The God of Soho – Shakespeare’s Globe, London ***

[written for The Public Reviews]

This bold and brash play is not The Globe’s usual fare but Dominic Dromgoole, the artistic director, should be commended for taking a risk even if it the result doesn’t quite hit the mark. Chris Hannan’s play has been written specifically for this theatre and he makes a valiant attempt at bringing his original play to life in a very demanding space. Ostensibly about voyeurism and our addiction to celebrity, self-promotion and self-obsession, the performance benefits from the inclusion of the audience – a large number of whom stand fully lit in the pit laughing along and becoming immersed in the action on stage.

We are in a gaudily lit heaven and a panoply of loud-mouthed Gods, decked out in white and gold with biker flourishes, watch as Big God’s daughter, Clem, is cast to earth to learn to love the man who has damaged her pride. Clem ends up dossing with a tramp on the streets of Soho and finds that, while she was sleeping, a pink handbag stuffed with sex toys has been planted on her. This provides the link to the other strand of the play; the violent relationship between self-deprecating reality star Natty and her sex obsessed boyfriend Baz, who has snatched her pink bag away in a threat to expose her to the press. The quest to restore the missing bag brings the two strands together but there is definitely no Shakespearean master-plotting here as the two story arcs collide to very little purpose.

Hannan’s use of language is to be savoured, though. Natty rather heavy-handedly draws attention to the burden of this play having to live up to what has very recently passed on the very same stage – a Shakespeare play. The language must be bold but also poetic – it must work hard to weave its magic in such an unforgiving space. Luckily Hannan’s larger-than-life characters are more than up to it. Phil Daniels’ Big God is a great pronouncer of truths. One of his best lines, ‘she’s the Afghanistan of love – best left in peace’, is paradigmatic of Hannan’s genius of translating big observations into even bigger jokes, thus avoiding any deflating earnestness.

And there are some excellently acerbic observations in this play which, with Hannan’s lightness of touch, avoid leaving a judgemental aftertaste. There is no judgement here as everyone is exposed as equally troubled and cast adrift in a world of which they fail to make any sense. But this doesn’t mean that everyone’s amoral behaviour isn’t riotously funny. Baz says the morning birds, singing away energetically, sound like they have been ‘on the Charlie’ all night long and Natty is pursued by a publicist who would rather see her client go to prison than being reconciled with her boyfriend because it would attract more column inches.

There is some very astute staging here which is as impressive as an optical illusion; look again at the classical columns of the Elizabethan stage and they are the garish marble pillars of a celeb’s Essex mansion. This fakery is cleverly echoed by Natty’s sister Teresa deriding her taste in her ‘mock Tudor’ décor which ‘looks like a copy of something’ – the air-headed Natty counters that every column is a ‘genuine replica’. Despite the sometimes excellent writing and the brilliant performances, especially from Iris Roberts as Clem, for all its self-conscious comparison to Shakespeare, The God of Soho fails to deliver on plot. Both a fabulous spectacle and a treat for any connoisseur of the English language, this play has many highlights but the story fails to cohere into either a meaningful satire on modern day celebrity or a deeper exploration of the human condition.

Picture Source

Le Cirque Invisible – Southbank Centre, London *****

[written for The Public Reviews]

There seems to be a renewed interest in circus performance - now a legitimate artistic endeavour and a far cry from the tawdry big tops of our childhoods. Having attended numerous shows of this particular brand of performance art since the memorable circus festival at the Roundhouse in spring 2010, it would seem to me that these shows aim for entertainment and pretension in equal measure. Compagnie XY: Le Grand C at the Roundhouse, performed by 18 acrobats, was a breath-taking and gut-wrenching aerial display but the Aussie Propaganda was a bit too earnest when it came to ascribing deep existential meaning to the entertainment on stage. The French penchant for circus-style performance is in evidence again with Le Cirque Invisible; a delightfully cheeky double act whose triumph is their infectious sense of humour, their obvious life commitment to their art and their lightness of touch.

