1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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
|
|
1,206 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!
|
|
1,206 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
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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
|
|
1,206 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
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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!
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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?
|
|
1,206 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."
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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. . .
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|
1,206 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.
|
|