Victoria Sadler's Blog, page 23

Exhibition: Isabella Blow - Fashion Galore! at Somerset House

Seven years after her death, Isabella Blow's image remains deeply etched into the public consciousness. Though she sadly took her own life in 2007, she is remembered because of her extraordinary sense of style. This unique fashion legacy is celebrated in this dynamic and exciting exhibition at Somerset House.



The wardrobe on show is vast. The exhibition covers dozens of rooms across two floors. And the quality of the curation is superb. An army of mannequins dressed in the most exquisite fashion, numerous catwalk video clips, recorded interviews and fashion shoot photography all weave together effortlessly in this confident presentation.



As expected, the exhibition is dominated by pieces from her most favoured designers. Isabella's eye for talent was, and remains, unmatched. She was drawn to the brilliant, to the innovative and could spot them a mile off.



Alexander McQueen pieces are everywhere. This was after all a man Isabella famously picked for success straight from his graduation show at Central St Martins in 1992, spotting the craftsmanship in his Jack the Ripper-inspired collection. The exhibition is almost as much a reflection of his work, with pieces from his debut collection all the way through to 2007.



There is also much Julien Macdonald, especially his revolutionary knitwear from the early stages of his career. There is also plenty of Hussein Chalayan and Manolo Blahnik.



And then there are the hats! Dozens and dozens of extraordinary Philip Treacy designs in every colour and structural design possible. A real eye-catcher is the 'galleon' hat - a ship with sails about a foot tall made entirely from black feathers. That this is a testament to the period when ladies wore hats shaped as boats to commemorate English naval victories against the French reflects Isabella's appreciation for the heritage of fashion as well as the new.



In one of the interviews projected against the wall in one of the rooms, Isabella talks about how it's this mix of reverence and revolution that draws her to certain designers. Yet it's clear the complexity she admired in others reflected her complex self.



The show has great reverence but there's also great humour. Each mannequin has a signature pair of deep red lips as an homage to the muse. There's also Isabella's business cards and her rolodex filled with contact details, all written in her signature pink ink. Penis-shaped confetti, polaroids and fashion shoots she designed... It all brings warmth and character to the exhibition.



Another lovely touch was the inclusion - without apology - of Isabella's more damaged items such as her scuffed Givenchy mules and the McQueen coat complete with cigarette burns. It's a lovely reminder that what Isabella loved, she wore. And wore and wore and wore. Nothing was saved for special occasions in her wardrobe. To her, these pioneering fashion items were not museum pieces.



However this exhibition is very much focused on Isabella's fashion legacy. Her personal life is not centre stage. There are scant details about her family (a previously wealthy landed family who lost their estate), her marriage or her suicide.



Perhaps the intention is to let Isabella's dramatic and unique wardrobe speak for and reflect her complex personality. Or perhaps, only wanting to remember Isabella positively, her personal troubles are obfuscated.



Either way you do leave the exhibition not knowing that much more about the woman underneath the wardrobe than you did when you entered. But the primary message of this show is that fashion needn't be disposable and superficial but innovative brave and emotive. And most importantly, fashion should be worn.



Somerset House, London



To March 2, 2014



Picture credits: Isabella Blow, 1997 © Mario Testino

Will Social Media Make Theatre Press Nights Redundant?

January is a very busy month in theatre-land as new shows open, taking the place of the Christmas themed productions. Yet in this scramble amongst critics to attend all the press nights, I'm increasingly of the opinion that social media is making press nights redundant.



For those unfamiliar with the traditional set-up for theatre, it goes like this. A show opens with a number of preview nights. These run for about a week with cheaper prices. This gives the production time to see how audiences react (are they laughing in the right places?) as well as iron out any technical glitches before the big night.



The big night is press night. That's when all the theatre critics are invited to come along and review the show. After that, the show is in its run, ticket prices are higher and the success (or otherwise) of the production becomes apparent.



So there we are. Sounds straightforward, right? Not anymore. Not in the age of social media.



