Julius Caesar (RSC) ***

Julius Caesar is a play filled with confrontation and ambition as powerful forces rise up against each other and fight for the control of arguably the most powerful empire in history. The play hinges on the assassination of Julius Caesar by Brutus and his accomplices.

      

Greg Hicks was a strong Caesar; his refined and considered performance giving us something to relate to in Caesar. He is a powerful man who is trapped but cannot admit to it. This is something that Hicks captures very well with what is the most developed character in the cast despite the remarkably short time he was on the stage. His scene with his wife (played well by Noma Dumezweni) is very well done and is one of the few moments of comedy in the show, which would turn out to be a welcome break. His return as the ghost in the second half is carried off well, the power in his voice being played to the full as he glides on and off.

      

Darrell D’Silva works well as Hicks’ old friend and more robust and passionate counterpart. Playing the same role as he did in Anthony and Cleopatra gave him the chance to really work on the character and having seen the latter it was enlightening to see how he was as a younger man. At one point he storms on and rushes to the back of the stage to throw up, an indication of his less strict lifestyle. His speech over Caesar’s corpse was moving and well done.

      

John Mackay suffered in a similar way to his Anthony and Cleopatra of feeling very wooden and as if he put his gestures and the like before his actual character, which was disappointing. Sam Troughton as Brutus played a tormented simple-minded man and is not the kind of person I would have expected to have been cast as Brutus. He didn’t come across as a master of battle but what he lacked in physical power he did something to make up for in emotional struggle, his argument with Portia being the standout moment (interestingly mirrored later in a similar argument with Cassius). He played a good part in the group who assassinated Caesar, being a strong if naïve leader of men but at no point did he feel powerful enough to provide Anthony with opposition of the same class. The relationship between him and Mackay’s Cassius is very well played, though their confrontation appears to lack motivation and comes from nowhere, much like the news of Portia’s death.

      

Those mentioned above and, indeed, most of the cast were capable but not much more. Nobody really made the leap from capable to memorable, the whole show being somewhat one-dimensional in character.

      

Unfortunately, the thing that I will remember most about the show will be the screen and video system that they employed to no great effect at all. Although the partitions at the back of the stage gave a good separation and the appearance of levels there was little else of any benefit. Instead of adding to the show as a whole it worked actively to the detriment of it. There’s no sense in beating around the bush here. The decidedly average videos drew attention away from the action on the stage as we tried to work out the relevance and it continued throughout until midway through the second half where they thankfully ran out of things to do and left it on generic smoke. It was a perfect example of trying to do something that was unjustified by the rest of the production and as such stood out like a sore thumb.

      

The whole production seems somewhat lackluster. What is a brutal play turned out rather one-dimensional and similar all the way through. The battles failed to excite and the rousing speeches were largely dull. The standout exception to this was the actual assassination of Caesar, which was brutal and very well done, the group diving at and around him like a pack devouring its helpless prey. The spray of blood every time the knife hit him was the most dramatic and exciting part of the play. Everything else seemed rushed and skipped and the things that were chosen to focus on appeared to have very little basis in the rest of the show, namely the opening Romulus and Remus conflict.

      

The set barely existed as they kept it bare and it was almost as bland as the costumes in the first half, the second half efforts being only marginally better.

      

So, in summation of all of these positive and negative points what do I have to say about the show? Avocadoes. That is what I have to say about it. You may at this point be forgiven for not knowing what I mean so I shall explain. Avocadoes are a food that I cannot work out whether or not I like. When presented with one I will have more and more and yet still remain undecided at the end as to whether or not I liked it. Many times I have had avocadoes and I still cannot decided whether or not I like them. It puzzles me greatly. This is an avocado play. I just can’t decide whether I liked it or not.  It left me unsatisfied and puzzling over what was going on.

      

On balance, the show was decidedly average. It’s not likely to stimulate much excitement or intellectual development but there are a few moments that make it worth seeing. Greg Hicks and Darrell D’Silva are the stars of the show, even if the firmament is dim at best and their efforts are worth seeing.

