
Next review is from one of our readers
Graham Spencer
JUne 2003
I love bums on seats, I really do. Much as it’s nice to spread out whilst watching a performance, its better for the cast, audience and theatre as a whole if something is playing to standing room only. Therefore I’ve never joined the outcry when a foreign ‘star’ comes and plays to sold out houses. After all, no one complains if Judi Dench sells out a run and she’s a Hollywood Darling! Besides, I actually thought Madonna, Matt Damon etc gave great performances last year and brought in the sort of young audiences most theatres have vowed to attract. However, part of their success was in the choice of play. Sexual Perversity in Chicago has managed to attract stars and brought in a young audience whilst simultaneously being easily the worst thing I have seen on stage for several years.
Early plays in a successful playwright’s career, written when they are still finding their feet, are often ‘rediscovered’ after being overlooked in favour of later, better plays. This is an early David Mamet play, someone whose other work I have always enjoyed, but which just has nothing to say to an audience. The central premise of the play is the misogyny of men. Big deal. I didn’t take offence because I am a man, but the execution of the premise was so dreadfully tedious and unengaging, not helped by the cast of four who were sleepwalking through their parts. The repetition of the one ‘observation’ on human nature through short scenes in the characters’ lives became annoying very quickly and there was literally nothing else to the script.
It is not often the leads are so bad that the supporting characters become the centre of attention, but Matthew Perry and Minnie Driver achieved such a level of synthetic and humourless acting that you wondered why they bothered. Hank Azaria was easily the best of the four, but since he was playing the most repulsive character there was no real connection with the audience and there must surely be a better vehicle for his skills. The fact that the unknown Kelly Reilly was able to hold her own with another melamine performance may or may not be an indicator of ability, but I hope casting agents weren’t in the audience.
The real heroes of the evening were the unseen stage crew who achieved the rapid set changes necessary for the play to work at all. It is a sign of a bad play when I was hoping for the screen that rapidly descends without reason between each scene to break, just for some excitement. Even having bought a relatively cheap seat I felt cheated, and charging West End prices for only 80 minutes of anything is outrageous.
Sexual Perversity in Chicago. Such a tantalisingly good name. Such a complete waste of an evening.
(Graham Spencer)

What other critics had to say.....
NICHOLAS DE JONGH for THE EVENING STANDARD says, "A dreary, dated collection of snippety scenes...The acting ranges from the barely competent to the goodish." MICHAEL BILLINGTON for THE GUARDIAN says,"The four actors are perfectly matched in Lindsay Posner's production." BENEDICT NIGHTINGALE for THE TIMES says, "If you want reasonably well performed proof that Mamet was a precociously gifted dramatist at the age of 27, here it is. His dialogue sizzles and swaggers." CHARLES SPENCER for THE DAILY TELEGRAPH says, "The piece now seems tame, especially since Lindsay Posner's stylishly designed but shakily acted production never delivers the required killer punch...A dispiriting evening then, rescued only by Azaria's splendidly grotesque performance." RHODA KOENIG for THE INDEPENDENT says, "High-powered cast does mediocre comedy no favours."
External links to full reviews from popular press
The Guardian
The Times
Daily Telegraph
Independent
Evening Standard
ARCHIVE REVIEWS

A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M,
N,
O,
P,
Q,
R,
S,
T,
U,
V,
W,
XYZ
Top of page DISCLAIMER : Every effort
has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in these pages. We accept no responsibility for any errors. © Copyright: all
rights reserved Londontheatrearchive.co.uk |