Archive for Drama

Fringe 2025 Interview: Mia Pelosi and Supermarket 86

July 15, 2025 at 7:53 am · Filed under Drama, Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2025, Interviews, LGBT+interest ·Tagged , , , , , ,

Ahead of the Edinburgh Fringe, Pat Harrington interviews Mia Pelosi about Supermarket 86.

About the Show and Its Inspiration

  1. For those unfamiliar, what is Supermarket 86 about, and what can audiences expect from the show?
A promotional image for the play 'Supermarket 86,' featuring a young woman sitting at a checkout counter in a supermarket, surrounded by shelves stocked with various products.

In short, Supermarket 86 is about a cashier and four girls who get stuck in a supermarket overnight due to a blizzard. Before the lights go out, the cashier’s ex-girlfriend walks in. Over the course of one evening, they all start to realize they know each other in both simple and unexpected ways. 

Audiences can expect sarcasm, wit, and dark humor, as well as pure moments of vulnerability that sneak up on both the characters and the audience. They will watch five lonely, complicated women confront their own choices, whether they want to or not. 

  1. The premise is so unique — five women trapped overnight in a grocery store during a blizzard. What inspired you to write a story set in a supermarket lockdown? Was there a particular idea or experience that sparked this scenario?

I got the idea in the summer of 2022 when I was studying theater abroad in Amsterdam. One of our assignments was to tell the story of Little Red Riding Hood, but completely recontextualize it. My group chose to tell a story of girls at a sleepaway camp talking about the abuse from boys (The big bad wolf…). Although the assignment was only a 10 minute piece, I really loved the intimacy of girls talking about subjects that they have experienced, while also feeling so distant from it. I always knew I wanted to write a show that took place in one setting. I landed at a supermarket because no one ever plans to stay in a grocery store longer than they absolutely have to; you get in, you get out. So how funny would it be if what should have been a trip to buy a six pack of beer turned into a 12 hour stay on a cold grocery store floor?

  1. Why did you choose to set the play in 2007, in upstate New York? Does that specific time period or location hold special significance for the story’s themes or mood?

Superficially, both my director and I didn’t want the girls to have iPhones. If we set it in the present, there’s a logical assumption that the girls would distance themselves through just using their phones. By playing it in 2007, it forces them to be with each other, strangers and all. More deeply, one of our show’s main themes is queerness. Five girls discussing the intricacies of their own queerness and how it affects their familial relationships is always a heavy subject. But we felt like placing it in a time like 2007 would cause the stigma to linger in the air a bit more. 

Lastly, I chose upstate New York because it is notorious for their brutal snowstorms. I have visited Ithaca a few times, and that wind chill feels like a literal slap to the face. 

  1. The title Supermarket 86 is intriguing — does “86” carry a special meaning in the context of the play? Without giving too much away, is it related to the setting, a bit of foreshadowing, or perhaps a nod to the slang “to eighty-six” something?

In full transparency, when I first wrote it, “86” simply came to my mind. It rolled off the tongue for me. However, when I began carving out the relationships between these girls (or lack thereof), I quickly noticed the connection to the phrase “eighty-six” something. So while I can’t say it was rooted in that, it developed into a nod to that phrase. Rose, the cashier, wants to “eighty-six” her ex-girlfriend right out of the store, and throughout the show, as more is revealed, the other girls also want to nix some truths about themselves. A happy coincidence for a writer! 

  1. The plot kicks off when the cashier’s ex-girlfriend unexpectedly walks in, and eventually the characters realize they’re all connected. What do these twists — the ex’s surprise arrival and the hidden connections between the women — add to the story in terms of drama or humor? How do those relationships drive the overnight adventure?

In the eyes of these girls, “all hell breaks loose”. Of course, dramatic, but when you’re in your early twenties and a 5 minute grocery run turns into an overnight stay with angry exes, peers from high school, and an aggressively positive newbie, it can easily turn chaotic. It shapes the show’s humor, which is sort of the “it’s so unbelievable that it’s funny” mentality. The sheer absurdity of the situation creates drama and humor. There are no corners to cut around; these girls are stuck, face to face, for an unknown amount of hours. It’s going to be awkward regardless – may as well make the most of it. But through “making the most of it”, each relationship is tested. Rose and Summer confront their dishonesty, Rose and Peyton finally have it out, and Dove and June start to realize other connections through their own unhealthy behaviors. Not because they particularly want to, but because when you seek connection, consciously or not, you have to be willing to confront your own truth. 

A promotional image for the Edinburgh Fringe 2025 featuring a statue and castle with the text 'FRINGE 2025 INTERVIEWS' and 'COUNTER CULTURE' overlay.

Characters and Themes

  1. The show is described as a “character-driven dramedy” with five “complicated, lonely young women” at its core. What are some of the central themes you explore through these characters? The press release mentions “five different stories of queerness, conflict, and the never ending dread of the future.” Why were those themes important for you to address, and how do they unfold among the five women?

Queerness and the uncertainties of the future were my main priorities when sitting down to write. I began writing this show at the beginning of my journey with my sexuality; as writers, we are often told to “write what we know” … so I did just that. I placed my own anxieties and experiences of queerness into each girl, while vowing to also expand beyond what I experienced. I happen to have a loving family who accepts me for who I am; I am well aware not everyone gets to be that lucky. I wanted to show that queerness can be, and always is, a spectrum. Each character has a different relationship to their queerness, if at all. And without saying too much, it gets nasty between some of them when discussing it. 

The never ending dread of the future is always a very common feeling among young people. When you first leave high school, college, or you’re simply navigating a loss of structure, it can feel like the ceiling is right above your head. It feels like there’s so much to figure out, and no time to do it. And for some of these girls, that sentiment leads to a sense of paralyzation; too scared to move for fear of the unknown. So when these girls are forced to admit that fear, it often feels like a personal attack, leading to more nasty arguments. As the show goes on, the girls realize how these arguments are just disguising the relatability they feel towards each other. 

  1. Can you introduce us to the five characters? Without spoiling too much, what is each of these women like, or what is each of them seeking when they end up in the supermarket that night? How do their personalities and backstories shape their interactions as the night goes on?

Rose is the cashier. She has worked at this store for about 5 years. After graduating high school, she attempted community college, but never found her groove (or motivation, to be frank). And now she feels stuck. Comfortable in her manager position, but paralyzed by her own complicity. She is blunt, often aggressive, and holds a lot of anger at the world, whether justified or not. And on this particular night, with a storm raging on, she wants nothing more than a silent store. But within five minutes, the store fills with four other women, concluding with a surprise appearance from the ex who broke her heart.

This heartbreaker is Peyton. Outwardly a preppy and uptight young woman, Peyton instinctually keeps her feelings and thoughts more guarded than the other girls in the store. In contrast to Rose, she was able to attend college even further upstate and follow her passions. This reality only adds to the immediate anger she receives from Rose upon entering the store. While Rose continues to throw both visual and verbal daggers at her, Peyton must choose whether to keep her armor up the entire night or eventually let it down and have a real conversation.

June is the humor heartbeat of the show. She just moved to Ithaca (transferring to Cornell, as she likes to remind the girls over and over again), superficially excited for something new. She simply could not have a more positive, bubbly attitude if she tried. What comes to be revealed is that she really struggles with friendships; she can’t get anything, or anyone, to stick. Therefore, when the lockdown happens, she’s secretly (or not so secretly) thrilled. She gets a chance to meet new girls. 

Summer is the literal heartbeat of the show. Her ease in social settings allows the other girls to feel more comfortable. She leads the game, asking the girls personal questions about themselves; she loves to stir the pot. Like Rose, she feels stuck in Ithaca. She moved here almost a year ago with just her mom, whose presence in her life is almost none, so Summer has struck up a deep friendship with Rose. She frequents the store almost daily, finding her joy of the day with Rose. On this particular night, she is a bit high by her own admission, and comes in wanting some candy.

Dove sort of sneaks up on the audience. She is shy, reserved and quite calm. It takes the other girls to bring out her personality. She’s the first girl to walk into the store. At an immediate glance, she looks stressed out; yet she dismisses any assistance from Rose. As the night goes on, the audience starts to understand her a bit more – her extreme behaviors and constant emotional whiplash. I will keep her a bit more secret, as she has a secret of her own that is revealed later on in the show. 

  1. Even though the characters are dealing with serious personal conflicts, Supermarket 86 infuses a lot of humor into the situation. How do you balance the dark or vulnerable moments with comedy in the play? Did you consciously set out to make the audience both laugh and feel deeply, and can you share an example of how a scene walks that line between humorous and heartfelt?

Our goal was to create a show that balances humor and vulnerability because the two fundamentally exist together. Being vulnerable is incredibly scary, therefore we often compensate with humor to make ourselves feel less like our hearts are beating outside our bodies. The comedy flows in and out of conversation with ease because, whether the girls realize it or not, they have created a safe space for each other. When each girl feels comfortable revealing something, they do. It’s like a piece of ice slowly melting over time. 

In one particular scene, Summer reveals a new development in her life. Rose, being her best friend, is surprised that Summer kept it from her. After a few comedic nudges from the other girls, Summer begins to explain this new development, and the sadness that comes with it. Because Summer leads with sarcasm she struggles to keep it too emotional because it becomes too uncomfortable. The humor lies in Dove and June, two girls who have never met Summer before. They make Summer (and the audience) laugh through their innocence and naivety towards Summer’s predicament. It’s a free flowing conversation between girls who have never met, and they find themselves laughing and then actively listening when someone decides to share something real. 

  1. “Fundamentally, the show is about the desire to connect and how, sometimes, you are forced to find connection in places that initially seem mundane and stagnant.” What message or insight about human connection did you want to convey by placing these characters in such an everyday setting? Did the mundane location help the themes stand out in contrast?

