Review: Sex with Strangers

I'll be honest with you right from the off, I didn't like Sex with Strangers. However, I am going to have a go at reviewing it as objectively as I can, because it did have some redeeming features.

The Hampstead Theatre inform us that,

Olivia, an attractive and talented but underappreciated mid-career writer, is unexpectedly trapped overnight in a secluded, snowed-in B&B with Ethan, an equally attractive and wildly successful young blogger. 
Her latest novel is an unsung masterpiece; his blog is being made into a movie. She prefers books; he prefers eBooks. She is anonymous; he has half a million Twitter followers. But opposites soon attract – passionately – as each realise they want more of what the other has. But the closer they get, the more they must confront the murky side of ambition, success and Wi-Fi…

Now, as the description points out, the attractive novelist and the attractive blogger are indeed trapped in a B&B. They become involved and, over the course of the play, become less attractive personalities with every passing second.

Peter Dubois does a reasonable job of directing Laura Eason's work, but there are moments where things seem forced and awkward, for example as the couple are about to have sex, the gauze lowers in front of them, and there's a cut to blackout, every time. Every. Time. After a while this is clunky, and the momentum is lost. It feels like Eason was writing the kind of character development that is deployed on screen rather than stage - something that can be shown through a montage of time passing. It doesn't work in a play.
The characters are also remarkably unsympathetic, as we see the pull of performative identities and the lure of money cause them both to sacrifice what they hold dear. By the end I just didn't care what happened to them. On saying this, though, there were some subtleties in the character development that were well executed from the writing, I just disliked the characters so much that I was too busy being annoyed to appreciate them.

There are other positives, however. Emilia Fox and Theo James put in strong performances; despite the fact that James seems to have been cast because he looks good with his shirt off, he is particularly convincing as one of a certain breed of social media star. Also, at some points, the dialogue between the two characters is punchy and naturalistic, but not enough to win me over. Oh, and the set design is lovely.

Some people seem to have enjoyed the play. I'm not one of them. Go and see it if you will, but you might find yourself, head in hands, laughing at the number of times Theo James' character has undressed, or irritated by the fact you are stuck watching two characters you don't really care for

3/5 (begrudgingly): Pretty but disappointing
Hampstead Theatre
Until 4th March

Review: Woolf Works

This month saw a revival of Wayne McGregor's critically acclaimed Woolf Works at the Royal Opera House. McGregor's choreography is widely praised by some, but is also heavily criticised by traditionalists. So, what is the fuss about?

Wayne McGregor’s ballet triptych Woolf Works, [is] inspired by the writings of Virginia Woolf ... Each of the three acts springs from one of Woolf’s landmark novels: Mrs Dalloway, Orlando and The Waves – but these inspirations are also enmeshed with elements from her letters, essays and diaries. Woolf Works expresses the heart of an artistic life driven to discover a freer, uniquely modern realism, and brings to life Woolf’s world of ‘granite and rainbow’, where human beings are at once both physical body and uncontained essence. Woolf Works was McGregor’s first full-length work for The Royal Ballet, and saw him reunited with regular collaborator Max Richter, who provides a commissioned score incorporating electronic and orchestral music.

 The first part of the triptych, weaving in elements from Woolf's stream of conscious novel Mrs Dalloway with references to her real life, was subtle, painful and heartfelt. From what I know of McGregor's work, I was surprised at how stripped-back everything was. The second Act, meanwhile, was my least favourite of the three. It was, in theory, based on Orlando, but it was difficult to trace a sense of story through the lasers and dry ice. Richter's score was the strongest part of this section. Finally, part three intertwined moments Woolf's life with the tale of The Waves, and it was utterly lovely. The music, soundscape, and choreography were perfectly married up into something both sorrowful and hopeful. It was a gorgeous thing to behold.

The triptych is, for the most part, fantastic. Max Richter's score is a brilliant counterpoint to Mcgregor's choreography and direction. Woolf Works is a very strong contemporary work, and a good point of access for people unfamiliar with ballet - it has all of the beauty and none of the pretention. It had a brief season, already passed, so I can't instruct you to go and see it, but when it appears again, you really should fight for your ticket: Woolf Works is a stripped down, poignant piece, and a thing of real beauty.

4/5: Moments of breathtaking beauty
The Royal Opera House,
Covent Garden 

Review: La Ronde

La Ronde was originally written by Arthur Schnitzler in 1897 and looked at the romantic entanglements of ten characters in fin de siecle Vienna, to great controversy. This new reworking by Max Gill, showing at the Bunker Theatre, strips the play down to four actors playing the ten roles, with who playing what left broadly to chance.

The result is rather marvellous.

