One of the problems with a production of a musical (or a play) that is more than 40 years old is that it is always at risk of falling into clichés that have become associated with previous productions or, as is the case with "Jesus Christ Superstar", the various filmed versions. It was thus a surprise to witness a production that clearly tries to do a little more than the obvious with such a well-known show, albeit to varying success.
The first thing to strike you about this production is the monolithic set by Paul Farnsworth which is dominated by several huge pillars reminiscent of Byzantium design and a mammoth back wall in which are two huge doors of similar design. A three-sided catwalk and movable steps make up the remainder of the set which surrounds a central playing area. A steel 'crown' hovers over the action, moving though-out the events of the musical.
Impressive as all this is I do wonder why the pillars were so heavily bas-relieved since most other design elements are more abstract. That said the shadows they produce under the lighting are stunning.
The lighting by Nick Richings is sympathetic to the production. It is moody, atmospheric, precise and creates some wonderful moments onstage, including being used for some excellent transitions (the title of this blog indicates such a use) such as that between "Judas' Death" and the "Trial By Pilate".
Costumes (apparently by Farnsworth) are standard Biblical-like affair and stand up as a little uninspired compared to the rest of the design elements.
The musical direction by Bob Broad is assured, confident and varied. Whilst the orchestra (or rather, band) has been reduced to seven players but the orchestra has evidently been augmented with click-tracks which enable the sound produced to be of a larger, more epic scale than most productions of the last twenty years - there is even some (pre-recorded) strings in evidence. As good a sound as this makes I do wish that full-size orchestras were the norm today as once they were. But the live musicians are really excellent and perform flawlessly, investing the score with energy and a zip that has been missing in most recent productions (especially the Arena tour of several years ago).
The sound design by Dan Samson also aids in creating the sense of grandness present within the show and is used to excellent use in creating a soundscape that is thrilling and deep, be it the vocals/dialogue that comes from all around the audience or the threatening, dangerous sounds of the whip-cracks which are the most unpleasant I've heard. The "Crucifixion" is also made all the more unsettling by Samson's design which has every hammer-fall, laugh and breath echo throughout the auditorium.
Bob Tomson and Bill Kenwright's direction is solid and tends to avoid the more bland staging ideas that can trouble some other Kenwright productions; something as simple as having the Last Supper staged on a slight diagonal, rather than straight on, creates a more interesting, dynamic, shape to proceedings and avoiding the over-used Superstar cliché of staging it as a visual copy of Da Vinci's painting is also a *ahem* blessing (pun intended). Throughout it seems simplicity is the key and this works to promote the strength of the score. It does take, however a good ten minutes or so for the show to really kick in to gear; despite staging the" Overture" (common these days) with "Jesus" recruiting his Apostles and also hinting at the friction between the Romans and the natives, "Heaven On Their Minds" is treated with typical "Superstar" staging with "Judas" moving in and around "Jesus" and his followers, although the over-used hand-clapping usually featured in the 7/8 musical section is, thankfully , not present and the first real indicator that this isn't just a paint-by-numbers production. "What's The Buzz" is a little limp vocally and the staging of "Everything's Alright" is also a little pedestrian.
"This Jesus Must Die" is when the show really steps up both staging-wise and vocally and it's from here that the show, more or less, moves along at a steady, energetic, pace. Throughout they pepper the staging with moments that prove that more than the usual thought, for the most part, has gone into the direction of this show; such as "Jesus" shouting at "Caiaphas" to "Get Out!" rather than the usual crowds within the "Temple" sequence is one: The resulting stare-off between the two is another and it's only until the "High Priest" reluctantly leaves that "Jesus" continues with his sombre reflections. Such choices in direction add a more psychological element to proceedings since, for example, they are able to make the audience question what "Caiaphas'" true motivations in wanting rid of "Jesus" are: "Jesus" evidently has a power over "Caiaphas" that the latter is unsettled by, whilst "Jesus" is more evidently angered by the authority figures here.
The staging of "Herod's Song" also varies from the more usual over-the-top camp of most and is here staged within what appears to be a Roman bath-house where "Herod" is less outrageous as outraged (despite his nipple-tassels) and his bath-robed dancers are clearly there under duress and thus take it out upon "Jesus" who is passed around them and subtly beaten by them by the occasional high-kick or the like.
