The Red Shoes - Sadler's Wells

Doll that looks a bit like the protagonist

This was a birthday surprise for me and I got to sit in the FRONT ROW!

The Red Shoes is a new Matthew Bourne ballet, based on a fairy tale of the same name by Danish Master of Melancholy Hans Christian Andersen and, more directly, by a 1948 film. I knew nothing about the ballet's storyline and was slightly nervous it would be depressing both because of HCA's having inspired it and after seeing Bourne's Cinderella, which was depressing - set in London during the Blitz, with a thoroughly mis vibe. However, The Red Shoes was Bourne at his best: intensely atmospheric, joyful, poignant, beautiful, humorous and intelligent.

The Red Shoes is a story within a story, about a passionate, talented dancer who joins a ballet company touring Europe, falls in love, and plays the principal role in a ballet called 'The Red Shoes' (basically, a less macabre version of Anderson's story) after the prima ballerina is injured. It's set in the 1930s and the costumes were wonderful - high-waisted trousers, boyleg swimming costumes on both sexes, headbands...The sets were also excellent. Bourne's productions are so good at evoking strong atmospheres; it's one of my favourite things about them. The 'ballet within a ballet' was shown effectively by a smaller stage on the real stage, with curtains, which was revolved to display either 'onstage' or 'backstage', if that makes sense.

I loved the characterisation in this production; even the minor characters came over as having recognisable personalities. All the tradititional theatrical 'types' were represented in the ballet company: the morose, taciturn director; the flamboyant, impossible to satisfy choreographer; the supremely confident, languid prima ballerina; and the equally confident, somewhat camp principal male dancer (ballerino?). Ashley Shaw as Victoria Page, the wearer of the titular shoes, was exuberant, impassioned and beautiful to watch.

My favourite scenes:

• The Monte Carlo beach scene. The backdrop was a simple, minimalist blue sea design, and watching the dancers cavort happily about in their bathing outfits, tossing beach balls and simulating swimming, was a delight. 
• The performance of 'The Red Shoes'. The set was a stark white 1930s geometrical design - like something out of a dystopian film from that era. I loved the ensemble's fantastical black outfits and dances. The rendering of the story of a pair of enchanted shoes that force the wearer to dance to her death was dramatic and exciting.
• The seedy variety show scene, where the audience could see both the backstage action and what was happening 'onstage'. I felt sad for Victoria Page and her musician lover, Julian (Andrew Monaghan), whose glittering careers had deteriorated. I really liked the latter's story trajectory, by the way. The Red Shoes wasn't all about Victoria's love of dance, it was also about Julian's desire to progress his musical career.
• The sumptuous home of the director, which featured a huge pointe shoe sculpture.

I would highly recommend.

photo credit: Rinoninha 33/52 via photopin (license)

Next: Half a Sixpence

King Lear - Hampstead Parish Church

King Lear flyer

King Lear has for many years been my least favourite Shakespeare play and I had no intention of ever seeing it again. My heart sank when I saw it had been selected as the Hampstead Players' winter production for 2016 and, I admit, I only went to see it out of loyalty to the H. Players; Nicolas Holzapfel (King of France) in particular. The reasons for my dislike of King Lear are as follows:

• King Lear is a massive whinger and it's difficult to sympathise with him.
• The eye gouging scene.
• It's unadulteratedly mis and grim and depressing.
• I'm generally not a fan of plays where most of the characters' names are place names, i.e. Gloucester, Kent, Basingstoke etc. I seem to have a mental block where these are concerned and find it difficult to keep track of who's who.
• The eye gouging scene.
• Its extreme length.

However...this production was excellent and I'm glad I went to see it. And no, that's not just because of my association with the H. Players. It was fast-paced and had been adeptly pared down, which made it more absorbing and easier to follow. It helped that I was sitting in the front row and could see every facial expression and was able to feel part of the action. I hadn't realised how many famous Shakespeare phrases King Lear contained, including 'Childe Rowland to the dark tower came'. I'd thought that had originated with Robert Browning. All the references to madness and Bedlam were interesting, especially having recently gone to the Wellcome Collection's exhibition on Bedlam, which I would recommend! I was also impressed that this production contained humour, which I can't recall witnessing in any other production of Lear.

I admit I still struggled to sympathise with Lear, convincingly played as he was by David Gardner. I find it hard to get past the whole asking his daughters which one loves him best gambit, and his shoddy treatment of Cordelia. I really enjoyed the scenes with Lear and his Fool (Gaynor Bassey-Fish), though. I liked the attitude of the Fool towards Lear; it was simultaneously compassionate and unwilling to put up with his nonsense. Cordelia (Megan Britton) was appropriately cherubic and sympathetic, and her appearance later on in the play in camo gear made her appear more capable and action-oriented than one might expect. Her sociopathic sisters, Goneril (Margaret Pritchard Houston) and Regan (Emma Lyndon-Stanford) were played with subtlety rather than as full-blown pantomimic eeeeeeeeevil queens (although they do carry out unconscionable deeds, no question). Goneril's discomfort in the first scene, when compelled to flatter Lear, was evident. I found the scenes featuring Edgar (Matthew Williams) and his father, Gloucester (Bill Risebero), following the latter's blinding, moving. Edgar's character trajectory was probably the part of the play I found the most compelling.

Honorable mention goes to the Russian cavalry-esque trenchcoat circa 1905 sported by Albany (Jolyon Bohling) towards the end.

Is King Lear now my favourite Shakepeare play? We-ll, no. But it has been bumped up a few places. I would probably now put it above Titus Andronicus, The Two Gs of Verona, Love's Labours Lost and maybe even King John in my estimation. So, well done, Players!

The only weak link in this production, if it can be described as such, was Lear's crown, which thankfully only appeared in the first scene. It was a lovely stereotypical crown, but gave off a slight primary school nativity vibe. Which makes me wonder...does King Herod feature in nativity plays? I don't know, never having seen or experienced one.

Next: As yet unknown

Cymbeline - Barbican

Cymbeline tile

I've been to the Barbican estate a lot but this was my first visit to the theatre. Sitting in the back row of the Barbican theatre was like being ensconced in a warm, comfortable, cosy yet spacious concrete womb. I nearly had the entire row to myself. I liked the visible orchestra balconies on either side of the stage.