The main message about human connection we are trying to convey is that oftentimes, connection sneaks up on you. We wanted a mundane setting precisely because of the themes the girls discuss throughout the night. A cold and bland grocery store is the last place strangers would want to talk about their vulnerabilities. But when you are stuck there, unable to leave despite all efforts, you have two choices – you sit awkwardly in a separate aisle, or you allow the night, and these strangers, to take you away. And if even one person has the courage to open up, about college, queerness, or lost hope, a domino effect slowly begins. 

  1. I love the cheeky tagline in your press release that says audiences will leave “hoping you’ll run into your ex.” What is it about the journey these characters go through that might actually make people feel good about the idea of running into an ex? Without giving away the ending, how does the play challenge our perspective on those awkward run-ins with people from our past?

It plays with the concept of “closure” – What exactly is it? Is it necessary? What does it look like? Rose deeply struggles with these questions, as she believes the way her and Peyton’s relationship ended incredibly abruptly, with no proper conclusion. In the year and a half since they broke up, Rose has played through a million scenarios in her head of what she’d tell Peyton the next time she saw her. Yet those planned-out conversations never seem to go the way we hope, and in this case, they never take place in a supermarket, in the middle of a blizzard, with three other women. So both Rose and Peyton have to decide if they’ll let go of their obstinacy and their pride during the night, or if they’ll stay resolved to gripe at each other until the morning comes.

Creative Process and Development

  1. You first staged Supermarket 86 as part of your senior thesis at NYU’s Tisch School, and then gave it a professional debut at the New York Theater Festival. How has the play evolved since that initial college version? Were there any significant changes or developments in the script or characters as it moved from an academic setting to a professional production and now to an international stage?

There have been so many changes to the show, that I often joke to my director about the first version being “total garbage”. Of course I say it in light humor, but it is rooted in being able to look back and see the growth of the show. The very first version could only be 35 minutes, so I had a lot to pack into such a short amount of time. Things moved far too quickly to feel any sort of rootedness. When we began revising it, I knew I needed to strengthen the personal relationships between these women, both in backstory and what is conveyed onstage. 

  1. What did you take away from the New York Theater Festival run of Supermarket 86? Did the audience reactions or feedback in New York surprise you in any way, or lead you to refine certain aspects of the show before bringing it to Edinburgh?

The New York Theatre Festival run was the catalyst for where we are now with the show. Not only did we see the edits we needed to make (which we also saw while rehearsing but couldn’t make such drastic changes right then), but we saw that the show had potential. We took note of the humor that worked, the relationships the audience rooted for, and how it made people feel. Ellie and I are strong collaborators because of our honesty and directness – it makes for more consistency and efficiency. 

Our main edit was the relationship between Rose, the cashier, and Peyton, her ex-girlfriend. Their relationship, and the fallout, is the through line of the entire show. It has to be teased throughout the show, and then they have it out in a big, emotional fight. Allowing that to build in an engaging way, with the proper amount of reveal, was our key. We spent weeks outlining how they talk, when and why. We took what we know about navigating relationships in our early twenties and combined it with what we already know about these characters. 

  1. You wear many hats in this production — you’re the playwright, a co-producer, and you also perform in the show. How do you juggle those roles? Does acting in a play you wrote feel different from performing in someone else’s work? And do you find that being the writer gives you an extra sense of responsibility (or perhaps more freedom) on stage?

Wearing many hats forces you step up beyond being an actor in the show. Although it’s a lot of work, it’s the type of work I enjoy. I directed the very first version of this show and to be blunt – I hated it. Many because I was also wearing many hats then as well, but I just found it to be stressful. Since my brain had been so deep in the world of Supermarket, I struggled to see the bigger picture that a director needs to see. Therefore, when we did the version at the NY Theatre Festival, the stage manager of that show, Ellie Aslanian, a dear friend of mine, approached me after and said, “If you ever do it again, I’d love the chance to direct it.” I basically hired her on sight. She has such a brilliant and versatile mind, and I love the way she sees the world. 

Once I relinquished the role of director, I felt like I could really begin to play. Ellie and the cast are very gracious and when we discuss notes after a run, they often consult me to see if I had any thoughts or objections to the directions they wanted to go in. I feel seen and heard without being demanding about the words I wrote. Truthfully, each version of this show has felt so different to me, so I actually look forward to watching these actors interpret my words differently. Of course we have a structure of the show and how it flows, but it’s been magical watching these girls that have lived in my head for so long come to life by these brilliant actors. 

  1. As a young playwright and actor, who are some of your creative influences or role models? Were there particular writers, plays, or even films that inspired the style or themes of Supermarket 86? And do you have artistic heroes whose career paths you admire as you launch your own company and projects?

The very first, and perhaps still the biggest, inspiration for this show is The Wolves by Sarah DeLappe. The Wolves is a one setting play about a girl’s soccer team. One of the driving forces of the play is the rhythm in which the girls speak; there’s almost a beat to it, much like there is when close friends find their groove and can’t stop talking. I wanted to capture that sense of rhythm throughout the play as a way to show how sometimes, you begin connecting with people without even realizing it. 

A recent inspiration that has come into my life is Cole Escola, the creator, writer and star of the Broadway play Oh, Mary. Their play has taken New York by storm in the most original way. The show started in a theatre downtown, with no star names attached to it, and began selling out instantly. It moved to Broadway and has been extended 5 times and won 2 Tony Awards. I highlight the accolades not as a comparison tracker, but rather an acknowledgment of original work being celebrated. It took Cole almost a decade to write and produce their play, but by continuously working on it and meeting new people, they were able to share it with the larger audience. It’s the “slow and steady wins the race” mentality – and very often, it pays off. 

Bringing Supermarket 86 to the Edinburgh Fringe

  1. After its New York runs, why did you decide to bring Supermarket 86 to the Edinburgh Festival Fringe? You’ve mentioned that performing at the world’s largest arts festival is an incredible opportunity to share your story and open doors for your show. What do you hope to achieve with this Fringe run — for the show and for yourself as an artist?

One of the main reasons we wanted to bring our show to the Fringe is because we believe our show has really strong legs. We believe in its power to move people and for people to find themselves in these girls. In order for that message to be received, both positively and critically, we need more and more people to see it. Producing theatre is difficult – and in New York, we found that we had maybe hit a bit of a break. We kept working on the show weekly, and had urges to expand it farther than our corner of New York. As an artist, going to the Fringe and pulling it off is an achievement by itself. Having the stamina, courage and confidence to show up every day, not knowing how many, if any, tickets you have sold, but still being bold in your belief in your project is how you develop as an artist. Knowing your show won’t resonate with everyone, but still trying because you know it will connect with someone. As for the show, we want as many eyes on it as possible because we want as much feedback as possible. I want any and all criticisms of the show; doesn’t mean our team will take every single one, but we can grocery shop the feedback and see what aligns with our visions. 

  1. This isn’t your first time at the Fringe — last year you performed in Love’s Concordia Bar. How does it feel to return to Edinburgh, but now with a show that you’ve written and produced yourself? Did your experience last year influence how you’re preparing for this year’s Fringe as a creator and producer?

The reason I have made the crazy choice to return to Edinburgh for a consecutive second year is because it was simply the greatest experience of my life. The Fringe is a love letter to art. I was beyond impressed with the versatility of shows. Any type of art you wanted – stand up, cabarets, musicals, plays, movement, circus – you would find there. As I attended last year, I thought of Supermarket 86. I felt it could have a home there. Specifically, when I saw the show Girlhood at Greenside. It was about women through different time periods – early 20s, marriage and motherhood. I found many parallels between that show and mine, and that’s when I began to feel tinges of Supermarket fitting at the Fringe. It’s terrifying in all the right ways. 

I attended last year as a performer for Company Della Luna’s production of Love’s Concordia Bar. While the cast flyered everyday and voluntarily attended Fringe events, I was there as a performer. Now, I wear the hats of writer and producer as well. Observing how last year’s company produced – how much prep, where they put their marketing focus, etc – heavily influenced me for this upcoming year. I have greatly leaned on my peers from that company for guidance and support. It is overwhelming to find ways to compete against almost 4,000 other shows. To have other producers with experience be able to tell me what worked for them, and what didn’t, is invaluable as a first time fringe producer. 

  1. The Fringe can be an intense month — performing daily, standing out among hundreds of shows, unpredictable audiences. What are you most excited about as you head into this month-long run? And what do you anticipate will be the biggest challenge in performing Supermarket 86 at the Fringe, whether logistical or personal?

My director and I joke that the biggest challenge that makes us grow grey hairs is finding a consistent way to get people in the seats. And I know that’s a very common thought as shows go up against thousands of others. So as crazy as it is to advertise your show all month, I’m most excited to find out the best strategies our company can use to find success in ticket sales. 

Through that, you build connections, which is also what I’m most looking forward to. I met countless lifelong friends at last year’s Fringe. Around the world, I’ve created lasting connections with other artists. That is the beauty of the Fringe. It’s not the expectation that your show will be picked up instantly and all your dreams come true; rather, you meet the right people and create as much as you can. 

Company Dream House and Looking Ahead

  1. You and director Ellie Aslanian co-founded your theater company, Dream House, in 2024. The company’s mission is to support diverse, young artists telling stories of identity and purpose — much like what Supermarket 86 does. What inspired you to start Dream House, and how has launching a company influenced the way you produce and promote this show?

We discussed the idea of starting our own theatre company shortly after we concluded our run at the NY Theatre Festival. As an artist, it can be very challenging to “break in” to the industry. The more specific you can get in what you want to do, the easier it will be to find the right avenues. For me, when I shifted my educational studies to more experimental, original theatre, I felt like I had found my corner of theatre; I loved creating original work with my fellow artists. So when we did our run back in 2023, I felt motivated to create a hub where young artists can get the chance to create. Everything takes time to build, but now that we can have a company, we can begin collaborating with other young artists who have stories to share. Since creating this company, both Ellie and I have had to take on the role of producers, something we both had limited experience in. But everyone starts somewhere, and we are thrilled to be learning by doing – making mistakes, collaborating with others, and finding our groove as producers. 

