The official summary reads: A small boy is driving his mother to distraction – waking at night, hearing phantom noises and fixating on his absent father. When he glimpses a figure prowling the house at night, a shadow is cast which gradually strips away his childhood certainties.

listen to Sophie Okonedo and Ben Daniels

And this is probably the least favorable synopsis one could give – even though the play derives its title from these first scenes, where Julie tries to calm her son by talking about his nightmares and calling him a “haunted child”. But there is so much more to this play by Joe Penhall – the little boy just seems to be a catalyst for all that ensues in the next two hours.

Because the play does not just deal with the hauntings of a little boy, but with everything that haunts the grown-ups too – their fear of being left alone, their need to belong, their sense of responsibility or their lack thereof and their regrets. There is a veil of sadness hanging over this family, that clouds their judgement and makes them vulnerable – just as vulnerable as a little boy who all of a sudden hears someone moving in the attic, hears noises that shouldn’t be there.

His mother doesn’t believe him, until one night she stumbles down the stairs and almost runs into her husband Douglas, who disappeared weeks ago, left work and family behind to find a way out of his bottomless desperation, his depression that had engulfed him since his father had died years ago.

But the man who comes back into Julie’s life is not the man she knew – not only has he lost his teeth and a considerable amount of weight, judging by the way his clothes are hanging on him, he also looks disheveled, his hair too long and his beard scraggly. But what is probably the most disturbing: Douglas has found religion – in his quest to escape his desperation he has been picked up by an apparently charismatic guru, who deprived him of sleep, food and drink and pressed him into a set of rules that leave no room for individuality. “I believed you were dead – and in some ways this is worse…” she says at one point when faced with alien ideas and concepts that have no place in her reality. And yet – still Julie hopes for a continuation of their life together as they knew it – a life spent as a family, when the brainwashed stranger in her husband’s body responds to her just like her husband did – even though his guru had told them to abandon all carnality for good (and masturbate to specific pictures provided by the guru if nature becomes too overwhelming).

The next morning becomes unbearable to Julie, though. Douglas, guilt ridden that he has sinned, does a weird cleansing ritual and plans on going back to his group – after selling the house that Julie tried to make into a home for their son, handing the money over to his guru as an entrance fee. It is only then Julie accepts that he is beyond help from her – now she is fighting for her child as Douglas tries to take the boy with him – a child needs adventure! he says while she says: a child needs structure and rules. He leaves.

And comes back dirty, battered and alone – without money, he was worth nothing to his group, was nothing and abandoned again and so came back to a place where mother and son had come to a fragile peace about the fact that Douglas would never return. He comes home to his suitcases packed…

The play gives you flashes of lives, glimpses into the souls of three people, with little structure, but a lot of psychological insight wrapped into monologues and dialogues that have you poised on the edge of your seat. At first I missed the classical structure of any play but now I think Penhall’s way of telling this story, in scenes that seem to be ripped out of the lives of his protagonists, even deepens the drama and heightens the sense of urgency that comes with Douglas’ desperate attempts of finding any  meaning in his life.

Of course the play depends on excellent actors to pull off the tension, to make the drama believable. The Royal Court Theatre was therefore very lucky to get Sophie Okonedo and Ben Daniels as their Julie and Douglas. Both actors have known each other for years, and been friends, and their rapport on stage is amazing. Their intensity and the chemistry they have together create the perfect environment for a midnblowingly brilliant performance. These two together create exactly the sort of magic theatre should be. Such is rare (only Holding The Man comes to mind as equally awe inspiring) and should be celebrated. And it will make me come back in January.

Addendum January

so I saw it again – and it was even better. They had tightened the play, tweaked and cut it – not even that much, but obviously very well, because it now worked better, the scenes flowing into each other with greater precision without losing any significant text or subtext. On the contrary – now the play makes one thing clear:  They are all haunted.

One of the pivotal scenes is where Douglas tries to convince Julie to come with him into his cult – into his world – a world where there is guidance, where there are no responsibilities other than observe the spiritual leader’s words. A world where they can discover what they really want, according to Doug, where they can be children again. And Julie is on the verge of accepting all this – a tempting thought: to be freed  from your responsibilities as a grown up, a mother, a working class woman, and being guided to spirituality, to become a child… but what about her son? He IS a child – what is he supposed to become? And how are they supposed to have more children within this group if they have to forsake all carnality? And as she asks this questions, the answers Doug is providing sound like out of a badly written book, they are empty. Julie is too grounded to be sucked into the cult’s rationalising – she sends her husband away, without his money.

When he comes back battered and destroyed, kneeling at Julie’s feet, it becomes clear: He is the child desperately seeking any kind of hold on life. And even his strange ramblings about his soul being part of his son, his own father’s soul being part of him and therefore part of his son too, so his son might even be his father – a litany that had confused his beloved child, becomes clear and true to an extent. Because his own son now stands next to his mother, and both pat the sobbing man’s head, a comforting gesture used to calm a little boy…

the packed suitcases now symbolising more an end of an era, the era of Doug being in charge, rather than his ejection.

As I said before – the play grew and got even better, both Sophie Okonedo and Ben Daniels were riveting, and made the audience geel for and with them. I am very lucky to have seen this play at the beginning and the end of the run. The last performances were absolutely AWESOME!

Whatsonstage – I couldn’t have said it any better!!!

The Guardian

The ArtsDesk

The Wharf

The Financial Times

Love, lust, court intrigue, betrayal, despotic power, plotting: Intrigue And Love (the play’s original title) has all the elements of an Elizabethan or Jacobean tragedy.  The trouble is, almost two centuries later, Schiller seems unable in this play to offer his audience any development on the themes rehearsed by his British predecessors Shakespeare  and Middleton.  Schiller’s main achievement is transferring the genre to a German setting.  By definition this means that any English performance of Intrigue And Love will, in translation, lose its only merit.

Max Bennet and Felicity Jones as Ferdinand and Luise

Mike Poulton does a great job translating the German and Grandage renames the play Luise Miller to signify emphasis on the tragic heroine rather than the ridiculous Sheridan-style courtly antics.  Yet I still couldn’t help feeling that I was watching a second-rate tragedy.  You couldn’t compare the language with Shakespeare’s (it would have helped to hear the original German for this).  And the plot, after Othello and Romeo and Juliet, was predictable.

