Practical Discussion of Sherlockian roots of Doctor Who: With Some Observations on "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" and other 'crossover' works: Part Two - 'I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere'

Tom Baker's performance in the 1982 BBC "Hound of the Baskervilles", although critically panned, was seen as many as merely an extension of the Doctor he portrayed in the "classic" Robert Holmes story, "The Talons of Weng Chiang". Much has been written on this supposed Sherlockian "Doctor Who" adventure, in particular I draw the reader's attention to the debate in "Celestial Toyroom - June 1994" between Andy Lane and Martin Wiggins. I will now lay down my own opinion. In "Talons", the Doctor brings Leela to Victorian London 1889, where a year after the Ripper was thought to be dead, women are still disappearing. What is happening at the Palace Theatre, and what part is the mysterious Li Hsen Chang playing in the business ? The Doctor and Leela decide to play Holmes and Watson. There is no sign of the real Holmes, he was presumably abroad working with Monsieur Dubuque of the Paris police and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Danzig, as recorded by his faithful Boswell, Watson in "The Naval Treaty". Before, I go any further, I feel that I should state that I like “Talons..”, in fact it is my favourite Fourth Doctor story (narrowly followed by “City of Death”). However, to say that it is a Sherlockian pastiche is incorrect.

As Loyd Grossman always used to say on 'Through the Keyhole' - “Let’s look at the evidence”, Sherlock himself would tut at my theorising before I have data. It is true that the Doctor wears a deerstalker and Inverness cape; Litefoot’s housekeeper is indeed a Mrs. Hudson (maybe the sister-in-law of the saintly landlady of 221b); there is a murderous dwarf trying to kill the Doctor and his companions who is more than reminiscent of Tonga from “The Sign of Four” who tries to do the same to Holmes and Watson; as in “The Man With the Twisted Lip”, a visit to an Opium Den is deemed necessary; and finally there is the giant rat referred to by Sherlock in “The Sussex Vampire”, possibly in jest (but no sign of the Matilda Briggs). However, an equally important source drawn on by RH is the stories of Dr. Fu Manchu, with their gangs of murderous orientals led by a moustached leader. It also borrows from “The Phantom of the Opera” with its disfigured occupant of he cellar, a theme later to be reused in another “classic” RH story, “The Caves of Androzani”. There are also the supposedly typical Sherlockian aspects of foggy London streets, people hitching lifts on the back of cabs, and the sinister presence of Jack the Harlot Killer. Although all or most of these elements are in the Sherlockian canon, they do not occur as often as many people think, and occur equally in other literary works based in Victorian London, including Fu Manchu. 

What about Litefoot and Jago (who since my last essay have gained their own audio spin-off series), who as well as being a RH’ian double-act, are deemed by many as Watsons to the Doctor’s Sherlock Holmes ? Taking the more farcical suggestion first, Henry Gordon Jago (played by Christopher Benjamin who later appeared in Granada's 'The Priory School') is no Watson, he is much too foolish to fulfil this role, and he seems closer to Leonard Sachs, than the intelligent ex-military man of action. Therefore, Professor Litefoot seems to be the prime candidate for Watson. Both are ex-army doctors, both smoke, both question their companion, and both provide an air of normality against which proceedings can be measured. Litefoot shows himself to be a man of action as Sherlock describes Watson, by watching the theatre for Greel’s men rather than waiting for the Doctor, and through his audacious escape attempt via the dumb-waiter. However, Leela demonstrates similar behaviour when she follows Li Hsen Chang to his hiding place, and substitutes herself for one of the potential victims, and she also serves to question the Doctor’s methods and therefore forward the plot. If there is a Watson in “Talons”, I feel that Litefoot and Leela should share the laurels.

So, is the Doctor, Sherlock Holmes in “Talons”. My opinion is no. The deductions he makes are not impressive; smelling gin on a policeman’s breath and stating that he has had a drink, that Greel’s base was in Boot Court after Chang had pointed to the Doctor’s boot as his dying action, that the attacker must have been a midget to enter the house in a laundry basket, and finally that Jago and Litefoot had been gone for a long time as the fire had burnt out. These “deductions” are all “mere child’s play”, the truth of the matter is that the Doctor is playing Sherlock Holmes for his own amusement. We know that the Doctor is a Sherlockian as in “The Bodysnatchers”, his Eighth incarnation again travels to Victorian London, this time to buy a new copy of “The Strand Magazine”, as the one that he has, which contains “The Final Problem”, has a page missing. In fact this role-playing was the reason for the trip in order that the Doctor could indulge himself by playing both Sherlock to Victorians, and Henry Higgins to Leela. This is an example of the difference between “WHO” and a science-fiction programme such as “Star Trek:TNG”. When Data wishes to play Sherlock, he goes onto the holodeck, whereas when the Doctor wants to play Sherlock, he travels back to Victorian London. The Doctor’s play-acting fools Jago, and he encourages the pretence by his misplaced belief that the Doctor is or is a student or contemporary of Sherlock Holmes himself, who was by now known to the public through Watson’s account, “A Study In Scarlet”, and therefore was a master detective.

