#play review

[emergefromthenoise]

Bread and Roses. Pride, The Musical (review)

One would think that miners and homosexuals couldn’t be further apart. Nothing in common. And yet.

1984. Summer. Miners’ strikes are tearing through country and country is indeed torn. Mark Ashton, a young gay rights activist decides to form a support group to help in their peril. Struggling community for struggling community. Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners fate soon bounds them forever with a pit village in South Wales. Two threatened groups join forces in a fight for their lives and soon it turns out that they have more in common than one could ever dream of as they march for bread and roses[1]

Bonkers, bigger than life feverish dream… that turns into reality in the most spectacular way.

An amazing story, that isn’t just a glorified fiction or improbable odyssey, but an epic, true journey of two rejected, slandered and persecuted groups that found each other and by putting their differences aside, seeing beyond the first [wrong] impressions they forged a bond and made history. A truly PROUD chapter in both Welsh and Lesbian and Gay history.

The director Matthew Warchus and the writer Stephen Beresford of the original film unite to bring this extraordinary musical to life filled with songs inspired by punk rock, pop, disco and Welsh choral tradition. And the cast is delivering a performance with fervour, brilliance and flamboyant joy (Samuel Barnett’s Jonathan is the epitome, especially of the latter and boy, how he dazzles). They bring the audience to tears just to make everyone laugh seconds later. The songs they perform touch hearts, bring so much reflection one can barely breath. Songs sang so mightily that bring the chills (the rendition of ‘Bread and Roses’). There spirit of Kushner's 'Angels in America' hovers over this musical approvingly. The anguished soul of [Russel T. Davies'] 'It's a Sin' reveals itself in certain moments. But make no mistake: 'Pride' stands tall and proud on its own feet. Rich, daring, sparkling and strong with excellent performance of the company.

It’s an unforgettable event, fabulous, poignant, warming hearts and watering the eyes of the audience. Bittersweet, beautiful, filled with heartache, disappointment and new-found hope. An inspiring true story about what happens when one looks past the surface and prejudice and discovers a whole new and wonderful world and sense of belonging.

Pride is presented by P&P Productions with the National Theatre in association with Pathé, Calamity Films and David Binder Productions

Book and lyrics by Stephen Beresford Music by Christopher Nightingale, Josh Cohen and DJ Walde Developed and directed by Matthew Warchus Based on the Pathé film

Cast: Samuel Barnett, Lewis Cornay, Matthew Durkan, Robin Hayward, Chris Jenkins, Darren Lawrence, Jhon Lumsden, Kirsty Malpass, Sarah Pugh, Jordan Shaw, Courtney Stapleton, Caroline Sheen, Mared Williams, Matthew Woodyatt, Madeleine Morgan, Catherine Morris, Graham Vick

Previews 31 Mar - 18 Apr 2026 in Sherman Theatre, Cardiff

[1] ‘Bread and Roses’, a political slogan, poem and a song associated with women suffrage movement, symbolises a need for both economic survival (bread) and dignified quality of life (roses). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Roseshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Roses

Photo: National Theatre - https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/show/45755-pride

[meerawrites]

Dangerous Liaisons, a study on the trouble with decorum, power and control 

View On WordPress.

[fearsmagazine]

POINT LOMA - Theater Review

SYNOPSIS: Drawing from actual occurrences experienced by the playwright, POINT LOMA centers on Chad, a hospice nurse who accepts a night shift position in a storied Point Loma residence near San Diego's military owned Liberty Station. Following a series of unsettling paranormal experiences, a paranormal podcast team arrives to investigate. They discover that the home has a gruesome and shocking history, rooted in the history of San Diego. Their investigation reveals a crucial revelation: the tales of these lingering spirits require their stories be told for the living to find closure and for the spirits themselves to attain peace.

