Stroke of Genius: My Perfect Mind at the Young Vic

Saturday 13th April 2013, matinée

Some people say reviews are important because they form a useful record, an evocation of the theatrical experience for those who were not able to attend.  Well, not in this case – My Perfect Mind defies description, evocation or any other meaningful adjectives.  The tone is set when Paul Hunter bounds onto the stage to address the audience, announcing that due to a knee injury to one of the cast (it’s a two-hander), the performance may be ‘more improvisational than usual’.  Our minds were immediately set racing at the idea of the various acrobatics which Edward Petherbridge might otherwise have pulled off had his knee been fully functional.  We also liked the ‘mobile phone’ announcement, an art at which the Young Vic is becoming rather good.  Please keep your mobile switched on at all times, we are urged – then you can make calls, text and browse the internet whenever you like.

My Perfect Mind is a play about a performance that never happened.  Edward Petherbridge, having received the offer of a lifetime, to play King Lear in New Zealand, succumbed to a stroke which put paid to his ambition.  Toying with the idea of a ‘one man Lear’, he was lucky enough to meet Paul Hunter, founding member of the theatre company Told By An Idiot, who along with Kathryn Hunter, helped him devise this show instead.  Hunter and Petherbridge met in another ill-fated production, the short-lived West End run of the ‘Fantasticks’ which also featured David Burt, and we wish we’d gone to see it now.  Instead, we are very pleased to see the result of this chance meeting, a double act to be savoured.  Hunter is a manic bundle of energy, anarchic and always edgy – even when smiling.  He plays everything from a German Psychiatrist (is this borderline racist? he asks at one point – well several points), to Laurence Olivier playing Richard the III and Othello as a composite character.  Petherbridge meanwhile has taken the famous advice ‘Don’t just do something – stand there’ to the ultimate level.  Not only does he seem to command the stage with almost no effort, he makes the tiniest of trivia engrossing, constantly undercutting any hint of grandiosity.  Interrupting a speech to wonder why Shakespearean actors always hold an arm out when declaiming, complaining about a misplaced chair, or letting us know that he is aware that there is a big hole in the stage.

If you are looking for any deep interpretation of ‘King Lear’, good luck.  The real delight of this play is the forensic deconstruction of the acting life that we find amongst the debris of Petherbridge’s shattered ambition.  An actor’s life can only be understood by grasping the sheer absurdity and inherent contradictions.  The glory is always besieged by insecurity; extreme sensitivity must be coupled with a thick skin; actors must maintain the illusion of control whilst having none.  We are constantly reminded of the mechanics of theatre – there are some tips about how to do a good mime and some neat subversion of it, and thanks to Michael Vale’s design the stage appears to be half built and on a precarious slope, inviting the comment from Petherbridge that it looks like either ‘pretension or carelessness’, neither of which are ideal.  The story is constantly being reframed so that we are never quite sure what to believe, with Lear’s key ‘madness’ played as a therapy session involving interpretative art and a lot of paint throwing.

As we said, indescribable.  What we can’t convey is the delightfully self-deprecating humour which infuses these ninety minutes of tragi-comedy – as Petherbridge himself described it in an interview, this is the booby prize.  But it’s a highly enjoyable and heart-warming booby prize which is genuinely theatrical.  It might be a tale ‘Told by an idiot’ but these people are no fools.

Update 6th May 2013: and for a view from the horses mouths, check out this interview from Theatrevoice

That name rings a bell: Lionel Bart’s Quasimodo at the King’s Head

Sunday 24th March 2013, matinée

Like its protagonist, Quasimodo is a quasi Lionel Bart musical, not quite finished, dark and violent in places, but with a kind heart.  Bizarrely, director Robert Chevera went to the Bart estate to ask about another piece, and was instead offered Quasimodo, with a partial score, a showcase CD with a few songs and the chance of putting on a posthumous world premiere.

