Theatre Review: Future Conditional

(Image: The Old Vic)

It seems that new artistic director Matthew Warchus has brought a fresh pair of eyes to the stage of The Old Vic with his direction of Tamsin Oglesby’s energetic and topical new play Future Conditional. Focused on the troubles of the British schooling system, it couldn’t be any more relevant in the light of recent changes made by the government to education. But this is no lecture on politics: whilst making the audience question issues of society and morality, Future Conditional remains a lighthearted, fun piece of theatre that will appeal to any and all who know anything about British education.

Future Conditional confronts the problems of the British education system through the characters of parents, the Education Commission and 16-year-old Pakistani refugee Alia. It forces us to ask significant questions about our society: is our schooling system fair? Do private school kids have an advantage? And most importantly, are the government’s improvements to education in the best interests of children?

With audio clips played of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Michael Gove discussing the British education system as the play opens, it is clear from the outset that this is going to be a political play. There is no aspect of British education that Oglesby leaves untouched: from the private versus state dilemma to the postcode lottery, she discusses everything, which is sure to make a few audience members shift guiltily in their seats. But whilst no stone is left unturned, the dialogue isn’t preachy, which can easily be done when discussing social issues. Oglesby has managed to create a well-rounded discussion about the system the majority of us have been in at some point or another, so everyone can identify with at least one of the issues raised. The play is formed of three main narratives: Alia’s former state school teacher Mr Crane struggling to control his class, a group of mothers in a primary school playground trying to manipulate the catchment area system to their advantage, and Alia being accepted onto the rather inept Education Commission who can’t agree on how best to make children happy at school. The oscillating between these different scenes shows the different sides of the argument and keeps the play exciting and fast-paced.

The cast is large with 23 actors and two musicians, but this only adds to the energetic feel of the performance and the characters are surprisingly well developed given the number of them. This said, there are some standout performances: namely from Lucy Briggs-Owen as yummy mummy Hettie who fears judgement for sending her son to private school and Joshua McGuire, an Old Etonian who laments the rather first world problem of being an “acceptable prejudice” in society as a private school alumnus. Rob Brydon is also strong as Mr Crane, whose performance is delivered almost entirely in monologue as he addresses imaginary children on the stage. The choice not to have any children in a play about the schooling system is a bold but extremely effective one.

Oglesby has achieved the perfect balance of politics and humour, poignancy and tension by making what could’ve been a dry or controversial subject for a play original, witty and thought provoking. There is a collective sense of pride throughout the audience as Alia tells the Education Commission, “I can succeed” – something the people in the education system should be made to feel. My only regret is that the play isn’t on for longer.

Theatre Review: A View from the Bridge

(Image: The Young Vic Theatre Facebook page)

A couple of weeks ago I went to see The Young Vic's production of Arthur Miller's A View from the Bridge at the Wyndham's Theatre and I thought it was ace. If you fancy seeing some proper theatre that will leave you feeling emotionally drained in the best possible way, I think you'll like this!

I didn't know anything about the story beforehand, but it's set in 1950s Brooklyn where a longshoreman, Eddie, welcomes his cousins from Italy to stay as they try and make it in the land of the free. However, when one of them begins a relationship with Eddie's orphaned niece Catherine, it becomes apparent that Eddie is a bit too protective of her. His jealousy grows throughout the play, causing concern for the new couple and his wife Beatrice, until eventually his obsession with his niece is taken too far. Needless to say, it doesn't end well.

I love all of the literature from the American Dream period so naturally I really liked the actual script of this. (Can you tell I'm a literature student?)The play doesn't have an interval, it just continues for two hours straight. I think it's good that they do this though because it's so intense all the way through that I think it might lose momentum if they paused in the middle. There were so many bits where I felt like you could cut the tension with a knife! I was sitting in the stalls but they have seats actually on the stage for this production which I think would feel even more intense as you'd be so close. I thought all three main characters were fantastic but Mark Strong especially stood out as Eddie as he seemed so temperamental, like he might flip at any moment. His relationship with Catherine makes you feel pretty uncomfortable as for uncle and niece, he is a little too close for comfort. However, something about his performance makes you feel a little sorry for him too as he obviously cares about her and thinks he's doing what's best for her.

