tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114779412024-02-28T08:19:24.036+00:00LondonTheatreGoerI go to 200+ plays in London(UK) every year. The idea is that I write about some of them, but don't expect reviews. And don't expect me to go to musicals.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-88132276811923444932017-12-29T22:53:00.002+00:002017-12-29T23:15:09.856+00:002017 Theatre Quiz
Hopefully this is a nicely difficult theatre quiz for the New Year's weekend. I'll post the answers on the 2nd of Jan
This is a bit of an experiment with Google Forms so please forgive any formatting irregularities
<iframe src="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf30CfbHL0gNZdA9lQIjiYm-wIHvepkuNdbWNDkezf8ezmx1g/viewform?embedded=true" width="600" height="2000" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe>trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-63628687388714478622011-09-13T00:08:00.000+00:002011-09-13T12:11:01.141+00:00No Naughty Bits - Hampstead Theatre - 12-Sep-2011Written by Steve Thompson<br />
Directed by Edward Hall<br />
<br />
I wondered if this play labours under a
couple of misapprehensions. The first is that the business of comedy
or backstage stories about comedy are themselves funny. It is more
normal to depict the opposite as true, those cliches of the unhappy
clown or the comedy duos or troupe that hate one another's guts. In this case
the writer wrings quite a few jokes out of this fictionalised tale of
a law suit brought by the members of the Monty Python troupe against
the US ABC network over cuts made to a 1975 broadcast of the fourth
series.
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The problem here is, possibly, that
because it's based on Monty Python we expect it to be a lot funnier
than it actually is. An interview with the author in the programme
seems to suggest that play started life as a quite serious almost
documentary piece and he had to work to inject humour into it (he's rather pleased with putting his Terry Gilliam character in silly costumes). As
I've said I think it succeeded in being funny – Matthew Marsh's
judge, presiding over the case, was particularly good – but
something made me want more and made me sensitive to occasional the
dips in action or when humorous lines misfired.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I found the fictionalisation of the
piece bothered me quite a lot. It wasn't just being told in overlong
voice-overs at the beginning of each act, that the play was fictional
that grated. It was more that I kept wondering just how much was
fiction. I was prepared to allow it all to be fiction but I knew that
the author had studied Michael Palin's diaries for the period and had
to wonder if some of the seemingly un-Palin-like schoolboy outbursts
from Harry Hadden-Paton's Michael were based on reality or
ill-rendered imagination.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I also had a problem with the play
failing to mention the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail which was
released before the play was set and did reasonably well at the time.
Maybe it didn't fit in with the author's desire to suggest that 1975
was a time when the Pythons were facing up to the fact that they had
broken up and that some were facing uncertain futures. Of course
crying “fiction” can cover this but I found it jarring.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I thought the other possible
misapprehension in this play was the idea that this is “still an
ostensibly Python-worshipping country”*. We are told by the media
and comedy nerds that we should revere Monty Python, the troupe, the
movies and the TV series. I am enough of a comedy nerd to be quite
happy to do that but I'm not sure how many other people could say the
same.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In the 40 years since Python was first
broadcast in the UK it has been repeated about 3 times on terrestrial
television (BBCs 1 or 2). I was too young to see the original series
and did't catch it until it was repeated in the late 80s - I think
it has been repeated once since then. It has been played quite a lot
on satellite and cable channels over the years but not recently.
Copyright disputes meant that the videos of the series disappeared
from shelves in the mid-90s and the DVDs of the full series were not
available in the UK until 2007.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
My point here is that in spite of being
told by the media that Python is important and main-stream, the
reality is that the series hasn't been watched that often and might be
completely unfamiliar to people seeing this play. It means that
nuances might be lost on them and the play doesn't explain why we
should care that the series was funny</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I would love to feel that everybody
could tune in somewhere to see an episode every night but it has
never really been the case here and that's a pity.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
*This comes from an excellent Not the
Nine O'Clock News sketch about the Life of Brian controversy and you
might not have seen that either.
</div>
trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-56986537681013617532010-10-27T00:51:00.001+00:002010-10-27T00:53:45.877+00:00Red Bud by Brett Neveu, Royal Court Upstairs – Directed by Jo McInnesI saw this play on the 21st of October and thought it well performed and directed with a good set that included a pick-up truck (not bad for 5 storeys up). It had believable characters that seemed to speak authentically (although I'm no judge of Michigan accents or speech patterns). So far so good but I was left unsatisfied. There was action but no story and in the end, there were too many unanswered questions about the history and relationships of this group of (mostly) men who attended the Red Bud moto-cross event for the past 22 years.<br /><br />As is my habit these days any notes on the play (physical, electronic or mental) were discarded long before I reached home and I didn't attempt to write a blog about it.<br /><br />Then in the last few days, as blog and newspaper reviews have started to come out I've begun to have a touch of esprit de l'escalier about this play. People aren't being kind about this play. They are generally complimentary about the acting, direction, set and even the dialogue but they all have the same basic complaints. They say that they don't have any feeling for the characters or their background. They can see that the relationships are tense but the play never explains why. Most of all they (like me) don't feel that they've been told a story.<br /><br />Reading these reviews got me wondering whether the author of this play was deliberately trying to do something here. It appears that he can competently write character and dialogue so why did he ignore basic tenets of story-writing? Perhaps it is an experiment intending to show real life.<br /><br />Reality, which can often be dramatic, needs to be shaped in order to become drama. Reality is just one damn thing after another; It doesn't explain itself. Real people don't reveal (often mutually known) information to each other for the benefit of an audience. <br /><br />In this play there is one concession to exposition in the introduction of the 19-year-old girlfriend of one of the protagonists. It allows everybody to be introduced and a little interpersonal history to be shared but it doesn't go to far. The explanations are realistically fragmentary and don't reveal much more than is necessary to continue with the piece.