As soon as the curtain drops, audiences are straight onto Twitter to tell their followers - and the world - just what they think of what they've seen. Is the show good? Is it bad? What's the acting like? etc etc. And this happens straight away. There's no social media embargo for paying audiences - not at all. As soon as they've seen the preview show, they can tweet about it all they like.



In fact, you can even get this kind of info during the interval of the first show - the hashtag #intervaltweets is now a very popular way of following feedback on shows. Indeed I use this hashtag myself for all the shows I go to see.



Pretty much all the theatres in the West End are clued up to this and scour social media for feedback on the show straight away. When they spot great feedback, they might even 'favourite' or 'retweet' the comment to their followers - spread the word. (I've no idea what they do if the tweets are overwhelmingly negative. Feed that back to the production team, maybe??)



But anyway, there it is. As soon as a show opens - the first preview night, not press night - you can read all about it on Twitter and Facebook.



Yet press review conventions have remained. Tweet about it all you want but news outlets are requested to review only from press night onwards.



However some bloggers are now filling this gap between first preview night and press night by writing longer reviews online. They are not bound by the same rules because, apart from anything else, they buy their own tickets and are not employed by traditional outlets.



I've been burnt by this convention in the past - twice.



On both occasions I bought my own ticket, tweeted my (as it turned out, positive) thoughts straight away then posted my reviews here on the Huffington Post, a largely blogging website.



Yet on both occasions the theatres concerned retweeted my positive comments on Twitter straight away but complained about my full review going up on the Huffington Post.



Can theatres have it both ways? Can they both flaunt positive feedback on preview nights yet censor longer reviews being posted online?



Social media is crucial to the future of theatre. Theatre has to interact with new audiences, the next generation, if it's going to compete for a share of the entertainment audience with television and film. Yet this new generation they're trying to win over largely reject traditional media outlets for reviews on shows, preferring bloggers and the diversity of opinions on social media instead. Even the award-winning actor Hattie Morahan added her voice to that last year saying she too likes to read the blogs.



There certainly is a growing number of theatre bloggers. In addition to me on the Huffington Post there are also others such as West End Whingers, West End Wilma and The Other Bridge Project. Some of these abide by the press night convention; others do not (for the record, now I do).



Maybe some will argue that theatre cannot change the set-up, that they need preview nights. Yet that's not always the case.



For some shows, especially where runs are short, the first night is the official press night. This often happens at the Southbank Centre and Sadler's Wells, for instance. So it is possible that in the medium to long term, theatre could adapt and follow suit. If it does, if preview nights disappear, it will be because of social media and the impact that has had on disseminating feedback and reviews.



For all the issues social media brings to the theatre, let us also focus on the positive in that being integrated into such a dynamic platform, hopefully theatre will attract a broader audience to its shows. And it needs that to survive and thrive.

Expand Your Mind in 2014 with the Salon Revival

We've all got resolutions for 2014, some of them we might even keep beyond January. But if you are looking for something new this coming year, how about attending salons? Building on an illustrious heritage, the modern salons are cultural showcases that cover a range of subjects from the worlds of science, the arts and psychology.



At the heart of this renaissance is Salon London who run monthly salons in the capital. These evening events consist of three speakers who engage attendees on a range of ideas, bringing fresh perspectives and new experiences to a wider audience.



Recent topics have covered the advent of smart drugs chaired by Professor Barbara Sahakian, neuro-gastronomy (the science of taste) from Professor Charles Spence, classic British songwriting from Daniel Rachel, whilst Professor David Tong spoke on quantum mechanics and our place in the universe.



Helen Bagnall, who is part of the management team for Salon London, says the idea for the salons started quite simply. "We wanted to create a night that we wanted to go to. We don't have narrow interests. We are interested in a wide variety of subjects - and we wanted our salons to reflect this curiosity."



