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.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Monday, 31 May 2010
It's been a long time...
Due to the general annoyance of GCSEs, I really haven't had time to watch any films, read any books or update my blog. Sadly, I've been to the theatre three times within this time frame. I saw Macbeth at the Globe on 1st May, 16 days before my life was taken over by exams. I wrote a long and humourous commetary of the full experience, which sadly this blog will never see because it's too personal to post online. What I will say, though, is that I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and am now itching to becoem a Shakespearian.
Next up was Paradise Found, a new musical, at the Menier. I tried to write a review, I really did, but it turned into an essay about why I love the Menier, which is of course my favourite theatre. I'm in two minds about the show, for what it was it was entertaining, but considering the pedigree of those involved it really wasn't anything special.
So, finally, was the production of the Crucible at Regent's Park Open Air Theatre. I have to say I think it was the best play that I've ever seen. Here is my short review, which I think is my first attempt at writing a proffesional style review:
Although there are many problems associated with Open Air Theatre, most obviously sudden bursts of unwanted precipitation, Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” could not work better than it does in the heart of Regent’s Park. As darkness fell, the temperature dropped and the breeze rustled through the leaves of the trees it made for a surreal atmosphere as Miller’s play reached its emotionally charge climax. Shreader’s direction complemented the piece perfectly, and, coupled with excellent set design, allowed for good pacing and inventive staging. Engaging throughout, the cast gave an inspired performance, albeit with a few less than perfect American accents. Patrick O’Kane gave a John Proctor with many sides, most importantly managing vulnerability whilst remaining powerful. He had excellent chemistry with Emma Cunnife’s Elizabeth, who stole every scene she was in. Emily Taafe’s Abigail was perhaps too over the top at times, but then this was necessary in order for her to shine amongst the tight supporting cast. Overall, a highly successful interpretation of Miller’s play in a wonderful woodland setting.
So, the shortest review that I have ever written, but one which definitely fits within a strict word count. I'm now looking forward to going into the woods in August.....
Next up was Paradise Found, a new musical, at the Menier. I tried to write a review, I really did, but it turned into an essay about why I love the Menier, which is of course my favourite theatre. I'm in two minds about the show, for what it was it was entertaining, but considering the pedigree of those involved it really wasn't anything special.
So, finally, was the production of the Crucible at Regent's Park Open Air Theatre. I have to say I think it was the best play that I've ever seen. Here is my short review, which I think is my first attempt at writing a proffesional style review:
Although there are many problems associated with Open Air Theatre, most obviously sudden bursts of unwanted precipitation, Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” could not work better than it does in the heart of Regent’s Park. As darkness fell, the temperature dropped and the breeze rustled through the leaves of the trees it made for a surreal atmosphere as Miller’s play reached its emotionally charge climax. Shreader’s direction complemented the piece perfectly, and, coupled with excellent set design, allowed for good pacing and inventive staging. Engaging throughout, the cast gave an inspired performance, albeit with a few less than perfect American accents. Patrick O’Kane gave a John Proctor with many sides, most importantly managing vulnerability whilst remaining powerful. He had excellent chemistry with Emma Cunnife’s Elizabeth, who stole every scene she was in. Emily Taafe’s Abigail was perhaps too over the top at times, but then this was necessary in order for her to shine amongst the tight supporting cast. Overall, a highly successful interpretation of Miller’s play in a wonderful woodland setting.
So, the shortest review that I have ever written, but one which definitely fits within a strict word count. I'm now looking forward to going into the woods in August.....
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Don't feed the fangirls!
The title could be offensive to certain people, and I apologise for that. I just thought it was clever, because my Mum went to see Wicked for the second time yesterday and Wicked is infamous for its fan girls. It's also a parody (if that's the right word) of the song "Don't feed the plants" from Little Shop of Horrors, which also has a cult following.
I guess this post is really about seeing shows repeatedly. This is something that I've never really done. I've seen We Will Rock You twice, the second time being for a friend's birthday, and also Beauty and the Beast, the second time being for a school trip, but other than that I have only seen each show once. I know several people who see certain shows again and again until they are well into double figures. I can understand this to an extent, even though I've never done it myself.
No two performances are ever the same. This is a fact. Performers may hit different notes, perform better on some days, and of course accidents do happen. Then there are special performances such as cast changes, the chance to say goodbye to perfomers that one paticularly admires.
Then there are the performers themselves. I have several performers which I love and admire, Kerry Ellis, Ruthie Henshall and Katie Rowley-Jones to name but a few. I think I am different from most performer fans in that I'll see them once in a paticular show and treasure that memory, whereas others will keep on going back to relive the moment.
