1,197 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.
|
|
1,197 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
|
|
1,197 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
|
|
1,197 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.
|
|
1,197 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.
|
|
1,197 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.
|
|
1,197 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.
|
|
1,197 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.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 13, 2024 9:43:03 GMT
Can anyone provide a short synopsis of what the musical is about? Spoilers follow. . . A middle-aged actress, Myrtle, is worried about being typecast as old, and wants her part in a new play, "The Second Woman," to be rewritten to focus on her uniqueness rather than aging. Outside the theatre, a 17 year old fan tells her how much she loves her, but is run over by a car. Now, Myrtle has a guilt-ridden breakdown where she starts seeing the 17 year old everywhere, who taunts her about her age. There is zero narrative thrust as everyone around her worries about what will happen to the play if Myrtle can't perform. The dead girl sits around giggling and tormenting Myrtle. Myrtle deals with the dead girl and performs opening night. Everyone else is pleased that they got through one night, but god knows what happens next. . . It's basically the story of this musical, in which Sheridan Smith has to go to places that must hurt, and noone knows what will happen after opening night. 😬 The principal idea is that creativity eats a hole in everyone involved, and everyone involved could die a creative death at any time, but creatives love the buzz so much that they will always return to the flame to be burned again. Again, its the meta-story of what is happening right now to all the creatives on this show. Honestly, this is all so bonkers. Cassavetes is not adaptable for a West End show unless you have the creative madness depicted in this show. For the above reasons, I think attending the Opening Night of this will be a legendary theatrical meta-moment to dine out on forever lol!
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2024 14:05:22 GMT
I also saw this on Saturday night, and voted 4 stars in the poll, as I LOVE how brave and bonkers this is! The marquee outside the theatre, and all the posters, are a warning, if you care to look: this isn't "Opening Night," its "JOHN CASSAVETES' OPENING NIGHT." How many people that you know have seen a Cassavetes film? Not many, I bet, and here are some reasons: Cassavetes doesn't do plot. He does people; He doesn't do action. He does psychology; He doesn't do jokes, he does serious; He doesn't do straightforward, he does meandering; He doesn't do clarity, he does complex. In other words, Cassavetes hated the commercial qualities that give audiences a fun addictive rollercoaster story ride. When financiers balked, he would frequently make movies out of his own pocket with money he made acting in stuff like "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Dirty Dozen". His cult fan base love him for his idiosyncratic seriousness. I had assumed Van Hove would restructure the piece to make the storytelling more commercial, more linear, cutting digressions, clarifying who the antagonists and allies are, but he doesn't. He plainly loves Cassavetes and is loyal to his vision from first to last. Cassavetes would love this show, cos it doesn't compromise his vision in the slightest. Sheridan Smith is nothing short of magnificent, Rufus Wainwright is on top form and Ivo Van Hove comes up with some splendid ideas, but all of them are paying homage to the adult, insular, inconclusive, serious, complex, meandering, psychological plot-averse vision of John Cassavetes. I love that they did this, as its unique and original for a West End production, but fear they'll lose their shirts. Cassavetes had no interest in conventional entertainment, and although Wainwright's gorgeous tunes, sung by some terrific and passionate actors, with an outstanding central performance by Sheridan Smith, do in fact inject SOME fun (and clarify SOME of the intentions - it's the nature of a musical that characters sing what they're thinking) into Cassavetes's ultra serious explorations, his flabby open structure is still such that audiences attuned to being spoonfed drama, rollercoaster thrills and entertainment will feel like NOTHING IS HAPPENING. Some spoilers follow. . . This is like a very dark version of "42nd Street," where the psychological breakdown of the leading actress gets in the way of putting on a show, and there are no high-kicking dancers. I thought Rufus Wainwright's songs were excellent, in 2 basic modes, with:- (1) rousing "42nd Street" reminiscent numbers, about the sheer joy and excitement of putting on a show at war and in opposition to (2) equally wonderful numbers about psychological breakdown and the obstacles to creative achievement. The first category of songs bookend the show, with the rousing excitement of the "On Broadway" (I'm guessing names) finale mirroring the excitement of the opening "One Shot to save the World" and "Magic" numbers. Along the way, Hadley Fraser's Director tries to keep the 42nd Street creative wonder rolling along with the "Pantomime" song and Sheridan Smith's Myrtle asserts that she's still "A Somebody" at the end of the first half. But by and large, the central section of songs are all about the barriers to creative success, which barriers culminated, on Saturday, with Sheridan Smith's fierce and moving "The World is Broken." The Primary antagonist, Shira Haas' 17 year old deceased former fan, Nancy, gets a great tormenting song about Smith's actress no longer "Being Young," which Haas delivers in the manner of a fanatical sadistic imp, the secondary antagonist, Nicola Hughes' Sarah, writer of the show-within-the-show, gets a belting wonder of a song, "It's Over," and the poor loving simp of a producer, John Marquez's David, gets to ever so tenderly and sweetly try to distract Smith's Myrtle with his affectionate "Moth to a Flame." I thought that Smith, Haas, Hughes, Marquez and Fraser were all glorious, and Wainwright's songs are a must-have for my collection, but the plot is all Cassavates, and it stubbornly and proudly won't go anywhere you want it to go lol. I will definitely see this again as it's so rare that you get a show so distinctively and deliberately uncommercial. I mean, you get a lot of shows desperate to be commercial, like the "X Factor" musical, but which miss the mark, but you rarely get a show that is desperate NOT to be commercial. Prepare to be confounded. 4 stars from me.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2024 13:07:14 GMT
I paused my advert blocking on the website and that seemed to have helped (or it might just be coincidence?). I think you might be right. I noticed my browser waiting ages to be fed ads, soI did the same thing, it let the ads in, and I proceeded. Who knows if it's a coincidence?
