Review – Equus, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 31st May 2026

One of the most outstanding plays of the 20th century, Equus, Peter Shaffer’s intricate but vivid enactment of a true story, retains an immaculate reputation, bolstered by extraordinary productions in the past. It deals with the inexplicable blinding of several horses by a teenage boy, a story told to him by a friend who died shortly afterwards, with no first-hand knowledge of the crime or perpetrator at all; Shaffer filled the gaps with his imagination. I saw the original production, when it transferred to the Albery, as part of a school trip (!) and we sat on benches on the stage. At the time it was the most thrilling experience I’d had in a theatre and it opened my 16-year-old mind to appreciate some of the extraordinary things that theatre can achieve. I’ve seen it twice since, including the famous Daniel Radcliffe production, and it never fails to astonish. Seeing it again now in the intimate setting of the Menier Chocolate Factory was a no-brainer for me.

Long suffering psychiatrist Martin Dysart is told about the actions of 17-year-old Alan Strang by Hesther Salomon, the magistrate at his court case. With no apparent cause, and with no previous blemish on his character, Strang blinded six horses on a rampage in a stable. Hesther realises he needs help rather than just punishment, so reluctantly Dysart agrees to take him on. Initially obstructive, Strang slowly starts to open up as together they explore the reasons why he did what he did. As the play progresses, we see vignettes from his family life, his introduction to the stable and stable-mate Jill, and his instant infatuation with the horses. Shaffer saves the re-enactment of the blinding for the final scene, one of the most visually and emotionally shattering moments in 20th century drama.

One of the reasons why it’s always a thrill to see a production at the Menier is that you never quite know how the stage and seating will be configured. For Equus, Paul Farnsworth has created a black wooden stage, featureless apart from four benches in the corners, a black wooden walkway around the stage and what appears to be a centre revolve that they don’t use (looks it a bit odd, to be honest). In keeping with the original production, the offstage actors sit in vacant seats scattered around the front row of the audience, which emphasises how we’re all part of the same shared experience. Entrances are crisply made from those seats, the actors circling the edge of the stage until they walk onto it; if you’re used to stretching your legs out in the front row, you can’t do it in this show, or you’d trip everyone up.

At the back of the stage sit the horses, in their stable. Actors from a dance background, they’re motionless for much of the first act, but when they come to life, they roll, they writhe, they stagger, all with elegant choreographic grace. They create the illusion of individual horses, unless they come together when they portray Nugget, the Equus God, in whom Strang is so besotted. They exude an unpredictable strength; they’re not beautiful to watch, but they are mesmeric, eerie and unsettling. There’s no doubt that this presentation underlines the homoerotic nature of the play; it was always there, but in this production it’s beyond question.

It’s a first-rate cast who throw themselves into the production with full commitment. Colin Mace and Emma Cunniffe are excellent as Alan Strang’s parents, Frank and Dora. Both find it hard to express their feelings towards their son. Frank is a traditional man’s man who doesn’t go in for “emotions”, works long hours and refuses to allow a TV in the household, and Dora’s love for God comes first. Both give great portrayals of essentially good people who are totally bewildered by what their son has done.

Bella Aubin is superb as Jill, Alan’s confident young stable colleague, seeking to push Alan gently towards a relationship despite his internal conflict and immaturity. As Hesther Salomon, Amanda Abbington creates a palpable character out of what is really a shoulder on which Dysart can cry (and vent his spleen), advocating powerfully on behalf of Alan to protect whatever future he has. There’s also great support from Paula James as the no-nonsense nurse, David Rubin as stable owner Harry Dalton and Ed Mitchell as Nugget and the horseman.

Toby Stephens’ Martin Dysart is at the end of his tether from the start. Dysart should be embarking on a tremendous journey of self-discovery during the course of the play, reflecting on his homelife and his marriage, coping with an ever-growing workload, exasperated at himself, his very essence, his clients and the world at large. We know that Toby Stephens is a superb actor, with terrific technical skill, an imposing stage presence and the ability to conjure up all levels of emotion. However, I didn’t sense that this Dysart went on much of a journey, or that there was any significant character development. I didn’t feel his dark night of the soul, there were no penny-drop moments as he works out who he is. This is a play where all the characters should emerge at the end profoundly changed from how they were at the beginning, but for Dysart, it all felt strangely on one level. I know I’m in the minority here.

Noah Valentine, however, as Alan Strang, gives a truly great performance, riveting from the very start, combining insolence with vulnerability, aggression with passivity. Physically, it’s inspired casting; Shaffer’s only description of Alan in the stage directions is that he is a “lean boy of seventeen”, and indeed, Mr Valentine cuts a slim, slight figure, a powerful contrast with the muscular nobility of the horses. His expressions throughout are superb – you don’t need to hear this Alan speak in order to know what he’s thinking. Strang is still just a boy, and Mr Valentine truly convinces as a wayward, uncertain teenager who defaults to impudence and disobedience under pressure; and who could crack at any time. It’s a terrific performance – not to mention one of great bravery – and he will certainly be a name to follow in the future.

Admirably, there has been no attempt to update the play; the programme notes announce that the action takes place in the early 1970s, so Alan Strang’s incessant singing of television adverts is the same as it was fifty years ago. Advertising jingles today just don’t have the same iconic power!

However, there’s one directorial decision with which I completely disagree. Towards the end of the first act, Dysart encourages Alan to re-enact taking Nugget from the stable and leading him into the field. Shaffer’s stage direction states: “he mimes undressing completely in front of the horse”. However, director Lindsay Posner has Alan literally removing all his clothes, so that his final scene before the interval is performed naked. Obviously, this makes a great sudden impact, but in so doing, it detracts from the more significant final scene, the true climax of the play, where Alan is running, jumping, hurling himself about the stage naked whilst viciously jabbing the pick into the horses’ eyes.

