Falsettos – The Other Palace

[FrontroverPaul]

I'm sorry you disliked Falsettos so intensely. While I did not enjoy, or even fully understand, Preludes I can still see its value as innovative theatre.

My seat on Monday was near the centre of the front row and from that position I noticed 4 or 5 people had apparently not returned after the interval. I did not intend to suggest the auditorium was ever full. I was using my phone as the lights went down for act one and quickly turned it off so did not look behind me.

There were a couple of empty seats at the end of the front row for act one but in the second act a lady wearing a "birthday girl"sash sat there reading a book most of the time, which I thought was a bit disrespectful. I think she was a member of staff.

As for the standing ovation, as I am in the front row for almost every show I never stand up until I can see that people sitting behind me have done so. On Monday evening, as I glanced around, almost everyone in the first three or four rows were on their feet, hence my 90% estimate but I would not have been able to see people further back who may still have been sitting down or leaving.

I was merely presenting my own viewpoint on the show, not intending in any way to criticise you or anyone else.

[theatrefan77]

Sept 17, 2019 23:47:00 GMT FrontroverPaul said:

I'm sorry you disliked Falsettos so intensely. While I did not enjoy, or even fully understand, Preludes I can still see its value as innovative theatre.

My seat on Monday was near the centre of the front row and from that position I noticed 4 or 5 people had apparently not returned after the interval. I did not intend to suggest the auditorium was ever full. I was using my phone as the lights went down for act one and quickly turned it off so did not look behind me.

There were a couple of empty seats at the end of the front row for act one but in the second act a lady wearing a "birthday girl"sash sat there reading a book most of the time, which I thought was a bit disrespectful. I think she was a member of staff.

As for the standing ovation, as I am in the front row for almost every show I never stand up until I can see that people sitting behind me have done so. On Monday evening, as I glanced around, almost everyone in the first three or four rows were on their feet, hence my 90% estimate but I would not have been able to see people further back who may still have been sitting down or leaving.

I was merely presenting my own viewpoint on the show, not intending in any way to criticise you or anyone else.

I was there too on Monday night in the front row and  I also noticed the very rude lady who decided to read a book during Act II after eating some sweets very noisily while drinking coffee and fussing around with her bags.  It was so disrespectful, you wouldn't think somebody would do that in the front row, all the performers could clearly see her.

The show itself was just ok for me.  Didn't love it, didn't hate it.  The cast did a good job with the material given.  I'm glad The Other Palace has given us the chance once more to see a musical that would have never been produced for a full run in a West End house.

[jgblunners]

I was also part of the Monday brigade. I worship the Broadway Cast Recording with SJB, Borle, et al. and maintain that the material is brilliant. Unfortunately this production didn't quite do it justice and my opinion was that it was 'good' but nothing more.

Firstly, the things I liked: The lighting was fantastic and the concept of the design (the picture frames) is a neat one. All the performers were good, but the kid playing Jason (we had Albert Atack) was by far the stand-out. Daniel Boys was the best of the adults, with all three women (Laura Pitt-Pulford, Gemma Knight Jones, and Natasha J Barnes) coming in joint second behind him. Joel Montague and Oliver Savile had their moments but neither was totally convincing. The band sounded good and, as I said above, the material itself is excellent.

And now, the things I didn't: While I like the concept of the set, the thing itself was horrible - the projections were tacky and unnecessary, those stupid sliding doors were annoying, and the cheap scene-setting stuff (tablecloth, wine glasses, bedspread, etc.) completely ruined the abstract concept that the picture frames and lighting were suggesting. I would've scrapped almost all of the physical props and scenery, kept the picture frames, and trusted the actors and the lighting design to evoke location and setting without (and I say this with the utmost love and respect for amateur productions) amateur-looking scene setting props. To be honest, that was my biggest issue with the show - there were moments where the abstract concept shone through, notably in the second act, and I wish the director had taken the risk and gone all-out with that. Otherwise, my only issues were botched lighting and sound cues (which should be inexcusable for a professional show in the middle of its run) and sound mixing that didn't quite balance the vocals and the band effectively.

As always, my negative opinions seem to overpower my positive ones, but I did enjoy the show and am glad that we've seen it in some form on this side of the pond. I'd love for it to have been done somewhere like the Almeida or the Young Vic, where a director might have taken a bolder stance with it.

3.75 stars because I want to give it 4 but can't quite bring myself to

Edit: I couldn't quite make it out from where I was sat, but I think that woman in the front row may have been following the show along with a script. That's what it looked like to me, anyway.