Understudies. I have a friend who repeatedly sees Avenue Q, finding out the days when certain actors will be off and their role played by their understudy, presumably to compare the two and again, to see a different performance or interpretation of the role.
I suppose there is also the love of the show itself. This seems paticularly true of classics such as Les Misérables.
So why have I never seen a show more than once, aside from the two exceptions mentioned above?
I suppose the main reason for this is my age. Not only am I not yet able to travel to London alone, which would allow me to go for dayseats and visit Tkts to obtain cheaper revisits, and also not to have to make someone else come and see the show again, but I have only really been a real theatregoer for just over a year. In this time I have managed to see quite an impressive amount of shows, but there is still so much that I haven't seen that I would rather see different things than go and see the same thing again. With age, the time will come when I do go and see things again, but for now I would rather go and see new things.
I've seen 25 different musicals on the stage. Just scrolling through the list, I thought it would be interesting to list the ones that I would see again, and why:
Chicago
This was my introduction to Bob Fosse, and really what made me first start thinking about a career in the theatre. I would definitely see this again because there are so many different ways that the lead characters could be interpreted/played, and I just love the music. As a matter of fact, I'm listening to it now. Ruthie Henshall is currently playing Roxie Hart in London, and I had to fight the urge inside myself to go again just to see her. It's just over thirteen months since I first saw the show, and although I would dearly have loved to see Ruthie, I am almost certain that I'll have another opportunity to see her on stage one day. I will definitely go and see Chicago again before the London production closes, though.
Sunset Boulevard
I was moved through an emotional whirlwind by last year's revival, directed by Craig Revel-Horwood. I have never liked an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical as much as this, I usually listen once then get bored, but with Sunset I always go back for more. The character of Norma Desmond still fascinates me, and it was the first time that I'd seen an actor-musician show. I would definitely see Sunset again, and am looking forward to the almost inevitable revival, probably in ten years time, whether it is an actor-musician show or not.
Avenue Q
I am addicted to the cast recording, and almost know it off by heart. It resonates with me so powerfully, and made me a fan of Julie Atherton. It was so original, offbeat and humourous. I would definitely go, considering the show has now moved for the second time, to the Wyndham's, so it would not only be a different cast, but also a different theatre.
Les Misérables
I think in five years time, if the show is still running, which it most probably will be, I would go and see this again. Even though the musical is nearly perfect, I didn't love it as much as I've loved other things, but it still amazed me, and I think when I've nearly forgotten the staging, I would probably go and see this again. I also now look on it differently, having read the novel.
Rent
The amateur production we saw was quite possibly the best amateur production of anything that I've ever seen. If there was a production of this within 100 miles of my home, I would be there immediately. The story is just wonderful, and I find the ending so uplifting. I can't stop myself from listening to the cast recording, reading the script and living the lives of the bohemians.
Annie Get Your Gun
The Young Vic production was a great update to the classic musical. I'd really like to see a different interpretation, perhaps more intune with the original production. I also love Irving Berlin's score.
Blood Brothers
For the same reasons as Les Miz, except for the bit about the novel. I would also be interested in seeing a different actress play Mrs. Johnston. I'm also curious as to whether I would have less of an emotional reaction the second time around. Either way, the show is marvellous and different to almost every other musical I can think of.
I would also go and see (in the future) different revivals of Sweet Charity and La Cage aux Folles, though I think it would be difficult to top the Menier productions.
Other than that, I don't think I would go and see any other shows I have seen for a second time, with the possible exception of a performer I really like being cast. This, for me, reflects the nature of theatre - the creation of a special moment for the audience, which is different each night.
I guess this post is really about seeing shows repeatedly. This is something that I've never really done. I've seen We Will Rock You twice, the second time being for a friend's birthday, and also Beauty and the Beast, the second time being for a school trip, but other than that I have only seen each show once. I know several people who see certain shows again and again until they are well into double figures. I can understand this to an extent, even though I've never done it myself.
No two performances are ever the same. This is a fact. Performers may hit different notes, perform better on some days, and of course accidents do happen. Then there are special performances such as cast changes, the chance to say goodbye to perfomers that one paticularly admires.
Then there are the performers themselves. I have several performers which I love and admire, Kerry Ellis, Ruthie Henshall and Katie Rowley-Jones to name but a few. I think I am different from most performer fans in that I'll see them once in a paticular show and treasure that memory, whereas others will keep on going back to relive the moment.
Understudies. I have a friend who repeatedly sees Avenue Q, finding out the days when certain actors will be off and their role played by their understudy, presumably to compare the two and again, to see a different performance or interpretation of the role.
I suppose there is also the love of the show itself. This seems paticularly true of classics such as Les Misérables.
