'Bomber's Moon' at Trafalgar Studios

We went to see a new play, 'Bomber's Moon' in the rather bijoux Studio 2 at the Trafalgar Studios on Whitehall. Why? Why not. New plays have to get off the ground somehow and this one has James Bolam in it, a Geordie lad and a Likely Lad who I've never seen on stage before so why not?

There are only two roles in this play - a cantankerous old man in sheltered housing who was a bomber in the Second World War and still has vivid dreams about his experiences and his daily carer who comes in to make sure he takes his tablets, eats and exercises. James Bolam is (of course) the old man and Steve John Shepherd plays the novice and nervous carer. This play gives James the perfect opportunity to let his (not so) inner grumpy old man out along with some rather graphic language that had the audience laughing our socks off - was it hearing fcuk and cnut on stage or it coming out of his mouth that was so amusing? Whatever, James's comic timing hasn't been hurt by the years at all. He's a rude old man!

It's a small play with big themes of war and love and of men of different generations learning about each other and the pressures they face. What makes them tick and how do they respond to changing circumstances? Death closes in on the old bomber while the impact of divorce hurts the carer. There are, of course, some twists and turns in the play but it's a good laugh-out-loud play with some more serious themes.

'Closer To Heaven' at Union Theatre

On a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon what better way to spend a few hours than go into a small, dark theatre with lots of flashing lights, synth-beats and dancers wearing very little clothing. Yes, we went to see the revival of the Pet Shop Boys' 'Closer To Heaven' at Union Theatre.

The show sold out really quickly - before I'd even seen the tickets had gone on sale - but they released a limited number of extra tickets so I nabbed them straight away and ended up smack bang in the centre of the front row. There are only about five rows of seats so it's very small and sitting in the front row means you have to keep your feet under your chair so you don't trip up any of the actors. Yes, it's *that* small.

It's the tale of the denizens working in a gay nightclub set in 2000 (although it could be any time from the 80s onwards) with lots of flashing lights and stompy music, more drugs than you can shake a stick at and sex all over the shop including in the mens' toilets. We even get a glimpse into a gay sauna at one point. O yes, it's all in there somewhere. With lots of flesh on display in skimpy costumes and gyrating bodies being decadent in big black, clumpy boots (yes, there's a few cliches).

The gay club owner's daughter Shell turns up to see her dad for the first time in 15 years and meets Straight Danny who's started as a barman but wants to be a dancer, Mile End Lee the local drug dealer and Billie, the former 60s wild child who is now the hostess of the club. Shell starts going out with Straight Danny and she arranges for him to meet the hottest manager who's responsible for all the big boy and girl groups so he can become a singer. Cue sexual shenanigans and obvious jokes and a plot that's paper thin. So thin there are already holes worn in it. Straight Danny turns out to be, well, not straight at all, Shell's dad isn't off drugs and she starts using, Mile End Lee dies from his own drugs and all sorts, but at least Billie is consistent and remains a wild child. The story is a bit thin and predictable but the music keeps it pumping along.

There were some good performances and they tended to be by the older actors for the older characters. Katie Meller was great as the drugged up Billie Tricks, the club hostess who has, possibly, the most fully rounded character. Craig Berry was good as Vic, the club owning gay dad who lets rip and sings a great version of 'Vampire' in his vest. I also really liked Ben Kavanagh as the camp Flynn in his turquoise make-up - he could so easily have gone over the top but he kept it cool and under control. Amy Matthews also did a good job as Shell who made the most of her songs. There were some nice voices in the show but a very under-used one was Connor Brabyn as Mile End Lee who only sings a few lines but had a really good voice. He was rather wasted - I preferred his voice to most and it would be good to hear him in a bigger singing role.

Neil Tennant was in the audience sitting near the door - I wonder what he thought about it?

'Sculpture Victorious' at Tate Britain

On Friday afternoon I left work early to go to see the 'Sculpture Victorious' exhibition at Tate Britain. As you can probably guess from the title it's about Victorian sculpture and the poster for the exhibition features a glorious elephant of the Raj with a blanket on his back. I wasn't entirely sure what to expect when I walked through the doors but was pleasantly surprised.

It's quite a small exhibition - only 6 rooms - but the exhibits are nicely spaced out with lots of explanatory notes and, even better for me, it wasn't terribly busy late on a Friday afternoon. That meant I could mooch around as much as I wanted. I was a bit puzzled by the choice of an elephant on the exhibition poster - what's that trying to say? - but when I saw him in all his glory I decided that I'd love a shirt made to the same pattern as the blanket over his back. It would become my favourite.