[intoanewlife]

The woman in the front row was the only truly memorable thing about the evening...

My friend and I were actually in stitches watching her in the beginning and because she was directly in our sightline she could not be avoided.

Continuing non stop giggle attacks ensued to the point I almost couldn't breathe and when enmeshed with the horrors going on on that stage well, at least we can't say we didn't laugh.

Thank GOD there was no one sitting that close to us that we'd have been annoying.

There was one point she even looked as though she had fallen asleep on the stage.

I felt sorry for the performers, but I don't think she was intending to be rude, just a little clueless and I think they picked up on that once the initial shock wore off.

She definitely was the only entertainment going on in that place and the performers were already forced to endure what they were doing so I doubt she made it any worse for them.

I can't remember the last time I have laughed that hard!

[bryan99]

Rather enjoyed this last night. This musical's history is fascinating enough to make it worth a visit for that alone. Written between the early 80s and the early 90s, the sound and style is something that would have, perhaps, stood alongside Sondhiem and acted as a precursor to JRB and all his imitators. Even last night it felt fresh and original.

The music is complex and interesting but might, perhaps, come over at times as being relentlessly 'rat-a-tat' and lacking the sort of breathing space and 'rise and fall' that the subject matter and the emotional cut-through needs. Much of that might depend on direction and performance and although the show was polished and confident, some of the layers and depth weren't coming through.

But it was great to be there and to discover and enjoy this rarity. Sad to see empty seats. And what is going on with the bar at The Other Palace? Why are they even offering cocktails in the interval?? 300 people went unserved whilst a couple at the front had an elaborate dirty martini prepared for them. Insane.

[sf]

I enjoyed this last night, but with reservations, none of which are about the material. This is a show I've loved for a long time - I saw the touring version of the original Broadway production in Washington DC in 1993, and I'd had both recordings for at least a couple of years by then. This production is often beautifully sung, but the director makes a lot of choices that undercut the material.

The tone in the first half is often way off, and sometimes far too frenzied, and everybody pushes too hard.

Joel Montague (who, yes, came into his role very late in the process, and who I've liked very much indeed in everything else I've seen him do) doesn't find his feet until a fair way into the second half.

The March of the Falsettos number, which admittedly is a very strange moment, is a catastrophe of bad directorial choices - there is a point to the song, but nobody on this stage seems to understand what it is. It's more than just two minutes of goofiness, and the processed echo effect in the sound system is unneccessary and distracting.

I'm the last person to suggest a director should slavishly follow stage directions in a published script, but if you have a song that the script indicates is sung in bed, with the character singing about/to his sleeping lover, it's more than a little perverse to stage it with the actor playing the lover sitting fully-clothed on a couch reading a book. If you're going to make a different choice, find a different choice that preserves the same sense of intimacy.

Having a projection of a flatlining heartbeat in one key moment is simply too much. We get it. It doesn't need to be underlined.

Laura Pitt-Pulford's I'm Breaking Down would be about ten thousand per cent more effective if she was allowed to mug less. Yes, the song demands big choices - but it's a shreik of frustration, and if you go right over the top and back again, as she does, you lose the underlying rage.

Throughout, the two gay relationships in the show feel peculiarly bloodless/sexless. There's far too little sense of intimacy between these characters, partly because (as I suggested a few lines further up) the director repeatedly makes choices that, essentially, rinse away the gay. Between them, these two couples generate approximately the same sexual heat as a Marks and Spencers chicken salad sandwich.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that I really wanted to love this production, and I couldn't. It's a mess. The material is strong enough, particularly in the second half, that it survives the lousy direction (and overcooked performances, too-silly choreography, and moments when everybody involved simply misses the show's tone), but it's nowhere near as good as it should have been.

And while selling themed cocktails in the bar at this show isn't quite as jaw-droppingly tasteless as it is at a production of Fiddler On The Roof, it's still rather crass given where the plot goes in the second half of the second act.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2mk5RfJ1-1

[juicy_but_terribly_drab]

Sept 20, 2019 11:34:56 GMT sf said:

I enjoyed this last night, but with reservations, none of which are about the material. This is a show I've loved for a long time - I saw the touring version of the original Broadway production in Washington DC in 1993, and I'd had both recordings for at least a couple of years by then. This production is often beautifully sung, but the director makes a lot of choices that undercut the material.

The tone in the first half is often way off, and sometimes far too frenzied, and everybody pushes too hard.

