Co-production by Liverpool Everyman & Playhouse, Curve Leicester and English Touring Theatre
Directed by Anthony Almeida
(4 / 5)
What is it like to be living a lie and then to be confronted by the truth? This is the theme that runs through Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. We know this is a classic text so it is hard for a new production to live up to that legacy. The spectre of Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor from the film adaptation looms large in the memory and that medium can introduce more phase and change into the setting than is possible on the stage.
This is a difficult play to get right. It’s reputation demands vital theatre, yet the script is carried by dialogue much more than action such that it is the communication of character that will hold the attention. Does this production succeed? Indeed it does. The three strongest characters, Maggie, played by Siena Kelly, Brick, by Oliver Johnstone and Big Daddy, by Peter Forbes were superb and were ably supported by the cast. Maggie in particular was beguiling, passionate and determined while Brick suitably downtrodden before being awoken by confrontation from his stupor. Big Daddy was the epitome of a controlling, self-made man from the Deep South with all the patriarchal values you would expect.
Sienna Kelly as Maggie
The action takes place in a bedroom in a household that is straining to cope with the tensions that lie within. Key to this is how people respond to the fact that Big Daddy is dying and what will become of his legacy. Of course there are machinations behind the scenes, but the problem is the alcoholism demonstrated by the favoured son, Brick. Why does he drink? It is clear he is a spoiled, indulged child who has had his sports career wrecked through injury and suffered the loss of a profound childhood friend through suicide. Now he is now running from himself out of a sense of disgust but senses that a tissue of lies pervades all his relationships. Something has to change. The play becomes an exercise in how to uncover truth after a whole panoply of lies has been built. The question arises, just how much truth can we take without it breaking the family apart?
Oliver Johnstone as Brick
The set was simple and effective. I found the curtain a distraction while it was drawn, but it was used to excellent effect when Brick was wrapped in it to symbolize being suffocated by the expectations of people around him. The movement of the cast in and out of scene while dialogue was taking place alluded to the fact that ‘walls have ears’, again, nicely done.
Peter Forbes as Big Daddy, Oliver Johnstone as Brick
The cast did an excellent job of portraying a suffocating, stifling atmosphere. All that was missing were a few crickets, mosquitos and the oppressive heat from the Deep South. The play gripped the attention and held the audience in thrall. The characters were well developed, complex personas who all had their flaws and thus mirrored the human condition. No easy answers were given here, people had to make the best from what they had. This may sound uncomfortable, rather it made for riveting theatre. This was an intense, yet thoroughly enjoyable evening.
Many of us have bemoaned the lack of live theatre over the past months, the atmosphere, the immediacy, the inventiveness behind a good production. Would a virtual presentation be able to compensate and provide a stimulating theatrical experience?
Online interaction has been something that many of us have had to get used to and is now such a familiar form of media for both business and entertainment. Would it work for a play that cries out for a live audience?
Alan Harris’ play, ‘For The Grace Of You Go I’ is a dark comedy that explores the theme of mental illness, in particular a personality disorder. It demonstrates how illness and disadvantage fits in a context of a ruthless, profit driven society that shows little understanding and still less sympathy for those who find themselves unable to conform to a standard sense of normality. The main character, Jim (Rhodri Meilir) is forced into a job creation scheme or else lose the benefits he needs to survive. However he is unable to keep up with the demands of work or the strictures placed upon him. Why should a pepperoni pizza have 6 pieces of sausage arranged in a circle?
Central to the play is an examination of reality, individuality and purpose in life. Jim suffers from a depersonalization=derealisation disorder where he has a repeated experience of viewing himself from outside his body. This has a debilitating and demoralizing effect on him and effectively prevents him from accessing work and relationships as he would like, leading him into a spiral of depression. However, he expresses this with an honesty that contrasts markedly with Mark (Darren Jeffries) who comes across as self-assured, successful with an aspirational lifestyle. This however is a sham and his life is effectively a lie.
