I am tendering my official resignation as a blogger-critic. It has taken me two months to decide this, and this post was going to be a long diatribe about the personal reasons behind it (which I did write and can be found here instead), but instead I have decided to write down the reasons why reviewing theatre got the axe.

Hopefully this will make other bloggers sit back and reasess why they are blogging and whether reviewing is the right thing for them to be doing.

Passion

It probably comes as no surprise that you need passion to become a decent blogger, not only for watching theatre but also for writing about theatre. The first alarm for me was when theatre going started to feel like a chore. However, the problem wasn’t with the actual theatre going experience, but the fact that I wasn’t necessarily seeing the things I wanted to see, and was dreading having to write about it the next day. This, exacerbated by the time constraints placed by most theatre reviews websites and publications, meant that I would rush through a by-the-book templated review that had no passion in the writing or opinions. Hopefuly this means that I can return to the lovely prospect of seeing theatre without obligation.

Shortened version: If you aren’t passionate about seeing theatre (and all kinds of theatre) AND about writing for theatre, then don’t bother.

A unique voice

At last count there are approximately 500 million theatre bloggers within London (also, studies show that almost 85% of statistic are made up). Within that there are some talented and dedicated writers. Ought to be Clowns, West End Whingers, A Younger Theatre and Carousel of Fantasies (no matter how much I disagree with the author) come to mind when it comes to well written, well thought out criticism, and in the case of the first two, a nice dose of wit to accompany.

However, out of the 499,999,996 others there is an awful lot of ‘meh’ that exists out there as well. Another realisation was that I was firmly in that portion, as I failed to find a unique voice amongst the crowd.

Shortened version: Find a unique voice that differentiates you from the sea of bloggers. If you don’t, you’ll probably drown.

Respect for my peers

I’m going to make a confession. In the past six months I have probably read three theatre reviews on blogs. If I don’t even read these reviews, then why should I expect anyone to read mine? I descended into a realm of arrogance that made me assume I didn’t need to read the work of my peers, when in reality, it was probably one of the main contributors to my second point about unique voice. In fact, the only reviews I did read were to make me angry enough to write.

It holds true within any industry that you constantly need to look at the work of your peers to make sure you are remaining relevant and engaging, and not just parroting what someone else is saying. In the tech industry, the same mistake was made by Microsoft, who refused to look at the work other companies were doing. As a result, they are now playing a huge game of catch-up to remain relevant within the industry.

Shortened version: Read the work of your peers. It will make you a better writer and keep your work in perspective.

The stagnation of theatre blogging

This is something that I spoke about at Twespians Fringe in March, and if I were to pick one, my main reason for stopping. To me, theatre blogging is becoming slightly stagnant. In my opinion, the main cause of this is that there are too many people reviewing shows and not writing about theatre in a more general way. At the moment, theatre commentary is mainly covered by the majors, like The Stage (Shenton’s View comes to mind) and Guardian bloggers, with a few noteable exceptions in the blogging realm like A Younger Theatre. The more bloggers we have talking about the future of theatre, innovation within theatre and problems within the industry, the quicker we can push the industry forward.

To draw a parallel, in design there are a plethora of writers who write about the industry and where it needs to be going (look at A List Apart for an example). They pull from all sources of inspiration, write about it and then get on stage and talk at conferences, meetups and barcamps. In turn, more people hear/read about this, form their own opinion, and start writing about the industry as well. As a result, the industry has moved forward in leaps and bounds within the last five to ten years.

We could do the same for theatre.

My suggestion? Take a week and pick an issue that you feel passionately about, or something cool you saw in another industry that you can tie back into theatre. Craft a post over a number of days (without seeing any shows) and then post it. Chances are you’ll get more people reading it than your ordinary reviews posts.

Shortened version: Don’t only write reviews. Branch out into commentary, opinion and awesomeness within theatre.

While this means that I will officially stop writing reviews as of today. However, if you still want to invite me to your show, please do. If I see something that I think is worth writing about, I’ll still write about it. However, it won’t include a star-rating, have the word ‘review’ in it and could possibly go off on a million and one tangents. Who knows, it may even include some pretty pictures.

