'The Crucible' at the National Theatre

Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible' is the latest revival at the National Theatre. It has only just opened in preview so there are no production photos but there are some rehearsal photos. I read 'The Crucible' many years ago at school (it was on the 'O' Level syllabus and, judging from the audience, it is again) but had never seen it performed. It's not often performed and I'm not sure why not when I've seen several of Miller's other plays performed and they're all suitably wordy. 'The Crucible' is also rather wordy with lots of repetition.

I suspect we all know the outline of the play about the Salem 'witches', how the local girls of the town are caught dancing in the woods at night and word of evil spirits possessing them starts to spread. When the ringleader, Abigail, starts to use this to get back at women - and then men - in the town, accusing them of sending spirits to torment her, the other girls join in and what was a bit of fun becomes deadly serious. The townsfolk accused of witchcraft are gradually put on trial and, if they don't confess, are hanged. There are sub-plots and twists and turns on the way (it is a drama, after all), particularly farmer John Proctor who had sex with Abigail while his wife was ill and she's convinced that he loves her. He doesn't. Miller uses the historic events as a way of commenting on the contemporary wave of anti-communism (in American terms, anyone vaguely left-wing) witch-hunts under McCarthy in the '50s.   

When you walk into the Olivier Theatre you see a spectacular curtain of rain around the stage which looked fab but I've got no idea what it has to do with the play other than looking spectacular. Some people in the front row were complaining about being splashed by the falling water splattering off the stage. I loved the look of it but it was always a surprise when it started splooshing at different times throughout the production. I also liked the stripped back, mainly empty stage, emphasising that it's the action and the words that count. Well done to director Lyndsey Turner and set designer Es Devlin. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, is re-worked during the previews.

I liked Brendan Cowell as John Proctor but a bit more range of emotion would have been good and I really liked Eileen Walsh as his put-upon wife Elizabeth. I thought she was very consistent in approach and characterisation. Erin Doherty was suitably malevolent and innocent as Abigail, the ring-leader of the girls and I grew to like Fisayo Akinade more as his character developed (one of the few characters to actually grow throughout the play). It was also fun to see Karl Johnson as Giles on stage for the first time after seeing him on telly and in films for years. It'll be interesting to see how this play does as it finds it feet and the cast start to fully gel.

'SIX' at the Vaudeville Theatre

'SIX' is the new kid on the block, a musical about the six wives of Henry VIII but told from their point of view. It started life as a little show at the Edinburgh Fringe and grew and grew, making it in the West End and then America. It's loud, brash and very sparkly and, of course, very good. Most of the songs are bangin' choons with the Queens taking lead and backing vocals throughout with the four-piece band of women so there are ten women on stage and not a man in sight. I had no idea what to expect from the show but it has won loads of awards so it must be OK, right?

The lights went down in the auditorium, the lights on stage came on and the band started playing as the Queens arrived for the first song with the refrain of 'Divorced, beheaded, died... divorced, beheaded, survived!'. All in sparkly outfits, strutting around the stage in carefully choreographed moves on the stage, taking turns with lead vocals, never still, never quiet, a royal girl group. Then, beginning with Catherine of Aragon, they tell us their tales of life before and during their marriage to the King. The Queens have a competition to decide which of them suffered the most during their lives and the show is off and running.

As you'd expect, it's very much an ensemble show with the six Queens interacting and sparring, singing and pulling shapes, trying to score points over each other. It's actually really quite funny with some laugh out loud moments. It's quick paced and only slows down with a ballad from Jane Seymour about how she actually loved Henry. Gosh, you can learn something every day, can't you?

It must be a very tiring show to be in, constant singing and lots of dance and movement, so there are a few understudies for each role. I suspect it's a good training ground for a new type of musical. With all the lights and sparkle it must be very different to the original Edinburgh version written by Toby Marlow and Lucy Moss and they struck gold. As an idea it's not all that, the Queens competing for the suffering award, but it's how they did it that makes this show so good. 

There's also the moment towards the end when Catherine Parr - who survived - decides not to take part in the competition. The Queens had thought they were only known because they were married to Henry but, actually, Henry is only known because he was married to them. That's a big 'fuck the patriarchy' moment of empowerment and the audience erupted. The audience was probably about 80% female with lots of girls with their mothers and aunts. Good.

