42nd Street at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane

I saw this a few weeks ago and I didn't post anything. I walked out a bit underwhelmed. But that's OK, sometimes it takes a period of reflection, sometimes shows grow on you. There's obviously a lot of spectacle and that can be bewildering. Follies grew on me a lot, Groundhog Day, for two recent examples. You have to go away and let these things settle, maybe listen to a cast album or something and form an overall impression. Don't rush to a conclusion. And I've had that time now.

And I still think it's rubbish.

It's a struggle, because most of the reviews on here are along the lines of "I accept it's flaws, but it's so brilliant". I just find that a bit hard to reconcile. The story is non-existant, there are more complex tales woven in the Gruffalo. It's not even that it's predictable, or simple, it's just that it's boring. It extends to the people onstage as well, there are more relatable (and frankly likeable) characters in a community production of Sweeney Todd than cross the pages of 42nd Street's script. These aren't unimportant things, these aren't aspects of a show I'm willing to forgive, these are essentials of storytelling. Fundamental concepts one has to get right. Yes, the dancings good, yes the show looks alright (although the sets actually left me a bit cold with their painted on people, I sort of assume that it's a nod to the era of theatre it's set in, however maybe I'm being generous...), but that's only part of what makes a good show. It's like someone spent 5 minutes coming up with the book and the next 8 months getting the tap number right - are we not worth trying for both? Is that so much to strive for?

Sometimes you get into conversations with people who don't attend the theatre where you find yourself justifying your interest. Most commonly it's someone saying they don't like musical theatre, they don't want cheesy showtunes and cartoon characters prancing around a stage. And I come back and say that I wouldn't like that either, and that musical theatre is so much more. I say that it's this beautiful fusion of story and song, where music is used to pull you into a characters world in a way that words alone can't manage. The visceral emotions that music can evoke take you somewhere that can be uniquely exciting, or tragic, or beautiful. This show vomits on that concept. It's all spectacle and no substance, and I honestly just don't think that in 2017, in the West End, that this is what we should be aiming for. We are quite capable of having good stories that deserve the sequins and set pieces on top, if we tried.

This show is exactly what I don't want people to think of when they think of musicals. It's stupid. I enjoy it less the more I think about it. No one on here will like me anymore but I think you've all gone mad. Or maybe I've gone mad. Maybe I'm missing the joke. Even parsley liked it.

I'm sorry everyone. 

(although I did quite like the mirror bit)

Great review andrew. I loved the show, but I also loved your review and I'm glad you finally found some (brilliant) words to express how it was for you.

Well andrew, that made my gushing review just above yours seem a bit unfounded 😉 but of course you make all excellent points.

I agree the story was not there. But for me the spectacle of the design, and the out of this world talent of the cast, made up for that entirely. I'm not one to typically be taken in by bright lights and glittery costumes, but 42nd Street was an unapologetically big, brash showstopper, and I adored it for what it was. Admittedly I was in the £15 front row dayseats, but I'd have paid significantly more and probably will if I drag my parents along at some point.

For me the energy and talent of the cast, and the gorgeous feast of glitz sold 42nd Street to me. It all comes down to personal taste I suppose.

To question the story line of 42nd Street is to entirely miss the point. It is what it is and always was, a loving tribute to a classic 1930s depression era movie with all the corniness and heart on sleeve sentimentality that that implies. Who would have it any other way?

I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom?

Well that's what half the West End is, so clearly that's what a lot of people want, and I think the West End will always be aiming for what people want as that makes money!

I get all your points, they make sense and of course you are entitled to your opinion, but my opinion is pretty much the polar opposite to yours.

Not all musical theatre has to be a highbrow story, not all musical theatre has to give you an important lesson or message to take away, not all musical theatre has to have a good plot (let's face it, half of musicals don't really). A good plot is essential to a play because that is necessarily the major part of the production, whereas a musical also has singing, and often dancing, so the focus is dissipated.

I don't need a musical to make me think deeply, that's not why I go to see them. I go to hear good scores, see good dancing and generally escape the world for a couple of hours and leave with a smile on my face. If a show does do that, then I absolutely can forgive it for not having much plot, and I make no apology for doing so. That doesn't make it a poor piece of theatre, it just makes it a piece of theatre that does music and dancing exceptionally well, and that to me is what a good, old Hollywood musical is all about. 42nd Street has all of that, in spades.

I can think of loads. 

Me meaning was

They are quite simple

Musicals are usually not on a par

With Jacobean Tragedy

Plot wise

This is possibly the best simile I have ever read on this board. It conjures up all sorts... 

I'd go for the £25 rush. It's worth a tenner more. I did it recently and got row A centre stalls.

Blimey! And there was me thinking it was just a camp show with lovely costumes and lots of tap dancing.

I think I prefer the version we got.