The first room is full of Queen Victoria - Victoria as a young lady with her shoulders bare and Victoria as an old matron with lots of coverings and s sterner face. Not just busts of her, but medallions and other 3D representations. The next room was mainly medieval with a carved image of Eleanor of Aquitaine that was restored by the Victorians and partially sparked their interest in looking back. We also get a full sized knight and a rather odd statue of Elizabeth I. A far more entertaining depiction of Elizabeth is her seated and playing chess with Philip II of Spain, with ships as the chess pieces. It's very noticeable that Elizabeth is sitting proud and tall while Philip is more like a supplicant and his head is below hers. Appropriately, it's called 'A Royal Game' by William Reynolds-Stephens

Another room contained a lovely statue of 'Pandora' by Harry Bates and shows a young Pandora with her gazing at her box, probably wondering what's inside it and whether she should open it. Mankinds' plagues have not yet been released and she is young and innocent, in the first flush of womanhood with her life before her, crouching and holding this box that she seems to have just picked up. For a relatively large statue it has a delicate quality about it, a gentle image that doesn't hint at the dread that will happen if that small box is opened. The statue looks very smooth and the light glistens on the marble in little sparkles. A slip of the fingers and the world will change - be careful Pandora.

I think my favourite piece was a life-sized bronze statue of 'An Athlete Wrestling with a Python' and the look of concentration and determination in his face says that there's no way that python will win the contest.  The pose is very realistic with one foot clearly anchoring the wrestler - let's call him Fred - to the ground while the other foot is slightly raised, making Fred more mobile and able to twist and turn as the python wraps its coils around him. One arm holds the coils away from his torso and the vital organs protected under his ribs and Fred's other hand holds the python's head, thumb pressing into its throat. It's a very striking image, created by Lord Frederic Leighton, whose house in Kensington is now Leighton House Museum that I visited for the first time earlier this year. I didn't know he did bronzes so that's something I've learned.

It's a nice little exhibition with a good variety of exhibits, including the first, small model for the statue of Eros in Piccadilly Circus. There are a couple of very different statues of young men with bows, including this one. There's also a full sized reproduction outside the exhibition that is perfectly positioned for visitors to take photographs so I did. It's a very dramatic pose but I disapprove of the subject - it's called 'The Eagle Slayer' by John Bell. Obviously, that would be a bad thing.

'Romeo & Juliet' at Shakespeare's Globe

If I'm smiling within a couple of minutes of a play starting then that must be a good sign. Is it the 500 year old language or the venue, or the packed theatre open to the elements with a chilly breeze, or the anticipation and need to see a play I've never seen performed? I don't know, but I was smiling and wanting this new production to be good - and it was!

This is one of the first productions in the Globe's 2015 season with the theme of 'Justice and Mercy' (last year focused on Shakespeare's Roman plays).  I'm seeing a few more productions over the summer including 'The Oresteia' by the up and coming playwright Aeschylus. No idea if he'll do well or not, but we'll see.

It's on tour around the country at the moment and the Globe is it's London stop. It's designed to fit almost anywhere and it was perfect for the Globe stage. The set was, essentially, a climbing frame to provide some height and a balcony (you've got to have a balcony for *that* scene) and the costumes were minimal, with (almost) everyone coming on in cream/white trousers and shirt and occasionally donning a coat or hat to show they were different characters. A small cast playing all the roles can be confusing sometimes and one of the cast played three different noblemen as well as a servant bumpkin!

This play is storytelling of a most superior kind. At one point during the play I wondered what this would be like with the magnificent poetry of 'Julius Caesar', and yes, there is some wonderful lyrical verse in this play, but to me, it's the story that draws you in with 'Romeo & Juliet' not the poetry. It's the plotting and construction of the play, the drip feed of elements of the tale as it progresses, the twists and turns that keep you rapt even though we all know how it ends. And this production did just that - it built the story slowly, it grew the characters, it took us on a journey that ends in heartbreak and death. It was touching and wonderful and deserved the great applause at the end.