To reinforce that final impact, Paul Pyant’s lighting design has to go full manic strobe, and effective though it is, that final scene ought not to need any additional lighting tricks to create its shock. But here it’s necessary because we already have a visual memory of Alan naked with Nugget – the surprise has already been ruined an hour earlier. Call me a purist, but when Shaffer instructed that the first undressing should be mimed, I reckon he knew what he was doing.

Overall, a committed and powerful production of an outstanding play, but somehow it didn’t quite crackle with the electric energy that I would have expected. Nevertheless, there are some superb performances, and Noah Valentine is a star of the future. After the run at the Menier ends on 4th July, the production transfers to the Theatre Royal Bath, who have co-produced it, for two weeks from 14th July.

4-starsFour They’re Jolly Good Fellows!

Review – The Holy Rosenbergs, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 29th March 2026

Ryan Craig’s The Holy Rosenbergs premiered at the National Theatre in 2011, but it feels as though it could have been written yesterday, which perhaps only goes to show that we learn nothing from our mistakes. Set in 2009, the play brings two threads together – a grieving family with a failing business and reputations in the balance; and the politics of the Middle East, sharply focussed on the Israeli Defence Force which is being challenged in Geneva for war crimes. The link between the two comes in the form of Danny Rosenberg, the son who left the rest of the family in Edgware, set up home in Israel, became a member of the IDF, and was questioned under the Geneva Convention over his part in military operations in Gaza.

Flying helicopters over Gaza, Danny is now dead. He has been buried in Israel and his memorial service in Edgware is tomorrow. Danny’s human rights lawyer sister Ruth has been asked to give the eulogy by their father David; but she is assisting Sir Stephen Crossley in writing the report looking into the actions of the IDF. Conflict of interest much? With rumours of a protest at tomorrow’s memorial, specifically targeted against Ruth, should she stay away or attend? As The Holy Rosenbergs takes place over the course of the one day, that’s something we never discover.

With a few nods to Arthur Miller – the unseen Danny casts a similar shadow to the dead Larry in All My Sons and David Rosenberg has more than a whiff of Willy Loman about him – Craig’s writing is intense and compelling and creates a thoroughly believable story with totally recognisable characters. Questions of family loyalty, membership of a wider community, and adherence to one’s faith all play a vital part in this play. David Rosenberg needs someone to continue his family kosher catering business into the future, and with Danny having chosen to move to Israel, and Ruth a gifted lawyer in Geneva, it falls to layabout younger son Jonny to take up the mantle; so that’s never going to happen. The play also examines the contrast between those things which unite us and those things that divide us, especially when they’re so closely connected. For the Rosenbergs, is there a point or an attitude which will unite them all – and is truth more or less important than putting on a solid front?

The Jewish elements of the play are central to its core. Craig presents the Edgware community as having a genuine adherence to the faith, belief in the cause of Israel, and recognising the importance of family, ritual and respect. War, and the actions of war, are at odds with the kindness and generosity at the heart of the Jewish community; and the actions of the Israeli government inevitably create tensions and divisions of loyalty. The Rosenberg family are almost uniquely caught up in the fractious attitudes towards this first Gaza war; and the play does not shy away from the personal tragedy as well as the wider political issues.

One of the joys of seeing a show at the Menier is to discover how the seating configuration and staging has changed since the last time you visited. For The Holy Rosenbergs, Tim Shortall’s immaculately detailed set dominates the space and feels all-encompassing. It’s a living room we all recognise – especially if you were around during the 1980s – with its busy patterned carpeting and elegant, sophisticated G Plan furniture which you can imagine has been polished to the nth degree. Family photos and all the trappings of middle-class Judaism are everywhere – it’s a room that the family will have been so proud of about forty years ago and somehow time has stood still in the interim.

Lindsay Posner’s extraordinary cast deliver totally engrossing performances. Nicholas Woodeson and Tracy-Ann Oberman as David and Lesley Rosenberg are astounding with their perfectly observed, immaculately executed characterisations of the heart of this solid family, effortlessly delivering all the humour inherent in their characters but ruthlessly revealing the inner torture they both face. They’re mesmerising. Dorothea Myer-Bennett is also extraordinarily good as Ruth, treading a fine line between standing up for what she believes in and wanting to grieve as a family member as much as the rest of them.

Dan Fredenburgh is excellent as family friend and respected client Saul, carefully navigating a disastrous dinner party and then later vociferously championing his cause, and Nitai Levi gives us an amusing and credible portrayal of the contrary wastrel Jonny. There’s terrific support from Alex Zur as the young and well-meaning Rabbi Simon, and Adrian Lukis as Ruth’s boss Sir Stephen, awkwardly put on the spot and receiving the full blast of family criticism; his delightful coping mechanism for dealing with the discomfort put me in mind of a younger version of John Le Mesurier.

The play is at its best when fully examining the family dynamic, observing the minute interactions between the family members. Perhaps it gets a little bogged down in the second act where there are some lengthy and slightly didactic speeches – necessary for the plot development but nevertheless weighty for the audience to take in. However, it’s a memorable production which poses many difficult questions and you leave the theatre in awe of some truly first class acting.

4-starsFour They’re Jolly Good Fellows!

Review – Fallen Angels, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 14th December 2025

One hundred years on from its first London run, it’s funny to think that Noel Coward’s Fallen Angels caused a moral shockwave amongst the theatre glitterati at the time. Almost banned in totality, only the personal intervention of the Lord Chamberlain himself guaranteed its licence, and many of the reviews at the time despised it as an insult to decent womanhood. Today, those decent women (as do the rest of us) look at it as simply a comic creation with a devilish insight into the human mind, not to mention the human sex drive.

