Theatre Review: Birds of a Feather

As soon as I heard about this, I knew I had to see it. An onstage reunion of some of my favourite characters from my childhood played by the original actresses? What was there to think about? Nonetheless, a couple of doubts remained. Would Pauline Quirke, Linda Robson and Lesley Joseph be able to recreate their screen magic of fifteen years ago? I needn't have worried.

Tracey Stubbs (Robson) and Sharon Theodopolopodous (Quirke) haven't heard from old neighbour Dorien (Joseph) since the day after the 1997 election. When they receive a letter asking them to visit her at a retirement home they (well, Sharon) are ecstatic at the thought of Dorien being reduced to a care home but the joke's on them when they find her running the place. They accept her offer of employment and everything goes smoothly until poor Mr Zimmerman is found dead in his bed - having changed his will the week before to benefit Dorien. Suddenly she's in the frame for murder. Running alongside this is the fact that Tracey has lied to her son, Travis (played alternately by Louis Dunford and Charlie Quirke), telling him that his dad's dead instead of simply in prison. That lie could be about to come crashing down around her ears.

The script was hilarious. It was typical Birds of a Feather, updated for the modern day. There were references to David Cameron, Little Mix and Greece, amongst other things, and the characters certainly hadn't changed - only developed a little. Sharon doesn't say no to fiddling her benefits if the opportunity arises and has just been sacked from Lidl. Tracey has developed agoraphobia, the only way Sharon can get her to visit Dorien is by sticking a Lidl plastic bag over her head. As for Dorien... Well, she's still tramping around in high heels and very short dresses, though there's something distinctly odd about her hair these days...

The comedy barely slowed throughout the first act, though one of my favourite parts had to be Tracey and Sharon singing to the elderly folk in the home - 'Three Steps to Heaven' and 'Another One Bites the Dust'. However, after the fast pace of the first act, things did slow down a little in the second with a heart to heart between Tracey and Dorien. That moment was certainly needed, bringing emotion to the piece whilst also remaining true to the characters.

Setting-wise, the stage was perfect. The production started off with the familiar theme tune then the stage altered between depicting Sharon and Tracey's living room and the lounge at Dorien's residential home. There were some nice voice-overs to keep the audience happy while the set changes were taking place which worked brilliantly. The audience was in stitches throughout - occasionally making things a little difficult to hear! - and that's the sign of an excellent production. Hopefully, it can also be taken as a sign by television bosses that old-fashioned sitcoms still have their place in modern Britain. Go on, bring it back!

Book Review: The Crimson Petal and the White by Michael Faber

I broke my general rule with this one, watching the television adaptation before I read the book. Occasionally I find myself disappointed when an adaptation proves better than the book - not this time. Faber's mammoth book can only be described as a masterpiece of historical fiction though, admittedly, it's not for everybody.

The Crimson Petal and the White tells the story of Sugar, a prostitute desperate to escape the lower levels of London and work her way up. She encounters William Rackham, the heir to a successful business he wants nothing to do with. His wife, Agnes, is labelled as mad by most; his brother, Henry, is desperate to become a clergyman but is also struggling with his desire to commit sins of the flesh with Mrs Emmeline Fox. Sugar manoeuvres her way into William's life then his affections and business dealings and then his home as she takes up the post of governess to his young daughter, Sophie. She proves herself to be invaluable but the fragile life she's acquired threatens to fall apart very easily.

Firstly, there are a couple of things I disliked about the book. The intrusive narrator is a personal dislike of mine and being pulled along by this voice and told what I'm seeing and what I will be seeing was a tad irritating. I can forgive it in Victorian-era texts but not modern texts apparently! My second issue was how much the book traded on the salacious aspects to come in the following pages. Yes, there are many sex scenes and lurid descriptions but as the novel progresses they become fewer as the characters come into their own. The salaciousness leads to a real story and I don't think the hype in the early chapters was necessary to hook the reader in.

What did I love about it? Brilliantly evoked characters, starting with incidental prostitute Caroline all the way up to Sugar and William Rackham themselves. Even the servants of the Rackham household had personalities of their own. My favourite characters were, however, the characters I'd favoured most in the adaptation - Henry Rackham and Emmeline Fox. Emmeline's descent into despair following Henry's death is one of the most interesting representations of grief I've read, certainly worthy of the character and the story. Agnes's chaotic personality was depicted well, while William's dependency colours his character throughout. Sugar shines brightly but is wonderfully consistent, even as her life changes around her.