The play is set in a mere four days in Verona and opens with a fight between the houses of Capulet and Montague and, later, a masked ball at the Capulet's palace that Romeo and his friends gatecrash. It's there that he sees Juliet and falls in love and sneaks back later to woo her. They fall in love at first sight and are secretly married the following day. Later that day there's another quarrel between the houses and Tybalt kills Mercutio, a close friend of Romeo's so Romeo must fight and kill Tybalt, who is Juliet's favourite cousin. Uh oh, I hear you say. It gets more complicated from there on with Romeo banished and Juliet assigned to marry a Capulet ally. What can our lovers do?

I thought the cast were great, particularly Samuel Valentine (is that his real name?) as Romeo and Cassie Layton as Juliet, along with Steffan Donnelly as the rather camp and aggressive Mercutio (and other roles).  Samuel and Cassie worked well together as our star-crossed lovers with only one night of love before death. They were very believable as young people in love, exuberant and touching at the same time - a lot of that is in the play but the actors need to bring it out. They will remain my Romeo and Juliet until I see a better production - and it'll need to be pretty damn startling to overtake this production.

The whole cast worked really well together as an ensemble but I don't understand why they all had various levels of tattoo on their bodies (and a lot of upper body was exposed on the men for some reason in the first half - must've been chilly in the cold and rain!). Some of the quick changes got a bit complicated with an actor walking off stage, changing coats and appearing as a different character but, ultimately, it worked. It was also quite nice to have a small cast and see them change character and style so quickly. My one complaint was making the illiterate Capulet servant a Geordie (I shall have words!).

If you get the chance to see this production, either at The Globe or on tour then I'd urge you to go and marvel at the tale of our young lovers And shed a tear.

Errol Brown

I was sad to hear that Errol Brown passed away today. Errol was the lead singer and writer with Hot Chocolate and everyone knows 'You Sexy Thing'. Hot Chocolate was usually referred to as a multi-racial band but it was Errol out front doing his stuff. I remember all those other hits in the early and mid-70s and Hot Chocolate being regulars on 'Top of the Pops'.

I first remember 'Emma', a love song, and 'Brother Louie' about inter-racial marriage before they went for more mainstream dance songs that were guaranteed to get your feet twitching. Before that, of course, they did a rather strange, reggae version of John & Yoko's 'Give Peace A Chance' on Apple records. They even had a Christmas single in which Errol sings about the need for a new Christmas. I love the soft funk of 'You Could've Been A Lady' with it's heavy bass line and brass. They knew how to construct killer tunes did those Hot Chocolate lads.

The abiding image of Errol is striding round the stage on 'Top of the Pops' in tight gold glitter trousers strutting his stuff and getting our feet moving. And they keep moving today.

Farewell Errol!

'Ah Wilderness!' at The Young Vic

Last week we went to see 'Ah Wilderness!' by Eugene O'Neill at The Young Vic. I have a mixed relationship with the Young Vic theatre and it's productions - it seems to have a love/hate effect on me. The last things I saw there were 'Happy Days' with Juliet Stevenson and, before that, the great production of 'The Scottsboro Boys' so I went with an open mind (far more open than any of the Tennessee Williams plays in the last few years). I still have the horrors at the thought of that version of 'Hamlet' with Michael Sheen… So here we are, Eugene O'Neill in a sandpit, what more could one ask for?

Yes, a sandpit. Why? I don't know. We have the wooden boards of a dilapidated house setting the boundaries of a house that is full of sand and sandbanks. But this is a terribly bourgeoise house where the father is a newspaper owner and the sons go to university so what's with the sand? It proved to be a real distraction for me since I kept returning to the sand every time someone walked back and forth over it, particularly Janie Dee as the mother who seemed to totter around it on very unsteady feet. Why on earth have an uneven sandpit in the middle of the house? I'm perplexed. I kept returning to the sandpit at the expense of the play. Form over substance I suspect.

It's a coming of age play with the son being an overly-dramatic young poet wanting to follow his predecessors (played my George MacKay who was Bromley in the film 'Pride') and his parents worry and care for him, realising that their son is growing up. Set on the fourth of July celebrations that go wrong with the drunken uncle spoiling dinner and the son going off to the local dive and staying out all night but then everything comes right in the end (as it must) on the next day.

Despite worrying about who might be the first to trip and fall down the stupid sand-banks, I quite enjoyed the play. I liked Janie Dee as the somewhat hesitant mother and Martin Marquez as the laid-back father. Dominic Rowan was a bit over the top as the drunken uncle but he was fun all the same and risked life and limb getting up on that table to rant a bit. George MacKay was great as the son and it'll be good to see him as something other than an idealistic young man.

