It's been like old times over the past three weeks, where I've actually had the chance to read and watch films. I'm nowhere near my target of watching all of the DVDs that I own which I haven't yet watched, but I have at least made a good start. It's not my fault that I'm an Amazon.com addict.
The reading side has not been so good, but I have re-read The Great Gatbsy in preparation for school. The other three books on the reading list haven't been opened yet, but I thought I could do that on holiday. In my defence, I have been reading French literature.
So, here are the mini film reviews:
Die Welle (The Wave) (2008)
I find it odd that several French films (Amélie (2000) is a really good example of this) are fairly well known in Britain, but it is rare that you ever notice films in other languages, other than English (or should we say American English) in the mainstream, pop culture world. Anyway, it really surprised me that Die Welle is not more well known in England.
The film was an almost perfect look at the affects of a dictatorship, examining how different pupils reacted when a teacher decided to create his own mini-dictatorship in a classroom. In the same way that it is done so well in The History Boys (2006), each of the individual pupils that the story focuses on were developped enough to make it not feel rushed, and that there was even a point to them being in the film. I really enjoyed all of the performances, and was engaged throughout.
78/100
Toy Story 3 (2010)
See previous post about this, although I would like to add that the audience in the cinema reminded me of one of the reasons why I don't normally go and see blockbusters.
This rating is really difficult to decide, maybe 62/100?
Venus (2006)
I always love it when I find a British film with big stars (in this case, Peter O'Toole) attatched, because it usually means it's going to be a worthwhile project which has a special uniqueness rarely found in Hollywood. With Venus, this was definitely the case. A quirky, true to life account of a friendship between an old man and a girl in her late teens, across class divide and age. It was humourous in places, yet so poignant in others. A really pleasurable way to spend a couple of hours, without using too many brain cells, but at the same time, not losing any.
71/100
Nowhere Boy (2009)
I had been looking forward to seeing this for so long, and I wasn't disapointed. This is fast becoming one of my favourite films of 2009. I am also becoming scandalised at the lack of attention the film received at the Academy Awards, but that post will come later.
Nowhere Boy tells the story of John Lennon's teenage years, and how the Beatles formed. I had never seen Aaron Johnson act before - I was only familiar with him due to his well documented (by the media) relationship with Sam Taylor-Wood, who is, of course, the director of this film. I was pleasantly surprised by his performance, and thought he managed to convey a range of emotions well.
Anne-Marie Duff's performance was also really good, but for me, the standout performance came from Kristin Scott-Thomas, who is one of my favourite actresses. The main reason for her performance being so great was that she managed to convey so many emotions through a character which was, shall we say, economical with speech. I truly felt for her, even though the audience were probably suppoosed to empathise with the protagonist the most.
I loved the way the film was shot, and even though I've never been a paticular fan of The Beatles I really did enjoy the story. My Mum liked it too, which is good because often she doesn't appreciate my choice of film...
Rating: 82/100
Belleville Rendez-Vous (2003)
I've been trying to watch as many French films as possible to help improve my French, but this film really didn't help. I watched it for forty five minutes before giving up! It's an animated film, but the only speech seemed to be on the radio, and even this was only for around three minutes.
The style of animation was lovely, but I didn't understand what was going on, thus couldn't find the overall point/message that the film was trying to convey. So, I gave up. Considering that the total run time was just over eighty minutes, I had watched over half of it, so thought that was justified.
Rating: 39/100
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1982)
I believe this is the original production of the musical, filmed live in Los Angeles on tour. All I can say is....wow!
I have now been able to forgive Hal Prince for the disaster that was Paradise Found. I loved the way he directed this, because despite the huge stage he managed to make the piece feel intimate. Narrative based musicals are my favourite, and Sondheim is my favourite composer, so this was heaven for me. The ending moved me to tears, and I'm now really looking forward to the Chichester production next year, which will hopefully star Michael Ball and Imelda Staunton.
What wasn't to love about it? Now, there is no way I want to see the Tim Burton film, at least not until I've seen a stage production. I fell in love with (even though I didn't know it at the time) Angela Lansbury's voice when I was about five, courtesy of Beauty and the Beast. I thought she owned the role of Mrs. Lovett, making her so loveable it was hard to believe what she was doing! George Hearn was a brilliant Sweeney, complementing Lansbury and showing true emotion. I didn't really like the character of Anthony, just an annoying pretty boy with no personality really, but Cris Groenendaal, who played him, did very well with what little he had. The rest of the supporting cast were also good, as were the ensemble. Something which made the musical work was definitely The Ballad of Sweeney Todd, reprised at various points throughout the show.
Now, I'm just excited about Chichester. I may buy the DVD of the concert version in the interim, because I've heard that Neil Patrick Harris is the best Tobias ever? Plus, I am partial to a bit of Patti LuPone!
Rating: 91/100
Sideways (2004)
Typical, male orientated comedy. It was actually quite funny in places, and quite a relaxing way to spend an afternoon. Dennis Quaid's not the best actor, but he was actually quite amusing, if a little irritating, in this. Paul Giamitti was great as usual. Unfortunately, the ending was so clichéd, but I suppose people need that sometimes.
Rating: 54/100
Moon (2009)
Yet another British film from last year. Yet again another fantastic British film from last year. Moon is an incredibly simple, but incredibly significant, film. I don't normally watch sci-fi films, but I was tempted by this, which I was given fro Christmas, but only just got round to watching.
The story centres on Sam Bell (played by Sam Rockwell) who is alone and isolated on a space craft, save for GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), who Sam depends on, despite it being merely a machine. The film shows the effects of extreme isolation, and also the danger of cloning, when a clone of Sam is produced. Overall, the action is quite slow, but the characters are engaging enough that this is not really a problem.
Rating: 73/100
The Private Lives of Pippa Lee (2009)
One review claimed that the film "resonates with every woman". Obviously, I'm not yet a woman, but I could definitely find a lot in the characters to empathise with. The film centres around Pippa (played splendidly by Robin Wright) and her life story. The film could be considered an ensemble drama, because it is mainly about how others in her life have been the predominant factor in deciding its course, showing how we cannot go through life alone, and much of what happens to us is determined by other people.
I was pleasantly surprised by Blake Lively's performance as the younger version of Pippa, however it seems to me that Alan Arkin always plays the same type of character with exactly the same mannerisms, which is starting to irritate me just a little bit. I wouldn't say the film was amazing, but it was definitely well made, well acted and thought provoking.
Rating: 75/100
Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway (2008)
It may be a cliché, but Rent is still my favourite musical. Watching this just reiterated to me the truly amazing feeling that Rent can create in you, as well as the captivating characters. It reminded me of that amazing night in Eastbourne, and how annoying it is that I never got to see the original production on Broadway.
Rating: 98/100 (But it's not really a film, so this doesn't really count!)