I don't want to give away the ending for people who haven't seen it but it was my favourite bit of the whole play. I will say that it involves water and is very symbolic, but I shan't say anything else!

It's going to be on at the Wyndham's Theatre until April so if there are any tickets left then I urge you to go and see it because it really is a great piece of proper theatre. If you haven't had or won't have the chance to see it, fear not because from the 26th March, National Theatre Live is broadcasting it out to certain cinemas so it's definitely worth seeing if it's coming anywhere near you. I wholeheartedly recommend!

Theatre Review: My Night With Reg

(Image: Johan Persson for the Donmar Warehouse website)

Hello and Happy New Year to one and all - I realise we're now twenty-two days into the new year but this is my first post of 2015 so I thought it shouldn't go unnoticed! I'm kicking the year off on the blog with another theatre review - namely, Kevin Elyot's rather suggestive-sounding My Night With Reg, a revival currently on at the Apollo on London's Shaftesbury Avenue. I went into it blindly having been invited at the last minute by a friend, and frankly I'm not 100% sure what I made of it. A melange of gay smut and heartbreaking poignancy,  my thoughts on it are equally as mixed.

Taking place entirely in Guy's flat in 1980s gay London, My Night With Reg follows a group of gay friends who have all at some point slept with the mysterious Reg who, in a rather Godot-esque fashion, never actually appears in the play. Despite this, his promiscuity is central to the story as we discover that all of the characters in the play have been affected by it in some way. Tensions rise as revelations come out and people are seen in a different light.

The play opens right in the middle of the action with little to no explanation which means you are constantly catching up, piecing together who is dating who and what each character's history is. I did quite like this as opposed to having a lengthy introduction bit at the start of the play and it held my interest by keeping me guessing. However, the lack of explanation makes for some confusion: I didn't even realise the play's story spanned over several years until I read the plot summary on Wikipedia five minutes ago! The cast as a whole is really strong and they all have good interaction with each other. Eric, a a young Brummie handyman played by Lewis Reeves really stands out and gives a convincing performance. I also felt so sorry for Guy (Jonathan Broadbent), rather reminiscent of The Forty-Year-Old Virgin, whose unrequited love for heartthrob John (Julian Ovenden) leads him to live a solitary life of thumbing through cookbooks of dishes for one. These moments are really poignant as they highlight the emotional turmoil Guy and other characters have endured for years, but Elyot also makes light of some of these issues to avoid it being too depressing. 

That said, considering it is advertised as a comedy, I didn't find it that funny. There are some comic moments but not enough to warrant the comedy description. The presentation of these gay men sometimes rings a little hollow as the majority of the characters seem to fit perfectly the stereotype of the gay man - effeminate, bawdy and flamboyant with little room for character development outside of these traits. Their behaviour is often so cringy and smutty that I felt like I was sitting there watching an orgy - definitely not one to watch with your parents. On the theme of unnecessary sexualisation, there is also a nude scene which seemed to me to be completely gratuitous to the story. It wasn't powerful in any way; it just seemed out of place amidst the rest of the action. However, all of my criticisms of it are more to do with the script rather than the actual production of it as I thought it was a really strong cast and a well-executed production. I'm just not a fan of your script Kevin, sorry.

So is it worth seeing? It's a really well-acted piece that has some heartbreaking moments. That's definitely worth seeing if you're willing to sit through the two hours of smut and sexual innuendos that unfortunately comes with it. In short, it's your call. 

It's on until the beginning of April if you're interested.

Theatre Review: The Crucible

(Image: Literature and Life)

Earlier this week I went to see a cinema screening of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, a production on at The Old Vic earlier this year. I love going to these as I quite often find out about shows that were on ages ago that I didn't get to see, so these cinema screenings mean you don't have to miss out on things. A very chilling, gruelling piece with little comic relief, The Crucible is definitely one to steel yourself for.

Written in the 1950s, The Crucible tells the partially fictionalised story of the Salem witch trials that took place in America in the late 17th century. The play opens with a panicked Reverend Parris watching over his seriously ill daughter Betty, as it is assumed that her illness has come as a result of exposure to witchcraft. Several women throughout the play are accused of witchcraft by the rather psychotic 17-year-old Abigail Williams, including Elizabeth Proctor, the wife of Abigail's ex-lover John Proctor. This, of course, makes for a very tense atmosphere for both the characters and the audience.