One of their biggest success was in the "Crucifixion" sequence which was amongst the most drawn-out and disquieting (all in a good way) that I've witnessed. It's clear the score has been reworked here but it is to the benefit of the scene where nothing is rushed and the agony of "Jesus" is more than evident making the jesting of the soldiers a starker contrast than is usual. Here is the perfect combination of score, sound, design, lighting and acting and a most unsettling highlight.
Given the size of the set and the staging of some scenes it's a shame that there are not more members of the cast since in certain scenes the stage looks somewhat empty, especially during "The Temple" (where little really happens) and the "Trial By Pilate" sequence.
Carole Todd's choreography may not be the most innovative but it certainly varies from typical "Superstar" fare and is, at times, surprising, funny and energetic and adds a further energetic element to a generally powerful production.
And so to the cast:
Present in almost every scene, Tim Rogers' "Judas" is a vocally rough-edged Roger Daltry sound-a-like and he moves around with intention. Whilst he may not attempt some of the higher notes Rogers' is a satisfying performance and his "Judas' Death" is tragically unsettling and emotional.
As "Jesus" Glenn Carter, who played the role on Broadway and in the 2000 film version, establishes himself better than is evident in the film; here he is more subtle, even if he does fall back to playing the same pace and moves that featured in that film. Whether the directors left him to his own devices or felt them to be more appropriate is debatable but it would have been nice to see even more variety within the portrayal of "Jesus" since he is all too often walking around in a ponderous, intentional way. Never is this "Jesus" as carefree as he really could be at times. That said, whilst Carter may not be a favourite "Jesus" of mine he did impress me more than I expected and his vocals were, despite his thin sound, stronger than as evidenced in his film portrayal. Indeed, Carter was stirring in the "Gethsemane" scene (far subtler than his film performance), which closes the first act, and sublime and tortured in the "Crucifixion" and he makes for a physically impressive figure.
Rachel Adedeji was rather a disappointment as "Mary" since she was rather one dimensional in her portrayal. Given to simply moving from one place to the next with little intention even her vocals were a bit of a let down. Only in a few moments in "I Don't Know How To Love Him" and "Could We Start Again, Please" did she really shine, and these when she allow her voice to let rip. For the most part her vocal performance is high, breathy and stunted which serves no purpose in such an important role. Indeed I've never found falsetto singing to be satisfying for the role of "Mary" and it's only when this is abandoned by Adedeji that she shows an inkling of what she could have done with the part.
Tom Gilling's "Herod" was a more thorough interpretation than most, yet still humorous. He gleaned a subtle psychopathic streak from his few minutes in the role which contrasted against the more obvious fun aspect of the song and this is another welcome variation from the norm that this production is blessed with.
The "Apostles" and the "Apostles' Women" are all blessed with good voices (indeed all the males are named in this production) and they create a rather attractive and youthful group, injecting each performance with zest. Edward Handoll's Peter has a lovely voice and becomes suitably pained following his betrayal whilst Kristofer Harding's "Simon Zealotes" number is another highlight and full of verve from all involved including Harding whose vocals are amongst the strongest of the entire company. I was also a bit surprised to find that "Maid By The Fire" has been re-christened "Maid By The River" in this production especially as there is no river present. True, there is also no fire present (at least at that particular moment) so the change of title is a rather pointless one.
I wish I could say that Rhydian Roberts' "Pilate" was also another strong element but sadly he was "indisposed" (once again) and so I witnessed his more than adequate understudy, Johnathan Tweedie, who lent the role an air of dignity with a strong voice to match. During the "Trial" he became suitably more and more unravelled until his final outburst.
The "Priests" led by the "Annas" of Alistair Lee were of powerful, threatening voice whilst Cavin Cornwall's "Caiaphas" was the true star of the show for me. Cornwall's deep vocals were powerful and rich and equally matched by his deliberate, controlled movements. His lithe, tall figure gave the part an added sense of menace and his subtle touches upon "Judas" in "Blood Money" were disturbing: One almost felt that that simple touch upon the head of a kneeling "Judas" from a towering "Caiaphas" was an echo of the thought that, to put it crudely, "Judas" was now "Caiaphas'" bitch. Cornwall's performance was one of controlled power and, together with his strong vocals, created a character vastly different to his portrayal of "Peter" in the 2000 film of "Jesus Christ Superstar" and probably the best "Caiaphas" I've seen.
