, ,

Does Theatre Have A Bullying Problem?

I could hold an AGM at The London Palladium with the psychopaths, creeps and thugs I have encountered in theatre. 

Can I confide in you? It worries me.

Theatre likes to think of itself as progressive, moral, and vaguely heroic. It produces work about injustice while practising it backstage with alarming efficiency. Silence continues to cloak abuses of power, and senior figures who enjoy public reverence and private impunity remain conspicuously quiet.

I started at the bottom, as most people do, and learned early that talent is optional but survival skills are essential. Over time, patterns emerge. There is the incompetent manager promoted for reasons known only to them. The senior figure with “eccentricities” everyone is expected to indulge. The table-banging executive who speaks in third person and confuses fear with respect. The intimidator who “gets things done”, usually at the expense of everyone else’s nervous system.

The older you get, the easier it is to spot the phonies. And I just think: how unpleasant for them. Imagine waking up every day and being that exhausting.

Power imbalances in theatre are extreme, and freelancing has made them worse. If you are hired job to job, production to production, the message is clear: complain and disappear. Many freelance workers now call for stronger anti-bullying protections written directly into contracts, alongside clear and genuinely safe routes for complaints. Ask people where they would go if something went wrong and most will tell you: nowhere. Or worse, they’ll laugh.

Research bears this out. The Class Ceiling report found that more than half of working-class Mancunian creatives have experienced bullying, harassment or bias linked to social class. Broadcasting union Bectu reports that 15% of workers have felt bullied at work, and that 74% believe behaviour unacceptable in other sectors is routinely tolerated in television. Theatre, naturally, assumes it is different. It isn’t.

One reason is structural. Many arts organisations have no meaningful HR function at all. Personnel issues are dealt with informally, inconsistently, or not at all. Often, the people at the top of the organisation are both the culprits and the ones theoretically responsible for addressing complaints. This is not an oversight. It is a design feature. It leaves those on the receiving end with nowhere to turn and everything to lose.

Either way, “The Arts” is a closed shop. Rock the boat and you will be remembered, not for your work, but for your inconvenience. The reputational memory of the sector is long, selective, and rarely kind. This, to me, is the problem. Not bad apples, but a hierarchal system that quietly rewards them. A rotten cart. 

Incredibly, there are signs of movement. Legal changes now prevent non-disclosure agreements being used to silence victims of harassment and discrimination, a welcome step in an industry where NDAs have been less about protection and more about reputation management. But enforcement matters. Without it, the law becomes another polite suggestion. Well, I almost feel bad admitting it, but I should say in general I have found writing about, calling out and asking tough questions during these turbulent years rather cathartic. The routine is pretty therapeutic. And I am grateful to those people who I look up to who so often privately encourage me. 

Anyway. The government’s long-promised freelance champion could help maintain pressure and accountability, yet delays persist. When asked recently, Lisa Nandy’s department said the appointment would happen “as swiftly as possible”, which is Westminster shorthand for “don’t hold your breath”. I would probably be filthy rich if I didn’t have morals and a chip on my shoulder. Alas, I wouldn’t trade my reputation for anyone’s in that circle.

So does theatre have a bullying problem? I think the better question is simpler: is this good enough? Is this acceptable? For an industry that generates serious revenue and international prestige for the UK, the lack of safeguarding is stark. For one that prides itself on empathy, it is embarrassing.

Any other business? Well, I worked at an arts organisation once that didn’t have a whistleblowing policy – and where the CEO didn’t have a job description. How can anyone be held to account in these circumstances. Spoiler: they can’t.

Theatre loves an audience. What it struggles with is scrutiny. Join a union. 

For now, can I confide in you? It worries me.

, , ,

American Psycho

LATE to the party, as always. It’s taken a flurry of gushing reviews to make me realise that something curious has been going on at the Almeida Theatre in Islington.

It’s a blood-soaked electro-pop musical called American Psycho, and the phrase “murderously bad” could have been invented for this show.

You could call it “so bad it’s good”, but that would massively underestimate the scale of what’s happening here: it reflects the vacancy it criticises, and the cleverness is unpleasant.
And it is all surface and whacking emphasis. I have nothing really to say about Lynn Page’s feeble choreography.

This production isn’t afraid of being silly (which is its chief charm) and I thought the violence was managed half well – in some ways some of the jokes are funny.

Emptiness is a recurring theme – is murder a defence against death? I’m interested in how exact it could be – I saw a character of sculpted blankness that was interesting- but very sleekly charming; we see his fragility break down.

The central part is played, repellently, by rising star Arty Froushan, whose convincing performance (this is a demanding role – but his singing voice is variable) is at once eerily disturbing and edgily comic, bringing ultimate narcissist Patrick Bateman chillingly to life.

The kind thing to say would be that American Psycho – first staged here in 2013 – belongs to a long tradition of messy, risk-taking pieces that feel less like coherent productions than a bold miscellany in search of an editor. (See: Tammy Faye.)

In fact, director Goold has a visual sense of menace, but he isn’t very gifted with musical theatre actors, and he doesn’t seem to have any feeling at all for motivation or for plot logic. It urgently needs to be cut back to a manageable 2 hours.

Nonetheless, this timely revival also marks the end of an era at the Almeida and the close of Rupert Goold’s 13-year tenure: 72 productions, 14 transfers to the West End (11 of them to New York), and an extraordinary haul of 21 Olivier Awards — a remarkable achievement.

Anyhow. The plot? Wall Street yuppie Bateman, who, between raking in money and dining at exclusive restaurants, secretly indulges a brutal compulsion to murder, on a sleek monochrome set by Es Devlin (it’s different to the previous iteration).
Or does he?