So why have I never seen a show more than once, aside from the two exceptions mentioned above?
I suppose the main reason for this is my age. Not only am I not yet able to travel to London alone, which would allow me to go for dayseats and visit Tkts to obtain cheaper revisits, and also not to have to make someone else come and see the show again, but I have only really been a real theatregoer for just over a year. In this time I have managed to see quite an impressive amount of shows, but there is still so much that I haven't seen that I would rather see different things than go and see the same thing again. With age, the time will come when I do go and see things again, but for now I would rather go and see new things.
I've seen 25 different musicals on the stage. Just scrolling through the list, I thought it would be interesting to list the ones that I would see again, and why:
Chicago
This was my introduction to Bob Fosse, and really what made me first start thinking about a career in the theatre. I would definitely see this again because there are so many different ways that the lead characters could be interpreted/played, and I just love the music. As a matter of fact, I'm listening to it now. Ruthie Henshall is currently playing Roxie Hart in London, and I had to fight the urge inside myself to go again just to see her. It's just over thirteen months since I first saw the show, and although I would dearly have loved to see Ruthie, I am almost certain that I'll have another opportunity to see her on stage one day. I will definitely go and see Chicago again before the London production closes, though.
Sunset Boulevard
I was moved through an emotional whirlwind by last year's revival, directed by Craig Revel-Horwood. I have never liked an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical as much as this, I usually listen once then get bored, but with Sunset I always go back for more. The character of Norma Desmond still fascinates me, and it was the first time that I'd seen an actor-musician show. I would definitely see Sunset again, and am looking forward to the almost inevitable revival, probably in ten years time, whether it is an actor-musician show or not.
Avenue Q
I am addicted to the cast recording, and almost know it off by heart. It resonates with me so powerfully, and made me a fan of Julie Atherton. It was so original, offbeat and humourous. I would definitely go, considering the show has now moved for the second time, to the Wyndham's, so it would not only be a different cast, but also a different theatre.
Les Misérables
I think in five years time, if the show is still running, which it most probably will be, I would go and see this again. Even though the musical is nearly perfect, I didn't love it as much as I've loved other things, but it still amazed me, and I think when I've nearly forgotten the staging, I would probably go and see this again. I also now look on it differently, having read the novel.
Rent
The amateur production we saw was quite possibly the best amateur production of anything that I've ever seen. If there was a production of this within 100 miles of my home, I would be there immediately. The story is just wonderful, and I find the ending so uplifting. I can't stop myself from listening to the cast recording, reading the script and living the lives of the bohemians.
Annie Get Your Gun
The Young Vic production was a great update to the classic musical. I'd really like to see a different interpretation, perhaps more intune with the original production. I also love Irving Berlin's score.
Blood Brothers
For the same reasons as Les Miz, except for the bit about the novel. I would also be interested in seeing a different actress play Mrs. Johnston. I'm also curious as to whether I would have less of an emotional reaction the second time around. Either way, the show is marvellous and different to almost every other musical I can think of.
I would also go and see (in the future) different revivals of Sweet Charity and La Cage aux Folles, though I think it would be difficult to top the Menier productions.
Other than that, I don't think I would go and see any other shows I have seen for a second time, with the possible exception of a performer I really like being cast. This, for me, reflects the nature of theatre - the creation of a special moment for the audience, which is different each night.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Steven Spielberg's goddaughter
Who knew she could act until 2009? Up until Grey Gardens, the wonderful made for TV movie based on a true story, Drew Barrymore had gone from cute child star to troubled teenager, and had emerged from this as another formulaic actress who did comedies. And romantic comedies.
I'd seen her in E.T, I'd seen her in The Wedding Singer (which is probably Adam Sandler's best film, but let's not get sidetracked), and I'd suffered through Charlie's Angels. All her other films weren't what I would usually watch, so I never considered following her career, like I do with other actors and actresses, until now.
I decided to watch Grey Gardens when it was aired in the UK over Christmas, not only because Drew had received an Emmy for her performance and dozens of rave reviews online, but also because I vaguely recall listening to the cast album of the Broadway musical adaptation. I watched it, and I was blown away. Her performance was fantastic, moving and poignant in every way. Suddenly, in my mind, Drew was an actress.
Whip It (2009) was her directorial debut. It's finally been released in the UK, so I went to the cinema with my Mum to see it yesterday. I was a bit concerned, because it looked like a stereotypical teen-comedy, but after talking to many people who had been surprised by it and reading some very good reviews I decided to give it a chance. It also helped that the cast included Ellen Page, who in my opinion is one of the best young actresses working in film, and Kristen Wiig, who I recently noticed in Adventureland (2009) and on Saturday Night Live.