Just in case you don’t know, Julia and Jane are married to sensible but dull husbands Fred and Bill, who go off for a golfing trip together, leaving their wives behind to entertain themselves in the company of several bottles of wine. Both women have had a pre-marital fling with an exotic Frenchman named Maurice Duclos, and it just so happens that after a long absence, he’s back in town. The absence of the husbands leaves a vacuum, and as we know, nature abhors a vacuum; but Julia and Jane are virtuous wives… aren’t they?

Simon Higlett has designed an immaculately stunning set, positively throbbing with art deco touches; Julia and Fred must have taken all their design ideas from the newest Mondrian catalogue. Fotini Dimou’s delightful costumes dress Julia and Jane as bright young things of the era, with Fred and Bill in classic plus fours, Saunders in a prim and proper maid’s uniform and Maurice as an elegant roué about town. All the trimmings are perfect.

And the production boasts a fine cast, with Janie Dee regal as Julia and Alexandra Gilbreath mischievous as Jane, with Richard Teverson and Christopher Hollis putting in decent portrayals of a pair of golf-loving duffers as their husbands. Attention to detail throughout is admirable and all the performances are full of commitment and character.

But for some reason – maybe a number of minor reasons – this production just doesn’t land successfully. This ought to be an uproariously funny show, with elegant ladies reliving their lost youth and cavorting around under the affluence of incohol, dumb husbands being duped, a smart-ass maid who confounds the class system and a classic confrontation moment when Maurice arrives to discover their husbands are still there. There are, of course, many laughs, but few of them uproarious, and I’m afraid I found the second Act in particular surprisingly dull.

Somehow Christopher Luscombe’s direction highlights all the things that Coward needs us to know in order for the story to work, thus showing its creaking mechanics at the expense of all the lighter touches that Coward wants us to enjoy. The opening scene, for example, about no longer being in love and the ladies both having a presentiment, comes across as laboured. Julia and Jane get paralytically drunk on precious little champagne, and it just doesn’t look credible. I can’t believe this is the fault of terrific comic actors like Janie Dee and Alexandra Gilbreath; but sadly, for me, their drunk act didn’t really work.

Somehow you don’t notice the fun that’s taking place on the stage, but instead you’re waiting for an event (the arrival of Maurice) that looks like it’s never going to happen, and as a result you start to get a little frustrated with Coward. Even Sarah Twomey’s smart and sophisticated take on Saunders the maid seems out of place. The production certainly cheers up with the arrival of Graham Vick’s Maurice, who acts as a catalyst to galvanise all the other characters into upping their game. It’s just a shame he’s only around for the last fifteen minutes or so!

I must say I rather fear for the future of Noel Coward on our stages. The audience at the Menier for their Sunday matinee was only about half full, and everyone there was middle-aged and older. Whilst the big guns of Private Lives and Blithe Spirit will probably never go away, if plays like Fallen Angels fail to grab the attention of theatregoers, I sense the days of “The Master” might be limited.

3-starsThree-sy Does It!

Review – Dracula, A Comedy of Terrors, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 12th April 2025

At what point, I wonder, did the terrifying Count Dracula of Bram Stoker’s Gothic1897 horror novel become a figure of fun? It’s very hard to imagine a modern adaptation of the story being anything other than comical. I’m no expert on the Transylvanian terror monger, but recent re-workings of Dracula include the likes of Love At First Bite, Count Duckula, and indeed Sesame Street’s Count; and now we have Gordon Greenberg and Steve Rosen’s Dracula, A Comedy of Terrors, currently raising the roof at the Menier.

Five actors play a full cast of characters that sees estate agent Jonathan Harker travel from Whitby to Transylvania to do some house selling with Dracula – nothing unusual in that. Instantly captivated by the innocent and hapless Harker, he follows him back to Britain to seduce Harker’s intended, Lucy, and, if he can, Harker too. Lucy’s father, Lord Westfield, runs an asylum and is trying to rehabilitate one of his inmates, Renfield, back into society; the perfect setting for a cosy domestic comedy, one might say. Add to the mix Lucy’s sex-starved sister Mina, and doctor and vampire slayer Van Helsing (Mrs), and you have a hilarious hotchpotch of sexual attraction, outrageous costumes and coffins.

It’s a bright, energetic and funny production, helped by the fact that the characters all take their plight seriously. There are a couple of moments of pure stage magic when one actor has only just left the stage and is still talking offstage, when they suddenly reappear on the other side of the stage as a completely different character. I’m still trying to work out how Dianne Pilkington did that. The production mines all the usual Dracula-style gags, with some excellent physical comedy; I’m still laughing at the thought of James Daly, as Dracula, theatrically heading off into the night with a flourish of his cape, only to get completely batflap-trapped in its folds.

There’s more than a nod to Rocky Horror, not only with Dracula’s own first appearance, but also in the unexpected effect the Count has on another member of the cast – I won’t give the game away. Tijana Bjelajac’s delightful set conceals several surprises, and Tristan Raines’ costumes push the boat out with some hilarious and inventive styling.

With only Mr Daly having the one role – let’s face it, you can’t double up when you’re playing Dracula – everyone else shares a plethora of personalities, with Sebastian Torkia brilliant as both Mina and Van Helsing, Dianne Pilkington nailing both the misogynistic Westfield and the insect-eating Renfield, and Safeena Ladha playing Lucy with spirit, determination and terrific comic timing.

The secret weapon in the cast is the always outstanding Charlie Stemp, here denied any opportunities to sing or dance – although he does throw in a few steps where he can – giving us a wonderful portrayal of the chastely conservative and risk-averse Harker, clearly tempted by the kind of sexual attention he never expected. Extremely funny and ending up as a very unlikely comic hero, Mr Stemp continues to show that there’s simply nothing he can’t do on stage.