So, in conclusion, I am officially stopping my aspirations to be a blogger-critic. I am now going to officially start my tenure as a theatre blogger. Who blogs about theatre. Not just reviews it.

This week I went along to see A Butcher of Distinction at the Cock Tavern Theatre for Fringe Review. My review hasn’t been published yet (update: It now has here.), but I wanted to share a by-product. Recently, I’ve been thinking about looking at different ways of presenting information. In my other life, I’ve been having some dealings with sketchnote artists, and so I’ve been filling a notebook with random sketches. So, I thought about combining these two…

So here’s the first of my theatre review sketchnotes, trying to marry both talking about the play and my thoughts on the play…

What do you think?

Mogadishu is the 1998 Bruntwood Playwriting Competition winner by new playwright and ex-London secondary-school teacher Vivienne Franzmann. The play revolves an incident where black pupil Jason (Malachi Kirby) pushes the white teacher Amanda (Julia Ford) to the ground. She’s then reluctant to report him in an attempt to save him from becoming another ‘Afro-Caribbean’ statistic. However, Jason constructs his own version of the event, where victim becomes the offender, and things get dangerously out of hand.

The play is a pastiche of various influences, from The Crucible to Kidulthood, no doubt sharpened by Franzmann’s 12 years teaching in London. This feels like theatre that is made to make white middle-class audiences feel slightly uncomfortable and use words like ‘gripping’, ‘powerful’ and ‘thought-provoking’, simply because it deals with race issues. However, while moving and funny, and well written for the most part, it does feel like Franzmann resorts to cliches on both sides of the fence a little too often.

However, the production itself is expertly delivered by Matthew Dunster. The set design, sitting somewhere between an urban school and a prison, couples with the sound design, add a palpable sense of menace throughout the entire piece. The cast, while predominantly young, were for the most part quite strong, with only a few disappointments not affecting the overall performance. Shannon Tarbet as Becky stood out in a sea of slightly caricatured young people, with moments of true brilliance shining through, later succumbing to the poor writing of teenage angst later in the second half. Kirby, as the antagonist Jason, had an uncomfortably menacing stage presence that was expertly reigned in when dominated by his father. The adults were strong across the board, with Ford and Fraser James standing out. However, it was Hammed Animashaun as Jordon who stole the show every time he came on stage, with his natural talent and comic delivery putting everyone else to shame.

Despite the negative sentiment throughout this writeup, I did actually enjoy Mogadishu. It was well paced, funny at times and gripping at others. What irritates me is the broad brush strokes that are used to create the characters and the story, that didn’t quite satisfy the big hype that surrounded it before I stepped into the theatre.

Mogadishu is playing at the Lyric Hammersmith until 2 April.

Just posted my review of Ordinary Days at Trafalgar Studios over at Fringe Reviews.

Here’s the full review:

Ordinary Days acts as a snapshot of everyday life in New York via two sets of characters and their stories, told through songs and vignettes. Deb and Warren provide the shallower, almost comic relief style, relationship, whereas Jason and Claire act as a kind of romantic lead couple, albeit in more postmodern, post 9/11 couple kind of way. The music establishes Ordinary Days firmly in the recent school of New York composers more recent school of New York composers, with comparisons to shows like I Love You, Because and I Sing! not unwarranted.

One of the things that strikes you with this show is the calibre of the cast. Comprised of West End stalwarts, the four performers breeze through the material, giving the material the perfect amount of humour and emotion. Julie Atherton, in particular, is a revelation as Claire. Her cold, almost detached demeanour, coupled with one of the most gorgeous voices I’ve heard in a long time, makes you want to know more about the character. Alexia Khadime, fresh from her turn as Elphaba in Wicked, has great comic timing with her character and a great voice to boot. Both Daniel Boys and Lee William-Davis play and sing the characters perfectly. However, I did see more than a glimpse of Austin from I Love You, Because and was not surprised to see that Boys played the character at the Landor Theatre.

