Tag Archives: Hope Theatre

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

★★

Hope Theatre

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

Hope Theatre

★★

“the young company could have done with a bit more organisation and staging to be truly effective”

Riotous. Exuberant. Energetic. These are just a few descriptions that spring to mind about director/producer Grace Darvill’s re-working of Shakespeare’s comedy for an early-2000s Britain. Set in the streets and residences of a run-down estate (somewhere in north or east London from the look of the video backdrop that was playing at the opening and the interval), this is a worthwhile and enthusiastic piece.

The story was originally written by Shakespeare to re-introduce the gross, buffoonish Falstaff of Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2. It places him as the central character around which the story revolves, as it is said that Queen Elizabeth I wanted to see Falstaff in love. Arriving on the scene, broke, with his henchmen (can you say henchpeople?) he is scheming to trick, seduce and fleece two wealthy wives who live locally. Naturally, being smart and quick witted, they soon come up with a scheme of their own which will deliver his comeuppance.

The action is as fast-moving as an episode from EastEnders, only with a sharply comic edge. As the drama opens Falstaff (James Tanner) and the cast tumble noisily into the theatre space. Before long fighting has burst out and in the chaos our Falstaff actually did get hurt (he had to dab his lips to stop blood flow for the next 15 minutes). This tells you something about the high stakes performance of the next two hours. Playing entirely for laughs (and they got a lot) the members of the company throw themselves about, shouting, arguing, singing and dancing to non-stop banter laced with Britpop music. There is a lot of personal contact (also with the audience) as well as drinking, spitting and snacking.

It was all a bit overwhelming and the young company could have done with a bit more organisation and staging to be truly effective. That said, it would be hard to replicate the troupe’s energy and, as the blurb implies, no two performances are going to be alike. The stars of the evening were the two women playing the wives Ford and Page – Tash Tomlinson and Bronwyn Davies – and Django Bevan as husband Ford who disguises himself to catch out the would-be cuckolder. None of the players held back. They all threw themselves (quite literally, sometimes) into the merriment.

If you want an evening of hilarity, vim and vigour, this is a good place to start. It might help to know the story before you go.



MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

Hope Theatre

Reviewed on 17th February 2026

by Louise Sibley

 

 

 

 

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

THE MONKEY’S PAW

★★

Hope Theatre

THE MONKEY’S PAW

Hope Theatre

★★

“a script that adds in too many complications, subplots and locations”

My first reservation about seeing a staged version of The Monkey’s Paw, was that it’s not an easy story to adapt into a play. Iconic and chilling in its simplicity, the short story, first published in 1902 by W. W. Jacobs, follows an English couple, Mr and Mrs White, who come into possession of a mummified monkey’s paw. The paw grants them three wishes, but each with a horrifying catch. Their wish for £200 is granted through compensation for their son’s workplace death; his mother’s wish for him to return becomes a knock at their front door, with terrifying implications as to what lurks on the other side.

This play, devised, written and produced by Infinite Space Theatre, opens with that climactic scene: Jenny White, played by Josephine Rogers, clutches the monkey’s paw, desperate to open the door to her son; John White, played by Steven Maddocks, knows better, and looks on in horror. As the play winds back to the beginning, you wonder how Infinite Space Theatre, and director Leah Townley, have managed to pad out this straightforward fable about being careful what you wish for to the 80 minute runtime, especially with only two actors on stage. The answer is a script that adds in too many complications, subplots and locations for the simple, static set and limited props to handle, creating a sense of confusion that sullies the play’s potential to move or terrify.

It’s a shame that the action falls victim to awkward staging, because the set itself is original and well-designed by Hannah Williams, making great use of Hope Theatre’s small space by furnishing two perpendicular walls with the Whites’ washing lines and curtains. The sound design and lighting design are also well-executed by Peter Michaels and Alex Forey: the change in atmosphere at the paw’s first granting of a wish is particularly well realised, although it would have been nice for the knocking at the door during the play’s opening and climax to be done live, to add more of a meta creep-factor.

Other plots are weaved in to the original tale to add meat, including an alternative origin story for the monkey’s paw, discovered inside an anonymous mummified-child whose tomb museum archivist/supervisor John later tracks down in Egypt. We also hear a story of infant death from Jenny’s own childhood: both these additions are clearly supposed to augment the loss of a child at the story’s core, but just give the plot a cobbled-together feel. That being said, the latter is relayed with the most genuine depth and sensitivity of the play, and is Rogers’ best performance moment amid the overall impression that herself and Maddock slip into overacting in order to fill up the small space.

Where the play falls shortest is its interpretation of Herbert, the Whites’ son who falls victim to the paw’s cruel sense of irony. In this play, Herbert is a cloth baby who Jenny becomes attached to after losing two pregnancies, but it’s not immediately clear that boy isn’t real, given the symbolic way Jenny’s genuine miscarriages were represented earlier in the play. When she wishes for the boy to be real, he reemerges as a terrifying-looking puppet, taking a Chucky-style bite out of John’s hand, but otherwise remaining inert, apparently still not a genuine child. When the Whites lose their ‘son’, the prospect of his return, not as in a human corpse, but as a mangled cloth puppet, depletes the sense of horror that the story’s climax relies on. This convoluted change, as well as the awkward, overlong staging of the door-knocking scene itself, is disappointing.

Unfortunately, a bloated plot and some confusing transitions muddy the deep sense of parental loss and visceral horror of the unseen that makes the original story such a bitter and disturbing tale. Perhaps this production proves that ‘The Monkey’s Paw’, like the titular object itself, should be left well alone.



THE MONKEY’S PAW

Hope Theatre

Reviewed on 23rd October 2025

by Emily Lipscombe

Photography by Cam Harle


 

Previously reviewed at this venue:

4’S A CROWD | ★★★★ | October 2025
FICKLE EULOGY | ★★★ | August 2025
855-FOR-TRUTH | ★★★ | February 2025
ROSIE’S BRAIN | ★★★★ | February 2025
PORT CITY SIGNATURE | ★★★½ | October 2024

 

 

THE MONKEY’S PAW

THE MONKEY’S PAW

THE MONKEY’S PAW