So, in conclusion, “Talons” is a superb piece of Victorian storytelling with elements from many Victorian novels, but mainly Fu Manchu and Sherlock Holmes. This means it does delight a Sherlockian, but is in no way a pastiche.

Having got the “Sherlockian-Whovian masterwork” out of the way, I wish to move on to “All Consuming Fire”, a New Adventure featuring the Seventh Doctor, Benny, Ace, Sherlock, and Watson, penned by Andy Lane. Since the original version of this essay, Big Finish have released an audio adaptation, featuring McCoy and Aldred, alongside BF's Benny, Lisa Bowerman, and their Holmes & Watson, Nicholas 'Voice of the Daleks' Briggs and Richard Earl. In his review of “ACF”, in Celestial Toyroom, Martin J. Kennaugh states that he finds the book to be a Sherlock Holmes novel, where a rather bizarre individual - known as the Doctor - consults the master detective, and later becomes a more prominent character than Sherlock or Watson. I agree with the majority of this statement, the Doctor is only a supporting character for a few chapters in a truly Sherlockian tale, before monopolising the action himself, aided by the trusty Watson and Benny (to whom Watson “takes a shine”), whilst Sherlock all but disappears from the novel. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a “Doctor Who” novel with Watson, and to a lesser degree, Sherlock as supporting players. The characterisation is good, with Watson breaking out of the “old duffer” image propagated by Nigel Bruce and then by others who followed his example. With his fondness for young ladies, his infatuation with Benny seems in character, and he is given plenty of chance to prove his “man of action” label. Sherlock is only sketchily drawn, but he does solve the theft of books from the library of St. John the Beheaded, which is one of the most bizarre in its execution of Sherlock’s career. He is, as I have stated above, forgotten for the rest of the book, with Watson providing the necessary “daring-do” and comment. The lack of involvement of Sherlock did initially alienate me towards this novel, but having listened to Guy Adams' audio adaptation, feel that this was somewhat re-balanced in the adaptation. (I did miss my favourite quote from Watson in relation to Ms. Summerfield though !) In conclusion I did however, enjoy “ACF”, and do recommend it, particularly the first few chapters.

Sherlock and Watson reappear in “Happy Endings” by Paul Cornell; to attend Bernice’s wedding, but between “ACF” and “Happy Endings”, according to the cover picture, Sherlock has “regenerated” from a Rathbone/Cushing resemblance to a Jeremy Brett look. Sherlock gets to investigate a mystery with Roz Forrester, Watson continues to lust after Benny, whilst the Doctor labels Sherlock “borderline psychotic”. However my main memory of the book a few years after reading it, save Sherlock being confused by 2010 satellite dishes, are two 'Bona' Silurians, Jacquilian and (his friend) Sanki.

Moving on to another Virgin WHO novel, “Evolution” by John Peel, in which the Fourth Doctor (in Inverness cape) and Sarah-Jane team up with a young surgeon from a whaling ship, Arthur Conan-Doyle, and a young Kipling. Written at a similar time to “ACF”, this book ties in well, but rather bizarrely suggests that the Doctor may have been the model for both Sherlock and Challenger (so how can he have worked with Sherlock in “ACF”). Reading this book, it becomes obvious that Peel is trying too hard with his in-jokes. Almost every bizarre element of Sherlockian cases are present in the adventure, but the hound roaming the moor is the final nail in the coffin. In my opinion, the Fourth Doctor does nothing remotely Sherlockian to inspire the character. I hated this book, and recommend it to no one.  [See 'Jago & Litefoot 7.1: The Monstrous Menagerie' for an example of how to do a 'meeting Conan Doyle' adventure]

Just released at the time of my previous essay was “The Adventure of the Diogenes Damsel”, a 'Professor Bernice Summerfield' audio, which featured the 27th century archaelogist teaming up with Sherlock's brother, Mycroft (the year being 1893, Sherlock is “playing dead”), following being snatched from her home time and her son, Peter. Benny becomes 'Watson' to Mycroft's 'Sherlock' whilst they investigate crimes which all seem associated with the number seven. Jim Smith's script is peppered with references to the Sherlockian Canon, other Victorian literature, other BF audios, and a number of Virgin 'New Adventures', in particular the previously discussed “All Consuming Fire”, the manuscript of which allows Mycroft to deduce Benny's identity. This is highly recommended, showing Mr. Peel how you make Sherlockian references that provoke chuckles of recognition, rather than sighs of annoyance.

