SEARCH MY SITE

Chaos and absurdity are the very best friends of this performance, which remains throughout, in its content and style, unpredictable, ludicrous and energised. The comedy in this text, written by Aidan Pittman and Hudson Hughes and also directed by Hughes , is particularly strong, with a consistent library of subversions, hyperboles, and abrupt dark quips, and is permitted to flourish well with good timing and a wonderfully exaggerative characterisation by Pittman (also playing Dr Dolittle). Pittman has excellent vitality and has created a most unique and discernable identity for his character. Positioning of the mouth and sudden yet precise gesticulations, side glances to the audience upon innuendo and in-joke…the caricature with which Pittman presents us is exceptional in its conception and consistency. Conversely, I must admit that after halfway into the performance, the Doctor’s peculiar and lovable idiolect and his sharp, articulated and rather robotic movements had disappeared, and I understand this is due, in part, to a faltering in plot/narrative and in performance style, whereby there is an inherent difficultly in marrying the performance content with the Doctor’s character. The text is divisible into three main parts: the video depictions; the story of the ‘huge fucking ruby’; and the main premise that contextualises it all, which I will refer to as the ‘talk show’, wherein Dr Dolittle presents himself, his recent successes, and his new book. It is these two latter parts that allow for the greatest disconnect in content, namely in their chosen modes of presentation: the story of the huge fucking ruby is, overall, self-contained, owing to dialogues between him and secondary characters and to first-person self-references and descriptions of the events he had experienced. The talk show, however, sees a direct audience address wherein specific audience members, as opposed to the general audience as a whole, are targeted and approached. The story, and the video projections themselves, remain generally descriptive and mimetic, consciously ignoring the presence of the audience, barring a few passive invitations for audience participation [upon which I shall elaborate later]; the talk show, on the other hand: metatheatrical, confrontational, self-referential. Whilst references to murder/death and Eddie Murphy’s film portrayals of the Doctor are frequent throughout, Eddie’s ultimate murder at the end of the play feels the most incongruous of all the material. There ought still to be structure to this chaos, which is admittedly present in the artificial existence of a story with chapters, a throughline, motifs, etc. but, despite a strong beginning with clarity, purpose and direction, nonexistent in the talk show sections. That all should be resting upon this final murder — the very title of the play forboding it, the Doctor having somehow predicted it all, the related merchandise he has prepared — and that the murder should be presented as a denouement of sorts is most incoherent, given that the material has not drawn significant focus to this at all. Performance style is complicated further by metatheatrical references which coincide with Pittman’s fading persona of the Doctor: Pittman referencing his involuntary sweat; his stating he ought to “get back into character”; the awkward bumbling as “Eddie Murphy” asks the audience to excuse him whilst he struggles to make his way through them and to the stage; the casual and non-performative manner in which the audience are admitted into the house; and, to some degree, how audience participation is conceived and prompted. Subtractive items aside, this remains a most enjoyable performance, a rollercoaster treat. Comedy is refined, articulate and well executed, and the facilitative video graphics and overall characterisation we are presented make for a fascinating and inspired watch. “A hilarious, creative and inspired performance.” Additional Notes on This Performance [for the Requester of this Analysis] This technical analysis is included for free as part of The Performance Critic’s standard service. Please get in touch with Lee James Broadwood to receive your additional support and notes, as part of a premium analysis, concerning: Coherency in and organisation of multiple plots/narratives. Finalising performance content, and denouements. Incorporation of secondary characters. Effects of metatheatre and encroachment on audience territory. Inclusion of technical elements and special effects. These will be shared privately upon request. Want a technical analysis for your own live performance? Private and public analyses are requestable by any artist and for any live performance type. For more information, please click here . Artists from across the UK and [online] across the globe can also benefit from guidance, support and training in the form of consultations and/or workshops as part of my work as a live performance mentor .