Many thanks to Amy Di Bartolomeo, Amanda Lindgren, Claudia Kariuki, Esme Rathero, Tsemaye Bob-Elbe and Meesha Turner for their energetic performances

Great staging, great lights and sounds and overall a great show. Go and see it!

'South Pacific' at Sadler's Wells

'South Pacific' by Rogers and Hammerstein is one of my favourite musicals but I'd only seen one production of it, the Lincoln Centre production that I saw in New York in 2010. I fell in love with that production and bought the cast recording. I saw it on the evening of snowmageddon, so while we were in the tropics in the theatre the city was covered in deep snow. 

That production came over for a season at the Barbican before going on tour so I saw it several times and thoroughly enjoyed it. Chichester Festival Theatre announced in 2019 it would stage a new version in 2020 with Julian Ovenden as Emile and I, naturally, bought tickets. Then everything stopped because of the virus. Enterprisingly, Chichester broadcast a recording of the production so I saw it online and later announced it would play over the summer 2022 in Sadler's Wells before going on tour, so I got tickets. 

It's the old, old story of boy meets girl, boy loses girl and then boy get's the girl back. It's set on a south Pacific island during the Second World War with America at war with Japan. It opens with the ending of a party held by one of the French plantation owners, Emile du Becque, and we meet his special guest, the American nurse Ensign Nellie Forbush. We follow the twists and turns of their romance and then after another party Nellie finds out that Emile has two children from his previous marriage to his indiginous wife and she breaks it off. In a sub-plot we see that a young lieutenant Cable falls in love with Liat on the fabled island of Bali Ha'i. but he can't marry her because she's indiginous. Emile subsequently volunteers to spy on the Japanese with the lieutenant, both facing almost certain death. I'll leave it there.

There's a lot more going on in this show with Bloody Mary making money selling local crafts to the USA navy, Seabee Luther Billis, the eternal chancer, also trying to make money in any way he can and has a crush on Nellie, Cable's background at home where he's expected to join the family firm of lawyers and, of course, the racism that bubbles just under the surface and becomes blatant with Nellie's reaction to Emile's children and Cable's refusal to marry Liat, Bloody Mary's daughter.

As soon as you hear the start of the overture you know you're in for a treat with lush music and beautiful songs, like 'Some Enchanted Evening', 'There is Nothin' Like A Dame', 'Younger Than Springtime' and the heartbreaking 'This Nearly Was Mine'. 'You've Got To Be Carefully Taught' is a powerful song about the  racism Cable feels, knowing it's wrong but unable to overcome his feelings. He speaks for Nellie too.

I liked how this production gives the Cable/Liat sub-plot more prominence by having Liat on stage a lot more. She both opens and closes the show with her dancing as well as the Bali Ha'i sequence. After her gentle dance at the start we're thrown into war with a dozen marines coming down ropes out of nowhere and onto the stage, spotlit and running round to set the scene before we head into the island's hills to meet Emile and Nellie. It was a surprise opening but worked really well, reminding us that everything we're going to see is happening against a background of war. 

I loved this production. Directed by Daniel Evans, set designed by Peter McKintosh, choreography by Ann Yee and music directed by Cat Beverage with her live orchestra. Julian Ovenden was great as Emile and I loved that he sang in his French accent. Julian has a really powerful voice and I first heard him in 'Grand Hotel' nearly 20 years ago. Nellie was played by Gina Beck who also has a lovely voice and a steady southern American accent. Joanna Ampil played Bloody Mary and she gave us a lovely, evocative version of 'Happy Talk'. Rob Houchen was OK as Cable but lacked oomph. Dougie McMeekin was OK as Billis but seemed a bit too young for the part. I really liked the grace and moves of Sera Maehara as Liat. 

Daniel Evans does good work. I first saw him as an actor along with Julian Ovenden in 'Grand Hotel' at the Donmar Warehouse and then in other productions, including playing the lead in 'Sunday in the Park with Georges' in both London and New York and I saw both. He then became artistic director at Sheffield Crucible Theatre and then at Chichester. I wonder what his next move will be? As for Mr Ovenden, he has a great voice and stage presence and should do more musicals (the good ones, obviously). The show is now on tour so go and see it - you won't regret it.

