City of Angels

Really hot in March? Gosh, that puts me right off going on Saturday when I'm supposed to be seeing it. I hate hot theatres even in the middle of summer & at this time of year there's no excuse.

"...she is about as sexy as bowl of cabbage!"

Don't be put off, I was there tonight and I don't think I caught the Corona virus, but I do think I could possibly have pneumonia...it was absolutely f'n freezing! 

My companion and I even wore our winter coats in the second act and were still cold.

First time I've ever felt the need to put on my coat on during a show  I waited until the interval, one person in my sightline put on an outdoor coat before then. That's in the third row of the stalls.

Front row is definitely the place to be. Legroom in row 3 was very poor and I paid £65 for my ticket when they first went on sale. I'm rebooked in the front row for just £20.

Well, I went to see it on Friday night. Now - a slight disclaimer - I was lucky enough to see the original London production of City of Angels which I absolutely loved.

Unfortunately I can't say the same of this production which is hit and miss. First the good : The staging / set and lighting is fabulous - there were a few teething troubles as others have alluded to above, but by and large it worked very very well. The orchestra were also great.

The cast that remained from the Domnar production were all excellent. Hadley Fraser was outstanding as Stein. Rebecca Trehearn and Rosalie Craig were also great as Oolie and Gabby (although I still prefer Haydn Gwynne as Oolie - sorry!).  Newcomer Theo James did a very creditable job of Stone, despite looking a little too fresh and young (but then I am comparing to Roger Allam who does dishevelled brilliantly).

Then there are some remarkably "odd" casting choices. Vanessa Williams and her massive Biog promised a lot, but delivered little, and frankly her age made Stone look like he was molesting his grandmother (if you don't know who she is you won't be able to find her easily from her picture in the programme - some serious vanity photography in use there...). There was absolutely no chemistry on display and little to suggest that Stone would be believably attracted to Alaura. The Tennis song was flat as a pancake and very uncomfortable. Similarly rather than a slick suave but thick Jimmy Power, we had Rob Houchen who seemed like he was visiting from Me and My Girl. He sang nicely but has quite a strong vibrato - he's not a crooner and Jimmy Power is supposed to be a crooner. He also didn't come across as the sex symbol that could carry the movie, and that Alaura would be infatuated with. The whole dynamic just failed for me.

Then we move to Nicola Roberts. She sang nicely, but she is not a jazz singer and she couldn't deliver alluring blonde bombshell for Mallory or thick blonde bombshell for Avril. She was also the victim of a really odd directorial decision (unless it was her idea). The line in Stein's novel in this production alludes to Mallory not wearing much more than a sheet (it was changed from the original script). In this show however "not much more" comprises a full set of underwear and a shirt. In the original production Mallory was naked (although her nudity never shown to the audience except for the back) and used a sheet throughout the song to cover her modesty. This sets up the staging for the framing of Stone and sets up the joke - "I don't remember you coming back with those sheets from the laundry..." . Much more importantly, Stone is *not* supposed to be seduced by Mallory, but caught off guard for the incriminating photograph. In this production Stone seemed quite happy to get it on with everyone be it grandma or grand-daughter, thus ruining the narrative and making him look stupid. Stone isn't supposed to be stupid.

The archetypes are really important to make this show work and the casting needs to be done carefully. Dropping big names in to sell seats that don't fit the roles does no-one any favours.

Then we move to Jonathan Slinger. Maybe he was having a bed night, or was under rehearsed. He seemed to be nervous and seemed to be reading lines from his desk at one point. He was average vocally, and his acting was hit and miss. I wish they could have got Peter Polycarpou.

Another issue I couldn't quite pinpoint was with the Angel 4. They are used a lot to carry set changes and scene changes, which means that they are often quite distant from each other whilst trying to deliver what should be their very tight close jazz vocals. They were slightly off on occasions. I'm not sure if it was the bigger stage or if Manuel Pacific (Tenor) just wasn't quite on it sometimes. Their voices didn't quite gel as the vocal group. I imagine they will improve with time however - this was only the second preview.

So - generally a good show but I'd go see it after 25th July and hope they don't parachute more famous people in to fill seats.

I don’t ever remember this musical going for an overtly Comedic or farcical tone?!

But the audience barely laughed last night.

Honestly my mate and I (who had never even heard of it before let alone seen it) laughed all the way through it and thought it was very funny.

But it became obvious rather quickly that we were alone in this because no one else in the theatre was getting the jokes.

I think maybe because most of the humour is quite sly and not overly exaggerated most of it flew right over the audiences head.