1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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. . .
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 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.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 29, 2024 13:23:44 GMT
If you are referring to what I think you are, that scene had the opposite effect on me - I was enjoying the play ok up until then but that bit crossed a line for me. . . that scene towards the end with the siblings … a bit too much. I guess this was the point, to make the viewers deeply uncomfortable. Yes, that's the scene. I very much understand why you don't like it, and I'll say why I love it in spoilers:- In Wagner's Ring Cycle, his romanticism is taboo-busting, with not only the siblings, Siegmund and Sieglinde carried away with each other, but also Siegfried gets carried away with his Aunty Brunhilde. As the siblings cave into their greed for (and break their own moral taboo against accepting) antisemitic-fuelled money, they simultaneously plunge into the same taboo-busting incestuous romanticism Wagner indulged in. The suggestion the play makes is that the whole romantic movement in Western civilisation is psychologically unhinged at some level, and that seems a provocative and worthwhile thing to get audiences thinking about. It's like a little bonus easter-egg thought-provoking kick in the teeth for people who like the Ring Cycle lol. PS: As an interesting aside, Jon Snow and his Aunty Khaleesi, and the Lannister siblings, IN "Game of Thrones" all seem inspired by the Ring Cycle, and GRR Martin comes out on the side of judging their taboo-busting ways very harshly.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 24, 2024 23:37:23 GMT
Still, it’s a wild, crazy evening. I love that line! That's why I loved this tonight, because it's a "wild and crazy evening" where I had no idea where it was going, my eyes popping, teeth gritted, the non-realistic mysterious bits rubbing up chaotically against the grubby materialist provocative comedy bits to make a proper theatrical experience, all acted by a fantastic cast. Some spoilers follow. . . This is like Macbeth's witches brewed a play that mixes Yasmina Reza's consideration of the subjective value of Art in "Art," Lilian Hellman's consideration of the power of greed in "The Little Foxes," with a bit of Brecht and a pinch of Hitler. Obviously, it's the pinch of Hitler that rankles. . . On the "MJ the Musical" thread, we've been fretting about how much we do or don't care that MJ (who can't personally benefit from our ticket money) may have done some very bad things, even though his music is a glorious dance party. Similarly, do we care that the most impressive sequence in "Apocalypse Now," uses the grand, frightening and astonishing "Ride of the Valkyries" by Wagner, a massive antisemite, or is it ok cos he's dead? Well, Hitler's dead too, and his art isn't as good as Wagner's, so his art is the apotheosis of cases involving whether art is tainted by the evil of its creator, and the set-up in this play is that the painting Daddy left John Heffernan's Philipp and Dorothea Myer-Bennett's Nicola might be by Hitler, and certain buyers might pay a premium for the Hitler name. To sell or not to sell? Are the buyers suckers whose money it's ok to take, or are you tainted by evil for taking the money? There are lots of twists and turns as the other characters push and pull the owners of the painting in lots of ways, and it's at once very uncomfortable to watch but also great fun not knowing what's going to happen. . . At times, I worried that the distinction between stereotypical things the characters were saying, and what the playwright believes, might be crumbling (for example, like anybody else, not all Jews stereotypically believe the same things about "Palestine," or any other issue, and it's unfair to suggest otherwise), however, I think the character/playwright line ultimately stayed safely separate, despite my teeth fraying at times lol. One of my very favourite moments in the play, towards the end is very Wagnerian (gulp), both mischievous sendup and absurd homage, and it gives Heffernan, at his most hilariously banal, and Myer-Bennett, at her most frenziedly wired, a "wild and crazy" theatrical moment that made the whole play immediately unforgettable. With a steely Jenna Augen pleading passionately against the amorality of filthy lucre, Angus Wright at his most Bond-villain camp, Jane Horrocks successfully cast against type as pure evil and Gunnar Cauthery as a supremely entertaining comedy dolt, this wild and crazy evening surely deserves 4 and a half stars from me.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 23, 2024 0:16:35 GMT
