Finally, a solid recommendation. I've just put this play on the list of really good shows I've seen in London thus far. It was a gripping play that is extremely relevant to the current UK political climate, with all the fraud and scandal floating around and the administration dropping like flies. A Doll's House revolves around Gillian Anderson's character who is basically, let's say, a trophy wife for this bright new politician who has recently taken a seat after a less than graceful fall of his predecessor. However, as the plot thickens, we see Gillian Anderson's character has gotten embroiled in a bit more of a tangle than she'd like, and we see this housewife evolve in empowerment.
I must say I was very impressed by Gillan Anderson's performance. She was completely believable as this "doll" of a housewife, despite making her name with her strong female X-Files character. She garners sympathy even when you're not sure if she was in the right or not, and she is both subservient and powerful in the play. The Donmar Warehouse is a wonderfully intimate venue with an attractive set hosting a very solid ensemble. Relevant, timely, gripping, and moving, this play is worth both the morning wait for standing room tickets and the hours of standing. Definitely go check it out if you can.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
All's Well That Ends Well
All's Well That Ends Well is one of those ridiculous Shakespeare plays where you're just like, "Yeah, gender roles back in Shakespeare's time aren't really so believable now..." You know, like Taming of the Shrew. Or this one. I mean, it's not misogynistic like Taming of the Shrew, but it is kind of bred on a premise that probably wouldn't really fly today. Girl falls for hot jerk. Jerk rejects girl. (spoiler alert) Girl still so in love with jerk that he tricks him into impregnating her and then forces them to marry. Supposedly they live happily ever after. Okay, so now that we've gotten ridiculous premise out of the way, we can talk a bit more about the play.
Here goes. It's quite an interesting and enjoyable presentation of a ridiculous Shakespeare "comedy," I think. The set is composed of a very fairy-tale like evil castle, with a lot of projection used across the backdrop that is again very fairy-tale like in a dark sort of way. The first act is pretty slow and not great, but if you tough it out the second act really redeems it. It's quicker paced and much funnier, and the play is just much easier and more fun to follow. The cast is pretty good all around, though in most of the Shakespeare I've seen here (specifically Donmar's Twelfth Night, Globe's Romeo & Juliet, and this one), I just haven't been really impressed by the leading ladies (although Regent Park's Open Air Theatre's Much Ado About Nothing has been an exception). Regardless, despite the play being ridiculous, as a Travelex production for a tenner, it's probably worth a go.
Here goes. It's quite an interesting and enjoyable presentation of a ridiculous Shakespeare "comedy," I think. The set is composed of a very fairy-tale like evil castle, with a lot of projection used across the backdrop that is again very fairy-tale like in a dark sort of way. The first act is pretty slow and not great, but if you tough it out the second act really redeems it. It's quicker paced and much funnier, and the play is just much easier and more fun to follow. The cast is pretty good all around, though in most of the Shakespeare I've seen here (specifically Donmar's Twelfth Night, Globe's Romeo & Juliet, and this one), I just haven't been really impressed by the leading ladies (although Regent Park's Open Air Theatre's Much Ado About Nothing has been an exception). Regardless, despite the play being ridiculous, as a Travelex production for a tenner, it's probably worth a go.
Priscilla Queen of the Desert
This is a big old musical that has become kind of the new great time on the West End. And sure it's basically that. It's a super campy musical composed of disco numbers in which three drag queens drive a glittery giant bus across the Australian outback. It's totally cheesy and as gay as you would expect it to be, but entertaining enough. It's got spectacle and crazy costumes and basically meets your expectations. Basically, if you actually know what the show is and you want to go see it (i.e. you're not a red state tourist that has stumbled across a cheap West End show ticket) then you should enjoy it.
Duet for One
Okay, it's been a long while since I've posted, so I'm going to throw up a whole bunch of short posts in a row again.
Duet for One transferred from the Almeida to the West End and centers around a professional violinist who has come down with Multiple Sclerosis and thus had to give up her playing career. The play takes place in her therapist's apartment and is made up entirely of their interactions together.
