With so little to be sure of...

...if there's anything at all.

There are few things that I can say that I am sure of at this exact point in time (other than "here and now and us together"...). For one thing, I am sure of what makes me go all a-tingly in my theatrical nether regions and what makes me want to vomit old sheet music. With the summer drawing to an imminent close, there is much on the horizon to be aware of. Here is my own personal and biased lineup:

The mucho gustos:

Othello (Produced by the Public Theatre, directed by Peter Sellars, starring John Ortiz as the Moor himself and P.S. Hoffman as Iago) This one speaks for itself. Right off the bat, I question the sanity of anybody who is not eager to see one of the greatest living American actors grace the stage as one of dramatic literature's greatest and least apologetic villains of all time. Peter Sellars is infamous for his work with opera, lending a modern lilt to classic work and breathing a tour de force life into contemporary work (as in his close working relationship with living American composer John Adams). He is sure to do great things with a straight play that hardly lacks the emotional charge of the operatic canon. In a totally selfish light, as an NYU student I score big time (for once) with access to $12 student tickets because the venue is the good old Skirball Center. Ra ra. Finally, the Public can really do no wrong. Q.E.D.

The Understudy (Written by Theresa Rebeck, Roundabout Theatre Company, starring Julie White, Mark-Paul Gosselaar and Justin Kirk) Okay, this is a big season for names and this off-Broadway production of Rebeck's new play is stacked. After the recent appearance of Mario Lopez in A Chorus Line, why would producers NOT find a vehicle for Zack Morris? (Maybe next year we will see Dustin Diamond in the title role of Hamlet...) Justin Kirk, although popularly known now for his work on film, is no stranger to the stage and his return is much welcomed by yours truly. His capacity to adapt to roles that couldn't be more polar opposite (what would happen if Andy Botwin and Prior Walter went out for coffee?) leaves me soundly expecting a performance worth talking about. Finally, who doesn't love Julie White? She won the Tony for The Little Dog Laughed, appeared on Six Feet Under and playwright Rebeck has written specifically for her in the past. This woman has obviously been doing something right. (Also, who among us, whether admittedly or not, doesn't like a little backstage inside joke in their theatre-going lineup? The play focuses on "one of the most notorious roles in the theatre: the understudy.")

The Bacchae (Public Theater's Shakespeare in the Park, directed by JoAnne Akalaitis, starring Jonathan Groff) Has anybody else been watching the new season of True Blood? Is anybody else getting a little miffed by Mary Ann and her Dionysian tomfoolery? Thank fuck the Public will pull us back to the roots with this production. Can you really think of a better play to be staged outside? And with a new (under)score by Philip Glass? I will not soon forget Alan Cumming's performance as Dionysus (at the Lincoln Center last summer) but am very eager to see what the much younger, much more innocent Jonathan Groff will do with the role. Oh, yeah, and it's free, lest we forget. Again, I assert that the Public can do no wrong. (Ten points deposited in the posthumous bank of awesomeness for Joe Papp).

The No Me Gusta Column:

American Idiot (Berkeley Rep, Directed by Michael Mayer) What the hell, everybody? Are you really making another jukebox musical? Does it really have to be formed around the album that reminds everybody what Green Day once was (wank-worthy) and no longer is? Does everybody involved have to be so legit that I am probably going to have to see it when it (inevitably) comes to New York? Damn all of you. Truly, why is everybody involved in this puke-prompting project really established and talented? Michael Mayer, John Gallager Jr., Tom Kitt, DO YOU REALLY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO? Good luck super-imposing a narrative onto that piece of rubbish...

Catch Me If You Can (Seattle's 5th Ave. Theatre) All I have to say about this is that A) we don't need another movie cum musical B) Aaron Tveit traded in a wonderful role in an excellent ORIGINAL work for a wardrobe the size of a small country and C) this speaks volumes.

Heed my musings or don't. I'm just one small girl (in a tree).

This is the dawning of the age of...the internet musical?

