This review was harshly critical of the evening. Some comments in response have been posted but, in case they are deleted, I am republishing them here. The original review can be seen here...
The Dogstar, Brixton
**
For the evening’s entertainment, Almost Random Theatre offered us 3 bite-sized performances around the theme of God, collectively entitled Heir Of The Dog. Why they chose this title was unclear; it seemed more than an ‘almost random’ label for the theologically themed evening, and these performances certainly shouldn’t be prescribed as a hangover cure.
The first piece, Director Hugh Allison’s Call On Me, showed us the awkward Kyle (Stephen Cheriton) and the coldly sexual Jo (Emilia Petryszyn), rendezvousing in a hotel room, with the intention of photographing their sordid exploits for publicity and money.
An interesting premise then for exploring morality and fame in relation to religion, but aside from a couple of mentions of the bible, this piece didn’t really fit under the theme of ‘God’. The intentions of the piece were further confused when themes of AIDS and charity were thrown into the mix, and with dialogue clumsily flitting between realistic and stylistic, it didn't work as a character study.
None of the themes were realistically explored, a real shame as this piece started with such potential.
Second in the evening’s line up was Circles, an extract of The Rich Young Man by Michael Dickinson, depicting a brief interaction between Jesus (Denholm Spurr) and Mary Magdalene (Louisa Tee); however without any context from the rest of the play, deciphering what was actually going on proved difficult. Spurr’s Jesus was intriguingly moody and vain, Tee’s Mary was a seductive creation, and perhaps in the context of the whole play these characteristics would have developed into an interesting religious critique. In the context of the extract this was not the case; as entertaining as it was to see Jesus accidentally spray himself in the face with deodorant (obviously not set in biblical times then, so when is this happening?), it was distracting, clashed with the biblical language and made the piece confusing.
Rounding off the evening was Chris Sivewright’s Wonder, which proved one thing: Sivewright doesn’t do subtlety. It opened with Tom (Spurr) mourning the anniversary of his wife’s death alone atop a hill at sun set, only to be joined by three friends.
What could have developed into a touching exploration of loss and friendship instead served as a loose premise for the characters to assault us with a barrage of under-developed theological and philosophical ideas, hardly a realistic method of consoling a grieving friend.
This unrealistic style prevented any empathy with the characters, so when an ill-advised moment of metatheatre arose and the audience was affronted with the line “This is stupid, I would leave!” we were rather inclined to oblige.
The tuxedo sporting MC Richard Ward added a touch of class to the evening, and although it should be unnecessary, if only he’d given us brief synopsis of each piece, we might have better understood what was being shown.
Commendation is due to the charitable intentions of Almost Random, with a proportion of their proceedings donated to The Multiple Sclerosis Society. As a production though, Heir Of The Dog ultimately fails in coherently exploring any of the themes it presented.
The comment that followed was:
This was not a play about 'consoling a grieving friend.' It was a play about 'Wonder' - hence the name. It had elements of Islam (Arabic, hand) and Buddhism (liquid, urine) the notion of an Evil God plus the idea of who is watching who. It included thought experiments (looking down on stars) and well as comments about round pizzas and square boxes. The theme throughout was to cause the listener to pause and reflect - maybe not too deeply (about the word 'lisp') or perhaps VERY deeply, whether beauty is a sign of a Good God or merely incidental - or even if God exists at all. The characters 'wondered' and the numerous points made were to encourage the audience after the show, to 'wonder' - hence the title of the play. One of the characters was a Philosophy student (hence the comment about philosophy lectures) so the ideas and speech were not unnatural for him. Another character was a part-time comic - hence the numerous comedic attempts. Another character was Polish and a sub-plot was the flirtation between her and Paul (the comedian). The play is not asking for empathy with characters and is not seeking to 'realistically console' so to criticise it for NOT succeeding at something it was not supposed to be doing is unfair. The play is simply, through the characters,sowing seeds in people's minds that may later cause them to 'wonder' about life, death, good, bad and purpose.
Monday, 26 November 2012
Second Review!
The second review panned the evening. A polite comment questioning the accuracy of the review was posted but then someone deleted it.
Therefore I am posting the whole review here and the comment that followed.