I really loved the film, and thought it was one of the best teen comedies I have ever seen. My Mum enjoyed it a lot too, which shows it's apeal was not just limited to the teenage market. The script was clever and each of the characters were written sassily with plenty of good one-liners, so each character had a chance to "get some laughs" and shows their own personalities.
So, what was the film actually about? It was about roller derby, an old American sport which has just been given a new lease of life. Well, that was what the film suggested, I'm not trying to generalise all American towns here. Bliss (Ellen Page's character) lived with her mother, father and younger sister. Her mother is obsessed with beauty pageants and wants Bliss and her sister to achieve what she never could, so thus enters them for as many as possible. Whilst Bliss' sister loves this, Bliss isn't so keen, even dying her hair blue as a dare in attempt to liven up a dull pageant. One day she spots an advert for a roller derby, and decides to go with her best friend, Pash, to watch. They are both enthralled by it, and after the game Bliss meets two of the girls from the team who suggest she tries out. She does, and gets on the team. Now Bliss has discovered this new talent, a whole new life evolves for her as the team, who were on a losing streak, begin to win with her help. New friends, including a boyfriend, follow, but this is at the expense of her former life....
Sounds average, doesn't it? But it wasn't. The energertic and fresh performances of the cast coupled with the excitement of the roller derby moved the story along quickly and ensured that we were never bored, Ellen gave a great performance as Bliss, and really carried the film. Drew, as well as directing, played one of the roller girls, called Smashlee Simpson. She was rarely on the screen, and her character was bit mad, but it was still a good performance. Kristen Wiig's character was almost a split personality, and the way she played her made me fall in love with the motherly side of her character. Jimmy Fallon was incredibly entertaining, I had had no idea that he acted before the film.
Drew's first feature as a director was really good. The camera angles were really good in capturing the action, and the setting of the film perfect. It took what she's been acting in for the mpast couple of decades to an amazing, original new level, which makes me wonder why, if she has managed to do this, she didn't choose to act in better quality films before? It seems that she is following in the footsteps of her godfather after all.
Overall, Whip It was a great film to see and be entertained by. Dear John, across the corridor, was sold out. Sadly, only about a quarter of our cinema was full, which was a shame because Whip It was probably a lot better and original than Dear John...
I'd seen her in E.T, I'd seen her in The Wedding Singer (which is probably Adam Sandler's best film, but let's not get sidetracked), and I'd suffered through Charlie's Angels. All her other films weren't what I would usually watch, so I never considered following her career, like I do with other actors and actresses, until now.
I decided to watch Grey Gardens when it was aired in the UK over Christmas, not only because Drew had received an Emmy for her performance and dozens of rave reviews online, but also because I vaguely recall listening to the cast album of the Broadway musical adaptation. I watched it, and I was blown away. Her performance was fantastic, moving and poignant in every way. Suddenly, in my mind, Drew was an actress.
Whip It (2009) was her directorial debut. It's finally been released in the UK, so I went to the cinema with my Mum to see it yesterday. I was a bit concerned, because it looked like a stereotypical teen-comedy, but after talking to many people who had been surprised by it and reading some very good reviews I decided to give it a chance. It also helped that the cast included Ellen Page, who in my opinion is one of the best young actresses working in film, and Kristen Wiig, who I recently noticed in Adventureland (2009) and on Saturday Night Live.
I really loved the film, and thought it was one of the best teen comedies I have ever seen. My Mum enjoyed it a lot too, which shows it's apeal was not just limited to the teenage market. The script was clever and each of the characters were written sassily with plenty of good one-liners, so each character had a chance to "get some laughs" and shows their own personalities.
So, what was the film actually about? It was about roller derby, an old American sport which has just been given a new lease of life. Well, that was what the film suggested, I'm not trying to generalise all American towns here. Bliss (Ellen Page's character) lived with her mother, father and younger sister. Her mother is obsessed with beauty pageants and wants Bliss and her sister to achieve what she never could, so thus enters them for as many as possible. Whilst Bliss' sister loves this, Bliss isn't so keen, even dying her hair blue as a dare in attempt to liven up a dull pageant. One day she spots an advert for a roller derby, and decides to go with her best friend, Pash, to watch. They are both enthralled by it, and after the game Bliss meets two of the girls from the team who suggest she tries out. She does, and gets on the team. Now Bliss has discovered this new talent, a whole new life evolves for her as the team, who were on a losing streak, begin to win with her help. New friends, including a boyfriend, follow, but this is at the expense of her former life....