London is, of course, a character and a detailed one at that. There's nothing laboured about the description of the setting, however, and every reference to the surroundings feels in-keeping with the particular scene. One thing I was unsure about in the adaptation was Sugar's friendship with her young charge, Sophie, which leads to the novel's climax. The novel made this much more believable, with Sugar's connection growing more naturally than it seemed to in the adaptation. Equally, her attitude towards Agnes feels more believable in print.

The trouble with a book like this is that it has to end. Even at 800+ pages it feels too short. Faber has created such an intricate web of character relationships that I wanted to follow them as far as I could. A riveting book till the end, beautifully recreating the London of the nineteenth century.

Classic Film Review: The Vikings (1958)

The Vikings tells the story of two half-brothers who don't know their connection and hate each other. Einar (Kirk Douglas) is the only son of Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) born in wedlock and is lightly mocked by his father for believing he's so attractive that he should shave his beard to show off his beauty. Slave, Eric (Tony Curtis), puts paid to this by setting a bird on his face, leaving Einar permanently scarred and setting up a reoccurring rivalry between the two. This is only enhanced by both falling for the same woman - the prisoner, Morgana (Janet Leigh), taken from the British King with the intention of ransoming her back to them.

Douglas and Curtis do Viking rather well. Douglas, especially, seems to revel in the role, capturing Einar's lust for both battle and Morgana very well. While it would've been easy for his attraction to Morgana to seem contrived, Douglas explores the many facets of Einar's character as the film progresses - excellent warrior, obedient son, forlorn lover - without difficulty. Eric is naturally a more reserved character as a slave and someone who faces death several times within the film, but he gets a couple of humorous moments to lighten what is a very battle-heavy film. The battle scenes themselves are well-staged and the setting is perfectly evoked with some beautiful outdoor locations used. The Vikings may not be historically accurate but it certainly conveys a good sense of what the era was like in a manner perfectly suitable for film.

I was a little unconvinced by the casting of Janet Leigh as Morgana but she does quite well in a film surrounded by men. When Eric is stealing her away from Einar in a small boat, her complaints that she can't row in her bodice lead to her bodice being ripped open - one of the most amusing moments in the film. She's also a little feisty and capable of at least trying to defend herself. Perhaps, in hindsight, Leigh wasn't the best choice for the role but I do adore her and could easily watch her performance again.

The Vikings is both interesting and thrilling. It may not appeal to those who don't like their historical with a dose of Hollywood alongside but the leads give good performances and it's worth watching the battle sequences alone. However, it certainly isn't for everyone and the scenes of men being threatened with hungry wolves aren't for small children - they unnerved me quite enough!

Classic Film Review: The Admirable Crichton (1957)

When I was reading Up and Down Stairs by Jeremy Musson recently (review here), I came across a reference to a J.M Barrie play that I hadn't heard of before which sounded excellent. The Admirable Crichton follows a family shipwrecked with some servants, showing how the servants become the masters in deference to the fact they can actually survive. This 1957 adaptation stars Kenneth More as Crichton with Diane Cilento as Tweeny, his fellow servant, Cecil Parker as Lord Loam and Sally Ann Howes as Lady Mary. I was particularly excited to see Howes in the cast, having adored her from the first time I ever watched Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968).

I'm not sure how closely the adaptation follows the original Barrie script but it's an enjoyable film regardless. At the beginning, Lord Loam is keen to try out equality for his servants by inviting them to tea with his daughters. Crichton is alarmed at this blatant disregard of protocol but gets on with it. When one of Loam's daughters is arrested for hitting a policeman at a suffragette march, Crichton subtly suggests they escape the country on the family yacht. Unfortunately, the boat is shipwrecked and Crichton and Tweeny find themselves in the family boat with the father, three daughters and two potential suitors for the daughters. They wash up on a desert island where Crichton's initial attempts to take control are rebuffed by Lady Mary (who has always had something of a crush on him) and he and Tweeney leave for the other side of the island. However, the family are tempted over when they smell pork roasting, although Lady Mary is a little more stubborn than everyone else.

