'Congo' by Michael Crichton

Essentially a 'lost world' story in the traditional sense, this novel by Crichton is a 'modern' (it is more than 30 years old, now) adventure story where an expedition heads into the Congo jungle to ascertain the fate of a previous expedition whilst also pursuing a particular type of diamond needed to further technology. Along the way there are, of course, obstacles to overcome; including a rival expedition party and the more typical jungle fare such as cannibalistic tribes.
Crichton is, perhaps, famous for his use of modern technology throughout his stories and whether this is so I have yet to see as this is, in fact, my first Crichton novel. It shan't be my last.

My only issue with Crichton and his use of scientific references is that he interrupts the plot to spend pages illuminating the reader of scientific studies and quotes (garnered from the books in the reference section at the rear of the book) to hammer home how real the possibilities and reasoning he writes about are or could be but since the book is presented as a dramatisation of recent events (occasionally he will present a quote from a character after the fact) I can understand that he may be writing along the lines of a scientific journal almost.
Crichton also passes over small details only to reference them later leaving me briefly irritated.
That said the primary plot is clear and the writing is paced well with a cast of varied characters, including what must be one of his most famous; Amy the 'talking' gorilla. When he takes the time to describe an environment or situation it becomes quite compelling and engages the imagination to the fullest. There are few events or details which are hastily written and Crichton seems to be a writer who doesn't wish to over-write, despite all his sojourns into referencing, and although the finale is a little contrived compared to the rest of the novel it still smacks of the realistic tone that Crichton was evidently going for.

So, having wanted to read this novel for some years, was it worth the wait? The answer is a most definite 'yes' and I shall be reading more Michael Crichton some time in the future.

On a side-note; I became aware of this book when the film adaptation was released in 1994. I enjoyed the film, which is very different to the book in many aspects, but am far more impressed with the novel. Inevitable? Probably. But I shall still enjoy the film, which is, of course, an utterly different creature, but is not the most faithful, or original, of adaptations.

'Blood Brothers', King's Theatre, Glasgow, 4/7/12

This new touring edition of a production nearing its 25^th anniversary (though the show is nearing 30) still retains the ability to awe and move with the simplest of means. Here is a show that has no spectacular set pieces to boast of but instead relies on human emotion to stir its audience. And stir it does.

Whilst Russell’s score may be thematically repetitive it is still used quite economically and is employed to great effect striking the right balance between the libretto and itself. Russell must be given his dues for crafting a piece that, all these years later, still stands up as something of an oddity in musical theatre yet is able to boast some wonderful writing on all fronts.

This touring production is led by Maureen Nolan and Marti Pellow as ‘Mrs. Johnstone’ and the ‘Narrator’ respectively. Both are seasoned  performers and Pellow plays his role especially dark impressing upon everything the sense of the inevitability of the events that unfold onstage. Nolan is credible though, as the central figure, she is not as emotionally diverse or as powerful as she could have been. And both these performers struggle at times with the Liverpudlian accent.

Far more successful are the juvenile leads. None more so than Sean Jones as ‘Mickey’, who gives a powerhouse performance in perhaps the most difficult role after ‘Mrs. Johnstone’. His performance is the most tear-jerking of the evening and is closely followed by Matthew Collyer as his twin ‘Eddie’, though that role offers less chance to show off one’s acting chops. ‘Linda’ was played to perfection by Kelly-Anne Gower who embodied everything required, and more, of the part. The company ensemble were no less effective.

The direction is straightforward and unfussy and the simple designs allow the writing and performances to resonate beyond the stage and the situations presented seem somewhat appropriate given today’s economic woes. It becomes so very easy to think ‘there, but for the grace of God … ‘

A minor quibble I have about this production, having not seen it in nearly 20 years (and then in London’s West End) is that the audience at times treated it as something akin to ‘The Rocky Horror Show’ with lots of ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ (to the point where I feared audience participation) and with the actors onstage at times acknowledging them whilst at other times the actors performed certain lines very much ‘playing to the crowds’ as if knowingly playing for laughs. I feel the writing is strong enough that this is overkill but the sell-out audience certainly lapped it up.