Yes, I chose to pay more to see the RSC's Cymbeline rather than the Globe's. As you might have guessed from the Taming of the Shrew post, I am not a fan of Emma Rice's Globe regime and am not sad that it will be brought to an early end. And that's not because I'm a fuddy-duddy or stick-in-the-mud or traditionalist or any other label leveled at Rice Regime critics. It's because I believe it's valuable to have one theatre - ONE theatre - out of the approximately 160 theatres in London and goodness knows how many theatres in the UK, in which to perform 16th/early 17th century plays in a more or less authentic manner in order to give people an insight into how they would have appeared to audiences at that time. Which actually helps people to better understand the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Plus, the Globe's Cymbeline was set in London: 2016. I live in London: 2016, and I like escapism. Oh, yes, I forgot, the Globe's production was actually called Imogen, which was a good, feminist innovation. However, I'll see your Imogen, Globe, and raise you a FEMALE CYMBELINE (Gillian Bevan)!

It was interesting seeing this play soon after The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Both plays contain some of the same themes - the separation of lovers, a woman disguising herself as a man and finally 'unmasking' in the presence of her lover, female constancy and male fallibility in love...However, Cymbeline, as a later play, is MUCH BETTER than The Two Gs - the characters are significantly more complex and interesting, the plot contains more layers and twists, and the setting  - Ancient Britain - is more intriguing.

This production was highly atmospheric and absorbing, which was just as well because it was three hours long (not including interval). The costumes were modern but they weren't tied to any particular era and were quite eccentric, which helped to convey an otherworldly atmosphere. Innogen (Bethan Cullinane) started off wearing a blue denim top and white tutu, which Posthumus (Hiran Abeysekera) ended up wearing during the battle scenes. The main focal point of the set was a tree stump, which was progressively uprooted throughout the course of the play. 

I've read Cymbeline but had completely forgotten about the subplot involving Cymbeline's missing children. The scenes featuring Arviragus/Cadwal and Guideria/Polydore and their adoptive father Belarius were some of my favourites in the play. Guideria (Natalie Simpson) was my favourite character - I only realise now that the character was written as a man. I'd thought it was an unusually fierce, kick-ass female character for Shakespeare. The matter-of-fact way in which she fought and killed the manipulative potential rapist Cloten (Marcus Griffiths) was darkly comic. The instant platonic love shown by Arviragus and Guideria towards their (unknown to them) sister was funny and heart-warming. The 'fear no more the heat of the sun' speech was delivered as a beautiful song by the two siblings. 

Another strong, memorable part of the play was the battle scene, in which Posthumus fought for Britain incredibly skilfully and savagely dressed in Innogen's bloodied tutu. The denouement scene was quite funny because there were so many things to reveal. I'm sure I wasn't the only person to have completely forgotten the whole poisoning subplot. I also liked the use of projections in the background showing English translations of Latin and other languages, when the characters spoke in different languages, and map projections, showing the areas that the characters were talking about.

photo credit: Plashing Vole DSC_0615 via photopin (license)

Next: surprise!

The Two Gentlemen of Verona - Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

This encapsulates the 60s vibe of  The Two Gs of Verona

The Two Gentlemen of Verona was another play in my 'Seeing all of Shakespeare's plays, no matter how un/appealing' series. I was really looking forward to going to the SW Playhouse again to experience its magical, intense, dreamlike atmosphere in all its 1600s authenticity, so you can imagine my chagrin when I looked up the play beforehand and discovered that this production was SET IN THE 1960s!!!

It was highly discombobulating to see a play set in the 60s - with 60s outfits and a set involving flashing neon lights and modern instruments and a sound system no less - being performed in a small, wooden, candlelit theatre. With big candlelit chandeliers swaying gently overhead. It simply did.not.work. Despite my anguish about Emma Rice's new regime at the Globe, it's not the case that I'm completely against modern/other era plays ever being performed at the Globe Theatre. However, I am against modern era plays ever being performed at the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse - unless, say, it's a modern play set in a cave or something. Otherwise, the candles are sorely wasted.

I can see why The Two Gentlemen of Verona is not an oft-performed play. The plot was pretty weak. I felt that the cast pulled out all the stops, but they didn't have much to work with. The titular two gentlemen of Verona, good friends Valentine (Guy Hughes) and Proteus (Dharmesh Patel), go to Milan in order to work for a while at the Milanese court. Proteus regretfully leaves behind Julia (Leah Brotherhead), the woman he loves, while Valentine falls in love with the Duke's daughter, Silvia (Aruhan Galieva), in Milan. When he arrives in Milan a bit later, Proteus also immediately falls for Silvia, forgets about Julia, and spectacularly betrays Valentine in order to carry out his wooing, which makes him either exceptionally naive, immature and mercurial, or a sociopath. Either way, a sympathetic character he was decidedly not.

The play is described as a comedy, but it's not. There were a few funny moments, but they mostly came about due to modern interpretations; for example, Valentine fleeing the court and joining a band - that is, a music-playing band - made up of notorious hippies. Music was used to good effect in this production. Comedy-wise, there was also a whole plotline about Launce (Charlotte Mills) and his dog, Crab (played by a person, Fred Thomas, not a real dog), which was supposed to be funny but which I didn't really get. It just didn't appeal to my sense of humour and I don't think I ever figured out exactly who Launce was. I generally don't like seeing people playing dogs, either.

I liked the interpretation of the final scene. Proteus assaults Silvia and threatens to rape her (see what I mean about it not being a comedy?) and only stops when Valentine intervenes. Julia is also there and she and Silvia watch in horror as the two men reconcile with each other. Proteus gets no comeuppance at all and the women are left feeling betrayed and shocked - Silvia by Valentine's happy reconciliation with the man who almost raped her, and Julia by Proteus' general assholery and assault on Silvia. In this production, Julia and Silvia both cry while the two 'gentlemen' embrace, which is a realistic reaction and one that I can imagine not being performed in Shakespeare's time.

photo credit: ArtGrafx Trippypoos via photopin (license)

Next: Cymbeline

Pride and Prejudice - Regent's Park Open Air Theatre

Regent's Park Open Air Theatre - not great photo, sorry

'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a play based on a witty yet not hilarious book, which is rendered purely comedic, loses some of its soul.' - Alice Lambert

This was my first visit to Regent's Park Open Air Theatre. I was seated in one of the end seats on the back row; too far away to see facial expressions, but I did appreciate having a more complete view of the stage. It was quite special to see the actors skittering about the set like dolls in a Regency's doll's house. The revolving set, with stairs leading up to an elegant walkway/balcony, was impressive.

