After a hugely successful run at the Menier Chocolate Factory earlier this year, Terence Rattigan’s 1944 play, Love in Idleness transfers to the West End for just fifty performances. Rattigan’s original work was called Less Than Kind which he later changed to be a less political and gentler show which was performed as Love in Idleness over 70 years ago.
Rattigan always regretted the toning down of the work so it’s pleasing that director Trevor Nunn has worked to create a new version which takes the best from both versions.
Set late in 1944, towards the end of the Second World War, the first three acts of this four act play take place in the plush Westminster home of Sir John Fletcher (Anthony Head), the Minister for Tank Production.
Sir John, despite still being married to his wife Diane (Charlotte Spencer) is living with Olivia Brown (Eve Best), the would be socialite widow of a dentist. When Olivia’s son Michael (Edward Bluemel) returns from four years in Canada he immediately clashes with Sir John who as a wealthy businessman, is the very antithesis of his newly fledged left wing idealogies.
Michael, horrified with his mother, tries to split the pair up with methods ranging from deeply cunning to simple teenage petulance. Edward Bluemel captures the character to perfection with his truculent exchanges with Sir John and moody mannerisms when not getting his way. Eventually to appease her son, Olivia leaves Sir John and returns to the flat she lived in with her late husband.
The star of the show has to be Eve Best as Olivia, torn between her son and her lover. Best portrays the slightly scatty widow with comedic charm, at times reminiscent of the legendary Joyce Grenfell. From not knowing exactly how old her son is to her creative way of conserving rations (by going out to dine) the character is a delight.
British Pathé news footage is shown between the acts (although it’s only in the final act that there is a complete (rather long) set change), which works well as a background to the piece. This is certainly a period piece but never feels dated. The content of the play features issues that could easily be transposed into modern day.
Perhaps a little too long (2 hours and 45 minutes) but Love in Idleness is a nostalgic treat, wonderfully warm and witty.
“a vibrant energetic show with top class performers“
Soho is billed as “a thrill ride of circus, street and theatre performance, re-creating the exciting, edgy and voyeuristic world of London’s Soho … celebrating every inch of the magical square mile”, quite a lot to live up to in under two hours. On some levels the show delivers, but just as in the real Soho, we have bits that are really good and exciting and other sections that just need boarding up for redevelopment.
Before looking a bit more at the show, I’d just state that the twelve ensemble cast are a hugely talented young team of dancers and acrobats and cannot be faulted. Their skill, stamina and physical strength throughout is utterly amazing.
The show itself starts on the tube and is a pretty good opening piece leaving expectations high for the rest of the show. We’re introduced to a young man who finds himself in Soho (quite why, we’re never entirely sure) on a journey around some of its most well known present and former haunts – Madame Jojo’s, The Colony Room Club, Bar Italia and China Town to name just a few. Those sections of Soho that aren’t fully visited with a complete scene, are cleverly shown with some neat projections.
The stage at The Peacock is wide, something like forty feet and the show uses it all. Dance, acrobatics and theatre all going on. Unfortunately this is not always a good thing as at times, there is just too much going on in different corners, making it very easy to miss out on something.
Many aspects of the show work well and are a joy to watch – the live mannequin, the giant eye watching the peep show, but a lot of the scenes went on far too long – the drag act on the trapeze for one (probably not helped by there being quite a lot of trapeze work in the show anyway, which despite the undoubted skill of the performers, got a little bit repetitive).
Many scenes also held little relevance to Soho and could have been anywhere; The random homo-erotic gym scene because “there are gyms in Soho”, and the bathroom scene (which I’ve yet to fathom out exactly what it had to do with anything) were fun to watch but just too vague in the story.
Soho Square Gardens featured in one scene – the projection showing an urban fox being persued by a foxhunt – why ??? Reminiscing sixties psychedelic trips perhaps, but nothing really again to do with Soho.
Although there are several nods to the seedy history of the area (one scene sees a pimp kicking one of his girls on the floor), so much about the area is just not portrayed, or is glossed over quite quickly. Where’s the scenes showing the multiculturalism and where’s the gentrification that has forced the closure of so many of the iconic venues shown? Theatres too make up a huge part of Soho life, yet barely a mention of them either. Perhaps I was expecting more to be told about the history of the area than the series of seemingly random and often irrelevant scenes we got.
The soundtrack (not live) is a mixture of hits through the decades and at times keeps the show going during the performance pieces that have gone on a little too long.
Was this a vibrant energetic show with top class performers? A definite yes. Was this a great representation of the real Soho, alas no. Go and see it for the performers and not for the Soho story.