In truth, Goold’s deadpan and expensive production is so epically, wonderfully, galactically awful at times that it somehow becomes brilliant. In fact, it’s absolute drilled havoc. Laughs will only come accidentally.
Ugh. At one point, a character announces: “Maybe this schism is just a symptom of late capitalism.”

One of the show’s best-worst songs rhymes ironically with Manolo Blahnik. Elsewhere, Les Miserablès is ridiculously rhymed with The Phantom of the Opera. ‘Crème de menthe’ with ‘Oscar de la Renta’.

And chiming “story” with “memento mori”.
You get the picture, I trust.
Meanwhile, the all-singing, all-dancing ensemble rounds off every third or fourth neon scene with Eighties pop numbers — In the Air Tonight, Don’t You Want Me — that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that has happened in the previous hour.

And if you leave your preconceptions at the door, you might just love it. It’s a fable – it’s a warning. Yet it twists in and out of working. There’s a porn movie soundtrack constantly throbbing around in the background and the second half drags like hell.

It does, though, get some spiky dynamics right. Underneath the mask of sanity is the psychopathy.

Yet with each passing decade, American Psycho seems to become more resonant — and Bateman more in step with the nutty times.
Of course, Donald Trump is Bateman’s hero and even makes a brief appearance. The joke does wear thin and that’s a bit of a sadness for theatre. It is all a bit odd and jolts you in the sheer futility of sitting among polite, well-dressed people in a theatre while the carnage still rages outside.

If nothing else, American Psycho cuts to the quick and is a sharp reminder that The Old Vic’s next artistic director made the Almeida zing – an exceptionally effective curator of gloriously, striking and freewheeling theatre. Take a bow.

American Psycho Runs until 14 March.

, , ,

The Best Theatre To See In 2026 


Hello to you,

I’m fine thanks for asking.

Most of this newsletter has been stuck in drafts for a week or two because I have been busy. It was a different time, last week, and society has moved on. 

Here it is. 

Cheers!

Carl W x

Orphans
Jermyn Street Theatre
5–24 January 2026
Lyle Kessler’s Tony-nominated play about two orphaned brothers living on the edge in Philadelphia. Forbes Masson, Chris Walley and Fred Woodley Evans star in an intense revival in an intimate space.

Eat the Rich (but maybe not me mates x)
Soho Theatre
12–31 January 2026
The sold-out Edinburgh Fringe hit arrives in London, directed by Tatenda Shamiso. Already tipped for a screen adaptation, returns are expected to be snapped up fast.

Arcadia
Old Vic Theatre
24 January – 21 March 2026
Tom Stoppard’s modern classic returns in an in-the-round staging, its themes of time, loss and knowledge newly resonant following the playwright’s death last year.


The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry
Theatre Royal Haymarket
29 January – 18 April 2026
Adapted from Rachel Joyce’s novel, with music by Passenger, this West End transfer favours emotional generosity over spectacle.

American Psycho
Almeida Theatre
22 January – 14 March 2026
Oh my God. Rupert Goold revisits his musical adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’s novel ahead of his move to run the Old Vic. Expect a sharper second take.

The Constant Wife
UK tour – opens Blackpool
From January 2026
Kara Tointon stars in Laura Wade’s adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s comedy, directed by Tamara Harvey. The tour launches in Blackpool soon before travelling nationwide and concluding aboard the Queen Mary 2 during a transatlantic crossing.

Broken Glass
Young Vic
February 2026
Arthur Miller’s rarely staged late play is directed by Jordan Fein, currently acclaimed for Into the Woods at the Bridge Theatre.

Dracula
Noël Coward Theatre
4 February – 30 May 2026
Kip Williams returns to the one-actor, multi-role format that made The Picture of Dorian Gray a sensation. Cynthia Erivo plays all 23 roles.

Double Indemnity
UK tour – opens Eastbourne
From February 2026
Mischa Barton makes her UK stage debut in an adaptation of James M Cain’s noir classic, directed by Oscar Toeman.

Yentl
Marylebone Theatre
6 March – 12 April 2026
The acclaimed Yiddish-English production from Kadimah Yiddish Theatre arrives in London after award-winning international runs. One to get to pronto. 

Teeth ’n’ Smiles
Duke of York’s Theatre
13 March – 6 June 2026
Rebecca Lucy Taylor (Self Esteem) stars in David Hare’s play about a washed-up rock star, directed by Daniel Raggett.

John Proctor Is the Villain
Royal Court Theatre
20 March – 25 April 2026
Kimberly Belflower’s Broadway hit arrives in the UK as part of the Royal Court’s 70th anniversary season. Exciting innit. 

Inter Alia
West End
19 March – 20 June 2026
Rosamund Pike stars in Suzie Miller’s follow-up to Prima Facie, transferring after a sold-out National Theatre run. Catch it if you can. 

Romeo and Juliet
Harold Pinter Theatre
16 March – 6 June 2026
Sadie Sink and Noah Jupe make their West End stage debuts in Robert Icke’s new production. This will be guaranteed to be interesting.

Grace Pervades
Theatre Royal Haymarket
From April 2026
Ralph Fiennes stars as Victorian acting legend Henry Irving opposite Miranda Raison’s Ellen Terry in this transfer from Theatre Royal Bath. Quality drama. 

Please Please Me
Kiln Theatre
16 April – 23 May 2026
Tom Wright’s new play explores the rise of The Beatles through the story of their manager Brian Epstein, directed by Amit Sharma. Fab. 

Care
Young Vic
From May 2026
Alexander Zeldin’s first new play since The Inequalities, focusing on Britain’s care system. Interesting all round. 