  1. Do you have any plans for Supermarket 86 after the Fringe? For instance, could you see it returning to New York or touring elsewhere with the momentum from Edinburgh? And more broadly, are there other projects on the horizon for you or Dream House that we should watch out for?

We have always viewed our journey to Edinburgh as a stepping stone for Supermarket 86. We have larger goals for this show, the main one being making it a 90 minute show. Since 90 minute shows are not very common at the Fringe, we are hoping to find where and how we can expand it. And to do that, we need eyes on the story. In our ideal world, we meet and converse with fellow artists and receive a wide array of feedback that we can take back to the drawing board. We will definitely be doing another version of the show back in New York, it’s just a matter of time and collaborations. As for any broader projects – we have our sights set on the success of Supermarket 86! 

  1. Finally, what do you hope audiences will take away from seeing Supermarket 86? Beyond a fun and heartfelt hour of theatre, are there particular feelings or thoughts you want people to leave the theatre with?

Much like these girls, I want the audience to leave feeling even just a tiny bit changed than when they first walked in. The girls of Supermarket 86 leave the store the next morning with a sense of hope; not even confirmation that anything will change, but the hope that it could. The belief in themselves to go chase the life they so desperately want to live. And it surprises them! A 5 minute grocery store run turned into an overnight stay where each girl confronted a harsh truth about themselves. Sometimes life forces you to stop and take a look around. But the reassuring part is: you don’t have to do it alone. We all have parts of our lives we wish were different, whether physically or emotionally. If we can inspire the audience in the slightest way to look at their life differently, or feel hope to start again, we will have done our job. It’s not perfect – the hope might leave the next day. But just knowing that it was there in the first place is enough to light the spark again. 

You can find out more and purchase a ticket for Supermarket 86 here

Leave a Comment

Fringe 2025: A Sneak Peek at Upcoming Highlights

July 2, 2025 at 8:58 am · Filed under Drama, Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2025, LGBT+interest, Music, Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Counter Culture Preview | Words by Patrick Harrington

796 words, 4 minutes read time.

The 2025 Edinburgh Fringe programme reads like a chorus of unfiltered voices—frayed, fearless, and fighting to be heard. Whether exploring myth through futuristic gaze or revisiting icons with raw intimacy, these shows aren’t just entertainment—they’re interventions. Here are just a few we’re planning to see and review. And if you like what you read, click on the title to purchase tickets.

🎧 Fun At Parties

Berlin Open Theatre | 1–25 Aug | 17:30 (1h) Set in Berlin’s fading club scene, this piece feels eerily current—a quiet elegy to joy as resistance. As authorities tighten their grip and safe spaces flicker out, we follow queer organisers pushing back with light, sweat, and sound. Expect immersive storytelling that blurs the line between performance and rave, with a thumping political pulse beneath the hedonism.

🎭 I’m Not Saying We Should, But What If We Did?

Minotaur Theatre Company | 11–16 Aug | 12:05 (50m) Two clowns in pearls and power suits debate banning men—on live breakfast TV. What could go wrong? This whip-smart satire skewers performative politics, gendered violence, and the optics of progress. It’s messy, sharp, and beautifully furious. One to watch for fans of Newsnight crossed with Clown Funeral.

🧖 Sauna Boy

Dan Ireland-Reeves | 1–16 Aug | Venue & time TBC Told with sweat, sass, and sincerity, this solo show reclaims the stories of men working in gay saunas. Expect intimate detail, ghosted clients, and glimpses of real connection in the steam. Dan Ireland-Reeves mixes autobiography and theatrical flair in a world rarely shown on stage.

🎸 Bob Dylan Under Cover

Night Owl Shows | 1–23 Aug | 13:10 (50m) Dylan’s protest ballads get a new coat in this soulful reimagining. The Night Owl Band’s arrangements stay true to spirit without being stuck in sepia. Thoughtful, stripped-back, and surprisingly moving—expect quieter revelations between the chords.

🎤 Women Of Rock

Night Owl Shows | 1–23 Aug | 18:50 (50m) This tribute is unapologetically loud—electrifying in voice and politics. Reine Beau commands the stage through the voices of Joplin, Benatar, and Stefani. Less nostalgia tour, more firestarter. An ode to feminine power on full volume.

🎹 The Elton John Story

Night Owl Shows | 1–23 Aug | 14:50 (50m) Part biography, part musical love letter. Angus Munro carries Elton’s vocal gymnastics and wit with uncanny ease, but it’s the honesty of the narration that elevates it—a portrait of resilience in sequins. Even the most casual fan will walk away moved.

🦅 The Rise Of The Eagles

Night Owl Shows | 1–23 Aug | 16:10 (50m) Beyond the harmonies and Hollywood veneer, this is a story of artists chasing transcendence and breaking apart under the weight. With pitch-perfect vocals and archival richness, it’s a thoughtful retelling for those who lived the music—and those just discovering its wings.

👑 The Legend of Queen

Night Owl Shows | 1–23 Aug | 19:50 (50m) More than a tribute—this is a communion. With Peter Marchant’s Mercury-esque magnetism and musical precision, it captures the operatic heart of Queen. High camp, yes, but laced with raw defiance. Don’t be surprised if the audience becomes the choir.

😈 #11th Annual Haters Ball

Hate N Live | 1–25 Aug | 21:00 (1h) Late-night comedy with teeth—and venom. Comedians roast your rage-fuelled suggestions in real time. Think Have I Got News For You meets a group therapy session led by stand-up sadists. Unfiltered, uneven, and frequently hysterical.

🎶 Joni Mitchell: Take Me As I Am

Rainee Blake | 1–25 Aug | 17:30 (1h) Rainee Blake doesn’t impersonate Joni—she honours her. With dulcimer and aching falsetto, she channels a voice that changed everything. This show is as much about memory and myth as melody. Come for the songs; stay for the feeling.

🌀 Caligari

SUSU Theatre Group | 18–23 Aug | 10:35 (50m) A silent film reimagined through physical theatre, shadow play, and creeping dread. Visually striking and morally slippery, this version of Caligari feels like a warning from both the past and for the future.

🏆 1966

Talking Shadows | 1–25 Aug | Times TBC It’s not just about the World Cup. This jukebox musical wraps itself around a pivotal year—when class, culture, and pop collided in glorious technicolour. Working-class dreams kick off, boots first.

🧘 The Anti ‘Yogi’

Mayuri Bhandari | 1–25 Aug | Times TBC Part dance-theatre, part political awakening, this blistering piece dismantles colonial wellness trends and reclaims sacred space. It’s riotous, reverent, and deeply intelligent—featuring storytelling that demands yoga be seen as revolution, not retail.

🌍 Echoes of Nuwa: The Last Human Project

Muddy Lolos | 1–23 Aug | 10:00 (50m) Three celestial beings debate whether to rebuild humanity in this post-anthropocene fable. Told through movement, mask, and multilingual poetry, Echoes of Nuwa is mythic, strange, and stirring. Equal parts cautionary tale and cosmic love letter.

Leave a Comment

“I Sort of Died Then Too”: Jean Charles de Menezes’ Mother Urges Public to Watch New Drama on Son’s Killing

April 24, 2025 at 9:41 am · Filed under Drama, Film & DVD Reviews, TV Shows ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maria de Menezes is the mother of Jean Charles de Menezes. She has issued an emotional call for viewers to watch a new dramatisation of her son’s killing. It was an event that shook Britain. It also exposed serious flaws in police accountability. Maria spoke ahead of the premiere of Suspect: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. She said: “In my opinion, I think everyone should watch it.”

A pedestrian looks at the memorial to Jean Charles de Menezes the innocent tube traveller killed by police after the July 7th 2005 bomb attacks. Stockwell Tube Station.

The four-part series will launch on Disney+ on April 30. It revisits one of the most devastating miscarriages of justice in recent UK history. Jean Charles was a 27-year-old Brazilian national. He was mistakenly identified as a terrorist. Police fatally shot him seven times in the head at Stockwell Underground station on July 22, 2005.

His death came in the fraught aftermath of the July 7 London bombings, which killed 52 people and injured hundreds. Just a day before Jean Charles was killed, there were four would-be suicide bombers. They attempted to carry out a second wave of attacks. Amid heightened panic and confusion, surveillance officers were confused. They wrongly concluded that de Menezes was one of the suspects. He was on his way to work as an electrician.

He wasn’t wearing a heavy coat. He wasn’t running. And he wasn’t carrying explosives. But after being followed, restrained, and pinned down, he was shot in front of horrified passengers. His only “crime” was looking vaguely similar to a suspect and boarding the same tube line.

The new drama was created by BAFTA-winning writer Jeff Pope. It stars Daniel Mays (Line of Duty, Des) as Cressida Dick. She was the officer who was gold commander on the day. Russell Tovey (Years and Years, Being Human) plays a supporting role as a surveillance officer. Pope’s previous work in true-crime storytelling brings both sensitivity and rigorous attention to detail to the production.

Pope spoke at a press conference. He said the aim was not to sensationalise but to humanise:
“This isn’t about pointing fingers. It’s about telling the story of a man who shouldn’t have died, and asking how a chain of decisions in a climate of fear could lead to such irreversible tragedy.”

Maria de Menezes flew from Brazil for the launch. She shared harrowing memories of the day she learned of her son’s death:
“I was not expecting that moment. It was terrible and then I started to shake. I sort of died then too.”
Her voice cracked with emotion. She described her ongoing fight to keep her son’s name and story alive:
“People forget. Time passes, and they forget. But I don’t. He was kind. He was working hard to support us. And they took him away.”