At 90 minutes with no interval, it does have the feel of an energetically ambitious Fringe production, casting risks aside and trying out everything to get a laugh. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that every attempt to get a laugh succeeds; there are no duff moments. Does it lack subtlety? You betcha. Does the hyped up Menier audience want subtlety in this production? Absolutely not. Hilarious fun, beautifully executed, and a total riot. The run at the Menier lasts until 3rd May, but I think this is a production that could easily see light of day (sorry Dracula) at some future point.

4-starsFour They’re Jolly Good Fellows!

Review – The Cabinet Minister, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 27th October 2024

Late to the party on this one! Sir Arthur Wing Pinero’s 1890 Court farce The Cabinet Minister has had new life breathed into it in Nancy Carroll’s jolly adaptation, currently packing them in at the Menier. I must confess, as old as I am, this was my first exposure to the works of Sir Arthur, who has been somewhat overlooked over the last fifty years or so; and this production has left me curious to discover more of his work – which can only be a good thing.

It’s always a delight to realise that a play from long ago still raises issues that are relevant today. The Cabinet Minister in question is Sir Julian Twombley, accused of accepting favours – can you imagine such a thing happening today (pause for ironic reflection)? Not only that, his wife and son are a pair of profligates who spend inordinate amounts of money on a sumptuous lifestyle that they can’t afford. Worse still, in their social circle, are a couple of working class people – Fanny and Bernard Lacklustre – who are doing really well for themselves. You know the type – all cash and no taste. Regrettably there are outstanding bills payable to them that the Twombleys have no hope of paying. However, these dreadful people will let the bills go unpaid if Lady Twombly allows them full access to upper class salons and a private indication from Sir Julian as to whether the Rajputana Canal will be built. Successful insider trading will make the smarmy Lacklustre a fortune.

Corruption, debt, class; they’re all there, just as they are today. So it doesn’t take a lot of fine tuning to present this play to a modern-day audience; just a little clipping, reshaping and re-naming, and the removal of a few less savoury observations of the day. The script has been tightened up a little, with some cheeky wordplay (fiddle and flaps come to mind). The biggest innovation in this production is the use of instruments on stage; a natural progression from the original, where Sir Julian plays the flute to calm his nerves. In Paul Foster’s production, Sir Julian’s woodwind is but one element of a full musical motif that dots in and out of the show.

Janet Bird’s engaging set presents the Twombleys’ elegant conservatory in Act One and transforms itself to the spacious hall of Drumdurris Castle in Act Two; a transformation that requires many backstage staff working flat out during the twenty minute interval. The costume design is first rate and absolutely in keeping with the 1890s, so the whole production is a feast for the eyes.

Nancy Carroll shines as Lady Twombley, the perfect glamorous hostess, despising what she has to endure with the commoners whilst deeply supportive and affectionate for her family members. Nicholas Rowe is an upstanding Sir Julian, Sara Crowe an enjoyable meddlesome Dora, and Phoebe Fildes and Laurence Ubong Williams terrific as the despicable Lacklustres. Dillie Keane and Matthew Woodyatt form a very funny double act as the mother and son Macphails; completely over the top, but the show demands it. There’s also excellent support from Joe Edgar as posh boy Brooke, George Blagden as his globetrotting cousin Valentine, and Rosalind Ford as the spoilt but endearing Imogen.

In the end, Pinero plays it safe and doesn’t disturb the status quo – the upper class win the day and the commoners are sent packing. Whilst The Cabinet Minister never ascends to a level of riotous belly-laugh inducing comedy, it is constantly entertaining and thoroughly well done. There’s an irony in that Pinero’s Court farces of the 1880s and 90s were so called because they were staged at the Court theatre, now better known as the Royal Court; home in the 1950s and 60s to the works of the angry young men of the time, who would have despised Pinero’s output.

But there’s always room for a well-made play, and I note with interest that the original production of The Cabinet Minister included one Brandon Thomas in the cast playing Macphail, only two years before he also appeared in his own, hugely successful, new play, Charley’s Aunt, at the Royalty Theatre. A good Victorian play should never go away, and I for one am pleased to see Pinero back in town.

4-starsFour They’re Jolly Good Fellows!

Review – The Baker’s Wife, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 1st September 2024

Apologies for being late to the party with The Baker’s Wife, as Edinburgh Fringe duties kept me away. One of Stephen Schwartz’s more obscure musicals, it’s based on a 1938 film, La Femme du Boulanger; and, to be honest, I knew nothing about either the original film or the 1976 musical. The Baker’s Wife never made it to Broadway nor did it reach the West End until a lukewarm production in 1988 directed by Trevor Nunn. Re-invigorated with a new production by Gordon Greenberg, can the Menier succeed with this show where others failed to make the mark?

We’re in a Provençal village in 1935, where the baker has died four weeks ago and the village is bereft of bread. Can you imagine a French village with no bread? It would be like Hemel Hempstead without the roundabouts. Fear not, mes amis, because a new baker, Aimable, is ready to move into the boulangerie with his wife. His beautiful young wife, that is; Genevieve. He’s hopelessly in love with her; she’s in love with being in love, having a married name, desperate to please him. But does she actually love him? Hein, c’est ça le rub, n’est ce pas? When she leaves him for the Marquis’ besotted assistant, Dominique, all the rise goes out of Aimable’s dough and he loses the will to bake. But will the other villagers put up with that? Absolument pas!

You’ve heard of the old phrase, you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover? Here’s one of those times where the cover is immaculate, but the book is nondescript. Paul Farnsworth has truly gone to town to recreate a French village in the heart of Southwark Street. Boules in the square, French road names, café tables with coffee and cognac, accordions gently playing; you couldn’t wish for a more idyllic Provençal setting. To increase that sense of la vie française for theatregoers, some seating is at cabaret tables, in the heart of the action; we sat at Table J and although there are a few scenes where some of the action on stage is blocked, that sense of being a villager more than makes up for it.