Joel Montague (who, yes, came into his role very late in the process, and who I've liked very much indeed in everything else I've seen him do) doesn't find his feet until a fair way into the second half.

The March of the Falsettos number, which admittedly is a very strange moment, is a catastrophe of bad directorial choices - there is a point to the song, but nobody on this stage seems to understand what it is. It's more than just two minutes of goofiness, and the processed echo effect in the sound system is unneccessary and distracting.

I'm the last person to suggest a director should slavishly follow stage directions in a published script, but if you have a song that the script indicates is sung in bed, with the character singing about/to his sleeping lover, it's more than a little perverse to stage it with the actor playing the lover sitting fully-clothed on a couch reading a book. If you're going to make a different choice, find a different choice that preserves the same sense of intimacy.

Having a projection of a flatlining heartbeat in one key moment is simply too much. We get it. It doesn't need to be underlined.

Laura Pitt-Pulford's I'm Breaking Down would be about ten thousand per cent more effective if she was allowed to mug less. Yes, the song demands big choices - but it's a shreik of frustration, and if you go right over the top and back again, as she does, you lose the underlying rage.

Throughout, the two gay relationships in the show feel peculiarly bloodless/sexless. There's far too little sense of intimacy between these characters, partly because (as I suggested a few lines further up) the director repeatedly makes choices that, essentially, rinse away the gay. Between them, these two couples generate approximately the same sexual heat as a Marks and Spencers chicken salad sandwich.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that I really wanted to love this production, and I couldn't. It's a mess. The material is strong enough, particularly in the second half, that it survives the lousy direction (and overcooked performances, too-silly choreography, and moments when everybody involved simply misses the show's tone), but it's nowhere near as good as it should have been.

And while selling themed cocktails in the bar at this show isn't quite as jaw-droppingly tasteless as it is at a production of Fiddler On The Roof, it's still rather crass given where the plot goes in the second half of the second act.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2mk5RfJ1-1

Completely agree with everything you've said! Pitt-Pulford's I'm Breaking Down was far too over the top, I was also annoyed by the staging without the bed and am even moreso now that I know the stage direction even specifies it and there were so many directorial choices like that which irritated me.

[kathryn]

Whizzer had clearly fallen asleep in his chair with his book when I saw it, though I take the point that lying in bed together is a much more intimate setting.

[juicy_but_terribly_drab]

Sept 20, 2019 12:44:30 GMT kathryn said:

Whizzer had clearly fallen asleep in his chair with his book when I saw it, though I take the point that lying in bed together is a much more intimate setting.

Pretty much. I just felt that their relationship lacked much of a spark compared to the Broadway revival's and it was down to the direction most of the time.

[david]

After watching this tonight, I’ve got mixed feelings about this production. From a casting point of view, I just couldn’t warm to Oliver Savile as Whizzer (even during the hospital scenes which are just heart breaking) or invest much emotion into this character for the majority of the show. As for the others, Laura Pitt Pulford’s “I’m Breaking Down” was maybe a little too comedic to be believable that her marriage was falling apart and any rage and anger that should of been there in that situation was lost in the number’s presentation. As Marvin, Daniel Boys I thought had some really strong moments (Father to Son in Act 1 and What would I do in Act 2 in particular), but the relationship between Marvin and Whizzer didn’t come across particularly well and kind of felt a little cold at times. For Joel Montague, I actually liked his performance (though his Act 2 performance was the better one). Tonight we had George Kennedy as Jason and for me he was really good throughout the show.

Of the two acts, certainly I felt Act 2 was the stronger of the two in its writing and presentation than Act 1 which for me while having some nice comedy, tonally was just uneven and the balance between comedy and angst just didn’t sit right for me.

Whilst some of the performances where a mixed bag, vocally I couldn’t fault this and the cast certainly delivered. The band sounded great tonight.

Overall, I wanted to come away from this production having been put through the emotional wringer of these characters individual journey’s, but whilst the ending was powerful, the experience as a whole left me somewhat flat.

[Stasia]

Sept 23, 2019 22:44:41 GMT david said:

After watching this tonight, I’ve got mixed feelings about this production. From a casting point of view, I just couldn’t warm to Oliver Savile as Whizzer (even during the hospital scenes which are just heart breaking) or invest much emotion into this character for the majority of the show. As for the others, Laura Pitt Pulford’s “I’m Breaking Down” was maybe a little too comedic to be believable that her marriage was falling apart and any rage and anger that should of been there in that situation was lost in the number’s presentation. As Marvin, Daniel Boys I thought had some really strong moments (Father to Son in Act 1 and What would I do in Act 2 in particular), but the relationship between Marvin and Whizzer didn’t come across particularly well and kind of felt a little cold at times. For Joel Montague, I actually liked his performance (though his Act 2 performance was the better one). Tonight we had George Kennedy as Jason and for me he was really good throughout the show.