French whimsy is much in evidence here, we have the background accordion music and the obligatory surrealism, but Le Cirque Invisible is uniquely charming even if it does take us to familiar territory. Chaplin and Thiérré are less of a double act and more a pair of solo artists: they rarely inhabit the stage space at the same time. Victoria Chaplin’s ethereal costume manipulations are clever and mesmerising (she does something amazing with umbrellas and fans and has a skill for metamorphosing into any shape or creature) in contrast to Thiérré’s slapstick gags and visual comedy. And it is Thiérré who is the most original performer here; he has created character who is foolish and loveable, who wants to please and entertain. Never before has there been such a benevolent and happy-go-lucky clown.

Thiérré’s character is a poor excuse for a magician; his tricks fail or have unexpected consequences, he inadvertently shows the humble workings behind his shop-bought magic tricks and he can’t even juggle. His poor attempts at magic had the kids in the audience in fits of giggles. These episodes were the most surprising because, with the plethora of props it would seem that the act relied upon all the objects Thiérré pulls from his many suitcases but it is in fact his delivery and constant crowd-pleasing ‘hup, hups’ which really entertain. The highlights of the show included a musical number with a quaking duck, a skilful high wire performance from Chaplin, and a huge French horn which, after much blowing, omits only a feeble whistle.

It must take one hell of an effort to put this show on the road – there are so many extravagant props which are wheeled or brought on for a 10 second gag – no sooner has Thiérré walked on stage with a teapot marionette puppet and poured himself a cup of tea, he is off again and from the wings emerges an elaborate inversion of what we have just seen - someone dressed as a huge red teapot with a Thiérré puppet in tow. After a lot of enjoyable nonsense with rabbits, Thiérre drives across the stage in monumental motorised vehicle in the shape of a bunny. The scale of the gags is ludicrous but we get the impression that Thiérré and Chaplin are doing all they can to amuse rather than astonish.

This is a show for adults and children alike. Le Cirque Invisible is so compelling because it reignites the sense of wonderment we associate with out childhood. We aren’t convinced by the magic itself, not least because the magician is so incompetent, but we share the sense of amazement, so powerfully communicated by Thiérré, at the possibilities concealed within everyday objects and the utter joy of doing silly things with props for no more meaningful purpose than to raise a smile. And the cute rabbits are an added bonus!

Runs until 21st August

Picture Source

Little Eyolf –Jermyn Street Theatre, London ***

[written for The Public Reviews]

Little Eyolf is one of Ibsen’s lesser known plays but it is powerful nonetheless and perhaps even more so when presented in the intimate studio space of the Jermyn Street Theatre. Echoing the fairy tale tone of the earlier play Peer Gynt, Little Eyolf has the strange mythical character of the Rat Wife intrude on the Allmers family to wreak destruction. In this way, the play is more overtly presented as a parable than Ibsen’s other works, such as A Doll’s House, which may disguise similar moral lessons with a more conventional or realistic setting.

Michael Meyer’s translation does not seek to modernise the play and this is crucial as the entire set-up of the family, the very circumstances which precipitates its destruction, are specific to the period in which it was written. Rita and Alfred are affluent and can afford to please themselves; Alfred goes off to the mountains to concentrate on writing his book, The Responsibility of Man, while his wife Rita languishes at home. Both are free to neglect their crippled son, Eyolf, as parents of their class often did. Indeed, Alfred accuses Rita of passing days without seeing Eyolf (after he suddenly decides to devote his life to the boy, realising his own responsibility as a man and father), leaving him to his aunt Asta who is the only one to show any real affection for the boy despite being the only one not duty bound to do so.