And there’s a cast of West End stars to take your breath away. Clive Rowe plays Aimable and his rich, sensitive voice delivers his songs with a genuine sincerity and power. Opposite him, the wonderful Lucie Jones brings energy and cheekiness to her songs, including a brilliant epiphany moment in Meadowlark. The delightfully squabbling couple of Denise and Claude who own the café are brought to life with the always amazing Josefina Gabrielle and the comic genius of Norman Pace; they are matched by the problem pairing of Liam Tamne’s brutal and critical Barnaby and Finty Williams’ submissiveHortense – the underlying sense of domestic violence is delicately but clearly portrayed in these two excellent performances. With Joaquin Pedro Valdes’ persistent Dominique, Matthew Seadon-Young’s pious priest, Michael Matus’ bombastic Marquis and Sutara Gayle’s perpetually offended Therese, as well as a superb wider ensemble, you’ll be hard pushed to find a better-performed show in the whole of London. And let’s not forget Dustin Conrad’s terrific band who play Schwartz’s score with a true feel for its romantic French style.

Such a shame, then, that the story is so slight and unadventurous, and the music is so forgettable. Yes, there are a few numbers that stand out; the opening song If It Wasn’t For You is an amusing introduction to the characters of the villagers, Bread is an entertaining homage to that irresistible smell and taste of fresh bread, and the epiphanic Meadowlark is a powerful cry of assertiveness. But so many of the songs and tunes are immediately forgettable, sadly. And whilst the story does have interesting observations about the nature of forgiveness, both between an unfaithful couple and decades-long family feuds, you can’t help but feel that the show has a very narrow and blinkered vision; other than to make us feel ever-so-French, which it does immaculately.

Despite its faults, there’s no doubt that, in terms of production and performance values, this is one of the best that the Menier has ever hosted; and it’s 100% worth going to see for the spectacle and atmosphere alone. Just don’t expect to remember any of the songs.

 

3-starsThree-sy Does It!

P. S. Sitting in seat J1 had its perks. As the audience were taking their seats, not only did Ms Gabrielle ask me most politely to slightly move my chair so that her entrances and exits could be more gracefully executed, but also Mr Pace (in full character as Claude) said to me bonjour monsieur, to which I replied, bonjour monsieur, comment ça va? To which he replied Ah, vous parlez français, monsieur? And I came back with Oui, monsieur, comme un anglais, to which he replied, Ah, moi aussi! You had to be there.

Review – Power of Sail, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 7th April 2024

Do you remember that rather delicious moment when the students at Brunel University walked out of a meeting when Katie Hopkins got up to speak? That was a perfect way of allowing “free speech” whilst showing one’s contempt for the speaker at the same time. Paul Grellong’s Power of Sail, first seen in the US in 2019, and now making its UK debut, centres on Charles Nichols, a Harvard professor who wants to invite a Holocaust-denying white nationalist to a debate at that illustrious university, thereby upholding the fine tradition of freedom of speech, but then intends to destroy him in argument and make him look like the pathetic wretch he is.

It’s pretty much a given that freedom of speech is a supremely important right. Equally, with free speech comes responsibility. For example, I could say that Power of Sail is a load of old tosh (it isn’t) and then Mr Grellong could come back at me and say that I don’t know my luff from my leech, and that’s all perfectly acceptable. However when it comes to hate-based politics, those rights become somewhat blurred. Certainly Professor Nichols’ students are up in arms against his proposal. So is the Dean, who fears the repercussions. So is his young protégé Professor Forrest. But Nichols is determined to see this through; freedom of speech must have its way. A risky proposal for – on the face of it – such a virtuous objective.

Mr Grellong has structured the play in six scenes, rather like a time version of a boomerang. The first three scenes take us through mid-morning, mid-afternoon and late evening on the same day. Scene Four takes place the following morning and ends with a big revelation that surprises and shocks us. Scenes Five and Six double back on themselves, showing us what happened earlier the previous evening and finally earlier that afternoon. This may sound like a bizarre way of going about things, but the structure does enable missing pieces of the jigsaw to be fitted in, so that by the end of the play we have a much fuller understanding of the motivations of all the characters that otherwise we would have missed if we had just seen the events in linear time. However, a side effect of this structure is that the play ends with a whimper more than a bang. It’s a well-intentioned, character-driven whimper that necessarily makes sense of the whole story; but it’s a whimper nonetheless.

The programme tells us that this production is the result of a play that was written years ago, left in a drawer and then more recently revisited, stripped back, with scenes and characters removed, to leave a sparser and hopefully more truthful and hard-hitting version. There’s no interval – my pet hate – yet there’s a perfect opportunity for a cliffhanger moment that could separate the play into two acts, whilst still retaining its time structure (I won’t say what it is because it’s an important moment of plot development). I suspect the play has been pared back a little too much; the main characters are fascinating creations, and it would have been good to hear more of what they say for themselves. Strangely, scene two, set on a railway station platform, offers little in the way of plot development and I confess I found that scene just trod water. When you assess the play as a whole at the end you realise the scene is not completely pointless, but I can’t help but think the writer could have edited it back more, whilst filling out some of the others. That said, overall it’s a very entertaining script, with some excellent high tension scenes as well as a lot of nicely pitched comedy.

