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.

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.

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.

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.

Wuthering Heights

So the Lyric Hammersmith does Free First Night tickets for residents, and I was lucky enough to pick up a pair of free tickets to tonight's show of Wuthering Heights - Bollywood version. And when I say "lucky enough," I mean that I was lucky that I didn't decide to spend money to see this show.

I'll start with this. It is nice to see a theater production full of Asian people, as I feel like they don't get enough opportunity to make it in the Western arts world. However, it is sad when this is how the opportunity gets used..

I'm not really sure where to begin. Given that I'm not Indian, I feel bad judging the Bollywood-ness of it, which was supposed to make it interesting. I did see the show with an Indian girl though, and I was able to confirm with her some of my thoughts about the show. For instance, a Bollywood musical usually isn't composed entirely of cheesy bad-Broadway-esque ballads, right? Throwing in some sitar does not a Bollywood song make. I thought there'd be some flashy Bollywood dancing and fun songs (I guess I caught the Slumdog fever), but I was sorely disappointed. I got all excited for it when everyone started singing this (relatively) high energy song about a camel race. But then they just sang it in rows. Staring out at the audience. It was kind of like dancing, but like the kind where you stand in rows and stare forward. And the Indian accents? Let's just say this didn't transfer from India.

Okay, Bollywood shortcomings aside, we can still try to explore other redeeming features of the show. Okay. Tried. And failed. The acting was pretty much a struggle all around, but I don't fault the actors, in that the characters were just so poorly developed and inconsistent. The main female character seemed to change sides more than Lindsey Lohan, and the show just kind of glossed over anything from the book that made the Heathcliff character remotely interesting. It was good the show used a storyteller format, as that kind of justified the choppiness and complete lack of flow of the story. Given how choppy it was, it still managed to drag in all the little random thrown-together scenes. Even the painfully cheesy dialogue, which at one point had me spontaneously enter a fit of uncontrollable laughter, couldn't make the scenes go any faster.

The production quality of the show felt a little high school musicalish to me (and I'm not talking the Kenny Ortega version starring Zac Efron ... I'm talking the actual kind that gets put on by high schools), though I did think the sandstorm effects were pretty cool.

I also found it a little funny that they just called it Wuthering Heights. I mean, couldn't they have given it a different name and said it was based on Wuthering Heights? At least have some element of creativity. Okay, so to sum up: I am disappointed because a) I usually write much more entertaining bad reviews and b) them Asians got themselves on stage but let me down. Tough.

Three Days of Rain

I finally got around to seeing Three Days of Rain last night. I remember it being not amazing the first time I saw it on Broadway, but not terrible. I think Julia (Robert)'s mediocre (awful) performance kind of made me remember it poorly. I was watching it last night, and I was thinking, this isn't that bad, I wonder why I thought it was such a bad play. I went back and read my old review on nytheaterthoughts.blogspot.com, and realized I kind of liked it the first time. So that made more sense.

So basically, it wasn't too bad. The three actors play three characters who find a journal about their fathers, and then in the second act they play the older generation. I'm too lazy to give you a plot breakdown. There are some interesting ties between the two generations, and it requires a bit of thinking which is pretty nice. The second act is a bit flat I thought, but the show was all in all pretty good. I thought James MacAvoy was great. He's got a good American accent. Nigel Harman was a little too flamboyant Jewish grandma for my tastes, and it's tough that I inevitably compare him to Bradley Cooper's awesome performance.

I'm lazy and a terrible poster.

The Mousetrap

So this play's been going on 54 years or something like that. It's a pretty fun little whodunit, and, as you watch the mediocre at best acting on stage, it makes you really think about all the stellar people who must have been in this show such a long time ago. That's not very nice; there were a couple of decent performances, but let's be honest, you see this one because it's a London institution.

In any case, a trifle predictable, but all very much in the whodunit nature. It did drag at places, but all in all it was still pretty entertaining. If you stumble across a really cheap ticket and you've got some time to kill, it's worth a gander, if only because it's been around so long.

