What did you think of the show?
This is the page where we would like you to tell us about your theatre experiences. Please do say if you enjoyed a show, or even if you didn’t – your feedback is important to us. It’s simple, we only have this one page for you to add your comments, so whichever show you have visited please tell us your thoughts below.
PLEASE GIVE THE TITLE OF THE SHOW AT THE START OF YOUR COMMENT. All comments will remain for a while before having to be deleted to make room for more. A limited number of comments appear per page – to read older comments click on Older Comments, then back to Previous Comments.
Go to the Leave A Reply box at foot of page, even if you are starting a new subject….write your comments, then click on the blue envelope symbol (you can ignore Website and Login), add your Name and then click on Reply. Your comment will only appear after you refresh the page.
The first time you post any comment you might be asked to Register with your email address and a password, but after that you will only have to use your name and email address to add later comments. The latest comment will appear first, at the top of the page, then move down as later ones are added. Give it a try, it’s easy once you begin.
theatreguys 
Words for your feedback:
Jules just asked me to post these words
I haven’t been to the theatre for quite some time, and today was a powerful reminder of what it means to be fully immersed in a story, to be taken on a journey by actors so skilled at their craft that you forget where you are. The play was intense, at times uncomfortable, but deeply satisfying. It reminded me that discomfort can be a vital part of what it means to be human and that the arts hold a rare space for us to feel, question, and be moved in that way.
LikeLike
The Unbelievers
As Richard too poorly to attend I went with my daughter -in-law who lives on IoW and therefore doesn’t get many opportunities to see live London theatre . So I am posting comments she made when we had our post show train journey back to Chalkwell.-
“ Great seats ,such a treat however it’s not often you pay to be upset ! However I thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of seeing such fine acting, a brilliant set and a very engaging theme. Definitely lots to think about and was glad of little uplifting moments of humour within the play . “ comments by Jules.
My comments probably echo those of Jules’ –
Nicola Walker , as ever , very convincing character acting . After a slightly erratic , not sure what this is all about , opening we dive straight into the core of the theme of play and all its tumultuous emotions and inter family love hate relationships. Can’t believe how quickly time went watching this play to the foetal , under the table grief of the mother to the last supper very emotional scene. Wow!
Thanks Fredo and Mike
LikeLike
Thank you Fredo for your synopsis of the story it was necessary.
The ballet was spectacular, clever choreography especially the magical realism scenes and Elena’s ghost appearances. Wonderful dancing.
The clever sometimes discordant music seemed to reflect the thread of unrequited love throughout the discordant energy of the household to its almost conclusion at the end with an exhilarating pas de deux where Tita and Pedro seemed to melt together almost as one. Such chemistry.
LikeLike
Monica
Like Water For Chocolate.
Just loved it all, couldn’t fault it as it was so different from usual ballets? I would love to see it again! Will certainly read the book. Might choose it for my Book Group?
Thank you Fredo and Mike (missed you Mike) for taking us back to the ROH, always a treat.
LikeLike
Like Water for Chocolate
It’s always a pleasure to visit the Royal Opera House. A thoroughly enjoyable evening climaxing in the third act with the pas de deux which was electrifying and made good use of the set design.
Thank you Fredo for another entertaining evening.
LikeLike
Like Water for Chocolate
We were so excited to go back to the Opera House after all this time, we were not disappointed, says I tongue in cheek. The ballet was a tad strange to say the least, glad we knew the story beforehand otherwise we would’ve been totally lost. Having said that it did reveal itself by the end as it had drawn us the audience into the story! The dancers were an absolute joy to watch and the music really created the atmosphere needed to help the story along. So yes we’re actually pleased we saw it would we rush back probably not. Thanks Fredo and Mike for your continued help in showing us what’s out there in Theatreland
LikeLike
Like chocolate,like water,
Lovely to get back to the ROH….thanks Fredo n Mike..
The ballet ….the sets and special effects were great ,the dance a touch strange here and there and sometimes brilliant,especially in the third set…I’m glad I knew the basics of the story or I’d have struggled…found the music a touch strange,almost uncoordinated with the dance.Think it was brave to make a ballet based on that story…still have mixed thoughts..?
Thanks Fredo n Mike..