These circumstances may have been the norm but Ibsen’s play exposes the corruption at the heart of this particular family by having an outside influence reveal them to the world. The Rat Wife comes to the house asking if the family need ridding of any nuisances and it becomes obvious that both Eyolf and Asta are the nuisances which Rita would like to be rid of. In a dramatic realisation of the saying ‘be careful what you wish for’, Eyolf follows the Rat Wife into the sea and drowns as the other boys look on helplessly, leaving Rita and Alfred to contemplate the overwhelming guilt they feel. As well as guilt at their neglect of their child they also feel a sexual guilt and sexuality is presented throughout as troubling and sinful: Eyolf was crippled as a result of falling off a table when he was a baby, having been left there sleeping while Alfred and Rita made love. Even the sibling relationship between Alfred and Asta isn’t as sacred as they imagine and comes very close to corruption when Asta discovers that she and Alfred are not related. Asta must leave and accept Borgheim’s romantic advances, which she has been resisting vehemently, in order to prevent Alfred committing a sin and indulging in his love for her.

The most magnetic performance is given by Imogen Stubbs as Rita and yet there is something about her uninhibited anguish and hysteria which overpowers the play and makes it less subtle than its themes deserve. Jonathan Cullen’s Alfred is always in Stubbs’ shadow; thankfully he doesn’t try to match the fever pitch of her performance but his attempts at anger and passion only appear feeble as a response to the strenuousness of Rita’s emotions. The set was fit for purpose but I was unsure whether the bright blue walls were an intentional part of the set or just the usual décor of the playing space – whatever the intention, it was distracting and didn’t seem to fit the piece.

This play is a curiosity; with the strange Rat Wife and the horror of the death of a child at its centre, it is almost macabre. It peels back the layers of the closed domestic scene to reveal something disquieting and corrosive underneath. Ultimately the resolution of the play feels unsatisfactory, especially as Stubbs’ Rita has been played as so fervently jealous and uncompromising. It perhaps stretches credibility to think that she will devote her life to bettering those of the poor children who live nearby. This performance is muscular in its interrogation of the selfishness of humanity but bleak in the way it punishes people for that selfishness without offering much in the way of redemption.

Runs until 28th May

Picture Source

Uncle Vanya –Arcola Theatre, London ****

[written for The Public Reviews]

Hopeless. Despair. Endless. Bored. These are some of the words used by the characters of Chekhov’s melancholic play, Uncle Vanya, which is a meditation on the purposelessness of life and a wasted existence. At the centre of the play is the failed murder of Professor Serebreyakov by his brother-in-law, Vanya. The professor returns home to his country estate with a young and beautiful wife, Yelena, in tow and the pair proceed to disrupt the steady work ethic and routine of the inhabitants. Vanya and the doctor fall in love with the enchanting Yelena and are ruined by it: Vanya driven mad by jealousy of the doctor and the doctor himself overlooking his duty to his patients by being at the estate every day. The professor’s daughter, Sonya, despairs at her unrequited love for the doctor when her only chance for happiness is taken away from her by the intruding Yelena. Finally, the old way of life on the estate is restored when the professor and his wife leave but they have taken all sense of hope with them and Sonya is left consoling the broken Vanya.

You are never in for light entertainment when watching a Chekhov play but this production did have some comic moments, a result of the excellent new translation by the director, Helena Kaut-Howson, and Jon Strickland who plays Vanya. The language is pared-down, untheatrical and colloquial – just as someone might speak today. Yelena’s diction is relatively heightened to show that she is an otherworldly being, ‘with mermaid blood’ as Vanya says. In contrast, the doctor, played by Simon Gregor, is by far the most humorous character, a plain speaker and an excellent drunk. Cleverly, the way the characters express themselves actually prefigures their downfall; the doctor is least hurt by his experiences despite his dalliance with Yelena, but Sonya is almost destroyed by the doctor’s rejection. The doctor is aware that the country is in decline just like his own body – the play opens with him discussing having aged with the family nurse, Nyanya. Later, he shows Yelena the maps he has drawn of the district which record the destruction of the forests. He bemoans the fact that nothing has been built in the spaces the forests once occupied and so his project is to restore them by planting trees. Sonya is inspired by the doctor and finds his voice gentle and mesmerising. She says that his project is genius and beautiful but this high praise is rendered empty when we come to understand that the doctor’s project is as futile as Vanya and Sonya’s work on the estate. Sonya has a harder fall than the doctor because she believed in redemption and beauty whereas the doctor knew all along that the world would come to inevitable destruction.