With both characters being dysfunctional, the play explores the support society should give to those with a mental illness. Remi Beasley’s character, Irina is the person who promotes the back to work scheme designed to help reconstruct the lives of those like Jim. She presents an enthusiastic, sympathetic persona to him that is sadly crushed by the target driven, profit oriented company they work for. Her frustration is initially directed to Jim but as she grows in knowledge and affection for him, this is directed towards the soulless nature of the company and the empty promises it makes. This very much mirrors the experience of those marginalised in our society who seek to reconstruct their lives.
The play is drawn to a memorable climax when Jim and Mark meet at a film club. They are both heavily influenced by a film by Finnish auteur Aki Kaurismaki, ‘I hired a hitman’. To escape his despondence, Jim attempts to mimic the film by hiring Mark to be a hitman who will end his suffering.
The set was highly effective using a simple backdrop of three primary colours that allowed a change of mood and scene to occur seamlessly. It helped focus the attention on the actors and dialogue rather than distract the eye as some more complex backdrops can do.
It was superbly acted by the three players, whose dialogue and interplay was slick and convincing. However, while there were many occasions when the dialogue brought out a smile, there was a smouldering intensity about the production that drew towards an inevitable, tragic conclusion. To me, the most important conclusion was that the authentic life must prevail and be lived with integrity no matter what the circumstance. This is followed closely by the searing indictment of a harsh, money driven society lacking compassion and the ability to help those with significant mental health problems. As such it is a timely reminder that after this current pandemic, there will be plenty of people in need of substantial support.
Did the play successfully translate to a virtual environment? It was certainly riveting viewing and well worth a watch, but I stand by the impression that this is no replacement for a live performance, good as it was. It is a convenient format, where you can pause, refill your glass and come back to it, but the flat screen dulls the senses to the poignancy playing out in front of you. Congratulations to Theatr Clwyd for having the ambition to film and broadcast this production. It was a welcome treat after being starved of theatre for so long, however, it will be great to walk through the doors and experience once again live theatre in reality.
Ripples can be viewed online for two weeks, please note this review contains information about this production.
Is it ever possible to overcome addiction?
Ripples, a Sherman Theatre/RWCMD/National Theatre of Wales production is a story of 8 people who say they have succumbed to addiction as they journey through twelve weeks of group therapy. Owing to the shutdown of society at this time, the play was presented in a video conference. Did this detract from the play as a spectacle?
It was a treat to be able to watch theatre having been deprived of it for several weeks. It is great to see people using their imagination to continue with theatre even though we cannot meet in person. Ripples is a very good example, an enterprising adaptation of a script due to be performed on stage by graduates of the RWCMD and directed by Matthew Holmquist, written by Tracy Harris. Of course it lacked the immediacy that live theatre brings. However I have taken part in a fair few ‘Zoom’ conferences recently and understand the glitchy nature of the system and the awkwardness with dialogue that can arise. Thankfully the technology worked and the presentation came across as professional and well edited.
The storyline did not make for leisurely viewing, but then again theatre should reflect a range of human experience and this play confirmed that sometimes there are no easy answers and neat endings in life. It was powerful, personal testimony that explored the extremes of human experience and touched on issues like rape, abuse, bereavement, homophobic violence, suicide, betrayal and forgiveness. Many of the characters demonstrated symptoms of mental health problems. These were cited as reasons why people fell into addiction and while some people find themselves in this situation owing to more mundane circumstance, it is a truism that there is a reason why people become addicted.
The play communicated the awkwardness of starting a group therapy session, wondering what the point is when you perform a seemingly spurious exercise designed to get people talking. It then successfully explored how people found others quite annoying or alternatively warmed to each other. There was plenty of tension between certain characters but also you could find supportive advice and appreciative friendship. This reflects the dysfunctional and disrupted lifestyle that addiction can bring and how an addict can need others but also find it hard to form productive relationships
The awkwardness posed questions of such group sessions. How open should I be? Do I tell the truth? How much truth do I tell? These are tough questions for anybody but amplified by the fact that addiction involves living a lie for many people. The level of conversation was so deep that it brought its own awkwardness as well. People were sharing at a level normally seen only in a patient/counsellor relationship or with the deepest of friends, yet here you do the same with people who are strangers to each other.