The Princess and the Warrior (2000)
Tom Tykwer is fast becoming one of my favourite directors. I think The Princess and the Warrior is my favourite of all the German films that I've seen so far. Sissi (Franka Potente - my favourite German actress, who is brilliant both as Sissi and in the title role of Lola Rennt (1998)) is a nurse, living a secluded life in the home where she works. This is until she becomes involved in a road accident, caused by Bodo (Benno Fuermann). From then on, she is determined to be with him. Along the way, we find out more about both of the characters. The film is a modern fairytale, made in Tykwer's unique way.
Rating: 88/100
Up in the Air (2009)
Entertaining? Yes. Worthy of an Oscar nomination for best picture? I'm inclined to say yes, so it was lucky that there were ten slots this year, else it probbaly wouldn't have got the honour it deserved.
I loved the cast of the film. Vera Farmiga is on my list of awesome actresses that mainly do independent films, or only have supporting roles in mainstream films, who I always try to look out for. Here, she was brilliant, although I feel that her performance in Orphan (2009) was a bit better. Or maybe it was just a different type of performance? I'll have to think about that one.
Anyway, the film follows George Clooney, playing a man who is in the business of firing people for a living. On one sphere, he is lucky because he gets to fly all over America to do so, but on another sphere he is dreadfully unlucky, because he has no real relationships in his life. That's where Alex (Vera's character) comes in, for she is in a similar job and they arrange to meet when they can. Add into the equation Natalie (Anna Kendrick), who comes up with the idea of substuting travel with webcams. This is where Ryan begins to fall apart, for he faces losing his former life and must find another way to satisfy himself.
Much like Juno (2007), the ending of Reitman's film is abrupt, yet realistic, and leaves many questions in the viewer's mind about what happens next. Just like Juno, it's a quirkym original film which could so easily have blended into the background, were it not for his magic touch.
Rating: 84/100
Fish Tank (2009)
Another matter of fact film documenting a life which could be considered normal and unremarkable. Katie Jarvis, who was plucked from obscurity by director Andrea Arnold for this role, plays Mia, a tough Essex girl (I think that was the accent, anyway) who lives with an unsupportive mother and younger sister. The film documents her at the age of fifteen, with seemingly no way out of the downward spiral she is trapped in. The film is worth a look because it really shows that there is still quite a difference between richer people and poorer people in England.
Rating: 77/100
The Blind Side (2009)
The Blind Side could probably be considered as Sandra Bullock's Erin Brokovich. Admittedly, it's the only of of her films that I've seen that I've actually liked! Based on a true story, the film tells the story of Leigh Ann (Sandra), a middle class lady from Memphis, who decides, on a whim, to Big Mike (Quinton Aaron) a bed for the night, when it's clear that he has no other home to go to. Overtime, Big Mike becomes a part of their family. He becomes Michael as he builds a relationship with Leigh Ann and the rest of the family. They realise how remarkable he is at football, so the family do everything in their power to aid him in getting a college scholarhsip.
The Blind Side is a great film for showing how the class/family you are born into goes a long way into deciding your destiny. It's truly heartwarming the way Leigh Ann makes Michael a part of their family. What's even more special is that it's a true story.
I really loved Sandra's performance. Her "look" in the film was different to her usual look, and she nailed the accent perfectly. I think she really deseved to win the Oscar, and am hoping that she might choose more serious roles in the future, because she really is quite a good actress.
Rating: 72/100
Gosh, that was such a long post. I'm sorry if the comments seem vapid/pointless/generic towards the end - I've been typing this for almost two hours now. Pretty soon I should have finally finished my 2009 Oscars line up. I am fully aware that it's almost time to start 2010's, but just remember how long 2008 took!
Friday, 13 August 2010
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
You've got a friend in me...
So, it's Pixar time again. Possibly the only studio (if they are a separare studio?) that can produce animated film after animated film which satisfies adults whilst pleasing children, and doesn't result to ridiculous, unfunny slapstick jokes. I don't think that there are any Pixar films that I actually dislike. Pixar was my first film love, and I feel lucky to have been able to grow up with their films.
Toy Story 3 is the latest offering. I'll have to confess that I wasn't actually as I excited about the third installment of what is probably one of my favourite movie franchises as much as I was about Up (2009). For me, Up was something special, which rarely comes along. Despite everyone saying Toy Story 3 was amazing, and the film even receving 5 stars from The Times, which is probably one of my most reliable sources, I still wondered why I wasn't that excited.
Due to a distinct lack of excitement, I wasn't disapointed. That's not to say I was enthralled either, but at least it wasn't like a second episode of Nine (2009). Now that was one of the biggest disapointments ever.
I believe that Pixar are now curtailing the franchise, which is a good thing, to end it before it becomes tired and no one wants to see it anymore. I do feel a little annoyed everytime I see a poster for the fourth Shrek film, which no one needs.
So, back to Toy Story 3. The plot centres around Andy heading off to college, and what becomes of his toys as a result of this. He plans to store them in the attic, but unfortunately his Mum accidentally takes them to a day nursery. It is up to Woody to lead their escape, which culminates in them finding their way back to Andy's house. Overall, the action was enjoyable, with many of the little, special nuances that only Pixar could get right. For instance, the teddy bear being attatched to the rubbish truck in the same way that Stinky Pete was stowed into the pocket of the girl's rucksack in Toy Story 2, and the way that Woody and the gang are able to overcome anything.
Unfortunately, the plot was a little predictable, although the ending very moving. I think that may be an age thing, though, what with it being the time in my life when I too am thinking about moving on. The animation, though, was spot on as usual, and the humour good and never seeming forced.
I do love Joan Cusack's voice acting as Jessie, it never seems contrived, and as a fan I can instantly hear her unique tones. I think Jessie is my favourite character, after all my own Jessie doll still sitsa proudly on my bookshelves.
On the whole, it was great to relive my childhood, and to see how Pixar have managed yet again to create a good piece of entertainment. Sadly, I'm pretty sure it will not be Oscar-callibre in the way that Up was, but nevertheless it was a wonderful way to spend an hour and a half. For this reason, I've decided to rate the film at 76/100. Toy Story 2 is still my favourite of the three films.
Toy Story 3 is the latest offering. I'll have to confess that I wasn't actually as I excited about the third installment of what is probably one of my favourite movie franchises as much as I was about Up (2009). For me, Up was something special, which rarely comes along. Despite everyone saying Toy Story 3 was amazing, and the film even receving 5 stars from The Times, which is probably one of my most reliable sources, I still wondered why I wasn't that excited.
Due to a distinct lack of excitement, I wasn't disapointed. That's not to say I was enthralled either, but at least it wasn't like a second episode of Nine (2009). Now that was one of the biggest disapointments ever.
I believe that Pixar are now curtailing the franchise, which is a good thing, to end it before it becomes tired and no one wants to see it anymore. I do feel a little annoyed everytime I see a poster for the fourth Shrek film, which no one needs.
