Letter (On Externalising) 26/9/17

The Residence

26/9/17

I ask, and am asked, why self-harm? First, though evidently an appropriate term, "self-harm" is also not; I cannot speak for others but, in my own interests, it is a release, an escape: 

To put it succinctly - feeling such pain, frustration and anger as I do, there comes a time when one feels constricted, suffocated and trapped and I reach such depths of mood where things have compressed so tightly that some effective relief is needed and the ideas I have on such relief are not the best to have. For others, as well as myself. Thus the safest release I can enact incurs some mild danger of its own and I attempt to externalise this internal suffering. Is it totally effective? Of course not, but it does - albeit briefly - abate that tension and oppression. The residual pain is also something of a device that serves to render the act effective.

I do not undertake such actions lightly and resist as I may. Others may say that such actions serve as a reminder, for those who live in the depressive void, that one is alive, that they can feel. Yes, I'd have to agree with that but, for me, the liberation of the inner anguish that I endure is my primary thought. Frankly, feeling is something I can be all too capable of and I often try not to feel.

There is nothing perfect in this world. And I hope it's the last.

SP

Letter (On Dreams) 10/9/17

The Residence

10/9/17

I have of late been suffering from what I can only call psychosomatic dreams - dreams that leave residual physical symptoms upon waking. 

The details of these dreams are only clear in that fragile state that exists between sleep and awake and once a step is taken into the latter realm the dream is shattered irreparably and I am lucky if I recall the simplest detail.

The clearest detail I do have is from a dream which has yet to reoccur - in it I am at some point pierced in the testicle with a fine, long needle - for what reason I am unsure, though a sense of female retribution hangs over the event - and I awoke with a throbbing ache in the relevant region.

Other symptoms I have awakened with indicate that I had undergone physical exertions in some of my dreams, complete with racing heart.

At other times I have been left feeling emotionally worn out and compromised as though I had undergone some terribly trying trial. 

What these dreams can mean I do not know. But how I welcome their cessation.

SP  

"Funny Girl", Edinburgh Playhouse, 18/4/17

After a controversial season in London's West End, the Menier Chocolate Factory production of "Funny Girl" has hit the road for a tour of the UK, which I believe is the first (correct me if I'm wrong). The bio-musical is iconic as being the musical that propelled Barbra Streisand into super-stardom with her superlative recordings of the numbers and Oscar-winning performance in the movie version helping to define the musical as one of the most dangerous for any producer to stage, given that Streisand's shadow looms vast over the musical.

I previously saw the West End production and wrote about it here. I also recorded my first attempt at viewing the show when I was fated to attend that performance and that can be viewed here.

I hadn't expected Sheridan Smith to be part of the tour when I booked my ticket but, as it turns out, it was announced that she would share the role with Natasha J. Barnes who famously stepped in to the role following Smith's troubles. Smith, it was announced, would play Edinburgh. I won't lie, but my heart sank a little. Still, I decided to go in with an open mind and with a view to enjoy the show as much as possible. It was later announced that Darius Campbell, who was not scheduled for the venues where Smith was to perform, would now take on his West End role in Edinburgh (this may be as the actor is a Scot and Edinburgh would have been the only Scottish date he would not have done) and while I was quite happy to see another performer's take on the role (in this case it was originally announced that Chris Peluso was to star alongside Smith) it was not an unwelcome announcement.

The production started late, which is something that continually annoys me - if the ticket says a 7.30pm start then that is when it should start. No doubt late-comers were the usual culprit and I am all for closing the doors and refusing entry to those who cannot be bothered to take their seats before the announced curtain up time, whether it be through laziness on their part (I'm sure some people think it's like going to the cinema where there will be half an hour of trailers) or whatever. I totally understand there are events which one cannot control but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Anyway ...

The production has undergone only minor changes between its run in the West End and the new tour and these are for practical purposes - in London travelators were used and these are replaced on tour by amended choreography and by the use of trucks to move set pieces. That and the ol' manual labour. The set is now also framed by a large border created to fill out the size of the set on the various stages on the tour. Unfortunately this border is rather blandly ugly and doesn't feel a natural part of the set. The background of the train station in the act I finale is also changed as the original West End version replicated the art deco styling of the Savoy theatre but, for whatever reason, it was decided not to duplicate this on tour.

It appears that the orchestra is pretty much the same size as that used in London but, surprisingly, the sound they produce is fuller and richer than was heard at the Savoy. Whether this is through the sound design or the acoustics of the Edinburgh Playhouse, I do not know. But the music sounded great.

In fact, much of the production looks more at ease in this touring production. Where the Savoy production looked a little cramped at times, here it allowed to breathe. Of course, this may change depending on the venue, but in Edinburgh at least it worked better.

The cast are as dynamic and as strong as that which featured in London and there are a number of stand out performances including the Mrs Brice of Rachel Izen, whose delivery is underplayed yet striking; Martin Callaghan's Mr Keeney, whose warmth and comedic timing is top notch and the Eddie of Joshua Lay, who is physically quite different to London's Eddie but is equally as adept vocally and choreographically. The relationship with Fanny is perhaps not so natural as it could be but this is perhaps due to the physical differences.

Darius Campbell's Nick Arnstein is better than ever and his deep, rich voice is stirring and one of the strongest in the production. His physical dominance is perfect for the role and he is equally at home with the odd comedic line as he is with the dramatic arc of Nick's fall from grace.

Shouldering the burden of the show is Sheridan Smith as Fanny Brice, the 'Funny Girl' of the title. Smith is markedly better than she was in London and her performance is composed less of the mugging that she was guilty of previously and she relies more on an honest, emotional take and the physical attributes of Brice's comedy. Here she is far more in control than I previously witnessed and is thus much more successful in her dramatic execution. Her vocals still remain her weak spot and her voice audible declines in strength and power as the show progresses, many crescendos passing by unmarked by Smith though her innate charm and warmth wins the audience over. I still think her solo songs should be lowered for her but if Smith were to undertake some serious vocal lessons to improve her technique and her breathing then this could be a most stunning portrayal. But as it is ... 

That said, Smith continues to win raves from other reviewers and the audience (no doubt familiar to her via her many television performances) but I simply cannot detach one aspect from the whole when there are less famous persons who would be crucified for the same lesser skill levels.

The direction and choreography work well though the revised book continues to make little difference to the musical. Jule Styne's music remains some of the strongest and is served well throughout. The added songs, again, add only minor improvements to the story-telling and the reworking of 'Who Are You Now' into a duet still irks somewhat, though giving Fanny and Nick an emotional duet is nice.

All in all the touring production, and its leading lady, is a sterling production of equal quality to the London production with some aspects even improved.

"Made In Dagenham - The Musical", Glasgow King's Theatre, 23/2/17

Despite positive reviews the original West End production of "Made In Dagenham" had an unfortunately short life  (one of several that season) which is an indication of how precarious and challenging mounting a musical and garnering an audience for it can be. Sometimes it is simply a matter of timing and I think it fair to say that this amateur production is timely indeed.

The plot is based on the real-life episode of the female population of the Dagenham Ford car plant rising up to demand equal pay in 1968. Centred around machinist Rita O'Grady, her family and her co-workers the musical deftly portrays the difficulties of such a venturing at that particular time (some may wonder if it is any easier to rectify similar disputes in the modern age).

The book by Richard Bean is lean and precise with barely an excessive moment throughout, although it is peppered with the occasional appropriate f-word. Humour is readily available throughout also and this is also true of the alternately witty and poignant lyrics of Richard Thomas. The music is by Grammy and Emmy-award winner David Arnold, who also composed the musical score for the original film on which the musical is based. Arnold's score has a fittingly 60s feel which is at once comfortable and nostalgic to the listener and he creates some musically exciting and stirring moments as well as some emotional ones. I hope "Made In Dagenham" is not his only foray into the musical world.