The review appears here...
Short play evenings have long been a mainstay of London theatre, with a host of companies booking a couple of nights in London's smaller theatres, rooms above pubs or more inventive spaces to showcase a selection of material from established and up-and-coming writers. The format encourages experimentation and allows for some variance of material.
Oxford-based company Almost Random's latest effort manages the former pleasantly while having some trouble with the latter. Loosely collected under a theme of deity, but more often feeling like "thorny issues", the three pieces in Heir of the Dog are a smorgasbord of tone: Hugh Allison's Call on Me has two minor celebrities cynically tear apart their lives, Michael Dickinson's Circles modernises the Jesus story, while Chris Sivewright's Wonder is a long collection of po-faced pop psychology, loosely couched in a story of loss.
The issue across all three is the writing, which is rather raw. Dialogue doesn't sound natural or believable, which may be part of the point of Circles' semi-biblical tone, but is a major stumbling block for both Call on Me and Wonder. In Call on Me especially, the angry cynicism feels less observed and more imagined; a grim stab at celebrity that doesn't quite hide an intense fascination that, probably, would have made for a more rounded and interesting piece if it were acknowledged.
Emilia Petryszyn gets the brunt of it, a decent actress reduced to strutting around the stage in her bra alongside Stephen Cheriton's muted and cowed delivery – if celebrities debasing themselves is so bad for their career, why would the writer/director ask the same from his actors?
In Wonder, the problem is more basic – these are not lines normal people would ever say. With one casually thrown away riddle of human existence followed by another for a good fifteen minutes, no argument or idea is given any space to breathe or be examined. This feels less like a play about the big questions, and more about the banality of its characters: four vacuous individuals who wandered up a hill to watch the sun set. There's a temptation of a plot arc in Denholm Spurr's sad widow, but it's all hidden behind a piece that could be reduced to a long list of hokum chestnuts.
Only Circles feels like something more meaty, but its status as an excerpt means there's not really enough to take in from the five minutes we see between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The modernisation of the story feels calm and unforced, surprisingly for a story where this can often feel shoe-horned, but there isn't enough material here to be able to judge it on any level of detail. I can't help but feel that a more striking or important scene would have been better for a short play evening. The evening is held together by MC Richard Ward, resplendent in tails and a dickie bow. His calm, composed and stentorian approach to the job makes the whole evening feel very professional and well orchestrated. While the lighting design is basic and poor (one light aimed loosely) and there's no sound or set, there's a pleasing clarity to this evening. With a better selection of pieces, this could have been a really quite pleasant short play event. However, with such a low quality of material, it's hard to be very positive.
The comment is as follows: I have never heard St Augustine's words described as 'po-faced pop psychology' or perhaps you were referring (wrongly) to the work of Ludwig Godlewska? As far as the other criticisms you made of 'Wonder' let me, as the author, respond. You say these are not lines 'normal' people would say. Well, one of the characters (Tom) is grieving, in a state of melancholy. He is quite likely to be questioning the nature of God. Another character is a Philosophy student and also quite likely to debate. Another character is a comedian and thus likely to talk about round pizzas and square boxes. Another character is polish and keen on quoting proverbs - not that unlikely, I suggest. You say, 'no argument or idea is given any space to breathe or be examined'. The purpose of the play is to sow seeds, to cause the audience to wonder. To consider whether Allah's name is on the back of their hand, whether the argument for a 'good' God could be reversed and even, through thought experiments such as looking down on stars, to reconsider some of their own views. This is not supposed to be a play about big questions - in half an hour??? - but asking a few within the overall theme of 'wonder'. You say: ' four vacuous individuals who wandered up a hill to watch the sun set. ' No they didn't. ONE wandered up to be alone and another three, out for a walk, bumped into him. Whilst they were chatting they saw the sun set - but there is nothing in the play to suggest that was the purpose of the three. You say, 'There's a temptation of a plot arc in Denholm Spurr's sad widow', no. The slight temptation is the flirtation between Paul and Claudia but in reality the play is about a group of people who by meeting up with someone reliving a tragedy, start asking questions about the meaning of existence. Just start, that's all. These are questions philosophers still puzzle over - hardly 'hokum chestnuts'.
