154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Dec 13, 2020 15:36:21 GMT
Now I'm as big a Drag Race fan as there can be, and as much as I applaud the ambition and chutzpah that the producers have shown by getting a new show open in the West End given the circumstances of 2020, I have to say this was appalling.
The weakest challenges of Drag Race are usually the scripted skits: the writing is rarely great, and it exposes the fact that the majority of drag queens simply can't act. And 'Death Drop' is just like one of those challenges - only instead of five minutes, it lasts two and a half hours including interval.
The idea of Agatha Christie parody was promising if not hugely original, but the script is as limp as limp can be, the jokes non-existent, and the performances plain embarrassing. Hard to pick out the worst offender, but opening the show with Vinegar Strokes is not a good idea. Drag king Kemah Bob is particularly dreadful and has no right appearing on a professional stage.
Bizarrely, a large chunk of the audience lapped this up, but if this is what theatre is going to be like after its enforced hiatus, I think I'd prefer it if they remained closed.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Dec 11, 2020 16:12:38 GMT
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Aug 23, 2020 7:46:44 GMT
Branagh's Orient Express was awful and he was an awful Poirot. He's a mediocre actor and a terrible director. The fact that he's managed to con so many people into thinking he's Olivier's successor is a mystery to me. So I can't say I have high hopes for this!!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jul 15, 2020 11:38:21 GMT
There's a genuine case for a double winner this year. My head says Shea should win - my heart wants Jujubee.
Sadly, I guess there's no chance of a double win after they did it last time. I blame the production choices for All Stars 3. If they hadn't fiddled with the elimination process which meant Shangela missed out when she should have got the crown, they wouldn't have felt the need to promote Monet alongside the far more accomplished Trinity. (Which they clearly did to duck criticism that the All Stars Hall of Fame was completely white.)
Ironically, it would have given us 2 non-white winners this year in Shea and Juju!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jun 24, 2020 12:29:02 GMT
I'm somewhat baffled by the outrage on twitter about todays relaxations in relation to the none relaxation of Theatre. Surely nobody expected theatres to suddenly just be allowed to open and put shows on? That's why everything has been postponed. I'm a bit confused by the response. Plus he did specifically mention Theatre and trying to get it back up and running ASAP, which i thought showed an acknowledgement of the importance. I believe that he has said that theatres can open, but not put on live performances, now this to some used to going to the west end or working in the West End might seem contradictory but many regional theatres and other London venues are far more than their auditorium and far more than putting on a panto or musical, so the building being allowed to be physically open and being allowed to start up some aspects of all the other things they do, is good news. I guess it's the fact that he's said theatres can open and then said they can't put on live performances, which begs the question: so what are they supposed to do? If it had been followed up by concrete information or a support package, people would be less concerned. But on the day that Theatre Royal Plymouth is announcing redundancies, it feels like they're kicking the can down the road yet again. Vague talk about consulting people and task forces. They don't seem to appreciate the urgency with which the theatre world needs support. I don't think anybody expected an announcement that all the theatres can reopen: it just feels that they're not acknowledging the issues at all. And worse that they don't really care. I take the point that theatres do more than just put on shows in their auditoria: that they provide community outreach work, maybe they have a cafe, etc. But if they can't actually put on shows which is what generates their income, then they remain unviable. The danger is Joe Bloggs hears 'theatres can open again' as the headline, and then wonders why all the luvvies are still banging on about needing bailouts. A cynic would suggest that's exactly what the government wants to happen.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 11, 2020 14:27:13 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
@zahdif You're twisting what Kathryn said. She didn't say 'just a bloke in a dress', she said 'a man in a dress', which is how some members of the community who would identify under the trans umbrella (including cross-dressers, drag queens, gender fluid people who might identify as male at some times and female at others) do describe themselves. It's not helpful to misrepresent other people's points when this is already such an incendiary debate. I don't think anybody is saying Fra Fee is the only person who could play the role. But in the view of the creative team, they clearly think he's the best one. How many trans people (and their associated allies) who are attacking this choice are actually familiar with the piece and the character as described by Kathryn? It's understandable that they see a headline saying 'cis actor takes trans role'. But it looks as if this is far more nuanced.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 11, 2020 13:18:42 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? I think this is a superb take on the situation. I wish some of the twitter accounts who are currently piling into the Donmar, the Birmingham Rep and Fra Fee could read it. It looks like a lot of people eager to display their LGBTQ friendly credentials are getting stuck in without knowing that much about the piece itself or the background. They'll only be happy if Fra Fee is sacked or the production cancelled. It reminds me of a trans commentator who was speaking about the Scarlett Johansson 'scandal'. They said that they would rather see trans stories being told, and given there were no trans stars of Johansson's status who could actually get a Hollywood film greenlit, it was preferable to have her playing the role. It's very frustrating. There are genuinely transphobic and bigoted people out there. The companies and indiviiduals being targeted here are not amongst them.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 7, 2020 13:25:15 GMT
I thought it was a real bear until the curtain call. Seriously? 😂
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 22, 2020 4:44:24 GMT
On the whole I rather enjoyed this. David Mitchell, Gemma Whelan and Rob Rouse are all delightful, and funny performers. And I even liked Mark Heap - a performer who leaves me rather cold on TV: his rather massive performance style suits the stage better than the small screen in my opinion!
