Damned by Despair, 5 October 2012 (Preview)

Who's in it? Bertie Carvel, Sebastian Armesto, Leanne Best, Rory Keenan, Lorna Brown, Michael Gould, Amanda Lawrence, Pierce Reid and Alex Warren.

Where did you see it? Olivier, National Theatre

Occasionally the National Theatre put on productions that make you wonder what the director has on Sir Nicholas Hytner . Associate Director Bijan Sheibani must have something pretty major to bring Frank McGuinness' adaptation of Tirso de Molina's Damned by Despair to the biggest theatre on the South Bank.

It is a complete and utter car crash. The lack of big names means it isn't selling too well (I had complementary tickets) and when it does get an audience in they are quick to disappear at the interval. The story surrounds hermit Paulo (Armesto), who after receiving a message from 'God', goes to find his counterpart Enrico (Carvel), a violent man who kills for money and sometimes just for fun. Armesto and Carvel are badly miscast. Armesto lacks the charm or ability to keep the audience interested in Paulo and Carvel, 2012 Olivier Award winner for Matilda, is all charm and muscle (He looks fantastic, he reminded me of a young Gary Oldman when Oldman only played psychos) but his musical theatre past keeps cropping up, with limp wristed movements and all round campiness that ruins any belief the audience had in Enrico,violent gang-leader and killer. The brilliant What's on Stage forum suggested he wants baddie roles but Carvel will be lucky to get any roles after this.

Company in rehearsal

Add in the fact that is religious propaganda that sits uncomfortably with a 21st century audience. I hate to sound all Ricky Gervais but it feels out of place, in the same way 13's message of Atheism felt like being force fed marbles of issues that aren't done well at the best of times but feel particularly clunky in the theatre.

It is also doesn't seem to know when it is set, is it 17th century Naples as the original or is it a modern day setting (There's a really cringey bit with Carvel and his gang, shocking made up of mostly black men which really offended me, singing 'Stuck in the Middle' with you as they chopped off someone's ear) . The actual set is one of the cheapest, nastiest sets I have seen in a theatre.It looks like cardboard and the only pay off is a scene towards the end. It's staging means a lot of action takes places amongst the audience, which results in awkward shuffling as some realise they are both watching and they are also part of the action. There is also the poor supporting cast, only saved by Alex Warren and Rory Keenan, who provide actual charm and suitable acting in this poor production. Leanne Best plays Celia as smug, quite unnecessarily which makes me think she isn't necessarily acting the smugness and Pierce Reid, who was actually quite good in Collaborators, is reduced to ensemble.

I am not sure how the National can justify this dull play at any time, let alone during a recession. Offering during the Travelex season isn't justification for why it looks and feels so cheap and it isn't what you expect from the National Theatre.

My recommendation is don't go but if you do try to enjoy as campy nonsense rather than a serious play.

Travelling Light (Preview) , 14th January 2012

Who's in it? Damien Molony, Anthony Sher, Paul Jesson, Lauren O'Neil, Abigail McKern and Sue Kelvin

Where did you see it? Lyttelton, National Theatre

Happy New Year, everyone! I slacked a bit when it came to theatre/comedy in December but I am BACK with a whimper at least. It seems apt to see play that combine my interests of film and theatre (and old country East Europen Jews) in Nicholas Wright's new play Travelling Light. Wright also wrote Last of the Duchess, which I saw back in October and it was totally amazing and should have got a West End transfer etc etc.



Sue Kelvin (Tsippa), Lauren O’Neil (Anna) & Antony Sher (Jacob Bindel). Photo by Johan Persson



When an audience member screeches in the stalls of the Lytelton, barely ten minutes into the show, "Where's Anthony Sher?" you know you have a problem. The problem being that Anthony Sher, as Jacob Bindel the illiterate timber merchant who funds the young Motl (played by Damien Molony in his Eastern European youth and by Paul Jesson in his later years as a studio mogul named Maurice Montgomery) is far from the star of the show and yet is probably the main reason this show is practically a sell out (which is incredible for a new play at the Lytelton) as well as the subject matter. His accent is distracting, he sounds like Pop from the League of Gentlemen and is hardly an interesting part for any actor; let alone one of Britain's finest. Where he does shine is the odd look or during his lengthy monologues.

