Category Archives: Theatre

REVIEW: Beautiful: The Carole King Musical – Wales Millennium Centre by Patrick Downes


If like me, you know a little about music, and the history of the pop song, then you can think again. People often deride modern music for being manufactured, but even way back in the late 50’s and early 60’s, the charts to an extent were the creation of just a few song writing powerhouses. The likes of Lieber Stoller, Dozier Holland, Lennon & McCartney and Goffin King were all part of the fabric that made the early days of pop what they are today. And it’s the latter partnership of Goffin King that forms the basis of Beautiful, currently at Wales Millennium Centre till 4th November.
As the website explains further; BEAUTIFUL tells the inspiring true story of King’s remarkable rise to stardom, from being part of a hit songwriting team with her husband Gerry Goffin, to her relationship with fellow writers and best friends Cynthia Weil and Barry Mann, to becoming one of the most successful solo acts in popular music history. Along the way, she wrote the soundtrack to a generation, with countless classics such as You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman, Take Good Care of my Baby, You’ve Got a Friend, So Far Away, It Might As Well Rain Until September, Up on the Roof, and Locomotion.

There were countless moments for me to go “oh, she wrote that”, plus there was the time during the interval watching people sing some of the songs to try and explain the song – always entertaining. For anyone wanting to become a song writer, to watch this is certainly an education that no college or book can give you. To see some of the back story behind some of pop’s greatest hits was always going to be a massive bonus for me being such a music geek.

The performance of Bronté Barbé as Carole is quite amazing. You can close your eyes and you’d think it was the real deal. To capture the essence of someone is not easy, but somehow you have the vulnerability and the depth of character – together with a voice that provides the full package that is Carole King.
Kane Oliver Parry as Gerry Goffin shows the weaknesses that Goffin had, but also his song writing and creative processes. Amy Ellen Richardson as Cynthia Weil, and Matthew Gonsalves as Barry Mann, show also how the competitive the 60s were in terms of song writing. But out of that creativity, came friendship – and two very genuine performances from both.
It’s a well-paced production. There aren’t any times you’d be sat wishing for the next part. Musicals can sometimes suffer from being a little bit long, but at just around 2 hours 30 with an interval, that can’t be said of Beautiful.
There’s won’t be many people this won’t appeal to. If you have a love of music from the 60’s, this is for you. If you love a well-crafted and performed musical, this is for you. And if you love a night out for ages from 8 to 80, this is certainly for you.
Three things we also learnt;
1 The Locomotion was sung by Carole King’s nanny
2 Neil Sedaka was her boyfriend in high school (thus his song Oh Carol is about her)
3 She wrote The Reason for Celine Dion in 1998
It’s not too late to have one fine day seeing Beautiful : The Carole King Musical, at Wales Millennium Centre till 4th November 2017, and then touring around the UK.
REVIEW: @impatrickdownes
Patrick-Downes-Banner

Review The Cherry Orchard, Sherman Theatre by Barbara Hughes-Moore


The third part in the holy trinity of dynamic duo Rachel O’Riordan & Gary Owen’s co-productions, and the jewel in their collaborative crown, is their adaptation of Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, seamlessly updated from pre-Revolution Russia to Thatcherian Pembrokeshire.
Centring on a family of wealthy landowners just as their luck and lucre begin to dwindle, the updated Cherry Orchard follows the return of boozy, bombastic matriarch Rainey to her childhood home mere days before it’s to be sold at auction. Her reappearance heralds an era of chaos, confusion and uncertainty, not just in her personal relationships but in creating a complex and combustible legal situation that threatens the stability of her nearest and dearest. Over all hangs the spectre of Mrs Thatcher, promising the working-class freedom with one hand, and mass unemployment with the other.
Rachel O’Riordan deftly directs the excellent ensemble, expertly exhuming the characters’ inner demons in a way that is interesting and realistic, but not clumsy or banal – a tricky line to navigate. Gary Owen adds heart and humour in his adaptation of Chekhov’s play; Owen’s version is not just more accessible than its source, but often improves on the original through its use of language, and its inclusion of Gothic undertones (spectral trains and ghostly children appear infrequently). O’Riordan and Owen work in tandem to ensure that we not only know these characters as well as our own families by the close of play, but that there are still myriad mysteries to uncover about the complex cast left after the curtain (metaphorically) falls.
The cast itself capably carries a modern audience through the dual layers of antiquity: first, to the 1980s, which have evolved into a sort of nostalgic Eden in pop culture thanks to the influence of Stranger Things, Stephen King’s It, and Guardians of the Galaxy to name but a few; and secondly, to the chequered past of Chekhov’s turn of the (20th) century Russia.

The linchpin of the piece is Denise Black’s winning, wine-soaked wonder Rainey, sauntering through life with a perpetual cigarette/ alcohol combination in hand. Her brash bravado and devil-may-care allure masterfully conceals the pain of her young son’s death, and the guilt she feels at her (careless, not calculated) part in his passing. A role that could easily slide into caricature is rendered relatable, realistic, and raw courtesy of Black’s amazing acting.

Matthew Bulgo excels as Lewis, a relatable downtrodden everyman who slowly sheds his skin to reveal a treacherous snake beneath. His cheerful ordinariness in the first act becomes tainted by the insidiousness of his ultimate decision, and the moment in which he strides around Rainey’s house proclaiming ‘these are my floors’ is particularly haunting.

A star-making turn by Alexandria Riley as Dottie gives the production a bold, beating heart. She is snarky, sarcastic, self-assured and frequently takes her wealthy employers down a peg with her biting insight about their whiny, work-shy ways. Although Riley injects a grounded grumpiness to the family’s affluent antics, she revels in revealing the hidden, hurt soul behind the bolshy brashness. Her relationship with Rainey is truly touching, and anchors the action with emotion – more than Rainey ever shows her other daughters.

Speaking of which, Hedydd Dylan and Morfydd Clark cleverly act as clear counterparts to one another – Dylan is Valerie, treading a delicate line as the exasperated, underrated eldest (adopted) daughter of Rainey. Although she often seems the coldest and most clinical of the bunch, chinks in her armour gradually appear, revealing a deep need to be loved by Rainey that the object of her desire – tragically – cannot fulfil. Clark is Anya, Rainey’s youngest (and only) biological daughter. Anya is the complete opposite of the uptight Valerie – free-spirited, defiant and romantically adventurous (whereas Valerie pins her romantic future on a friend of the family who’s been there all her life). Clark does a lot of heavy lifting with lyrical ease; as her character has the most monologues, she often has to wax poetic about the heady nostalgia of the past – she is the chronicler of the piece, the notary of nostalgia who ensures no-one forgets how precious the eponymous orchard is to the family: as a symbol, a cipher, and, ultimately, a swan song.

