Coogan, Steve

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares129 Views

    The Highs and Lows on London Stages in 2024

    by

    Our critics discuss which A-lister performances on the West End were worth the ticket price, and why so many new musicals struggled this year.This year saw London host buzzy productions like Jamie Lloyd’s “Romeo and Juliet,” starring Tom Holland and Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, and Robert Icke’s take on “Oedipus,” with Mark Strong and Lesley Manville. Other productions struggled, including more star vehicles — and some musicals, particularly.Matt Wolf and Houman Barekat, The New York Times’s London theater critics, discuss the triumphs and the disappointments of the last year in British theater, and also look ahead to 2025.Which productions impressed you most?HOUMAN BAREKAT James Macdonald’s “Waiting for Godot” at the Theater Royal Haymarket was superb. The Beckett estate is famously proscriptive about what can be done with his plays, so the performers have to make their mark in small, subtle ways. Ben Whishaw and Lucian Msamati delivered a master class in timing as the leads.I was hugely impressed by Rachel O’Riordan’s take on “Faith Healer” at the Lyric Hammersmith, featuring Declan Conlon as an insidiously charismatic Svengali. On a lighter note, I also loved the National Theater’s arch, camped-up version of Oscar Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest,” with its gorgeous staging and costumes.The cast of “The Importance of Being Earnest,” including Hugh Skinner, center, as Jack Worthing.Marc BrennerMATT WOLF I second Houman’s choices, and would extend further kudos to the writer-director Robert Icke’s scorching take on “Oedipus,” whose sold-out run proved that there is still an appreciative audience in London for serious theater. Special shout-out to Icke’s Jocasta, Lesley Manville, who is well on the way to becoming a giant of British theater.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Theater

      A Reluctant Satirist Takes On the Bomb

      by

      About two years ago, when Armando Iannucci began adapting “Dr. Strangelove” for the West End, he didn’t think the 1964 movie had many direct parallels to today.The full title of Stanley Kubrick’s film is “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” and it tells the story of a U.S. Air Force general who goes rogue and orders a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. In the Pentagon’s war room, an ineffectual president (Peter Sellers) dithers, blusters and flails, as he tries to avert World War III.In the 1960s, the movie became a much-debated hit — a “nightmare comedy,” as Kubrick called it — at a moment when nuclear annihilation was a common fear. Yet for Iannucci, who created the TV series “Veep,” the movie’s contemporary relevance was, at first, more metaphorical: The failure to stop atomic catastrophe was akin to society’s handling of climate change.Then, the news took over.Steve Coogan, left, plays four roles in “Dr. Strangelove,” including the president of the United States in this scene.Manuel HarlanAs Iannucci and the director Sean Foley worked on the adaptation, which opens at London’s Noël Coward Theater on Oct. 29 and runs through Jan. 25, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia floated the idea of nuclear conflict with the West over its support of Ukraine. China has boosted its nuclear arsenal. And violence in the Middle East has renewed fears around both Iran accelerating its nuclear program and Israel pre-emptively striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.Suddenly, Iannucci recalled in a recent interview in a grand back room of the Noël Coward Theater, his “Dr. Strangelove” felt like “a kind of literal reminder of a real doomsday.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      ‘The Lost King’ Review: A Royal Obsession

      by

      Sally Hawkins lights a fire under this droll dramedy about the search for the final resting place of Richard III.Sally Hawkins is a gift, to directors and audiences alike. When she smiles, it’s a face-splitting beam, so contagious that we would likely love her even if she were playing a murderer. And while her character in “The Lost King” is firmly tethered to a dead man, she didn’t kill him: She’s trying to dig him up.As Philippa Langley, the single mother from Edinburgh who, in 2012, spearheaded the successful search for the grave of King Richard III, Hawkins lends wings to this otherwise languid dramatic comedy. In a transformative moment, Philippa attends a production of Shakespeare’s “Richard III” and becomes mesmerized by the handsome actor playing the King (Harry Lloyd). This could easily have read as romantic attraction; but as Zac Nicholson’s camera zooms in on Hawkins’s wonderfully unguarded features, we see instead the stirring of a mission, one that will upend her life and alter history: to find Richard’s grave and disprove his reputation as a hunchbacked nephew-killer and unworthy usurper.That’s a tall order for a dissatisfied woman who suffers from chronic illness and whose ex-husband (played by Steve Coogan, who wrote the screenplay with Jeff Pope) is only marginally more tolerant than her co-workers. Yet Philippa, small and sensitive and herself a little lost, feels an affinity with the maligned monarch, gobbling up history books and finding common cause with the Richard III Society, whose members have long wondered if Richard’s twisted mind and body were fictions concocted by the Tudors and corroborated by Shakespeare. Let’s find out!Coogan and Pope, working once again with the director Stephen Frears (the alliance that brought us the unexpectedly moving “Philomena” in 2013), have shaped Philippa’s story into an easily digestible underdog tale. Vulnerable yet adamant, Philippa bulldozes bureaucrats and scientists into supporting her plan to excavate the parking lot where she believes the King is buried. She’s an immovable force, a battering ram of niceness, and Frears (now 81, and with a stunningly varied back catalog) is beguiled by the wonder of her tenacity and intuition. Her occasional chats with Richard’s ghost might be a sugar cube too far; but the movie’s sweetness is cut with enough acid — including subversive digs at academic pomposity and rampant sexism — that it never becomes cloying.Though raising serious questions about the way history is written, and by whom, “The Lost King” isn’t a polemic, or even a biopic. It’s a quietly droll detective story, a warm portrait of a woman who lost her health and found her purpose, exhuming her self-respect along with Richard’s bones. Those quibbling about factual liberties may be missing the point: This is a movie that’s less about rehabilitating a monarch than reinvigorating a life.The Lost KingRated PG-13 for a few cheeky words. Running time: 1 hour 48 minutes. In theaters. More