<br /><br />If I am right about this being an experiment, an attempt to show a slice of reality in more or less real time, then it's actually rather fascinating. It doesn't work, of course, in fact it is a bit of an object lesson in why you need dramatic fakery and disguised exposition to shape real events into a story.<br /><br />Going against all the reviewers means I'm probably wrong but if I'm not then this experiment, however failed, should be applauded, a bit.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-73388610589265071822010-06-17T07:38:00.000+00:002010-06-17T07:39:28.760+00:00Welcome to Thebes by Moira Buffini, Olivier Theatre, 15-June-2010 – Directed by Richard EyreThis is a play of impressive ambition, essentially a retelling of the Greek play (with surrounding mythology) Antigone and some offstage and Theseus bits from Phaedre, all against a modern backdrop of a bitter African civil war. On stage we see Thebes as depicted as a ruined presidential palace, a remnant of some forgotten peaceful time. <br />There are lots of juicy parallels and clever connections if you like your Greek Mythology; In the civil war seven militias descended on the city like the Seven Against Thebes; The three most senior ministers are named for the three Graces; The body of the warlord Polynices is decorated with a necklace of fingers echoing the cursed necklace of Harmonia (first Queen of Thebes; An avenging child soldier is named after one of the furies and other characters are named after gods, goddesses and suitable figures from Greek Mythology.<br />In this play Athens becomes America, David Harewood's Theseus an Obama or Clinton-like First Citizen (though smoother and much more of a political operator) and the offstage Sparta becomes China, each vying to help and probably dominate the ruined Thebes.<br />This is a well thought-out piece, you can see the links between the Theban wars with their gods-inspired viciousness and some of the recent West African (and elsewhere) civil wars with their strange dressings-up (soldiers would paint their faces or dress as women in battle). Each descended into chaos and in some cases cannibalism.<br />For all this play's cleverness and ambition I think it is let down by the language. The mix between the epic and the contemporary language didn't really work for me, even though the play worked well in terms of setting. Maybe the epic language wasn't epic and stirring enough to counterpoise the jumps to the modern slang. Then again, powerful heightened language may have jarred too much with speech that used phrases like “you are now my bitch”.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-75283369778813060792010-04-15T06:49:00.001+00:002010-04-15T06:49:59.615+00:00Posh by Laura Wade, Royal Court, 12-Apr-2010 – Directed by Lyndsey TurnerFor a group of young who consider themselves to be the inheritors of the mantle of British leadership, the Riot Club (modelled on a certain Oxford University Dining Club) are remarkably bad at organising a dinner. The restaurant is wrong with a too-convivial host who won't easily accept compensation for the damage they expect to cause, someone forgets the drugs and the prostitute turns out to be a jobs-worth.<br /> <br />Against this backdrop the several members vie for the presidency of the club while the existing president is pre-occupied with his Masters degree and, like some of the older members, wondering what life will be like beyond the University and their privileged circle.<br />I thought the author juggled the different characters of the ten members of the club very well, although three or four of the minor characters seemed to fade into sameness when they weren't rooted in their chairs. You could argue that those four characters were needed for the plot, the crowd dynamics and to provide weight to the shifting loyalties in the group. That said having to introduce everyone and flesh them out makes the first half play grind slowly at times.<br /> <br />The play works by showing this dining club and letting them speak unchallenged. There is skill in the way that they appear to agree politically on things like the tawdriness of Britain and how things were better when their grandparents (and older generations) were in charge, leaving the audience to detect the flaws in their arguments and imagine countering them. These young men are pretty obnoxious in their snobbery and attitudes but until almost the end they maintain a pretence at being gentlemen. I even suspected that the author might have succumbed to their self-mythologising and belief in their natural superiority.<br /><br />These young men are portrayed as remembering their great forebears whilst ignoring the ignominious. They believe in their right to be in charge because that is the way it has always been or at least should be, maybe they don't question how and why that expectation happened.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-44214887816536040372010-03-02T02:28:00.001+00:002010-03-02T02:31:01.425+00:00Private Lives by Noel Coward, Vaudeville Theatre, 26-Feb-2010 – Directed by Richard EyreIt was with a creeping sense of dread that I anticipated Kim Cattrall's entrance and the inevitable brainless Broadway-inspired “Applause for the Star” that would interrupt the action. When this didn't happen I was in such a good mood that I started enjoying myself and almost failed to find any fault with this production. I'm not saying that the applause won't happen on other occasions I was just happy that it didn't happen on my watch. I might be wrong but I like actors to earn applause<br /><br />Actually Kim Cattrall as Amanda, definitely earned applause and although the accent slipped on the odd vowel, she was pretty brilliant. She was relaxed, assured and with the exception of her first entrance in a towel and later in the scene swinging an agile naked leg over a chair back, she didn't seem to be trying to cash in on any Sex in the City (or even Porky's) notoriety.<br /><br />Matthew MacFadyen as Elyot was also good and I couldn't help feeling echoes of Noel Coward in his performance. It was not an impersonation, which could well have been ghastly and the performance was nowhere near as mannered as Coward might have been. There was something more than the actor's tallness and enlarging forehead that seemed in a way, for me, to conjure the author.<br /><br />Although there is a great deal of good chemistry between Cattrall and MacFadyen there was part of me that thought they each needed a more suitable sparring partner. I'm not going to admit that I thought of this in terms of age at the time, I was sitting far enough back not to be able to see any age difference. I think the slight mismatch (and it is slight if not entirely imagined by me) may be more about acting styles not quite coming together.<br /><br />There is excellent support from Lisa Dillon and Simon Paisley Day as the abandoned spouses. Day also mangled his vowels but for comic effect and oddly seemed to be suffering from some kind of shell-shock towards the end of the last act. It sort of fitted his character and age but it was rather sudden.<br /><br />I'd like to finish by mentioning the Paris apartment set which is circular and furnished with low circular or curved divans, the requisite grand piano and a most excellent fish tank consisting of three interconnected globes.