There is no doubt that Manchester is home to one of England’s finest theatres, The Royal Exchange.
Built in one of the few remaining fine Victorian buildings in the heart of Manchester which in
a previous life held the Cotton Exchange, (at that time the largest trading room in the world), The Royal Exchange offers theatre in the
round (in what is best described as a space pod) and attracts major theatrical stars. These notes are my personal views on recent productions.
|
|
| Interior of the Royal Exchange Building |
Despite the lack of attention from the London fixated arts coterie The Exchange has mounted some tremendous productions. Recently "The Taming of The Shrew" was as open and accessible as Shakespeare can be, and an example that would stand world class comparison.
Other recent notable productions include Pinero's "The Magistrate" and a fantastic double bill of Sheridan's "The Critic" with "The Dispute" by Pierre Marivaux as a curtain raiser. This twin production was one of the company's greatest offerings.
As is well documented the Exchange was closed following the 1996 IRA bomb and temporarily moved to an alternative city centre venue (still following its "theatre in the round" style), but it is now triumphantly back home after refurbishment and renovation. Whilst the audience provision seems the same as before, the production values seem better than ever, with slick and integrated scene changes that are a hallmark of Exchange productions. The wonderful technical virtuosity was particularly evident in a recent production of "Peer Gynt". Because there are no hiding places in this type of theatrical presentation, frequently the stage crew seem to be part of the action and move scenery and props dressed in the style of the play. It is not unknown for the scene changes to receive a round of applause.
Without sounding unduly pretentious the theatre is a first class Manchester attraction.
Back to the top
Loot
A reprise of the Joe Orton success of the 1960s which when originally staged was
initially badly received but eventually succeeded after being redrafted by Joe
assisted by Braham Murray (who returns to his former success by directing this
revival).
It has to be said that it is hard to recollect the shock and outrage
initially caused by "Loot" forty years on. The Lord Chamberlain might
have flipped his lid then, but this is now. The modern theatre
goer has seen it all before and it has to be admitted that this seems a dated
play. The only unnerving element of the production is the lifelike (if that can
possibly be the word) appearance of the corpse.
It has to be recognised that Derek Griffiths (as Inspector Truscott) steals
the show and commands the arena. But then it has to be said that as a character
he is not up against much, the other characters almost queuing up to be a foil
for his wit and cutting remarks, and this is the central weakness of the play.
It is shocking the first time a policeman is shown to be corrupt and perhaps
even more shocking to see a corpse being bundled into and locked in a cupboard
upside down. And the outré homosexuality probably caused a bit of a stir. But
you can only shock once, and when compared to some of the recent Royal Exchange
Canadian productions (regular attendees will recognise the reference)
there is not much to register on the personal Richter scale.
But it is live theatre, it is funny, it is a swinging (sic 1960s) happening
in the rejuvenated city. There are worse ways of spending an evening, but,
regrettably for this production, and happily for the regular Royal Exchange
attendee, there have been better.
Score 7.5/10 (June 2001)
Back to the top
The Fall Guy (Tit For Tat)
A play which changes its name between pre run advertising and actual production cannot be the best known example of its author's craft. So it proves with The Fall Guy, a new translation of "Le Dindon" by Georges Feydeau. Director Matthew Lloyd has set the play in a chic 1950s Paris setting (which seems to suit the play and in no way detracts from the plot) and the action revolves around the determination of a young wife to be unfaithful with an ardent, panting suitor only if it is proved that her older husband has similarly cheated. Why the one action leads to another is one of the immutable laws of farce, as is the happy resolution when all the confusion is sorted out in the final few moments. The neat twist in The Fall Guy is that the character that instigates the wife to be unfaithful for his own amorous reasons turns out not to be her choice when the crunch comes.
As with the vast majority of Royal Exchange productions the cast are terrific. David Fielder as the cheating/to be cheated husband is a rounded self important pompous idiot, with a sense of the absurd that brings a Terry Jones Pythonesque facet to the character. Rachel Pickup as the wronged wife is a nervous fluttering, but cool and desirable Parisienne and certainly looks the part. If Grace Kelly had ever appeared in a naughty French farce, this is how she would have looked!
Lexi Strauss as an inspired 50s hep cat and sex kitten is simply a hoot and has two of the best lines in the show.