LikeLike
Born with Teeth
Inspite of rather poor critics comments I enjoyed the play. Could have done without the over loud sound introduction. Very interesting to see supposed relationships between Marlowe and Shakespeare. Knew nothing of Marlowe`s life so useful to look up more on that. Both actors excellent and Marlowe`s athletics outstanding!
Wendy Norris
LikeLike
Born with Teeth
I remember Richard McCabe’s cynical, world weary Marlowe worshipping Dog in Peter Whelan’s School of Night: what a contrast with the self-satisfied, larger than life version of Ncuti Gatwa! I liked his character development , from his sneering assessment of Shakespeare’s talent to grudging admiration and growing attachment. I found the relationship between the two believable and touching and much admired Edward Bluemel’s sensitive portrayal. I could have done without the overloud videoclips but enjoyed the production’s energy and found it irresistibly sexy!
LikeLike
Born with Teeth
It was a very stimulating afternoon at Wyndham’s yesterday with Marlowe and Shakespeare.
The play’s author had hit on a clever conceit to bring the two men together and although the play was a little repetitive in its themes, I was gripped by the production and believed the actors.
In particular Mr Bluemel caught my attention with his subtle, almost unobtrusive, take on Shakespeare’s rise to fame. I hope to see him again. Mr Gatwa is a showier performer of course and dare I say shallower as a result, but it was a brilliant idea of Daniel Evans’ to pair them together.
Nick
LikeLike
Born with Teeth
I agree, of course, with much of what Garth has said about Born with Teeth. Two charismatic stars, perfectly cast, fluid direction and staging and enough physical gymnastics (including one leap off the table that surely required an additional insurance premium) to keep audience members on the edge of their seats.
BUT, at times, I was irritated by the play itself. The author assumed a knowledge of “Tom” (Kyd?) and “Hollinshed” on the part of the audience while reminding us regularly that Shakespeare was destined for greatness while Marlowe’s star would wane which surely anyone buying a ticket would know? The somewhat heavy handed references to Deptford (where Marlowe met his grisly end) in the third act compounded my irritation.
The play is of course part of the current fashion for 90 minute, no interval productions but could this work have taken inspiration from its subjects and included more exposition and even an interval when small beer could have been sold in the bar?
LikeLike
Born with Teeth
I confess that, accidentally on purpose, I read some media reviews of the play before seeing it, noting that several whimpered that it didn’t have a rationale or didn’t dig deep enough.
Such complaints surely betray a misunderstanding of the nature of the piece. What did Oscar say? – “It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.” The play is a wonderful fictional romp, wonderfully realised by director and by the two performers alike, full of humour and whimsicality, bromanticism, athleticism, verbal and physical fisticuffs, Bardish/Marlovian quotations, and quick-fire timing. It is – I assume – not intended to be a sort of George Bernard Shaw-style bit of penetrating intellectual archaeology or an edition of Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time. It broadly lives with the rather sketchy knowledge we already have about the two playwrights and didn’t reveal anything (much) that we didn’t know or suspect. But put such scraps together imaginatively, and you’ve got an exhilarating hour and a half. It’s a perfect fit for Wyndham’s and for a West End audience. It’s hard to imagine it being better done.
Garth
LikeLike
Mr Sloane
Cook`s coaches did us proud for the first trip sans Fredo. But did miss your comments and humour on the journeys, also missed by the coach driver. The play was produced with an amazing set( must have been fun setting it up!) giving an idea of sleaze and poverty. The play must have been quite arresting when orton put it on in the 60`s. Today I felt it was rather like a prequel to Eastenders! The story is very much of modern life, Orton was ahead of his time. Tamsin Outhwaite portrayed her part well and brought the humour out in the script. I enjoyed it. Thank you Fredo for your on line preplay comments, much appreciated.
LikeLike
The first act was a slow starter but the second act made up for that . The extraordinary set when entering the house was explained by Kemp that the builder ran out of money so theirs was the only house standing amongst the fly tipping. All became clear that both Ed and Kath had sexual designs on Mr Sloane .They both achieved this by tying Mr Sloane to them both by lying to the authorities about how Kemp, who knew of Mr Sloane’s previous form ,had fallen down the stairs and not murdered by the young lodger. Excellent acting by the four cast members .Very pleasing to see Tamzin Outhwaite in such a role, also Jordan Stephen’s who has many strings to his bow besides acting
Enjoyable afternoon at the theatre and Cooks Coaches fulfilled their easy booking travel to and from the theatre.