I've only seen one episode of the TV show so I didn't feel any prior knowledge of the characters was necessary, although obviously the more Shakespeare you know, the more the references will resonate.
It opened very strongly but I felt it lost its way rather in the second half of Act One when it resorted to just playing out the plot of 'King Lear' and basically just having the characters reciting chunks of Shakespearean text without any jokes. (Indeed the actual plotting was very contrived - including Will having to 'adopt' Kate in order to ensure he had three daughters.
Act Two put things back on track and I found the final scenes from 'Othello' rather moving. Elements of Ben Elton's writing will always irritate me a little: in this instance it's the many times 'futtock' is used instead of 'f***'. But I accept that's a personal thing. On the other hand, all the stuff with the bear was funny, as was the running gag of not being able to recognise someone the moment they put a mask on.
So a solid 3 stars for me. If you like Elton and the TV show, it's a no brainer but I wouldn't pay top whack.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 14, 2020 14:55:51 GMT
It hasn't been staged before no, I read the opening scenes last year, and I know several people who have read the entire script. Oh I see. Why did you not like it?
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Feb 13, 2020 21:03:23 GMT
Hopefully it’s been substantially re-written since last year. Has it already been staged then? I understood this was its world premiere?
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 22, 2020 8:57:24 GMT
It'll be interesting to see how this has dated. We live in a slightly different world since this debuted. Bennett's subtext seems to be: "A little light sexual assault doesn't do teenagers any harm..."
Also, looking at the cast, isn't Dakin supposed to be the sexy one? It was Dominic Cooper in the original cast, followed by Ben Barnes. No offence to the lad in this, but Posner looks much prettier!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 22, 2020 8:53:31 GMT
I saw this in Richmond at the start of a new tour. It's old-fashioned fun and whilst not quite attaining the thrills of the Hitchcock movie, still has a few nice moments. Not quite sure what moving the setting to the 60s achieves and it's a painfully underwritten role for the one female character who has no agency and is basically there to be a victim.
Tom Chambers is fine as the lead, and Jonathan Harper very good doubling up as a dodgy chancer in Act One, and as the detective in Act Two. Michael Salami is truly woeful though: a strange, gurning performance and his terrible diction made his dialogue frequently unintelligible.
It was only the second performance, so there were several stumbles over lines, but if you can get a ticket you might enjoy. Three stars if I'm being generous!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 22, 2020 8:43:05 GMT
I really enjoyed this. It's a little bit too long and could do with cutting a couple of numbers but it's performed with real gusto by an incredibly talented quintet, and the songs are brilliant too.
The standout performance for me was Jak Malone playing the older secretary, Hester. His solo about writing to her lost lover in the last war was absolutely beautiful, and his comic timing is superlative. If he's not playing King George in Hamilton in a couple of years' time, there's no justice in the world. (Which of course there isn't!)
A very strong 4 star show for me. With a couple of trims, it could easily be 5 star.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 22, 2020 8:35:37 GMT
I quite enjoyed this without being overwhelmed. I love the show but this production lacked a certain exuberance: maybe it was post-Christmas fatigue.
