1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 28, 2024 0:19:23 GMT
Saw it tonight, and thought it was great. Patricia Clarkson is an astonishing actress, and central to everything and everyone, but all the superb actors get their moments. The show finished at 10:25pm, so the running time is a long 3 hours and 25 minutes, including an interval, but it didn't feel like it because the play becomes exponentially more involving as time progresses. Some spoilers follow. . . With Patricia Clarkson in the play, and her role so pivotal, it really is like she is the sun and the other actors are in orbit around her. I didn't find the play quite so Mary-centric when I've seen it before (with Lesley Manville and Laurie Metcalf). The play is so well named, taking place over one long day, starting in the morning and ending in the night, and since night is when inhibitions are generally at their lowest, it is in the second half that the play really soars. Similarly, a great irony of the play is that the more drinks the characters have, the more entertaining the play, because it opens them all up, even though drink is one of the things destroying them. Even Cathleen, the family maid, played by Louisa Harland (so brilliant in "Ulster American") gets a great scene with the demon drink (the only one with a significant amount of humour, rare and welcome in this dark play). Laurie Kynaston, playing the unwell younger son, smouldered like Montgomery Clift, a living ghost existing in a state of heightened awareness and perpetual distress. As the older son, Daryl McCormack is like embers, generally subdued but constantly threatening to come alive when the dramatic wind blows, and when it does, he's fire. As the patriarch of the family, something about Brian Cox's dreamy storytelling in "The Weir" at the Donmar remains, but now the dreams are no longer wonders but obfuscations, and as his assertive exterior deflates over the course of the play, he movingly comes more and more to resemble Munch's "The Scream," open-mouthed despair personified. But it is Clarkson's moment-to-moment aliveness, and emotional quality of unstable-ness, like a nuclear reaction, veering from smiling resting face to determined plotter to living in the past (like Blanche Dubois) to genuine expressions of love to disingenuousness to despair to cruelty to self-hatred, all turning on a dime, one emotion flowing into the next, that is so involving and so brilliant. From a start that was a little cold for me, I found myself heated up to a full 4 and a half stars of rapt involvement by play's end.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 27, 2024 8:18:28 GMT
Timeout review reviewed: "Sheridan Smith is superb" says the opening headline, directly addressing the concerns of likely ticket buyers. But does the reviewer warn those punters that they won't get the typical genre gratifications from this show (aka no dramatic impetus)? Yes. The reviewer helpfully classifies this show as a "leftfield European musical" plonked in "the middle of London’s glittering West End." He, again usefully, elaborates that the show is "entirely unshackled by genre niceties." Perhaps, he should have spelled out what that means: no addictive story dramas building to predictable thrilling climaxes, but still, it's clear, this one's different. And the reviewer illuminates the positive in this absence of traditional drama, the uniqueness of the show: "there is truly nothing else like ‘Opening Night’ in Theatreland at the moment – not even close." After all, you miss a "Heathers," there's a "Mean Girls." You miss a "Thriller Live," there's an "MJ." But there is NOTHING like this. And this is the one in 10 years time you'll kick yourself for missing, even if you want to diss it till you die lol. The reviewer steps out of time to acknowledge that value. Further, the review is specific about the tonal oddness of the show, which spurns typical tragic drumbeats, and "thrillingly pulls away from that, as Myrtle literally changes the script of her life and ‘Opening Night’ drifts into a euphoric final fantasia." "There are no dance numbers, power ballads, lavish sets, or cute romantic storylines" warns the reviewer, but there is, he points out, "a buoyancy and belief in humanity that’s lacking in the original film." And here it becomes clear that the heir to Michael Billington's compassionate embrace of both bracing theatre and embattled humanity is Lukowski, a critic who centres helping audiences decide whether something is to their taste, while remaining open to works that bravely break the mould. 4 stars for this helpful review.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 27, 2024 7:40:49 GMT
Review of Reviews: The Telegraph This review reads like it was written by Sheridan Smith's healthcare professional: "She had a much publicised mental health episode during the 2016 West End run of Funny Girl, which saw her withdraw from performances for over two months. Since her return to the theatrical fold, fans have rallied, as has she; her ace turn in Shirley Valentine, which comically treats the woman-in-crisis trope, was a signal that she would bravely face her demons, and take risks." The audacious cod psychology of the reviewer, who seems more like a celebrity stalker than a reviewer of a West End show, renders the overfamiliar reference to Smith as "Shezza" even more galling and appalling, as in: "Shezza will live to fight another day." Such an atrocious reviewing approach is slightly redeemed by its observation that "although [Van Hove] pioneered the use of live video on stage, here he barely bothers to justify, dramatically, his use of a roving film crew beyond the basic steer that the company are being trailed for a fly-on-the-wall documentary." It is certainly true that the documentary crew is a thin device, equally thin in "MJ the Musical," but better used there. Overall, 1 star for the cod psychological hogwash.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 27, 2024 7:24:04 GMT