I have been thinking a great deal lately about the internet. Good timing, right? I might be a good decade or so behind the 8 Ball on this one. All the same, my musings are not entirely untimely when you take the current recession into consideration. With little to no money to spare, many of us who would rather be sitting in on live performances have had to resort to other media for our doses of modern performance. Whether it be watching clips from the Tony Awards on YouTube or catching up with Mary Louise Parker's latest antics on Weeds, we have all had to adjust to new budgets that don't leave room for weekly trips to the theatre.

A few days ago, a good friend e-mailed me a link to CollegeHumor's new online musical "Web Site Story". This short video (obviously) draws from the classic musical West Side Story not only for its name, but also loosely as the basis for its plot. Tony and Maria meet online (after Tony comes across Maria's Twitter updates via Facebook) and the two plan a romantic meeting. All that they know about eachother comes from their respective online haunts and profiles: Tony knows that Maria is an avid fan of Jason Mraz and he sings a song (to the tune of "Maria") in praise of Pandora, which allows him to "educate himself" in the ways of such devotees. Maria's friends (in a scene directly reminiscent of "I Feel Pretty") sing about the joys of Twitter, which allows everybody to know what she is doing at every moment of the day. Other popular internet phenomena that are touched on include the popular dating website eHarmony, Google Earth and e-vites. Tony and Maria even admit to the excitement of blogging about one another after their date is over.

While the video certainly makes fun of all of the aforementioned forms of "communication", it also is targeted at exactly those people who have made such forms as prominent as they are. The friend who sent me the link is a complete computer junkie who most likely came across this project via somebody's "tweeting". It is interesting that the form of the musical has translated so popularly to both video and the internet (see also things such as the web series The Battery's Down and Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog). "Web Site Story" appeals to very different crowds of people: those who are (to quote a friend) "married to the internet" and theatre junkies such as myself who are more interested in the reshaping of classic work and forms for a contemporary audience and, specifically, this generation. What does this say about the future of the musical? While such an overwhelming amount of what is being staged is either a film adaptation or a jukebox musical (for example the upcoming Spider Man Turn Off the Dark or American Idiot), is it necessarily a negative thing that young people are taking advantage of more modern resources in order to reimagine what this form can mean to a generation so plagued by moment to moment updating and instant gratification? I am certainly a life-long proponent of live performance and musical theatre proper, but at a time when resources are scarce and producing a successful original work is becoming increasingly difficult is it a negative thing to find an alternative route to creation? The material is certainly topical and original, if nothing else.

So, I end these scattered musings on a note of uncertainty. Are internet musicals effectively destroying the future of musical theatre or simply providing an outlet for a generation that has clung to a new form of communication and expression?

Iwan Rheon

After being met with massive success on Broadway (including 8 Tony Awards in 2007, 4 Drama Desk Awards and a Grammy, among others), Steven Sater and Duncan Sheik’s rock musical Spring Awakening has taken London’s West End by storm. Based on German playwright Frank Wedekind’s 1891 play of the same title, the musical chronicles the adolescent search for a logical adult world and deals with issues of sex, rape, suicide and homosexuality. I met with Iwan Rheon who plays Moritz Stiefel, the “sad, soulful sleepyhead” who can’t quite come to grips with the changes that face him. Shy and playful at 23, he spoke about his experience in the show and as a newcomer to the West End stage.    

So, could you possibly start by talking about how you got to where you are now? Training? The audition process?

Yeah. I, em, I trained in London at LAMDA and I graduated in 2007. And then I think it was either in October or November 2007 the audition process started. And that’s when I first met the casting directors for the first time. Em, and then later on the creative team came and that’s when auditions began. And then they went back again and then they came back again. And that lasted for about a year. Em, and then in September we had the sort of final round, em, and then that ended up being a week long workshop and learning scenes for each character, doing some parts and we learned songs and started to do the show. Em, and then a week later, or a little over a week later, then I heard I got the part. So it was a long process.

Yeah, it sounds like it. It must have been weird being put together with the other people you were in direct competition with. 

Yeah, it’s quite strange because you get to chatting with them and become friends. It was quite a relaxing atmosphere. There was a lot of cameras – (Laughing) it wasn’t relaxing, it was very stressful. But, and then you sort of clung to each other, especially the two Moritzes in the corner going (gestures nerves) and this and that. But yeah, it was a shame that at the end of it only one person was going to get picked. We did scenes in front of each other, which was very difficult. But it all worked out okay in the end. 