With Steven Moffat at the helm during the Eleventh Doctor era, it is not surprising that he introduced a Victorian detective as a recurring character. However, this 'Great Detective' was a female Silurian, who investigated strange occurences with her maid/wife, Jenny, initially in “A Good Man Goes to War” (where she eats Jack the Ripper), and then in two prequels to the 2012 Christmas Special. It is these prequels that I intend to briefly examine - “The Great Detective” and “Vastra Investigates”, in which Vastra and Jenny are joined by Sontaran, Strax. The focus is on the Eleventh Doctor refusing to assist them given his recent loss of Amy & Rory. In the latter, Vastra comes closest to being Sherlockian, even dealing with Inspector Gregson (who would return in the Twelfth Doctor's first story, “Deep Breath”), the Scotland Yarder that they send when Lestrade is busy. All the cliches are there - the foggy streets, gas-lamps, hansom cabs – but I for one am enjoying it. This is built on by “The Snowmen”, “The Crimson Horror”, and to a lesser extent, “Deep Breath”. In my view it will be a shame if the Paternoster Gang are never seen again.

So, Sherlock and the Doctor do seem to be closely linked, sharing many common characteristics. However, crossovers have been of varying success, and the apparently most obvious and most effective one, “The Talons of Weng Chiang” used other elements to strengthen the Sherlockian elements. Both characters are immortal, and will continue to have their adventures in print, and as I hoped in the conclusion of my orginal essay, a continuing future on television.

Practical Discussion of Sherlockian roots of Doctor Who: With Some Observations on "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" and other 'crossover' works: Part One - Doctor [W]holmes??

The link between Sherlock Holmes and the Doctor can be seen most clearly in the actors who have played the part. Six 'Doctors' have also played "the Great Detective"; most famously Peter Cushing, the movie Doctor, in both Hammer's "Hound of the Baskervilles" and in the BBC's 16 part "Sherlock Holmes" television series in 1968; Tom Baker, the Fourth Doctor, who played the role for the BBC's 1982 "Hound of the Baskervilles", which reunited him with Terrance Dicks and Barry Letts, and on stage; and current incumbent, Peter Capaldi, in an Alexei Sayle sketch. The sextet is completed by the stand-in Doctors, David Banks (in rep in 1970's), Richard Hurdnall (BBC Radio's 1959 "Sign of Four" - surprisingly good !), and 'Shalka' Doctor, Richard E. Grant who played Holmes in a drama documentary about Conan Doyle  [he has also played Stapleton, Mycroft, and even ACD], whilst referring to his Doctor as 'Sherlock Holmes in space'.
 
Even Jeremy Brett, thought by many, including myself, to have been the TV Holmes of his generation, was considered when the part of the Seventh Doctor was being cast, without having to undertake a screen test, but turned it down to continue playing Holmes. [Even recent Holmes Jonny Lee Miller's first screen credit was Fifth Doctor adventure 'Kinda'] But what is the connection between these seemingly unconnected characters ?

Firstly, despite the Doctor being from Gallifrey in the constellation of Kasterborus, there is a quintessential Victorian Englishness about him, both in his dress (most extremely in "Talons of Weng Chiang") and in his actions, in particular his supporting of female companions. He also seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on Earth, in particular England, with a whole universe to explore, he always seems to end up in good old Blighty. Sherlock, is himself, the perfect Victorian English gentlemen helping the many young girls who come to consult him over lost fiances, unusual legacies, and speckled bands.