This review will consider Abigail , a play written by Stephen Gillard (also the play’s director) and Laura Turner. It is currently being performed at The Space, presented by Fury Theatre. Aesthetically, this is a rather sleek and mostly accurate performance, beyond the lack of layers or headwear in costume or the erroneous inclusion of Mrs Constance’s (Sophie Kamal) scarf, for example. Costume designs themselves, despite these historical inaccuracies, are detailed and imaginative, altogether cohesive and well-tailored. Theatrical properties are superb, and their abundance is an effective decision to embellish what would otherwise be a sizeable and thus distinctly empty and lifeless playing area. The topography of this stage is well-conceived, and, despite this being such a sizeable stage, actors and their movements are spread well across it. Visually, this is a most balanced and creative performance, though it is undeniable that aesthetic considerations have mostly favoured Upstage areas, leaving those Downstage to feel rather disjointed visually, thematically and stylistically. On a similar note, simultaneous scenes are well-conceived and add humour and dimensionality to this performance, providing details and information about the story and the characters without consuming too much valuable stage time. I particularly enjoy the nonchalant yet self-mocking manner in which the first sexual sequence is handled with Milly’s character (Sarah Isbell) and the figure of the “Everyman” played by Nathan Haymer-Bates. This sequence allows for us to enjoy Milly’s exploitation, though we have yet to discover that this is, indeed, a form of exploitation and not a service she provides willingly and of her own accord. This further intensifies our compassion and feeling, through our guilt, when we later find what we ourselves have enjoyed to be all the more dirty, immoral and uncomfortable. However, despite the fact that dialogue is kept rather deliberately weak and ignorable in these simultaneous scenes, the secondary action is oftentimes too distracting and hence to some degree subtractive from the play’s momentum and profundity. This is especially the case when we are offered only needless representations of characters entering rooms only to perform minimal actions, such as lying down upon the bed, and exit very soon afterwards. Nevertheless, these humorous sequences successfully complement our reading, progress the narrative and plot, and provide needed respite from the dark and the ugly. I would just recommend more of these in the second act, as their sudden omission calls for stylistic inconsistency: the first act is far more comedic than the painful, dramatic second. Characters in this performance, if perhaps somewhat caricatural and unidimensional and hence also superficial, are well defined and logically conceived. Actors, overall, represent these profiles well, too. However, this performance suffers from a distinct and non-negligible lack of naturalism. Unless specific background movements have been choreographed and directed, it seems that the majority of the performers struggle to find some natural activities with which preoccupy themselves. Definite exceptions to this are Isbell and Lucy Sheree Cooper (playing Mercy) who remain engaged in and expressive and responsive towards the onstage action in which they are not necessarily directly included. We constantly see Milly eavesdropping on conversations or Cooper’s guilty and forlorn expressions or naïve smile as she gawps on at Abigail’s (Laura Turner) various actions. This constant busyness and activity is commendable. However, and this is more of a directorial issue, it is definitely repetitive to have Milly, for instance, always eavesdropping whilst cleaning the same glasses from the same crate in the same exact position as she always has been. Perhaps more varied activities — sweeping, dusting, washing, etc. — could be conceived for these moments. An editorial issue as well as one specific to the actors, but such repetitivity persists amongst the quieter or more dialogue-heavy scenes. For example, we see Turner in over half of her one-to-one scenes Downstage Right, holding her hands together at her pelvis, swaying side to side flirtily, which is always followed by a chastising, suggestive or passive remark and a snooty turn of the head, then a turn of the body to face her interlocutor, either with derision and confrontation or mesmerisation. Again, an issue with the text that rather unimaginatively forces Abigail into these far-too-similar and mostly inconsequential contexts regularly throughout the performance, Turner’s performance is enabled to seem robotic and unidimensional in this manner. Hence, much more variation is needed in these scenes. On to acting specifically. Perhaps due to initial nervousness, Isbell’s pacing, to begin with, is far too quick and compromises what is otherwise a most successful portrayal. However, this certainly improves as the play goes on. She is otherwise wonderfully expressive, and clear on her character’s intentions. After the initial hiccups, her vocal delivery is superb. Cooper is an excellent performer, pairable with Isbell as the strongest of the cast. She has an excellent grip on her characterisation, from vocal to physical delivery. A completely faultless performer, demonstrating great emotional range and awareness of character development. Articulating with her entire body, always engaged in and aware of the rest of the action on stage, Isbell’s performance is exemplary. Perhaps slightly too caricatural in places, but this is to be expected with a caricature-heavy performance of this nature. Both Turner and James Green (playing Jack) overenunciate throughout the entire performance, their speech becoming too rehearsed and deliberate. This is particularly a problem for Turner’s character who regularly [though perhaps not regularly enough for the written text to define her particular idiolect] speaks in contractions: “ain’t”, “’em [them]”, etc. In fact, regarding speech, all cast members fail to provide us with an accent representative of Salem, providing us with a distinctly English accent, instead, and this is most destructive of illusion. Sticking with Turner specifically, this actress demonstrates a great emotional range, is expressive, has great vocal delivery and understands her character’s motivations and objectives, but only when delivering her character’s lines — with a few notable exceptions, such as in her scenes with Sophie Jane Corner (Solvi). Also a trait of Green’s and, most conspicuously, Solvi’s, Turner tends to remain inexpressive whilst other actors are interacting with her or other cast members still. This is another example of how naturalism is omitted. I must say, however, that Turner has excellent manual expression. It is common for actors to forget about or to have no idea what to do with their hands, and Turner masters this problem well — perhaps, in fact, the best I have seen in a while. Whilst Green is clearly aware of his character’s intentions, is