Fourteen Again

The Victoria Wood Theatre 

8- 30 May 2026 

Ten years after her death, the creator of Acorn Antiques will be honoured with a theatre bearing her name when the former Old Laundry Theatre in Bowness-on-Windermere becomes the Victoria Wood Theatre this January. This is a musical by Tom MacRae, based on Wood’s songs. I can’t wait.

End of the Rainbow

Soho Theatre Walthamstow 

15 May – 21 June 2026

Jinkx Monsoon stars as Judy Garland in Peter Quilter’s play about the singer’s final months. Brilliant. 

Pride

National Theatre

11 June – 12 September 2026

Matthew Warchus adapts his 2014 film into a new musical. Let us hope it is good. 

Jesus Christ Superstar

London Palladium 

20 June – 5 September 2026

Eurovision songbird Sam Ryder stars as Jesus in a new staging with choreography by Drew McOnie and design by Tom Scutt.

Kimberly Akimbo

Hampstead Theatre

28 August – 7 November 2026

The Tony-winning Broadway musical about a teenager who ages four times faster than normal makes its London debut.

Golden Boy 

Almeida Theatre 

8 September – 31 October 2026

Josh O’Connor stars alongside a live string quartet, directed by Sam Yates.

, , ,

Top 5 Shows of 2025 🏆

You have probably been wondering about the five best British theatre shows of the last twelve months. Well, here you go.

And the best shows of 2025 are…

  1. Kenrex

Jack Holden delivers a brilliant and harrowing monodrama at The Other Palace, based on the true story of a violent US psychopath in small-town Missouri.

Co-written with Ed Stambollouian, Holden’s storytelling is masterful. The music is fantastic, with multiple microphones used to convey Holden’s range of voices. Top dollar theatre.

2. Stereophonic

This struck a chord with me. The story of a fictional 70s British-American rock band trying to make an album for compelling drama resonated with me. The searing songs became the source of much drama, particularly when the group fought over which would make the final album.

To be sure: Stereophonic isn’t a jukebox musical, nor is it by-the-numbers biography. This was a sophisticated and classy production that stood out in a year of movie musicals and deadbeat celebrity reimaginings and revivals.

  1. All My Sons

Bryan Cranston, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Paapa Essiedu and Hayley Squires shone in Ivo van Hove’s terrific production -Van Hove raised Arthur Miller’s rebuttal of the American Dream to something akin to Greek tragedy.

He also chucked out anything not strictly necessary: he proves it does not have to be radical in terms of staging or the treatment of text itself.

The performance is almost entirely underscored with an atmospheric, solemn score. Electrifying and heartbreaking.

4. Into The Woods Stephen Sondheim’s fiendish score was carried with panache by the immaculate cast in this first London production for almost a decade. James Lapine’s story weaves together several fairy tales, including “Cinderella”, “Rapunzel”, “Jack and the Beanstalk”, and “Little Red Riding Hood”.

    Tom Scutt’s affecting costume and set designs added to the cinematic spell. It was a profoundly moving experience, and I can’t wait to watch it again.

      5. Jesus Christ Superstar

      Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 1971 Biblical rock musical was strikingly relevant in this powerful summer staging at the Watermill Theatre, Newbury. It featured a large cast of talented actor-musicians and a real garden scene in Gethsemane.

      This memorable revival played to the intimate 220 seat venue, making it a major success and a joy. A treat for all ages. Sod Evita.

      Special mention to: Inter Alia, White Horse, The Habits, One Man Musical, Much Ado About Nothing. Paddington The Musical. Evita.

      Fiascos: Burlesque – the musical, Hunger Games on stage, Elektra, Bacchae, Clarkston, Saving Mozart.

      I will take no further questions.

      Bye for now,

      Carl W x

      P.S I would like to hear about your theatre highlights and lowlights of the year. Share your thoughts now – it’s nice to hear from people.

      , , ,

      Impartiality Is Dead: We Live In Hell

      “IF you really want to get rich, start a religion.” This was the reported opinion of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard, who in 1967 bought the first in what was to become a fleet of cruise ships. 

      In truth, I take writing about theatre and reviewing it seriously to treat each newsletter and blog as an obligation, not just as a new opportunity for cracking wise. I write as I speak, and if that irritates you, unsubscribe.

      Anyway. I’ve been following the trial of Chiara Ferragni, a glamorous fashion influencer with 28 million Instagram followers, who sold Christmas cake while falsely claiming the proceeds would go to charity. Italy now requires top influencers to register with the government and face fines of up to €600,000 if they violate a new code of conduct. She could end up in jail.

      As for any lessons that might be drawn from this appallingly entertaining saga, it is probably true that influencers first took off because consumers thought of them as people they could trust. Now, though, they need to strike a balance between getting paid and remaining authentic.

      In the past fortnight alone, I’ve seen one UK theatre influencer flogging shoes to their followers to promote the Wicked movie, and another turbo-capitalist social media “critic” monetising their 30th birthday to peddle ATG gift vouchers. This is the same ATG who, earlier this week, outrageously asked casual staff to “volunteer” their time to decorate the West End home of Wicked for Christmas, plans hurriedly abandoned after complaints. We live in hell.

      ‘Is this the best gift a theatre fan could ask for?’ Spoiler: NO.

      Yet I’m not sure most theatre influencers have clocked that aligning with companies like ATG erodes credibility and dignity, especially now. Creativity and criticism, in my view, are more continuous than opposed, but there is such thing as a conflict of interest.

      It’s an open secret that many arts PRs try to dissuade influencers from labelling posts as ads, fearing reduced engagement. In last year’s Mobius survey, a quarter listed influencer relations and online content campaigns among their top five responsibilities, up from 3 percent the year before.