The stage is functional, simple and evocative, with a clear, modern New York feel. With another piece, the geometrical shapes and sleek tiles that comprise the set may come across as cold, but with Ordinary Days it works perfectly as tiny pieces representing the whole city. The direction as well feels snappy and keeps the pace moving, which for a musical with only one act is extremely important. This also gives the show a pacey feel, which provides a perfect chance for Claire’s revelation to crush you in her final song.

Some may comment that the songs sound a little too similar, and the show is a little too short to get to know the characters. However, aside from these minor flaws, Ordinary Days is a great example of the calibre of new work currently coming out of the New York musical theatre scene. Composer Adam Gwon fits perfectly in with the likes of Kerrigan and Lowdermilk, Cunningham and Salzman and Scott Alan. However, this stands out, as it has a little more depth and feels a little more ‘real’ than these other shows.

After a successful run at the Finborough Theatre in 2008, it’s heartening to see a West End run for Ordinary Days. I hope that more people will see this gem of a show.

Reviewed by Luke Murphy February 17, 2010

]]> http://lurkmoophy.twosacompany.org/review-ordinary-days-trafalgar-studios-2/feed 1 http://lurkmoophy.twosacompany.org/review-romeo-juliet-pilot-theatre http://lurkmoophy.twosacompany.org/review-romeo-juliet-pilot-theatre#comments Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:15:36 +0000 lurkmoophy http://lurkmoophy.twosacompany.org/?p=264

I went along and saw Pilot Theatre’s Romeo and Juliet last week. I’ve been looking forward to seeing a Pilot Theatre production for quiet a while.

I posted my review for Fringe Review (who I’ve just started reviewing for as well) last week. Here’s the review in full:

Pilot Theatre has become known as one of the better touring companies, devoted to producing plays about and for young people. Off the back of their hugely successful production of Lord of the Flies, Artistic Director Marcus Romer has decided to tackle another classic young person’s story: Romeo and Juliet.

As a production aimed at young people, he has succeeded in presenting a faithful, yet accessible production of a much loved classic. Chloe Lamford’s simple, unobtrusive set works well with Romer’s bare staging, with little of the multimedia flair that Pilot have become known for. The costuming is modern and simple, not clearly evoking any given setting, and the characterisation is simple yet effective, with a range of English accents on display.

It seems what Romer has done is strip back this production to the bare essentials, in an attempt to highlight the beautiful words and tragic story that has now almost become cliché. In fact, the only real artistic licence that has been taken is the addition of music by composer Sandy Nuttgens that underscores the entire production. While at times this works to perfection by adding emotion to a scene in an almost filmic fashion, at other times it comes off as melodramatic.

The cast were adequate, with most doing justice to the characters. Oliver Wilson’s Romeo and Rachel Spicer’s Juliet played the doomed couple as hopeless teenagers, which worked well but left me feeling far less sympathy for them than what was expected. The standout performance was definitely Richard James-Neale’s Tybalt and Friar Lawrence. His energy and ability to portray character perfectly meant that whenever he took the stage he shone above all the others.

However, while this was a completely adequate production of a classic piece of theatre that has been played to death across the world, it left me feeling rather empty towards the end. The portrayal of Romeo and Juliet as two bratty, hormonally driven teenagers is possibly the most accurate portrayal one could think of. However, this viewpoint seemed to alienate anyone above the age of eighteen by making it rather hard to relate to the protagonists.

In saying that, this is a production that is clearly aimed at teenage audiences. The modern retelling is relatively close to the Baz Lurhmann version that made Romeo and Juliet cool in the nineties, and while not breaking any new ground, provides an accessible and faithful production ideally suited to Shakespeare virgins and theatre reluctants.

Reviewed by Luke Murphy 3rd February 2011

Romeo and Juliet is playing at the Unicorn Theatre till the 12th Feb. It then continues it’s UK tour. For more details go to youkissbythebook.com

However, this is not what the article was about. The article was bringing to light that The Stage had forced ACE to issue a statement to say that the partnership was not going ahead, due to commercial issues arising from the fact that ACE are a government funded organisation.