The Bunker Theatre describe it thus:

London, 2017. The disparate lives of the city’s inhabitants are thrown together by the caprice of desire and fate.  How does your desire define you?

With four actors to play the cast of ten and roles selected with a roulette, our LA RONDE embraces life’s game of chance and the blindness of desire and fortune.

This portrait of the human need for another boldly reimagines the infamous original to interrogate modern attitudes to gender, sexuality, and social status. With over three thousand different versions of the show, which story will you see? 

This rather vague description gives you a location and a concept, but not much else to work with. As a result, and not knowing the original play, I went into La Ronde blind. It was my first visit to the Bunker Theatre as well, so what to expect from my afternoon out was a complete mystery...

Well, the Bunker itself is a really interesting space, and it's very easy to walk past the ramp down to it without realising that anything is there. This would be your loss. It's a quirky little venue, and I look forward to returning to it.

Now for La Ronde.

Given the nature of the play, it is difficult to talk about the cast - Leemore Marrett Jr., Lauren Samuels, Alexander Vlahos, Amanda Wilkin - in terms of how they develop one specific role. Instead, you just have to nod to four individuals accomplishing something of serious technical difficultly, and doing so in a way that is both entertaining and, ultimately, painfully human. The fact that each role becomes gender neutral through this process is also very pleasing, and the writing made it possible for this shift to pass by, almost under the radar, something which seems to tie in with the current trend - across London's theatre scene at least - for a more diverse representation of gender alignments and sexual orientations.

I found myself marvelling at the technicality of the show as a whole. The execution of a chance-based concept is elegantly managed, and the actors rise to the challenge of not knowing exactly which play they are going to perform.  La Ronde manages to be both tremendously clever and accessible to a wide audience through its natural humour, and I hope it is indicative of great things to come for both Max Gill and the Bunker Theatre.

4/5: Cleverly structured and wonderfully executed: a must-see.
The Bunker Theatre
Until 11th March

Review: The Boys in the Band

The Boys in the Band - currently enjoying a limited-term revival at the Vaudeville Theatre - is an exploration of the lives and relationships of a group of gay men in the New York of the late 1960s.
It's described on the Vaudeville's website like so:

Mark Gatiss stars in this strictly limited West End transfer of the first major revival of this iconic play in two decades. Razor sharp and packed with wit, The Boys in the Band is fresh, startling and brilliantly entertaining. There’s a party tonight. It’s 1968 and nine men gather in a New York apartment for a birthday celebration. Harold (Mark Gatiss) receives a surprise gift from his friend, Emory (James Holmes), in the form of a beautiful male hustler. Meanwhile, party host Michael (Ian Hallard) gets an unwanted surprise of his own. As the booze is drunk and the dope smoked, the mood swings from hilarity to heartbreak.

Written by Mart Crowley in 1968, the play pre-dates the Stonewall riots, but only just, which suggests a mismatch between the frivolous, enclosed space of the party, and the outside world. When party host Michael's (Ian Hallard) square, straight (?) college friend appears, we get a glimpse of the socio-political tensions that simmer beneath the overt bitchiness.
At the play's best, we see a group of characters wrangling with their identities and the role society assigns them. Homophobia and self-loathing are articulated with finesse, and the contrast between the sharp-edged humour and the characters' moments of darker introspection feels both painful and modern.
However, the pacing and occasional dip into caricature mean that the cast really are fighting against a script of variable quality. It felt, to me, as if the play could have been cut down to relieve the awkwardness, and then be run as a 90 minute/one act piece.

Overall, it is not a bad piece of theatre, it is just frustrating to watch because it has the potential to be so much better.

3/5: A great cast carrying an average play.
Vaudeville Theatre
404 Strand
Until 18th February

Review: Amadeus

If you have a love of music, and of the sheer spectacle of big-budget theatre, Amadeus - currently playing at the National Theatre's Olivier - is probably for you.

They say:

Vienna: the music capital of the world.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a rowdy young prodigy, arrives determined to make a splash. Awestruck by his genius, court composer Antonio Salieri has the power to promote his talent or destroy it. Seized by obsessive jealousy he begins a war with Mozart, with music and, ultimately, with God.

And through the monologuing of Salieri (the brilliant Lucian Msamati) we indeed follow a flawed character's obsession with his youthful, creative superior.

Amadeus, by late icon Peter Shaffer, premièred at the National 1979 to wide acclaim. This new version, directed by Michael Longhurst, has similarly garnered glowing reviews.