“He was just going to work”

Jean Charles had lived in London for over three years. Friends described him as cheerful, hardworking, and generous. He was sending money home to help his family build a better life. On the morning of his death, he was simply trying to reach a job site in north London.

Initial police statements claimed that Jean Charles had vaulted a ticket barrier. They also claimed he was wearing a bulky jacket and ran from officers. These claims were later proven false. CCTV footage showed him entering the station at a normal pace, using his Oyster card, and boarding a train calmly. The Metropolitan Police’s narrative unraveled under scrutiny, triggering widespread condemnation and multiple investigations.

In 2007, the Metropolitan Police Service was found guilty of endangering public safety and fined £175,000. No individual officer was ever prosecuted. This decision outraged the de Menezes family. It also outraged civil liberties groups across the UK and abroad.

Amnesty International, Liberty, and Justice for Jean have long campaigned for greater transparency. They highlight the case as a turning point in debates over armed policing, racial profiling, and counter-terrorism measures.

The Long Shadow of 7/7

Suspect examines the intense climate of fear and pressure gripping Britain’s security services in the wake of 7/7. In the scramble to prevent another attack, senior officers authorised a shoot-to-kill policy, known as Operation Kratos. The guidelines aimed to prevent suicide bombers from detonating devices. However, they also reduced the scope for restraint or correction once a mistaken identity was made.

Professor Conor Gearty, a leading human rights barrister, has called the operation “a legally dubious framework that prioritised pre-emptive killing over due process.”

Critics argue that de Menezes’ case exemplifies how institutional racism can override civil rights. Operational panic often exacerbates this issue. This is especially true when the victim is a migrant or person of colour. Jean Charles, like many others, became collateral damage in a system built on fear and haste.

A Drama with Purpose

Initial responses to the drama have praised its sensitivity and restraint. Early reviews highlight Daniel Mays’ complex performance and the script’s refusal to resort to easy villains or simplistic resolutions.

One reviewer from The Guardian wrote:
“What makes Suspect so effective is that it doesn’t scream. It lets the facts speak for themselves—and in doing so, delivers a gut-punch to the conscience.”

Maria hopes that this portrayal will reframe public memory. It is especially important for younger viewers unfamiliar with the case:
“We need to remember. We need people to learn from this, so no other mother has to go through what I did.”

She remains clear-eyed about the limitations of a drama, but sees it as a vital tool:
“Justice didn’t come through the courts. Maybe it will come through the truth being shown on screen.”

Suspect: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes will be available to stream on Disney+ from April 30. It is a haunting account of one man’s life—and the system that ended it too soon.

By Pat Harrington

Leave a Comment

Exploring David Peace’s ‘Red Or Dead’: A Theatre Review by Anthony C Green

April 7, 2025 at 6:26 am · Filed under Books, Drama ·Tagged , , , , , ,

2,207 words, 12 minutes read time.

I’m a big fan of David Peace, the author whose novel of the same name this play is based. The Damned United, his fictionalised account of Brian Clough’s il-fated 44-day tenure at Leeds United (a day less than Liz’ Truss period as Prime Minister, as many journalist and online wags pointed when her disastrous period as Prime Minister ended), is the book he’s best known for. I loved it, and the film adaptation starring Steve Coogan, though much lighter in tone, was still a worthy effort. I also read his GB 1984, a novelisation of the miners’ strike written from the viewpoints of Messrs Scargill, Heathcliffe and McGahey. That’s pretty good too. Time prevented me from reading all of his Red Riding trilogy, set in Yorkshire during Peter Sutcliffe’s murderous rampage against girls and women. But what I read was good, and the television adaptation on Channel Four was a powerful, gritty, violent drama that’s well worth revisiting.

I purchased Red Or Dead, Peace’s second legendary football manager based novelisation, this time with the great Bill Shankly as its subject, almost as soon as it came out, hoping it would match or even exceed the Damned United.

It was a huge hardback tome of over seven hundred pages in length. I found it to be almost unreadable, and gave up on it about one-tenth in.

I wasn’t alone in my opinion, as a skim through the Amazon reviews makes clear, and for a book originally retailing at £20 plus to be available for £2.99 in The Works within a few months of publication is not a sign of success.

I could see what Peace was trying to do. He was attempting to demonstrate how Shankly’s success was based on repetition, on doing the same things over and over, ingraining good habits in mind and body until a state of perfection is reached, in the manner that a classical musician will repeat scales or certain musical pieces over and over until they can be performed on demand almost unconsciously. This was the methodology Shankly sought to instil in his players and the teams he managed, in the fifteen years he spent in charge at Liverpool FC, THE team he managed.

Statue of Bill Shankly at Anfield stadium in Liverpool (England)

Peace’s attempt to mirror the Shankly method in a literary fashion was a bold, admirable idea. But page after page of ‘Bill Shankly goes into the kitchen and makes himself a cup of tea. The first cup of tea of the morning. Strong with a splash of milk. Two sugars. Stirred clockwise three times. Bill Shankly sits at the table and opens his notepad. Bill Shankly drinks his tea and looks at the notepad. The notepad with the team sheet for Liverpool’s game against Arsenal. On Saturday. At home. At Anfield. Bill Shankly thinks about Ian St John. Ian St John who was injured in the match against Leeds United. Last Saturday. Away. At Elland Road. Bill Shankly thinks about Liverpool’s game next Wednesday. Against Real Madrid. In the first leg of the European Cup quarter-final. Away. In Madrid. Bill Shankly picks up a pencil. Bill Shankly writes a question mark next to Ian St John’s name. On the team sheet. The team sheet Bill Shankly had written. In the notepad. The team sheet for the game against Arsenal. On Saturday. At home. At Anfield…’

And so on, and on, and on.

And on…

How can anyone make of such source material an entertaining play?

Such were my thoughts as I headed for the Royal Court theatre.

The Royal Court theatre in Liverpool.

The month-long run at the Royal marks the world premiere of the production, and the theatre was packed by the time the doors closed and the lights dimmed.

The audience tended towards the middle to upper age register, though with a smattering of younger men and women, with quite a few couples.

I’d guess that most of those in attendance were working class, likely to be long-term Liverpool FC supporters, and with many of them not being regular theatre goers, though maybe that’s too many assumptions.

As is my usual practice, I read no reviews beforehand and so genuinely had no idea of what to expect as the cast assembled on the minimalist, suitably vintage stage.

I’m happy to report that Philip Breen did a superb job in adapting such seemingly unpromising source material for the stage, demonstrating that not only could it be done, but that it could be done in such a manner that it has a genuinely populist appeal.

As narrated by the multi-talented Alison McKenzie, in the guise of Shankly’s beloved wife Ness, Peace’s words were revealed to possess a poetry that had failed to escape my notice as dry words on the page.

 As well as narration, we get plenty of great dialogue too, sometimes in dramatic re-enactments of key moments in Shankly’s life and career, from before, during and after those momentous days at Liverpool FC, and sometimes in well-crafted interactions between Shankly and his players, coaching staff, groundsman, supporters, club chairman, fellow managers (including Clough), and Ness, all written and designed to illustrate the character and philosophy of life of the man.  

There’s plenty of nostalgia to be had for those who lived and followed football in this period, with cameos from the likes of Kevin Keegan and Emlyn Hughes (with a sly did at the latter for being an irritating Tory), and there are also some genuinely heart tugging moments, such as when we are informed that the troubled club chairman Jimmy McInnes, who first brought Shankly to Liverpool from Huddersfield Town was found hanging under the Kop.

The play has a large cast of fifty-two, drawn, aside from the lead actors, from a local community theatre group, almost all of whom occupied the stage throughout the performance.

The size of the cast gives the play an appropriately democratic and collectivist style and form, with those who don’t have a speaking part still able to play an essential role as representatives of the Anfield crowd on match days, as well as being a rousing choir in the production’s several musical numbers.

The first rendition we get of the inevitable You’ll Never Walk Alone is at the point in the story when it was adopted as the club anthem by the Kop, one Saturday afternoon in 1963, as Merseybeat swept the nation and Gerry and the Pacemakers took this little remembered number from the musical Carousel to the top of the Hit Parade. The recreation of that moment began as a solo rendition by McKenzie, soon to be joined by the full cast. They in turn were augmented by the archived, echoic, full-throated surround-sound of the Kop itself, and not a small number of the audience, until it felt as though the whole theatre was shaking through sheer volume and raw emotion.

Musically, we also get She Loves You, again as a full-cast plus Kop number, and Cilla the Singer in full peak-Cilla dress and hair, standing alone in the spotlight on a raised platform at the back of the stage, giving us Anyone Who Had a Heart, as copied from Dionne Warwick.

This musical interlude, despite being beautifully performed by Jhanaica Van Mook, was one of the play’s few missteps. Every other musical component served to illustrate key moments in the story. This felt like pure cabaret, though audience reaction suggested that mine was a minority opinion.

Some more or less good natured audience hissing at the first mention of a defeat by Liverpool’s arch nemesis’ Manchester United early on, was beautifully undercut by Shankly movingly relaying the moment he learned of the tragic event of the Munich Air Crash of 1958, his words accompanied by symbolic snow falling onto the stage, of how he got down on his knees and prayed ‘harder than I’ve ever prayed for anything’ for the survival of his friend and fellow Scot, United’s manager Matt Busby.

As we know, Busby did survive, unlike twenty-three of his fellow passengers on that ill-starred and ill-advised return flight from Belgrade, including eight of his young team, the Busby Babes.

The close relationship between the two managers remains an important theme throughout the rest of the play.

After the interval, the performance resumes with archival newsreel footage of shocked, and often disbelieving, real-life Liverpudlians’ as they reacted to the news of Shankly’s retirement in 1974, one of several intelligent uses of ghostly period film projected onto the back of the stage.

This second half was a half-hour or so shorter than the first half. This made sense, given that life for Shankly after football would last a mere seven years, until his death at the relatively young age of sixty-seven.