Based on Victor Hugo’s novel, ‘Notre-Dame de Paris’, the plot is full of complexity, encompassing many characters (not least the cathedral of Notre Dame itself) and themes.  It could be said that it is the alluring gypsy-girl Esmeralda who really drives the plot forward through the prejudice she suffers, and the adoration she inspires.  The Archdeacon of Notre Dame, Claude Frollo, is captivated by her charms, but realising he cannot succeed in seducing her his lust turns to jealousy and hatred.  Meanwhile, she is in love with army captain Phoebus, who is already engaged but deceives her nonetheless.  Only Quasimodo seems to show her real kindness when he rescues her from a false charge of attempted murder and keeps her in the church, believing she will be safe under the laws of sanctuary.  Sadly his love is not fully reciprocated and he is ultimately not able to save her.

Bearing in mind that other Hugo-based musical ‘Les Miserables’ and its epic scale, anyone who has been inside the King’s Head will know we are not exaggerating when we say this is a bold enterprise.  In some ways, the staging is almost too bold.  With a network of ladders upstage and a mezzanine platform which represents the bell-tower, the set allows for plenty of dynamism (with an unexpected broken table adding a dangerous edge for those of us in the front row), but in other ways the setting is a little to literal for such a small space.  Less paraphernalia would have allowed us to use our imagination more, especially when the action was set outside or on the steps of the cathedral. 

We also can’t help having a little whine about the costumes.  There’s nothing wrong with modern dress if that is a conscious choice, but the mash-up of medieval grunge with modern touches such as motorcycle boots, leathers, string vests and hoodies is distracting and irritating.  James Wolstenholme has done well to snaffle the best costume as Archdeacon Frollo, but it looks as though the budget ran out half way through and the rest of the cast had to make do with a random mix of modern and historical.  Perhaps we are underestimating the difficulty of the task, but we would have thought that it would be quite easy to make peasants look authentic.

Of course we shouldn’t lose sight of the main reason for putting on this production – a chance to see a ‘lost’ musical by the legendary Lionel Bart.  And this cast, assisted by a trio of musicians led by musical director Peter Mitchell, certainly do the music justice.  Steven Webb has a warm and melodious voice which brings out the contrast between the outward appearance of the hunchback (more on this later) and his good heart.  Zoe George does an excellent job of playing both innocence and streetwise bravado as Esmeralda, and James Hume as the poet Pierre Gringoire whom she marries to save his life (don’t ask), and James Wolstenholme as Frollo have their moments as the epitome of goodness and evil respectively.  There are many numbers to enjoy, ranging from the upbeat song in which Quasimodo introduces his bells to Esmeralda, to the touching ‘turn to stone’, in which he wishes he could be like the gargoyles which adorn the cathedral.  Esmeralda’s duet with her ‘husband’, ‘Abracadabra’ is particularly effective as a topsy-turvy love song, while the black comedy is given free reign in ‘Deaf as a doornail’.  A cast recording would certainly be a worthwhile enterprise.

There is however an elephant in the room.  Very rarely is it appropriate to comment on the physical beauty or otherwise of cast members, but in this case it is impossible to ignore the fact that Steven Webb is a very nice looking young man, with no signs of disfigurement or deformity.  In a story which has such a strong theme of prejudice, including appearance, where characters literally reel back in horror at the ugliness of Quasimodo, you really can’t duck the issue.  Webb suggests deformity by his posture, but not consistently, and with no hunchback as such, and only a painted birthmark covering half his face and a contact lens to suggest his missing eye, it is impossible to believe in the fear and horror that his appearance is meant to provoke, or the physical strength which adds to the fear he inspires, and without this frisson, it is hard to really appreciate the human emotions which emerge from the ‘monster’ and the message which Hugo wanted to give.  Quasimodo looks like a self-conscious lovestruck teenager, but ultimately this misses the point – in the fifteenth century there was no such thing as adolescence, and it is this which makes his love for Esmeralda so touching.  This is not a story which is improved by giving it a modern sensibility.

Yet this production, though frustrating at times, is well worth seeing for the quality of the cast and the strength of Bart’s music which shines through and gives us an intriguing glimpse of what might have been if he had lived to polish up this gem.  There is one note of caution we should sound, along with a spoiler.  This version is true to Hugo’s original work, in that Esmeralda meets a tragic end.  As a mother sitting behind us with her two young children was moved to point out as our heroine swung from the gallows ‘It’s not like the Disney version is it?’  Disney it certainly ain’t, and all the better for it.