Sounds average, doesn't it? But it wasn't. The energertic and fresh performances of the cast coupled with the excitement of the roller derby moved the story along quickly and ensured that we were never bored, Ellen gave a great performance as Bliss, and really carried the film. Drew, as well as directing, played one of the roller girls, called Smashlee Simpson. She was rarely on the screen, and her character was bit mad, but it was still a good performance. Kristen Wiig's character was almost a split personality, and the way she played her made me fall in love with the motherly side of her character. Jimmy Fallon was incredibly entertaining, I had had no idea that he acted before the film.
Drew's first feature as a director was really good. The camera angles were really good in capturing the action, and the setting of the film perfect. It took what she's been acting in for the mpast couple of decades to an amazing, original new level, which makes me wonder why, if she has managed to do this, she didn't choose to act in better quality films before? It seems that she is following in the footsteps of her godfather after all.
Overall, Whip It was a great film to see and be entertained by. Dear John, across the corridor, was sold out. Sadly, only about a quarter of our cinema was full, which was a shame because Whip It was probably a lot better and original than Dear John...
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Share the love....
In case you weren't able to guess by the title, I went to see Hair yesterday evening. Before I write the review, I just want to say that it was one of the funnest, most enjoyable experiences that I have ever had at the theatre, and I would recommend it to anyone who loves going to the theatre. It was unlike anything that I have ever seen before.
Last night's performance was only the third preview, but pretty much the whole of the original Broadway revival cast had come over to London, so they were really tight anyway, unlike some previews of other shows. It was the first time that I have ever seen a Broadway cast, having never been to New York. It wasn't really much different from seeing a UK cast, but they all seemed really at home in their roles and it was probably one of the most talented ensembles that I've ever seen.
I didn't really know much about the show beforehand. I had received the cast recording for my birthday, and listened to it, but I hadn't really paid much attention when I listened to it. Overall, Act Two was better than Act One because more of the plot was centred in Act Two. Act One seemed to be mainly about introducting the characters and the era. The plot was quite thin compared to some other musicals, but the characters were developed quite well. I really enjoyed the music and it fit really well with the show, helping to move the story along and keep the audience interested. There were only a few ballads, which worked really well and seemed to come at exactly the right moments.
The set was great. It was very simple and allowed the orchestra/band to be on stage, something which always adds to the atmosphere of the show. The set mainly consisted of a large steel frame of staircases at the back to allow the cast to go up there. There were also steps which lead up to the dress circle, and of course steps that lead down into the stalls.
The audience interaction added to the atmosphere and the experience of the show. Even though I sat towards the end of row E, I didn't experience any of this, although it seems all the people sitting around me did. At the end of the show, I was the fifth person to run up onto the stage though. The dance party was so fun, I just wish Gavin had stayed on the stage and not run up to the dress circle.
Diane Paulus directed the piece very well, especially the sensitive moments. She made such good use of the stage, which looked massive compared to how small it seemed when Avenue Q was on at the Gielgud. The choreography, by Karole Armitage, was amazing, it really captured the mood of each scene and allowed all the tribe members to be individuals. The cast as a whole also had such amazing levels of energy and never stopped throughout the whole show.
Onto the cast. Gavin Creel was great as Claude. I saw him play Bert in Mary Poppins a couple of years ago, one of the first West End shows that I ever saw. I really enjoyed his performance then, but he managed to give an even better performance as Claude. He did the sensitive scenes really well, and managed to show many sides of Claude's character. Overall, he probably gave the best acting performance out of the whole cast.
Will Swenson played off Gavin very well, although was a little scary as Berger at times. His comic timing was great, although he was panting in a very strange manner at times. Allison Case stood out as Crissy, in what was quite a small role. The rest of the principals were also very good, and as said before it was probably the best ensemble that I've ever seen in a show.
Overall, Hair was an amazing experience and it was wonderful to have the chance to see something from Broadway. I didn't paticularly love the show, but more the amazing experience and atmosphere that was created in the theatre. Recommended.
Note:
I have given up giving shows star ratings, except for shows which I would give 5 stars too, because it became too difficult to differentiate between 3 stars and 4 stars and to do it with the shows relative to each other. I still only have three 5 star shows:
Sunset Boulevard (June 2009)
Forbidden Broadway (July 2009)
Blood Brothers (February 2010)
Last night's performance was only the third preview, but pretty much the whole of the original Broadway revival cast had come over to London, so they were really tight anyway, unlike some previews of other shows. It was the first time that I have ever seen a Broadway cast, having never been to New York. It wasn't really much different from seeing a UK cast, but they all seemed really at home in their roles and it was probably one of the most talented ensembles that I've ever seen.