Destruction is at the heart of the play and it is in Vanya that the drive to extinguish is embodied. Yelena comes across a drunken Vanya attempting to shoot himself with his rifle; he is duly castigated by Nyanya and sent to bed. This urge to destroy shows itself again when the professor suggests selling the estate which Vanya and Sonya have worked hard to maintain while the professor has been away. Vanya’s despair tips him over into madness and he chases the professor, brandishing a gun. He misfires the last bullet so that when he comes to aim at the professor he fires a blank shot and so despairingly shouts ‘bang’, which is funny in its feebleness. All of this is excellently done with Jon Strickland’s Vanya seeming loveably hard-done-by and ferociously despairing by turns. Marianne Oldham’s Yelena is the embodiment of indolence as she slowly moves around the stage like an overfed cat. Hara Yannas deserves special mention as Sonya – she played the character with a very insightful hint of hysteria, always on the brink of tears or laughter or both which I thought summed up the mood of the entire play. The set was carefully put together but there were some extraneous elements such as the red-lit trees on the back wall. Similarly, the music, composed by Boleslaw Rawski, was beautiful but felt overly loud and out of place at times. The substance of the play was too great to be overtaken by the style but it did feel at times that the set, storm effects and music were too prominent. Overall I was impressed by this fresh version in the new Arcola Theatre, which has recently moved into new premises; this is a great quality production with which to usher in a new era of the Arcola.

Runs until 4th June

Picture Source

Funk It Up About Nothin’ –Theatre Royal Stratford East, London *****

[written for The Public Reviews]

There are numerous modern versions of Shakespeare in film and theatre which attempt to bring the plays to a younger audience; often they simplify the plot so it becomes unrecognisable and the poetry of the plays is almost always sacrificed. This hip-hop version of Much Ado About Nothing could easily have been an empty gimmick and I was bracing myself for an uncomfortable hour of dumbed-down theatre. Luckily Funk It Up is fresh and clever; it preserves the main elements of Shakespeare’s plot but it also translates the rich humour and electric wit that characterises the language of the original play. The achingly cool GQ & JQ bring Much Ado bang up to date in a production which matches the ethos of the Theatre Royal Stratford East: to draw inspiration from the community which the theatre serves and then reflect that in the plays it stages.

Much Ado is centred in the feisty Beatrice and her nemesis, Benedick, who indulge in constant sparring and verbal jousting, cleverly transmuted into a rap battle. Here verbal prowess and the ability to speak wittily are respected and shown to be a positive part of today’s youth generation. This tendency to praise hip-hop culture is leavened by gratuitous but hilarious sexual explicitness (Benedick is a ‘cunning-linguist’ who just dodges the expected rhyme, ‘a genius, with a really big…vocabulary’) and, more jarringly, an uncomfortable recourse to emphasising the desire for women to know when to be quiet and a strong, almost violent, reaction to alleged female indiscretion. Hero is vilified and publicly humiliated by Claudio when he believes her to have slept with another man, in this version, just as much as in the original Shakespeare. It is a powerful message, hidden within an overtly funny production, that attitudes to women troublingly still resemble those of 500 years ago.

What made this production really enjoyable for someone who knows Shakespeare well is that, by using the vehicle of rap, it preserved the verbal alacrity of the original and also was very self-aware when making jokes about the conventions of Shakespearian drama. The excellent GQ, playing Leonato, has to stifle a laugh as he firstly shows incomprehension at how Claudio can be both himself and the judge then secondly has to admit to the audience that he is also the Governor of Messina so, in that capacity, he can marry the happy couple and bring the play to a happy end. All of the cast were skilled rappers with great comic timing and engaging physical presence on stage. The only character with a slight weakness, although played admirably by Jillian Burfete, was Hero who was conceived of as gratingly fey and had possibly the worst line of the play: ‘I’m Hero, the heroin, not the drug but the main character of this play I’m in’. Erick Ratcliff was strong as Beatrice with an accomplished delivery which had the audience gasping at her verbal acrobatics.