But the staging, direction and acting were as impeccable as ever at the Donmar.  In particular John Light, as the Chancellor’s ingratiating and Machiavellian apprentice Wurm, stood out with his silkily rough-edged deep voice and impenetrable manner.  David Dawson provided a modern touch of comedy with his uber-camp Horfmarshcall Von Kalb and Ben Daniels was a perfectly chilling court-climbing Chancellor.  It is always hardest to play the innocent protagonists in tragedy, but Max Bennett and Felicity Jones managed to tread the line between pure-hearted innocence and flawed realism without falling into self-righteous tedium.  Jones especially shone with her childlike yet thoughtful delivery.
An adventurous, if odd, choice of play.  Perhaps the reason one doesn’t see more of Schiller in the West End is because his plays simply don’t work that well in English.

I had wanted to see Ben Daniels live on stage ever since I saw him in Law and Order UK for the first time – understandable – that voice, those eyes, that stern demeanour, these  emotions displayed on his face. So when he dropped out of the show I immediately inquired if there were any theatre plans in his near future. And then it was Schiller’s Kabale und Liebe, a play I (and countless unhappy kids with me) had been forced to read at school for agonizing weeks and weeks, a klunker of a play that – the way we saw it – had little to no relevance in today’s world. But I was not to be deterred, I wanted to see what them Brits were going to make of this Sturm und Drang classic that had cost me more than one headache.

Picture my delight that, when I finally arrived in London to see the play, fate and current affairs like the Murdoch trial  had turned the erstwhile “clunker” into a very topical play, and it had also shifted the focus from the Romeo and Juliet like love story to the machinations and shenanigans of the men in powerat the German court. Having said that I also must state that this was just an added bonus. The play itself had been tightened to a riveting two and a half hours, had been dusted and cleaned up and brushed up and did draw ovations and great reviews from audiences and critics alike even before the press scandal of hacked phones and bribed informants broke. Mike Poulton, who had basically and thankfully rewritten the play, had done the editing with love and obvious joy and therefore ensured that every memory of my schooldays was eradicated within the first few moments after the imaginary curtain rose.

Schiller wrote this play as his revenge – he’d been incarcerated for leaving his Duke’s realm without permission (he had gone to oversee the first production of his play The Robbers).  So rightfully incensed he created an imaginary duchy with  a Prince living far above his means with a mistress whose influence keeps him satisfied and therefore her in money. The true ruler of the duchy is the Chancellor though, a man who seems void of any feelings, intent on amassing power through cunning, treason and fraud, which he plans on passing on to his son. To make this plan happen, he already has furthered his son Ferdinand’s career in the army. Now he takes another step towards gaining ultimate power: The prince, who is planning to marry, has to install his mistress in an honorable position at court in order to keep her by his side during his marriage. Thus Lady Milford must be married, too. And she and the Chancellor both want Ferdinand to take this position.

Ferdinand, who has fallen in love with the pure but poor musician’s daughter Luise, who, at 16, lives only for the moments Ferdinand comes to their home to learn how to play the violin. Thanks to Secretary Wurm (brilliantly played by Lloyd Everitt)  – who had tried to woo Luise himself but hadn’t succeeded – news of the affair and a secret proposal reach the Chancellor. What happens now is not only a brilliant transferral from Schiller’s lyrics to almost modern prose, it is also a very cynical and sharp view into modern politics and the way in which people are simply dealt with when they become involved in state’s affairs.

….the Chancellor, using every wile and threat in the book, is implacable: “Forget love – forget affection – in this bitter world all that matters is the hand that rules it.” At least that’s what Ben Daniels’s transfixingly ruthless Chancellor says in Mike Poulton’s bold new version at the Donmar Warehouse. From the review of the Telegraph on June 14th.

“The stuff of seduction is also the stuff of politics. Lies and promises!” .. This is the tag line for the play and emphasizes the depth of ruthlessness that will lead to the destruction of a whole court. With lies the Chancellor – and Ben Daniels is brilliant as the power hungry politician who is stopped by nothing to get what he wants, until the very end … when he suddenly discovers that all that devastation he has brought didn’t strike nameless faces but his own flesh and blood – gets his son to leave Luise. With lies Lady Milford gets the prince to marry her off to Ferdinand and with lies the court conspires to isolate the one pure soul and destroy her in the process, when Luise is forced to sign another lie to make the Chancellor’s plans happen.

It seems like overkill and yet stunningly topical when in the end both lovers die, Lady Milford decides to flee the court, the Secretary is imprisoned and takes the Chancellor with him – von Walter giving himself up when faced with the death of his son and the end of his career. The court though will stay the same – the prince’s reputation won’t be harmed, and there will be another “hand that rules” the duchy.

The cast – mostly brilliantly chosen – I wasn’t too keen on Felicity Jones’ Luise Miller  who came across as whiney and rather declamatory at times. But maybe that stood out so gratingly because everyone else was just amazing. I already mentioned Wurm, and Hofmarshall von Kalb (Daniel Dawson) was every bit as marvellous in his mannerisms and barely concealed lust for forbidden fruit- a cardinal sin in those days. But the strongest actor by far was Ben Daniels,  who managed (pardon the language) to frighten the shit out of me when he forces his son to pay Lady Milford a visit. His rage and barely contained anger were hair raising – until he actually looms over the cowering son and almost, just almost hits him – marvellous. That he is able to shift from ruthless politician to actually guilt ridden father is thrilling to watch and testimony to his talent.

Now onto the fun stuff: the stage-dooring before and after the play

The whole cast was absolutely amazing – affectionate, friendly, taking time for their fans. Ben Daniels easily won over my two friends with his charm and humor and took the time for little chats even though personal guests were waiting for him. It’s always nice to see that the most talented actors are also nicest to the people waiting for them.

What was disappointing – there were a lot of professional Autograph hunters there; people who resell pics on eBay, who don’t even have the decency to see the play at least once. No surprise that Alex Kingston – a very regal and layered Lady Milford in the play – looked not very happy when she was accosted by some of them  with pictures of her as River Song. Needless to say I do not condone this kind of behaviour!

The Chancellor’s son, an army major, is in love with court musician’s daughter Luise, but his father plans to wed him to the Prince’s mistress to provide cover for the Prince and obtain influence for himself.  The Chancellor’s private secretary, appropriately named Wurm, wants Luise himself and with the help of Lady Milford and Hofmarschall ( I wasn’t quite sure what his role is) his machiavellian plans unfold, ending tragically with its R&J moment. It’s a cracking story and the dialogue is sharp and often witty; not a word is wasted.