These salons have been so successful that the team expanded to start quarterly events in their Salon in the North initiative based in Harrogate. These too have become so popular that the plan is for these to become bimonthly in 2014.



"We also did not want our evenings to be intimidating," Helen adds. "There is a bar and plenty of seating at each event. It is important that the salon has a relaxing atmosphere as a relaxed mind is a more open one."



It seems that plenty others were also looking for such inspiring and fascinating events to have in their calendar as pretty much every salon has sold out. Aided by competitive pricing at about £12 for each event (compare that to a theatre ticket, or even a cinema ticket) the salons are designed to be inclusive, to attract a wide range of people.



Helen said that this part of the team's success has been particularly satisfying. "The diversity of our audience has been something we are really proud of. Our audiences have been between 20 and 70 years of age. Some are students, others are professional people with busy diaries - lawyers, bankers and people from think-tanks."



The popularity of these salons has not gone unnoticed. Festivals such as Latitude and Festival Number 6 have approached the team to run salons at their events, which were all incredibly popular. And the team has also curated salons on request for institutions such as Tate Britain.



To help draw attention to the creatives they work with, Salon London has created the Transmission Prize. This Prize recognises the value of ideas and the work that it takes to get innovative ideas to a wider audience. As Helen observed "for non-fiction work, the onus falls on to the author to publicise their work. This award reflects that work the author has to do to get their work out there."



The Prize is awarded annually with the winner of this year's prize due to be announced at a ceremony in London on February 6th. The shortlist for the award is a superb reflection of the variety of speakers that the Salon has hosted in 2013, including Olivia Laing for her exploration of what drives writers to drink, biologist Aarathi Prasad on how biology is redefining the rules of sex and the possibility of the end of men, and epigeneticist Tim Spector who spoke on how we can change our genes, both those we inherit and those we pass on.



The diversity of speakers and topics is going to continue into 2014 so keep an eye on the Salon London website for upcoming events. This trend is one to watch - or maybe even get involved with!

Arts Review: In Vogue, St James Theatre

I'll admit it - I'm a Madonna fangirl so the thought of spending an evening at a cocktail bar listening to her hits was a dream come true. Yet more than that, In Vogue, a one-man show from one of Australia's biggest music theatre stars, is entertaining, funny and surprisingly touching.



Michael Griffiths performs as Madonna - but with no accents and no wigs. Instead, accompanying himself (or rather, herself) on the piano, he leads us in a journey through Madonna's life and its reflections in her songs.



As Michael tells his tale - all in the first person as Madonna - from her early beginnings in New York, through the highs and lows of her career to her less than settled personal life, he weaves in all the hits. And my, Madonna has had many, many hits.



Papa Don't Preach, Ray of Light, Vogue, Borderline, Hung Up, Material Girl, Dress You Up, Human Nature, Open Your Heart, Frozen... They're all included. And there are plenty more played on this great musical journey.



And when it comes to the Queen of Pop, Michael knows his stuff. Yes there were the classics but how great it was for him to weave in some of the less well-known tracks such as Cry Baby, Future Lovers and the beautiful Sondheim-penned song Sooner or Later.



As Michael romps through Madonna's life in the spotlight, nothing is out of bounds. Her less than illustrious film career, the Sex book, her man-eating reputation... It's all laid bare, so to speak. Michael is very funny with a great dry delivery but it's also clear he has a great respect for the subject of the show.



Madonna takes herself very seriously as an artist and Michael sends this up more than a little with poetry readings of some of her less celebrated lyrics (the awful rap interlude in American Life anyone?)But there's also the necessary acknowledgement that from Madonna's talents have also come some of the finest pop songs ever recorded.



Michael's breakdown of Express Yourself, explaining in simple technical terms how it is quite simply a masterpiece, was done brilliantly and with plenty of healthy respect. His performance of Like a Prayer was awesome and his tender interpretation of Like a Virgin as an ode to Lourdes, Madonna's eldest daughter, was a genius interpretation worthy of the woman herself.