adequately emotive. Green’s physicality and tone of voice do not notably change throughout the entire performance. He aims to be soothing and calm, clearly to juxtapose his abusive and evil nature, all in order to come across as even more manipulative and malicious in his impassibility. This is a far too unrealistic and formalised representation, and also too stereotypical, causing his overall profile to lack depth and naturalism. I would recommend considerably more tonal variation as well as more corporeal expressivity. We should have no inclination that this man is the dark and exploitative character that he is; he should feel natural, normal, romantic and soft as well as feeling and passible , just like any other good-doing character that we ourselves can bond with and relate to. This would ultimately intensify our disgust, discomfort and shame when we realise who he truly is. Currently, his presentation feels too deliberate and, especially with the [needless, inconsequential and clichéd] suggestion made by The Marshall (also Haynes-Bates) that he is, indeed, an abusive and deceitful man, foreshadowing is too extreme, minimising the final impact of this revelation. At the moment, Green limits his expressivity to slow tilts of the head when attempting to woo or coerce the female characters. He does, however, perform his stage slaps very well, indeed. On the topic of Green’s effective stage slaps, the same cannot be said for the portrayal of his initial ‘death’. A weak forward thrust from Turner of the candleholder towards his head, failing to make contact and lacking any palpable impetus, and suddenly he’s on the floor, dead. Similarly, though Isbell does execute her part in this well, after she ‘stabs’ Green, he simply falls to the ground, silent, dead. When such extreme scenes lack realistic quality, their embedded awkward histrionics are further intensified. Naturalism in this way needs to be urgently readdressed. Other physical interactions between the characters, however, from Isbell’s sexual scenelets [with intimacy coordination excellently handled by Haley Muraleedharan, overall] to the dancing scene, are executed very well. When I compare Kamal’s loud, bold and sometimes melodramatic caricaturisation against Haymer-Bates’s total lack of corporeal and vocal expressivity, a stylistic inconsistency arises and, of course, we lose sight of naturalism even further. Kamal has a great command over her character’s mannerisms and facial expressions but struggles consistently to deliver her lines with the correct intonation, emphasising the wrong words or misinterpreting her line altogether. However, she has excellent stage presence and vigour, certainly vitalising her character. As for Haymer-Bates, despite the simplicity of his roles in this performance, this actor remains completely devoid of articulacy and expression, stiffly walking across the stage with a firm, blank face and an unchanging tone of voice. I would personally recast his characters, as they remain completely illegible and devoid of personality. This is perhaps more excusable for his portrayal of the Everyman, but not for The Marshall. His attention to detail is certainly lacking, and one further example of this is during Mercy’s first rape, where he makes no gesture at all that his trousers have been undone, despite Mercy’s assistance in lifting her skirt. Whilst on this topic, this is an excellent portrayal from Mercy here, but I would recommend the creatives not be scared to dedicate more time to this scene, especially given that this is the most poignant and raw in typifying the themes of and presentations in the dramatic text. Sensationalism ought to be avoided, of course, but slower pacing, intenser physicality and more stage time would make this scene all the more harrowing, uncomfortable and visceral, and hence allow for more psychological results amongst audience members. I would recommend the fleetingness of this scene be reconsidered. Finally, Corner. I should first clarify here that Corner meets the director’s conspicuous sensationalist expectations. She is bold, committed and invigorated, aware of her objectives. She has wonderful vocal delivery and an adequate command of her physicality. Her pacing is also very good. Facial expression could be improved, though. However, it is the very concept of her character itself that I find irksome, unhelpful, incongruous and subtractive, and this brings me on to the text itself and its representation of Solvi and its exploration of ‘witches’ [or lack thereof] in general. Solvi is not a witch, only condemned and almost killed as a witch due to Abigail’s internalised homophobia that consumes her after their sexual/romantic relations and causes her to denounce her. So, why is she chanting, singing and coaxing Abigail to lust? She is not dead, as she explains several times towards the end of the play [as though Abigail has some way of knowing this, despite it happening after she ran away], yet explicitly communicates that she is dead in her first appearances, then continuing to haunt Abigail as though a ghost. I do understand that she is a representation of Abigail’s fears, pains and memories, a symbol of herself, of their love, and I do understand the mixed emotions Abigail experiences when thinking about her. However, her representation is far too volatile, her character showing no coherent chronology or structure: in one appearance, she is loving, sweet; in another, a silent, understated observer; in another, rampaging, violent, physical. This is a mere sensationalist representation, aiming to toy with the audience’s emotions, to shock them, to make them feel uneasy and cautious, untrusting and scared, but the results can only be disappointing. Given that the witch trials are only referenced as punishment for the female characters’ homosexuality in this text yet employed distinctly in official descriptions of this performance, I cannot help but feel that the theme of witches and their histories are merely being instrumentalised by the creatives here to attract larger audiences to a performance that, in fact, has nothing to do witches at all. Abigail’s religiousness and her quest for God’s love over Solvi’s sinful temptations are explicit in and essential to the beginning of this performance, yet forgotten immediately after. In fact, I cannot recall a single allusion or reference to Christianity again throughout the entire performance, or to religion and religious practices and thought in general, for that matter. The feminist and anti-patriarchal sisterhood implicit in witching is cleverly integrated into this text, admittedly, but this is a stretch and feels accidental or as though an afterthought. Moreover, that Milly should also be homosexual, and that Abigail should know this without any reason or evidence to believe so, is most questionable. This budding relationship between Milly and Abigail is most underplayed, seeming also as though an awkward afterthought to quickly add a sense of solidarity, passion and connection between the characters