Richard Mylan plays Ceri, Anya’s former A-Level tutor with whom she reunites and (impulsively) romances, despite the fact that Anya has a stable, loving (and ostensibly rich) girlfriend back in Uni. Mylan plays Ceri with a potent combination of socialist vigour and musical snobbery that would make millennial hipsters blush. He probably has ‘Disaffected Youth’ tattooed in his soul, and he’s clearly relishing every second of acting like Sid Vicious and Michael Sheen’s lovechild. From the second he struts onto the stage clad in black from his boots to his leather-jacket and era-appropriate mop-top, you know exactly the kind of guy he is. Except you don’t, because halfway through the play, after denouncing once-beloved bands for signing to a label and selling out to ‘The Man’™, he abruptly announces his long-held desire to start his own record label, cheerfully (and obliviously) selling out in the exactly the way he just condemned.

My only disappointment in the adaptation of characters was that of Gabriel. Despite being thoughtfully and subtly portrayed by Simon Armstrong, his translation from Chekhov to this play was the only one which fell flat for me. In both he represents the laziness of the wealthy who don’t need to work to live – and Gabriel’s news of a (potentially fraudulent) career choice is poorly received by his relatives, and his failure seems inevitable However, the tragedy of Chekhov’s Gabriel was that he spoke a lot of sense, despite the fact that his relatives often shushed him mid-maxim. They find him annoying, we find him insightful. In this adaptation, Gabriel is demoted to doddery window dressing, and denied the musings his original counterpart was given in spades.

I had the pleasure of being on the post-show discussion panel on 24th October; led by Timothy Howe, the Sherman Theatre’s resident Communities and Engagement Coordinator, the panel consisted of Gary Owen himself, Dr Tristan Hughes (a senior lecturer in Literature at Cardiff University), and myself. I was there to represent Law and Literature, a field of study which boasts two complementary strands of thought: firstly, Law in Literature, which looks at how law is portrayed in literary texts; and secondly Law as Literature, in which legal texts are analysed using literary tools of interpretation. The Law and Literature module at Cardiff School of Law and Politics, led by Professors John Harrington and Ambreena Manji, have been linked up with the Sherman Theatre since 2016, incorporating their productions of Love Lies and Taxidermy, and now the Cherry Orchard, into the module over the last two years, offering a fantastic opportunity for students to not only study the texts, but see them performed live – and starting off discussions as to the parallels between performing law and performing theatre.
The post-show panel discussion was a hoot! Gothic sensibilities were touched on, Chekhov’s ghost was invoked, and new terms were coined – ‘melancomedy’, i.e. melancholy comedy, rather than a comedy about melons. One of the topics discussed was the evocative use of sound and imagery in the play; for me, the most striking image was the doorway from the house – dual monoliths illuminated from within by an afterlife-inspired white light. It was as if the living room from Roseanne led out into the stairway to heaven in A Matter of Life and Death. Juxtaposing the homely with the heavenly was an inspired piece of stage production, and gave the play an almost supernatural quality that was only enhanced by the occasional appearance of the spiritual presences mentioned above. Tristan and I exchanged Gothic interpretations of the play, and he felt that the most striking moment of the play was the haunting sound of the siren that heralded war with Argentina. A similarly chilling noise was the sound of the cherry orchard being chopped down offstage, the axe cutting into wood with a visceral thud akin to the sound of breaking bones and severed flesh, as if being murdered – very Gothic indeed.
Looking at the play using the lens of Law and Literature allows the legal aspects to shine under literary interpretation and vice versa. It was fascinating to watch how the play represents lots of different aspects of law: land law, family law (particularly adoption law), and contracts. I can assure you from experience that land law is one of the driest, dullest and yet most important and practical facets of the entire legal system. Memories of studying it at undergrad bring flashbacks of long, lethargic legal spiel, volumes upon volumes; it certainly felt like I was reading them in perpetuity. But the Cherry Orchard, in bringing complex legal issues like land law into the context of characters you care for and empathise with, was a paragon of Law in Literature – it represented the legal (and political) issues of the day, making them relatable and understandable, as well as informing us of the legal consequences through characters whose futures we grew to worry about.
There were doubles a go-go in this show (of particular interest to my Doppelganger-centric PhD). For a start, Dottie, Ceri and Lewis acted as the lower-class literary foils to the upper-class Rainey and co. Whereas Rainey and Anya want to keep the orchard for themselves, Lewis plots to buy the land and transform it into council houses thanks to Maggie Thatcher’s new scheme. Rainey and Anya want to linger in the home of their charmed childhoods, Dottie thinks they just don’t want lower-class people like her living next door; the response couldn’t be more insulting when Rainey effectively claims Dottie’s ‘one of the good ones’, a racist, classist sentiment that Dottie rightfully rails against. It only reinforces the fact that Dottie was spot on about their reasoning. Whereas Dottie works within the system to provide for herself and her family, Ceri fights against it, proclaiming the power of the proletariat – whilst dating a rich girl. I mean, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does somewhat foreshadow his forsaking his principles later on, just as he thinks going late to the dole office is a middle finger to authority. Gabriel is the most passive character of the play, and has no active involvement in the action – well-meaning but weightless. Not to mention the obvious doubles running through the play – ‘I’m a ghost. I’m not here’, Rainey whispers, feeling that she died in spirit when her son did’. The ghostly segments often feel like an afterthought, and I would have liked to explore them more – though, as they are now, they act as spectres of the past, relics and afterthoughts – and as such, they’re in good company with Rainey and her ghosts of love and luxury.
I can’t rave about this show enough. It is a triumph for those involved in making it, and a treat for those lucky enough to see it.

Barbara Hughes-Moore

Review: The Cherry Orchard, Sherman Theatre by Roger Barrington

 
The Cherry Orchard
 
 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)
 
The Sherman Theatre’s production of Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard is reimagined in Early 1980’s Wales and gets to the roots of the social upheaval of Thatcherism.

The Cherry Orchard Production Team

Written by Gary Owen from Anton Chekhov
Director: Rachel O’Riordan
Designer: Kenny Miller
Lighting: Kevin Treacy

Cast (with Chekhov’s equivalent characters in parenthesis)

Denise Black as Rainey (Lyubov Ranevskaya)
Simon Armstrong as Gabriel (Leonid Gaev)
Matthew Bulgo as Lewis (Yermolai Lopahin)
Hedydd Dylan as Valerie (Varya)
Morfydd Clark as Anya (Anya)
Richard Mylan as Ceri (Petya Trofimov
Alexandria Riley as Dottie (Dunyasha)

Introduction

The characters of Boris Simeonov-Pishchik – a landowner,  Charlotta Ivanovna  – a governess, Simon Yepihodov – the estate clerk, Firs – a footman, aged 87, Yasha, a young footman, A Stationmaster and a passer-by are all omitted.
On Saturday 3rd July 1982, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made a keynote speech at Cheltenham racecourse in the aftermath of the Falklands War. I remember it well – I was there. When I say, I was there, I should clarify this. At the time, I was a serving member of the Gloucestershire Constabularly, assigned to the equivalent unit known as the SPG in the Met Police, and, being the junior member of the team, I was given the responsibility to guard the P.M.’s car. If I knew then, what I know now, I might have been tempted to place a bomb under the chassis myself! I jest I hasten to add for I don’t want an unwelcome visit from Special Branch after this post goes live.
In this speech, Maggie says this:-
“We have instead a new-found confidence—born in the economic battles at home and tested and found true 8,000 miles away.
That confidence comes from the re-discovery of ourselves, and grows with the recovery of our self-respect.”
When Chekhov wrote his last play, he was near to death. It opened at the Moscow Art Theatre only six months before his demise in July 1904.  The play prophesied what was to come for Russia and this materialised in the failed 1905 Uprising in Moscow and  eventual success in the Russian Revolution of 1917. You didn’t have to be too much of a prophet to foresee this – the inevitable end of the social conditions existing at the time the play was written was there for everyone to see. The sheer size of The Cherry Orchard represented a microcosm of Russia.