REVIEW: Tim Mulligan’s supernatural dramedy, POINT LOMA, marks his return to the Chain Theater, under the direction of Ken Wolf, Artistic Director and co-founder of Manhattan Repertory Theatre. This follows last year's “Witchland”, also staged there by Mulligan and Wolf. Featuring returning actors Dave Silberger and Chelsea Clark, POINT LOMA is a lively and contemporary supernatural farce that encourages the audience to scream along.

(L-R) Actors Parker Jenkins as Chad & Jessica Luhmann as Anna, photo courtesy of Chris Bentley.

Mulligan skillfully incorporates his personal supernatural experiences into a narrative that showcases his deep understanding and enthusiasm for supernatural drama and comedy acumen. The story features a diverse array of characters, each grappling with their own reasons for enduring the persistent spectral entities seeking connection. In contrast to his earlier work, POINT LOMA adopts a lighter, character-driven approach, avoiding cliché and the inclusion of social subtext. Indeed, its themes and humor remain PG-13, broadening its appeal. The characters are generally amiable, and a sense of controlled chaos, akin to a Marx Brothers film, permeates the production. A surprising twist awaits, and true to genre conventions, the tale extends beyond the apparent conclusion. The dialogue is consistently playful and witty, perfectly suited to the plot's unfolding circumstances and a lyrical banter happens when the characters are engaged.

The production bursts with energetic and infectious staging and directing. Hank, playing a comatose patient, serves as a catalyst for a character until they are joined by another cast member. Classic theatrical magic animates much of the narrative as draws open and close, pictures fall off the wall, and cryptic messages appear on kitchen items. Skillfully choreographed sound design enhances the theatrical sleight of hand and performances. Transitions are filled with small scenes offstage or roaming ghost figures unnerving the audience with strange sounds and fleeting appearances before the lights come up again.

(L-R) Actors Jevon Nicholson as Rick & Michelle Park as Kim, photo courtesy of Chris Bentley.

The production and costume designs were excellent. For an off-Broadway show, the set was notably impressive. Its minimalist yet well-conceived design effectively immersed the audience in the story. Costuming was utilized subtly but effectively, with few changes, minor accessory additions or subtractions, and slight adjustments in certain scenes to enhance both the performances and narrative. A spirit trumpet, a thin metal cone meant to amplify voices of the dead, plays a key role. While it was the correct shape, the prop appeared to be constructed from something other than metal.

Ken Wolf's masterful direction shines in POINT LOMA, showcasing a magical interplay between the cast and stage effects. The ensemble scenes, rich with movement, sound effects, and engaging actions, embody the classic poetry of a staged comedy. The actors swiftly establish their characters, captivating the audience and holding their focus throughout the energetic 90-minute performance. The cast is excellent, delivering a compelling, relentless and memorable evening.

(L-R) Actors Jevon Nicholson as Rick, Michelle Park as Kim (on table), Ian Brady as Todd, Parker Jenkins as Chad & Matthew Hernandez as Carl (back to camera), photo courtesy of Chris Bentley.

Tim Mulligan’s POINT LOMA, directed by Ken Wolf, is a delightfully sensational supernatural farce. Evoking a blend of “Will & Grace” and “Ghost Hunters” where the ghosts finally show up, it guarantees an entertaining experience. However, I found myself slightly wishing the narrative had incorporated some social issues, with the same light touch as “Witchland.” Furthermore, unlike Mulligan’s previous “Witchland,” online searches yielded no connection to any darker undertones of the story. While information about the US military’s Liberty Station is readily available, I couldn't uncover any hidden secrets or documented supernatural occurrences.

I highly recommend exploring witchlandplay.com to learn about Richland, a small Eastern Washington town with dark secrets. You can also order a graphic novel there, inspired by the stage play of the same title and its sequel, "Snitchland." "Snitchland" is also based on a Mulligan play, and I'm eager for its staging here in New York, hopefully soon.