Lucian Msamati's stiff, controlled Salieri is the polar opposite of Adam Gillen’s pyrotechnic Mozart, and the tension that arises between them is very well played. Gillen's hyperactive, childlike characterisation of Mozart manages to generate sympathy, rather than irritation, whilst his downfall is being carefully orchestrated (no pun intended) by Salieri, and the central roles are supported by strong performances by the whole cast.

The design work is, as you would expect for a production at the National, beautiful and challenging. The Southbank Sinfonia are on the stage all of the time, so Mozart's music is cleverly woven throughout the piece in terms both of sound and choreography, and there are surreal flares on the part of designer Chloe Lamford - Mozart in Dr Martens anyone? - that give things a rebellious edge.

I enjoyed Amadeus a lot: there are moments of such pure, spectacular beauty that the hairs on the backs of my arms literally stood up, but I also felt that the second half lost its pacing somewhat. Three hours is a long slog, and I couldn't help but feel that if the show were shorter it would have maintained its dramatic impact better.

At its best, Amadeus is glorious, at its weaker points, you want Mozart to hurry up and come to his untimely end, but overall, it was a joyful thing to behold.

4/5 Moments of majesty: a beautiful and spectacular show

The Olivier, The National Theatre
Until 18th March

Review: Us/Them

Us/Them is currently playing at the Dorfman Theatre at the National, but it comes via a sell-out, prize-winning run at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival of 2016. It forms part of the National's 'Limited Editions' season of new work, playing throughout the first part of the year.
They say:

In September 2004 a group of terrorists stormed a school in Beslan taking hundreds of children hostage. The ensuing siege lasted three days and left many dead. Us/Them is not a straightforward account of this terrible tragedy, but an exploration of the entirely individual way children cope with traumatic situations.

Brussels-based BRONKS (a Belgian theatre company geared towards a young audience) brings together director Carly Wijs with actors Gytha Parmentier and Roman Van Houtven, and offers a show that is absolutely disarming in its characterisation of how young children express themselves. The charm is cut through, however, with moments where you remembered exactly what story is being told, and the effect of this means that the design of the piece as a family show seemed entirely plausible, but at the same time the exploration of ideology, the worldliness, and the emotional depth are darkly adult.

Designer Stef Stessel does a fabulous job with the look of Us/Them. The use of the space - a world built with a labyrinth of string and a carefully demarcated floor plan in chalk - is brilliant, as the relationship between the 'us' arises from a space constructed by the children at play. The design work is very cleverly done - child-like but not tacky. Similarly, the performances of Parmentier and Van Houtven within the space are subtle, funny at times, but not an unbearable aping of childhood.

Overall, I really enjoyed Us/Them. I decided to see it on a whim, and I'm really glad that I did. The performances and the look are well choreographed, and the content is balanced so that the piece is accessible to children without being jarring for adults. If you find yourself with an evening to spare before the end of the run, you could do a lot worse than trying to get hold of one of the remaining tickets. A very enjoyable hour.

4/5: Clever conceived and beautifully executed. If you can get a seat, go, enjoy, then reflect.

The Dorfman Theatre, at the National Theatre
Until 18th February

Review: The Vulgar

The Vulgar: Fashion Redefined is the current exhibition at the Barbican Centre. They say:

‘Vulgarity exposes the scandal of good taste’ Adam Phillips

Potent, provocative and sometimes shocking, the word vulgar conjures up strong images, ideas and feelings in us all. The Vulgar is the first exhibition to explore the inherently challenging but utterly compelling territory of taste in fashion, from the renaissance through to contemporary design. Examining the constantly evolving notion of vulgarity in fashion whilst revelling in its excesses, you are invited to think again about exactly what makes something vulgar and why it is such a sensitive and contested term.

What this means in practice is that curator Judith Clark and writer/psychoanalyst Adam Phillips - partners in life as well as work - have joined to create a spectacular and challenging display, reflecting on the idea of taste, as viewed through ideas about what constitutes 'vulgar'.
 The exhibition tracks different notions of taste and vulgarity, and each conceptual framing is accompanied by an exhibit of connected fashion pieces or artefacts. The thinking that underpins The Vulgar means that the whole show has a coherence, so it follows that the contrast between relatively simple classical-inspired shifts, and huge baroque ball gowns isn't actually jarring.
Even when you encounter things that you find garish, you are forced to reflect on why this is so and where this prejudice comes from: it is a very clever intellectual twist, which differentiates this exhibition from usual gallery shows centred on fashion.

The intellectual grounding for the exhibition makes it impossible to sign off with a comment along the lines of 'even if it's not to your taste...' But suffice to say if you have an interest in fashion, then you'll get something out of this show, even if you hate the kind of work represented within: check it out.

4/5: Thought-provoking fashion and fashion provoking thought

Barbican Centre
Until 5th February