The Donmar space is simply but beautifully designed and lit by Peter McKintosh and Paule Constable respectively and Michael Grandage’s staging is as ever impeccable. I don’t think even the Donmar has ever assemble an ensemble this good. You totally believe in the love and passion of Felicity Jones and Max Bennett as Luise and Ferdinand. Ben Daniels has never been better than here as the Chancellor, whose craze for power unleashes such tragedy and results in his own deep remorse. John Light and David Dawson provide the intrigue in their deliciously smarmy, oleaginous fashion (and in the case of Dawson, very camp) whilst Alex Kingston is every bit the arch manipulator whose only interest is herself – at any cost . I also really liked Paul Higgins devoted passionate father who does much to illustrate the backdrop of the class divide.

This will I’m sure be one of the highlights of the year, and one of the defining productions of Grandage’s reign at the Donmar. Miss at your peril.

It’s often said that the Devil has the best lines; and this is certainly the case in Michael Grandage’s staging of Friedrich Schiller’s early piece of political melodrama. However, in this swipe at the inequities of the eighteenth-century German aristocracy, man is the demon and God is a spoilt prince cosseted away in his court, ignorant of the suffering of his people. And all the while, Mike Poulton’s vivid translation rings with the bitter laughter of an idealist, Schiller, who rails against the corrupt and their rat-trap institutions but cannot help but be fascinated by them.

The play opens on a sparse set consisting of a rough-hewn table with a violin on it. A long shaft of light cuts downwards and through the smoke-filled air to illuminate the instrument. However, although this tableau evokes religious paintings, we quickly learn that Heaven is absent. Instead of grandeur, Grandage and designer Peter McKintosh use the Donmar’s soaring space to create a powerful sense of emptiness. The message is clear: there are no greater truths to be found here.

The violin belongs to Miller, a gruff music teacher and devoted father to Luise, a pious beauty who has become romantically involved with Ferdinand, a high-ranking captain in the German army and the Chancellor’s only son. Miller’s anger and fear about the consequences of this union of high and low prove to be well-founded; when his enraged father discovers the affair, Ferdinand is forcibly engaged to the prince’s mistress, Lady Milford, and Luise’s faith is used against her to ensure her complicity in the arrangement. Natures are corrupted and family ties are discarded by a ruthless ruling class that will stop at nothing to preserve its position at the top of a teetering social order.

Everything works backwards in this nightmarish world. Murky half-light obscures rather than illuminates courtiers and politicians as they weave between pillars to plot and conspire, leaving them as indistinct as their motives. And we know that Ferdinand and Luise are doomed when they describe their relationship as transcendent. In a society where religious items are bundled into a suitcase like second-hand ornaments, there’s no room for idealised love. We pity them for their naiveté and laugh in spite of ourselves when the Chancellor makes lewd jokes about buttering crusts or shoving thumbs in dishes.

As the Chancellor, Ben Daniels is twinkly-eyed and craggily handsome, imbuing the character with a mixture of wry cynicism and casual menace that washes across the stage in waves of humour or explodes into spitting anger when his position is challenged. His callous use of fatherhood to manipulate Ferdinand into marriage should make anyone who still feels like a teenager around their parents shift uneasily in their seat. As the Chancellor’s masochistic henchman Wurm, John Light is also up there in the Machiavellian stakes; his thin-lipped poker face twitching with a curdled mixture of lust for Luisa and bitter self-loathing. Meanwhile, David Dawson grabs most of the laughs as the hilariously camp Hofmarschall von Kalb, sashaying around the stage in a blur of make-up, jewels and French affectations.

In the end, if there’s any sliver of hope to be found in this adaptation of Luise Miller, it rests with the “English Lady” Milford rather than the fiddler’s daughter and her heartthrob lover with his chiselled good looks – perhaps out of necessity, the pair are just too good to be true. No, the prospect of salvation, at least of an earthly kind, lies in the story of the prince’s mistress who, by the end of the play, has exiled herself from court and in doing so broken free of the gilded cage she has built for herself through the years and the tears. Spilling out of her dress and her eyes flashing with a lifetime’s worth of hurt, Alex Kingston is magnificent in the role, radiating sensuality, anger, authority and, finally, compassion for Luise. She is the refreshingly all-too human heart of this superb production, which brims with exceptional performances and breathes new life into Schiller’s all-encompassing vision of the world.

(At the Donmar Warehouse, 8 June to 30 July)

First published by Exeunt Magazine

Alright, is this the rest of you, the ones who don’t mind knowing more about a show before you go? Or are you perhaps among those who sat through this tragedy of comic proportions and wanted to see if your experiences matched my own? Well, read on …

Luise Miller is about a young man of noble birth (Ferdinand, Max Bennett) in love with a young woman of low birth (Luise Miller, Felicity Jones) whom he meets while taking violin lessons from her father. The play starts with thick tragedy warnings from the start, made even more alarming once young Ferdinand appears on stage, in his officer’s uniform, with innocent, virtuous, highly religious Luise and promptly appears to be telling her every line of bull in the book about how he absolutely will find a way to make their relationship work. He was laying it on so thick I was expecting Luise to promptly dance herself to death and be brought back by the Queen of the Wilis. Three characters stand in their way: his father (The Chancellor, Ben Daniels), the neighbor in love with Luise (Wurm, appropriately enough, John Light), and the king’s mistress (Lady Milford, Alex Kingston), who wants to marry Ferdinand herself. Leaving still a bit of room for surprise, I’ll say the plot does have a few twists and turns, but ends in keeping with the early expectations, with an overblown, overacted death scene that hit all the buttons if you’re feeling spiteful about all of the sap on stage.

I had some serious problems with the script for this play. A huge gap exists between the people in the world of the court (the Chancellor, Lady Milford) and the world of Luise. On Luise’s side, religion and morality are of utmost importance; at the court, it’s power and getting what you want. And, unexpectedly, it’s the manipulative court people who actually are more interesting. I’m sure Schiller meant our sympathies to be with Luise and Ferdinand, and while I felt sorry for the way their beliefs and sense of honor were used to manipulate them, it didn’t change the fact that they came off as two dimensional. This was especially bad in the case of Bennett, who, as Ferdinand, had a wide range of emotions to cover – passion, happiness, rage, jealousy – and didn’t really seem up to the task (though he did have passion-inspiring shoulders). I wondered if it was just too far removed from his personal experience for him to “get” what he was acting. As for Jones, well, she was sweet, but in her confrontation with Lady Milford she moves beyond sugary into insightful and empathetic – giving Jones more chance to show dramatic range and winning me over as a character and an actress. Sadly, both of the young’uns were weak when they were meant to be crazy … but this was during the point when the religiosity was being cranked up to my breaking point anyway so I was checking out a bit and waiting for the God talk to be over. I’m sure, though, Schiller did NOT mean for me to be humorously indifferent to Luise and Ferdinand’s suffering …. but they did both really need to do some growing up.