That is another problem; this play just isn't enough about the early days of Hollywood. It is about some young man (who has a very uppercut British accent in his youth but VERY East European Jewish accent in his later years, despite spending 30 years in Hollywood) who lives in some nameless small town near Russia and inherits a camera from his late father. When we do get to Hollywood the film industry is settled and there's even talkies.



Damien Molony (Motl Mendl) and Lauren O’Neil (Anna). Photo by Johan Persson



What we do get is love, love rivalries and lots of film. Yes, lots of film in a theatre production and this is either its strength or its downfall. It is a very good distraction during scene changes but also leads to some of the worst blocking I have ever seen in a theatre production; backs to the audience, awkward neck turns (that could have been my cheap seats) and the films in question weren't always easy to see. I expect better from Nicholas Hytner, who has extensive experience in film and theatre, I wonder if he has spoiled by the staging of Collaborators at the Cottesloe and thinks he can replicate something similar in the Lyttelton? I desperately hope this is a preview glich that will be sorted by press night (18th January 2012).

Paul Jesson (Maurice Montgomery).

I think Damien Moloney as Motl has the most difficult job a theatre actor can have. Leading a play and not being the 'name', though I expect this will change when he takes over from Aidan Turner as the new vampire Hal in Being Human (which begins on BBC3 and is also an uneviable task; Turner was brilliant) soon. To be honest I struggled with his performance, he's not particularly playing a charming character and he's not particularly interesting to watch. He also did that annoying "No tears crying", which is fine if you are trying to get sympathy on a reality TV programme but not acceptable from an actor leading a National Theatre play. I also struggled with Lauren O'Neil. Not because she isn't a good actress, far from it. She's perfect as Anna, the beautiful film assistant and object of Motl and Jacob's affections and utterly stunning, except on film. Which is the whole point of the character, who is meant to be this stunning actress in the making. Pretty on film, yes but not breath-takingly beautiful as she is on stage. For those unfamiliar with O'Neil she appears on the match.com advert as the 'Girl on the platform'. Devastatingly pretty on film, yes but worthy of being Motl's obsession when we do see her on film; sadly not and I can't fathom why she doesn't photograph as well as she looks in real life.

Wright's strength's lay in his female characters and when they do have things to do they are brilliant; usually behind many of the play's shamefully low comic moments. The play's real gem is Paul Jesson as Maurice and he is hardly in it (he even shines in the plays awful ending) but this play is not a gem. This play might have worked better as a film and if it is to be a play should have been in the Cottesloe, not in the Lyttelton.

13, 2nd December 2011

Who is it? Too many to mention on here so take a look at the cast list on the NT website.
Where did you see it? Olivier, National Theatre.

Mike Bartlett is the writer-in-residence at the National. I say this to remind myself why this poor, self-indulgent mess of a play even got past the first draft, let alone the biggest stage at National. I won a competition to see it and dragged along a friend, who had never been before. She is now reluctant to ever see a National Theatre play again. Having just looked up Bartlett I am suprised he is young (only 30) yet this play feels like it was written by some 80 year old writer who had heard of You Tube but wasn't really sure what it did. It feels confused and it already feels a little dated.



Geraldine James in 13



There are too many characters, which would be okay if they all had strong roles but they don't. With 13 characters all having the same dream you need A LOT of understudies so you end up with these odd scenes, which have no importance just so the understudies know what is going on. At least that is why I hope they are there. It feels a waste of many good actors. Geraldine James and Danny Webb stand out in particular as a Thatcher-esque Prime Minister and her Richard Dawkins-esque friend from university. Webb delivers the only good line of the evening when he compares James' character (the fact I remember no names only a week on is very telling) that as she has no children (her son is dead) and no husband (he left her) she can dedicate herself to job, just like Thatcher. When pointed Thatcher did have children Webb's character hisses "but she didn't care about them!", though it could argued she was fond of Mark when got lost in some sand, somewhere.