NY Times Review reviewed: The review begins with a killer opening line, worthy of a novel: "In a London auditorium, a work of art is being desecrated." This sets the review in extreme highbrow territory, deifying a frustrating idiosyncratic ultra serious portrait, of creativity and aging, as a great work of art, and using it as a cudgel to beat this production. The review serves conservative Cassavetes fans first and foremost, as his work is presented as essentially perfect, but the review gives no inkling of how insular and difficult Cassavetes is, and thus the review is essentially useless to Sheridan Smith fans who have bought a ticket. The conclusion, that "Van Hove has transformed a taut, subtly observed character study into a sludgy melodrama" is foreshadowed by the novelistic opening line, which makes it inevitable. The narrowness of this lens means that the fact that your vast bulk of ticket buyers, Sheridan Smith fans who see a few shows a year, would consider this show infinitely more fun than the source material, is impossible to address, and thus the review deliberately neglects to serve the majority of the show's audience. Rufus Wainwright's songs are described as "algorithmically bland," which addresses the lyrical element patronisingly, by assuming that simplicity isn't beautiful, but also neglects the musical elements, which are as gorgeous, lush and primitive as anything Wainwright has done. Thus, the review's fetish for Cassavetes not only dies not serve the larger subset of Sheridan Smith fans, it also does not serve the smaller subset of Rufus Wainwright fans. For highlighting that this show is less intense than its source material, the review deserves credit, but overall, it's just insular highbrow fossilised masturbation, unopen to the possibilities and potential of the piece, pandering to Cassavetes fans, and snubbing the core audience of ticket buyers. I'd give this review 2 and a half stars.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 26, 2024 23:54:21 GMT
The second half of the show was MUCH more entertaining than the first half. Featuring Jamie Muscato as a new protagonist, his story is told linearly and coherently, and most significantly, passionately and dramatically. Some spoilers follow. . . As intimated above, by other posters, the second half is basically "Carousel," with Rachel Tucker's character in the Billy Bigelow mould seeking to help her child in ghost form. Except, unlike in "Carousel," the focus is not so much on Tucker's Olivia's spiritual redemption (she's not really done anything wrong lol), but is much more about Jamie Muscato's son learning about the mother that his father hid from him (the old intercepted letters later to be discovered plot). In that sense, the structure is actually elegant, with the first half being about Tucker's Olivia seeking her son, and the second half being about the son seeking the mother (prompted by the letters to meet up with the lover characters from the first half). But where the first half was meandering and flat, the second half is taut and dramatic, with Muscato's son seeking his identity, aided, unbeknownst to him by his mother's ghost. Muscato's climactic song, "Dangerous Lines," was a tour de force for me, as he tears his history apart and discovers who he, and everyone around him, is. The second half is also bolstered by a great passionate rejected torch song from Tori Allen-Martin, some comedy bits from Todrick Hall's Starkeeper-type character, which actually worked, including the meta bit where he urged Tucker's Olivia to put some "shoes on" (she'd been wearing her whole "Singing Detective" hospital nightie outfit for too damn long lol), and another great song from Tompsett's character. I felt the second half worked wonderfully, if derivatively, and rated it 4 stars, so I'd give the whole thing 3 stars. This is way more fun than watching this sort of family-made-whole material on telly at Christmas, I felt.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 26, 2024 23:38:15 GMT
I think Sheridan Smith is the bees knees lol.
She was SO good in Shirley Valentine. I can't think of a single actress who could have done it so brilliantly: so relatable, so funny! Just magnificent.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 26, 2024 21:06:35 GMT
Having been duly warned by the above posts, I enjoyed some of the first half, basically everything Oliver Tompsett related.
Some spoilers follow. . .
I loved Rachel Tucker singing "What I'm Here to Find," at the climax of the first half, which she belted out passionately, and which sounded like a cover of Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn."
It was slightly unintentionally comedic that she spent the whole first half wondering what she needed to find, while Jamie Muscato, playing her son, popped up behind a pane of glass every time she was wondering. I wanted to shout "He's BEHIND you!" But wasn't confident enough that it was a pantomime to actually do it.
Anyhow, the structure of the first half was the same as Nye at the National, pinched from "The Singing Detective," with a deathbed character in their jammies, looking back on what meant the most in their lives and singing about it.