Alice in Wordy-land: Peter and Alice at the Noel Coward Theatre

Saturday 23rd March 2013, matinée

Approaching the Noel Coward Theatre for the matinée performance of ‘Peter and Alice’, the latest outing for the Michael Grandage Company, we were quite surprised to see the ‘House Full’ sign out and a long queue for returns.  With a cast including Judi Dench, we would expect a great deal of interest, but we can’t help feeling that the ‘Q and M’ factor may also be at work, with Dench, who now plays ‘M’ in the Bond films reuniting with her ‘Q’, Ben Wishaw, who also has some impressive stage credentials.  The main question in our minds was whether the new material would be worthy of such a cast.

Peter and Alice is a result of one of those ‘interesting facts’ chanced upon by writer John Logan (who as the writer for Skyfall completes the Bond triumvirate), about a meeting between Alice Liddell Hargreaves, who was the inspiration for ‘Alice in Wonderland’, and Peter Llewelyn Davies, who gave his name, if not his personality, to Peter Pan.  Most of us might have our curiosity similarly piqued at the idea of these two figures meeting up, but we’re not sure how many people might think it would make a good play.  Not exactly a drama, the play gradually tells the story of their lives through the characters they were associated with, and it transpires that the connections were more tenuous than we thought.  Apparently it was Peter’s brother Michael who provided the true inspiration for the character of the boy who never grew up, but presumably Peter Pan sounded better than Michael Man, so his name was borrowed.

The lack of dramatic tension is a key problem with the play itself.  The meeting, though potentially intriguing, is ultimately a non-story.  The stakes are low, and the format is too fragile to carry the large weight of emotional baggage which is piled onto it.  Interestingly, some of the points of fact which might have given the story more of a punch, are left out, particularly some of the circumstances of Peter’s death.  The staging itself doesn’t really add much to the story – this could easily be a radio play, and one can even imagine getting more out of it without the visuals.  Essentially, we are told about the action rather than shown it, and although there are some moving accounts and reminiscences, it is very difficult to stay engaged and involved without a plot to hold them together or a sense of where they are going, either intellectually or emotionally.  Similarly the visual style is not particularly imaginative, which is rather ironic given that the story involves two of the most imaginative literary talents we have.  Having both Lewis Carroll and J M Barrie on stage only reminds us of a more interesting topic, the creative process and the ways in which the interactions between the adult writers and their child-muses led to these classic works being written.  Whist there are allusions to this there is no real exploration.  Comparisons are odious, but we can’t help thinking of the work of Shared Experience in Bronte and Mary Shelley which offered so many insights into the literary minds of the writers depicted.  The other major theme of the play, the First World War, has also been given so many more sophisticated and moving treatments, not least in the recently revived Journey’s End, that the accounts in this play pale by comparison.

We can’t complain about the cast, all of whom did their best with the material.  A special mention needs to go to Nicholas Farrell as Lewis Carroll, whose talents were shockingly wasted.  We also found it rather jarring to cast the two fictional characters, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan, with adults, who really didn’t have a hope of capturing the childlike innocence about which the play is so rhapsodic.  Without that element of authenticity (albeit a fictional one), the play seems even more contrived.  Judi Dench wrings as much humour as she can from the verbal sparring, and is of course imposing as the eighty year old woman who has finally come to find some solace in her status as the ‘real Alice’, but once again we would have liked to see her rise to a greater challenge.  This was our first sight of Ben Wishaw on stage, and we had high expectations following his transformational TV version of Richard II.  A master of passive aggression and vulnerability, he certainly brought plenty to the table, although we did have one small beef from our positions in the balcony seats.  Whether it was down to floppy hair, or rusty stage technique we rarely saw his face.  So we hope to see more of him next time he takes the stage, literally and metaphorically.

It is not often that we leave a ninety minute play wanting less rather than more, and one does wonder how such a flimsy piece has managed to get so easily into the West End.

The importance of being certain: David Auburn’s Proof at the Menier Chocolate Factory

Saturday 16th March 2013, matinée

Families have always been a rich seam for dramatists and audiences alike, perhaps because we all seek to answer the question ‘why are we the way we are?’ or more scarily ‘are we becoming like our parents?’  These are the sort of  questions David Auburn works through meticulously in his 2005 play ‘Proof’, in a new production at the Menier Chocolate Factory.  The title plays on both the mathematical goal of certainty in the world of numbers, coupled with the innate and ultimately unfulfillable human desire for certainty in the world of identity, emotions and relationships.