I get the impression someone, somewhere thought this play was quite edgy; wars in Iran, atheist rhetoric that somehow attracts half a million followers despite sounding like what 15 year old might mumble to each other on the bus home from school and something resembling a story yet not actually being one. Oh, and there is the big black cube. That is the set in the National Theatre. A big black cube. There's a Boris Bike and some Rihanna. There is really nothing to this play and my respect grows for the acting profession. Getting a good part in a good play is easy. Getting a mediocre part in an awful play and not screaming "THIS IS SHIT, JUST GO HOME" at the interval in hard.

The story that is there is many interconnecting tales from the American diplomat, his wife  and their annoying daughter (who gets chopped into pieces and I think we are meant to be appalled but she really is annoying so you are quite glad she won't be in it anymore), the messiah-type figure (Trystan Gravelle), who may or may not have killed the Thatcher-like James' son and frankly who cares at 2hrs 45 minutes this play is too long with too much of nothing. I do worry when the National puts something like this on because it undos all the good work of what has been a good year for them. Part of me wants to recommend seeing it because it will never be performed again but the reason it will never be performed again is because it is so bad!

Juno and the Paycock 26th November 2011

Who's in it? Ciaran Hinds, Sinead Cusack, Clare Dunne, Risteárd Cooper, Nick Lee, Ronan Raftery, Tom Vaughan-Lawlor and Janet Moran.
Where did you see? Lytelton, National Theatre

I imagine, when Juno and the Paycock was first performed in 1924 it was groundbreaking and utterly heartbreaking because for many it would have been very close to the bone. Whilst many issues are probably relevant for Irish people today; unplanned pregnancy (in a country where abortion is still illegal), poverty(though not famine-early 20th century levels) and unemployment some aspects have lost their impact.



Ciaran Hinds (Jack Boyle) and Sinead Cusack (Juno Boyle)

The big selling point of this play, at least from the National Theatre's point of view, is the joint collaboration between them and Ireland's National theatre the Abbey in Dublin. Genuine Irish doing a very Irish play and what  good quality genuine Irish actor. Ciaran Hinds as Captain Jack Boyle (due to his brief period in the merchant navy) and the paycock of the title (Imagine an Irish accent saying 'peacock') and Sinead Cusack as Juno. You expect them to be excellent, they are names and even with a very limited first half for her character Cusack more than makes up for it in the second half. The real reason to go there (unless like me you have a crush on Hinds) is for Clare Dunne as Juno and Jack's daughter, Mary.

As a play there is a theme of strong females, Juno and Mary work (though Mary's striking over a colleague's dismissal put pay to that) and support the weaker males in the family. Jack, an alcoholic, lazy man who uses his energy to go out drinking with his partner-in-crime Joxer Daly (Risteárd Cooper) and avoiding any offers of work and son Johnny, who is physically weak; one arm and dodgy hip from various activities in the Easter Rising and the Irish Civil War but also shown to be a coward, like his father when he anonymously grasses up a neighbour and finds himself haunted by the spirit of the man whose death he caused.

I don't want to spoil the play (despite its ancient-ness) but it has what you expect from an Irish melodrama; abandoment, religion, war, singing and Guinness(which had to be bought from Nigeria as it is a real struggle to get non-alcoholic Guinness). I read someone questionning why this play by Sean O'Casey is often performed and I think it is because it is one of the few plays to give all this characters a real purpose and whilst commentary on atheism or non-Christian religions may seem like a common theme it also makes this play seem timeless and could easily, much like Top Girls, have been written after the events rather during them.

John Hodge on Collaborators, 4th November 2011

What was it? John Hodge talks about his play Collaborators at the Cottesloe, which I reviewed here

I'm not sure why I booked tickets for this long before I had even seen Collaborators. I'm worried I was hoping to see Alex Jennings (I did but only getting off the bus on his way the the NT). My obsession is out of control.

Once I did see the play I was strangely looking forward to this. I had given it a harsh review but I couldn't get it out of my mind and I hoped Hodge would answer the questions that remained.