Director Dominic Dromgoole entices some superb performances out of his cast which keep our attention throughout the show, despite the distraction caused by immensely clunky and laborious scene changes that seem to take ages and really add very little to the production – I would have preferred much less set design and for the audience to use their imagination more. At the heart of the play is a terrific performance by Julian Ovenden as Nichols. Bristling with charisma, you can easily imagine how his students are in awe of him; full of bonhomie tinged with just a hint of academic arrogance and the self-satisfaction that he is naturally always right about everything. And like all such people, when you chip away at everything they believe about themselves, you can sometimes reveal a void underneath.

Tanya Franks is also excellent as the Dean, Amy Katz, a woman juggling many roles and appearing to be thoroughly decent in all of them. Ms Franks plays her as a tough cookie and a voice of reason; but of course, we all have our weaknesses. And the always reliable Giles Terera delivers a strong and confident performance as Baxter Forrest, the media-wise, television presenting professor, who has an unfailing ability to smell a rat and a superb way of expressing unpleasant home truths with enviable eloquence.

There’s excellent support from Katie Bernstein as the highly principled student Maggie who is prepared to risk everything for what she believes in, and from Georgia Landers as the FBI officer Quinn Harris, whose interviewing technique pays off in abundance. Michael Benz gives a terrific performance as Lucas, a likeable young man who seems to blunder his way through life – until you really get to know his character in the final scene. Paul Rider does his best as bartender Frank in what seems like the vestiges of a previously larger role. I’m not sure why Mr Grellong didn’t remove the role completely.

A fascinating subject for a play, and in many ways a fascinating play too, although maybe sometimes for the wrong reasons. If you take away one message from it, it’s to watch out for individuals’ motives. They may not always be what they seem. Plenty for you to talk about on the way home. Power of Sail continues at the Menier until 12th May.

3-starsThree-sy Does It!

Review – The Third Man, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 23rd July 2023

The Menier is one of our favourite theatres, so we always like to catch their shows if they appeal to us. Everyone (even me!) knows the film of The Third Man, and a musical version penned by the creative team of Don Black, George Fenton and Christopher Hampton sounded too enticing for words. To top it off, it was to be directed by Sir Trevor Nunn. My theatrical heart spilleth over. But then came the reviews, and the word of mouth: not good. How could this be, a renowned gripping story with a bunch of creatives like that? Shurely shome mishtake! But the tickets were already bought and we just had to find out for ourselves.

So; The Third Man. Based on Carol Reed’s 1949 British film noir, set in postwar Vienna, where Westerns writer Holly Martins turns up at the invitation of his old friend Harry Lime and the promise of a new job. Trouble is, Lime died the day before Martins flew in. And his death all sounds a bit suspicious. So he stays to investigate, starts to fall in love with Lime’s girlfriend Anna Schmidt, and what’s at first suspicious becomes downright dark and dirty before long.

Everything starts positively. When you enter the Menier auditorium, you never know what the configuration is going to look like, so it’s always exciting! You’re confronted by the blacks and greys of designer Paul Farnsworth’s set, which impress with their inbuilt gloom and despondency, rubbish piled up at a few corners, use of tattered newsprint, a mishmash of pavement coverings suggesting cobbled streets,  floorboards and one-time elegant designs. The costumes, too, are perfectly evocative of those grim times, with suits and overcoats in various stages of decrepitude depending on the wealth of the wearer. Trevor Nunn uses every single inch of the available space to suggest busy streets, with people rushing here, there and everywhere. In fact, those of us in the front rows are asked to make sure our possessions (including our feet) are well tucked in and out of the way of the actors. I didn’t dare to let go of my drink lest it accidentally got kicked halfway across the stage and into another quarter of old Vienna.

Tamara Saringer’s orchestra also gives you optimism for a good show to follow, as the opening strains of a kind-of version of Anton Karas’ famous theme lead you into the first scene, a scurry of grey Viennese characters busying themselves about their daily lives; lots of movement, lots to look at, lots that make you think – this is shaping up to be quite good! But then you start listening to the lyrics. Regrettably, they are as trite and repetitive as you can imagine. It’s as though they have been assembled to scrape the barrel of rhymey chimey phrases, designed to give an overall impression of something – Vienna? Poverty? Misery? but with neither depth nor emotion. In fact on the first occasion (yes there are more) that they rhymed Harry Lime with slime, Mrs Chrisparkle let out an audible snort of derision. Unfortunately the music is also extremely forgettable; when we came out, we couldn’t remember one bar of it.

Sadly, no end of the talent that’s on stage or in directing, or in the music and lighting contributions can disguise the thinness and risibility of the material they have to work with. As the show progresses, you can admire and enjoy the performance level of the cast and appreciate the great use of the stage, and the pleasant playing and singing. But the show itself just gets boring. It’s puddingy, bland, soft and doughy. One could compare it unfavourably to blancmange but that’s hardly fair on blancmange. Such a shame and such a wasted opportunity.

In its favour, you have a hard-working and committed cast. Sam Underwood gives a good performance as Holly Martins, increasing in slovenly desperation to work out what happened to Harry. Natalie Dunne sings beautifully as Anna Schmidt – although she is a little inconsistent with the accent which is strongly Mittel Europa when she speaks and rather English rose when she sings. I really liked the double-act of Edward Baker-Duly and Jonathan Andrew Hume as the military police Major Calloway and Sergeant Paine; and I was dismayed to find the splendid Derek Griffiths so underused as the Porter.

You can see the amount of effort that has gone in to bringing this production to the stage and can only admire the skills of those who are working at their best. But those lyrics… how could they have written something so gloopy?

 

 

Two Disappointing for Anything More!

P. S. Not everyone at the Menier on Sunday afternoon was disappointed with the show. The wannabe Gogglebox participants who sat behind us never ceased with their audible oohs and aahs and over-the-top vocal reactions to the most minor of plot developments or moments of adequate acting. They were either high on coke or friends of someone in the cast.