Kadiff Kirwan is a very beautiful man but I thought he was miscast here: his singing was OK but tentative and lacked confidence, and there was zero chemistry between him and Alex Young (whom I'm sad to say looked old enough to be his mother.)
I liked Natalie Casey and thought her numbers were fun, and it was interesting to see the changes they'd made to the score (i.e. bringing the 2 men on stage to sing the final line of 'Marry the Man today'.) "Sit down you're rocking the boat' was great and brought the house down as it should do, but I think overall a 3 star show from me. If you can't believe in the central romance of the musical, that's a bit of a problem...
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Nov 20, 2019 13:07:31 GMT
Sorry to say I found this to be one of the most intensely irritating evenings at the theatre I've experienced in a long time.
It couldn't make up its mind whether it wanted to be a genuine period piece - invoking the images of the evacuation in the 40s, or a 'woke' updated version of C.S. Lewis' regressive and problematic source.
It was colourful, beautifully designed and some great puppetry, but the acting across the board was mediocre at best.
Laura Elphinstone was horribly miscast as the White Witch, with none of the status or power that character needs. She shouted a lot, but there was no substance behind the performance: the very definition of going through the motions. She wasn't remotely scary - and her weak 'R's don't help.
Wil Johnson was OK as Aslan, but really dreadful as the Professor, and the four children ranged from not bad (Keziah Joseph's Lucy) to truly appalling (Femi Akinfolarin's Peter). Indeed, with his stilted delivery of every line, Akinfolarin was rivalling the wardrobe in the wooden stakes. And their accents wavered from RP to Northern to London throughout.
There was no real sense of adventure, and I found it a smug production rather too in love with its own cleverness. I couldn't wait to get out - and handing out hundreds of green slips for the audience to wave just made me think of its poor environmental credentials. (There was nowhere obvious to recycle these at the end of the show.)
2 stars would be generous.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Nov 7, 2019 16:18:06 GMT
'The Man in the White Suit" - currently on at the Wyndham's - features a lot of slapstick. It's all very poorly done, so if you want to see an example of badly executed physical comedy, get yourself a ticket!
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Nov 5, 2019 12:03:24 GMT
the original actor dropped out. Who was it? He’s not said who it was.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Nov 5, 2019 11:15:36 GMT
I think James McAvoy is miscast as Asriel: physically he's too slight and boyish. It feels like Asriel needs to be a more physically imposing presence. But then it seems he was a (very) last minute replacement after the original actor dropped out.
The rest of the casting is OK although I rolled my eyes at Clarke Peters. Why cast an American who can't really do an English accent, when there are hundreds of British character actors who could play the role much better? And talking of accents, isn't Lyra supposed to have a less posh accent (hence her saying 'ain't). It suddenly leaped out of me when she said that and then continued in impeccable RP... It would be nice if casting directors when looking for new child actor talent spread their net a little wider. Lyra is Will Keen's daughter and Roger is Jamie Lloyd's... Good to see dynastic theatrical nepotism is going strong.
And I did smile that only speaking characters apparently have daemons in this adaptation!!
Still I shall stick with it. It is at least better than the dreadful film.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Nov 5, 2019 9:59:24 GMT
Saw this on Saturday, at the matinee. I was in a big group of people seeing this, and my friend next to me had seen the film - he said it was exactly the same as this, beat for beat - so if you've seen the film, you've seen the theatre show. This seems to be a curious criticism: that the film adaptation of a play should be like the stage version? Why would your friend assume it would be different? (Although as it happens there are some significant differences between the two: the elderly paranormal investigator that the lead character visits in the film does not appear in the stage play, and is involved in a big twist that is unique to the movie.)
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Nov 5, 2019 9:51:10 GMT
I thought this was very weak I'm afraid: nothing to do with it being PC. (Was it even?) Just that it wasn't funny. I don't think I've seen such leadenly directed and executed physical comedy in my life. Whole slapstick sequences passed by with the audience silent: the extended fight in Act 2 being the worst offender. Stephen Mangan seemed miscast to me: only managing to maintain the Northern accent briefly. It clearly wanted to be the next 'One Man Two Governors' even down to the live band, but I'm afraid I found the whole thing excruciatingly joyless. The critics were spot on.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jun 26, 2019 21:07:43 GMT
Yes I think Present Laughter is very entertaining and certainly has its moments. Andrew Scott is very good as always, and Indira Varma, Joshua Hill and Luke Thallon are class acts.