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 11, 2024 13:05:08 GMT
Denise Gough is one of my favourite theatre actors, and has been good in everything I've seen her in, with "Adler & Gibb" being my highlight. It is not a sign of failure to return to a role. Lots of theatre actors enjoy returning to key meaningful roles, like Mark Rylance in Jerusalem or Phoebe Waller-Bridge in Fleabag or Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard. Some of that is mentioned in a Guardian article here: www.theguardian.com/stage/2024/mar/11/denise-gough-people-places-and-thingsI love this bit: “I’m deemed ‘important’ now so I get treated really well all the time,” said Gough. “But then around me I see people who aren’t considered important treated badly. I think that if you get into a position of any power at all, especially as an actor, if you are number one or two on the call sheet, you have a responsibility."
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 9, 2024 23:30:03 GMT
Can anyone who has seen this show already tell me what part Shira Haas is playing in the proceedings? Is it a small part? So far I don't think anyone has mentioned her and she was one of the reasons I booked to see it. Some spoilers follow. . . At the beginning of the show, Sheridan Smith's acclaimed actress character, Myrtle, meets a 17 year old fan, Nancy, played by Shira Haas. Immediately after their conversation, Nancy is run over by a car, and subsequently haunts Myrtle (possibly as a ghost, but more likely in Myrtle's mind) and is the primary antagonist of the show, as she embodies youth, which Myrtle fears she's losing, and death, which Myrtle fears and feels guilty about as well. Van Hove's cameras do not include Haas's Nancy, even when we see her there, which is one of the best and most evocative uses of cameras in the show. I saw this tonight and thought Haas was very good.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 9, 2024 23:01:10 GMT
Is there a storyline to this? Is it just a chronological look at his life from beginning to end or is there more to it? Some spoilers follow. . . The storyline is that MJ is prepping his "Dangerous" Tour and he's trying to make it the greatest tour ever. His people allow reporters in for two days to document the rehearsals, and we worry about whether they will disrupt the perfectionist MJ from his preparations, and whether they will witness the pain pills he must take on account of burns that he got making a music video. In the course of the rehearsals, MJ recalls his formative moments as a boy with the Jackson 5 and as a young man, creating the Thriller album. . .
