A Very Expensive Poison - Old Vic 2019

I'd rather contemporary playwrights construct things that they believe speak best to audiences right now, at the time the play is being written and produced, than trying to write something that will be revived several times through the years. Not sensible for her retirement plans, but I think better for us.

I saw this in previews, so have ended up with a spare £20 ticket, stalls Q35 restricted view available for this Monday (9th). There's a notice on the noticeboard. I enjoyed it, so reckon someone else will as well.

I went to see Expensive Poison last night. Was beyond excited given Lucy Prebble’s previous success as well as the buzz / positive press surrounding the show. I found the play terribly inconsistent and much less satisfying than I was hoping for. I was expecting a show that smartly unpacked the A.L. story and conspiracy of his death, and what I saw was a show that seemed unable to know what it wanted to be - from literal to absurd - which sadly didn't work for me. The 2nd Act felt stronger than the first as it had a bit more literal storytelling, but the character in the upper tier with the microphone played by Reece S. was completely annoying and not needed. Perhaps I am way off when I see the reviews Thursday night/Friday am - but I SO wanted it to be an “edge of my seat” thriller, and that isn’t what I saw on the stage last night. Or am I wrong?

I enjoyed this piece of performance art this evening and think it has potential. The show is thought provoking and tries to interest you through lots of different layers.

But it suffers from the same problems as Sylvia last year, where it comes across very much as a work in progress and one that would have benefited from being workshopped. There were a few line stumbles towards the end, so I rather think they're still testing different things out each night. Running time was 2 hours 45 minutes.

This is very much a play of two halves. The first half is great, a mostly traditional play. The second half is a variety show, with singing, dancing and lots of audience interaction. If you do enjoy that type of thing, the best places to sit, at least from tonight, are centre front row, anything on the second row (two men in the middle got to say if they preferred having a crotch or bum in their face - I'll come back to them later) and the side Stalls for the first few rows. There is some action in the other levels as well, although I couldn't see all of it.

My second row Stalls seat, picked up during one of the sales, was great value. This seemed pretty full and I think it will sell.

The show is presented rather as if it is a work of fiction. From conversations around me, I'm really not convinced that people knew this was based on a real story. It's presented in such a way that you have to yourself differentiate fact and fiction and try and work backwards to put together the whole story. Personally, it has made me want to read the non-fiction book this whole thing was based on.

I think it could easily be trimmed. There are a few scenes that don't really add to the plot. There are two gunshots (together) at the end of a long scene that leaves you on edge. The use of gunshots adds nothing. As it happened, these were on the quieter end of the spectrum.

Reece Shearsmith is very active in coordinating the variety act, with a portrayal very similar to all his most annoying characters from The League of Gentlemen (you'll probably even recognise the voice). That was one part that didn't really work for me, as if it was all there just to lead to a poorly done magic trick towards the end (which I saw coming a mile off). There's a lot of breaking the fourth wall and talking about the terrible condition of the Old Vic right now as it's plagued with building work and entering through side doors (as someone near me mentioned, how would they get everyone out quickly if there was a fire?).

The ending snaps between acting and real life, to the extent that I was expecting the real Marina Litvinenko to appear on stage (I'm sure she will at some point). There were several other teases that didn't happen, including the theatre being taken over by gunmen, as well as showing images taken of the real Alexander Litvinenko.

Apart from that, sets are effective, with good use of small sets to suggest rooms and a fully open stage with multiple set pieces during events that may have been fact or fiction. The acting was competent, with a large cast, with many playing multiple characters (the opposite of many recent plays, which have as small a cast as possible). There is a change between Russian and English accents which has been explained earlier in the thread and really wouldn't have been obvious to me otherwise.

My impression at the end was an audience not sure if they'd watched a comedy, with respect for the actors, but ultimately puzzlement. There's enough puzzlement there that this will get decent reviews and word of mouth out there. It also got one person standing, one of the aforementioned men, although his partner did join him right at the end of the bows to make it two people. I would have stood up if a lot of the audience had done so, but although this has potential, it isn't quite there yet.

They refer to Putin by his forenames, Vladimir Vladimirovich. Given his tole in outrages like this, of course it’s him. Making one of the world’s most dangerous leaders into a fun character? For me, that’s a terrible mistake in tone.

EDIT: Purely for information - other European countries not brutally subjugated in the last seventy years also include Iceland (basically the UK just rocked up and used them during WWII, so that’s borderline), Sweden, Republic of Ireland and Switzerland. Spain and Portugal were neutral in WWII but they did have to cope with Franco and Salazar’s fascist regimes during that time. Also, residents of the Channel Islands were brutally subjugated by their Nazi invaders, not being part of the UK but very much connected.

Can I ask what the Shearsmith magic trick was? I was at the performance tonight and can't work out what part this was!

I wouldn't have given it 5 stars either, but that is definitely not a definition of a 5 star show that I'd subscribe to.

5 stars for me is 'excellent theatre', something that I really thoroughly enjoyed, not necessarily something that is some kind of holy unimpeachable orgasm of a theatrical event. I'm not sure if I've ever seen something that was an unimprovable masterpiece, I'd be curious to know what you've put into that category.

Star ratings are clearly a subjective thing, to be applied and interpreted as you will, and I don't think you can ever criticise someone for applying a higher rating than you personally would. We all have different tastes, we all care about different things and see shows in different ways, and if someone wants to give AVEP their highest rating, I don't personally find that laughable.

24hr TodayTix £15 offer available for anyone interested in seeing this.

I'd love to see age demographics on this one. Surprised Billington gave it 4. I suspect he rounded up ..

All stalls and dress Circle tickets appear to have been reduced to £20 for today’s matinee. Including premiums. So worth grabbing a bargain if you can.