before the tumultuous ending. The same can be said of Mrs Constance’s emotional outpouring upon the discovery of Jack’s lifeless body. An entire monologue is dedicated to her character, yet we have had no reason to care for her perspective or to consider her emotions and psychology — once more, because she is a shallow caricature. Despite its harrowing and profound themes, the text remains as distinctly superficial as its characters. One reason for this is the aforementioned sensationalist quality, exemplified by, amongst other things, the first act’s insistence upon all-too-familiar, needless and tiresome jump scares. Solvi’s ‘taunting’ Abigail is reducible at times to mere jibes and insults, but, most importantly, we have the inclusion of metatheatrical techniques, namely direct eye contact with the audience. As we first enter the house, we are confronted with the image of a demented-looking Corner [again a questionable depiction of someone who is not a witch, not evil, not crazy but merely passionate, in love, scared and hurt], sat far Downstage Center, gazing into the eyes of every audience member she can, her head lowered and titled. In her subsequent appearances, Corner offers us ‘intimidating’ glances and stares, often making efforts to break eye contact with Abigail to do this, despite sitting on top of her or stood right before her. There is not a single other element of this performance that employs metatheatrical techniques in this way, meaning that this confrontational indirect audience interaction type remains stylistically inconsistent with the rest of the performance, forcing us not deeper into the text but into a distinct temporospatial awareness: we become aware of ourselves, of the mechanics of theatre, of the space and the Other as well as our relationship to all of these. We become removed from the performance, aware of what we are ‘supposed’ to feel but comfortable and indifferent in the knowledge that this remains an enclosed performance where direct interaction will never force itself upon us. However, on the night I saw this performance [and only this night, I hope], it did. Kamal dropped a coin beneath the chairs of two audience members and interacted with them immediately, demanding they give it back. Whilst she handled this ‘impressively’, still in character, failure to completely ignore the projectile prop and the audience members’ disturbance meant that the illusion of the world of the play had been completely destroyed. If such an incident should occur again in the future, the creatives must ensure they do not address it at all, for then, the incident will remain an issue internalised and only momentarily addressed by the audience. As soon as the creatives address the audience, self-knowing artificiality is extremified, and the play loses all credibility, integrity and professionalism. Leaving the projectile prop communicates that such a ‘mishap’ is merely an endearing potential facet or by-product of experiencing live performance, and not something that went wrong. Finally, some trivial notes. I mentioned jump scares above, and these are also accompanied by drastic and stylistically incongruous changes in lighting states, bringing me on to tech. Especially in the former part of this performance, tech fails to complement and facilitate the action on stage. Notably, volume is far too loud, though the music itself supplements the performance with its catchy and congruous motifs. Blackouts are never dark enough, except for during the transition after Mercy’s rape, revealing subtractive and disillusive transitional activity, and lighting cues do not coincide with the actors’ movements. For example, as soon as Corner sits back down to end the first scene of the play, she is back up again with the slow and untimely fading of her spot, with lights coming back up before she has even left the stage. Most peculiar here, however, is that Corner seemed to pre-empt this, not entirely committing to her seat, implying that this technical decision either was deliberate or has been commonly executed in performance hitherto. Neither should be deemed permissible. Overall, I personally thoroughly enjoyed this performance, but my critical and personal judgements are different things. Most important to reflect upon is that the dramatic text feels as though it is at odds with itself, unsure about its style, its references, its context and its themes. It favours above total coherency and stylistic consistency the notion of thrilling and challenging an audience but fails to focus and particularise our critical attention sufficiently to do so. Its multiplicity in subject matter does not make it versatile and multifarious but convoluted and ill-communicative. It is easy to feel as though we have watched two very different plays, one about sex trafficking and manipulation, and the other about finding oneself and coming to terms with and practising one’s ‘dissident’ sexuality…and then there is the odd reference to witching. With this in mind alongside the items I have expressed above, I am brought to the rating below. “An intriguing story but not yet fully fledged .” Photography Credit: Richard Hall.

The Thistle Corner Blog From nosy neighbours to eccentric passersby, I’ve learned that inspiration for characters can only come from real-life people . Children I have known in my own life, for instance, have inspired the character of Josie in The Fisherman’s Daughter , and even characters in 101 Poems ’s fictional poems have been inspired by strangers or figures I find intriguing. We cannot recreate anything other than what we know , and so it is important t o be a vigilant and observant people-watcher  when it comes to creating characters. “We can only connect with characters when their lives seem real and their problems seem genuine, when they are in imminent danger and need to be rescued.” But how do we make them feel real? Well, here's a good place to start! OBSERVE THOSE CLOSEST TO YOU It is important to start with those closest to you, because we have greater access to their psychology than to the psychology of strangers (and we'll see why this is important soon!). NOTE THEIR SPEECH Repetitions : recurring words, question tags and filler phrases — also consider how and when these are repeated. Positioning of the mouth and the effects of this. Expletives and how they’re used. Register of language : formal, informal, colloquial. These things and any other peculiarities form an idiolect, the key to particularised speech , which is important for giving your character a unique voice but one that is grounded in observable and recognisable patterns . NOTE THEIR MOVEMENT Posture : upright, slouching, shifting, rigid… Hands : positioning; gesticulation types; gestures; and (an interesting one) what does their dominant hand do differently to the other, or are they ambidextrous? Walking vs standing vs sitting : positioning, gait, rhythm… Angular or fluid movements: which do they use when? Head and eyes: positioning, smooth or fluid movements, repeated back-and-forth or