A surprisingly strong production for the most part and one that surpassed all my expectations. The stronger elements certainly outshine the weaker and make the whole far stronger than most productions of "Jesus Christ Superstar" in recent times. It is an infinitely better production than the muddled Arena tour of only a few years ago.
I thought I'd also mention the lovely coda/curtain call at the end of the show: Following the emotional events of "John 19:41" the orchestra begins a sombre version of "Hosanna" and the cast slowly re-emerge onstage before the "Superstar" refrain rings out triumphantly and the bows start proper. Given that the audience seemed reluctant to commence the typical clapping following the end of the show (no doubt caused by the fact that many an audience member is rendered somewhat stunned by the end) this gentle, yet sad, musical piece is very appropriate to slowly reintroduce an energy appropriate to a curtain call since the suddenness of moving from "John 19:41" to sprightly bows is often a jarring one.
Friday, 10 April 2015
Monday, 9 February 2015
"To Kill A Mockingbird", Glasgow King's Theatre, 3/2/15
The following review was written for Backstage Pass.
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2015/02/theatre-review-to-kill-mockingbird.html
This tour of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird" is timely given that it was just announced that a 'sequel' will be published later this year. It is a mark of the power that this tale holds that this announcement has been met with great excitement and this adaptation is evidence that such a reaction is justified.
Dealing with the issues of racial prejudice and justice as seen through the eyes of both children and adults the play is a striking reminder of the flaws inherent in humanity and how the innocence of children is destroyed by adults who should know better. It is this innocence that permeates throughout the production elevating the play into something magical; by seeing most of the events through the eyes of a child they are imbued with an aspect of neutrality whereby we, the audience, are open to accept truth as it presents itself - appropriate given the plot centres around the 1935 trial in the South of an African American man for the alleged rape of a white woman, and the racial tension generated by the fact that he is defended by a white man, "Atticus Finch", the narrator's father and stalwart upholder of what is right and correct.
Christopher Sergel's adaptation is full of engaging and kinetic language that thrives in a staging by director Timothy Sheader that is pretty much perfect: Sheader utilises the stage in a semi-abstract form whilst retaining the realism of the drama. His juxtaposition of stillness and movement is excellently utilised and creates a strength and energy that both supports and reinforces the text. With Act I establishing the bitter feelings towards "Atticus", as discovered by the children, Sheader fills the stage with movement and energy creating a sense of the discovery that one tends to experience as a child. Act II is more still with attention focused on the trial and on those who take the stand against both defendant "Tom Robinson" (a subtle Zachary Momoh) as well as "Atticus". But even in this adult arena the children are present and their reactions to the inevitable outcome are powerful.
It is to Sheader's credit that he reinforces the story's origins in that the play is broken up by cast members reading 'extracts' from copies of the novel, out of character, and having them 'reading along' when not physically taking part in the onstage action; the story they read is thus flowing out of their imaginations and forming into a gripping physical manifestation before our very eyes. Sheader also has the audience addressed as the trial's jury further involving them in this communal event, forcing them out of being an observer and to become a participant, to become emotionally involved.
Phil King's music, performed by Luke Potter, is an elegant, evocative compliment to a surprisingly moving production that is at once powerful and tender and the scenic design by Jon Bausor is also an excellent augmentation to Sheader's assured vision.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is blessed with a company that creates theatre so complete that it allows each performer to excel in his or her roles (most play more than one character) - whatever they may be - and as "Atticus Finch", Daniel Betts is replete with a nobility and restraint even in the face of the flawed reality of the justice that he serves, accepting the wrong-doings around him with a grace that highlights the errors of others. As his daughter, "Scout" - the story's narrator, Ava Potter is enchanting and enthralling, easily capturing one's attention whilst allowing the audience to empathise with her and the situations she encounters: It is her innocence and viewpoint that is so engaging. The other children, Arthur Franks as "Jem" and Connor Brundish as "Dill", are equally as impressive and all three present an honesty that speaks volumes amongst the mistruths presented by bigoted adults.