This brings me on to a second point, both are asexual characters with large gay and lesbian followings. The Doctor has travelled with no less than more than thirty lovely young girls in the TARDIS, and with the exception of Grace, a kiss of delight on the return of his memory, and Rose, the exception to the rule, has in the main not shown feelings towards them other than that of a concerned travelling companion. Sherlock was also an asexual man, preferring the company of his good friend, Watson, in a close but not homosexual relationship. He left the flirting with clients to Watson, whose knowledge of women stretched three continents. The accusation of love towards Irene Adler is unfounded, he had only supreme respect for the woman, in the same way, the Sixth Doctor expresses respect for "The Terrible Zodin"

Thirdly, Sherlock Holmes is one of literature's most well-known eccentrics, only just surpassed by his cousin on his father's side, Professor George Edward Challenger. The Doctor is also an eccentric, with his strange musical talents (recorder and spoons), celery adorned lapel, bags of jelly babies, and seemingly bottomless pockets, which contain all manner of useless items. This link has leant many people to label the Fourth Doctor as the Sherlockian Doctor, as he was the most obvious eccentric. However, I would argue that the Fourth Doctor is too loveable an eccentric, and the title of most Sherlockian Doctor should be given elsewhere, but more of this later.

Fourthly, there is the importance of companions. In his adventures through time and space, the Doctor has been joined by over forty travelling companions, Sherlock however, has been joined for fifty-five of his sixty canonical adventures by the trusty, Watson. The companion's role is to stand in for the reader or watcher, and constantly question what the Doctor is doing, in order that the reader or watcher understands what is happening. Jo Grant was a prime example of this, acting in a Watsonesque manner towards the Third Doctor, neither she, Watson or the Doctor's other companions were imbeciles, all were of average intelligence, but saddled with an eccentric genius for a companion.

On a more flippant note, both characters had at least one Great Hiatus, when they were feared dead, but whilst Sherlock was thought dead for three years, the Doctor returned safe and well (for the first time), a mere eighteen months later. Obviously, Michael Grade was easier to defeat than the remnants of Moriarty’s criminal organisation. [However, I write during another hiatus, this time for a year]

Finally, both are heroes in the old-fashioned sense, going out and righting wrongs, good triumphing over evil. Both characters are heroes of their time, or I suppose in the Doctor’s case, of all time. They stand together with others such as James Bond in the public consciousness.

However, every hero needs a villain. Peter Haining in his 1983 book "Doctor Who: A Celebration" states that "the Doctor and his sworn enemy the Master are the Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty of our times". He goes on to state that the Master is "a man of similar background, equal intelligence and ingenuity" to the Doctor, as is Moriarty to Holmes. Whilst agreeing with this latter statement, that Holmes and Moriarty are alike, just on different sides of the good/evil divide. Even Colin Baker and “Doctor Who” producers Barry Letts and John Nathan-Turner have identified the Master as a Moriarty to the Doctor's Holmes. However, this comparison is flawed. Moriarty only appears in person in one story, and is only definitely behind one other, whereas the Master has faced the Doctor over thirty times in the course of 53 years. Moriarty as any good Sherlockian knows controls the operation, with his agents undertaking the day to day business of his criminal organisation, and none are traced back to him, until Mr. Sherlock Holmes enters the fray. Moriarty is closer in character to the Black Guardian, a largely unseen presence who uses others, firstly the Shadow, and then Turlough, in his attempts to defeat the hero, the Doctor.

Much is made of the three Reichenbach incidents in “The Deadly Assassin”, “Logopolis” and the “Doctor Who” television movie. The strongest of these is “Logopolis”, where the Doctor regenerates following his tussle with the Master on a giant radio mast, as some Sherlockians claim that Sherlock was not the man he was, on his return from his explorations as Sigerson. The only other Moriarty-like performance by the Master is in “Mind of Evil”, when he also sits at the centre of a web of criminal intrigue, and at the end taunts the hero in a similar way to his literary counterpart at the end of “The Valley of Fear”. Having cleared up what I view as an annoying misconception, I will move onto the twelve Doctors, to find a candidate for most Sherlockian Doctor.

The First Doctor, I can say little of, finding his character so objectionable that I am unable to watch him. His dress is Victorian in style, and he does appear eccentric and objectionable, which means he may run the Sixth and Twelfth Doctors close on that aspect. The Second Doctor is even more eccentric than his predecessor, and looks like Holmes may have done in one of his down-and-out disguises. He also shows detective skills in his methodical piecing together of apparently unconnected clues in “The Faceless Ones”, “The Evil of the Daleks” and “The Tomb of the Cybermen”.