There were parts of this production that I thought were well done, but overall I wasn't keen on it. It was mostly played for laughs, which meant that the characters were portrayed in an over-the-top, parodic sort of way. Yes, I know Mrs Bennet, Mr Collins and Lydia are larger than life, parodic kinds of characters...but not to the extent that they were in this production; Mrs Bennet and Mr Collins especially. And Mary Bennet! I have a special affinity with Mary, having played her last year in the Hampstead Players' P&P, and was disappointed to see her portrayed so cartoonishly in this version by Leigh Quinn. She spoke like an elderly woman and her singing was ridiculously terrible.

I didn't warm to Tafline Steen as Elizabeth, either. I thought she was great in the contemporary play Charles III, in which she played art student Jess. In P&P she spoke with a posher accent but still seemed to use the same inflections and intonations as she had done in Charles III, which made Lizzy sound too modern. But - worse - she came across as flippant and glib, especially in the scene in which she was introduced to Lady Catherine de Bourgh. There wasn't much depth or reflectiveness to her at all. 

The action went at a whirlwind pace, with scarcely any build-up to Darcy's doomed first proposal, but the ending dragged. Mr Bennet took it upon himself in the penultimate(?) scene to recount his life story - the reasons why he had married Mrs Bennet etc. - which was mildly interesting but unnecessary. A lot could have been cut from the last few scenes and more time given to the Darcy/Lizzy relationship build-up. Also, Darcy's first proposal took place at Lady Catherine's house, when the other members of the party had just gone to dinner, and were presumably waiting for Darcy and Lizzy! Unrealistic!

Having said all that, there were parts of the play that I enjoyed and thought were very good:

• Costumes!
• The relationships between the sisters. I liked the way they related and reacted to one another non-verbally in the background. For example, Jane comforting Mary after her disastrous singing episode.
• The weird hopping dance at the Netherfield Ball performed by Lizzy and Darcy (and others). I know this was another example of a reasonably serious scene played for laughs - but I did actually find it genuinely funny. It was just quite strange and original to see them moving about like that. Was it an actual Regency-era dance? 
• Mr Bennet trying to leave the room as unobtrusively as possible while Mrs Bennet tried to convince Mr Collins that Lizzy would indeed marry him.
• The final scene in which different characters spoke aloud the letters they had written to other characters, who read and reacted to them non-verbally. For example, Lizzy reacted to a letter from Lydia, in which Lydia told her how much she was enjoying life with Wickham...but that they didn't have much money, and could Lizzy please send her some? 

Lastly: why did they call Anne de Bourgh 'Annabel'? I didn't get it.

Next: The Two Gentlemen of Verona

Titus Andronicus - The Rose Playhouse

How the cutting off of hands was depicted in this production

Horrific. Foul. Gratuitously violent. Sadistic. Gut-wrenchingly awful. Full of vengeance. Enough to make you despair of humanity.

OK, enough about Leave voters, what about Titus Andronicus?*

Titus was another play I only went to see in order to achieve my goal of seeing all of the Bard's plays. I studied it at university and hated it because of its being all of the adjectives above. It's one of Shakespeare's early plays and I feel that a certain amount of macho posturing went into the writing of it.

As it turned out, Jung Han Kim's production turned out to be one of the best possible versions of Titus Andronicus I could have seen as a deplorer of extreme violence. It was highly conceptual, artistic and unpredictable, with each tiny movement carefully crafted and choreographed. The severed heads of Titus' sons were represented by head-shaped scrunched up bits of newspaper, and the cutting off of hands was shown through the pressing of hands into trays of blue paint. The production included the kinds of things that are usually included in parodies of 'artsy' plays - actors barking like dogs and writhing around on top of each other; drinking water from bottles and spewing the water into buckets (repeatedly); smearing blue paint across faces; tossing newspapers up into the air; a disgusting scene showing Tamora, Queen of the Goths, giving birth to a poo  - BUT it all somehow 'worked'. [Apart from possibly the poo scene.] I was absorbed for the entire thing, alternately disgusted, horrified and moved.

The scene depicting the rape and mutilation of Lavinia (Miranda Shrapnell) was harrowing and distressing to watch (even without fake blood) as I suppose it should be. The rapist sons of Tamora were truly animalistic. One couldn't help hoping that they would get their comeuppance - which of course, they did, in a horrible fashion. Seeing Lavinia stumble home after her ordeal was heartbreaking. I was impressed with the cast of eight, three of whom played more than one role - very different roles - and two women played men. Charles Sandford was sympathetic as the hapless Titus and Laura Hopwood chilling as the psychopathic Tamora. The part where she ate the infamous piece of pie containing the remains of her sons was memorable - it was basically three or so minutes of her just eating...and savouring.

The Rose Playhouse, site of the Rose Theatre, built in 1587, is an archaeological site. It was the perfect location for Titus Andronicus: dark, cavernous, sparse. Most of the play took place on the viewing platform, with the shadowy, watery, concrete-y archaeological area behind, but at one point the actors ran out to an area at the back of the archaeological site, from which their voices echoed. It was very atmospheric. I would definitely recommend seeing a play at The Rose.

*A late referendum joke, I know, but it made me giggle. I don't really think you're as bad as that, Leave voters.

Next: Pride and Prejudice

photo credit: Blue via photopin (license)

The Taming of the Shrew - Globe Theatre (+ mild rant)

Set of The Taming of the Shrew

I'd never been interested in seeing TTotS before due to its misogynistic nature (the wonderful 10 Things I Hate About You notwithstanding), but having recently made the momentous decision to see all of Shakespeare's plays, to the Globe I hied. I thought there was a decent chance that this production would be subversive, given Artistic Director Emma Rice's comment that she wanted it to be a version 'for the 21st century'.

Talking of Emma Rice...much as I would like to be supportive of her as new Artistic Director, I admit I'm not happy about some of the changes she's introduced at the Globe. Lights galore, speakers, amplification and, possibly most shockingly, fewer productions with Elizabethan/Jacobean costumes and music...