I think this is a great shame to be honest, as this would’ve provided a great opportunity for arts to be featured in the country’s leading newspapers, and is fantastic of an organisation as large as News International to partner with an arts body to show their concern over the state of the arts industry and the lack of attention it gets in mainstream media. While I see the commercial issues, I fail to see the problem, provided there is full transparency of the partnership and that news-worthy articles weren’t made exclusive to News International.

To be completely honest, the issue as raised by Smith seemed petty. The article read as if The Stage felt ACE weren’t playing with them and therefore toys needed to be thrown out of the proverbial pram. For me, it’s symptomatic of a spate of articles that I’ve read from The Stage recently where they seem to be far more interested in reporting on breaking stories, in an attempt to increase their self-importance than actually thinking about what they’re readership wants to read about. What results is something akin to local newspaper journalism and not something you’d expect from the nation’s only theatre trade publication.

My advice for what it’s worth (which may not be much) is that The Stage should go back to their community and ask them what they want to hear about, rather than attempting more hard-hitting, investigative journalism. There are stories and events out there specific to people within theatre that are begging to be covered (the recent Devoted and Disgruntled comes to mind…). Why not try and give them the coverage they deserve?

I entered the lyric with such high hopes. After witnessing the brilliance of Matilda at the RSC back in November, the prospect of another Roald Dahl adaptation was rather exciting, especially as this was one of Dahl’s darker works. In addition, it’s adapted by Jeremy Dyson of League of Gentlemen fame, who had considerable success with his last show at the Lyric, Ghost Stories. Perhaps they were hoping for another transfer? However, On leaving the theatre, not more than 80 minutes after it started, I felt less than satisfied.

Roald Dahl’s Twisted Tales is a series of short stories, all with a slightly dark, twisted edge to them. The interesting thing is that these stories weren’t written for children. Instead, they serve as moral tales for grown ups, with a decidedly childlike air to them. There’s the creepy bed and breakfast owner, a cheating wife, the brain that goes on living when separated from a man’s body, a particularly macabre bet and a story of schoolboy bullying.

However, while Roald Dahl’s writing has charm and subtle shades of light and dark, this stage adaptation never quite manages to match.  All of the scenes were played to comedy, even when there was no reason to, and the menace and suspense that should have been present throughout the entire show was only glimpsed at once or twice. In fact, the only story that gave me a true feeling of suspense was the final tale of schoolboy bullying, which to be honest was the weakest of the lot, as the suspense and dread that was instilled didn’t match the severity of what was actually happening on stage.

The cast all did a reasonable job with what they were given, however there was a tendency toward melodrama. The only cast member that truly stood out for me was Trevor White, who had an air of Hugh Laury about him, especially as the Stranger. Selina Griffiths as The Landlady also did quite a good job of creepy in the first story and gave me the only fright I had in the show.

The design work was quite nice, with the opening tableaux of a clock surrounded by swirling fog a brilliant opening scene. However, while most of the set pieces worked brilliantly, others looked like they’d been borrowed from the local amateur dramatic society, looking like they could fall over at any moment.

Overall, Roald Dahl’s Twisted Tales isn’t an altogether bad show, it just isn’t particularly good either. However, it does beat most TV that’s on these days, so if you fancy a bit of good but not altogether challenging theatre then try and bag yourself a cheap ticket. However, I don’t see this one transferring to the West End.

Roald Dahl’s Twisted Tales is playing at the Lyric Hammersmith until 26 February, before heading onto Northern Stage and Liverpool Playhouse in March and April.

Pentameters Theatre is a little gem of a theatre that sits above a pub in picturesque Hampstead. I must say that I was quite excited in my lead up to the show. Not only was I seeing what looked like a dark, Tim Burton-esque retelling of the Nutcracker, but I was also venturing into one of the most haunted and picturesque parts of London for the first time. For reference to the Tim Burton stylee, see my review of Nevermore by Catalyst Theatre company, which still stands as one of the best musicals I have ever seen. For reference to the ghosts, see my ldnghosthunt. Unfortunately, I didn’t see any ghosts, aside from the ghosts of missed opportunity in Butterfuly Wheels’ The Nutcracker.