Written by William Shakespeare; Directed by Lucy Bailey; at the Roundhouse Theatre; Starring Darrell D'Silva, Greg Hicks, John Mackay, Sam Troughton, Brian Doherty, Hannah Young, Noma Dumezweni; Runs from 06 January 2011 - 05 March 2011 as part of the RSC London Season.

http://www.roundhouse.org.uk/rsc-london-season

John Ord (10/01/11)

A Flea in Her Ear ***

Georges Feydeau has been considered one of the masters of French farce for many years now and his work has been praised for its precision in both producing laughter at carefully designed moments and in its complex stage directions that appear to pre-empt the development of screenwriting. Such a precise approach, having seen the show, appears to have been necessary to the success of it. The amount of doors slamming and other sounds make for surprisingly musical entertainment, with the various actions of the muddled characters on stage mingling elaborately with their speech. Happily, the cast pull this off very well indeed. It is by no means an easy task as many times throughout the show the slams and bangs come between lines and have to be synchronised and orchestrated, which is a very difficult trick to master. It is very much akin to watching an orchestra at work, and working well, too.

      

There were a number of positives about the show that revolved around the amazing energy with which the cast bring the play to life. They energetically rush around the stage in their various states of confusion and horror with each path crossing each other regularly and not once did the ball drop, not once did the objectives of each character seem confused. This is a great success for a show as complex as this. There were moments of stylised physical comedy that worked very well with the overall whole. I liked the chaos and these moments of order amidst the whirling hurricane were a welcome change and synergy and, above all, were fun.

      

At the performance I attended of A Flea in Her Ear the indisposition of Tom Hollander led to the roles of Victor Emmanuel Chandebise and Poche being played by Greg Baldock. The effect that this had on the show is hard to gauge as he by no means felt out of his depth. I thought that his performance was one of the strongest in the whole cast and his efforts with the numerous costume changes and difficult character changes as well should not go unmentioned as they were nothing short of heroic. He led from the front and the cast followed willingly, each bringing a different chaos of their own to add to the cumulative shambles.

      

Lisa Dillon played his wife with the panic and propriety one would expect in a French farce and did so with good effect, keeping a handle on the situation even when it became more and more absurd. Jonathan Cake gave a good account of himself as a ladies’ man lusting after his best friend’s wife and Fiona Glascott as Lucienne Homenides de Histangua was a fitting match for both Lisa Dillon and John Marquez who played her borderline psychotically crazy husband. His gallivanting around the stage, loaded revolver in hand, was hilarious as all the characters crossed paths at the Hotel Coq d’Or. It was, to my mind, the funniest part of the show when they were all running from room to room in varying combinations as more and more chaos erupted from the general melee that had already arisen, the respectable doctor coming down the stairs with his trousers round his ankles and handcuffs on one wrist and the unintelligible Prussian were wonderful touches to the already brimming pot of confusion.

      

It is this part of the play that proves the ability of the cast as they kept themselves in line and adhered to the complex stage directions and managed to achieve the end result of an ordered chaos just as Feydeau would have intended it.

      

Freddie Fox’s struggle with Camille’s inability to speak properly must have been very challenging indeed and he deserves a mention for pulling it off very well. Sounding like a child with a mouth full of cotton wool we were able to grasp the gist of what he was saying even if the individual words escaped us entirely, which allowed us to understand both the frustrations of him and whomever he was talking to, or at least trying to. A good piece of work.

      

Despite all these good points, however, I am struggling to give the show a better review. Although there was chaos and more energy than I’ve seen on stage for a long time there was also something missing. The execution of the show in general was a fine art that is a credit both to the cast and to Richard Eyre as director but the whole show felt almost superficial. I know that by saying that I am pointing out one of the fundamental points of farce but even for that I felt that there was something extra that was missing. The cast were great, the set was amazing, particularly the Hotel Coq d’Or with its staircase and elaborate door systems and revolving bed, the costumes were strong and I found myself laughing pretty consistently throughout and yet I left the theatre thinking that there was something more that could have been done. It was as if the show was hollow somehow. There was most definately characterisation but there didn't appear to be any character underneath. It felt as if they had said 'It would be funny if this character was played in this way here' but failed to unite that to the rest of their role or the rest of the cast in general. This is why it felt as if something wasn't there; the characters weren't. 