Were you familiar with the musical or with Frank Wedekind’s original text before you came into this?

No. I read the original play – the Edward Bond translation – as soon as I started auditioning. And then I sort of just searched the musical as well. But no, I never heard of it. I’ve never really done musicals before. It’s been sort of straight acting and then singing, etc. and I’ve been in bands so it was - yeah, the two mounded together really quite well.

And what have you done with bands? Do you usually sing? Do you play an instrument?

Yeah, I sing and play the guitar. Yeah, but obviously I can’t do that any more. So hopefully when this finishes I’m going to pick that back up again. 

Very nice. And what about the things you’re auditioning for in the foreseeable future? Are you going to go for more musicals? Straight plays?

Well, I’d like to do some more straight plays. I’m pretty open to what I’ll do – I’d like to do something different after. I think not a musical next. Yeah, we’ll see what happens. It is quite difficult at the moment to audition for things because we don’t know how long this is going to run. 

Right, of course. And you do eight shows a week, yeah?

Yeah. 

So what do you do in your free time when you’re not going crazy here?

(Laughing) Em, well I mean I just try and relax really and not think about the play and the musical – try not to get downtrodden with myself. Yeah, just try and relax. Just try and read or whatever so my life isn’t completely taken over by the show because that would be dangerous. (Laughs) 

Is there any talk about recording a cast album?

Em, there are many rumors but it’s never been said. They haven’t mentioned it. It’s just a lot of speculation I think. It’d be lovely to do it but, em, I don’t think it’s in the near future. 

Personally I would be so excited if you guys recorded. You sound great. I’ve been listening to these terrible bootlegs on YouTube and I would love to not have to do that. It’s a bit pathetic of me, I think. (Both laugh)

Okay, one thing I’ve noticed, having seen the show several times both here and in New York, is that the effect of the non-musical scenes here is very different. The stakes seem higher. I hate to use this word, but I think it reads as much more “truthful” here. What was the focus on these scenes like in the rehearsal process?

Yeah, there was a lot of focus on the scenes. I mean, the way it was staged – because it was already so formed on Broadway – it was already like sort of choreographed in a way and that. We got through that and sort of then found our own way into it. I think the cast over here is a lot younger in general. Yeah, I think it must be sort of a British sort of theatrical thing that everything is just sort of really gritty and maybe a little bit darker. I never saw the Broadway version so I have nothing to compare it with but yeah, I mean, I think from what I’ve heard it seems to be a lot darker and I think the innocence of the characters comes through a lot more - from what I’ve heard. 

The creative team was the same here as it was in New York. How was it to work with Michael Mayer?

It was great. He obviously had such a strong idea of what it was and it was helpful in many ways. I’m used to kind of getting a script and then finding it whereas here we learned the script, did all of the blocking and then had to find it so it was kind of working in reverse, which was quite strange. And it was great working with Kimberly [Grigsby, musical supervisor]. She’s got a great passion for the music, so it was great to work with someone like that.

How was the switch from the Lyric Hammersmith to the Novello? Do you feel like much changed in that transition? 

Em, I don’t think it changed massive amounts. I think we just had to be aware that we were in a bigger space. The set is exactly the same, just a bit wider. I don’t think it’s changed a massive amount. It’s still just very important to keep to all of the things we rehearsed and all the actions and the intentions of the scenes. I think it’s pretty much stayed the same. 

How much time did you have in between to get used to the new space?

Em, well we had like three days off after the end of the Lyric run. And then we came here – it was the Wednesday – to do a sort of safe-through on the new stage. And then we started teching on Thursday and we opened on Friday night. So it wasn’t a great deal of time. But I think that might be a good thing because we didn’t get a chance to think about it. Everything was so quick that we just did it and then thought about it afterwards which is good. Probably. (Laughs)

How do you feel about the onstage seating? That’s obviously pretty unusual for any major commercial production. Is it strange to have people right there staring at you?