This rammed home possibly the most salient point in common with people who suffer an addiction, vulnerability. The play did an excellent job of uncovering how each of the characters was vulnerable, both as a reason for addiction and a consequence from it. It also illustrated that testimony given was a mixture of truth, personal interpretation of events and make-believe. All of the characters were looking for trust and support, but these attributes were hard to find. All characters demonstrated the desperation to escape addiction yet many would not have the will to achieve this.
The play had an ambiguous ending. The lead counsellor did not attend the final session having found the previous too troublesome, when one member after an argument walked out to return to her addictive lifestyle. In that sense, the group failed and this is a key message. Sometimes with the best will in the world, addiction is so powerful that people cannot escape no matter how they try.
However this was only partial failure and certain characters formed relationships that may well endure and stated that they had benefitted considerably from this exercise. Such is the nature of rehab. Looking at the optimistic side of the ending, there were plenty of reasons given for people to be alive, dancing, late night conversations, love, sex, laughter, swimming in the sea, music, and perhaps most importantly, faith – generally and in people. I found this a great thought to be left with.
This was an intense play and watching it onscreen made for a different experience. Of course it lacked immediacy and it was easy to lose concentration as I was at home with a few distractions around. It lacked the breadth of action possible on a stage compared to 8 screens on a television, but the static nature of the performance added to the bleak, personal nature of the stories. I thoroughly enjoyed the production and thought each of the members of the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, Catrin Walker-Booth, John Tate, Luke Nunn, Emily John, Shannen McNeice, Mark Henry Davies, Dafydd Thomas and Meryn Davies Williams acquitted themselves with distinction. Given the topic matter, this play is not for everyone, but those who get to see it will find it a memorable, thought provoking piece of theatre. It is available online for the next two weeks on the AM Channel here.
Written by John Cleese, directed by Daniel Buckroyd,
Theatr Clwyd, February 18th 2020
(4 / 5)
Was this a farce or was it farcical? With big names come
many expectations and in the world of comedy in the UK, they do not come much
bigger than John Cleese, from whom have come some of our seminal comic
experiences. Indeed, Monty Python must
rank as one of the most influential comedy series of the last century. Does this play match up to this
reputation? I think it is unfair to ask
that question.
The achievements of Cleese have stood the test of time and
he need not do anything further to enhance this legacy. So why is he venturing into being a
playwright for the first time? I get the impression he has a profound interest
in farce. In fact his most famous sitcom,
Fawlty Towers is pure farce. And as he
is a creative person, he has chosen to bring to the stage an adaptation of
‘Monsieur Chasse’ by Georges Feydeau, a prominent French playwright spanning
the end of the 19th and start of the 20th Centuries. This is someone whose plays have been adapted
many times through the years, but to many more locally he is largely
forgotten. So Cleese’s play should stand
on its own merit, irrespective of the writer.
After all, it is the play we view, not him.
Why do we need a farce?
Surely our humour has moved on, become more sophisticated? Not at all.
After the political events of the past few years, the time has never
been more right for a farce, to give someone a heartfelt laugh, gently
lampooning our double standards leaving us with a feel good factor. Does Bang, Bang succeed? Of course!
With such a pedigree from actors and writer it would be hard not to
fulfil its stated intention. This was a
really enjoyable evening’s entertainment that had the house laughing
throughout. It was well acted, with a
real team ethic and great comic timing.
The plot was centred on a ‘happily’ married couple who pledged faithfulness to each other, however as their lives descended towards chaos, their infidelity and the accompanying tissue of lies was exposed in front of their peers. It was a clever script, delivered at a fast pace and never failed to grab your attention. The characteristics of good farce were all there. A growing sense of cringe worthy embarrassment, where you knew what was coming yet the characters were powerless in their attempts to stave off disaster. A ring of self-confidence, epitomized when characters made asides to the audience, which you knew would be shot to pieces as the play progressed. There was more than a gentle poke at any pomposity in all characters as they tried to fend off disaster with a smooth urbanity or a sense of moral indignation.