But for Shankly, who was only half-joking when he famously said that ‘Football’s not a matter of life and death, it’s more important than that,’ there could never really be a meaningful ‘Life after football.’

The difficulty that many working men, and Shankly never ceased to consider himself a ‘working man,’ have in finding meaning in life once the daily routine of work is over, is in and of itself a great topic for drama. But here, the great man’s failure to adjust to retirement was played a little too much for laughs, and this made the second half of the play weaker than the first, though that’s not to say it was weak per se, or that it significantly lowered my estimation of the whole.

For some considerable time after his decision to step down, Shankly continued to turn up at Liverpool’s training ground, to impart the benefits of his wisdom to players and staff, to ‘keep himself in shape’, to ‘help out’, to be around in case he was needed, but really just to be there because there was nowhere else that he needed to be.

 In the end, it was politely requested that he stay away, because his presence was at risk of undermining new manager Bob Paisley, previously his long-term assistant, at a time when he needed to ‘make his mark’.

Soon, of course, he did indeed make his mark, building upon the essential foundations Shankly had laid to lead Liverpool to even greater heights, to add the European Cup, the one triumph that had alluded his predecessor, to the already impressively stocked Anfield trophy cabinet.

 We do see all this in the play, but the over-concentration on the comedic in this second half downplayed the key, tragic essence of Shankly’s final years, an essence well encapsulated by the Ian St John in his remark that, ‘Shanks died of boredom, of not being the manager of Liverpool Football Club.’

That’s not to say, to paraphrase the cliche beloved of football commentators, that this was ‘play of two-halves’. The level of performance was never below excellent, and the comedy provided the audience with plenty of laugh-out-loud moments.

Shankly believed footballing success was predicated on individuals working as one, as a collective towards a shared goal (or, more correctly, towards the opposing team’s goal). In one of his most iconic statements he described this as a form of socialism, ‘real socialism in action.’ He always recognised that the collective extended well beyond the eleven players on the pitch to incorporate everybody connected with the club, from the boardroom down to the supporters, with the players and the manager, those who most obviously receive the glory and the accolades of success, being but parts of a much greater whole.

Much the same, with appropriate linguistic amendments, can be said of a successful theatre production, and of much else in life.

Almost everything about this play serves to powerfully illustrate this truth.

This being said, it seems almost a contradiction to single out individuals for praise. Nevertheless, it would be remiss not to mention Peter Mullan’s superb performance in the lead role, though perhaps we should expect nothing less from such an experienced and accomplished actor. He had Shankly’s mannerisms and accent down pat. But his performance never descended into mere impersonation, and although he is the ‘star’ name, there are no star moments, no grandstanding attempts to dominate. Clearly, he understands his subject and the nature of the production well.

Alison McKenzie, I’ve mentioned, but Les Dennis was so convincing as Tom Williams, who took over as the Liverpool club chairman after the suicide of McInnes, that ‘Les Dennis’ disappeared entirely and I didn’t even realise it was Les Dennis until I checked the cast list on the bus home.   

Breen’s direction should also be commended. Two-and-a-half hours is a fair old length for a play, but never for a moment did it drag.

Some prior knowledge of the life and times of Bill Shankly would certainly enhance enjoyment of the production. But those who lack such knowledge would almost certainly leave the theatre wanting to rectify this deficiency.

I wouldn’t recommend that they head straight for Peace’s novel, although I left tempted to dig it out from the darkest, most neglected corner of my book collection.

Red Or Dead continues at the Royal Court, Liverpool until April 19th, but will surely be coming to a theatre near you at some point.

Leave a Comment

1984 Play Review: A Dystopian Masterpiece

November 28, 2024 at 5:31 am · Filed under Drama, Theatre ·Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

3,648 words, 19 minutes read time.

I’ve read Orwell’s classic novel 1984 three times, starting in my late teens or early twenties, and I’m now on my fourth. My first encounter with the story was a showing of the 1954 live television production with Peter Cushing in the lead role when it was repeated sometime in the mid-seventies. I was pleased to rediscover this on a nicely restored DVD last year, and I regard this version as the definite film adaptation of the book, far superior to the version starring Richard Burton and John Hurt which was released, predictably enough, in 1984. The 1950’s American ‘CIA’ adaptation which can be easily found for free online, is best forgotten, though worth a single watch for comedic purposes. I’ve also read and reviewed (link at the end) Sandra Newman’s 2023 novel Julia, a retelling of the story from the point of view of the main female character.

So, I’m well-versed in the events, themes and lore of Orwell’s perhaps definitive tale of dystopia. I regard it as a genuine masterpiece, one of the greatest works of the English literary canon and love how its meaning mutates and adds extra layers of depth with each new visit, as both I, the reader, and the world around me change.

But I’d never seen a theatrical production, so I approached this performance by the Bath Theatre Royal Players with anticipation and with little idea of what to expect. As is usual with my visits to both the theatre and the cinema, I avoided reading any reviews before I’d seen it for myself.

The first thing I noticed as I took my seat, well placed at the end of the third row from where the action would take place, was the huge telescreen mounted at the back of the stage, with cameras silently panning the audience, giving us an immediate sense of being under surveillance. This was suitably disconcerting, and I made sure I wasn’t visible on the screen as I sneaked a pre-performance pinch of snuff.

This screen has a big role in the production, becoming almost an extra cast member/character in its own right. Its functions include text information regarding changes in location, from the Ministry of Truth (‘Minitruth’) to Winston’s flat, to the canteen, to the Golden Country where Winston will begin his secret erotic liaisons with Julia, to the ‘safe-house’ where they will continue after their fateful ‘recruitment’ by the sinister O’Brien and, after the interval, to the Cell and the dreaded Room 101. The screen also blares out triumphant announcements by the Party, praising the achievements of Ingsoc, such as rises in munitions production for use in the war against Eastasia or Eurasia, whichever has currently been designated the enemy of Oceania, the latest victories of ‘our’ glorious troops or latest atrocities by those of the ever-shifting enemy. These announcements are accompanied by a still image of the benevolent, moustached, Stalin-like leader Big Brother himself, an image with which most of us are familiar. During the fabled ‘Two Minute Hate’, the image of Big Brother is replaced by that of Goldstein, the Trotsky of the story, the once revolutionary leader turned ultimate counter-revolutionary, responsible for, through his mysterious underground group The Brotherhood for all manner of acts of sabotage against the loyal people of Airstrip One and the heroic soldiers of Oceania.

We are gripped from the moment Winston Smith appears on a stage that is bare apart from the screen behind him and a bed and chair to his far left, seemingly breaking the Fourth Wall as the cast will do throughout the performance, addressing us directly as he goes about his daily work, reciting his latest amendments to the historical record, consigning events and people to the Memory Hole to fit with the current needs and thinking of Big Brother and the Inner-Party.

The process by which history is amended had been updated, the pen and paper of Orwell’s original digitalised. This makes sense, allowing us to see this process at work directly on the screen as individuals are ‘disappeared’ from history so that no tangible record of their former existence remains. It also forces us to reflect upon how modern technology has made it far easier for the truly totalitarian system Orwell envisaged to become a reality, and perhaps is becoming all too increasingly real. ‘1984’ as a point in time may be forty years in our past, but as a textbook for absolute control it doesn’t seem so far in our future, or even so distant from our present.

Soon he will be joined by his neighbour and ‘friend’, to the extent that friendship can exist in such a world, the cheerful but vulnerable Parsons, who expresses his pride in his seven-year-old daughter’s ability to identify and keenness to report ‘criminals’ to the secret police. Most of us will be all too aware that he himself will soon enough fall victim to this public-spirited ‘keenness’.

We next get to meet Julia for the first time. She is wearing the regulation Party boiler suit but with the red sash of the Anti-Sex-League tied around her waist. Those of us with a decent prior knowledge of the story, of course, knew that Julia would soon be revealed to be rather more pro-sex than was fitting for a member of such an organisation.

It wasn’t long before we met O’Brien. It was then that I realised O’Brien had always been with us, sitting silently on the chair by the bed in the near-darkness, a location to which he would return whenever he was not required front and centre. This was a clever decision, which powerfully underscored the theme of the omnipresence of the Secret/Thought Police.

Now, the full cast was in place, though there are also a handful of silent supporting characters who blare the role between performer and prop assistant, appearing as unnamed minor Party functionaries in the standard issue boiler suits whilst also quickly and efficiently moving the bed and chair from the side of the stage to the centre and back again, a move which assists the on-screen text in denoting changes in location.  

The first half, lasting precisely one hour and eight minutes, takes the story through Winston and Julia’s illicit assignations, their fateful meeting with O’Brien who sinisterly tells Winston that ‘We will meet again in the place where there is no darkness,’ the meaning of which will be well known to those familiar with the book, and which is made all too clear to even those who aren’t after the interval, and concludes with their arrest at the Safe House.

For me, the highlight of that first half, and the greatest use of faux-location change was Winston and Julia’s first sexual encounter in the Golden Country. The sudden appearance of vibrant colour, of sun, trees and sky on the screen, plus the sound of birds singing freely and the windy rustle of nature, attacked the senses wonderfully, marking a fabulous contrast, for the first and only time in the play, with the stark, grey drabness of life within the rooms of the Party. I will assign my credits at the end, but this is perhaps the best place to mention the valuable role that both set and video designer Justin Nardella and sound designer Giles Thomas, for what was a very loud play sonically, adding much to the unnerving feel of the whole.

The fifty-minute second half utilises just three locations, The Cell, the notorious Room 101, and the canteen for the short, sad, final meeting between Winston and Julia. It begins with Parsons alone on stage, blooded and almost broken, his despair briefly lessened as he is joined by the familiar face of Winston. Despite everything he must know about the workings of his master’s by this point, he still clings to the hope that they will be lenient with him, ‘maybe five or ten years’ in a labour camp. He also retains his pride in his seven-year-old daughter whose actions have brought him to this point, seeing in them confirmation that he had ‘raised her right’.