Fast forward two years and the roles on the island have completely changed. Crichton is now known as 'Guv' and, in a complete reversal, it's now Lord Loam bringing his former butler breakfast in bed. Traditional class barriers have broken down - Tweeny is coveted by both her employer and the two suitors intended for her employer's daughters. She, though, is in love with Crichton while he and Lady Mary have seemingly spent two years flirting with each other. This love triangle is actually very compelling and the audience is kept guessing until the end of the film about who Crichton will end up with, especially when the prospect of rescue emerges.

All the performances in this were superb. More's comedic talents are delightfully underplayed while Tweeny was wonderfully overplayed by Cilento. Set in 1905, the film pokes fun at the traditional class distinctions while still creating characters the audience is invested in. It's amusing and certainly a pleasant way to while away a few hours.

York and Treasurer's House

Yesterday, in a bid to spend some time with my father doing the things we used to enjoy on holidays, we decided to visit York and a National Trust property we'd previously brushed over - Treasurer's House, right next door to York Minster. It hadn't struck either of us in the past as particularly interesting but a closer look at the small print convinced us we should at least give it a go.

In all honesty, we were bowled over. We'd heard the place may have Wakefield links but the sheer amount in the place about Frank Green, son of a manufacturer who used his fortune to buy a house to - basically - house his antiques in 1897, was impressive. Green was the last owner before he handed the property to the National Trust in 1930 and the work he put into refurbishing the house was truly outstanding. Consequently, when he handed the property to the National Trust, he left very specific instructions on how it should be maintained. The controlling aspect of his personality shone through when he left marks on the floor to demonstrate where every single piece of furniture should be - he promised to come back and haunt the place if his wishes weren't carried out!

One of the most important changes Green made to the house was to extend the roof of the Great Hall, essentially taking the floor above out. While this was an excellent alteration in the sense that it increased light to the Great Hall and showcased the beauty of the building, it came with a slight problem: by taking out the floor above, Green had removed the access for the male servants of the house!

Being as interested as I am in Victorian and Edwardian houses, me and my father decided to take the optional attic tour. It cost £3.00 extra but was well worth the money and I'd recommend it to anyone visiting the house. The groups are limited to eight at a time but, luckily, we were the only ones on this particular tour so it felt like a particularly intimate lecture. Although the furniture was removed from the servants' quarters by  Green, the structures remain, however dilapidated parts of them seem. There are a few fascinating things about the servants' quarters, the first of them being how the male servants got from there to the house after the works on the Great Hall. Well, Green put in a walkway along the side of the roof. There's a safety rail and wooden flooring up there now but in Green's day the servants would simply be walking along the lead roof from one small opening to another. Imagine carrying a chamber pot across there in high winds! Secondly, in the female quarters, Green installed a lift, first operated with pulleys before it was electrified. However, they seemed to have had serious issues with people not shutting the door properly down below meaning that the lift just refused to move: as this was the only way of access for the female servants it essentially left them stranded in their quarters!

The tour was full of little titbits like this and our guide was very enthusiastic and knowledgeable. In fact, the entire body of staff and volunteers were wonderful. We visited the shop and tearoom - I indulged in a very naughty but lovely cream tea - and finished off the visit in the gardens.

After we'd finished at the Treasurer's House we meandered back down through the streets of York stopping - of course - at a second-hand bookshop to feed my literary appetite. I heartily recommend a visit to The Minster Gate Bookshop, though don't expect to come out of there with much money left! Here's Eeyore posing with my loot.

So I think the day in York was a success and it looks like we grabbed the last day of good weather for quite a while. When it picks up again, I'd really suggest a visit to the Treasurer's House - and don't forget the cream tea! 

Thoughts on Queen's

I turned on the television to check the Queen's final score yesterday afternoon, fully expecting it to have gone into a deciding set, only to find Marin Cilic wandering around with the trophy. This puzzled me, since he'd just lost the first set the last time I checked the score and there was definitely something going on - for one thing, he was booed when Sue Barker tried to get a comment from him. It took a few more minutes to decipher what was going on but it eventually transpired that his opponent David Nalbandian had overreacted to being broken by Cilic and had kicked an advertising hoarding beside the court. Unfortunately, that hoarding shielded a line judge: the hoarding struck the judge, causing him to fall off his chair as the wound on his leg started bleeding fairly heavily. Nalbandian was disqualified, handing the title to Cilic. The Telegraph article includes the video of the moment Nalbandian lost his temper.