But despite the power of fear and hate inherent within most characters, the play - like the book - reasserts the notion that good will out despite all odds, that views can be changed - albeit at a slow pace, one person at a time.
It is no fluke that Harper Lee's tale is still revered and this excellent production is proof positive of the importance of great storytelling which is amongst the most human of creations.
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2015/02/theatre-review-to-kill-mockingbird.html
This tour of Harper Lee's "To Kill A Mockingbird" is timely given that it was just announced that a 'sequel' will be published later this year. It is a mark of the power that this tale holds that this announcement has been met with great excitement and this adaptation is evidence that such a reaction is justified.
Dealing with the issues of racial prejudice and justice as seen through the eyes of both children and adults the play is a striking reminder of the flaws inherent in humanity and how the innocence of children is destroyed by adults who should know better. It is this innocence that permeates throughout the production elevating the play into something magical; by seeing most of the events through the eyes of a child they are imbued with an aspect of neutrality whereby we, the audience, are open to accept truth as it presents itself - appropriate given the plot centres around the 1935 trial in the South of an African American man for the alleged rape of a white woman, and the racial tension generated by the fact that he is defended by a white man, "Atticus Finch", the narrator's father and stalwart upholder of what is right and correct.
Christopher Sergel's adaptation is full of engaging and kinetic language that thrives in a staging by director Timothy Sheader that is pretty much perfect: Sheader utilises the stage in a semi-abstract form whilst retaining the realism of the drama. His juxtaposition of stillness and movement is excellently utilised and creates a strength and energy that both supports and reinforces the text. With Act I establishing the bitter feelings towards "Atticus", as discovered by the children, Sheader fills the stage with movement and energy creating a sense of the discovery that one tends to experience as a child. Act II is more still with attention focused on the trial and on those who take the stand against both defendant "Tom Robinson" (a subtle Zachary Momoh) as well as "Atticus". But even in this adult arena the children are present and their reactions to the inevitable outcome are powerful.
It is to Sheader's credit that he reinforces the story's origins in that the play is broken up by cast members reading 'extracts' from copies of the novel, out of character, and having them 'reading along' when not physically taking part in the onstage action; the story they read is thus flowing out of their imaginations and forming into a gripping physical manifestation before our very eyes. Sheader also has the audience addressed as the trial's jury further involving them in this communal event, forcing them out of being an observer and to become a participant, to become emotionally involved.
Phil King's music, performed by Luke Potter, is an elegant, evocative compliment to a surprisingly moving production that is at once powerful and tender and the scenic design by Jon Bausor is also an excellent augmentation to Sheader's assured vision.
"To Kill A Mockingbird" is blessed with a company that creates theatre so complete that it allows each performer to excel in his or her roles (most play more than one character) - whatever they may be - and as "Atticus Finch", Daniel Betts is replete with a nobility and restraint even in the face of the flawed reality of the justice that he serves, accepting the wrong-doings around him with a grace that highlights the errors of others. As his daughter, "Scout" - the story's narrator, Ava Potter is enchanting and enthralling, easily capturing one's attention whilst allowing the audience to empathise with her and the situations she encounters: It is her innocence and viewpoint that is so engaging. The other children, Arthur Franks as "Jem" and Connor Brundish as "Dill", are equally as impressive and all three present an honesty that speaks volumes amongst the mistruths presented by bigoted adults.
But despite the power of fear and hate inherent within most characters, the play - like the book - reasserts the notion that good will out despite all odds, that views can be changed - albeit at a slow pace, one person at a time.
It is no fluke that Harper Lee's tale is still revered and this excellent production is proof positive of the importance of great storytelling which is amongst the most human of creations.
Monday, 8 December 2014
"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.
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.
Friday, 5 December 2014
"Top Hat", Glasgow King's Theatre, 2/12/14
Written for Backstage Pass.