The most impressive thing about the production was that it attracted an audience which was predominantly young and from a mixed background and ethnicity, so unlike the theatre audiences I have observed in the West End which are predominantly middle class, middle-aged and white. Although by no means for children, I can certainly see the appeal to a younger theatre-goer and to anyone who enjoys intelligent comedy. Ultimately Shakespeare was a fan of words, wit and sex and Funk It Up About Nothin’ has all of these things in riotous abundance.

Runs until 7th May

Picture Source

Mogadishu – The Lyric Hammersmith ****

[written for The Public Reviews]

Vivienne Franzmann’s modern morality play won the Bruntwood Prize in 2008 and has now transferred from the Royal Exchange Theatre, Manchester, to The Lyric. Mogadishu is an examination of culpability and victimization where the distinction between right and wrong becomes troublingly indistinct. The traditional morality play is updated here; the fight of good against evil, and the journey from transgression to redemption is re-cast in a new mold where there are no simple resolutions.

Amanda, a white middle class teacher, intercepts a fight between two pupils and Jason, a black pupil, retaliates by pushing her to the ground. An instinctive attempt to protect the boy condemns Amanda to a nightmarish circle of accusation and counter-accusation which threatens not only her career but also her family. Jason also moves to protect himself, not just from the consequences at school but also at home.

Tom Scutt has designed an effective set which transforms from a school yard into a family home and back again but is always encircled by a wire fence which defines the area of play, of move and counter-move. For the most part the scenes alternate between the school yard, the headmaster’s office and Amanda’s kitchen. Those scenes with the gang of kids led by Jason, who aren’t unanimously bad, are the most energetic and well-crafted of the play. Hammed Animashaun’s Jason brings enormous humour and charm to the relatively small part of the wittiest kid in the playground. Both Chloe and Dee are well realized and the dynamic between them has the authenticity one would expect from a playwright with years of teaching experience.

Fraser James was excellent as Jason’s disciplinarian father; the scenes between them had the audience wincing at James’ quietly menacing demeanor which hinted at a much larger threat behind his controlled exterior. Some scenes weren’t as effective: Shannon Tarbet as Becky perhaps overdid the teenage angst and she had a habit of playing to the audience, stepping outside of the scene with her body angled away from the other characters on stage. Rather tryingly, each meeting between Becky and her mother followed a similar pattern with Amanda tolerating her daughter’s tantrums as she railed against the passive approach her mum was taking towards Jason. Becky’s character is obviously there for a reason; a bit of a misfit, she too has ‘issues’ in what is a rather too deliberate attempt to show that middle class white kids have problems just like working class black kids.

There is perhaps too much of an attempt to tread carefully here. Amanda, being middle class and white, must have a black husband to counteract any doubt in the audience’s mind about her motivations behind protecting Jason; as if her having a white partner would somehow preclude her from understanding or having any sympathy for ‘black’ problems. There seems to be a suggestion that despite all the symmetry, the black with white, the two families who have lost someone to suicide, there is an inherent incompatibility which prevents the troubled black teen and the middle class white woman from co-existing. The resolution to the play is that there can be no resolution without complete destruction. Amanda can’t forgive even the well-meaning pupils and so gives up teaching, and Jason re-enacts the self-destruction he has witnessed in his past. This is a powerful play which has at its centre a very real and contemporary story but the themes it draws upon are timeless and I think this will ensure the play’s enduring success.

Runs until 2nd April

Picture Source

By Jeeves – The Landor Theatre, London *****

Written for The Public Reviews

Although well-loved by many, the Jeeves and Wooster novels are an acquired taste; you really have to go in for their particular brand of silliness to enjoy them fully. I thought it would take a fan of the novels to appreciate this stage version by Alan Auckbourn and Andrew Lloyd Webber, but my plus-one, who has never read a Wodehouse book and has only glanced at the televised Fry and Laurie take on the buffoonish Wooster and his inimitable gentleman’s gentleman, was entertained and completely won-over by this production.