I didn't really know much about the show beforehand. I had received the cast recording for my birthday, and listened to it, but I hadn't really paid much attention when I listened to it. Overall, Act Two was better than Act One because more of the plot was centred in Act Two. Act One seemed to be mainly about introducting the characters and the era. The plot was quite thin compared to some other musicals, but the characters were developed quite well. I really enjoyed the music and it fit really well with the show, helping to move the story along and keep the audience interested. There were only a few ballads, which worked really well and seemed to come at exactly the right moments.
The set was great. It was very simple and allowed the orchestra/band to be on stage, something which always adds to the atmosphere of the show. The set mainly consisted of a large steel frame of staircases at the back to allow the cast to go up there. There were also steps which lead up to the dress circle, and of course steps that lead down into the stalls.
The audience interaction added to the atmosphere and the experience of the show. Even though I sat towards the end of row E, I didn't experience any of this, although it seems all the people sitting around me did. At the end of the show, I was the fifth person to run up onto the stage though. The dance party was so fun, I just wish Gavin had stayed on the stage and not run up to the dress circle.
Diane Paulus directed the piece very well, especially the sensitive moments. She made such good use of the stage, which looked massive compared to how small it seemed when Avenue Q was on at the Gielgud. The choreography, by Karole Armitage, was amazing, it really captured the mood of each scene and allowed all the tribe members to be individuals. The cast as a whole also had such amazing levels of energy and never stopped throughout the whole show.
Onto the cast. Gavin Creel was great as Claude. I saw him play Bert in Mary Poppins a couple of years ago, one of the first West End shows that I ever saw. I really enjoyed his performance then, but he managed to give an even better performance as Claude. He did the sensitive scenes really well, and managed to show many sides of Claude's character. Overall, he probably gave the best acting performance out of the whole cast.
Will Swenson played off Gavin very well, although was a little scary as Berger at times. His comic timing was great, although he was panting in a very strange manner at times. Allison Case stood out as Crissy, in what was quite a small role. The rest of the principals were also very good, and as said before it was probably the best ensemble that I've ever seen in a show.
Overall, Hair was an amazing experience and it was wonderful to have the chance to see something from Broadway. I didn't paticularly love the show, but more the amazing experience and atmosphere that was created in the theatre. Recommended.
Note:
I have given up giving shows star ratings, except for shows which I would give 5 stars too, because it became too difficult to differentiate between 3 stars and 4 stars and to do it with the shows relative to each other. I still only have three 5 star shows:
Sunset Boulevard (June 2009)
Forbidden Broadway (July 2009)
Blood Brothers (February 2010)
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Oscar Night...
...and for the second year in a row I won't be able to watch the Oscars, due to them only being shown on Sky Movies which we don't happen to have. Not that I'm complaining, because I have loads to do today and it's my birthday tomorow, so all of my family are coming over this evening and I wouldn't have the time to watch it anyway. I'm not really as excited as I was last year though - in comparison to 2008, 2009 was such a boring year for film.
I haven't seen many of the films nominated. I haven't seen Avatar, purely because there's always been something else I'd rather see. Due to complete lack of updates to this blog recently, I think I've seen three films since:
Precious - I saw this yesterday, after reading the book it's based upon all in one day last week. It was such a good adaptation and piece of directing - it really drew out how I imagined Precious' character from the book. Although it was a bit slower than I imagined, it was still really good. All the acting performances were great, especially Gabourey Sidibe in the title role, and Mo'nique as her mother. I also quite enjoyed Mariah Carey's role, having never seen her act before.
The Lovely Bones - Another adaptation from a book, which was so disapointing. Jackson left out so many significant elements from the book, such as the development of Ruth's character and the mother's affair. It's not as if he is shy about making long films, after all he did direct all three of the Lord of the Rings films, so it was a mystery why he did this. Other than that, the performances were all good, but not really enough to save the film.
Invictus - I really admire Clint Eastwood, and this film was no excpetion. Although it's probably my least favourite of his films that I've watched so far, it was still a really good, informative piece that drew two true stories together really well. Morgan Freeman gave such a good performance, and Matt Damon's performance was enjoyable, even though it's a little bit weak for an Oscar nomination.
So, other than that the only Oscar-type films for this year I've seen so far are Up, An Education, Julie and Julia, Coco Before Chanel and Cheri, the latter two which haven't received any awards attention, but which definitely should have done. So here are my basic winners so far:
Best Picture - Up
Best Actor - Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Best Actress - Michelle Pfeiffer - Cheri
Best Supporting Actor - Alfred Molina - An Education
Best Supporting Actress - Rosamund Pike - An Education
Best Director - Lee Daniels - Precious
Best Adapted Screenplay - An Education
Best Original Screenplay - Up
Quite an original line up, I think... Of course, all will become aparent tonight at the ceremony. On a side note, I'm really looking forward to Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting!