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 23:50:19 GMT
Saw this tonight and LIKED it. Dead sure it will tighten and improve a great deal by the time it opens in the West End. I felt the last third, after a pause, from 9:30pm - 10:20pm, was the most sustained effective sequence, firing on all cylinders. I thought Toheeb Jimoh was excellent as prince Hal. Some spoilers follow. . . We all know Robert Icke considers a lot of theatre "dead" (ie rote entertainment) and walks out of a lot of shows at the interval if he feels that way lol. So of course its ironic that people on the board are walking out at the interval of his play. Which is a shame, as I feel that it's after the interval that everything he's been building to comes alive. I recall how brutal and casually sociopathic Jude Law's "Henry V" was, and for me, this is that Henry V's origin story, in that it takes an especially ruthless look at the characters, whereby that famous monologue at the beginning of the play, in which Hal tells us exactly how cynical he really is (he's just playacting the dissolute for show and he's going full political as soon as it suits him, so everyone can acclaim his amazing supposed turnaround lol) is the anchor for Icke's take. Since Icke creates his productions like a sculptor, cutting away extraneous crap (like period costumes which don't relate to us now, for instance) and adding connective tissue where he thinks its necessary, it was always likely he'd want that speech to make sense if he left it in, and he does. As we live in a world where being politically in charge is a license to plunder, loot and self serve, it was always likely that Icke would create a similar world on stage, so that the production is relevant and alive rather than merely entertaining and "dead." An example of Icke hardening Hal's character is the opening vignette wherein Hal robs a cash register. Since this precedes his buddy, Poins's humorous robbery scheme, Icke is telling us, no, Hal isn't a charmer playing along with a funny scheme, he's in fact already a robber baron at his very core. And it's not just him. Ian McKellen's Hal is still played by Ian McKellen, so he's always going to be funny, but Icke excises romantic and/or funny scenes, retaining the more caustic cynical bits. For example, when his old friend, Justice Shallow shows up, they don't bond over funny sequences recruiting soldiers, instead the most romantic and elegaic speech of the play ("Chimes at Midnight") immediately cuts to a cynical monologue of McKellen's Falstaff, as a user, undercutting any romantic resonance of that speech. Indeed, the whole world of this play is "fake news" (the sequence of McKellen's medal-brandishing Falstaff celebrating his fake triumph is brilliantly done), propaganda (Jerusalem is roped in, as is the National Anthem) and political machinations (it all flows from that Hal speech). The confrontation between Hal and his father over the Crown (forget how heavy it is, me wants) is as primal and predatory, political and revelatory as I've seen. But to see it, you can't walk out at either interval. I expect Icke will carry on sculpting this production until, by it's April opening, it is as ruthless as that Jude Law "Henry V." I thought Toheeb Jimoh never puts a foot wrong, and is a compelling lead, charming but ruthless. I think McKellen's Falstaff is not as sentimental as previous Falstaffs (Simon Russell Beale's sentimental idealism in the Hollow Crown BBC productions actually made me cry lol), but McKellen lends his ruthless acquisitive Falstaff a bit of his own likeability and oodles of his humour. And I felt that Richard Coyle really met the challenge of that splendid scene he shares with Jimoh towards the end. All in all, I think this production has a 3 star beginning with a 4 star ending, but I expect it to be 4 stars all round by the time it hits the West End. 3 and a half stars from me for now.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 12:08:42 GMT
Just got a rush ticket to see this, not my usual thing but it's got such good reviews and looks interesting. Is it best to go in blind, or research the story/plot? I don't think you'll need to do much research beforehand really. It's all quite easy to follow. If you know who John Gielgud, Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are, you'll be fine. Agreed. Bear in mind this is based on massive amounts of research of real life events, so just expect real flesh and blood people interacting, and you'll be fine.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 12:03:23 GMT
I think any credibility went out the window when saying “I loved Thriller live” 🤣🤣 Can we just accept that tastes are different to begin with and that it is absolutely possible to both enjoy a highbrow piece from time to time AND some switch-your-brain-off fun show? I agree entirely. And my point is that "MJ The Musical" is at heart no more highbrow than "Thriller Live," both of which feel like pure Vegas Entertainment. My opinion is that as a dramatic psychological exploration of Jackson, MJ is pretty feeble (for genuinely revelatory profiles in psychology, see Jamie Lloyd's "Sunset Boulevard" or Imelda Staunton in Gypsy, etc, lol), and longwinded with what little it has to say (with the exception of the "Thriller" song, which I loved dramatically), and should probably tire us less with that and do more of the pizzazz!
And while I may not have needed you to stick up for me, your doing so is a credit to you. Thank you. But that's not what that was? The comment referred to another posters comments, not ones made by Mr Barnaby themself, so it wasn't self-depreciating. And the laughing emojis usually mean laughing at something. Steve's original post says "(maybe the only one on this board lol)" which certainly reads as self-deprecating, tongue in cheek to me. So the context of Mr B's comment with the two smileys reads very differently IMO.
I knew I'd rankle Mr Barnaby with that comment, since I'm well aware of his opinion of "Thriller Live," and I laughed (with him) at his response, and took no offense at all. I love Mr. Barnaby, lol, but I bet you this production won't last as long as "Thriller Live" did, and the reason is that a lot of audiences, like me, also loved its endless action and topping itself. In MJ the Musical, the character of Michael says that the music is everything. That was the perfect description of what "Thriller Live" was about, rather than a laundry list of chitchat about budget additions, made one after the other after the other after the other. MJ very may well not last as long as Thriller did- but then that was put on cheaply and is nowhere near as huge a production as this is. I would hate for you to take my remark seriously. You are clearly a passionate and discerning theatregoer I didn't take your remark seriously. I value your contributions to this board very much. Thank you for them.