So, back to Toy Story 3. The plot centres around Andy heading off to college, and what becomes of his toys as a result of this. He plans to store them in the attic, but unfortunately his Mum accidentally takes them to a day nursery. It is up to Woody to lead their escape, which culminates in them finding their way back to Andy's house. Overall, the action was enjoyable, with many of the little, special nuances that only Pixar could get right. For instance, the teddy bear being attatched to the rubbish truck in the same way that Stinky Pete was stowed into the pocket of the girl's rucksack in Toy Story 2, and the way that Woody and the gang are able to overcome anything.
Unfortunately, the plot was a little predictable, although the ending very moving. I think that may be an age thing, though, what with it being the time in my life when I too am thinking about moving on. The animation, though, was spot on as usual, and the humour good and never seeming forced.
I do love Joan Cusack's voice acting as Jessie, it never seems contrived, and as a fan I can instantly hear her unique tones. I think Jessie is my favourite character, after all my own Jessie doll still sitsa proudly on my bookshelves.
On the whole, it was great to relive my childhood, and to see how Pixar have managed yet again to create a good piece of entertainment. Sadly, I'm pretty sure it will not be Oscar-callibre in the way that Up was, but nevertheless it was a wonderful way to spend an hour and a half. For this reason, I've decided to rate the film at 76/100. Toy Story 2 is still my favourite of the three films.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Love changes everything...
After four days in Bath, Inception the next day, then walking over 84 miles in 6 days, there was onyl one remedy. Of course, I went to the theatre. The show in question was "Aspects of Love". Now, though, after 11 days of constant activity, all I could do today was write my review and listen to the cast recording of the wonderful German musical, "Tanz der Vampire". Luckily, I now have three weeks before I go on holiday to relax. Not that I am ever physically able to relax, but you know what I mean. For now, here is my review of "Aspects of Love":
Trevor Nunn’s revival of “Aspects of Love” is the latest musical revival at the Menier Chocolate Factory. Anyone who knows me and my theatre obsession well will also know that the Menier is my favourite Off-West End theatre, and that I try and see as many of their productions as possible. I am not a fan of Andrew Lloyd-Webber by any means, but after consulting the opinions of several trusted acquaintances and listening to a few songs, I came to the conclusion that the score of “Aspects of Love” is probably one of his best scores. It is also very repetitive, like many of his other scores, but this one seems to have several layers, and reflects the simple, contemplative nature of the piece.
I am less keen on the lyrics, by Charles Hart and Don Black. It is still a mystery to me as to how love can change your hands, and I did spend a long time last night wondering how Sondheim would have written the lyrics. I’m confident that he wouldn’t have written that love changes your hands. What I’m trying to say here is that, whilst the lyrics are passable, they are nothing special. What they do succeed in doing, though, is telling a story; even if it is spelt out in as slow a way as possible.
The musical is adapted from the novel by David Garnett. I haven’t read the novel, but I quite want to now. The plot of the musical is simple: it focuses on Alex Dillingham, who falls in love with Rose Vibert, a French actress who is older than him. He invites her back to his uncle’s villa, without his permission. As they begin to fall in love, Alex’s uncle, George, unexpectedly arrives. This is where it becomes complicated, because Rose also falls in love with him. Later, she claims she has to leave, so Alex goes off and joins the army. When he returns two years later, he finds out that Rose has married his uncle. They go on to have a daughter, Jenny, who ends up falling in love with Alex. At the same time, George has an Italian mistress called Giuelletta, and Rose a lover called Hugo. All in all, the plot actually seems less complicated than it does here, because it is very drawn out. The musical is almost sung through, although there are several snatches of dialogue, which breaks it up a bit.
Overall, Act One was quite boring. It seemed to go on forever, with not much happening. It was difficult to learn anything about the characters, and impossible to gain an understanding of why they were acting this way. By contrast, Act Two seemed jam packed and almost too quick. The ending was good, because it did leave some questions in my mind, which is what I like. My consensus was that the production was very good overall, it is more flaws in the material which let it down.
The production reminded me of last year’s West End production of “Sunset Boulevard”, which, like “Aspects of Love”, was a minimalist version compared to the original productions. What “Sunset Boulevard” had that “Aspects of Love” lacked, for me, were characters which drew you in and made you really empathise and care about them, partly why I couldn’t rate this production as high as I thought I would be able to.
Trevor Nunn is one of my favourite directors. I know many people say that his productions are too slow and drawn out, but what they forget is that the pieces he choose usually lend themselves particularly to this. I thought that the direction was very good, fitting into the space well and drawing out aspects of the story. I obviously didn’t see the original production, because it closed two years before I was born, but am now wishing that I had done, because Nunn also directed this production, and it would be interesting to compare the two. I know that the original production was at the Prince of Wales in the West End, which is very large, although the piece was originally intended as a chamber musical, so it must have been wonderful to finally do it in this way. It was also clear that he had done a lot of text work with the cast, because they seemed to really feel many of the lyrics and convey emotion through them.
The set design was quirky, remaining the same throughout the production, but designed so that it could adapt to all of the scenes well. The screen in the centre of the stage was perhaps unnecessary – did we really need to see mocked up photographs of the characters when they were on stage? I sort of wish that it hadn’t been there because it wasn’t fitting with the period the piece is set in, and was a minor distraction. The rest of the set was dragged on noisily for each scene, usually by the ensemble, because the way the layout of the Menier had been changed and they way the backdrop curved round into the wings meant that tracks couldn’t be used. This was distracting, and there were quite a few long blackouts where it was just the orchestra playing. This wasn’t necessarily a problem, but would almost definitely be changed should the production transfer to the West End or beyond.
I had no idea about the plot or the characters prior to seeing the show. The only thing I really knew, other than who the composer and the director were, was that Sarah Brightman and Michael Ball had originated the two leading roles. With Brightman originating the role of Rose, I thought that the part would mainly focus on singing, and that there wouldn’t be much of a character for the actress to become, since Brightman was not rated particularly highly for her acting abilities (the fact she receive no Tony nomination for “The Phantom of the Opera” when her co-star did and the show was set to dominate is another tell-tale sign of this). However, I have since learnt that the character of Rose Vibert is complex, and difficult to pull off. Katherine Kingsley, last seen in “The 39 Steps”, did this well, although sometimes her acting was too over the top for such a small space. I didn’t really empathise with her that much, not even at the end when she was left with nothing.
When I heard that the Menier would be reviving “Aspects of Love”, I sort of hoped that Ruthie Henshall and Julian Ovenden would be cast as Rose and Alex respectively, reuniting my favourite on-stage couple, who I saw in Marguerite. With Ruthie currently on the Great White Way in “Chicago”, this was never going to happen, but at times, Kingsley really did remind me of her, both facially, in her build and through her acting.