So if you know me, you might think, "Hey, Kevin used to play the violin, and he likes music, he should really enjoy this very interesting music-centric play." That's what I thought too. Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it at all, as it wasn't bad, but let's lay this out a little. It's a two person play, in a relatively large West End venue. One character's in a wheelchair, and one's in a therapist chair. And it's nearly 3 hours long. COME ON. Call me an uncultured schmuck, but if you can get through this one without falling asleep, or at least checking your watch every fifteen minutes after the first hour and a half, then you are a better person than I. I mean come on, it's set up to be a perfect 1:30, no intermission, gripping little drama in an intimate venue. I mean, since the play's all about character development, it does require some time... but really? It's two people in a therapy session. You don't need three hours. Just tell us the damn answer already.
To be fair, the performances are solid, and the premise is pretty interesting. Also, you can sleep through large chunks of it and still be pretty confident about what's going on. But as drawn is as you may be in the beginning, you are still watching two people on a static set talking, back and forth, for nearly three hours. Eventually they do start screaming, and things get heated, and if I hadn't just been sitting there for two and a half hours, I probably would have gotten more into it. It's not a bad play; it just really lacks self-awareness by thinking it's supposed to be a long play when it really shouldn't. So if you're into that sort of thing. Go for it.
Duet for One transferred from the Almeida to the West End and centers around a professional violinist who has come down with Multiple Sclerosis and thus had to give up her playing career. The play takes place in her therapist's apartment and is made up entirely of their interactions together.
So if you know me, you might think, "Hey, Kevin used to play the violin, and he likes music, he should really enjoy this very interesting music-centric play." That's what I thought too. Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it at all, as it wasn't bad, but let's lay this out a little. It's a two person play, in a relatively large West End venue. One character's in a wheelchair, and one's in a therapist chair. And it's nearly 3 hours long. COME ON. Call me an uncultured schmuck, but if you can get through this one without falling asleep, or at least checking your watch every fifteen minutes after the first hour and a half, then you are a better person than I. I mean come on, it's set up to be a perfect 1:30, no intermission, gripping little drama in an intimate venue. I mean, since the play's all about character development, it does require some time... but really? It's two people in a therapy session. You don't need three hours. Just tell us the damn answer already.
To be fair, the performances are solid, and the premise is pretty interesting. Also, you can sleep through large chunks of it and still be pretty confident about what's going on. But as drawn is as you may be in the beginning, you are still watching two people on a static set talking, back and forth, for nearly three hours. Eventually they do start screaming, and things get heated, and if I hadn't just been sitting there for two and a half hours, I probably would have gotten more into it. It's not a bad play; it just really lacks self-awareness by thinking it's supposed to be a long play when it really shouldn't. So if you're into that sort of thing. Go for it.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Notes from New York - The Last 5 Years and Tick, Tick .. Boom!
I saw these two musicals coming in for short runs and I got really excited. I've heard great things about Jason Robert Brown and I actually hadn't seen any of his shows, and Jonathan Larson is just rent-tastic. So I went to go check these puppies out.
The Last 5 Years is a two man show, telling the story of five years of a relationship, with one telling the story forwards and the other backwards. Even though you've basically got a back and forth set of loveyish songs sung one at a time, the show never got slow, and the music always stayed interesting. It was very well performed by Julie Atherton and Paul Spicer, and I was really impressed by the simple but moving and well-sung and acted show. That being said, I was pretty excited to see Tick Tick Boom!
Unfortunately, my expectations may have been a bit high. The show itself was good enough, a little like "Rent" light, with very reminiscent songs and lyrics and basically a similar premise of artsy guy trying to make it big with the requisite terminal diseases. Most of the music was nice (even though there were some kind of cheesy gimmicky songs), and it would have been a fine show if the lead guy didn't bring it down so much. Now I feel bad saying this, since I looked him up afterwards and he seems to have quite an illustrious West End career (Paul Keating, I believe). But geez! Cringeworthy flatness all around, with a shaky voice that just didn't work so well. I mean, he sounded pretty good in some songs, and sung quite well with the other two on stage, but there were just so many notes that he didn't .. quite.. get.. there. And my ear's not all that good. Cringe. And cringe again. And then the other thing that annoys me is when actors just aren't believable. I'll be honest, he looked the part, an attractive, artsy New Yorker, but I think as the play progressed he forgot he was playing a straight guy with a girlfriend. He was kind of Harvey Fiersteinish, and he just got a little too flaming when he was angry and such, or fawning over Stephen Sondheim. Pretty annoying. So not a great voice and a not great acting on his part, but he was supported by two very strong cast members that played his girlfriend and his best friend.
