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.” 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.

Overall, all actors perform with great credibility and conviction. As the play progresses, a distinct library of idiosyncratic peculiarities emerges, which is chiefly true of the most consistent of the cast members, Samantha Ellison (playing Lady Jane Grey), enabling a good sense of character. A few stumbles over lines, but their meaning and character intention remain most legible and accurately delivered. I would say, however, that there is a certain roboticism in the manner in which the cast navigate duologues, most noticeably between Maddie White (playing Rita) and Moya Matthews (playing Lena), where there is a delay in reactivity until after the interlocutor has finished their line. I would recommend work on constant presence and reactivity to ensure that performed responses feel live and grounded. Indeed, there is a sense of stasis as the performers also, similarly, tend to stay completely still until delivering their own lines. This roboticism is also prevalent in the text itself, however, making artificiality in physical performance more difficult to avoid. The relentless inclusion of superficial banter, in particular, allows for a lack of depth amongst the characters — the very first, more conversational and jokey scene between Rita and Lena, for instance, in comparison to the scene wherein Lena queries Rita’s sexuality. I find the latter to be most demonstrative, giving us a profounder take on Rita’s character in the confirmation of an allusive character emelent and a glimpse into an intimate and gentle moment of character bonding. This is not to say that only serious scenes make for great plot and character development; instead, I communicate that banterous scenes in performances like this should be refined and revelatory just as any other. Language use does become a significant issue, most noticeable in scenes wherein technical language is incorporated. This is in reference to Rita occasionally divulging her intellectual discoveries from the books she has read or the facts she has retained, which are incongruous with this aforementioned gossipy/informal register in which the rest of the text is written; there is a disconnect here when we consider that that this is not how Rita’s speech is usually presented. Yet another voice is introduced when Rita delivers her political opinions, it is worth nothing. In this inconsistency and multifacetedness of the language used, we completely lose all sense of identity and individualism and are presented, instead, with a sterile spokesperson, a mouthpiece, robotic and lacking uniqueness. As expressed above, there are multiple, clashing voices at work within this text, each with their own motive and affect. This leads to inconsistencies of not only voice but of style and narrative too. And, notably, directorial choices here do accentuate stylistic incongruities. We have three main scene types in this performance: monologues, duologues, and stylised movement sequences, the latter of which is the most disparate of the three. The intended naturalism of the duologue scenes, in particular, somewhat grates against the hyperstylisation of the remaining segments, which feel awkward and under-demonstrative. For example, our first major scene transition / stylised sequence sees Matthews waiting purposelessly on the edge of the stage for White to finish her monologue, so that she may pass her a blazer for the next scene. Moments like these feel inefficacious and inattentive. Another example is the sequence seeing Lena and Rita circling the stage, opposite one another, staring at each other, and this is far too confrontational, considering the story sees no conflict and solely love between these two characters, or one could refer to one of the very final transitions, in which Lena and Lady Jane Grey share a knowing, warm look whilst changing the set pieces for the next scene. This latter example feels most incongruous, as these two characters have no relationship to one another elsewhere in the performance [beyond Lady Jane Grey’s knowing and talking of Lena with Rita, distanced], and so it would stand to reason that they should take no pleasure, peace or joy in recognising and appreciating one another. In this way, activity during these sequences is either unimpactful or confused — or simply in stark contradiction to the main narrative. I do feel that these stylised sequences could, indeed, be appropriate for a play that also includes an imagined historical figure so casually into its narrative, but, currently, each story element — even the manner in which the presence of this figure is addressed — feels distinctly separate from its counterparts. I do admire, however, an attempt to make transitions engaging and to fill these with character and story moments, but I would recommend against performers changing sets in character, for the transition then becomes, in most cases, its own performance independent and irrelevant to the overarching story. I would recommend, instead, if character action is desired during transitions, that the stage is changed by other, out-of-character performers — for example, Lizzie O’Reilly (playing Val) and another of the cast members whom the interstitial character action does not involve — whilst our focus is drawn to a complete [muted] scenelet between the characters who are involved. Clear and coherent transitions see the performer in a character or stagehand role and not a blend of the two. “An intriguing concept but a text which has yet to find its style, voice, focus, and line of enquiry.”