My initial reaction was shock about how long it was. It runs at around three and a half hours, not including the ten minute interval, so it was quite a long time for me to sit still and pay attention! That said, I did find the majority of it really gripping. There is a really powerful, dialogue-free movement sequence at the beginning of the play, all amidst a lot of smoke which sets a suitably eerie tone for the rest of the play. Samantha Colley who plays Abigail is fantastic as she is believably manipulative and unhinged whilst accusing people of witchcraft. Natalie Gavin is also really strong as a servant to the Proctors who gets caught up in the accusations of witchcraft and is torn as to where her loyalties lie. Although she has a fairly small part, I thought Sarah Niles who plays Reverend Parris' slave Tituba was brilliant and really stood out for me.

I did find in parts of it there was a bit too much shouting and not a lot of variety in the levels of speech, if that makes sense. One of the main culprits for this is the play's selling point, Richard Armitage, who plays John Proctor. I wasn't 100% sold by his performance as it becomes a little monotonous and unconvincing. As for the filming of it, it's sometimes a bit too cinematic for me, with closeups and fading in and out. Some will disagree with me on this but when I watch cinema screenings of theatre performances, I like them to be as similar to seeing the real thing as possible, with no fancy special effects or filming.

Overall, I think it's really well-put together production that remains gripping and core-chilling throughout. Definitely worth a trip! It's on for a while longer I think in lots of different locations around the world if you fancy seeing it.

Have any of you seen it?

Theatre Review: Visitors

(Image: Mark Douet for the Bush Theatre website)

A few weeks ago I went to see new young writer Barney Norris' first full-length play Visitors with my university drama society at the Bush Theatre in Shepherd's Bush. I knew absolutely nothing about the play before getting tickets but I rather enjoyed it. In a society where one-night stands with strangers and non-committal relationships have become the norm, I think Barney Norris has managed to create a touching piece of theatre about marital love, family life and growing old together.

Taking place in the Salisbury Plain farmhouse of elderly couple Arthur and Edie, the play follows the pair’s decline into old age and its all too frequent companion dementia. Recognising that life is no longer as easy for them as it was, their son Stephen enlists university graduate Kate to be their carer whilst he attempts to put his mother into a home and sell his parents’ farm, naïve to the unsettling effect these changes will have on all involved.

Whilst this play, entirely set in a living room, takes some time to gather momentum, the chemistry between Arthur (Robin Soans) and Edie (Linda Bassett) is convincing from the outset. Bassett is especially strong in playing an elderly woman descending into dementia; her condition is not evident from the start but when she repeats an anecdote for the third time the heart sinks as you realise what she is coping with. I think Norris hit the nail on the head with Edie as she often makes remarks that make the audience laugh without realising she is being funny, in that way that grandparents often do. For such a young writer, Norris seems to have an incredibly perceptive understanding of dementia and of the elderly, creating a poignant character whose condition will resonate with many. Because of the intimate setting the audience was made to feel like intruders at times into such personal family dilemmas - it reminded me of Harold Pinter's The Homecoming in that sense.

With the first half slightly lagging in pace, tension rises in the second half as Edie deteriorates and Stephen’s marriage falls apart. Simon Muller’s accurate portrayal of Stephen as a middle-aged man unable to do anything right in his life creates a sense of pathos in the audience. I don't know if this was the intention but I often felt very sorry for Stephen as he was quite a pathetic, helpless character in the depths of a mid-life crisis, who tried to get things right but didn't quite manage. However, the audience's sympathies simultaneously lie with Kate (Eleanor Wyld) who is disgusted with Stephen’s incompetence. I felt both Kate and Stephen's characters were far more developed in the second half and I enjoyed their performances so much more.

There were several really touching moments and comments about the fast, incessant pace of life and how we all have so much less time than we think we have, which means we take the time we have for granted. It really did make me think about it afterwards. All in all, Visitors is at once funny and tragic, heartfelt and brilliant, and is sure to make every audience member want to call their mum afterwards.

This is on until the 10th January at the Bush Theatre; if I had been organised and posted this right after I saw it, it would've allowed a lot more time to go and see it, but alas!