Is this the end of the world as we know it?

I'm hardly a traditionalist. I've seen and enjoyed plenty of modern/other era adaptations of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. But isn't the Globe meant to be THE ONE place where you can see these plays performed with more or less the same appearance and feel that they would've had in Shakespeare's day? Isn't that the Globe's whole raison d'être? Other theatres very rarely put on Shakespeare's plays in Elizabethan/Jacobean garb, and one doesn't get many opportunities to hear music from that time, either. If the Globe no longer does this, it just becomes another modern theatre - putting on great plays, sure - but plays that would be equally suited to the National Theatre or anywhere else. I don't understand why Rice would choose to discard the features that make the Globe unique. She might as well encourage members of the public to fire paintballs at the Globe's white exterior walls in order to make it more colorful and friendly and less like a scary, stuffy old theatre.

One innovation of hers with which I do agree, however, is her introduction of gender-balanced casts. This innovation is obviously as unElizabethan as a prominent lighting rig, true. But, unsurprisingly, I favour the balancing of Globe authenticity with modern ideals of equality and diversity. There's nothing that contravenes such ideals in dressing up in Elizabethan garb (especially if women can play men's parts and vice versa) and playing music from that time. Plus, if a character is played well, it's easy to forget the sex of the actor playing him/her. Equality arguments aside, women playing men and vice versa is arguably a less visually obvious departure from Elizabethan ways of doing things than a prominent lighting rig.

Lights, speakers...unauthentically Shakespearean action!

OK, enough about the New Globe Regime. This production of The Taming of the Shrew was set in Ireland in 1916, at the time of the Easter Rising. So...the costumes reflected that era, the music was played by an Irish band, the cast was Irish (or did very convincing accents) and there was the occasional Gaelic phrase thrown in. Katherine (Aoife Duffin) was such a force of nature in the first half it was impossible to imagine her becoming downtrodden. Her face was incredibly mobile and capable of admirable feats of gurning. The first half was extremely funny, involving slow motion wedding slapstick amongst other things. I hadn't expected it to be that funny. My favourite plot line was that involving Vincentio (Louis Dempsey) and his servant, Tranio (Imogen Doel), who pretends to be Vincentio while the real Vincentio pretends to be a teacher in order to get close to and woo Bianca (Genevieve Hulme-Beaman), Katherine's petulant younger sister. Tranio was both very cute and very funny, clearly delighted at assuming the role of master and full of amusing mannerisms.

The second half was predictably depressing as, following her marriage to Petruchio (Edward MacLiam), Katherine immediately became downtrodden; a shadow of her former self. I have to say, I'm impressed at Shakespeare's having created such a believable, cleverly emotionally abusive character at a time when the concept of 'emotional abuse' can't have been well-developed. It seemed pretty clear to me that Katherine went along with Petruchio's demands in this production purely because she knew that unless she did so she would get no food or rest. So...I suppose that's more subversive than Katherine having a complete personality change and genuinely growing to believe that women should be men's doormats. However, even with this interpretation, her final lengthy speech extolling female subordination was a bit much. I would've preferred it if the guests at the party at the end were revealed to be humouring Petruchio, having recognised him for the abuser that he is, and for the police to come and take him away during Katherine's final speech.

There was a lot of spitting in this production. I don't mean ordinary actorly spitting; I mean deliberate spitting as part of the play.

Next: Titus Andronicus

The Mikado - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

LEGO Japan scene

In these turbulent, uncertain, infuriating times, when one's patriotism has been drained to the very dregs, there's nothing like a bit of quintessentially English Gilbert and Sullivan to restore one's battered spirits.

G&S productions are usually done on a grand scale, so it was interesting to see one with only eleven cast members, accompanied by a single pianist rather than a full orchestra. The set was minimal, consisting of a stool and some plants. I would like to say there was a gong, but I think that was a product of my imagination. In the second half a charming Japanese-style love seat entwined with flowers materialised. The costumes were typical Mikado fare - British conceptions of traditional Japanese outfits, with black wigs aplenty. Ko-Ko's headpiece as Lord High Executioner was impressive; it had an axe sticking up out of the top, from which swung a severed doll's head.

The small-scale nature of the production didn't make it any less enjoyable. Being so close to the actors is always a boon. For the most part, the actors were considerably older than the characters they played - Sally-Ann Shepherdson as the schoolgirl Yum-Yum was fifty if she was a day - but it only added to the humour. It was very funny; recent events in British politics made good fodder for Ko-Ko's Little List. The singing was excellent, as befitted former members of the D’Oyly Carte Opera Company. I particularly enjoyed Yum-Yum and Nanki-Poo (Declan Kelly)'s parts, and the titular Mikado (Bruce Graham) had an incredibly powerful voice. I appreciated the madrigal Brightly dawns our wedding day more than I usually do; it's not one of my favourites. I wonder about the extent to which the production was abridged - unless I'm much mistaken they missed out See how the Fates their gifts allot.

It was just as well the singing was so good, because some of the actors' grasp of their lines wasn't. Pooh-Bah (Graham Stone) forgot his lines twice and Ko-Ko (Trevor Alexander) once. In all my years of theatre-going, until this night I had never actually heard an actor say 'line?'. I've seen a Maori actor tumble, bare-bottom first, into the audience; I've seen a production grind to a halt (literally) because of technical difficulties; I've heard plenty of actors come in at the wrong time and try to cover it up, but never, until this night, had I heard an actor stop and ask to be prompted for a line. And it happened three times in this production! Not to make a big deal out of it or anything...

photo credit: LEGO Culture of Japan - Kyoto Kiyomizu via photopin (license)

Next: The Taming of the Shrew

The Alchemist - Hampstead Parish Church

Atmospheric bubbling flasks & globe

I enjoyed Ben Jonson's comedy The Alchemist when I studied it at university, so was excited to see it performed for the first time. Unlike Shakepeare's plays, which usually involve multiple different settings - sometimes different countries, even - The Alchemist takes place within (and on the doorstep of) a single London house. 