Other Reimaginations of The Cherry Orchard

Gary Owen’s reimagined setting of Pembrokeshire in 1982 differs in that the people were actually living through the social upheaval that the Thatcher Years and inevitably, what came afterwards, although the extent of this change was not appreciated at that time.
There has been been a number of other revisions of The Cherry Tree through the ages, largely due to the political undercurrents of the play.
In 1977, Trevor Griffiths rendered Trofimov (Ceri) as a Marxist hero and the bourgeois characters, (Lewis and sometimes Gabriel) in a very negative light.
Earlier, in 1950, a production in New York  City had Helen Hayes (Lyubov Ranevskaya/Raina), presiding over a large plantation with all the servants as slaves).
In 1973 Public Theatre’s version was played entirely with black actors protesting against their exclusion from the classical repertory.
Janet Suzman’s 2000 production The Free State,  a reimagining of The Cherry Orchard was transplanted and full adapted to a post-apartheid South Africa.
As  perennial as the grass, The Cherry Orchard remains one of the most popular plays to be produced in the world. In fact, the Nottingham Playhouse are putting on a production starting later this week.

Gary Owen and The Cherry Orchard

Gary Owen’s reworking is a play for our time. The writing is clear and in some ways improves on the original. Chekhov wrote the play as a comedy, although, subsequently, many directors interpret it as a tragedy. In Gary’s play, the comedy is more transparent and the sometimes sly Welsh humour works a treat.
His Raina is a sot and, again, I think this works better than the traditional Lyubov Ranevskaya, whose actions, I have always found a little ambiguous at times.
His Anya maintains Chekhov’s idea of this character. The first production of The Cherry Orchard was put on at the Moscow Arts Theatre by its artistic director at the time, Konstantin Stanislavski. Chekhov disliked the way it was produced intensely and wrote a number of letters complaining about it, as was his way. In one he wrote,  Anya, I fear, should not have any sort of tearful tone… Not once does my Anya cry, nowhere do I speak of a tearful tone, in the second act there are tears in their eyes, but the tone is happy, lively. I think that Anya in Gary’s writing and the Sherman’s production, lives up to that ideal.
A problem that crops up, because of the time and setting of the play under review, is the relationship between Lewis and Ceri. In Chekhov’s original, Lopahin and Trofimov forge a rather curious alliance. Lopahin, the noveaux riche landowner and Trofimov, the class conscious socialist, would work together for the benefit of the new Russia. Whereas in Simon’s work, Ceri, (representing the Thatcherite property developer) and Ceri, (the on the dole socialist and pseudo-anarchist), never seem to have that level of a common sense of purpose.
The absence of the character Firs is regretful because it robs Simon’s play of probably the most poignant and meaningful scenes in his entire repertoire. At the end of the play, when the family vacate the property for the last time, there is a substantial delay before Firs, the 87-year old faithful servant trudges across the stage to rest wearily on a sofa. One gets the impression that he will never arise from it. Firs was known to be very ill and the family assumed that he had been taken to hospital, but, in fact he had been left behind. Chekhov was making a statement about people who pretend they care, but, in reality, only half-care at best. I think this would tie in with the callousness of Thatcherism beautifully which has carried on to this day.

The Story

Borderline alcoholic Raina has been forced  by her daughter Anya and adopted daughter Valerie to return to her ancestral property Bloumfield in Pembrokeshire. Raina had been living well beyong her means and racking up a huge bill at the Dorchester in London. Valerie, who had been running Bloumfield in Rainey’s absence had repeatedly sent her mother letters informing her of the dire financial position the estate was in. Raina had chosen to ignore these letters and the situation had become so parlous that the bank were now calling in the debt and the property is going to be auctioned.
Lewis, son of a lowly servant on the Estate, has now become quite well off and owns a construction factory. This is Margaret Thatcher’s Britain and he has a plan to save the situation by selling off Bloumfield to property developers.
Romantic interest is shown by Anya’s involvement with her ex-tutor Certi, an on-the-dole sometime volunteer teacher.
There is a great deal of social conscience on display. Thatcher’s idea of selling off council properties at a budget price, social mobility ,(Lewis from rags to riches), The Enterprise Allowance Scheme, which Ceri is considering to take advantage of to form a record label, providing that he can come up with a thousand pounds to start it off – offered as a gift by Anya and a loan by Lewis, who respects the entrepreneurial spirit behind the idea.
It’s all here. The dawning of a new age that we are all coming to terms with today.

The Production

The play is directed by the Sherman’s artistic director Rachel O’Riordan and has a crispness and clarity about it that reminded me of a production by Michael Grandage of Shakespeare’s  As You Like It that I was privileged to watch at the Lyric Hammersmith in 2000. So impressed by the production, I wrote to the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, where it originated, and much to my surprise and delight received a lengthy email back from the director stating his belief that theatre should be clear in its intentions and have a clarity of purpose behind it. This is exactly how I feel about this direction.
A model train plays a significant part as well and is not explained until the final scene. Replacing Firs Pinteresque moment, a young boy runs on and picks up the train whilst shouting for his mummy. The ghost of Raina’s drowned young son, (and possibly the reason for her habitual drinking), has been abandoned. So the train represents the memory of her drowned boy.
Ms O’Riordan has collaborated with writer Gary Owen on previous occasions. Iphigenia In Splott was received as one of the most important theatre  productions of 2015 and Killology that transferred to the Royal Court earlier this year. The O’Riordan/Owen collaboration has to be one of the most dynamic and intriguing partnerships in British theatre today, and I look forward to future works from them both.
The production is beautifully cast, and there is not a weak link among them. It would be unfair to single one individual out as they are uniformly excellent.  I would like to say though that Denise Black’s Rainey, reminded me, in a good way, with the character of Patsy in Absolutely Fabulous .
The minimalist  design is an easy on the eye but seems a little sparse furniture-wise for landowners to live in.  A bookcase located stage left plays an important part in the action, as its craftsmanship is recognised in contrast to  today’s mass produced self-assembled substitute.
Rachel O'Riordan and Gary Owen

Rachel O’Riordan and Gary Owen

Alexandria Riley as Dottie

Alexandria Riley and Denise Black

 