Saw this tonight and very much enjoyed it. The second half (which has more developed and involving characterisation and more rousing songs) is better than the first half, which is more setting the scene, and has more nondescript songs. Part of setting the scene involves depicting a lot of unpleasant (but necessary) antisemitism, so if you're squeamish about that, beware. There are multiple song styles, some of which hit harder than others, with the rapping never hitting the heights its aiming for. The wonderful Debbie Chazen is underused (as is Jade Johnson, who sounds great), and doesn't get a proper character, which is a bit of a shame. Among a strong ensemble, who sound great together, Danny Colligan is a standout in a difficult main role, and Jez Unwin is terrific in support. Some spoilers follow. . . There have been lots of movies about Titanic, but the reason the James Cameron one is loved by audiences is that fictional DiCaprio-Winslet relationship, smack in the middle of it, as well as the drama they have with Billy Zane. Here, we usefully get the Titanic formula applied to the Battle of Cable Street, whereby Joshua Ginsberg's super-charming East End Jewish boy, Sammy meets Sha Dessi's Irish communist agitator, Mairead, and they both team up to oppose the British Union of Fascists's plan to waltz through Cable Street, protected by the police, while Danny Colligan's hopeless jobless impressionable English local boy, Ron, starts to get seduced by the Fascists (uh oh). . . Anyhow, the plot cleverly does not stop with the eponymous battle, and looks beyond it usefully. Pretty much the entire ensemble, bar the above named characters, play multiple roles of all sorts, including Fascists, which means two things: (1) no actor is typecast as an armband-wearing Fascist, which suggests (2) that anybody could be susceptible to Fascist ideas given the right circumstances. Mosley himself is never depicted, never given oxygen, rather it is the susceptibility of ordinary people to the manipulations of xenophobia, ancient hatreds, and a certain form of virulent Nationalism (eg "British jobs for British people") that is under the microscope. Thematically then, Danny Colligan's Ron is pivotal, and in the second half, he gets a really powerful song, "Shut Me Out," (I'm guessing song titles) where Colligan's impassioned soulful rendition of the song, moved me, and was a highlight, despite his character's villainy. As the heroic plucky lead character, Sammy, Ginsberg heroically delivers Lin Manuel Miranda levels of likeable energetic rhyming, but is let down by no memorable tunes following the raps. Sha Dessi is luckier in the song stakes, and her heroine makes like an anti-Marie Antoinette with an awesome delivery of a song that might be called "Bread." As Sammy's father, who pushes Sammy not to get involved in the Cable Street battle, Jez Unwin delivers so tenderly one of the most moving songs of the piece, "Words," in which he expresses his respect for rationality, as well as his pained disconnect with his son. There are quite a few forgettable numbers, unfortunately, in the first half, with the notable exception of the brilliant choral ensemble song, "No Passeran, Thou Shall not Pass." Debbie Chazen is cheated out of any great solos, though I loved her Jaws-reminiscent line delivery, where instead of needing a "bigger boat," she rather needed a "bigger rolling pin." The Hitler supporting Daily Mail gets it's much deserved and due comeuppance in a much reprised song, "Read all about it," which makes me look forward to their review lol. I felt that the first half was an average 3 stars, with too much history, not enough story, too few bangers, whereas the second half was a moving 4 stars, with more story, the right amount of history, and almost every song a banger. 3 and a half stars from me, which could improve with book and song edits. PS: Running time was as advertised, beginning 5 minutes late at 7:35pm and ending 5 minutes late, at 10:05pm, with one interval.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2024 22:46:21 GMT
Saw this tonight at my local theatre on the big screen. Phenomenal. Did the movie version do anything extra (eg subtitles with character names) to signal who the characters, that Andrew Scott was playing at any given time, were, that the theatre audience would not have seen?