Paisley Musical & Operatic Society is one of those companies whose productions always aim far beyond the 'amateur' status and they are one of the (sadly) fewer who are willing to take risks with their choice of musical title. Indeed "Made In Dagenham" is certainly one of those. It is a musical which had a short run in London based on a small British film. It has never had a professional UK tour so, as a title, it is really quite unknown to most audiences. Thus selling such a show was an up-hill struggle from the off. But, nevertheless, PMOS elected to take on the challenge.

Artistically the gamble has paid off as the production can resolutely claim to be among the best type of so-called 'amateur' theatre (it's only amateur because the cast don't get paid, after all) and indeed is better than a number of professional productions I have witnessed.

Alasdair Hawthorn's direction is, typically, adroit and he is not one of those to stay safe with his choices, something which can be the worst aspect of 'amateur' theatre. Hawthorn is also well versed in the use of space and lighting, again aspects often overlooked in am-dram. The choreography of Marion Baird is another aspect that gels with the other aspects of the production and has nifty homages to the 60s throughout. Sean Stirling's musical direction is solid and he has molded the orchestra into an integral part of the fabric of the production.

There are times when the transitions could be handled more deftly and the sound levels could be adjusted to ensure the orchestra doesn't overpower the vocals at times, but these are really only minor quibbles in an otherwise sterling production which really has a rousing effect on the audience.

The casting of the production is probably the best I've seen on the amateur circuit with an ensemble who breathe vivacious life into each and every role onstage. Enterprisingly led by Carolyn Lowry as "Rita O'Grady" and featuring dynamic performances from, among others, Laura Moore as "Beryl" and Lindsey Ross as "Barbara Castle", the show is littered with enjoyable, energetic performances. And one has to mention the "Harold Wilson" of Raymond Morrison which is one of the many comedic highlights that run throughout the musical along with Blair Cruikshank's Trump-like "Mr Tooley" who delivers the rousing "This Is America" with glee.

A truly female-led show, but one that does not ignore the male element, "Made In Dagenham" has a dynamism and electricity amongst its cast that is rare and they are all, equally, the driving force (pardon the pun) of a punchy, principled musical that has much to say. Even today.

Given the impressive production it is inevitably sad to see that there were a number of empty seats in the auditorium. True, the musical may be a hard sell as discussed above, but it seems to be a growing trend in amateur theatre (hell, even modern productions are feeling it). We live in hard times and theatre is not a cheap night out, but without local support the amateur companies of this country are slowly fading into history. 

Amateur theatre, in all its forms is an essential part of our artistic integrity and they are often the birthplace of a life-long love of the arts. They are more than entertainment: they are social groups, support networks and even a form of counsel. The shy person is encouraged to break out of their shell, the unconfident are given a the opportunity to give themselves a voice, an outlet for their imaginations.

The numerous groups that populate the British Isles are often bastions of theatre, keeping the art alive in areas that don't necessarily have access to professional, commercial theatre. They also keep older and less-performed works alive, be it 'straight' plays or musicals. How often is "The King And I" revived by a professional producer? Without these often and unfairly looked-down upon companies the very history of theatre would be confined to the dusty pages of some momentous tome in the libraries of historians. 

Likewise these companies also take the risk of presenting a recent play or musical that may not have had the success it deserved in its first production but in doing so breathe new life into a work that otherwise would have have been dispelled to the gutter. As with "Made In Dagenham" part of the problem is familiarity - an unknown quantity is made known only by awareness. I'm sure as more and more productions pop up "Made In Dagenham" (and other similar "unknown" titles) will enter the popular field and future production will draw bigger and bigger audiences. But to that end these companies have to continue to exist and they can only do so with the support of the local (or not) audience. Theatre in all its forms enriches us and I urge all to take a similar risk as these companies take and once in a while buy a ticket (cheaper than a "professional" production in all cases) to a little-known show and go with an open mind. Who knows but that you may discover a new favourite play or musical?

Rant over. 

For now ...

Hope

Given the current political climate the world seems to be enduring I thought it appropriate that my first post of 2017 should be the following image:

This is the Sindarin word 'estel' which, in English, translates as 'hope'.

And, boy, do we need it ...

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Sharman Prince offers their best wishes for the festive season to one and all ...

See you in 2017 if not sooner ...

When is a 'UK' tour not a 'UK' tour?

Okay, this is going to be a bit of a rant but ti is something that increasingly annoys me:

Over recent years a number of touring production have advertised that they are commencing a 'UK tour' when, in reality, the said tour is touring only one constituent country of the UK (usually just England) or - perhaps even worse - a small part of one constituent country.

Now, in my eyes, when you hear someone say 'UK' you think of Great Britain and Northern Ireland i.e. England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - the four nations that make up the United Kingdom. Even if you say 'Britain' or 'British tour' then one would normally think of the four nations.

Yes, there are those less intellectually inclined who think the 'UK' of 'Britain' constitutes little more than England (and vise-versa - there are those who say 'England' when, in reality, they mean the United Kingdom) but when it comes to business - even the one called 'show' - one would assume a professional attitude would be assumed and that accuracy would be paramount.

So it is with increasing irritation that I come across a production which peaks my interest and lures me in with the notion that they are touring the UK - i.e. the four nations - lulling me into thinking that, even if they're not coming to my city (I am fortunate to make my home in the largest city in Scotland), they will be touring somewhere near me, at least somewhere in the country in which I call home (in this case Scotland). But, when one looks at the actual dates and venues of the said tour, it turns out that rather than visiting all four nations the production is only visiting one or two. It's bad enough when an announced 'UK' tour omits only Northern Ireland but when a production is only touring one country then I feel duped. Surely using the term 'UK tour' is false advertising when it not a tour of all four countries?

There have been occasions when a proposed 'UK' tour advises that 'further dates are to be announced' when, initially, one or two countries are omitted and this is later rectified when additional dates are added. But this is not always the case and  one or two countries never receive the tour and I have contacted productions previously over this.

To me, if a production and its producer knows that the tour is only touring particular countries then it should be advertised as so (what's wrong with being honest and advertising as an 'England tour', 'Regional tour' or 'Welsh tour' etc.?).

The reason I bring this up is because the response I received from the Twitter account of the current production of 'The Boys in the Band' when I brought this notion up seemed to be rather flippant in my eyes. The full conversation (so far) follows:

Touring productions are important to me because theatre (art in general) is vital to society and the more variety there is available to people around the nations, the better. It isn't always easy leaving your local area to go and see a production that interests you; there are the cost implications, the time factors, not to mention that, for some people, their health prevents them from making the necessary journeys. So, bringing a production to a wide audience is always a plus.

Just labeling a production correctly will ease the irritation I feel. Sure, I'd be a bit annoyed if a production wasn't coming anywhere near me, but if it's advertised as an 'English tour' (or such) then I wouldn't be so annoyed as when I look into the venues for a 'UK' tour to find it is, in fact, only touring England.

I know I go on a bit, and I really don't like to rant, but sometimes it's good to vent.

Enjoy your days and enjoy the theatre that's available to you!

'Cats' the Motion Picture

A little while ago it was announced that Tom Hooper, director of the film version of 'Les Miserables', is working on a live action feature film of Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Cats'. Universal Pictures has owned the rights for decades and an animated feature film was to have been produced in the early 1990s by Steven Spielberg's Amblimation who got so far as to produce concept art before the plug was pulled.
At the time 'Cats' was intended to have been classic 2D character animation on top of background models which would have been created from the concept art. Spielberg had apparently come up with the idea that 'Cats' was to have taken place in a Blitzed London of the World War 2 period and the concept work reflects this. The artists explored London (alongside the original designer of 'Cats', John Napier) to discover the unseen side of London replete with tip-sights and the remaining scars of wrecked London (no doubt, long since replaced).
It's also intriguing that noted playwright Tom Stoppard created a script that impressed Lloyd Webber.