Morfydd Clark and Richard Mylan

Hedydd Dylan and Matthew Bulgo

Denise Black

 Denise Black

Simon Armstrong

Simon Armstrong

Summary

Gary Owen’s work is an excellent new way of viewing a classic great play. The three hours performance time passed by in an instance and I can’t really fault this production, other than the couple of instances where the writer’s decision to take what he wanted from Chekhov’s play, could have been put to better effect.
It runs at the Sherman Theatre Cardiff main house until 3rd November 2017. For times and ticket information please refer to http://http://www.shermantheatre.co.uk/performance/theatre/the-cherry-orchard/
Suitable for all ages. A little mild bad language.
Roger Barrington

Review, Spamalot, Exeter Northcott Theatre by Hannah Goslin


 
 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)
 
If anyone is anyone from the ages of 20 and above, it is unlikely that you did not grow up with Monty Python and their slapstick, intelligent humour. Despite the Python’s Holy Grail making its debut on our screens in 1975, their comedy and genius sketches have become not only legendary but with the ability to never age, becoming a deep part of British culture.
To bring something so acclaimed to the stage must be daunting, however with the input of Python’s own Eric Idle and original Holy Grail score writer, John DuPrez, what we see on television is brought to live performance with every bit of silliness and pizzazz as the original.
The performers themselves took on every character with perfect recognition of the originals, to uncanny resemblances of John Cleese in King Arthur particularly, making us feel as if the Python’s were really in the room. To bring such simple comedic tricks that often are hidden on television, the performers perfection in timing and perfectly rehearsed actions and movements, made us see a performance that left little to critique in what could be improved upon.
Fun was poked at the status that the performance found itself in – as a live musical number with little to hide in special effects. Songs were created about how romantic songs lead to a kiss or how an actress had been off stage for too long and her annoyance at this. Special effects weren’t trying to be hidden and clever, but became satirical and obvious, creating humour in not only our views of musical theatre but adding to the key approach that the Python’s take to comedy.
What really made this production special was the interaction with the audience. We were not left behind or made to watch but our knowledge engaged us in the action – singing along to well-known tunes, laughing uncontrollably at the same jokes that never get old, and cheers from the crowd at favourite character entrances and scenes from the original sketch. Even a slight moment of corpse-ing from the performers did not take away from the fun – personally I love a moment when performers slightly lose track. To me it makes them human but also shows how much they enjoy the performance themselves, and such as in this case, it never destroys the audience’s belief but creates more humour for them.
Spamalot is a well-constructed and brilliant production, bringing the 1970’s humour of the Python’s to new audiences but also revoking comedy for the older fans; modernising the production to fit current situations yet somehow keeping the original essence of The Holy Grail, this performance is a triumph.
 
 

Review Of Mice and Men at the Chapter Seligman Studio presented by August 012

 out of 5 stars (2 / 5)
 
August 012 performs John Steinbeck’s  Of Mice and Men for laughs and misses the mark by a country mile!

Introduction and Background

John Steinbeck’s classic 1937 novella was a new genre of work that Steinbeck invented. In his own words, it was strictly, neither a novel or a play, but a play/novelette.  In his eyes, he recognised that the novel was in a moribund state, but theatre was “coming alive”.  This genre used chapters for curtains and is scened in such a way that it can directly be transformed into a play. He eventually decided to write a play,  “in the physical technique of a novel.”
The story is about two itinerant farm workers who travel the road looking for work during the Great Depression of the United States in the early 1930’s.  Steinbeck was born and brought up in Salinas in California, and he witnessed the impact of over 300,00 migratory workers from the Dust Bowl states of Oklahoma and primarily and other prairie states had on his part of California.

The two workers, George who is intelligent and worldly but uneducated, and Lenny, his mentally disabled companion. They both dream of living in a better place in a better world, but their destinies are realised when they arrive to work at a plantation.
It is easy to relate this to the current situation in South Wales in terms of disillusionment and lack of hope, the displacement of individuality.  The explosion of migratory workers suggests, (without the nationalistic connotations), to the reasons why many people voted for Brexit last year.  So, it’s an ideal play to put on in this location and social climate.
The first production of the play, at the Theater Union of San Francisco opened to favourable reviews on 21st May 1937 and shortly afterwards.  it opened on Broadway, with legendary actor Broderick Crawford as Lenny.

If you look at the photograph of Lenny and George above, one thing that strikes me is that it heightens the claustrophobic intensity which is a feature of both the play and the novel. George and Lenny are trapped in their own sad world, and this has to be an essential feature of any production of Of Mice and Men.

August 012 Production Of Mice and Men

CAST

Anthony Corria; Sara Gregory; Neal McWilliams; Tom Mumford; Wil Young
All actors, with the exception of the two protagonists, George (McWilliams) and Lenny (Young) play multiple parts.
Director: Mathilde Lopez
Set Design: Tina Torbey
Lighting: Ace McCarron

Sara Gregory

Wil Young

Neal McWilliams

Tom Mumford

Anthony Corria

 Production Design

Just before entering the auditorium, I had a brief conversation with a member of the production team. The show had been sold out for its entire run, so, due to its popularity, I asked her whether it would tour. She answered in the negative, saying that the production was an expensive one due to the stage design, and it had been tailor made for the venue. So, then I asked her whether it would be brought back later on and she stated that this is a possibility, due to the demand from local schools, many of which were unable to be catered for during the run. I also overheard her say that this production had drawn from both the book and play sources.
Upon entering the space, I could see why touring is an impossibility. The stage had been crafted in such a way that it fitted the shape of the auditorium and could not be easily adapted to another space . There is no central stage, and effectively, it is a theatre in the round, with audience seated on each side.
Located in roughly all four corners were microphones and a dozen lampshades, some lit are overhead. Wide spaces between the rows of seat, enables the actors to move freely around. This results in a slightly negative way for you either have to turn your ahead around to see all of the action, or use your imagination.

The Show

When the play starts, Lenny and George are speaking to each other using the microphones and at diagonally opposite sides of the auditorium. This destroys the intimate, claustrophobic essential feature of the story immediately.
There is a great deal of audience participation in the production. This is fun, but, again, distracts from being focused on George and Lenny’s enclosed existence. It all gets rather manic  from time to time.
However, My main criticism is based upon the way that the dreaming of a better world is played. Using a filmic technique, or at least, this is the impression it left on me, George spoke into his microphone with background music and such a way it parodied either Hollywood or itself. At times, George reminded me of a demented evangelist.
This technique is used to better effect when the only female in the story, Curley’s wife speaks in a highly sensualised way.
Another example where the integrity of the story is shattered is with the shooting of Candy’s dog. This is a very important segment of the story. Candy’s old sheepdog had outlived its usefulness and according to Carson’s blunt should be put down as it stunk out the bunkhouse. The death foreshadows Lenny’s shooting by George at the story’s finale and also symbolises, through a developing pattern of creatures being crushed by Lenny, and ultimately, the fate of the rabbits and via, the fate of the Safe House”, the idealised world that the protagonists and Candy dream of.
The part of the dog is selected by a random member of the audience, who is led off stage to its fate. The audience member, naturally, looking a little embarrassed and smiling nervously, trudges off to the great amusement of everyone, thereby killing the dramatic impact. I didn’t hear a shot offstage, which might have readdressed the balance. Candy, later returns with copious amount of blood on his hands and the audience dog “actor” returns to his seat.
Neal McWilliams, (George) is the pick of the actors on display and Sara Gregory provides some nice cameos. She has to play both Curley and his wife, and if I am not mistaken, the role of Candy is played by two different members of the cast. This is a little confusing, but difficult to avoid with only five actors cast.
Another feature that didn’t work was the interchanging between the use of the microphone and natural voice within the same soliloquy. I didn’t see the point of this and I feel that it distracts from what is being said.