Overall, this play was kind of typical of the gloom and doom style I’ve come to associate with the Donmar, but without the really brilliant script to make it all amazing. Still, I walked into the night feeling a sense of joy at having seen the destruction I’d anticipated all night wreaked so thoroughly at the end, and, given that it was just past 10PM as I headed out the door, it seemed like it had been a good evening, but one that definitely called for a bit of ice cream, so off to Scoop I went for a little bit of sweet and cold to end my evening perfectly satisfied.

(This review is for a preview performance that took place on Friday, June 10th, 2011. Luise Miller continues through July 30th.)

As I said the film is very enjoyable and I believe this is down to the killer screenplay by Jonathan Harvey (who also wrote a play of Beautiful Thing). There were some brilliant performances too but these did not come from the film’s protagonists. Linda Henry is fantastic as Sandra, the concerned and driven mother whose sass and passion give the film a steady rhythm. Ben Daniels is also great as the slightly-too-posh-hippy-boyfriend Tony. The film’s peripheral star however is the character of Leah played by a young Tameka Empson (who you may know from hidden-camera show 3 Non-Blondes). Another neighbour on the estate Leah makes her presence known singing Mama Cass songs out on the balcony, taking drugs at parties and generally being at the heart of all the film’s moments of comedy. There was something lacking in the performance of the characters of Jamie and Ste and if they had not been supported by a strong ensemble this would have been at the expense of the film.

Watching Beautiful Thing I was instantly reminded first, of Stephen Frears’ My Beautiful Laundrette mostly because of its similar subject matter and innovative normalised portrayal of homosexuality in heteronormative film tradition. The second film it reminded me of was Alan Clarke’s Rita, Sue and Bob Too mainly because of the characters’ brashness. The one thing which links these three films are their production company – Film4 (called Channel4 Films at the time). Film4′s track record is seriously impressive and it has always gone out of it’s way to produce important films which explore stories often untold on screen. This is therefore a quintessential Film4 feature.  If we’re talking about gay cinema however I wouldn’t call Beautiful Thing a seminal work. At times it didn’t feel too right having so many stereotypes flung at you like this was the holy doctrine on the nature of sexuality: ‘hints’ being dropped us that the character of Jamie doesn’t like sport, he reads Hello magazine and likes musicals. It was all a bit formulaic and unsubtle. If you want groundbreaking gay cinema I’d advise you turn to the aforementioned My Beautiful Laundrette or even the more mainstream Brokeback Mountain.

Hettie MacDonald’s Beautiful Thing is a fun watch nonetheless. Never in my life would I have thought that I’d see a drag queen singing Hava Nagilah but it happens in this film! Yes at times it’s cliché and a tad over-simplistic – I suppose it’s just whether that’s what gets to you. When I was watching it, I was in the kind of mood where you don’t mind a bit of that. Everyone needs a bit of cheese once in a while anyway.

The Premise

Germans decide to sabotage the Britannic, sister to Titanic during World War I. Cue an unlikely baddie, an equally unlikely goodie and lots of posh people trapped in the middle – to fight it out in this tug o war.

The Disasters Faced

A quickly sinking ship but really the biggest killer is the giant propeller of the ship which appears to take out more lives than the actual ship itself!

The Execution

Although the Britannic is a TV movie, it does hold some good production values and to some degree this is both its triumph and its downfall. It’s a triumph as everything is made very competently. The script is feasible, the story line is dumb but the acting raises its believability and the film chugs along at a decent enough pace. However over the entire movie is a Dr Quinn sheen. Everything’s too shiny. Everyone’s too perfectly dressed and make-up’d. There’s no blood, dirt or grime. This means that while it’s perfectly watchable it lacks character. There’s the typical first class lot (Jacqueline Bisset back for more disaster fun) who scoff that another ship could sink and the usual Captain Birdseye at the helm. It’s all by the numbers and therefore doesn’t enthrall. The sabotage storyline is skewed so that our lead lady can save the day and fall in love with the baddie in a silly manner and it just doesn’t work at all – feeling forced and contrived. The absence of death in general is surprising and I cannot believe the films rated as a 15! I’ve seen PG’s with more violence.

The Effects

Some poorly inserted greenscreen shots look very generic and computer generated. The sinking itself is not shown dramatically and the actual wide shots look like they’ve come from a PlayStation 1 games FMV segment. The flooded sets are much better however and give a great claustrophobic (albeit shiny) feel for our main duo to splash around shouting in.

Why It’s Worth Watching

The love story is hilariously bad but aside from that, everything else works in a ten-year olds adventure story kind of way. Think BBC2 on a sunday afternoon kind of film. Inoffensive, you can doze off merrily and rejoin the action knowing exactly where you are. The acting is well done and credit to the well-known names for not coasting their way through it.

Best Death

There are so few so I’ll go with our baddie Edward Atterton who finally gets his comeuppance when his lifeboat is sucked into the propeller and he gets promptly diced up for the sea creatures below. A good way to go no matter how tastefully it’s done…

Favourite Character

Everyone is very bland but at least Bisset owns her lady role to a T.

Weirdest Moment

Despite the whole love element between the two leads being so clunky I’m going to give the award to my copies DVD cover. The cover not only has the tagline “Intrigue, romance and disaster” spelt wrong but so are some of the stars’ names and some other words on the cover are missing! What drunken sailor designed the Uk release of this movie’s cover?!

Conclusion

By being completely inoffensive, mild and restrained Britannic manages to completely avoid giving you any kind of emotional strain whatsoever and while that means it’s not an awful film, it’s certainly not a good one either. I’d rather laugh at how awful something is and get more enjoyment out of a film that way than just sit numb. Sorry!