Soon, any hope for mercy Parsons retains disappears as he is taken away by the uncredited supporting players/crew, to meet his fate in Room 101, a room with a reputation that has proceeded it.

The rest of the play becomes essentially a two-hander, a one-sided duel, between the characters of O’Brien and Winston I do think, however, that the young girl who stood silently inscrutable, close to the action throughout as a young functionary who had been desensitised through repeated exposure to the brutality that unfolded before her, and our eyes, deserved a credit for her admirable stillness and blankness of expression.

Other ‘none-speaking characters’ also appear at one point to beat Winston with clubs, a naked, completely naked Winson, stripped of all clothes and humanity.

Almost to the end, Winston remains unbroken, in spirit if not in body, desperately fighting to retain something, something to cling onto, a faith that the ‘human spirit’ will, somehow, assert itself over tyranny, and the belief that reality is, in some areas at least, an absolute that exists and must continue to exist, regardless of the power that some human beings have abrogated to themselves to redefine and amend it at will. Two plus two must always equal four, even if the whole world insists this is not necessarily the case.

This is the crux of the story and the question that is left for any serious person who engages with it, that of how can an individual retain belief in any absolutes when those with the power show moment by moment, day by day that they can simply expunge from history anything that contradicts whatever is their latest, expedient version of ‘truth’? The irony is, of course, that Smith, in his job within the Minitruth was himself complicit in this ongoing act of historical amendment, knowing as well as anyone the relevant quotation from the Handbook of Ingsoc: ‘He who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future.’

For O’Brien, as a True Believer, it is not enough to simply break Winston, or those like him who dare to think differently, to doubt and to hope. It is not enough that he will submit, through beatings and electric shock treatment, that he will say that he sees five fingers when O’Brien demands it. He must also believe it, must see five fingers, even though we, the audience, know he is holding up only four.

Not only must we imagine a ‘Boot stamping upon a human face, forever,’ but we must also imagine the human underfoot as accepting this as a normality that can never, and should never, be changed.

In this sense, we then, as the audience, through our senses become the arbiters of true reality. But what if there is no audience, if O’Brien, the powerful, and Smith, the powerless were up there on stage alone, or really in a dungeon as far away physically from humanity as it is morally (as we understand it) or what if we too could be made to see four fingers, all of us: in what sense could it remain true that O’Brien was only holding up four? 

Ultimately, in the world of 1984, through the constant refinement, amendment and shrinkage of language (which may strike a chord with some members of a 2024 audience) the aim is not only to punish and reform those minds that are guilty of ‘wrongthink’ but to make wrongthink impossible. How can you dream of freedom if the word and the concept of ‘freedom’ no longer exist?

In the end, of course, Winston does break, his suffering as he is tortured with increasing savagery towards this moment of breakage, literally made large to us by the projection of the physical Smith, battered, bruised and wracked by the ever-increasing power of the shocks being fed directly into his brain through electrodes attached to his head, onto the big screen.

I’ve already included too many spoilers for anyone wishing to see the play who is unfamiliar with the source material, but I will leave at least one aspect of the production unspoilt, the original manner which the writer and/or director chose to portray the penultimate, climatic scene in Room101.  

The scenes between O’Brien and Smith utilise dialogue which is more or less lifted and adapted straight from Orwell’s original text, which is only right as little can be done to improve on such a master of the English language.

In spirit, the production as a whole is also faithful to the book, though there are one or two omissions worth mentioning. We lose the junk shop where Winston buys his little snow globe, a miraculous relic from past times, and its owner Charrington. It is however alluded to, and that is perfectly fine.

We do, however, also lose Winston’s belief that ‘If there is hope it lies in the proles,’ and I think that’s a pity. It reduces hope to nothing more than an individual endeavour. It may be possible for isolated individuals to hold out to the very end, to go to their grave still quietly secure in their knowledge that two plus two must always equal four even if the exercise of sheer brute power has made them say otherwise. But aside from the intervention of a power from outside of the universe, acting as the guarantor of Absolute Reality, or God, then it’s difficult to see where hope for the defeat of tyranny can be found if it is not to be found in collective action, whether we want to call that collective the ‘proles’ or the ‘masses’, or the ‘people’ or something else.

This is one of my few minor criticisms of the play, along with one plot device involving the printing of a certain photograph from his home telescreen by Winston as a means of retaining a concrete record of a historical event. This isn’t in Orwell’s original novel, written at a time when remote printing from a screen was impossible and perhaps seen as too far-fetched even for Science Fiction. But even if it had been possible, I think Orwell would have seen such an act as something too risky for Winston to attempt for it to be believable.

There was also one reference by Parson to watching newsreel footage of ‘Eastasian women and children in small boots’ being machine-gunned at the coast. This seemed shoe-horned into the script and was also glaringly incongruent in almost telling us what to think about a certain issue, current in our society, that is being played out around our own shores.

There’s another modern reference, to information covering the whole of Winston’s life being stored by and known to the ‘Algorithm’. This is relevant and pertinent and thus a worthwhile inclusion.

These are minor gripes. I’ve mentioned the superb visual and audio design of the production, and will add to this that it’s tightly written by Ryan Craig. Lindsey Posner’s pacy direction is also a big factor in its success. Both halves of the play were fully absorbing. No one was surreptitiously checking their phone that I noticed, though it might have added a new layer of irony if they were, and I forgot all about snuff, apart from at the interval.

On to the actors, none of whom I can find any major criticism at all.

David Burrell portrays Parsons more or less as I imagined him from the novel, as a minor functionary who is not a rebel like Winston, but rather a true-believer-wannabe, as someone who wants very much to not only do whatever is asked of him but also to believe that it is also for the best, for himself and for the whole. Unable to manage this, and finally seeing himself punished for his unconscious transgressions, he takes refuge in the idea that at least the next generation, as represented by his unseen daughter, will be fully able to dissolve their individuality for the greater good. It’s a fine performance by Burrell.

Ryan Craig’s Winston is perhaps a little more humorous and less worldly, at least initially than I remember from the book, and also younger, the image of the character forever fixed in my mind as Peter Cushing. But it’s still an impressive portrayal of a quiet rebel, content with the small victory represented by being able to scribble his ‘notes from the present to the future’ in his diary, at a location in his flat that is, or so he believes out of site for the omniscient telescreen. But when this small victory is joined by the thrill of his sexual encounters with Julia, he becomes intoxicated by hope, manifested by his belief that Goldstein and the Brotherhood exist, that O’Brien is part of it and is inviting him to be part of it, acknowledging openly that he is prepared to do anything to bring down Big Brother and the Party, up to and including throwing acid into the face of an innocent child, words that O’Brien with throw back at him – ‘So much for the human spirit!’ – as he is systematically broken down by pain, by irrefutable ideological logic, and by the knowledge of what lies in store for him beyond the permanently illuminated Cell, ‘The place where there is no darkness’, in Room 101. Craig plays this character arc beautifully, really coming into his own in those final chilling scenes.

Eleanor Wild’s Julia is a revelation. Even in Orwell’s original, it was always Julia who took the lead in seducing Winston and introducing her initially shy prey into carnal delights beyond his imagination; and it’s inevitable that in a modern production, in the era of the Strong Woman/Girl Boss this should be ramped up further, themes I already touched upon in my Julia novel review. She is the one with the sexual experience, proudly announcing that she has ‘known’ hundreds of men, later amended to forty or fifty in the Golden Country, after first successfully pleasuring ‘pleasuring herself’ there as a means of testing out its safety. For Julia, this Julia, the pursuit and satisfaction of physical desire away from the sexless void of the Party is victory enough in itself. She is almost nonchalant, resigned to the knowledge that this will end one day, but while she can, she’ll take her moments of joy where she can find them.

And we do get to see that joy. We don’t get to see anything overtly sexual, though the language is much more ripe than Orwell could have got away with, but we genuinely do feel the pair’s sense of liberation as they frolic together on the bare stage floor, exploding at one point into riotous shouts of ‘Fuck Big Brother!’ as the beauty of the Golden Country, of Nature, provides the ideal backdrop on the screen behind them.

But, ultimately, she herself is seduced, carried away by Winston’s hope, by his dream of a future more long-lasting freedom, though I suspect she always knows that this hope is nothing more than a blind faith that is leading her to a place that she may not necessarily have needed, at least not yet, to go. Again, this is a character arc impeccably written and impeccably realised by the performer.

Kieth Allen is, of course, the marquee name among the cast, known to me best for his role in the Comic Strip series of comedy television films in the eighties and nineties, as one of the writer/performers of ‘Vindaloo’, the third best England football team song ever, and for an excellent Channel 4 documentary casting doubt on the official narrative on the death of Diana Princess of Wales, which definitely wouldn’t get made today. Those of a younger generation may know him best as the father of pop singer Lily Allen.

Allen doesn’t disappoint. As I mentioned, when he’s not centre stage, he sits silently menacing stage left. When he is, he dominates, though not in such a way that he does not allow others, principally Craig’s Smith with whom he shares most stage time, to also shine.

For this character, there is no arc consisting of distinct phases. He is what he is at the beginning as he is at the end, the perfect ideologue and Inner-Party-man, who does what he does, be it lying about his involvement with the underground resistance or effortlessly switching between Mr. Nice and Mister Nasty as he breaks down Smith bit by bit through a combination of physical and psychological measures whilst calmly outlining the philosophical incoherence of holding on to hope in a world where power is everything, not out of any sense of self-preservation or even material gain, but because he believes, or rather he knows that it is right. You know that O’Brien has been through this same process, suitably amended for each individual ‘case’ many times and will do so many times more.