The appearance of the Third Doctor is when Sherlockian references begin to abound. The Doctor’s struggle with the Master, his “Moriarty” (see above) which takes place within UNIT, where he is aided by the Brigadier who appears to be a curious blend of both Watson and the dim-witted Inspector Lestrade. The Third Doctor’s companions, in particular Jo, also fulfill the Watson role that I have described above. The climax to the vague Sherlockian allusions in “The Silurians” and “The Daemons” is “The Curse of Peladon”, described by some as Baskervillian, in which the Doctor’s tweed cape comes closest to an approximation of Sherlock. He also demonstrates martial arts, probably not too disimilar to Sherlock’s baritsu.

When the Fourth Doctor began his tenure, he had the most blatant attempt at Sherlockian characterisation. Leaving aside “Talons of Weng-Chiang”, which I will discuss in detail in Part 2, the Doctor refuses to contact the police in “Pyramids of Mars”, as he believes that they will hamper his investigation, uses his deductive skills whilst dealing with “The Robots of Death”, and borrows Sherlock’s decoy effigy trick in “The Deadly Assassin”. The Fourth Doctor was clearly an eccentric, but was an endearing one, unlike Sherlock who alienated nearly everyone that he met, apart from his faithful Watson.

The Fifth Doctor showed little Sherlockian qualities, despite being involved in a country house mystery in “Black Orchid”. However, this was more of an Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple mystery, rather than a Sherlockian one and it is more by luck than any great detective work that the Doctor finds himself a free man. The Fifth Doctor despite being the perfect cricket-playing gentleman shares little with the master detective, being too nice to annoy anyone.

In stark contrast is the loud abrasive the Sixth Doctor, as eccentric as any of his predecessors, but there is little endearing about his character. In this respect, he mirrors Sherlock. In fact, script editor Eric Saward (quoted in 'The Sixth Doctor Handbook') stated: “we were going to try and introduce…..a sort of Holmesian ability to make extraordinary deductions.” However, whist with Peri, the Doctor had little chance to show his deductive powers, but on the Hyperion III in “Terror of the Vervoids”, he shows them as he notices the fake Mogaran, and finally tracks down the perpetrator of the deaths on the ship. Although superficially another Agatha Christie inspired story, with Professor Lasky reading “Murder on the Orient Express”, it is a Poirot-style story. Hercule Poirot is an eccentric Belgian detective, who uses his “little grey cells”, with the aid of his ex-military colleague who has a fondness for the female of the species. Who then is this based on, but Sherlock ? And in turn then, “Terror of the Vervoids” owes as much to Conan Doyle as to Christie. The Sixth Doctor’s wrapping up of the case is as workman-like as Sherlock’s would have been. However, the only fly in an otherwise unsullied ointment is that by this time, the Doctor’s character has mellowed, and is no longer as unfriendly as before. However, he does still share Sherlock’s habit of speechifying, his outbursts in the courtroom on Gallifrey equal those of Sherlock in “The Naval Treaty”.

The Seventh Doctor despite working with Sherlock in “All Consuming Fire”, and despite being even more English, in spite of his Scottish twang, than his predecessors, did not demonstrate any more deductive skills than the majority of his predecessors. The same goes for the Eighth Doctor, who turns out to be a fan of Sherlock himself, as he is reading “The Final Problem” at the beginning of the novel “The Bodysnatchers”.

The Ninth Doctor, with his non-interventionist actions also bears little resemblance to the Great Detective, whilst the Tenth Doctor also finds himself in an Agatha Christie murder-mystery (with Agatha herself), but again uses little deduction (and is very unlike Sherlock in relation to Rose). The Eleventh Doctor dresses as Holmes in 'The Snowmen' (where he is up against two Holmes actors, Richard E. Grant & Ian McKellen), but tends to leave many deductions to the Paternoster Gang (the ones he makes being wide of the mark), save his checking the most opened page in Dr. Simeon's diary.   (Matt Smith, however, did audition for the Watson part in 'Sherlock', prior to being cast as the Doctor)

However, we now find ourselves with another rude genius in the Twelfth Doctor, who shares many of the Sixth's (and Sherlock's) idiocyncracies, including speechifying, and rudeness to his sidekick/companion. However, the Twelfth Doctor may just have the edge with his more restrained tailoring – Sherlock would never wear a multi-coloured coat, even if in disguise. Roll on Series 10, then !

In the second part of this essay, I will look at the “Sherlockian crossover” stories themselves.

Practical Discussion of Sherlockian roots of Doctor Who: With Some Observations on "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" and other 'crossover' works: Introduction.