And the Studio at St James Theatre is a perfect venue for the show. Most cabaret venues are shabby and in dire need of attention - often palmed off as part of their 'charm.' However when you find a venue as warm and inviting as the Studio, that excuse does begin to wear a little thin.



Wood panelling, great acoustics, cocktail bar, dozens of black and white glossy photos of stars from the silver screen on the walls, dark wood tables... The Studio has such a great atmosphere and really is the best stage for In Vogue where intimacy with Michael as he played and chatted with us - both as Madonna and as himself - was essential.



Who knows what the woman herself would think of In Vogue? Maybe she would be hyper-sensitive at the more mocking aspects but I expect, similar to the implicit message of the show, that all she really cares about is that we're still talking about her.



And we still are.



The Studio, St James Theatre, London



To December 22, 2013

Why is Putin Pardoning Khodorkovsky Now?

There are surprises in politics and there are shocks. Today's announcement from Putin that he is pardoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of the original oligarchs and long-time enemy of Putin, most definitely qualifies as a shock.



Khodorkovsky was once the world's richest man. He ran the Yukos oil empire in Russia and had a personal wealth that ran into the billions at a time when most Russians lived below the poverty line. But in October 2003 he was arrested and charged with fraud. Khodorkovsky was sentenced to nine years in jail and his Yukos empire was dismantled.



The charges though were widely seen as politically motivated, a sudden response to Khodorkovsky offering to fund the political opposition to Putin in the 2004 presidential elections. When the end of Khodorkovsky's sentence approached in 2009, the sentence was extended to 12 years, including time already served, after a fresh round of embezzlement charges. It was no surprise when Amnesty International went on to classify Khodorkovsky as a prisoner of conscience.



Most observers expected Khodorkovsky to die behind bars, unless Putin died first. So why has Putin changed his mind?



I expect there are two items in play here: the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics and the Ukraine.

For such a tough man, Putin's ego can be a little fragile and he may be uneasy about the criticism coming his way over Sochi. First there is the extortionate cost of the Olympics themselves. The current bill stands at over $50billion, five times its budgeted costs. It all smacks of some very dodgy financial accounting and symptomatic of the corruption that is rife in the Russian state.



Then there are the widespread international criticisms of Russia's anti-gay laws. A number of world leaders are shunning the opening ceremony in protest and the broader international community is still talking of protests and boycotts by athletes and participants as a possible response.



No doubt Putin has been considering the release of Khodorkovsky (along with Pussy Riot and the Arctic 30 from Greenpeace) as a way to play the statesman card. And it would all look good just after Mandela's death - forgive your enemies. But I think the sudden change of temperature in the Ukraine has brought these releases forward.



Putin wants no Western involvement in the Ukraine at all, where huge peaceful demonstrations against the pro-Putin president Yanukovych are threatening to turn nasty. The President has signed a treaty with Russia in the face of widespread opposition at home who'd rather Ukraine lent towards the democratic EU rather than the autocratic Russian state.



By releasing his most famous prisoner along with Pussy Riot and the Arctic 30, is Putin saying to the West, this is the trade for you staying out of the Ukraine? I think it's a likely consideration.



Yes this is a PR move from Putin. Do not for one second think this is a response to international pressure. But also let's be clear, the release of Khodorkovsky is one hell of a PR move. No-one saw this coming.



It's true that Khodorkovsky's sentence was due to finish at the beginning of next year (his sentence reduced by two years) but considering he's been jailed twice on trumped on charges, all bets were on there being another round of embezzlement and fraud charges to keep him behind bars. But instead Putin has decided it's in his better interests to let the former oligarch go.



So what now for Khodorkovsky?



It's not clear at this stage whether there are any conditions on his release, such as exile or a demand to stay out of domestic politics. Indeed it is questionable whether Khodorkovsky would even accept such conditions.



