Hey readers!
On the 5th of February, I celebrated the fifth anniversary of The Basic Theatre Review. In order to celebrate this, I can confirm that the Basic Theatre Awards will be returning for the fifth consecutive year.
For those unfamiliar with the awards, they were first launched in 2016 as a celebration of the blog's first anniversary, and have continued yearly as a result of popular demand. In these awards, I nominate a selection of my favourite shows and performances of the year, and consequently ask my readers to help me choose the winners. The awards often prove to be light-hearted fun, and I look forward to seeing what this year's results will bring.
2019 has brought more great theatre in both the UK and the USA, and I hope that this is evident in the nominees. A full list of nominees will be published on my Twitter account (@TheReviewer23), so feel free to check that out as well.
If there is a performer or a show that you are rooting for, then please spread the word. There will most likely be shows on this list which you may be unfamiliar with, but not to worry! If there is a category that you wish not to vote in, then simply leave that question unanswered.
Here is a link to vote: https://forms.gle/tuwtMoTuJrtQVnhD8.
Good luck to all of those nominated!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Saturday, 8 February 2020
Sunday, 2 February 2020
Review: tube
Hey readers!
It's time for my review of tube.
Tube follows two strangers who sit next to each other in an empty carriage when their train stops in a tunnel and doesn’t move again. It explores their relationship in this less than ideal situation, as they find comfort and strain in each other. This unique piece gives you an honest look into the emotional and physical impact people can have on each other, and the lengths they will go to for the ones they love.
The concept of tube is an intriguing one, and unlike anything I have seen in quite some time. The piece is very unique, skilfully blending reality with the surreal. The story is extremely layered, with dozens upon dozens of hidden meanings and metaphors throughout. Large portions of the play are purely symbolic, and I am sure that different audience members will draw different interpretations from its narrative. The most impactful message from the play however was, arguably, the examination of compassion within today's society. Approximately half-way through the play, 'The Man' momentarily departs from the scene around him and directly addresses the audience. He criticises and condemns the way in which mankind are obsessed with smart-phones, and goes on to say that this has caused a universal decrease in human empathy. There may a lot of truth to this belief, and the way in which the matter was addressed was rather effective. The ending of tube was also rather impactful, and proved both shocking and unexpected. Whilst it does feel sudden, it works quite well and could be interpreted in a number of ways.
The two characters featured in tube, named 'Rachel' and 'The Man', were both extremely compelling. The play attempts to condense all the stages of a life-long relationship, both good and bad, into a story which spans only a few days, and uses these characters as a vehicle to do so. As a result, an interesting dynamic between these two characters was crafted out, and there was really strong character development as the play went on. Despite having one or two flaws, both characters proved likeable, and I felt myself rooting for them.
The direction, by Bobby Standley, was also strong. Despite the fact that there were frequent changes in relation to reality and the surreal, as well as the emotional state of the piece, each scene flowed well into the next. In addition to this, I also admired the decision to include music within the piece. Throughout the show, 'The Man' delivers a number of live musical performances, which I felt proved beneficial in breaking the dialogue up. Recorded music is also used in some places, which also worked well.
The two cast members, Michaela Carberry and George Damms, worked exceptionally together and bounced off another well. They had excellent chemistry, and complimented each other's talents nicely. Carberry was highly believable as Rachel, and showed versatility throughout. She masterfully demonstrated the wide range of different emotions that Rachel undergoes, and gave a well and truly outstanding performance. Damms was also remarkable, and brought a lot of energy to the stage. The highlight of his performance comes with his monologue to the audience, during which he was filled with fire and passion throughout.
Now for my final verdict on tube. I give tube...
It's time for my review of tube.Tube follows two strangers who sit next to each other in an empty carriage when their train stops in a tunnel and doesn’t move again. It explores their relationship in this less than ideal situation, as they find comfort and strain in each other. This unique piece gives you an honest look into the emotional and physical impact people can have on each other, and the lengths they will go to for the ones they love.