Of the two acts, certainly I felt Act 2 was the stronger of the two in its writing and presentation than Act 1 which for me while having some nice comedy, tonally was just uneven and the balance between comedy and angst just didn’t sit right for me.

Whilst some of the performances where a mixed bag, vocally I couldn’t fault this and the cast certainly delivered. The band sounded great tonight.

Overall, I wanted to come away from this production having been put through the emotional wringer of these characters individual journey’s, but whilst the ending was powerful, the experience as a whole left me somewhat flat.

Joel Montague wasn’t on yesterday... it was male standby, can’t remember his nsme, sorry - Martin McKenna?

[foxa]

Montague was off when we saw it a couple of weeks ago. McKenna is a hard-working standby!

Mr Foxa liked this more than I did. I thought the performances were all a bit off, with Daniel Boys particularly miscast, though they all sang well. Didn't like the cartoony set. A couple of the songs stayed with me.

[alece10]

Really enjoyed this last night. Have been listening to the music for a while so knew the songs but it slots together much better after seeing it. Great singing from the cast especially Laura and Daniel.
Plus I do love a sung through musical.
I do have to say I looked at my watch a few times which is a sign for me that I am not totally immersed.
It was about two thirds full with the empty seats being in the middle section. Almost full standing ovation at the end from the very young and enthusiastic audience. I have a feeling there may have been quite a few musical theatre students in last night.
I've not been to the theater since the referb. What's going on? No box office to speak of and the the place was crowded and noisy. Is the bar now open to the public as it was rammed and most people clearly weren't going to see the show. It was like Clapham Junction in the rush hour and not very pleasant.

[Bickers]

I was at the Saturday matinee and loved the show - certainly tears were shed, even though I've listened to the music for years and knew what was to come.

First things first - this was my first time to The Other Palace, having been there previously as the St James. I don't like the refurb, and there is a woefully inadequate provision of ladies toilets, having the queue back out into the bar area wasn't very nice, and the gents having to squeeze past the queue of ladies to reach their facilities wasn't much fun for any involved. The system was much better in the old setup when they were downstairs and had many more cubicles and space available.

I couldn't even see the merch stand when I arrived at the theatre because there was so much crowding in the public area! I have sensory and spatial awareness issues, so the busyness in there was quite overwhelming. Good to see how popular it was though, but I feel they're trying to cram too much into a limited space which sacrifices visitor comfort. I did see quite a number of younger people (mostly female) who seemed to be on repeat visits.

Speaking of comfort, no real issues with legroom for me in row D - but I'm 5'3". I can see how uncomfortable it would be for anyone with longer legs. Plus I was in the centre of the row - if I'd been nearer an end with people trying to come past I have no idea how someone could squeeze past, even with people standing up.

Now onto the show.
Albert Atack was on as Jason and he was wonderful. A great presence and a lovely voice, he lit up the stage every time he was on. I'm seeing the show again in a few weeks and I'd be interested to compare one of the other boys if they're on, but I'd be thrilled to see Albert again as he was so good. Minor blip for him as he lost his glasses during the bows at the end but all handled very well.

Daniel Boys as Marvin. I thought he took a while for his voice to warm up, the first few numbers he seemed weaker. But generally I enjoyed his performance. Marvin isn't the most sympathetic of characters, particularly in Act 1 and he didn't shy away from his negative characteristics.

Oliver Savile as Whizzer, I thought his voice often sounded reminiscent of Stephen Bogardus who originated the role which I enjoyed. I did get slightly distracted in Act 2 when he had his head covered in hospital, as I realised that from certain angles he looked like a younger Rob Brydon and I had to suppress the urge to giggle because of this! I don't think he was the strongest performer but he did a fine job.

I thought Laura Pitt-Pulford had a lovely voice as Trina and her more serious numbers were sung beautifully and acted well. I think she overdid the comedy though, and it spoiled 'I'm Breaking Down' which should have been the stand out in Act 1. Whilst the song obviously does have funny moments, I think the way it was played took away from the fact she is meant to be having a breakdown and it should have been darker (which can be done without inserting swear words into it too, I didn't think that was necessary). Interestingly, they used the original version of the song, not the re-written one used in the 2016 Broadway production.

