Too Close to the Sun

So it's been a long while since I've posted, but I was motivated by a new musical I just saw tonight. You might be able to guess what I thought of it by my rushing home to post on it: in a word - terrible. So here's the plot summary Ernest Hemingway is living in Idaho with his wife and a young assistant. Man comes and tries to get him to sign his life story to a movie. Ernest answers him. He shoots himself kind of out of the blue (which they say as the first line of the show, so it's not really a spoiler...). Yes. That's it. Two hours and 45 minutes. And that's all that happens.

So let's tell you a bit about the show. It's a West End musical with four characters. It's interesting that they decided to make it a West End show with such a small cast, wait, hold on, it's interesting they decided to make it a West End show because it's TERRIBLE. You'd think, "four character, no plot, probably a lot of character development and intricate relationships." Negative, senor. Didn't learn a thing about these boring flat characters. I did fall asleep pretty quickly for a good chunk but I'm sure nothing happened. Mind you, this is a West End musical; people shouldn't be sedated. "Well, at least it's going to be nearly three hours of well-written witty dialogue." Nein, Gretel. It's some of the most terrible writing EVER. Full of ridiculous cliches that are kind of not cliches because they're just not used correctly or they don't make sense. Every two lines is some sort of metaphor or simile that, if you're actually listening, make you go, WHAT? Like, "She's always smiling, like a shark about to attack," or "He's like an open book, I can run circles around him." I'm not lying to you, EVERY OTHER LINE in the whole damn show. If they had cut all that terribleness it would have been half the length.

Okay, bad writing, bad characters, but the score! Fabulous songs, right? Nyet, Comrade. I can sing you the songs. Just sing a random note for every syllable in this blog post and you got it. I never really knew why there was a song where there was. It was always like, what's going on? why is a song necessary? what is he even singing about? The lyrics were terrible, but that didn't matter because you were cringing at the actual music. I heard a couple songs at West End Live, and thought, eh, these are like the excessively artsy atonal songs. Turns out, they're all atonal. And not atonal like Light in the Piazza, where it's interesting, but atonal where it's clearly very difficult for the actors to sing because it's a bunch of random notes that don't sound good together (put that on top of the fact that all but one were not very good anyhow...). The phrasing and notes are completely unintuitive and I felt bad for the poor singers who just had to jump around randomly and make everyone cringe. And every song ended on the most incomplete cadence ever. Like me ending this sentence on a. Yeah, it's like, come on, one more note that makes it a closing note or an ending. COME ON. But no. Just terrible. It actually hurt at times, when I wasn't convulsing in laughter thinking about how someone actually approved the songs and the show in general. I had to cover my ears because it hurt that badly. I think the background score might have been better than the songs, since they kind of didn't go together, but when I think about it, it sounded kind of like it belonged in a black & white film noir. Better than the songs yes, but still not very good.

So to sum up, no plot, undeveloped characters, unsingable songs and terrible score, bad musical. It's the reason people don't like developing original new musicals. Who decided to greenlight this one? Why did they think people would think watching old people do nothing singing bad songs and saying annoying things for three hours would be a hit on the West End (which even if they suck have to at least be entertaining)? Or anywhere?

Finally, if you think I'm being snobby or picky. Probably about 2/3 of the stalls left at intermission. Sad, I know. I would have left too but I felt bad and had nothing better to do (i.e. had no paint to watch dry). Mean as it is (to the audience), they've got to pull the "In My Life" tactic and get rid of that intermission. Okay, I'm done being mean. Skip this show.

A Doll's House

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.