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

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

The Man Born to be King - Hampstead Parish Church

Set of The Man Born to be King

The Man Born to be King is a radio drama series, based on the life of Jesus, written by Dorothy L. Sayers and first broadcast by the BBC in 1941-2. The Hampstead Players adapted and performed the last three of the twelve plays in the cycle, which depicted the final few weeks of Jesus' life, his death and resurrection. I generally avoid seeing or listening to detailed depictions of Jesus's death and the events leading up to it because I find it depressing and upsetting. Yes, I know it ends well, with Jesus rising from the dead etc., but it's still a horrific story. I can't say I 'enjoyed' this play much - particularly the second half - for that reason; it was intense and relentlessly discomforting. But this shows that it was well done. It was very powerful and I have found myself thinking about it a lot since having seen it. The church setting unsurprisingly suited the play really well, and good use was made of the pulpit and other church accoutrements.

The first scene was a great introduction to Judas (Nicolas Holzapfel), and the foreboding music that played as he and Baruch, a zealot (Barney Lyons), took to the stage was perfect. I liked the scenes featuring Baruch and Judas - Baruch enabled one to get a greater insight into Judas' personality and motivations, in addition to being an intriguing character in his own right. The scene at Jesus' trial, when Baruch realises that it was Judas who had betrayed Jesus, was particularly powerful. One of the most emotionally powerful scenes was that in which Judas betrays Jesus to Caiaphas (Harlequin) and Annas, Caiphas' father-in-law (Catherine Martin). Caiphas and Annas worked extremely well together throughout the play. Caiaphas' eccentricity contrasted effectively with Annas' calm, superior demeanour. Judas was portrayed successfully as an extremely intense tortured soul.

Jesus...I was looking forward to seeing the interpretation of the play's protagonist. I wasn't disappointed. Alessandro Predari looked exactly right for the part (well, he was how I imagine Jesus to look like, anyway), with black hair and beard and a kind face and gentle demeanour. Tall and very thin, he had an otherwordly, ethereal presence. But there was a sense of strength and dignity about him that came across particularly well in the trial scene. It was believable that people wanted to follow him. Even I, in the audience, craved Jesus' approval.

The Last Supper and Gethsemane scenes - very intense*. Was anxious for Judas to change his mind, but knew it wouldn't happen. The disciples do screw up a lot (the characters, not the actors). I can't claim that I definitely would not have denied Jesus, but I think I would at least have managed to stay awake with him in the garden.

The trial and death scenes were performed to great effect. I've never felt much sympathy towards Pilate (David Gardner), but in this play he is shown as doing absolutely everything he could possibly do to save Jesus. It was good to get a greater sense of his personality and I enjoyed his interactions with Flavius, his clerk (Hoda Ali). The bit where Jesus, on the cross, asks John (Moray Jones) to be a son to Mary (Natasha Blumenthal) and she to be a mother to John was very moving.

I know it can't be easy for an amateur company to obtain high quality, authentic costumes, and I'm truly thankful that this play wasn't performed in modern dress - or, god forbid WWI or WW2 garb, which seems to be popular nowadays (see 55 Days by Howard Brenton) - but I wasn't keen on the black leggings visible under many of the tunics, or the overtly modern sandals. The soldiers' outfits were good, as were those of the Sanhedrin. However, I felt that the scene in which an anguished Judas repents of his betrayal of Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin, was diminished by Caiphas' tunic coming undone at the top and displaying his bare chest. Not seemly for the High Priest of Israel!!

This was a looooooooong play - three hours including an interval - making it either the second or third longest play I've ever seen. I thought the second half could have been cut down by fifteen minutes or so, by taking out one of the scenes featuring the Sanhedrin. I would have preferred more of a focus on Jesus and the disciples towards the end; I felt that the scene in which Jesus appeared to the disciples was rather rushed. I wanted Thomas to feature more! However, the play remained compelling and engaging nonetheless. 

*Sorry, word overuse.

Next: Definitely at least one more thing before the end of the year.

All's Well that Ends Well - Hampstead Parish Church

All's Well that Ends Well leaflet fragment

I haven't updated this for aaaaaaaagggees because I haven't been to the theatre since March, not because I have been seeing things without writing about them. Apologies to all my readers for leaving you on tenterhooks, especially my dear Russian reader(s).

Last week I went to see 'All's Well that Ends Well', performed by The Hampstead Players, not once, but twice. That is, I saw it twice, not that they performed it only twice. Egads.

I wasn't overly keen on AWtEW when I saw it at the Globe in 2011, so, while looking forward to it, I wasn't excited enough to get diarrhoea beforehand, as I did prior to the Players' production of 'As You Like It' last year. AWtEW is a strange play - neither comedy nor tragedy, it contains complex and not altogether likeable characters, and has a plot that becomes particularly complicated and difficult to follow in the second half if you're not listening carefully enough.

However, I was pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed it. Both times I felt fully absorbed and engaged in the story, which couldn't have been presented more comprehensibly. Sarah Day was sublime as Helen. She immediately engaged the sympathies of the audience and very effectively conveyed her emotions through subtle facial expressions and gestures (and verbally, of course...!). Her feelings towards Bertram were clear from the first scene, before she'd uttered a word. I enjoyed the scenes featuring Helen and the Countess of Rossillion (Moragh Gee), which were credible and quite touching. I can't think of many mother/(surrogate) daughter relationships in Shakespeare. 

Bertram was well played by Nicolas Holzapfel as rather a peevish spoilt brat. There were glimmers of good nature about him, though. I liked the fact that in the opening scene he hugged Helen with what seemed to be genuine affection before he left for Paris, which showed that he did care about her - he just didn't want to marry her.

I enjoyed the scenes in Florence, which were channeling the 1950s, for some reason. I loved Mary Clare's sarcastic, wordly (but virtuous!) interpretation of Diana. 

One of my favourite scenes was the interrogation of Parolles. It was very funny and reminded me of the scene in Henry IV Part 1, when Falstaff is robbed by Hal's friends without knowing it was them, and, when made by them to recount what had happened the next day, exaggerating and basically lying about what had happened.

Features of the production that I thought were particularly good:

• The fact that chairs had been placed on either side of the 'stage'. This was beneficial to the audience, as more people were able to have a close-up view. I imagine it was more satisfying for the actors, too, to have closer contact with the audience and to more easily feed off their 'energy' (<--- theatrical expression alert!). I think all plays performed at the church should adopt this seating layout.
• Pacing. It was fast-moving, which helped to keep it engaging. Very polished.
• The music between scenes was a good touch.
• Everyone played their parts to an extremely high standard - no weak links at all.
• I liked the silhouette of Bertram and Helen that appeared when they were about to make love in Diana's bed.

A good time was had by all, methinks.

And tomorrow I'm going to see...Wolf Hall! 

The Cherry Orchard at Hampstead Parish Church

Set of interior of house in The Cherry Orchard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ending was jarring in its tragedy and abruptness.

And so ends this review.

Next: Qui sait?