up-and-down movements, fixations… THEN, CONSIDER: What key stages of life have shaped their movement? Or: " What training has the body gone through in life to behave the way it does?" What movement and speech patterns can you instantly recognise as indicators of their mood ? What subconscious processes shine through in their physical behaviour? It’s easier with those we know inside and out to attribute mood, perspective and mindset to their movement and speech patterns ; it’s harder with complete strangers. However, training ourselves to have conscious and active perceptions of these patterns  of our close ones can train our minds to discover psychological/symbolic meanings in strangers’ behavioural patterns. So, now let's start the process! OBSERVE STRANGERS Repeat the process above but with a stranger this time. Pay attention to their speech and movement patterns, and then imagine some likely moods, perspectives and mindsets giving rise to these patterns. Create a backstory for them, a history, a feeling diary . Observing speech and movement can be a method for understanding someone's emotions and vice versa ! So, ensure you understand this relationship between psychology and physicality . MAKING A REALISTIC CHARACTER So, you've understood the psychology-physicality relationship from studying those close to you, and you've applied this knowledge to studying strangers. Studying strangers calls for imagination and is the next leap towards imaginary characters. After all, we cannot read minds; we only project what we know and imagine this stranger's feelings and history and how movement and speech patterns are impacted by these, but… “The more varied and profound our ability to project, the more diverse and deeper our characters.” So, now draw from what you've learnt: what distinct speech/movement types and patterns did you come across that you thought were interesting? Breathe your interesting discoveries into your characters to make them come alive! And you've completed the first leg of your journey to making believable and realistic, walking, talking characters! WHAT SPEECH AND MOVEMENT PATTERNS DID YOU OBSERVE? Inspire or get inspired by other writers and use the comment section below, or share your thoughts on social media: @25ThistleCorner on all platforms! HAPPY WRITING

At Thistle Corner, my love for storytelling is matched only by my deep love and respect for the natural world! “Every step on the earth should be careful and tender.” EVERY ORDER HAS A STORY   I want my readers to have a visceral experience  when receiving my books and so not only are the smooth and tactile covers of my books important to me, but so is the conscious packaging .   Each book order is a story in itself, delivered in themed boxes to be satisfyingly unwrapped , each containing a personal sweet treat and a book-specific trinket .   THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED; SUSTAINABLY WRAPPED   Every order is delivered in recyclable and biodegradable packaging , making every order completely eco-friendly .   BOOKS CRAFTED FOR YOU   My dedication to print-on-demand publishing means that the book you receive has been  printed especially for you , both making it extra special and eco-friendly, eliminating waste and the need for warehouse storage .   It is for this reason that I also welcome and encourage reader responses — either in the form of reviews on Amazon or via interactions and comments on posts or social media. I want  every reader to feel they are part of my community   as well as my heart. Visit my bookstore to discover my work! @25ThistleCorner on all social media platforms.

Visit Thistle Corner Sometimes, ideas feel too important to let go. They’re personal, maybe even therapeutic, and yet you know they’re dragging your story down. They don’t push the plot forward, deepen the characters, or add real value. As tough as it is, sometimes those ideas have to go— but scrapping them doesn’t have to be painful, and it doesn't have to mean losing them forever! This is something I’ve wrestled with in my own writing , and over time, I’ve developed a few ways to make it easier. 1. Don't Just Scrap Bad Ideas... SAVE THEM! Cutting material doesn’t mean it’s gone for good. I like to keep a journal or file of ideas, scenes or dialogues that don’t work right now; they might be perfect for a later project . When I need inspiration, I can go back to those scrapped ideas, and they can often spark something new. 2. Rework Instead of Remove Sometimes, an idea just needs reshaping. A long, clunky scene might work better when fragmented and spread out. Instead of losing the moment entirely, consider if you could reduce it to its good parts and even maybe spread these out across your story . 3. Scrap Bad Ideas? Sounds Fun! Don't see it as painful or shameful to scrap bad ideas! Once you start, there’s something satisfying about cutting what doesn’t work and polishing what does . Think of it as streamlining your story to make it the best it can be — another chance to showcase your writing talent can be found in the skilfulness of your editing! 4. Keep Your Readers in Mind Imagine your ideal reader. Would they be as captivated by the idea as you are, or would something feel off? Thinking about your audience can help you let go of what isn’t working. Instead of being afraid of it, let the pressure of what your readers might think inspire you! 5. Don’t Be Too Precious It’s hard to part with ideas you’ve worked so hard on, but remember: letting go of what isn’t working makes room for something better. Pride can hold you back, but if it makes your story stronger, more interesting, then you're only benefitting yourself if you scrap what's not working! REMEMBER: “To scrap bad ideas is a difficult but necessary part of writing.” How do you decide what to cut? Share your thoughts in the comments, or let me know on social media! @25thistlecorner

The Live Performance Mentor When the dulcet songs of crickets sound to summon the moon to wake, and the evening, crisp and pregnant with art, Eddie , sees a flood of press releases into my inbox, I take to the theatres of London to review! If you weren’t aware already, I moonlight as a theatre and performance critic! Told my words are scathing, told that they are fair, I offer detailed performance analyses in exchange for complimentary tickets to live performances. I’ve been doing this for nearly six years now at the time of this publication, reviewing for London, Brighton and Nantes, France. I could not be more grateful to all theatremakers and creatives who request a review and make it possible for me to provide this service, and who expose me to fascinating live artworks, from circus to ballet, from Shakespeare to Brecht, one moonlit evening at a time! My reviews can be found here on my website beneath a homely shelter of their own: The Live Performance Mentor . Don’t be shy…take a peek! You could also check out The Live Performance Mentor's FAQs or even request a review for your own performance! Smashing! Be Brave. Be Kind. You Are Blessed.