Katy Carmichael as Gudrun and Morgan George as Soldignac in supporting roles have considerable impact, look the part and keep the frantic pace going. (both are previous Royal Exchangers and welcome returnees).
Unfortunately, whilst everything is there, the whole is less than the combined individual parts. Unusually for a Royal Exchange the play is in three, rather than the usual two parts, and the second act is beautifully set up by the plot machinations. A beautifully worked "wrong person in the bed" routine is fast, funny and furious, and a ringing bell scene has a fantastic climax, but still the doubts remain. As someone remarked "When does Brian Rix enter?". The dividing line between characters being put under increased strain by comic forces outside their control and contrived Ooh La La naughty French farce is very narrow, and sometimes this play teeters on the edge.
The play seems to be playing to large, enthusiastic audiences and for the financial health of the theatre lets hope that this continues. But did I care if Lucien and Crepin resolve their marriage difficulties? - No I did not (much).
Score 7/10 (July 2001)
Back to the top
Uncle Vanya
I was asking a colleague his opinion of this play (he attended a preview performance). "Its very good", he said, "but nothing happens". With that kind of remark, a newcomer to Chekhov is going to tread warily. Well, the first thing to say is that it is a terrific performance and as usual the cast and technical stage direction are superb, but lets get rid of the pussyfooting, to say "nothing happens" is like saying that nothing happens in life. The play is full of the quiet desperation that dominates many lives, not revolution but evolution, the background of change that cannot be stopped.
In simple terms the quiet tenor of a country life is threatened by the sale of an estate upon which the principal characters depend for their living. The play starts in a state of late summer torpor and ends much in the same state. It is the threatened changes that are at the centre of the play.
The big name star is Tom Courtenay who plays the title role. Uncle Vanya has dedicated his life to the estate and subjugated his own dreams and desires. A major struggle for Vanya, which is the play's focus, is his knowledge that the master he (indirectly) serves, the owner of the estate, is not the intellectual giant he pretends, or yearns to be. Courtenay's performance, which is beautifully understated, carries the play along. But could I believe that Uncle Vanya is 47?, no I could not. Nor does Courtenay carry off the "mad" scene in act 2, looking a bit like Basil Faulty in his rage.
The master of the estate Serebryakov, played by John Bennett, is almost a peripheral figure or a catalyst, but his young wife, Yelena (Helen Schlesinger) is most certainly at the focus of most of the action. Here is a tour de force with her "love" scene with Doctor Astrov (Robert Glenister) setting the stage alight. I have never seen a better performance from her. Astrov is particularly attractive character with a social conscience and also a very "green" man. The undercurrent of passion between Yelena and Astrov is superb.
A casualty of the action is Sonya (Kaye Wragg) a girl longing to be free, failing, and finally accepting her fate as the next generation Vanya. Chekhov makes her looks plain, Kaye makes Sonya sweet, desperate yet docile.
The minor characters and the production complement the play's focus. (The appearance of the birch trees in the outdoor scene are particularly effective).
Big value cast, full audience, an auspicious start to the 25th anniversary season. You shouldn't miss this one.
Score 8.5/10 (September 2001)
Back to the top
Hedda Gabler
This is a tremendous production. A lot of the national (and local) comment has centred on the action taking place in a bird cage (the principal room of the Tesman's house being defined as such, with the bars and struts suiting the Theatre in the round presentation). Those in the know inform us that the structure represents the confines of the world in which Hedda finds herself whereas those of us in the know about Royal Exchange sets can offer the view that we are used to walls, doors, windows etc being represented by minimal skeletal structures and so perhaps the meaning lies somewhere in between. To complement the stylistic set design, the thirties/forties setting of the play seems absolutely spot on.
The eponymous centre of attention is played by Amanda Donohoe and she brings a wilful manipulative interpretation to the role. In the first two acts she is damn near evil and it beggars belief why her new husband George could ever have courted and wooed her. Her deliberate destruction the Thea Elvsted / Eilert Loevborg relationship is chilling to behold and if this is the result of the confines of the bourgeoisie then it is well hidden. This is a definitive performance and she dominates the action. She has never been better and I cannot recall a better female lead at the Exchange.