Set against the backdrop of an academic community where only certainty has any credence, the story centres around Catherine, the young daughter of Robert, a world famous mathematician who has succumbed to mental illness and has been cared for by her for five years until his death.   We find her sparring with Hal, a former protégé who has been examining the notes Robert wrote during his illness hoping to find some ‘great work’ among the random scribblings , the result of graphomania in his later years.  Into this mix comes Claire, Catherine’s  older sister, determined to solve the mess with a pragmatic and single-minded common sense which comes from being at a distance for so long.  At the core of the action is Catherine’s fear ‘I think I’m like my Dad’, and through these four well-rounded characters we explore what it means to be a father, daughter, sister and lover, and the true value of the gifts our parents give us.

As Catherine, Mariah Gale delivers a subtle and nuanced performance, avoiding the usual clichés associated with youthful rebellion.   Her Catherine is vulnerable and socially awkward, yet warm and intelligent, and with her biting laconic style she makes every line into a flash of insight. 

Matthew Marsh, a hugely under-rated actor in our opinion, played the young physicist Werner Heisenberg in an outstanding production of  ‘Copenhagen’ many years ago, so it was particularly satisfying to see him here returning to play a mathematician fifteen years later – he clearly has something of the boffin about him.  His performance is richly understated and he delicately portrays the genius trying to come to terms with his own mental deterioration with disarming humanity.  He is just as distressed by the effect on his daughter as he is about his own lost years of work, and the scene where he has to face the truth about his mental impairment is heartbreaking.

Jamie Parker’s Hal brings light relief and a nerdy charm with some well-judged comedy, and it is easy to see why Catherine becomes attracted to him, although he is just ambiguous enough to keep us guessing about his motives.  Emma Cuniffe as Claire gives a sympathetic portrayal of the sister that got away, trying to do the right thing while fighting a nagging sense of guilt about the past.  She captures the sense of being the most ‘normal’ family member who nevertheless feels like a fish out of water when she gets back home.

In short, where x is an outstanding cast, y an imaginative and witty playwright, and z and well executed production, x + y + z = the best night out in the Menier we’ve had in a long time.  And just to add icing to the cake, we had a perfect view of the action.  Looks like they have finally found the perfect formula for their seating plan.

Not exactly Chekhov: William Boyd’s ‘Longing’ at the Hampstead Theatre

Saturday 2nd March, 2013

Seeing the name ‘Iain Glen’ in the same sentence as Chekhov again after seeing him in a thrilling production of Uncle Vanya at the Print Room, we didn’t need much persuading to book for ‘Longing’, William Boyd’s adaptation of two Chekhov short stories, and the nearest thing to an undiscovered play we were likely to get.  The lengthy returns queue when we arrived at the Hampstead Theatre confirmed that we were not alone in being intrigued at the prospect, and with a cast including Glen, Tamsin Grieg and John Sessions, we were eager to see the result.

In many ways this production is almost more Chekhovian than Chekhov himself, with all the recognisable elements immediately present.  The Doctor (this time female); the overworked lawyer who can’t find time to be happy; the pampered wife who must face losing her family’s estate, and of course her sisters.  There is also some politics thrown in with a character who has defied his middle class father to work with his hands.  We would never have known that this was based on two short stories – they have been cleverly intertwined and realised as a drama.  We don’t know much about William Boyd as a dramatist, but from watching the TV adaptation of his novel ‘Any Human Heart’, with its delightfully self-deflating ending, we should have known that this adaptation was unlikely to deliver the subtle emotional wrench that comes from spending four acts with characters whose situation may not change, but who tend to change us.

At two hours, this is a comparatively slight piece, a stroll round the block rather than a long walk through the Cherry Orchard, and ultimately, the characters don’t have time to engage us, and the plot is too simplistic, both in terms of action and emotion.  Without enough subtext or back story, it is too easy to say ‘so what?’ to the wistful ending.