The performers in "Thriller Live" delivered their songs fabulously, when I saw that show, as did the performers in this one, on an even more epic scale. I wasn't criticising the epicness, I was moaning about its pretensions to seriousness, which outstay their welcome, and which get in the way of even more fabulous epicness.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 7:53:26 GMT
I think any credibility went out the window when saying “I loved Thriller live” 🤣🤣 I love Mr. Barnaby, lol, but I bet you this production won't last as long as "Thriller Live" did, and the reason is that a lot of audiences, like me, also loved its endless action and topping itself. In MJ the Musical, the character of Michael says that the music is everything. That was the perfect description of what "Thriller Live" was about, rather than a laundry list of chitchat about budget additions, made one after the other after the other after the other.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 7:43:59 GMT
This was probably the best 'in concert' show i've been to in a long time. I disagree about there being lots of missed mic cues. . . The production at the Southwark was not good at all. The wigs and costumes were beyond cheap, some were not even finished, and the staging was terrible, because unless you sat in the centre block, you couldnt see both of the girls. Also, the writers of the show disliked the first preview so much, that they almost pulled the show unless changes were made and promptly cancelled the rights to another of their shows, which was due later that year. I did notice that no mention of that first London premier was included in the progrmme notes. 1 niggle i did have about the concert, was that if you are going to signify the girls being conjoined by them holding hands, at least stick to that and not have them break it 2 mins later. Yes, I wasn't bothered by the mics. In fact, one massive explosion of static at the very beginning allowed the conductor to engage in a funny comedy bit where he converted his shock to a pretense that he had been conducting it all all along, which made me laugh. And I also was amused by the rehearsed bit where the conductor played tennis with the twins with his baton (complete with return-serve sound effects). And he also "conducted" the curtain going up and down. A funny man. Vis a Vis the Southwark show, I can't speak to the view from the sides, as I was central both times I saw it. However, my view that in that intimate space, the difference between the characters of Daisy and Violet came across infinitely more than in the concert. No wigs and costumes faux pas could diminish the excellent work of Louise Dearman swelling grandly over a shrinking Laura Pitt-Pulford. If the creators don't understand that the drama of the competition between the twins played uniquely and brilliantly in that space, and would rather be dismayed over wigs, that's their prerogative.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 7:21:14 GMT
I found the first half less entertaining than "Thriller Live." YIKES! It was that bad?? To clarify, I'm talking about the gussied up version of "Thriller Live" after he passed away, not the original version, which I did not see. Some spoilers follow. . . And yes, if you are gonna spend tons of time talking rather than singing and dancing, I want more drama than omg-he's-such-a-perfectionist-he-spending-even-more-money-on-another-sleeve. The fact that Frost is a bang-on facsimile of Jackson is cool but not intrinsically dramatic. The reporters-might-report-too-much drama also doesn't rivet as it assumes we are desperate for those reporters to keep it a secret that MJ is on pills, and the audience has no reason to care about that. If they report it, it may actually help the poor bloke, after all, even if his fixers would prefer it to be kept secret. Obviously, it is tragic he took too many pain pills and we sigh about that, but sighing isn't riveting, and the show's attempt to ally us with the fixers against the reporters is a little icky. For me, only Daddy Joseph is a worthy antagonist in the extensive talk-talk-talk, and he's very much sidelined by the endless talk about the budget, which drama peaks with whether or not Jackson will mortgage Neverland, which frankly, I also couldn't care less about, as I already know, as we all do, that Jackson won't go broke (it's hardly a spoiler). The purpose of all this "drama" (pills and budget overruns) is to paint a portrait of perfectionism, how that results in peak craft and the toll it takes on the artist, but Jackson is always so damn calm about it all on stage, that we, the audience, can't be asked to be more bothered than he is. So, as Goldfinger said to Bond, we say, no Mr. Jackson, we don't expect you to talk, we expect you to dance. And in "Thriller Live," we had multiple Jacksons dance dance dancing nonstop.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 7, 2024 0:46:20 GMT