"Musical Comedy" sounds like a rather out-dated phrase these days but is an apt term for the rapturous, effervescent production that is "Top Hat" which won the Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Musical in 2013. It is hard to dislike such an upbeat production, although those with a dislike for tap-dancing may wince here and there, and there is much to enjoy in this elating musical.
The plot revolves around American performer "Jerry Travers" (Alan Burkitt) who journeys to London to star in a new show produced by "Horace Hardwick" (Clive Hayward). Once in London his tap-dancing above the hotel room of "Dale Tremont" (Charlotte Gooch) wakes her and she promptly rushes upstairs to complain, whereupon he falls in love with her. A case of mistaken identity follows and "Jerry" must follow "Dale" to Venice in order to win her heart. The plot may be quite thin but it is blessed with sharp and humorous dialogue and elicited many a laugh from the audience. The adaptation by Matthew White and Howard Jacques from the original RKO film is spritely, full of wit and consistently entertaining.
As director, Matthew White has constructed a staging that is never lazy or uninteresting to the eye and together with choreographer Bill Deamer he creates some truly wonderful moments onstage including an excellently executed form of 'shadowing' which is used to great effect. It is no wonder that Deamer won the Olivier Award for his choreography as it is simply beautiful to watch and executed precisely. Each number is performed by the strong ensemble who work together uniformly, creating extravagant musical numbers not too often seen these days. The ensemble are even used as part of the transitions between scenes thus creating a smooth fluidity to the show.
The entire production exudes class and elegance; the set design of Hildegard Bechtler encompasses beautiful art deco scenery and natural imagery and creates a cinematic quality to proceedings allowing smooth scenic transitions and swift changes with sleekly moving architectural screens; The costumes of Jon Morrell compliment the scenery effortlessly and are beautiful in themselves and Peter Mumford's lighting is stylish and adds another depth to the onstage imagery imbuing the stage with evocative colours.
The musical score is, of course, by Irving Berlin and boasts some of his most famous numbers including "Puttin' on the Ritz", "Let's Face the Music and Dance" and "Cheek to Cheek" and is expertly directed by Jae Alexander. The orchestrations by Chris Walker accurately replicate the sound of the 1930s jazz score and is another element that adds to the authenticity of the whole. My only quibble with the orchestra is that in some of the more string-heavy sequences I thought I detected a synth which intruded upon the faithful sound of the orchestra. Gareth Owen's sound design is encompassing and appropriately allows the tapping to become another instrument of the soundscape.
Alan Burkitt and Charlotte Gooch are excellent in their roles and are a joy to watch. Their vocals also echo the sound produced by singers of the 1930s, a touch that lends credence to their performances which are consistently exciting and alive. Clive Hayward as "Horace Hardwick" and Rebecca Thornhill as his wife, "Madge", are also perfectly suited to their parts with Thornhill getting some wonderful lines which she plays for all they're worth! Amongst the funniest performances of the evening were those of John Conroy as trusted valet, "Bates" (who becomes a 'master' of disguise throughout the evening and who offers many familial quotes to live by along the way), and Sebastien Torkia as Italian designer, "Alberto Beddini", who almost steals the scenes he's in of act 2.
There are a number of moments that the show can claim as highlights but, perhaps, the most quintessential is the musical number "Cheek to Cheek" (more commonly known as "Heaven") which is an utterly entrancing and beautiful sequence. A total joy to experience, "Top Hat" is a perfect example of a jubilant night out at the theatre and one could do far worse than see this happiness-inducing production.
Friday, 14 November 2014
"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!
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!
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
"Black Coffee", Theatre Royal Glasgow, 3/11/14
Review for Backstage Pass:
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2014/11/theatre-review-black-coffee-theatre.html
Agatha Christie's first foray into playwriting was a reaction to her dislike at previous adaptations by others of her work. Rather than adapt one of her existing novels she instead created a totally new piece for the theatre. Unimpressed by previous portrayals of her creation "Poirot" she elected to place him into her play and show all how it should be done. The result was "Black Coffee" which premiered in 1930 and has been seen on occasion in repertory in the intervening years.
This new production has been running a little while now and continues its steady march around the UK with Jason Durr of "Heartbeat" fame replacing Robert Powell in the role of "Poirot".