      

The performance itself was different to a regular performance; it was a matinee and Tom Hollander and Tim McMullan were indisposed but neither of these factors should have made a difference to the show and I couldn't notice that they had done in any way. Despite these shortfalls I enjoyed it and would recommend it for someone in the mood for watching peoples’ lives fall apart in an undeniably hilarious way before it all comes together again at the end.

      

A capable cast making a good job of what is a very funny play indeed. Well worth a gander.

Written by Georges Feydeau; Directed by Richard Eyre; at the Old Vic Theatre; starring Tom Hollander, Greg Baldock, Lisa Dillon, Freddie Fox, Jonathan Cake, Fiona Glascott, Oliver Cotton; Runs from 04 December 2010 - 05 March 2011.

http://www.oldvictheatre.com/whatson.php?id=69

John Ord (08/01/2011)

The Tipsy Hippo Theatre Awards 2010

I only started reviewing late on in the year and hopefully the few months’ work I have done will act as a solid template for the future and further development. The categories below have all been carefully considered and the various winners chosen by myself on balance against the other contenders for each award. I will explain and justify why each was chosen as well as saying who and what was. All in all, I think that it has been a good year for the theatre in London as I haven't seen many bad shows at all and I have been lucky enough to have seen a far higher number of very good shows indeed, so all is not yet being encompassed by the popular musical drive. Below, as you may have guessed, are my picks of the year (or at least of what I have seen).

I am already looking forward to moving on in 2011 with a spate of good-looking shows coming to town. There'll be plenty of work for me to be getting on with so I hope that you will follow that through the year and go and see the shows yourselves as well, so that you can understand why I've said what I've said and maybe we can start some form of conversation about a few of them! Bring on 2011, but first, here's the best 2010 offered me:

·      Outstanding Drama

o   Winner: Krapp’s Last Tape

Krapp’s Last Tape was a show that I found hard to review. It’s a short piece and there’s not a huge amount that goes on but everything is of importance, every small detail has to contribute to the overall whole and give a very specific and stylised image. When I reviewed it, I looked back and couldn’t think of a single part of the show that counteracted this prerogative. Everything seemed perfectly angled towards the same goal and Michael Gambon’s performance was equally faultless, every moment being a compelling and powerful expression of Krapp as the character and a representative of humanity. He never fell out of character or out of sync with the show itself and the texture he gave the production added so much that it really absorbed you, made you laugh at the right times and in utter silence you found yourself identifying and connecting with Krapp so that when Gambon’s intelligent and simplistic delivery of the text came you were already wrapped up in his story. Worthy of the award simply because there was not a single thing wrong with the show; everything was not just fitting but enhancing and the overall result was overwhelming.

·      Outstanding Comedy

o   Winner: Design for Living

To my mind there can be little doubt as to what was the best comedy show that I have seen, as Design for Living was just so far ahead everything else. Working from a delightful script the actors to a man brought out the little tricks that Noel Coward masterfully laid into the show. Taking it at a steady but still speedy pace the laughs were regular and hearty enough to be almost too much at times as the cast were eager to move onto the next line which was bound to bring more laughter to the Old Vic auditorium. The characters that were brought to life on stage were also incredibly funny, especially Andrew Scott’s Leo, and the way in which each member of the cast (even the smaller roles) brought their characters onto the stage was hilarious in its own right. The scene that brought this out more than any other, I think, is when Otto and Leo are getting drunk after Gilda has left London with Ernest; a wonderful example of silliness and drunkenness on stage without being too over the top. Everything that should have been amusing was hilarious and you found yourself laughing at things that you didn’t expect to be laughing at. All in all, Design for Living was a carefully directed and well-balanced piece that was, above all else, funny and as such fully deserved the Comedy Award.