POINT LOMA begins previews at Chain Theatre, located at 312 West 36th Street, 3rd Fl. Between 8th and 9th Avenues, on Saturday. May 31st with shows at 3PM and 7PM and Sunday June 1st at 3PM. Opening night is Wednesday June 4th at 7PM. The regular performance schedule is Wednesday June 4th thru Friday June 6th at 7PM, Saturday June 7th at 3PM and 7PM and Sunday June 8th at 3PM, then Wednesday June 11th thru Friday June 13th at 7PM, Saturday June 14 at 3PM and 7PM and Sunday June 15th at 3PM. All tickets are $40. For tickets go to https://witchland.thundertix.com/events/238172.

Official Site: https://witchlandplay.com/point-loma/

Review By: Joseph B Mauceri

[linkloki]

Henry V 2022 (with Kit Harington as Henry) - a review

A lot of the performances were really great - Diany Samba-Bandza & Melissa Johns were a real highlight for me, and Harington played his part very well.

Despite that, I really feel like they missed the point of this play in this production.

There is a balance with Henry V that is hard to maintain, between him being likable and a war criminal, and I felt like this production was too scared to let him be likable.

The scenes they have tacked on from Henry IV are a good example. When reading the plays (if you read them in order), the only reason to like Henry V at the start of HV is that we know Hal. The party in the 2022 HV scene does not make him more likable, and I don't think it was meant to.

I don't think that it did what it was meant to do that well, either

Honestly, I get "show don't tell", but we are told that the king used to party a lot so much in the early scenes of HV. I think there could have been more trust in the audience to get it without seeing it. I also get that Falstaff's death would make no sense without context. But surely there is a way to give that context without having a meaningless version of "I know thee not old man", with a Falstaff that we don't know, don't like, and has no clear relationship to Henry.

So, we have no reason to like Henry when we meet him (aside from Harington's sad face), no reason to like him at any point. He is great to watch, but he is very lacking in redeeming qualities. He is the villain of this production, a sad one, but the villain. I see how this interpretation can come from the text, but it isn't the most interesting one in my opinion.

Still, this production is not telling the original story, this Henry was never truly Hal. I think this sort of thing can be done very well - see Donmar's Henry IV. I'm going to try and judge it on the story it is trying to tell.

It is a violent story, definitely. A lot of the excessively violent scenes were less effective than their "cleaner" counterparts in other productions imo.

I loved the reactions to Henry declaring that hostages would be executed. This is something that I feel is needed in the play. showing their exactions tho? It was unnecessary. The reaction of the English to this (both nobles beforehand and captains afterwards) was enough to get the horror that seeing the exaction scene didn't give us. I felt it was too literal, in a way that, as a play, it can't really be.

Bardolph was more well done. It does share the faults of the other exaction scene (and being both told and shown something does get annoying at some point), but it gives us something new. When I watched it, I thought "why is Henry watching?" which brings out the question "would it be better if he didn't?" which matches the themes of the play and this production well.

The leek scene definitely didn't need to be this violent. The glove scene isn't as violent, but it's also played too seriously. which brings another point- this production isn't funny. This is fine, not everything needs to be funny. I personally dislike it when productions take the humor out of Shakespeare. But there are only so many funny scenes you can turn serious before you reach edgelord levels.

On a higher level, I think things can be both funny and horrific, and taking the humor out is the cowardly choice.

The only scene that I thought was truly fantastic was the wooing Kathrine scene. It really did walk the line between the charming guy and the violent king, which the rest of the play didn't really do. I love this scene in its original form, but I love that this production didn't ignore the power imbalance. I could believe there might be a potential for love there, until the kiss. It's very well done.

The bottom line is this: What questions does the play ask of us? What's the answer we could give according to what we've seen?

In my reading of Henry V, there are two central questions: the overarching question of the Henriad, "Is there such a thing as a good king?" and a more specific question to the play, "Is there such a thing as a good war?"

