48- Steel Magnolias, Bench Theatre at The Spring in Havant

More brilliant theatre from the ridiculously talented female actors of The Bench! We laughed and cried at this brilliant subtle production. The cast were all simply marvellous, it was great to see Alice Corrigan and Jo Gardner working together again, a duo just as magnetic as they were earlier in the year in Daisy Pulls it Off.

Because I have a complete inability to do any accent I am always really impressed when non-professional actors do a great job on tricky accents. The Southern American accents in this production were mostly spot on and couldn't have been easy to maintain with such highly charged emotional acting.

My siblings and I were really proud of my mum Sue Dawes who played M'lynne. The range of emotions she had to portray was pretty astounding; from hopeful happiness on her daughter's wedding day to anger, concern culminating in an explosion of grief in the final scene. I think my mum is brilliant.

This was a highly charged emotiona play, nicely directed. Well done to the director, cast and team. Special mention to whoever was responsible for such a great range of different hair styles and costumes too!

42 - The Mummy's Tomb, Exit Theatre at the Charles Cryer, Carshalton

I really enjoyed the big colourful characters in this production, but probably would have cut it down as it lacked the substance needed to keep our attention for such a long play.

This typical egyptian Mummy story sees an egyptologist, his daughter and her suitors on a quest to discover a lost tomb, only to uncover a cursed undead Mummy.

The best performances were those played in the required cartoonish style, so the characters which really shone were inevitably the baddies. Scott Nicholson was very funny as a posh trigger-happy Lord Soaper, but I did think a comedy walk would have completed the character. Sarah Jane was a real gem as the evil Egyptian queen and dominated the stage. James Farr played an excellent Nazi villain with a great stage presence who perhaps just needed to be a bit louder when talking in Arabic gibberish to the Egyptians.

The fights and action scenes should have been more cartoonish too to give a definite style to the whole thing, the best parts were the comic punches where there was a batman style sound effect.

Overall the acting felt like the actors had been asked to reign in the ott characters to make it more naturalistic like Indiana Jones, which didn't work. We didn't sympathise with the one dimensional characters, so we just wanted it to be funny.

This was one of the things which gave me the feeling the director, Graham Butler, did not seem to know what he was directing. The play was billed as a farce in the literature which it definitely wasn't. If anything it was a spoof, but not one which made any particularly knowing comments or jokes on the genre. The script was a melodrama, but Exit had cut out the songs so it no longer held together as one. It did occur to me that perhaps it was a family production for kids, who might have enjoyed it if it had been cut down a bit. However the promotional material did seem to be aimed at adults so I was left a bit bemused about who the target audience was, and what we were supposed to be watching.

There was some clever set construction, I particularly really liked the boat which folded up from the raised back area of the stage with the black curtains at the back pulled apart in a triange shape so the white wall behind created the appearance of sails. There was also a scne in which Lucy Hamilton as the archeologist's dim but attractive daughter was shown in silhouette in a tent being attacked by a snake which was very well executed technically and ended with a hillarious rescue with James Farr fighting a toy snake.

Overall this was fun but too serious at points and far too long, there is a reason Scooby Doo is only a ten minute cartoon and we grew rather weary by the end of the show!

38 - Kiss Me Like You Mean It Bench Theatre at The Spring

I don't think this is a brilliant play, but four spectacular performances and skilled direction from Callum West made it a brilliant production.

Dan Finch was hilarious as soon as he emerged on stage dancing around with an inflatable shark singing Tom Jones' 'Sex Bomb'. He played Tony, a slightly drunk young man emerging into the yard from a house party to get some air. Soon he was joined by the cool, slightly sarcastic Ruth (Rosie Carter) and they attempted a conversation which evolved from embarrassing small talk and chat up lines to warm affection and chemistry. The delivery of the dialogue was varied and funny, some of the awkward moments between the two of them could have been from Peep Show or The Inbetweeners. While it's always funny to watch an awkward young man failing to find the words to chat up a pretty girl, this had the added bonus of a well developed and realistically flawed female character which made the performance much warmer. It was easy to identify with Ruth's obvious frustration as she talked about her life, a life she clearly felt had veered of course somehow, and didn't know quite what to do to put it right again. Carter's Ruth was fiery and stroppy which contrasted with Finch's laid-back slightly philosophical Tony brilliantly.

The staging of this first half could easily have been quite static, but I thought it was blocked out very well with just enough movement to keep the scene interesting without being distracting.

Much of the conversation at the interval was about the plausibility of the young couple's situation. It's true, I don't think the sudden attraction between the two of them is particularly realistic. I've been to a few similar parties and I can't see two twenty-somethings who have never met abandoning their respective partners inside a party to sit in the garden, form an attraction and make declarations of love to each other within the space of an evening. Unless they were on drugs or really drunk or something. And even then they'd probably just have sex.

