Tag Archives: Sam Pritchard

ROMANS: A NOVEL

★★★½

Almeida Theatre

ROMANS: A NOVEL

Almeida Theatre

★★★½

“Birch’s experimentation in form is carefully considered and exciting”

Written by Alice Birch, ‘Romans, A Novel’ is, first and foremost, an ambitious play. Spanning about 150 years, it traces the lives of the three improbably slow-aging Roman brothers. It explores themes including masculinity, trauma, individualism, and grief, paying homage to the novel as an enduring literary form all the while. Its approach is of the epic kind, unusual for our day and age, while its exploration of masculinity could not be more topical. Still, ‘Romans’ does not manage to live up to its full potential.

The story is set in three eras, which are matched by the novelistic form roughly dominant at the time depicted. The first half of the play takes place in the first four decades of the 20th century, tracing the lives of the brothers in a somewhat chronological and realist fashion. World War Two features only as a break both in the play and in style – the postwar era and present day which feature after the interval take on a much more fragmentary and satirical tone in homage to modernist and postmodernist literary traditions. Under Sam Pritchard’s direction, the cast jumps effectively between these different styles, while Agnes O’Casey (as the eldest brother’s wife and daughter) and Stuart Thompson (as Edmund, the youngest Roman brother) offer particularly vivid standout performances.

Birch’s experimentation in form is carefully considered and exciting but, beyond the stylistic, her joint engagement with the novel and masculinity feels incomplete. Literary scholars have argued that the eighteenth-century origins of the novel are intertwined with the rise of individualism and a modern understanding of the self. The novel’s fascination with the individual resounds in the selfishness that characterises masculinity in the play, something illustrated by Marlow (Oliver Johnstone) and Jack’s (Kyle Soller) obsession with professional success and disregard for their wives and children. But much of the effectiveness of a novel depends on the strength of its narrative voice and the compelling idiosyncrasies of its characters. This is something Birch’s play lacks. By dealing mostly in fleeting but familiar male types – the cruel boarding school master, the druggy cult guru, the obnoxious billionaire –, ‘Romans’ feels like a slideshow of performed masculinities rather than a more fundamental, psychological exploration of what produces them. The most compelling character is the youngest Roman brother, Edmund (Stuart Thompson), who fails to live up to expectations of manliness, but his story is given frustratingly little time on stage. As such, Birch fails to fully convey an original take on her subject matter in this two-and-a-half-hour whirlwind of a story.

Despite this, it’s a compelling watch: the staging is gorgeous, with Merle Hensel’s stunning revolving platform being used to great effect in combination with movement director Hannes Langlof’s careful choreography. Lee Curran’s moody lighting provides an especially atmospheric quality to the first half of the play and, together with Benjamin Grant’s sound design, greatly aids the depiction of a tragic suicide in the first act.

Ambitious and sprawling, Alice Birch’s play is a fascinating experiment in form, though perhaps this is also its weak point. While its engagement with masculinity ultimately feels more descriptive than analytical, ‘Romans’ is an exciting watch.



ROMANS: A NOVEL

Almeida Theatre

Reviewed on 18th September 2025

by Lola Stakenburg

Photography by Marc Brenner


 

Previously reviewed at this venue:

A MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN | ★★★★★ | June 2025
1536 | ★★★★★ | May 2025
RHINOCEROS | ★★★★ | April 2025
OTHERLAND | ★★★★ | February 2025
WOMEN, BEWARE THE DEVIL | ★★★★ | February 2023

 

 

ROMANS

ROMANS

ROMANS

Mates in Chelsea

Mates in Chelsea

★★★

Royal Court Theatre

MATES IN CHELSEA at the Royal Court Theatre

★★★

Mates in Chelsea

“There’s a panto energy too, especially in Rory Mullarkey’s script which is laden with one liners”

I leave the theatre feeling a little empty. A play that set out as a call to arms for class warfare has fallen strangely flat. For a while I struggle to put my finger on what didn’t work. How did a play that should be such an easy laugh not quite manage it?

The concept is strong, if straight out of a PG Wodehouse. In modern day London, Tug Bungay (Laurie Kynaston) is a professional viscount. He, along with his fabulously posh, fabulously camp best mate Charlie (an absolute standout George Fouracres) is a profligate wastrel, ambling through his charmed life without aim or purpose. Until his mother (scene stealer Fenella Woolgar) informs him that the money is gone and she’s selling his castle to a mysterious never-photographed Russian oligarch. Cue a series of farcical antics to keep the castle in Tug’s hands, how handy that Charlie has the phone number of a cultural costumer…

It’s pacey, and Act II has some really strong comic moments – mistaken identity and ridiculously over the top impressions are always a laugh. Sam Pritchard’s direction makes the plays feel like a Victorian parlour game, with people popping out at convenient moments, only to return for punchline reveals. There’s a panto energy too, especially in Rory Mullarkey’s script which is laden with one liners – every line is a joke, which can be fun, but does emphasise how few manage to land.

The trouble is – what’s the point? If it were a PG Wodehouse it wouldn’t matter. His genius was writing a satire which never acknowledged being a satire, and simply existed on one level – the farcical ridiculousness poked enough fun at the British upper class that there was no need for Bertie Wooster to make wry remarks about mortgages. Anthony Neilson wrote an excellent article in defence of story on stage, arguing that plays need not have ‘a message’. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with, and this play might have worked better if it had just tried to do one thing. While there are some strong farcical moments, it gets a bit lost in a convoluted socio-political commentary. It winds up too toothless for a satire yet too worthy for a farce.

“There are some moments of great, silly fun, and some interesting social comment.”

The cast are strong. Woolgar is wonderful, subtly treading the line between comic and tragic. Also, Amy Booth-Steel as Tug’s Leninist housekeeper is fabulous, albeit in a part which is at best uncomfortable and at worst feels like a revamping of the old stereotype of the idiotic help.

Milla Clarke’s design conjures the tone well, the first half is a minimalist Chelsea apartment, complete with pop art portrait of Tug. The second half takes place at Tug’s castle, which is designed like an ‘80s Tim Burton film – high hedges and a hanging pop horror sign welcoming us to Digby Grange. Perhaps a bit of a mixed visual metaphor but it is fun, and in keeping with the tone of the play.

The irony of this play being at the Royal Court, situated in the heart of Sloane Square cannot be ignored. The biggest laughs were knowing insider chuckles, rather than at targeted anti-aristocrat barbs. Throughout, it is not clear who the intended butt of the joke is.

There are some moments of great, silly fun, and some interesting social comment. But the whole thing feels weighed down with intention, and that makes it hard to relax into the comedy, or enjoy it as a satire.


MATES IN CHELSEA at the Royal Court Theatre

Reviewed on 14th November 2023

by Auriol Reddaway

Photography by Manuel Harlan

 

 

 

 

Previously reviewed at this venue:

For Black Boys … | ★★★★★ | April 2022
Black Superhero | ★★★★ | March 2023
Cuckoo | ★★½ | July 2023

MATES IN CHELSEA

MATES IN CHELSEA

Click here to read all our latest reviews