·      Outstanding New Play

o   Winner: Onassis

New plays are always exciting prospects as you’re never sure what to expect and an interpretation of the last days of Aristotle Onassis presents the problem of biography straight away; how do you mix the necessary narration with live action? If you want to find out the answer to that then Onassis was the perfect place to find it. It effortlessly weaved the necessary narration between the live scenes and did so by using the supporting cast in a way that gave them the opportunity to excel in character. The potentially confusing connections were handled with a relaxed maturity that meant nobody missed out on the important details and the other scenes were compelling and passionate, drawing heavily on Greek heritage and mythology in an interesting and exciting way. The text itself works on a few assumptions that have angered a few people, namely the assumption that Onassis funded the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, an assumption that Martin Sherman says is true thanks to the research of himself and third parties. Regardless of the more contentious aspects of the story, the play itself is strong throughout and keeps the audience engaged and, as such, does a fantastic service to new theatre in the West End.

·      Outstanding Leading Actor

o   Winner: Simon Russell Beale

There were a number of strong lead male performances that I saw, notable challengers including Robert Lindsay for Aristotle Onassis in Onassis and Michael Gambon for Krapp in Krapp’s Last Tape but I felt that Simon Russell Beale’s performance as Sydney Bruhl in Deathtrap deserved the award above the others. The role itself was one of the most demanding that I had seen all year. Keeping on top of the frantically twisting plot is difficult enough let alone the endless meta-theatrical references and jokes as well as the props and characterisation. As if that wasn’t enough he was also the centerpiece of the whole show so the pressure of having to keep it together must have been something that was hard to deal with if recognised. Beale’s performance was composed throughout and at no point did he seem out of his depth, nor did any of his actions spring out of nowhere but everything seemed carefully laid out and planned. As one layer of plot was peeled back, Beale effortlessly moved into the next as if it had always been there. A masterful example of acting.

·      Outstanding Leading Actress

o   Winner: Sinead Matthews

The Glass Menagerie at the Young Vic was a definite contender for the Outstanding Drama award but was pipped at the post by Krapp’s Last Tape. One of the finest features of the production was the performance given by Sinead Matthews that was subtle and refined throughout. Having to play a shy and nervous character with so many bugbears and issues, including the limp and stammer, is not an easy task to pull off without faltering now and again. Matthews was unfaltering in her delivery, so much so that I found myself wondering if they had cast her because she already had the limp and stammer or if she was putting it on. Aside from the physical aspects of the performance were the incredibly high-stake emotional events throughout. There were an awful lot of traumas thrown at her that she managed to deal with majestically. She built such a strong and compelling character that she could withstand enough scrutiny to feel utterly real. A fantastic outing.

·      Outstanding Supporting Performance

o   Winner: Angus Wright

Playing the fourth fiddle to the erotic hotch-potch that is Gilda, Otto and Leo in Noel Coward’s Design for Living is a tall order. The performance must be strong if it is to be remembered against the latently funny and compelling main characters. Ernest, however, does have his charms and his wit and wiles and, I’m pleased to say, Angus Wright misses out on nothing whatsoever. His characterisation from the outset is powerful when contrasted with the main characters; his refined and proper nature becomes almost as hilarious as their outlandishness. Throughout he is the normality by which they are measured against and he supports them unerringly with an assured and confident strength. His speech at the end where he has finally had a sufficient amount of them to snap is marvelously acted and is a credit to Wright, showing he can break out from the rigid confines of what is a strong performance indeed.

·      Outstanding Director

o   Winner: Anthony Page

It’s always difficult to spot where the director’s influence can be seen in a show and perhaps the best compliment for a director is that their work is entirely invisible. Anthony Page’s efforts with Design for Living are a paradigm of this, I think. The whole show holds together so well that it never appears to have needed help. Brilliantly constructed and well paced, it moves effortlessly from one moment to the next with a grace that comes from an open rehearsal period and actors enjoying their work. This is the work of the director and Design for Living appears to manifest this naturally, which is fundamental for the making of the very best theatre. It is due in no small part to Page’s skills as a director that this is the case and it is something that I didn’t see in any other show in 2010.