Joel Montague as Mendel had enough endearing quirkiness to bring the role to life well. I was wondering how they were going to change the lyrics to suit him as he doesn't have the look of the "wirey psychiatrist" mentioned in 'Days Like This' in Act 2 but they changed it to "weary psychiatrist" instead which worked fine. At times his relationship with Trina bordered a little on the creepy side in my opinion (though that's how it's written, rather than his performance), but he shared some lovely moments with Jason. You wouldn't know he was brought into the cast at such short notice.

Gemma Knight Jones and Natasha Barnes make the most of their roles. I was pleased to hear Dr Charlotte get namechecked with a sound effect in the hospital as it has always bugged me how the characters are never actually named on stage and you only know their names by looking in the programme, for characters who seem to be such good friends with the rest of the cast it's strange how they are never mentioned by name and are just 'the lesbians from next door'. I would like one day for a production to cast a Dr Charlotte who lives up to her comment that people say she's "very dykish" - all the women who play her seem to be really feminine and it would be nice to have a beautiful more butch lady on stage, or at least a boyish looking woman. But they sang the roles beautifully and that's the most important thing.

I wasn't over-enamoured by the photo set-up, as all the images seemed very pixelated which cheapened the effect, and some of the gaudy colours were too much for me. I like the rest of the set, however, with the moving furniture blocks serving as beds, tables and chairs when appropriate. I also liked the split level staging with the stairs (though I don't know if you'd miss some of this sat at the back of the theatre), and the use of the centre of the set as a wardrobe/extra door when needed.

The production seemed to use a mixture of the original lyrics and the 2016 production, I'm unsure why - the production seems to have been tinkered with a lot over the years and there doesn't seem to be a definitive version.

Overall, I loved the show, I'd give it a strong 4/5. I can see why people out there haven't liked it, but I'm familiar with the score and story and that probably helps a lot. Act 2 is and always has been the strongest set so I urge people not to leave after Act 1. I'm looking forward to my return visit in 4 weeks and hope it lives up to last weekend's standards, hopefully with room for improvement.

[Rukaya]

Sept 27, 2019 11:02:19 GMT Bickers said:

woefully inadequate provision of ladies toilets, having the queue back out into the bar area wasn't very nice, and the gents having to squeeze past the queue of ladies to reach their facilities wasn't much fun for any involved. The system was much better in the old setup when they were downstairs and had many more cubicles and space available.

Quick tip on the loos front, there are still toilets downstairs, and lots of them, you can access them from the theatre auditorium by a door in the left corner at the very front of the stalls. There's a sign on the wall there but it's not very obvious.

Alternatively, you can usually use the stairs in the foyer (to the right of the auditorium doors) but sometimes if there's a show on in the studio they may be blocked. But you can always access those toilets from the auditorium and there's more cubicles and space.

[Bickers]

Sept 27, 2019 11:43:44 GMT Rukaya said:

Sept 27, 2019 11:02:19 GMT Bickers said:

woefully inadequate provision of ladies toilets, having the queue back out into the bar area wasn't very nice, and the gents having to squeeze past the queue of ladies to reach their facilities wasn't much fun for any involved. The system was much better in the old setup when they were downstairs and had many more cubicles and space available.

Quick tip on the loos front, there are still toilets downstairs, and lots of them, you can access them from the theatre auditorium by a door in the left corner at the very front of the stalls. There's a sign on the wall there but it's not very obvious.

Alternatively, you can usually use the stairs in the foyer (to the right of the auditorium doors) but sometimes if there's a show on in the studio they may be blocked. But you can always access those toilets from the auditorium and there's more cubicles and space.

Thanks, that's well worth knowing for next time. I asked an usher if the toilets were still downstairs and was told no, so perhaps something was on downstairs that afternoon.

[sophie92]

Sept 27, 2019 12:00:40 GMT Bickers said:

Sept 27, 2019 11:43:44 GMT Rukaya said:

Quick tip on the loos front, there are still toilets downstairs, and lots of them, you can access them from the theatre auditorium by a door in the left corner at the very front of the stalls. There's a sign on the wall there but it's not very obvious.

Alternatively, you can usually use the stairs in the foyer (to the right of the auditorium doors) but sometimes if there's a show on in the studio they may be blocked. But you can always access those toilets from the auditorium and there's more cubicles and space.

Thanks, that's well worth knowing for next time. I asked an usher if the toilets were still downstairs and was told no, so perhaps something was on downstairs that afternoon.

