Had i not already eaten i would have been tempted - in fact i tried to convince a fellow goer to go halves, sadly to no avail. Never having had any food from any provider of any sort over the years i'm no help with the food anaysis here neever.
However, re the whole 'not as good as' part -
I think part of that is due to the play itself, which is very centred on one performer (who is excellent)*...
- i have said, year on year, so many times that i can't bear hearing myself any more, that his Comedies haven't aged well. The same is not true for his Tragedies, which have aged ever better.
But
you tell that to the bums on seats, and
they won't believe you. They won't.
... part of that is due to the almost bizarre 60s theme implemented ...
I will have to disagree with you there, if only because in the 400 intervening years we have gone from 'It was a Lover and His Lass' to 'The Times They Are A'Changing' - progress in anybody's book.
I also don't see how it can be 'almost' bizarre - it either is or it isn't. Despite the odd anachronistic allusions to dress that the characters weren't actually wearing i thought it rather apt.
Apologies for the lack of food report, but i'm more than sure you will enjoy the main course.
* She is so excellent that excellent isn't quite adequate, though i'm not quite sure i can find it within me to get all Shaky and make up a word for how excellent she is. She is good though, ain't she?
