As others did I had high hopes for this play, but was bored to sobs, a 1910's Tenko without the drama or character development. My heart lifted when Celia's husband gave her his ultimatum... sadly that fizzled. I'm not sure if Mr Hytner should "bugger off" just yet but I have been dreadfully disappointed by many of the recent NT offerings, please no more Katie Mitchell. - Hampton
02 Sep 08
Absolutely worth watching for Lesley Manville and Susan Engel, though I didn't rate Jemima Rooper and would love to have seen Manville better matched. Very engaging and accessible, though not one to see for historical accuracy or fantastic detail. See it for a good night out not a life changer. - mememe
02 Sep 08
Rebecca Lenkiewicz attempts to tell the story of women's suffrage and of the lesbian relationship between two suffragettes from opposite ends of the social scale. Unfortunately Her Naked Skin falls between two stools and is a well meaning disappointment. By attempting too much there is insufficient detail to either story - the background to the suffrage movement is sketchy and the end of the affair is left unexplained. The scenes in Holloway are mostly effective, mainly thanks to a superb performance from Susan Engel as a Mrs. Pankhurst type figure. Lesley Manville cannot be less than excellent but her character is so cold that it is ironic that the most sympathetic character is her long-suffering husband (Adrian Rawlins) who supports his wife's cause but has endured a loveless marriage in return. As Never So Good has proved, a history play can be very entertaining and the suffragette movement deserves similar treatment but Lenkiewicz has fallen short. - David Baxter
20 Aug 08
Pay £10 to witness one of the worst plays at the National for ages. Rebecca Lenkiewicz disappoints on all levels with this clunking, unconvincing script. Pity the cast that try to breathe life into this worthless piece. - Pat Stephens
19 Aug 08
Such a disappointment. Tedious, dull, cliche ridden script which brought nothing to what should be a riveting subject either politically or personally. Lesley Manville's strong performance could not redeem this dire effort - I simply did not care about her or the other women. I am amazed that a play without merit should have been staged with such pointless elaboration and expense. - Alice Lane
19 Aug 08
OK on suffragettes, really tedious attached love story. Well acted but not a good play. The set is impressive but also becomes tiresome. - HJ
15 Aug 08
A huge disappointment. I give it three stars for the acting alone, for the play itself is a rambling mish-mash of tired themes we've heard a hundred times before. We all know how unfair the situation of women was in the early 20th century: if a drama is to be made out of it, there should at least be something fresh in it. The love story between the two women and the unsatisfactory marriage of one of them seem almost like a separate play, and they detract from rather than adding to the central plot. The play is also far too long, and could have been cut by at least half an hour. The constant scene changes and the clanking revolving stage are very distracting, and I question the necessity of showing the graphic representation of force feeding. Lesley Manville delivers the dreadful script bravely, and is well supported by, especially, Susan Engel as Miss Boorman. I was not convinced by Jemima Rooper as Eve Douglas, who was unable to sustain her east London accent. The footage of Emily Davison throwing herself under the king's horse is a cliche which set the scene for everything that followed. - sc
13 Aug 08
Interesting play set in one year, 1913, among the more militant, suffragettes, involved in the struggle for female political rights. Woven into the play which incorporates some of the political and social conflict, direct action and sacrifices involved, is a relationship between two women of different classes who experience imprisonment yet also some freedom together. There are hostile males but also supportive men, in a play in which the shadow of prison actual and metaphorical reminds the audience of the many restrictions to which women were subject. The scenery moves because the number and type of scenes vary so widely, in a play also effectively using multimedia to refer to the epic nature of the struggle. The love affair wasn't important, they never are except to the people wrapped up in them, but such affairs must have gone on, rather as would more likely be the case in single sex institutions where people live in close proximity. Just eighty years ago women nationally won voting rights on a par with men, and this play in a national theatre marks that advance. You may need shaking, you'll certainly be stirred, for not all people agree with equality between the sexes. - El Peter
13 Aug 08
Gareth James sums up my own feelings,the NT really does seem to be having problems. Why on earth was this staged at the Olivier? - CAA
12 Aug 08
The suffragettes are a hugely important part of British 20th century history but their story is much neglected in film TV and theatre, so I welcomed Her Naked Skin. Unfortunately, the playwright has made two decisions which seem to me to strangle her play at birth - the first is to run a personal story in parallel, which imbalances the play, and the second is to confine it to just one year in their struggle. So we get a snippit of history rather than the epic sweep Never So Good gives us, and frankly the personal story is over-long and rather dull. There are too many scenes, so you spend a lot of time watching the huge stage machinery move. The performances are very good, and the live string quartet is the perfect accompaniment, but in the end it fails to satisfy. I'm getting very worried about the hugely disappointing recent form of the RNT; after many virtually faultless years, we're getting second-rate new plays and misguided productions of revivals. Only two greats this year, and one an import! - Gareth James
09 Aug 08
Boring, drab story, instead of what might have been. I agree with ILS's comments. Only gets one star for the acting...which is good...but the rest...?? - Stephen
04 Aug 08
I thought I was going to see a play about the suffragette movement. Well the suffragette idea started well and then developed in to a story of a lesbian affair. I have to say by the end of this play I was bored stiff and my bum was numb. It could do with at least a half hour cut. - ILS
03 Aug 08
Well it all seems clear to me now the Lesbians have taken over the NT and with avengence! What is this play about, Suffragettes, or as one reviewer here asks, a Lesbian love affair? And if I were a Lesbian or a straight woman come to that I would be demanding to know why it is that a play written by a woman about women Suffragettes and with a heavy lesbian theme is directed by a bloody man? Isn't it typical of that for all their posturing about "white males, etc" dominating theatre scene they still allow themseleves to indulge in the very prejudices they accuse others of. Time must surely have come for Mr Hytner to hang up his AD hat and bugger off into the sunset and leave someone new, with less baggage to take over. So please in the name of God GO NOW!. Apart from that this tedious play, which clunked around the Olivier stage pushed by bored stage hands, needed a hellava lot more work before it saw the light of day. 1/10 see me! - rds
01 Aug 08
A piece originally written for the Cottesloe but now overwhelmed by the decision to mount it in the Olivier. The set (and endless tedious revolving scene changes) completely dominates and slows down the action. Sadly the writer can't seem to make up her mind whether this is a play about the suffragettes or a lesbian love affair across the social divide or a marriage breakdown. The majority of the male characters are 2 dimensional although Adrian Rawlins makes a touching husband. Sadly the scenes between him and excellent Lesley Manville, and those between her and her young female lover are not as touching as they could be: the direction seems sometimes insensitive and clumsy. I dearly wanted to, but learnt nothing new about the suffragettes and found the whole thing frustratingly uninvolving. A smaller scale production and some rewriting would make a big difference.
Large claques of the casts' cheering friends in the audience did nothing to remedy the post show mutterings about the lack of enjoyment of the evening. - Peter Calman
01 Aug 08
The first half of this play is quite absorbing, charting events in the lives of the suffragettes. The metal gangways and screens which the National loves so much are used to good effect to evoke prison and restrictions, and other sliding devices bring on different scenes. The second half involves the love between an upper class woman with a working class girl and is frankly not very interesting, doesn't go anywhere and it is difficult to see why it is included. By now the whirring prison set up and mournful music will have started to get on your nerves. The characters are well acted and the men are not all portrayed as villains thankfully. The WOS '3' score sums it up very well-it's OK, and the sort of thing you expect from the National especially with such a large cast. You feel as though you deserve a slice of chocolate cake for having watched such a worthy play. - kilburncat