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-77339154957940062632010-01-28T01:14:00.001+00:002010-01-28T01:15:53.890+00:00Really Old, Like Forty Five by Tamsin Oglesby, Cottesloe Theatre, 27-Jan-2010 – Directed by Anna MackminIt appears that Tamsin Oglesby doesn't know the difference between Giant Tortoises (long-lived, land-living, slow moving with domed hard shells) and Giant Turtles (sea-living, flippered, with leathery hydro-dynamic shells which allow them to glide gracefully through pelagic oceans). The third scene of this play is all about Darwin and how his discoveries were inspired in part by his encounters with the giant 'turtles' (in reality giant tortoises) of the Galapagos Islands. On display under a big picture of Darwin is a stuffed turtle (a turtle not a tortoise), it is supposed to be alive and so old that Darwin met it (sea turtles unlike tortoises are not known for their longevity). Darwin probably did encounter sea turtles of his voyage as there's a lot of good eating on a turtle and it would have been a bit of a treat when the sailors caught one but on the Galapagos Islands he met Giant Tortoises.<br />Okay, I realise I'm being overly pedantic here, I also know that Americans indiscriminately call almost any shelled reptile a turtle and it might even have been a deliberate comment on Alzheimers but for some reason it really annoyed me. Most of all, it spoiled my enjoyment of what I normally would have thought was, if I could get past the turtles (and clearly I can't), a good play. When it's not misrepresenting chelonians and testudae, this play is witty, erudite and at times touching in its portrayal of a dystopian overcrowded near-future where something has to be done about all the old people. It has a meaty twisted civil servant part for Paul Ritter to shine in, it has excellent performances from Judy Parfitt and Marcia Warren as a pair of sisters facing their old-age in mental or physical sickness and there is even a nicely thought out (and performed) comedy robot. I thought the future was well imagined with some nice subtle touches, like referring to Britain as a developing nation. There was also good future-thought in the discussion of planning for speed lanes on pavements and the way that old people had to earn their place in society by adopting “grandchildren” or submitting themselves for drug trials. <br />But the last word is “Turtles”trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-88000990583843779512010-01-26T08:33:00.001+00:002010-01-26T08:33:57.399+00:00The Whisky Taster by James Graham, Bush Theatre, 20-Jan-2010 – Directed by James GrieveBarney (Samuel Barnett) is an advertising account executive who lives a quiet life, fearing the colours and the sensations that are set off by his synaesthesia and unable to express or acknowledge his love for his colleague and work partner Nicola (Kate O'Flynn). His inability to face his condition is depicted on stage by all but one of the characters, in the first half, wearing shades of grey. The only exception is John Stahl's Whisky Taster, brought in to pass judgement on a new brand of vodka and fill the account team with buzz words and other ideas. The Whisky Taster's character is an uncomfortable mix of wide knowledge of the world (particularly its culture) and unworldliness (not happy about leaving Scotland and unfamiliar with music videos on TV) and his kilt contains the first strong (and painful to Barney) colours we see. It is this character who in a strong scene on the making and tasting of whisky, awakes Barney to all the sensations that he has avoided – brightly coloured neon tubes crackling into life as he allows himself to be drawn into the feelings.<br />I usually associate Samuel Barnett with fey almost camp roles so it was good to see him doing something different. He grew impressively from a timid and shy young man to someone wanting to fill his life with more than vapid advertising and weak instant coffee. <br />I wasn't entirely convinced by the advertising world they showed – it was too full of jargon phrases and samey characters for me – although the idea of people not really listening to one another was well depicted. But this play is strong and I slightly regret not following the writer earlier.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-75152934676309057712010-01-20T08:37:00.001+00:002010-01-20T08:37:45.401+00:00Three Sisters by Anton Chekhov, translated by Christopher Hampton, Lyric Hammersmith, 19-Jan-2010 – Directed by Sean Holmes and FilterI was expecting something a deal more experimental than this. The stage was without scenery, costumes were more or less modern dress and there was a large sound mixing desk to one side. There was some experimentation with strange microphone placement so that unexpected sounds and voices would leap out at you - at one point there was a very long pause in the action while a kettle boiled and the sound was amplified to suggest a passing storm - but after a while they seemed to give up on the idea. It was as if the play was making them play it straight.<br />In the end I think we got a pretty good version of the play although I was more aware than usual that some characters give long expository self-introductions which are really clunky. The sisters Poppy Miller, Romola Garai (possibly the first time I've seen her in a really adult role) and Clare Dunne were all fine and close to the ages that they are supposed to be. It was interesting also to see Nigel Cooke as the doctor at about the right age, it made him seem much more satisfyingly disreputable.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-16452852894861271272010-01-19T00:52:00.000+00:002010-01-19T00:53:18.744+00:00Rope by Patrick Hamilton, Almeida Theatre, 18-Jan-2010 – Directed by Roger MichellI'm only familiar with a couple First World War Poets, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, having read their autobiographical accounts of war service. I would not expect either of them to speak in the fey and affected manner that Bertie Carvell lends to his character Rupert Cadell, a fictional poet and survivor of the war. That said Carvell's portrayal manages to make his character more believable and perhaps less pompous than a straight playing of his lines might have done. I just couldn't think of him as a former soldier but there's no reason why they shouldn't come across as squeaking fusspots. As I said, though, Carvell makes the character believable in almost all areas and he is rather good.<br />Apparently Patrick Hamilton thought that Hitchcock made a mess of the film adaptation and although my memory of the movie isn't too fresh I think Hamilton had a point. I'm not sure that the all Cadell's speeches in the play were included in the film and I'm not sure how Jimmy Stewart would have brought them meaning if they had. <br />The play is not without problems, for me, especially the handling of the denouement. This isn't to do with the debate between Cadell and the murderers about whether they are wrong or Cadell's decision about what to do, that was all handled well (acting and writing). It is more the detective story side of things that I thought were fairly ropey (wrote that without realising the pun). There's some really great psychological drama going on (which is something I love in Hamilton's work) but I thought that the setting up of clues was heavy handed, as was the forcing of the confession and just how did Cadell persuade a policeman to hang around outside the house in the few minutes he was out of the room.