6 - Il barbiere di Siviglia - Royal Opera House

Number 6 is an opera! My lovely boyfriend James suprised me by taking me to the Opera for the first time ever. I can't really review the opera because I have never seen one before and don't know anyting about it, but I would definately recommend going if you never have before. The opera house was really beautiful and posh, the music was amazing and it was great to watch the orchestra from our seats in the balcony. There was a great bit at the end of the first half where everyone started singing about how they were so confused their heads were beating like a drum and the whole stage started shaking and tilting really randomly. This was also a good first opera to see because it was really funny! Loved it.

5 - A Fistful of Barton - Warehouse Theatre Company directed by Ted Craig

Every year the warehouse theatre resurrects the character of Dick Barton, Special Agent beloved star of the BBC's first daily radio serial back in the 1940s-50s. Each year is a brand new adventure or 'episode' and they are very popular, running from early December right through February.

So I figured it was a scandal I had never been to see one and went to check it out. It was hillarious fun, kicking off with Dick waking up in the bath. Queue innuedo galore and a song with a rubber duck and loofah.

This was the first of many hillarious original songs, with live music performed by members of the cast. Particularly impressive as most of them were already playing several parts with full costume changes in a fast-paced plot.

A versatile and brightly colourful set complemented the colourful characters. I liked the way part of a totem pole occasionally became transparent when back lit to reveal a BBC radio presenter, complete with dinner jacket and bow tie introducing the next scene.

A talented cast in a silly and engaging production with just the right mix of pastiche and affection for the subject. Definately worth catching next year's!

Have to say £2 for a flimsy programme was a bit of a rip off though.

4 - Swimming with Sharks - The Miller Centre Players directed by Peter Whittle

I just want to point out at the start of this review that I’m more than a bit tired of watching films on stage. There are a lot of great plays that don’t get performed enough. Any film I can buy from Amazon for cheaper than the price of a theatre ticket and see professional actors perform it.

That aside I did very much enjoy this production. The plot centres around a young film graduate called Guy who takes a job as an assistant to a Hollywood producer, Buddy. Buddy turns out to be the boss from hell; forcing Guy to work all hours, throwing things and shouting at him. Guy is taking in by Buddy’s promises of golden opportunities and is sucked in by the world of show business. But when he realises that he has been used and his relationship with producer Dawn has been sabotaged, he snaps and heads to Buddy’s house and ties him to his chair to enact his revenge.

There are some clever changes in the stage adaptation, many only really apparent to those who have seen the film. For example; in the film the penultimate scene in which Guy tortures Buddy at his house is split up and we see slices of it throughout the film, dispersed between the scenes leading up to it. In the play adaptation one of Guy’s ideas which Buddy steals the credit for is the idea to adapt a film script by splitting up the final scene in exactly this way.

In the play of course this device would be tricky to pull off and the scene simply appears at the end of the play in chronological order. But adding in this reference adds a sense of ironic self-awareness as the characters in the play frequently talk about the slitting up of the final scene as improving the script by tying together the other scenes which otherwise do not flow together well, making the plot more dramatically viable.

The only problem with this is that actually the characters are right. Splitting the final dramatic scene throughout the film gives the other scenes context. In the play, without this context, the other scenes appearing in chronological sequence were a bit disconnected; it was often hard to work out how much time has elapsed between each scene. The very cleverly laid out set meant there were very few set movements necessary between scenes. But we did have to have breaks between scenes to show time had passed and to allow for costume changes, so the audience was frequently left looking at an empty stage, which slowed the pace of the play. The director playing film scores during these breaks which the programme turned into a ‘guess the film’ quiz was a nice touch but didn’t quite disguise the fact that the adaptation isn’t entirely successful in turning this into a convincing theatrical play script.

Having Guy’s breakdown at the end of the play also meant those of us who hadn’t seen the film or had forgotten it were unaware that all the action is building up to it. So you didn’t get the irony when watching Buddy treat Guy badly because you didn’t know the revenge was coming. Because of this the torture scene came as a shock and seemed like a sudden change in character for both Guy and Buddy. I think to combat this, Gerard Kelly who played Guy needed to take this into account in his performance and show more of a gradual breakdown towards the end of the play. He was really excellent as the green naive assistant struggling to fit into the cut throat workplace and his crazy revenge-fuelled torturer at the end was very powerful, but they needed something to bridge the two because it felt like he was playing two separate characters. (This was more a problem with the adaptation though rather than with his acting skills though.)

Chester Stern as Buddy really shone in this production, particularly when he broke down in the torture scene talking about his wife. He used real stage presence to get across the combination of awe and fear his character inspired in the others.

The other actor who stood out was Sharron Cox as Dawn who exuded sex appeal but still came across as a believable and likable character. I thought the scene where she teases Guy in the bar on their first date was actually played better than it is in the film.

