Half a Sixpence - Noël Coward Theatre

'Two half sixpences joined together make one...'

This was one of the most energetic things I've ever seen. Charlie Stemp must have the stamina of an Olympic athlete. I hope he is a naturally hyper, exuberant, jolly person because otherwise playing Arthur Kipps in this production must take a superhuman amount of effort. I admit I find the idea of someone with a melancholic disposition playing such a relentlessly ebullient, physically demanding role darkly amusing.

Set in 1911, Half a Sixpence is a rags to riches to rags back to some degree of riches tale, featuring irrepressible banjo-playing apprentice tailor Arthur Kipps, who unexpectedly inherits a fortune, finds it difficult to fit into upper class society and has romantic misadventures with two women at opposite ends of the social scale. It's funny, feel-good and very, very jolly, with elaborate sets, great dance numbers and banjo-playing.

Most of the songs in this production were original to the first musical, but there were several new songs and some of the original songs didn't feature, for example, 'All in the cause of economy', which I remember enjoying in the school production I saw many moons ago. However, the new songs were excellent, especially 'Pick out a simple tune', which was WONDERFUL! My traditional Half a Sixpence favourite, 'Flash, bang wallop', entertaining as it was, was surpassed by 'Pick out a simple tune'. It wasn't just the song, it was the dancing during the song that made it so good; upper class people loosening up and playing the spoons and someone swinging on the chandelier.

The more minor characters were given proper personalities, which I liked. My favourite character was Sid Pornick (Alex Hope), one of the apprentices, because I liked his idealistic socialism and his hat. I was delighted when the woman he planned to marry turned out to be a suffragette. Regarding a main character, I felt sorry for Helen Walsingham (Emma Williams) at the end - I vaguely remember feeling the same way when I first saw this musical. She gets a rough deal that I'm not convinced she deserves. Still - it's 1911 - in three years' time all their lives will be turned upside down, and maybe Helen will get to do satisfying war work...

The only slightly negative thing I have to say about this production of Half a Sixpence is that it bears the unmistakable hallmark of Julian Fellowes' authorship: lack of subtlety. For example, the scene at Lady Punnet's musical evening, in which Kipps says outright at least once that he doesn't want to be there - it would have been more realistic for his discomfort to have revealed itself through facial expressions and movements rather than stating to her Ladyship's face that he's hating her social event. Kipps is working-class; he doesn't have Asperger's Syndrome.

Lack of subtlety aside, this is the perfect show to see if you're looking for a potent shot of jollity and merriment.

photo credit: woody1778a GREAT BRITAIN, VICTORIA 1892 ---SIXPENCE a via photopin (license)

Next: Anything Goes

Shakespeare in Love - Noël Coward Theatre

Shakespeare & Viola

Vivat Regina! VIVAT REGINA! This was a play version of the film comedy of the same name. It tells the story of William Shakespeare as a youngish playwright (circa 1594), losing his writing mojo and regaining it through the power of romantic love. Having fallen passionately in love with noblewoman Viola De Lesseps, Shakespeare is inspired to write Romeo and Juliet, which he does throughout the play; the themes and emotions in Romeo and Juliet reflecting what is going on in his own life.

I'm a bit sceptical about films being adapted into plays or musicals, as it seems very commercial, a way of making easy money. However, I enjoyed this one very much. It had a different feel to the film, which I also enjoyed. Maybe there was more emphasis on theatrical processes (i.e. auditions, rehearsals etc.) in the play than in the film? Or maybe one just got that impression because the set was made up of wooden balconies, in the manner of those in an Elizabeth playhouse, thereby constantly reminding one of the theatre?

The set was excellent; not only were there wooden balconies, but there were also eight chandeliers with REAL candles in them, which periodically glided down from on high. A luxurious-looking four poster bed with bright red coverings was wheeled on and off. 

Theatre directors and producers, if you truly want your play to evoke a 16th century atmosphere, include stuff like candles, wooden props, sumptuous fabrics and beautiful music made by authentic Tudor instruments. Maybe include the occasional puff of smoke, too. Don't just rely on costumes and acting. WOLF HALL and BRING UP THE BODIES, I'm talking to you. I was able to feel fully absorbed in Shakespeare in Love in a large part because the set enabled me to believe that the action was taking place in Elizabethan London. The excellent seats in the stalls probably helped, too.

The music was great. Beautiful singing by a man with a very high voice accompanied by Tudor instruments.

My favourite characters were Christopher Marlowe (David Oakes, who was also in The White Queen. Say what you will about The White Queen but there were lots of very attractive people in it) and a youthful, bloodthirsty-minded John Webster (Colin Ryan). The portrayal of Christopher Marlowe was similar to my fond imaginings of him: attractive, well-educated, composed and slightly smug. Webster provided the most humorous moments of the play for me. Denied the part of Ethel in the play Shakespeare is writing, he hangs desultorily about the actors during all the rehearsals, silently gurning. 

I liked the idiosyncratic elements of Viola De Lesseps' (Lucy Briggs-Owen) character, but wasn't keen on some of her facial expressions as Thomas. Particularly during the scene where Alleyn (Doug Rao) and Shakespeare (Tom Bateman) are encouraging her to kiss 'Juliet' more ardently. I thought there she went from 'idiosyncratic' to 'idiotic'. Strange, vacant expressions.

One of my favourite scenes was the boat scene, where Viola travels home from a rehearsal as Thomas, and Shakespeare only realises that she is Viola right at the end, when the boatman reveals this fact. It was amusing and touching, and I enjoyed the bucket-sloshing sound effects. I liked the relationship between Shakespeare and Viola. In fact, I got so into it that I forgot that Shakespeare was married, so I was suitably shocked and appalled on Viola's behalf when she discovered this fact.

The play ended with an energetic jig, performed in character, which I appreciated, and a rendition of 'Vivat Regina' as Queen Elizabeth I took her curtain call. This was such an absorbing, entertaining, feel-good play that I was properly disappointed when it was over.

Historical quibble: Shakespeare actually wrote Twelfth Night seven years after writing Romeo and Juliet. However, we can pretend that he started writing it immediately afterwards but that it took him seven years to complete because it was so important to him. There.

Next: The Knight of the Burning Pestle

The Cripple of Inishmaan - Noël Coward Theatre

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Gabriel