By and large, the book for the first half fell flat, as Tucker's character felt universally desirable, with everyone begging for her attention, and her spoiled for choice.
The exception to the rule was Oliver Tompsett's lover character's two appearances as Tucker's baby daddy. Stubbled, with unkempt hair, his gentle husky voice built steadily in joyous rapture, grabbing Tucker's hand, and pulling her across and around the stage into a romance which worked a turn on Tucker's Olivia's standoffish character, until, both open mouthed, from an inch away (I hope they remembered their breath mints) they gave each other the full "Islands in The Stream" Dolly Parton-Kenny Rogers style connection that felt like actual drama.
And indeed, they got to fall in love twice, once before and once after conceiving a child, with both such scenes involving and utterly charming.
Unfortunately, all the other scenes in the first half, involving McCormack's husband character and Tori Allen-Martin's other lover character, were completely one note, with the spurned lovers moaning and Tucker's protagonist uninterested and unengaged. Consequently, the book for the first half was mostly lifeless.
I'd give the first half 2 and a half stars for the Tompsett-Tucker scenes which were charming, loveable and engaging.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 25, 2024 23:29:02 GMT
What was the finishing time?
Did Jamie Muscato have much to do?
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 25, 2024 23:24:40 GMT
And nobody must ever forget the contributions of Professor John Robinson, who wrote the musical, "Behind the Iron Mask," which ran for 3 weeks at The Duchess Theatre in 2005, and "Too Close to the Sun," the musical about the death of Ernest Hemingway, which ran for 2 weeks at the Comedy Theatre in 2009. The actual shortest run, I believe, was "The Intimate Revue" in 1930, which, to prevent it running past midnight, only managed half a performance at The Duchess before closing immediately thereafter. So, "Opening Night" is winning by that yardstick.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 25, 2024 23:04:44 GMT
Steve, do you regularly travel north to see productions at the world-famous Crucible Theatre? No. It feels like only yesterday, but before this one, the last production I saw at the Crucible was "The Nap" in 2016, directed by Richard Wilson and starring Jack O'Connell. theatreboard.co.uk/thread/477/nap-jack-oconnellThat was only shortly after Theatreboard opened to provide a lifeline to continue chatting about theatre after Whatonstage closed down their message board. Time flies. I might get another couple of visits in before I die if I'm lucky lol.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 23, 2024 22:45:36 GMT
I predict every critic will slate it tbh - but I hope there's one that can see what I saw in it but I won't hold my breath 😂 I agree. It will probably fall into the neither-fish-nor-fowl bracket, whereby the critics who want a lowbrow thrill-ride will slam it because its "a pretentious piece where nothing happens" and critics who want highbrow thinkfest will slam it for "diluting Cassavetes' claustrophobic, difficult inexplicable psychological study into an easily digested, simplified West End musical." Tuesday is likely to be a bloodbath. Here's hoping that one idiosyncratic critic likes it lol.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 23, 2024 22:22:47 GMT
Thought this was great. Less about the infectiousness of hysteria, more about the insidiousness and effectiveness of repeating lies over and over, which feels like much of modern politics. The stripped back vibe was creepy. Sargon Yelda, Laura Pyper, Rose Shalloo and Anoushka Lucas are all excellent. Some spoilers follow. . . I never realised how creepy it is for people to converse underneath a table. But when its the only real set, and when actors are crawling there, and when there's a sinister tone, and the lighting dims, I felt my goosebumps raising. But these atmospherics are just mood setters really, as the actual substance of the staging is to have the liars simply boldly stride to the microphones and lie blatantly again and again and again. This is different from the Old Vic and National Productions, for example, where the "witches" were racing around like scary wolf packs hunting prey. Here the "witches" don't form mobs as such, they just separate out and take to spaced out microphones and start boldfacedly lying. It's less viscerally frightening, more intellectually frightening. Where this production really excels is in bringing out the slow-build of Arthur Miller's script, whereby we complacent frogs really aren't aware the water around us is boiling until its all too late. Sargon Yelda, in particular, is SO good at making the Reverend Paris seem utterly civilised and reasonable for the longest time, and then SO good at showing how his self interest is served by willingly succumbing to the poisonous lies on repeat. He feels like a prototype of your modern self-interested person selling out democracy by embracing lies, without thinking through where this will all end. Laura Pyper invests such intelligent and sharp-witted, yet complacent, indignance in her two characters' resistance to all the lies around her, that its actually quite shocking when she starts to drown in them. And as the principal liar, Abigail Williams, Rose Shalloo becomes ever increasingly assertive and perversely thrilled and reveling in the sound and power of her own words. And as the tragically honourable Elizabeth Proctor, Anoushka Lucas is especially poignant and sensitive in the eye of the storm. This take on Miller's play really brings out the overwhelmingly destructive snowballing effect of self-interest and lies. And by being so stripped back, it reveals how brilliant a piece of slow-building drama the writing is. 4 stars from me.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 22, 2024 23:34:50 GMT