Yeah, it’s strange. I’ve gotten used to it now, but at first it was a bit weird. Bit I think, em, I try not to think about it. It’s kind of strange. I think it’s a really good way to bring the audience into the world of the play. Em, it just gives a really nice intimate feel, which is great. Em, but no I mean it doesn’t really affect – well, I mean you obviously have to be aware of everyone when you move around. But, no, I quite like it. 

Yeah, it feels so weird sitting onstage. I love it but I also always feel like ‘Oh, God’. 

(Laughs) Yeah, it’s always quite interesting watching the sort of body language of the people in the front row and onstage – all looking around and sitting there (Imitates people sitting compactly and nervously) all closed. It’s quite funny. (Laughs)

Yeah, that would be me with my long legs. I’m always afraid I’m going to trip somebody. Actually, the first time I saw the show was from onstage and I got kicked really hard during “The Bitch of Living”. 

(Laughing) You should have sued. 

Seriously. So, I’m assuming that a lot of your friends and family have come to see the show. How has that been? 

Yeah. I think obviously when your parents come to see something you want to make them proud. But I mean you have to try and treat it as a normal show. And then just trust in the work. And then usually everything will go alright.

There are advertisements and posters for this show all over the city. In the tube, on busses, in shops. How does it feel to all of a sudden see your face all over the city when you’re just walking around? Is that weird?

It is a bit strange. (Laughing) My housemates though, they think it’s quite funny. The other day they were in a kebab shop and then (Laughs) they saw a poster of me and stole it off the wall and took it home and put it up in the bathroom. So when I woke up in the morning and went into the bathroom I was like ‘What the hell is that doing here?!’ (Laughs) But yeah, it’s quite funny. You can’t really take it too seriously. It’s quite weird to see your face on the wall. But luckily I’m sort of facing away and I have that crazy haircut so it’s not so obvious that it’s me. 

Speaking of that, how do you feel about the haircut?

Em, I mean it’s part of the character. (Laughs) I think it works really well onstage. But obviously in real life it’s quite difficult to hide. I wear a lot of hats. (Laughs) Yeah, it’s doable. It’s just part of the job. 

So you’re not going to stick with it after?

 (Laughing) Noooo.

Alright, alright. A bit more seriously: your character obviously deals with and brings up some of the more serious issues in the show, suicide especially. I would imagine that it must be really trying to go onstage get yourself to that place every night. How do you get there without just totally dragging yourself down in it offstage?

Yeah, I just try, I mean, I think you’ve just got to believe it. As an actor you’ve got to believe what you’re doing and really try to feel those emotions. I kind of like just sort of think, let myself go, just think about the thoughts of the character and all of the different things that sort of build – build into this situation. So you really have to go there I think. But obviously there has to be a sort of process of sitting down, trying not to – trying to get out of it, think of something else. That’s why I like to when I’m not doing the show do something else and not think about it too much. And I think it’s really easy to really get into it too much and get a bit, em, self-indulgent about some things. But then that’s something where I really have to just try and think ‘Just tell the story, just tell this boy’s story’ and try to make it as real as possible because you’re dealing with real issues and real things. You have to be respectful to the people that go through this and you can’t sort of half do it. So have to really do it but also not go too far into it that you feel like you’re becoming suicidal yourself. It’s quite difficult. But you’ve just got to try and let it go afterwards. 

It must be great then that you have this ensemble supporting you. Obviously you are all together a lot. How is the group dynamic? Do you spend time together outside of the theatre?

Yeah, on a Saturday night we’ll normally do something. We’ll all go out. Yeah, and a lot of the cast live together.

Oh, really?

Yeah, because for a lot of them it’s their first time living in London. So they kind of just went into it together. But I don’t live with any of them. Which I think is a good thing. (Laughs) But yeah, it’s been great. It’s like a group of friends that you have offstage which I think comes across really well onstage when we go out there and do the show together.

And what about the two adults proper? How do they fit into that whole situation? They’re kind of surrounded by this crazy youth culture thing all the time. 

(Laughs) Yeah, I think they enjoy it. It’s really good because they’re so experienced. It’s great for us to have that kind of experience for us to sort of draw from. You know, little things they say and do, just to watch how they do things themselves, and it’s really good for us. And I think they’re kind of the mother and father of the company. (Laughs)

Have any of the original cast members from New York come to see the show?