However I also believe that a play can show something true without being particularly realistic. And accelerating a relationship to develop in just an evening between two very believable characters is just one of those things you can do in a play but not in a film. Particularly when it creates such lovely symmetry with the narrative of the other two characters.

However that's not to say I thought this was a great script, at times it tended towards the mawkish and contrived. But the great comic timing of all the actors involved meant it was touching and enjoyable.

The relationship between the young couple, the staging and the costumes seemed very fresh and modern, I don't know if that was just because I found them so recognisable. However this meant the slightly retro references in the first half jarred and felt a bit anachronistic, I think these could have been easily swapped out to bring the play bang up to date and give more contrast between the new couple and the old. I didn't see any reason to keep the play set in some recent decade rather than the present.

What really got to me about the play was the spellbinding performances by Sally Hartley and Peter Woodward as the older couple, Edie and Don. Having spent 50 years together, Edie and Don are reaching the end. Don has a brain tumour and they plan to inject themselves with insulin as the sun rises, ending life on their own terms. So they spend the night drinking all the old alcohol hanging around their flat and having rampant sex in full view of their window, which is where we, and Tony and Ruth, first glimpse them. The energy and sparkle both actors put into everything made their impending death all the more heartbreaking. From the hilarious scantily clad wiggling in the window to Edie's rush out to plant their house plants in the yard and Don's quest to source a curry flavoured condom, with the help of a perplexed Tony they took us with them all the way and portrayed a brilliantly believable partnership. But while Edie and Don still had much to give, they clearly wanted to go now, while they still shone brightly after a happy life, not eaten away cancer or lonely old age and there was no arguing with this decision.

We cried buckets. I had tears streaming down my face and could hear my mum sobbing away behind me. Edie and Don reminded me of my grandparents, even while not actually being anything like them really, and made me hope I find someone to love like that into old age and beyond.

28 - Confusions, Charles Cryer

James and I directed this and I was really pleased with how it went. Clearly I can't write a review of my own play so here instead is someone else's:


Not sure what to make of 'competently directed' and would have thought he might mention our scene changer skits in between plays and other clever things we added to the script. However it is a positive review and mentions a few of the actors' names which is the important thing. On the whole I'd describe this as competently reviewed.


Here are some pictures, taken by Rafal Lacki http://photo.mackraph.co.uk:

Apology

I'm sorry my last few blog posts have been rather rushed. As you can see, I am keeping up pretty well with seeing the 52 plays, but finding the time to write about them is proving rather more of a challenge.

Please bear with me and stick with this blog, the entries will get better again, I promise! The reason this was been rather more rushed recently is because I am co-directing a play with Breakfast Cat Theatre Company. My co-director is my clever boyfriend James.

The play we are performing is the classic Confusions by Alan Ayckbourn. Here's the sell:

Confusions, from one of England's most popular and prolific playwrights, uses five inter-linked one-act plays to cover themes of obsession, isolation and human desire for companionship, all played out against a backdrop of the British suburban middle class. From frenetic farces to melancholy pieces, it is engaging, funny and occasionally touching. With a strong cast of Breakfast Cat regulars and a healthy dose of new faces, this production promises to be the highlight of the summer.


It really will be good, even if I say so myself. We have a simply cracking cast and some great ideas. We want to give you the traditional play you know and love, but refresh it a little bit with extra touches to make the play a joy for those who have seen it before.

So come and see it!

27 - Happy Birthday, The Miller Centre

This classic farce with an amazing set and a strong cast.

There were a couple of slips with the complicated lines, but this did not effect the fast pace necessary for a farce.

Roberto Prestoni was particularly hilarious as the put-upon friend who is roped in to help conceal his friend's affair from his wife, who he in turn is actually having an affair with.

Sound confusing, but really it was just complicated and easy to understand because it was performed so competently.

The Miller Centre players really are worth checking out if you're local and want a good value night out.

26 - Abigail's Party, CODA

I really enjoyed this production by CODA. The performances were very funny and the set, and in particular the costumes, were spot on.

The person I was with did admit to being slightly irritated by the similarity of this production to the film. However as I didn't remember anything about the film this wasn't a problem for me!

It was a shame the audience was a bit sparse in the massive venue. I think the production would have benefited from a smaller theatre which would have made it much easier to create the atmosphere for a single set character piece like this one.

23 - The Winslow boy, One Off Productions

I really enjoyed the acting performances in this well constructed production.

The play is about the Winslow family. One day the youngest son Ronnie is sent home from the Royal Naval College accused of stealing a postal order. His expulsion and his protests that he didn't commit the crime he was accused of result in his father starting a long legal battle against the college to fight for a fair trial for his son.

The costs of the trial tear the family apart. Ronnie's sister Kate's engagement is in jeopardy, his brother Dickie is forced to drop out of his degree when funds run low and his father's heath rapidly deteriorates leaving him in a bath chair. We are watching someone sacrificing everything so they can stand up for what they believe is right.

The play at times was a little dry and tedious but these moments were dispersed with great displays by the vivid characters which made it all of a sudden a joy to watch. The father, Mr Winslow, was charismatic but not too over the top. He had great comic timing, I particularly enjoyed the scene where he had to discuss with John Watherstone his prospects of marrying Kate which was very funny.

The real star of the show was the actor playing Violet the over famililar maid who the family were 'constantly having to explain to people.' She was I'm afraid too old for the part, the text described her joining them from an orphanage but she seemed far too close in age to Mr and Mrs Winslow. However I'm very glad the company cast her anyway as her interjections were the funniest in the play, particularly her account of the final verdict towards the end.

I also thought the boy playing the young Ronnie Winslow gave a very accomplished performance for his age, his acting was both varied and believable.

The benefit of the play being set all in one room was the company was able to put together an excellent naturalistic set. I did think it was a shame that they chose to have a couple of essential elements of the room invisible on the fourth wall (a bell which Mr Winslow pushed to summon Violet and later the curtains which were discussed at length by a female journalist.) This device didn't fit in with the style of the production and felt a bit like a cop-out. An unnecessary one too: when they had managed to source a gramophone and build French doors surely some fancy curtains would not have proved much of a problem?

On the whole though a very polished production which was a credit to the company. Very well done to all involved.

11 - Richard and Trudy, Exit Theatre Company, Charles Cryer Theatre in Carshalton

Number 11 is a play written by a friend of mine, David Trotter, which I did the lighting for last week.

I had mixed feelings about this production. Exit are very good at special effects and the best bits of the production were definitely the murders. Blood all over the stage, eyeballs being spat into the audience etc, it was all very Nighty Night or League of Gentlemen.

However for me this just didn't fit in with the play's setting, a Faulty Towers-esque hotel in Devon run by a couple who were basically Sybil and Basil Faulty. It was like an old fashioned farce but with a graphic sex scene and gory violence. It just didn't seem to make up its mind what genre it was. If John Cleese had done a Faulty Towers episode where he pulled his trousers down and shagged Connie Booth in the reception, then chopped off Andrew Sach's head with a bread knife, rather than being entertained everyone would think he'd gone raving mad.

There were a few great performances in the play, I thought Matt Lunnemann's panicked hotel owner, Richard, was great, basically a good John Cleese impression and Angel Marinez really stole the show as the lovable but stupid detective Thomas. There was a lack of chemistry between Richard and Trudy making their relationship very unbelievable, which I think was because Matt played Richard as quite naturalistic while Gill Butler was playing a much more of a caricature as Trudy. I just didn't get her performance to be honest, she didn't seem to react to what other characters were saying and it was all in exactly the same tone all the way through which I found irritating. (Hard for me to judge though as I auditioned for the part and would have done it very differently so maybe that's it.)

I thought Lucy Hamilton and Joe Webster played the two chav characters very well, and I think they got the biggest laughs after Angel. But although the performances were very good I didn't like these two characters from the time I first read the play, they are an old stereotype now reminiscent of ancient Little Britain sketches. If you're going to write this kind of character I think it should be much more realistic and have more depth to it, like the girl in Misfits, or even the McQueens in Hollyoaks. When middle class Waitrose shoppers like me take a cheap shot at working class people it makes me feel uncomfortable. Maybe I'm just too full of lefty guilt, it has certainly been said of me before.

I thought David did a very good job with the plot, I certainly wouldn't be able to come up with such a neat storyline with just the right amount of twists and turns and I think it is an under-appreciated talent. I would definitely have tweaked the play a bit so it didn't contain black-outs apart from at the interval, as a single setting play taking place over the course of one night it was totally unnecessary to have long black outs. Unnecessary scene divisions are a pet hate of mine and happen all to often in amateur productions. They really slowed the pace down in this play which was a shame as by the end of the run the play had a lot of momentum with snappy entrances and exits through the numerous doors in true farce tradition.

Finally I'd like to add a very well done to Felicity Foregone who gave her first ever drag performance before the show. After doing a similar warm-up for Anybody for Murder? I know how terrifying a warm-up improv is. She got better every night, with just the right amount of audience participation and really got everyone in the mood.

You can buy a copy of Richard and Trudy from Amazon here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-Trudy-Play-David-Trotter/dp/1840948086

8 - The Long and the Short and the Tall, Breakfast Cat Theatre directed by Tia Matthews

Occasionally, maybe once a year, a production comes along that really raises the bar for local non-professional companies. This was that production for 2011.