Saw tonight's Broadway version of "Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella," by the just-about-to-graduate Italia Conti third years, and was completely bowled over. This is superlative on almost every level, and is the most charming and compelling version of the Cinderella story I have seen (I didn't see it on Broadway lol). I mean, I liked it better than the pre-Broadway TV versions of this musical featuring Julie Andrews and Brandy, and I liked it better than "Bad Cinderella" or any number of panto versions of the story, and I liked it better than the original animated movie and the recent Lily James movie. Alot of it may be the "Midnight" cast I saw (as opposed to the Palace cast, which I didn't), as it features an incredible Cinderella, in Chloe Alice, and an equally incredible bad stepsister (the Broadway version has a good stepsister lol) in Simone Ashplant. Now is the time for agents to give those two a call! Some spoilers follow. . . Italia Conti uses the Studio Theatre of Woking's Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, so the stage is as professional as these College shows get, and although their budget may not be large, the colourful projected backgrounds are joyfully charming and evocative. If there is a drawback to this Douglas Carter Beane Broadway version of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella, it is that it runs out of Rodgers and Hammerstein numbers in the second half and has an imbalanced book-to-song ratio. The first half is perfect, a pitch perfect blend of R&H, swooning romance, physical comedy, wonderfully choreographed ensemble dancing and singing, playing off and around the principals effortlessly. Chloe Alice's Cinderella sounds like Julie Andrews but with less hoity toity superiority, more fierce and determined, yet poignantly haltingly vulnerable. She makes the story feel important, which it obviously isn't, and she makes the R&H tunes soar. Her "A Lovely Night" was exceptional. I was crying and that's ridiculous. Simone Ashplant's bad stepsister, Charlotte, is one of the funniest moment to moment characters I've seen on stage. The character is super dumb, and Ashplant is in dainty comic pigtails, so she starts off funny, but her comic energy and timing is what blows up the laughter. Her "Stepsister's Lament," at the beginning of the second half, is a comic wonder. She schemes, she stomps, she skips, she scowls, and imbues what could be a standard comic stereotype with scene stealing lead character syndrome such that you can't willingly take your eyes off her if you want to keep laughing. Throw in Athena Bruce's loveably likeable good sister, oozing TV closeup standard decency, Nick Wyatt's stormingly pompous and haughty Lord Pinkleton, whose belt is a total smash, and a dazzling ensemble, and this show just zings. Loved this to the tune of 4 and a half stars.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 22, 2024 18:48:32 GMT
Saw yesterday's matinee and LOVED it! I agree with the positive comments (above) that it's a joy from first to last and that Tameka Empson should just commentate every West End comedy show, as she's belly laugh funny, even in improvised moments. Some spoilers follow. . . The comedic Shakespeare Love's Labours Lost plot about men swearing off women, and women determined to sway them back, is the prime focus, so, despite touching on weighty themes of hostile environments and racism faced by the Windrush generation, this is surprisingly lightweight and jovial fun bouncing it's way on ever-joyful ever-bouncing waves of ska music. Emblematic of the show is the Annie Get Your Gun reminiscent "Better than You," which is basically a ska-inflected full- ensemble spin on "Anything You can Do I can do better." At yesterday's matinee, there were moments Tameka Empson's Mrs Aphrodite was improvising hilariously. At the beginning, after Mrs Aphrodite told us the boat was arriving in England, a technical fault meant the actors had to withdraw and start again, prompting Empson to promptly suggest "dem leaving Inglan already," and when a large piece of set came crashing down instead of being gently lowered, a pause for safety reasons had her explaining how, in the original run, the "actress Tameka Empson" was told she had missed out on a main part but was asked if she would be willing "to sit in a box like the Muppets" characters, Statler and Waldorf, and criticise the action. And indeed, she sits in the left balcony box like Statler and Waldorf for the first half, though, for democratic visibility reasons, she switches to the right balcony box for the second half. Empson is hysterically funny. The scripted bit where she decides to demonstrate her "flexibility" and gets stuck with her foot over the edge of the balcony box is peak physical comedy. I couldn't help thinking that if Empson were commentating "The Unfriend," for example, it would be ten times funnier. Anyway, all the principal singers were utterly charming and delightful, including Jamal Franklin filling in as Bernie. Khalid Daley's especially cheeky and buoyant Dennis completely won my heart, while my ears especially swooned at the sound of the super smooth Danny Bailey as Eros. This may be forgettable in the long run for being such light entertainment, but Empson's performance and role is unforgettable, and I'd give this 4 and a half stars.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 22, 2024 18:11:10 GMT
Saw the matinee of Guildford School of Acting's "Carrie" and very much enjoyed it.