The answer I got from the play is no to both. Specifically because Henry is, in some ways, a good man- or he could have been, if he were not a king. The play tells us that he is a good king, and that this is a good and just war, and yet we can see in it that it isn't. There is no such thing as a good king, not because a good man isn't wearing the crown, but because the concept of monarchy is flawed. War isn't bad because it is done badly, but because it's bad even when done "well".

I feel this production asks the same questions and tries to give the same answers. The argument is not as strong when a bad man is the king and the war is done badly. So really, the answer it gives us is "maybe, but not this one."

[marvelmaniac715]

I saw a screening of Prima Facie tonight, and I cannot do what I saw justice, but I’m going to try because it was so incredible. Jodie Comer was amazing, I truly believe she’s the best actress of my lifetime, she portrayed everything so genuinely - I was focused solely on her for two hours, she had me eating out of the palm of her hand and at many times my heart genuinely went out to Tessa. The story never dragged, at first it was more light-hearted, and I laughed at every joke because Jodie Comer’s comic timing was excellent, but then the tone changed drastically. My grin fell, my eyes went wide, and I remember thinking “this woman is spectacular.” And I mean it too, Jodie Comer was up on that stage on her own for two hours with minimal breaks, and she memorised all of that dialogue and acted it all out perfectly with such genuine emotions, switching between different characters, moving furniture, getting changed into different costumes whilst still speaking, and (this is a minor thing but it impressed me so much) the two times that she took her hair down, when she put it up again, she managed a slicked back ponytail every time, WHILST DELIVERING LINES. Near the end, there was a sold five minutes where I am convinced I didn’t even blink and scarcely breathed - my rapt attention was fixed on the incredible actress on that screen, who made me believe every word she said. If you get the chance to see Prima Facie, please do, it’s one of the best plays I’ve ever seen, and I’m now actually going to watch Killing Eve, a show I’ve never seen before but I will now binge every episode because Jodie Comer is my new acting inspiration.

[lost1ndaydream]

Henry IV Part I

So I went in knowing little more than that this was one of the Famous Histories, and actually really enjoyed it! I was surprised by how early Hal’s “I’m going to reform; this is all a facade” speech was — but then, I guess Shakespeare wouldn’t have got away with presenting England’s “most famous and successful monarch ever” as a degenerate, otherwise, so that makes sense! I really enjoyed the obvious distinctions between verse and prose, too — I know it’s weird, but it’s so cool to see a technique you’ve read about “in the wild,” as it were!

The scenes towards the end between the rebels also caught my attention, if only because Hotspur and Glendower were so hostile to each other. Again, how much of that is historical accuracy, and how much of that is “rebels are doomed to fail and could never have got on?” I did feel for poor Mortimer, trying to mediate…

All in all, though, this play was so incredibly evocative. Who hasn’t wanted to run round medieval England with the Prince of Wales, staying in castles and joking with Falstaff? The characterisation is incredibly strong, as is (amazingly!) the sense of place — I think possibly because, as I’ve mentioned above, Hal bridges the two worlds and so you’ve got the distinctions between poetry and prose, and between “thou” and “you,” that accentuate the contrast and immerse the audience in the scene.

I read the last three ACTS and the first scene of Part 2 in one sitting… I’ll be coming back to this one!

[mugglenet]

"Spontaneous Potter" – A Hilarious and Utterly Riddikulus Potter Improv Show

New Post has been published on https://bit.ly/3OAdz6i

"Spontaneous Potter" – A Hilarious and Utterly Riddikulus Potter Improv Show

To learn more about how MuggleNet benefits from this post, view our transparency statement

  What does a show that features four chairs and a black and red keyboard mean to audiences? For those who attended the Harlow Playhouse on June 17, we saw the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher bringing his ten family members to Hogwarts, Hagrid watching the unknown Creevey brother being swallowed by the Giant Squid, and Ron believing that Hermione had taken a pregnancy test via the Owl Post. These are just some of the bizarre yet hysterical scenarios that the talented Spontaneous Potter players performed.