      But I’m racing ahead. Perhaps criticism once mattered. Conventional wisdom says it doesn’t anymore. Where reasoned debate and knowledgeable analysis once flourished, we now have a gaggle of influencers and marketing algorithms. Everyone’s a critic. Maybe no one is.

      Do traditional print and broadcast critics have anyone but themselves to blame for their increasingly dodo-like status? A handful of excellent reviewers remain: Susannah Clapp, Clive Davis, Dominic Cavendish, Jarlath O’Connell, Nick Curtis, Sarah Crompton, Mark Fisher, Sam Marlowe and, yes, I’ll even add Lloyd Evans (cancel me if you must). Some still have loyal followings, but most are now barely distinguishable from the unpaid amateurs crowding the landscape.


      Whichever way you slice it, the creator economy is lucrative. It’s expected to be worth almost 500 billion dollars (£372bn) by 2027. YouTube creators alone contributed £2.2bn to the UK economy in 2024 and supported 45,000 jobs, according to Oxford Economics. Nearly half believe their value isn’t recognised by the broader creative industry.

      Such are the sliding doors moments in our very serious industry.

      Meanwhile, 57% of Gen Zs in America would like to be a social-media influencer, according to Morning Consult, a pollster; 53% describe it as a “reputable career choice”. And on Broadway, sensing the decline of traditional theatre criticism, has turned to Instagram and TikTok as if influencers can save it. The logic seems to be: younger, more diverse audiences aren’t flocking to shows, so let influencers summon them. “Investing in high-quality, engaging influencer marketing content in 2025 is the modern equivalent of a great radio campaign in 2005,” Thomas Laub, co-executive producer of Runyonland Productions recently told Town and Country Magazine.

      This isn’t strategy; it’s panic, a tectonic rumble misread as a cure. The industry is rushing because it’s terrified to confront its own wounds. It isn’t marketing; it’s scratching at scar tissue.

      And the maths is modest. Theatre influencers, unlike food and beauty influencers, operate at a tiny scale: tens of thousands of followers, not millions. If there’s a grift here, I’m apparently too dense to spot it. The official talking point is that this is about building excitement, nurturing community, and revitalising the form. Hm.

      In effect, the sincerity is touching. The results are negligible.

      Research shows that six in ten social media creators don’t verify information before posting; Twitter, TikTok, and the rest are full of people peddling products without being open about what they receive in return. Will regulation help?

      So, yes: an art form is attempting to attach relevance by outsourcing enthusiasm to people who can compress it into 15 second clips. Whether this is resurrection or yet another symptom of decline, only the algorithm seems to care.

      In the end, I’ve noticed that many of the UK theatre influencers, whose posts are made in exchange for cash or tickets, fail to declare their connection with the organisers, as required by Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) marketing rules. Few use the necessary “#ad”, and those who do often bury it beneath a mountain of hashtags in the hope it slips through unnoticed. I am not policing anyone – you do you. Just don’t expect me to entertain this obvious load of bollocks.

      Certainly, my life has been a long act of revenge against those who tried to squelch me. It isn’t necessary to know everything. And yet, needless to say, just to remember that nobody else does either. I have grown wise.

      , , ,

      Has Theatre Finally Run Out of Ideas? 🎭

      This week, while reading The Economist, I stumbled across a terrific article titled: “Has culture in the 21st century become samey and dull?” Ooh.

      The 21st century, author W. David Marx argues, has stopped innovating. “Where society once encouraged and provided an abundance of cultural invention,” he writes in his new book, “there is now a blank space.”

      Another way to understand 21st-century Western culture, with its subtle variations and recurring patterns, is as a chronicle of relative complacency.

      Global upheavals have certainly shaken the arts, but none have matched the cataclysms that propelled the creative leaps of the early 20th century, which Marx so admires. In extremis, could today’s meme-addled creators rise to that level of genius? Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.

      Lionsgate bet that its newest franchise gamble will pay off as The Hunger Games: On Stage landed with a thud at London’s Troubadour Canary Wharf Theatre. Indeed, the latest entrant in Hollywood’s increasingly desperate flirtation with theatre.

      Spare a thought, then, for Deadline’s Baz Bamigboye, who delivered the best review of the lot: “It’s adapted by Conor McPherson from The Hunger Games books by Suzanne Collins and the film starring Jennifer Lawrence. There’s nothing more to say about it.” Oof.

      None of this is new, of course. Disney rewrote the rulebook decades ago, turning The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin into Broadway cash machines. But with studios choking on franchise fatigue and battered by unpredictable box office returns, theatrical spin-offs are no longer indulgent experiments, they are a survival strategy.

      Universal tried it last year with hit Broadway musical of Death Becomes Her. Lionsgate has gone further, building a full theatrical pipeline: a Wonder stage adaptation opens in Boston this December, while Now You See Me Live occupies the Sydney Opera House. Next year brings a La La Land musical and a new staging of Dirty Dancing. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Talented Mr Ripley, Freaky Friday, Beetlejuice & Karate Kid – The Musical. And on it goes.

      Meanwhile, the pipeline runs both ways: Wicked is now completing the holy trinity: book to stage to mega-budget film(s).

      Studios say they’re merely responding to shifting audience behaviour. “In an age dominated by digital consumption, that shared live experience is hugely appealing,” says Jenefer Brown, Lionsgate’s president of global products and experiences. It’s hard to disagree. “Experiential” remains the industry’s favourite magic word.

      Yet quietly, a more intriguing shift is underway: London has become Hollywood’s R&D department. Soaring costs in New York mean US producers are fleeing to the West End, where it’s cheaper to test, tweak, and *if necessary* crash a new show without obliterating the budget. Why risk a Broadway belly-flop when you can incubate your next franchise hit in Canary Wharf?