Having said that, the cast exploit the play to the full, teasing out every emotion and opportunity for humour.  This was the first time we had seen Tamsin Grieg on stage and she certainly proves worthy of the praise which seems to have been heaped on her in recent years.  As Varia, the Doctor who briefly hopes for a second chance at romance, she delivers a pin sharp and witty performance, never letting you forget what is bubbling underneath, and allowing us just enough emotion to sense the toll that years of repression have taken.  As the object of her affection, Kolia, Iain Glen rises to the occasion, especially when his animosity with Sergei comes out, but ultimately we felt that he didn’t get the opportunity to sink his teeth into a character who appeared to have no real objective.  Alan Cox as Sergei, the profligate husband, is pleasingly pompous with a dissolute charm and unwarranted optimism in the face of adversity.  The sincerity of his belief that he is just an idealist adds to the exasperation he causes.  It is a breath of fresh air to see John Sessions back on stage as the shamelessly ‘nouveau’ Dolzikhov.  And on that point, only Sessions seemed comfortable with the Scottish accent which some of the cast were inexplicably given.

We are sure this production will attract a lot of interest, but ultimately we’d probably opt for an actual Chekhov next time.

Fruit cake on the menu at the Cafe France: Jerry Herman’s ‘Dear World’ enjoys a sojourn at the Charing Cross Theatre

Saturday 16th February 2013, matinée

There were no problems deciding whether to go and see ‘Dear World’ at the Charing Cross Theatre.  As their publicity puts it – four legends unite to create theatrical history, and for once it’s not an exaggeration.  A long overdue UK premier of a work with music and lyrics by Jerry Herman starring Betty Buckley and Paul Nicholas, directed by Gillian Lynne, who helped to make ‘Phantom of the Opera’ such a memorable production with her choreography.  And the availability of £15 tickets was a welcome bonus.  Having booked in August, we were pretty disappointed to arrive on the 9th February to find the matinée performance cancelled, due to ‘electrical problems’.  A glance at www.broadwayworld.com told us that the cancellation was due to Paul Nicholas being ill, so we are not sure which explanation to believe, unless he is in fact a robot.  And so, a week later, we were very glad to take up our seats without incident.

‘Dear World’ is based on the play by Jean Giraudoux ‘The Madwoman of Chaillot’, and billed as a musical fable.  It is not particularly easy to synopsise, but we will try.  All in the space of one afternoon, an eccentric old lady who owns a pavement cafe in Paris defeats some ruthless businessmen who want to turn Paris into an oilfield, reminisces about her lost love and does some match-making, all with the help of a rather mystical ‘Sewer man’ and her two friends, both with their own distinct brands of madness.  This is definitely a story in which the journey is more important than the destination.

Jerry Herman was known to have wanted a more ‘intimate’ setting for ‘Dear World’ after the Broadway production closed, and we are sure he would be thrilled with this one.  Gillian Lynne both directs and choreographs, and she has lavished care and attention to bring out the warmth, humour and eccentricity of the piece, without diluting the message for modern audiences, with the individual fighting against the march of greedy capitalism.  The choreography is well judged, combining traditional and romantic sequences with some wonderful comic moments, particularly with the three ‘presidents’ and the sewer man.  The action flows along beautifully, savouring this strange world as it goes.

Lynne has found a very special cast for this production.  We never thought we would get to see Betty Buckley on the London stage, and certainly not under the arches of the Charing Cross Theatre.  It’s easy to see why she is so widely admired – as countess Aurelia, her star quality shines through, with numbers such as ‘I don’t want to know’ and ‘And I was beautiful’.  She is ably supported by Rebecca Lock (Gabriella) and Annabel Leventon (Constance), her two friends, who seem to compete in ever more fanciful ideas.  Gabriella has an imaginary dog, whom she only takes out occasionally, making it very difficult to tell the ‘real’ imaginary dog from the ‘imaginary’ imaginary dog, and Constance is a clairvoyant whose ‘voices’ move around her house, taking up residence in her pillow, hot water bottle, etc.  Their attempts to have logical discussions about this are hilarious.  It was a special treat to see Paul Nicholas, another West End legend.  As the sewer man, he exuded exactly the right amount of effortless charm and absolute authority whilst dispensing his own brand of completely absurd wisdom, and his rendition of ‘Have a little pity on the rich’ was a joy to watch.  WIth Peter Land, Robert Meadmore and Craig Nicholls (a late addition) on excellent form as the evil capitalists, and Stuart Matthew Price and Kate Treharne sweetly tuneful as the young lovers, this was a cast to enjoy.

