SEARCH THIS SITE

LEE JAMES BROADWOOD Interdisciplinary Artist: Live Performance and Creative Media About Me Audiovisual Content Live Performances Written Content My Website Highlights Poetry Anthology my most recent publication, now available for purchase! More Info Order Today

PHOTOGRAPHY GALLERY Animals End of Gallery ALL GALERIES Contact Me

The Performance Critic combining critical theory and performance analysis to provide technical reviews for London’s live artists Performance Analyses Below, you will find all of the public analyses that I have published to date for free as part of my service as a live performance mentor . To return to The Performance Critic's home page at any time, please click here. Alternatively, you can click the 'Return' button at the bottom of this page. [Performance Analysis:] SEX CHAT GRANNY, Etcetera Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] FUNNY GUY, Barons Court Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] THE CLOSURE AND THE QUEST, Barons Court Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] DR DOLITTLE KILLS A MAN, London Hospital Tavern, London. [Performance Analysis:] STILL LIFE WITH ONIONS, Barons Court Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] FRANK’S CLOSET, Union Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] MARRY ME A LITTLE, Stage Door Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] A CARAVAN NAMED DESIRE, Camden People's Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] SKIN, Brockley Jack Studio Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] UNDER INFLUENCE, CryerArts Centre, London. [Performance Analysis:] WONDER DRUG: A COMEDY ABOUT CYSTIC FIBROSIS, Omnibus Theatre, London. [Performance Analysis:] SUPERNOVA, Omnibus Theatre, London. 1 2 3 4 5 RETURN TO THE PERFORMANCE CRITIC

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.” 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: Coherency in and organisation of multiple plots/narratives. Maintaining naturalism in absurdist/exaggerative performances. Effects of metatheatre and encroachment on audience territory. Maintaining clarity and depth in character development. Subtlety and revelation in plot content. 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 .

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.”

Enjoy a memorable photoshoot experience with your animal one-true-love at a location of your choice. Embark on a forest adventure, spend the day on a calm park retreat, or choose a cosy home shoot. Photoshoots take place at outside locations and home/company locations and last from one hour to a day at your discretion. Photoshoots available to clients all over England and to sanctuaries, charities and organisations. Price includes charge for photoshoot and ten digital photographs. Additional and physical photographs thereafter priced separately: £5 per additional photograph/retouch; physical photographs from £10.