They seem to be trying to put people off using the downstairs toilets as of late. The last few times I’ve been, a member of FOH staff has stood in front of the door at the front of the auditorium during the interval and at the end of the show, to stop people from going through to use the toilets. The stairs in the main foyer have a little gate/door across that locks now, and the staff haven’t let people down that way to use the toilets, on my recent visits. Maybe it just depends on the day how accommodating they feel like being!

[liv22]

Unfortunately I can no longer attend next Saturday so I'm selling one ticket to the Saturday 12th October 19:30 performance if anyone is interested. Paid £25, seat N7 (sold as restricted view back row) but happy to consider any offers. Have it on e-ticket so can email over straight away. PM if interested

[alece10]

Daniel Boys has said he is coming off social media for a while. Wonder if something ha happened.

[theoracle]

Must say I really enjoyed this this evening. Both Daniel Boys and Laura Pitt-Pullford were off so I got to see both covers and oh my days!! Both of them were PERFECTION in their roles as Marvin and Trina. I remember feeling lukewarm towards this cast during the West End Live production and was mainly keen to see Oliver Savile (wouldn’t have minded seeing even more of him if you know what I mean).

There’s a dodgy start with 4 Jews in a room but it keeps getting better as the show goes on. I quite liked the simplistic set and the projections were used well although they don’t look particularly high tech. Still, this piece is supposed to be set in the early 80s so I wasn’t bothered by it. At the end of the day, the music and lyrics gave Falsettos it’s reputation and a few decades on, William Finn and James Lapine can still be regarded as geniuses.

As I say I feel really lucky to have been able to see Natasha O’Brien who in my opinion was on par with Stephanie J Blocks Tony nominated portrayal of Trina. She found both heartbreak and humour at the best times and really embodied the essence of her character. Similarly Matthew McKenna seemed like the ideal choice to play Marvin and had very natural chemistry with Savile’s Whizzer. But perhaps a stand out was George Kennedy as Jason who received a very well deserved applause at the curtain call.

The show demands your attention and unless you’re willing to give it, you’re not going to enjoy it as much as those who do. The multi layered text is to die for in my opinion and the ending is soul shattering after watching how the characters grow and develop over the course of the show. Very glad I booked to see it this evening.

[ABr]

Oct 8, 2019 23:44:35 GMT theoracle said:

Must say I really enjoyed this this evening. Both Daniel Boys and Laura Pitt-Pullford were off so I got to see both covers and oh my days!! Both of them were PERFECTION in their roles as Marvin and Trina. I remember feeling lukewarm towards this cast during the West End Live production and was mainly keen to see Oliver Savile (wouldn’t have minded seeing even more of him if you know what I mean).

There’s a dodgy start with 4 Jews in a room but it keeps getting better as the show goes on. I quite liked the simplistic set and the projections were used well although they don’t look particularly high tech. Still, this piece is supposed to be set in the early 80s so I wasn’t bothered by it. At the end of the day, the music and lyrics gave Falsettos it’s reputation and a few decades on, William Finn and James Lapine can still be regarded as geniuses.

As I say I feel really lucky to have been able to see Natasha O’Brien who in my opinion was on par with Stephanie J Blocks Tony nominated portrayal of Trina. She found both heartbreak and humour at the best times and really embodied the essence of her character. Similarly Matthew McKenna seemed like the ideal choice to play Marvin and had very natural chemistry with Savile’s Whizzer. But perhaps a stand out was George Kennedy as Jason who received a very well deserved applause at the curtain call.

The show demands your attention and unless you’re willing to give it, you’re not going to enjoy it as much as those who do. The multi layered text is to die for in my opinion and the ending is soul shattering after watching how the characters grow and develop over the course of the show. Very glad I booked to see it this evening.

Fully echo pretty much everything you said! We were there Monday, and we didn't have Laura, so we had Natasha on, who I thought was sublime! 

The theatre was I'd say only about half full, granted it was a Monday evening, so it would be interesting to see how full it gets on 'busier' nights>

Overall i thought it was a great production!

[theatre241]

Does anyone know what the sides of the front row are like for this production?

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2019 16:27:50 GMT theatre241 said:

Does anyone know what the sides of the front row are like for this production?

the theatre is tiny. Everywhere is fine.

[edi]

Todaytix has one of this flash £15 sales. I got row C.

[Someone in a tree]

Oct 17, 2019 8:05:49 GMT edi said:

Todaytix has one of this flash £15 sales. I got row C.

Another example of a show getting great reviews from the printed press but it not selling very well