You can see examples of the concept art here:
https://one1more2time3.wordpress.com/tag/cats/

Of course, had that production happened it would, no doubt, look rather dated given that most animation these days is 3D CGI and while the art work produced offers a tantalising hint of what may have been, it may have long been forgotten as being a quaint piece.
Now, with the re-emergence of the live-action musical feature, 'Cats' is once again in the offing - though as a live-action feature rather than an animated one, which is perhaps the more obvious choice for feature film translation.
Numerous problems now face the new film-makers in translating one of the more inherently theatrical musicals into something that viably works on the big screen. How to resolve those issues are, no doubt, what the creatives are currently working on.

The biggest issue facing them must be the idea that the felines are to be portrayed by a human cast. On stage this is not really a problem given theatre audiences are more forgiving and readily willing to suspend their disbelief. This is not so when it comes to movies, so a way must be found for a film audience to buy into the human playing a cat idea. One answer is to have the human play the equivalent of a cat. Or to put it another way, have a 'real' cat (i.e. a filmed feline or CGI creation of one) replaced at some point by a human who would go on to portray that particular cat throughout the majority of the movie (assuming that the human reverts to the feline creature at the film's end).

Personally, I am a more forgiving viewer when it comes to film musicals but this is something I have occasionally pondered - hence my answer to the question above. On film, of course, a sequence must be created in order to establish that idea, to give a reason for its happening, in order to give the audience the chance to buy into the premise. The idea that sprung into my mind follows.

The plot of 'Cats' revolves around a tribe of felines meeting up in a junkyard on the one night of the year where their leader, 'Old Deuteronomy', elects which of them shall be granted a new life and ascension to the fabled 'Heaviside Layer'. Of course, on film, the plot may be substantially re-written (as has happened to other films adapted from stage musicals) though I do wonder to what purpose this route might be taken. Rather, let's assume that the plot remains largely intact, even the idea of the junkyard as the location. Naturally the junkyard can be composed of numerous areas of interest, rather than the basic location as used onstage, but this is really not that relevant at this point.

So, we have cats congregating in one place - cats of various backgrounds and from various locations around London (since London locations are predominant throughout T S Eliot's poems this would make sense).
We have the one night of the year, under the 'Jellicle Moon', when this happens.
We have the idea woven throughout a number of the lyrics and the original staging that gives the cats a mystical, magical property ('Mister Mistoffelees' being an obvious element, not to mention the idea of the 'Heaviside Layer') and I would utilise that idea from the start.

So ...

Night is falling over London. We are somewhere in the East End, some years before any urban regeneration takes place. The sun is setting amidst clouds as we see a cat leaving its human home via an open window. We follow it down little-used back-alleys, shadow falling all around.
Elsewhere, another cat crosses a road, cars flashing past. Another cat. And another. All of various types and sizes. They are moving with a purpose. One or two join each other in their journey.
We see the rubbish tip toward which the felines are travelling. It is in an undisclosed location in the East End and is littered with detritus from the numerous decades of its existence. Naturally it contains at least one prominent automobile wreck, a large tyre laying next to it. This prominent feature will come to form the centre of the cats' festivities. There are various level spaces of differing sizes (to fascilitate the forthcoming dances). The junkyard backs on to some old buildings that, at first, look derelict but are, in reality, inhabited by a human or two.
A dry thunderstorm is brewing, the cloud cover quite voluminous. Flashes of lightning illuminate the near distance as thunder rolls. The junkyard, inanimate as it is, seems to begin to thrum with energy, with life. Something is happening. The cats sense it too but appear undisturbed by the atmospheric events themselves. One by one they look up as the full moon is glimpsed through the clouds.
The cats get nearer and nearer to the tip which, if my mind is not wandering, appears to glow here and there for brief moments at a time.
Suddenly a huge crack of thunder and a searing bolt of lightning strikes the prominent automobile wreck, sending huge amounts of sparks out and across the yard. Simultaneously the 'Cats' Overture begins. The winds pick up, pushing the voluminous clouds away. As the cats wait at the edge of the tip the moon is finally revealed in all its glory, its ethereal glow illuminating the junkyard which sizzles with new-found electrical energy, creating an effect which pays homage to the strip lights of the stage-version. The cats sit up at attention, prone, waiting. The tip glows, releasing some sort of energy into the atmosphere as the moon's light does the same from the opposite direction. Beyond this sphere of light we begin to see one, two pairs of cats eyes peering through the darkness beyond. More and more eyes appear as the Overture builds. Throughout we see various parts of the junkyard, various pieces of junk which may, or may not, be used later. the ghostly light build alongside the music until, suddenly, a cat breaches the border between light and dark. The music ends as it does so. The magic illumination of the tip fades but the moon's magic light remains and as the cat crosses the light border we see a magical transformation: the cat's front paw is the first to enter the light and as it does it transforms into a humanoid hand, a humanoid arm. Bit by bit as the cat enters the light its feline body is transmogrified into that of a feline in human form. Once this metamorphosis is complete (and it is done so in a matter of seconds) the cat contemplates its form. As another cat begins to enter the light the Prologue, 'Jellicle Songs for Jellicle Cats, begins. As they enter the moonlight each cat in turn is transformed.

Of course the sequence could be inverted: we could see the junkyard first, the lightning strike and beginning of Overture. Throughout the music we see the supernatural events of the tip and the moon whist inter-cutting with the cats leaving their homes and making their way to the junkyard (which in this case would be emitting an illumination seen from a distance which attracts the cats).

Though the intensity of the moonlight will fade throughout the opening it will remain a potent force and on the odd occasion we will see the cats in their natural form again, when the cloud cover is great enough to obscure the moon. There may even be an occasion, during a more placid moment, when we see a cat or two transform to a natural cat and back again as a large cloud swiftly passes over. For it is the moon that is magical here. The moon that is so revered by these felines who, now and again, will glance at it in awe, until finally the 'Heaviside Layer' is revealed.

Now, I've no idea what the film-makers are planning to do but this is an example of how I'd approach 'Cats' as a movie. Naturally these ideas are mine and, as far as I'm aware, no one else shares them. All Rights Reserved and all that ...

Half an hour with "Funny Girl", 28/4/16, Savoy Theatre, London

Following its sold out (in 90 minutes!) run at the Menier Chocolate Factory, "Funny Girl" transferred to the West End's Savoy Theatre in a slightly expanded production. Starring Sheridan Smith, whose name is emblazoned above the title on every advertising board going, the West End production is also very nearly sold out.

Booking a ticket early was essential and this was done last November (the transfer was announced before the Menier run had actually begun) so the wait was a long one. But, only one week following its opening night, the day finally came. Much preparation and cost had gone into seeing the first revival since the original London production back in the 1960s which was the sole purpose of our visit to London. We had to finance the cost of travel to and from London, accommodation for the night whilst there and, of course, the tickets themselves. I absolutely refuse to pay "premium" prices since the very idea is nothing less than a con by money-hungry producers. None the less the cost was not cheap!

So it was we got into London with enough time to check into our hotel and grab a bite to eat before we headed off to the Savoy.

Let me say now that the theatre staff were far more welcoming to us than they had been a year before when we visited the same theatre to see the revival of "Gypsy".

It was interesting to see the variety of merchandise available for the show - t-shirts, mugs, umbrellas, bags etc. Yet "Funny Girl" still had no souvenir brochure on offer!

We settled into our dress circle seats with a great view of the stage with much anticipation.

The lights dimmed and the 13-player orchestra (complete with strings!) struck up with the Overture. The presence of the strings was most welcome, even if the sound remained a little thin.