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2024 22:37:44 GMT
He was talking about the fact he was sent a video of Sheridan in Funny Girl ahead of casting and his reaction was “meh, it’s ok”… but how he’s gone on to find her a revelation to work with and that maybe his reaction was more about the show than her. That worries me a bit, as I loved "Funny Girl," and if he thinks "Funny Girl" is "meh," then maybe he thinks effective emotive storytelling is a bit beneath him, and he plans to bamboozle us with something so complex and cerebral that all us simple folk will just go "meh" lol. :0
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2024 18:49:30 GMT
Saw today's matinee, for the second time, and had an absolute ball! Verity Thompson was on as Kathryn Merteuil. Some spoilers follow. . . I was looking for something cheap and entertaining to fill the matinee slot, so booked "Bronco Billy" last minute for £15 with Todaytix, then promptly got an email it was cancelled at 11am. So I traded the credit for this more expensive Rush show, which Rush was still open, and was charged an extra £9.05 (I guess Todaytix threw me an extra pound as commiseration for the cancellation lol). Verity Thompson was a fantastic Kathryn! While her belt is modulated and magnificent, it isn't as thrilling as the main Kathryn's, but her performance more than made up for this: she was the T1000 upgrade of sly amoral evil, slinking around like the snake-like Jodie Steele in Heathers, but with more considered maturity, making her seem even more malevolent. Since all these teen shows are basically bonding morality lessons for the target audience, her slow-building, dark and absolute commitment to Garbage's "I'm only happy when it rains" and Melissa Etheridge's "Im the Only One" really raise the stakes of Valmont's drama, and the importance of the lesson: "Don't be Evil" lol. As Valmont, Daniel Bravo's distinctive bravura swagger means he remains the West End's most likely future casting as a Prince in a Hallmark movie or a secretly psychopathic boyfriend in a Lifetime movie, but the shocking sudden tenderness he shows in Counting Crows's "Colorblind" (my favourite moment in the show) suggests the former is more likely than the latter lol. Anyway, the 90s numbers are banging and so brilliantly integrated into the plot, all sounding like either dialogue or monologue, and not the pointless performance of plot-unrelated time-wasters you get in something like Cilla the Musical. Rose Galbraith and Josh Barnett remain a hoot as the comedy characters, with Galbraith's laugh-out-loud hilarious rendition of Ace of Base's "I Saw the Sign" also serving to remind its target audience that sex is pretty silly, and not to get too het up about it lol. Abbie Budden, as the unattainable religious Sarah-Brown-from-Guys-and-Dolls-like object of Valmont's desire has developed some terrific chemistry with Bravo, and I found myself tearing up from Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn" onwards, "Colorblind" being the pinnacle of emotion, despite knowing that nothing in a show like this can possibly be taken seriously. I hadn't planned to see the show again, but I'm delighted to report it's in damn fine shape for a jukebox teen show, and I'd give it 4 stars now.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2024 10:42:03 GMT
Thanks Dave.
Can anyone who's reached the front of the queue see when the press night is, and whether there are any reductions to these prices in the preview period?
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 21, 2024 9:58:51 GMT
comparing Michael Jackson's court cases towards children might be an odd comparison to Henry the 8th - but its a fascinating debate on what is or is not socially acceptable I agree that comparing Michael Jackson to Henry VIII, etc, is worthwhile. There are 3 types of works you could make about both of them: (1) A work where Michael Jackson or Henry VIII is depicted as having done bad things, like Six; (2) A work where Michael Jackson or Henry VIII's bad behaviour is not addressed at all, like MJ the Musical (I'm assuming as I haven't seen it); (3) A work where the bad behaviour of either is acknowledged and defended. I don't think people would love any works in Category 3, whereby cutting off your wives' head's is promoted as a good thing. I don't think people would tolerate any work that suggested Michael Jackson's behaviour with children was a good thing. The issue here is whether Category 2 works are ok: for example, a musical about Henry VIII that doesn't mention him beheading wives at all, maybe focused on his hunting prowess, or his composing skills, or how terrible syphilis is, or what kind of a dad he was, where no mention at all of made of the beheadings etc? Tentatively, I think Category 2 works are ok, on a case by case basis lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 19, 2024 12:38:41 GMT
I've always believed in innocent until proven guilty. Hence I'm happy and comfortable seeing this show and hopefully being reminded how much of a superstar MJ really was. I also believe in innocent until proven guilty, for the living.