The play follows the story of one of the Jeeves novels, or may take elements from a number of them – it is hard to tell when they are all so similar. It inevitably involves mistaken identities, twisted love triangles and layer upon layer of confusion and farcical nonsense which presents an impossible mess. The confusion can only be straightened out by the logical Jeeves who always seems to step in a few moments later than he could have; Paul Meston gives us a Jeeves who enjoys his role as arbiter and the power this gives him to make Wooster suffer, just a bit, for his rather perfunctory treatment of him.

It may stick closely to the content of the books but the play is significantly different from them in that it uses the clever device of narrating a story within the frame of an entertainment at the parish hall, which re-enacts the events of Wooster’s visit to the house of Sir Watkyn Bassett. This allows the characters to be self-aware; they refer to props, dramatic convention and the arrival of the deus ex machina which will conveniently arrive to help Wooster out of a tricky plot cul-de-sac. By being self-referential in this way, Wodehouse’s plots and characters are presented as being knowingly contrived. The novels, in comparison, are somewhat naïve in that they invite the reader into the farcical world of the story but never shift the focus out again – we appreciate Wodehouse’s story craft but the characters must be a bit simple never to see past the ludicrous disguises and the extraordinarily unbelievable turn of events. By Jeeves celebrates Wodehouse’s comic genius and the brilliance of his ridiculous plots; the dramatic form allows the characters to become shrewd but retain their silliness, so that we see that their naivety is just a performance and we can credit them, and the audience, with some intelligence.

The cast performed with verve and energy and a special mention must go to the choreographer, Andrew Wright, who had to work with the challenges of such a small space but managed to accompany the songs with great comic movement. The stage really was too small and, although conducive to the setting of the parish hall, the actors would have benefitted from having more room to maneuver: there was an unfortunate incident where a dance routine resulted in someone in the front row receiving a cracking blow to the shin – luckily it came at the moment of Stiff and Stinker’s clumsy love dance and so was totally in context. There were a few bloopers and fudged lines but these added to the cobbled together charm of this village entertainment. Rather than a straight dramatisation of the novels, this is a new approach which brings something extra to the original books and characters as well as being great fun.

Runs until 5th March

Picture Source

Water – The Tricycle Theatre, London ***

Written for The Public Reviews

Water played at the Lyric Hammersmith in autumn 2007 and here it is again at the Tricycle in association with the Lyric. The themes this play tackles are still fresh and very now: climate change is something which can’t be ignored when can no longer escape the ever increasing frequency of freak weather conditions and natural disasters afflicting the planet.

So it is a disappointment that Water doesn’t engage with the urgency and immediacy of the issues it sets out to address. The project here is to reduce these global problems down to a personal level – and using this reduced scale, Filter hopes to show us that these issues impact on all of us and that it is within our power to make a change.

A man hears that his estranged father, a professor at a Canadian university, has died and he must travel to his funeral and meet his half-brother. A woman works for the coalition government and attends a summit on climate change in Canada; she is fighting for the creation of a law to enforce the reduction of emissions, but her commitment to her work is destroying her relationship with her cave-diving boyfriend. Both characters converge in the same hotel yet pass each other without ever connecting, but during the course of the play they learn important lessons about compromise and the need to understand others.

If it seems that this play is about everything but climate change then you need to read the programme which includes interviews with the cast, and a disquisitional couple of paragraphs on the purpose of the project, without which I’m not sure the play would have held together for me. There should be no need for textual backup – the play should be complete of itself and make sense without recourse to outside information. So they play germinated from the memory a cast member has of being in a boat on a lake with his father. This then leads to the idea of togetherness, someone’s idea to create a piece about ‘water’, and the politics of climate change. These all seem very disparate, and they are, until drawn together by the notion that water molecules are unique in that they don’t repel each other like most others. Like water molecules, people need to connect, see the bigger picture, and compromise their individuality for the greater good, just as countries across the world need to set aside their particular economic and political agendas and agree to cut emissions at their own expense. So far, so very liberal.