Alex was played by Michael Arden, who wasn’t as attractive as Julian, but was definitely in the same league from a talent point of view as him. He had great stage presence, despite playing Alex very shyly in contrast to Kingsley’s Rose. At several points during the show I felt as though he was looking at me directly (I was sitting on the central aisle of the second row, so he was at my eye height), and my Dad commented on this afterwards, which made me realise that it wasn’t just me.
Overall, the two leads had good chemistry, and throughout I felt as though it was their story, and that the other characters were what they were – supporting characters. I very much enjoyed Dave Willetts’ performance as George, since I his performance as Max von Mayerling in Sunset Boulevard last year was one of my favourite performances of the year. Yet again he was one of the highlights of the show, conveying a subtle maturity and understanding. Even when his character was silent, he managed to draw my attention to him.
The ensemble were very good, despite having a lot less stage time than I suspect they would have had in the original, more flamboyant production. They only had one opportunity to dance, which was in Act Two, and this was a welcome occasion to break up the show a bit. The rest of the cast playing named characters were nothing special, their performances were good but by no means outstanding. It is worth noting, though, that Dominic Tighe, who used to be a member of the classical group Blake, played the role of Hugo, Rose’s lover, showing that he is obviously serious about pursuing a theatre career as opposed to a singing career.
Overall, I don’t feel disappointed, because everyone who I spoke to prior to seeing the show told me that it is essentially a flawed show. After Paradise Found, anything was going to be an improvement, and I’m glad that the Menier is back to producing productions of a really high quality. I’ve only given the production three and a half stars, because whilst it was good and even great in most ways, it just lacked something special that could have made me give it more.
To conclude, one of my childhood illusions was shattered yesterday. I always believed knife-throwing to be real, and that the person on the target could be seriously injured if it went wrong. During the knife throwing in the show, as part of the circus scene, I tensed every time a knife was thrown. Afterwards, my Dad told me that the knives were not actually being thrown at all – the actor was flicking them down his sleeve, and a knife was simply popping out of the board. So for my whole life I had believed that someone could be seriously injured, when all the time it was just a joke!
3.5 Stars
Trevor Nunn’s revival of “Aspects of Love” is the latest musical revival at the Menier Chocolate Factory. Anyone who knows me and my theatre obsession well will also know that the Menier is my favourite Off-West End theatre, and that I try and see as many of their productions as possible. I am not a fan of Andrew Lloyd-Webber by any means, but after consulting the opinions of several trusted acquaintances and listening to a few songs, I came to the conclusion that the score of “Aspects of Love” is probably one of his best scores. It is also very repetitive, like many of his other scores, but this one seems to have several layers, and reflects the simple, contemplative nature of the piece.
I am less keen on the lyrics, by Charles Hart and Don Black. It is still a mystery to me as to how love can change your hands, and I did spend a long time last night wondering how Sondheim would have written the lyrics. I’m confident that he wouldn’t have written that love changes your hands. What I’m trying to say here is that, whilst the lyrics are passable, they are nothing special. What they do succeed in doing, though, is telling a story; even if it is spelt out in as slow a way as possible.
The musical is adapted from the novel by David Garnett. I haven’t read the novel, but I quite want to now. The plot of the musical is simple: it focuses on Alex Dillingham, who falls in love with Rose Vibert, a French actress who is older than him. He invites her back to his uncle’s villa, without his permission. As they begin to fall in love, Alex’s uncle, George, unexpectedly arrives. This is where it becomes complicated, because Rose also falls in love with him. Later, she claims she has to leave, so Alex goes off and joins the army. When he returns two years later, he finds out that Rose has married his uncle. They go on to have a daughter, Jenny, who ends up falling in love with Alex. At the same time, George has an Italian mistress called Giuelletta, and Rose a lover called Hugo. All in all, the plot actually seems less complicated than it does here, because it is very drawn out. The musical is almost sung through, although there are several snatches of dialogue, which breaks it up a bit.
Overall, Act One was quite boring. It seemed to go on forever, with not much happening. It was difficult to learn anything about the characters, and impossible to gain an understanding of why they were acting this way. By contrast, Act Two seemed jam packed and almost too quick. The ending was good, because it did leave some questions in my mind, which is what I like. My consensus was that the production was very good overall, it is more flaws in the material which let it down.
The production reminded me of last year’s West End production of “Sunset Boulevard”, which, like “Aspects of Love”, was a minimalist version compared to the original productions. What “Sunset Boulevard” had that “Aspects of Love” lacked, for me, were characters which drew you in and made you really empathise and care about them, partly why I couldn’t rate this production as high as I thought I would be able to.
Trevor Nunn is one of my favourite directors. I know many people say that his productions are too slow and drawn out, but what they forget is that the pieces he choose usually lend themselves particularly to this. I thought that the direction was very good, fitting into the space well and drawing out aspects of the story. I obviously didn’t see the original production, because it closed two years before I was born, but am now wishing that I had done, because Nunn also directed this production, and it would be interesting to compare the two. I know that the original production was at the Prince of Wales in the West End, which is very large, although the piece was originally intended as a chamber musical, so it must have been wonderful to finally do it in this way. It was also clear that he had done a lot of text work with the cast, because they seemed to really feel many of the lyrics and convey emotion through them.
The set design was quirky, remaining the same throughout the production, but designed so that it could adapt to all of the scenes well. The screen in the centre of the stage was perhaps unnecessary – did we really need to see mocked up photographs of the characters when they were on stage? I sort of wish that it hadn’t been there because it wasn’t fitting with the period the piece is set in, and was a minor distraction. The rest of the set was dragged on noisily for each scene, usually by the ensemble, because the way the layout of the Menier had been changed and they way the backdrop curved round into the wings meant that tracks couldn’t be used. This was distracting, and there were quite a few long blackouts where it was just the orchestra playing. This wasn’t necessarily a problem, but would almost definitely be changed should the production transfer to the West End or beyond.
I had no idea about the plot or the characters prior to seeing the show. The only thing I really knew, other than who the composer and the director were, was that Sarah Brightman and Michael Ball had originated the two leading roles. With Brightman originating the role of Rose, I thought that the part would mainly focus on singing, and that there wouldn’t be much of a character for the actress to become, since Brightman was not rated particularly highly for her acting abilities (the fact she receive no Tony nomination for “The Phantom of the Opera” when her co-star did and the show was set to dominate is another tell-tale sign of this). However, I have since learnt that the character of Rose Vibert is complex, and difficult to pull off. Katherine Kingsley, last seen in “The 39 Steps”, did this well, although sometimes her acting was too over the top for such a small space. I didn’t really empathise with her that much, not even at the end when she was left with nothing.