Hodge, it was explained, like Bulgakov was a doctor too. It was also mentioned that this was a film script but nobody wanted to make it so Hodge sent it to the Literary director of the National Theatre, added all the necessary exits and entrances theatre needed (though didn't specifically demand the odd zig zag staging) and subsequently gained interest from Sir Nicholas Hytner, Artistic Director of the NT and director of the play. I'm still unsure why this is in the Cottesloe with such huge names in the cast, the cynics over at West End Whingers suggest that Hytner thought it wasn't good enough for the Olivier or Lyttelton and wouldn't have sold out. I think he was pandering to the egos of SRB and Jennings, who never get to perform in the Cottesloe before they are darlings of the theatre world.

The biggest issue with this platform was that many in the audience had yet to see the play and were seeing it after the platform (perhaps I should have done that) so there was a NO SPOILERS air and a lot of questions being asked that would have been explained if they had just held tight for another three hours. The things I wanted to know I was too scared to ask, why such a poorly written supporting cast, was that a relic of the film script? Why didn't the NT put on a Bulgakov play whilst Collaborators was in rep?

I was also left with the impression Hodge wasn't really aware of what was going on in terms of the actual production, like things had happened inbetween his handing it over and the press night that nobody told him about? He seemed perplexed, though diplomatic, about the set and didn't give any opinions (good or bad) about the cast though he may have been aware that Mark Addy was watching him in the cheap seats.

I've probably been left with more questions than answers but I do enjoy a NT Platform so I will forgive

Collaborators (Preview) 28th October 2011

Who is in it? Collaborators is performed by Alex Jennings, Jacqueline Defferary, Simon Russell Beale, Patrick Godfrey, Maggie Service, Pierce Reid, William Postlethwaite, Mark Addy, Jess Murphy, Marcus Cunningham, Nick Sampson, Michael Jenn and Sarah Annis

Where did you see it? Cottesloe, National Theatre

When this play by John Hodges (Trainspotting, Shallow Grave) was announced back in January a large sigh was made by all those who read it. It would be easier to source hen's teeth than tickets for this play. The presence of Alex Jennings AND Simon Russell Beale;who have only worked together once before in 2006's The Alchemist also directed by Collaborators director Sir Nicolas Hytner, in the 300 seater Cottesloe meant the tickets didn't even get to public booking before being sold out.Thankfully I have an Entry Pass, which meant a select few tickets were held back for each performance even if those tickets are literally in the cheap seats. The benefit with the Cottesloe is that the staging is adaptable and the audience (relatively) small so viewing, despite being on row T, wasn't a problem.

The play is set in 1938 where Mikhail Bulgakov (Jennings) is haunted by dreams of Joseph Stalin (Beale) chasing and killing him with his own typewriter.  Bulgakov is battling terminal illness and Soviet oppression as he attempts to stage Moliere, about a playwright's struggle about an oppressive force. The play is banned after one performance but the secret police in the shape of Vladmir and Stepan (Addy and Cunningham) offer Bulgakov a choice; write a play about Stalin for his upcoming 60th birthday and see Moliere staged again or be arrested by the secret police and executed. Bulgakov takes the first option.

The play's strength is the relationship between Bulgakov and Stalin, as Stalin realises that Bulgakov cannot write a sycophantic play so Stalin will write it for him in exchange Bulgakov will do his job. What follows feels like a psychological thriller as Bulgakov defends Stalin's evil to his wife Yelena (Defferary) and friends, a situation encouraged by an improvement in their living conditions.

The play struggles, perhaps due to direction, staging or just time limits, to depict the message I think Hodges really wanted to get across that Batum, the birthday play for Stalin about his youth and emergence as a key Soviet figure (which later be depicted in Young Stalin, a book by Simon Sebag-Montefiore) isn't like Bulgakov's other work and thus must be written by someone else. This relies on the audience being familiar with his previous work and not being like myself, who only came because I enjoy this period on a historical level and because they quite fancy Alex Jennings (Jennings is looking foxy as ever said one twitter account-Absolutely!)