What astonished me, however, was not the actual kick but the reaction of the crowd to Cilic. I honestly can't believe they booed him for the fact his opponent ended the match in a sudden and rather violent manner. Yes, they felt deprived of their tennis final; yes, some of them didn't realise the severity of the line judge's injury. Still, wanting a match to go on when someone outside of the two players has been hurt feels selfish beyond belief on the part of the crowd. More than that, it seems like they wanted to reward Nalbandian for his antics. In fairness to them, though, they did boo Nalbandian himself when he waffled on live television and tried to blame the ATP's hectic schedule for his reaction.

All this got me thinking. As a collective, humans are very selfish. We boo if something unexpected goes wrong in a tennis match; we boo if a band doesn't perform the song everyone wants to. What about authors? I would imagine the criticism they receive online is akin to crowd booing. If you write a series which people become invested in and then make an unpopular turn I'd imagine the crowd can be fairly harsh: what were the reactions, I wonder, to the killings of Sirius Black and Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series?

Step back another inch, to somewhere in-between writing and spectacle: television drama and soap. These combine writing with performance and therefore any 'blame' can be spread around a large group. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that actors are criticised in the streets for the actions of their characters - this is a nice way for writers to avoid criticism!

Of course, I don't think there's anything wrong with debate. The recent Alzheimer's storyline in Coronation Street provoked a lot of debate, most of which seemed to shy-away from outright 'booing'. However, the actions of the crowd at Queen's yesterday edged away from polite irritation at the rules (and the right of the line judge to work in relative safety) and moved into outright hostility. What happens if you start listening to the crowd's demands to be entertained? I don't know. But I do know I'm not keen on trying it.

Classic Film Review: Picnic (1955)

The premise of Picnic seemed quite exciting: a drifter comes to a small town on the day of the Labor Day picnic and causes trouble for the citizens. Starring William Holden as the drifter, Hal Carter, and Kim Novak as the girl he bewitches, Madge Owens, this one would appear to be on solid ground. However, it didn't grip me. When you're noticing how bad the camera-work and editing of a film is then it's probably a good bet that the film wasn't up to much. Incidentally, the editing of this one was noticeably bad.

Holden lacked conviction as Hal, I thought. In addition, Hal was supposed to be college mates with Alan Benson (Cliff Robertson) but despite Robertson only being five years younger than Holden, the gap was accentuated by Robertson's youthful looks in comparison to Holden's rugged exterior. I just didn't buy them as old college friends and that was the beginning of my issues with this film. As hard as I try, I can't bring myself to like Kim Novak in any role an Madge Owens didn't buck the trend. The problem with any love narrative taking place over just a day means that people have to fall in love quickly and realistically. That didn't happen for me and the much-lauded dancing scene between Holden and Novak left me cold. I couldn't believe them as a couple at all.

This isn't to say that the film was devoid of good points. Rosalind Russell played Rosemary, a schoolteacher who's desperate for her boyfriend, Howard (Arthur O'Connell), to marry her. Their subplot, for me, was far preferable to the mainline storyline. Rosemary's breakdown throughout the day as she gets drunk, dances with Hal and then pushes Howard to marry her was exquisitely acted by Russell. The late-night scene when Howard drives her home and she literally begs him to marry her was heartbreaking and was certainly Russell at her best. Another excellent performance came from Susan Strasberg as Millie Owens, Madge's younger sister. Far more believable than Novak, Strasberg played Millie as the tomboyish sibling who wants to be pretty like her sister perfectly. Credit to Novak here, the love-hate sisterly relationship worked well.

My main issue with this film seems to be that secondary characters were more memorable than the leads. While the leads indulged in a flirtation that lacked chemistry from my perspective, the other characters actually struggled with their lives being touched by this stranger. Perhaps Holden and Novak were miscast, I'm not sure. Nevertheless, this one didn't live up to the hype for me. It's probably personal preference, though, as I've read some rave reviews praising Holden and Novak's chemistry!