Saw this tonight, and Myles Frost is magician, bringing Jackson to vivid exciting life. There are some magnificent set pieces, in particular in the second half. Some spoilers follow. . . Unfortunately, there is little drama in the first half, with an ingratiating Jackson clogging up the running time by endless conversations about how much more money he would like to spend on every bit of the Dangerous tour. Since he has absolute power over the tour, there is no drama in that, as noone can convincingly oppose him. As someone who loved "Thriller Live" (maybe the only one on this board lol), I was frustrated at the fact that this amazing asset (Frost) wasn't given more singing and dancing to do, in lieu of talking about budgets, which meant that I found the first half less entertaining than "Thriller Live." The threat of Ashley Zhanghasa's controlling Joseph over the younger Jackson is the only dramatic tonic to the dull overplayed perfectionism storyline. In fact, I found the storyline of "Ain't Too Proud" considerably more compelling (main link between these musical biographies is that Mitchell Zhanghasa was great in both). There are some good numbers in the first half of MJ (including a haunting "Strangers in Moscow" and a thrilling "They Don't Care About Us") of which I found "Wanna be Starting Something" the most exciting and entertaining, as it allowed Mitchell Zhanghasa's Young Adult Michael and Myles Frost's MJ both to strut and sing exceptionally, and it integrated the introduction of "Thriller" to boot. It was in the second half, though ,that I got more excited about the show, as I absolutely loved the contextualisation of Jackson's dance influences, with Frost's Jackson dancing next to his inspired influences (the Fosse sequence was particularly evocative). Ashley Zhanghasa's Joseph, when not tormenting his real life brother playing his young adult son, lol, really pays off as a character in the "Thriller" sequence in the second half. That sequence alone was worth the price of the ticket. Myles Frost's breathy high-pitched coy world-weary line deliveries make for a very convincing Jackson, but it's in his dance moves that he is pure electric fire. This was a fun show, let down by a shallow book, lifted by some spectacular set pieces, making for entertainment to the tune of 4 stars for me.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 6, 2024 23:58:00 GMT
Saw the matinee, and thought it was excellent. It is similar to "Constellations," in that it is a two hander depicting a potential romantic relationship in disjointed scenes, though, like "Blackout Songs," the romance depicted exists in one nonlinear timeline. It features a terrific performance by Tosin Cole, who is a theatre actor to watch out for. Some spoilers follow. . . Tosin Cole's Dre is a delightful confident open book of a charmer, his banter of the fast-turn brilliant-comic-timing variety, who falls for an an intelligent, likeable but unfortunately (for him) closed book of a character, Heather Agyepong's Des. Her closed nature is the principal fuel of the drama, with him attempting to open her up in all sorts of non-linear intercut moments of their lives. This is intriguing in the extreme, but also makes Agyepong's Des a frustrating character for the audience, for most of the running time (1 hour 40 minutes, without an interval) as we want what Cole's character wants. Swings and roundabouts lol. I thought Agyepong's performance was very good, conveying the compelling contrariness of her character, but Cole's performance is one of the rare great ones, that lifts the words on the page into a unique unforgettable character that goes beyond words. 4 stars from me.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 3, 2024 23:56:47 GMT
I was looking for something to pass the time before the "Side Show" Musical Concert, and saw this had a Sunday matinee (given the title, I was half-expecting Robbie Coltrane in a wig and a nun's habit), and it turned out to be a phenomenally moving piece, brilliantly acted and sung. As far as shows about Catholic School Girls go, I felt the characters in this are better drawn and more likeable than those in "Our Ladies of Perpetual Succour," and the original songs in this are more specific, heartfelt and moving than the jukebox songs in that, as well. And I liked that! Some spoilers follow. . . There's 4 lead characters in this, senior pupils at a Catholic School in London, and all of them could be lead characters in successful teen shows, so well drawn are they, and so involving their dramas. For a 90 minutes straight through piece, it's almost overwhelming how well it all works, and the songs, folky, poppy and rocky, are excellent expressions of these characters and dramas. Impecunious Irish farm girl, Caragh, as played by Michaela Murphy, is the most sparky, impassioned and thoroughly endearing character I've seen in anything all year. Murphy herself is a great part of it, her natural ebullient effusiveness irrepressible. She gets the most laughs, and when she gets serious, it's heart wrenching in the extreme. Heather Gourdie's Bernie has an element of quiet mystery about her, and as her layers peel away, the level of inner torment revealed is agonising. She's the type of wallflower character that deepens a TV show like "Skins." Angel Lima's Eliza is the sort of tough in-your-face rebel type that typically leads shows like "Skins," and is later revealed to be much more nuanced and more vulnerable than you ever could have believed, when you find out where Eliza's coming from. The more you know, the more you care. Juliette Artigala, who plays the ultra-religious Mary, has the kind of voice that is so warm and soulful that she could ghost-sing any soulful pop song and make you care about it twice as much. Once she gets involved in a bit of a "Heartbreaker" plot with one of the other characters, it's pure fire. And the other actor, Sorrel Jordan, who plays all the adults, is like a chameleon, the way she flits so successfully between mannerisms and characters. Finola Southgate's folky poppy songs are some of the best-written songs I've encountered in any new musical, and in the hands of the above actors, they are weapons. I feel the creators of this show, Southgate and Rosie Dart, co-creator and director, are destined for big things. This show moved me to the tune of 4 and a half stars.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 3, 2024 22:47:14 GMT