On the Waterfront

When I first saw that "On the Waterfront" was going to be adapted into a play, I groaned. Then the reviews came out, and I talked to somebody who said it was good, and so I decided I saw it. Then I saw it, and I groaned. I must say I'm not digging this whole "Let's turn movies into plays" thing sweeping London (Rain Man, On the Waterfront, Calendar Girls, not to mention Priscilla and Sister Act), but I thought I'd give it a chance...

What can I say? The movie was adapted into something very theatrical, I will say. However, it seemed more like a giant SNL skit rather than the powerful, moving film that it was based on. All the main characters seemed like such one dimensional caricatures. Terry Malloy struck me as a mix between Sean Penn as Harvey Milk and John Travolta in Grease. I literally laughed out loud at some of his ridiculous deliveries and incessant rocking. Edie did the overdramatic damsel in distress very well, but that's basically all she did. And Johnny Friendly gave us a master class on how to yell all your lines with absolutely no emotion. I thought the priest was okay though. However, if you do consider the play as kind of this caricatured, slightly comedic, and super cheesy version of the film then I guess it was okay. But I don't think that's what they were going for.

The set is basically a giant raked stage with a silhouette of the Statue of Liberty with a hook in the background and a bunch of chairs and some pretty impressive use of light. Everything is pantomimed, and sometimes it works and sometimes it's just silly. The rest of the ensemble cast was probably the best thing about the show, as they morphed from crowds to thugs, and even to pigeons. Stephen Berkoff thus managed to make the play very theatrical, but I just didn't think it worked, and I haven't seen the movie in like 15 years. The first half just seemed like rushed, abbreviated versions of scenes, where the actors just recited their lines at a back-and-forth pace that didn't allow for any emotion. However, when it got to the second act with the really famous scenes and lines, they really dragged those puppies out to death. The play really didn't need to be as long as it did, and didn't need an intermission. It had some interesting points and some decent theatrical elements , but if you're looking for some gravitas, go rent the movie.

Enjoy

Okay, this is the third play in my good plays come in three theory that I just came up with because I saw three good plays in a row. This one was PHENOMENAL, in my opinion. AND it was about old people. Completely. So we're just throwing a whole wrench (that's a "spanner" now that I'm in London) in my previously mentioned play tastes. I decided to check this one out because Alan Bennett wrote "The History Boys," which is one of my faves, and this turned out to be brilliant.

The play revolves around an old couple in Leeds with two grownup kids who don't live in the house. Their house is now in the projects, and it's about to be torn down so they can move into some new flats. However, before their house is destroyed, they've been sent to be observed by a silent sociologist in an attempt to preserve their traditions and ways of life or whatnot. It then morphs into surreal chaos that is hilarious but also very dark and rather sad. Allison Steadman is phenomenal as a poor old lady who is slowly losing her memory. She is sweet and likable, with a lovable grandma-like naivete complemented by her amazing comic timing and delivery. The actress who plays her friend Nora also does a scene-stealing job when helping out in times of crises.

The set is an intricately dingy house that seems perfect for a pair of old people in which you would just not want to live in. It morphs as the play continues, and is really quite cool.

Dark and sad while simultaneously hilarious, "Enjoy" is my kind of play. It's really one of the best I've seen in London (if you're into that kind of stuff), and I would highly recommend.

The Pitmen Painters

Okay, so good plays I've decided are coming in threes and this is the second one after The Overcoat. Pitmen Painters was really quite phenomenal I thought. I was a little apprehensive at first, since it's a play about old men, and I'm not always huge on the plays revolving around old people (no offense to old people).

The play centered around a group of miners who decided to take an art appreciation class, and ended up painting and having their paintings recognized and exhibited in pretty high end places.

It was funny, moving, and an altogether great night at the theater. The cast was solid all around, and the simple set and use of art-class slide-projection-ness worked really well. One of the better plays I've seen in a long time.