It's an actor musician thing, so the lively bits get very lively and entertaining, with an overwhelming blast of ensemble movement, musicianship and singing.
There is an all-round superb performance by Kacey Wadge as Carrie's mother, Margaret.
Some spoilers follow. . .
I didn't think burdening Luiseach McAleese's very sensitive performance, as Carrie, with a violin made sense, but luckily she mostly didn't have to play while acting. Her Carrie is more put-upon Cinderella than someone damaged and destroyed psychologically, so the tone of the piece is more teen drama than scary horror (until the end), but she's so relatable I was always rooting for her.
I thought Benjamin Bortone Page, as Tommy Ross, was suitably tender and sweet as Carrie's prom date.
But it's Kacey Wadge's Margaret that dominated proceedings, which became much more thrilling whenever she was on stage, such was her ability to morph genuine affection with fanaticism in an empathetic way, and build every song she performed into something thoroughly dramatically and musically gripping.
Overall, I'd give this 3 and a half stars. It was great to reaquaint myself with the piece, as the Southwark Playhouse production is astonishingly a full 9 years ago now. :0
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 22, 2024 17:23:24 GMT
It's a paradox. The show can't exist without Sheridan Smith but equally it will close because of her involvement. I think that's a very perceptive observation. I mean, even the Pulitzer Prize winning "A Strange Loop," with a Broadway run behind it, which is also avant garde rarified material, swerved the West End and opened in the arty Barbican Theatre, where punters know what to expect (subtitles, auteurs, etc). And at least "A Strange Loop" was about the topical issue of "identity." But to open blind in the entertainment oriented West End to an audience of mostly Sheridan Smith fans, with a project about creative navel-gazing and internal psychological breakdown (symbolised by a dead girl), I mean, that is really really risky. But as you say, Sheridan Smith is the only reason we see a project like this in the West End in the first place. Catch 22. Good luck tonight, Mr. Barnaby. I hope you stick it out till the end so you can hate all of it rather than just the first half!
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 20, 2024 12:25:40 GMT
Just got an email this is on general sale: www.punchdrunk.com/work/violas-room/On the one hand, it's Punchdrunk! On the other hand, I imagine the barefoot requirement will put some people off for fear of catching athlete's foot. Hopefully, they'll disinfect surfaces regularly. :0
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 19, 2024 12:07:05 GMT
I think the closest row they are currently selling is Row D.
And I didn't see any under 30 tickets.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 19, 2024 10:27:09 GMT
Booking to 4th January 2025. DMT+ on sale now. Any hint of prices? Previews: £55 back of Stalls, £75 Most of Stalls, Same for Dress, Upper Circle from £25 - 45 Main run Weekdays: £65 back of Stalls, £85 Most of Stalls, Same for Dress, Upper Circle, £25 - 50 Main run Weekends: £70 Back of Stalls, £90 Most of Stalls, Same for Dress, Upper Circle, £25 - £50
Premium Tickets Excluded. Most Expenisve Champagne Ticket is in the Dress for £180 with Perks
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 16, 2024 18:23:44 GMT
“ He feels (rightly) that we consume our modern world through screens, and the stage space becomes archaic without them” This is one of the most depressing things I’ve read on here. So basically every show should have video now or it’s antiquated. Rest easy, Mr Barnaby. Van Hove is only one director, and other directors will follow their own idiosyncratic obsessions, and do things differently. Even Van Hove doesn't always use screens to suggest immediacy: sometimes he just uses bodily fluids and emotional violence, etc etc. Some directors will always still just make well-made plays, that have Robert Ickes and Van Hove racing out at the interval, but which keep the rest of us conventional "robots" happily entertained in our cosy cocoons. Bring on another high-kicking spectacle of a "42nd Street," I say, but please let there also be some artistic space for bonkers shows like this one.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 16, 2024 18:04:22 GMT
I feel like I saw a different show to what many here have described. And based on some of the descriptions I think maybe I literally did. . . I hope some of the early posters go again, so they can confirm whether I’m just a weirdo or whether it is a substantially different show now. I saw it last Saturday night, and I just saw today's matinee, and I can confirm it is not a different show, but it is a tighter, more easily understood show, with a MUCH more dramatic ending to the first half, that takes the audience into the interval on an exhilarating narrative and musical high. Spoilers follow. . . In the version that played last Saturday, there was a little bit of jolly hoovering, and that's gone, and that's a good choice because , as delightful as the sequence was, it misinforms the audience that they're about