Summary

Of Mice and Men is a study of the hopes and dreams of men and of the necessity for men to have dreams. But these hopes and dreams are contrasted with the reality of the harsh world in which men must exist,
and the setting, costumes, lighting, and acting style must reflect this concept of contrast.

This is taken from a dissertation from undergraduate student Saralee O’Neill approved by the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in 1985. It sums up my argument perfectly. Being innovative, which this production most certainly is, doesn’t necessarily make it good theatre. The integrity of the story and Steinbeck’s deep feelings on this subject have to be maintained. Steinbeck wrote what he felt and what he knew about firsthand.
I concede that this production is very entertaining. The majority of the audience were senior school students, and, in the most part, their attention was maintained throughout, which is a considerable achievement in itself. I have taught this novella at University in China, and I wonder whether the students really were truly informed about this work of literature based upon what they had watched. I am of the opinion, that they hadn’t.
If your “Theatre bag” is of the One Man, Two Guvnors ilk, then you will probably love this production, but Steinbeck – it ain’t.
The run ended on 28th October 2017, but may return.
Roger Barrington
 
 
 

Review/Discussion: Of Mice and Men

During the afternoon of Saturday, October 28th, I took a little journey back in time. As an English Literature student at University some of the books I studied back in GCSE feel like a lifetime away. So, when I was given the opportunity to see Of Mice and Men, one of the most well-known of these GCSE books, brought to life on stage at Cardiff’s Chapter Arts Centre I was immediately intrigued.
This production put on by August.012, has unfortunately finished it’s run at the Chapter Arts Centre. So, for this article, I’m still going to include some aspects of reviewing the production but I’m mainly going to focus on the adaptation of the text specifically and any intriguing differences which were included and I’ll discuss how these changes affect the text and its place in today’s culture. Just a little heads up, there is so much in this production that this is going to be a long article but if you just want a review of the production you can read Troy Lenny’s review here.
Mathilde Lopez directs an adaptation of John Steinbeck’s 1937 novella that tells the story of two unlikely travelling companions Lennie Small and George Milton. They travel from ranch to ranch in California seeking work during the Great Depression in order to achieve their very own American Dream of independence and security. Along the way, they encounter themes of loyalty, injustice, race and even sexuality. Thanks to both the education system and the internet the spoilers concerning the end of this novella are widely known, but I will still attempt to be sensitive to those who may have managed to avoid spoilers so far.
This production constantly blurs the line between the setting of the Great Depression and the 21st Century. The setting of the ranch is still the same and the theme of the American Dream is still very strong. However, there are changes to the script which flicker between major and minor that addresses 21st century elements like the set, the microphones and even prawn cocktail crisps. The more major changes will be addressed below when I talk about specific characterisation. While these flippant mentions of 21st-century aspects were certainly startling when I first sat down they certainly made the difference between our time and theirs starker but also more familiar.
In my opinion, this production uses this blend to bring out themes that aren’t normally connected with Of Mice and Men. For example. Curley’s fight with Lennie is commentated on like a modern boxing match by Slim and George through the microphones. To me, this brought out the theme of observation and watching, especially connected with the lack of context the other characters have concerning Lennie and some of his actions. Another example of this comes in the ending. The final recitation of George and Lennie’s American Dream in this production, to me, had a more solid connection with heaven or at least a heavenly state that was an unobtainable state on Earth. The level of acting in this moment is really something special as this becomes more George’s realisation despite it affecting Lennie more directly.
A cast of just five carries this show. I found this aspect very intriguing as certain actors had to double up. George and Lennie remain completely grounded throughout the whole show but I was amazed by the flexibility of the three actors who had to constantly switch from character to character. I like to think that one of the most intriguing switches shows just how far we have come from this period of racial segregation. The character of Crooks is always an integral part of any reading or performance of Of Mice and Men because of his comments regarding his experience and actual implementation of racial segregation. However, due to the actors doubling up the ranch owner and Curley’s father is actually played by the same actor as Crooks. While there is no added comment on the ranch owner being of any different ethnicity it is certainly an intriguing angle to take considering the setting of the text.
I found Curley and Curley’s Wife being played by the same female actor very interesting as John Steinbeck himself, to paraphrase, stated that Curley’s Wife is not a person, she is a symbol and, specifically, a threat to Lennie. She is also mainly examined as an example of a wife being the property of her husband, so to have these two characters played by the same actress not only emphasises how she has no independence beyond her husband it also highlights that Curley has barely any independece beyond her. I think that this is a very intriguing way to give Curley’s Wife more prominence and, in my opinion quite rightly, play down any threatening nature Curley may have had.
In my opinion, I liked how this production gave Curley’s Wife more weight. Sara Gregory’s vehemence when talking to Crooks makes Curley’s Wife far more threatening than I ever remember her being and I love it. While in her main scene they move away slightly from the original text I think that these additions are certainly useful for younger audiences to see what must be added to the dialogue and her character to make her a woman you may see in the 21st century and how this differs from the text’s setting. She is far more hysteric and actually goes to the point of reigniting her denied dream of acting in Hollywood and reaches the point of leaving her husband. This vital addition makes her death all the more tragic as a comment that a woman in the setting of not only the ranch but also the Great Depression could never leave her husband, let alone achieve her long lost dreams. It’s certainly an interesting take on a deliberately vague character who was written to be barely human.
Even with these intriguing differences, one of the most interesting and outstanding parts of this play for me was actually seemingly a throwaway line from Lennie. He says it so quickly that some may have missed it but it actually is a massively important line to insert into the direct dialogue of Of Mice and Men. It is clear in the book and subsequent films that Lennie is, in some way, mentally disabled. However, it is never directly stated in the text what form this takes. The closest we get is George’s fabrication that Lennie was kicked in the head by a horse but Lennie questions this and it becomes clear that all we got was a fabricated explanation from George. This production completely changes that. Lennie states that George has said he has Dyspraxia.
This is another monumental change that may seem small but it highlights the vast difference between the setting of Of Mice and Men and the 21st Century and between ambiguity which makes Lennie quite frightening to those who don’t know why he is different and a time where the condition is known and labelled. I also like that this then adds weight to the questions of intent and knowledge from an outsider’s perspective concerning Lennie’s character. Is the reason that George sticks by Lennie after all of the bad things he has done because he has knowledge of Lennie’s specific condition and he knows that he is not a bad person because of this? It certainly adds so much more to their relationship.
The production also stood out in the way the deaths of certain characters were presented. There are two main deaths of human characters in Of Mice and Men and both have become very well known to the point of fame. This production did not let down this reputation. The first was very brutal and clear in its use of physical action to show exactly how that death came about. The second brought a spectacular building of tension which I felt directly despite knowing what was coming. The lighting in this finale was also spectacular and I like that they decided to use lighting rather than loud sound effects.
The only death depiction that I wasn’t a fan of was how the death of Candy’s dog was handled. I understand that Of Mice and Men can get quite heavy but I just wasn’t a fan of the use of audience participation which turned the shooting of Candy’s dog into a more comic moment. I really liked how Carson came in with (in the setting of the play) the dog’s blood on his arms and this could have been a very dramatic moment but it was mismatched with the comedy that came before.
In conclusion, as a student who has studied this book to see it put on stage in such an intriguing way with some inspiring changes that highlight both how far we have come and also how close we still are to the troubling time and setting of America’s Great Depression despite the difference in the country. For the most part, the execution of these changes was also very well done by August.012 and I would be very interested in seeing how they could take on other books and forms of literature because I was so intrigued and impressed by this tackling of one of the most well known and controversial of novellas. For this reason, I’m giving this production four stars for its adaptation of Steinbeck’s classic.