      If you are just joining us, the West End itself is thriving. Last year, attendance reached 17.1 million, an 11% jump above pre-pandemic levels. One American investor told me, only half-seriously: “I don’t want every producer in the States getting the same idea.”

      They already have. London’s 2024 season resembled a parade of American imports: glossy musical machines (Clueless, The Devil Wears Prada), star-led prestige offerings (Brie Larson in Elektra), and quirky experiments (Oscar at The Crown, Shucked). On the surface, this looks like an injection of new blood; beneath it lies a more troubling question: is British theatre becoming a convenient laboratory for America’s unfinished work?

      This might be easier to swallow if the West End weren’t already drowning in shows built from existing IP. Paddington: The Musical isn’t awful; it just lacks crucial musicality.

      Either way, original musicals, meanwhile, are thin on the ground. In their place: historical remixes, jukebox nostalgia, reimaginings, movie remakes.

      Producers argue that spiralling costs leave them no choice; familiar titles are the only dependable way to keep the lights on. Perhaps. But London’s stages cannot become a playground for Hollywood risk-management. Nor can they survive on a diet of recycled brands. The West End is booming, but unless we protect space for bold, original work, what’s the point? Audiences deserve more than factory-farmed storytelling dressed up as innovation.

      And it’s not just about movie musicals. Nadine Rennie, co-chair of the Casting Directors’ Guild, recently claimed that casting household names in shows is “killing” the industry.

      Are producers increasingly lazy, arrogant, or simply incompetent, or are they being unfairly chastised for paying warm homage to the movies and intellectual property they, and we, grew up with? And after 2,500 years of this thing we call theatre, are the chances of writing something brand new simply, mathematically, fewer?

      So let’s put some sensible bans in place: no more staging movie adaptations purely to cash in, no more flying in celebrities to drain the energy from a production, and no more long-running shows monopolising our great West End theatres.

      Anyway. Broadway diva Patti LuPone nailed it this week when she said: “I think that Congress, federal and Supreme Court judges, and Broadway musicals should have term limits.”

      That’s all.

      , , ,

      I Went Along To Paddington The Musical 

      LET’S get one thing clear: this is a full-on charm offensive of a stage musical. The marmalade-loving bear’s popularity and marketability have elevated him to the status of what author Nikesh Shukla once called “the good immigrant.”

      So then, to Luke Sheppard’s lavish, no-expense-spared production at The Savoy Theatre, London. The directors love of the material is palpable; he handles the cast immaculately. It is bursting with fun, wit, and imagination. Announced for a limited run but now extended to a full year, Paddington The Musical could easily have been cynical. Instead, it’s cheerful, idiosyncratic, and occasionally profound. 

      The basic story is scanty: loosely following the narrative of the first film, a Peruvian cub arrives in London, finds sanctuary with the Brown family, and stumbles through a series of well-meaning disasters before a climactic encounter at the Natural History Museum. The book by Jessica Swale is fine – the jokes often double back on the people who make them. You feel great pleasure watching this, even if it doesn’t entirely hold in the mind afterward.

      The musical is currently in the midst of a month-long preview run — yet every major publication appears to have been to see it;  The Sunday Times reportedly had to sign an NDA to cover it. So, I went along to the third preview to see what all the secrecy was about.

      This stage show doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is: a slapstick musical comedy with a sentimental heart. Yet beneath the spectacle, it gently explores what “home” means for those who’ve migrated—a surprisingly resonant theme amid all the marmalade. This is an ensemble piece; every cast member seemingly gets their chance to shine. 

      Of course, the musical theme-park ride that results isn’t the most authentic thing in the world. There’s a McFly in the ointment, so to speak—Tom Fletcher’s pop-infused score is not really that great; it occasionally tips into overbearing, and lyrics drift toward the banal. 

      The best song by a county mile is Marmalade

      “Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma Ma-Ma Marmalade”

      Still, there are moments of genuine emotion and a handful of guitar-driven anthems that will delight the ADHD generation. Think Magic FM; Diet Tim Minchin. 

      Anyhow, Fletcher told Radio Times about playing the songs to his band mates for the first time: “Dougie and Harry came to one of the workshops—they wanted to see if they’d cry. They did.” Make of that what you will. There’s plenty to work on here, but also much to admire. I think there are lots of pantomime elements, too. 

      There’s something irresistibly British about a small bear in a duffel coat attempting to make sense of human life. So it feels only right that Paddington: The Musical—a decade in the making—should finally find its home on the London stage. And what a feat of theatrical engineering it is: a production that unites cutting-edge puppetry, West End muscle, and the unflappable charm of a bear from Peru who just wants to do the right thing.

      At the Savoy Theatre, Paddington is brought to life through an ingenious partnership. Offstage performer and remote puppeteer James Hameed provides the voice, while Arti Shah—an actor and seasoned creature performer—embodies the beloved bear live on stage. Together, they’ve created something both playful and precise: a walking, talking, singing Paddington who is, as the producers put it, “part toy, part real bear.” The work here is so generous in its feelings that it makes one feel maternal and protective. In my experience, most directors who make sweet musicals are unskilled, and you’re supposed to forgive them their incompetence because of their niceness. 

      This is often transcendently sweet. It sends you out happy. It is true, though, that some people have totally lost the plot.

      Anyway. Producers Sonia Friedman and Eliza Lumley have been quietly nurturing this show for six years. “After many years of exploration and development, we are thrilled, alongside StudioCanal, to finally bring Paddington to life on stage,” they say. “What we always hoped to achieve was, quite simply, Paddington on stage—and thanks to the immensely talented artists, we believe we’ve realised that.”