to watch a funny lightweight show, which they are NOT. There are two major changes from last Saturday to now:- (1) The first half initially ended with a fully performed big number by Sheridan Smith's Myrtle, which I'll guess is called "A Somebody." Before that there was a number I've forgotten, as it had little lasting impact on me. And before that was Nicola Hughes's writer's dazzling "Its Over," performed with all the belt and bravura of Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger," complete with dramatic romantic strings and percussion you'd expect in a classic Bond film title sequence. That Hughes song is a highlight of the whole show, and it's very threatening and ominous narratively for Smith's "Myrtle." Now the first half ends with Hughes blasting us into the interval with "It's Over," and it really feels like it's ALL OVER for Smith's Myrtle and for the show-within-the-show. You really feel the pain of Nicola Hughes's writer watching her whole play go up in smoke, as Hughes's giant angry closeup face on the big screen completely overwhelms Smith's tiny onstage frame, and Hughes's singing really is Shirley Bassey level devastating! Now "A Somebody," in which Smith's Myrtle builds herself back up, is abridged, and opens the second half, which makes SO much sense, as for the whole interval, we now sit with the Hughes's scary emotional bombshell, and "A Somebody" lets us breathe again. The way it was before allowed us to breathe too early, and to go to the interval in a state of complacency, with Smith not in jeopardy. The other forgettable song has been ditched, explaining the contracting running time. (2) The book now is more explanatory as to what the dead girl is all about. This probably betrays Cassavetes a tiny bit, as Cassavetes would never explain what he was up to, and revel in people being confounded. On the other hand, for West End audiences, who couldn't care less about Cassavetes, they will now understand better what they are watching, and feel Myrtle's predicament much more powerfully, and they will understand the denouement, when Smith's Myrtle has her showdown with Haas's Nancy. On second watch, this time from the gods (I didn't trust my slow fingers in the Rush so just caved and bought a £25 gods ticket instead, as I really didn't want to book any other show lol), I felt reinforced in my initial opinion that Rufus Wainwright has written a masterful score and that Sheridan Smith is giving a great performance. And I love how Van Hove is making this show more dramatic and cohesive for an unsuspecting West End audience who don't know they've bought a ticket to an avant garde show. My own personal feeling is that I'd now raise my rating from 4 stars to 4 and a half, based on the changes described above. PS: The running time was 2 hours, 25 minutes, with the matinee ending promptly at 4:55pm.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 16, 2024 15:48:19 GMT
I'm also have the same question for this as I did about his All About Eve though. Why does a show set in a theatre, about theatrical people, telling a story about life in the theatre, need to be told with cameras? What does it really add? This is not the same as "Sunset Boulevard," where Jamie Lloyd uses cameras thematically to demonstrate how desperate Norma is for her close-up, and why, demonstrating the star making power of the camera. Cameras are simply a part of Van Hove's toolkit, and have been for donkey's years. He feels (rightly) that we consume our modern world through screens, and the stage space becomes archaic without them. In Kings of War, the cameras showed us the way we consume war today through war footage, and made Shakespeare feel like now. Some spoilers follow. . . In this show, the screen and the stage represent two different spaces, the world of the physical (the quotidian stage) and the world of the mind (the closeup heartfelt screen of dreams). So, Sheridan's Myrtle looks in mirror and we see her back in the physical space, but on screen we see her dreaming close-up mind. In the stage space, we see Sheridan's Myrtle messing around with her lines, while on screen we see the raging passion of Nicola Hughes's writer, who wrote them. By showing us two worlds, and challenging us to combine them, Van Hove shows us a fuller appreciation of lived experience.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 15, 2024 21:10:13 GMT
I thought this was fabulous in its short run at the Turbine a couple of years ago - Luke Bayer at his best. It got great reviews, if I remember rightly. I'll definitely see it again at the new King's Head. Agreed. This is SUCH a camp and funny version of "All about Eve," and Luke Bayer really should NOT be missed in this. Highly recommended if you have a taste for camp, laughter and truly brilliant performances. And it's only an hour. At least it was at the Turbine.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 15, 2024 20:55:03 GMT
Did you not see Self Esteem? Yes, I did.
I thought she was incredible for someone with no acting experience, but some of her performance was "one size too small" for me.
She also appeared with an Emcee whose performance was reminiscent of someone who did it better.