The written text for Funny Guy , by Patrick Nash, is notably filmic with its highly brief and fast-paced scenes, which proves to complicate the performance quite considerably in many ways. Most notably, it compromises a sense of natural progression throughout, where the restrictive subjects of the characters’ discussions impact the entirety of the very next scene and thus feel too tailored and strategised, inorganic. We learn only superficial details about the characters, which serve only to assist story event developments, causing the characters to feel superficial and merely instrumental parts of a moralistic text, instead of active, relatable individuals with varied lives and versatile minds. As a result, there can only be little audience-character connection, if any, and the play's ultimate moral becomes less impactful and more of a mere sterile, logical acknowledgement. Emotional responses and connections prove to strengthen one’s appreciation of and accordance with morals of literary/performative works, so character depth and peculiarity should be sought for this purpose. Better blocking should also be sought here, as it is currently unclear where these characters are having these conversations; a better understanding of setting, with thought to levels, proximity and ambit of gaze, could strengthen our understanding of the characters, their relationships, and, more generally, their daily lives. Indeed, blocking feels too underthought and rudimentary at this stage. Secondly, this structure prevents the physical functionality and smooth running of the performance, particularly in a theatre of this type and size. Transitions were clunky, with cast members bumping into one another and struggling to manage the copious number of scene changes and property rearrangements. Transitions were executed, on the whole, quite quickly, but their frequency allowed for a loss of momentum and fluidity, particularly after scenes between Dan ( Jud Meyers ) and Bill ( Jesse R. Tendler) , with some of these lasting only a few lines. It also makes the moral climax of the play, the introduction of The Neon ( Tommy Vance ), and the conversation between him and Dan, seem out of place. We quickly become accustomed to this fast pacing of the text with no markedly profound or emotionally divulgent interactions between the characters, and so this long monologue, becoming more of a preaching or lecture, can easily become quite tiresome and disengaging. Two recommendations on the back of this: 1) Consider meticulously backstage etiquette, as curtains were left open regularly, leaving offstage cast members visible, compromising illusion, and 2) Grounding and topographical familiarisation techniques should be practised to ensure that actors are completely present and comfortable in the performance space — this would benefit Meyers's nerves at the beginning of the play, seeing his hands tremble uncontrollably, and Clara Francesca (playing Margie) and Karen Genaro Dosanjh 's (playing Emma) interaction with set pieces and theatrical properties, where, for instance, ((( struggled after her kissing scene with ((( to recall the exact placement of the chairs, or where ((( struggled to unfurl her yoga mat in three attempts during her first scene. These things considered, the overall cast proved to be excellent and strong performers, breathing credibility and conviction into their portrayals. They are clear about their character intent and have excellent timing. Perhaps a directorial decision, with the text being focalised through the character of Dan, but I just found Meyers's characterisation to be slightly too absent, artificial and distanced, with his minimal eye contact with co-performers, consistently facing the audience, instead — even pivoting to perform towards both audience sections in this particular theatre. Barring this, his and the cast's performances were exceptional and most convincing. “A unique and focused text if slightly superficial and persecutive.” 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: Puppeteering techniques to better realism and audience engagement. Dynamism, variation and legibility in blocking. Moralisations and audience persuasion. Character development and depth. Relevance and delivery of post-performance speeches. Audience interaction. 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 .

I had very mixed responses to this performance — as did quite a few, rather vocal audience members. Frank’s Closet is an enjoyable evening, full of vitality, camp extravagance, wit and character, but its focus and agenda are entirely confused, its plot poorly communicated, and its action seeming incongruous with its primary narrative. Ultimately, it loses touch with its initial premise, attempting to marry all of its various, disparate activities with Frank’s (Andy Moss) “journey in life” but to no success and with great incoherency. Our four chorus members (Jack Rose, Oliver Bradley-Taylor, Sarah Freer, and Olivia McBride) are most impressive in their expressivity, vocals, and command of the stage. All four of them maintain excellent physicality and vitality throughout, with their various impressions and quips being most transformative and enjoyable. Choreography itself is sufficiently varied and impressive, though I would pay greater attention to interstitial activity — most notably during vamps or short interludes whilst Frank is explaining something to the audience — as these are much too repetitive, incorporating simple knee-lifting foot taps and clicks of the fingers whilst turning on the spot. Luke Farrugia is simply awe-inspiring as the various Divas, demonstrating great skill, talent and self-awareness. For the vast majority of the performance, his vocals are impeccable, manifesting an excellent range and control. The majority of characterisations are also allowed to flourish through his inflections and exaggerative positionings of the mouth in song as well as through an excellent corporeal and facial expressivity throughout. Farrugia has excellent presence and vitality, and immaculate costuming certainly aids our appreciation of his exaggerative personae. It is easy to feel that his personae are slightly too superficial, however, but this is due to the writing (Stuart Wood) and the hurried nature of the Divas' presentations, performing their unique numbers in a one-time appearance before swiftly being replaced by the next. In comparison, however, other costumes remain distinctly unrefined, with the skirts attached to the corsets of some of the chorus dancers slowly detaching as the performance progresses. There are certainly other elements that produce a sense of tackiness, as with the lack of a backdrop to conceal the entrances and exits of characters once they have come through the designated portal to the stage. Otherwise, this is truly a most aesthetically pleasing performance. Whilst Farrugia’s impersonations of celebrities are generally skilful, their relevance is poorly conceived. Of course, they are the divas of the past whose spirits and peculiarities have greatly influenced Frank and whose costumes he has collected as a sycophantic magpie of sorts, but the performance quickly becomes an endless series of impersonations as opposed to a symbolic representation of how they have impacted Frank’s psyche, despite the few Diva—Frank interactions that we are presented. As a member of the LGBTQIA+ Community, I can certainly identify and comprehend an obsession with sassy, powerful, egotistical and successful [routinely female] figures and how an abrupt, condescending and ‘shady’ diva culture can increase a member of this Community’s self-esteem, joie de vivre and sense of purpose. However, it is never communicated that this is, indeed, the reason behind the sudden changes of tone, the swearing, the bitchiness; this is merely a deduction of mine. For instance, seeing Julie Andrews as quintessentially British, trilling, tight-lipped and upright, then swearing with the children and sticking her middle finger up is most comedic in its absurdity, but what is the purpose of presenting Julie Andrews in this way? How does this depiction / imagined extension of this Diva persona benefit, empower, challenge or change Frank? This remains distinctly unclear for our lack of information, causing the primary narrative to feel disparate in comparison. Merely having the Diva tell Frank to shut up whilst she sings another number, or having the two exchange mere one-liners wherein Frank explains his current situation and the Diva tells him to have courage, is not sufficient to justify the Divas’ presence. This disjointedness, and the sudden revelation at the end that Frank’s boyfriend would never ask him to change himself to be with him — a revelation that destroys the entire premise of the play and that complicates it further with his own infatuation with yet another Diva — are the main subtractions from the integrity of this text. Indeed, this ending feels like an afterthought, a snappy way to end the musical on a soppy high-note but without much integrity or profundity. In summary, whilst the performers and backstage creatives demonstrate, overall, excellent skill, conviction and chemistry, the foundations of the performance, the text and the book, need significant work to render this performance coherent and efficacious. “A performance with catchy songs and pleasing visuals but with little coherency or depth.” 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.

Rob Burbidge's text has a certain lyricism and fluidity, demonstrating well the writer's ability to generate flowing dialogue. I would first recommend greater differentiation in the style of speech of each individual character. The most notable trait in this regard is Susan's (Naomi Bowman) loquaciousness, her character surely possessing the vast majority of the lines. Burbidge has captured well Susan's ability to ramble confidently and incessantly, without the subject matter she presents becoming esoteric or too irrelevant, and to domineer conversations with a playful and feeling but self-assured attitude. The other characters, however, remain markedly indistinct. Beyond second-party references to Joanna's (Olivia Steele) "Hampshire poshness" and Behrman's (Christopher Kouros) nationality, there are no idiolectal peculiarities to the characters, and this would be most fruitful to explore. As the text progresses, however, it is most notably character development and plot that need refining. Despite this lingering on Susan's rambling, or on the atmospherics of the characters' context, the overall plot is incredibly rushed — to such a degree that the text quickly becomes rather shallow, hyperfixated upon symbolic references and specific allusions to moments or persons in the character's memories and anecdotes of their past [Tommy for Susan, a childhood paint set for Joanna, etc.]... Whilst these minor features become the text's primary focus, major developments, however, remain always left to our imagination. This culminates in the extremely sudden [and thus not too credible] development of Joanna's pneumonia — and her just-as-sudden, miraculous overnight recovery — and, immediately afterwards, Behrman's death. I use the word ‘plot’ in this analysis lightly, as I do not mean to imply that in order for a play to be successful, it must have an intricate, captivating and powerful plot…I simply mean that the plot content should feel deliberate, articulate and precise. I enjoy the stasis, or rather stagnancy, that we find the characters in, and should the plot pivot solely upon its characters' unchanging context and the near-death of its main character, there is no reason why this should not be enjoyable, coherent and efficacious. But this lack of pacing and, most importantly, of focus destroys any strong emotional connection with the characters for us. The symbolism of the wilting creeper and Behrman's masterpiece, Susan's shoes, etc., are all very strong symbolic references in themselves and have great intrinsic significance and value, but how this marries the content is just as important, and there certainly is a disconnect there. One disconnect is in the incredible fact that all three characters are somehow artists. Whilst pre- and post-war times were certainly marked with rapid and widespread artistic movements, making this situation not too difficult to conceive, the apathy that this is presented with allows for a certain bluntness and clumsiness — Joanna and Behrman, both so fond of art, just accepting that they live beside one another, and Susan abruptly revealing that she has, somehow thanks to Joanna, taken up drawing ‘again’ to such a degree that she is now the breadwinner for the roost. We start with a tension between Joanna and Behrman, and suddenly it is revealed that she has been modelling for him for days now; after only their very first meeting, we see Susan kissing Joanna affectionately on the cheek [perhaps a directorial issue, though]; we have only just heard of the man that saved Joanna from the river, and David (Kieran Dobson) appears; David's somehow overlooked misogynist remarks, leaving Joanna to want to marry him after only three, quite unspecial, encounters… These elements, of which there are many more, all compromise the integrity and credibility of the text. Without this pacing and precision in character/plot development, I am sad to report that the play felt rather skeletal, leaning more into atmosphere, symbolism and context than into character depth and relatability. This feeling was especially strong once Joanna was on her deathbed and Susan and Behrman were arguing incessantly, the very language of the play being reduced to slurs and angsts that felt in their lack of idiosyncrasy that they could have been uttered by anyone and not uniquely by our particular characters here. Characterisation is quite good from each of the actors, though I would similarly suggest better pacing for Bowman, who loses melody in delivery, which is most important for her babbling character, and who stumbles over and misdelivers lines frequently. Intensity behind argumentation is severely lacking across all of the relevant cast members. I commend Steele for the characterisation of Joanna's illness, forcing deep and chesty coughs and continuing to present her character’s mental distress even in her sleep, so that we were presented a fever dream of sorts and not just a still, resting body that could have easily faded into the background. Deliveries of epistolary sequences are in desperate need of refinement, however, both where acting and performance style are concerned. “An atmospheric play rife with symbolism but needing better focus, pacing and depth.” 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.

NB: To clarify: forenames alone are used to refer to the actors' onstage personae, where forenames and surnames are used together to refer to the actors, Helen and Alexander Millington, themselves. This is an interesting performance but one whose focus, throughline or line of study I find difficult to identify, and this is an issue. Whilst themes of trust, confidentiality and privacy, intimacy, lust and love are recurrent, these are not sufficient to ground the performance and to give it an overall identity. There is also a stark interplay between metatheatricality and realism which has not been fully conceived, refined and integrated, and this complicates a reading of the performance further. The lack of emotional connection we are permitted with the characters, through Brechtian techniques, is most notable, yet why we are distanced to observe the series of, rather bluntly, quite banal events is unclear. We learn nothing at all about sex work or the industry, which is supposedly, as we are told by Alexander, the play's focus, and this would not be a problem if there was a sense of dramatic irony, that even though the character desires a specific outcome for this play and a message to come from it, we actually learn or experience something different. This would be acceptable, but I am not sure what we are to learn or take from this performance at all: enjoyment, education, or otherwise. I shall start with this metatheatricality–realism interplay. First, the interactions during the overture, which sees the two actors roaming the stage, talking to one another 'out of character' and in the personae of our performing husband and wife duo, vocally unprepared and unaided by faulty technical mishaps. Perhaps this was due to the specificity of the night on which I saw the performance — i.e. perhaps the overture was extended to give a chance for more audience members to arrive — but these interactions were far too structured. Lines were repeated, as were movements, actions and the constant technical mishaps and reactions to these. The lines shared between the duo were also incongruous with the actual text — Helen expresses that she does not want to perform because she does not know what she is doing, but as soon as the play is ready to begin, we see no more hesitation throughout, only aggressive resistances to perform certain actions: to wear high heels, to re-enact sexual activities, etc. Somehow, this is supposedly Helen's first time ever performing her husband's play, yet she reels off her lines perfectly, in early scenes barely looking at her script. She does not stumble over choreography and blocking, delivery is faultless, and, despite assuming the persona of an 'untrained' actress, Helen Millington's own natural credibility, skill and technique as an actual actress is left far too transparent — somewhat understandably, as, personally, I believe this to be the most difficult thing for actors to perform: to act as though an actor who cannot act. This sense of structure, perfection and infallibility renders all metatheatrical techniques redundant: we are desired to believe that we are seeing disguise-less, authentic individuals, untrained[?] actors, performing characters, describing their intentions, bickering with one another, and yet natural occurrences, breaks in rhythm and momentum, awkwardnesses, etc., are not permitted. Alexander, for example, especially as merely 'the writer', performs far too robotically, rhythmically, deliberately, characterising all personae with a distinct nervousness, where perhaps caricaturisation should be used to differentiate distinctly character from actor — one reason as to why Brecht himself conceived the Gestus. One particular example of this unwanted ‘perfection’ and mimetic structure is in what I shall refer to as the ‘36 questions scene’, where lighting and sound design, in particular, along with Helen’s lack of hesitation to perform the sharp blocking with a moment’s notice, present us with an unbroken, polished vignette into the fictional characters’ lives. Perhaps an attempt at a Brechtian fragmented sequence, but this was far too mimetic and undisrupted. I should also note that the duration of this particular scene ought to be cut down significantly for both efficacy and appeal, as should that of the ‘eye contact sequence’ where we are enabled to settle into the fictive space for far too long, undisturbed…and for what cause? The role and function of the audience are most questionable, as well. Suddenly active participants after having only been spoken to and not with as passive spectators, we are to be considered throughout this performance as witnesses, aggressors, silent listeners, and voters, amongst others, and these roles have significant differences and allow for vastly disparate psychological results amongst audiences. The difference, for example, between an audience member being called on stage during a merely comedic scene of no political value and with no effect whatsoever upon the narrative, pretending to be a sex worker’s client, and having audience members decide where upon the actor’s body a bruise is to be depicted. These demand two entirely different psychological states from the audience — and, again, why? There seems to be no apparent reason behind such intense audience play. And what if the audience, particularly another one so intimate, refuses altogether to participate, which is quite likely due to the lack of coaxing and audience preparation and the abruptness of this demand for a brave volunteer, especially with intimate audiences? How is the play prepared for such a hesitancy type? I do not think the creatives are prepared at all for such an occurrence. I will say, however, that this performance is the first I have seen in a long time that has, overall, used Brechtian techniques with an understanding of their nature and aesthetic. Whilst compromised by a lack of aim and focus, and by the mimetic quality of the performance, all of the techniques used in this performance are generally cohesive and well-informed in themselves. This is a huge achievement. The actors are also confident and bold, and both have good stage presence, resilience, vitality and skill. Technique, then, is most promising for this duo in their choices for both acting and performance styles; however, how these techniques can be successfully incorporated into and utilised/weaponised in performance has yet to be discovered. An analogy to clarify what I mean: the correct hammer has been used to insert the nail, where usually people use the incorrect tool altogether, but the nail has, unfortunately, been inserted into the wrong site. Techniques are used with a sophisticated awareness but with no reason and to no avail. I would thus recommend above all else that these particular creatives ask themselves for every decision in performances like these two questions: What effect will this have on my audience? And, most importantly, why have I decided to do this? “An intriguing performance with great promise but one who has yet to discover its purpose, aims and focus.” Want a technical analysis for your own live performance? Private and public reviews are requestable by all London-based artists and for any live performance type. For more information, please click here. Artists from across the UK and the globe can also benefit from performance analyses as part of my dramaturgy service and can receive guidance, support and training in the form of consultations and/or workshops.