The script was true to the original work of Feydeau, yet had
definite ‘Basil Fawlty’ moments. While
all actors were excellent, I particularly enjoyed Tony Gardner’s portrayal of
Duchatel as he bumbled along from a position of trust and control to a place where
he ate plenty of humble pie. It was a
nice comic touch to see the maid change increasingly from a deferential to a
condescending attitude as the foibles of the characters unfolded. I liked also
the set change where the cast doubled as scene shifters and acted as backing
vocals to Leontine’s song. In the second
act when the scenery moved mistakenly, this was handled assuredly by Gardner
who turned it into a nice comic interaction with the audience.
The language of the play was as colourful as you might expect of Cleese – he has often used such, but you can question its necessity in this context. There is plenty of humour throughout the play already and one wonders if it fits the polite respectability that is the backdrop to the action.
If you are expecting this to be anarchic, avant garde humour, you will be disappointed, but this was never the original premise. It was a farce, well scripted, well acted and true to the artistic heritage of good farces and those seeing the play in that context should really enjoy it. So in an age where this word is overused, it was great to see a return to a proper farce.
Behind ‘Rush’ lies a simple theme. This is my story. This is where I come from, this is why I came here. This is what life is like for me here. Here is my story told through the universal medium of music. We all have a story like this, and to a degree every story is engaging because people are interesting. It is just that some stories are more interesting than others and this one involves three continents, colonization, death of an indigenous people, brutal slavery, rebellion, warfare, migration and racism. Welcome to Jamaica and its tour of Britain, February 2020, destination Mold.
We were promised a joyous Jamaican journey and judging by
the fact all bar a handful of people in a crowded theatre were on their feet at
times, this is what we got. Even my left
knee was shaking in time to this rhythmic feast despite my pathological phobia
of dancing. The fact that I was pinned
back in my seat to avoid the gyrations of the lady standing next to me did not
detract from the spectacle. Sometimes it
is just great to see people join in with unfettered enthusiasm.
Yet here was a contradiction. This story is far from joyous, it is tainted
with more than a bucketful of blood, sweat and tears and while this was pointed
out with a wry sense of humour, this was not what we heard. Instead we were
treated to an endless list of Jamaican song encompassing a brief history of ska
and reggae with songs from Jimmy Cliff and Desmond Decker amongst a host of
others. Special mention was made of Bob
Marley who would have celebrated his 75th birthday this week and who
played Deeside Leisure Centre in 1980.
It’s a small world. There were
some surprising sounds, ‘The tide is high’ is so heavily associated with
Blondie that many have forgotten its Jamaican roots.
The music was performed with distinction by the JA Reggae
Band, all of whom were consummate musicians orchestrated by the lead guitar and
musical director, Orville Pinnock. True to the development of ska in
particular, the band was racially diverse with a rich tapestry of experience
from different musical genres. They were
ably supported by DJ Paul who played a variety of tracks supplementing a long
set.
The two lead singers IKA and Janice Williamson both had
rich, powerful voices that were adaptable to a range of song. My particular favourite was the gospel
standard, ‘Oh Happy day’ acknowledging church influence on the Jamaican
community. The story was introduced and
narrated by John Simmitt, who did so gently, rhythmically yet with a waspish sense
of humour. One pleasing aspect here was
that there were no ‘stars’ in this ensemble, just a team working closely
together who so obviously enjoyed and entered into the musical feast they
presented.
My question is, how important is the Jamaican story? This, and others like it should be a staple in every secondary school curriculum. It speaks volumes to us about our national identity, our historic legacy and comments forcefully against those xenophobic elements in our society that seem to have found a voice in the past few years. From the brutal colonization of the 15th and 16th Centuries, the loathsome practice of transatlantic slavery to the shocking betrayal of the Windrush generation by a populist government pillorying immigrants to win votes, this story reeks of injustice. I would have liked to see more historical narrative, to learn more about the Maroon rebellions and leaders such as Marcus Garvey and Paul Bogle instead of being satisfied with allusions to these events and people. But increasingly as the show developed it was a celebration of music that has its roots or was influenced by Jamaica.