    Formed in Edinburgh in early 2015, the improv group began their comedy career through their highly successful Spontaneous Sherlock show before branching into the world of Harry Potter with their Spontaneous Potter act, currently on tour in the UK.

Not sure what to expect, I was eager to see what the act was about, and it is fair to say it did not disappoint. During their introduction, the four Spontaneous Potter performers bounded onto the stage and explained what was in store for us — and them — for the evening’s performance. This show is completely improvised, and there was a sense of excitement among them as to where the evening would go.

One of the performers was completely oblivious to Harry Potter, even though he was dressed in robes with a vague sense of the wizarding world. This fact earned him a pantomime boo from the audience. However, his lack of knowledge of all things Potter only added to the show’s insane randomness, making the stories of that night even more hysterical and preposterous than they already were.

The players begin their performance by encouraging the audience to shout out words or phrases for “Harry Potter and the…” titles, in what would be a series of short scenes before their main performance.

The first suggestion was Harry Potter and Your Mum, a scenario involving Snape looking at pictures of Lily Potter on Facebook before painting a talking portrait of her with Harry watching. Harry Potter and the Raspberries ended with Hagrid killing off Hufflepuff House with his experimental raspberry wine, while Dumbledore gave flammable drinks to Fawkes. And the final title for this section was Harry Potter and the Moulin Rouge, which saw a hilarious moment of Dobby dancing provocatively in front of the audience — a situation that I never thought I would see.

    These unplanned events were just an appetite for what was to come for their original Harry Potter fan fiction, a title that was again suggested and voted for by the audience. The players had various suggestions thrown at them, including Harry Potter and the Smelly Feet; however, the firm winner was Harry Potter and the House Parties, which saw Draco planning to trap Harry by throwing a House party in the Slytherin common room. This would inspire the Gryffindors to throw an even bigger and better one. This resulted in Ron getting drunk on probiotic yogurt, McGonagall being in love with Firenze the centaur, and a Death Eater called Clive starting his internship with the Dark Lord.

It goes without saying how effortlessly flawless the Spontaneous Potter show is. The players perform multiple scenes, characters, and dialogue all at once, all while accompanied by improvised music by their talented pianist, as they go from one extreme to the other in a matter of seconds. How they managed to do this is just as spellbinding as anything from the wizarding world.

However, while this is a wonderful show that I cannot fault, it must be stressed that this is for mature adult audiences only. With tons of swearing, dark humor, and a bucket load of drugs and sex references, this is not intended for younger Potter fans and would be best suited for anyone over the age of fourteen or possibly even older.

A rightly deserved five-star-reviewed show, Spontaneous Potter must be seen to be believed and is an absolute treat for Potter and comedy fans alike. Even those who know nothing about the Boy Who Lived will still be howling and crying with laughter in their seats.

Spontaneous Potter is currently on tour in the UK until October 30.

  Want more posts like this one? MuggleNet is 99% volunteer-run, and we need your help. With your monthly pledge of $1, you can interact with creators, suggest ideas for future posts, and enter exclusive swag giveaways!

Support us on Patreon

[frostbitten-written]

Betrayal on Broadway - Tony Nominations

On October 15, 2020, the nominations for the Tony Awards were announced; Betrayal on Broadway received 4 Tony nominations. 

I had the honour and privilege of seeing Betrayal on the second to last night of its run on Broadway. I was not familiar with any of the performers previous to the show. I went in with an open mind and left enlightened beyond belief. Here’s what I think of the nominations. I am only speaking for Betrayal, as I have not seen any of the other plays nominated. Also, keep in mind, I only saw this play once. I’m sure some intricacies and complexities went over my head in the first viewing, in comparison to someone who has seen it multiple times.