Therefore I am posting the whole review here and the comment that followed.
The review appears here...
Short play evenings have long been a mainstay of London theatre, with a host of companies booking a couple of nights in London's smaller theatres, rooms above pubs or more inventive spaces to showcase a selection of material from established and up-and-coming writers. The format encourages experimentation and allows for some variance of material.
Oxford-based company Almost Random's latest effort manages the former pleasantly while having some trouble with the latter. Loosely collected under a theme of deity, but more often feeling like "thorny issues", the three pieces in Heir of the Dog are a smorgasbord of tone: Hugh Allison's Call on Me has two minor celebrities cynically tear apart their lives, Michael Dickinson's Circles modernises the Jesus story, while Chris Sivewright's Wonder is a long collection of po-faced pop psychology, loosely couched in a story of loss.
The issue across all three is the writing, which is rather raw. Dialogue doesn't sound natural or believable, which may be part of the point of Circles' semi-biblical tone, but is a major stumbling block for both Call on Me and Wonder. In Call on Me especially, the angry cynicism feels less observed and more imagined; a grim stab at celebrity that doesn't quite hide an intense fascination that, probably, would have made for a more rounded and interesting piece if it were acknowledged.
Emilia Petryszyn gets the brunt of it, a decent actress reduced to strutting around the stage in her bra alongside Stephen Cheriton's muted and cowed delivery – if celebrities debasing themselves is so bad for their career, why would the writer/director ask the same from his actors?
In Wonder, the problem is more basic – these are not lines normal people would ever say. With one casually thrown away riddle of human existence followed by another for a good fifteen minutes, no argument or idea is given any space to breathe or be examined. This feels less like a play about the big questions, and more about the banality of its characters: four vacuous individuals who wandered up a hill to watch the sun set. There's a temptation of a plot arc in Denholm Spurr's sad widow, but it's all hidden behind a piece that could be reduced to a long list of hokum chestnuts.
Only Circles feels like something more meaty, but its status as an excerpt means there's not really enough to take in from the five minutes we see between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The modernisation of the story feels calm and unforced, surprisingly for a story where this can often feel shoe-horned, but there isn't enough material here to be able to judge it on any level of detail. I can't help but feel that a more striking or important scene would have been better for a short play evening. The evening is held together by MC Richard Ward, resplendent in tails and a dickie bow. His calm, composed and stentorian approach to the job makes the whole evening feel very professional and well orchestrated. While the lighting design is basic and poor (one light aimed loosely) and there's no sound or set, there's a pleasing clarity to this evening. With a better selection of pieces, this could have been a really quite pleasant short play event. However, with such a low quality of material, it's hard to be very positive.
The comment is as follows: I have never heard St Augustine's words described as 'po-faced pop psychology' or perhaps you were referring (wrongly) to the work of Ludwig Godlewska? As far as the other criticisms you made of 'Wonder' let me, as the author, respond. You say these are not lines 'normal' people would say. Well, one of the characters (Tom) is grieving, in a state of melancholy. He is quite likely to be questioning the nature of God. Another character is a Philosophy student and also quite likely to debate. Another character is a comedian and thus likely to talk about round pizzas and square boxes. Another character is polish and keen on quoting proverbs - not that unlikely, I suggest. You say, 'no argument or idea is given any space to breathe or be examined'. The purpose of the play is to sow seeds, to cause the audience to wonder. To consider whether Allah's name is on the back of their hand, whether the argument for a 'good' God could be reversed and even, through thought experiments such as looking down on stars, to reconsider some of their own views. This is not supposed to be a play about big questions - in half an hour??? - but asking a few within the overall theme of 'wonder'. You say: ' four vacuous individuals who wandered up a hill to watch the sun set. ' No they didn't. ONE wandered up to be alone and another three, out for a walk, bumped into him. Whilst they were chatting they saw the sun set - but there is nothing in the play to suggest that was the purpose of the three. You say, 'There's a temptation of a plot arc in Denholm Spurr's sad widow', no. The slight temptation is the flirtation between Paul and Claudia but in reality the play is about a group of people who by meeting up with someone reliving a tragedy, start asking questions about the meaning of existence. Just start, that's all. These are questions philosophers still puzzle over - hardly 'hokum chestnuts'.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
First review!