And speaking of audience – people really should be more considerate: the tickets clearly say that the show began at 7.30pm and yet half the audience still left it until last minute to make their way into the auditorium and some even later than that! The effect being that the curtain didn’t go up until 7.45pm. If people cannot adhere to the announced time then I believe they have given up the right of entry and the doors should be closed and admittance granted only at the interval. And theatres should enforce such policies strictly.

Theatre etiquette is certainly declining these days. Rant over.

'42nd Street', King's Theatre, Glasgow, 30/6/12

The epitome of 'backstage' musicals, '42nd Street' boasts outstanding musical numbers, some stunning choreography and a cast easy on both eye and ear.

Based on the Busby Berkeley film from the 1930s the stage show first appeared in the early 1980s and was revised and revived in the early 2000s on Broadway. It is this revised Broadway production, directed by book co-author Mark Bramble, that now tours the UK. Or, rather, it is an adaptation of the Broadway production that is touring.
Bramble certainly directs, and assuredly so, but the large-scale sets and lavish costumes that graced the Broadway stage have, inevitably, been cut back here, for practical purposes if nothing else; how the King's theatre managed to squeeze so much set into their tiny wing spaces I'll never know but touring theatre, naturally, hasn't the luxury of being able to use large set pieces in only one theatre for X number of months where there is little thought of varying storage space or the cost and logistics of transporting every week.
That said the costumes and simpler sets are still something of a marvel and very easily evoke the glitz and glamour of those early Hollywood musicals. Roger Kirk's costumes could easily be enough at times but supported by the backdrop supplied by the settings created by Douglas W Schmidt the whole stage comes to life like a living Hollywood film of the golden era. David Howe's lighting design also has moments to shine especially throughout certain musical numbers (go see for yourself) and the classic songs by Harry Warren and Al Dubin still stand up amongst the best of them.

The direction is clean, often concise and often has nods to those classic musical films and, tied with the musical staging and choreography of Randy Skinner and Graeme Henderson (original dances by Broadway legend Gower Champion), they form a unified whole designed to grab an audience's attention from the very first image of the line of tapping feet to the last fade to black. Tap dancing has never been my favourite style of dance but here it is presented in such a brilliant way and in so many variations that it becomes exciting and fresh.

The cast are nothing short of excellent and Jessica Punch as 'Peggy' and James O'Connell as 'Billy' lead the way with powerful performances showcasing wonderful voices, outstanding dance skills and acting chops to boot. The supporting roles are performed by a cast no less able and Bruce Montague, Carol Ball and Graham Hoadly exemplify the comedic talents of the cast.
The star billing, however, goes to Dave Willetts as the show director 'Julian' and Marti Webb as (has-been) star 'Dorothy'; seasoned stalwarts who show, quite easily, how talented they both still are: Webb shows off her clear vocals several times throughout the evening and it's good to know that some voices remain undamaged by time unlike others I could name. Willetts brings his sometimes tender, sometimes commanding vocals to bear in a domineering role yet both are still able to allow the juvenile cast to shine in a production that revels in the glories of musical comedy.

A last-minute impulse ticket purchase on my behalf this is a production I look forward to seeing again when it makes its way to Edinburgh.
For a night of entertainment and joy you'd be hard pressed to find something better than this.

'Murder On The Nile', Theatre Royal, Glasgow, 28/6/12

This is the first production of the Agatha Christie Theatre Company that I've seen, having missed all previous ventures and it was certainly a popular production with the audience.

Whilst there are some who will say that Christie's plays are dated and belong to another era, and in part they may be true, it is nice, once in a while, to revisit such examples of theatre especially in a production which understands such shortcomings in the modern world.

Director Joe Harmston's steadfast direction, complimented by the elegant, simple paddle steamer design by Simon Scullion, navigates Christie's script with a direct attitude peppered with moments where some of the larger-than-life characters are played tongue-in-cheek. Matthew Bugg's sound design is evocative of the locale ~(complate with some glorious unidentified Arabian music) and Mike Robertson's lighting and the costume's of Brigid Guy further compliment the production.

There are few moments when the dramatic action begins to lag but Harmston never allows them to last for long.