      By way of background, back in 2016, when StudioCanal acquired the live rights to Paddington, Lumley—then head of theatre at Universal Music UK—saw theatrical potential in things. But how do you make a bear sing without looking ridiculous? Enter Star Wars creature designer Neal Scanlan, who guided the team toward a subtler, filmic approach to stage illusion.

      Tahra Zafar, a veteran of the London 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony, led bear design, drawing inspiration from Peggy Fortnum’s classic illustrations. “A realistic bear wasn’t the way,” she explains. “He’s a bear who wants to be human—part toy, part real.” The result is what the team calls “puppetry without strings”—a meticulously designed bear suit inhabited by a very talented small person.

      Then again, launching a new musical in 2025 remains a high-wire act. “The New York model has broken,” Friedman recently said. “If America sneezes, we get a cold.” With costs having almost doubled since 2017 and Broadway’s post-pandemic slump, this production feels like an act of faith. There is fun, wit and imagination in Shepperd’s production; Tom Pye’s gorgeously detailed set brings around the scenes smoothly but the pace still sags in the second act.

      But look, here’s the take: if any show can melt the collective heart of the West End, it’s this one. Paddington: The Musical believes—against the odds—in decency, warmth, and the transformative power of imagination.

      And in an age when even Spitting Image has tried to twist Paddington into a gun-toting delinquent (a High Court battle now looms), Friedman and Lumley’s version stands as quiet defiance: the bear as beacon.

      What emerges at the Savoy is a pipingly sweet production brimming with heart and handcrafted wonder. A blissful present. Shah and Hameed’s synchronicity allows audiences to forget the mechanics and simply believe. For two magical hours, the lights dim, the music swells, and the nation’s most polite immigrant takes his rightful place—centre stage. I just wish the songs were better.

      Paddington: The Musical is now playing at the Savoy Theatre, London.

      , , ,

      ‘Hunger Games: on Stage’ — If a show in a purpose-built venue isn’t ready, don’t put it in front of the public

      GATHER round, citizens of Panem—or rather, Canary Wharf—as London’s sleek financial district transforms into the Capitol. The occasion? A brand-new £26 million theatre, purpose-built for The Hunger Games: on stage, Suzanne Collins’ blockbuster reborn as a sci-fi theatre spectacle.

      Brilliant architect Stephen Tompkins — a 21st-century Frank Matcham — sees the theatre as “a space in which strangers can meet at peace in a city.” It’s a vision the management at Troubadour Canary Wharf would do well to heed. When I interviewed Tompkins, he told me that an excellent theatre is, above all, a very good host. The team at Troubadour Canary Wharf might take that to heart.

      And so – to the first preview. Lowlights are too numerous to cover in full here, audience members complained about the late start, ladders strewn on balconies, long queues and total disorganisation citing ongoing construction work at the new Canary Wharf venue.

      What’s more, the whole sorry affair was captured in real-time, due to this generation’s obsession with filming the events of their own lives and posting them on social media.

      The venue itself, the Troubadour, is a 26-metre-tall temporary monolith of aluminium and steel covering 2,250 square metres. It’s more spaceship than playhouse. Constructed from 42,000 modular components, the theatre can be dismantled, packed into 150 lorries, and reassembled elsewhere—should anyone dare to try again. Think IKEA but moveable. Chaos. 

      And chaos it was: “Quite late in the day today, we had an illness with an actor,” director Matthew Dunster announced before curtain up. “One of our understudies will do all the lines from the side of the stage, while our fight director performs her own fights.” Reader, they did the show. That’s the spirit of the arena right there.

      Earlier that day, though, dozens of hi-vis-clad workers were still hammering away and jet washing. Tower Hamlets Council confirmed that the building had yet to be fully signed off by building control—standard procedure, apparently, until all “snagging” is complete. Translation: hold your breath and hope the gantry holds.

      Typically, accessibility is another issue: a single lift for a 2,250-square-metre venue feels less Capitol, more career-ending oversight. Toilets without locks or hand dryers? No paper towels. Incorrect signage. You couldn’t make it up.

      Christ, the first preview began an hour late, and with a three-hour plus running time, surviving audience members didn’t leave until 11:45 p.m. The mood was reportedly somewhere between confusion and delirium. 

      Alas, previews are designed to iron out wrinkles—but when the project manager has been fired a week before opening, you might need more than an iron.

      Director Dunster and adapter Conor McPherson (using the first book and film as source material) are no strangers to big swings, and designer Miriam Buether is renowned for bold visual flair. 

      Yet when ticket prices soar to £365, audiences deserve more than a dress rehearsal with exposed cables, wet paint and scaffolding. High ticket prices alienate risk-taking theatregoers—the very people who sustain London’s creative ecosystem.

      For my money, the whole dystopian debacle recalls the farcical opening of Manchester’s Co-Op Live arena. One insider summed it up neatly: “The restaurant I was asked to help on isn’t even built.” And – “it should have been cancelled; I was there a week ago and no ducting had been installed.” 

      In other words, it’s almost too ripe for parody—a totalitarian survival contest. Producers have 4 weeks of previews to sort this out. I suggest they get organised.

      So perhaps it’s time for everyone to stop pretending chaos is part of the charm. Previews are not supposed to be survival contests—they’re meant to prepare, not punish. This isn’t tittle-tattle; previews exist for a good reason. As Burlesque: The Musical proved, a show that isn’t ready for public viewing will reveal every crack. Let alone a new venue. 
      Anyway, a lively week. I have contacted a PR representative for The Hunger Games stage adaptation for comment. No reply yet.