I haven't seen many of the films nominated. I haven't seen Avatar, purely because there's always been something else I'd rather see. Due to complete lack of updates to this blog recently, I think I've seen three films since:
Precious - I saw this yesterday, after reading the book it's based upon all in one day last week. It was such a good adaptation and piece of directing - it really drew out how I imagined Precious' character from the book. Although it was a bit slower than I imagined, it was still really good. All the acting performances were great, especially Gabourey Sidibe in the title role, and Mo'nique as her mother. I also quite enjoyed Mariah Carey's role, having never seen her act before.
The Lovely Bones - Another adaptation from a book, which was so disapointing. Jackson left out so many significant elements from the book, such as the development of Ruth's character and the mother's affair. It's not as if he is shy about making long films, after all he did direct all three of the Lord of the Rings films, so it was a mystery why he did this. Other than that, the performances were all good, but not really enough to save the film.
Invictus - I really admire Clint Eastwood, and this film was no excpetion. Although it's probably my least favourite of his films that I've watched so far, it was still a really good, informative piece that drew two true stories together really well. Morgan Freeman gave such a good performance, and Matt Damon's performance was enjoyable, even though it's a little bit weak for an Oscar nomination.
So, other than that the only Oscar-type films for this year I've seen so far are Up, An Education, Julie and Julia, Coco Before Chanel and Cheri, the latter two which haven't received any awards attention, but which definitely should have done. So here are my basic winners so far:
Best Picture - Up
Best Actor - Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Best Actress - Michelle Pfeiffer - Cheri
Best Supporting Actor - Alfred Molina - An Education
Best Supporting Actress - Rosamund Pike - An Education
Best Director - Lee Daniels - Precious
Best Adapted Screenplay - An Education
Best Original Screenplay - Up
Quite an original line up, I think... Of course, all will become aparent tonight at the ceremony. On a side note, I'm really looking forward to Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting!
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Oscar Nominations
So, the Oscar nominations were announced today. Last year I was so excited for this day and for the ceremony itself, but this year I actually didn't even know that it was today until my Mum casually mentioned that there had been a small item about it on the news. This is probably because, compared to 2008, 2009 was a boring year for film. No one really cares, least of all the media, about Meryl vs. Sandra, unlike last year when every day there was at least one article about Kate vs. Everyone Else.
I'll have to confess that I've seen very few 2009 films. As a matter of fact, I've seen 17 2009 films. Before I cringe at this, though, I'll just remind myself that last year I had seen even less at this point, mainly due to the fact that I was fourteen and the majority of the films were rated 15.
Best Picture 2009. Well we're back to the old format, with 10 nominations instead of five. Aparently AMPAS decided to reinstate this old rule because they felt they were alienating the average cinema-goer by just having five nominations. To be honest, with the exception of Up and Avatar, which would most probably have been nominated even if there were still only five nominations, the other 8 are very much the usual type of Oscar-bait films, so this has really failed on all levels, as many would say the Oscars do in general. Personally, I'm rooting for anything except for Avatar to win, not because I dislike James Cameron but because Avatar didn't really have a story. If Up were to win it would be a first for this category. I rather enjoyed Up, as a matter of fact, and would be happy for it to win - the message was actually remarkably powerful. I haven't seen any of the other films except for An Education, which I thought was fantastic, and a British film come to that.
I haven't seen any of the performances nominated for best actor, mainly because of the ridiculous and somewhat pointless delay between US and UK release dates, but I would love Colin Firth to win, simply because this is probably a career definining performance for him and so different to what he normally does. If he doesn't win now, he'll probably never even be nominated again.
Best actress is always my favourite category. As a certified Meryl Streep lover I would love Meryl to win her third Oscar, of which she is most certainly overdue. The problem is, whilst it was extremely enjoyable, Meryl's performance in Julie and Julia was not really a great performance. Good, but not great. I don't want Meryl to win when there were better performances. Which brings me to Carey Mulligan, the new face of British cinema. Such a great, relatable performance in An Education, which could have so easily gone unnoticed. I'm not a Helen Mirren fan (The Queen....I swear I saw a different film to everyone else?), and I have yet to see Sandra or Gabourey's performances, the latter of which I'm really looking forward to, but at the moment I really want Carey to win. The trouble is, I can see another Keira Knightley situation, whereby she was nominated young and for a breakout performance, but denied a win until the Academy could reward her for an even better performance later in life. It would all have been so much simpler is Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated...her performance in Cheri was outstanding.