Another character brilliantly brought to life, but it would be wrong to single out Allen, or any of the cast as the ‘star’ of the show. This a real ensemble performance, and one where the word ‘ensemble’ extends to everyone involved, speaking or not speaking, on stage or behind the scenes.

The sombre, thoughtful mood of the packed audience as they left the theatre said it all.

A triumphant production.

The play is still touring, and a must-see if you get an opportunity.

Produced and Performed by the Theatre Royal, Bath
Seen at the Liverpool Playhouse
Reviewed by Anthony C Green

Written by Ryan Craig
Directed by Lindsey Posner

Cast List:

Winston Smith: Mark Quartly
Julia: Eleanor Wild
O’Brien: Keith Allen
Parson’s: David Birrell

My review of the Julia novel by Sandra Newman Julia by Sandra Newman: A Page-Turning Feminist Perspective on Orwell’s Classic | Counter Culture

Green, November C 2024 Anthony

Leave a Comment

Experience ‘Girls Don’t Play Guitars’ at Liverpool Royal Court

October 9, 2024 at 3:33 pm · Filed under Drama, Music, Rock, Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Ian Salmon Directed by Bob Eaton

Liverpool Royal Court Theatre, till 26th of October 2024. Book tickets here: https://liverpoolsroyalcourt.com/main_stage/girls-dont-play-guitars/

2,925 words, 15 minutes read time.

The play tells the story, through words and music, mostly the latter, of Merseybeat band The Liverbirds from their inception in 1962 to their break-up in 1968, with a brief update on the girl’s life after the split and a nice surprise at the end of its two-hour running time.

I didn’t do any research before the play, though I had an awareness of the band and a vague outline of some of their history, so I was unaware that the play had enjoyed a successful run at the same venue, with the same lead players, back in 2019. From some of the reactions of the mainly ageing demographic at the almost packed theatre, I wouldn’t be surprised if many in the crowd were returning customers.

After a couple of false starts, beginning in 1962 as The Squaws and then as The Deputones, with the earliest incarnation including Mary’s sister Sheila and Irene Green as members (both of whom went on to play in other Liverpool bands), the established line-up of Valerie Gell on lead guitar, Pamela Birch on rhythm guitar, Mary McGlory on bass, and Sylvia Saunders on drums was in place by the following year, the year that, through the ascendency of the Beatles, and lesser Brian Epstein managed artists like Gerry and the Pacemakers and Cilla, established Merseybeat as a national rather than simply local phenomena.

Girl groups weren’t, of course, a new thing in 1963. American artists like the Ronettes, the Crystals, the Shangri-las and the Shirelles had all enjoyed great success and greatly influenced the Merseybeat sound. The latter’s song Boys was a staple of the Beatles’ live set from their early days and throughout their touring career, being used as a rare vocal showcase first for Pete Best and then for Ringo Starr. Ringo, I believe performs it live to this day, and we also get a rousing version during tonight’s play.

But these hit girl groups were vocal-only outfits. They didn’t play guitars or any other instruments, either in the studio or live, that being largely the job of men, including, on the records, some of the top session musicians of the day (an exception was the great female bassist Carole Kaye who, as part of the legendary Wrecking Crew graced many of the top hits of the sixties).  

The titular phrase ‘Girls don’t play guitars’ is attributed to John Lennon, and he’s depicted in the play as saying this when introduced to the Liverbirds at the Cavern.

That was what made this band different: they were an all-girl foursome who did play guitars, and drums, as well as them all being accomplished singers, both individually and in harmony.

In retrospect, it seems inevitable that there would be an all-girl vocal/instrumental group on the thriving Merseyside music scene. But, although the Liverbirds’ billing as ‘The world’s first all-girl Beat-group’, which is repeated several times during the play, might be a touch hyperbolic, I can’t recall any that came before, or even, now six decades later, a great many since.

Like their contemporaries Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, for whom Ringo played drums before becoming a Beatle, the Liverbirds did not achieve great commercial success, their best effort being a number five hit in Germany with a cover of Bo Diddley’s Diddley Daddy.

They released two albums on the Star Club Hamburg’s in-house record label in 1965, so we do have a fair idea of how they sounded, which is more than be said for Rory and his group, of whom only some very Lo-Fi live recordings exist.

Guitarist/vocalist Pamela Birch wrote three tracks spread across these albums, but they were essentially a covers band, as were the Hurricanes, and again, in common with them, it’s mostly as a hard-driving live act for which they are fondly remembered among the sadly dwindling number of those who can truthfully say ‘I was there’,  as a part of the scene in Liverpool and Hamburg in the early and mid-sixties.

It was therefore essential, if the play was to be a success, that the music was done justice, and that through that the audience could experience something of the vibe that those attending a performance by the Liverbirds might have felt.

On this criterion, I can happily say that the play was indeed a resounding success.

It’s obvious from the beginning that the four chief cast members are playing their own instruments and doing their own singing live, and they’re excellent, with great musicianship and superb vocal harmonies. Best of all musically was Mary Grace Cutler as Valerie Gell on lead guitar, even though she was responsible for the only musical fluff of the evening, on the intro to Roll Over Beethoven. But that made the music more real as, had you been there at the time you would have expected the occasional fluff from all of the local groups, including the Beatles.

I haven’t delved into the careers of any of these four actor/musician performers outside the confines of the show. But they sounded so tight together that it wouldn’t surprise me if they worked together on musical projects other than this, perhaps performing their own material.

The set for the play was designed as a standard stage set-up for a four-piece band, with amps, drums and microphones, all looking suitably period, from where the ‘Liverbirds’ performed their songs. At each side of the stage were two large, wavy cut-out guitars rising towards the ceiling, ending at a bank of small screens designed to look like retro 1960s T. V’s, upon which photographs and the small amount of footage that exists of the band, as well as topical signifiers that helped situate us in time were displayed.

At the rare, was a narrow raised area where the all-male supporting cast made their own musical contributions, with these supporting players also coming forwards in ones or twos to join the girls’ front-centre in the non-musical, dialogue-based sections of the play, playing multiple cameos, as the girl’s fathers, Mick Jagger, Ray and Dave Davis of the Kinks (the Liverbirds supported both the Stones and the Kinks on tour and Jagger and the Davis brothers also played with them on an unreleased, possibly lost, demo), Brian Epstein, Bob Wooler, a pivotal Merseybeat figure who is unfortunately best remembered for being beaten up by John Lennon at Paul McCartney’s twenty-first birthday party and, once we get to Hamburg, Klaus Voorman and others. These dialogue scenes tended towards the comedic, and were sometimes rather perfunctory, although they were well-performed and efficiently accomplished their role of relating the band’s story as a coherent narrative.

Less successful and the weakest element of the play in my view, was the narrative songs performed by the boys at the back in a sub-Merseybeat style, sometimes including little snatches of Beatles songs, such as the intro to I Feel Fine or a quick ‘Beep, Beep, Yeah’ and the like. They weren’t long enough to get the Beatles lawyers onto the productions back, but they were long enough to be annoying and, in my opinion, the cheesy lyrics of these original songs added nothing to the production, although they were played and sung well enough.

The acting itself was good all-around and did a decent job of giving us a sense of the environment in which the girls lived and played, partly through mentions of bygone Liverpool landmarks like Hessy’s music shop, and the Littlewoods Pools building, which once employed thousands of young women, and the dilapidated shell of which is still standing just down the road from me.

As we move through the Liverbirds story, the unchanging nature of the stage-set is perhaps another slight weakness of the production. We are told that we’re now in the Cavern or at the Star Club on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg, but with nothing visual, besides the contents of the faux-T. V screens, to reinforce these switches of location. The play is fast-paced enough for me to happily suspend belief, but I did feel that if cost or logistics meant that only one set was feasible, then something a little grittier may have been better. After all, the Cavern and the clubs on the Reeperbahn were noted for their grittiness and in the latter case for the ever-present hint of violence.

If the play is to be believed, the girls passed on the chance to be signed by Brian Epstein by agreeing to a residency, against his advice, at the Star Club in 1964. Liverpool bands had of course been making the trip to Hamburg for around six years by this point and it would still have been something of a right of passage, as well as an amazing adventure for four young working class girls, though with the Beatles having performed at the Star Club for the final time in December 1962, and even the likes of Gerry and the Pacemakers having moved on to much bigger things, the Hamburg scene was past its zenith by the time Liverbirds made the trip.

The story of how the girls raised the money for the fair to Hamburg led neatly to one of two moments of audience participatory hissing when the cast revealed that one Jimmy Saville helped them out by securing a little paid national exposure in the Sunday People. We were assured that he didn’t ask for anything in return from them, perhaps because, at between seventeen and twenty-one years old, they were a little above his preferred upper-age range.

The second well-deserved hiss of the night came when we were told that, towards the end of their time together, another regular performer in the Hamburg clubs was Paul Gadd, still two or three years away from becoming Gary Glitter.

What was unusual about the Liverbirds among the Liverpool bands, apart from the fact that they were girls who played guitars, was that, once they made it to Hamburg they never really left, though they did tour extensively elsewhere in Europe. Three of their members even continued to live Germany after the band split in 1968.

‘Girls Don’t…’ is more of a nice family night out than a work of social realism. It must have been hard to be female performers on the Reeperbahn scene, and this is indicated through some of the dialogue and straight narration, though not explored as deeply as it might have been.

It’s a positive play, and through the excellent chemistry between the cast we get something of the thrill it must have been to be four girls coming of age away from the restraints of family, enjoying the acclaim of audiences, drinking, partying, indulging their healthy sexual appetites, and discovering, as the Beatles and others had before them, that tiredness could be alleviated by a little yellow pill or two.