Willis Hall's captivating play set in British Malaya in 1942 raises questions about war, and what it does to people. The characters are a cross section of British society at the time: a Welshman, a Scouser, a Scotsman, Londoner, Northerner, etc. This alone poses challenges for actors; performing with an accent is one thing but producing a convincing accent when the rest of the cast around you are each speaking completely different accents is quite a feat. This cast rose to the challenge admirably and though I'm sure the eagle-eared could have found the occasional slip I was very impressed by how well they all accomplished this. They also managed to avoid plying stereotypes and each came across as very real, and each very different characters. This meant most people in the audience could recognise ourselves in one or other of the characters, forcing us to imagine how we might act in their situation.

This of course adds to the poignancy when these very ordinary men are faced with the extraordinary circumstances of war. We watch them struggle to fit in together, cope with authority just as we would in their position. And then, when a Japanese prisoner stumbles into their midst, we watch them struggle with the realities of war, and the big question of the play: does everyone have it in them to kill a man?

There are no easy answers to be found in the play. The officers Mitchem and Johnstone find the decision to kill the prisoner and give their patrol a better change of survival easier to make. They are more experienced at war, hardened towards making these decisions. Peter French as Johnstone was scary and a bully with just the right amount of menace to be intimidating but managed to avoid playing the character as a snarling stereotype. Scott Nicholson had a difficult role as a likable Sergent Mitcham. His obvious concern for his men was apparent but he has still just harsh enough, keeping them in line with an authoritative tone.

What was really impressive about the acting performances was the actors' performances when they had long amounts of time on stage without any lines. At one point I glanced at Jay Rolfe, playing the young Private Whitaker, during a tense moment and his face was such a wonderful expression of wide-eyed fear I wanted to go on stage and give him a hug. Of course the actor who had to do the most of this silent acting was Andy K as the Japanese soldier. His shaking with fear when he was first captured was brilliant and he really made us sympathise with him right from his entrance.

Roberto Prestoni brought the energy and pace to the stage as the rebellious Private Bamforth. He coped particularly well with the period slang, putting across what he was saying even though we didn't always understand every word. He and Tony Bannister as a lovable private Evans both brought out the humour in the play and really made me laugh.

The costumes were excellent and had real attention to detail, down to chocolate squares wrapped in brown paper and realistic sweat patches (added, I am reliably informed, artificially). These and a simple but effective set gave this production a professional feel and I was so pleased the cast lived up to this presentation and gave such polished performances. There really were no weak links. Next time you get the chance to get involved with Breakfast Cat, or see their next production, make sure you jump at the chance.


Photograph by Vicky Walters.

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.

Cinderella: A Christmas Adventure! - Bench Theatre at The Spring in Havant

I love Bench theatre. Their dedication to produce plays most non-professionals wouldn’t tackle, and at the highest possible standard, gave me the opportunity to see plays ranging from Shakespeare to Sarah Kane on my doorstep while I was still studying for my GCSEs. I have seen productions there which have far excelled some I have seen on the West End. They are essentially in my opinion, the reason to visit Havant.

So when I heard they were producing a pantomime, I knew it would be a good night out, and naturally dragged a couple of car loads of my friends down from Croydon for the weekend.

Firstly, Mark Wakeman has written a really excellent script which offers just the right mix of a traditional story with modern references. There were plenty of jokes for the grown-ups but lots of ‘he’s behind you’ stuff for the kids. It also didn’t go too smutty or contain lots of in jokes for the locals, referencing pop culture and TV instead which made it very relevant. We particularly liked the way the story followed the familiar tale of Cinderella but veered off after the ball to give us extra plot and characters.

The ugly sisters, played by Terry Smyth and Callum West, were hilarious, and a particular favourite among my friends, one of whom insisted on getting a photograph with them afterwards (above). Dan Finch and Mark Wakeman really set the scene as the story tellers, keeping the story moving and the audience laughing. I also thought Flic Jolly had a great pantomime style as Cinderella as did Lorraine Galliers as the fairy godmother.

What really made the pantomime magical was the contagious energy of the cast and the truly spectacular set and costumes. The beautiful hand-painted sets were so lovely I wanted to take them home for my own house. Now OK I’m a bit biased about the costume because my mum led the team of talented people behind them, but I think anyone who sees this production will agree they are truly amazing. From the bespoke patterned tailcoats which looked straight out of a Vivienne Westwood collection to the adorable horses, they were a joy to look at. Each character had different costumes for the ball and many had more than two or even three different outfits making this a real feat.

I think what I love most about this panto is that it gives local parents the opportunity to take their kids to a Christmas show they will all love without breaking the bank. No need for fireworks or past-it celebrities, take the kids to this and you will make their Christmas.

Oh and it goes without saying, the turkey in scene one was totally awesome.