Review – The Sex Party, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 30th December 2022

Wasn’t it the great Jona Lewie who said – and I think it was – You’ll Always Find Me In The Kitchen At Parties? Sadly, that’s where Terry Johnson has chosen to set his latest offering, The Sex Party – not in the living room where everyone’s getting down and dirty, but in the kitchen, where everyone’s either embarrassed, or bitching and moaning, or being offensive or just getting steadily chateau’d. To be honest you’d get a lot more entertainment from Jona Lewie’s 7-incher than you would by sitting through two hours twenty minutes of this dismal and, frankly, unpleasant play.

But first, gentle reader, let me cast your mind back to April of last year. Maria Friedman had just finished her short spell at the Menier performing Legacy, which we unfortunately missed. But we were waiting for the announcement of the next show at this much-loved theatre. And we waited… and we waited. Surely the Menier hasn’t… closed?… we thought? No movement on the website – nothing in the social media. Don’t say this is the end….? And then a sign of life – the Menier would be reopening in November, with the latest play by Terry Johnson. I jumped at the chance – as I am sure many others did. We’ve all missed the Menier and were sad at the thought that it might never reopen; basically we would have booked to see anything. And Terry Johnson too – he’s a reliable old theatrical character, with hits like Dead Funny and Insignificance to his name. What could possibly go wrong?

To be fair, not quite everything. Tim Shortall has constructed a fantastic set depicting a well-to-do Islington kitchen. Every detail is realised immaculately. The matching kettle and toaster; the yuppie cookbooks including that Leon one that all posh people have; the well-stocked patio garden. Boy, you could live in that kitchen. There are some good performances too. Jason Merrells is a safe pair of hands as Alex, whose home it is and who is holding the party, along with the excellent Molly Osborne as Hetty, who is the bubbliest and most welcoming of hostesses without going over the top. The first scenes find them greeting their first guests, the verging-on-spoilt Gilly (Lisa Dwan) and her husband, the verging-on-tedious Jake (John Hopkins), both excellent in conveying their characters’ annoying habits and difficult relationship.

Strangely, if Terry Johnson had left it there, with two embarrassed and embarrassing guests being manipulated by two ostensibly charming hosts, it might have developed into something reasonable. A dash of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf mixed with a splodge of Relatively Speaking to make a modern-day Comedy of Manners that dismantles 2022 Britain (and let’s face it, it needs some dismantling) through the eye of a swingers’ party. But no – Johnson gives us five more characters to contend with, four of which position themselves variously on the thoroughly irritating spectrum; and the fifth, a catalyst with which to throw a big spanner in the works.

That last character is Lucy – played with immaculate reserve and control by Pooya Mohseni – a discreet and refined woman who happens to be trans but doesn’t expect to make a big thing of it. Terry Johnson, however, wants a very big thing to be made of it. At this point, he throws all these disparate elements up into the air and lets them land higgledy-piggledy on the stage to let everyone fight it out in the manner of a live Twitter spat. The rest of the play is an experiment in seeing how far you can take the mickey out of transphobia, and questions how long is it funny to do so before it starts getting uncomfortable.

Answer: not long. It falls to Broadway and Hollywood star Timothy Hutton, in his London stage debut (so bizarre that he should have chosen this play for this significant step in his career), as the American businessman Jeff, in what often feels to be a very stilted performance, to bombard Lucy with offensive, intrusive and crass questioning about her right to call herself a woman; goaded on by the almost equally offensive beliefs and asides of his Russian wife Magdalena, whom I think is meant to be a humorous character but comes across way off the mark.

Can you write a play examining transphobia? Of course you can. But this isn’t it. It doesn’t contain sufficiently robust conversations or plot development; in fact there were a couple of lengthy and excruciatingly dull sequences – one where Magdalena likens herself to a butterfly, another where there is a pointless conversation about whether people like dogs. The play lacks the required delicacy and integrity to manage its own sensitive subject matter, and whatever humour there is misses its spot so that the audience is reduced to squirming in their seats. There’s even a short scene at the end of the play that explains what has happened to some of the characters some months later, as if we cared. It was very noticeable how the energy of the audience members had been hugely sapped as we all slunk out at the end,with no one quite daring to say WTF did we just see? – but definitely thinking it.

A wasted opportunity? Yes. A tasteless evening of deliberate provocation without anything to back it up? Also yes. Hurrah for the return of the Menier Chocolate Factory, but let this play die a quiet death and never be spoken of again. Two stars is generous, but it’s a proficient production.

Two Disappointing for Anything More

 

Review – Habeas Corpus, Menier Chocolate Factory, London, 16th January 2022

Here’s another show that’s been a long time a-coming. I booked to see Patrick Marber’s new production of Alan Bennett’s Habeas Corpus back in March 2020, roughly the weekend before Lockdown 1.0 kicked in. Fortunately those nice people at the Menier were very diligent about making sure I got the same seats I originally booked, now that the production has finally come to light and I must say the staff at the Menier have been brilliant with their customer care during this period. Hats off to you!

Habeas Corpus first opened at the Lyric Theatre in May 1973 with a most enviable cast: Alec Guinness, Margaret Courtenay, Phyllida Law, Patricia Hayes, Joan Sanderson, Madeline Smith, Andrew Sachs, John Bird to name but eight; each one a master/mistress of stage comedy. Patrick Marber’s new production also gets excellent comedy skills out of his cast which really keeps the pace of this play going – but more of the cast later.