(The Catholic Church also has a cameo in the play, in the form of Mary’s Parish Priest. Mary was still considering becoming a nun when she set off for Hamburg, though this is another theme which could have been developed further)

By 1967, musically, the Liverbirds were in a musical time warp, still playing mostly American covers from the late fifties/early sixties. They were never going to be in the vanguard of the psychedelic revolution, nor, I suppose, did they want to be. But they did get stoned with Jimi Hendrix because he’d heard that Mary rolled the best joints in Hamburg, although she didn’t smoke them herself, we are told, and it’s a nice moment when this story is relayed to us, as suitably vivid colours swirl on screens above us.   

The play becomes more poignant after the interval and the closer we get towards the end, as the focus switches from the good times to the fragmentation and final dissolution of the band.

We learn that the first to leave was drummer Sylvia after she fell pregnant and did what most girls did in that situation at this time, she got married and swapped her ambitions for the role of housewife and mother.

That this decision had to be made on the eve of a Japanese tour, added an extra layer of resigned sadness to this part of the story.

The band continued, and the actors made it clear that the Liverbirds still had their moments, but that it could never be quite the same when the line-up had lost one of the original four.

In the most touching scene of the night, we discover that Valerie was the next to leave after her fiancé was paralysed from the neck down following an accident that happened while he was driving back from his eighteenth birthday party. The band was on stage at the Star Club at the time, extending their set as Valerie eagerly awaited the arrival of her boyfriend.

The remaining two originals, Sylvia and Pamela, carried on for a while with ‘whoever Manfred’ (their manager) could find, until finally calling it a day, and beginning their lives post-Liverbirds, with only Pamela continuing in music, still performing and working in other capacities in the Hamburg clubs. She also struggled greatly with addiction to alcohol and cocaine, though this isn’t mentioned in the play, contributory factors to her relatively early death, aged sixty-five in 2009.

Before the last song, regret is expressed that they never got the chance to perform together just one more time, announcing the song as the reunion the girls never had. Strangely, their Wikipedia entry mentions a brief reunion in 1998, though I’m not sure if this is an error or a rather unnecessary use of artistic licence by the writer.

As it turned out, this wasn’t the last song of the evening. At its conclusion, one of the players announces ‘two very special guests’ and the surviving Liverbirds, bassist Mary McGlory and drummer Sylvia Saunders arrive onstage to a fabulous reception, joining those who had so ably portrayed their younger selves for the truly final song of the night, a raucous rendition of Peanut Butter, obviously a favourite from their repertoire in their heyday.

If I had done any research before seeing the play, I would have known that Sylvia and Mary were still with us and that the two had performed this cameo throughout the 2019 run. Hopefully, they will do so throughout this new one-month run at the Royal Court. I suspect I would still have found their appearance moving if I had known it was coming, and I should add that the way Sylvia, a woman in her late seventies, pounded the drums was impressive.

After the song was over the lights went up and she, Mary and the cast received a well-deserved standing ovation.

The Liverbirds may only be a footnote in music history, but such footnotes deserve to be remembered and celebrated. Perhaps they were and perhaps they weren’t the ‘World’s first all-female Beat group.’ But they were indisputably four young working class girls trying to make it in a decidedly male environment, and as such they were trailblazers.

We should add that, for the time their image was also groundbreaking. It might have been expected that they would dress in the type of sexy, revealing outfits that was the norm among many female performers, and increasingly the fashion for young British women. But their choice of masculine shirts, trousers and thin ties (arrived at after some experimentation) was interesting, and something I would have liked to hear more about. It’s not a great surprise to learn that one of the band, Sylvia, after the failure of her marriage, should end up in a committed relationship with another woman, and though we get only a brief hint of it in the play, I’m guessing that they had a substantial following among gay women.

Omissions aside, Girls Don’t Play Guitars is a great night out with great music and solid acting with a special mention on the latter front to Alice McKenna as Mary McGory.

If the play is at all close to the truth, then those four young women had the time of their lives.

Girls Don’t Play Guitars can be seen at the Royal Court until October 26th. Hopefully, it will get the chance to tour outside of Liverpool.

Mary and Sylvia’s biography of the band, which is on my to-read list The Liverbirds: Our life in Britain’s first female rock ‘n’ roll band: Amazon.co.uk: McGlory, Mary, Saunders, Sylvia: 9780571377022: Books

Their two Hamburg albums combined in a single compilation. Many of these songs are performed in the play. The Liverbirds – Complete Recordings Star-Club Hamburg Sixties (Full Album 2009) (youtube.com)

Appearance on German TV, playing their No. Five-hit Diddley Daddy The Liverbirds – Diddley Daddy (Beat Club, 1965) (youtube.com)

Anthony C Green, October 2024

A short American documentary which fills out some of the gaps in the Liverbirds story, featuring contributions from Sylvia and Mary, and a brief clip of them performing with the cast during the 2019 run of the play  We’re Britain’s First Female Rock Band. This is Why You Don’t Know Us. | ‘Almost Famous’ by Op-Docs (youtube.com)

 A BBC Breakfast interview with Mary and Sylvia from March this year Sylvia Saunders, Mary McGlory (The Liverbirds Members) On BBC Breakfast [14.03.2024] (youtube.com)

And The Liverbirds own YouTube Channel (2043) The Liverbirds – YouTube

Anthony C Green, October 2024

Comments (1)

The Crucible Reimagined: Dance Portrayal of Hysteria and Paranoia in Salem

September 1, 2024 at 10:35 am · Filed under Dance, Drama, Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2024 ·Tagged , ,

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

185 words, 1 minute read time.

The cast. Picture by David Kerr.

The Crucible is Arthur Miller’s classic play. It deals with themes of hysteria and paranoia in 17th Century Salem, Massachusetts. It has never seen a production like this. Jacob Gutiérrez-Montoya has reimagined the play through the medium of contemporary dance and a blinding soundtrack. There is no spoken dialogue. This fine cast from the Sacramento Contemporary Dance Theatre shows everything. They depict the innocent dance in the woods. They show the tension between the Proctors. The trials, the denunciations, and the executions are depicted through the medium of dance. The feverish choreography increases the tension. The choice of music also raises the stakes. This electrifying portrait documents a small community destroying itself. Gutiérrez-Montoya stands out as the menacing Judge Danforth.

Reviewed by David Kerr

THE MUSIC

  1. Seven Devils – Florence and the Machine
  2. Me and the Devil – Soap and Skin Mimoser – Agnes Obel
  3. Moved – Laces
  4. Hosea – Apparat
  5. Lucid Dreaming – Dominique
  6. Flesh and Bone – Black Math
  7. No Fate Awaits Me – Son Lux
  8. Hellhounds – Karliene
  9. Something Bad – Cynthia Erivo and Shoshanna Bea
  10. Buried (Feat. Katie Herzig) – Unsecret
  11. Empire of Our Own – Raign
  12. Dropped Soul – Murcof
  13. Snowing – Sonya Kitchell

Leave a Comment

Exploring Modern Life and Isolation in ‘Sonnets from Suburbia’

August 29, 2024 at 10:15 am · Filed under Drama, Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2024, Poetry ·Tagged , , ,

★★★★★

The central theme of ‘Sonnets from Suburbia’ revolves around the introspective journey of Lady Penelope (Penny Peyser). She reflects on modern life through her sonnets. The show weaves a narrative of personal growth and self-discovery. It explores themes of isolation. It also explores the impact of technology on human relationships. Lastly, it explores the enduring relevance of poetry in contemporary society. It’s a witty and poignant commentary that resonates with audiences. It offers both laughter and a deeper reflection on the complexities of life in the modern world.

Reviewed by David Andrews

Leave a Comment

Navigating Conflicting Demands: The Puzzle of East Asian Parenting

August 25, 2024 at 10:56 am · Filed under Drama, Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2024

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

225 words, 1 minute read time.

Many East Asian parents are under intense social pressure for their children to do well. They are expected to get an A+ grade. They should go to a prestigious university. They need to get a good job with a high salary. They should also marry well. That’s the theme explored in Puzzle through the medium of dance. One daughter resists all the pressures put upon her. Another is compliant. She is pulled this way and that by her parents. She’s tied in knots as she tries to please everyone’s conflicting demands.

The mother herself is under pressure. She is trying to keep up with the demands of her busy life. This is shown by her constantly running between a stick of lipstick. She moves between shoes, an apron, wet wipes, a running top, and a constantly ringing mobile phone.

The puzzle is how to wish the best for your child yet recognise their own choices. A voice in the background says parental ‘love should not be conditional on meeting our expectations.’ As this production shows, navigating through these conflicting demands is a real puzzle. Parents believe that if you don’t keep running, your peers will leave you behind.

This production resonated well with the audience, who – apart from your reviewer – were all young East Asian women. They loved this thought-provoking production.

Reviewed by David Kerr

Leave a Comment

Raskolnikov’s Moral Dilemma: Crime and Punishment Play Review

August 24, 2024 at 8:35 am · Filed under Drama, Edinburgh Fringe Festival, Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2024 ·Tagged , ,

★ ★ ★

208 words, 1 minute read time.

Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, an impoverished former student in 19th Century St Petersburg, has become unhinged. He visits an elderly pawnbroker and gets a bad price for a watch that belonged to his late father. In his brain fever, he dreams of killing and robbing the elderly woman. Later, he pretends to have a silver cigarette case. When he shows a plain case to her, he strangles her and then batters her sister, Lizaveta to death.

The play revolves around Raskolnikov’s relationships with a wastrel of a drunkard who befriends him, Marmeledov and his daughter Sonya who has been reduced to prostitution by his drinking. He feuds with his sister Dunya’s fiancé, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin and is wracked by guilt at his actions and fear of discovery, almost giving himself away when visiting a police station to discuss an unrelated matter.

The young actor playing Raskolnikov carries off his guilt-wracked condition flawlessly. The audience, however, may have had some difficulty following the action. At some times voices came over the sound system as characters were speaking. At times two conversations were going on simultaneously at each edge of the stage area. Nevertheless,it’s a great introduction to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s great classic.

Reviewed by David Kerr

Till August 2024. Tickets here

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »