SHORTLISTED FOR A WRITING COMPETITION! It brings me so much joy to announce that my upcoming novel, The Fisherman's Daughter, has been shortlisted for The Book Challenge 2025, a new writing competition by Pen to Print! Pen to Print have been such a gem to discover! I've really enjoyed their creative writing, and poetry, courses, and The Book Challenge 2025 was the cherry on top! Being shortlisted means: I was one of 5 writers shortlisted out of over 90 who submitted their work! I'll be mentored once a month throughout 2025 by the wonderful Jacqueline Gabbitas! The Fisherman's Daughter will be published for you to read, regardless of whether I win at the next and final stage of the competition. The winner of the competition will be announced in July 2026, after the submission of the final manuscript! ABOUT THE NOVEL To one of four seaside refuges, Daleton, rife with myth. One story of the sea drives Josie into it: a mythical lily flower that will bring back her mother, but it is guarded by ominous shadowmen, blustering whales, and vicious merfolk. Convincing her father to sail her there before the winter harvest, father and daughter venture into unknown waters, leaving homely Daleton far behind. Find out more as I develop my novel, and share in my writing discoveries along the way by subscribing to Thistle Corner! TIPS FOR WRITERS If you're wanting to submit your own work to writing competitions, see this post for some preliminary tips!

In 2021, I introduced private analyses as a means of providing bespoke, detailed, and confidential feedback to clients on their live theatre performances. Though I release a limited quota of 2–3 public analyses every month, these are booked fast, making a private analysis the ideal choice if you want guaranteed priority and a more personalised experience. Key advantages include: The best way to request a private analysis is to contact me by email, including all the details of your performance in an official press release: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com. Unsure which option is right for you? Both analysis types are delivered with a personalised list of recommended support and resources tailored specifically to your performance, meaning you could opt for a more concise private analysis for a solid foundation, with the option to request further guidance later. When making your selection, please note the following: *Some clients are particularly happy with the feedback they receive and want to share it. To facilitate this, private analyses may be made public upon request but will not be refunded once published.​ **Word counts for private analyses are calculated in multiples of 250 and allow for a 10% margin above and below the estimated total count. Public analyses are not available for private performances and recordings/livestreams; only private analyses may be requested for these. I'm deeply committed to supporting emerging artists with free public analyses whenever possible. To keep this programme sustainable alongside my paid commitments, free analyses are delivered based on current availability and, by nature, have a longer wait time. For guaranteed turnarounds or confidential feedback, priority private analyses are recommended. I know how vulnerable it can feel to share your work, and these analyses are detailed and in-depth. So, for your comfort, any public analysis can be converted to a private, confidential analysis upon request at the same private analysis rates outlined above. As of July 2026, both analysis types are written in the Letters from a Mentor format. I'm curious what you think! Do you like the concept of private analyses? Can you see how these would benefit you or your company when developing theatre work? I'm always listening to my clients' thoughts, needs, and desires, and there are a few ways to let me know yours — you're bound to see one that suits you! DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +447364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Via my website's Chat Function: Use the 'Contact Me' button on bottom-right of your screen. I look forward to hearing from you!

My Theatre Mentor, Lee James Broadwood, analyses Freedom, Chisenhale Dance Space, London. This analysis has been written in the new Letters from a Mentor format introduced in July 2026. For more information on this format, visit this publication. Dear Unity Arts Collective Team, I had the privilege of discussing your performance-exhibition and a bit of my thinking with Surya after its close. I was really impressed by the work you had produced and by your commitment to the liveness of performance and trance work, which was certainly inherent to and palpable in this work. I think the work is really strong, and I have some suggestions, some of which I mentioned to Surya, to really drive its messages home, without taking away from the spontaneity, feltness, and liveness of your agent style and without requiring extensive funding. To be able to illustrate one of my principal suggestions within the restriction of this word count, I will analyse one significant moment, in particular, as I feel my line of thinking here could be applied to various other aspects of the performance, too. I worded my thinking here to Surya as “It felt as though, rather than performance-exhibition being a means of exploring immigration, immigration was sometimes being used as a means of exploring performance-exhibition.” This is not true of the entire work, of course, but it was true of its most significant events. For example, I thought the invitation to the audience to join in animating the second puppet was a very poignant and interesting idea: it directly encourages group effort in successfully protecting an immigrant and bringing them to safety. However, currently the focus is forced onto the puppeteering itself; it is present as a quirky and enjoyable teamwork exercise with little risk, purely performative and hedonistic, which allows for a misalignment from your trance work efforts. This was furthermore evidenced by an audience member’s fascination with the mechanics and aesthetics of puppeteering thereafter, as opposed to how puppetry can be, and should be here, used in performance to illustrate, convey and materialise meaning and theory. One way to realign this inclusion would be to give the puppet a name (X) and to refer to it NOT as a puppet but solely as X, as an immigrant, and to treat them accordingly: as a human, as a real person with trauma, with a history. Changing James’s passive instruction, “Slow-motion is good for puppets” to something visceral, purposeful and relevant to content, such as “X needs help. X moves slowly because she is weary, dehydrated, and starving”, would both succeed at facilitating the desired puppeteering activity of the performance but, more importantly, at relating it back to the content, immigration, and at providing an emotive impulse: we now proceed with caution, delicateness, care, when moving X. We now have a collective objective: bring X to safety — respectfully. If we were then to use the true anecdotes of the immigrants behind this work, to further contextualise and populate this collective journey, inspired by the real obstacles and dangers out at sea or while crossing borders that they faced, this would add even further emotivity and didacticism to the work. Including the shark puppet is an excellent idea, and the same theory above applies: be wary of being overly playful with a “mind the shark” game; its presence ought to be silent, lurking, dangerous. The mere connotation of its image, along with its physical proximity to the audience-performers, is enough to convey danger in this context without caricaturising and gamifying. We remove the playful puppetry of sharks and replace it with a puppet as a vehicle to achieve active audience awareness and comprehension of the underlying material. How much more poignant would it have been if the implication behind this exercice was that with the help of the collective given to an immigrant stranger, the careful journey to safety would ensure the immigrant’s life, their protection, their fortitude? If the journey was not so simple as walking from one side of the room to another in slow-motion, but if they had obstacles and dangers they would actively confront and work together to overcome, the message would be so much more tangible and relevant to the rest of the content which pivots not around the journey itself but on risk and treatment — most notably, detention, mental and physical decline, and death. This suggestion is not to take away from the definite successes of this work. There is so much strong material here, from the compelling statistics to the personal stories, to the viscerality of performative elements. If we just take a moment to gently draw out a few of these finer nuances, I think it will really elevate the impactful message you've already built. I hope the above suggestion, along with those in my discussion with you, Surya, has given you all some inspiration and ideas to build upon. Your work was a true pleasure to watch, very original and inspiring, and I would love to take our discussions further by offering further support on any of the following, specific to your performance, which I have marked as what I consider to be low–high priority: Differentiation between agent style and performance style. (High Priority) Ensuring thematic relevance in all constituents: incorporation of found objects, and the choice of object, instrument and medium types. (Medium Priority). Raw presentation vs histrionics: presenting real histories, creations and identities as factual accounts within a mimetic context. (High Priority) Conceiving and encouraging audience participation. (Low Priority) Chronology and spatial presentation: ensuring distinction in performance between an immigrant’s journey and their detention upon arrival. (High Priority) Of course, I welcome discussions about any other aspect of the work on which you would like support, too — just let me know. For My Readers Are you working on your own performance and wanting to receive bespoke, detailed guidance and feedback? If you feel a written performance analysis — or a live consultation or workshop — would benefit you, I welcome you to reach out to me to book your own! You can easily reach me through whichever channel is most convenient for you: DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +44 7364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Or use my website’s Chat Function: use the 'Contact Me' button on the bottom-right of your screen. You can find out more information about the mentorship services and resources I offer here.

My Theatre Mentor, Lee James Broadwood, analyses Unspoken, WAC Arts, London. Photography Credit: Ivan Sokol This analysis has been written in the new Letters from a Mentor format introduced in July 2026. For more information on this format, visit this publication. Dear Giorgi, It was wonderful to see your work, which is at its heart a meaningful presentation of repression, shame, self-denial, and self-atrophy, within the queer community. There are some really rich emotive moments in this performance, along with some eye-catching visuals in the projections you, Ana, have designed. What works particularly well and is perhaps this performance’s strongest aspect is the palpable chemistry between all cast members. Ali, your intimacy work, and the ensemble work at large that you have all done allows for an excellent legibility of character dynamics, with relationships being credible and feeling substantive. One thing I would like to discuss further with you all is how the narrative structure could be enhanced to improve audience intrigue, relatability, and thus engagement. There are some poignant and thought-provoking ideas in your text, Giorgi, and I would just recommend teasing these out measuredly across scenes to allow enough time for them to truly settle into audience consciousness and resonate. Your narrative structure is quite filmic at the moment in the brevity of the scenes you present, and I would be keen to have us sit longer with the characters as they deal with their conflicts live, in real time. Many significant plot events either occur off stage and interstitially between active scenes or are revealed to us through reflections in monologues. Most significantly, this is the case for the revelation of Nicolas’s suicide. This revelation is a hugely significant plot event and an inciting incident, in many ways, for Mark’s character development. While I was very impressed by the masterful and rare manner in which the dialogue presents this revelation — through allusion and focalisation through emotional response, rather than explicit and explanative description — I do have several ideas for us to consider in order to reveal this information in an even richer way, drawing out intenser emotivity but also allowing for stylistic consistency in performance. On the topic of Nicolas’s suicide, currently we have no indication of his decline ourselves, despite Mark’s claiming to have foreseen this. Nicolas seems frustrated and distant, yes, but not suicidal. For this to be such a pivotal event in Mark’s life, clarity and exposition are vital. Photography Credit: Ivan Sokol I understand from this text that your base initiative is to draw us straight into the action of each scene, and so one suggestion to build on this would be to combine revelations — that Mark is emotionally unavailable, that he feels Nicolas is too attached to him and not the project, that Nicolas is suffering because of the lack of clarity in their dynamic, etc. — into one, longer opening scene, where we can see these conflicts, raw, developing, unfolding, surmounting to build tension by way of stacking up into one tangible discomfort and suffering for the two characters. Currently, this staccato and fragmented narrative type isolates each of the developments — and with significant time gaps between each — allowing them to feel distant as well as slighter. Pacing and climax are key to building tension, and I would be more than happy to discuss how these developments I’ve mentioned, which are already present in your performance but as dormant seeds, could be tightened to ensure clarity, legibility and intrigue in your characters, their profiles, and their dynamics. As I’ve been able to write about only some aspects of the writing alone here, it would be great for us to discuss more aspects of this and of your performance at large. I’ve made a list of some of the areas I would be keen to support you on, marked from what I consider to be low to high priority for your specific performance, but, of course, do let me know which aspects you find important to explore, as well: Inclusion of multimedia: ensuring clarity and consistency in mode and performance style when incorporating contrasting types. (High Priority) Choreography: ensuring variation, legibility, and intrigue, in movement. (Low Priority) Topography and semiotics: spatial consistency and realism, and enhanced blocking for character dynamics expositions. (Medium Priority) Theme and motif: exploring the butterfly as a catalyst and contextualiser of performance content. (High Priority) Presentation of Mark and Nicolas: profiling, characterisation, and acting style. (Medium Priority) For My Readers Are you working on your own performance and wanting to receive bespoke, detailed guidance and feedback? If you feel a written performance analysis — or a live consultation or workshop — would benefit you, I welcome you to reach out to me to book your own! You can easily reach me through whichever channel is most convenient for you: DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +44 7364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Or use my website’s Chat Function: use the 'Contact Me' button on the bottom-right of your screen. You can find out more information about the mentorship services and resources I offer here.

My Theatre Mentor Lee James Broadwood analyses THE SWAN, THE WEREWOLF AND GIANPIERO, COLAB Tower, London. This analysis has been written in the new Letters from a Mentor format introduced in July 2026. For more information on this format, visit this publication. Dear Agata, Your company’s idea to combine your performers’ interest in tango with your own experience in and pursuit of theatre work is a wonderful concept. Dance — and particularly tango, being so passionate and potentially violent in its rigidity and angularity — is an excellent foundation for the plot you have chosen, which demands tension, animosity, desire and ferocity. However, there are a few major concerns I have with this performance which compromise its integrity and efficacy, and the first of these is clarity. It is clear you intend to conceive an intricate plot with multiple twists and turns and in a melodramatic style most synonymous with tango. However, the result of this is a much too complex narrative presenting a wide range of developments and events that together seem incoherent and excessive. The effect is convolution and hence dilution: it is easy to become lost with the plot developments, and this dampens emotional engagement, intrigue and thus investment. In hearing others divulge their thoughts, it was apparent to me that this was a general sentiment across audience members. We have a play within a play, dance sequences (which suffer themselves from this convolution–dilution, upon which I am happy to elaborate), concealed identity, misidentity, fantastical creatures (werewolves) and far-out characters (billionaire), and all of this is topped with a melodramatic style and ludicrous plot developments — there is a lot to wade through and in a period of time so short that none of these can truly be sufficiently explored. The uniquely most explored element of your play is the titular character of the rich playwright Gianpiero (James Wilkinson). This character is the most established and the clearest simply because his intentions are plainly laid out. He is identifiable in his pomposity and egoism. He is the rich boy who has always gotten his way and has always been in the limelight. He is instantly recognisable, and this was particularly stand-out and useful in a performance with such chaotic content. While it is not entirely elucidated what Gianpiero’s play is and how it functions, both as an artistic work and as a “real-world” vehicle of marriage, it is clear that this self-righteous and entitled playwright wants notoriety in making successful and renowned theatre works and will tread over anyone in order to get it. One reason his presence as a character is so successful, not due only to Wilkinson’s excellent characterisation, is because we have present the correct formula for setting up tension: an antagonist’s goal. However, the lack of clarity as to of whom or of what exactly Gianpiero is an antagonist takes the steam out of this tension and compromises its payoff. Photography credit: Sasha Karakadzai It is clear that tension is an intended significant focus for your work here — from the very beginning, we are launched into a conflict between the characters, wherein your character, Roxana, is late for her own performance, prompting a quarrel between her and Mateo (Esteban Mereles), who clearly have some history together. However, what this history is is not explicated, which is an important omission for a play like this: the audience needs to know why they care that the characters are not functioning together; there should be a definitive, emotion-driven reason to stay invested. Why is Roxana so sceptical of Mateo’s potential love affair? Where does that jealousy come from? Is it from their relationship history itself or from projected personal traumas? This lack of reason is a significant recurrent issue in this performance, and it compromises the efficacy of later plot developments: for example, while we can clearly see this is a dysfunctional relationship, it is more difficult, nay impossible, to understand why Roxana should be so maddened by Mateo’s existence that she should be driven to threaten to, and succeed to, shoot him. Intention is the touchstone of tension: once we know that two characters have opposing intentions, we become extra alert as audience members about how this will play out. I would love to offer you more guidance on how circumstances, setting and consequence can allow this tension to culminate in a plot development that feels relevant, earned and complete — and furthermore on how tango is currently being used in your performance versus how it could be used as decisive choreography to extract, spotlight, intensify and progress character intention/motivation and plot. I welcome you for further guidance on any or all of the following, which I have categorised into priority levels to pinpoint aspects I feel are most critical for us to work on together: Ensuring tango is incorporated accurately and as a progressor of character relationships and plot. (High priority) Reconsidering offstage conduct: eliminate distractions from off stage which compromise illusion. (Medium priority) Ascertaining clarity in complex plots: character arcs, and narrative and act structures. (High priority) Stylising characterisation: organic delivery for heightened and melodramatic character profiles. (Low priority) Developing engaging character profiles with depth: considering motivation, intention, values, and objectives. (High priority) Considering audience function: interactions with audience members. (Medium priority) Conceiving relevant interstitial scenes. (Low priority) Or if you have any questions or sparked ideas from this feedback, I would love to hear from you with these. For My Readers Are you working on your own performance and wanting to receive bespoke, detailed guidance and feedback? If you feel a written performance analysis, — or a live consultation or workshop — would benefit you, I welcome you to reach out to me to book your own! You can easily reach me through whichever channel is most convenient for you: DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +447364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Via my website's Chat Function: Use the 'Contact Me' button on the bottom-right of your screen. Find out more about my mentorship service here.

After a break from public analyses, I’m thrilled to be back and am ready to dive back in with open arms! A few exciting things have evolved since my last publication, and so I wanted to take a moment to reflect on how every stage of this journey shaped the upgraded service you see today. Want to skip to the parts relevant to you? Click below for links to specific information on: Star Ratings Public vs Private Analyses New Format for Analyses: Letters from a Mentor Follow My Theatre Mentor on Social Media “My Theatre Mentor”: An Evolution I have always valued bespoke, deeply tailored feedback. Right from the beginning back in 2017, my performance analyses were never meant to be quick commercial reviews; they were intricate, extensive, and constructive deep-dives designed to truly serve the creatives who requested them. When I first started this service in 2017, I had no online audience and needed a surefire name so that readers would instantly understand. So, I chose a name that was transparent as possible: “The Theatre Reviewer“. But, really, my service was far more niche than that of a reviewer… One year in, with 200 monthly readers, I felt it was time for a clarification of the service I provided. As my work was more aligned with a performance critic, my work spanning far beyond traditional plays to include performance art, dance, circus, and applied theatre, my title evolved, aptly, to “The Performance Critic”. Then, in 2021, I introduced two new services: consultations and workshops, both available to clients in person across the UK and virtually internationally. I wanted to provide more than just written advice; I wanted to demonstrate my theories in practice, help clients to work on their performances in real-time, guide them through the theories I had raised in feedback, and show them how to apply them to the performances they were working on. In 2023, I decided another change was necessary: I realised my work had shifted, expanded, into the territory of a mentor. Another name change?! Absolutely! I felt “The Live Performance Mentor” captured my evolved service a lot more closely and with the same immediate legibility of my original title. But what really is a “live performance” mentor? It turned out that it was quite confusing to people. It was difficult to explain in one sentence how "live performance" differs from "theatre" without giving an overview of what “performance” even means… I needed better branding. And so…what I believe is my final name change has been decided! My Theatre Mentor I feel this name perfectly captures my work with clients in consultations and workshops while also being entirely legible for outsiders. Everyone knows what "theatre" is, and everyone knows what a "mentor" is — the perfect name! And, of course, I still welcome circus, dance and contemporary performance art as warmly, openly and readily as I do traditional straight plays, musical theatre, and Shakespeare. Private and Public Analyses In 2021, my analysis work started to become a business. I had a steady stream of regular clients, multiple services to offer, and a schedule that filled up fast months in advance. I also had my own projects and productions for my availability to contend with. But there were still a great number of clients that valued detailed and unbiased written feedback. What's more, with the sensitive nature of my work, they preferred this feedback to be confidential. And so the private analysis was born! Private analyses, I found, bridged a gap: it created the space I needed to dedicate real time to each client and deliver genuinely impactful work while honouring the demand for written and confidential feedback. I wanted my service to be affordable but also sustainable, and this was considered in my pricing. But supporting the creative community still remained a top priority. I regularly had talented creatives asking for my work, and even though I have always aimed to make my services affordable, there were many who simply didn't have the budget for the mentorship they really needed. So, I created a dual system to ensure that no one was left out: high-impact private analyses alongside a set quota of 2–3 public analyses per month. The public versions are slightly more concise, to keep them sustainable, but they carry the exact same rigour, depth, and care, giving accessible support to creatives who need it while also showing potential clients precisely what I deliver. Star Ratings I did have a problem, though: the earlier analyses I had published included something I despised... Star ratings! Star ratings are, to me, highly subjective responses and ones that ultimately mean nothing in an industry that issues 4 and 5 stars out pandemically. Indeed, my approach is for my feedback to be as objective and as meaningful as possible: my personal emotional response to my clients' work isn't important; whether I personally enjoy their work isn't important. What's important to me — and to them — is their growth, the integrity of their work, and the quality and refinedness of their creative decisions. But I couldn't outright refuse to include star ratings, because so many creatives want — or need — them. Indeed, it is the case that some theatres have as a condition when considering hosting performances to see star ratings along with theatre reviews. A dilemma! Adopting an approach I felt was closer to my beliefs but that would also benefit those who desire star ratings, in December 2022, I stopped offering star ratings by default, providing them only upon request. But as my client base has grown, and as readers have grown to know the analysis type I offer, star ratings have become less and less essential, valued less than my detailed feedback, for which I am most appreciative. A New Format: “Letters from a Mentor” Even with those shifts, something still felt missing from the written analyses. Recently, coming back to offer written public analyses and looking back over past publications, I noticed how writing under time pressure and consequent word limits had stripped away the warmth of my feedback, leaving it feeling clinical, sterile, and detached. They didn't reflect the warmth, kindness, and personal connection that defines my live consultations and workshops and that my clients know me for. At times, I even found them sounding harsh and hypercritical. Yet, at the heart of my work is a deep sensitivity to creatives. The written feedback needs to reflect that. So, I’m making two major changes: As expressed above, I find the rebranding to “My Theatre Mentor” a lot more personal. After all, I'm here to offer bespoke and 1:1 support to you as my client — as your mentor. Starting from July 2026, I am shifting the format of my public performance analyses to a format I am affectionately calling “Letters from a Mentor”. Moving forward, as the name suggests, these analyses will be written as personal letters addressed directly to the creative(s) who requested them. They will still offer the rich, complex, and detailed insight my clients expect — and in a way that outside readers can easily follow and appreciate — but the tone will be personal, supportive and kind, encouraging collaboration and development. It is important that readers — but also theatre/performance venues that would host my clients' performances — understand that we are all at a different stage of our creative development and that, regardless of how later a stage this is, we can always improve. My analyses are not intended to be denigrations or criticisms; they are personalised guidance, support, tips and tricks. However, in a world where we all compare ourselves to one another — and particularly in the dog-eat-dog theatre industry — it is important that my analyses be recognised as bespoke mentorly reports on how a performance can be improved. By nature, they inherently enumerate a great number of aspects and areas that need refinement, and they should never be taken at face value as an extensive list of all the things “wrong” with a performance that “shows no value“ elsewhere — this is never my intention. Letters from a Mentor is the perfect format, I think, to ensure that this is all understood — and at first glance — by anyone who reads my analyses, requesters and external readers alike. Looking Ahead With these changes, I feel my practice offers a complete toolkit for theatremaking creatives. Best of all, I remain deeply committed to keeping these services accessible and affordable in an industry that is all too often financially precarious. But the journey doesn't end here! I am always seeking to refine my own service, practice and craft, and so I welcome you to continue to give your feedback: What do you think of my services? What do you think of the new Letters from a Mentor format? There are a few ways to let me know — you're bound to see one that suits you! DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +447364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Via my website's Chat Function: Use the 'Contact Me' button on bottom-right of your screen. Thank you for growing with me since 2017! I can’t wait to embark on this next chapter with you!

In December 2022, I chose to remove star ratings from my analyses. This was because I believe star ratings are arbitrary — there are no recognised and established industry-wide criteria for what defines a 5-star performance versus a 1-star. The star rating system is purely connotative: it suggests commercial viability, rate of success, quality, and enjoyability while largely basing these judgements on subjective emotional responses. This is not to mention that "enjoyability" and commercial viability, in particular, are unmeasurable without extensive and particularised study on a per-performance basis. Particularly for revivals and historical plays, star ratings often coincide with a critic's knowledge and appreciation of how others have executed a performance in the past, judging the current performance against the previous one's perceived "standards". Otherwise, star ratings serve to compare one performance to another in the same genre, style or mode or by the same playwrights/creatives. In this way, star ratings fail to truly reflect the performance's unique success and integrity. Star ratings are highly subjective responses to your work, and I strive to create performance analyses that approach your work objectively from a critical, dramaturgical standpoint in line with performance criticism, audience theory, and my own personal observations after nearly a decade in this critic-mentor capacity. It is for these reasons that I do not actively engage in star ratings. The purpose of my performance analyses, and my mentorship in general, is not to give such a stamp of approval; it's to guide creatives towards a successful performance, taking into account its articulacy, efficacy, integrity, organicity, and uniqueness. Why Star Ratings Persist However, it is true that we work within a dog-eat-dog industry that erroneously values accreditation and recorded experience, and star ratings are the perfect distillation to encapsulate all of a critic's responses and thoughts within a review. A star rating is a quick stamp of approval that industry professionals seek to validate a company/creative's success. And because of this, individual creatives also seek them for their own validation. For these two reasons, as of August 2026, I am offering commercial reviews alongside my regular performance analyses. More information will be released about these in due time — visit this publication again in August to find out more! I'm intrigued: what are your opinions on star ratings? Do you agree with me? Do you look for them when choosing which performances to attend? I'm always listening to my clients' thoughts, needs, and desires, and there are a few ways to let me know yours — you're bound to see one that suits you! DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +447364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Via my website's Chat Function: Use the 'Contact Me' button on bottom-right of your screen.

My Theatre Mentor, Lee James Broadwood, analyses PUP PLAY, Baron's Court Theatre, London. This analysis has been written in the new Letters from a Mentor format introduced in July 2026. For more information on this format, visit this publication. Dear Noah, What a gritty performance! Some really great confidence and conviction throughout, and a really considerate exploration of queer fetish culture through the lens of pup play. I’ll begin by addressing what is working effectively. Your performance manages to capture the human behind a fetish, and it does so principally through personal narratives and anecdotes. These inclusions balance well what could otherwise be a monotonous talking at the audience. When dealing with sociopolitical topics like homophobia as this performance does, this personalisation and intimacy is also an excellent means of soliciting empathy in audiences, reminding them of the humanness of the peoples directly affected, while adding nuance in a victim’s personal experience. Furthermore, you have captured well how homophobia persists as internalised within the community itself. There is a distinct voyeurism demanded by this performance — particularly with the snug topography of this particular venue — and this further emphasises themes of objectification and identity. With this characterisation and narrative work comes a significant issue for this performance for me, however: a conflict of personae. Throughout the performance, you adopt five main distinct ones: Professor Handler; Homer the Homonormative Puppet (and, simultaneously, his interlocutor); a version of “yourself” as a pup; an enraged and hysterical singer; and a more interpretative figure in dance sequences. There is a significant inconsistency in regard both to performance style and to role and function of the performer here, which allows for an inability to comprehend the true nature of the performance. The performance even professes of itself this lack of clarity in form, with “of Sorts” being in its title. I completely understand the intention to bring variety to the performance, particularly given its didactic undertone, but this lack of structure in form compromises a steady voice and overall legibility of the messages of the playtext — which should take priority over appealing theatrical devices. Part of this issue with clarity is down to a lack of clear distinction between you as Professor Handler and you as pup. I am aware of the possibility that the two are intended to be one and the same, with descriptions of the performance focalising it through Professor Handler, but this is not what the text itself indicates. Professor Handler, by default, is an expert, overbearingly proud in his knowledgeable position, and this does not coincide with the pup persona who is discovering the world of pup play and finding it intensely challenging insofar as the positioning of his identity and psychology within it. Because we are launched into each different segment, with these personae, voices and tones consistently bleeding into one another, it is unclear when one didactic narrative truly ends and another, anecdotal one starts. This is not to mention that the different personae each bring with them an entirely different performance style — the progressive monstrification of Homer, for example, versus the submissive and hypersexual dance sequences. I would love to discuss performance style inconsistency, in particular, with you, as I think this would be very beneficial when further developing your performance. It is also worth noting a lack of clarity in who the target audience is, and this is something Professor Handler even points out himself, recognising three different usual audience types, each coming with their own, wildly different expectations. One would assume it to be queer men who have an interest and engagement in or thoughts about engaging in gay fetish culture, but the writing of the “lecture” sections would indicate otherwise: these sections are prescriptive and serve to define the concepts, imagery, characteristics, perceived regulations, and nature, of pup play. Nonetheless, this performance touches upon some truly profound and thorny subject matters, using discomfort as a vehicle to depict and challenge the taboo, the dangerous, the misunderstood, and particularised queer sexual objectification. There is a lot of excellent material under the surface, but this is complicated by a conflict of style, form and mode and could be better streamlined and refined to enhance meaning, legibility, and audience engagement. I would love to work with you further to achieve this, and it would be my pleasure to provide further guidance on any of the following, which I have recognised as standout concerns to consider when further developing your performance, each marked from low–high priority: Diversifying levels of emotional intensity: using emotivity decisively and effectively. (High priority) Ensuring accuracy and technique in performance: movement, blocking, technical mishaps, and vocals. (Medium priority.) Balancing didactic and anecdotal narratives. (Medium priority) Elucidating and delivering moral messages. (High priority) Streamlining content to ensure articulacy and maintain audience engagement. (High priority) Considering dynamism and variety in sequences of movement and song. (Low priority) Maintaining agency and control through audience participation. (High priority) For My Readers Are you working on your own performance and wanting to receive bespoke, detailed guidance and feedback? If you feel a written performance analysis — or a live consultation or workshop — would benefit you, I welcome you to reach out to me to book your own! You can easily reach me through whichever channel is most convenient for you: DM me at @mytheatrementor on Instagram, on X, or on Facebook. Send me a WhatsApp Business message: +447364 189 667 Email me: contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Via my website's Chat Function: Use the 'Contact Me' button on the bottom-right of your screen. Find out more about my mentorship service here.

The Live Performance Mentor analyses NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, Golden Goose Theatre, London. This is a most creative and unique performance written by Isabell Friis and Sunny Jiu Liu, and produced and directed by Jiu Liu. Recounting elements from Friis’s life and that of Yufei Lucia Jiang, the play blends a multitude of storytelling devices together exceptionally well. It is usually the case that having multiple, distinct devices allows for stylistic incongruity or discontinuity, with each competing against the others until order and cohesive voice are lost. However, in this performance, they each add an extra otherworldly layer, capturing the imagination of a child, in early parts of the performance; the sense of “the Other” in the use of disembodied voices, silhouettes, symbols, etc.; and then general visceral perception/feeling as the characters reach adolescence/adulthood. This is efficacious and successful, serving as a multifaceted, visceral and symbolic representation. It is also enjoyable in its variety and dynamism. However, I would recommend further attention be given to the respective communications of each device (shadow-puppetry, projections, consecutive translations and direct address vs enclosed monologuing/dialoguing, soundscapes, etc). If each device is bringing a unique and distinct voice, texture, mood and message of its own, each earns its place and brings yet another piece of information, another layer of depth. If the audience perceive a crossover, however, there is likely to be a muddy sense of inconsistency and redundancy across each device’s use. This could be seen with how the shadow puppets are used to symbolise figures from the characters’ pasts, who are vocalised by murmurs and utterances off stage. Yet, in other parts, Character A (played by Friis) is seen voicing the workers at the Nigerian Immigration Service, or Character B (played by Jiu Liu) is seen translating her conversation with her mother to the audience. These translation scenelets, in particular, might be worth re-examining when considering the relationship between the two primary characters: why can Character B not be translating her conversation to Character A? This allows for consistency in audience address and establishes a relationship between the two of them. Currently, they are distinctly separate characters/stories, united only by theme, and experience of prejudice, until the very end of the play when we are re-presented Character A’s opening scene. It is perfectly fine to have them unrelated to one another directly throughout; they do not need to meet somewhere in their timelines because they are already connected in this way. However, if they should physically meet, this meeting should be expectable and repeated throughout; otherwise, the final revelation of their relationship feels like an afterthought and allows for a jolting disconnection. There is also a disconnect when considering why we are re-presented Character A’s opening scene and not Character B’s — perhaps it would be interesting to play with two perspectives of the exact same scene? I do have some notable concerns in regard to blocking and the topographical arrangement of technical entities and theatrical properties. The most notable is having the projector placed at the audience members’ eye-/seat-level and positioned amongst them in the stalls. This would become even more apparent if the audience were bigger, but any latecomers and fidgeters interfere with this. Indeed, I myself inadvertently covered the throw of the projector several times in my own fidgeting. Additionally, performers themselves blocked the projection screen, sometimes at quite vital moments. It also then becomes a health and safety risk and adds an extra production-level concern. For shadow puppetry, the light and the cut-out together can be moved to keep the hardness of the resulting shadow consistent whilst playing with size and position. There were quite a few times where cut-outs were moved independently where they needn’t have been, and this caused softening of the shadows and an overall ‘blurring’ or ‘fuzzing’ of the image. Rotating the flat cut-outs also interfered with visibility. This   private analysis  has been publicised as per the request of the creatives. To discover the difference between public and  private  analyses, please click here . Request a Performance Analysis To request your own (public or  private) analysis, please click the button below. -

The Live Performance Mentor Analyses BODY OR SOUL, Omnibus Theatre, London. Body or Soul , co-written by performer Laura Turner (playing Jessie) and director Stephen Gillard and presented by Fury Theatre, tackles some gritty topics, and it does so unbridledly but with feeling. I was delighted to find that the performance presented the very same character in two separate walks of life — as Jessie (also Turner) and Jessie Bae (Emily Vickers). The main way that this is understood, apart from through explicit inter-character address, is through costume. The organisation and timing of costume changes throughout are excellent; it feels natural and organic and is not marked or showy. However, there ought also to be a distinct similitude between characterisations. Currently, the profiles we are offered by Turner and Vickers are completely dissimilar. There is the choice at the beginning of the performance to have the two perform choreographed and specific synchronised movements, and though these could have been much tighter, these really did help to communicate this shared identity. But hereafter, no idiosyncrasies are shared, and we lose this interconnectedness which is extremely important for this performance. We should only be exploring how a person's choices and a change of their context and circumstances  can impact their life. To also have discrepancy, variability and dissimilitude between the two subjects thus complicates and dilutes the focus of our study. However, both performers have mastered well speaking shared lines in unison, with the same intonation and with a natural, unrobotic delivery, which is most commendable. On the topic of characterisation, all performers are clear on their intentions and deliver lines well. There is a mixture of definitions of character profiles, however, with further work on subtlety, nuance and idiosyncrasy in line delivery and/or character profile desirable. Shifts in mood and emotion are also sometimes too extreme or caricatural, which should be regarded carefully. The manner in which Beth's (Stephanie Riley) and Callum's (Simon Payne) movement across the two playing spaces are conceived is appropriate and enjoyable, although I would urge refinement in moments where the characters are responding to each unique Jessie in quick succession. Movements for the Jessies themselves in scenes of inactivity could be better fleshed out as well, with engaging though non-distracting movements and activities conceived. As for the focus of the written text, there is a significant contrast between the material presented and the expressed line of study. Jessie seems to have given up both her soul (personality, interests, relationships, etc.) and her body (the demand to be physically present in an online space, her image and voice used on social media, etc.); Jessie Bae, on the other hand, seems to have only given up her body, realigning or modifying her soul, not losing it completely. The sex work scenes do have a significantly different energy; they are quirkier, funny, sometimes predatory, and — most importantly — more particularised: we see first-hand what Jessie Bae's client interactions and working context look like, and we share a significant amount of time with her in this space. Conversely, we have only hearsay knowledge of Jessie’s interactions, and so not only do we have limited understanding of what draws her to persist with this job and to be addicted to it, but we are also left to have less empathy and compassion for her, for we can only see how it affects those around her. Jessie ends up boyfriend-less and friendless, stuck and powerless; Jessie Bae ends up empowered and powerful, self-actualising, free of a boyfriend who only suited her previous lifestyle, and with a wonderful friend who shares her perspective wholly. The objective is notably not to glamorise sex work or claim it is ‘100% “right”’, yet the material does work to this effect. This standard public analysis ends here. A premium analysis may be requested (see below). [Premium Analysis] For the Creatives Behind this Performance: Additional Notes Are Available on… Character Profiles: Detailed Analyses Per Actor Written Text: Organisation and Communication of Moral Perspectives Written Text: Creating Realistic Dialogue and Consistent Character Voice Set Arrangements, and Theatrical Properties Audience Interaction/Encroachment: Positioning of Actors, and Offstage Etiquette Premium analyses are delivered privately and are deliverable within 48 hours of their request. Request a Performance Analysis This standard public analysis was produced at the request of the creatives behind this performance. To request your own (public or private) analysis, please click the button below. -

The Live Performance Mentor Analyses MAN IN THE MIRROR, Golders Green Hippodrome, London. Man in the Mirror is an excellent performance with striking visuals and enjoyable choreography. Particularly exceptional is the makeup, which captured Michael Jackson’s likeness superbly and was longevous, though fading slightly at the midway-point of the performance. A wonderful array of Michael Jackson’s songs are included, sweeping through his various eras, which are each reflected well in set, video and costume design [though I would have liked even more variety from this latter]. Whilst the function of audience interactivity could be improved upon, performer "CJ" himself has excellent grounded presence, corporeal awareness and exudes [vocalised] respect for his work, which is commendable. Choreography is sharp and intentional, certainly reminiscent of Michael Jackson’s performances with distinct movements calling from his dance repertoire. Costume has also been chosen well to complement movement — as well as aesthetic. Ensemble synchronicity could be improved, however, across all the dancers, and whilst the Stage-Right side of the band are vitalised and demonstrative, the Stage-Left side seem less enthused in their facial and bodily expressivity, which compromises Upstage activity significantly. CJ’s wife stands out as exemplary for her lip-syncing abilities; I would urge the other dancers to note how she locks her head into position when lip-syncing towards a microphone on a stand. Without this locking in, it is clear that the backing vocals are not coming from the onstage performers, as the dancers’ mouths are nowhere near the correct position for sound to be picked up. Still with regard to choreography: in particular, with the original ‘Thriller’ having so iconic a choreography, heavily culturally studied and, most significantly, a collective work, it was quite disappointing to see how unstructured this rendition was and that CJ spent most of the song alone, pacing back and forth on the stage, repeating the same, relatively simple movements. A quicker costume change here or a rearrangement of titles would ease this — I see no reason, for example, why this song could not have followed ‘Billie Jean’. On the topic of ‘Billie Jean’’s choreography itself, small hiccups are sometimes negligible, but I would urge CJ to further rehearse placing the suitcase down upon the stool, as its dropping off compromised an otherwise deliberate and tension-driven overture for this song. Beyond this, for CJ himself, his movements are precise throughout, if a little underperformed [I imagine from the regular over-repetition of these throughout his career]. My top two major concerns for this performance are CJ’s diction and [a venue-specific issue] technical issues. Particularly when performing higher-note titles, words are often completely lost, but this is redeemed by excellent vocal control and faultless energy as well as by an exceptional recreation of Michael Jackson’s familiar vocal isms: his percussive breaths, exclamations, yelps, etc. Technical issues here refer solely to the volume of the microphones. Sound was heavily distorted by the lavalier microphones, whereby the opening song, in particular, was much too loud and clipped, which was a shame, considering how sleek the visuals, band music and choreography were. Sound quality was greatly improved by the later use of handheld microphones, though the lavaliers did improve as the show went on. My next major concern is one of cultural appropriation: to observe the white dancers come out wearing headscarves and performing movements of prayer and supplication, exultation and rejoicing, is significantly inappropriate and ought to be reworked. Whilst the objective here was noble and well-intentioned, the result is not to contemporise the song’s meaning and to call for peace and justice in modern times but to play dress-up as a particular sociocultural profile within the context of family entertainment. I urge this be reconsidered. I would really urge CJ not to refer to himself as a Michael Jackson impersonator [especially so repeatedly]. Whilst his dedicatory messages about continuing Michael Jackson’s legacy and the significance behind Michael Jackson's work as ‘the world’s best entertainer’, as he put it, the effect of this is equally a complete destruction of illusion. Knowing full well that this is not truly Michael Jackson, a recognition only exacerbated by the horrific history of his death, and so already having to suspend our disbelief, it is counter-productive to go through such trouble to develop/learn the choreography, dedicate this performance to him, appear like him, sound like him, and then communicate ‘this is all artifice’. These dedicatory messages, which appear to be central to CJ's work and so need to be included, could be communicated via projections in text form, which would separate them from the world of the stage, or [still not a personal favourite but much better] at the end of the performance, instead of regularly throughout. Overall, an incredibly enjoyable performance whose video and lighting design complement its dynamism and refinement. Judging by the advertisements alone: of all other Entertainers shows, this is, by far far far , the best of those on offer. This private analysis has been publicised as per the request of the creatives. To discover the difference between public and private analyses, please click here . Request a Performance Analysis To request your own (public or  private) analysis, please click the button below. -

The Live Performance Mentor Analyses STALLED: THE MUSICAL, The King's Head Theatre, London. I have really mixed feelings about this performance, notably due to the significant shift in emotional truth, authenticity and performance style that occurs at the midway point. Suddenly, there is a clever clashing climax in the stories of the characters — but chiefly in those of Cynthia (Josie Benson) and Emma (Grace Venus), and Maggie (Lauren Ward). Indeed, I even observe that the performers themselves could connect much more deeply with their characters in the latter part of the performance too, with a definite increase in conviction and credibility. Before this shift, material certainly feels rushed and indecisive, favouring fast pace, caricature and humour over character depth and development. With a performance like this presenting such varied characters and their stories, a certain reliance often arises upon cliché and caricature — to prevent an audience from losing track and to communicate information quickly and clearly. This is certainly the case for this performance which quite routinely feels commercial and stilted — especially in choreography. However, when the text does really dedicate some well-needed time to each of the characters, that aforementioned [positive] shift occurs, and the material is far more fruitful. Whilst depictions of autism, for instance, remain quite stereotypical and somewhat superficial, it is the interactions between the characters that really serve as its major selling point. Ward portrays her character with a truly commendable accuracy and with conviction, dedication and understanding. Her work here has the potential to be truly very moving [as it certainly was for me]. And this goes hand in hand with an effective character portrayal of grief and bereavement in the text itself. Whilst elements and techniques surrounding this portrayal are very predictable and hence somewhat inefficacious — that Rebecca-Jo Roberts should be the ghost of her daughter, Robin, for example, lingering to give her advice from beyond the grave — Maggie's stagnancy, in particular, is very well communicated and most effective, along with her fixations and poetic-vs-absent relationship to her own grief. Character voices are extremely well differentiated, pairing well with the overall cast's excellent portrayals. I would just pay attention to how the characters truly relate to and progress the overarching themes and narrative of the text. Namely, Krystal's (Regina Co) and Serena's (Evita Khrime) stories are distinctly different — both in written content and in their portrayal in performance — only loosely related to the main narrative by the themes of loss and motherhood. On the topic of Serena, the incorporation of spoken word convolutes performance style quite significantly and, simply, dilutes the material in its repetitiveness and esotericism; the spoken word work in this performance is simply quite weak and needs to be reconsidered. There were quite a number of technical difficulties for the particular matinée I attended — lavalier microphones not working, unsynchronised lighting transitions, etc. — and these certainly ought to be addressed. Also, realism would certainly have been achieved with working spray bottles, mobile phones that are actually switched on and displaying something relevant, and [most of all] working taps. Mime has no place in a performance with such elaborate theatrical properties like this one; it is most destructive of illusion where very simple solutions may be conceived and allows for a stylistic inconsistency [toilet rolls, hand tissues, bins, cubicles, hand lotions…but no running water]. This is a play set in a public toilet, after all; running water should be a must in its design. This premium public analysis ends here. A further analysis may be requested (see below). [Further Analysis] For the Creatives Behind this Performance: Additional Notes Are Available on… Please contact Lee James Broadwood via contact@leejamesbroadwood.com Premium and private analyses are deliverable within 48 hours of their request. Request a Performance Analysis This public analysis was produced at the request of the creatives behind this performance. To request your own (public or  private) analysis, please click the button below. -