Simon Russell Beale in rehearsals 

Instead the message becomes "Tsk, wasn't that Stalin a scamp let's laugh at this ridiculous...oh no wait he did kill a lot of people and maybe we should be all serious and that about it in the second half" Beale is then forced to go from playing the clown, which he clearly enjoys to playing this "monster" a lesser actor would fail but Simon Russell Beale manages to turn the clown into a monster without it feeling like major, inexplicable change. Jennings has a easy role as the tragic Bulgakov who everyone seems to adore, is intelligent. His only "failing" is fearing the death of himself and loved ones at the hands of Stalin so he does odd things like write letters asking to let out of Soviet Union then backtracking when offered a job at the Moscow Arts Theatre. It isn't clear why he didn't just leave, Yelena seemed keen to.

The biggest let down is the dull supporting cast, with the exception of Addy who is pretty close to perfect in this and bigger revelation than the theatre gods that are Jennings and Beale. The parts for the supporting cast feel very much like Hodges promised a drama school parts for their graduates. There is nothing for them to get their teeth into, for example William Postlethwaite plays a friend of Bulgakov, Grigory but there was nothing in the performance that really made him stand out. At the risk of sounding cruel if he didn't have the Postlethwaite name and cheekbones I wonder if he would have even been considered because, frankly, any young actor could have played that part.

I think crucially this play is very good and very well researched but it doesn't feel special. I didn't, despite its big names, feel I was watching a classic play and thus deserves its place in the tiny Cottesloe but I expect demand means it may get restaged in one of the bigger National theatres. If you can't get a ticket, don't worry, see it when it comes to NT Live on December 1st

Black Voices 17th October 2011

Who was in it? Patterson Joseph leads a trio of BAME (black and minority ethnic) actors; Don Warrington, Ellen Thomas and Asif Khan in discussing black presence in theatre.

Where was it? Lyttelton, National Theatre.

Ellen Thomas

I often play a game, it stems from growing up in a mainly white area of Southampton where I was often the only ethnic minority;I am mixed race of Afro-Caribbean and White Irish/Scottish descent, with a bit of Portuguese and Indian thrown in. That game is SPOT THE NON-WHITE PERSON. As a game to play in London on the tube or the bus it quickly ends but at the National and at most theatres I usually concede defeat and spot myself.

As part of Black History Month Joseph et al discuss the presence of black actors in productions. Patterson is keen to stress that black people have been on the British Isles for years (he told the wonderful tale of a black soldier on Hadrian's Wall during the Roman period), why aren't they featured in more classical productions as characters, beyond slavery and servants? The problem is there isn't that much of a presence despite, by the sounds of it, drama schools having a long held "colour blind" policy giving their students a variety of roles that doesn't depend on them being, or not being a certain race. When I go to the National, for example, plays set in the inter-war years dominate. A Woman Killed with Kindness had an all white cast but that isn't to say the National Theatre is objectionable to casting black actors, they frequently appear in ensembles and The National did produce Elmina's Kitchen, which had an all black cast including Patterson and Warrington but I've heard some of the views of playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah, including his claims that he felt uncomfortable with "mixing the races"  on Radio 4's The House I Grew Up In, which makes me question his motives when he cast only black actors, was it about increased theatrical presence, to get more black audience members or to avoid working with white people?

Patterson Joseph

Why aren't there more roles for black actors? There's Othello and...well exactly. Theatres are forced into colour-blind casting, see the recent Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with James Earl Jones, for example. Colour blind casting is only really used for commercial purposes on the big theatres. I'm not sure it is used JUST because the actor is good and capable. Ellen Thomas told a anecdote about an audition she had; at an open casting she was told, along with the others, to play a peasant during the workshop. Being contary Thomas decided to play the leader of the peasants. Her boldness won her the part of the Queen of Spain.Jonathan Pryce came up when talking about colour blind casting; he had played an Asian character in Miss Saigon on Broadway and should this be as acceptable as casting a BAME in a traditionally white role. All of the panel said that was fine, except Don Warrington who questioned the commericial, bums on seats motives of casting Pryce rather than casting an Asian actor.

