The venue: inauspicious entrance with no posters or adverts, not even worth a photo, leading into a sparsely equipped bar come foyer. This area seemed to be open to the public - no need to show your ticket. No draft beer, only bottles of everything at sky-high prices. A few hard wooden chairs and tables, and very wobbly stools to sit on, but mostly standing area. Bar staff very friendly. Programmes and scripts on sale 45 minutes before the play started - I bought one of each and thought the programme disappointing - few photos and inadequate biographies. I got there quite early and thought I'd have a look round but the auditorium was not opened until 15 minutes before kick-off, sorry curtain up, when all the audience trooped in together. Most of the audience only arrived 20-25 minutes before the start, so I guess this is the norm.

The auditorium: the seats are bench seats in long rows, but they are well padded and I found it very comfortable for the 2 hour 30 minute show. Plenty of leg room for me even with my large camera bag and coat. There were about 15 rows of seats quite steeply terraced and I was 6 rows from the front almost at centre stage. I'd paid for the highest price seat and had a really good view. There were signs forbidding photography and although I reckon I could have got some great photos unobtrusively from my seat I decided to respect the rules and left my cameras in their bag for the whole show. I think the view from the ends of the rows of benches would be quite poor compared to my view. The stage is very wide and most of the action happens near the centre.

The stage: there is no curtain, rather a huge semi-transparent folding screen that comes across at the end of each act. The stage is in sections so for the start it is relatively shallow but then deepens for the latter acts. Props are fairly minimal I think. There is a separate screened area to the left of the stage that seems to contain a string quartet to play the music that accompanies Lulu's singing at the beginning of each act.

The play: at the start of the play, and before each act Lulu sings a short song from behind the screen. I got the impression that they used some amplification here as Anna's voice came over quite strongly in spite of the screen between her and us. They certainly used some amplification at other times when players were right at the back of the stage, so I think they used some for Anna. When she sang the first song before act 1 she was wearing a see-through nightie and from where I was she looked great as she stopped behind a more transparent section of the screen. Wow, that really set things up for me.

The very first scene of act 1 is one of the few that Lulu doesn't appear in. Therefore I was able to concentrate more on the acting and script, and I was quite surprised. A live play is very different to what I expected, the players obviously had to speak very loudly to each other even though they were only feet apart, and there was much extravagant gesticulating and seemingly unnecessary walking about the stage. There was also some very obvious and intentional playing to the audience - sometimes definitely for laughs. I guess this is all quite normal but to me as an inexperienced playwatcher it turned the play into more of a farce or pantomime than a tragic story.

Anyway, as soon as Lulu made her entrance any lingering thoughts I had of taking this as a serious cultural experience dissolved completely. I was a little concerned that the pictures I'd seen of Anna as Lulu made her look older and harder than I really like. Maybe it's the lighting and make-up that give that effect in photos. Seeing her in the flesh (and not just metaphorically) only a few feet away very quickly reminded me of how gorgeous she is. Throughout the whole play I couldn't keep my eyes off her, even when she was not in the centre of the action. In the first acts she was being flirty, funny, charming, cute and above all - yes - sexy, convincingly seducing all and sundry. You've seen the costumes and believe me she might as well have been naked.

As the play progresses so does Lulu's mood and for her sex becomes less fun, more a means to an end. From being in total control she quickly becomes more and more vulnerable, and with it less confident, more irritable and less appealing. I didn't enjoy these scenes nearly as much - perhaps we're not supposed to if we empathise with Lulu. Lulu's costumes also become less flirty, less fun, as does her life, until in the end she looks and dresses as a cheap hooker - a dirty sexy, in place of a fun sexy. I prefer the fun. Eventually the denouement progresses until the violent conclusion.

As for the acting, I'm honestly not sure whether it was good, bad or indifferent. Some of the cast had more stage presence, especially if they had very loud voices, like Tom Georgeson, the only one I really know from his TV work, especially 'Between the Lines' and films, including 'Land Girls' with Anna of course. I thought Anna's voice was fine in spite of the professional critics' complaints, though I don't know how it carried to the back of the auditorium. Stage acting is obviously very different to screen acting, on screen you're trying to act natural while on stage you're trying to give a performance. I thought Anna was great in the early scenes, where the physical acting - posing, strutting about and flirting - was most important, and perhaps not so great later on with the more moody scenes. Maybe the early scenes were more of the natural Anna. I hope so.

A couple of things did strike me. There was no attempt to be consistent with accents - Anna was Rochdale, Tom Georgeson was broad Geordie, and others were Home Counties, German or whatever. There was no sense of the passing of time. Lulu looked and acted as young at the end as she did at the beginning, so did the other cast members that survived to the last scene. I had expected a lot of dancing and there was none. Anna seemed to be limping slightly at times, so I wonder if they've made some changes to help her.

The audience: seemed mostly regular theatre-goers who go to performances to pass the time just like I go to the cinema or football matches. Mainly older people and middle agers. I was surprised at how quiet the audience were compared to a cinema audience. I guess you have to listen to the actors at the theatre, there being no background music or noise like the cinema. Thus you could hear a pin drop most of the time. Much applause at the end so I guess the audience were happy with the play, a slight increase in applause when Anna did her bow - but that was probably just me clapping harder! - but no wolf whistles, I've never been any good at that - and no standing ovation. Very conservative this theatre lot! Conclusion, was it worth it? A long and expensive day - started out from home at 6 o'clock and returned at midnight, total cost close to £100. Yes it was definitely worth it, so much so that I might even do it again!

Only disappointment - I didn't get to meet Anna. I loitered about the bar for a while after the show and a few cast members appeared but not Anna. It would have been nice to say hello, well done and can I have your autograph please. Maybe next time.

The pluses - the only reason I went in the first place was to see Anna Friel. She lived up to my expectations as a performer - cute, fun and sexy. She may never do anything like this play again and I'm very pleased I saw it. My advice to you is thus simple - go and see it while you can!