Unfortunately she did appear more sexy than Becky Gordon who played Mitzy, who is supposed to be more of a sex object. Gordon was confident and at times charming but her performance didn’t quite seem believable; she came across as too classy. I think actually her costume let her down, she definitely needed to be in heels and look more wannabe fashion victim. Her flat modern ankle boots and festival admission bracelet made her look too at ease with herself and not ‘fake’ enough, she needed to be styled more like a character from ‘The only way is Essex’ or Paris Hilton.

Jay Rolfe played another supporting character, demanding director Daniel, well, though I think he missed a few opportunities to make the character more over the top and funny. He was particularly good at oozing confidence and self esteem in the bar scene when Guy looks like a big fish talking to his friend Jack about the business, then Daniel arrives and suddenly the other two look very ordinary. It captured exactly the way an atmosphere in a bar would change in real life if suddenly Johnny Depp walked in.

I would also like to mention James Highstead who kicked off the play brilliantly as Buddy’s outgoing assistant Rex. He had a tricky job setting the pace for the production and succeeded in making us laugh in the first scene.

I agreed with the decision in this production not to have a sound effect for the phones ringing, with so many phone calls the cues would have been a nightmare to orchestrate and the noise would have been annoying after the first 5 minutes. However I did think the bar scenes particularly could have used a bit of background noise. Guy walks in and pronounces the setting as ‘the coolest bar he’s ever been in’ but it’s hard to see how cool it can be when he and Dawn seem to be the only two people in it. I also thought the costumes could have been bought a little more up to date; as the script had been modernised, with the drinking of coffee and smoothies replacing smoking in the office for example, there was no reason not to bring the whole production into the current decade.

On the whole a director who clearly knew his stuff, a strong cast and an entertaining evening. It would have been even more enjoyable if they were putting on a play instead of a rather unnecessary adaptation to the stage. Why would a clearly talented writer adapt a movie about the movie business into a play about the movie business and rob the story of the context of the correct genre? Doesn’t make sense surely? Maybe I just don’t get it.

3 - An Ideal Husband - directed by Lindsay Posner at the Vaudeville theatre

Each year at Christmas my excitement is tempered slightly by a feeling of trepidation. Because maybe this year will be the one where I lose the magic. The one where I have finally grown up and don't want to wake up at 6am; the year I start to find the Christmas tunes annoying and the shopping an incovenience.

I felt the same way going to see An Ideal Husband. I loved Oscar Wilde so much as a teenager, but have not actually seen any for years. What if I suddenly find it all a bit silly?

Half way through the first scene I still had this feeling. The play kicks off in classic Wilde style with the dialogue a constant stream of epigrams, not all of which are actually all that clever, many of which are just nonsense. Luckily I was busy taking in the amazing set, a full height entrance hall in gold with a dramatic staircase entrance. And all the cast are in the most beautiful evening gowns which I'd give my left arm to unearth at a vintage fashion fair. I noticed that the cast acted well in the dresses, when they sat the skirts were spread out behind them and they walked to really show them off to best effect.

Then Mrs Cheveley, played by a brilliantly villanous Samantha Bond, drops her bombshell on the unsuspecting Robert Chiltern and the plot kicks in. She has a letter proving his money and political career were made by the act of selling a state secret when he was young. She blackmails him, demanding his public support for a crooked canal scheme in which she has a considerable financial investment. This is where the production becomes properly melodramatic and I'm hooked for the rest of the play.

It's all just so funny. This was mainly helped by Elliot Cowan who played a very good Lord Downing, Chiltern's dandy friend who is often the voice of reason. His moments of frustration when deperately trying to get people to leave his house were the funniest of the play. Another performance I really loved was that of Fiona Button as Mabel Chiltern, sister of Robert and love interest for Lord Downey. She brightened up the stage and delivered all her hilarious lines without losing any laughs.

I did think Alexander Hanson who played Sir Robert Chiltern could have been more convincing, in the scene where he really reproaches Gertrude his voice seemed to lack range. But perhaps that's because I find the profound morality in that scene slightly out of place.

On the Vaudeville theatre website there is a rather good video advert for this production in which the actors are asked if they agree with famous lines from the production, like "only dull people are brilliant at breakfast". It's a good advert but really the questions are a bit daft. Of course, Wilde's epigrams all seem clever but are nonsense really. Delightful entertaining nonsense but nevertheless nonsense. I think this is why I don't usually warm to An Ideal Husband so much as The Importance of Being Earnest, I feel like it is giving me a moral message that is inappropriate, and highlighted in this production. Surely modern women do not need warning against putting our men on a pedastal? Have you met them? We are not so daft as to expect great things of our men. Well, we don't need them to be our moral compass anyway.

There is a relevant message here, and not just the one about trusting polititians. It's about loving people for what they are rather than what you would like them to be. What Wilde misses of course is the improvement that can happen to a person who is loved for what they could be. Do we really think that Robert Chiltern would have stopped selling state secrets and become the moral upstanding politician he is had he not married Gerturde? A Wilde play as a moral message for a contemporary audience just doesn't work as soon as you start thinking about it. It is a social satire of the time, a melodrama and a witty comedy. And during most of this production where th play was treated as these things it was a joy to watch. And I have found that I still love Oscar Wilde; this is magic, funny and hugely entertaining.

2 - The Glass Menagerie - directed by Joe Hill-Gibbins at the Young Vic

I love The Glass Menagerie but have never seen a full staging of it so I was really excited to see this production. I was thrilled when it turned out to be so absolutely spot on.

The staging of the play was just beautiful, with a real attention to detail. I loved touches like the live musicians on the balcony, one of whom was playing wine glasses. This delicate and slightly eerie sound combined with a mirror ball casting glinting light around the room complemented the theme of glass in the play.
It’s difficult to pull out one of the cast to commend because they were all really excellent performances. Leo Bill’s Tom was full of nervous energy, twitchy and awkward he really captured the inner dilemma between concern and love for his sister and the claustrophobia and frustration of his work and home life. Deborah Findlay as his mother was both funny and embarrassing to watch; although her performance in the dinner scenes made you cringe to watch it I also felt a lot of sympathy for the character. But probably the most stunning performance was that of Sinead Matthews as Laura. She was so awkward it was often painful to watch her, but her limp and stutter were subtle and well judged making the character very believable. And during the courtship scene with her gentlemen caller she really blossoms while still appearing very fragile.

There is a scene in the second act where one of the glass animals from the menagerie is positioned precariously on a stool as two of the characters dance around it. It is uncomfortable to watch because you can see the accident coming and hold your breath, waiting for it to be broken, willing the dancers to miss it. This was very much a feeling I had throughout the play. Tom, the narrator, lives with, and supports, his overbearing mother and lame sister Laura who is cripplingly shy and in her own world, seemingly incapable of getting a job to support herself and with no romantic prospects. Tom is constantly boiling over with frustration at his unfulfilling job and his mother, going out late every night to avoid the house and getting little sleep. He often talks of leaving, like his father has to pursue a life of adventure. The situation is precarious like the glass unicorn on the stool; we spend the play waiting for this fragile world to break apart. And as we watch Laura’s delicate hopes of a romance blossom we too hope for a happy ending that we know is inevitably not going to happen.

Something else I really liked about the staging of this production was the way the dinner table and chairs were raised up on a kind of podium in the middle of the apartment. It emphasised the importance attributed to the area by Tom’s mother Amanda right from the beginning “we can’t say grace until you come to the table” building it up to be like a stage within a stage where the emotions of the characters were most prone to boil over. In act 2 Laura cannot bring herself to come to the table when the gentleman caller comes to dinner, and when she is forced to attempt it by her mother falls and collapses. The staging highlighted how difficult for her it is, the step up forming an obstacle to Laura with her physical disability and also made stepping up to the table appear as it appears in Laura’s mind as a real entrance into the spotlight. It was a really clever example of how a simple staging decision can add emphasis to a performance.

The reviewers are right, this is an exquisite production. Catch it while you can.

1- Birdsong - directed by Trevor Nunn at The Comedy Theatre, West End

First play of the year! Thought we had better catch Birdsong as it's quite a short run and promised to be pretty spectacular. Now I actually have not read the book (I know, I'm an awful human being) which probably meant I enjoyed the play more because I often find novel adaptations annoying. The scope of this one is pretty epic as you'd expect from a play based on a novel. The first half is a love story set in Amiens in peace time in which young Englishman, Stephen Wraysford fall in love with, and seduces, Isabelle who is married to a rich factory owner. There were some aspects which seemed too briefly covered, such as the strike in the factory which I would have liked to hear more about, but the cast were wonderful and the story was intriguing and pacy. The set looked to me like the characters were coming out of a pop-up book with projections and set behind them, balanced with just enough set pieces and props to keep the feel theatrical. I particularly liked the scene when they punted along the river in a boat and the projected river bank in the background moved with them.

So far so delightful, a touching love story with mystery, sex and heartbreak. Suddenly at the end of the first half we hear a crash and part of the set at the back collapses forward to the sound of gunfire and explosion. When we return after the interval, Stephen is an officer in the trenches, the war has begun. This is where I thought the production really excelled, as the horror of the trenches was conjured up on stage with amazing sound and atmospheric set design. As the characters experienced the terror of their world being torn apart by war, we experienced it with them all the more vividly because we had seen, in the first half, what it was like before the world came crashing down, idylic settings became mud, smoke and guns.

I saw Journey's End years ago in the west end and it's difficult not to compare them. From what I can remember there was something very authentic and personal about Journey's End, written by Sherriff who was actually there. Obviously Birdsong was more literary but also I think dealt with the bigger themes. It really struck you how inhuman the Somme was, how much it destroyed not only the landscape but how people thought about things. Stephen says at the end "I don't even know if we can call ourselves human any more."

Anyway catch this play while you can! If you can, book a cheap ticket for a weekday and if you're lucky they'll upgrade you. It made us cry so take tissues. You don't often see a production where you are thoroughly hooked all the way through and come out feeling like you have seen something important which has changed you somehow. I instinctively want to drag every schoolchild in the country to see this play, to see what those men went through and remember what war does, but also to show them how gripping theatre can be.