The cast are very able and engaging, dealing with the archaic dialogue with aplomb. Led by a superb Denis Lill as 'Canon Pennefather', who commands attention at all times, and Kate O'Mara as 'Miss ffoliot-ffoulkes' (complete with lower-case fs), who appears to relish her over-the-top posh snob of a character, the cast manaouvere steadily bringing archetypes to life with realitve ease.

Based on one of Christie's most famous books, 'Death on the Nile', it is easy to see why Christie elected to reduce the large number of characters featured and choose to combine characters and to modify the plot in order to streamline for the stage but it does come across as a not quite successful effort when compared to the glorious cinematic presentations that have gone before. That said it is still an enjoyable romp through whodunnit territory which is something I always enjoy.

'La Cage Aux Folles', The Orpheus Club, King's Theatre, Glasgow, 23/6/12

The Orpheus Club continue their alliance with director Walter Paul who presides over an enjoyable production of the classic Jerry Herman/Harvey Fierstein show based on the original French farce by Jean Poiret.

Led by Michael McHugh as 'Georges' and Jim McPhee as 'Albin' the cast are generally very good but it's certainly these two leads who stand out, together with Sean Stirling camping it up as 'Jacob' and Jamie Walker whose brief moments onstage as 'Francis' with his amusing minor sub-plot involving a somewhat vigorous love-affair are highly amusing. Much of the humour comes from the dated types presented but this being a farce it matters so little. McPhee as 'Albin/Zsa Zsa' embodies memories of several of the greatest drag artists including Danny La Rue, Dame Edna Everage and there is even a bit of John Inman thrown in for good measure.

Neil Thompson's musical direction is assured, despite a trumpet player being a little off-key at times, and he brings out some quality vocals from the cast. Preston Clare's choreography becomes a little repetitive at times but is nonetheless enjoyable.

As for Walter Paul's direction well, I have never been a fan of the man's work, finding him a competent director at best. This show is the best I've seen him, no doubt being aided with a fine score and libretto by Herman and Fierstein respectively.

That said he is still an uneventful director who relies too much on stale, safe staging which renders some scenes verging on the dull, relying on the same set-up time and time again - fortunately the cast refuse to let this happen. Paul is also guilty of often ignoring logic and reason not to mention detail and the director has also yet to truly deal with scenic transitions: He allows the story's flow to stop to have scenery moved when there is no need: Any director worth his salt would rectify this with clever staging and distraction. If this is truly unavoidable then a director should make something out of the scene change and the closest Paul gets here is in the transition to the Restaurant where the crowd create something to watch and look at while the locale is changed. Such peaks are rare where this director is concerned although the final image of Act One where the back-cloth is raised to reveal the real backstage area of the theatre creating a beautiful image of light and shadow as 'Albin' walks away, toward the paraphernalia of artifice, from 'Georges' after being told the reality that he is surplus to requirements. It is worth noting that here the lighting reaches a peak amongst the otherwise fine lighting of Rod Littlefield.

All in all a very enjoyable production where the sum of all its parts came together to create something worthy of viewing.

'Macbeth', National Theatre of Scotland, Tramway, Glasgow, 15/6/12

Touted as a one-man performance of the Scottish play by a well known Scot in Scotland's second city this production of Macbeth is rather hit and miss.
The setting by Merle Hensel is some sort of cell or ward within a mental institution complete with tiled walls, security cameras and a steel staircase to the secured door and this reminded me of the hospital setting used a few years back in a production that featured Patrick Stewart in the title role. Here we have Alan Cumming playing almost all the roles and speaking the majority of Shakespeare's lines.
The concept is one of the things that work completely; indeed the concept itself seems confused - was this man who we see confined to this ward part of the events he replays in his mind or is he so utterly delusional that he creates the play complete within himself (albeit with the addition of props that are either part of the 'evidence' that come with him or just happen to lie about the stage)? Beyond the man himself there is the doctor and orderly who infiltrate his delusions - what is there purpose?

