to see Kate depicted as a cunning strategist. I like the idea of her being like that in real life. She was a more interesting character than William, who was more conventional in his approach to the situation. Towards the end of the play the actions of the dapper duo - masterminded by Kate - took a turn for the sinister. I felt a little chill down my spine when Harry informed Jessica that he must break up with her...having been ordered to do so by William and Kate!

Set: concave brick wall with doorways through which people (including the ghost of Diana) entered and exited, a frieze near the top of the wall showing indistinguishable faces, a rectangular plum tiered stage not covering the stage proper, which had parquet flooring...Candles. Good set, helped evoke atmosphere.

Music: chorus at outset, reminiscent of Philip Glass. Also helped evoke atmosphere. 

I enjoyed this, but didn't love it. I was amused by the funny parts but not deeply affected by the more serious elements. 3.5 stars out of 5.

Next: Sunny Afternoon