I could easily drop Law and Order UK and not really miss it. It isn’t a horrible show and is actually entertaining but it doesn’t really draw me in. There is nothing keeping me coming back from week to week. I tend to just sort of have it on in the background while I am working on other things. However the last two episodes (originally the series 2 finale and series 3 premiere) were some of the best episodes the series has produced especially the series 3 premiere “Broken.” It started off very jovial with Matt and Ronnie joking around and then suddenly became a disheartening story about a toddler murdered by a young girl. The whole tone of the episode felt different from a normal episode. Instead of Ronnie and Matt questioning a lot of different witnesses and possible suspects early on there was a lot of shaken police officers. Instead of lines delivered by the actors there were a few moments where just music was played. It was very powerful watching the toddler’s mother see her young boy’s body. We couldn’t hear her but we saw her reaction. It was quite a moving scene. I actually really enjoyed the actress, Lorraine Stanley, who did an amazing job here and later in the episode. Originally the two young girls Paige and Rose implicated a neighbor’s boyfriend but CCTV footage showed the two girls walking with the young toddler just moments before his death. Paige eventually told the police in another chilling scene that Rose was behind the murder and Paige wanted to help the boy after Rose had left. Eventually Rose is put on trial but the rest of the episode is still captivating to watch. There are a lot of unsettling scenes. Rose and Paige giggle in the courtroom clearly unaware about the grave situation. Rose’s mother, played by Pippa Nixon, does some great work this episode especially when she is brought in as a witness. Ben Daniels, who plays James Steele, has really begun to shine with his case ending monologues. He tells Rose’s mother  performs another amazing monologue telling her how horrible she is and that she was basically unfit to raise Rose. It is an unsettling scene but both Daniels and Nixon do a great job here. There is a lot going through Nixon’s character’s head. She herself has had a really tough life and is trying to do the best she  can but clearly hasn’t tried hard enough. Rose has been abused and hurt and clearly her mother is unfit to raise her but you can see the character struggling, even when Rose is being taken away. She did not want this for her child. I thought the girl who played Paige was also a standout in this episode. She did a lot of great work especially in her initial fingernail biting scene and when she realized she had to confess about the murder and what she saw Rose do. It was especially chilling when Paige discussed carving the letter “P” on the boy’s skin because Rose told her to do so. I think this might be my favorite episode of the show. It captured my attention and didn’t let it go.

The series 2 finale “Honor Bound” wasn’t as strong but it was more interesting than a regular episode of Law and Order UK. This case dealt with Ronnie’s former partner, Jimmy Valentine, who shoots a man during a sting operation. Valentine says he saw the man pull a gun but Matt isn’t so sure. Ronnie blows it off saying that he believes Valentine but Matt goes in to investigate. Eventually Valentine accuses Ronnie of being behind a drug theft and eventually Ronnie sees Valentine for what he really is. The best scene probably was near the end where Ronnie accuses Valentine on top of a building while wearing a wire. Bradley Walsh does a really tremendous job here. His character has just changed his loyalty from his former partner to his new partner and he basically coerced Valentine into confessing. Oddly enough these two episodes really highlight James, Matt, and Ronnie and have little to do with Alesha. She is still there but isn’t as intricate to the cases as she was back near the beginning of the second series. Granted I’m not watching these as closely as I used to but it seems that Alesha has faded into the background a bit ever since her starring episode at the end of the first series. Overall these were two very strong and powerful episodes. I plan to keep on watching the rest of the series. If “Broken” is any indication the third and fourth series could be incredibly strong television.

Law & Order with wigs!

I was unhappy in my previous post about the finale the The Good Wife. I thought the show had chance to move past the whole will she/won’t she get back together with her husband or go with her supposed true love, Will. This plotline had been spinning its wheels for the whole first season.

Half a season into the show this year and viewers still don’t have a a resolution on it.

And, yet, I’m watching anyway. Why? I’ll explain.

To recap, It took until last week for Alicia to discover that Will’s long, rambling declaration of love had been deleted from her cell phone by Eli, the conniving campaign manager that her husband, aka Mr. Big, hired. (Chris Noth is Peter Florrick in this show. But he’s very much like Mr. Big before he settled down. He’s charming but you’re never quite sure how much sleaze goes with that.)

But all that has basically taken second place to two other plotlines this season. One is at Alicia’s law firm, which has merged with a Washington D.C. law firm to stay afloat in these bad economic times. The second is the election for district attorney. Thankfully, we’ve moved past Peter’s appeal and now he’s scott free instead of being behind bars or cooped up in the Florrick apartment. Not only that, he wants his old job back.

It was seeing Alicia in court kicking ass that got her husband Peter so hot and bothered that, yes, CBS went there...

Around all this revolves subplots with the teenage Florrick children, who are refreshingly flawed and realistic and who are put in a lousy position by their father. They keep a lot to themselves, which continues to cause problems for both parents, especially about the election.

I find I’m enjoying the law firm plotline more because the claws are definitely out. Plus, more of Christine Baranski as Alicia’s mentor is always a good thing. As for Will…

I can’t quite decide myself who Alicia should be with–and I’m not entirely clear that she does either. Part of the charm of Alicia is that she’s very self-contained, so when she shows any emotion, it has impact. But on this one, it’s like she’s Ilsa in Casablanca, in love with both men and caught in complete indecision.

Peter made his play earlier this season, with possibly the hottest scene on TV that shows nothing but indicates cunnilingus. Will, Alicia’s boss, has been busy being an ass, trying to possibly screw over his partners, and involve sexually with an annoying woman who seems to value little. Not such much for Team Will on this end.

The only element that’s not working for me this season is Kalinda’s rival.

Kalinda is the go-to investigator who can seemingly uncover anything, half by charm, half by intelligence. Archie Punjabi rightly won an Emmy for her performance last year. But this year, she’s stuck with a rival brought in by the D.C. partner. This could be interesting except the rival is so smarmy and annoying and likely evil that I’m completely uninterested. I think Kalinda needed some competition or to fail now and then. But this subplot seems disjointed and needlessly complicated.

So at half-season, the firm might break up, Alicia’s still ambivalent about her husband and his political career, the teenagers are out of control, and Alicia is caught in the middle of it all. I look forward to her eventual breakdown or outburst.

A great bonus so far has also been Anika Noni Rose (Dreamgirls) as the white horse candidate for district attorney who’s smarter and more politically savvy that she first seemed.

Verdict: the show has improved over last season, now they just need to move one way or another with the Florrick marriage. If you’re interested, CBS has the full episodes at the official site linked above.

As for Law & Order…

I had some hopes for Law & Order: Los Angeles. A fresh area, a fresh cast, the possibilities for star-studded crime seemed endless. But I have to say I’m a bit bored so far this season. The writers made good use of the L.A. setting a few times, particularly in the premiere where they used photos taken by paparazzi to nail the bad guys, but the writing seems a bit flat.

It just seems a bit dull.

Right now, the L&O that I’m enjoying the most is on BBC America. Law & Order UK.

I shouldn’t like it so much. The shows are using old original recipe L&O scripts as the basis for these shows so about twenty minutes in, I suddenly recognize the plot. But they’ve switched them up somewhat to reflect the London setting. Briscoe was all about phone records. The detectives in this one are all about the video footage that dots London.