WELCOME! It is my greatest pleasure that you’ve visited my website and are interested in Thistle Corner! Whether you're a fellow wordsmith, a passionate reader or simply curious, welcome! BOOKSTORE First and foremost, Thistle Corner is a bookstore where you can discover my books and book accessories, each crafted with care and love to inspire : novels, poetry collections, short story collections bookmarks figurines and plushies of my memorable characters Green practice is at the heart of my bookstore : all books are printed per order to spare wastage and warehouse usage! all packaging is recyclable AND biodegradable! all orders come with plantable seeds to help nature to flourish! BLOG Thistle Corner Blog: a new article is released every Thistle Thursday  about: my personal book recommendations writing tips and tricks general advice for writers my personal reflections on or updates about my craft and work LET'S BUILD A COMMUNITY I want Thistle Corner to feel like a community where you can share your thoughts , so settle in, get a nice hot chocolate, grab your jammies, and connect with fellow readers and writers! JOIN THE CONVERSATION @25ThistleCorner on all social media platforms!

Hello there! I've just made another professional service of mine available via my website! Freelance Pet and Animal Photography This service is an excellent choice for clients wanting sleek and professional animal portraits — and for affordable prices, comparative to those available elsewhere! You can benefit from this service if you are based in London and wanting to capture the personality and spirit of an animal friend in an everlasting, high-quality collection of photographs. Whether you're a conscientious worker at an animal sanctuary wanting to promote on social media the great work that you and your co-workers do or just proud to coexist with a beautiful dog, cat, hamster, bird, fish or horse, this is the service for you! Clients can choose from an array of options to suit their specific needs and budgets, with prices starting at only £35 ! Animal-based business or charity? You might be eligible to benefit from this service for FREE! Contact me now to arrange your photoshoot, either by emailing me at contact@leejamesbroadwood.com or by using the contact form at the bottom right of your screen! Find more about this service by clicking here . LINKS To view my current photography portfolio, please click here . To learn more about all of the professional services I provide, click here . Be Brave. Be Kind. You Are Blessed.

NAME A lover of animals and nature, I was inspired by the unique beauty of thistles and their various subspecies . The figureheads of Thistle Corner, milk thistles have enchantingly vibrant deep-purple blooms , but their flower heads and stems are covered in sharp spines and thorns . They appear almost alien and creep insidiously across fields as a beautiful invasive species. I thought this mixture of beauty and eeriness was the perfect combination to represent my work as a writer , which can be romantic and poetical or sinister and grotesque.  BUT DID YOU KNOW...? The "25" in @25ThistleCorner on social media marks the date Thistle Corner was established: 1st January 2025! It also gives it a nifty home address! I'M ALL EARS! Perhaps this message spoke to you? Or perhaps you're equally proud of your business's name? I'd love to know your responses to my Thistle Corner's creative origins! Comment below or tag me on social media to start a conversation!

Perhaps you despise reading and so think Thistle Corner isn't for you? Well, I've got you covered! GIFT OPTIONS At Thistle Corner, I offer a variety of gift options for those wanting to spoil their loved ones : Poetry Collections! Nothing says 'I love you' more than poetry! But poetry isn't always about love! For poetry lovers interested in fantasy: MYSTICA would be the perfect match! For loved ones interested in sorrowful poetry: LAMENT would be more suitable. And the poetry obsessed: 101 POEMS compiles poems across FOUR different categories: 'Love and Romance', 'Melancholia', 'Fantasy and Intrigue', and 'Dark'. Book Accessories! Bookmarks are avid readers' best friends , especially if they've got multiple books on the go and need help to keep track of where they got up to! LIFE ADMIN Write down those personal secrets or forgettable fleeting thoughts Thistle Corner's collection of Notebooks ! CURRENT HIGHLIGHT By popular demand: a notebook incorporating the stunning book design of 101 POEMS

Sex Chat Granny was performed at the Etcetera Theatre by its writer, Harriet Waterhouse, and was directed by Kaarina Kendall . Beyond Stacey Dooley or degrading Channel 4 documentaries, the wondrous premise of this performance rarely sees the light of day, making it a most unique and intriguing play concept. However, I do not feel that the fact of sex chatting truly aligned with, supported or gave rise to the play’s content. Presented rather casually, it remains a recurrent motif and something to fall back on when monologue segments dealing with other subject matter come to a close. It is a quirky bonus feature, adding flavour and intrigue to the main plot and to the character we are presented, but it is not a fact that truly presents her any problems or solutions or that leads to plot events or character developments.   I posit: is it wise to have ‘sex chat’ in the title, to start the play with the unnamed character, the Woman, in mid–sex chat, and thus to lead an audience to believe that the main focus will be the Woman’s work as a telephone sex worker, when, ultimately and truly, this is a story of a woman [who merely happens to be a telephone sex worker] losing her mother to dementia? I say this due to the increasing focus on the Woman’s mother, her illness, and their relationship, and due to the close of the play, which should in performances like this be a climax or a denouement, being focused on the final moments of her mother’s life and how the two will say goodbye to each other.   