'Edvard Munch: Masterpieces from Bergen' at The Courtauld Gallery

The latest exhibition at the Courtauld Gallery is a selection of 18 works by Munch from the KODE Art Museums in Bergen, Norway, that have never been seen before in this country. The last Munch exhibition I attended was a few years ago at the British Museum and it was full of despair and death but, from the images used for the publicity for the exhibition, I suspected this exhibition might be a bit different. And it was. There was colour and light, such as this 'Self Portrait in the Clinic' from 1909 when he was recovering from a breakdown.

One of the first paintings you see is 'Spring Day on Karl Johan' from 1890 when he was experimenting with Impressionism and this looks like he was influenced by a Seurat painting. This is one of the main boulevards in Oslo painted with small dashes of colour. Munch was still a young man when he painted it and trying to find his own approach to art but I think it's nice to know he was influenced early on by the colours and styles of the Impressionist masters. He might have even been happy when he painted it.

Another early painting that caught my eye was 'Morning' from 1884, distinctly showing his early influences. The overall composition and the delicate colours are very different from later works. A young woman is getting dressed in the morning, sitting on her bed and looking towards the window, one foot still bare. It's a gentle image, painted when he was only 20 years old.

I puzzled over 'Children Playing in the Street in Asgardstrand' from 1901-03. I don't know what the children are supposed to be doing but it looks like they're lying down while the girl looks out at the viewer. The notice beside the painting suggested the girl is on the cusp of moving from being a young child into adolescence. I don't really see where that is coming from but I can get the leaving innocence and childhood behind thing, growing up and no longer playing with her friends. One of Munch's regular themes was transition so maybe this was an early example of him finding his way. Still, the painting is light and airy and that's a good thing.

It was nice to see another side to Munch and see these paintings on show for the first time in this country. It was a pleasant surprise to see so many bright, colourful paintings. There were other paintings on show that are instantly recognisable as by Munch, using his regular themes and darker colours but I liked the brighter, lighter ones best. A final one, 'Youth' from 1908, a bather on the beach in northern Germany with the Baltic Sea in the background. 

'Much Ado About Nothing' at the National Theatre

The National Theatre doesn't seem to do much Shakespeare these days so I was keen to see 'Much Ado About Nothing', one of my favourites. I saw it at the National years ago with Zoe Wannamaker and Simon Russell Beale and that was my favourite version until I saw Meera Syal's Indian village version in 2012. Zoe got me chuckling but Meera made me laugh out loud. So I had high hopes for this new version. 

This new version is set in a Mediterranean resort with Messina transformed into a luxury hotel in the 1930s so we get an art deco hotel as the set and all the characters dressed in 1930s style. I have to say that I loved the set and costumes, all helping to establish the atmosphere of the place with lots of lavish costumes and lots of changes - that's where the money went on this production. It's a fun show but I think what let it down for me was the cast, particularly the men. That's an awful thing to say, I know, and I enjoyed the show for what it was but it's not a great production of a Shakespeare classic. It's different, but not great.

I need to say that I enjoyed it and I'm pleased I saw it but if you're looking for a Shakespearean production then this isn't it. There are songs and dances in it and at 2 hours 10 minutes (plus an interval) I've got no idea what they cut out to fit in the dance sequences. That's probably why I think of this as a 'show' rather than a 'play'. I don't know if it was the direction but none of the cast seemed to be able to speak Shakespeare. The men's accents seemed to waver between Bradford and Liverpool and the women often seemed shrill in trying to project their voices. There's nothing wrong with an accent but be consistent. It reminded me of something Glenda Jackson said a few weeks ago when I saw her and she said that the cast of her 'Lear' were all experienced in television and film but had never worked in theatre and were scared of trying to project their voices. 

The 'stars' of the show were Katherine Parkinson (from 'The IT Crowd' on telly) and John Heffernan (who I saw in an unfortunate version of 'Edward II' at the National Theatre years ago). They played Beatrice and Benedict, the main characters. I couldn't always follow what Katherine said as she shouted out her lines quickly in what I assume she thought was a comic manner while doing some manic movements that were supposed to be comic. I always find it frustrating when people in Shakespeare plays can't speak his verse properly and bring it to life - can't they hear themselves?