The concept of tube is an intriguing one, and unlike anything I have seen in quite some time. The piece is very unique, skilfully blending reality with the surreal. The story is extremely layered, with dozens upon dozens of hidden meanings and metaphors throughout. Large portions of the play are purely symbolic, and I am sure that different audience members will draw different interpretations from its narrative. The most impactful message from the play however was, arguably, the examination of compassion within today's society. Approximately half-way through the play, 'The Man' momentarily departs from the scene around him and directly addresses the audience. He criticises and condemns the way in which mankind are obsessed with smart-phones, and goes on to say that this has caused a universal decrease in human empathy. There may a lot of truth to this belief, and the way in which the matter was addressed was rather effective. The ending of tube was also rather impactful, and proved both shocking and unexpected. Whilst it does feel sudden, it works quite well and could be interpreted in a number of ways.
The two characters featured in tube, named 'Rachel' and 'The Man', were both extremely compelling. The play attempts to condense all the stages of a life-long relationship, both good and bad, into a story which spans only a few days, and uses these characters as a vehicle to do so. As a result, an interesting dynamic between these two characters was crafted out, and there was really strong character development as the play went on. Despite having one or two flaws, both characters proved likeable, and I felt myself rooting for them.
The direction, by Bobby Standley, was also strong. Despite the fact that there were frequent changes in relation to reality and the surreal, as well as the emotional state of the piece, each scene flowed well into the next. In addition to this, I also admired the decision to include music within the piece. Throughout the show, 'The Man' delivers a number of live musical performances, which I felt proved beneficial in breaking the dialogue up. Recorded music is also used in some places, which also worked well.
The two cast members, Michaela Carberry and George Damms, worked exceptionally together and bounced off another well. They had excellent chemistry, and complimented each other's talents nicely. Carberry was highly believable as Rachel, and showed versatility throughout. She masterfully demonstrated the wide range of different emotions that Rachel undergoes, and gave a well and truly outstanding performance. Damms was also remarkable, and brought a lot of energy to the stage. The highlight of his performance comes with his monologue to the audience, during which he was filled with fire and passion throughout.
Now for my final verdict on tube. I give tube...
Tube was a unique piece of theatre, and I admired its ambitiousness as well as its creativity. In addition to this, the two leading performances were both excellent.
Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower rating? If so comment below.
Thanks for reading!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Sunday, 12 January 2020
Review: The Tricycle
Hey readers!
It's time for my review of The Tricycle.
The Tricycle is the story of three teenagers who try to survive after the Spanish Civil War by renting a tricycle to give rides to children in the park - something very common in Spain before and after the war. They are homeless, living in a park, and share the space with an old man who plays the flute.
The Tricycle has a somewhat intriguing story, and yet I had rather mixed views on it. On the one hand, the show deals with the subject matter of homelessness; an issue which I personally find to be very interesting. It explores the lives of four homeless citizens, and their struggle to make ends meet. The show does successfully evoke certain emotions, primarily sympathy and compassion. Despite the fact that the main characters partake in an evil deed, it is still hard not to empathise with their own personal suffering. In this respect, the play succeeds in being effective. Where the writing is slightly weaker however is its context. Upon doing research for my review after having watched the play, I discovered that the play had been set in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. Despite this fact, there was nothing explicit in the show to suggest this fact, which may have limited its impact. The time period and location of The Tricycle remains unclear throughout, and had I not read this upon doing further research I simply would not have realised the play's context. In addition to this, I did feel leaving the theatre that the overall message of the play was somewhat uncertain. Whilst the theme was obviously homelessness, it is not quite apparent as to what moral messages we are meant to take away from The Tricycle. Further clarity on this matter may help to make the play more impactful.
In relation to the cast, Lakshmi Khabrani's excellent portrayal of Mita was the highlight of the production. Khabrani was naturally talented and had a remarkable stage presence. She was unquestionably believable as her character, and her exceptional amount of energy made her interesting to watch. In addition to that, Ryan Yengo as Climando was also very believable and delivered a solid characterisation. He too also brought great energy to the piece, and was a delight to watch.
Now for my final verdict on The Tricycle. I give The Tricycle...
It's time for my review of The Tricycle.The Tricycle is the story of three teenagers who try to survive after the Spanish Civil War by renting a tricycle to give rides to children in the park - something very common in Spain before and after the war. They are homeless, living in a park, and share the space with an old man who plays the flute.