 Well done people. It took a while to get going but I enjoyed he play. But please - ditch the sand dunes?

'Light Shining In Buckinghamshire' at the National Theatre

I saw 'Light Shining In Buckinghamshire' at the National Theatre nearly two weeks ago and I've put off blogging about it since I really don't know what to say about it. I didn't enjoy it but I must be able to find something to say about it. Shouldn't I?

It's set in the England of the 1640s during the Civil War and some of it is based on actual texts of debates at the time so the language is sometimes a bit odd. We're introduced to some of the political factions that emerged during the Civil War as well as Oliver Cromwell, the diggers and the levellers. Nothing is really explained and it seems to be assumed that we're all pretty good with our Civil War history (I'm not).

All too often it seemed like actors came on stage, made a speech to the audience and left and a new scene started. There didn't seem to be much interaction between the characters on the stage at all. There was a long scene about the 'Putney Debates' in the first half that had lots of interaction and a similar scene in the second half with the diggers talking about God and love (and sex) and how God is in everything. I yawned during that scene in the first half and wanted to like the scene in the second half but I didn't. I *so* wanted to like it.

I think part of the problem was the elaborate staging of the production and the sheer size of the cast. There must've been 40-odd people on that stage in a play originally written for a cast of six. That's over-whelming. The staging was also over the top. Almost the whole of the stage was taken up by a great wooden table that, in the first half was mainly set as a banquet for royalists and then puritans and then, in the second half, the diggers gradually lifted the planks of wood to expose soil underneath. Every so often more planks were levered up and carried off and I just wanted to shout out - ok, I get it now! It became so irritating after the umpteenth plank was carried off - was it meant to be irritating or is that just me?  I found it all terribly distracting.

So there you are. That's enough, I think. I won't be going back for second helpings.

'Wild Tales' by Almodovar

Last week I was taken (not quite at gunpoint) to see a new Argentinian film called 'Wild Tales'. How many Argentinian films have you seen? Yes, exactly.

This film was co-produced by a certain Señor Pedro Almodovar so that was the reason for seeing it. It's like a book of short stories - five or six stories told in order throughout the film with nothing really binding them together. They all have a level of shock value but that's about it, no consistent themes or compelling stories leading from one to another. In a sense they're all about "the individual" except sometimes the individual is sometimes two individuals.

The first story sees a young woman hurrying to check in at the airport and boarding the plane, only to sit beside the music teacher of one of her old boyfriends. The lady in front turns out to be one of his primary school teachers and then, a few rows away, is his former 'best friend' from school. What's going on? O yes, he turns out to be the captain of the plane which seems to flying directly for his parents house and it gets closer and closer as his parents start to cower… and then the opening credits roll!

Another tale is about the urban myth of a city slicker driving in the wild and empty desert when a country bumpkin maniac won't let him overtake on an empty road. He finally manages to overtake and calls him an 'asshole' when he does so. Then one of his tyres gets a puncture… O yes, then the madness ensues and I do mean madness! It's not pleasant and there were some people laughing with the nervousness of it all - it wasn't terribly scary but when the bumpkin lowers his trousers to defacate on the windshield then it's definitely not normal.

Another weird one was the little man fighting corporate power when his car keeps getting towed away for parking violations and he has to keep paying to get it back. Then one time is too much and he resorts to his work skills to get even and make a point. His job? O yes, he's an explosives expert for a demolitions company and he blows up buildings for a job. It was pretty obvious that he'd blow something up at some point but I couldn't guess how the story ended at all - very clever!

The final story (and I haven't mentioned them all since you need some surprises) is set at a wedding reception. What a happy occasion, what could possibly go wrong? You had to ask…

I was pleasantly surprised by the film - it was all terribly amusing where it was meant to be amusing and a bit creepy where it's meant to be creepy. It worked for me and was great fun. I've no idea how long it'll be available on the big but if it comes anywhere near you then I'd happily recommend it - provided you don't mind reading your films...

Tracey Thorn - 'Naked At The Albert Hall' Talk

The other night I was lucky enough to nab tickets to attend a talk with Tracey Thorn about her new book at Waterstones on Piccadilly. It's called 'Naked At The Albert Hall' (an allusion to an episode in her first book when she sang at the Royal Albert Hall as Everything But The Girl).