Having said all that, we wouldn’t call this classic Herman.  Jean Giraudoux is said to have coined the phrase ‘only the mediocre are always at their best’, and this seems an apt back-handed compliment in Herman’s case – after all, he is certainly not a mediocre talent.  There are some recognisable elements to enjoy, particularly the warmth, the strong characters, the hummable tunes and the wider feel-good message.  But whilst this is an eminently enjoyable ramble through a surreal world, there is no real sense of jeopardy, and despite her powerful presence in the story, the Countess Aurelia is in part a spectator, and she only gives a brief glimpse of her inner world before shutting it away again.  Nevertheless, this is a rare opportunity to see a lesser-known work given the production it deserves.

Rising up the pecking order: Julian Bird is appointed Chair of Drama UK

Was anyone else a little puzzled by the recently-announced appointment of Julian Bird as ‘Chair’ of Drama UK, an organisation formed from a merger between the National Council for Drama Training and the Conference of Drama Schools.

Bird is certainly enjoying a meteoric rise in the world of theatre, but why, we ask?

According to The Stage, he has served on the boards of the Yvonne Arnaud theatre and the De La Warr Pavillion, but he has only been in the business of full time arts management since 2007 when he joined the Tate as chief operating officer.  It wasn’t long before he become chief executive of the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association in June 2010.  It’s not clear whether this new appointment of Chair of Drama UK is an additional ‘honour’ or an actual job, but either way, we find it quite worrying.  If he was acting as chief executive, that might be a bit more understandable, but the position of ‘Chair’ usually indicates a figurehead of some kind, and a role which determines the future path of the organisation.  And why would you appoint as chair of an organistaion purporting to champion drama training a person who did a degree in Economics, went into banking and then worked for the FSA for seven years?  A passion for theatre is all very well, but what does he really know about acting and drama training?

And if he retains his role as chief executive of SOLT/TMA, surely there is a conflict of interest.  These organisations exist partly to negotiate with the acting unions of behalf of employers, and Bird has made his credentials pretty clear when it comes to prioritising ‘biz’ over ‘show’.  One of his great achievements has been to secure sponsorship from Mastercard for the Olivier Awards, including a stipulation that only Mastercard holders can book tickets (remember the similar controversy when Visa insisted on a similar monopoly at the Olympics?)  And yet despite obtaining this undisclosed sum from Mastercard, he went on to make the following boast about the awards ceremony in the Stage:

“It has been an impressive profile boost for the event ……  but not one that has been as expensive as you might think.  MasterCard gave financial support for the marketing campaign, while many people in the theatre industry have given their time at low or no cost – especially performers on the night itself.”

So, he might not have done any drama training, but certainly knows a lot about exploiting the good will of performers.

And what is the mission of Drama UK, we wonder.  The website tells us it is “Championing quality drama training in the UK through Advocacy, Assurance and Advice”.  Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?  The Drama UK website aims to become a one-stop-shop resource for information on all kinds of drama training, which shouldn’t surprise us.  However, there is a worrying shift from the remit of the National Council for Drama Training, whose role was to clearly accredit Drama Schools providing a high level of training for students intending to enter the industry.  This accreditation remains, but now it is joined by something else, ‘recognition’, because according to the website

“the drama training landscape has changed significantly in that time and there are now many more providers in this sector running courses that are less vocational than conservatoire training but offer a very real benefit to the industry and routes into a wide range of careers in the Creative and Cultural Industries”

Later we are told that

“It will provide sign-posting of high quality courses which provide a pipeline of talent into the Creative Industries but outside the conservatoire level of vocational training”.

Not quite sure how we feel about that pipeline analogy there.  What we have here is a massive over-supply of drama training, and many of these courses, especially those aimed at children, are big business.  We don’t want to knock those.  After all, there are worse things to spend your money on.  But if these organisations are able to display a kitemark saying that they are ‘recognised by Drama UK’, who is going to know the difference?

Of course, this is exactly what you might expect when making money takes preference – expanding potential membership is a good way of ensuring an income.  But quite how that serves potential drama students and helps to ensure quality in the industry is not clear.  Have a look at the website – it makes interesting reading.