I can't wait to see all the performances in the supporting categories, of which I have only seen Pénélope Cruz's in Nine so far. Whilst I think Marion Cottilard for the same film also deserved a nomination, I paticularly admire Stanley Tucci and Vera Farmiga's acting, so am looking forward to their performances in paticular. They are both underrated performers so it's wonderful to see them gain recognition.
Finally, to the best director category. Personally, I think the Academy will go one of two ways. They will either give the Oscar to Kathryn Bigelow, who is not only the most deserving candidate but would also be the first woman to win the award, or to her ex-husband James Cameron, who is not a deserving candidate. Tarantino's nomination is a surprise to say the least, the release date of Inglorious Basterds was long before awards season. I can't even see it for two and a bit years because it's an 18, just like I still haven't seen Taken from last year. I don't see either Jason Reitman, as much as I admire his quirkiness, or Lee Daniels taking the award, although there is always a surprise to be had.
Overall, the Oscars are dismissed by many as one huge love fest for a few heavy weights in the industry. They may be based mainly on politics, reviews and buzz, and of course many deserving foreign, independent and even some mainstream films are overlooked every year, but it is difficult to deny that more often than not some of the best achievements in cinema are indeed rewarded. Me, I just love making my own Oscar nominations, which will be done as soon as possible.
I'll have to confess that I've seen very few 2009 films. As a matter of fact, I've seen 17 2009 films. Before I cringe at this, though, I'll just remind myself that last year I had seen even less at this point, mainly due to the fact that I was fourteen and the majority of the films were rated 15.
Best Picture 2009. Well we're back to the old format, with 10 nominations instead of five. Aparently AMPAS decided to reinstate this old rule because they felt they were alienating the average cinema-goer by just having five nominations. To be honest, with the exception of Up and Avatar, which would most probably have been nominated even if there were still only five nominations, the other 8 are very much the usual type of Oscar-bait films, so this has really failed on all levels, as many would say the Oscars do in general. Personally, I'm rooting for anything except for Avatar to win, not because I dislike James Cameron but because Avatar didn't really have a story. If Up were to win it would be a first for this category. I rather enjoyed Up, as a matter of fact, and would be happy for it to win - the message was actually remarkably powerful. I haven't seen any of the other films except for An Education, which I thought was fantastic, and a British film come to that.
I haven't seen any of the performances nominated for best actor, mainly because of the ridiculous and somewhat pointless delay between US and UK release dates, but I would love Colin Firth to win, simply because this is probably a career definining performance for him and so different to what he normally does. If he doesn't win now, he'll probably never even be nominated again.
Best actress is always my favourite category. As a certified Meryl Streep lover I would love Meryl to win her third Oscar, of which she is most certainly overdue. The problem is, whilst it was extremely enjoyable, Meryl's performance in Julie and Julia was not really a great performance. Good, but not great. I don't want Meryl to win when there were better performances. Which brings me to Carey Mulligan, the new face of British cinema. Such a great, relatable performance in An Education, which could have so easily gone unnoticed. I'm not a Helen Mirren fan (The Queen....I swear I saw a different film to everyone else?), and I have yet to see Sandra or Gabourey's performances, the latter of which I'm really looking forward to, but at the moment I really want Carey to win. The trouble is, I can see another Keira Knightley situation, whereby she was nominated young and for a breakout performance, but denied a win until the Academy could reward her for an even better performance later in life. It would all have been so much simpler is Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated...her performance in Cheri was outstanding.
I can't wait to see all the performances in the supporting categories, of which I have only seen Pénélope Cruz's in Nine so far. Whilst I think Marion Cottilard for the same film also deserved a nomination, I paticularly admire Stanley Tucci and Vera Farmiga's acting, so am looking forward to their performances in paticular. They are both underrated performers so it's wonderful to see them gain recognition.
Finally, to the best director category. Personally, I think the Academy will go one of two ways. They will either give the Oscar to Kathryn Bigelow, who is not only the most deserving candidate but would also be the first woman to win the award, or to her ex-husband James Cameron, who is not a deserving candidate. Tarantino's nomination is a surprise to say the least, the release date of Inglorious Basterds was long before awards season. I can't even see it for two and a bit years because it's an 18, just like I still haven't seen Taken from last year. I don't see either Jason Reitman, as much as I admire his quirkiness, or Lee Daniels taking the award, although there is always a surprise to be had.
Overall, the Oscars are dismissed by many as one huge love fest for a few heavy weights in the industry. They may be based mainly on politics, reviews and buzz, and of course many deserving foreign, independent and even some mainstream films are overlooked every year, but it is difficult to deny that more often than not some of the best achievements in cinema are indeed rewarded. Me, I just love making my own Oscar nominations, which will be done as soon as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)