·      Outstanding Design

o   Winner: Design for Living

There can be very little doubt over the winner of this category. As far as set design goes there were only two contenders, Design for Living and Deathtrap. Where Deathtrap had a set that was laden with marvel and majesty that was exciting in every detail, Design for Living boasted three different sets that were a match for it. The sets changed for each location and each time they improved upon the last with stunningly apt set and props for the locations. The studio in Paris is covered in paint and filled with bohemian furniture and close walls whereas the flats in London and New York are open and spacious, the New York set even boasting a large staircase and a balcony overlooking a beautiful view of the city. They really didn’t miss anything and it was all so well done that it was impossible to deny them the award for Outstanding Design.

·      Outstanding Musical

o   Winner: Me and Juliet

It’s obvious from the outset here that I have only seen one musical this year. This makes choosing which was the best a somewhat easier task than if I had seen even one more but, truth be told, I think the results would have been the same. Me and Juliet was a show that was rivetingly entertaining and enjoyable to watch enough to make an impact in the way that I think musicals are meant to. The reason I haven’t seen another musical this year isn’t due to the fact that I haven’t had much time, it’s more that there hasn’t been anything that has drawn me in. This includes the new Love Story and Love Never Dies that, despite some good reviews, fail to ignite any fire of excitement. This worries me as a large contingent of the West End theatres are taken up by musicals at the expense of straight theatre, which is harming the development of theatre as a more serious art form in my opinion. Having said that, Me and Juliet is a wonderful example of what small theatres can do with a limited space and a relatively small cast. This is the next avenue for musicals and the Finborough Theatre is leading the way.

·       Outstanding Shakespeare

o   Winner: The Winter’s Tale

I had previously struggled with The Winter’s Tale, finding some of it difficult to sit through and hard to accept, most notably the end, but this production managed to throw all this to one side and gave a magical interpretation of the text. The set was striking, with the two large bookcases that fell crashing to the stage, scattering it with pages and books that became the scenery working fantastically well. The whole show had the feel of a magical fairy tale that worked in a slightly different world to our own but still had a real and painful grounding, particularly in Hermione’s trial and the fall of Leontes, brilliantly played by Greg Hicks and Kelly Hunter. The whole RSC ensemble came together wonderfully, each actor giving a wonderful character to each of their roles, notably Darrell D’Silva and John Mackay, and even the people with smaller roles such as Noma Dumezweni and Larrington Walker gave everything to the show, resulting in an obviously powerful overall cast. Going in I wasn’t expecting such a great show and coming out I am still taken aback by how good it was. A masterful and intelligent version of a difficult Shakespearean text.

·      Show of the Year

o   Winner: Design for Living

This is the category that overarches all the others, that gives one show the acclaim of the best thing I’ve seen all year. To win in this category the show must excel in all aspects of the production, from the acting and the directing to the set design, the script and materials used to create the piece, the music and even the little things that most people won’t even care about. The show must not only excel on all these counts but must do so in a greater way than all other shows that I attend over the course of the year. This is not easy to do but Design for Living undoubtedly succeeded. Having already scooped up a number of awards in the regular categories above, it seemed difficult to deny it this special award.

And who would want to deny it? It was a fantastic show. The pacing was perfect and everything came together in a perfect synergy. The piece was wonderfully scripted and the actors picked up on all the nuances in the text, bringing them to vibrant and hilarious life. The set design was sublime, each of the three locations were beautifully characterised and each felt far more real than should be allowed in a theatre. Everything about the show fitted everything else and it had an overall feel that was dumbfounding. It just felt great. The costumes and production photos gave a wonderful image of the show as well. It was funny and refined throughout, striking a wonderful balance between comedy and drama with the volatile relationship between the main trio the center of everything.

It was the only show I saw in which everything felt and looked and worked like it was in the right place, like everything was adding to the whole and that everyone involved was having a ball doing it. It was the most open and enjoyable experience of any theatre form I’ve seen and it enhanced the show, making it a confident and self-assured production that gathered momentum as the run went on and improved, which is not an easy thing to do. There was nothing about it that fell short of the high benchmark set by everything else and as such I deem it as deserving of the Show of the Year award. If you saw this show you will not forget it. This was what theatre should be.

John Ord (04/01/2011)