Heir of the Dog
The Dogstar
20th November 2012
An evening of short plays on the theme of God may sound a bit intellectual for a midweek theatre jaunt, but fear not, director Hugh Allison has put together a rather more accessible offering in punnily-named Heir of the Dog.
Not only is the title apt for the curated three piece, but it fits in with the venue perfectly. The first play, Call on Me, Allison's own work, is perhaps the one which most loosely fits the night's theme. We meet Kyle (Stephen Cheriton) and Jo (Emilia Petryszyn), two seemingly publicity-hungry celebrities. One is a Christian and the other an atheist, but both have their own agendas.
Kyle is unsure of himself, Jo much more self-assured and hardened. With a title taken from Psalm 50:15:
"and call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honour me."
(or arguably 91:15),
"He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honour him."
you would assume a more direct link to the reference point. But this tale of sex and charity is interesting nonetheless, if just as a neat little character study bolstered by confident performances.
Michael Dickinson's Circles follows next, an extract from his full length play The Rich Young Man. The scene is a brief interaction between Jesus (Denholm Spurr) and Mary Magdelene (Louisa Tee) and perhaps the most openly critical of God. It sees Jesus, allegedly above sin, portrayed as prideful and while the excerpt was interesting and thought-provoking, would undoubtedly work better within the larger context of his play.
Finally, Wonder, a play penned by Chris Sivewright, is the longest piece. Cheriton, Tee and Petryszyn play three friends who run into another acquaintance of theirs, Tom (Spurr) sitting alone in a park, lost with his own thoughts. The three try their best to cheer up the recent widower, through philosophising and wordplay, debating whether God is real and if so, whether he is kind or evil.
Spurr delivers a stronger performance here, his words tinged with bitterness and frustration, clearly missing his departed wife. And the remaining trio also up their game here, bringing a believable camaraderie to the characters and bouncing off each other well. Petryszyn, as Claudia, switches from the English accent she uses in Call on Me to Polish, with both sounding authentic and demonstrating a gift for voice work.
At one point, Wonder does make use of a bit of an old trope, in referencing the audience, but having seen this employed in many other Fringe and even West End productions, it's perhaps unfair to single out Sivewright for criticism.
The stage is spare throughout the entire evening, dressed with only three folding chairs. Initially it is a hotel room, then a biblical setting and finally a park. Allison's direction is particularly clever in the final piece, where the four characters all 'lie down' by resting on the back wall, with Tee taking off her scarf to make a pillow to cushion her head from the uncomfortable 'ground'.
It's the little touches like this that show consideration to the space available.
And with MC Richard Ward's beautifully velvety voice, good projection and thoroughly unflappable manner, he was an excellent choice of compere.
Quite often the problem with short plays is that the audience doesn't get to spend enough time with the characters to really forge a connection or relate to them. This is perhaps most evident in Circles. With the entire evening at less than an hour long, we perhaps don't see as much of the characters as we would like on the whole, but Heir of the Dog is an intriguing flavour of what Almost Random Theatre can pull off.
With such a short run and a donation from every ticket sale going to charity, there are some good reasons to head over to Brixton.
Source of the review Views from the Gods
ONE MORE NIGHT TO SEE HEIR OF THE DOG!!!
An evening of short plays on the theme of God may sound a bit intellectual for a midweek theatre jaunt, but fear not, director Hugh Allison has put together a rather more accessible offering in punnily-named Heir of the Dog.
 |
| Hugh Allison |
Not only is the title apt for the curated three piece, but it fits in with the venue perfectly. The first play, Call on Me, Allison's own work, is perhaps the one which most loosely fits the night's theme. We meet Kyle (Stephen Cheriton) and Jo (Emilia Petryszyn), two seemingly publicity-hungry celebrities. One is a Christian and the other an atheist, but both have their own agendas.
Kyle is unsure of himself, Jo much more self-assured and hardened. With a title taken from Psalm 50:15:
"and call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will honour me."
(or arguably 91:15),
"He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honour him."
you would assume a more direct link to the reference point. But this tale of sex and charity is interesting nonetheless, if just as a neat little character study bolstered by confident performances.