Smith appeared as "Fanny Brice" and the show started proper. Smith gave Brice a pronounced Bronx accent which appeared to limit her diction somewhat with quite a number of words muffled. This accent also seemed to interfere with her singing which was curt and not always in tune. For certain the final note of "The Greatest Star" was off, yet quite flawless in the brief reprise that soon followed. Smith was certainly amusing in the role, although not outright hilarious, and she was given to acting more like a desperate idiot out for attention (even being rather sexual with some of the male dancers - let's be frank; she was groping their crotches!) rather than a natural comedienne letting her talent speak for her. Given I was not a natural fan of Smith (unlike many I had come for the show) I was actually starting to warm to her and, flaws and all, she was certainly proving that "Funny Girl" need not rely on the spectre of Barbra Streisand.    

The rest of the cast were quite ebullient in their roles but we were sadly given little time to appreciate them as, following Fanny's stage debut with the "Cornet Man" number (another somewhat slogged performance from Smith), immediately following Fanny's introduction to "Nick Arnstein" (a dashing Darius Campbell) and her singing of the twiddly "Nicky Arnstein" lines when the stage was emptied (apparently a simple exit as per usual) when the show suddenly stopped. There was a dead stage for a minute before an announcement was made over the speakers: A technical issue had prompted a brief delay. The safety curtain was lowered.

After 10 minutes or so the front of house manager made an announcement that the delay was taking longer than expected so patrons were free to use the lavatories and bars. 

Audience members became restless not long after and there were some confrontations with the front of house staff. Some irate man was shouting at the young woman at the coat check/merchandise stand. Approximately 30 minutes later the dreaded announcement was made that due to "Technical Difficulties" the show had to be cancelled. This was greeted by boos and jeers from various factions in the audience, some of whom shouted "no! no!" when the front of house manager advised that the box office should be contacted the following day for refunds as it had been closed for the evening. His brief speech was previously interrupted by noisy, talkative audience members which prompted other patrons to shout at them to "shut up!" so the f-o-h manager could be heard. 

Frankly it was bordering on chaos, but the Savoy Theatre staff were nothing but courteous and as helpful as their limited information allowed.

Given the apparent technical naivety of the production it was instantly puzzling as to what technical problem could have caused such an issue as to prompt the show's cancellation. Almost immediately rumours began circling that the issue was perhaps more to do with Smith herself and the media soon started commenting on these rumours.

It is unfortunate that the producers have allowed the very vague term "technical difficulties" to persist when a more exact explanation might have put paid to the rumours before they started.

It is, of course, greatly disappointing when a show is cancelled only half an hour into a performance as it's too short a notice in order to make other plans. It is also annoying when such efforts and costs have gone into a trip whose sole purpose was to visit the production. 

That said, it is always possible that technical issues can happen. Likewise it is always possible that a headlining star may have to pull out of a performance due to illness or other unforeseen circumstances (as was the case in the ENO's production of "Sunset Boulevard" that starred Glenn Close) and people are only human, after all.

I'd like to think that the rumours about Smith are only that and nothing more and that it was indeed a technical issue - whatever that may be - that prompted the unfortunate cancellation.

What adds salt to the wound is that some ticket vendors have been rather unhelpful in assisting affected audience members in obtaining refunds or exchanging the tickets (and given the limited number of tickets remaining this is an anxious issue for some) to the point where telephone lines have been extinguished.

A most unpleasant experience all told.

UPDATE 2/5/16:
There have been reports in the press regarding the alleged behaviour of Sheridan Smith at this particular performance and, if they were found to be true (which could possibly be substantiated by the various reports Stage Managers and Company Managers keep), it would prove to be a most upsetting turn of events. I can forgive a true "technical difficulty" but if a "star" is being disrespectful not only to her fellow cast members but also to the orchestra, crew and theatre staff - not to mention the PAYING AUDIENCE - then it is deeply disturbing and I sincerely believe that the producers, if the reports are indeed true, have a duty to provide every audience member with compensation.
It was bad enough trying to deal with the ticket vendors (in this case Ambassador Theatre Group) whose procedures and staff made the process a vexing experience and also a time consuming one.

Tengwar

A Revisitation - 'Jesus Christ Superstar', King's Theatre Glasgow, 9th and 10th Sept 2010

In 2010 I witnessed two performances of an amateur production of "Jesus Christ Superstar" (it was double cast so I saw both) and, as was usual, I decided to write about it. Upon publication I received quite a bit of hate from members of the cast. Originally I wrote a review after seeing the first show but after seeing the second cast in the next performance I decided to rewrite the review to combine impressions from both shows.
For some reason I never published the review or the responses to it here on my blog (to be honest I thought I had) so do so now:


Let me point out here and now - these are my opinions and I stand by them.