Tracey's previous book, 'Bedsit Disco Queen' was a great and very easy read so I didn't have any hesitation at getting the latest book. This one is about singing rather than autobiography but, from the readings Tracey did, it'll have her sly humour and wit as she talks about things all of can get even if we might not fully understand the nuances of vocalisations.

I loved her reading about the time she tried hypnotism to get over her stage-fright and just played along with the hypnotist because it would be rude not to. And even going back for the second appointment even after the first one failed. That is just so British and something I can relate to (although I doubt I'd have gone back!).

It was also nice to hear Tracey talk about other singers and, occasionally, their reported problems with singing. She had nothing but praise for Dusty Springfield and, when asked who she'd most want to sing with alive or dead, she named Dusty. But said she'd probably be too shy to be able to do it! She also name-checked Poly Styrene as a great singing hero (which, of course, she is).

It was all over too quickly and then we joined the queue to get the book signed and when it was my turn I showed Tracey the 'Poly Styrene' enamelled badge I always wear. Some things are important.

'Defining Beauty' at the British Museum

Friday night is late opening at the British Museum so what better way to end the week than to go and see a load of statues of naked lads and lasses from ancient times? 'Defining Beauty: the Body in Ancient Greek Art' is one of the big exhibitions on at the British Museum at the moment and it was nicely busy but not over-crowded so you could wander round and gawp at the old statues at your own pace, linger at some and move on from others. For most you can also walk all the way round so you can see them from every angle.

The first thing you see when you go into the first gallery is a big bum facing the door, Aphrodite's bum to be accurate. It's a very nice bum but it is rather a surprise and Aphrodite is glancing back over her shoulder to see who's just walked in. She's the poster girl for the exhibition but in all the posters you see her from the front (as in the poster above).

It really is a beautiful statue, life-sized and very realistic. Aphrodite is crouching down having a wash, one hand over her left shoulder (you can just see her fingers in the photo opposite) and you can imagine the water dripping down over her body. It's a statue to be enjoyed from all sides and there's a set of four photos below that give you a view from each side. Being able to walk round the statues adds another dimension to the experience, especially when you find a bit of the statue missing that isn't necessarily obvious from the initial view. Thankfully, Aphrodite is all in one piece so that's a good thing!

One of the most famous statues in the exhibition is the discus thrower, the Discobolos (that I want to rename the Discobobulous). It's an image we've all probably seen at some time - it was even used on the poster for the Olympic Games in 1948 in London - but it's different seeing it in the flesh (so to speak).

The notes (always excellent from the British Museum) alongside the statue talk about it being a work of opposites - the tense, outstretched arm contrasting with the relaxed arm, one leg relaxing while the other supports the athlete. That's rather intellectualising it for me. I much prefer to just marvel at the beauty captured from 3,000 years ago and wonder how on earth the sculptor achieved it. Again, you need to walk all round the statue to see it in all it's glory, see the details of the toes, the muscles tensed and relaxed, the curly hair, it's all there.

Some of the statues aren't in the best of repair and some are represented by Roman copies (i.e. only 2,000 rather than the desired 3,000 years plus old). One that really attracted the attention was this headless and largely armless and legless statue of a river god easing out of the river onto the riverbank. One side is full of tense muscles and the other side is relaxed. You can well imagine the sculptor studying the model moving and relaxing to get the musculature just right. How many times, I wonder, did the model (or models) have to struggle to get into the right posture for the sculptor to inspect his body to see the muscles were working and where they were relaxed.

It's a fascinating exhibition with some great works along with lesser works that help to illustrate a development here or an influence there. To show the range of Greek influence after Alexander conquered the world (except Brittania, obv) there's an image of Herakles in a Buddhist tableau and an image of Lord Buddha reflecting the drapery of earlier Greek statues. There is a series of carved heads to show how close the sculptors got to portray reality and a case full of about six small statues of women in various forms of drapery and one lady with a sunhat perched on the top of her head.

There is  also a series of jars and pots of all shapes and sizes with black on red illustrations of famous tales (and some rude ones) - it brought back memories of visiting the Greek Museum in Athens a fews years back and walking through an astonishingly large room filled with hundreds - or possibly thousands - of jars similarly decorated. I like pots!

We were probably in the exhibition for about 1.5 hours but that possibly reflects my slow wandering round and absorbing it. It's well worth seeing. And here is Aphrodite from all sides!