‘The Physicists’ - Donmar Warehouse - Thursday 5th July 2012

(Rated 4/5 )

The Dear Donmar looked extra small walking into it last night. I have been in some of the bigger theatrical spaces, which London provides, more recently, and also I guess I have dramatically (no pun intended) lowered my expectations of Donmar productions, and indeed productions in general – both on stage and on the small screen, having experienced some disappointments. I say that, but I think it’s really important to acknowledge my feelings come from having been truly spoilt by some sensational productions in my fairly recent past. But this time, I am very pleased to say the smallness of the Donmar space was deceptive in several ways. Indeed it did reflect a confined space – a ‘lunatic asylum’ as it might have been termed at the time The Physicists (written by Friedrich Dürrenmatt in 1962, this version by Jack Thorne) was set. The ‘lunatics’ (I seem to have adopted that word though it was not used in the play!) apparently believed themselves to be Albert Einstein (Paul Bhattacharjee), Isaac Newton (Justin Salinger) and the third, Möbius, a channel for King Solomon (John Heffernan). The play opens with the murder – although psychiatrist and head of the institution, Dr Mathilde Von Zahnd (Sophie Thompson) tells us, we must not use that term; it’s rather an ‘unfortunate incident’ – of one of the nurses by Einstein, who is calming himself down with some violin playing. Detective Inspector Richard Voss (John Ramm) investigates and this whole first act turns straight into a farcical comedy, which does not seem to quite work. It brings up some interesting considerations on responsibility of the mentally ill, the nature of mental illness, is mildly amusing in parts, seems to be a little over-acted but with good portrayals of Newton et al., and has us wondering if this is a poor version of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest meets The Pink Panther, but here we have yet another deception.  After the interval, Act Two opens in much the same way as Act One, this time Möbius has murdered his nurse, whom he claimed to be in love with. I wondered if this was making some comment about the mentally challenged in relationships and maybe that they couldn’t handle love and closeness – by this time all 3 patients had murdered their respective nurses. But the actual message of the play was far more wide-reaching and frightening. If I had read reviews, or even the programme beforehand I would have had some idea as to what the play was actually about. At the time it may have helped me forgive what I thought to be a poor first act, but I am pleased I had no idea, as the plot twists are very clever, interesting and really have you thinking and discussing afterwards. It surprised me in an excellent way! But to give them away would be to spoil it so I will avoid details. This play had myself and my friend discussing concepts around brilliance versus madness, and are they maybe highly linked? The legacies of the well-known physicists and philosophers and how they and other lessons from humanity over the years have all fed into our collective unconscious (Jung) and been built on. What it may mean both personally but also to the wider world if someone hides their insights from science or art – in this context Da Vinci lost the credit for his marvellous discoveries on the heart and circulation to Harvey so that help to humanity was delayed – but could the consequences be far worse and for harm rather than good. Are discoveries always a good thing? Is science dangerous in the wrong hands? Are we humans developed enough spiritually to handle our knowledge?

Though, as I mentioned I thought there was some over-acting at points, this was a very good cast and the stage was made great use of. Sophie Thompson delivered in the slightly manic but marvellous way she can, John Ramm was an amusing detective, Miranda Raison did very well in two very different roles as wife and then nurse to Möbius. The physicists themselves hit their marks beautifully. For me, Paul Bhattacharjee did the best job at portraying his famous scientist alter-ego Eistein, but John Heffernan reslly shone as Johann Wilhelm Möbius, especially considering he was struggling with a very runny nose from cold or hayfever. Maybe I’m a bit of a wuss when it comes to such things, but I really doubt I’d have been able to do the job he did under the circumstances!

Well done Donmar People and Josie Rourke. An excellent effort with its sights on brilliance.

The Physicists – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012 

http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview

Twitter: @RestrictReview

‘She Stoops to Conquer’ - National Theatre: Olivier Theatre - Thursday 15th March 2012

(Rated 4/5 )

I studied this play at school and remember feeling really strongly for the characters. Coming from a middle class background I had a kind of innate rejection of people who put on airs or consider themselves better than others because of money or career status. That may sound strange but the previous generation of my family had struggled and worked really hard for their money. So the concept of someone from a higher class stooping to a lower class to win love was somehow romantic and comfortable for me. And who was the heroine, Kate Hardcastle, doing that for? Marlow was also of an upper class but very shy with women from his own class. He was only able to be himself with those of a class lower than himself. Oddly perhaps I could, and still can, really identify with that. I lost my power and myself with those of my supposed class and always felt far more drawn to those without plums in their mouths, who talked ‘common’, who were not of high IQ but rather EQ. And I was extremely shy and feeling that meant I would not get a boyfriend. So there’s the empathy – or rather sympathy – right there. I would have loved someone to step down from his higher power status to conquer my shyness and win me. I could really relate to Marlow’s lack of confidence in love. And I coveted Kate’s self-assurance.