I think 'Jesus Christ Superstar' is one of the most exciting scores written for theatre and I have always loved the piece.
The Orpheus Club presented an enjoyable show which had things I liked and things I didn't.
If any company aspires to professional standards then I shall view the production as such. I think amateur companies far too often get a bad rep and for all misconstrued reasons. Amateur performers are probably amongst the most dedicated that exist - they have to juggle full time careers, funding shortages and never have the technical rehearsal time given to pro shows. Yet they never fail to entertain. I have seen far too many disappointing pro shows in comparison to amateur ones and often find the vigour and passion of amateur performers out-weigh those of the professionals.
So - onto the show itself; Walter Paul's direction is adequate if uninspired at times with some scene transitions being quite clumsy (transitions are important to the flow of a production and Joshua Logan was a pioneer in this field in his direction of 'South Pacific' in the late 40s) and I do wish these had been dealt with better. That said there are moments in the show which are quite exciting and thrilling. His use of the large impressive set, designed and supplied by Scenic Projects Ltd in a similar style to the original London production of 1972, varies but the highlight was the leper scene which was especially creepy as hordes of the lame came crawling up the steps to overwhelm Jesus. There are other times, however, when the set seems to overwhelm the cast giving one the impression that the stage is half empty though the entire cast may be onstage. The trial scene was another highlight for me with an impressive emotional build up. It's in scenes like these that the ensemble cast really comes up trumps; though their staging may be a bit too simplistic for my tastes the reactions of many of the cast feeds into the power of such scenes overcoming any directorial handicaps. The temple scene might be a case in point here; it was during this scene that I felt the direction was at its weakest with the scene portrayed as some quasi-holiday camp. There was certainly not enough sin on display to warrant Jesus' objections to the goings on (seemingly approved of by the priests who were in attendance - another directorial error methinks) and it was here that my mind wandered and thought I was witnessing, albeit briefly (thank god!) a performance of 'Summer Holiday' (ugh!). Thankfully the leper scene that followed pulled things back onto the right track.
The 'Herod' number was incredibly funny and a welcome reprieve. I have seen previous productions where Herod has been played almost straight and others where he was played as a clown and here he was certainly portrayed as more of the latter - a welcome choice brought off by an exuberant cast. The following scene was a marked contract, and another highlight, where Jesus' is beaten by the Roman soldiers during 'Could We Start Again, Please?', always one of my favourite numbers.
Paul's direction of the 'Superstar' number was a bit of an anti-climax for myself, more so as it follows the heart-wrenching trial scene; instead of an overwhelmingly powerful musical segue into the crucifixion it came across almost as an afterthought. Only my opinion but, as the final musical number, I have always felt that something impressive should be made of the scene and Paul had decided to use a minimum number of singers with a small chorus of dancers. Judas' appearance here as an outright rocker was impressive but the soul girls attired as 1940s club singers jarred, even if their voices were divine. The lack of a true finale to the number, replaced with a fade out here, also weakened the sequence for myself.
As for the crucifixion itself; I was actually impressed with most of it and the cast certainly added to the emotional intensity of the scene. My one quibble with this finale was that the director decided to introduce the character of Mary, Mother of God when Jesus asks about the whereabouts of his mother. As the character was never mentioned or seen previously in the production it seemed a dramatic error of judgement on Paul's part to introduce her for this one moment.
Costuming was primarily modern summer dress which  worked for most of the production (and really seemed to suit the apostles) whilst Herod and his court were attired in 1920s garb appropriate to the ragtime nature of the music in the scene. The priests were dressed in suits and leather coats giving the production a little of the variety it needed. Looking very much at times like members of a mafia the priests were amongst my favourite characters in this production and gave the production an added air of darkness and mystery.
Judas stood out dressed in dark quasi-emo clothing later transforming into a true rocker for the 'Superstar' number which really suited.
The Musical Direction of Andrew S. Nicol was well done although I did lament the cutting of some musical sequences and felt the temple number was too slow; draining the scene of some essential energy (a similar tempo was used in the 2000 video production and I felt the same there).
Choreography was simple and effective if a little un-original and was sparsely used. 'Hosanna', normally one of the choreographed numbers, was actually left dance free and I'm still unsure if that was a good thing or not.
Lighting by Ian Irving was a little too broad at times for my liking and I felt some scenes could have been lit better (especially to delineate space given the large space) but the leper scene and 'could we start again, please?' stood out as some excellent lighting. Here I might as well say that I felt the overall production was too light and I felt it could have done with more variety of shade, in the trial scene for example, although the priests were often given a darker lighting scheme.
The cast themselves generally excelled with the ensemble giving some verve to proceedings and the apostles forming a well rounded group of individuals who one felt truly were a brotherhood. James Thom's Peter came across very well and his vocal quality is something I really enjoyed. Steven Struthers as Simon gave a vibrant and energetic performance in the role being not too wild and not too subdued as the 'zealot' of the group.
The priests were, as said previously, well executed by Kenny Reid, Andrew Forrest and David Blackwood with Matt Bingham and Alex Robertson being equally impressive as Caiaphas and Annas.
Sean Stirling's Herod was a joy and his innuendo and comedy were excellent drawing heavy laughs from the audience whilst Kris Haddow as Pilate was truly impressive with a resounding voice and presence that commanded and drew your attention. For me he was certainly one of the highlights of the show, especially during the trial.
Judas Iscariot as portrayed by Tommie Hart, frontman of Zener Diode, had an impressive roll-call of vocal pyrotechnics to hand but I did initially feel his Judas wasn't varied enough, although in the second show I saw I did see more variety of emotion. Whether it was a decision taken by actor or director I felt that what is, to me, the most interesting role in the show was simply not given a believable story arc and almost seemed super-imposed on the production at times (actually, thinking about it, if this was a deliberate choice, if executed a bit better it could have been exceedingly interesting - almost like an 'Ariel' character; observing and dipping in and out of the action - but i detract). Hart's voice impressed the audience certainly but was not always to my taste although he really came into his own as a rocker during 'Superstar'.
Walter Paul does have a tendency to double cast some roles and he has done this again with Mary and Jesus. Both of the women playing Mary Magdalene, Jennifer McLardy and Lynsey McLaughlin, gave the role some emotional finesse albeit in different ways. McLaughlin brought an innocence and sweet voice and subtlety whilst McLardy brought some interesting vocal styling though at times her performance became a little too forceful. But both ultimately excelled as the single female role of note in the show.
John McLarnon and Ross Nicol played Jesus on alternate performances and ultimately I felt McLarnon's performance was more successful having a voice more suited to the role and also bringing a charisma and power that drew attention to the character; although his diction could have been a little better he excelled throughout and his lashing in the trial scene was something to behold.
Nicol as Jesus, at least for me, didn't quite have the same presence or vocal ability though his 'Gethsemane' and crucifixion were excellent. In the case of Nicol I felt I paid more attention to others around him whereas I was more drawn to McLarnon's Jesus who seemed a bit more natural.


And here's some of the 'comments' I received from members of the cast (I've included the full conversations, including spelling and grammar errors, but deleted personal details):

From a female cast member:

Female Cast Member

JCS REVIEW !

Looking very forward to seeing your next production .... I've got a lot of friends who review for some excellent publications so i'll make sure you get a mention ! Plus I give pretty good critiques too ....I'll make it extra special for you smile emoticon
Nothing like some tit for tat hey......oh and it was such a same that you couldn't get to play ALTERNATIVE JUDAS as it should have been double cast !....... noone could even come close to Tommie's performance though......suck balls !!
Also talking about balls...... I look forward to meeting you at some point with my "unsubtle" foot and kicking yours !
You should behind amateur clubs pal and not putting them down after all you were a part of it for weeks..... will be suprised if you get into another club when your disgusting attitude comes into focus !
Nice to speak to you pet

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

we are each entitled to our opinions. and believe me when i say i am very much behind amateur companies - but simply because they are so doesn't mean they should get off lightly. in my home town if it were not for amateur groups then there would be little musical entertainment. and each and every one gets professionally reviewed. there was much i enjoyed about each performance i saw - yours included, or can you not read? and as for Tommie Hart, although he was not to my personal taste as Judas, he cartainly impressed many. and Ben Goddard was an exceptional Judas! and by the way i have been known to suck the occasional set pff balls
be well and happy

Female Cast Member

Oh yes sweetheart I can read or i wouldn't have seen the review...... I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me ...those were not only cast members but friends of mine up there and some have little confidence as it is ....luckily enough I know i'm amazing so don't need you to reiterate the fact !
I think you might want to stop sucking balls it is clearly doing nothing for your personality !  

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

you cannot comment on my personality whatsover as you don't know me
Be well ...

 

Feamle Cast Member
No i don't thank christ ....but i know alot of people who do !! and yes I can comment on whatever I like as " I am entitled to my own opinion and those of others " !!!
same to you !!!
can't wait to see shite I mean spring awakening ...woop x

 

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

forgive me, but i am always witness to that which i making an opinion of. ... and happy x

 

Female Cast Member

in english ??? you mean .... " I am making ??? or" I make opinions of " ??? anyway I'm bored with you now so ........
goodbye

 

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

oops- must remember not to copy and paste lol that should have been 'i am always witness to that which i AM making an opinion of' though tbh - "You should behind amateur clubs pal and not putting them down after all you were a part of it for weeks..... will be suprised if you get into another club when your disgusting attitude comes into focus !" you failed to put a "Be" after "should" and before "behind" but i let it slide
Hwyl

And another from a male cast member:

 

Male Cast Member

JCS Review

Hi
I believe u have already heard from a couple of people regarding ur very harsh and spiteful reviews. Now i appreciate that everybody is entitled to their opinion and i respect that, however I have to say, posting those comments on facebook knowing that the cast would see it at some point is disgusting! Fair enough if u had left it till after the run but to post it during the run of an amateur show which i might add you were a part of is bang out of order! You should be supporting amateur theatre not ripping it too shreds on facebook. Personally i couldn't give a toss what you think about me, but i know a couple members of the cast were extremely upset about your views which before going onto to do another 3 shows is the last thing you need. It is highly unprofessional, disrespectful and to some people who remember do this as a hobby extremely hurtful! Again personally i couldnt care less about your views but keep what i said in mind for future, and if you have anything like that to say again then have the balls to come up to the stage door and let us know. If you have a problem with anything i have said, i would be more than happy to discuss it with you over here or by all means call me on 07*********. Again I would like to express my sheer disgust at your actions, and hope that you face the consequences!  

Sharman Odd Tobias Prince

thanks

 

And some other comments from others not involved in the production:

"A review is one person's opinion. We all have opinions and are entitled to voice them. I think it is important to be honest. Some of the reviews I have read overuse the word "good". The scenery was good. The chorus numbers were good. Sometimes, as a performer, you read what you deem as the negative comments and get upset about them, rather than reading the good comments and building on them. If someone reviews me, orally or printed, and says something that I think I can work on, then I try to. Good job it isn't Strictly Come Dancing - have you heard some of Craig RH's comments?"