Theatre Review: The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

(Image: Brinkhoff/Mögenburg from the National Theatre website)

Last week I went to see The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time at the Gielgud Theatre in London. Having read the book when there was a craze for it in Year 6 and it remaining one of my favourites to this day, I was so excited when Simon Stephens first adapted it for the stage. (As an aside: Simon Stephens seems to be everywhere at the moment! What isn't he currently doing in the West End?) I saw the National Theatre Live version at a local cinema when the show first opened and absolutely loved it, but of course it really doesn't compare to seeing the production live. 

I would go as far as to say that it is one of my favourite theatre productions that I've seen, and I see a lot of theatre so few make that cut. (Don't ask me about my favourite musical, I will never be able to narrow it down.) 

I think the staging for this show is absolutely fantastic; motifs of physical theatre are used throughout and it's so effective in the parts where there is no dialogue. I especially loved the parts when it acted as a window into protagonist Christopher's thoughts, giving them an almost fantastical element. My friend who I went to see it with informed me that the physical theatre in the show was created with the help of theatre company Frantic Assembly who are known for crafting contemporary pieces of physical theatre, and it makes sense when you know their work as it's really what they're all about. As you can see from the above picture, the set was amazing too and so appropriate for the show. They frequently made use of lights, grids and boxes to give the audience a glimpse into Christopher's mind. 

Speaking of Christopher, I liked his performance but somehow couldn't shake the performance of Luke Treadaway who originated the role of Christopher from my mind. He was so fantastic in the NT Live production I first saw that I feel like no one else could do that role as well, for me. In fairness, Luke Treadaway did win an Olivier for his performance in Curious Incident so he would be a pretty tough act to follow! Christopher, although sometimes difficult and awkward, is such a touching character and I think it's so important that we as an audience warm to him, and in both performances I've seen now I definitely did. I also thought that Nicolas Tennant who played Christopher's dad was brilliant; the way in which he struggled to react towards his sometimes difficult son was so subtle but so on point. If you have read the book then you will know how it touches on the difficulties of life but also celebrates it, and I think the stage production made a valiant effort at capturing that.

I absolutely cannot recommend this enough. I think it's a genuinely brilliant production and deserves every bit of success it's had. Get yourself to the Gieldgud Theatre and see this ASAP.

Theatre Review: Of Mice and Men

(Image: Ellie Kurttz for the Birmingham Rep website)

I went home for reading week last week and after spending many hours writing essays, referencing and reading, I went to see the Birmingham Rep's production of Of Mice and Men. I, like many people, studied the book by John Steinbeck at GCSE and loved it so I was really excited to see it adapted for the stage.

For those of you who don't know, the story follows two men called George and Lennie who are struggling to find work during the Great Depression in America. They do everything together and are very much dependent on each other. Being set in the Great Depression, their story is not without its troubles and doesn't end very happily. (That's as much of a spoiler as I'll give!) I thought the whole production was really well executed. The two leads, Michael Legge and Benjamin Dilloway as George and Lennie respectively gave really strong performances, particularly Dilloway as he really made you warm to Lennie and feel so sorry for him. The two leads had so much chemistry and you could really believe that they were close companions. I thought that James Hayes who played Candy was really good as well; he is an old worker at the ranch George and Lennie end up at and he really characterised the whole futility of the American Dream which is what the book is all about. Even though I knew what was going to happen at the end I found myself getting so tense watching it as I was hoping there would be some miracle whereby it all ended happily!

The set was really effective, the stage was just made of exposed wooden planks which made it look really rustic and convincingly like a ranch in the 1920s. They changed it at the interval as well so there was a huge wooden chute in the middle of the stage which ended up being used for a very dramatic climax. I also thought the use of props was really clever; Candy has an old dog in the book and so they had made a dog out of jute or something similar and the actors manipulated it so it looked as though it were really alive. I thought that was really imaginative and this kind of rudimentary prop added to the whole rustic vibe, I felt.

I would thoroughly recommend it but I've just noticed that the run of this has now finished so I haven't timed this post very well! I wanted to share it anyway because I loved the production so much. Perhaps if it was very popular they may bring it back, so keep your eyes peeled...

Theatre Review: Shakespeare in Love

(Image: Johan Persson on westendtheatre.com)

NB. I originally wrote this for my university newspaper but thought it was worth sharing on here too.

