The BFG

adapted by Tom Wells and Jenny Worton from Roald Dahl's story

seen at the Chichester Festival Theatre on 21 March 2026

Daniel Evans directs John Leader as the BFG with a supporting company of actors and puppeteers in an imaginative staging of Roald Dahl's popular children's story extolling the virtues of friendship for all, from orphans to untypical giants and even the Queen of England. The production is a joint venture by the Chichester Festival Theatre, the RSC and Singapore's Esplanade Theatre on the Bay, with the blessing of the Roald Dahl Story Company.

The difficulty in staging a play concerning humans and giants is the question of scale, a problem that besets everything from pantomime (Jack and the Beanstalk) to Wagner's opera Das Rheingold. In this story the challenge is compounded by having humans, a small giant (the titular BFG, albeit his initials stand for "Big Friendly Giant") and regular-sized large giants - a three-fold issue of scale rather than the usual two-fold issue. In a versatile set designed by Vicki Mortimer, the problem is solved by the imaginative use of puppets. At times we see the child Sophie, her friend Kimberley, and the Queen and her court, from an ordinary human perspective, and if the BFG is present he is represented by a large-scale puppet manipulated by three puppeteers. Sometimes we see things from the BFG's perspective: John Leader is on stage and the humans are represented by small marionettes; the threatening regular giants are themselves large-scale puppets. Dizzyingly, on occasion we see actors portraying the human-eating large giants, while the BFG is a small marionette and the child Sophie is a tiny doll.

The staging is brilliantly effective, allowing the story to proceed at a headlong pace with no confusion. Children in the audience are enthralled (though one small voice behind me asked with incipient disappointment at the first blackout "is that the end?" - of course it wasn't) while the adults marvel at the ingenuity. The cast - even the two child actors for Sophie and Kimberley - handle all the logistical challenges with aplomb, and the paean to friendship, ludicrous though many of its narrative details are, rolls forward with unstoppable energy, enlivened by ridiculous word-coinages and a final explosion of fart jokes. 

Born with Teeth

by Liz Duffy Adams

seen at Wyndham's Theatre on 15 October 2025

Daniel Evans directs Ncuti Gatwa as Kit (Christopher Marlowe) and Edward Bluemel as Will (William Shakespeare) in Liz Duffy Adams's sharply observed two-hander imagining that the playwrights collaborated (somewhat uneasily) on the three Henry VI plays commonly attributed to Shakespeare.

The question of multiple authorship, or co-authorship, particularly of these early plays in the canon, has been discussed for a long time, initially based on anecdote and intuition, and more recently bolstered by increasingly sophisticated tools of textual analysis. The programme notes include an article explaining how in 2016 the editors of the New Oxford Shakespeare came to include Marlowe as a contributing author to these three plays, and how this in turn inspired Liz Duffy Adams to write her play.

After an explosive assault on our eyes and ears with flashing lights and electronic noise (repeated at each break to show the passage of a year: 1591, 1592, and then the fateful day of Marlowe's death, 30 May 1593) we are presented with a bare room the walls of which are banked with lights. There is a large writing table. Here the two playwrights meet, Will initially star-struck and unsure, Kit swaggering and flirtatious, but also keen to involve the naif Will in his world of spies, all under the guise of providing an impecunious young man with the security of powerful patronage. Will, more strait-laced, demurs, irritating the mercurial Kit with his high-mindedness. Subtle jokes abound relating to half-thought-out echoes of what will become famous phrases, while Will at least twice reminds the patronising Kit that they are the same age: he is not just a boy to Kit's worldly-wise man.

The two characters are obviously chalk and cheese, yet there is an undeniable spark between them, giving rise to passionate speeches about life, love and art, and resulting in a curiously effective collaboration in place of a rivalry which could have ruined the whole project. Will gains in confidence as Kit recognises his skill and growing power as a playwright: there are fascinating scenes in which they critique each other's work by interleaving their contributions to the work in progress.

Both actors are masters of their parts, Gatwa supremely confident in his tight-fitting leathers, commanding the stage with grandiose movements and campily brandishing a ridiculously long quill pen, but vulnerable when genuine feelings catch him unawares, and Bluemel initially diffident in less flashy attire, but with an almost boyish allure in a floppy shirt. (Costumes and set are skilfully designed by Joanna Scotcher.) Will's unease never entirely leaves him: he is constantly adjusting his trousers to fit neatly at this waist, as if unsure that his clothes really fit him. Small details such as these enliven stunningly engaging performances from both men in a play that fizzes with energy and an infectious love of the theatre. 

The audience's enthusiasm was fully justified.

Quiz

by James Graham

seen at the Noel Coward Theatre on 12 April 2018

Daniel Evans directs this transfer from Chichester of James Graham's new play, featuring Keir Charles as Chris Tarrant (and other quizmasters), Gavin Spokes as Charles Ingram and Stephanie Street as Diane Ingram. It briefly traces the development of British TV quiz shows before focusing on a notorious case in which Charles Ingram, a contestant on the hugely successful quiz Who Wants to be a Millionaire? was accused of colluding with his wife and an associate to gain the prize by cheating - the others were supposed to have been coughing audibly when the correct answer was read out, thus allowing Charles to select it.

The play cleverly conflates the idea of a trial with the trappings of a TV reality show, allowing for the necessary exposition to be as entertaining as possible, then presenting the circumstances of Ingram's participation in the show from the prosecution's point of view. By the time of the interval the case looks damning, and the audience is invited to vote on the verdict, which is overwhelmingly 'guilty'. In the second half, the situation is presented again from the defence's point of view, bringing in added circumstantial detail and questioning the basis of some of the prosecution's case. A second audience vote yields a different result, but not necessarily an acquittal.