Scandaltown- Lyric Hammersmith

[nottobe]

The cast was announced for this today, very happy to see Rachel Stirling is in this. Mike Bartlett is the man of the moment with this, Cock and the Old Vic Trump play. Sounds like quite a fun and different play! 

[imstillhere]

Mike Borelett*

Three productions at once is unnecessarily. Theatre needs to diversify.

[samuelwhiskers]

James Graham and Simon Stephens, reading this 

[matty]

I got free tickets to the first preview as a resident in Hammersmith but had an email today to say they're moving all free first night bookers to other previews, not sure why though.

[dlevi]

Feb 25, 2022 19:55:58 GMT imstillhere said:

Three productions at once is unnecessarily. Theatre needs to diversify.

Of course you're right , but so many stars have to align for just one play to be produced that it's foolish for a playwright NOT to have as many "balls int he air" as possible because one never knows which one will land. Is a playwright supposed to say no to production opportunities?

[catcat100]

Really enjoyed this tonight, definitely the best of the three. Think it can be described as a bawdy Shakespeare comedy in style.

Good acting, lots of funny jokes, plenty of mistaken identity and a bit of cross dressing. Oh, and a big coat.

A bit of social commentary in there as well but doesn't feel over the top and is very topical.

4.5 stars, verging on 5 as can't really find much wrong with it.

[marob]

Haven’t seen The 47th but I did enjoy this a lot more than Cock. I think the fact it has a plot helps immensely.

On a sidenote, I saw Thomas Josling a few years back as George in the National Youth Music Theatre production of Sunday in the Park with George. Nice to see he’s showing up in professional productions now.

[Jon]

Bet the Lyric Hammersmith are thrilled they got the better of the two Mike Bartlett plays.

It’s not unusual for a playwright to have more than one new play debut in a year. James Graham had Ink, Labour of Love and Quiz debut at diffident theatres in 2017.

[TallPaul]

Even without including Sky's Edge and Great Women, Chris Bush has about 32 projects on the go this year.

[djdan14]

Is there an interval? I see the running time on the website but no mention if that includes an interval or not

[matty]

Saw this tonight and really enjoyed it. The plot is a bit OTT, but it worked. It felt a bit preachy at times, but not to its detriment. Definitely recommend it. The stalls were pretty full, but not sold out.

Apr 11, 2022 21:25:06 GMT djdan14 said:

Is there an interval? I see the running time on the website but no mention if that includes an interval or not

Yes there is. Act 1 is 7.30 - 8.35. Act 2 is 8.55 - 10

[Dave B]

I really enjoyed this one but my partner did not. Really fun cast, a lot of good gags (and funny and relevant political ones especially compared to the broad caricatures of The 47th), I enjoyed it from start to finish. It's still a bit OTT but I found this one works for me.

So that's my partner really enjoying The 47th but not Scandaltown and the opposite for me. We are seeing Cock tomorrow, so we are joking that will be a decider for us

[samuelwhiskers]

Absolutely great fun. But can’t help thinking it’s a 5* production of a 3* script.

[Steve]

Saw the matinee, and for me, I concur that this is the all-round best of the three Bartlett productions in London right now. By writing his own restoration comedy, Bartlett is able to seamlessly skewer the social media age, generating empathy for society's "baddies," while getting major laughs all along the way. Rachael Stirling is at her absolute best!

Some spoilers follow. . .

Borrowing masked-mixup-of-identities and Shakespearean-style-girl-disguises-herself-as-a-man plots from "The Recruitment Officer," and combining it with the-rebellious-libertine-takes-on-society plot from "The Man of the Mode," Bartlett integrates topical social media fakery and political chicanery to create a show that is genuinely funny.

This means that the usual problem with Restoration Comedies is avoided, which is directors superimposing these topical themes into material that doesn't fully realise those themes, creating productions that are confusing and unfunny. Instead, this purpose built neo-Restoration Comedy gets major laughs, including some belly laughs, and is always easy to follow.

