A play, a pint and a packet of crisps...

I feel very privileged to be the first ‘guest blogger’ on JATF!  My review follows an impromptu visit to The New Red Lion in Islington to check out some pub theatre.

Pub theatre is certainly a more relaxed affair than your average trip to The National and I took pleasure in kicking off the evening with a pint of lager and a packet of ready salted crisps.  So far so good...  I then settled down to the delights of Kissing Sid James – a bizarre comedy about a love affair between a casino croupier with a penchant for fur coats and a remote controlled filing cabinet salesman with an incredibly dodgy tash. 

Now lets be honest –  inexperienced Eddie probably wouldn’t have landed a date with the lovely Crystal had he not promised her an ‘exclusive’ weekend away.  Unfortunately for her, the destination turns out to be a tacky hotel in a sleepy seaside resort.  Eddie doesn’t make such a great impression either.  As if the cringe-inducing monologue wasn’t enough, he also confesses to living with his mum and makes a massive school boy error when he recites the names of footballers during the act in order to increase his staying power!

Perhaps worryingly, the thing about the whole play which entertained me and the girls I was with the most was that there were elements within the story which each of us could relate to. I know you are dying to know what these were but I won’t divulge too much.  All I will say is that Eddie had a very familiar taste in boxer shorts and that it turns out the technique of reciting footballers names (much like counting sheep) can be altered to include all sorts of hilarious alternatives including…wait for it… battleships! 

My overall verdict: vaguely amusing throughout but lacking in depth.

Whilst I wasn’t exactly blown away, I enjoyed the experience as a whole and will definitely be partaking in some more pub theatre before long.

All my love,

Battenberg x

Can theatre be scary?

DEFINTION: Scary. adj scarier, scariest Informal

1. causing fear or alarm: frightening

2. easily roused to fear: timid

This week we saw two of the scariest offerings in the West End: The Woman in Black and Ghost Stories. One is in its 22nd year, the other celebrating its 1 year anniversary since opening at the Liverpool Playhouse in 2010.

Ghost Stories

As you leave the theatre we were requested not to share the secrets of Ghost Stories so not to ruin the illusion and I won't. I will just say that Ghost Stories does what it says on the tin (or its website): its loud, brash, in-your-face and shock seeking. It sets a good scene, playing on people's irrational fears that although 2/3 of the audience believe in the supernatural only 5 people had experienced it first hand. It could have built on the sublties that send shivers down our spines when we catch something unexplainable out of the corner or our eyes; but instead it goes on a full throttled attack of jumps, bangs and crashes. It certainly makes you jump and at times (especially at the beginning) it builds tension through its rotating set but at others its clumsy. The twist is good but I wonder if this is a victim of its own hype. I'd expected it to be scary. I mean really scary and unfortunately it fell a little flat of that expectation (a little like the Blair Witch Project.) But then again maybe that's because I was comparing it unfairly.

The Woman in Black

At the other end of the spectrum is The Woman in Black. Celebrating 22 years in the West End this is a subtle piece of theatre which has the audience gripped (and gripping onto each other) as you are transported back in time to relive the horror of a man haunted for decades by an unexplicable place. The set is minimal, the cast even smaller but this is a masterpiece. The use of lighting and sound is both chilling and thrilling as you settle into the second half and hold your breath knowing there's more to come. And it doesn't disappoint. The inevitable school groups (it's an English GCSE text for many) add to the atmosphere as girls scream from the back as TWiB screams from the front. This will not fail to scare you though its the tension built by the two actors which is really extraordinary and will have you raving about this for weeks to come.

So back to the question: Can theatre be scary? I think so but the thing about fear is that its subjective so go see for yourself.

Find more information here: http://www.thewomaninblack.com/ and http://www.ghoststoriestheshow.co.uk/

~

What's the scariest piece of theare you've seen?

Review: The Children's Hour

There were many reasons why I enjoyed this and can only recommend you to go along if you can.

1. If like me your favourite episode of the West Wing is when Zoe Barlett gets kidnapped you will adore Elisabeth Moss in this play. Her portrayal of Martha in this is heartbreakingly elegant.

2. And if like me you've never been a big fan of Kiera Knightley then this may just win you over. I still can't bring myself to say I've enjoyed her performance on film in anything since Bend it like Beckham but in this she's more than believable.

3. The 'girls' are all perfectly cast but none more so than Mary. The Telegraph today (6th Feb) is right to say that although Moss and Knightley take the audience on an admirable journey it is 'Mary' who steels the show. Her performance is torturous - I sat hating her, feeling frustration boiling up as her stubborn Aunt (played perfectly by Ellen Burstyn) failed to see through her; compassion for those left in her wake and shocked by her volatility. It's such an exhausting performance to watch that by the end you are relieved, if not a little disapointed, that she doesn't appear much towards the end - instead everyone else is left picking up the pieces left by her whirlwind moods, and Bryony Hannah's furocious performance.