An interview with Chloë Clarke and Sami Thorpe from Elbow Room Theatre Company


This is a BSL introduction to the background of Elbow Room Theatre Company

Hi Chloe and Sami great to meet you both, can you give our readers some background information on yourself please?
Sami: Hi, I’m Sami, I work as a performer and also as a qualified British Sign Language/English Interpreter. I have a longstanding passion for inclusion and accessibility in the Arts ever since training at a unique degree course at the University of Reading; Theatre Arts, Education and Deaf Studies.
Chloë: I’ve been performing professionally as an actor/musician for about 8 years, nearly exclusively in integrated or inclusive theatre. I’m registered blind so access in the arts is something I consider vital, and since receiving an Unlimited commission to explore creative uses of audio description I’ve become an AD consultant working with a huge variety of artists and companies across the UK and internationally.

You are in the process of launching a new company called ‘Elbow Room Theatre Company’, an interesting title! Please tell us more.
Sami: Our aim is to create elbow room in the arts for marginalised groups of people. We’ll do this through a commitment to representation and equal access for performers and audiences. We produce new writing that explores creative access from the outset. ‘Elbow Room’ came to us when thinking about who has space and freedom in the arts and society, and who is fighting for it. We want to celebrate diversity and provide a platform for those, like us, who have to use their elbows occasionally. It’s important to continue discussions surrounding representation and diversity through the work we create and through collaborating with other companies, venues and the wider community.
You are both currently working on a new production called The Importance of Being Described… earnestly? We believe this new production presents a new form of Audio Description for audiences?
Chloë: That’s the plan! It came from my frustration at what I felt was a lack of creativity and the isolating, singular nature of ‘traditional’ audio description. We’re throwing away those headsets and devising a creative style of audio description that offers a choice of interpretation and enhances the show for everyone equally. It is delivered live by all characters – and the audience – in a way that adds to the humour and drives the action as well as providing what we like to call ‘access by stealth’.

We want to prove that access really is for everyone and will be hosting a sharing of our research and development on Thursday December 7th at 2pm, in the Weston Studio, Wales Millennium Centre. We’re inviting any interested parties to book tickets via our website: www.elbowroomtheatre.com. Tickets are free but numbers are limited so grab ‘em quick!
Get the Chance works to support a diverse range of members of the public to access cultural provision. Are you aware of any barriers to equality and diversity for either Welsh or Wales based artists?
Sami: I think there are definitely barriers, we can’t be naive in thinking that we are remotely near a time when we can tick a box to say that equality has been achieved, however that shouldn’t deter us in doing every little thing we can to highlight these barriers and to remove them. We are in it for the long game, we need to produce role models for young people and that means opening our doors wider in places where we train and educate people in the arts. We need to continue to have discussions around equality and diversity and implement new forms of inclusion. Talk AND do, that’s the way forward. Diversity is so broad, we must cater for individuals and not just label groups of people. We are all unique and that makes for an exciting, interesting and rich world. Chloë: I couldn’t agree more. Yeah. What she said.
You both work across the UK with a specific focus on work that supports access for performers and artists. How do you feel Wales compares in these areas to the rest of the UK?
Sami: I honestly think Wales is behind. Both England and Scotland host disability led theatre companies, I would love to see more theatre that integrates access come over to Wales. It’s not that we don’t have any integrated theatre here or an unwillingness to learn, in fact, I find generally there is an inclusive attitude, it’s just that we need MORE. More choice, more variety for more people, more of the time.
Chloë: Having worked a lot in Wales and England I’d say there is definitely disparity in the amount of access and disability representation between them. As Sami so succinctly put, attitudes here are by and large willing, but somehow things just aren’t getting done at the level they should be. I think this is hugely to do with the relative scarcity of diverse or inclusive companies and work produced here, as well as a lack of programming of good examples from further afield. So often the argument from venues and companies with regards to access is ‘we’d love to, BUT…’ – we need to work together to combat the barriers faced by these venues and companies. One possible solution is the creative integration of access from the start of a project instead of tacking it on at the end. We need to enthuse writers and directors, as well as venues, to consider access from the outset. This can break down barriers from both sides.
If you were able to fund an area of cultural activity in Wales what would this be and why?
Chloë: It would be in theatre and making theatre inclusive as a whole. We don’t just mean providing accessible performances, the entire experience needs to be welcoming, from booking tickets to getting to the theatre to interacting with venue staff. We need to be cultivating trust with diverse audiences in order to see them grow.
What excites you about the arts in Wales ? What was the last really great thing that you experienced that you would like to share with our readers?
Sami : We love being in Cardiff, being in a city where there’s so much choice of theatre and cultural activity. The richness and quality of the Arts here really excite us and we want to see it all shared with as many people as possible. The last thing I saw that I really loved was the NT Live cinema screening of Angels in America.It took me two weekends to watch it as its very long! It was absolutely beautiful Andrew Garfield was in it. I loved him as an actor he was absolutely gorgeous. He is now playing a disabled person in the film Breathe, I saw him being interviewed on the Andrew Marr show recently. He was using language such as “Able Bodied” and ” Wheel Chair Bound”. I think these opportunities should be given to disabled performers or at the very least have some awareness of the social model of disability and right those wrongs. You are sat there watching cringing, going you are a person that has spent hours researching this role, you must know about the social model of disability, use your power , use your place in the world to be like no this is the correct terminology to use, be a role model!