In this way, there seems to be a disconnect between context and plot, meaning that the text feels unfocused and imbalanced. Even studying the fact of the Woman’s sex work itself, we find a few discontinuities. For instance, she remains non-judgemental and understanding throughout her encounters and explicates the humanity, feelings and intimate desires of all her clients. Yet, she explodes at one in the latter part of the play, drawing attention to the nonsensicality of these desires and how they frustrate her. This explosion seems not to be simply a random emotional eruption after the discovery of her mother’s moribundity but is targeted and opinionated. She deliberately and consciously condescends the client and shatters all fantasy in drawing attention to her mundane life, the reality of her ‘unsexy’ and ‘ageing’ body, and the lengths to which she must go to comfort herself for all of this — huge underwear or a structured enjoyment of laundry, for example.   Of course, we could read further into this and deduce that she feels purposeless, that in allowing her clients to live their fantasies, she also lives hers as someone desirable, powerful and successful — and this does seem to be the desired reading, given official descriptions of the play. However, this is only an intellectual deduction; studying the content sees insufficient evidence for this. As indicated above, the text does not elucidate that this is, indeed, an emotional eruption after the discovery of her mother’s imminent death, and there is no graduality in her frustrations or lack of understanding and empathy towards her clients. There are bizarre requests from her clients, indeed, but these are only ever descriptive and explanatory, never seeing her reflect upon how this truly affects her  (beyond the practicalities of how to pretend she is complicit in fantasy realisations). The radical shift in perspective and attitude that we see in this eruption, from supporter to attacker, is far too abrupt and forceful; there is no coherent or gradual lead-up, thus the narrative feels disjointed, rushed and incomplete.   This lack of focus is also mirrored in the absence of certain necessary theatrical techniques. For example, as Waterhouse delivers her monologue, transitions from the character talking to us about her life to talking with her clients on the phone are left unmarked, particularly when the Woman interjects her business conversations to give us extraneous details. When subject matter and addressees change in this way, Waterhouse’s ambit of gaze does not change and remains restrictive — i.e. she does not adjust her sightline — neither does she adjust her posture, and she rarely moves to a different point of the stage. The only thing marking some  content shifts is a negligible, undefined and shortlived silence. This is insufficient. Especially with performances like this that see one character talking endlessly, for clarity in subject matter as well as for audience engagement retention, these marks are incredibly important and necessary, whether these be a change in lighting state or marked by the ringing of her business phone, etc.   The only lighting state change — from a natural wash, as it has been for the entire performance, to a light-blue wash — also feels unnecessary and unaligned with the text. Blue is a fantasy colour, a dreamy or ghostly colour; it does not fit the sincerity of the scene and disturbs the intended naturalism. Similarly, to have the table littered with socks is a peculiar choice — why socks and not just general laundry, for example?  Of course, she ‘enjoys doing laundry’, but the aggression with which she throws them onto the table at the beginning of the performance is incongruous with this and the overall mood of the setting. Something more substantial, revealing of the character, should consume her mundane time alone.   The description, ‘this is a play about stories: the ones we tell for other people’s benefit’, is a very intriguing mission statement, and I would have liked to have seen this substantiated further in the play itself. Currently, it does not feel that the character tells these stories to the detriment of her autonomy, experience or life events; it simply feels that too much focus has been given to external factors and that her character has not been revealed or enriched enough. This detriment should be extremified, and the sense of benefiting other people beyond herself should be elucidated and drawn out through emotional developments, discoveries and allusions-turned-outpours.   These significant points raised, with fine-tuning, this play definitely has great potential. Presenting more of the Woman’s personal story and how it is at war with the stories she tells to others, with more focus on the effects of her environment upon her, her emotional in-/stability, etc., all elements are present to make this a viable and engaging performance. My primary recommendation would just be to ensure that focus is managed well throughout — what content do we imagine as the denouement, and how can we work towards this from the very beginning of the play? What questions or problems arise at the beginning, and how are they answered/solved or left impactfully open at the end?   Waterhouse’s portrayal of the character is consistent and credible, and she has great conviction during moments of emotional outpouring. Clear and audible, my only significant recommendation is the aforementioned attention needed to be given to her ambit of gaze and to dealing with shifts in subject matter. “A unique and enjoyable performance but unfocused both semiotically and in its content.” Want a technical analysis for your own live performance? Private and public analyses are requestable by any artist and for any live performance type. For more information, please click here . Artists from across the UK and [online] across the globe can also benefit from guidance, support and training in the form of consultations and/or workshops as part of my work as a live performance mentor .