And she did not appear with the current Clifford, who I love.
So I rated the show 4 stars at that point:
Delevingne's Sally has more range, is more varied, more unpredictable, more unique, and bears the hallmarks of long acting experience, giving her a moment to moment freedom that is exciting to watch.
Treadaway isn't funny, but he's so controlled and determined that he builds up a frightening head of steam.
And the new Clifford is just so alive in every scene, in my opinion, boosting the performances of all around him, feeling and investing in everything.
So I rate the show 5 stars now, which is back to where I rated it with Aimee Lou Wood and John McCrea.
I feel so bad about this news of Delevingne's house. She may have lost pets, which is the worst thing of all, so if she takes time off, that would be only natural. But I hope that if she does need to leave for a bit, she comes back to this run, as she's a phenomenal Sally, and deserves to be seen and appreciated.
Update: firefighters rescued Delevingne's two cats, which she had initially thought passed away, so that's good news: people.com/cara-delevingne-confirms-her-cats-survived-massive-blaze-her-home-8610012
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 15, 2024 0:59:16 GMT
I stayed for the whole show tonight and thought it was fabulous. Having seen all this production's Sallys, apart from Amy Lennox, I found Cara Delevingne to be one of the better ones. Luke Treadaway is definitely a very dark MC. Neither of them would class among the best of singers (although not the worst either, as they sing in pitch) but both are very good actors, which for this part, is more important for me, as both create unique and indelible portraits of the characters. For me, Michael Ahomka-Lindsay is my favourite Clifford. Some spoilers follow. . . I'll preface my remarks by noting this is an early performance for these actors (maybe their fourth or fifth in front of a paying audience) so I expect all three of these performers to get even better, unless they start losing their voices on account of giving so much. Delevingne is not the funniest Sally. That would be Aimee Lou Wood. Nor is she the most damaged and unhinged Sally. That would be Madeline Brewer. And she certainly doesn't have the singing chops of Jessie Buckley or Emily Benjamin. She is definitely the most overtly sexual Sally, performing "Don't Tell Mama" like a showgirl in pursuit of a tip. But what impresses about Delevingne's Sally is the variety and freedom of her moods and attitudes and emotions, and how suddenly they can turn on a dime. In "Mein Herr," she is a tightly controlled manipulator of her audience, acting the acting of Sally Bowles' fierce commitment to holding her audience. And then, as suggested above, Delevingne's Sally lowers her guard for Clifford to reveal a soft and soulful inner life, that maybe even she herself had forgotten was inside her. The turn is slowly, superbly and sensitively acted. And in "Cabaret," Delevingne unleashes possibly the widest and most varied, yet convincing, set of emotional releases imaginable, funneling through soulful despair, hopeful dreams and wild teeth-clenched fury and aggression. Such a performance could only be possible through a longstanding commitment to acting as a craft. Luke Treadaway's Emcee is the least funny I've seen, getting almost no laughs from his "Willkommen." He is simply too controlled and machine stiff to bond genuinely with the audience and get laughs. (Again, this may change as the run matures). By contrast, Eddie Redmayne, the funniest Emcee, was so warm and loose that he got almost everyone laughing constantly. So too is the earthy humanity of Mason Alexander Park a distant memory. While he is not as robotic and apparently superhuman in his modulated movements as Callum Scott Howells (the former Emcee his performance most resembles), Treadaway's Emcee is definitely a conduit for the Nazi machine's relentless drive, more casually patrician than Howells, like an army officer stalking an objective relentlessly. He exerts the most confident apparent authority over the gorilla, and his "Money makes the world go round" is one of the most insistently dark, creepy and unstoppable renditions of that song. Treadaway's singing is competent but not good, and certainly never great, like the extraordinary singing of John McCrea. Indeed, he does not even attempt to sing some of the high falsetto notes that made McCrea so eerie and diabolically ethereal. Facing down Michael Ahomka-Lindsay's super soft Clifford, Treadaway's Emcee feels like a serial killer with easy prey in his sights. Ahomka-Lindsay is absolutely wonderful as Clifford, a timid Clifford who is nonetheless ravenous for new experiences, and who reacts emotionally to every one. His performance is such that he magnifies, through his careful thorough scrutinizing gaze, the import of the intentions and actions of everyone he interacts with, and that is a boon to the production. My favourite Clifford. Eddie Redmayne and Aimee Lou Wood remain my favourite Emcee and Sally, respectively. But for me, this new casting returns the production to a form it hasn't seen since McCrea and Lou Wood left the production. 5 stars from me
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 14, 2024 23:28:24 GMT