While I have lots of criticisms of this show, y'know what? I enjoyed it. And that's the main reason for going to the theatre. It was a fun way to spend a few hours and that's a good thing these days. Plus I had ice cream at the half time interval!

'Jerusalem' at the Apollo Theatre

A few weeks ago I went up to the West End and continued travelling to Chippenham and then further into deeper, darker Wiltshire where the May Queen still rules, there's a spirit in every tree and you can meet giants at dawn. 'Jerusalem' is a strange kind of play that works on so many levels and we're lucky to have both Mark Rylance and Mackenzie Crook back in their leading roles for this revival at the Apollo Theatre. I saw it years ago so had to see it again. 

It's the tale of Johnny 'Rooster' Byron, a middle aged man living in a caravan in the rural Wiltshire woods that are his world. He's a reprobate, a drunkard, a drug taker and dealer, up for fun at a moments notice, divorced with a young son but all he's interested in is partying. His contemporaries have mostly grown up  and got on with their lives so he associates with younger people who still want his drugs and the outlandish life he lives and the tales he tells. The Byron's have lived in the area for centuries and he views the woods as his heritage. But the complaints about his behaviour and the noise grow and he's going to be evicted and his caravan seized. What next for Johnny?

The staging is splendid, with his caravan parked on the stage surrounded by trees and chickens living underneath it. Scrappy furniture out front for people to lounge on as they tell their stories and listen to Johnny's even more outlandish ones. Like the one where he was a motorcyclist jumping over buses or when he met the giant who built Stonehenge and gave him a drum-sized earring as a keepsake. At the end of the play Johnny is beaten and bloodied but still defiant as he beats the drum to summon the Byron Boys from their graves, his ancestors, and asks the giant to save him as the police approach to evict him. The trees shake and the lights go off. The end. I believe. 

How on earth Mark Rylance can maintain that level of intensity for so long - night after night - is astonishing. He must be exhausted after every performance. Every now and then I had to think for a moment about what had been said in those West Country accents and wondered how Broadway audiences managed.There were hints of Spencerian lyric poetry and the brutal reality of the modern world, the unbelief that one of their own would fly to Australia for a new life when Chippenham was so exotic and tales of the olde world of the May Queen and the jingling of morris dancing. A world in conflict, a modern mythology that Johnny is incapable of solving. Go and see it, you won't regret it. 

Flamenco Festival at Sadler's Wells

Last week the annual Flamenco Festival was in full swing at Sadler's Wells so I had to visit. I first saw flamenco three years ago on a visit to Madrid and fell in love with it and wanted to see more. I had tickets to go in 2020 but that didn't happen so I was determined to visit last week. 

I had no idea which shows to book tickets for and didn't know the names of any of the choreographers or stars so I opted for Compania Jesus Carmona and Compania Maria Pages and I'm so glad I did. I don't speak Spanish so had no idea what the songs were about but flamenco is passion and love, sorrow and despair so I could guess what was going on. Flamenco is more that guitar and wailing vocals, more that foot stomping and majestic arm movements. Flamenco is life. 

Compania Jesus Cormona's piece was 'The Jump', an exploration of masculinity in the 21st Century. I didn't see the philosophical theories behind the piece but I saw madness and passion, pain and struggles. Jesus Carmona danced the lead with his all male dancers supporting and driving him on. There was also a male guitarist, percussionist and a singer. This was probably the modern dance version of flamenco, with the disciplines and techniques there but not the styles. Modern flamenco. 

Compania Maria Pages was a different kettle of fish with more traditional elements but brought up to date with her fabulous vision and choreography skills. And her amazing dancing! 'An Ode To Time' took us through different movements and styles with dramatic staging and lighting. With a five-piece band, two singers and eight dancers along with herself as the lead dancer, she transformed that stage. She certainly knows how to put on a show.

I loved the whole show but there were two movements I particularly liked. One was when castanets appeared in her hands and Maria gradually got faster and faster, swirling her arms around her body and up into the air only to descend, snakelike, around her body again, playing them faster and faster as she swirled and danced. It was an astonishing moment and I loved it. The other was when she danced with her large shawl, swirling it into the air to make shapes and then the four female dancers appeared with their own shawls to join in, so spectacular! It wasn't just the magnificent Maria who made the show, it was the whole company, and here they are.