When I heard that the Menier would be reviving “Aspects of Love”, I sort of hoped that Ruthie Henshall and Julian Ovenden would be cast as Rose and Alex respectively, reuniting my favourite on-stage couple, who I saw in Marguerite. With Ruthie currently on the Great White Way in “Chicago”, this was never going to happen, but at times, Kingsley really did remind me of her, both facially, in her build and through her acting.
Alex was played by Michael Arden, who wasn’t as attractive as Julian, but was definitely in the same league from a talent point of view as him. He had great stage presence, despite playing Alex very shyly in contrast to Kingsley’s Rose. At several points during the show I felt as though he was looking at me directly (I was sitting on the central aisle of the second row, so he was at my eye height), and my Dad commented on this afterwards, which made me realise that it wasn’t just me.
Overall, the two leads had good chemistry, and throughout I felt as though it was their story, and that the other characters were what they were – supporting characters. I very much enjoyed Dave Willetts’ performance as George, since I his performance as Max von Mayerling in Sunset Boulevard last year was one of my favourite performances of the year. Yet again he was one of the highlights of the show, conveying a subtle maturity and understanding. Even when his character was silent, he managed to draw my attention to him.
The ensemble were very good, despite having a lot less stage time than I suspect they would have had in the original, more flamboyant production. They only had one opportunity to dance, which was in Act Two, and this was a welcome occasion to break up the show a bit. The rest of the cast playing named characters were nothing special, their performances were good but by no means outstanding. It is worth noting, though, that Dominic Tighe, who used to be a member of the classical group Blake, played the role of Hugo, Rose’s lover, showing that he is obviously serious about pursuing a theatre career as opposed to a singing career.
Overall, I don’t feel disappointed, because everyone who I spoke to prior to seeing the show told me that it is essentially a flawed show. After Paradise Found, anything was going to be an improvement, and I’m glad that the Menier is back to producing productions of a really high quality. I’ve only given the production three and a half stars, because whilst it was good and even great in most ways, it just lacked something special that could have made me give it more.
To conclude, one of my childhood illusions was shattered yesterday. I always believed knife-throwing to be real, and that the person on the target could be seriously injured if it went wrong. During the knife throwing in the show, as part of the circus scene, I tensed every time a knife was thrown. Afterwards, my Dad told me that the knives were not actually being thrown at all – the actor was flicking them down his sleeve, and a knife was simply popping out of the board. So for my whole life I had believed that someone could be seriously injured, when all the time it was just a joke!
3.5 Stars
Saturday, 17 July 2010
The screen? It's quite big...
As a matter of fact, the screen in the London South Bank IMAX is the biggest screen in the country. It was my first time at the IMAX today, and an excellent chance to see a film in crystal clear detail. The only problem witht eh size of the screen though, was that it was impossible to look at everything at once. Other than that, though, there were no problems at all. It also has to be noted how comfortable the seats were, and also how well behaved the audience was. It's been ages since the last time I was in a completely full cinema, but there were no people talking, or rustling, or using their mobile phones anywhere near me, which was very refreshing to see.
I know it's comments like this that make me seem really old, in a bad way, but little things like this are important.
The film my family and I saw was Inception. I had been looking forward to this for over a year, eve rsicne I read the final details on casting. For once, unlike the Nine (2009) disaster, all my expectations were met, and some were even surpassed, hence why I've given the film 96/100.
Directed by Christopher Nolan, Inception centres around the concept of creating a new world through dreaming. After being enthralled by one of Nolan's earlier pieces of work, The Prestige (2006), which is another intelligent concept thriller, which is importantly also character driven, I was expecting more of the same standard, and was not disapointed. The ending was of course a final twist which ties everything together for the viewer. Much of the cinematography was also the same as The Prestige, and the special effects were good - there were not too much, and all served a purpose, it wasn't just a case of the CGI people seeing how many explosions they can cram into one film.
The Dark Knight (2008), another film by the same director, is fairly violent for something rated 12A. Luckily, Inception was less violent, and was not set as darkly at The Dark Knight,amking for much easier watching. The script was excellent, because it moved the story along and ensured that I never became bored. Many articles in the press claimed how ahrd the plot was to follow/understand, even comparing it to The Matrix, but it was actually easier to follow/understand than The Prestige.
Now, I can finally talk about the cast that I was so excited about. Having graduated to watching more serious films through Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in Titanic (1997), his is a career that I've always been interested in following. Although his character was similar to some of the characters that he's played before, he still carried the film and delivered an engaging performance. He managed to play a character who didn't understand himself very convincingly, which is probably difficult, because an actor interpreting a role would obviously understand their character, so to convey that was really quite an achievement.
Marion Cotillard as the wife of Leo's character was stunning in what little screen time she had. When I watched La Vie en Rose (2007), I hated everything about the film, except for her performance, and she quickly became one of my favourite French actresses. There was this one scene, in Inception, where her feeling of desperation just connected with me, and really made me feel for her.
Of the ensemble cast, the two real standouts were in Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, two quirky young actors. Whilst Page tends to play a lot of similar roles, she does play them well, and I always seem to be able to relate to her characters.
So far, I've only seen three 2010 films, and it's over halfway through the year. Of the three I've seen, I can firmly say that Inception has been the best by a long way, and will have a good shot at the Oscars, although the July release may hinder this a little.
I know it's comments like this that make me seem really old, in a bad way, but little things like this are important.
The film my family and I saw was Inception. I had been looking forward to this for over a year, eve rsicne I read the final details on casting. For once, unlike the Nine (2009) disaster, all my expectations were met, and some were even surpassed, hence why I've given the film 96/100.
Directed by Christopher Nolan, Inception centres around the concept of creating a new world through dreaming. After being enthralled by one of Nolan's earlier pieces of work, The Prestige (2006), which is another intelligent concept thriller, which is importantly also character driven, I was expecting more of the same standard, and was not disapointed. The ending was of course a final twist which ties everything together for the viewer. Much of the cinematography was also the same as The Prestige, and the special effects were good - there were not too much, and all served a purpose, it wasn't just a case of the CGI people seeing how many explosions they can cram into one film.
The Dark Knight (2008), another film by the same director, is fairly violent for something rated 12A. Luckily, Inception was less violent, and was not set as darkly at The Dark Knight,amking for much easier watching. The script was excellent, because it moved the story along and ensured that I never became bored. Many articles in the press claimed how ahrd the plot was to follow/understand, even comparing it to The Matrix, but it was actually easier to follow/understand than The Prestige.
Now, I can finally talk about the cast that I was so excited about. Having graduated to watching more serious films through Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in Titanic (1997), his is a career that I've always been interested in following. Although his character was similar to some of the characters that he's played before, he still carried the film and delivered an engaging performance. He managed to play a character who didn't understand himself very convincingly, which is probably difficult, because an actor interpreting a role would obviously understand their character, so to convey that was really quite an achievement.