The production starts slowly and I tended to drag at times in the first half. Once Macbeth's ascent to power is completed and his descent begins things move along at a more appropriate pace, thankfully. Throughout the sound effects and music were a constant and often annoying presence and were clearly used to set mood and effect, as was the constant variation of lighting; sometimes it seemed barely a minute would pass before the next lighting cue was executed. This rushed execution was also given to the text, which was quite truncated, and often seemed to be rushed through virtually eliminating the power and rhythm of most of the words. I must note that I felt most of the issues I had in this regard are with the directors John Tiffany and Andrew Goldberg rather than with Cumming himself. Cumming showed instances of brilliance in some of his many portrayals although they could often be so confused that a familiarity with the plot, if not the text, is essential. It is also a shame that the directors elected to, wittingly or not, play down the gravitas of Macbeth and the actions preceding his rise to power and replace them often with a comedic spin. The better performance that Cumming ultimately gave was as the man (whom Cumming has apparently named 'Fred' as you can read here) who we see glimpses of between his delusional states. 'Fred''s breakdowns and wistful moments are indeed poignant and wrenching and show that Cumming is capable of so much more than he is given the chance to do here.
Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between characters (partially intended by the directors but perhaps not to the degree that the final production offers) it is a welcome relief when the two medical staff finally utter a few lines of Shakespeare and have some sort of real interaction with the man. Here one could see a germ of what could have been from this production.

It seems to me that the high concept has outweighed the production, confused itself whilst losing relevance to the story and text. There is so much that is unnecessary in this production that it threatens to completely nullify the necessary. The setting is quite vast and while this allows much space for which Cumming to play with (movement by Christine Devaney) one wonders whether a more claustrophobic setting might not have been more effective. Likewise the seemingly endless sound by Fergus O'Hare became simply annoying. Natasha Chivers' lighting became as frivolous as a child's finger upon a light switch.
The use of security cameras, in particular in evoking the weird sisters, was one of the better aspects of the production. These cameras would show real time footage of Cumming in his cell, lulling the audience into a false sense of security, before pulling some intriguing tricks and twists upon them. Ian William Galloway (Video Designer) and Salvador Bettencourt Avila (Video Production Engineer) create a sense of unease in their use though some of the execution needs a bit of tweaking.
The mental institution idea, whilst somewhat cliche, is a valid concept but the concept that surrounds Shakespeare's play as a jacket is simply too confused and offers no real purpose in being. It asks question that are irrelevant to the Shakespeare and which are never dealt with - Who is this man? Why is he here? What has he done? What are the origins of the objects that arrive with him and that are lying about the place so randomly? It's almost as if the concept has generated a play within a play unconsciously and as such has seen no reason to answer and explore these questions which, ultimately proved at least as interesting as the story 'told' by the man.

Myra McFadyen and Ali Craig provide solid support as the medical staff and I only wish there was more interaction between the three actors. Alan Cumming, as stated above, really should have been served better by his directors and, at least for most of the duration, we are not engaged with the play and Shakespeare's text as we are the ability for someone to memorise so many words and recite them in so fast a time as he does. I have seen a few production which use the concept of a mental institute and to better and more appropriate effect.

The germ of a possibly mesmerising (and Cumming was such at many a time throughout) production is here but it has yet to take root firmly. Perhaps with further development, more interaction, more precise execution ...

A note on 'Prometheus'

Beware of SPOILERS!

A Precursor to a full review but I thought I'd jot this down nonetheless.

There are far too many questions and far too few answers. This is also the same syndrome that put me off Lost. If an audience is willing to put so much time and faith in a film or television series the creators have to acknowledge their existence and need for some closure - for answers. Not necessarily to everything but to at least something. Here we get almost no answers whatsoever. I can only hope that any future sequel solves this issue. Together with answering plot-holes(e.g. exactly what caused the holes in the engineer corpses? If it was the black oil material then surely we would have seen the same fate applied to some of the Prometheus' crew? And how can the silicone-based xenomorph evolve from the genetic material of Carbon-based life-forms? Have we to await a potential sequel for that issue to be resolved also?).

Don't get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it looked gorgeous and had probably the best 3D I've experienced. And to be honest I wasn't exactly sure what to expect so I can't say I was disappointed in that regard. There were sufficient surprises for my liking.