Holy smokes! Bradley Jaden turned the scoundrel, Terry, into some majestic tortured soul that simply tore the Palladium apart. Frozen still, facing the audience, unable to even make eye contact with Louise Dearman's Daisy, you could feel the entire Palladium audience hold their breaths, and shrink into themselves as Jaden's "Private Conversation" (the show highlight by a memorable mile) became an impassioned public confession of impassioned self-hatred, that rivalled any passionate Phantom ever, his modulated voice building to towering crescendos of searing passion, before turning to Dearman's Daisy, falling into her duet and her chest like a lost child, only, on her exit, to face the audience again and resume his crestfallen tear-filled tenor crying confession of his emotional inadequacy that must have hit the back of the circle like a delayed thunderbolt. And at last, the audience could breathe again to release the most rousing pent-up ovation of the evening. . . Earlier, in the first half, before the interval, it had seemed as if the loudest ovation would belong to Trevor Dion-Nicholas's Jake's furious Paul-Robeson-esque trilling trembling commanding bass warning to the twins about sticking to "The Devil You Know." But they allowed Bradley Jaden's wolf in, to the eternal gratitude of the audience, if not themselves lol. If I'm honest, I think this piece worked dramatically better as a chamber piece at the Southwark Playhouse, where the differences between the personalities of the twins were under the microscope of the huddled intimate audience. Laura Pitt-Pulford's sensitive Violet could make the smallest wincing reactions to the diva antics of Dearman's brash confident Daisy, her every expression registering as if Bambi's mother was being repeatedly shot. At the Palladium, the venue is simply too big for that sort of minutiae to even register, so a great deal of the character conflict between the twins is lost. And that drama is the greater part of the drama of the whole show. Still, having two great theatrical divas belt brilliant songs together is it's own reward, and Dearman's and Tucker's "I Will Never Leave You" brought the house down, so beloved is the song, so beloved are the actors, and so powerfully did they belt. While the intimacy of the characters speaking of their love for each other was lost (they mostly faced the audience) the power of those divas' love for the audience was brilliantly found, and merited the second most powerful ovation of the evening. Although she never got a dramatic moment, Gina Murray's astounding belt was it's own moment lol. Anyhow, for two wonderful divas, for Trevor Dion-Nicholas, and most of all, for Bradley Jaden turning Terry into the Phantom, that was a heck of a fun night! 4 stars from me.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 3, 2024 0:11:39 GMT
I LOVED this tonight! It's a passionate compassionate biography of Nye Bevan that is one part Dennis Potter's "The Singing Detective," one part Dr. Who, and all parts committed excellence by Michael Sheen. It somewhat suffers by not developing any character (they are all either allies or obstacles) other than Bevan, but that (ironic, given that the man fought for others rather than himself) solipsism certainly suits it's Dennis Potter-esque framing device. It is a work of cumulative power that got me in the end. Some spoilers follow. . . In Dennis Potter's "The Singing Detective," Michael Gambon dreams a life from his hospital bed, and here, Sheen's Nye Bevan remains in his striped pyjamas for the duration of the play, as he replays all his significant life moments from his hospital bed. The production pays explicit tribute to "The Singing Detective" by having Sheen's Bevan sing a defining song, in this case, Harold Arlen's "Get Happy," to express his joyous zealous fanaticism. But this play is not all dreams, it's also an expression of the dramatic battles that Bevan fought to create a Nationalised Health Service, and this is where the play looked a LOT like Dr. Who to me, as Sheen's striped pyjamas perpetually resemble an eccentric Doctor Outfit, with his Doctor pitched somewhere between William Hartnell's irascibility, Tom Baker's know-it-all joviality and Peter Davison's willingness to learn. As Sheen's pyjama-bedecked Time Lord Bevan travels through all his time lines, we witness his adversaries, such as the Doctors' Union, multiplied on a silver screen background marching relentlessly like ever-advancing storming robotic troops of Cybermen, or Tony Jayawardena's marvellously Machiavellian Master-like Churchill, testing his rival with crafty plots and offered alliances, and most amusing of all, Stephanie Jacob's super-sly Clement Attlee, operating a remote control desk to float in and out of scenes like the Dalek overlord, Davros. These entertaining elements add a sprinkle of spice to the more