For the dead, as with Jimmy Saville (never even charged with anything in his lifetime), I judge on a balance of probabilities.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 18, 2024 8:02:12 GMT
He isn’t alive to benefit from it. That's where I draw the line. I love listening to Michael Jackson's music, but I'd never have gone to Thriller Live or this if he was alive to benefit. Now he's dead, he can't benefit so it's fine to patronise his music. If you don't want to go, out of consideration to his victims, that's fine too. There's no right answer, so everyone can make this decision for themselves.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 18, 2024 0:43:42 GMT
I LOVED this! One of the Double Features is more of a thriller, the other more of a cerebral but funny conversation. The first one mostly makes you feel something, the second mostly makes you think something. Since the two pieces, both about relations between directors and actors in the film industry, interwoven, are so complementary, reflecting each other, it all works very well together. The actors are uniformly superb, though there is no doubt that it is Joanna Vanderham's astonishing portrayal of Tippi Hedren that is key to making this exciting. Some spoilers follow. . . If you lined up the 4 real life people depicted here by John Logan, there's no doubt that Hitchcock was the most objectively powerful person in the industry (one of the few directors the public could name, a brand name, mega successful and wealthy, with a major ownership stake in his studio) and Tippi Hedren was the least powerful (a model picked by Hitchcock as his muse, famous for being in his movies). It's the power disparity that makes their meeting so nail-biting, with nasty old Hitchcock creating serious predatory vibes from the off by immediately relating an inappropriate anecdote about how Grace Kelly would lick her lips to suggest "cum." Logan loads Hitchcock's dialogue with words that can have double meanings, so Hitchcock may be talking about a film climax, but when he says "climax," Vanderham's Hedren's ultra-expressive face quietly winces somewhere between disgust and fear, and so it goes, with double entendres lacing the power dynamic with disturbingly increasing tension. To make matters worse, Vanderham's Hedren is playing Marnie, an abuse victim, which gives Hitchcock plausible deniability for everything he is saying. . . Anyhow, McNeice is great at playing big powerful icons, having played Wolsey at the Globe and Churchill in a couple of plays, and his powerful poise and deadpan delivery of double entendres is surface calm, but filled with punchy predatory hints beneath the surface. Vanderham weirdly has sort of played "Marnie" before (her character in "The Runaway" opposite Jack O'Connell basically shared Marnie's backstory, exactly), she's also played a "muse" before too (Emun Elliot was ever googly-eyed over her character in the BBC's "The Paradise lol), and she's a massively accomplished stage actor, having brilliantly held her own in the company of superstar stage duo, Andrew Scott and David Dawson in "The Dazzle," but what makes this performance remarkable is how she captures that familiar sense of a Hitchcock heroine's mounting fear and dread, as if in a Hitchcock thriller, while also playing Tippi Hedren, a model turned actress having a quotidian business dinner conversation. The destabilising sense of fiction and reality merging is brilliantly achieved in the writing and the performances of both McNeice and Vanderham. The other two characters are much closer in status. Both Vincent Price and Michael Reeves are men. Reeves gets to tell Price what to do, but Reeves can't do without Price. Reeves is independently wealthy, Price has more credits than you could count. Further, both Reeves and Price have elements of humour and warmth to them, so compromise between the men always feels possible. Because of this, Jonathan Hyde's marvellously witty and evocative Price and Rowan Polonski's tense film artiste (he's like a tortured version of Coldplay's Chris Martin, another public schoolboy like Reeves, who Polonski very much resembles) have a dynamic that is more cerebral, conversational and funny than the more dramatic Hitchcock-Hedren faceoff. The way I look at it is that Logan has created a sort of Freudian set-up, where the Hedren-Hitchcock scene is like the scary uncontrolled "id" of the piece, the Price-Reeves scene is like the "superego," a rational debate about art, relations and morality, which puts us, the audience, in the position of "ego," having to mediate between these two interwoven and reflecting scenes, comparing and contrasting in our own minds to decide the meaning of it all. I give this 4 and a half stars of complex, cerebral enjoyment anchored by a neo-Hitchcockian performance to savour from Joanna Vanderham. PS: I just remembered that McNeice's Churchill was in the same "The King's Speech" play where Jonathan Hyde taught Charles Edward's King how to speak. Here, his Vincent Price really needs to teach McNeice's Hitchcock the same thing lol.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 15, 2024 13:40:24 GMT
What time were you out Steve? Is it still 10.30/10.35 ish? Ta. 10:35pm, Dave.
It was the interval that overran as the first half was the exact 2 hours predicted on the sign on the wall (ending at 9pm), but the predicted 20 minute interval expanded to 30 minutes.
|
|