The message is admirable but how realistic is it? I came away feeling that this was rather a naïve way of looking at such an important global issue but I was engaged by the experience, even incensed, and so Filter did succeed in that respect. It must also be said that the performance was visually arresting and innovatively performed. The set, with its large flat screens and laptops, realistically conjured slick modernity and acted as a counterpoint to the more banal uses we put technology to such checking an online inbox on Match.com. The three actors switch between characters with consummate skill and, in a short amount of time, make us care about each one of them. Filter creates a unique and ingenious theatrical experience which doesn’t seek to hide the mechanics of theatre, but their special effects did all seem to come at the beginning of the play and then taper off making their efforts feel gimmicky at times.

I couldn’t not enjoy a performance which transformed the stage into a magical aquarium with floating balloon fish, but despite Filter’s efforts to produce a meaningful meditation on climate change, the stark contrast between the political and whimsically philosophical ultimately didn’t pay off.

Runs until 5th March

Picture Source

Madam Butterfly (or Bangkok Butterfly) – The King's Head Theatre, London ****

The bright lights of a modern day, tacky Bangkok replace 19th century Nagasaki as the setting for this famous tragic opera in a new production at The King’s Head Theatre. OperaUpCLose is the resident company at the King’s Head and has the mission of bringing opera to life to a wide audience, through new English translations in an intimate setting. And this has been achieved here with a vibrant reinterpretation of a classic.

In this retelling, Geisha Cio-Cio San becomes Butterfly, a Thai ladyboy who craves the love and protection of Pinkerton, a visiting American pilot. Butterfly is surrounded by an entourage of trashy ladyboys who, along with their pimp uncle Bonzo, renounce her when she gives herself up to the American. The ingenious libretto, by Luigi Illica and Giuseppe Giacosa, is fresh and feels modern but manages to keep impressively close to the essence of the original. It’s surprising how many of the nuances of the classic narrative are retained and how well it fits with the modern story. The words resonate with tragedy by the end, as they should, but there is an entertaining lightness discernable in the first act: Goro praises Pinkerton’s new apartment, ‘It’s great for parties!’ Pinkerton: ‘That’s awesome! Really awesome! (Noticing some dodgy electrics) Those wires there?’ Goro: (Hastily) Decorative!’

The Bangkok ladyboy theme could have been gimmicky if it were not so well conceived; the story really does hold together and brings out the tragedy of the original to a modern audience. Of course, the marriage between an American and a Japanese Geisha would have been out of the ordinary 150 years ago, and his abandonment of her a much more destructive act that it would perhaps be today. By transforming Butterfly into a transvestite, the relationship with Pinkerton is invested with some of the original exoticness and her abandonment by him and her pimp really exposes her to the poverty and desperation of the Thai underworld. Butterfly’s love for Pinkerton is placed second to her desire to reach America; she isn’t a romantic who has fallen hopelessly in love with the Western man, rather she sees him as her only escape route from a life she will eventually be broken by. All she has to look forward to is the fate of her sister, a premature death from Aids.

This is how Butterfly ends up with a child, not her own, but her adopted nephew who has an inherited sickness from his mother. Although this is a clever and logical reinterpretation of the original, the use of a puppet to stand in for the child is distracting. Operated by three stage hands, I found it visually disruptive even though the cast handled it convincingly. Similarly, the presence of a dog on stage, in the handbag of a ladyboy, was an unnecessary diversion from the action on stage and, what with canine super-sensitive hearing, I was concerned that it may have been unkind to subject him to the powerful voices of the singers at such close range.

But it was the closeness that I most enjoyed with this production. It was a real treat to be so near to a great cast of talented performers. Margaret Cooper deserves special mention in the role of Butterfly; she invested each word with heartfelt emotion and her voice was a pleasure to listen to, making the proverbial hairs stand up on the back of my neck when delivering the famous Un bel di aria. The standard of singing was universally and impressively high across the cast, and despite the unavoidable problems of staging in a small space with a low budget, this is a production which brings something excitingly new to a familiar classic.

Runs until 23rd January

Picture Source