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-32327581062121605002010-01-18T00:58:00.000+00:002010-01-18T00:59:51.957+00:00The Caretaker by Harold Pinter, Trafalgar studios 1, 12-Jan-2008 – Directed by Christopher MorahanAn obvious thing struck me while watching this production starring Jonathan Pryce, this is a very simple play. Like I said obvious, it's set in one room, there are only three people in it and I've see the play several times but it was more that I realised the elegant simplicity that Pinter used to make his play work. There's no fat on the play and it delivery its mix of power games and menace efficiently and effectively.<br />Another thing I had failed to notice before was that the brothers (played by Peter Macdonald and Sam Spruell) don't seem to talk to each other – I think I recall a scene where the brothers share the stage and monosyllables are exchanged. Mick, the “normal” brother was sometimes seen (via a transparent wall) as if he was monitoring the situation. Strangely this realisation gave me the perverse feeling that they were somehow colluding in some kind of social experiment involving the tramp Davies (Jonathan Pryce with an accent I couldn't quite pin down). It was as if they were playing with the tramp's vanity and mendacity but unlike a real experiment they didn't have an end in sight they just waited until they were bored with the man then sent him on his way.<br />This sort of thing has probably been endlessly discussed elsewhere and by people who pay more attention. It does normally take me three productions of a play before I think I've noticed most things in it – I hadn't remembered the business with the window, in great detail, either.<br />I thought that Jonathan Pryce was good, not quite as flamboyant as I've seen others play the role but for all his hygiene issues and lying I actually had some sympathy for the character. I'm not sure that I'd felt that before and not as much. <br />I think I've seen the brothers played with more threat in the case of Mick and more damaged I the case of Aston. However the actors in these roles were still good at what they did.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-28366155585711063272010-01-13T08:15:00.000+00:002010-01-13T08:16:41.182+00:00The Little Dog Laughed by Douglas Carter Beane, Garrick Theatre 11-Jan-2010 – Directed by Jamie LloydI'm not sure that this play, about the hypocrisy surrounding the need for leading gay Hollywood actors to stay in the closet, is quite as biting and funny as it wants to be. There are plenty of laughs – not quite as many when Tamsin Greig's agent character Diane is not on stage – but I didn't think it was telling me anything I didn't know already or doing it in a way that made me feel strongly that the situation in Hollywood ought to change. It is arguable whether satire should have to generate those feelings but I do think that satire should produce more righteous indignation than shrugs and “whatevers” that I felt. Of course that is probably just me and I should have let myself have fun because there was fun to be had in this play.<br />The plot essentially is that an up and coming Hollywood leading man, Mitchell (Rupert Friend), falls for a hustler, Alex, (Harry Lloyd) who he hires one night. Mitchell's feelings are reciprocated by Alex which is problematic because he has a girlfriend, Ellen (Gemma Arterton), and has never really thought of himself as gay in spite of being a rent boy. The affair threatens Mitchell's career – according to the play you can only get a away with being gay and a leading man in Hollywood if you are British and have a knighthood – and his up to his agent Diane to sort things out. My problems with this play may have stemmed from not believing that Rupert Friend's Mitchell was enough of a Hollywood star but I couldn't say whether it was the acting, direction, writing or me that was at fault. Rupert Friend was certainly good, as were the others, but I didn't think Hollywood when I looked at him. There is also a sense of nervousness that I feel whenever I watch British actors play Americans; questioning whether or not they are getting it right. I couldn't fault the accents and they didn't seem to waiver much but the uneasy feeling was still there.<br />I wonder if this play is born from a Broadway Hollywood rivalry that isn't strong here – maybe we don't discriminate between east and west coasts when we sneer at Americans. Also I had the feeling it was behind the times. Maybe I just wanted more darkness and savagery than the light-hearted fun that was on offer here.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-62345652908378678492009-12-09T02:08:00.000+00:002009-12-09T02:09:06.477+00:00The Misanthrope by Moliere, translated by Martin Crimp, Comedy Theatre, 7-Dec-2009 – directed by Thea SharrockI wonder if people's pre-conceptions about Keira Knightley will colour how they see her in this production. I suppose it did in my case. She isn't an actress that really interests me but I would acknowledge that well directed and well scripted she can be good even very good. In this production I would say that she easily held her own and didn't look out of place -in what was a good cast - but I am aware that that might say things about the production rather than her performance.<br />I saw a version of this translation, which is a contemporary update of Moliere's play, at the Young Vic in 1996 and recall enjoying it. The script has been updated with new cultural references and with a vicious attack on a Tory leader replacing a tamer attack on an adulterous Tory MP in the old version. What wasn't updated was the elaborate attack on David Hare's play Skylight – the play/scene that the critic Covington (played by Tim McMullan) is hawking about is a very unflattering summary of Skylight. Unfortunately I was seemed to be one of only a few people to get this joke. Maybe the author couldn't find a recent play that has both captured the imagination in the way that Skylight did and is as ripe for satire.<br />This was an early preview so hopefully certain things will get ironed out as the actors get used to the play and playing the audience. In the first half I found the rhyming a bit relentless and overbearing. This certainly improved over time and by the end of the play I either didn't notice the rhyming or didn't mind when I did. I also thought that some of the jokes fell a bit flat, there would always be some laughter but nothing huge. There were certainly a number of pauses where I got the impression that the actors were waiting for some non-existent laughter to die down (of course they could just have been pauses). It was also a little disconcerting when sometimes the cast were laughing louder than the audience. This sort of thing tends to work itself out as the actors get a more accurate idea of where the laughs are so I'm not sure I'd worry about it.<br />The play improved massively after the interval when the play took a darker turn and by the end I decided that I'd enjoyed myself.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-7578635053875723362009-11-09T01:03:00.002+00:002009-11-09T01:10:15.175+00:00The Habit of Art by Alan Bennett, 5-Nov-2009, Lyttelton Theatre – Directed by Nicholas HytnerI realise that I am horribly cynical but I got the impression Alan Bennett had really wanted to give us the play within this play. The idea is that we are watching a fairly advanced rehearsal of a play which is by turns brilliant and and comically terrible (talking furniture, talking wrinkles etc.). We get pretty much all the rehearsed play but the players are allowed to comment of on the plot and their characters, query the writer or stage manager (the director is away) and are allowed to try out ideas.