The Tricycle has a somewhat intriguing story, and yet I had rather mixed views on it. On the one hand, the show deals with the subject matter of homelessness; an issue which I personally find to be very interesting. It explores the lives of four homeless citizens, and their struggle to make ends meet. The show does successfully evoke certain emotions, primarily sympathy and compassion. Despite the fact that the main characters partake in an evil deed, it is still hard not to empathise with their own personal suffering. In this respect, the play succeeds in being effective. Where the writing is slightly weaker however is its context. Upon doing research for my review after having watched the play, I discovered that the play had been set in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. Despite this fact, there was nothing explicit in the show to suggest this fact, which may have limited its impact. The time period and location of The Tricycle remains unclear throughout, and had I not read this upon doing further research I simply would not have realised the play's context. In addition to this, I did feel leaving the theatre that the overall message of the play was somewhat uncertain. Whilst the theme was obviously homelessness, it is not quite apparent as to what moral messages we are meant to take away from The Tricycle. Further clarity on this matter may help to make the play more impactful.
In relation to the cast, Lakshmi Khabrani's excellent portrayal of Mita was the highlight of the production. Khabrani was naturally talented and had a remarkable stage presence. She was unquestionably believable as her character, and her exceptional amount of energy made her interesting to watch. In addition to that, Ryan Yengo as Climando was also very believable and delivered a solid characterisation. He too also brought great energy to the piece, and was a delight to watch.
Now for my final verdict on The Tricycle. I give The Tricycle...
Despite exploring some interesting themes, The Tricycle would greatly benefit from further context. Regardless, there are still some fantastic performances.
Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower rating? If so comment below.
Thanks for reading!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Sunday, 15 December 2019
Review: Up the Bunty
Hey readers!
It's time for my review of Up the Bunty.
Remember the ‘Soaparetta’s’, the weekly musical soap opera that dominated British TV in the late 1970s with their saucy jokes and catchy tunes? Neither does anyone else, but that won’t stop tyrannical producer Harry Hepworth from blundering ahead with a hastily put together theatre reunion in sunny Southend funded by an anonymous backer. With a cast made up of past their prime, egocentric thespians and a one hit wonder, Harry needs a secret weapon to attract an audience – Bunty the Beaver.
Up the Bunty is a comedy, predominantly featuring a combination of both slapstick and dark comedy. The show's humour is quite particular, and may not appeal to everyone. Whilst some jokes are stronger than others, Up the Bunty does have a fair amount of rather amusing moments throughout. The show advertises itself as featuring comedy similar to that of the 'Carry On' film franchise, and as a result Up the Bunty is perfect for anyone with this certain taste in comedy. The show's story was interesting to watch unfold, and the numerous plot twists were certainly enough to keep the audience engaged. A lot happens throughout the course of the show, and there are very few dull moments. My only critique for the show's writing is that I feel Up the Bunty could have perhaps benefited from being 15-20 minutes shorter. The show currently stands at 1 hour and 30 minutes, and it is possible that trimming the running time a little bit may prove beneficial. In order to break up certain scenes, the show makes use of video projections of comedy skits and interviews are shown. I personally could not really see the need for the video projections, and did not feel that it added a great deal to the play. As a result, removing, or shortening, the video projections could potentially help to reduce the play's running time.
Overall, the cast of Up the Bunty are rather talented. Each portrayal is exceedingly hyperbolic, but this worked well when considering the exaggerated nature of the play. All of the six cast members put their all into the performances, giving maximum amounts of energy throughout. Additionally, they all seemed to really be enjoying themselves onstage, which in turn made them a true delight to watch. A special mention must be given to Lucie Neale, who portrayed Antigone 'Go-Go' Jones. Neale was extremely well-suited to the role, and was very believable. Jess Nesling, as Pamela Maitland, was also a particular highlight of Up the Bunty. Nesling was excellent, and convincingly pulled off a variety of different accents. In addition to this, both Neale and Nesling had excellent singing voices.
Now for my final verdict on Up the Bunty. I give Up the Bunty...
It's time for my review of Up the Bunty.Remember the ‘Soaparetta’s’, the weekly musical soap opera that dominated British TV in the late 1970s with their saucy jokes and catchy tunes? Neither does anyone else, but that won’t stop tyrannical producer Harry Hepworth from blundering ahead with a hastily put together theatre reunion in sunny Southend funded by an anonymous backer. With a cast made up of past their prime, egocentric thespians and a one hit wonder, Harry needs a secret weapon to attract an audience – Bunty the Beaver.