Oliver Goldsmith’s 18^th century script plays on all these ideas that people allowed to control their lives at the time – issues around class, power, manners and morals - and was extremely daring. He wrote about people as they are, and not falsely how they ought to be, and mocked them.

The play, as its alternative title The Mistakes of a Night suggests, hinges on many mistaken happenings and people deceiving each other. This device is used so often in plays of that time and of course, in Shakespearean comedy, that it does feel a little dated and predictable. But that’s fine when the production and performances are as good as in this case. I could forgive it the over-long 3 hours – well just about – hence one point off perfect in my score.

Nobody fell short in this production, which makes it hard to pick out those who stood out. I almost feel it’s a matter of taste rather than one actor being ‘better’ or not. I have seen Sophie Thompson before in only a few roles; the biggest impression she made on me was in playing abusive Stella in Eastenders and unfortunately it wasn’t a good impression as I didn’t believe her in the role. This time, if you’ll forgive the pun, she was deliciously stellar and really shone out, carrying the show in her portrayal of Kate’s mother, Mrs Hardcastle. She was extremely amusing and very natural in Mrs Hardcastle’s absurdity. The surprise draw for me was John Hefferman as Marlow’s friend Hastings. With a smile that lifted the heart so convincingly you couldn’t fail to smile with him, he constantly promised to break out into a chuckle and was enormous fun to watch. I’d been very much looking forward to seeing Katherine Kelly as Kate Hardcastle. As her Coronation Street co-star David Nielson said, she is something very special. Becky Granger was one of the most outstanding empathy-inducing soap characters ever and Katherine superbly conveyed the rollercoater of behaviours and emotions triggered by Becky’s event-loaded journey on the Corrie cobbles. My only disappointment in her as Kate Hardcastle was that the role didn’t test her full dramatic range. But her sensitivity and sense of comedy was impeccable – she sparkled.

The set and costumes were impressive and amusing in their authenticity. There’s such a sense that this period of time was empirically farcical.

P.S. For those with disability of the lower limbs it’s worth noting that there are many flights of stairs to climb to The Olivier Theatre. You may like to take the lift. The seats are very comfortable. And the setting – The South Bank – is a personal favourite of mine.

She Stoops to Conquer – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2012

http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview

Twitter: @RestrictReview

‘A Round-Heeled Woman’ - Riverside Studios - Thursday 17th November 2011 (Including a mini-review of ‘Cagney and Lacey’: 1982-1988)

(Rated 4/5 )

This year and next year I get to see two of my teenagehood heroes on stage...

The first – Sharon Gless – who played Christine Cagney in Cagney and Lacey.

The second – next year – Tyne Daly – who played MaryBeth Lacey.

On the surface of things the show was one of many cop shows in the 70s and 80s. But delving deeper it was ever so much more. Yes there were the standard cops chasing robbers and other criminals and a case to solve every episode, but what made it revolutionary was we saw these women in their private lives and how their work impacted on their lives. It explored the relationship between these two very different women; one single and sassy and the other very much the family woman. Christine’s sassiness covered an emotional vulnerability, which she protected at all costs, and an attempt to match up to and for her father. MaryBeth’s emotional strength was constantly tested by her family situation – being a good mother was her priority and she did such an excellent job - and health issues… and even, and perhaps especially, in relationship with her work partner. And that was the crux of what made the show so special. It wasn’t afraid to explore the complexities of these two women’s lives with wit, humour and also heart-rending drama. It tested Sharon and Tyne’s acting skills and won them multitudes of awards and the love of many viewers. Huge credit to Exec Producer Barney Rosenzweig and all the writers too… phenomenal!

And so I readily admit Sharon, rather than the play, was the immediate draw for me. But, as it turned out, the play was also interesting, fun, emotional and again – something I love – has a truth about it because it is based on the real life experiences of a lovely, brave woman, Jane Juska. She posted an advert in New York Review of Books:

            “BEFORE I TURN 67 – next March – I would like to have a lot of sex with a man I like.

If you want to talk first, Trollope works for me.”

And so the stage is set for Jane’s adventures in men, sex and her journey through resolving her underlying emotional issues related to difficult relationships with her husband and son.