Perhaps the most important theme of the show was to emphasise the fact that the presence of Black and Asian communities in the UK is the result of a direct invitation to live here by the British government after World War 2. Once people arrived, despite a pernicious level of racism these communities have integrated into, influenced and enhanced our society. The reception given to 2-tone music and the energy generated by numbers by The Specials and Madness was a prime illustration of this. Similar statements could be made especially about those communities from the Indian sub-continent who have made their home here. Few people prior to 1960 would have heard of Tandoori chicken, yet to some, this is more of a national dish than roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.
These communities are building their own cultural legacy
now, a great example being the Notting Hill Carnival, one of the biggest street
festivals in the world, attracting over 2 million visitors each year. The carnival in itself is unique, being a
fusion of Jamaican reggae and Trinidadian steel band and is now officially a
British cultural icon. Perhaps we have
forgotten the roots of this carnival lie in a response to racial attacks on
West Indians. Few have heard of the 1959
death of Kelso Cochrane at the hands of white youths. And few will know that the perpetrators were
never charged or convicted for fear of the public unrest that may incite. This was despite the fact that the identity
of the killer was an open secret in the local community.
This demonstrates that we have a lot to learn from this
history yet despite such a powerful message it was not the key theme of the
evening. There was no axe to grind, no
bitterness at this shameful treatment.
Just a nice line of humour poking fun at people like Enoch Powell and
his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. The
Conservative club in his former constituency is now a West Indian Cultural Centre. How times have changed.
The pervasive theme of the evening for me was the rhythm
which permeated every song, energised the audience and left people with a feel
good factor. It was remarkable that a
mainly white, middle aged, middle class audience found such movement and joy in
this Caribbean cultural festival. John
Simmitt joked that the audience might be better suited to a cup of Milo or
Horlicks before bedtime but this was far from the case. The audience warmed to the rhythm with
gusto. Full credit to the cast, who
after taking their bow made their way to the foyer to greet the audience as
they left. After three hours of performance
they need not have done this but was a most welcome end to a fabulous evening.
Go and see this performance.
Feel the rhythm, enjoy the music, learn the history.
This is an ambitious premise. Take a story that has passed into classic status, that has been reworked countless times in serious and spoof form, that has universal recognition and that has spawned endless clones and then strip it back to its original story line and portray it through the eyes of its creator. Would it work? Can it fulfil that lofty aim?
I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this production at Theatr Clwyd. I heard it said that it was a verbose script with a lot of shouting and that the lead playing Mary Shelley was too in your face, but to me this was absorbing, thought provoking theatre that retold the story and yet picked out the social context admirably.
At times it is not comfortable viewing, it was intended as a
horror story and developed a threatening, suspense filled atmosphere without
attempting to shock for the sake of it.
The set and lighting was highly effective, with an almost black and
white backdrop yet with a clever use of height that allowed you to see the
story and then see the thought process of the author side by side.
It was this use of the author that allowed the social context and Promethean nature of the story to breathe. Especially during the second act, you saw her dictating the nature of the story to drive home the point that she wanted to make. In that sense the play was as much about her as it was Frankenstein and his monster. She was a remarkable author. She was an 18 year old recently married woman who had suffered considerable personal tragedy when this was written. She was actively involved in events that fermented the social revolution that was taking place in the early 19th Century and the play reflects that clamour for change. She then became the fulfilment of some of her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft’s desires when as an independent, self-supporting woman, developed her own career while supporting other members of her family.
She developed themes of throwing off traditional rule and
transforming society through scientific revolution, yet knowing that unfettered
scientific investigation can take things too far. The book served as an illustration of the
conflict between a traditional way of life, the challenge of science and the
interdependence of different branches of knowledge, such that Science without Religion
is ignorant. Religion without Science is
blind.
Most strikingly to me though was Shelley’s insistence that what people need is love,
compassion and some companionship and if you deny people these basic needs you
are playing with fire.
It is the stated intention of the playwright, Rona Munro to draw us back to the life of Mary Shelley, and she accomplishes this really well. Mary is played with huge emotion by Eilidh Loan yet this portrayal does not compromise the telling of Frankenstein’s story. This is told faithfully and the two male leads, Frankenstein (Ben Castle Gibb on his professional debut) and the monster (Michael Morland) bring out the optimism, despair and tragedy of this striking story pointedly.