I do think it unfair to compare Prometheus with Alien as the former is certainly a film independent of its source. But there are aspects that cross over: Namely the engineers and the concept of bio-mechanical life - which is never explored. In this regard the design is a bit of a let down as it appears that biological and mechanical aspects of the engineer civilisation are independent of each other. To that end one wishes that Giger had a far more active involvement beyond the murals he created which appear all to briefly - indeed they are one of the more satisfying aspects of the design.
So, if we are to believe this is a stand alone film, one simply has to concede that it is heavily flawed - albeit very enjoyable - and offers many questions but almost no explorations of those questions and certainly no answers. Perhaps we should see Prometheus as the question and the future sequel(s) as the answers.
At least I hope so.

And, yes, the proto-xenomorph was rather too Bambi-like to be satisfying and one wonders how many generations it will take before it evolves into the well-known xenomorph and in such a short period of time - Alien is set only 30/40 years beyond Prometheus.

I guess time, and Twentieth Century Fox, will tell ...

This is also worth a good listen (be warned it contains many SPOILERS and some BAD LANGUAGE): Listen

'Educating Rita', Theatre Royal, Glasgow, 31/5/12

I've never seen the film version of 'Educating Rita' so I came to the play with no expectations.

Willy Russel's play is both witty and charming and I found myself enjoying it more and more as the play progressed. The story of a working class lass who wants to be 'educated' and the man who is to educate her brings up interesting points about education and culture itself.

As 'Rita' Claire Sweeney is pretty much spot on. Her entrance immediately sets the tone of the character and she evolves effortlessly as the play progresses.
Matthew Kelly is a wonderful actor and as 'Frank' he lives and breathes each aspect that the role presents. I was most impressed by his acting skills which I'd never witnessed previously.
Tamara Harvey's direction is pretty straightforward and she is able to bring out performances that excel without having the need to create any fussy business. Her only possible misstep is at the very end when a piece of staging, where 'Rita' is to give 'Frank' a gift, seems somewhat out of step with the rest of the production.
Paul Anderson's lighting is likewise uncomplicated and functional as is Tim Shortall's design which consists of shelf upon shelf of books. The passing of time is visualised in a tree that stands outside the window; a tree that undergoes the change of the seasons.

The play is both funny, poignant and even thought provoking. Whilst the situations presented may be a trifle outdated it still stands on solid legs. My only real quibble is that I wish the transfers between scenes was smoother and speedier.

Now I must talk about theatre etiquette. The afternoon I saw this play there were many OAPs and school children in attendance. Now I believe that all members of society should see theatre and that it should be open to all. But. But I wish someone,be it a teacher or carer - whomever, had had some words with some members of these groups. Throughout the show there were numerous annoyances and distractions from the audience; children dropping cans and even coins and some elderly people talking rather loudly. We even had to put up with some people who are outright disruptive and shouting. Now in the latter case I feel that these elderly patrons were perhaps the victim of some medical condition that facilitated these acts. But surely the person or persons who accompanied these people to the theatre should take into consideration that a theatre tends to have more audience members present than themselves. And that, if it is known that a person can be disruptive, then that person should not be presented in a situation where one is expected to pay due respect to the artists onstage? As for the children - well, we all know they can be disruptive but I do wish the teachers present had taken it upon themselves to acknowledge their wards and put pay to their behaviour.

As it was Mr Kelly and Miss Sweeney ploughed on regardless for most of the play, never dropping their energy levels. However at one point where one elderly audience member was at their most disruptive Mr Kelly took it upon himself to simply stop after a suitable line and stare at the guilty party. He never once said anything to this audience member and may have seen the possible nature of the predicament. He casually waited until all had settled then resumed the play as if nothing had happened with not a single dip in the energy or pace of the play. Miss Sweeney's response was a simple reaction Mr Kelly; she quickly stole a glance in the direction toward which he were looking.

In the theatrical press instances of disruption (from those who should know better and who are certain to have all their faculties) are becoming more noted and I think that something needs to be done. Is it so hard to tell a child about, and to reinforce the idea of respect for a performer to do their job and to respect other members of the audience? Likewise those factors should be taken into account when planning a trip to a theatre; if one is aware that that respect in the form of silence and attention cannot be paid then perhaps it's best that one doesn't go in the first place.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Rant over.