But just as Hedda is strong and wilful then George is weak, starry eyed and so head over heels in love that he can overlook all his wife's imperfections and Simon Robson catches this character to perfection. Here is a man that seems to welcome a life of perpetually shuffling research papers within the bosom of his family (particularly Aunt Juju (Avril Elgar)) and the family's dismay at the possibility that George might not be able to continue this lifestyle if he fails to gain his coveted professorship is beautifully teased out.
The characters (actors) surrounding Hedda are superb. Thea (Kate Isitt) is a wonderful foil to the strong female lead and her final resolution into the resurrection of the manuscript is entirely believable (as is Hedda's despair)
Judge Brack (Terence Wilton) is entirely plausible and just this side of evil when he indicates his hold over Hedda in the final scene. Mr Wilton certainly gives a different performance than his last Royal Exchange appearance in Snake in the Fridge.
Eilert Loevborg (James Clyde) is also accomplished and suitably tortured.
There not much more to say. As with last time this is a big value cast, full audience, and a fantastic continuance of the 25th anniversary season. If you see one play this year - see this one.
Score 9.5/10 (November 2001)
Back to the top
Time and the Conways
We have a bit of a problem here. Originally Patricia Routledge was due to play the part of Mrs Conway, but after she withdrew Gabrielle Drake took over. Now without being able to make a direct comparison, Gabrielle Drake looks too young as the young Mrs Conway and not old enough as the old Mrs Conway. The thought refuses to leave one's mind that Patricia Routledge might have had the reverse problem. But we have to comment on what we see, not what we might have seen; and what we do see is a bright, flirtatious slightly sexy young Mrs Conway and an old Mrs Conway that is definitely the first cousin of Julie Walters' Mrs Overall. Would a flirtatious vivacious mid forties widow have become a bent old crone by her mid sixties? I think not.
But the play is about the tribulations of a family rather than a single character and as a story it nips along pretty quickly, and generally carries the audience with it. Unusually for the Royal Exchange the play is presented in three parts, probably required to accommodate (mentally and physically) the time shift, and concerns the status of a family at the end of the first world war and 20 years hence - just before the second. Surprisingly the wars do not intrude and just remain in the background.
There is some mention and consideration of the meaning of time but whether this is just Priestley's Yorkshire mumbo jumbo or the real leitmotif of the play is for the audience to decide. The theme of the play to this member of the audience was more to do with the actions of youth reverberating in middle age. This is dramatically evident in the twisted lives of the children of the family.
Robin (the soldier son, played in a swashbuckling manner by Adam James) mutates from a returning hero to a drunken bounder.
Alan (the introverted clerk, played beautifully by Laurence Mitchell) starts as a timid soul, fails to seize the day, and remains the same melancholy individual, apparently for ever.
Of the three daughters Hazel (Rachel Pickup) starts as a beauty, enters a dreadful marriage and becomes a cowed trophy wife, Kay (Sarah Kirkman) prostitutes her writing talent and becomes a gossip columnist hack, and Madge (Jessica Lloyd), by far the most interesting daughter shrivels into icy spinsterhood. (This is a strong performance and freezes the stage when required).
Naomi Frederick playing Carol represents the innocence that is born to die, and sure enough doesn't make it to the 1930s.
And that is it. The cast, the production, the audience are as good as ever, but sadly, the play just doesn't make the grade with present day audiences. Whether it ever did I cannot say. Braham Murray directs, but this one is a dud.
Score 6/10 (January 2002)
Back to the top
The Homecoming
How on earth do you classify a Pinter play? Age versus youth? Male versus female? Reality versus surrealism? All of those? or none of those? Its all there - you just select the meaning or the slant/bias you prefer. Even if you cast your mind back to the kitchen sink dramas than many sixties playwrights cut their teeth on, none of them could use language so convincingly as Pinter, and certainly none of them could use silence so well.
As to the literal meaning of "The Homecoming" where the hell do you start. What initially starts as a conventional slice of London low life bickering slides into near madness and it defies you to reach the point where you say "This has gone too far". It carries you with it. Even when the rampant sexual politics are explicit rather than implicit. In other words you are in the presence of a master craftsman and you either go with the flow or switch off. At the Royal Exchange the audience undenyingly went with the flow.
