The Sussex Express has a nice review of 'Sleuth' posted on their website. The final paragraphs read as follows:

"He (MacCorkindale) played snobbish Andrew Wyke,
the aristocratic author of Agatha Christie-style
manor house mysteries.

Michael Praed started out rather more sheepishly as
Milo Tindle, the upstart son of an Italian immigrant.

He arrives at the home of Wyke which sees the start
of what begins as a playful game between rivals which
soon turns sinister in this classic thriller."

I don't feel a bit guilty about quoting entire paragraphs from the review in full here. Take a look at my description for the play this week:

"Milo Tindle (Michael Praed), the upstart son of an
Italian immigrant, arrives at the home of snobbish
Andrew Wyke (Simon MacCorkindale), the aristocratic
author of Agatha Christie-style manor house mysteries.
What begins as a playful game between rivals turns
sinister in this classic thriller. Joe Harmston
directs the Bill Kenwright production."

Now THAT is flattery!

When, as a webmaster, you see your work pop up unexpectedly elsewhere! I've had it happen several times with other sites I run... and can honestly say I never quite get used to it! LOL!

Ah well - immitation is the sincerest form of flattery (apparently!).

Hugs as always

Haze x

Haze x

http://www.michaelpraedonline.com

The fact that the reporter from this review called Michael sheepishly and the less stronger part in Sleuth does not sound fair if so many of his fans all over England, Scotland and Ireland are so exited about him in this play.

What I quoted above was the end of the review. The beginning is another story.

When the reviewer, Liza Laws, started out the review by saying it was an "impressive double act" (referring to the actors) and "quite a treat" for the audience, I came away with the impression she LIKED the play. Particularly when she said Simon and Michael "held the audience captivated".

I believe she was referring to Michael's character starting out sheepish in comparison to the domineering character of Simon's role, not that Michael's acting was an embarrassment.

I think she decided that of two impressive lead actors, Simon was the stronger of the two. In context, I don't necessarily see that judgment as a critical review of Michael.

But I certainly could be mistaken in my impressions. What do others think?



PS Haze, I've spotted other "quotes" of my work on other websites, in Michael's stage bios and in reviews, but this is the most extensive. I'm just tickled that someone is reading the things!

I think that I forgot to read the first lines of this review and misjudged this review . I have read it again today. Thank you Celeste for giving your point of view on this review.

I think it is more in reference to the character than Michael's acting. If you consider the dynamics of the characters... how they play off each other, then in the first Act, Andrew is the dominant, stronger character in terms of his control and power over Milo. Andrew confronts Milo about his affair with his wife; thus resulting in Milo indeed being a tad sheepish and Andrew having the power. Later, in Act II, the dynamics shift and Andrew has the more dominant and powerful role... so it balances it out and we see both characters - and subsequently both actors - taking stronger roles at different times in the play. It's actually very cleverly done and I think the way both Michael and Simon play off each other in this way is superb.

Just my thoughts of course... but I think that's the angle the reviewer was probably coming from.

Sorry this has spoilers in it but it's the only way I could think to respond to Celeste's question/point.

Haze x

http://www.michaelpraedonline.com