I'm so pleased I went to the Flamenco Festival and I'll definitely go back again next year. There's so much to learn about flamenco.

'My Fair Lady' at the Coliseum, London

I've never seen the stage version of 'My Fair Lady' and don't recall ever seeing the film all the way through so the production at the Coliseum was the perfect opportunity to put that right. When I booked the tickets I didn't realise it was the Jubilee weekend and the streets would be full of people aimlessly wandering round trying to find wherever they thought they were going. It was a relief to get inside the foyer and be faced with the familiar madness of people trying to find their seats - I'm used to that.

My main reason for wanting to see it was that it was devised by the same production team that delivered the glorious 'South Pacific' at Lincoln Centre (the Vivian Beaumont Theater to be precise) in 2010 that I saw while the snow piled up outside. That production transferred to London a few years later at the Barbican and then went on tour. I saw it several times. Would 'My Fair Lady' be up to the same standard?

The play opens in Covent Garden as the Royal Opera House empties and spills the posh folks into the common streets around the flower and vegetables market outside. That's where we meet flower girl Eliza Doolittle, the Indian army colonel and phonetics 'professor' Henry Higgins. You know the story from there, where Higgin's decides he can pass Eliza off as a lady under his tuition and so begins the tedious attempts to teach Eliza how to speak "proper". And he does... or rather, she does. But where does that get either of them?

The production was great and quite lavish with the main set of Higgins's house on a revolve to show different rooms and characters walking between them. Lots of fancy costumes for the characters and Eliza seemed to have dozens once she became 'posh'. It was also quite nice to know that the opening scene in Covent Garden was only five minutes walk round the corner from the theatre and we could all stumble across Eliza and her cronies at the market. Sadly, there hasn't been a flowers and vegetables market there for over 40 years but the Coliseum has installed a flower shop in the foyer to make up for that oversight.

I really liked Amara Okereke as a feisty Eliza, a great performance and a lovely voice. Harry Hadden-Patten and Malcolm Sinclair were fine as Higgins and Colonel Pickering, as were Maurine Beattie as housekeeper Mrs Pickering and Stephen K Amos as Alfred Doolittle. I also really liked Sharif Afifi as nice but dim Freddy with his lovely singing voice. Sadly Vanessa Redgrave as Mrs Higgins wasn't on for this performance. The performances were good, the costumes and sets were really good but I didn't fully enjoy the book or some of the songs. Higgins is a rather unpleasant mysogenistic character and his songs were all to the same stop/start formula. The character rather soured things for me and good on Eliza for walking away. I hope she got her flower shop.

My ignorance of this musical was demonstrated to me by two songs - who knew 'I Could Have Danced All Night' was from this show as is the lovely 'On The Street Where You Live'? The placing of 'Danced All Night' was a bit odd since at that point Eliza hadn't actually danced yet, the dancing is much later and the moment of her triumph at the ball is spoiled by Higgins and Pickering congratulating themselves on the success of their 'experiment', totally ignoring Eliza. 

Verdict? Yes, 'My Fair Lady' is definitely up to the standards of 'South Pacific', so well done to Bartlett Sher and his team at Lincoln Center in New York. And the actual musical? It's great fun, well performed and the cast have some great voices, but, well, on this outing, Lerner and Loewe ain't no Rodgers and Hammerstein. Go and see it for yourself.

'Picasso Ingres: Face to Face' at the National Gallery

A new exhibition opened at the National Gallery last week, 'Picasso Ingres: Face to Face', that considers Ingres's portrait 'Madame Moitessier' with Picasso's 'Woman With A Book', his version of the portrait. The Ingres portrait is the National Gallery collection and the Picasso is on loan from the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, California. The exhibition is just these two paintings, that's it, quite simple and also quite powerful with no distractions. 

I've seen the Ingres portrait many times and I've started to almost ignore it when wandering round the Gallery and that is a mistake. It was painted over several years and the composition changed, eventually being completed in 1856. It really is a glorious painting, just look at that delicate flesh tone with the blush on her cheek and the details of her jewels and dress. The thing that caught my attention on this viewing was the detail on her fan in her impossibly delicate hand. It's a thing of beauty in itself.