Michael Dickinson's Circles follows next, an extract from his full length play The Rich Young Man. The scene is a brief interaction between Jesus (Denholm Spurr) and Mary Magdelene (Louisa Tee) and perhaps the most openly critical of God. It sees Jesus, allegedly above sin, portrayed as prideful and while the excerpt was interesting and thought-provoking, would undoubtedly work better within the larger context of his play.
Finally, Wonder, a play penned by Chris Sivewright, is the longest piece. Cheriton, Tee and Petryszyn play three friends who run into another acquaintance of theirs, Tom (Spurr) sitting alone in a park, lost with his own thoughts. The three try their best to cheer up the recent widower, through philosophising and wordplay, debating whether God is real and if so, whether he is kind or evil.
Spurr delivers a stronger performance here, his words tinged with bitterness and frustration, clearly missing his departed wife. And the remaining trio also up their game here, bringing a believable camaraderie to the characters and bouncing off each other well. Petryszyn, as Claudia, switches from the English accent she uses in Call on Me to Polish, with both sounding authentic and demonstrating a gift for voice work.
At one point, Wonder does make use of a bit of an old trope, in referencing the audience, but having seen this employed in many other Fringe and even West End productions, it's perhaps unfair to single out Sivewright for criticism.
The stage is spare throughout the entire evening, dressed with only three folding chairs. Initially it is a hotel room, then a biblical setting and finally a park. Allison's direction is particularly clever in the final piece, where the four characters all 'lie down' by resting on the back wall, with Tee taking off her scarf to make a pillow to cushion her head from the uncomfortable 'ground'.
It's the little touches like this that show consideration to the space available.
And with MC Richard Ward's beautifully velvety voice, good projection and thoroughly unflappable manner, he was an excellent choice of compere.
 |
| Richard Ward |
Quite often the problem with short plays is that the audience doesn't get to spend enough time with the characters to really forge a connection or relate to them. This is perhaps most evident in Circles. With the entire evening at less than an hour long, we perhaps don't see as much of the characters as we would like on the whole, but Heir of the Dog is an intriguing flavour of what Almost Random Theatre can pull off.
With such a short run and a donation from every ticket sale going to charity, there are some good reasons to head over to Brixton.
Source of the review Views from the Gods
ONE MORE NIGHT TO SEE HEIR OF THE DOG!!!
Monday, 19 November 2012
Director Case Study
The source for much of this post is here...
Question 1: What is the most rewarding aspect of working as a Director?
Answer: Seeing the play come together at the dress rehearsal and knowing my work is done.
Question 2: What are the key skills required to be an effective Director?
Answer: Communication, organisational skills, creativity, willingness to listen but also knowing how to politely get others to shut up.
Question 3: Do you see your role as a natural step on a career ladder, and if so what is the next rung?
Answer: Directing for bigger venues for longer runs. Ideally a national tour.
Question 4: How did you work your way into your current role?
Answer: Mainly by bullshitting.
Question 5: How much do you think networking helps towards landing a job in the industry?
Answer: I don't find networking parties etc help, but it is always useful to tell friends of friends what you are doing, and when they say what they are doing, I often offer my services. About two out of five times they accept.
Question 6: Do you think you will be working in the industry in the next five years, and if so in what capacity?
Answer: Yes. Ideally doing more writing.
Question 7: Please describe what a typical day working as a Director might contain?
Answer: A lot of checking of emails, and re-reading scripts with fine toothcombs.
Question 8: Have you done any additional training courses to further your career?
Answer: Several workshops at the Young Vic.
Question 9: How important is working for free at the beginning of your career?
Answer: Very. And not just at the start of the career. If I think I will learn from a project, I'll do it.
Hugh's Directing CV
Hugh has TWICE received five stars in What's On.
Hugh has appeared in various films. and acts
More key facts
Wireless Theatre
Now why do a blog about Hugh?
Well, firstly, because the Q/A might be useful to all budding Directors. Secondly because Hugh WROTE one of the three plays ('Call On Me') being shown at 'Heir of The Dog' (details below) DIRECTED all three and also co-produced.