Up the Bunty is a comedy, predominantly featuring a combination of both slapstick and dark comedy. The show's humour is quite particular, and may not appeal to everyone. Whilst some jokes are stronger than others, Up the Bunty does have a fair amount of rather amusing moments throughout. The show advertises itself as featuring comedy similar to that of the 'Carry On' film franchise, and as a result Up the Bunty is perfect for anyone with this certain taste in comedy. The show's story was interesting to watch unfold, and the numerous plot twists were certainly enough to keep the audience engaged. A lot happens throughout the course of the show, and there are very few dull moments. My only critique for the show's writing is that I feel Up the Bunty could have perhaps benefited from being 15-20 minutes shorter. The show currently stands at 1 hour and 30 minutes, and it is possible that trimming the running time a little bit may prove beneficial. In order to break up certain scenes, the show makes use of video projections of comedy skits and interviews are shown. I personally could not really see the need for the video projections, and did not feel that it added a great deal to the play. As a result, removing, or shortening, the video projections could potentially help to reduce the play's running time.
Overall, the cast of Up the Bunty are rather talented. Each portrayal is exceedingly hyperbolic, but this worked well when considering the exaggerated nature of the play. All of the six cast members put their all into the performances, giving maximum amounts of energy throughout. Additionally, they all seemed to really be enjoying themselves onstage, which in turn made them a true delight to watch. A special mention must be given to Lucie Neale, who portrayed Antigone 'Go-Go' Jones. Neale was extremely well-suited to the role, and was very believable. Jess Nesling, as Pamela Maitland, was also a particular highlight of Up the Bunty. Nesling was excellent, and convincingly pulled off a variety of different accents. In addition to this, both Neale and Nesling had excellent singing voices.
Now for my final verdict on Up the Bunty. I give Up the Bunty...
Whilst Up the Bunty did have some elements which were perhaps not needed, there are still a number of hilarious moments, aided by an energetic and talented cast of skilled performers.
Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower rating? If so comment below.
Thanks for reading!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Review: Dear Evan Hansen
Hey readers!
It's time for my review of Dear Evan Hansen.
Throughout his life, teenager Evan Hansen has felt invisible: his school friends, the girl he loves, and his own family look straight through him. Having struggled to make friends, his therapist suggests Evan writes a daily letter to himself focussing on what will be good about that day, but some days he simply runs out of hope for his future. I first saw Dear Evan Hansen on Broadway in 2018 and found it to be utterly spellbinding, so I was intrigued to see as to whether the new West End production would live up to expectations.
Dear Evan Hansen's story is a fascinating exploration into mental illness, youth suicide, the impact of grief, the influence that social media has on today's society, as well as a dozen other topical themes. The show's book, written by Steven Levenson, provides a fascinating commentary on these issues, tackling such matters in an absorbing yet lifelike way. The show follows an extremely compelling story, and this is quite evident by the fact that it seems to have resonated with so many theatregoers. The characters of Dear Evan Hansen are excellently written, with each and every one being highly three-dimensional. Each character is flawed in their own way, making it far easier for audience members to connect with these personas. Dear Evan Hansen's story is also interesting to examine from an ethical point of view. As previously mentioned, all of the characters have one flaw or another, and they all make mistakes. Therefore, especially in the case of the titular character, it is intriguing to assess as to whether the character's actions are right or not. Different people will have differing viewpoints on the morals of Dear Evan Hansen, and that's what makes this show so unique. It is also important to give credit to the writers for its creativity and inventiveness. Dear Evan Hansen is an entirely original story, not based off of any other source material. In an era whereby a large portion of musicals are based off of movies, this show definitely deserves a lot of praise for its originality.
The musical score of Dear Evan Hansen is written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and it is absolutely remarkable. Each song in the show is exceedingly catchy, and they will likely remain with you weeks after watching the show; both the music and lyrics are extremely memorable. Additionally, the lyrics are beautifully written and will likely touch many audience members. This element is particularly prominent in certain songs, such as 'Waving Through a Window' and 'You Will Be Found'. Songs such as these really resonate with audience members and have important messages behind them, all the while having an extremely catchy tune. The songs also prove beneficial at advancing the plot, demonstrating the strength of Dear Evan Hansen's musical score.
