I really don't like writing bad reviews. I know all too well the heartache and hard work that goes into making a piece of theatre and I'm very aware that just because I don't like something it's no reason to deter someone else who might enjoy it but on this occasion I really struggle to think of anyone who'd enjoy this revival of Christopher Hampton's desperately dated and unfunny comedy, played ineptly by woefully, inexperienced and ill equipped performers.I always advise critics to this site to only be negative if a production is lazy and cynical. I don't think anyone here was being lazy, I'm sure everyone worked very hard but I think the producers should be ashamed of themselves for cynically exposing a bunch of TV stars with no concept of how to make the theatre work for them to such an excruciatingly cringe inducing experience, from which their stage careers may never recover. We can not even allow them the defence of using young celebrities to draw a new audience to experience a great play. It's awful.
A hit in the late 1960s, I think it must have been a period when listening to privileged people trying to be witty by saying outrageous things was funny. Certainly it went against the grain of fashionable theatre of the time which was all about putting working class people on stage in defiance of decades of plays about posh people in drawing rooms.
Perhaps it felt gleefully subversive then, now it's a grindingly dull trudge through the dinner party chatter of boorish academics trying to be witty at each other's expense while they toss around observations about linguistics and academic life. This is followed by an equally tedious second act in which Hampton, then a nerdy young playwright type, depicts beautiful women fighting over a nerdy young playwright type, leading him to analysis why he isn't good in bed.
The cast includes Simon Bird as the nerd, rehashing exactly the shtick which made such a success of TV comedy The Inbetweeners. Except on this occasion he wears thick glasses, the bridge of which covers his eyes, although he looks at the floor most of the time. He has one previous theatre credit.
Similarly inexperienced is Tom Rosenthal, star of TV sitcom Plebs who just about scrapes through thanks to his stand up experience, as a loquacious best friend.
Matt Berry star of TV's Toast makes a mercifully brief and uncharismatic appearance as an apparently charismatic womaniser. All starts well with a wonderful first entrance in a spectacular suit and camel coat but his performance whithers away to nothing as he unconfidently mumbles punch lines at the floor. He's no previous stage experience.
Lilly Cole barely attains a school play standard of acting as a damaged sexual predator proving she'd learnt nothing from her last, inept and only previous stage appearance as Helen of Troy at the Globe. Charlotte Ritchie, star of TVs Call the Midwife fares little better.
I admire the director Simon Callow very much but a great deal of blame for this fiasco has to lie at his door. Couldn't he at least have taught them to look up?
The only positive I can take from watching this show is that it's always interesting to see the sexual politics of the past and consider about how far we've come - or not depending on your view. But honestly it's deeply uncomfortable to see a play in which all the women are allowed to do is fight over the crappy men who pontificate around them.
Avoid.
Nina Raina’s new play CONSENT is a strong addition to the recent outbreak of feminist work that does not compromise when it comes to talking about difficult subjects such as rape, sexual consent and male abuse of power. Directed by Roger Michell, CONSENT is a powerful piece of contemporary theatre that not only explores these harrowing themes but also examines the flaws of the legal justice system and delves into the politics of sexual relationships.