Good to see you Fredo and Mike
LikeLike
Mr Sloane
I do agree with Garth that I felt the period should have been more strongly presented; we had Kemp toasting his crumpet with a toasting fork (I did that too!) and an old gramophone, conventional furniture, so why not the kind of decor featured in many films and plays involving landladies and boarders – Room at the Top, the Birthday Party, Deep Blue Sea, Separate Tables, and films of Terence Davies? I saw no advantage of it being in the round, nor the tangle of chairs suspended above the set. I think it needed flowery wallpaper and busy carpets.
I also found the first part over long and noticed that there was little in the way of laughter from the audience. It was establishing the characters but could have been done more briefly. Things certainly picked up after the interval and the performances were great. My favourite actor (like Garth’s – I do not INTEND to echo him) was Daniel Cerqueir, whose spivvy dialogue and demeanour, was priceless. His threatening behaviour towards Mr Sloane, followed by quick forgiveness, was funny. Tamzin Outhwaite amusingly conveyed the thin veneer of polite respectability, while desperate to hang onto Mr. Sloane, no matter what. Poor Kemp was truly left out of the action (apart from being killed). Jordan Stephens played Mr Sloane as a cheerful amoral man, always aware of where the main chance lay. His initial garb of nice suit and sleeveless pully (for Kath) and his leathers elsewhere was a nice touch. Of course, the lie of Kemp falling down the stairs would have been quickly exposed, even in those earlier days of forensic science. BUT all in all it was a very enjoyable afternoon, and I liked the symbolism of the 3 characters being bound up together, with nobody getting exactly what they really want.
LikeLike
Entertaining Mr Sloane
Giving the bourgeoisie a jolt was Joe Orton’s mission as a dramatist. Startling as this play must have been in 1964, we theatregoers are (I guess) today less shockable. Was this production an attempt to find new ways of undermining our complacency?
Well, I wasn’t shocked, but I was (ahem) entertained, especially so in the second half (there did seem to be an awful lot of words but they were pretty well all pleasingly subversive). I much enjoyed the actors’ work in finding layers of innuendo, irony and improbability. Orton’s highly polished, formalised, bemusing speech forms were perhaps best captured by Daniel Cerqueira as the beady Ed, his unrevealed source of funds rather better concealed than his lustful feelings. All the players put so much into their roles. That said, I wanted Jordan Stephens as Sloane to be more disconcertingly enigmatic, though it was clear enough that his extramural activities were indeed a world away from Kath’s spare room.
Did being performed in the round add very much, beyond a bit of space for body-popping? I’m open to persuasion that a more claustrophobic setting would have been inappropriate. Orton’s method was to place extraordinary events in ordinary surroundings, upturning the “real” and introducing weird, disorienting and lurid happenings that catch us unawares. I wanted rather more of that sensation from this production.
Garth
LikeLike
Entertaining Mr Sloane Wednesday 9 October – Young Vic
Excellent production of this Joe Orton play. It was well acted, and an interesting concept in the round. We did find the early part of the play a little slow but perhaps this is just the start introducing us to the characters. However it soon picked up the pace and carried on till the end, I was particularly interested to see this production because I directed it for the Southend Shakespeare Company in 2012.
LikeLike
Titus Andronicus
I was grateful to read Fredo’s comments, courtesy of Wikipedia on this play. The writer compared it to the equivalent of a Hammer Horror movie, and the eminent Garth has brought Bruce Lee into the mix. I therefore wondered whether there would be nervous laughter as often happens (I have told) in those movies. But not a bit of it. The mechanical means of torture clanking away prior to the acts send the appropriate chills through the spine, and the dreadful assault on Lavinia was a tough watch. John Hodgkinson is a tall and commanding presence, and quite different from SR Beale, and I felt that a large gear change must have happened after his departure. Beale would have produced a more nuanced performance, but I was impressed by the clarity of Hogkinson’s diction. I liked the thrust stage, which brought the action really close to the audience. I accepted immediately the gender swap of Marcus to Marcia and felt that Emma Fielding produced a layer of sympathy largely missing elsewhere. But I cannot answer Mike’s question as to WHY, other than we are in 2025! The production produced a lot of energy through sound, lighting and movement and I found it gripping. But , Lavinia apart, not moving. And perhaps the devil has the bet part, as Ken Nwosu as Aaron was enjoyably evil right to the end, with his celebration of his own evil nature, even as he went to his death.