"I've never heard such a fuss over someone's opinions. Facebook is an open forum for people to express their own opinions. This unnecessary 'backlash' typifies all that is wrong with amateur companies who have lost touch with modern trends and furthermore highlights why such people are indeed amateur and not professional. there you go - there's another opinion that everyone call all have a moment about!"

"I loved the show, both casts and was thoroughly entertained! Don't get too upset by the opinions of others - you can't please everyone all the time! just enjoy what we do and hope that we can all keep on doing for many years to come! We have a fab hobby!"

"I thought your review was written very well and didn't slag anyone off just gave your opinion on what you liked about the production and what you didn't like. I can't believe the abuse you've had - that's ridiculous. If the actors are taking it to heart that much - they'd NEVER in a million years make it in the industry. Truth hurts I guess"


At the time someone also said to me that Scottish Amateurs were not used to being reviewed, which is fine, but my response was that where I come from they are and face the same quality of reviewing as a professional production. I also offered the idea that if you're going to put yourself (or your work) on display then one is open to the opinions of others. I've had some harsh critique of my own work throughout my life but I must say that the vitriol I received from the performers in this particular production (the female cast member was a professional performer at the time and the male cast member was at drama school and has since become a professional actor) was something else.
But I still stand by my verdict and stand by all my writing. Though, at times, my opinion may change after some time (for good or ill) I stand by the fact that these were my opinions at the time of writing and are as valid as anyone else's.

"Jesus Christ Superstar", Glasgow King's Theatre, 21/11/14

Frankly I cannot write about this production without it coming across as a bit of a rant and I'll say now that the reason for my frustration with the production is that it clearly had promise (especially in its cast) but was, ultimately, let down by direction that lacked cohesion.








Let's start with some positives:
I must give kudos to the director, Steve Mann, who seemed to be attempting something 'new' even if everything he applied wasn't. The simplest of his staging ideas were the best; the cross-over of 'Poor Jerusalem' into 'Pilate's Dream' - where 'Jesus'  (Lawrence Sharkey) remains onstage once his song is over to become an image from the dream of 'Pilate' (Johnny Collins) - was nice, as was the final sequence of 'John 19:41' where 'Jesus' is removed from the cross, dressed in a simple cloth and lifted above the heads of the 'Apostles' who carry him slowly offstage. Simple but effective.
The choreography by Lynne Bustard was enjoyable if prosaic for the most part although the number 'Superstar' was a more exciting sequence with some fine motifs.
Musical Direction by Alan Fraser was assured and the guitar playing quite brilliant. The quieter moments, such as 'Pilate's Dream', were amongst the strongest sequences and 'The Temple' was a rousing aural experience with the tempo of the number the fastest I'd experienced onstage creating an exciting musical experience.
But the best thing about the production was the cast, most of whom were blessed (no pun intended) with lovely voices and sufficient stage presence to root the show and raise it above the mundane.








Now for the negatives, and here I must go into some detail to justify my views:
Verisimilitude was lacking throughout because of the disconnected direction which failed to connect on an emotional level.
The show was advertised on social media as being 'avant-garde' and utilising physical theatre. They did so in as much and to the same effect as the Arena tour of a few years back i.e. underwhelmingly: I can't say I saw anything in the production to warrant its claims and the physical theatre seemed to comprise of little more than numerous choreographed ensemble-undulating sequences. Some circus-skills such as a silk performer and stilt walking were also employed, the latter appeared in the Arena tour. To be honest their use didn't really add anything to the dramatic purpose of the scene other than to appeal visually.
If nothing else the director is guilty of being too derivative: There were scenes based on the Gale Edwards UK touring production (which was filmed before heading to Broadway) and also on the Arena tour. Examples include the 'Overture' which was all but a copy (save for redundant dialogue) of Edwards' production as was 'Could We Start Again, Please' while 'The Temple' seemed to be lifted from the Arena tour.
During the 'Overture' background information (such as why the Priests disapproved of Jesus) was projected which I felt unnecessary given that all that is required to understand the plot is within the lyrics. If the director really had to provide this information then it should be kept to programme notes as the projection became a distraction from the frenetic action onstage. It also didn't help that some elements of the set obscured the projection screen. The projection also clearly set the production in the early A.D. period which was confused by other elements throughout (graffiti, costuming etc.) and the director would have done better to suggest a period rather than specifically define it which would have made the anachronistic elements to sit more comfortably within the production (as some other productions have done).
Directors should also be aware when to use stillness and when not to. People were often almost manic while at other times the ensemble was reduced to choreographed slow-motion action.
There were some scene changes and entrances and exits that were a bit clumsily handled thus stilting the flow of events and these could easily have been rectified. The same could be said of some prop/scenic elements such as the cloth hung from the flies for the aerial acrobat and the rope that 'Judas' (Garry Taylor) hangs himself with which intruded beyond their allotted use and became rather distracting. 'Judas' Death' and the earlier 'Damned for all Time' sequences also had an ensemble of figures who were reminiscent of the 'Tormentors' of the Tom O'Horgan production: Figures in black who waft around 'Judas', although in this case they carried boughs with shredded black material hanging off. The programme mentioned the presence of ravens as a symbol of death and I can only assume that this material is what is alluded to. But again these figures weren't really utilised to the best effect. The only purpose I can make for them was as a foreshadowing of the tree from which 'Judas' will hang himself. I may be totally incorrect. (The director attempts to explain some choices in his programme notes but the need to explain such things suggests a possibility of unsuccessful communication of these ideas across the footlights.)
Given the director makes heavy-handed attempts to show the frustration and anger of 'Jesus' (amongst other things) the director once again misses Tim Rice's point about his divinity - that is it isn't shown or admitted ('Jesus' never claims to be the Son of God in the show and deflects the suggestion) - by opening Act II with  'Jesus' walking on water (a cloth waved by cast members!) directly before the 'Last Supper' begins. Another cringe-worthy moment was in the Da Vinci Last Supper Tableau enacted by the company which got quite the laugh from the audience (the Da Vinci setting was even projected in the background) - unfortunate given the nature of the scene that follows.




The choices the director makes for his cast was also rather worrying: From the outset it appeared that all the 'Apostles' were bad tempered, very much against the intention of Tim Rice and thus making little contrast with 'Judas', at least in the opening. This wild attitude also made the sudden calmness of 'Everything's Alright' and the 'Apostles'' actions within rather odd.
'Jesus' is also quite a violent figure - he manhandles people and throttles 'Judas' in the 'Last Supper' and threatens vendors with a knife in 'The Temple'. By all means I can understand that 'Jesus' can be seen as a revolutionary but one has to balance such extremes within the material that is written.
'Judas' was presented pretty much as seen in the Edwards' production although the actor here subdued the more miserable aspects of the role which was appropriate whilst 'Mary' (Vicky Robertson) was presented as one of the 'Apostles' and a strong figure amongst them. Thus it made her attempt at slashing her wrists during 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' all the more problematic, indeed worrying, not to mention unsightly. In fact I felt this was utterly irresponsible and quite unbelievable - why should someone who is presented as a reformed prostitute decide her life is not worth living simply because she loves someone for the first time? Yes, the emotion troubles her and unsettles her but even contemplating suicide is far beyond any truth within the role after all she states within her big number how she'd handle the situation ('I'd turn my head, I'd back away ... '). Applying a shot of violence here and there for nothing but shock value is not good direction.
Given there was so much violence of some degree or another throughout the show it made the appropriate violence in Act II ('The Trial') less effective than if there was more contrast beforehand. 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' also ended with 'Jesus' giving a full on kiss to 'Mary' - thus making 'Mary's' motives and lyrics in her big number a bit questionable. Given that 'Judas' plants a similar kiss on 'Jesus' in the betrayal I had to wonder whether this 'Jesus of Nazareth' was a bit easy.
'Caiaphas' (Dougie Muir) and 'Annas' (Stephen Jannetts) were probably the most successful portrayals with 'Caiaphas' blessed with a strong, deep, bass voice although the director choose to obscure his lines in 'Hosanna' by having the crowd shouting over him (a 'school-boy' error).
'Pilate' was played a little too weakly for my liking, a bit too free-and-easy if you will, although there were glimpses in Act II of the darker, heavier edges that the role requires.
'Herod' (David Robertson) was the least appropriate I felt and emerged as a Liberace-style figure with a distracting lisp which partially obscured some lyrics. During the dance section of his number, however, 'Herod' was revealed to be an S & M creature that looked like a 'Rocky Horror Show' reject. Both impressions brought laughter but I don't think for the correct reason. 'Herod' was overly camp (some lyrics became unintelligible because of this when the actor started screeching his lines) and probably played into everything that Andrew Lloyd Webber especially hates about such portrayals of the character. Of course 'Herod' should be seen as a debauched, spoilt figure but this was an overly heavy-handed and ham-fisted way of portraying that. Frankly Tom O'Horgan's original staging of the number on Broadway in 1971 must have been more subtle. And choreographically we were treated to another Charleston-inspired dance which was uninspired although the cast appeared to be enjoying themselves.