The floral frock is what grabs the attention but it's important to look elsewhere in the painting. Look at her reflection in the mirror on the right hand side of the painting and also at the fashionable Chinese vase partially hidden by another fan on the left. This is an important society lady and she needs to be portrayed as such.  It's a delicate and detailed painting.

In contrast, Picasso's version is anything but delicate. It was good to be able to get up close and see the paint piled on roughly, see the drip marks, the paint smeared on top of other paint and pushed and pulled until it creates it's own beauty. Rather than holding a fan, the lady here holds an open book.

The painting was made in 1932, an important year for Picasso and the subject of an exhibition at Tate Modern a few years ago that explored his amazing output in that year. That suggests that Picasso probably spent only a few days on the painting, if that, and yet he still created a thing of beauty. 

The exhibition is free and well worth popping into at the end of your visit to the National Gallery - it's in Room 46 at the top of the portico steps after you leave the 'modern art' rooms. There's also a small exhibition book if you want to know more about the paintings.

'Walter Sickert' at Tate Britain

Tate currently has its first major exhibition of works by Sickert in 60 years at Tate Britain. I don't know much about him at all so this was a good way to find out. He had a long career, working from the 1880s to his death in 1942 so he lived and painted through the major art movements of the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. He worked in the studios of both Whistler and Degas and looks to have been particularly influenced by Degas, especially in the subject matter of his paintings. 

The first room of the exhibition is full of rather sombre self-portraits but I quite liked this self-portrait of Sickert as 'The Servant of Abraham' (1929) based on a photo of himself shown next to the painting. His palette for most of his career seems to have been rather dull and, apparently, Degas encouraged him to expand into richer colours.

I much prefer colour so noticed his 'Brighton Pierrots' (1915) straight away with its much richer palette and glowing colours. The costumes of the pierrots, the dusty pink suits, the colourful houses and empty deckchairs all combine to make this a colourful and mysterious painting. Degas had a fascination with music halls and cabarets and Sickert seems to have picked this up as well. Beside the pierrots is 'The Trapeze' (1920) with the vast expanse of canvas tent with the small figure of the trapeze artist about to jump and fly. I immediately thought of 'Miss La La' by Degas and thought this is Sickert's version of Miss La La.

Sickert seems to have had a fascination with Dieppe and Venice where he seems to have returned time and again to paint, as well as with Paris and London. There were quite a few cityscapes of those cities and a room full of the facades of cathedrals. I liked this one 'The Facade of St Jaques' (1902) with it's dramatic light effects as the sun hits the front of the cathedral leaving the street level in shade. I liked the detail of having a sign for a restaurant in the painting because, of course, wherever you go there is always a restaurant or cafe beside a cathedral. Sickert rarely painted the streets of London but I liked this one of the front windows of a drapers shop, 'Easter' (1928), named after the easter bonnets filling the shop window. 

Another painting that called to me from across the room was 'Bathers, Dieppe' (1902) with its vast expanse of sea and the people in their colourful bathing costumes. It reminded me of Sorolla's beach scenes with the excited waves and then I noticed there is no beach. Or sky. It's an odd composition in a way, seemingly focused solely on the middle ground. I like the sea and the many different colours in the sun and shadow as the waves gather and then crash on the shore. I couldn't help but wonder about the group in the black swimming costumes, presumably friends or workers on an outing, and wondered what they might've though about the men wading into the sea in their bright, stripy costumes (possibly the workers' bosses?). 

The final room of the exhibition was full of paintings Sickert did from photographs, including photos in newspapers. He painted a lovely 'Portrait of Degas in 1885' (1928) and painted famous people of the time from photos as well as significant events. These paintings were all in much brighter colours and the paint seems to have been thinned to provide a light covering on the canvas. Despite the brightness of the paintings, the one that touched me was 'The Miner' (1935-6) painted from a press cutting at the time which was displayed in a case nearby showing a miner kissing his wife as he returns to daylight after being on strike underground to shut the pit down. It looks grubby and drab and he carries a water jug under his right arm, other arm round his wife pulling her close. It's close-cropped and that emphasises the power of the image. 

And here is the painting of Degas.