And in that stage setting, all scenes take place within the same area, incorporating and doubling up to be Jane’s bedroom, living-room, a nightclub, cafes in which she meets men, her outside postbox, a library, hotel-room etc etc… and all believable with just slight adaptations by Sharon or her fellow cast members. We know exactly where we are meant to be from their acting and changes in dress. Sharon makes all her dress changes on set. The others off – but they have even more changes to create; each of the five of them, (two women and three men), play at least three characters each. Most impressive in this regard was Michael Thompson, playing the youngest of Jane’s suitors and her son. He convincingly switched from one character to another in seconds and made them each so individual. Beth Cordingly, playing one of Jane’s friends and Miss MacKenzie; a character from a beloved Trollope novel of Jane’s, is also worthy of mention. Indeed all performers were good; Barry McCarthy and Neil McCaul as many of Jane’s sex interests and Jane Bertish as her friend and mother.

Sharon herself, was a total delight as Jane Juska. As the lights go up at the start of the play we see her pleasuring herself as she lies on her bed during a phonecall with one of the men. She carries this out with ease, and though pretends alarm when she notices all of us watching, seems totally comfortable with all the antics her character gets up to on stage. In fact, the wit, the recognisable Gless Glint in her eyes, the highly charged emotion and the fun she gave to Christine Cagney are all so apparent again in this role, whilst still being a quite a different portrayal. I love how Sharon generously gives of herself to her acting. Personally I feel that brings out the best in any performance.

And that relaxed open attitude is also what comes across in spades when you meet her in person. Luckily my friend and I had noticed where this was earlier, when Sharon was there with others. It is not labeled as a stage door! It was a long wait for her after the show. I’m used to the rapid exitings of the likes of those currently in the spotlight glare of the great success of their recent shows and fame. We were told by a waiting fan that Sharon had to remove her eyes! Actually contacts of course – out she came in large black-rimmed glasses. I was still expecting to only have a little time with her, so did my best to overcome the nerves of meeting a childhood heroine and role-model, and moved forward for my moment. She happily autographed my programme – only costing a pound, as one of the ushers proudly told me ‘The cheapest in London’ - and then I asked if I could have a photo with her. I was still feeling I must be quick and not take up too much of her time. As usual though, my camera decided otherwise. People new to it always experience a difficulty in pressing the shutter button to the right extent, which has delayed the taking of pictures and increased my time with my heroes, as well as often creating funny expressions on their faces! This time it ran out of memory and my friend had to hand it back to me for me to delete some shots. She later told me it would have been great to film Sharon and my interaction as we both studied the photos and I decided what could be sacrificed! In the end I found one – won’t even admit what it was ;) – and we got a picture together of me with a massive smile on my face hugging Sharon with a dubious look on hers. I imagine she was wondering if it would take. Following our success, Sharon went up to my friend, gave her a very firm handshake and said, with a hint of a question in her tone, ‘You’re the friend.’ (At the time I confess I was completely unaware of the significance of this. The audience had been full of lesbian women and so ‘her friend’/my friend could imply more than simply friendship. In reality she was probably referring to something I said to her before about my friend with the camera but I just don’t remember in the hazy memory fog that descends on me when I meet my heroes.)   I moved away for others to have a turn but realised there was time and space for everyone and Sharon seemed happy to chat for as long as we liked. Another fan asked for a photo with her and said she was scared – Sharon told her not to be. She cheerily talked about it being the 30^th anniversary of Cagney and Lacey and how Tyne would also be bringing her play to London. And that we’d been a lovely audience. Then it was time for Sharon to have something to eat and I grabbed another moment. I hugged her – still amazed at how long that was possible for – and told her how much I enjoyed and loved Cagney and Lacey and thanked her for her part in it.

P.S. Riverside Studios is accessible to the disabled, however, if you are going by tube – I imagine the same is true for the bus – it is a longish walk and not that easy to find. It is worth arriving early to get the seat of your choice; there are no prior allocations. If you want to eat there, booking in advance seems to be a good idea – the restaurant and bar were both fully booked that night. Unfortunately after a while I found my seat uncomfortable – I had problems with pain in my thigh – though I am not sure if the culprit was the seat or me. But it has a lovely simple stage and auditorium – a blank canvass for the actors’ and audience’s imaginations.

A Round-Heeled Woman – Review by TheRestrictedReviewer © 2011     

http://www.facebook.com/TheRestrictedReview

Twitter: @RestrictReview