Back in 2003, before his dramatic arrest, Khodorkovsky was repeatedly warned that an arrest was likely and imminent. He was advised repeatedly to flee Russia but he refused, choosing arrest instead. Indeed in 2005 he tried to run for the Duma, Russia's parliament, from prison but was prevented by a quick change in Russian law passed deliberately to ensure his exclusion.



It is possible Khodorkovsky may come to London, like many wealthy Russians before him. It is thought his personal wealth still stands at about $200million, though there is no way to confirm this, which would be enough to keep him going even at London prices. (His personal wealth was always a closely guarded secret, even before he was stripped of Yukos.) But even if he did this, it is unlikely that Khodorkovsky would remain silent.



In January 2004, Khodorkovsky's lawyer read a statement from him saying that "the only ideal that enthuses him today is the ideal of defending human rights. If he gets out of prison he is determined to devote himself exclusively to working for the betterment of society." As the journalist Anna Politkovskaya ruefully remarked in her book A Russian Diary at the time, Putin has "managed to bring an oligarch to civic consciousness." Ironically Putin's greatest achievement.



Khodorkovsky remains loathed by most Russians because of the questionable accumulation of his exorbitant wealth so he is unlikely to be a clear and present danger to Putin in the short term. However his every move will be watched very closely by Putin and the rest of us. Khodorkovsky is unlikely to have been broken by his time behind bars.

Theatre Review: Tom Hiddleston Commands as Coriolanus

The Donmar's production of Shakespeare's Coriolanus is a vivid, dramatic production that brings out all the blood, bravery and heartbreak in this tragedy. And its leading man steals the show with a remarkable performance.



Coriolanus is a ruthlessly cruel, tyrannical Roman general. His bloody victories on the battlefields though are not enough to pacify all back in Rome. The poor are hungry and revolting at the lack of food, believing much of it is being diverted to the Army. He may be unbeatable in battle but Coriolanus has neither the patience nor skills to outwit his enemies in the Senate who whip up a riot to ensure he is banished. But though Coriolanus is exiled, Rome soon realises it has picked the wrong man to make an enemy of.



At the heart of this production is a commanding performance from Tom Hiddleston. His Coriolanus dominates every room and every battlefield he stands in, irrelevant of the odds against him. It is quite awesome. But there is always the risk with Coriolanus that he can become a quite one-dimensional character. Not so in Hiddleston's hands.



His Coriolanus has more emotional range than that, playing up sarcasm to manipulate those who he considers pathetic and also showing surprising vulnerability when he is confronted by those that he perhaps loves and fears more than he cares to admit.



Hiddleston is supported by a fine cast who work hard and bring great light and shade to Shakespeare's verse. There are notably superb performances from Mark Gatiss as Menenius, the Roman senator walking a fine line between his support for the insensitive Coriolanus and that for the poor Romans, and from Deborah Findlay, Coriolanus' domineering mother.



Coriolanus is a tough play to stage at the best of times - big, bloody battle scenes, riots on the streets of Rome and battles on the Senate floor - but in the limited space of the Donmar, the challenge is more so. Credit is therefore due to Director Josie Rourke and Designer Lucy Osborne for their deft adaption of the small stage.



A ladder against blood-red bricks is the front line in an assault on the city walls. Yet it quickly becomes the Senate floor with the addition of a row of chairs. And a flurry of rose petals transforms the Senate into a parade through the streets of Rome. It's all smart and very smooth.



And then of course there is the already famed scene where Tom Hiddleston takes a shower. The thought of a shower scene might be enough to send the fangirls into a frenzy but I was anxious that it was included for the sake of it. Yet actually it was one of the most poignant moments in the show.



Coriolanus is a tough character to love. He lives for war, believing "a brave death outweighs a bad life." But in the shower, as this hero winces under the pain of his wounds, we're allowed a glimpse into the man behind the mask.



I loved this show. I found it enthralling and moving but there are a couple of things I'd like to change. Bursts of electronic dance music and white noise break up the scenes and these don't always work. Sometimes the sound is jarring, not in harmony with the rest of the show. I get what it's there to do - to modernise the production, increasing its accessibility - but sometimes it just comes across as trying a little too hard.