Marion Cotillard as the wife of Leo's character was stunning in what little screen time she had. When I watched La Vie en Rose (2007), I hated everything about the film, except for her performance, and she quickly became one of my favourite French actresses. There was this one scene, in Inception, where her feeling of desperation just connected with me, and really made me feel for her.
Of the ensemble cast, the two real standouts were in Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, two quirky young actors. Whilst Page tends to play a lot of similar roles, she does play them well, and I always seem to be able to relate to her characters.
So far, I've only seen three 2010 films, and it's over halfway through the year. Of the three I've seen, I can firmly say that Inception has been the best by a long way, and will have a good shot at the Oscars, although the July release may hinder this a little.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
There are giants in the sky...
My new favourite song from "Into the Woods". It's hard to believe that I have never seen a Sondheim musical on stage, ever, despite knowing Sweeny Todd, Gypsy, Into the Woods and Assasins off by heart, and being the owner of a well thumbed copy of an excellent biography. This year is, of course, his eightieth birthday, so I'm pleased that I will be seeing "Into the Woods" at one of my favourite theatres. The theatre in question is Regent's Park Open Air Theatre, and we're seeing the show the Saturday after I've found out my GCSE results.
If my results are as good as I hope, it will be a really great way of celebrating. If they're not, it'll be a way of consoling myself. As of today, it's only 45 days until results day.
This summer is the second longest summer of my life. The longest will be the summer after A Levels, which will hopefully precede university. So far, I haven't actually become bored, and I don't think I will. I organised my bookshelves today, and realised that I have 48 books that I haven't yet read, and there were also a further 15 books that I've borrowed from various people and libraries, all of which are unopened. Several of these are Moliere, though, which is a very daunting task, considering they are in French, with no translations. I'm looking forward to reading as many of these books as possible, and watching the eighteen DVDs which are still in their cellophane. I've recently got an Amazon account, and whilst the six French and German grammar books were brought with good intent, it's another thing to actually start using them productively.
Sigh. It's so hot at the moment, over 30 degrees. The title of the post of course refers to the song. Whenever I'm nervous, or feel alone, for some reason I always remind myself that there are giants in the sky. The lyric "you wish that you could live in between" has to be one of my many favourite Sondheim lyrics. I do wish I could live in between, though I'm not quite sure what I want to live in between. Could it be my lovely yet slightly dull life at home, and the glittering future life I imagine myself having? Or could it be between my life, and the life I want to have? Regarding the latter, my life actually seems amazing at the moment, I'm just so happy with everything.
I will now head back to daydream land, probably to climb the beanstalk with Jack. It's most unlike me to post a blog like this, my posts have lately become rather personal, and I have no idea why!
If my results are as good as I hope, it will be a really great way of celebrating. If they're not, it'll be a way of consoling myself. As of today, it's only 45 days until results day.
This summer is the second longest summer of my life. The longest will be the summer after A Levels, which will hopefully precede university. So far, I haven't actually become bored, and I don't think I will. I organised my bookshelves today, and realised that I have 48 books that I haven't yet read, and there were also a further 15 books that I've borrowed from various people and libraries, all of which are unopened. Several of these are Moliere, though, which is a very daunting task, considering they are in French, with no translations. I'm looking forward to reading as many of these books as possible, and watching the eighteen DVDs which are still in their cellophane. I've recently got an Amazon account, and whilst the six French and German grammar books were brought with good intent, it's another thing to actually start using them productively.
Sigh. It's so hot at the moment, over 30 degrees. The title of the post of course refers to the song. Whenever I'm nervous, or feel alone, for some reason I always remind myself that there are giants in the sky. The lyric "you wish that you could live in between" has to be one of my many favourite Sondheim lyrics. I do wish I could live in between, though I'm not quite sure what I want to live in between. Could it be my lovely yet slightly dull life at home, and the glittering future life I imagine myself having? Or could it be between my life, and the life I want to have? Regarding the latter, my life actually seems amazing at the moment, I'm just so happy with everything.
I will now head back to daydream land, probably to climb the beanstalk with Jack. It's most unlike me to post a blog like this, my posts have lately become rather personal, and I have no idea why!
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Reflection...
...is of course the title of the Disney song which I feel resonates most powefully with me at this time in my life. The song, from Mulan, communicates precisely how a young woman can feel as though she is never good enough for anyone else, and how she feels unable to be herself and has realised that people do not see who she really is from the outside. This is exactly how I feel at certain times. Alan Menken just has a gift of writing songs about female angst, which can either be taken at face value, or analysed deeply, my other favourites being "Part of Your World" from "The Little Mermaid" and "Somewhere that's Green" from "Little Shop of Horrors".
I have just become completely sidetracked by the wonderful world of Alan Menken. The title was actually meant to refer to the week long work experience exchange to France that I have just taken part in. I was going to post a daily diary, but I realised how boring that would be for anyone else except myself to read. Considering also that my trip diary currently stands at about forty handwritten notebook pages, it's better for mine, and everyone else's, sanity just to summarise here the main things I've learnt from the trip. That's not to say my full trip diary won't be compulsory reading for a few, very lucky people.
Reflections:
I feel as though I've learnt many things about the language which I would never have learnt simply by studying at school. There is quite a difference between written French and spoken French, and there are very obvious differing degrees of formality, a lot more so than I would say there were in English. For instance, I regularly heard the subjunctive whilst on my placement at the town hall, but less formal conversations usually omitted the "ne" when using a negative, and often considered mainly of short, one sentence answers.
I was actually a lot better at speaking than I thought I would be. Okay, I did get several genders wrong, but then there is no equivalent to this in English. I also finally learnt when to use the imperfect/perfect tenses, and am hopeful that my previously laughable pronounciation has improved. I assume it has, because I managed to convince a man on the ferry home that I was French.
I think I have now found a new motivation for French. Prior to this trip, I was leaning so heavily towards German, but now, for the first time, I think that the two langauges are balanced in my mind, if that makes any sense at all. French sounds so lovely when it's spoken, and the intonation isn't as hard as I thought. I'm still not quite sure how to intone annoyance, but I'm sure that will follow sometime in the future.
Aside from the language side, I've also learnt many cultural things. It saddened me that the majority of the films showing in the cinema were dubbed American films, when French cinema has some of the most inspiring, unique offerings that I have ever seen. I was allowed to choose the film, so I chose the only French film showing, which, funnily enough, had received the highest critical acclaim. This situation is similar to in Britain, where there are usually a dozen or so imported, monotonously repetitive Hollywood comedies for every British/independent film.
Many of the celebrities in the magazines I read were also American or British, although I did learn a fair bit about the French socialite scene. I also noticed the complete lack of WAGs in the press, which was nice to see. I seriously question why the British press has had such a long term infatuation with such a pointless group of people.
I was also lucky enough to attend an open air theatre festival in Rouen. The amazing Hamlet in 30 minutes spoof really made me realise the true, worldwide significance of Shakespeare. I actually understood pretty much all of the spoof, mainly due to my knowledge of the play, which was a very satisfying feeling.