At the performance that I attended, alternate Marcus Harman portrayed the role of Evan Hansen and he was excellent. Harman is a brilliant actor, and really nails Evan's characterisation down to a tee. He faultlessly executes all of Evan's traits, including the character's awkward fidgeting and quivering voice. In addition to his acting, Harman also has a superb singing voice. This was evident during the climax of 'Words Fail', which he performed with perfection. Dear Evan Hansen marks Harman's professional stage debut, and it is clear that he has a bright future ahead. A special mention must be given to Lucy Anderson as Zoe Murphy, who was also incredible. Anderson's voice is utterly beyond belief, and her renditions of 'Requiem' and 'Only Us' were outstanding. She also acted the role well, and had brilliant chemistry with Marcus Harman. Similar to Harman, this show marks Anderson's West End debut. Lauren Ward, as Cynthia Murphy, was equally as phenomenal. Ward puts so much emotion into her portrayal, and it certainly pays off. She displays so much raw emotion from beginning to end, making her highly believable as a grieving Mother. Ward's performance is undoubtedly one of the show's highlights, and her interpretation of the character is the best I have seen at this point in time.
Now for my final verdict on Dear Evan Hansen. I give Dear Evan Hansen...
It's time for my review of Dear Evan Hansen.Throughout his life, teenager Evan Hansen has felt invisible: his school friends, the girl he loves, and his own family look straight through him. Having struggled to make friends, his therapist suggests Evan writes a daily letter to himself focussing on what will be good about that day, but some days he simply runs out of hope for his future. I first saw Dear Evan Hansen on Broadway in 2018 and found it to be utterly spellbinding, so I was intrigued to see as to whether the new West End production would live up to expectations.
Dear Evan Hansen's story is a fascinating exploration into mental illness, youth suicide, the impact of grief, the influence that social media has on today's society, as well as a dozen other topical themes. The show's book, written by Steven Levenson, provides a fascinating commentary on these issues, tackling such matters in an absorbing yet lifelike way. The show follows an extremely compelling story, and this is quite evident by the fact that it seems to have resonated with so many theatregoers. The characters of Dear Evan Hansen are excellently written, with each and every one being highly three-dimensional. Each character is flawed in their own way, making it far easier for audience members to connect with these personas. Dear Evan Hansen's story is also interesting to examine from an ethical point of view. As previously mentioned, all of the characters have one flaw or another, and they all make mistakes. Therefore, especially in the case of the titular character, it is intriguing to assess as to whether the character's actions are right or not. Different people will have differing viewpoints on the morals of Dear Evan Hansen, and that's what makes this show so unique. It is also important to give credit to the writers for its creativity and inventiveness. Dear Evan Hansen is an entirely original story, not based off of any other source material. In an era whereby a large portion of musicals are based off of movies, this show definitely deserves a lot of praise for its originality.
The musical score of Dear Evan Hansen is written by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and it is absolutely remarkable. Each song in the show is exceedingly catchy, and they will likely remain with you weeks after watching the show; both the music and lyrics are extremely memorable. Additionally, the lyrics are beautifully written and will likely touch many audience members. This element is particularly prominent in certain songs, such as 'Waving Through a Window' and 'You Will Be Found'. Songs such as these really resonate with audience members and have important messages behind them, all the while having an extremely catchy tune. The songs also prove beneficial at advancing the plot, demonstrating the strength of Dear Evan Hansen's musical score.
At the performance that I attended, alternate Marcus Harman portrayed the role of Evan Hansen and he was excellent. Harman is a brilliant actor, and really nails Evan's characterisation down to a tee. He faultlessly executes all of Evan's traits, including the character's awkward fidgeting and quivering voice. In addition to his acting, Harman also has a superb singing voice. This was evident during the climax of 'Words Fail', which he performed with perfection. Dear Evan Hansen marks Harman's professional stage debut, and it is clear that he has a bright future ahead. A special mention must be given to Lucy Anderson as Zoe Murphy, who was also incredible. Anderson's voice is utterly beyond belief, and her renditions of 'Requiem' and 'Only Us' were outstanding. She also acted the role well, and had brilliant chemistry with Marcus Harman. Similar to Harman, this show marks Anderson's West End debut. Lauren Ward, as Cynthia Murphy, was equally as phenomenal. Ward puts so much emotion into her portrayal, and it certainly pays off. She displays so much raw emotion from beginning to end, making her highly believable as a grieving Mother. Ward's performance is undoubtedly one of the show's highlights, and her interpretation of the character is the best I have seen at this point in time.