Plot-wise, Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings are invited to the house of Sir Claude Amory in relation to the theft of a formula he has created. It is fortunate he did so as he is murdered only moments before the two arrive and Poirot is soon putting his "little grey cells" to use. It's quite the usual Christie fare complete with her typical light-hearted digs at foreigners and servants but her first effort at writing for the stage employ the gifts of structure and plotting that she was famed for to good effect.
Simon Scullion's art deco set is appropriately sleek and contains some fine details such as the geometric rug and artwork while the costumes by Nikki Bird and the lighting by Douglas Kuhrt are appropriate and unobtrusive. The incidental music by Matthew Bugg is essentially pointless but inoffensive whilst his composition for the opening and closing of the acts is reminiscent of the main theme to the "Poirot" television show, complete with saxophone. No coincidence, methinks.
Joe Harmston's direction is assured and generally keeps events moving with only the second act threatening to drag slightly. Act three, however, quickly steps up the pace and brings the events of the play to a satisfying, if somewhat obvious, close.
The cast are strong and one feels that they are having quite a bit of fun with it all with the humour being brought out of the text as much as possible. Of course, the play is of its time and no real effort has been made to fight against that fact and thus some of the acting can come across as heightened and a trifle melodramatic, if not hammy, but I don't really think this is a negative given the nature of this production. There are some rather dodgy accents which drop here and there but, again, this is part of the charm of the play.
As "Poirot", Jason Durr was something of a surprise; although his accent is too French for a Belgian and marred a little of his diction, and his physicality needs a little work (his walk is too stiff at times) he is humorous and charming when appropriate and clearly plays the part with sincerity and, despite appearing too young for the role, he is a commanding presence whose interpretation comes across as a darker "Poirot" than one expects. His portrayal, rather than emulating David Suchet, echoes the performance of Albert Finney at times but is very much his own and, with a little more work, shows promise to be a great portrayal of Agatha Christie's most famous character.
All in all this is an entertaining, glossy and sturdy production complete with enjoyable performances that serves as a wonderful introduction to the world of Agatha Christie on stage, replete with all the hallmarks that Dame Christie excelled at.
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2014/11/theatre-review-black-coffee-theatre.html
Agatha Christie's first foray into playwriting was a reaction to her dislike at previous adaptations by others of her work. Rather than adapt one of her existing novels she instead created a totally new piece for the theatre. Unimpressed by previous portrayals of her creation "Poirot" she elected to place him into her play and show all how it should be done. The result was "Black Coffee" which premiered in 1930 and has been seen on occasion in repertory in the intervening years.
This new production has been running a little while now and continues its steady march around the UK with Jason Durr of "Heartbeat" fame replacing Robert Powell in the role of "Poirot".
Plot-wise, Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings are invited to the house of Sir Claude Amory in relation to the theft of a formula he has created. It is fortunate he did so as he is murdered only moments before the two arrive and Poirot is soon putting his "little grey cells" to use. It's quite the usual Christie fare complete with her typical light-hearted digs at foreigners and servants but her first effort at writing for the stage employ the gifts of structure and plotting that she was famed for to good effect.
Simon Scullion's art deco set is appropriately sleek and contains some fine details such as the geometric rug and artwork while the costumes by Nikki Bird and the lighting by Douglas Kuhrt are appropriate and unobtrusive. The incidental music by Matthew Bugg is essentially pointless but inoffensive whilst his composition for the opening and closing of the acts is reminiscent of the main theme to the "Poirot" television show, complete with saxophone. No coincidence, methinks.
Joe Harmston's direction is assured and generally keeps events moving with only the second act threatening to drag slightly. Act three, however, quickly steps up the pace and brings the events of the play to a satisfying, if somewhat obvious, close.
The cast are strong and one feels that they are having quite a bit of fun with it all with the humour being brought out of the text as much as possible. Of course, the play is of its time and no real effort has been made to fight against that fact and thus some of the acting can come across as heightened and a trifle melodramatic, if not hammy, but I don't really think this is a negative given the nature of this production. There are some rather dodgy accents which drop here and there but, again, this is part of the charm of the play.