There were many BAME drama students in the audience for this talk and when it came to the Q&A session it was clear many of them thought there should be favouritism, both from the drama schools and from casting directors. I'm not an actor but if I was I'm not sure I would be happy with this. Do BAME students really want semesters where they focus on plays that may allow them to play "black" roles but alienate their fellow white students? Is it not better for schools to teach the skills and for the actors to convince a casting director that whilst they may be black they can easily play this role written for a white person. I do wonder if there is a sense of entitlement to roles from some BAMEs rather than an acceptance that, sadly, they will have to work harder than their white counterparts for roles.

All four speakers were examples of people who were successful through sheer talent. It is always going to be difficult for an actor to be a "black actor" because there simply aren't enough black roles being written. Whatever your colour or religion you have to first and foremost be a good actor the rest comes later.

Galton and Simpson: The Fathers of Sitcom 1st September 2011

Alan Simpson and  Ray Galton

What was it: Writers Ray Galton and Alan Simpson talk with their biographer Christopher Stevens about their career
Where was it: The Lyttelton, National Theatre

Firstly, my apologies, I haven't posted for a while due to not attending any theatre or comedy events. August is a quiet month and anything that was on was off the cards due to a tooth infection I got towards the end of August. I'm back now though with what has to be one of my favourite things I have ever attended. I've had a bit of tempestuous relationship with the National after seeing A Woman Killed with Kindness and the aborted at the interval (hence lack of review) of Emperor and Galilean so I went back with some caution but you don't turn down an evening with Galton and Simpson do you?

L-R Simpson, Hancock and Galton

I remember as a small child seeing Galton and Simpson on something and being shocked they were still alive. My theory being "They wrote stuff from the olden days so must be old and dead" they weren't and thankfully they still aren't! Galton and Simpson are 81 and 82 respectively now and still incredibly sharp. What I didn't realise when I was questioning their mortality was how obscenely young they were when they started-they were working professionally for the BBC as writers from 1951, when they were in their early twenties. It is not only their writing skill I find amazing but also to have known each other for over 60 years.

How they met is quite a famous story but I never realised how close to death they were in that Sanatorium, both were given six weeks to live as there was no cure for TB. One was miraculously found whilst they were on their deathbeds. Writing comedy together came about from boredom and their disgust with what was on the amateur radio room. They discussed their early career, such as being screwed over by light entertainment performers financially.

L-R Sid James and Tony Hancock

Their big break came in 1952 when they met Hancock. They told how they decided to cast Sid James after stealing the format from another show to create Hancock's Half Hour. "We needed a crook and Sid James played a crook in about ten films a year" revealed Simpson (I chuckled at this as one of my favourite afternoon films is Too Many Crooks, where James plays a crook) and he mentioned a trip they made to cinema especially to see the credits as they didn't know James' name. They also spoke of James's nerves and reluctance to do radio as it was in front of a studio audience describing his "big hat and paper up to his face" and how the paper and hat were dropped lower and gone within a few weeks. Their relationship with Hancock was interesting too. They argued that his finest and most successful work was without James, Bill Kerr and Kenneth Williams, who they were reluctant to cast due to his "funny voice" and who as a group had a habit of cackling during recordings (all loudly), because everyone remembers the Blood Donor but complains that Hancock was at his finest with James. Finding out the Hancock/Galton and Simpson partnership ended because he didn't like the script and didn't have the guts to tell them ("He was a coward in that respect" said Simpson)

They moved on to Comedy Playhouse, it was clear from Galton that this was the project he most enjoyed because they told "You can write what you like" and seemed frustrated when one of the episodes "The Offer" was commissioned into a full series, which became Steptoe and Son. In fact Galton and Simpson only agreed because they thought Harry H Corbett and Wilfred Brambell would say no. In fact Corbett and Brambell said yes because they were being offered 600 pounds instead of a few shillings (Light Entertainment paid more than drama productions)

L-R Harry H. Corbett & Wilfred Brambell

Christopher Stevens, who was a great interviewer because he just let them talk, took questions from the floor and somebody asked about what David Hemmings role would have been in Steptoe and Son would have been had Brambell's Broadway career took off. Simpson told how Brambell announced he was going to Broadway to star in a musical called Kelly in 1965. Galton and Simpson thought "Sod ya, then" and looked to David Hemmings (who never knew of their plan and sadly never will) to cast him as Harold's long lost son. Alas Kelly closed after one performance and Brambell came back. Someone else asked if the relationship between Harold and Albert came from their own relationship. It was a interesting question that both men laughed off but their was an air of awareness that perhaps they resented but depended on each other as much as the Steptoes did. In truth they related to Harold more than Albert making Albert 70 years old because to them that seemed really old...