The rest of the cast are really weak and miscast. Enzo Cilento is just bizarre casting: not remotely sexy or handsome - and he looks old enough to be Scott's father. Suzie Toase and Abdul Salis are cringingly bad, and Kitty Archer pretty annoying.
The histrionic pitch of the show becomes a bit exhausting in Act 3. It could do with more light and shade, more underplaying and quieter moments. All of which sounds much more negative than I mean it to be. Andrew Scott's charisma really does do an awful lot to rescue the show!
(Really didn't get the point of the modern pop songs over the LONG scene changes either...)
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jun 16, 2019 16:06:36 GMT
I enjoyed this a lot. Oliver Chris and Hammed Animashaun were very funny, and the Mechanicals worked well as a whole. It all looks great. Only fly in the ointment for me was Gwendolen Christie. She was totally wooden. She appears to have a thriving acting career entirely built upon the fact that she's tall...
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jun 1, 2019 16:15:50 GMT
I saw JD in the original Joseph and he wasn't good in that either. Compared to the rest of the cast, he wandered about looking amateurish and lost. And his voice sounds absolutely shot to pieces in that clip.
Are they actually using kids for some of the brothers then? That's such a terrible idea. Maybe for Benjamin yes but Joseph is supposed to be the second youngest so the rest of them are all meant to be older than him. Having thirteen year old kids plotting to kill their brother is going to feel very weird...
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on May 31, 2019 16:55:22 GMT
I went with very high expectations having seen a lot of love on twitter for the show. I have to admit, sadly my expectations weren't met. While it had good intentions, and it was refreshing to see such a diverse, all-female cast on stage, I found the piece rather unsubtle. All the men were boorish, vacuous and villainous and all the women feisty, honourable and sympathetic. When Jackie Clune's Lord Flash-Heart-like Thomas Howard responded to an audience member's booing with an ad-libbed: "This isn't panto!", my immediate thought was, yes it kind of is.
I was intrigued in Act 1, and I liked the scene with Emilia and her three 'debutante' ladies. Act 2 played out in a particular predictable way, and the final speech, obviously intended to provoke the requisite whoops and standing ovation, made me cringe. The cast on the whole were fine. Sarah Seggari was a standout for me: funny and with real charisma. And I liked Adelle Leonce and Saffron Coomber as the two younger Emilias, whereas Clare Perkins I found a little wooden at times. Amanda Wilkin didn't work for me either, landed with the comedy role of the useless husband but without the comic ability to carry it off. And as commendable as it is to cast a deaf actor, I'm afraid that way up in the Upper Circle, I couldn't understand about half of her lines. (Charity Wakefield also struggled to project all the way up there too.)
Three stars for trying.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on May 11, 2019 8:22:39 GMT
I've thought/feared from very early on in the season that Silky was being set up to win it. Brooke has been the most consistent and probably deserves it, but after Sasha Velour and Aquaria, I can't see a third skinny white queen winning. (Which is clearly why Monet X Change was crowned alongside Trinity on All Stars.)
Vanjie and Akeria won't win. I thought Yvie was in with a chance for a while but she's faded in the past few weeks. I reckon the show wants to crown a big POC, regardless of whether she deserves it.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 28, 2019 17:35:11 GMT
If she is c/o Spotlight does that mean she is effectively representing herself and is contacted for parts via Spotlight? That's correct.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 28, 2019 14:16:04 GMT
UPDATE: Seyi Omooba is no longer represented by Global Artists on her Spotlight page. She is now c/o Spotlight.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 25, 2019 19:18:54 GMT
Global Artists must have an interesting story if they have decided to drop her. She is still listed as being represented by them on the Spotlight website at the moment. I agree about that so-called 'satirical' article. It's deeply irresponsible: actually it looks as if the website have now removed it.
|
|
154 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 20, 2019 8:32:54 GMT
Each time I see him mentioned on twitter I read his name as Jacy Arrow.
|
|