Yeah. Well, Jonathan Groff came. He was really nice. Yeah, he loved it. I think he was the only one, actually. Oh, no! Lauren Pritchard. She’s seen it a couple of times I think. Yeah.

Okay, I have to ask this. Do you have a dream role that you hope to play at some point in your career?

I would love to play Iago in Othello! (Laughs) Yeah, that would be my dream role. I think I have to wait a few years for that though. (Laughs)

You said you spend a lot of free time reading. Do you read many plays? Or do you prefer to read other things, like novels and such?

Em, novels. I don’t know. I find that watching a play is much better than reading it. Especially the Shakespeare. I have a hard time to sit down and enjoy reading a Shakespeare. (Laughs) Because it wasn’t written to be read. So, em, yeah I try and read other stuff when I have the chance. It’s quite good actually after I come offstage in Act II and just have a book about something completely different and just read that. It kind of takes you out of the weight of the world and all that…malarkey. (Laughs)

It must be a bummer, though, not be able to go and see other shows that are running right now. 

Yeah, it’s a shame. Especially because some of my friends who I went to drama school with are all in shows that I’m not able to go see. Yeah, it’s a shame. But when I get time off from the show I’ll try to go see some things.

How does that work out? How often do you get a break? Is that predetermined? 

Yeah, we all get 27 days off. But we’re not all allowed off at the same time and that. And I’m not allowed to take time off at the same time as Ilse. And Melchior and Wendla, they can’t take time off together. So it’s just trying to keep as much of the cast on so that when the swings come in it’s not too different. 

Yeah, I’ve seen a couple of understudies here. It really changes the dynamics onstage and it’s interesting to see different people’s takes on these characters. Would you ever consider coming on a day off and watching somebody else do your role?

Em, I dunno. I think it’s good to watch the show. Right at the beginning of the run at the Lyric I injured my back so I missed the first five previews. So, and then I watched it twice. And you learn a lot that way. But no, I don’t think I could do that to my understudy. (Laughs) To have him know that I’m somewhere in the audience like this (Arms and legs crossed, making a face) watching him. (Laughs) It wouldn’t be fair. 

Okay, finally I just want to ask you a sort of silly question. If you had to switch roles for one night who would you want to play and why? Regardless of gender and age.

Oh, gender! (Laughs) Hmm…No, but seriously I would have to say Melchior. Because he is sort of the opposite of Moritz and it would be quite good to do the whole picture like, full circle. That would be quite fun.

Panic - Pit Theatre at the Barbican Centre

The Barbican's Panic is many things. Clever, thoughtful and entertaining are not among them. More appropriate adjective could, however, include masturbatory, juvenile and limp. From the moment that Phelim McDermot removes his clothing and embarks on a nearly two hour show and tell about his fixation on "the great god Pan" (the devilishly anrachic folk master of sex and lust), you can hardly help but slump down into your armrest-less seat and sigh. This is going to be a long ride in the back seat and the driver won't let you roll down the windows for a breath of fresh air.

As a company, Improbable has earned a reputation for creating innovative and experimental theatre since their appearance on the scene in the 90's. Here, McDermot's passion project undermines the group mentality and this "ensemble show" becomes more of a solo piece with human props. This is a shame because the three female "nymphs" who cater to the whims of McDermot's navel-gazing fantasy are uniquely and individually talented, especially the truly pixie-like Matilda Leyser who dazzles audience members with her gravity defying contortion and aerial skills. It is just too bad that she is manipulated by the heavily soil bound McDermot and his recollections of bouts with labyrinthitis, his unnervingly large collection of self help books and ten foot prick made of spindly twigs (the effect of which is about as flimsy as the packing tape that holds it together). And, oh yes, this somehow all relates to "the great god Pan". Or so you are repeatedly told.

It would be unfair not to give due credit to the creative team behind this unfortunate attempt at creative storytelling. Although the set and the majority of the props and costumes are made solely out of brown paper (yes, like the bags), the effect is surprisingly beautiful: the many limbering layers unfold and fall to create an illusion of depth that is enough to pleasantly detract from the action, if just for a few fleeting moments. Video and small-scale puppetry are well executed, but suspiciously trite. Getting a good technician to manipulate a couple of high contrast images and video clips cannot be equated to ingenuity (contrary to popular belief). In fact, it can barely be equated to novelty.