Now for my final verdict on Dear Evan Hansen. I give Dear Evan Hansen...
Dear Evan Hansen is an astonishing show unlike no other. It has a fascinating story with an absolutely enthralling musical score, as well as an outstanding cast of talented performers.
Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower rating? If so comment below.
Thanks for reading!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Sunday, 17 November 2019
Review: God 2.0
Hey readers!
It's time for my review of God 2.0.
What would you ask God? What if you didn’t like the answer? In this religious satire by Kent based Blueberry Goose Theatre Group, God gives a monthly interview answering ANY question. For Ash Pentel, a troubled heavy-weight political journalist and this month’s interviewer, the right answer could be a life saver.
The story of God 2.0 is designed to make the audience question the perceived nature of God, as well as organised religion as a whole. The show seeks to tackle a wide range of philosophical issues, primarily focusing on criticisms aimed at the traits of the Christian God. For example, if God is omni-benevolent and omniscient, then why does he not use his powers to intervene and prevent human suffering? There was some interesting commentary throughout, especially in regards to the consequences of allowing human beings to have complete and utter free will. God's answers to such questions were well-scripted and interesting to listen to. I particularly enjoyed listening to the first answer, which explored the way in which one small use of negative free will can lead to endless suffering, thus presenting the argument that free will may not be so good after all. Beyond the main story, there is also an underlying subplot throughout that God's interviewer is suffering from suicidal tendencies. The true intention of this subplot felt a little unclear however and only minimal explanation was provided. As a consequence, I would have liked to have seen this expanded upon in more detail.
God 2.0 consists of five cast members, however there were two performances in particular which stood out. Firstly, I rather admired Inez Thorn's portrayal of the first God. Thorn had a very interesting characterisation that was strikingly different to her fellow God's. She portrayed the role as being rather relaxed throughout, which made for an intriguing contrast. The strongest performance however came from Malcolm Jeffries, who portrayed God #3. Jeffries interpreted God as being quite an emotional being, which was both effective and fascinating to witness. He was well and truly captivating, and he stole the spotlight whenever he entered the stage. Jeffries really did deliver a remarkable performance.
Now for my final verdict on God 2.0. I give God 2.0...
What would you ask God? What if you didn’t like the answer? In this religious satire by Kent based Blueberry Goose Theatre Group, God gives a monthly interview answering ANY question. For Ash Pentel, a troubled heavy-weight political journalist and this month’s interviewer, the right answer could be a life saver.
The story of God 2.0 is designed to make the audience question the perceived nature of God, as well as organised religion as a whole. The show seeks to tackle a wide range of philosophical issues, primarily focusing on criticisms aimed at the traits of the Christian God. For example, if God is omni-benevolent and omniscient, then why does he not use his powers to intervene and prevent human suffering? There was some interesting commentary throughout, especially in regards to the consequences of allowing human beings to have complete and utter free will. God's answers to such questions were well-scripted and interesting to listen to. I particularly enjoyed listening to the first answer, which explored the way in which one small use of negative free will can lead to endless suffering, thus presenting the argument that free will may not be so good after all. Beyond the main story, there is also an underlying subplot throughout that God's interviewer is suffering from suicidal tendencies. The true intention of this subplot felt a little unclear however and only minimal explanation was provided. As a consequence, I would have liked to have seen this expanded upon in more detail.
God 2.0 consists of five cast members, however there were two performances in particular which stood out. Firstly, I rather admired Inez Thorn's portrayal of the first God. Thorn had a very interesting characterisation that was strikingly different to her fellow God's. She portrayed the role as being rather relaxed throughout, which made for an intriguing contrast. The strongest performance however came from Malcolm Jeffries, who portrayed God #3. Jeffries interpreted God as being quite an emotional being, which was both effective and fascinating to witness. He was well and truly captivating, and he stole the spotlight whenever he entered the stage. Jeffries really did deliver a remarkable performance.
Now for my final verdict on God 2.0. I give God 2.0...
Whilst the subplots could have been developed further, God 2.0 does give a fair amount of interesting commentary, as well as some excellent performances.
Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower rating? If so comment below.