The essay that follows (in two parts), is an updated version of one written by myself in what has been termed the 'widerness years' of 'Doctor Who', namely 1999. In my introduction to the original essay, I referred to experiences of travelling between two specialised shops separated by a half-hour trip on the Hammersmith and City Line; "The Who Shop" then in East Ham, and "The Sherlock Holmes Memorabilia Company" (SHMC) in Baker Street (unfortunately no longer there). On one such trip in around 1997, having visited East Ham, I made my way to SHMC. Whilst browsing, the assistant noticed my "Who Shop" carrier-bag, and asked me about it, keenly writing down its phone number. About six months later, a similar event occurred, this time at "The Who Shop". It being my birthday, myself and a friend were having lunch at Hudson's restaurant, beneath the Sherlock Holmes Museum (also unfortunately no longer there), and we mentioned this to the manageress, who expressed interest stating that she had always meant to go there herself. This set me thinking, along with an article by Stephen Cartwright in "Doctor Who Magazine #253", and a copy of "Celestial Toyroom - June 1994" which I had acquired at the previous year's Longleat celebration - Why are Doctor Who fans, also ardent Sherlockians ? And why has "WHO", in particular its spin-off books, focused on this connection, by uniting the characters ? Holmes was even in the Doctor Who Trump Card Game !!

Of course, since then, the link has become even closer with the BBC's 'Sherlock', written and created by the current 'Doctor Who' showrunner, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, regular contributor to new WHO, which along with the new series could only have been dreamed of back in 1999 when I wrote the original piece. The new series has also given us a 'Great Detective', albeit a Silurian warrior, backed up by her wife and a Sontaran butler.

Before beginning, I feel that I should admit to having a difficulty with terms. Holmes can refer both to Sherlock and Robert, the Master is both a bearded adversary and the term of respect used by Sherlockians to the adored detective, and the Doctor can be timelord or Watson. Luckily Sherlockian literature has handed on the idea of canonicity to "WHO", but whereas the distinction in the former is between adventures penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and those not, canonicity is not so clear cut in the latter. However, I will endeavour not to confuse, by referring to Sherlock by his first name whilst deeming Robert as RH, only using the Master to describe the evil one, and by referring to Doctor Watson as Watson. I will also stick with the agreed numbering of Doctors, ignoring the 'War Doctor' or 'TenTwo', so that the current incarnation is 'The Twelfth Doctor'.

The following are my own views, along with information gleaned from "Celestial Toyroom - June 1994" (Victorian Special with "The Strand Magazine" cover) and from Stephen Cartwright's article "Roots - Part 4: Holmes and Vardans" in DWM #253.

So let us see if we can unravel this three-pipe problem !

THEATRE REVIEW: The Roundabout (Park Theatre, London)

Introduction

A J.B Priestley play written in 1931 as a vehicle for Peggy Ashcroft, which was left unfinished, but then produced in Liverpool the next year, receives its London premiere 85 years later, in this production by Cahoots Theatre Company, directed by Hugh Ross, at the intimate Park Theatre, Finsbury Park.

Plot

Lord Kettlewell (Brian Protheroe), an old Etonian whose business ventures are failing, has to deal with the weekend from Hell, with the return of his estranged daughter Pamela (Bessie Carter) from Russia, now a Communist and bringing her ardent Comrade, Herbert Staggles (Steven Blakeley); along with visits from both his mistress (Carol Starks) and his ex-wife (Lisa Bowerman); and from Lady Knightsbridge (Richenda Carey), mother to a stream of gossip-writers and tradesmen. The chaos is acidically commented on by Lord Kettlewell's old friend, 'Chuffy' Saunders (Hugh Sachs), whilst butler, Parsons (Derek Hutchinson) attempts to keep order.

Review

Thoroughly enjoyable for start to finish, with Hugh Sachs (best known from 'Benidorm') snatching most of the best lines, but with enough left for the others. Bessie Carter (daughter of Jim Carter and Imelda Staunton) seems to be having the time of her life in this her professional theatre debut, as the mischievous Pamela.  Richenda Carey makes the most of her limited stage time in the 'Peggy Ashcroft' role, whilst Steven Blakeley provoked many of the belly-laughs. Lisa Bowerman, the last to arrive, at the end of Act II, now the end of an extended Act I, gets one of the cleverest lines, whilst Brian Protheroe looks more and more haunted as the play progresses. A hilarious look at England in the 1930s, as it looked like the social order might be changing.

Rating: 

'The Roundabout'  runs at the Park Theatre, Finsbury Park, London, until 24th September 2016
(https://www.parktheatre.co.uk/whats-on/the-roundabout)


Click here for a promotional video.