To me this is a carefully crafted, multi-layered and thought
provoking piece of theatre. It is
intense and at times bleak. There is
also much pathos that reflects on today’s society. The chief desire of the monster is to be
loved, appreciated and understood. When he fails to find those qualities
directed towards him, his nature is transformed to match his hideous
appearance. Therein lies a paradigm that
speaks volumes to our society. So often we fail to appreciate those amongst us
who we describe as ‘other’ and Shelley comments, neglect ‘others’ at our
peril. It is no wonder that this story
has been retold so many times and it is great to see a production that remains
modern yet takes us back to Shelley’s original ideas.
Go and see Frankenstein and prepare to be surprised. Even shocked!
Theatr Clwyd, Friday January 24th 2020. Review by Richard Evans.
Suspense, intrigue, who will get their revenge?
This is a new play, written, directed and lead by Richard
Jones and produced by Phoenix Theatre Company from Mold, and requested by the
Rotary Club. It was first performed last
May at Theatr Clwyd and reprised this week.
Full marks for bringing a new script and showing the
ambition to stage this play. It made for
an enjoyable evening’s entertainment, which while being a very wordy script
held my attention to the end. I
particularly enjoyed the characterisation.
As the play was set in Hollywood in the 1950’s it spoofed the major film
stars of the day very well, adding a nice touch of humour.
I also thought the live music added much to the play. The band, J. Edgar and the Hoovers was simple yet highly effective. A three piece unit played a mixture of covers of 1950’s standards and original compositions tailored to suit the mood and the characters.
This was a comic murder mystery revolving around a major
Hollywood film producer who had a mega salary and an ego to go with it. He had got to the top with a mixture of
grandiose gesture, manipulation, blackmail and cruelty such that he incurred
hate in the other characters. This was
played realistically by Richard Jones and while the first act was dominated by
him, this suited the bombastic nature of the character and fitted the story
line well. Having gained many enemies on
his rise to the top, there was no shortage of people willing to bop him off!
The second act saw the introduction of Sam Shade, detective,
a spoof of Humphrey Bogarts film noir character convincingly delivered by John
Kinsey, despite the slightly odd distraction of singing ‘Rawhide’ shortly after
his entrance. This seemed out of kilter
with the rest of the play. The
denouement had a suitable twist at the end, allusive of some of the best that
Hollywood produced in the 1950’s and also adding great comic value.
Perhaps I am wrong, I gained the impression that the first
act, which was short at 40 minutes long ended too early, omitting one scene that
had to be delivered at the start of the second act to avoid effectively writing
out one of the characters.
I found the script very word heavy and the storyline
repetitive at times yet there was much to enjoy about this play. It was great to see allusions to other films
or series like Back to the Future and Miss Marple. The use of Jimmy Cagney’s ‘You dirty rat’ was
great showing the script was cleverly constructed and humourous.
The topic matter is indeed relevant to what has taken place
in Hollywood down through the years. However,
I thought the intros in the first act were laboured and could have been
incorporated into the following scenes showing the interaction with the lead
and the rest of the characters. Having
said this, the acting by all involved was professional and delivered really
well.
Bearing in mind this is an ambitious piece of theatre,
performed by an amateur group albeit with a long pedigree it was a very good
evening’s entertainment. Of course it
could be honed and refined, but I did not see anyone leave disappointed and the
play left the audience with a warm, feel good factor.
4 stars out of 5, 4 rather than 3.5 because of its
originality
A Christmas Carol, a real cracker or just plain humbug?
Would this presentation stay true to Dickens’ novella? Would it be accessible to children or would they be rather sucking on a bag of humbugs by the end? These two questions were answered in a resoundingly positive way as the cast and crew at Theatr Clwyd rose to the challenge with aplomb.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable interactive performance that communicated much of what Dickens intended yet had a lightness of touch, an impish humour and a sense of occasion that made it well suited to a Christmas show. The script, an adaptation by Alan Harris incorporated plenty of Dickensian language and picked up many of the paradigms that pervade this well known story. These included the heartless materialism that Victorian London exhibited alongside the powerless struggle against deprivation experienced by the poor.