Amoral and inscrutable butler Jeremy takes advantage of his master's absence to use his house as the headquarters for a variety of fraudulent acts. With the help of two other con-people - Subtle (the titular alchemist) and Doll Common - Jeremy aka Face carries out a series of elaborate cons on a number of diverse and gullible characters.

The set contained everything one could wish from a production of The Alchemist: audibly bubbling, lit-up flasks, test tubes containing different coloured liquids, a globe and a board displaying alchemical equations. I was pleased that the set remained traditionally alchemical, given that the production included modern music and dress - which, incidentally, I thought worked well. I particularly enjoyed the music, which really added to the humour. The costumes were good, although I wasn't completely convinced by Drugger's 70s hippy-inspired outfit...I mean, when the drug in question is tobacco, I'm not sure the flower-power imagery works. Or maybe therein lay the joke?

Barney Lyons as Jeremy/Face and Roderick O'Grady as Subtle made an excellent comic pairing. Their swift transformations into different characters for different 'gulls' were impressive and entertaining; some of Subtle's reactions and mannerisms made me laugh out loud. Barney Lyons' Jeremy had a calm and impassive intensity when he wasn't playing 'Captain Face' (apart from during the argument at the beginning), which was almost chilling, especially towards the end, just before he pulled the gun on Subtle and Doll. Margaret Pritchard Houston as Doll was equally funny and engaging in her transformations and in her interactions with Face and Subtle - and, of course, with the ambitious and lecherous Sir Epicure Mammon (Malcolm Stern).

The creative, clever, highly amusing staging of The Alchemist successfully conveyed the bustling, hectic nature of London and captured the audience's interest from the outset. The play opened with all the characters going about their business to the accompaniment of 'London Calling' by The Clash. I loved the bit after the interval when the audience was drawn back into the action with some of the characters crossing the stage, again going about their business in an amusing way. For example, Drugger (Sarah Day) walking by, delightedly clutching her new shop sign, and Kastril (Nicolas Holzapfel) taking an ostentatious drag on a cigar only to dissolve into a coughing fit. 

Other parts of the play that I found particularly entertaining were...:

• Subtle emerging in a blue robe from the pulpit in order to appear religious to Sir Epicure.
• Drugger's shop sign!
• The 'elves' frisking Dapper (Catherine Martin) to ensure she wasn't concealing money.
• The entrance of Doll as the Queen of Fairy, with suitable music, fairy wings and bubbles.
• The very end bit, where Lovewit (Simon Malpas) presents Jeremy with jewels and Subtle and Doll appear - to music - on the run, looking for their next swindle. Very cinematic!

For a completely cynical play in which good in no way overcame evil, The Alchemist made me feel surprisingly uplifted.

Next: The Mikado

The Go-Between - Apollo Theatre

Mercury, messenger of the gods

The Go-Between by L.P. Hartley is one of my top five favourite novels, so I was both excited and apprehensive when I saw the play advertised. Apprehensive because the book is so atmospheric, absorbing, believable, subtle and magical that it's pretty much impossible for any adaptation to do it justice. And because the poster is a little tacky, with its big close-up of Michael Crawford's anxious/contemplative face. And because it is described as a 'musical adaptation', which is enough to strike fear into any Go-Between purist's heart.

However, my concerns about the play's musical nature were allayed when I saw the piano on the stage. The music thankfully wasn't like that in a 'musical' proper (with drums, etc.), which would not have suited the story. The piano was the only instrument used. For the most part I enjoyed the music - it was beautiful and the voices were amazing - but some of the lyrics I found too unsubtle, especially those in the 'Butterfly' song about Leo's feelings towards Marian. Show, don't tell!

The rest of the set was intriguing...patches of grass growing between floorboards, a big wooden chest, floor-length 'windows' at the back of the stage. The lighting was used to great effect throughout the play to convey the different atmospheres. 1900s costumes: excellent.

The characterisation in the play was strong. I was extremely impressed with Luka Green's performance as young Leo. I thought he played the part perfectly; suitably curious and interested in his new surroundings, keenly aware that he was from a different social milieu to the Maudsleys and anxious to avoid making any embarrassing faux pas, both fascinated and frustrated by the behaviour of the adults around him, desperately wanting to impress Marian, mildly irritated by the obnoxious Marcus, independent, confident in his magical abilities...one of the things I liked about the play was the fact that it didn't gloss over Leo's 'magic', which I felt the 1971 film kind of did. The deadly nightshade scene was powerful.

I also really liked Stuart Ward as morose tenant farmer Ted Burgess. The scenes featuring him and young Leo were intense and absorbing. And I loved the special effect of Ted diving into the lake! Michael Cranfield's almost constant presence on the stage as the older Leo worked well, adding to the sense of foreboding. I thought Marian (Gemma Sutton) could have been a bit more serene and detached earlier on in the play, which would have made her later outbursts towards Leo more shocking.

My theatre companion was appalled, incensed and deeply aggrieved that the ending of this version [spoiler alert!] revealed the older Leo to be pleased that he had acted as the 'go-between'; that he considered the damaging effects of that summer's events on his life to have been worth it because he had served the pure and noble role of aiding and abetting True Love. This ending was different to that of the novel, in which the older Leo was aware that the summer's events had caused him to live less boldly than before and to limit his horizons. While I agreed with my companion that the novel's ending was far superior and made more sense, I wasn't too bothered by the play's ending. I think it can be read as the older Leo just being deluded, which makes the whole thing even more poignant...or it can just be ignored. The rest of the play up until the final minute or two was so good, one shouldn't let the final couple of minutes detract from it!

photo credit: Mercury via photopin (license)

Next: The Alchemist

Wallis...'a certain person' - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

Me as Edward VIII - no, not in this production!

I've been interested in the Wallis Simpson/Edward VIII/abdication story since long before I went to a fancy dress 'drag' party as Edward aka David in 2011. Was Edward incredibly selfish in refusing to do his duty, not to mention cruel in putting his shy younger brother with a speech impediment in the position of having to accept the throne? Or should he be admired for refusing to take on a role to which he didn't feel suited and choosing to follow his heart instead? Was Wallis really as horrible as she is usually painted? Can we agree that the Downton Abbey Christmas Special storyline featuring Edward was the most ridic storyline in the show's history?