      Hm. The Hunger Games: On Stage may eventually find its rhythm, but for now, this is theatre as endurance sport. Just postpone it. Or, to borrow IT wisdom: have you tried turning the theatre off and on again?

      The Hunger Games: On Stage is at Troubadour Canary Wharf theatre, Londonuntil 15 February 2026

      , , ,

      British Theatre Is Failing The Working Class


      CLASS has always played a part in my life, from my childhood in a council house to my commitment and militant passion that theatre should be for everyone. 

      When I was a kid, I remember my dad asking, “When are you going to get a real job?” I’d done well in my GCSE’s — the creative subjects and ones I enjoyed — I wanted to pursue these subjects at A level. I was determined to become the first in my family to go to university. But he (a health and safety executive) still believed that people didn’t make money from the arts. 

      In reality, that mindset runs deep. Many working-class people still see the arts as something not meant for them — a world that feels distant, exclusive, and unattainable. We need to change that urgently.

      That said, I can socialise with my well-off theatre friends, but I’ll never think like them. I’ll never see the world through the lense of privilege. Many of them dismiss “working class” as an outdated idea — but it isn’t. Being working class isn’t about what job you do, or whether you work at all. It’s about the circumstances you’re born into — the values, the outlook, and the barriers that shape how you see and move through the world.

      The UK’s creative industries are frequently hailed as an engine of innovation and soft power. But behind the rhetoric lies a persistent class divide in who gets to participate, study and succeed in creative fields. Research from the Sutton Trust (A Class Act, 2024) highlights that people from professional and managerial backgrounds dominate elite roles across film, television, music and the performing arts. Working-class representation in many creative occupations has halved over recent decades. Oh dear.

      Private-school alumni are dramatically overrepresented among leading actors and classical musicians despite only 7% of the population being privately educated. As Sutton Trust CEO Nick Harrison has argued, “Talented young people from poorer homes are being blocked from studying creative arts degrees and breaking into creative professions.”

      That class divide starts early. Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) data show that children’s access to arts subjects is shrinking. Its Report Card 2024 found a 42% decline in GCSE arts entries since 2010 and steep falls in A-level entries. The number of arts teachers in state secondary schools in England has fallen by over a quarter since 2011, with hours of arts teaching dropping by more than 20%. These cuts hit state schools and disadvantaged areas hardest, reducing the chances of nurturing skills and interests in arts and design.

      Arts Council England’s own Equality, Diversity and Inclusion data show similar structural issues. While there has been some progress in diversifying leadership and workforce on ethnicity, disability and gender, socio-economic diversity remains a blind spot. ACE repeatedly states that it wants “the diversity of audiences, leaders, producers and creators of creativity and culture to reflect the diversity of contemporary England,” but its reports show that this ambition is far from realised.

      The arts are not where they should be in education system: centre stage. Campaign groups continue to be vocal about this. The Campaign for the Arts warns that the decline in school arts provision and cuts to higher education funding risk turning the arts into “an elite activity” once again. Director Jack Gamble said, “The arts have a proven role in contributing to better outcomes for children and young people, but they have been sidelined and underfunded. It’s high time we turned this around.” Their analysis shows arts subjects now make up only around 7% of GCSE entries, down from 13% in 2010, with a widening participation gap between the most and least deprived young people.

      Earlier this year, an impact report, including data from the Creative Mentor Network, indicated that working-class representation across the creative industries declined from 26% in 2020 to 19% in 2023. I am only surprised that figure isn’t lower. 

      Over the weekend, I was thrilled to hear from James Graham that he and producers for the West End run of Punch have decided that any profits made from the production will go towards the show being accessible to young people around the UK and beyond in the future.

      Elsewhere, the evidence points to systemic rather than incidental barriers. Unpaid internships, expensive audition fees, and shrinking public provision all privilege those with private means. Campaigners and researchers recommend targeted investment in arts education in disadvantaged schools, banning unpaid roles and costly audition fees, and making public funding conditional on socio-economic inclusion.

      Indeed, when creative leadership and storytelling are drawn from a narrow social base, the range of stories, voices and experiences on stage, page and screen narrows too. If Britain’s culture is to be truly representative, policy and funding must treat class with the same seriousness as race, gender and disability — and rebuild routes that allow talent to flourish regardless of background.

      The strata of class are varied and vast. Many leading artists warn that this entrenched “class ceiling” is stifling innovation and creativity. As actor Christopher Eccleston, who grew up in Salford, recently told The Guardian:

      “If you grow up in the north-west, you don’t feel culture and the arts belong to you. You don’t believe that if you come from a council estate you can be an actor, a poet, or a painter.”

      I’m encouraged to see former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal, now Chancellor of the University of Manchester, leading efforts to improve working-class representation in the creative industries across Greater Manchester. Given the Labour government’s limited success in addressing this crisis nationally, focusing on local solutions is a brilliant and much-needed approach.

      “There is a wealth of research showing that working class representation in UK creative industries is at its lowest level in decades and many leading artists have warned that the class ceiling is holding back innovation and creativity,” Afzal said. Yet that can no longer be an excuse for failing to ensure class is treated as an equal marker of diversity and inclusion — in how we monitor employment practices, set targets for commissioning and grants, and confer awards.

      For a time, there was a proactive effort to address the imbalance of working-class representation in the theatre industry: a group called Common. It aimed to unite working-class creatives through mentoring, campaigning, and the creation of a database — a practical resource for producers, employers, and funders seeking working-class directors, writers, or choreographer, for example.

      Alas — as is too often the case — a mix of structural pressures, compounded by the impact of the pandemic led to the group disbanding. 