The cast was a mixture of professional and community actors and while all the professionals stood out, there was no perceivable divide between the two elements and they communicated a real sense of enjoyment plus feelings of teamwork and unity. This places the production firmly in the footsteps of community and promenade productions such as the Great Gatsby and Mold Riots. It has been great to see such creativity and ambition coming from the Theatr and it is exciting to see so many local people so eager to take part in this type of production.
The play used two adjacent settings in the theatre, one space transformed into a street market where the audience mingled freely with the cast. Audience members were given a token to exchange for a sample of local produce and this set the tone for the interactive nature of this production. Being so close to the action immerses you into the experience and builds empathy for the characters. However it was hard to imagine it was a cold December day when the place was so hot!
The second space staged the visitations of the three Christmas ghosts to Ebenezer Scrooge, played excellently by Steven Elliot. The transformation of Scrooge from a money grabbing miser who showed little sympathy for the human condition to one shocked into generosity of spirit was plain to see. In another subtle layer, the play explored the reasons why Scrooge was so miserly. Had he not been neglected as a child, would he have been so surly?
The sets, light and sound created a gently intimidating atmosphere that was appropriate for a production open to children. My only problem was that when an actor had their back to you it was hard to hear them. The first transition between the two rooms felt slow and slightly awkward, but the second seemed much smoother and served to transform the mood successfully from Scrooges depressive night adventures to an optimistic Christmas Day.
The bleakness and intensity of those ghostly confrontations was broken up with a few pantomime style games that helped maintain concentration for people young and old. It was good to see even quite young children taking part. Yet despite considerable phase and change in the play it did not lose its pace or rhythm and those interactive activities did not detract from the story, rather they were worked seamlessly into the production.
This play to me was most enjoyable. I particularly liked the performance of Bob Cratchit (Matthew Bulgo) and of Tiny Tim (Lewis Lowry) who brought a stubborn optimism to contrast the materialistic ignorance of Scrooge. As with many stories, it is great to see the underdog triumph in adversity especially when celestial help was required. It has made for a most pleasant addition to my Christmas celebrations. Christmas Cracker or mere humbug? I saw a bag of unopened humbugs by the door as I left.
Undoubtedly, the BBC series, Yes Minister and its sequel, Yes Prime Minister have provided us with many comic moments and fond memories. To recreate that show on stage, doing justice to those original characters yet producing something fresh is a challenge that is met with panache in this show at Theatr Clwyd. A combination of a great script and excellent delivery make this a thoroughly enjoyable evening’s entertainment.
While the script was at times complex and wordy, it captured the spirit of the original TV programme in a contemporary story that was easily understood and well communicated. It struck a balance between political satire and farce that engaged the audience throughout.
The lead actors were true to the characters portrayed in the original series yet not hidebound by them. In fact, theybrought their own persona and comic touch to bear successfully. Of particular note was Peter Forbes as Sir Humphrey whose handling of complex obfuscating sentences was an exercise in memory and diction that was passed with flying colours. Paul Bradley, who for several years has played in TV series like Eastenders and Holby City was an excellent Jim Hacker, producing a comic performance naturally,combining a shambolic ingénue and streetwise politician well. I particularly liked Sarah Earnshaw as political advisor Claire Sutton, who had a confident, relaxed charm as she outfoxed the seasoned civil servants around her.
This was not a production that had me rolling in the aisles but it will live long in the memory and had many one liners that had the audience chuckling. “We are here to serve the people, not to do what is right!’
I would recommend this play to anyone with a memory of the sitcom or who feels a frustration whenever they listen to those politicians who never know how to answer a straight question. That’s probably most of us then. It serves as a good night out and left me with a warm, feel good factor. A thoroughly worthwhile theatre experience.
Creating opportunities for a diverse range of people to experience and respond to sport, arts, culture and live events. / Lleisiau amrywiol o Gymru yn ymateb i'r celfyddydau a digwyddiadau byw
(4 / 5)
(5 / 5)