Given that no-one in the cast seemed to be giving less than 100% (even 'Herod' albeit not in an appropriate manner) it puzzled me as to why I was left emotionally untouched and disbelieving. I can only blame the director whose work had actors often doing pointless or clichéd things (e.g. 'Jesus' striking a cruciform image several times throughout the show). To be honest, as nice as the voices were, there was not a huge amount of the edge or rawness that a rock score requires. 'Judas' was certainly more the exception than the rule with his more appropriate image and vocal.
Aside from 'Herod' I got the impression (true or not) that the actors were generally restricted within the confines imposed by the director adding to the lack of truth in virtually all performances, sadly none more so than in the portrayal of 'Jesus' which is a shame since these actors are clearly better than the direction they were given here.






The Musical Direction started well but as soon as we got to the first number proper, 'Heaven On Their Minds', the problems emerged. The opening section (with the infamous riff) was slowed inexplicably down giving the opening to the show anything but an exciting start especially given the frantic energy of the 'Overture' immediately prior. As the start of the show proper it seemed to take forever to get the show stared and it felt to me that it was only when 'What's The Buzz' began that the show really started. A big error given that 'Jesus Christ Superstar' is ostensibly told through 'Judas'' viewpoint.
The tempo of 'I Don't Know How To Love Him' was also played with, having the ending of the intro and of each verse suffering a rallentando thus killing any momentum in the music. The reprise of 'Everything's Alright' immediately prior was also interminably slow, much like the 2000 film.
The first verse of 'Superstar' was also slowed killing the energy and momentum of the show, disastrous given that this I basically the peak of the show, although the common tempo returns for the chorus and continues throughout the remainder of the number.


Given that the guitar work was quite wonderful throughout, the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber had already drastically reduced the original orchestration, it's a shame that for most of the time the more subtle instruments went almost unheard - the woodwind and synths especially. The band also had a trumpet player who seemed to, most of the time at least, take a while to find the actual note he or she was supposed to be playing. Not a good thing especially during the brass heavy parts (the opening of 'Superstar' was particularly painful).




The costumes by Graham Burn were, deliberately, both 'Biblical' and 'modern' but not in a successful way as was the case with John Napier's costumes for the 1996 London revival where they assimilated into each other. Some, such as 'Simon's' (Kris Morrison) and those of the 'Soul Girls', immediately brought Edwards' production to mind.
I also had to ponder as to why they put 'Jesus' into an unflattering wig which did nothing for the actor or the role except occasionally obscure his face.




Jonnie Clough's lighting was serviceable without really enhancing the rather dull set and could have done with being more defined and concentrated at times which would have made the set more exciting.


Anyway, I know this was an amateur production but I know the capabilities of such companies especially one who claim to work to the standards of professionals. Thus I shall treat them as such. After all, I've seen professional productions which have been worse than most amateur shows.
This is, of course, only my opinion but, given the overheard conversations upon exiting the theatre, it is not a lonely one.


Thus I ultimately must say that there was much promise within many aspects of the production but it was ultimately let down by some rather clumsy directorial choices.

"Blood Brothers", King's Theatre Glasgow, 13/11/14

This is not so much a review as an opinion on the current touring production of "Blood Brothers" as produced by Bill Kenwright. What follows is an unedited stream of consciousness, so please forgive any ramblings/repetitions etc.:


I'll say this; the show still packs a punch, as evidenced by the reaction of the near-full audience. Sadly, however, the show has also become a mere shadow of itself, as evidenced by the near-full audience whose reactions were those more typically found at a performance of a pantomime.
It's a mark of the state of the production that the weakest link amongst the cast are the two 'name' leads - Marti Pellow, whose name is emblazoned above the title on posters, stars as "The Narrator" and Maureen Nolan whose name, surprisingly, is nowhere on the poster (at least not in Glasgow) as "Mrs Johnstone".
Pellow's vocals are nothing to write home about and both the quality of his voice and his diction often make words unclear - rather detrimental considering his role - but his physical attitude is also wrong. He stalks about the stage with as much threat and grace as if ploughing through mud.
Nolan is better but her voice is unsure in the higher range causing her to be off-pitch at times whilst her acting needs more depth. considering both have performed these roles for some time now it's inexcusable.
The remainder of the cast however are much stronger, none more so than Sean Jones as "Mickey" who is the most enthralling of all onstage. He's also another regular cast member but his performance was just as strong when first I saw him a few years back. Unlike some of the other cast members his is the most un-caricatured performance.
And I think this is where the major problem of the show lies: The staging and direction have become rather tired and unforgiving. Whilst the material is still strong enough to retain power and the ability to wring emotion from an audience, the direction is failing to serve it. Staging is rather pedestrian at times and, perhaps because of the name casting od recent years, the drama comes across as a bit flabby. Given the Kenwright production is over 25 years old and I've no doubt that the show has been tweaked in various ways over the years (not necessarily for the good), including musically (orchestrations have been reduced over the years), it really is doing a disservice to Willy Russell's work and this needn't be the case - other West End long runners such as "The Phantom of the Opera" continue to work because the direction remains tights and exciting and the company and crew continue to respect the audience. It seems that everything about this production of "Blood Brothers" is self-aware and it is guilty of playing to the audience far too much, as if those behind what happens onstage barely think it worth working for a reaction - they merely expect to receive it (which, for the most part, they do).


"Blood Brothers" is not a bad musical. It can be quite good, in fact. But I think director Bob Tomson and producer (and co-director) Bill Kenwright should take a fresh look at the production.
I've nothing against long-running cast members providing they can deliver the goods (especially since given the price people pay these days for a ticket) as Sean Jones clearly exhibits but the continuing reliance (which is not needed) on 'star' names has clearly taken its toll.
Perhaps it's time to start completely from scratch - a new (leading) cast, a new set, new orchestrations (the synthesised drums are really pointless) and, perhaps, even a new director - someone who is able to direct the text with the grittiness it requires, rather than relying on uninspiring blocking.
In other words, it is time for Blood Brothers to enter the new millennium otherwise it is threatening to become an unintentional parody of what it once was.


Addendum: Another issue I have is that the orchestra, besides the musical director, went utterly un-credited in the programme something which, given it's a musical, is rather insulting to the musicians.
Sort it out, Kenwright!

Fini

This is the end.

The Life I Never Led?