As "Poirot", Jason Durr was something of a surprise; although his accent is too French for a Belgian and marred a little of his diction, and his physicality needs a little work (his walk is too stiff at times) he is humorous and charming when appropriate and clearly plays the part with sincerity and, despite appearing too young for the role, he is a commanding presence whose interpretation comes across as a darker "Poirot" than one expects. His portrayal, rather than emulating David Suchet, echoes the performance of Albert Finney at times but is very much his own and, with a little more work, shows promise to be a great portrayal of Agatha Christie's most famous character.
All in all this is an entertaining, glossy and sturdy production complete with enjoyable performances that serves as a wonderful introduction to the world of Agatha Christie on stage, replete with all the hallmarks that Dame Christie excelled at.
Tuesday, 28 October 2014
"Dangerous Corner", Theatre Royal Glasgow, 27/10/14
A review written for Backstage Pass
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2014/10/theatre-review-dangerous-corner-theatre.html
As far as playwrights go, J B Priestley certainly must rank amongst the more famous and popular following productions of "An Inspector Calls" in the last few decades and this new touring production of "Dangerous Corner" is a solid presentation of what was his first attempt at writing for the stage.
Its plot revolves around a group of well-to-do people at a social gathering whose lives start to unravel when uncomfortable truths begin to emerge following the painful revelations of lies and deceit concerning the theft of money and the resulting suicide of someone close to all those present this particular night.
Upon entering the auditorium songs of the period are heard and the audience are confronted with an elegant set whose angles belie its outward appearance: Something perilous lurks under the outer façade of respectability. Gary McCann is responsible for the design and his costumes are also gloriously realised whilst the effective lighting is by Tim Mitchell.
Direction by Michael Attenborough is suitably moody and heady though static at times and the pace could be improved upon in places whilst the sometimes heightened performance style is a little inconsistent.
The cast are generally strong with each actor confident in his or her role and this includes Rosie Armstrong and Susanna Herbert who, on this occasion, covered the roles of "Olwen Peel" and "Miss Mockridge" respectively.
As "Robert Caplan" Colin Buchanan is a little clunky at times although this may be down more to direction than the actor's choices.
Finty Williams as "Freda Caplan" is spirited, lively and hugely entertaining whilst Michael Praed as "Charles Stanton" is the most natural with Priestley's text and the most physically at ease and is thus perfectly suited to his character who has some of the most funny lines which Praed delivers effortlessly and dryly.
Altogether this is a sound production which, following a slow start, soon gears up toward a most intriguing climax.
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2014/10/theatre-review-dangerous-corner-theatre.html
As far as playwrights go, J B Priestley certainly must rank amongst the more famous and popular following productions of "An Inspector Calls" in the last few decades and this new touring production of "Dangerous Corner" is a solid presentation of what was his first attempt at writing for the stage.
Its plot revolves around a group of well-to-do people at a social gathering whose lives start to unravel when uncomfortable truths begin to emerge following the painful revelations of lies and deceit concerning the theft of money and the resulting suicide of someone close to all those present this particular night.
Upon entering the auditorium songs of the period are heard and the audience are confronted with an elegant set whose angles belie its outward appearance: Something perilous lurks under the outer façade of respectability. Gary McCann is responsible for the design and his costumes are also gloriously realised whilst the effective lighting is by Tim Mitchell.
Direction by Michael Attenborough is suitably moody and heady though static at times and the pace could be improved upon in places whilst the sometimes heightened performance style is a little inconsistent.
The cast are generally strong with each actor confident in his or her role and this includes Rosie Armstrong and Susanna Herbert who, on this occasion, covered the roles of "Olwen Peel" and "Miss Mockridge" respectively.
As "Robert Caplan" Colin Buchanan is a little clunky at times although this may be down more to direction than the actor's choices.
Finty Williams as "Freda Caplan" is spirited, lively and hugely entertaining whilst Michael Praed as "Charles Stanton" is the most natural with Priestley's text and the most physically at ease and is thus perfectly suited to his character who has some of the most funny lines which Praed delivers effortlessly and dryly.
Altogether this is a sound production which, following a slow start, soon gears up toward a most intriguing climax.