But somehow it has the heart that the LA show lacks.

I think the difference is the actors.

The ones in L.A. are good but not great. I know. I’d expected Skeets Ulrich to be more interesting but he seems uncomfortable in his role.

And Alfred Molina is no match for Ben Daniels, his UK equivalent. Daniels played Nicholas Brocklehurst in The State Within–a British miniseries set in American that’s very, very good. I am crushing on Mr. Daniels a bit but he doesn’t play for my team, alas.

Backing up Daniels is Freema Agyeman, best known to Dr. Who fans as Martha Jones. Jamie Bamber, another SF veteran (Battlestar Galactica) plays the younger of the two cops–the Chris Noth role- and Bradley Walsh is the veteran and more cynical police detective.

There are only two problems with the UK version.

The big one is that there’s no Jerry Orbach.

Bradley Walsh is close but not quite, though if I’d never watched Orbach’s Briscoe, I’d probably enjoy his character more. And I think Bill Patterson is a poor substitute for Steven Hill’s head district attorney.

Also, he does not eat enough sandwiches.

BUT, I was a good girl. I did plenty of prep in October and I was ready! Almost….it was still a shock when the clock struck midnight last night hehe.

My Storyist software was open and ready and my main characters pictures were already there, just waiting for me to bring them to life.

Yeah, I know that Ben Daniels is one of them..his face at least, but I am allowed! as I have a major crush on him at the moment, due to ‘Law & Order UK’ taking my breath away…(well, looking at him does lol)

I started writing on the stroke of midnight, prior to that I was having a nice chat with a friend on Skype who has decided to try NaNoWrimo for the first time! I’m so pleased he has signed up. He is a regular writer of articles on the interwebz and he is talented with fine word power. I am sure he will do very well. If he slacks off or tires of it, I intend to kick him up the butt via Skype and help him get past the finish line with 50,000 words.

I finally closed my novel having completed 1 chapter and just over 1000 words…but that is not all I plan to do today – day 1 of NaNoWrimo 2010. I plan to do a lot more and hopefully I will finish today ahead of schedule.

Time to go eat breakfast I think…then get ready and then get writing!

Ooh, November is hard work!

It features the wonderful Bradley Walsh, whom surely no one could dislike – no matter whether he was playing a funny dad in a sitcom or a stark raving mad serial killer, he would still come across as a really lovely bloke. Bradley plays DS Ronnie Brooks, hard working copper, slightly dishevelled, former alcoholic, he is easily the best character in the show. His partner DS Matt Devlin (played by Jamie Bamber) is the young, good looking and quiet half of the duo. For some reason, though, this series JB has been sporting a very dodgy hairdo, bordering on bouffant with a bizarre flick at the front of his head.  I must admit this made my admiration for him go down quite a few notches, that and the fact that he’s been acting like a bit of a wimp in the past few episodes. Coppers don’t cry do they? Anyway, my admiration

Who are you calling a wimp?

for wimpy Jamie soon shot up again when my friend’s daughter introduced me to some photos of JB on Google Images. WOW! Cheers, Caitlin, you have renewed my interest in Law and Order, even if it is just in case one week the storyline involves JB having to remove his shirt!

The first half of the programme centres on the crime and the investigation by DS Brooks and DS Devlin (calm down, girls), mainly, it seems, by them having discussions about the on-going investigation in the busy streets of London while carrying around (obviously empty) take away coffee cups. Then they go and discuss the case with the boss lady, DI Natalie Chandler, played by the fabulous Harriet Walter (who, incidentally, is the niece of Christopher Lee). Alas she also seems to have not been allocated an office despite her high rank and conducts her meetings with Brooks and Devlin in corridors, highly populated streets, or in doorways of what I presume are other peoples’ offices. Now I hate to be dramatic, but if, God forbid, I was ever the victim of a crime I would hope my case would be discussed in slightly more confidential surroundings than Oxford Street.

Anyway, despite the lack of suitable meeting rooms or anywhere with a desk and chair, they always get the baddie and we move onto the next part of the show, Order. This consists of the Legal team headed by James Steel (Ben Daniels) spending the first five minutes trying to convince his boss George Castle (Bill Patterson), that the case is strong enough against the criminal to stand up in court. Then there’s usually an ad break and they take said baddie to court. After several more open confidential discussions on the busy streets of London, with even more empty coffee cups in hand, James Steel and his partner Aleesha Phillips (Freema Agyeman) start to build a case. Then after pulling an all-nighter in the office (yes –  an office!) they discover a willing witness, or a blast from the baddie’s past shows up to give yet more damning evidence and that’s it…in the dock, guilty verdict and down they go!

So despite the fact that every week the format is the same but with a different crime and a different investigation, the show does work and it does keep you watching. But even though I now know that despite the bouffant hair and the recent blubbering, underneath Jamie’s shirt is the body of an Adonis, it’s still Bradley that makes the show work for me!

Posted by The Lovely Nicola

Before I say anymore, I have to admit that it came as quite a shock to me to learn that he is gay. Nothing wrong with being gay of course, other than it’s a crying shame he is gay as I think he is hot hot hot! *purrr*

I started watching this brilliant UK drama series as soon as it aired and my love of it grows with each episode. One of the main reasons I love it is the character Ben Daniels plays – James Steel.

He reminds me of Keanu Reeves in ‘Speed’ He always gets his man, one way or another, even if the lousy perp gets off because of a jury that doesn’t see through their lies. He quite simply is a brilliant Prosecutor and he is made more brilliant by the fact that he cares. He steals the show for me and although he’s 46 and not classically good looking to some (are they blind ??) I find his rough edge face and his stern looks incredibly sexy and handsome. OK, I think he is gorgeous, I admit it OK?

Yes, eye candy on the show for sure. Pity I live in Scotland as my chances of bumping into him are remote, I would dearly love to meet him in person, tell him how fabulous I think his role is in this show and also of course, secretly admire him in person…I’m sure I would blush beetroot red *grin* as I asked for his autograph.

I’m considering buying a DVD box set, just so I can watch all the previous shows again.

An episode that aired a couple of weeks ago was still stored on my player, so I watched it again as this episode was one of my favourites and you really get to see Steel’s tenacious personality in it. It featured a sick rapist who is released on parole, who predictably strikes again. Why didn’t the parole board listen to James Steel? *sigh*

The nights are drawing in quickly now, its getting dark earlier and earlier. Samhain is almost upon us and NaNoWrimo 2010 is looming again – it comes round so quick!