However this is small fry in what is really a bold and daring production.



Tom Hiddleston really does put in an extraordinary performance but there's no ignoring the impact of his star casting. Last time I was at the Donmar, for Roots, the stalls had a lot of empty seats and those patrons that were in the audience were mostly of retirement age. Not this time around.



The House was packed and the demographic of the audience was profoundly different. Yes there were a lot of fangirls but the audience was far younger generally. These are good signs yet this run has already long sold out.



A handful of tickets are released each Monday at 10am but I hear on Twitter that that is a complete nightmare - demand far outweighing supply. And also London is not accessible for everyone. Therefore if you want to see this really exciting and moving production, don't forget the NT Live project is broadcasting the play into cinemas around the country on 30 January 2014. Don't miss it.



Donmar Warerhouse, London



To February 8, 2014

Opera Review: How the Whale Became, Royal Opera House

I applaud initiatives in opera to break new ground, to create new works that will entice new audiences but this adaption of the much-loved Ted Hughes stories is unlikely to win many converts to the art form.



How the Whale Became is a series of tales that focus on different animals with an eccentric and creative depiction of the many ways they came to be. The animals on display here are cleverly depicted, from the icy cool polar bear and the jet-spouting whale in his large glitter bath, to the frog in a trainee water-ring and the solitary elephant both struggling to come to terms with who they are.



Aimed at children from five years upwards, How the Whale Became is a story about self-acceptance, which is a great message for kids but the message is lost in a mixed production that never really catches fire.



The main attraction is Tony Scutt's brilliantly inventive set. Set in God's allotment, his garden of creation, stacks of blue painted pallets are packed high with plants and sprouting garden plots scattered amongst them. And proudly in the middle stands God's creation machine, cleverly comprised of instruments, into which the naked animals go for their sprinkling of magic dust to transform them into what they were always destined to be.



The cast is irrepressibly joyful and they worked hard to keep the audience engaged and the piece playful. Adapted by Julian Philips (music) and Edward Kemp (libretto), the story zipped along with its colourful array of characters - Frog, Elephant, Whale, Lion - and didn't let the central plot of the budding romance between Boy and Girl distract from this main draw.



So why doesn't this production work? In summary, the musical score.



The music is disappointing. Not only are all the tunes at a drab slow pace, the choice of percussion doesn't help. The accordion is jarring and its combination with a bizarre array of support such as rustling tree branches and taps on flower pots seemed more of a gimmick than a positive addition.



Attention to the acoustics also wasn't there. The libretto was almost completely inaudible, struggling to be heard over the drone of the accordion. And what I could hear sounded simplistic. "Boy loves girl;" "Boy wants to marry girl."



Yet having said that, the simplistic language combined with really sharp, inventive costume design (also by Tom Scutt) seemed enough to capture the attention of the younger members of the audience. Given the show is two hours long, the children in the audience were surprisingly not restless - unlike the adults.



So overall How the Whale Became is a mixed bag, a victory of impressive style over its disappointing substance.



Linbury Studio, Royal Opera House



To January 4, 2014

Theatre Review: Matt Smith Regenerates as an American Psycho

American Psycho is a brilliant, innovative musical comedy about a murderous banker on the rampage in New York. Helmed by Rupert Goold, this is a show just cracking with energy. Yet at its heart is an elusive performance by its star attraction, Matt Smith.



Adapted from the cult novel by Bret Easton Ellis, American Psycho is the story of Patrick Bateman (Matt Smith), a 26 year old man (soon to be 27) working on Wall Street at the end of the 1980s, at its height of shallow materialism and greed. The pleasures of designer labels, exclusive clubs, drugs and Sony Walkmans are not lost on Patrick Bateman. But Bateman is also a psychopath.