Therefore if you're wondering whether to come - just look at the track record of the person most intimately involved in it! (Then come along...)
by Chris Sivewright (co-producer)
Question 1: What is the most rewarding aspect of working as a Director?
Answer: Seeing the play come together at the dress rehearsal and knowing my work is done.
Question 2: What are the key skills required to be an effective Director?
Answer: Communication, organisational skills, creativity, willingness to listen but also knowing how to politely get others to shut up.
Question 3: Do you see your role as a natural step on a career ladder, and if so what is the next rung?
Answer: Directing for bigger venues for longer runs. Ideally a national tour.
Question 4: How did you work your way into your current role?
Answer: Mainly by bullshitting.
Question 5: How much do you think networking helps towards landing a job in the industry?
Answer: I don't find networking parties etc help, but it is always useful to tell friends of friends what you are doing, and when they say what they are doing, I often offer my services. About two out of five times they accept.
Question 6: Do you think you will be working in the industry in the next five years, and if so in what capacity?
Answer: Yes. Ideally doing more writing.
Question 7: Please describe what a typical day working as a Director might contain?
Answer: A lot of checking of emails, and re-reading scripts with fine toothcombs.
Question 8: Have you done any additional training courses to further your career?
Answer: Several workshops at the Young Vic.
Question 9: How important is working for free at the beginning of your career?
Answer: Very. And not just at the start of the career. If I think I will learn from a project, I'll do it.
Hugh's Directing CV
Hugh has TWICE received five stars in What's On.
Hugh has appeared in various films. and acts
 |
| Lady Deborah's Father/Assistant Director |
Wireless Theatre
Now why do a blog about Hugh?
Well, firstly, because the Q/A might be useful to all budding Directors. Secondly because Hugh WROTE one of the three plays ('Call On Me') being shown at 'Heir of The Dog' (details below) DIRECTED all three and also co-produced.
Therefore if you're wondering whether to come - just look at the track record of the person most intimately involved in it! (Then come along...)
7.30pm on Tues 20th, Wed 21st and Thurs 22nd
November 2012.
At The Dogstar, 389 Coldharbour Lane , London , SW9 8LQ
(Nearest tube: Brixton).
(Nearest tube: Brixton).
by Chris Sivewright (co-producer)
Rehearsed readings
What is a rehearsed reading? **
"A rehearsed reading is as it sounds but they can vary considerably according to the project; some of them are to garner interest from producers or those who may be able to help with development funding and/or staging. These generally involve a bit more rehearsal and I've performed them in places including the Oval House, Blue Elephant and Trafalgar Studios; some have involved enough staging that it was more of a performance than a reading, whilst others have been more static - it depends on the director. Some readings are to focus on the state and/or development of the script; for example I've done readings that are rehearsed for just 2hours and are written by work students as part of their course. Some are done as a promotional tool to raise awareness of a forthcoming production. No matter what the purpose they are always done script in hand and you are never expected to learn the lines."
As a specialist in rehearsed readings I often meet writers keen to see their work “on its feet”. Having seen the final rehearsal of the “Heir of The Dog” plays, I really can appreciate the reason.
My initial reading of the three plays highlighted particular individual features:
- The language used
- An unexpected biblical theme
- A series of apparently random witticisms
The Actors
- StephenCheriton (Demetrius in New Rep Company’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream)
- Emilia Petryszyn (Lady Teazle in N1 Theatre Company’s The School for Scandal)
- Denholm Spurr (John Keats in Pale Fire Theatre Company’s Romantics)
- Louisa Tee (Anna in Opera Upclose’s Don Giovanni)
... and clever pacing
The Director
Directed by HughAllison.
– there is so very much more packed into less than an hour.
Definitely not to be missed!
** Heir of The Dog (An evening of three performances on the theme of God) is NOT a 'rehearsed reading' but is a full - and envigorating - performance! I am the MC.
7.30pm on Tues 20th, Wed 21st and Thurs 22nd
November 2012.
At The Dogstar, 389 Coldharbour Lane , London , SW9 8LQ
(Nearest tube: Brixton).
blog post by Richard Ward
Value for Money
Look at the picture below - what do you see that's a bit odd?
also look at the price...