“Comedy, love – and a bit with a dog. That’s what they want,” theatre mogul Henslowe tells Shakespeare who is at a loss for ideas. And that is exactly what Lee Hall’s imaginative revival of Tom Stoppard’s Shakespeare in Love at the Noel Coward Theatre provides us with. I am a little sceptical towards the current trend of turning any film into a stage show, but this adaptation unquestionably does the 1998 film justice.

The romantic comedy tells the story of a young Shakespeare struggling with writer’s block, who finds the inspiration to write Romeo and Juliet when he falls in love with the wealthy Viola De Lesseps (played by the consistently ardent Lucy Briggs-Owen) whom he unwittingly casts as the male title role his new play, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter. This inevitably goes to pot when he realises that the Thomas Kent he has cast as Romeo in his play is, in fact, a woman, and it is illegal to have women performing on stage. Needless to say, all is resolved and the unpromising-sounding play is a success. Perhaps not historically accurate or a plausible plotline, but entertaining nonetheless and probably still more feasible than some of the bard’s own storylines.

With witty quotations from Shakespeare’s works and cultural references to other Elizabethan writers, Hall’s adaptation of the film manages to be at once humorous, romantic and touching. Shakespeare, played by the dashing Tom Bateman and his friend and fellow writer Marlowe, played by David Oakes, have an entertaining camaraderie throughout the play: Marlowe helps the young Will to craft eloquent verse when he feels uninspired and acts as an excellent wingman by feeding what would become Shakespeare’s famous Sonnet 18 to him as he stands under Viola’s balcony, attempting to woo her. Oakes was really strong throughout, making it all the more poignant when Marlowe is stabbed to death in a pub brawl. (No spoilers here: that was one of the few historically accurate events of the play.) A dog called Spot (clearly named so for the “Out, damned Spot!” opportunity) features as a cameo throughout for the audience and Queen Elizabeth I to coo over, as she repeatedly mentions that she “loves a good dog” in a play.

As the play continues, so Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is played before a rather sassy Elizabeth I, portrayed by Anna Carteret. I felt that the second half was padded out a little too much with scenes from the real Romeo and Juliet. It was a nice idea initially for us to watch the play within a play (very Hamlet-esque) but it was dragged out for a little too long, although perhaps it would be ideal for people who can’t be bothered to watch the real two hours’ traffic at the Globe. That aside, I think it is a very cleverly written and performed piece of theatre that is certain to entertain anyone even vaguely familiar with Shakespeare (or, at least, Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare).

At any rate, it’s worth seeing for the dog.

Theatre Review: Wendy & Peter Pan

(Image: Manuel Harlan from the RSC website)

I know, another theatre review! I guess I've just seen quite a lot recently that's been worth talking about. Wendy & Peter Pan, so called as it's supposed to be Wendy's side of the children's classic story, was the RSC's big Christmas show this year but the run doesn't finish until March. I was really interested to see it as loads of people from my youth theatre had seen it and returned with very mixed opinions - some said it was fantastic, others hated it and described it as throwing round feminist terms for the sake of it. With that response, I had to see it for myself.

I have to say, I really liked it. To be honest, I was struggling to see what people could hate about it as there was nothing that stood out to me as being awful! First off, the set used throughout was incredible - complete with skull-encrusted pirate ships and slides into underground grottos, it was very visually impressive. I loved all of the flying and the use of physical theatre as well as I think it made it really magical. I actually thought that although it was aimed at kids 11+, I definitely wouldn't want to take anyone much younger than that as parts of it were quite dark and there was some more adult humour included for the parents. I thought parts of it were quite funny and that the script was well-written. Although it pretty much stuck to the original story of Peter Pan, they included some backstories such as why the Darlings' parents were unhappy as they were which were really interesting and added to the story, I thought. Now, for the feminist thing: yes, Wendy was arguing that she shouldn't have to be the damsel but as for bandying around feminist terms unnecessarily, I didn't think that was true at all. It touched on society's constructed male and female roles but other than that it really wasn't mentioned explicitly. I thought that Sam Swann and Fiona Button who played Peter and Wendy respectively were brilliant and really threw themselves into their roles.

In summary, I really enjoyed it and would say that it is well worth watching. I thought it was really magical and an interesting retelling of a well-known classic. It's on in Stratford until the 2nd March if you're interested in seeing it.