<br />I know that Bennett has done this sort of thing before (Forty Years On has an interrupted end of term play at a school) but I got the feeling that he had started to write a fairly straight play about an imagined final meeting between W H Auden and Benjamin Britten and given up. Possibly this is because of the disjoint, I felt, between the good stuff in the rehearsed play and its more humorous even nonsensical parts. It is as if the funny bad bits are a later thought (but not an afterthought). Of course if you just take the good bits of the rehearsed play, you get a captivating fragment but it wouldn't be enough. You need the explanations and the discussions to make it work and they could not have been fitted elegantly into a straightforward narrative.<br />The only problem, perhaps, with the play within a play device in this case was that some of the points he was trying to make (which were mostly part of the rehearsed play) didn't quite come across as forcefully as they were probably intended. Of course I'm cloth-brained about these things so he would have had to use a loud-hailer at close range to get his ideas across to me. If I had to say what Bennett really meant by the the phrase “Habit of Art” I'd have to hide behind meaningless waffle until you went away.<br />All the same it is great fun, Richard Griffiths occasionally playing W H Auden was a treat, Alex Jennings as Benjamin Britten was very slightly underused and Frances de la Tour as Kay, the Stage Manager was her usual quietly brilliant self.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-62963182160677248192009-10-26T01:35:00.001+00:002009-10-26T01:37:29.950+00:00The Pains of Youth by Ferdinand Bruckner, translated by Martin Crimp, Cottesloe Theatre, 21-Oct-2009 – Directed by Katie Mitchell.Katie Mitchell seems to have developed the habit of using naturalistic lighting (i.e. the scene is almost entirely lit from onstage props) and having actors talk at a normal conversational volume. In a tiny studio space it would work perfectly but in a larger space I don't think it is good, clever or artistic to do it. This “habit” ruined her production of Women of Troy for me (I was in the Lyttelton sitting 12 or so rows back) and yet the play was continually praised by at least one national critic as one of the greatest things she had seen. Katie Mitchell got away with the “habit” in this Cottesloe-based production, in fact it worked quite well, but I was sitting only four rows from the stage, feeling very glad I wasn't at the back of the upper gallery.<br />The play is about a group of medical students in Vienna in the early 1920s. Part of a defeated nation and dissolved empire they consider the alternatives of a stifling bourgeois life or suicide. I only found there to be one sympathetic character in the play he had served a prison term for manslaughter. The most vibrant characters were an aristocratic young woman (Desiree played by Lydia Wilson) and her pimp (and an attempted rapist) of an ex-lover (Freder played by Geoffrey Streatfeild but there was no empathy from me for either of them. I found Freder particularly disturbing not because of his appalling actions but because the author seemed to want us to be convinced that he held a magnetic attraction for all the women in the play.<br />I had to wonder, watching this play, just how important a piece of drama it is supposed to be. This was because I didn't think that I was getting the most out of the play. Normally I would blame my own insensitivity but since at least six people didn't return after the interval, at least two people (on separate occasions) left while the play was happening and a couple behind me only seemed to be staying so they could complain to one another about it, it might not be entirely my fault. <br />I couldn't fault the actors, they all seemed good, nor did I think there was anything wrong with Martin Crimp's translation, it flowed well and didn't seem awkward. Katie Mitchell's direction also seemed fine, with some nice touches like the CSI/Men in Black figures who would change scenes by covering or uncovering furniture with dust sheets and taking or putting props in or out of plastic bags (sometimes in the middle of scenes), as if collecting evidence or staging a reconstruction. All the same I didn't think that I was really being sold this play.<br />I found myself checking the internet after the play to see how the play is viewed in mainland Europe. It appears that this play is well regarded but from what I could glean (courtesy of Google's Translate this Page link) but the few productions I read about did appear to be somewhat more adventurous and expressionistic. I began to wonder if, notwithstanding the People in Black, this production may have been too naturalistic; quietly intense and honest rather than artificially heightened and full of significant pauses. Of course this was a very early preview so it might have changed a lot by the time it is properly reviewed.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-18666738072784049702009-10-01T07:36:00.001+00:002009-10-01T07:39:04.893+00:00The Author by Tim Crouch, Royal Court Upstairs, 30-Sep-2009 – Directed by Tim CrouchThere is a particular pose sometimes adopted by people listening to classical music. It is a still, studious and appreciative posture that attempts to denote the the music is doing the listener's soul a lot of good. I was reminded of this as I stole glances at Mark Ravenhill and Martin Crimp as they sat either side of Tim Crouch during this play. It was as if these playwrights (and there appeared to be other writers in the room) were avoiding either over or under reaction to the play. Perhaps they were just aware of the scrutiny. <br />The play consists of four actors (an “audience member”, two “actors” and “writer/director Tim Crouch”) seated among the audience who were in two raked banks of seats facing each-other. The play starts when “audience member” engages the real audience in talk about the experience of being in a theatre audience, singling out individuals trying to get them to share something. There a deal of truth in what he said about being in an audience and going to the theatre regularly especially the Royal Court where he marvelled at the sex, violence and bodily functions that he has seen there. I thought one note didn't quite ring true when he tried to depict an audience as a friendly place – for the most part I tend to find (after a lot of theatre going) that you begin to dislike audiences in general and hate every member of them in particular. Probably just me being anti-social.<br />After a while the “audience member” the “actors” and the “director” begin to describe a their involvement in a previous, shocking production and how the preparation and playing of an imagined world affected their lives.<br />I got the impression that the audience were expected to react more to this play. Everyone seemed engaged and attentive but unwilling to draw too much attention to themselves (when the “audience member” asked if there were any Friend subscribers of the theatre in the audience, I know of at least one Friend of 20 years standing who remained silent and tried to be invisible). The actors described shocking things (or things intended to be shocking) but to an audience used to the depiction of a wide range of sex, violence and bodily functions at the theatre. Maybe we were too jaded to do anything other than sit studiously and attentively trying to look as if what we were seeing and hearing was doing us some good.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-62363252652746725272009-09-17T00:33:00.002+00:002009-09-17T00:36:23.171+00:00Mother Courage and her children by Bertolt Brecht, Translated by Tony Kushner, Olivier Theatre, 14-Sep-2009 – directed by Deborah WarnerAs somebody that spends much more time at the theatre than I do reading about it, my knowledge of things Brechtian (especially Brechtian alienation) are pretty hazy. I do know that alienation is a slight misnomer, as Brecht didn't want to alienate the audience rather he wanted to engage it with his underlying message and not lose itself in spectacle and story. As such he would keep things simple and expose the mechanics of playmaking. Is that right? What I probably should have done is copied the Wikipedia entry on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brechtian_alienation">Brechtian Alienation</a> instead of trying to give my own interpretation.<br />Anyway this production, only a few performances into previews (which have been heavily delayed, I was originally due to see this on the 9th) certainly showed its makings. There was almost always a couple of stage crew hovering at the edges of the set, which may have been because things weren't quite ready but sometimes it looked intentional. Most of he stage was bare, the wings and backstage exposed and scenes were depicted by hand-written descriptions on screens lowered from above. When there was scenery (e.g. when the scene required tents) it was very plain and simple and preponderantly white. The cart, pulled by sons, daughter, chaplain and finally Mother Courage alone, was the only major price of (mobile) scenery, reflecting Mother Courage's varying fortunes, almost always with a covering of white plastic sheeting.<br />I enjoyed this production although it was probably too scrappy (or not scrappy enough) for some and perhaps its touch may be thought to be too light. I did have a slight problem with Fiona Shaw's portrayal of Mother Courage, I want to be able to say that she was too perky without using as strong a word as perky. Mother Courage has to be, at times, ebullient, witty and feisty which Fiona Shaw was great at, but she also has to be brought low and fight to the last of her energy. I thought that (even as she was exhausted from pulling the heavy cart) she always had something in reserve that would enable her to spring back. Maybe this is intentional, maybe they were taking it gently because of the difficulties that the production has had, it might also be my imagination or my lack of understanding about the play. I'm pretty sure that if it is a problem it will be fixed and I feel a bit awkward about wanting more pain and anguish from Fiona Shaw.<br />The oddest thing in the production was the promotion of the musician and composer Duke Special. We were constantly told who he was and he was treated almost as an equal to Mother Courage (especially at the curtain call). I quite liked his music and don't have a problem with musicians being integrated into the play but it seemed a bit much. They'll be story behind this and I'll probably have to read about it.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-56082886754638887102009-09-02T07:42:00.000+00:002009-09-02T07:43:09.409+00:00Prick Up Your Ears by Simon Bent, Richmond Theatre, 29-Aug-2009 – Directed by Daniel KramerI think I was expecting more Joe Orton in this play. As far as I could see there were plenty of quotes (I suspected that Mrs Corden, although a real person, was written as a combination of characters from Orton's fiction) but I didn't think there was as much as might be expected about Orton himself. <br />The play is set in the bedsit that Orton and his lover/teacher/muse Kenneth Halliwell shared from 1960 to their deaths and as Halliwell spent much of his time haunting the place, not liking to go out, it might not be surprising that the play focuses on him. From the rumours that I've heard about Orton's diary (on which the play is, in part, based), it seems to detail his sexual activities which happened outside the bedsit and means that Orton in this play sometimes appears just to flit between rehearsals and random sexual encounters leaving Halliwell isolated and popping pills.<br />Matt Lucas is probably most impressive when he is allowed to show the tragic side of Kenneth Halliwell's nature. It feels too easy and familiar when his character is being funny perhaps because we all expect comedy from him. As this play began, a man decided that that would be the perfect time to nosily find his seat at the end of a row. This was treated with great humour by the audience (and some mild corpsing from Lucas) and it may well have made us more willing, initially, to see the comedy in Lucas's performance and<br />less to feel the tragedy.<br />The tragic thing for Halliwell was, perhaps, that he had many gifts but they only went so far and he could never focus them into crafting something great. Maybe the effects were worsened as he saw Orton coming out of his shadow and quickly outshining him. The play indicates that Halliwell was an essential inspiration to Orton's work (although it sometimes seems like Halliwell just provided titles and quotes) but that Orton was able to go further and make something of his own.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-77428867257536866922009-07-04T01:20:00.001+00:002009-07-04T01:21:33.072+00:00The Rover by Aphra Behn, Sothwark Playhouse, 2-Jul-2009 – directed by Naomi JonesI can't claim that Aphra Behn was a great playwright (I would go so far as good) although she appears to have been the equal, in writing, of many of her contemporaries. It is problematic that these contemporaries were are Restoration playwrights whose work (with a few exceptions) is under-performed and often seen as second rate. Behn has another handicap because as practically the first woman to earn her living by the pen, it often seems that her work is supposed to support some vast Feminist edifice and every word of hers is to be solemnly uttered as if it were a votive flower let fall on to the author's grave.<br />Flowery writing aside, basically she's good but I think her Restoration and Feminist burdens cause people to shy away and unjustly neglect her.<br />Fortunately it isn't the case in this production: It appears that the cast wanted to treat it with much of the fun and spirit with which it was written. I was reminded of why I have always thought of this as one of my favourite plays (ever since I first saw it 30 years ago).<br />This not a perfect play of course the plot can feel like trying to concentrate on a single ball in the hands of a juggler using 6 identical balls, some characters feel under-used or underdeveloped (particularly the Viceroy's son Don Antonio and Valeria the cousin of the sisters Florinda and Helena) and there are a couple of near rapes that are too easily forgiven (perhaps just for modern tastes). <br />Both halves of the play started in the theatre's bar area before we were sent into a nearby street (the main theatre where we could all sit). This worked quite well although, as with any promenade production it was sometimes difficult to see the actors through the other audience members, Also there was a little awkwardness when the actors had to manhandle the audience to clear space for an apparently rushed and impetuous duel. Also getting the audience into their seats did seem to delay the action a bit, although they did occur during at fairly logical places in the piece.<br />The light touch and sense of enjoyment in this production made me hope that others will be prepared investigate Ms Behn, it does seem to be rewarding.