mundane, more serious dramas of Bevan's life, such as his early loss of his father, his encounters with injustice at school, his battle with stammering, all the way up to his battle with the Grim Reaper. Michael Sheen puts such humanity (compassion, confusion, fury, despair, humility) into Bevan's character through all of this, such that by the end, I was in tears. All in all, despite the sidelining of all characters that aren't Bevan (the Bechdel test is screaming in despair with how little we get to know Sharon Small's heartfelt Jennie Lee, other than as Bevan's wife), this is a terrific epic serious production, spiced up by some entertaining elements, that's 4 stars for me. PS: The running time was 2 hours 40 minutes (including one interval), with a prompt 10:10pm finish; PPS: If you want to see what a deathbed Nye Bevan drama looks like without the entertaining elements, the poetic ghostly "Food for Ravens," written and directed by the playwright Trevor Griffiths for BBC Wales, and starring Brian Cox as Nye Bevan is finally on iPlayer, for the next 4 months:- www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0077ct3/food-for-ravens
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 2, 2024 19:25:29 GMT
She Loves Me (Mountview) the Dior cast at Mountview put in some excellent, mature performances. Hannah Murdoch was a great watch (and sing) as Amalia, while George Hartley oozed character as Mr Maraczek. I also saw the Dior Cast and thought Hannah Murdoch had great timing and oodles of charm as Amalia. She was, however, cheated out of one of the funniest songs written for her character, "Where's my shoe?" This made no sense for the production but makes a lot of sense if the purpose is to share the limelight between the students lol, where Amalia gets "Vanilla Ice Cream," Georg gets "She Loves Me," and Ilona gets "A Trip to the Library." The bare stage and dark backdrop didn't make for a very inviting Perfumerie, but was suitably atmospheric for the most excitingly staged scene, where the ensemble were all secretive lovers swanning and swooning around moodily, making shapes, behind Aiden Carson's humorously indignant waiter's back. As the villainous Kodaly, I thought Zak Craig sang magnificently and showed a lot of panache. I thought Billy Marsden's Sipos was moment-to-moment superbly acted, his every emotion coming through, and the charm of Harry Laidlaw's Arpad rivalled that of Callum Scott Howells, though he was less loveably awkward and more Peter Lorre smooth talker. Nothing can dim my memory of the perfect Menier production, though, where Scarlett Strallen and Mark Umbers genuinely seemed to hate-love each other to the absolute romantic maximum. I'd give this classy production 3 and a half stars.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 2, 2024 19:12:21 GMT
You like musicals, and Tina is one of the best jukebox musicals I've seen. I'd see that one.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 2, 2024 18:20:13 GMT
Saw today's matinee and it's adorable. This is a transfer from the Edinburgh festival. It's a two hander about two 17 year old girls who think life might be passing them by, and who make up dramatic stories for fun. The two performances are moment-to-moment fantastic, the characters really pop, and it's very funny. Some spoilers follow. . . There's a certain kind of will-they-won't-they love story that's fizzes with tension as long as they don't (I seem to remember that the "Moonlighting" TV show had it's audience on tenterhooks as long as they didn't, and when they went there, the steam drained out of it and it got cancelled). Well, this is the best of all worlds, since the question of whether one or the other of these two teen girls like each other keeps the dramatic tension fizzing, and you know that it's going to end after an absolutely delightful 75 minutes straight through, whatever happens. As the title suggests, it's period Western stories that these two like to cosplay, and since male-female roles are so defined in Westerns, this allows these two ordinary teens to suddenly break out the American accents and swagger and swoon all over the place. This play is a critique of male-female straitjackets, and more subversively, it is a loving cheeky camp celebration of such roles. Of the two, Georgia Vyvyan's Noa is depicted as slightly more stereotypically feminine (fast-talking, dramatic, impulsive) whereas Julia Pilkington's Nina is slightly more stereotypically masculine (slow-speaking, taciturn, considered). But when they play at Westerns, these tendencies are a thousand times more exaggerated, which is laugh-out-loud funny, as Vyvyan expertly storms around, batting her eyelids, cheeks trembling, side eyes popping, every bit the breathy Vivian Leigh at her most iconic; and still funnier, Pilkington slouches around in slow motion, inarticulately mumbling, staring off into distances. It's brilliantly comic. Of course, plot wise, nothing much really happens, but given how short the running time, how expert the characterisation (the writer will obviously one day be hired as a staff writer on a Heartstopper or be a showrunner of such a show), how utterly true and hilarious the performances, this gets 4 and a half stars of a delighted thumbs up from me.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 1, 2024 0:16:01 GMT