Thank you for your time, we look forward to your sharing at the Wales Millennium Centre. Thank you for coming to have a chat with us for Get the Chance this afternoon.
Many thanks for your time

Review The Mountaintop, Fio, Pontio by Gareth Williams

 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)
There is something incredibly sad about the fact that The Mountaintop is one of a rare number of plays in Wales featuring an all-black cast. Its director, Abdul Shayek, laments as much: “It is 2017 and the fact that this hasn’t happened more often makes me frustrated and sad”. There should be no reason why this is the case. Both the narrative and the performance in this production are of such a high quality. Yet there is a tension bubbling at the heart of it that is so unsettlingly relevant.
The Mountaintop is a fictional depiction of Martin Luther King’s last night on earth. The action takes place in a single room – Room 306 of the Lorraine Motel, outside which the civil rights activist gets shot on April 4th, 1968. The set is no bigger than this – literally the size of a hotel room – making it extremely close, both claustrophobic and intimate. It allows us, the audience, to become privy to Dr King’s final hours in such fine and emotional detail. We see the anguish, laughter, fear and tenacity etched on the face of Mensah Bediako (King) at every turn. Such is the verisimilitude of Katori Hall’s script that there is even time to hear the great man himself go to the toilet, much to the amusement of the school group that had come along to watch. This level of authenticity, played out in real time, allows the conversation between King and hotel maid Camae (Rebecca Carrie) to flow naturally and build organically, with impressive results. The two actors bounce off one another brilliantly. Their timing and pace are perfectly attuned. They appear so comfortable in their working relationship, and so at ease with their characters. It makes for some excellent exchanges, fizzing with sexual chemistry and fermenting emotional intensity.

The success of their relationship helps concentrate The Mountaintop on a solid foundation. It helps to retain its integrity as it progresses into what could be considered surrealism. Without giving too much away, a dramatic twist sees the introduction of a heavenly dimension, bringing a sharp focus onto the reality of King’s impending death and his relationship with God. I liked the fact that Hall plays with our expectations, imaging God as both black and feminine. This is a God who is contactable, reachable through the hotel phone. Such is the bizarre nature of this section, King even has a conversation with Her. Yet it is testament to the quality of The Mountaintop’s writing and acting that it never runs off the rails. It is all part of the bigger message which comes into sharp focus at the play’s conclusion.
It is impossible to leave the theatre without responding, in some way, to The Mountaintop’s final scene. A powerful poem – “The Baton Passes On” – begins a subtle change in focus as its message is not only directed at King but at the audience too. Once Carrie finishes this piece, Bendiako stands on a plinth, addressing the audience directly. He evokes the great oratory skills of King to give an emotive speech which leaves you in no doubt about the need to respond. It is an arresting, challenging and profoundly affecting moment. On reflection, it also brings into sharp focus the continuing injustice of Shayek’s observation.
The Mountaintop is a rallying cry for each of us to be the change. It is an excellent production that surely signals for greater diversity in the theatre industry. There is a need for greater representation of minorities on stage, and on this evidence, this should certainly be the case. With an exceptional script, an immersive set, and a highly talented cast, The Mountaintop deserves much wider recognition. So, Welsh theatre industry, support more creative people from BAME backgrounds. On this evidence, you won’t regret it.

For more on the work of Fio, click here.

Review: Little Wolf by LUCID at Chapter

 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

Introduction

Well, hold on to your hats theatergoers! Little Wolf by LUCID theatre company is going to shake you up a bit.
Little Wolf written and directed by LUCID’s founder Swansea-born Stephen Harris, is a reworking of Ibsen’s classic 1894 play Little Eyolf. The action takes place in contemporary Norway and the dialogue reflects that with references to Facebook and GPS for example.
It is surprising, when considering 21st-century attitudes  that Ibsen was a very provocative writer for his time and often felt foul of censorship and Victorian prudity. Simon Harris revitalises Ibsen with his “in yer face” treatment. Subtleties that you find in Ibsen’s play regarding the very close relationship between supposedly half-siblings Freddie and Asta, is transformed to Rita asking her husband,, “Did you fuck her?” No question of  ambiguity there.
Ibsen wrote Little Eyolf in 1894, late on in his writing career, and at a time he was moving away from Naturalistic to Expressionist drama. This is a very expressionist production. It purveys an atmosphere which is both dreamlike and nightmarish. The starkness of its setting, the plot and structure is episodic , the expletives in the dialogue and the acting bordering on overacting at times are more closely linked with Strindberg than how we think of Ibsen.
Little Eyolf, compared to other Ibsen classic drama, is not performed as often as “A Doll’s House”, “Hedda Gabler” and “Peer Gynt”. The one recent exception that stands out is Richard Eyre’s Almeida Theatre 2016 production which The Guardian’s critic Michael Billington described as “shockingly intense”. That’s where the problem lies in terms of its comparative rareness of performance, as it is a very demanding play to watch. Demanding in terms of its emotional ferocity.

Design and Direction

At the start of the performance, the audience is greeted with the sounds of birds tweeting and children playing. The stage design is basically simple but works very effectively. It consists of children’s toys scattered centre stage with the most prominent item being a child’s railway set. A wardrobe is placed upstage left and this plays a very important part in the story later on. Upstage right is the only door. A stool is the only other significant object.  The lighting is used very effectively, sometimes evoking the dreamlike atmosphere that I have already alluded to.
Attention to detail has been paid in terms of the selected music – Norwegian children’s songs and rhymes, and the  wearing of contemporary Norwegian casual attire. Both contribute to creating a sense of realism that the action is taking place in Norway.
One of the features that I particularly like was the use of a Robert Lepage-like video screen projected the entire width of the stage and located upstage, which is used often at the end of a scene. An example of this is underwater scenes after the announcement of Eyolf’s death by drowning. Another time is was used when Freddie was reminiscing with Asta some childhood experiences which had a young boy and girl playing in the background on the projected screen.
I also like the symbolic way the railway track was slowly being picked up by Freddie after Wolf had drowned. Railway tracks symbolise a journey and the retrieving of Wolf’s toy represents the ending of his life’s journey.
Symbolism also features, (as it does in the Ibsen play), in the use of water-lilies to indicate rebirth and regeneration.

The Cast

The  talented cast is uniformly good with Gwydion Rhys as Freddie taking the honours. His overwrought delivery of the artistically temperamental Freddie was very believable.

 

Alex Clatworthy as Freddie’s sexually frustrated wife Rita grows into the part and delivered a piercing delivery of sarcasm and irony mixed with ferocious intensity . When Wolf is missing, she welcomes the excitement of the event over her mundane day to day existence.

Melangell Dolma plays Asta, Freddie’s believed half-sister has a more understated role which she manages to portray well.

The final member of the cast, John-Paul Macleod as Lars, (a departure from the name of the character in Little Eyolf – Borghejm brings a comedic element to the production. Instead of the engineer in Ibsen’s version, Lars is a computer nerd and a candidate for twit of the year. Bordering on overacting at times, (reasonable in an expressionist play), he gets nearly all the laughs, although at the end shows a sensitivity when referring to Wolf that was very touching.