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-36961120770433875282009-06-02T07:43:00.002+00:002009-06-02T07:45:23.581+00:00Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Wyndhams Theatre, 1-Jun-2009 – Directed by Michael GrandageThis is, at least, my 17th Hamlet and I think it has clouded my opinion of this production.<br />Firstly, relax, I thought that Jude Law was pretty damn good in this. He has a relaxed and confident style that stopped me from thinking “Oh that's Jude Law up there” and he really seemed to be addressing most of his soliloquies to the audience rather than the to the darkness of the hall or the lighting rig in front of the Circle. I sometimes wonder whether you could use Hamlet's talking to the audience and braking the fourth wall as some kind of indication of his madness (of course that means he'd has to be mad from the start and a director might not want that).<br />This production went by at quite a lick, I didn't feel the three hours and some of the set-piece scenes (e.g. the Gravedigger scene – second time I've seen David Burke as the gravedigger, first was with Daniel Day-Lewis 20 years back), while not rushed, were over before before I was able to savour them. I found this a spare production, no fat or business beyond what is on the page and I felt the actors were living in the moments dictated by their lines, rather than having a living characterisation moving from scene to scene. I might be the only person who noticed this and that might well be because I've imagined it.<br />It did mean that I had a problem with this production, possibly caused by 16 other Hamlets. I have long thought that Hamlet is badly structured, though brilliantly written. There are gaps in the plot (like seeing the progression of Hamlet's madness between Acts One and Two – you are just presented with the fact that he has gone mad) and scenes that seem to contradict earlier ones (fierce graveside fight between Hamlet and Laertes followed by a civilised apparently formal fencing match). I wonder if the spareness of this production and apparent lack of continuous inner life of the characters was the thing that made the flaws and the cracks in the play really stand out for me. <br />I won't fault the acting although I'm not certain that Penelope Wilton's Gertrude or Gugu Mbatha-Raw's Ophelia were really given the opportunity to sink their teeth into their roles and have a good chew. I might have imagined it but I thought that Kevin McNally's Claudius was a little more sympathetically played than usual.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-31685382004704547782009-05-18T07:18:00.002+00:002009-05-18T07:24:01.861+00:00A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, version by Zinnie Harris, Donmar Warehouse, 14 May 2009 – Directed by Kfir Yefettend to think it unwise to criticise adaptations simply for diverging from the plot or characterisations of the original. Adapters, directors and auteurs have the right play and re-interpret any play, although they might have to negotiate with the living writers a bit. At the same time I hope I have the right to say that the that an adaptation doesn't quite work without sound too much as if I'm wailing “Why, oh why didn't they just stick to the original plot and setting.”<br />The changes that Zinnie Harris has made are interesting and topical in a way that could make it feel rather dated in a few years. Helmer is no longer a petty provincial tyrant who has just succeeded to an important position at a bank and Krogstad is no longer a bank clerk, lacking in morals and fearing unemployment. Instead the setting is Britain and Helmer (referred to as John in the play) and Krogstad (now Neil Kelman) are senior politicians, in fact Cabinet Ministers. In this version Helmer has replaced the disgraced Krogstad in the Cabinet and Krogstad is desperate to get back on his feet. The reasons for Krogstad/Kelman's disgrace are never fully stated but they have something to do with dodgy financial transactions. <br />At first sight this looks like up-to-the-minute topicality looks convenient (as if there were some very late changes) given everything in the news at the moment. However it is worth bearing in mind that as they chose Christopher Eccleston for the Krogstad/Kelman role, they must have already decided to make his role larger and more important. I suspect this was done to bring the other couple's (Krogstad and Mrs Linde) relationship more into the foreground to provide a stronger contrast with the Helmer's.<br />The social elevation of Krogstad/Kelman is one of the things that gives me a problem with this adaptation. I hope it isn't to do with Christopher Eccleston's accent (which it shouldn't be) but it felt unlikely that his character would ever have been given a Cabinet position – there was just too much intense wayward passion. At first I did think, rather uncharitably, “ah yes an Eccleston performance”. <br />The other major problem I had with the adaptation is that by making it about Cabinet Ministers (echoing An Ideal Husband a bit) Zinnie Harris raised the stakes and while this didn't make his behaviour any more acceptable, it did make Helmer's fear of disgrace much more understandable. This effect of this was to make Nora's behaviour appear much more reckless.<br />I have spent far too long on complaints about the adaptation, even if they are justified the proper reviews are unlikely to spend more than a couple of sentences on similar doubts. Because the most important thing about this play is the acting and that is superb. Even with a little first preview stumbling over lines, it was easy to see just how good it is going to get when the ensemble has really come together. It is difficult to pick any one of the main five actors out for special mention but this play is supposed to belong to Nora and Gillian Anderson was certainly in control of that part.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-87433264166774505652009-04-28T01:36:00.002+00:002009-04-28T01:39:43.399+00:00Othello by William Shakespeare, Rose Theatre, Kingston, 25-Apr-2009 – Directed by Barrie RutterIn spite of the fact that Lenny Henry has mastered and impressed in dramatic roles on TV before, it was difficult, in this play, not to see his comic persona coming through. However I think it was more that I was recognising very familiar mannerisms and tones of voice that would often presage a joke or a laugh, rather than Lenny Henry doing anything wrong. It could well be that someone unfamiliar with his work would reckon that his performance was very good. And other than my brain expecting jokes around the corner, my only real complaint about his performance was a feeling that he was isolated (especially when surrounded by others) from the rest of the cast – he didn't quite seem to be part of the team. Of course Othello is meant to be an outsider but I felt it was more his own separation from the cast rather than his character's. It's as if the cast was a unit and he wasn't part of it. As ever this could all be imagined on my part, I don't think it is deliberate and definitely doesn't indicate any tension backstage. He wants to be part of the team, the cast and crew want him to be part of the team, I just think he wasn't quite there and I'm probably making mountains out of molehills.<br />It's a shame to have doubts because in the final scenes I forgot about Lenny Henry and saw just Othello – he was powerful and convincing. He wasn't quite Chiwetel Ejiofor who is my benchmark of Othello perfection but he was certainly bears comparison to some of the other half-dozen Othellos I've seen.