May 1973. There’s a Girl in my Soup was just ending its seven year run, No Sex Please We’re British was two years into its extraordinary sixteen year run. The sauciness of Ray Cooney was all the rage. The strapline to this production reads “a filthy farce from a less enlightened age”. From the moment Dr Wicksteed flamboyantly whips off his surgical mask, you know you have been transported back from relatively careworn 2022 to relatively carefree 1973 (the three-day week hadn’t kicked in yet). Perhaps it also symbolises the removal of the mask where it comes to relationships – no more decorum, let’s play it real and dirty. According to the programme, Alan Bennett wrote the play as “an attempt to write farce without the paraphernalia of farce – hiding places, multiple exits and umpteen doors”. As such it is pretty successful. The uncluttered stage at the Menier indeed has no doors, although it does have one hiding place – behind the coffin, that ostentatiously sits in the centre of the stage throughout the whole performance without any member of the cast realising there’s a coffin among them. I can only presume it’s another symbol – of everyone’s eventual death; and that maybe it’s the spur for everyone to get as much sexual shenanigans going as they can before the Grim Reaper steps in. A re-invention of Sondheim’s A Little Night Music song The Miller’s Son for repressed fifty-somethings, perhaps.

And eventually the coffin does get used for something other than a makeshift bed or table, as it opens ceremoniously at the end of the play to welcome the philandering GP Arthur Wicksteed to his eternal rest. Faithful to the original Bennett, we see Arthur dancing furiously to save his life, and the scene does create a fitting bookend to the beginning of the play, where Arthur confides in us that he spends his whole time as a doctor telling his patients they’re going to live – when in fact they’re not.

Ah yes – confiding. That’s how this whole play is structured.  Most of the time the characters are breaking the fourth wall and confiding in us, serially delivering asides in our direction. Their interaction with each other is comedy pantomime, but the truth is largely only shared directly with the audience. At first this is a very amusing convention, with cleaning lady Mrs Swabb acting as a game-show host introducing the characters, discussing their ages and hobbies; blink and you could be watching Double Your Money or Take Your Pick. But after a while, I really tired of this approach, although the characters definitely don’t! Bennett plunges us into a surreal world populated with people who are either not getting any sex, not getting enough sex or not getting the sex they want. During the course of the play, people change partners, get caught out, are confronted with reality; past sins catch up with them, future hopes are dashed. It’s a stark and unglossy view of life and love, and at the end, the outlook is bleak for everyone. For a sex comedy, this is a pretty surreal one.

Sex comedies. They don’t write them anymore. New farces are also few and far between, and it’s fascinating that they are currently so out of favour; they worked so well for the likes of George Feydeau, Ben Travers and Brian Rix. So when you see a play like Habeas Corpus it really stops you in your tracks. Was it really “a less enlightened age”? It made me wonder if it was possibly more enlightened in some ways. There is nothing (nearly nothing) about Habeas Corpus that is remotely offensive, and none of its subject matter comes close to anything in the works of Joe Orton, for example. Sure, it’s all about sex and death, but then, isn’t Hamlet? If anything, looking back on a hit sex comedy from fifty years ago makes you realise that actually they weren’t that daring or that un-PC after all; if anything, you rather hoped it might be more outrageous.

The funniest – and probably filthiest – scene is where the doctor’s wife is mistaken for his sister; the latter has invested in some false boobs to make her look sexier and is visited by the man from Leatherhead who ensures (naturally) they have been properly fitted. Unfortunately he is (erroneously) extremely impressed by the doctor’s wife’s chesty presence and feels her up (to her delight) albeit with purely academic interest. Naturally the man from Leatherhead spends the rest of the play in his underpants, because – well, why wouldn’t you? The double-joke is that whilst the wife is turned on by the boob-fondling fitter, he’s only doing it from a purely professional point of view and has no interest in any subsequent sexual advances. Of course, the randy woman/meek man comedy combination is frequently the source of comedy gold – think George and Mildred, or Victoria Wood’s song about Freda and Barry. It’s timeless.

Timeless; but nevertheless there is something about this production that doesn’t work for me, and feels strangely irrelevant to life in the 2020s. Certainly one aspect is that today we don’t look on someone trying to hang themselves as a source of humour. That difference is very stark, and you feel very uncomfortable when presented with it on stage to laugh at. I also think the central figure of the cleaning lady, constantly commenting on the action, feels very much of a bygone era; that type of role was more or less killed off with the appearance of Dotty Otley/Mrs Clackett in Noises Off, or, again citing Victoria Wood, Mrs Overall. And then, you’ve got all those very artificial asides, which really do wear you down after a while!

Despite all these niggles, it is still an entertaining and enjoyable show. It uses 70s pop music to great effect – I ended up singing Sweet’s Wig Wam Bam to myself for the rest of the day and I’ll never think of Hocus Pocus by Focus in the same way ever again. There’s an excellent central performance by Jasper Britton as Wicksteed, revealing his sexual peccadillos to us whilst concealing them from everyone else on stage; it’s a performance full of energy and impishness. Catherine Russell is also excellent as his wife Muriel, channelling her inner Patricia Routledge (there’s a lot of Hyacinth Bouquet and Kitty in there) with a frostiness that gives way to sheer sensual pleasure. Ria Jones, in her straight play debut, brings a huge amount of character to Mrs Swabb, a slave to her Hoover.

Dan Starkey is brilliant as the pompous and bossy Sir Percy, fighting his short-man syndrome, Matthew Cottle perfect as the frustrated and not terribly forgiving Canon Throbbing, and there’s an excellent supporting performance by Abdul Salis as Shanks, the man from Leatherhead, horrified at being used as a sex object. But everyone puts in a very good performance and keeps the show moving at a cracking pace. It’s fascinating to have the opportunity to see a comedy like this, firmly from a different era, but in a modern context; it informs our understanding of its own time better than it does of our current times; but, let’s face it, nostalgia is always irresistible!

3-starsNice and three-sy does it!

 

P. S. Tomorrow, it’s the Eleventh Annual Chrisparkle Awards! Exciting – will your favourites be amongst the winners?