During my placement, which was at a town hall, the main thing I learnt was how much more important a town hall is in France than in England. This is also where I learnt the majority of my new vocabulary.
Another important observation I made was that the pace of life in France is generally slower than it is in England. At home, I tend to sprint from one activity to another, but I actually quite enjoyed the prolonged meal times and the sitting around waiting for things to happen.
When I was in Rouen, late at night, most cafés were still buzzing, but I saw no drunk people on the street corners, a stark constrast to being in London at the same time. It's also different how most people tended to stay up late, then get up late in the morning. Usually I do the opposite of this, so it's currently proving quite difficult to get back into my old routine.
Overall, I feel that I have grown as a person during the short time that I've spent in France, not only have I improved my language skills, but have also gained a greater degree of self confidence, both in myself and in my abilities. I am sincerely hoping that the offer of a return visit will be taken up....
Final note:
I mustn't forget that I am extremely delighted to have amassed three followers. It's really nice to know that people are actually reading this blog, and that I may actually have something worthwhile to say. I'm also very happy with the new template I've decided to use, for it definitely reflects my personality more than the old, boring pink one.
I have just become completely sidetracked by the wonderful world of Alan Menken. The title was actually meant to refer to the week long work experience exchange to France that I have just taken part in. I was going to post a daily diary, but I realised how boring that would be for anyone else except myself to read. Considering also that my trip diary currently stands at about forty handwritten notebook pages, it's better for mine, and everyone else's, sanity just to summarise here the main things I've learnt from the trip. That's not to say my full trip diary won't be compulsory reading for a few, very lucky people.
Reflections:
I feel as though I've learnt many things about the language which I would never have learnt simply by studying at school. There is quite a difference between written French and spoken French, and there are very obvious differing degrees of formality, a lot more so than I would say there were in English. For instance, I regularly heard the subjunctive whilst on my placement at the town hall, but less formal conversations usually omitted the "ne" when using a negative, and often considered mainly of short, one sentence answers.
I was actually a lot better at speaking than I thought I would be. Okay, I did get several genders wrong, but then there is no equivalent to this in English. I also finally learnt when to use the imperfect/perfect tenses, and am hopeful that my previously laughable pronounciation has improved. I assume it has, because I managed to convince a man on the ferry home that I was French.
I think I have now found a new motivation for French. Prior to this trip, I was leaning so heavily towards German, but now, for the first time, I think that the two langauges are balanced in my mind, if that makes any sense at all. French sounds so lovely when it's spoken, and the intonation isn't as hard as I thought. I'm still not quite sure how to intone annoyance, but I'm sure that will follow sometime in the future.
Aside from the language side, I've also learnt many cultural things. It saddened me that the majority of the films showing in the cinema were dubbed American films, when French cinema has some of the most inspiring, unique offerings that I have ever seen. I was allowed to choose the film, so I chose the only French film showing, which, funnily enough, had received the highest critical acclaim. This situation is similar to in Britain, where there are usually a dozen or so imported, monotonously repetitive Hollywood comedies for every British/independent film.
Many of the celebrities in the magazines I read were also American or British, although I did learn a fair bit about the French socialite scene. I also noticed the complete lack of WAGs in the press, which was nice to see. I seriously question why the British press has had such a long term infatuation with such a pointless group of people.
I was also lucky enough to attend an open air theatre festival in Rouen. The amazing Hamlet in 30 minutes spoof really made me realise the true, worldwide significance of Shakespeare. I actually understood pretty much all of the spoof, mainly due to my knowledge of the play, which was a very satisfying feeling.
During my placement, which was at a town hall, the main thing I learnt was how much more important a town hall is in France than in England. This is also where I learnt the majority of my new vocabulary.
Another important observation I made was that the pace of life in France is generally slower than it is in England. At home, I tend to sprint from one activity to another, but I actually quite enjoyed the prolonged meal times and the sitting around waiting for things to happen.
When I was in Rouen, late at night, most cafés were still buzzing, but I saw no drunk people on the street corners, a stark constrast to being in London at the same time. It's also different how most people tended to stay up late, then get up late in the morning. Usually I do the opposite of this, so it's currently proving quite difficult to get back into my old routine.
Overall, I feel that I have grown as a person during the short time that I've spent in France, not only have I improved my language skills, but have also gained a greater degree of self confidence, both in myself and in my abilities. I am sincerely hoping that the offer of a return visit will be taken up....
Final note:
I mustn't forget that I am extremely delighted to have amassed three followers. It's really nice to know that people are actually reading this blog, and that I may actually have something worthwhile to say. I'm also very happy with the new template I've decided to use, for it definitely reflects my personality more than the old, boring pink one.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
ENRON
Aside from the excitement over realising that Libby Purves, who is the new chief theatre critic for The Times, also gave The Crucible four stars, and that my review was incredibly similar to hers (and I wrote mine before hers was published!), I have also had the excitement of going to see ENRON.
It was my first time alone in a West End theatre, and I actually quite liked it. I don't prefer it one way or another, they're both quite different experiences. Being alone is good because there's no physical person with you to influence your view on the show, and you can sit and be absolutely absorbed in the play, without your parents, or whoever's with you, starting to talk about what happened on The Biggest Loser last night during the interval. Then again, I wouldn't want to go and see a popular, commercial musical on my own, not that I see many of those nowadays, anyway. The only sad thing was that I had no one to talk about it with afterwards, until I went online.
If anyone wants to go to the theatre, but they don't have anyone else who wants to see what they want to see, as was my situation with ENRON, they should definitely go alone. It's not scary or initimidating, no one laughed at me (and even if they had laughed at me, I wouldn't have cared), and there were quite a few other people on there own. In fact, I counted six lone theatregoers, not including myself, in one small area of the stalls.
So, now for the review. If I was a proffesional critic I would be sacked, because a) It's months after the production opened, b) It's way too long (as usual) and c) It's exactly a week today since I saw the play. Oh well, here it is:
My visit to ENRON marked two momentous occasions. The first was that it was the very first time that I had been all alone in a West End theatre. The second was that it was the first time I had seen the original production of a play.
ENRON, by Lucy Prebble, began life at Chichester (that magic place that seems to produce half a dozen successes in a single year), before transferring to the Royal Court. After a successful run, it found its way to the West End. The bubble was burst, however, when the production posted closing notices just two weeks after opening on Broadway. ENRON’s success should not be measured by this Broadway failure. The situation is much like the one that occurred last year when “Spring Awakening” closed just six weeks into its West End run after success on Broadway. Widely considered to be artistically superior to the majority of the new musicals of the last decade, it just failed to attract an audience in London. Considering where it is set, that is perhaps why ENRON failed to succeed on the great white way.