Further, it doesn't get preachy, and reserves it's greatest affection for the worst behaviour, which has the beneficial side-effect of reducing the blood pressure of audience members who have become overly invested in societal critiques to the expense of their happiness. If we accept we're all pretty dreadful at heart, which is the essence of Restoration Comedy in my view, then we can ease off the self-hatred.

The production is cast to the hilt, with no weak performances, but there are a few standouts who get the biggest laughs.

Rachael Stirling is the premier laugh generator, as her low octave, corruptly smoky, high precision punchy, precise and perfectly modulated ennunciation make her the perfect instrument for a character with zero moral qualms: an absolute hoot with the ability to smash through social niceties like a laser-targeted wrecking ball!

Just behind her in the hilarity stakes, Richard Goulding, as Matt Eton, an amoral populist with a lascivious eye, shamelessly bumbles and blusters his way deep into the laugh zone.

Equally funny as Goulding, with a more difficult brief, namely, extracting laughs out of wide-eyed innocence, is Cecilia Appiah, who so brightly and confidently portrays a character of such extreme naiveté, that everything she says and thinks is wrong, at least at the start of the play lol.

Appiah carries the half of the thrust of the plot, as it is she who dresses up as a man, and her "man" character, Stephen, with his peaky blinder hat and painted on moustache, is a laugh riot, as Appiah proves equal to the task of mimicking the most reactionary man-type, and is almost as thrustingly bolshy as a man, as Stirling is as a woman.

The other half of the plot is carried by Aysha Kala's social media advisor, Hannah Tweetwell, who is out for revenge against Stirling's Lady Climber, and she does it beautifully, with the plot about three thousand percent better explicated by her, than in a typical Restoration Comedy.

While these four, in my estimation, clinch this show as a comedy acting masterclass, the cast is so accomplished and rich that I am still chuckling at Thomas Josling's wannabe iPhone documentarian and Matthew Broome's wannabe libertine.

All in all, this show is wonderful as it is not only replete with flawless performances, but it feels like the rare Restoration Comedy that fully works. It is not a work of profound depth, but it is a work of truth, it is very funny and it massages stressed political minds by reminding us all that we are all the same deep down.

4and a half stars (4 for the writing, 5 for the execution).

[samuelwhiskers]

I liked it a lot but I found much of the writing (especially the tedious rants about “woke virtue signallers pretending to care to impress Twitter”) very preachy, and you could tell it had been written by a middle aged white man. Not that that’s a bad thing, but there’s such a glut of media commentators all over TV and the tabloids ranting about “wokesters” it’s just kind of played out, and I felt the script would have been better if it had targeted things that were a bit less cliched.

The costume at the end

SPOILER: Click to show

that was supposed to be so shocking -nudity? I don’t find that very shocking but I can’t think of anything else. If she really wanted to destroy Lady Climber’s reputation surely blackface or a culturally appropriated costume would be more effective?

[/spoiler]

[joem]

First five minutes I was worried I was watching the latest Carry On but then it clicked and I got it. Very clever and funny take on restoration drama in a modern guise and yeah loved how it picks on a number of targets some of which are woke but some of which are not so no-one should think this is skewed or slanted, I have seen far more vindictive and partisan plays on a regular basis but they are not news because they are the targets we love to pick on and are considered fair game.

[Someone in a tree]

"I am as left as luggage". I enjoyed this one. Great fun but a bit preachy in the second act and also about 10 minutes too long.

But great cast though

[david]

This was only my second time at the Lyric Hammersmith and what a beautiful auditorium it is encased in a bland facade. The theatre have hit on a great ticket pricing structure. Those few front stalls rows at £10/15 are are a real steal (allowing folk to take a chance in seeing something without breaking the bank) and offer great views of the stage without any neck ache and plenty of leg room. Those are the sorts of prices that encouraged me to purchase a row C stalls seat for £15 for tonight’s performance.