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
"The Mousetrap", Theatre Royal Glasgow, 15/9/14
A review written for Backstage Pass
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2014/09/theatre-review-mousetrap-theatre-royal.html
The 60th anniversary tour of the World's longest running play continues on as the London production approaches its 62nd anniversary in a production that is both nostalgic, classy, humorous and intriguing.
Whilst there are those who lament the continued success of "The Mousetrap" (yes, seriously) it remains one of the prime examples of the talents of Agatha Christie who, whilst never considering herself a great writer, never failed to create a puzzle that would capture the imagination of her readers and audiences.
Of course the play's plot and dialogue is of a certain period but that is part of its charm and the cast handle it very naturally whilst inhabiting a physical production with ease and energy. True, the play is the epitome of the country house whodunit, but ask yourself; so what? What is wrong with that?
The attraction of the play is the conundrum that Christie presents in a world inhabited by ebullient characters that the audience clearly enjoy watching. It is no crime (pun intended) to be entertained by something that never pretends to be anything but frivolous fun.
The plot of the play revolves around several seemingly unconnected characters who end up in the same snow-bound guest house. Once ensconced within the walls of Monkswell Manor it is not long before Police Sergeant Trotter arrives to warn them all of the suspected presence of a murderer within their midst. At the close of act one that murderer strikes and the game is underway...
So successful is Christie in her plotting that the final reveal still elicits gasps from the audience. She is, no doubt, aided by the crisp direction of Ian Watt-Smith and his excellent cast, amongst whom there is no weak link. It is difficult to single out any one performer in such a strong ensemble and so I shan't. I shall instead say that Helen Clapp, Michael Fenner, Christopher Gilling, Luke Jenkins, Anne Kavanagh, Charlotte Latham, Henry Luxemburg and Stephen Yeo work very well together and inhabit their characters in a very natural way, utilising Christie's sometimes heightened language in a most appropriate manner, rendering what could be performed in a clichéd, hammy way into something that belongs far more in the realm of realism. Indeed it is only Christie's epilogue that breaks that illusion, but this is a minor quibble.
There must be a reason why the play has been so successful and you could do worse than to find it out for yourself.
http://www.backstagepass.biz/2014/09/theatre-review-mousetrap-theatre-royal.html
The 60th anniversary tour of the World's longest running play continues on as the London production approaches its 62nd anniversary in a production that is both nostalgic, classy, humorous and intriguing.
Whilst there are those who lament the continued success of "The Mousetrap" (yes, seriously) it remains one of the prime examples of the talents of Agatha Christie who, whilst never considering herself a great writer, never failed to create a puzzle that would capture the imagination of her readers and audiences.
Of course the play's plot and dialogue is of a certain period but that is part of its charm and the cast handle it very naturally whilst inhabiting a physical production with ease and energy. True, the play is the epitome of the country house whodunit, but ask yourself; so what? What is wrong with that?
The attraction of the play is the conundrum that Christie presents in a world inhabited by ebullient characters that the audience clearly enjoy watching. It is no crime (pun intended) to be entertained by something that never pretends to be anything but frivolous fun.
The plot of the play revolves around several seemingly unconnected characters who end up in the same snow-bound guest house. Once ensconced within the walls of Monkswell Manor it is not long before Police Sergeant Trotter arrives to warn them all of the suspected presence of a murderer within their midst. At the close of act one that murderer strikes and the game is underway...
So successful is Christie in her plotting that the final reveal still elicits gasps from the audience. She is, no doubt, aided by the crisp direction of Ian Watt-Smith and his excellent cast, amongst whom there is no weak link. It is difficult to single out any one performer in such a strong ensemble and so I shan't. I shall instead say that Helen Clapp, Michael Fenner, Christopher Gilling, Luke Jenkins, Anne Kavanagh, Charlotte Latham, Henry Luxemburg and Stephen Yeo work very well together and inhabit their characters in a very natural way, utilising Christie's sometimes heightened language in a most appropriate manner, rendering what could be performed in a clichéd, hammy way into something that belongs far more in the realm of realism. Indeed it is only Christie's epilogue that breaks that illusion, but this is a minor quibble.
There must be a reason why the play has been so successful and you could do worse than to find it out for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)