So as his friends gossip about tasselled loafers, all Bateman can think about is decapitating them. Or crucifying them with a nail gun onto the wall of his expensive apartment, in a block he also shares with Tom Cruise. After putting an axe through their head.



So, just to clarify, this is a musical comedy! And that is the extraordinary achievement of this quite brilliant adaptation by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa. There is a dark, dark humour in the book but there is also vicious, sadistic violence, pornography and graphic misogyny. From such source material, to create something so dark but witty, violent but musical is quite an achievement.



Inevitably the violence has been downplayed a little for the stage, but thankfully not too much. Characters from the book have been amalgamated and sub-plots streamlined, which works well in giving a framework for Bateman's degeneration into unstoppable violence.



And into the space created come the most brilliant score from Duncan Sheik and choreography from Lynne Page.



Music is such a crucial component of the original book and this is retained in a terrific soundtrack which combines some of the key tracks from the 1980s, tracks crucial to Patrick Bateman such as Huey Lewis and the News and Genesis, with witty, subversive original tracks. The result is a splendid mix of the nostalgic and the contemporary, which sums up this production perfectly. Yes this is set in the 1980s but let's be frank, we are still living in a material world.



But at the heart of this show is a performance from Matt Smith which for me, is out of step with both the book and the rest of the show. His Patrick Bateman is very sullen, almost inhibited for the whole three hour production. Nothing fires him up, nothing. Which is not how it is in the book.



When Bateman kills in the book, it brings him to life. The more savage his attacks, the more he feels the rush of energy in his veins, like the ultimate drug. In one chapter in the book, after he kills, Bateman explains how he runs down the street, high on exhilaration, with his coat blowing out behind him, like a cape, as if he's a superhero.



None of that energy, none of that contrast is brought out in Smith's depiction. His brutal murders don't lift him from his depression at all. It's a strangely subdued portrayal. Perhaps the intention was for Smith's Bateman to be cool, distant, austere. But for me, it doesn't work. Instead it almost becomes a drain on the energy of the show.



Nevertheless it would be a shame to let this disappointment detract from what it is a terrific and innovative adaptation of really tricky source material. Genuinely, I loved it. LOVED it. And that's coming from an ex-banker. Actually, not quite sure what that says about me.



Almedia Theatre, London



To February 1, 2014

Theatre Review: Drawing the Line, Hampstead Theatre

In an unusual take on the spirit of Christmas, Hampstead Theatre has gone for a drama on the violent partition of India in 1947 as the subject for its festive season. However the risk pays off in what is an excellent dramatization of the politics of this turbulent period in history.



In Drawing the Line, Partition is told through the viewpoint of Cyril Radcliffe, the English lawyer who was carted off to India under Attlee's orders to divide Pakistan from India despite (or rather because of) having no prior experience of India whatsoever.



In India and with five weeks to finalise the borders of a sustainable Pakistan that will suit all parties, Radcliffe out of his depth and overwhelmed with personal politics and complex relationships between a host of stakeholders such as Nehru, Jinnah and Gandhi, all of whom are far more knowledgeable than him - and far more astute at manipulating the situation to get what they need.



Drawing the Line certainly ticks all the boxes in content and characters but at times in the first half this did feel like a dramatized documentary rather than a theatrical piece. I found it fascinating though but then I like historical fiction.



However this improved after the interval. With all the burden of exposition handled in the first half, the play was able to take flight. The characters and the relationships between them were able to impact the storyline, especially the affair between Nehru and Lady Mountbatten and the deteriorating relationship between Nehru and Gandhi.



Understandably, the central character Cyril Radcliffe remains overwhelmed and outshone by the charismatic Indian leaders around him. Though this makes sense from a narrative viewpoint and Tom Beard 's depiction of him is excellent, it does mean that it's hard to feel caught up in his personal story or to feel sorry for him that he is clearly the patsy in this set-up.