Oh, and come on. Did no New Yorkers see this show before it went up? "Driving down Houston Street." Except he pronounced it "Hooston." Not even "Hueston" like the rest of America, and definitely not "Howston" like any New Yorker knows. "Hooston." Come on. You know you're in London watching something called "Notes from New York" when...
In any case, The Last 5 Years was great, and Tick Tick Boom could have been quite a bit better if it weren't for the main guy.
The Last 5 Years is a two man show, telling the story of five years of a relationship, with one telling the story forwards and the other backwards. Even though you've basically got a back and forth set of loveyish songs sung one at a time, the show never got slow, and the music always stayed interesting. It was very well performed by Julie Atherton and Paul Spicer, and I was really impressed by the simple but moving and well-sung and acted show. That being said, I was pretty excited to see Tick Tick Boom!
Unfortunately, my expectations may have been a bit high. The show itself was good enough, a little like "Rent" light, with very reminiscent songs and lyrics and basically a similar premise of artsy guy trying to make it big with the requisite terminal diseases. Most of the music was nice (even though there were some kind of cheesy gimmicky songs), and it would have been a fine show if the lead guy didn't bring it down so much. Now I feel bad saying this, since I looked him up afterwards and he seems to have quite an illustrious West End career (Paul Keating, I believe). But geez! Cringeworthy flatness all around, with a shaky voice that just didn't work so well. I mean, he sounded pretty good in some songs, and sung quite well with the other two on stage, but there were just so many notes that he didn't .. quite.. get.. there. And my ear's not all that good. Cringe. And cringe again. And then the other thing that annoys me is when actors just aren't believable. I'll be honest, he looked the part, an attractive, artsy New Yorker, but I think as the play progressed he forgot he was playing a straight guy with a girlfriend. He was kind of Harvey Fiersteinish, and he just got a little too flaming when he was angry and such, or fawning over Stephen Sondheim. Pretty annoying. So not a great voice and a not great acting on his part, but he was supported by two very strong cast members that played his girlfriend and his best friend.
Oh, and come on. Did no New Yorkers see this show before it went up? "Driving down Houston Street." Except he pronounced it "Hooston." Not even "Hueston" like the rest of America, and definitely not "Howston" like any New Yorker knows. "Hooston." Come on. You know you're in London watching something called "Notes from New York" when...
In any case, The Last 5 Years was great, and Tick Tick Boom could have been quite a bit better if it weren't for the main guy.
Burnt by the Sun
Oh the National Theatre does some pretty good stuff, and Burnt by the Sun has lived up to it. It's got a beautiful revolving set of a house, and it's based on an old Russian film. Again it's like, dude, can we write some plays that aren't based on movies? But it's another movie I haven't seen and thus have no basis for comparison, and so it seemed to work quite well as a play.
The first act is a little slow. It's exposition, you meet the characters, and you're like, hmm, what's going on? The second act it starts to get interesting, but it's really the last 20 minutes of the play that are the most impressive. It's a pretty interesting twist, and a rather gripping conclusion. But it kind of all comes out at the end, it still leaves you questioning it a little bit, and leaves you with a good impression of the play. Not all that much happens in the beginning, but the end of the play really makes you walk away thinking it's pretty durn cool and you forget about any overlong exposition. Worth checking out.
The first act is a little slow. It's exposition, you meet the characters, and you're like, hmm, what's going on? The second act it starts to get interesting, but it's really the last 20 minutes of the play that are the most impressive. It's a pretty interesting twist, and a rather gripping conclusion. But it kind of all comes out at the end, it still leaves you questioning it a little bit, and leaves you with a good impression of the play. Not all that much happens in the beginning, but the end of the play really makes you walk away thinking it's pretty durn cool and you forget about any overlong exposition. Worth checking out.