Butterfly Wheels is a new theatre company, established by Alice Old and Kayleigh Allenby a few years ago, who have had mixed reception in the past. Their past two productions, Seven Sins at St Leonards Church in Shoreditch and Bedtime Tales at Pentameters, both received glowing reviews, with the former showing that the company has a talent with immersive theatre. For The Nutcracker, they went back to their roots, with a dark retelling of a classic, tying in dance, theatre and multimedia elements.

Butterfly Wheels almost pulled it off. While there are some fantastic performances including Gabriella Gadbsy as a particularly masculine Harlequin and Amelia Marchant as One of the Mouse King’s henchmen (women?), some of the other performers have a slightly amateur feel to them. I think this isn’t actually a fault of the performers, but the casting. The show would’ve benefited greatly from having men play the male roles, giving them the raw strength they needed, with Tim C J Chew as the sole male giving a great performance. The narration also feels a little stilted, with voice over, music and the actor’s voices providing story. Getting rid of the voice over, and keeping the music within the overall design theme of urban meets dark-gothic would’ve helped.

However, the design concepts behind the show are fantastic. The skewed perspectives and use of very Tim Burton-esque gothic works wonders. However, one thing that always grates me is where a brilliant concept is let down by small budget. There were a few instances where embracing lo-fi may have helped, especially in a small space where the audience can scrutinize every piece. Also, the few places where live music was used were fantastic and made me wonder why they didn’t use it throughout.

Overall, The Nutcracker isn’t a bad production. To be honest, children and teenagers (to who the show is pitched to) will love it. What frustrated me was that the ideas and concepts excited me so much that I was disappointed with their execution due to lack of budget and outside interest. I’d definitely keep an eye on Butterfly Wheels, though, as I think that they are capable of brilliance.

The Nutcracker plays at Pentameters Theater, Hampstead until 9 January, 2011

However, armed with my love of all things absurdly British, I became quite excited when I received my invite to the Lyric’s annual panto. Not only this, but I was informed I could bring along children. Lacking any of my own, I borrowed a friend’s, had myself briefed on the essentials (he’s behind you, oh no it isn’t, boo hiss and the like), and head off into an unknown world.

The Lyric’s reworking of Dick Whittington and his Cat sees a young, clueless Dick Whittington from Gloucesterestershire team up with a street-wise cat from Hammersmith. Dick falls in love with the baker’s daughter, is duped by the evil King Rat and ends up shipwrecked on Timbuk Three (kind of close to Timbuktu). Yes, the plot is absurdly silly and a little bit stupid. The songs are quite hideous reworkings of recent hits, including Empire State of Mind (London), Bad Romance (Bad Rodents) and Billionaire (completely unchanged). The jokes are cringingly bad and worth of any dad joke of the year prize. Did I love it? With every molecule.

I learnt a valuable lesson… to judge a panto as if it were a serious piece of theatre is the same as judging Monty Python as a period drama. The entire show was loads of fun, the actors knew how to work an audience at both adult and child levels, and the production was everything a panto should be. There were definite notable performances out of the ensemble, with Stephen Webb as Dick Whittington and Shaun Prendergast as Sarah (the dame) my personal favourites of the show. Webb’s dim-witted and innocent west country boy meant that he could pull off brilliantly awful puns (eg. ‘My name’s Dick’ ‘What’s that short for?’ ‘It’s my dad’s fault’). He also made me giggle every time he said ‘wizard!’, which could have become immensely irritating if not for the charm this man has. Prendergast was everything a dame should be (apparently). The gags were class A dad jokes, and the moment where she stopped the show to give the Scaramouche line the credit it was deserved was nothing short of brilliant. Parallels between Dame Edna would not go astray, which coming from an Australian, is not something to take lightly. A notable mention should also go to Simon Kunz as King Rat, who was so terrifying to the kiddies, I had a small child next to me closing her eyes and sticking her fingers in her ears whenever he came onstage throughout the first act. The addition of Stephen Fry and Alan Davies as the voices of the bells was most welcome, and their banter was a brilliant way to narrate the show.