      Thus it increasingly frustrating to know that every pound invested in the arts generates a £1.27 return for the local economy. Investing in the arts isn’t just good economics—it’s a catalyst for growth, a source of social cohesion, and a powerful vehicle for cultural empowerment.

      What’s worse, financial exploitation in theatre is rife — from the reliance on unpaid interns (great news for those who can afford it) to volunteer community choruses padding out productions, and freelancers paid so little they’re struggling to put food on the table amid a relentless cost of living crisis.

      We know that many talented creative workers have left or are considering leaving the theatre industry; this is not acceptable – freelancers make up almost half of the workforce. Without freelancers, the industry simply wouldn’t exist. The only reason I’m still here — writing about the industry, working in it, and fighting for it — is because I’m stubborn, and, frankly, resilient to a fault.

      How do we ensure that people from the working classes find pathways into the arts? How do we move away from ‘connections, connections, connections’? Who tells the story determines the story that is told. And it is bloody obvious that economic growth would be increased, risk-taking enhanced and consumers better-served if arts organisations had more staff from less privileged upbringings. Duh. 

      Anyway, for all of the efforts made by many of you still reading this, it should shame us all that British theatre is one of the most centralised and exclusive industries in the UK.

      , , , ,

      Hamlet at the National Theatre

      Andrew Scott has ruined my life. His unforgettable fresh-minted Hamlet was mercurial, devastating, and left a profound mark on me.

      Bernard Shaw defined Hamlet brilliantly: his passions are those that have produced philosophy, poetry, art, and statecraft—not merely weddings, coroners’ inquests, and executions. 

      Any production of Hamlet stands or falls by its prince, one of the most complex characters in dramatic literature. The real problem arises when the weakest link in Hamlet is Hamlet himself.

      Alas, this production’s prince is flat, unfocused, and ultimately forgettable.

      Robert Hastie’s staging arrives freighted with significance: it is a showcase for Olivier Award-winner Hiran Abeysekera (Life of Pi) in the title role, and an early statement of intent under new artistic director Indhu Rubasingham. What emerges is visually striking, often witty, occasionally inspired—but muffled when it comes to the emotional force of Shakespeare’s tragedy.

      Most of the action unfolds on sparse Ben Stones’s single set: a cavernous, palatial hall, part banqueting chamber, part mausoleum. Renaissance angels and cherubs gaze down from the walls, which double as camouflage for entrances. It is a striking backdrop—eerie and atmospheric in torchlit ghost scenes, aided by Jessica Hung Han Yun’s shadow-drenched lighting design. But if it dazzles, it never quite becomes the prison of Elsinore. The same applies to the production itself: atmosphere without tension, style without substance.

      Abeysekera’s Hamlet enters not as a tortured philosopher but as a smartly dressed, forlorn figure who punctures his gloom with humour and acrobatic energy—childlike leaps, sly asides, bursts of sardonic wit. He queens out with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, grabbing their arse; his febrile, excitable prince feels modern, ADHD, full of nervous charisma.

      He darts in and out of the action, sometimes narrating his own story, and there is freshness in his conversational, ironic delivery. 

      Yet that same energy undermines the great soliloquies. “To be or not to be?” becomes throwaway, tossed off with a finger-pistol gesture and distracted by a T-shirt gag. The anguish is swallowed. Hamlet’s defining hesitancy—the struggle between thought and action—never lands.

      If Abeysekera’s prince eludes us, Francesca Mills’s Ophelia seizes the heart of the play. Mills commands the stage with a presence at once playful, tender, and moving. She brings clarity, warmth, and humour to the early scenes, then fragility to Ophelia’s madness; the rest of the production, however, fails to coalesce around her. Her performance is rooted in real emotion, providing the rare intimacy this production otherwise lacks. The estranged lovers’ chemistry—strained, touching, doomed—offers flashes of genuine poignancy. It has integrity.

      Alas, many of the strong actors in the cast seem either miscast or uncertain of the production’s vibe. Performances are uneven. Alistair Petrie’s Claudius has cool patrician cunning but zero menace. Ayesha Dharker’s Gertrude feels oddly muted. Geoffrey Streatfeild delivers a comic, earnest Polonius, dispatched absurdly by gunshot. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are well-pitched as interchangeable lackeys, and Ryan Ellsworth makes an effective, spectral Ghost. The “play-within-the-play,” with its microphones and splattered paint, rib Jamie Lloyd’s attempts at minimalism.

      There are flashes of insight. The production is alert to the play’s themes of theatre itself: Hamlet dons a ruff, a player sports a wry Blockbuster Video Store tee, the staging toys with blurring performance and reality. Abeysekera’s sardonic humour gives Hamlet a wry awareness of his place in history, even nodding to the National’s own 1963 Hamlet. Yet these meta-theatrical gestures substitute cleverness for emotional connection.

      Anyway. Abeysekera’s opportunity to play Hamlet matters—he is the first Asian actor to portray the Danish prince at the National – it’s the role every young actor dreams of, the benchmark against which they are measured. But this Hamlet enters a crowded field: in just the past few years, Luke Thallon, Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, Sir Ian McKellen, and, only weeks ago, Giles Terera have each donned the black suit, each bringing weight and definition. We have also had Fat Ham in Stratford Upon Avon.

      By contrast, Hastie’s production feels oddly underpowered and uneven. What it lacks, above all, is weight. Shakespeare’s tragedy is shadowed by death, driven by grief, alive with existential terror. Here, the questions are raised but skimmed over; the grief muffled. We are intrigued, but rarely moved.

      Francesca Mills alone provides the deep emotional tremor the production so sorely needs. Too often, what’s missing is a sense of emotional and psychological depth.

      Hamlet runs at the National Theatre until November 25.