As is customary at Upstairs at the Gatehouse, the sets were exemplary. I love walking into a theatre and feeling instantly transported to the time period in which the play is set. The swing music helped, too. The sets included simple art deco patterns on the walls, a cream divan, a beautiful old telephone, and, in Edward's rooms, pictures of George V, Charles I and Queen Victoria, and tennis rackets in presses beside a fireplace! Be still, my beating heart. The costumes were excellent, too. The play covered the period from 1931, when Wallis and Edward first met, to 1936, so it was appropriate for there to be costume changes aplenty. I particularly loved Wallis' wide-legged black trousers, her jewellery and black dress towards the end. Lady Thelma Furness' blue v-necked dress was also authentic-looking. Edward looked suitably dapper, although I was disappointed that he never appeared in characteristic plus-fours! There was a reference to his golf-playing, though.

I found the play amusing and engaging; it was interesting to see the progression of Wallis and Edward's relationship after their initial fiery encounter at a party, and Edward's callous throwing-off of Thelma in favour of Wallis. You could understand Edward's attraction to Wallis - she was supremely confident, unwilling to play by upper-class societal rules and able to coddle him to his satisfaction without sucking up to him. Emma Odell made a convincingly self-assured, witty, alluring Wallis, with arch and mischievous facial expressions. You couldn't help feeling sorry for her at the end, stuck with an immature man and shunned by society. Grant McConvey was a suitably petulant, raffish Edward, if a bit too youthful. I don't normally like stories where the characters are mostly cynical and selfish, but I couldn't help enjoying this one. The genuinely loving relationship between the gay butler (Robert Hazle) and the maid who agreed to be his beard (Katie Arnstein) provided a touch of necessary humaneness.

This was a play 'with music' - the butler accompanied himself on the piano during set changes, singing songs relating to the public's perception of the characters. The musical interludes were a positive addition to the play, although I wasn't keen on the 'debauchery' song. I thought the play went on a little too long - the scene with Stanley Baldwin and his wife could have been shorter - but it was very enjoyable and made you wonder whether Wallis really would have been happier to have ditched 'David' after learning that he would have to abdicate - and therefore face extreme and potentially permanent societal disapproval - if he was to marry her.

Next: The Go-Between

Pericles - Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

Scene of a Shipwreck

Shipwrecks and pirates and brothels, oh my! If Bar Mitzvah Boy suffered from too little plot, Pericles suffered from too much. No sooner did the titular Pericles, Prince of Tyre, set foot on a ship than a storm began a-brewing and he ended up stranded and friendless on foreign shores. The shipwrecks and coincidences and comings back from the dead and Marina's ability to talk herself out of ANYTHING might have made this play farcical and Comedy of Errors-esque, but it had such a strong fairytale quality and atmosphere it was easy to suspend disbelief and take it seriously. I felt that one wasn't supposed to see it as taking place in this world, but in a mystical, magical, ancient otherworld. Having never seen Pericles before but knowing it wasn't an oft-performed play, I was apprehensive. But I found this production beautiful and moving.

The Sam Wanamaker Playhouse may have an irritating name (must everything at the Globe be a paean to Sam Wanamaker?) but it's a wonderful, unique theatre and I would thoroughly recommend seeing a performance there. Each time I've gone I've left feeling as though I've just had a vivid, intense, amazing dream. Because it's so small it's easy to forget about the other members of the audience and absorb yourself fully in the play. And the candlelight! It's always used to good, dramatic effect and, again, it somehow helps you feel as though you're the only person in the audience.

Pericles started off a bit weirdly, with Pericles (played by Globe stalwart James Garnon) leaving town on discovering an incestuous relationship between the woman he plans to marry and her father. It was weird because you assumed that this elaborately set-up plotline would go somewhere (e.g. that the woman would materialise later in the play at an inopportune moment), but it didn't. However, I appreciated the randomness of it.

My favourite scene had to be Pericles' first meeting with the woman he would marry, Thaisa (Dorothea Myer-Bennett). It's Thaisa's birthday and a party is held in her honour, to which various knights are invited (and which Pericles gatecrashes). It's all very festive and they play a game where Thaisa has to guess the Latin mottoes inscribed on the backs of the knights' shields. Entertaining. Original. The bedraggled, recently-shipwrecked Pericles doesn't have a shield but gives her a branch instead. And there is a dance! Excellent. THIS was when I was expecting the incestuous woman to turn up.

I loved the character of Marina (Jessica Baglow), a young woman of great integrity, who managed, with words alone, to get herself out of every single undesirable situation. And she faced many such a situation, from an evil adoptive mother to pirates to brothel-keepers. The scene in which she was reunited with her long-lost father, Pericles was genuinely touching. The subsequent appearance, from the rafters, of none other than the goddess Diana, in Pericles' dream, was the crowning moment in the play. 

photo credit: Scene of a Shipwreck via photopin (license)

Next: Wallis

Bar Mitzvah Boy - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

The Torah

Bar Mitzvah Boy The Musical: the musical that says exactly what it is on the tin. Bar Mitzvah Boy The Musical - a musical about a boy preparing for and undergoing his bar mitzvah, right? Yes. That is exactly what it was. A simple story maybe, but the appeal of this show lay in its well-drawn, endearing characters, strong humour and heart-warming nature. 

One of the things I love about Upstairs at the Gatehouse is the fact that its smallness and compactness encourages companies to put extra effort into making their sets as detailed and authentic-looking as possible. Bar Mitzvah Boy is set in the 1970s - this was actually the first staging of the musical since the original 1978 production - so there were shag carpets, beaded curtain/doors and orange and brown wallpaper with geometrical patterns galore. The costumes and hairstyles were also delightfully and convincingly 70s. I have a tendency to romanticise the idea of 70s fashions, so watching this was a reminder that many outfits of the time were indeed hideous.

Adam Bregman was excellent as Eliot Green, the titular Bar Mitzvah Boy, who was very conscientious about his bar mitzvah preparations and annoyed with his family for only caring about what he regarded as superficialities. His agonisings over the meaning of becoming a man and the spiritual element of the ceremony struck me as very true to life and understandable - typically earnestly teenagerish, maybe - but commendable.