So it is the supporting cast of characters and the terrible situation they are all in that capture and hold the attention. The actors are superb, in particular Nehru (Silas Carson), Jinnah (Paul Bazely) and Gandhi (Tanveer Ghani). Their characters beautifully combine their Indian heritage with the fact that all three of them trained to be lawyers in England therefore knowing so much more about England and Englishmen than Radcliffe or even Mountbatten (another superb performance from Andrew Havill) knows about India and Indians.



The set design from Tim Hatley is wonderful also. Both Indian palaces and Indian poverty are beautifully reflected in his simple but elegant sets. And the violence of Partition is emotively reflected in the scarring of the border in flames across the set at the play's climax.



Drawing the Line is compulsive viewing and holds the attention completely. Howard Brenton's deft writing creates a web where personal relationships and national politics are played out with wit and drama. As a result, this isn't a dry, sterile play but one that is both absorbing and engaging.



Hampstead Theatre, London



To January 11, 2014

Theatre Review: From Morning to Midnight, National Theatre

Georg Kaiser's From Morning to Midnight is a piece of expressionist theatre where more emphasis has been placed on the staging rather than any emotional involvement with the characters. Now, this makes for a few interesting visual spectacles and set-pieces but when these dry up, you find yourself locked in to a interminably over-earnest piece of work.



In what passes as the story, a bank clerk (Adam Godley) works all day in a bank. All his humanity, his soul has been crushed from him. But when a customer, a beautiful Italian lady (Gina Bellman), accidentally caresses his hand as she tries (but fails) to get the bank to fulfil a withdrawal request, her tenderness awakens in him feelings he thought he had long forgotten.



The scales fall from his eyes. What has he been doing with his life? The clerk makes a decision. He steals 60,000 marks to give to the beautiful Italian woman. But when she rejects both the money and his sexual advances, the clerk decides that he can no longer return to his pathetic humdrum existence and instead goes out into the world.



Initially the play moves quickly as the clerk tries to live life and find meaningful connection. There's plenty of humour in his fumbled advances and life on the run. But of course it transpires that as soon as anyone he encounters realises he has all this money, so their attitude to him changes. Now that he has money, he's gone from zero to hero.



That money is the most corrupting of influences is not news to modern audiences and certainly the hammering home of this very obvious message really takes its toll in the second half. As the clerk looks for redemption, the play loses all its humour and starts to drag - heavily.



Is there anything redeeming in this piece of theatre? Unequivocally, yes.



The set design from Soutra Gilmour is absolutely extraordinary. The bank where the clerk works is brilliantly designed as a machine, reinforcing the message of our place in the corporate world. And the design continues to frame the clerk's journey perfectly.



At one point, as the clerk is running from the hotel where he has been rejected by the Italian lady, the bed-sheets the hotel maids are changing are suddenly swept up into one huge bed-sheet that covers the stage and reforms as deep snow drifts in the parks of Berlin. The breakdown of the clerk's mind is also wonderfully realised in the fluidity of sets, as they start to break up whilst scenes are still being played out.



But a show cannot be recommended on set design alone. And though the cast are commended for their effort, there just isn't enough in the source material to engage an audience.



With Emil and the Detectives on next door in the Olivier, the National's decision to stage a production in the Lyttleton also set in pre-Nazi Germany is a bit odd. Isn't the purpose of having three theatres under one roof to encourage diversity?



Anyway, it's a bold decision by the National to take on such an unusual piece of theatre. It has to be pretty unique on the London stage right now. Perhaps they know this will divide audiences, appealing to only a few - hence why this show's run is so short, finishing at the end of January.



Nevertheless I am reluctant to recommend it. Though I found the staging extraordinary and there are moments of genuinely laugh-out loud humour, it's just too bizarre, too lacking in an engaging character arc to appeal to a wide audience.



But if you want to see something completely unique then do go and see From Morning to Midnight. But remember to a) leave at the interval, and 2) the National doesn't give refunds if you decide that actually you should have stayed at home.



National Theatre, London



To January 26, 2014