Unless you fancy yourself an aspiring disciple of "the great god Pan", hope to make number 148 on Phelim McDermot's list of women had or simply want to visit the ducks who congregate around the benches and fountains outside the Barbican (they are quite friendly!), don't bother. Stay home and have a good wank; Pan would probably approve.

Kafka's Monkey - The Young Vic

If you thought that the age of physical actors, renaissance men of the human body and all of its faculties, went out with the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, think again. If you can’t remember the last time that a simple and isolated facial expression simultaneously made you feel pure delight and utter despair, take a trip to the Young Vic where Kafka’s Monkey, Colin Teevan’s adaptation of Franz Kafka’s “A Report to an Academy”, is now in production.

As the ape central in Kafka’s text, Kathryn Hunter ambles onstage carrying a tattered suitcase and dressed in an oversized gentleman’s suit that suggests more caricature than esteem. Her pants hang off of her innocently and her hair peeks out from under her top hat in a humble mess as Hunter abandons her luggage, rummages through some papers and steps to the podium inhabiting the otherwise bare black box space, a larger than life projection of an ape looming beyond her tiny physique. It is in this moment that Hunter’s ape addresses her audience, the presumed “academy”, for the first time and prepares to relate the story of her character’s “former life as an ape” and assimilation into the world of man.

It is not so much the content borrowed from Kafka’s story that makes this a performance worth seeing, although its counterweighted moments of hope and despair, comedy and tragedy, cannot help but penetrate and unsettle even the most stoic of theatergoers. It is Hunter’s sheer performative bravado that, from the moment she steps onstage, never fails to mesmerize. Having been the first woman to play King Lear on the professional stage in the UK, the Olivier Award winning actress is not unfamiliar with taking on a role that does not mimic her own corporeal make-up. In this piece, however, Hunter is not simply playing a man, but a man who was once a monkey: a challenge to any performer, male or female. Her range shines beyond description as she adopts the body language of our hairy predecessor and contorts effortlessly in ways that would be a feat for an actor half her age.

As members of the unnamed Academy, spectators are just as integral to the piece as Hunter herself. Carefully observing and feeding off of the energy of the audience, she never misses a beat in moments of beautiful improvisation and interaction with her guests: she offers a banana to one man, enjoys another woman’s head lice as a delicious refreshment and begs for the return of a bottle of rum that she has left with another man. Do not enter this theatre if you are not willing to give a little back to this performance that gives so much to you.

Parlour Song - Almeida Theatre

At a time when shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "Weeds" are in high demand, there is hardly a lack of suburban intrigue and scandal. In fact, we seem to be obsessed with it: that dirty little secret lurking below the surface of an otherwise pleasant facade until it hits a breaking point and proper hell breaks loose all over the white picket fences. Jez Butterworth's Parlour Song may unfold in just that myopic landscape (where all of the houses are exactly the same on the outside and structural mirror images on the inside), but his sense of narrative owes little to the pop culture phenomenon of that which is hidden in the little boxes on the hillside and is all the better for it.

Set in rural England, Dale and Ned are neighbors who, on the surface have little in common: The brilliant Toby Jones' Ned is short and stout (sporting a pair of "tits" which he works naively to rid himself of) and works in demolition, obliterating constructions much larger than he could ever be and is married to Joy (Amanda Drew). Dale (Andrew Lincoln) is the macho but sympathetic and human regular Joe who owns a chain of car washes and completely outdoes Ned in the charm department. Despite their differences, the two men share a bond of trust. In their own suburban susperia, the despair is not lying anywhere under the surface. Ned is paranoid: he believes that somebody is stealing all of his possessions, his marriage with his wife has very clearly lost its spark long ago. Dale is discontent: he sees his work as worthless and emasculating in comparison to Ned's, his children are barely a blip on his radar screen, his wife is hardly home when he is. The power of this piece comes not from it's exposition of a seedy underbelly, but an exploration of the humanity of these "dark" thoughts and events.