What is also undeniable that this production is an absorbing slice of theatre and worth seeing just for the performances given by Pete Postlethwaite and Paul Hilton.
Pete Postlethwaite as Max, the father of three weird sons (and weird is an understatement) is tremendous. He radiates the waning power of a patriarch ever so slightly losing his grip. He dodders, splutters and rails against his family, one minute sentimentally recalling the good old days and the next transforming into a man full of bile and venom, usually directed against whoever catches his attention. His raging attack against his new daughter in law is truly shocking (and would be excruciatingly embarrassing if, by then, the audience hadn't reached the conclusion that Max is ever so slightly mad). But this is a subtle performance, one minute rational, one minute wheedling and sympathy seeking and one minute batty as hell. Definitely a performance to see.
Paul Hilton as Lenny is the fulcrum of the play. If his father is batty then Lenny is menacingly disturbed, switching from rational to irrational, or rather stretching rationality into irrationality. The way Pinter carries or extends Lenny's remarks from the banal to the darkest menace is pure pleasure.
So this is a terrific production from Greg Hersov and is a major event.
Are there any faults? well Simone Lahbib as Ruth takes a time to come alive, but that is surely Pinter not Hersov.
And that is it. The rest of the cast complement the leading characters perfectly, not a lot is required from the production values but the sound lighting and costumes are all up to the usual standard. This is a first class production, .
Score 9/10 (February 2002)
Back to the top
Midsummer Night's Dream
Wild Thing and My Aching Breaking Heart are not exactly what comes to mind when thinking of Shakespeare sonnets or even Shakespearean' comedies, but they are grist to the mill in Lucy Bailey's production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. This is a frenetic and sometimes hilarious production that uses any property (song, costume or even motor vehicle) as a means of rushing this production along. And it has to be said - "it works, it works".
As befits a production that is strong on comedy/farce, the pace of the play hurries along from one set piece to another and there is never a dull moment, there is always action or some business to add to or expand on the words of the master. At the basis of the play are the "Mechanicals". They are terrific and casting them as a squad of counsel workers is exactly right. They fit in wonderfully well. Tom Hodgkins as Bottom, both as man and beast, is terrific and a joy to behold. His initial love scene with Titania is inspired. If, by the final production of Pyramis and Thisbe the workmen eventually (just) outstay their welcome, this is a small price to pay for a wonderful ensemble tour de force. Honourable mention must also be made of Toby Hadoke (Snout) and Howard Chadwick (Snug). Franky Mwangi as the changeling is also eerily waif like and strange.
Moving up (or down) depending on how you look at it , the Fairyland contingent are also splendid with a sweet delicious performance for Hilary Macclean as Titania. The rest of the fairies are also charming, like some kindly Disney cartoon fairies. The casting of Robin Laing as Puck, a "Swampy" type hippie also works, although whilst he gives an impish interpretation he has to work hard after the yukkie praise of Swampy in the official programme. Come on, Lucy Bailey, get real!
In the human world the start crossed lovers are pleasing and winsome, Fenella Woolgar (Helena) and Madeleine Worrall (Hermia) as the female leads are appealing. Their fight scene is terrific (and wet and wild!) and brought a spontaneous round of applause from the audience.
Unfortunately Paul McEwan as Oberon (and Theseus) has loads of stage presence and is clearly enjoying himself but lacks the clarity of diction required for theatre in the round. But one weakness in such a large cast is not a bad ratio.
The production is intriguing and fits well in the pot holed road setting. (I assume the cast get paid extra for working in wet muddy clothes). This is certainly Shakespeare for the masses (and if you like Line Dancing , it is not to be missed)
Score 7.5/10 (March 2002)
Back to the top
American Buffalo
This is a bit of a rum one. Undoubtedly powerful and strangely disturbing at times, this is one of those streams of consciousness dramas, a bit like a throwback to the BBC's "Wednesday Play" or ITV's "Armchair Theatre", but with teeth (and certainly with language that would have never made it to tv)
"American Buffalo" is a three hander about a trio of low lifers and strangely likeable small time criminals who are always out for the main chance, but, as is obvious from the first scene, destined to never make it.