If you read this Ben, I think you’re great! *blows you a kiss*

A SUNNY DAY IN GLASGOW
So Bloody So Tight

Today’s song came out of one of those happy coincidences that happens when social networking actually does more than self-aggrandizement, passing on the latest Lolcat video, or informing you about the awesome tuna melt some a guy you haven’t seen in twenty years just had for lunch! My friend Molly Roberts (who I haven’t seen in a while, but it hasn’t been that long!) posted a link on her facebook page to a song by A Sunny Day In Glasgow, a Dream-Pop/Shoegaze outfit from Philly that her son, Ryan Newmyer, just happens to play bass for. Thanks to the power of Google, within five minute of listening to the song I became an instant expert on the group…they formed about five years ago, have a couple of full-length albums and three EPs’ under their belts and have gone through a Baker’s dozen of current and former members, all the while under the leadership of Ben Daniels.

Anyway…my searching also revealed that ASDIG has a new EP out, Nitetime Rainbows, and one of the more creative videos I’ve seen in ages for ‘So Bloody, So Tight’ that I’m including below. Anybody who loves The Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine, Lush, or The Jesus and Mary Chain is gonna go nuts for this stuff. They’re on tour right now, in fact, if you happen to be down at SXSW, they’ve got nine gigs set up this week! Give ‘em a look on their website or over on MySpace

Director – Andrzej Bartkowiak

Cast – Dwayne Johnson(The Rock), Karl Urban, Rosamund Pike, Razaaq Adoti, Richard Drake, Deobia Oparei, Brian Steele, Al Weaver, Ben Daniels, Dexter Fletcher, Yao Chin

Release Year – 2005

Reviewed by John of the Dead

Anyone who played the “Doom” video games many years back knows that these games, when played by yourself in an empty room, can be scary as hell. When word first got out that there would be a feature film adapted from the “Doom” franchise, I figured it would be a lot like the first “Resident Evil” adaptation which had good gore, some cheesy one liners, and lots of action. This film has exactly that, plus The Rock, something other video game adaptations have not had. Haha.

The story is as follows…in the year 2026 a portal to mars was found in a Nevada desert. Fast forward to present time (20 years later) and a laboratory has been built on Mars for various experiments. Unfortunately something goes utterly wrong, in which a distress signal is being sent to Earth from the mars base. The Rock, known as “Sarge” in this film, receives his orders to take his tactical response squad onto the mars laboratory, eliminate whatever is causing the problems, and retrieve whatever data possible. This seems like a simple mission, however the marine squad and a scientist sent with them to collect the data have no idea what is in store for them. Many covert and illegal experiments were going on at the base, experiments that went horribly, horribly wrong and are now costing the lives of all who are involved.

As an avid fan of the “Doom” video games that game me numerous jump scares back in the day, I really enjoyed this film. We are shown some really sweet gore scenes, lots of sweet gunfire, amazing looking creatures, an interesting backstory on how things got bad(if you are a science geek like me), and LOTS of action. What more could you ask for from a film based on a video game that gives you those exact elements? This film is not meant to be watched in “Academy Award mindset”, if you go into this film with that mindset, then you will of course be disappointed. “Doom” is meant to be enjoyed by you and a group of your friends all huddled around a television with some cold brews and buffalo wings. Haha!

One aspect of the film that really impressed me was the FPS (First Person Shooter) scene towards the end of the film. The very second I saw that a FPS scene was going to happen I thought to myself “great, this is how they are going to screw up the film just like House of the Dead did with this sh*t”, but actually…it ended quite well. I personally felt that on a film perspective the FPS idea was a bit cheesy, but given that this is based on the video games I figured it was merely a shout out to the fans of the game. “House of the Dead”(based on the video game you see at basically every Peter Piper Pizza) had some FPS scenes that were actually taken from the videogame itself, which I felt was a ridiculous idea. But what else can you expect from director Uwe Bole right? Anywho, the effects crew that put together the FPS in this “Doom” film did it right by actually doing it live action, not with ridiculous video game effects.

I have no major complaints for this film mainly because I know what to expect from a film like this. Don’t expect the best acting because it gets questionable at times, or the best dialogue because we were given quite a few cheesy one-liners. I would have to say my only real complaint would be the ending sequence between Sarge(The Rock) and Reaper(Karl Urban). I felt that this scene was a bit too much “action” and took away from the “horror” feel of the film. It’s not exactly bad for the film because it really is fun to watch but it just gives us a transition in genres and I really wanted this film to stay “horror”.

Overall, this is a fun film to watch for fans of the video games who also enjoyed the “Resident Evil” adaptation back in 2002. Great gore, lots of guns, cool creatures, and tons of action are what this film is about.

Rating; 7/10

The Roundabout Theatre Company’s production of Hampton’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses is the first New York revival since the Broadway première in 1987. When I try to use one word to describe my impression of it, there is only one that comes to my mind – kapellmeisterlich. This is a word not used for theatre, since the idea is to describe the performance of a conductor who achieves reliable results based on his immersion on the stylistic atmosphere where the work was produced. In a kapellmeisterlich performance, nobody expects to be overwhelmed, for no-one has deeply thought about the work to be performed – the results are predictable yet satisfying because they are made out of the tradition associated to it.

In that sense, I see something of a Kapellmeister in director Rufus Norris. He offered a thoroughly correct approach to the work – the settings are elegant and coherent with late XVIIIth century decoration, costumes are exquisitely and stylishly fashioned, the stage direction is efficient and the cast is very talented. But not only is everything exactly as you could have imagined before you entered the theater, but also you cannot help comparing the results to what you have seen in Stephen Frears’s movie – and having the famous mirror walls as shown in Glenn Close’s boudoir makes the source of inspiration even more evident. However, the more evident comparison is that the book’s main quality – its ambiguity, the exercise of cunning from the reader to see through these sophisticated characters’ attitudes is almost entirely lost in a staging devoid of demi-tintes. No wonder the audience took most of what was shown on stage as comedy. A game of destruction and desire played on stage reduced to the mere entertainment of Sunday afternoon – I guess this is was not exactly what this play should be about.

Laura Linney, for example, should be praised for the economy of gestures and the sense of restrained tension. However, behind her restrain, there was very little to discover. Her Marquise de Merteuil was something you could guess from the five first minutes while this is a character who should be eluding our understanding to the very end. In one word, there was no danger in her – and the book shows us that the relationship with this woman was everything but safe. I know it is unfair to compare Hampton’s Merteuil to Heiner Müller’s (in Quartett), a play whose unsettling dialogues leave the audience uncomfortable and ill at ease to these days, but I miss what I saw in Brazilian actress Beth Goulart, whose forceful restraint showed instead a non-human quality close to the surface, the cruelty of an animal on a cage, of a force of nature controlled but ready to explode, of something beautiful yet lethal – the restraint of a samurai, the elegance of a bullfighter, the impassivity of a surgeon while cutting through the layers of other people’s flesh.