Yes, that was me. It's difficult to see how anyone would be prepared to back him on another big project. He's pretty much shown that his gimmicks are all he has in his toolkit, and he will have alienated a lot of his audience who would need some coaxing to try again. Maybe he'll direct a straight play without any distractions and prove me wrong. Anyone who has directed multiple 5 star unmissable theatrical classics, like his "A View from the Bridge,” "Network," and"Kings of War" will never be out of work. Its just too rare. I put this one squarely on the madness of trying to adapt an unadaptable avant garde piece as a musical for a mainstream audience. Even then, I'm delighted this crazy show exists, and can't wait to see it again. There's a beautiful song towards the beginning, called "One More Dream," that I absolutely can't wait to hear again. Different strokes for different folks. PS: I really do feel for Sheridan Smith, who is doing 95 percent of the heavy lifting (wonderful acting, devoted fan base) of getting audiences through those doors and may be unfairly blamed for the static narrative.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 14, 2024 23:15:16 GMT
That wasn’t Frost - just out and gutted to have not had him. It was KIERAN ALLEYNE per the cast board. I'm so sorry, Dave. We all know it can't be helped, but I feel your disappointment. Dammit.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 14, 2024 18:06:44 GMT
Saw today's matinee and agree with the posters above who say that Madeleine Gray and Andrew Richardson are superb. Some spoilers follow. . . Gray's Sonya blends her inner excitable youthful girlish desires with her burdensome adult responsibilities brilliantly and believably. It is when the youthful side of her just wants to explode out of her bleak surroundings that the show is at its funniest, as the contrast is so great. I particularly loved when Gray's Sonya interacted with Lily Sacofsky's Elena. Sacofsky uniquely and interestingly plays Elena as a despondent statue (unless she is alone with Vanya, when she livens up), lethargically making eye contact merely to maintain social graces. To see the dynamic Sonya thwarted by a living statue is peak comedy and peak tragedy combined, the very best Chekhov. Andrew Richardson is a marvel. He was the most dynamic and hilarious Sky Masterson, and he is a practical and passionate Astrov. Also his choices are in the moment and alive. The Orange Tree is a great intimate space for a show like this, where the inner feelings of the characters are everything. Unfortunately, I felt that James Lance, as Vanya, might not be quite at home in this intimate space, not wanting to fully erupt either because he doesn't want to overact or in consideration of such a proximate audience's eardrums. For me, he comes across as a little too muted in his emotional expressions, unlike Richardson, Gray or, in smaller roles, Juliet Garricks or Susan Tracy, who felt more unrestrained. My reaction could simply be a matter of taste, of course, as I preferred the immediate emotionalism of Toby Jones, Andrew Scott or Iain Glenn as Vanya, for example. Anyway, there's much to love here, and this was 3 and a half stars for me.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 13, 2024 23:17:18 GMT
Thanks both. Train started moving again just after I posted so we decided to see what we could and make the best of it. Arrived Euston over an hour late but made the Savoy for 19:50. We saw the longer Act 1 from their CCTV (very low res) and the second half properly. I wonder if the curtain went up late as it finished at 22:18 not the advertised 21:50? So sorry this happened to you.
Its small consolation, but the second half is MUCH better than the first half, and at least the second half doesn't continue on from the first half.
|
|
1,159 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 13, 2024 11:27:33 GMT
Saw this, thought it worked wonderfully and really liked it. Much preferred it to the Bush Production, where one of the characters was directed differently. This version is less grotesque, more thoughtful. Felicity Huffman is great, as are the entire ensemble. Some spoilers follow. . . The premise of the play is that an abusive bloke (Simon Startin's Arnold) has had a stroke, and his wife (Felicity Huffman's Paige) has ditched all his controlling rules. Her 15 year old trans son (Thalia Dudek's Max) has gone along with this, but now, Paige's antsy soldier son (Steffan Cennydd's Isaac) comes home. At the Bush Theatre, Ashley McGuire's Paige was on a massive revenge kick, and was wantonly cruel to her disabled husband in almost every scene, savouring her sadism. The effect was grotesque and off-putting. In this production, Felicity Huffman's Paige treats her husband like someone tending a vegetable garden. Its matter-of-fact and there's no sadism. This means we can take her point of view more seriously, and her conflict with her soldier son plays out in a more balanced, more intriguing way. In fact, you could almost see this as an episode of "Desperate Housewives," Season 20, as that show was always coming up with quirky ways for the Housewives to deal with abusive partners, and the events here don't really jump the shark of that show's tone by more than a whisker. I really loved Thalia Dudek's performance as the trans son, as their work here is so deeply empathetic. 4 stars from me.
|
|