LikeLike
Titus Andronicus
The drama affects us in sundry and unpredictable ways. An elderly lady sitting next to me at the matinee on Thursday 25th muttered as she picked up her walking stick after the curtain fell: “My weapon of mass destruction.….” During the interval she had turned to me and said: “I’ve been trying to remember in which play two of the characters get cooked in a pie.” I was able to tell her the name of the play……. And then I asked her what she was intending to have for supper. She said in a dry firm tone: “Omelette.”
I couldn’t find quite such a succinct reaction for myself. My first thought was that the production acknowledged that the play may not be as cathartic as some of the Bard’s other tragedies. It’s not easy to empathise with any of the characters beyond the unfortunate Lavinia. Titus himself is little better than those around him. One’s tempted to think that the sheer barbarity of the action is beyond belief – until one reflects on what the world witnessed in the 20th century and what we are witnessing today.
Rather cleverly, this production presents the play as a vicious power struggle with fantasy knobs on – wild demonic dances, long-distance lethal zapping and callisthenic movements that would not disgrace a Bruce Lee movie. I felt that it worked pretty well, despite teetering on the brink of comedy at moments. Distancing the horrific events from “reality” may be a way of protecting the tender audience, but what goes on gets painfully close to the contemporary world. We’re familiar with raw political rivalries and ambitions (the opening scene, for example – who can we think of today who declares that he hates his opponents?) and with the undisguised racism in the text in its demonisation of the (admittedly villainous) Aaron the Moor (and those naughty Goths too).
The uncluttered thrust stage worked well as a setting, even though mopping up so much spilt blood looked to be hard work. The sinister chainsaw and those menacing hooks and chains descending from the flies did their stuff. And the players too were energetic and fully into their roles. John Hodgkinson as Titus towered above most of the rest of the cast in clarity of speech, even though he did not offer much by way of depth in characterisation. Emma Fielding as Titus’s sibling (see Mike’s remarks) was effective in her consolation of poor mutilated Lavinia (Letty Thomas). Wendy Kweh was suitably vicious as Tamora, a good match for Saturninus (Max Bennett). As Aaron, who does so much to drive the play along, Ken Nwosu exuded force and guile – nothing became him more than his descent into that dreaded hole in the centre of the stage.
A final thought. A lorra, lorra people got killed and otherwise damaged in the play……among the wounded, alas, was the iambic pentameter. As a crusty old wrinkly, I can remember a time when the RSC prided itself on its command in the speaking of blank verse. Today, perhaps, not so much.
Garth
LikeLike
Titus Andronicus
My appreciation of the production grew as the bloody body count increased, so by the finale I had ‘enjoyed’ this gore-fest. I will let others explain their appreciation but for me there were irritations. I thought some of the lesser male casting was too lightweight giving an impression of secondments from an earnest sixth-form athletics team. And then there was Marcus Andronicus, Titus’s brother. Except he wasn’t. A major member of the Andronicus family had had their gender changed! He was now Marcia played by the diminutive Emma Fielding. (Wouldn’t Marcia Andronicus be a great name for one of RuPaul’s Drag Race contestants?!) I know all female roles were played by males back in the Bard’s day, but this reversal for 2025 is ludicrous. Ms Fielding was swallowed by a long grey trench-coat and looked worried her carefully styled hair might be disturbed by the violence and gore. Her role needed presence and she is an accomplished actor, but here she looked like an interloper in a boy’s game. Maybe she was cast to match the original Titus (Simon Russel Beale) but next to the 6foot+ John Hodgkinson she was dwarfed in stature and character. Can someone please explain the necessity of the gender change, preferably referencing Shakespeare and perhaps logic?
LikeLike