Now, in the case of Heir of The Dog, the tickets are only £5 - and for that you get THREE plays - here's a pic of rehersals for Wonder':
The plays are on this week - 7.30pm on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday - why not come along?
Well, you'll see a menu from Wetherspoons that has a special offer on coffee - and then you'll see a bill that shows a different price! This 'value for money' product was not all it seems.
When this was queried we were told that 'all the menus are wrong' and 'we had just been given a rogue one' - even though all the menus on the table were the same.
After some strenuous arguing we received an apology - and a free coffee - but note also how the menu is ambiguous. It says 'add a whisky for £1' it does NOT say 'limited to one whisky only'. But when we tried to add 2 (it was a cold day) to the coffee this was refused.
There you have it - poor customer service, staff lacking in knowledge and bullshitting instead and, apparently, incorrect menu prices.
As said, when we argued - and also mentioned the Trade Descriptions act - and especially when I was seen taking the photo above, a manager quickly came over, apologised and gave us free coffee.
But it's all left an irritating taste.
Value for money is key but how do you make sure you can get it?
Certainly in the case of theatre you can go and look at listings such as here and maybe the track record of the organisation putting on the show i.e. previous shows - you can also look at those taking part:
also look at the price...
Now, in the case of Heir of The Dog, the tickets are only £5 - and for that you get THREE plays - here's a pic of rehersals for Wonder':
 |
| Rehearsals of 'Wonder' |
At The Dogstar, 389 Coldharbour Lane , London , SW9 8LQ
(Nearest tube: Brixton).
(Nearest tube: Brixton).
Saturday, 17 November 2012
Hee-haw
Give me a subject, any subject (but ideally Disney or Shakespeare) and I could talk about it for donkey’s years.
I’d like to think I would be able to write about it for that long too, although I would probably want to go off into a gazillion tangents. From the word “donkey” alone,
However, when I want to write about “Heir of The Dog” (which is what I am supposed to be writing about) I just dry up.
Maybe it is because it feels too much like a scholarly exercise [“Direct a play and then write about what you did”], or because there is so much to say, or because it has taken up so much of my life recently –which is a good thing- but I just don’t know where to begin.
Reading previous posts on this blog gives me ideas for totally irrelevant things that I could write about [for example, Denholm’s blog reminds me of a news item about a Florida swinger’s club;
the Zeno’s paradox blog reminds me of Asterix
and the one about the orange reminded me of an old Sunday morning Lee & Herring show] but nothing specifically “Heir of The Dog” related.
However, by the end of this sentence, I will have reached 315 words exactly so to quote Jo (Emilia’s character -
 |
| Donkey's ears |
I’d like to think I would be able to write about it for that long too, although I would probably want to go off into a gazillion tangents. From the word “donkey” alone,
I want to tell a series of bad jokes about the creatures; waffle about the meaning of “donkey’s years”; tell the dull story my mother tells about when she asked at school about the meaning of “donkey’s years” when she already knew the answer but wanted to go home; moan about however she tells this story whenever she comes across the words “donkey’s”, “years” or “both”; or just discuss Shrek.
 |
| Shrek |
However, when I want to write about “Heir of The Dog” (which is what I am supposed to be writing about) I just dry up.
Maybe it is because it feels too much like a scholarly exercise [“Direct a play and then write about what you did”], or because there is so much to say, or because it has taken up so much of my life recently –which is a good thing- but I just don’t know where to begin.
All tickets: £5 (of which 50p goes to The MS Society)
7.30pm on Tues 20th, Wed 21st and Thurs 22nd November 2012.
At The Dogstar,
(Nearest tube: Brixton).
Produced by
Almost Random Theatre.
Email: art.theatre.uk@gmail.com
Phone: 01865 512428 |
Reading previous posts on this blog gives me ideas for totally irrelevant things that I could write about [for example, Denholm’s blog reminds me of a news item about a Florida swinger’s club;
 |
| Denholm Spurr |
 |
| Asterix on his way to watch 'Heir of The Dog' , three plays Nov 20-22nd |
 |
| Emilia is on the right |
HUGH ALLISON (Writer of Call on
Me; co-producer; director)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)