Mike Bartlett has written a really funny play with plenty of biting humour that was delivered brilliantly by a superb cast that kept us thoroughly entertained and a play that just allows you to switch your brain off for the 90 minutes as the jokes come thick and fast. Rachael Stirling as Lady Susan Climber and Richard Goulding as Matt Eton were the standouts 

For my rating, I’d agree with Steve ’s assessment. A 4⭐️ script and 5⭐️ for the excecution.

[Dr Tom]

Saw this yesterday with a bargain price ticket. A very enjoyable afternoon. I found this much more gentle than I expected from the previews (the threat of nudity didn't involve any loss of underwear, although I'm sure many in the audience appreciated the site of Matthew Broome showing how hard he'd been working in the gym).

This has many Shakespearian elements, including people disguising themselves as the opposite gender, masks and mistaken identity. In fact, I was rather surprised that the postman and one of the other characters did not turn out to be the same individual.

Lots of topical gags about the state of celebrity (and Richard Osman). A very strong political slant, but that's to be expected.

I thought this was excellent for the first 90 minutes, then the final 30 minutes would have been better condensed into 15. But don't let that put you off seeing this. Very well presented, a pleasant venue and West End quality without West End prices.

Finally, were scenes from this previewed somewhere? There was a sequence at the start of the second half that I had a real sense of deja vu about, but I just can't work out where from.

[dlevi]

I'm surprised at all the favorable comments on here. I saw this last night and thought while there were some very funny lines, it was for the most part pretty crappy. The performances with the exception of Rachel Stirling were average ( and less than that with the brother & sister leads) I found the design to be cheap and unimaginative and Ms Riordan's direction flat. Where was the buoyant energy needed to keep a farce such as this afloat? My companion and I were in a good mood when we entered the theatre but by the time it was over we were angry. It's as if Ms Riordan said to Mike Bartlett - we'll be happy to produce any play you wish to give us. And he reached into his drawer and pulled this out.We were also surprised to see that the last 4 or 5 rows in the stalls were empty. Maybe it played fresher in previews?

[mkb]

Can't really add much to what user Steve posted earlier. He has nailed it.

Thoroughly enjoyable tonight. A lot of belly laughs. Excellent performances. Was over too quickly and was left wanting more. Sad that the auditorium was barely half full on a Friday night.

Five stars.

Act 1: 19:32-20:27
Act 2: 20:48-21:54

[showgirl]

Having recently seen Running With Lions at the Lyric and being due to see Scandaltown next week, it looks to me as though the theatre isn't even releasing all the tickets for sale, which I suppose makes sense if you'd rather it looked reasonably full (while still allowing for some social distancing). A shame but focusing the audience in a smaller area presumably looks better to the cast and creates as much atmosphere as the limited attendance allows.

[mkb]

Since posting last night, I've scanned the press reviews. I saw three three-star and three two-star ones, which stretches credulity. Did something go horrendously wrong on press night?

I know the critics have their own agenda, such as what sells copy, and what furthers their reputation, but two-stars is hard to fathom. Surely only the most po-faced of individuals couldn't enjoy this?

[theatrelover123]

Apr 30, 2022 9:57:38 GMT mkb said:

Since posting last night, I've scanned the press reviews. I saw three three-star and three two-star ones, which stretches credulity. Did something go horrendously wrong on press night?

I know the critics have their own agenda, such as what sells copy, and what furthers their reputation, but two-stars is hard to fathom. Surely only the most po-faced of individuals couldn't enjoy this?

I would give it 5 out of 10 and I saw it 2 weeks ago. I have no agenda

[cavocado]

I gave it 2 stars in my diary. I found it mildly funny, I quite enjoyed the modern Restoration comedy idea and I liked Rachael Stirling. Otherwise I thought it was often boring and unfocused, and some of the performances were below par. I don't think it's about agendas or being po-faced. I found The 47th very funny, but this just didn't work for me.