For me, ENRON was the best play that I have ever seen. The plot begins in 1992 and extends to the current day, allowing the storylines and characters to reminisce with the whole audience, whether we read about them from afar or were affected in similar circumstances.
This made me realise that “older” plays (for want of a better word) would have had a completely different response to the one that they would receive now when they were first performed. For instance, whilst audiences nowadays feel sympathy from afar for Nora in Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House”, it must have caused all the more impact in the late 1800s, when many women would have been in the same situation as her, and powerless. It is, of course, unthinkable in the 21st Century.
Anyway, the script of ENRON is witty and paced, making what could be a boring story into something relatable. Each character had their own idiolect, and the language was easily accessible for all. This triggered another “deep” thought in me – living in a time where everyone spoke Shakespearian English. Before I share my fantasies about being Anne Hathaway with the whole world, the subject matter of ENRON causes it to succeed. Being set in the cut-throat world of New York stock broking can reflect in the play. Even though it was difficult to care about several characters in the end, it could perhaps be a reflection and indeed an insight into this world.
Rupert Goold’s staging was a surreal experience. I’ve admired his career from afar for a long time now, but shockingly had never seen an actual production directed by him. Now, I want more. His direction seemed to incorporate everything under the sun. All the elements combined to create a surreal yet plausible existence. Most notable was the almost constant presence of ENRON’s share price: the foreboding as it kept increasing, then the descend into chaos as it fell. Throughout, there was never a dull moment. The success must also be attributed to the set design. In this case, less was certainly more, and it looked exactly how I imagine the future.
I doubt that ENRON could have stood up on its own without a great cast. After all, it’s even pushing it when the popcorn musicals, such as “Grease” and “Dirty Dancing” try to do that. It’s only been about a month since this cast took over from those who originated the roles.
The lead role of Jeffery Skilling was played by Corey Johnson. Playing a character that is based upon a real person who lived/is living is never easy, but Johnson carries the play, and even causes the audience to feel a little sympathy towards him, especially when he haltingly delivers the closing monologue.
Sara Stewart as his love interest Claudia was sublimely sexy as she committed fully to her performance. Even when she was behind the gauze she still managed to hold the audience’s attention, and it wasn’t just because of the dress she was wearing.
As the shrewd chair of ENRON, Clive Francis gave an interesting performance, full of surprises. With a cast of 18, all of whom were energetic and given a chance to be unique, the strength of Prebble’s play was highlighted.
It may not become a classic, like “Avenue Q” it may only be “For Now”, but for me ENRON is a fantastic comment on the time we are living in.
It was my first time alone in a West End theatre, and I actually quite liked it. I don't prefer it one way or another, they're both quite different experiences. Being alone is good because there's no physical person with you to influence your view on the show, and you can sit and be absolutely absorbed in the play, without your parents, or whoever's with you, starting to talk about what happened on The Biggest Loser last night during the interval. Then again, I wouldn't want to go and see a popular, commercial musical on my own, not that I see many of those nowadays, anyway. The only sad thing was that I had no one to talk about it with afterwards, until I went online.
If anyone wants to go to the theatre, but they don't have anyone else who wants to see what they want to see, as was my situation with ENRON, they should definitely go alone. It's not scary or initimidating, no one laughed at me (and even if they had laughed at me, I wouldn't have cared), and there were quite a few other people on there own. In fact, I counted six lone theatregoers, not including myself, in one small area of the stalls.
So, now for the review. If I was a proffesional critic I would be sacked, because a) It's months after the production opened, b) It's way too long (as usual) and c) It's exactly a week today since I saw the play. Oh well, here it is:
My visit to ENRON marked two momentous occasions. The first was that it was the very first time that I had been all alone in a West End theatre. The second was that it was the first time I had seen the original production of a play.
ENRON, by Lucy Prebble, began life at Chichester (that magic place that seems to produce half a dozen successes in a single year), before transferring to the Royal Court. After a successful run, it found its way to the West End. The bubble was burst, however, when the production posted closing notices just two weeks after opening on Broadway. ENRON’s success should not be measured by this Broadway failure. The situation is much like the one that occurred last year when “Spring Awakening” closed just six weeks into its West End run after success on Broadway. Widely considered to be artistically superior to the majority of the new musicals of the last decade, it just failed to attract an audience in London. Considering where it is set, that is perhaps why ENRON failed to succeed on the great white way.
For me, ENRON was the best play that I have ever seen. The plot begins in 1992 and extends to the current day, allowing the storylines and characters to reminisce with the whole audience, whether we read about them from afar or were affected in similar circumstances.
This made me realise that “older” plays (for want of a better word) would have had a completely different response to the one that they would receive now when they were first performed. For instance, whilst audiences nowadays feel sympathy from afar for Nora in Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House”, it must have caused all the more impact in the late 1800s, when many women would have been in the same situation as her, and powerless. It is, of course, unthinkable in the 21st Century.
Anyway, the script of ENRON is witty and paced, making what could be a boring story into something relatable. Each character had their own idiolect, and the language was easily accessible for all. This triggered another “deep” thought in me – living in a time where everyone spoke Shakespearian English. Before I share my fantasies about being Anne Hathaway with the whole world, the subject matter of ENRON causes it to succeed. Being set in the cut-throat world of New York stock broking can reflect in the play. Even though it was difficult to care about several characters in the end, it could perhaps be a reflection and indeed an insight into this world.
Rupert Goold’s staging was a surreal experience. I’ve admired his career from afar for a long time now, but shockingly had never seen an actual production directed by him. Now, I want more. His direction seemed to incorporate everything under the sun. All the elements combined to create a surreal yet plausible existence. Most notable was the almost constant presence of ENRON’s share price: the foreboding as it kept increasing, then the descend into chaos as it fell. Throughout, there was never a dull moment. The success must also be attributed to the set design. In this case, less was certainly more, and it looked exactly how I imagine the future.
I doubt that ENRON could have stood up on its own without a great cast. After all, it’s even pushing it when the popcorn musicals, such as “Grease” and “Dirty Dancing” try to do that. It’s only been about a month since this cast took over from those who originated the roles.
The lead role of Jeffery Skilling was played by Corey Johnson. Playing a character that is based upon a real person who lived/is living is never easy, but Johnson carries the play, and even causes the audience to feel a little sympathy towards him, especially when he haltingly delivers the closing monologue.
Sara Stewart as his love interest Claudia was sublimely sexy as she committed fully to her performance. Even when she was behind the gauze she still managed to hold the audience’s attention, and it wasn’t just because of the dress she was wearing.
As the shrewd chair of ENRON, Clive Francis gave an interesting performance, full of surprises. With a cast of 18, all of whom were energetic and given a chance to be unique, the strength of Prebble’s play was highlighted.
It may not become a classic, like “Avenue Q” it may only be “For Now”, but for me ENRON is a fantastic comment on the time we are living in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)