Saw this tonight and it's a very odd play that doesn't really add up to more than the sum of its parts, although it's parts are quite enjoyable regardless. Some spoilers follow. . . At one point, Keeley Hawes's Iris says that her love affair with Jack Davenport's George is the only "technicolor" part of her life. But this contrary production is determined to turn her love affair into the very black and white "Brief Encounter," which seems most odd. It's especially odd since "Brief Encounter" can't be bettered as a black and white movie about a stiff-upper-lipped desperate period love affair, so the movie that's broadcast on the wall behind the actors is either a mere pastiche of "Brief Encounter" or it is a commentary that Iris's love affair is not "technicolor" at all. In any event, Emma Rice, in her eternal optimism about the human condition, already made what amounts to a cheery "technicolor" play version of "Brief Encounter," and that was more fun than this. But this isn't meant to be fun, anyway, as it's essentially a "woman trapped" kind of play, so the spiraling stage was one of my favourite parts of the production, which, coupled with the Bernard Herrmann type music, and boosted by Keeley Hawes's clench-teethed performance, made the production as much a doomladen version of Hitchcock's "Vertigo" as it was of Lean's "Brief Encounter." This worked doubly well, thematically, but also as a democratic method of giving those at the sides a good view of the actors. Unfortunately, the production is neither as romantic as "Brief Encounter," nor as thrilling as "Vertigo," so it never really finds it's emotional thrust. There was one ray of technicolor sunshine in the production tonight, and it was Flora Jacoby Richardson as Hawes's Iris's daughter, constantly rabbitting on enthusiastically about Princess Elizabeth's dresses, which, unlike the NHS, will never be available to ordinary people. This was constantly funny to me, as her passion for the dresses exceeded anyone's passion for the NHS, and if the point of her character was to suggest we shouldn't be gawking at royalty, this deeply failed, as the cheery kid's enthusiasm (she even gave Hawes the most joyous "thumbs up" after the bows lol) was way too infectious, especially when compared to the dourness of everybody else. Odd. Even Bevan (not depicted) came across badly, described as using dehumanising Trumpian language, even if his accomplishments are the very best of Britain. Again, odd. As far as Keeley Hawes's plays go, I preferred "Rocket to the Moon" to this, and preferred this to "Barking in Essex," but despite the fact she's never been in a truly brilliant production, she herself was terrific in all three of these, serving each play with exactly the notes asked of her, so I fully expect one day she'll hit the jackpot with a truly great play. Of the supporting ensemble, I thought Siobhan Redmond magnificently morphed into a whole range of quirky characters. For me, this weird portrait of a woman and an NHS going round in circles gets 3 and a half stars for it's intriguing but never-melding parts. PS: This finished at 10:15pm on the dot, and I was out by 10:18pm.
|
|
1,197 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 29, 2024 18:50:42 GMT
Strong reviews in mainstream outlets, with some doubts shown more in the web-based reviewers and bloggers. I wonder why it's that way around. Interesting observation. At a guess, it's that bloggers/web-based reviewers are more aligned with general audiences, mainly going by how much they enjoy a thing, whereas mainstream critics add or deduct stars based on values. For example, encouraging cultural assimilation, solving conflicts, coming up with original ideas, original ways of staging productions, and/or saving the planet, etc, could all be considered positive values that might get critics adding a star to their assessments, even though dispassionately audiences might bot be more entertained by those values. Similarly, applying tried and tested entertainment formulas might be perceived by mainstream critics as a negative value because it doesn't develop the art of theatre, even if it makes audiences happy. This might result in a star or two deducted from a perfectly entertaining show. In the case of "Cable Street," like the "Bend it Like Beckham" musical, or "The Scottsboro Boys," it might be perceived by critics as improving society, reducing racism, a positive value that goes beyond entertainment. For me, the most extreme example I saw of this phenomenon was Michael Billington's review of "2071," at the Royal Court, which he gave 5 stars: www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/nov/07/2071-review-urgent-call-history-royal-court-theatreThe show wanted to help save future generations from one of the most pressing problems of our time, climate change, and Billington gave the play his full 5 star weight. I agreed more closely with one of the more popular comments underneath his review, which included this assessment: "It was a lecture delivered by a man reading an auto-cue (hence no notes) with all the charisma of the diminishing ice-shelves he was describing." I don't think it's wrong that sometimes professional critics want to promote originality or save the world, but that's my guess as to why they sometimes promote productions that aren't necessarily the most entertaining, and also why, conversely, they'll slam a super-entertaining production that doesn't promote such values. Just speculation on my part, of course.
|
|