While Eliot was the focus of the action, the other characters and how they related to each other played an important part in the story. All the characters were likeable and sympathetic to some extent. The parents, Rita and Victor, were a typical 70s North London couple; Rita (Sue Kelvin) was a housewife and Victor (Robert Maskell) a taxi driver. Rita's extreme anxiety over ensuring that the bar mitzvah passed off without a hitch and impressed the myriad of guests provided much of the humour of the show. Despite her frustration over her husband's lack of interest in the plans (and his reluctance to help out more generally around the house), and his irritation with the non-stop bar mitzvah preparation discussions, it was clear that their marriage was, overall, a happy one.

The relationship between Lesley (Lara Stubbs) and her boyfriend Harold (Nicholas Corre) was more modern in terms of gender roles, but unfortunately that was in a large part due to the fact that Harold was simply a pushover and willing to do anything in order to be liked. Harold was my favourite character; yes, he was a pushover but he was genuinely helpful, optimistic and perpetually good-natured. He also had a song and a dance of his own that he performed while doing the cleaning up. It was clear that Lesley and Harold's relationship was on the rocks and it was interesting to see how/whether their relationship situation would be resolved by the end (it wasn't). Lesley's caring and protective attitude towards her brother was sweet.

One of my favourite scenes was the bar mitzvah scene where Eliot's granddad and Victor had to recite their different parts in Hebrew. The granddad (Hayward B Morse), a very amusing character, was overcome with emotion, while Rita was less than impressed with Victor's reciting, loudly muttering 'appalling'.

It was good to see a musical I was unfamiliar with - I don't think I'd heard any of the songs before. I would've liked a bit more overt klezmer, maybe, but there were klezmer elements incorporated into the music.

This musical has been criticised for not having enough of a storyline, but I really enjoyed it. It was a true 'feel-good' show and I left feeling happy and musically sated. I also learned that 'bar mitzvah' can be used as a verb, not just a noun (well, it was in this show, anyway).

photo credit: Mikraot Gedolot with yiddish commentary - Lekh lekhah - here: Pirush LeTorah Elokim #yiddish #chumash #torah #commentary #perush #bereshit via photopin (license)

Next: Pericles

Akhnaten - London Coliseum

Akhnaten statue

This was a theatrical experience unlike any other. Juggling, a top hat with a skull affixed, full frontal male nudity, masses of blue hair belonging to six people all knotted together, oversized lychee stones and Philip Glass himself all appeared during the course of the evening. There was also a female conductor, which made me happy.

This was an extremely beautiful, sumptuous, mesmerising opera. It held even my attention, as someone who generally finds opera boring. Akhnaten tells the story of Akhnaten's rule as Pharaoh following the death of his father, Amenhotep III. Akhnaten's reign was different to that of his father as he introduced monotheism and formed a new kind of society, the particulars of which are unclear in the opera but no doubt symbolically expressed through the juggling etc.

Anthony Roth Costanzo made a wonderful, otherworldly Akhnaten, combining power and charisma with vulnerability. The Scribe (Zachary James), who also seemed to be the ghost of Akhnaten's father, was amazing - tall and formidable with an incredibly powerful voice. The actors' movements were intensely slow and smooth to the extent that when Akhnaten was walking up staircases I wondered whether he was on a conveyor belt or being otherwise mechanically pulled up in some way. It felt as though every tiny movement had been choreographed to within an inch of its life.

I don't know whether this is characteristic of modern opera in general or Philip Glass operas in particular, but I really liked the bits where the singers were making sounds together with the music for extended periods of time rather than singing actual words. It sounded amazing. One of my favourite scenes, 'The Temple', in which Akhnaten and his mother, Queen Tye (Rebecca Bottone), enter the temple and banish the priests who are performing old rituals, featured a lot of this.

One of my other favourite scenes was one towards the end, 'The Family', in which Akhnaten and his family isolate themselves from society. Their insularity is represented by the blue hair of Akhnaten's six daughters all woven together at the ends, forcing them to move around in a group. I loved the music and strong atmosphere of this scene.

Costumes were unsurprisingly impressive - Akhnaten's coronation robes were suitably grand and multifaceted - I loved his headgear that contained what looked like an oversized lychee stone. Tutankhamun's outfit was as you would expect. My favourite costumes were those of Queen Tye. She wore Queen Mary-early-20th-century style dresses that looked as though they had been designed by Jean Paul Gaultier. Beautiful colours, including a light blue that set off her vivid red hair.

...And during the curtain call, who should appear but Philip Glass himself! The audience went as wild as an opera audience could possibly go.

photo credit: Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum via photopin (license)

Next: we shall see

Bend it Like Beckham - Phoenix Theatre

England football shirt

I wonder how David Beckham feels about this musical. It must be amazing to know there's a show running in the West End that depicts you as one of the best and most admired footballers of your generation and (in a more minor way) an object of desire, AND has your name in the title. What's more, this being the progressive, feminist-minded oeuvre that it is, it is the female protagonist, Jess, who sees Mr Beckham purely in terms of his footballing prowess and the gay male character, Tony, who makes (the only?) reference to his physical attractiveness.

Because of such feminist qualities including, most obviously, its championing of women's football - and of course, its exploration of other important issues such as balancing familial/cultural expectations with achieving an ambition, being held back by prejudice etc. - I wish I could say that I loved this musical, but unfortunately I did not. Everyone else in the audience seemed to love it, though, so maybe I wasn't in the right mood. I enjoyed the film very much and just didn't think the story worked as well in musical form.

Good points first: Natalie Dew as Jess was instantly likeable with her open, friendly face and earnest expressions, and completely believable. It was good to see Lauren Samuels of Over the Rainbow fame as Jules. At the risk of sounding humourless, I found Preeya Kalidas' exaggerated south London/Indian accent as Pinky tooth-setting-on-edge irritating. However, I enjoyed all her scenes with Teetu (Raj Bajaj), particularly the engagement party dancing scene near the beginning. Jess's dad (Tony Jayawardena) was very funny in a dry, deadpan sort of way; his understated reactions to the various goings-on provided some of the best humour in the show.

The musical showed more of the parents' perspectives than the film, as far as I can remember. Both sets of parents - Jess's parents and Jules's mum - came across as more sympathetic in the musical. Jules' mum (Sophie-Louise Dann) came across as particularly sympathetic as a single mum anxious to develop a close relationship with a daughter she didn't understand and to whom she couldn't easily relate. Her mistaken belief that Jules was a lesbian made for some very funny moments.