The piece is brilliantly designed by Jeremy Herbert with a rotating stage that seems to literally unfold, illuminate and cloak itself in darkness just as seamlessly as Butterworth's native dialogue flows from one scene into the next. Toby Jones and Andrew Lincoln respectively do great justice to these two very different men, Jones single-handedly stealing the entire show in a five minute sequence during which he attempts to tone himself up in the privacy of his living room. Amanda Drew's Joy is not quite as striking, but perhaps that is appropriate in a character for whom mediocrity has begrudgingly become a norm. The writing is witty, the staging is full of surprises and (if you must draw comparisons) the dashing Andrew Lincoln could give both Mary Louise Parker and Eva Longoria a run for their money.

He looked surprised and said, 'No'.

What do you know about Joe Orton? If the answer to that question is "nothing" (or anything remotely resembling it) then you have gravely deprived yourself.

Joe Orton lived and died in a neighborhood in London called Islington, which happens to be where I am currently keeping myself. Aside from being a fantastically cheeky and dark playwright, he was also a mischief maker with a wit of steel and a master of promiscuity, much to the chagrin, it turned out, of his long time partner Kennith Halliwell with whom Orton shared his tiny flat at 25 Noel Road. I happened (completely coincidentally...or was it?) to find myself at 25 Noel Road today with a copy of Orton's diaries and complete works. Call me a posthumous stalker.

Orton's most well-known work is indisputably Loot, which centers around a young man who irreverently disposes of his mother's corpse when he needs a place to conceal a large sum of stolen money and sees the fittest location to be the aforementioned deceased's coffin. Overwhelmed yet? It only gets better, so read it. Entertaining Mr. Sloane (currently running on the West End with Imelda Staunton and Mathew Horne) and What the Butler Saw are equally dependant on improbability and shenanigan - critics and admirers have deemed his work to be absurd but Orton insisted that he was writing real life. This is eerily apropos considering the circumstances of his own life and death. Much of the content of his writing seems to foreshadow a great deal of what actually came to unfold in his too short life.

It can be presumed that, if his plays have any part of Joe Orton the man in them, he was not a bullshitter. This is supported by reading even the first page of his diaries (which everybody should do - John Lahr is an amazing editor/compiler/researcher). He is frank in his tastes and even more frank with regards to his sexual practices. After the early passion of his relationship with Halliwell, Orton hardly mentions him as an object of any affection or desire - he functioned more as an assistant to Orton as his success became more and more eminent. On the contrary, Orton conducted most of his physical escapades in toilets and "cottages" (for all of the New Yorkers reading, think Turkish Baths or Tea Houses...) or in abandoned buildings, alleys, flats belonging to men who he picked up on the streets or in parks and toilets.

Despite the lack of sexual spark between Orton and Halliwell in the writer's final years, the two certainly had their fair share of alternative escapades. Both spent six months in prison after having been tracked down as the pranksters who defaced a variety of books that they stole from their local library and returned for other unsuspecting bibliophiles to come across. Orton also took it upon himself to write mischievously sarcastic letters under assumed names to various individuals, publications and institutions. (These letters are also published with John Lahr's edition of his diaries and absolutely worth reading.) Joe Orton hated Americans. I can't really blame him. He is so very articulate in writing about it that you can't justify faulting him. Americans do leave quite a bad taste in the mouth...

Joe Orton died in the apartment that I creepily visited today. He was 34 years old and was murdered by Halliwell - nine blows to the head with a hammer. Halliwell then took his own life with the help of 22 Nembutal tablets. He left the following note:

If you read his diary all will be explained.

KH

P.S. Especially the latter part.

Damn. Orton was working on a screenplay titled Up Against It for The Beatles at the time of his death. It was never finished. Orton's funeral was attended by many friends, family, actors, writers. Only three people attended Kenneth Halliwell's funeral. He was neglected even in his last hoorah.

Read his plays. Read his diaries. At the very least, watch Prick Up Your Ears (the biopic based on John Lahr's research and Orton's diaries - Gary Oldman, Alfred Molina, Vanessa Redgrave, Wallace Shawn...seriously. You have no excuse not to. It's on YouTube.)

Until later.