I will start by noting that there are significant similarities between the two texts but only insofar as structure and event type; style and content disallow a feeling that these two performances truly cohere with and relate to one another and hence warrant being presented together. Marketing efforts present these as 'plays about loss and redemption', but these themes are secondary and sometimes even merely subtextual in the second short play, 'The Distressed Table'. I should also note here that I do find it strange that this second play has been retitled to 'The Closure' across promotional content — both because this seems to have little relevance to the text itself and because this causes for another disconnect, between performance and marketing contents. The second of these two performances, both directed by Josh Hinds, is certainly stronger than the first, and I would recommend further work on this, which is closer to a refined, finished play than the other. Both texts do struggle considerably to depict enriched and particularised characters, presenting developments abruptly and with a certain nonchalance vaguely reminiscent of a fledgeling magical realism. The texts also struggle to retain subtlety in their expression, with any allusions and specific details becoming immediate events. Overall, the content feels rushed and disjointed. In terms of acting, there is a great disparity in style, which is notably a directorial issue and is most evident in the first performance of the two, in which there is a great struggle between caricaturality and naturalism. However, I understand that for actors presented with texts like these, subtlety and particularity is difficult to discern and discover, and caricaturality is impossible to prevent when extremity and unnatural speech patterns in the dialogue exist within the lines and plot themselves. Nonetheless, the performers, whom I commend for their work, perform their roles adequately. Jo Sutherland demonstrates excellent vitality and transformativity, with her two character profiles being entirely different from one another. Similarly, Aysha Niwaz demonstrates great vocal transformativity, and Daniel Subin has a great naturalistic quality to his first profile. I would have liked to have seen greater corporeal expressivity in Subin, however, who limits transformation between his two characters to the positioning of the mouth — in Bernard's lisp. 'Quest for the Mongolian Death Worm' Written by Liam Grady. Most notably, the mysticality and adventure of this first text can immediately be perceived, instead, as Orientalism, which is worth reconsidering. Allusions to magical creatures that do not exist, or exaggerative descriptions of the food chains and activities of mythic vicious beasts, feel more fairytale-like in nature and hence unproblematic, but specific depictions of contexts, namely as we are led by an experienced, wild and mysterious guide through the 'dangerous' Egyptian deserts with 'camels attempting to fornicate with the Sphynx' — camels whose 'arseholes', nonetheless, see frequent mention — feel too stereotypical, carelessly crass, and harsh. I would consider the sociopolitical value behind the content presented and how this may be perceived by audiences. Of the two presented, I struggled the most with this text — specifically, it is difficult to keep up with its content, which demands at each revelation of new information a keen eye and a level of pre-understanding, to know the subtext and piece the story together. From the very beginning, characters are presented to us abruptly and without clear relationship types. Their emotional responses to one another are highly charged, with no key reason as to why, and too much of the content owes to mystical lands and creatures and Rufus's (Sutherland) descriptions of them and her father's travels, and later Heather's (Niwaz) psychedelic trip, that the primary content, the actual story of the characters, becomes subordinate and ultimately lost. Persistent themes, such as death and adventure, instead of contextualising the action, become, in their vague vignettes, the content itself. “A confused text presenting rudimentary character and event types that result in inefficacious extremes.” 'The Distressed Table' Written by Melville Lovatt. Ironically, I would have preferred less of a plot for this text and more of a surreal and absurdist structural approach that does seem to be inherent in the characters’ exchange over the distressed table. There is a clowning and ludicrous quality intrinsic to the interactions between the characters: they obsess over the meticulous, obscure details of the table’s 'distressing', haggling its price; they wildly upset one another; and return only to repeat the conversation with a variation that initially subverts expectation and has a bathos effect once we realise the characters are starting once again to quarrel. I would have enjoyed this initial structure to return persistently, veritably forcing us to watch the two characters suffering themselves and causing each other to suffer as well over the table’s purchase. Indeed, I would have preferred this much more than the current content that frequently and needlessly returns, somewhat reflective of the first text, to out-of-the-blue extremes: suicide, imprisonment, divorce, etc. Again, plot developments feel rushed and too strategised: for instance, Bernard (Subin) reveals he is a sailor, and we are straightaway on a boat on the lake. Extremifying, instead, this caricatural presentation of Bernard and Christine (Sutherland) — accentuating his lisp and stubborn but bumbling attitude and her posh uptightness and propensity to deplore — would really accentuate the fruitful and endearing quality of this performance: its characters' interactions. Once more, we have 'proud Indonesian tribes' responsible for the table wood and its finish, and our Orientalism returns... This one detail ignored, the text itself is quite endearing and untroublesome in comparison the first. Its characters are developed not through backstories [an attempt at which ultimately dilutes and artificialises the content unnecessarily to meet playtext conventions] but through peculiarities of context and character speech. I would recommend further thought to the secondary material — Bernard's failing relationship with his wife (Niwaz), and Christine's speech to her husband[?] who has died after being imprisoned[?] [a scene that I would ultimately cut, as this did not progress narrative or story and was confounding in its content]. This secondary content ultimately feels irrelevant and compromises our understanding and appreciation of the primary material. “An interesting premise with eccentric characters compromised by interruptions from secondary or irrelevant material.” Additional Notes on This Performance [for the Requester of this Analysis] This technical analysis is included for free as part of The Performance Critic’s standard service. Please get in touch with Lee James Broadwood  to receive your additional support and notes, as part of a premium analysis, concerning: Coherency in and organisation of multiple plots/narratives. Maintaining naturalism in absurdist/exaggerative performances. Effects of metatheatre and encroachment on audience territory. Maintaining clarity and depth in character development. Subtlety and revelation in plot content. These will be shared privately upon request. Want a technical analysis for your own live performance? Private and public analyses are requestable by any artist and for any live performance type. For more information, please click here . Artists from across the UK and [online] across the globe can also benefit from guidance, support and training in the form of consultations and/or workshops as part of my work as a live performance mentor .