Things I wasn't keen on/didn't think translated well into a musical:

• The football. They did their best to depict the playing of football but the game is ultimately more exciting when you actually see it being played as opposed to simulated with light effects and through dance. 
• The songs. Enjoyable enough while watching the show, but I have not had a hankering to hear them again since. And I actively did not like 'Glorious'.
• It went on for too long. The full Greek tragedy-esque cycle of Jess deciding, after much agonising, not to play football but then playing football and being discovered and then deciding not to play football again seemed to occur at least one time too many.

photo credit: Come on England via photopin (license)

Next: Akhnaten

Legally Blonde - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

Legally Blonde doll

Oh my god, oh my god you guys...if you favour serious, understated oeuvres on the melancholy side with profound messages of global significance, this is not the theatrical piece for you. It was the peppiest, most upbeat, extroverted musical I've ever seen. Magnified by ten because, given the small size of Upstairs at the Gatehouse, we were only centimetres away at all times from the energetic gyrations of the actors.

This musical was a warming burst of sunshine in the middle of dreary winter. The story was the same as that of the film, with a few minor changes. I liked the set, which at first glance was reminiscent of an Inca temple. The grey stone 'temple walls'  on either side of the 'stage' doubled up as the sorority house and Harvard. Audience members sat on either side of the theatre, with the show taking place on a reasonably narrow aisle down the middle, connecting the grey stone walls.

The cast was small - only twelve people - all of whom, other than those playing Elle, Warner and Emmett, played multiple roles. Bruiser was not played by a real dog, sadly. Abbie Chambers made an extremely sweet, appealing, believable Elle, with perhaps a little more 'edge' than that of Reese Witherspoon. Robert Colvin looked exactly right for the smarmy Warner. Jodie Jacobs, as Paulette, was heart-warming, a powerful singer and very funny. It was all highly energetic and fast-moving. I was particularly impressed by the cast's ability to sing while undertaking various exercises with skipping ropes.

I probably preferred the second act to the first. Despite my implications in the first paragraph, of course, this musical does actually deliver some important messages: don't make assumptions about people based on their appearances; you don't have to conform to other peoples' incomplete perceptions of you; support your fellow women in the workplace and life in general; romantic relationships are not the be-all and end-all etc. I loved the bit when Elle is appointed lead lawyer in the case to defend Brooke, and the female interns rally to support her. I also really enjoyed the UPS guy's appearances, the bend and snap sequence and the 'is he gay or European' song. All the court case scenes were extremely funny. I liked seeing the relationship blossom between Elle and Emmett...I couldn't remember the latter from the film at all, which was a bit weird given his prominence in the story.

Things I didn't like so much: in the film Elle's admissions essay for Harvard takes the form of a video, whereas in the musical it's an in-person presentation featuring cheerleaders and flag-waving. I didn't like it - it was too silly to be funny. Plus, I like the fact that Elle gets into Harvard in the film purely on the strength of her LSAT score and video. In the musical she actually tells the admissions people that she wants to get in because of LOVE. There is a fine line between silly-but-funny-and-suspend-disbelief-able and plain ridic, and the line was crossed in this instance. There was also a long bit about Paulette specifically wanting to get together with an Irish man, which I can't remember from the film. This in itself was fine but the Irish dancing part edged over the line. 

photo credit: Casey via photopin (license)

Next: not sure

The Nutcracker - London Coliseum

Pointe shoe Christmas tree at Coliseum

I've wanted to see a traditional production of The Nutcracker for years, but have never got round to it due to a) the limited amount of time for which such productions normally run and b) the expensive nature of the beast. This being a Christmas present, for the first and possibly last time I got to sit in the middle of the THIRD ROW OF THE STALLS! At the Coliseum! I was so close to the stage I got to see not only the faces of the back row of the orchestra, but every muscle twitch of the skimpy tights-clad bottoms of the male dancers. 

I loved this production. Set in the 1900s, the costumes were exquisite, the sets gorgeous, the dancing divine and the atmosphere enchanting. It did a perfect job of setting the scene at the beginning, in conveying the excited atmosphere of anticipation before a party on Christmas Eve. The skating and sledging scene outside the house - complete with projected falling snow - was beautiful. It was all so elegant; even the fallings over on the ice were elegantly performed. 

My favourite scene was the party scene. There was so much going on! Elaborate set with big Christmas tree blazing impressively and comfortingly away at the back of the stage? Check. Party guests all doing interesting things in the background, showing that they had personalities of their own? Check. Actual children dancing (as opposed to adults pretending to be children)? Check. Eccentric magician guest? Check. Arrival of Father Christmas? Check. I loved seeing the children receive their presents and particularly liked the little old-fashioned hot air balloon present...and the way it made an appearance in Clara's dream as a life-sized balloon. Child Clara's (Sereina Mowlem's) dance with the Nutcracker doll was sweet and slightly poignant.

The Dance of the Snowflakes was enchanting, especially as it included the voices of the children singing in one of the theatre's boxes. 

Drosselmeyer (eccentric magician guest, who, according to Wikipedia, was also a 'local councilman' (!)), played by Daniel Kraus, was my favourite character. I loved his gesturings towards the curtain in the second half, for it to draw back and reveal a new, captivating scene. The Mirliton dance brought back fond memories of my own dancing days - that was the music to which my ballet class danced in a show, many moons ago. The triangular cylindrical (I don't know how else to describe them) costumes of two of the 'Russian' dancers were exceedingly impressive, as were the jumps of the male 'Russian' dancer. The dance of dream Clara (Begoña Cao) as the Sugar Plum Fairy with the Prince (Junor Souza) was another highlight.

I felt the parts featuring the mice went on for a smidge too long, especially the big fight in the first act. And I didn't get why the 'real', human Nutcracker kept being replaced by the Prince only to be replaced by the Nutcracker again. I could understand the Nutcracker turning into a Prince, but why turn back in a Nutcracker?? Wikipedia sheds no light on this. And apparently the Prince is Drosselmeyer's nephew! There's no way you would know this stuff without looking it up.

The final scene, where child Clara and her brother (Seamus McIntosh) stood outside the house and saw the balloon sail past in the distance, brought a tear to my eye. Wonderful!

Next: Legally Blonde