Calendar Girls
I'm pretty embarrassed to say that I saw this show, and I'm really embarrassed to say that I actually rather enjoyed it. I'm not huge on the whole plays-based-on-movies thing, but I haven't seen this movie, and I came across this ticket. If you recall my previous bias, I'm not really into old-people plays, but this one was pretty nice. I mean, it is about cancer and doing good things, which isn't really fair when it comes to making me all moved and teary-eyed. I mean let's be honest, you're kind of a bad person if you aren't at least a little bit touched by this play.
So yeah, it's got a decently solid ensemble of rather endearing old women. It's a simple but endearing set, and they do a good job reenacting the nudie pictures. And it's just inherently moving and feel-good. Not bad, though I'm terribly embarrassed to admit it.
So yeah, it's got a decently solid ensemble of rather endearing old women. It's a simple but endearing set, and they do a good job reenacting the nudie pictures. And it's just inherently moving and feel-good. Not bad, though I'm terribly embarrassed to admit it.
Dancing at Lughnasa
All I knew about Dancing at Lughnasa before going in was that it was a Meryl Streep movie about someone dying of cancer. I was totally wrong about the dying of cancer bit. I think I was mixing it up with another Meryl Streep movie. In any case, this show follows "Complicit" at the Old Vic, which if I had been more on top of my game, would have generated a scathing review as one of the worst things I've seen in London. In any case, it's hard to go wrong with a revival of a basically universally acclaimed play.
I'll be honest, based on the reviews that this show got, I thought it was going to be a bit better. It wasn't bad - it was probably better than the other Brian Friel play I've seen ("Faith Healer") - but it wasn't totally my play. It was basically a slice of life in the difficult life of these sisters in Ireland. The cool thing about is that it's narrated by the son of one of the sisters, and he kind of fast forwards the play to let us know about the future of each of the sisters. The set was pretty cool, still in the round, and the acting was strong all around. The play itself was just a little too "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" for me (I've not seen that, it's just what I imagined it to be), and not quite as moving as I thought it would be. But a solid production nonetheless.
I'll be honest, based on the reviews that this show got, I thought it was going to be a bit better. It wasn't bad - it was probably better than the other Brian Friel play I've seen ("Faith Healer") - but it wasn't totally my play. It was basically a slice of life in the difficult life of these sisters in Ireland. The cool thing about is that it's narrated by the son of one of the sisters, and he kind of fast forwards the play to let us know about the future of each of the sisters. The set was pretty cool, still in the round, and the acting was strong all around. The play itself was just a little too "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" for me (I've not seen that, it's just what I imagined it to be), and not quite as moving as I thought it would be. But a solid production nonetheless.
Waiting for Godot
I'm writing a bunch of mini-reviews, but hopefully I'll start being better about posting right after I see a show, rather than cramming a whole bunch of blog entries in a night. Anyhow, moving on.
Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart starring in Waiting for Godot. Really, can you get much better? I guess if you picked a play with a plot, you might be able to, but other than that, it's pretty much spectacular. Ian McKellen is a hero - absolutely steals the show with his hilarious and lovable Gogo. The relationship between the two is endearing and genuine. Magneto and Dr. Xavier are supported by a very comical Pozzo and his man on a leash. Everyone does a good job, but McKellen is hands down spectacula. It's great to watch Gandalf and Captain Picard as just two old men, waiting for Godot. Great show, go see it.
Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart starring in Waiting for Godot. Really, can you get much better? I guess if you picked a play with a plot, you might be able to, but other than that, it's pretty much spectacular. Ian McKellen is a hero - absolutely steals the show with his hilarious and lovable Gogo. The relationship between the two is endearing and genuine. Magneto and Dr. Xavier are supported by a very comical Pozzo and his man on a leash. Everyone does a good job, but McKellen is hands down spectacula. It's great to watch Gandalf and Captain Picard as just two old men, waiting for Godot. Great show, go see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)