All the action takes place in Donny's store, a fabulously ramshackle junk yard of a place, and a mirror of the chaotic lives of the three, and the entire plot is occupied with their attempt to relieve an unseen "mark" of his possible collection of rare coins, of which the American buffalo nickel is an example that unwittingly fell into Donny's hands.
Will they steal the coins?, will they even find the coins?, is it all wish fulfilment for the perfect job that will set them up for life? The audience has to decide.
There are never any customers in the store nor any appearance of the potential victim, just the claustrophobic bickering of Donny, Bobby and Teach.
The climax is truly shocking and demonstrates the "near the edge" lives that they all lead
Mike McShane is Donny, the store owner, Paul Popplewell is Bobby, his protege and Ben Keaton plays Teach, their associate, and the catalyst for the trouble that disturbs the fulcrum of the Donny/Bobby relationship.
Of the three Paul Popplewell steals the honours, here is a performance of subtle depth, showing a waif like dependence on Donny and always seeming to be one step behind everyone else in comprehending the situation. Popplewell is one to watch, this is his first appearance at the Exchange, but on this showing it will not be his last, and the sooner we see him again the better.
Ben Keaton is terrific, he reminded me of a smart alec New York hoodlum without the wit. All nervous energy and pent up frustration, ready to explode (which he does)
Mike McShane as Donny is on stage for the entire show and whilst his protective attitude to Bobby is well caught, he seems unconvincing when he is eventually pushed to violence. Perhaps this is because of his known tv persona, or perhaps it is difficult to believe in violence from a a man mountain.
David Mamet is a prolific screen and play writer and his ability to catch the nuances of speech are as subtle as Pinter (2 plays ago), so whatever criticism can be made of the Royal Exchange management they have included 2 master wordsmiths in this season.
As with all recent productions the production values are superb, although one job I wouldn't like, is clearing up after the final scene.
Greg Hersov directs (as well as he did for The Homecoming), unfortunately, this time, I think he had less to work with.
Score 6/10 (May 2002)
Back to the top
The Marriage of Figaro
According to the programme for this production, when The Marriage of Figaro was completed in 1781 it was seen as a play that threatened the Monarchy in France and banned, with Beaumarchais briefly imprisoned. Truly an example of the playwright as social revolutionary
If that is so, (and the programme notes at the Royal Exchange are excellent at placing each play in context) then a hell of a lot must have been lost in Robert Cogo-Fawcett and Braham Murray's fresh translation.
This is not the Theatre of Revolution, more like the Theatre of the Absurd. If there is satirical bite in the original script, it is sadly lost in this production. This is poor theatre, more like an 18th century version of Charley's Aunt and I am afraid it fails lamentably.
Unfortunately this troubled production suffered a dreadful blow when Kulvinder Chir (Figaro) suffered an injury that prevented his participation and was substituted by Andrew Crose, "promoted" from playing several minor parts. Even more unfortunately, for the performance I attended, Andrew Crose had not had time to learn the part so had to perform with script in hand. Although this was made clear prior to the beginning of the performance (and opportunity given to exchange tickets), continuing with the performance was the wrong decision and in this case the showbiz dictum that the show must go on was wrong. For the sake of future audiences I hope that either Kulvinder recovers rapidly, or Andrew gets some cramming in and learns the part. Watching an actor struggle with a script whilst the rest of the cast gamely carry on as though nothing had happened was, at times, embarrassing
So what can be rescued from this production?
Nina Sosanya was vivacious and teasing as Suzanna, and was the centre of attention when on stage.
Simon Robson was imposing as the Count Almavira, although there were a couple of occasions when the "feed" from Figaro didn't materialise and seemed to throw him.
Samuel Barnett as Cherubino was startlingly androgynous and at times gave brief glimpses of how good the production could have been. Equally Robert Austin (Dr. Bartholo) was amusingly pompous and self important and worked well with Carol Ann Crawford (Marceline)
And so the question that requires to be answered concerns how good the play would have been if the cast had been as originally planned. It is impossible to say but the signs are not good. No bite, and too much modern phraseology. In this disappointed fan's view, this is a dud
Helen Kaut-Howson directs. Her last production for the Royal Exchange was the Taming of the Shrew, so we already know that when given the right material Ms Kraut-Howson is a director of great style and skill. But not his time
Score 2/10 (June 2002)
Back to the top
Back to J D Williams Home Page