I wrote this several months back but failed to publish it. It's still relevant so I publish it unedited:


So I am but a few short months shy of my 33rd birthday and as I look back and contemplate and the life I never led I am forced to confront the unalterable truth that in my years upon this rock I have achieved nothing. Whilst others around my plough on with successful careers, family lives and other assortments that constitute the milieu of life the only thing I can say I have done is survive. Survive the trivial issues which have plagued my existence. But that isn't enough is it? Not for me and certainly not for anyone else who would know me. I have nothing to show for my worth.

I am a nihilist, a fatalist and, though I try, I think one cannot, ultimately change one's nature. I am the way I am and it is only in accepting that fact that is it possible to look at things with any objectivity. After all if one deludes himself with a false impression then any possible outcome or solution would be nullified when any attempt at implementation was acted upon.

One thing I am, and for some times have been, aware of is that I have no desired purpose. My guess is that many people know what it is they wish to accomplish in their life but this is not so with myself. There is no career that has really called to me at the cost of all else, although I am very aware that the creative arts are were I am most strongly drawn. Once upon a time I would have said I wished to be an actor but many moons ago I realised that this was not the case; I found I disagreed with most decisions made by directors, that I would always play too much and not take the job seriously enough, that only following the completion of a run would I be able to offer the performance what it needed. Yet I still very much enjoy singing and some years ago, perhaps naturally, found I had a natural aptitude for directing but, alas, life interferes in any pursuit of these.

Christopher Isherwood wrote 'I am a camera', perhaps his most famous quote, but I am a blank page waiting to be writ upon. Until then I serve no purpose in life.

I wonder if I search for something other than the things I lament. In many ways I have always felt ill at ease with the world at large, out of place with the people around me and greatly dissatisfied with the world, how it works and what it has to offer. Perhaps I still grieve for the things I have lost so many years ago and part of me will forever remain incomplete and will continue aching for something to replace them.

I wonder. As always.

Images

I'm just writing to apologise that my most recent posts do not contain any images. For some reason Blogger is not allowing my to put any into my posts.
When, of if, this issue gets resolved I'll edit the posts to rectify this.

Cheers.

'Blood Brothers', King's Theatre, Glasgow, 4/7/12

This new touring edition of a production nearing its 25^th anniversary (though the show is nearing 30) still retains the ability to awe and move with the simplest of means. Here is a show that has no spectacular set pieces to boast of but instead relies on human emotion to stir its audience. And stir it does.

Whilst Russell’s score may be thematically repetitive it is still used quite economically and is employed to great effect striking the right balance between the libretto and itself. Russell must be given his dues for crafting a piece that, all these years later, still stands up as something of an oddity in musical theatre yet is able to boast some wonderful writing on all fronts.

This touring production is led by Maureen Nolan and Marti Pellow as ‘Mrs. Johnstone’ and the ‘Narrator’ respectively. Both are seasoned  performers and Pellow plays his role especially dark impressing upon everything the sense of the inevitability of the events that unfold onstage. Nolan is credible though, as the central figure, she is not as emotionally diverse or as powerful as she could have been. And both these performers struggle at times with the Liverpudlian accent.

Far more successful are the juvenile leads. None more so than Sean Jones as ‘Mickey’, who gives a powerhouse performance in perhaps the most difficult role after ‘Mrs. Johnstone’. His performance is the most tear-jerking of the evening and is closely followed by Matthew Collyer as his twin ‘Eddie’, though that role offers less chance to show off one’s acting chops. ‘Linda’ was played to perfection by Kelly-Anne Gower who embodied everything required, and more, of the part. The company ensemble were no less effective.

The direction is straightforward and unfussy and the simple designs allow the writing and performances to resonate beyond the stage and the situations presented seem somewhat appropriate given today’s economic woes. It becomes so very easy to think ‘there, but for the grace of God … ‘

A minor quibble I have about this production, having not seen it in nearly 20 years (and then in London’s West End) is that the audience at times treated it as something akin to ‘The Rocky Horror Show’ with lots of ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ (to the point where I feared audience participation) and with the actors onstage at times acknowledging them whilst at other times the actors performed certain lines very much ‘playing to the crowds’ as if knowingly playing for laughs. I feel the writing is strong enough that this is overkill but the sell-out audience certainly lapped it up.

And speaking of audience – people really should be more considerate: the tickets clearly say that the show began at 7.30pm and yet half the audience still left it until last minute to make their way into the auditorium and some even later than that! The effect being that the curtain didn’t go up until 7.45pm. If people cannot adhere to the announced time then I believe they have given up the right of entry and the doors should be closed and admittance granted only at the interval. And theatres should enforce such policies strictly.

Theatre etiquette is certainly declining these days. Rant over.

'Educating Rita', Theatre Royal, Glasgow, 31/5/12

I've never seen the film version of 'Educating Rita' so I came to the play with no expectations.

Willy Russel's play is both witty and charming and I found myself enjoying it more and more as the play progressed. The story of a working class lass who wants to be 'educated' and the man who is to educate her brings up interesting points about education and culture itself.

As 'Rita' Claire Sweeney is pretty much spot on. Her entrance immediately sets the tone of the character and she evolves effortlessly as the play progresses.
Matthew Kelly is a wonderful actor and as 'Frank' he lives and breathes each aspect that the role presents. I was most impressed by his acting skills which I'd never witnessed previously.
Tamara Harvey's direction is pretty straightforward and she is able to bring out performances that excel without having the need to create any fussy business. Her only possible misstep is at the very end when a piece of staging, where 'Rita' is to give 'Frank' a gift, seems somewhat out of step with the rest of the production.
Paul Anderson's lighting is likewise uncomplicated and functional as is Tim Shortall's design which consists of shelf upon shelf of books. The passing of time is visualised in a tree that stands outside the window; a tree that undergoes the change of the seasons.

The play is both funny, poignant and even thought provoking. Whilst the situations presented may be a trifle outdated it still stands on solid legs. My only real quibble is that I wish the transfers between scenes was smoother and speedier.

Now I must talk about theatre etiquette. The afternoon I saw this play there were many OAPs and school children in attendance. Now I believe that all members of society should see theatre and that it should be open to all. But. But I wish someone,be it a teacher or carer - whomever, had had some words with some members of these groups. Throughout the show there were numerous annoyances and distractions from the audience; children dropping cans and even coins and some elderly people talking rather loudly. We even had to put up with some people who are outright disruptive and shouting. Now in the latter case I feel that these elderly patrons were perhaps the victim of some medical condition that facilitated these acts. But surely the person or persons who accompanied these people to the theatre should take into consideration that a theatre tends to have more audience members present than themselves. And that, if it is known that a person can be disruptive, then that person should not be presented in a situation where one is expected to pay due respect to the artists onstage? As for the children - well, we all know they can be disruptive but I do wish the teachers present had taken it upon themselves to acknowledge their wards and put pay to their behaviour.

As it was Mr Kelly and Miss Sweeney ploughed on regardless for most of the play, never dropping their energy levels. However at one point where one elderly audience member was at their most disruptive Mr Kelly took it upon himself to simply stop after a suitable line and stare at the guilty party. He never once said anything to this audience member and may have seen the possible nature of the predicament. He casually waited until all had settled then resumed the play as if nothing had happened with not a single dip in the energy or pace of the play. Miss Sweeney's response was a simple reaction Mr Kelly; she quickly stole a glance in the direction toward which he were looking.

In the theatrical press instances of disruption (from those who should know better and who are certain to have all their faculties) are becoming more noted and I think that something needs to be done. Is it so hard to tell a child about, and to reinforce the idea of respect for a performer to do their job and to respect other members of the audience? Likewise those factors should be taken into account when planning a trip to a theatre; if one is aware that that respect in the form of silence and attention cannot be paid then perhaps it's best that one doesn't go in the first place.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Rant over.