Theatre Review: Showstopper! The Improvised Musical

(Image: On Fife)

Last Saturday I went to see a company called The Showstoppers improvise a musical at the Warwick Arts Centre. How is that possible?! I hear you ask. I thought the same thing before I saw it which is exactly why we booked tickets in the first place. But, I can assure you, it works. The company has been performing together since 2008 and the goal is to create a musical each night purely based on the suggestions of the audience. This means, of course, that no two performances of the company's are the same, which has sparked conspiracy theories amongst sceptical audience members suggesting that they have fifty rehearsed musicals on rotation and such. However, the night I saw it a lady behind me said at the end, "That was so different from last time!" so they obviously don't keep repeating the shows!

So, we sat down not really knowing what to expect. A man came out in the role of a director and asked us different things about that night's musical such as where we thought it should be set and what kind of music should be in it. The audience voted that the show would be called That Sinking Feeling and it would be set in Atlantis with music in the style of Danny Elfman, Puccini, Avenue Q and the Spice Girls. A very eclectic mix that would surely be impossible to base a musical on! He wrote all of these up on a board and then the show began.

At the end of the opening song, I was sitting there absolutely gobsmacked. How on earth had the actors just performed an entire song about Atlantis, complete with harmonies and dancing and no rehearsal? The rest of the show continued in the same way, i.e. with me being completely astounded at how they were pulling it off. It was really funny as well, we could see the musicians sitting at the side laughing as it was obviously their first time seeing this particular performance as well. Speaking of the musicians, they were equally impressive with how they were able to keep up and fit in with the actors' improvised songs; I think you'd have to be a really good musician to be able to do that. It was a little blue in places to perhaps not ideal for small children or easily offended grandparents but great for everyone else! They did a great job at incorporating all of the musical styles we had suggested into the show; I noticed at the end that the director had been ticking them off on the board throughout to make sure they had covered everything.

I was just so impressed with the performance and its very high standard considering that the cast had had absolutely no rehearsal. It was a shame because it was a really small audience the night I went, probably because it's a fringe show and not many people have heard of it. However, if you do get the chance to see it I would definitely recommend it as it makes for a really fun night out.

Theatre Review: Frankenstein

(Image: the National Theatre Live website)

For the people who saw the National Theatre's production of Frankenstein on the Southbank in 2011, I know I'm ridiculously late to the party but bear with me here. I finally got the chance to see it last week and I thought it was absolutely fantastic.

The production was directed by Danny Boyle which, although I didn't know this prior to seeing it, was unsurprising as it was very well done. Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller alternated the roles of Victor Frankenstein and his Creature during the show's original run - I saw it with Cumberbatch as Frankenstein and Miller as the Creature. I thought they were both so outstanding in their roles that I really couldn't imagine it the other way round, although I had friends who saw it that way round on the same night and they said the exact same thing. I was expecting Cumberbatch to be amazing because he always is but I had never seen Miller in anything before and I thought he was incredible. I really liked the set as well - there were loads of exposed lightbulbs hanging over the set which turned on and off at certain points which looked really cool. I didn't know the story of Frankenstein before watching it other than the man making a monster bit, but watching the play has really made me want to read the book because it had such a clever storyline. It managed to be shocking, heartwarming and heartbreaking all in one piece of theatre.

Anyway, the reason I came to see it two years late was because of a brilliant idea which I'm sure a lot of you will have heard of called National Theatre Live. I think basically the National Theatre appreciates that not everyone can get to the theatre in London for reasons of both cost and practicality, so they quite often have their productions showing at cinemas all around the country for a fraction of the price of a theatre ticket. Of course, it's not the same as going to the theatre but it really is the next best thing. They sometimes show productions live so the performance is actually happening in London as you are watching it in the cinema, but the showing of Frankenstein that I went to was what they called an encore performance whereby it is a recording of a live performance that has already happened. This is good as it means that you don't get to miss out on shows just because their run has finished in London.

I strongly recommend that you go and see this if you can. I see a lot of theatre so it takes a lot for me to say a production was brilliant, but this truly was. I've seen a couple of National Theatre productions (albeit none of them actually at the National Theatre!) and as you would expect, they are always of a very high standard. Seriously, get on it. If you are going to spend £15 on anything, make it this - you won't regret it.

Have any of you seen this?