4. The story is as poignant and resonates as strongly now as it would have been in 1930s New England as the devastating effect of rumour, fear and ignorance cast a shadow over people's lives that shamefully still too often exist for many today.

Tickets and more can be found here: http://www.childrenshourtheplay.com/

'Take your passion and make it happen!'

I was a little sad to see yesterday that Flashdance is the latest casualty of the West End - unable to secure audiences and therefore packing up its leg warmers and heading off after only 3 months.

A little sad: yes. But not surprised. I went to see it with a friend in September and the writing was already on the wall:

Firstly, and just a minor point, there were only 3 songs (out of 14/15) we recognised. This would usually not be a problem but none of the others had any sense of longevity the way songs in Wicked or Les Mis become a part of your soul the first time you hear them.

Secondly, we bought (as is customary for two 20 somethings) seats for the Balcony but found ourselves 'Upgraded' by a level - never a good sign two weeks in!

Thricely, the whole production, although enjoyable (Matt Willis from Busted is surprisingly good!) lacked something. At times it had Fame! like dance sequences that filled the stage with colour and energy and took you on a journey either of emotional or historical significance, yet the interweaving of street dance into what would otherwise be traditional musical theatre choreograhy, felt forced and disjointed.

And finally... Come on guys - the water scene at the end of Act 1? HUGELY disappointing! Its supposed to be an industrial gush not a tepid shower!

In short it just didn't have the magic, humour and emotion of Dirty Dancing, which is why its 80s counterpart is still going strong, and Flashdance, like Footloose before it, is shaking its permed hair all the way out of town.

A few of my favourte things...?

It's a conflit I feel every time I receive an email advertising the upoming Ghost musical - I am just a little bored (and maybe disappointed) at the number of musicals being based on well known films. I can't deny that many of the recent adaptions have been some of my favourite films - I am unashamedly curious to see how Ghost will work (?!?) and I flocked to Flashdance with my girl friends in the first few weeks of opening like the 80s child I am - but something in me still misses original productions that take you on a journey you neither know (word for word) or can predict.

I am no theatre snob - I sshhed the audience along with every other female in the audience as Johnny approached the stage in Dirty Dancing to say 'Nobody Puts Baby in the Corner', yet there is a relentless barrage of Shrek!, Ghost, Legally Blonde, Flashdance, Sister Act... that light up the West End skyline and I can't help but be a little disheartened that producers aren't investing in new stories; instead opting for a quick buck and guaranteed three month audience with familiar, beloved but predictable adaptations that rarely offer anything new.

~

Where do you stand? Film adaptations: Too many or bringing a new audience to theatre?

Critical acclaim?

There are many shows that fall foul of critic's scathing comments. Spiderman: Turn off the Dark is the most recent victim of the razor sharp critcism that spreads like wildfire across the internet. (www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/nov/30/spiderman-musical-web-critics-broadway) Before coming anywhere near our shores I'm scepital and possibly put off entirely from seeing it - a 2 second judgement based on bad wiring (and a loathing for U2) that productions can't afford in today's economic climate.

I have seen a number of shows come and go from the West End with lightening speed largely because reviews during preview week have been deemed them too long; too boring; lacking in charm; clunky and uninspired.

Yet I can't help but feel that some of the produtions simply weren't given the chance. The Trevor Nunn Directed prodution of Gone with the Wind immediately springs to mind. The film to musial adaption at the New London Theatre (2008) was ambitious (it was always going to be when translating a 1000 page book onto stage.) Yet it had a clasical charm, cantar-like pace and impressive spinning set which told the story beautifully while developing the characters well enough to win over the most seasoned GWTW fan. Unfortunately it had its run unceremoniously cut short largely due to its initial (bum numbing) 4 hour running time - which they eventually got down to 3.5 hours (did i say it's a 1000 page book?)

I guess where i'm going with this is that we need to give theatre a chance - not just fringe theatre or local theatre (although it is exceptionally important to support this) but the big productions that open with big casts and fanfares.

Do the critics go back after the changes are made?
Do people re-read a review and decide to book tickets not on thir first impression but their second?
Do they go and see for themselves?

Sadly too often the critic's review is judge, jury and executioner.

~

What shows do you think have had their run cut too short?

The Mousetrap

I've just come across this theatre company for young people - Shakespeare busking at South Kensington of all places! www.mousetrap.org.uk