<br />Of the other cast members I particularly liked Conrad Nelson as Iago (in spite of his uniform which had a slight air of old-time cinema usher about it), Jessica Harris's Desdemona (even if the line <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1853815470?ie=UTF8&tag=to0b-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=1853815470">Desdemona, If Only You Had Spoken</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.co.uk/e/ir?t=to0b-21&l=as2&o=2&a=1853815470" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> kept popping into my head in the last scenes, and Maeve Larkin's Emilia.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-14869120106251329032009-04-23T07:37:00.001+00:002009-04-23T07:38:21.669+00:00Rookery Nook by Ben Travers, Menier Chocolate Factory, 21-Apr-2009 – Directed by Terry JohnsonI wanted to start this with a paragraph about how, with the Aldwych Farces, the actors aren't playing characters so much as doing the Ralph Lynn part (monocled silly-ass), the Tom Walls part (smooth lothario), the Robertson Hare part (henpecked husband or servant) or even the Mary Brough part (cockney battle-axe or mother-in-law). While it is at least partly true a little checking suggests that Rookery Nook was too early an Aldwych Farce for the roles to be set in stone and that Travers re-wrote the plays late in his life to concentrate on character more than slapstick.<br />All the same, I think the chemistry between the three main male characters works best when it is relaxed and familiar and I'm not sure that's what happened here. I think it was primarily that that Neil Stuke's Gerald Popkiss (the Lynn part) and Edward Baker-Duly's Clive Popkiss (the Walls part) didn't gel completely as a double act. They came close but I didn't think they were, as I said, relaxed and familiar with each other as I think they needed to be. For some reason I needed Gerald Popkiss to come across as completely non-threatening and innocent when the beautiful young girl (or rather gell) in pyjamas, Rhoda Marley, seeks refuge in the house, Rookery Nook where he is staying. While he wasn't threatening I didn't think Neil Stuke was quite the pleasant silly-ass that I thought was required.<br />I've done the usual whining about petty things and could go further with the pacing – the first act seemed to have been over-extended with long silences and business simply in order to make the interval after it happen closer to half-way through the night. However there were plenty of laughs in this production and they seemed to be in the right places – Terry Johnson is not one of those directors, who are afraid of audience laughter or can't find the jokes and who hide behind the “we are looking for the dark-side of the play” excuse. Perhaps though, the jokes didn't get quite the size of laugh they could have. People had fun but I had the sense that it could have been a deal funnier. <br />I have to be a little cautious, given the director and actors (some like Sarah Woodward, quite capable of comic genius – if underused here) there is potential for great things and I suspect it was just an off-night where things didn't come together.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-42755873646275397002009-04-01T23:30:00.000+00:002009-04-01T23:31:09.942+00:00Edward Gant’s Amazing Feats of Loneliness by Anthony Neilson, Soho Theatre, 31-Mar-2009 – Directed by Steve MarmionI am a little worried that there comes a point in Anthony Neilson's plays where he gives up on his strange (sometimes fantastical) but compelling narrative and does something really odd like bringing on Teddy Bears that demand imaginary cups of tea. I didn't think this play lived on much past the Teddy Bears, the author still had enough to produce a coup-de-theatre at the end but it almost felt that he lost interest in the original story and just wanted to end it.<br />The play is scripted as a recreation of Victorian travelling show and depicting the last ever performance. Edward Gant, our showman and his troupe of three actors, replay stories from Gant's life or rather stories that were told to Gant on his travels.<br />While I would have liked to see many more of these “feats of loneliness” (there were only two stories of this kind) I don't want it t sound too much of a complaint. After all the Teddy Bears were excellent, if anachronistic (play set in 1880s, Teddy Bears invented 1900s) but I greatly enjoyed the inventiveness of the 'feats' stories and thought there was a shortage of others.<br />As seems inevitable I also wanted to know a lot more about the characters of the participants in the performance. We get suggestions of tensions and the 'real' lives of the troupe towards the end of the play. It is done in a way that tries to pretend the the breaking of the fourth wall is deliberate but might not be. I'm not not certain that this was successful.<br />Reading back over this I realise that I haven't made it absolutely clear that I had a good time. I did. Honesttrpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11477941.post-72315594620351448152009-03-31T00:56:00.000+00:002009-03-31T00:57:40.280+00:00Tusk Tusk by Polly Stenham, Royal Court Upstairs, 30-Apr-2009 – Directed by Jeremy HerrinI have to admit that Polly Stenham's previous play, That Face, sort of passed me by. I remembered it as well put together and enjoyable (if enjoyable is quite the right word given the subject matter). However the scenes that lived most in my memory weren't the intense Oedipal ones between Matt Smith and Lindsay Duncan but the bullying committed by schoolgirls in bunny slippers. Maybe I need to pay more attention.<br />This play with its offstage and possibly mentally-ill mother, together with a son who was just a little too close to her, seemed to be going over similar territory. The son in this case is younger and there is little suggestion of anything other than the mother being badly messed up and damaged. I'm not sure that we were ever given a reason for the mother's problems but as the play is played through the eyes of her children, they, as children apparently do, seem to accept the situation rather than try to analyse it. That said I'm not sure that I got a detailed picture of this mother who abandons her three children the day after they move from the country into a new flat in London. And, I felt, her motivation for the move and subsequent flight was merely explained rather than fully justified.<br />It is probably unfair to go on about a character that wasn't actually there especially when the three children (Eliot, 15, Maggie, 14 and Finn 7) felt real and grounded. Their dialogue felt a little sophisticated compared to the monosyllabic grunts that are normally used to depict teenagers – the phrase “precocious erudition” popped into my head and wouldn't go away. <br />In general I thought the acting of the three principals was strong and I believed in their predicament. What I didn't do, was care about them. I had more sympathy with their unseen angry upstairs neighbour than I did with this gaggle of troubled children trying to stick together. Perhaps it is the onset of fogyism on my part.<br />As I left the theatre I thought I'd seen a good play – writing good, acting excellent, sympathy nil was my summary – but as I sit here writing and analysing it is beginning to crumble and I'm seeing more and more flaws. Perhaps this is a good place to stop.trpwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04101745965736480113noreply@blogger.com0