However, when it comes down to it, the most important opinion of the show is that of the children. If they don’t like it, then there is little hope for a panto. The entire troupe (two small children, 5 and 8, and two big children, their mother and my betrothed) that I took along absolutely loved the show. However, I thought that the best way to finish off a review is for you to hear their word for it…

Dick Whittington and his Cat is playing at the Lyric Hammersmith until January 8, 2011

I’m always extremely worried when I hear about a show being produced that has so many brilliant elements combined it should be a sure winner. Quite often, the result is something that could never live up to the expectations of the combined elements and you generally end up feeling a little bit nonplussed by the entire event. These were my concerns when I found out about Matilda: A Musical. First, we have a musical adaptation of a classic Roald Dahl children’s book that will always be tough to crack, due to the ‘quasi-not appropriate for children but oh so spot on’ style of Dahl’s books that often lead to terrible film and stage adaptations. Second, the music and lyrics are being written by Tim Minchin, a favourite songwriter of mine who’s back catalogue would suggest neither musical theatre or children’s entertainment, but rather always witty and always quite foul musical comedy. Third, the Royal Shakespeare Company, who, to tell you the truth, I’ve only known for their Shakespeare and a slew of other classic texts like The Seagull.

The combination of the three had potential to create something so far off the mark it would be akin to watching a car crash, or it could have been a match made in heaven.Luckily for the RSC, it’s definitely the latter.

For those who haven’t read the book (side note, get to the library. Now), Matilda tells the story of a 5 year old genius, misunderstood by her family who believe that TV is the way to learn, not books, who discovers that her intelligence isn’t the only special thing about her. The book has captured imaginations since it was first published in 1988, and was later turned into a (rather Americanized) film starring Danny DeVito. Matilda: A Musical takes the spirit of the original book and brings it to life with absolutely nothing missing.

The production values itself are what you would expect from RSC. The set design, clearly influenced by Quentin Blake, who illustrated the original books, is simple yet impressive, with the set changing throughout the show with such precision that you barely notice it. The book, by Dennis Kelly, stays true to the novel, with very little of the usual musical theatre homogenisation that happens in an adaptation. The humour throughout the show is spot on, catering to both children and adults in a way that movies like Shrek do. Adults taking children will have many moments quickly glancing at children wondering whether they truly understand what is being said, while the children will be none the wiser. A personal favourite of mine when Mrs Wormwood talking about a ‘smarting front bottom’ as a downside of having a child.

The music and lyrics are, thanks to Mr Minchin’s unstoppable talent, quite simple, brilliant. The music and lyrics work perfectly with the book, are ridiculously clever (the letters in ‘School Song’ is a perfect example), and will make you laugh, cry and give you pangs of nostalgia about being a kid. ‘When I Grow Up’ stands out as a song that will be re-performed by individuals and groups in times to come, while Mr Wormwood’s interval ode to telly, had moments of pure Tim Minchin comedy gold.

The children are all amazing, out dancing and out singing most musical performers I’ve seen recently, and the adult ensemble work brilliantly with them. Kerry Ingram as Matilda was the cutest thing I’ve seen in a long time, and it’s no surprise to see that she’s an experienced child performer. From the adults, the standouts were Paul Kaye, who’s slimy caricature Mr Wormwood provided many of the laughs on the night, and the amazing Bertie Carvel, who’s Miss Trunchbull was wickedly brilliant. The decision to cast him as the formidable head-mistress was a stroke of genius, and he deserved a standing ovation of his own. However, to only single out these performers feels like a disservice to the rest of the cast, as there was not a single weak point amongst them.

In short, Matilda is a brilliant piece of musical theatre that caters to adults and children alike. In addition, this particular production of the show is setting a benchmark for what I hope is the start of many successful productions in much larger towns and cities than Stratford-upon-Avon (hopefully London, then New York, then definitely the rest of the world).

Matilda: A Musical is produced by Royal Shakespeare Company and is playing at the Courtyard Theatre, Stratford-Upon-Avon until 30 January, 2011.