Best Revival of a Play:

“Sexy, cool and confident revival.” - New York Magazine

“A riveting revival. An expression of love and raw desire with heart-racing excitement.” - Chicago Tribune

Betrayal was truly a phenomenal play with a heart-wrenching plotline. It was real, raw and intimate. The play dissects the true meaning of betrayal from every facet and through each of three perspectives. It also displays an ironic sense of humour, complete with a melancholic edge. It’s borderline cynical, yet very true to the nature of betrayal. It recounts the story of an ordinary couple, adulterous partners and disloyal relationships, extraordinarily. What is so unique about this play is how its storyline unfolds, specifically, in reverse chronological order. The audience is initially informed about the outcome and is slowly exposed to the three characters. They (the audience) feel the betrayal, in real-time with the characters, as each scene progresses. The saying “retrace your steps” comes to mind. By the end, you have made it to the inception of the betrayal. The focal point of the play is to trace back your steps and experience every detail critically. You can reverse everything you have done and follow the path of your past, but in the end, the past is just that, the past. It has already taken its course and you are left with the outcome, despite everything, at the end of the day. Betrayal explores that very concept, focusing on the titular theme amongst three close characters.

Based on what I have seen, Betrayal is most definitely worthy of a Tony award for "Best Revival of a Play."

Best Direction of a Play:

“Jamie Lloyd’s masterful revival.” - Deadline

Another take away from Betrayal was how the stage direction aided the play itself. It was truly, genius. As time passes, the audience experiences everything quite literally and emotionally. For a majority of the play, each actor is on stage, whether they are active in the scene or not. This greatly reinforces the main theme of betrayal; it immediately spells the disloyalty of one party to another. When "betrayaing" someone, there is always a third party being wrong. This person tends to take to the guilty back burner of the mind. In this play, they lurk in the shadows, visibly. Deception is visually reinforced through perfect stage direction. Pinter's lines are a gem on its own but combined with the masterful stage direction it becomes a visual masterpiece. Each stage direction was carefully tailored to the individual scene and worked to emphasise the pivotal moment in each scene.

Based on what I have seen, this play is most definitely worthy of a Tony award for "Best Direction of a Play."

Best Scenic Design in a Play:

In contrast to the usual dramatics of theatre settings, Betrayal took a minimalistic approach to set design. The setting was bleak and relied heavily on the use of the imagination to fill in most of the details. It was a very simple and stripped-down play. It appeals to the raw sense of emotion and humanity present. There were very minimal props used. Even actress Zawe Ashton performed barefoot. It was truly a bare play. In terms of thematics and the general illustration, this was a great choice. For scenic design on the whole, however, I think other plays could easily snag this award. Betrayal was about simplicity and emphasised humanity. The decision to keep props to a minimum was the right choice. It forced its audience to concentrate on the scene playing out before them, quite literally, and feel. There was no need for the dramatics in the background. The scenic design in this play was mental. It comes from the perception received by the audience, not necessarily physically. The most unique aspect, I think about the scenic design of the play is that what they lack in props, they make up for in impactful performance.

Although for this play, the design was on point, based on what I have seen, this play is not worthy of a Tony award for "Best Scenic Design in a Play."

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Play:

“Tom Hiddleston truly dazzles.” - The Hollywood Reporter

Tom Hiddleston. That’s it. That’s my review. Just kidding:

I went to see this show with no expectations in particular. I was unfamiliar with each actor and hadn't heard of the play until my friend bought tickets. I was as indifferent to the actors and the play as one could get. I remember when I first saw Mr Tom Hiddleston on stage, I merely saw a tall, lean actor, with luscious hair. By the end of the show, I was introduced to a ridiculously talented gentleman of culture! He played his character with the utmost passion and dedication. I found myself hooked on, not only the way he carried himself but how he delivered his lines, poignantly yet with conviction. His performance had me on the edge of my seat throughout the entire show. The stark difference between Robert's sardonic essence and Hiddleston's humility alone served as a refreshing juxtaposition between talent and nature. His performance was marvellous!

Based on what I have seen, Tom Hiddleston is most definitely worthy of a Tony award for "Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role in a Play."

In conclusion, and I couldn't have said it any better myself:

“One of those rare shows I seem destined to think about forever.” - The New York Times