If there ever was any resentment it has long gone. They still seem close, perhaps because so many around them when they began have died. Simpson, who now walks with a stick, joked "He [Galton] helps me up the stairs and I tell him what day it is"  and joking that "We were only given six weeks to live" and are still around sixty years later.


My only advice is to see these men whenever you get an opportunity though I suspect (hope!) they will be around for a while yet.

A Woman Killed with Kindness 8th August 2011

Who's in it: Lots and lots and lots of actors but notably there is Liz White from Life on Mars and Gawn Grainger, well respected theatre and screen actor plus he's married to Zoe Wannamaker, who is in The Cherry Orchard

Where did you see it? Lyttelton Theatre at the National Theatre, South Bank

I will admit going to the theatre whilst London burns is a little decadent but to be honest after this disappointing, boring and at times iaudible production I was left wishing I was looting some Kentucky chicken somewhere.

Okay, so I am being a bitch but it was that bad. A Woman Killed with Kindness was written in around 1603 by Thomas Heywood. It is the story of two women...actually I cannot explain because I had no idea what was going on. Here's a summary from the National

Two women fight for their emotional survival in a rural wilderness dominated by men, money and an unbending morality.That it were possible
To undo things done, to call back yesterday,
That Time could turn up his swift sandy glass
To untell the days, and to redeem these hours.

A startling domestic thriller written in 1603, A Woman Killed with Kindness  strips bare two women’s lives – with forensic realism – in one of the first tragedies ever to be written about ordinary people.

Fast-moving, frightening and erotic: a major play in a radical production.

It is none of those things, unless you count a naked man running down the stairs towards the end. None of the two female leads are likable (One is spoilt with an out of control brother and the other drops her knickers at the first opportunity then gets all arsey when she gets caught!) and the male characters; ALL PUSSIES.

It didn't help that I was in the Circle (literally the cheap seats, Entry pass ticket for £5!) so I couldn't actually hear anything. The first scene for example contained a wedding. I know this because she (Liz White) was wearing a wedding dress and there was a big cake and I think somebody (Leo Bill) made a speech that when I strained my ears sounded like it might be for a wedding.

Quite simply the production and stunnign set seemed to overwhelm its cast. I don't doubt these are theatre veterans but it felt like I was watching a first year Theatre Studies class who had won a competition to appear at the National. Nobody stood out as a strong performer, Gawn Grainger as the butler happened to have some good lines but I wasn't left feeling Grainger made the part his own. My respect for them remains because if I had been on that stage I'm sure I would have died from boredom. It is unchallenging, uninteresting and not doing anything new with theatre. Sandy McDade gets my jeers; why was she doing an Irish accent when nobody else was Irish in the play? She's not even Irish according to IMDB. It was weird and distracting.

The direction was awful. Katie Mitchell has been at National long enough to know the Lyttelton is a big theatre, did she not sit at the back to work out if we could hear her cast, did she wonder why her 'excellent' idea of moving the action from the 17th century to 1919 never came across or was it because she could do her "BIG INTER-WAR HOUSE" thing that she always does.

What I don't understand is how a theatre like the National even let this get to a readthrough let alone a prime spot in the Lyttelton during the summer? Sir Nick Hytner claims, frequently, that he wants less white middle class people at the National. This really isn't the play to get us ethnics flocking in and judging by the lack of interval (apparently a last minute change) I suspect they thought the audience would be flocking out.

I never leave a theatre before a play has ended but if there had been an interval I would have gone and I think the lack of interval, meaning you are stuck in uncomfortable seating for two hours, is prove that the National didn't have confidence in this production.

Here are some much, less bitter reviews

• http://westendwhingers.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/review-a-woman-killed-with-kindness-national-theatre/
• http://webcowgirl.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/review-a-woman-killed-with-kindness-national-theater/