Ben Daniels’s Valmont had the right balance between the necessary patina of society manners and virile energy. As much as his Merteuil, he also walked dangerously close to the limits of monochrome. Although the character goes through strongly conflicted ideas and feelings, one could always tell which one was the “dominant” one so muted the others were in the background. Again I have no doubt that, as much as Linney, Daniels is an excellent actor; one just feels that the director left them operating within the limits of comfort. If we were speaking of a play by Feydeau, that would have definitely worked. But I don’t think this is the case here.

Curiously, the new and old generation are the shining features of this production: bête-de-scène Siân Phillips invests her Madame de Rosemonde with so much energy and feeling that in the end you have the impression she is more important to the plot than she actually is; and Jessica Collins’s vulnerable Madame de Tourvel has such freshness of expression, such vividness of feelings that you feel as if you were witnessing something freshly brought from the nature, a bouquet of flowers still full of life but in the actual process of decay. This is definitely an actress I would like to see again. I am not so enthusiastic about Mamie Gummer’s Cécile Volange, who again falls into the trap of sameness in her performance strictly for laughs. But don’t mistake me – nothing is really bad in this production compared to the soundtrack. If you want to copy Stephen Frear’s movie and use Handel’s Ombra mai fu, do as Frears did and hire a professional singer for that. I can tell you the strained falsetto featured here only makes sense as an expression of anguish experimented by some of these characters!

The Bible will feature the most important and iconic stories from the Old and New Testaments. An international co-production, it will be ready for broadcast in the form of six 60-minute episodes later next year.

The BBC is dramatising the Bible

The BBC wants to sign up a famous presenter, whose identity has not been disclosed, to provide the narration for the drama.

Each episode will emphasise the humanity, miraculous experiences and epic encounters contained in the Bible’s stories.

The BBC said that the series was designed to be an accessible, entertaining, informative and intelligent guide to the Bible.

The Bible will be produced in-house by the BBC’s specialist factual department but is an international co-production, part funded by BBC Worldwide, the corporation’s commercial arm.

News of The Bible comes after the BBC broadcast Easter drama The Passion, a retelling of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Passion, watched by four million viewers, starred Joseph Mawle as Jesus, James Nesbitt as Pilate and Ben Daniels as Caiaphas.

It stirred up controversy when traditional Christian groups accused the BBC of rewriting the Gospels by appearing to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate.

Meanwhile Channel 4 is following up its Make Me A Muslim series by asking six people to live by strict Christian principles. Make Me A Christian will ask the volunteers, including a Muslim, from diverging backgrounds, to follow Christian teachings for six weeks.

By: Emile Zola, adapted by Nicholas Wright

Directed by: Marianne Elliot

Venue: Lyttelton Theatre

Date: Tuesday 28th November 2006

          This was a disappointment in a number of ways. Although it started off well, and the performances were excellent, the adaptation has problems, and the production lacked the thrill and suspense I associated with the first version we saw back at Chichester in 1990.

         One of the main difficulties I had was with the “music”. I presume they were trying to depict the tension the couple were living under after the murder, and were using a repetitive, droning chord – I don’t know what instrument was being used, but for me it was an instrument of torture. I believe such sounds are actually used to cause people physical discomfort, and it certainly worked that way for me. I didn’t find it too disturbing until near the end, but by then it was giving me a headache and making it very hard to concentrate on the play. I even considered leaving, but reckoned I didn’t have much longer to endure – even so, I wouldn’t voluntarily go through that sort of abuse again.

         One advantage of the Chichester production was the small space of the Minerva Theatre, which made the whole atmosphere much more claustrophobic. On the Lyttelton stage, a wide open space, it was much harder to create that sense, although the description of the flat as draughty was certainly believable. Somehow the couple’s secret passion didn’t come across so well, perhaps because Therese was played with very little show of emotion, so a lot of the action seemed a bit dreary at times. We certainly didn’t need such a long series of tableaux of the couple’s restlessness and divisions – once through the loop would have been more than enough. Frankly, by the time they chose to end it all, I was glad to see the back of them.

         The set was pretty bleak. A large room, with windows high up, grey walls everywhere, a kitchen area off left, flanking the stairway down to the shop, doors to a walk-in wardrobe, the door to Madame Raquin’s room, then the cubby-hole bed for the son and niece. With only a large table and a few chairs to furnish it, this flat looked very empty. A screen was used to distance us from the action at the start and end of scenes, God knows why, as I already felt distanced enough from the action after a short time. The cast were superb, given the limitations of the adaptation. Camille was talkative and fussy, just the sort of husband you’d want to bump off if a looker like Ben Daniels came your way. I didn’t feel the sense of danger with his Laurent as I did first time round, but that’s this production for you. Therese was very withdrawn, though she did show her passionate side in the early scene with Laurent. Mainly, she seemed to hate rather than love, to want revenge for the way she’d been treated, and sex with Laurent was as good a way as any. Definitely a woman to avoid. It’s not clear in this version how often they’ve been having sex, possibly just the once? Maybe I was just missing bits – with such a large auditorium (more of a lecture hall than a theatre) it can be difficult to pick up all the dialogue.

         The family friends – M Grivet and M Michaud – who turn up regularly to play dominoes, were great fun, especially Mark Hadfield as Grivet, all fussiness and self-concern. Madame Raquin managed a good line in self-concern as well, resolutely thinking of nobody but herself, and by extension, Camille, the whole play through. Actually, it’s a little amazing that Therese stayed as sane as she did.

         I found Suzanne, Michaud’s niece, an odd character. The part seemed to be well enough played, although I probably missed more of her lines than anyone else’s, but I was never too clear on what her part in the drama was. Was she just there to show a more normal approach to relationships? Or were we meant to contrast her naivety and idealism with Therese’s experience and world-weariness? We may never know. And given that I didn’t enjoy this production enough, I’m unlikely to read the playtext to find out.

Azione / Fantascienza / Horror

Un gruppo speciale dei Marines viene inviato su Marte dopo aver ricevuto l’SOS di una base scientifica installata sul pianeta. Quella che sembrava una missione di soccorso si trasforma ben presto in una battaglia contro misteriose forze aliene.