 
The cast works at its best in the most highly charged scenes. Some of the more quieter passages are a little too passive for my liking. Possibly, this is by way of contrast to the  angry angstful interplay which exaggerates  the passivity of these scenes.

Little Wolf vs. Little Eyolf

Lasting only 90 minutes, Little Wolf is roughly two thirds of the duration of the Ibsen play. Inevitably certain elements of the story have to be left out. The most dramatic departure is the absence of the important role of the Rat-Wife, who is only mentioned in the third person in the Little Wolf version. The character is based on the  Pied Piper because she has charmed all the rats in the locality into a boat and drowned them in the fjord. The comparison between the unwanted rats and the unwanted Eywolf is clearly apparent.   This part is a great opportunity for a character actress as exemplified by the lauded performance by Eileen Walsh at the Almeida last year. Ibsen wrote ambivalent roles; he wasn’t one for archetypes. The Rat-woman helps to show this ambivalence, but Simon Harris manages to capture this within his script. Rita is a case in point. At times she is monumentally sarcastic to Freddie, although he undoubtedly deserved it. She mocks his writing about orcs and other monsters when later she praises his artistic talent.
The sexual tension is considerably more explicit in the Little Wolf production. Nothing is left to the imagination. In fact the strong language does become a little grating at times and I felt that a little more restraint wouldn’t have softened the power of the dialogue.
Such restraint was more apparent in the interaction between Freddie and Asta which reveals their complicated relationship.
Lars’s character transforms Little Wolf into high farce in places, and I am not convinced that this sits comfortably with the intensity of this highly charged play. Having said that the scene where Rita is trying to have sex with Lars up against the wardrobe where Freddie has retreated, when interrupted  by the arrival of  Asta is highly amusing.
Fundamentally, the story remains intact. The guilt felt, primarily through the incapacity of Freddie and Rita’s baby son, through an act of negligence whilst pursuing  animalistic sexual urges had taken their mind of the safety of their boy and continued after Wolf’s drowning. Freddie’s dramatic decline afterwards, retreating into his own world, hiding away in the wardrobe.  His searching for something symbolised by his systematically tearing up the stage – searching but not finding until Rita’s triumphant rationalisation of their situation in the final scene.

The ending is even more open than Ibsen’s version. In Little Eyolf, Rita and Freddie devote themselves to helping the local orphan children; the same kids that could have been responsible for Eyolf’s drowning. Simon Harris realises that this wouldn’t be a realistic scenario today and ops for a decision for the couple to move away from atheir and make a new start elsewhere. However, I feel that I am more confident that Ibsen’s complicated couple would have a better chance of moving on than Little Wolf’s pair.

Conclusion

“LUCID makes vivid, urgent must-see theatre..” the playlist boasts, and this is fulfilled in this production.  The concentrated power, relentless, austere, urgent nature of the Ibsen play has been retained in Little Wolf. People today should be able to identify with the issues that Freddie and Rita face, and, although not perfect in its delivery, I can certainly recommend it to an audience, I guarantee will not be bored.
Photography credits: Jorge Lizalcde
4 stars
For ages 14+ for pervasive language throughout and strong adult themes.
Wheelchair access
The show tours South Wales during late October and November 2017.
For venues and timings please see my preview at getthechance.wales/2017/10/18/preview-of-henrik-ibsens-little-wolf-by-lucid/
 

An Interview with Fio’s Artistic Director, Abdul Shayek.



Hi Abdul, would you mind by starting by giving a quick background of yourself for our readers?
Yes of course! I moved from London to Wales in 2011 and worked for National Theatre Wales as a creative associate. In 2013 I left and started my own new projects – I created Fio from the foundations of an organisation I ran in London called Youth Of Creative Arts. Fio is based in Cardiff and is an arts charity with the aim of creating new interest in art projects and developing people within the arts.

At Fio, we want to make productions that start conversations over important issues, which can be seen with our previous productions as well as our currently-running Death and the Maiden. Fio’s motto is “Fio makes fearless theatre: work that tears down stereotypes and challenges injustice.”
 Considering your move from London to Cardiff, did you personally feel that there was a need for a boost in cultural diversity in the Welsh arts scene?
When I moved to Wales I could see a hugely diverse community around me. But many culturally-diverse artists aren’t made prominent on the Welsh arts scene and aren’t given the same platforms as others. I created Fio to try and boost these people up and bring them an opportunity. Fio’s production last year, The Mountaintop, aimed to tackle race issues and how much they may or may not have changed. Despite being focused on the Black American community, it resonates across the world where there is underrepresent Afro-Caribbean community.

In a world concerned with TV, film and social media, do you worry that there is a struggle to keep theatre alive?
I don’t think theatre is going anywhere. The live nature and the fact the audience is involved in productions and are living it as the actors are has such a powerful impact. There is a bigger sense of real-life empathy that you don’t get in the same way through a screen. Therefore, theatre will not disappear. Historically, performance has always been a way to enable communities to hold a mirror up to themselves and allows them to purge themselves of some of their issues and questions. Theatre always provokes you to think about topical issues and debate. It’s a shared experience, you’re there as a group and you share the experience together.

What has it been like, being the director of a play that touches so many on a personal level? With themes like rape and abuse, there is a large responsibility placed on your shoulders.
As a production team, we are very concerned with supporting actors and audiences that could be affected by the themes the play raises. We want to talk about it but also provide a safe space for thinking around abuse and dealing with democracy after a dictatorship. Gender politics has a huge part to play in the show too. We want the production to force us to have those conversations. It’s been an interesting process as a creative team, thinking about how to do it right and how to safeguard those participating in those conversations in the first place. We want to do it in a way that is constructive. We’re going to have some Q&As with people who have experience civil war, rape and other themes of the play to enable the safe-guarded conversation. Also, on the 1st -3rd November we are running a female-only project. Fusion is meant to encourage a safe space for women to get together and respond to the personal themes we want to raise in discussions. It will be at St David’s Hall and will really delve into what being a female in wales is like.
The play is preoccupied with truth, democracy and dictatorships (as many as other themes). When regarding the world as we know it right now, what do you think topical themes such as these can do for cultural understanding of politics? Can they inspire change?
Yeah, the play tackles these themes but also tries to discuss issues on a personal level, such as abuse and raw torture. We want to ask: how does a whole nation recover with democracy after a dictatorship? How do victims move on from governmental abuse? Recent events such as the Weinstein case raises the conversation about issues such as abuse of power and the male-dominated world women have to live in. What happens when women are subjected to sexual abuse and how is it viewed through the lens of the mainstream? How can we empower women to feel like they can talk about it? We want to know how to identify and start being able to rectify issues of these nature.
Thanks for talking with me, Abdul.
Thanks.
Death and the Maiden is being shown in The Other Room, Cardiff from the 31st October until 11th November.
By Charlotte Clark