213 posts
|
Post by frosty on Apr 30, 2017 11:13:20 GMT
I saw this yesterday and was blown away. Absolutely loved it, such an astonishing piece to theatre in such an intimate space. We were in the front row, so definitely in the 'splash zone'. The best £25 I think I have ever spent in a theatre. I didn't know anything about the show or songs, or what to expect, but I thought the contrast of the gritty subject matter with some of the more 'showtuney' songs really worked. It helped that it was in the Southwark Playhouse, which I know everyone says is an amazing creative space, but to me looks like it needs a bloody good scrub with a bucket of soapy water... (those toilets..shudder!), but it all added to the flavour of the show, along with the torn tights and cheap, nasty sets. Sharon D Clarke is wonderful, you can't take your eyes off her, but then the whole cast is. It's long...but it flew by, if it wasn't closing, I would definitely go see it again. 5 * from me!
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 30, 2017 16:44:01 GMT
'Ho' ho?
So am I supposed to be laughing and whooping at this? Women degraded into a life of violent dependency and self abuse? Yes, I know that isn't the intent here but isn't that somewhat, you know, horrifying or at least grating? Surely cognitive distance kicks in at some point or is that a luxury for musical theatre?
'Ho' hum.
Yet, when Cy Coleman's score kicks in, with its Isaac Hayes/Quincy Jones blare, its blaxploitation licks and pitch perfect seventies grooves there is a great show in there. Or there is until the book slides back in and someone behind me giggles at a quip that suggests bit of whoring is just an irritation that a of diva belt and sassiness is going to cure.
Sure, a tacked on intro tells us that the bit players mostly die but what of the white girl ? Off to make porn films and that's it? The decade where AIDS moved through, inexorably scything down whole communities and she gets a happy ending?
'Ho' hmm.
The problem is partly an issue with the old white guy view of its authors (yeah, I know, easy target, but a show that would benefit from having at least a little black/female perspective, given its milieu) and their never showing an understanding that writers closer to the material could have mustered. Having said that, good direction could have softened that if the subtext had been foregrounded but the production doesn't help and lets the audience off the hook for the most part. One actor manages this, Cornell S John, and his scenes sizzle. There is life beneath for his Memphis and he mines it to perfection. The others often just indicate and their characterisation is paper thin. As said earlier in the thread, there is little rehearsal time at this venue so that could partly be the reason but there's too much generic musical theatre acting. A song like Easy Money for example is one of self delusion but here they might just have well been singing We're in the Money from another show across the river.
'Ho' no
When someone in the audience nearby goes 'uh-oh' and giggles when a pimp is likely to kill a terrified young woman you have to wonder if there is a bigger issue than script or direction. This could be a good show but it needs the audience's conscience to be pricked rather than their pricks being teased.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Apr 30, 2017 17:28:30 GMT
Well, I take all your points, CP, and there's no denying the split personality of the show - Cy Coleman's upbeat Broadway optimism versus Ira Gasman's patchy synthetic take on the "real" world of prostitution, drugs and the abuse of women.
Coleman, bless his heart, could write in any style, from operetta (On The 20th Century) to jazz (City of Angels) to country (Will Rogers Follies) to mainstream Broadway but he couldn't write dark and serious and he never did. Yet, because of Gasman's superficial book it's Coleman's contribution that shines and brings the show to life. So what we get is a raunchier version of Sweet Charity with true hookers instead of sort-of hookers - the taxi dancers. It works only so far as the music takes it.
I agree that Cornell S. John was on a different level than everyone else because he was playing it real and he was genuinely terrifying. I don't agree that a directorial approach that underlined the bleak truth John's character represents would have worked better. The music would have been against that in every moment and the show would have been even more schizophrenic that it now is. You have to take it for what it is, I'm afraid - not the life but a Broadway show tunes version of The Life.
I think Michael Blakemore knew exactly what he was doing in staging the show as he did. He directed the original, after all. And a quick survey of the very positive reports in this thread tells you that, once again, he was successful - people liked it. There is a serious show in there somewhere, maybe. But not with a Cy Coleman score.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 30, 2017 21:29:58 GMT
...and I just realised that cognitive dissonance got autocorrected to cognitive distance (which might mean something but not what I intended). Also 'a of diva belt' should be 'a bit of diva belt'. Back home in the grim north now, at least my train wasn't delayed by two hours like the one yesterday morning.
|
|