Thanks for reading!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Sunday, 10 November 2019
Review: Different From The Others
Hey readers!
It's time for my review of Different From The Others.
It's 1919, World War I has ended, men are holding hands in public, Moscow and St Petersburg are gay and free from discrimination and Germany, feeling the full brunt of blame is yet to establish itself. It was then that Magnus Hirschfeld, a German Sexologist and founding father of gay activism seized the opportunity to create the first pro-gay film ever to be made.
The aspect of Different From The Others that makes it so compelling is that it is based on a true story. Whilst playwright Claudio Macor has taken certain artistic licenses in order to further the narrative, the vast majority of what we see on stage is actually quite factual. As a keen historian, I found this fascinating. Despite having extensively studied this period of history, I had not previously been aware of these particular events. As a consequence, I was delighted to have my eyes opened to this significant tidbit of history. Different From The Others tells an utterly intriguing story, and it leaves you wanting to find out more. Upon leaving the theatre, I conducted further research into the events depicted in the play, as well as the characters featured. It is a thoroughly interesting piece of work, and it was an utter delight to watch.
Different From The Others consists of a small cast of six, including Christopher Sherwood, Beth Eyre, Benjamin Garrison, Jeremy Booth, Simon Stallard and Jordan Alexander. All six cast members were phenomenal; there was not a weak link among them. Each and every one of them brought something unique to the stage, and they all worked well as a collective, creating an excellent stage dynamic. A special mention must be given to Simon Stallard, who portrayed the role of Karl Giese. Stallard was highly believable in the role, and successfully conveyed the heartbreaking innocence and naivety of his character. He particularly excelled in the penultimate scene, whereby he made it quite evident the extent to which Karl was torn between his former love for Dr Magnus Hirschfield and his new allegiance to Nazism. Beth Eyre's spell-binding portrayal was also an overall highlight of the show. She had such a natural stage presence, and conjured the perfection characterisation for Anita Berber. Eyre convincingly portrayed Berber's troubled and complex personality, causing the character's eventual demise to be well and truly heart-rending.
Now for my final verdict on Different From The Others. I give Different From The Others...
It's time for my review of Different From The Others.It's 1919, World War I has ended, men are holding hands in public, Moscow and St Petersburg are gay and free from discrimination and Germany, feeling the full brunt of blame is yet to establish itself. It was then that Magnus Hirschfeld, a German Sexologist and founding father of gay activism seized the opportunity to create the first pro-gay film ever to be made.
The aspect of Different From The Others that makes it so compelling is that it is based on a true story. Whilst playwright Claudio Macor has taken certain artistic licenses in order to further the narrative, the vast majority of what we see on stage is actually quite factual. As a keen historian, I found this fascinating. Despite having extensively studied this period of history, I had not previously been aware of these particular events. As a consequence, I was delighted to have my eyes opened to this significant tidbit of history. Different From The Others tells an utterly intriguing story, and it leaves you wanting to find out more. Upon leaving the theatre, I conducted further research into the events depicted in the play, as well as the characters featured. It is a thoroughly interesting piece of work, and it was an utter delight to watch.
Different From The Others consists of a small cast of six, including Christopher Sherwood, Beth Eyre, Benjamin Garrison, Jeremy Booth, Simon Stallard and Jordan Alexander. All six cast members were phenomenal; there was not a weak link among them. Each and every one of them brought something unique to the stage, and they all worked well as a collective, creating an excellent stage dynamic. A special mention must be given to Simon Stallard, who portrayed the role of Karl Giese. Stallard was highly believable in the role, and successfully conveyed the heartbreaking innocence and naivety of his character. He particularly excelled in the penultimate scene, whereby he made it quite evident the extent to which Karl was torn between his former love for Dr Magnus Hirschfield and his new allegiance to Nazism. Beth Eyre's spell-binding portrayal was also an overall highlight of the show. She had such a natural stage presence, and conjured the perfection characterisation for Anita Berber. Eyre convincingly portrayed Berber's troubled and complex personality, causing the character's eventual demise to be well and truly heart-rending.
Now for my final verdict on Different From The Others. I give Different From The Others...
Different From The Others is an intriguing piece of work, detailing a unique part of history. In addition to this, there also are a number of masterful performances.
Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower rating? If so comment below.
Thanks for reading!
-The Basic Theatre Reviewer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)