La Cage Aux Folles

So, I wouldn't say this show was ruined by Graham Norton, but it came pretty close. It was a great little production, high energy and lots of fun. However, you have to question how anyone decided that casting Graham Norton as Albin (that's Nathan Lane in "The Birdcage"), who is the crazy flamboyant, nightclub-headlining star of the show, was a good idea. First off, as the lead in a musical, you usually have to be able to sing. Now, I'm going to give Graham Norton props in that he knows he can't sing, and he still gave it his all. But really, it's kind of sad to hear all these songs and think, "hm, I bet in a show with a real musical theater actor, this nice duet would have a harmony" (sure enough, listening to the soundtrack, it did). My friends thought, "oh, I thought he was supposed to be flat and emotionless, like he was an over-the-hill actor," which, even if he was, he shouldn't let it transfer to the parts where he's not playing an over-the-hill actor. Yeah, unfortunate.

In any case, the rest of the show, quite good. Lots of energy, lots of fun, very impressive and ridiculously buff drag queens, and some great singing by Albin's husband and son, and Chez Jacqueline. Worth checking out, just wait until Graham finishes up his run.

The Overcoat

It's been a while since I've seen something in London that was really fresh, and The Overcoat at the Lyric Hammersmith was a welcome relief. Based on Gogol's play, this is a funky play that consists of dialogue entirely in different languages (each player speaks a different language), and really revolves around some amazing ensemble cast movement and imagery.

Essentially the play revolves around this kid who is trying to succeed at work to win this Overcoat, while also trying to court this girl at work. I'll be honest, it did get a bit slow and repetitive in the middle, but it was just a spectacular frenzy of very creative and ingenius movement that consisted of a lot of flying and people-acting as sets, and loud noises and bright lights. Pretty durn cool.

Saturday Night

So apparently one of Stephen Sondheim's earliest musicals, Saturday Night transferred from a tiny venue to a bigger venue and I went and saw it with my friend Ginger. It got great reviews, advertised as a singing and dancing non-stop train or some sort. Well, it was a short run, and it's not really worth writing about. I will say the singing was at times cringe-worthy (even in a funky Sondheim score, the flat notes were like WHOA) and the dancing (there was dancing?) was not a train of any sort. However, it was kind of an endearing story line of guys in Brooklyn trying to live it up and get laid, although everything I thought was going to be interesting about it just kind of fell apart. Yeah, the second act not so great. Okay, that's enough.

Dimetos

So I've been bad again and I haven't been posting. So I'm going to just post some short posts to catch up on some shows.

I saw Dimetos a few weeks ago at the Donmar Warehouse. This was my first foray into the venue, and it's amazing. It's incredibly intimate, but with a sizable stage. Dimetos takes place on a faraway island, where the title character, played by Jonathan Pryce, has basically retired to after being a top engineer in "the city." He lives with his niece and his maid, and one day a former colleague of Dimetos's from the city comes to beg him to come back.

The play is quite interesting, and you think it will explore some pretty interesting questions about values, materialism, and the direction the world is going in. It kind of starts to, and the first act is pretty interesting, but then it takes an unexpected turn, and the second act is kind of just out of left field. It doesn't really feel like anything gets accomplished, and it's not terribly satisfying. The cast did a fine job, and the set is really remarkable, transforming from an island retreat in the first act to a sandy beach in the second. The play itself though, a little funky. Perhaps trying a bit too much to be preachy, and ultimately kind of losing itself. So Athol Fugard, loved "Master Harold...and the boys," but this one... started good, but really turned kind of meh.

War Horse

Tonight I had this fun opportunity to go see War Horse on press night with my friend Emma. This means we got to schmooze with famous people at the after party. We didn't do quite enough schmoozing with famous people, but we did eat and drink and stalk famous people. But enough about stalking famous people - to the play!

I must say I had kind of built up wanting to see this play while it was at the National but missed it, and so was pretty happy for this opportunity to see it on press night of its West End transfer. So I went in with some high hopes and expectations. Usually this ends up in disappointment, but tonight was not the case.

War Horse follows the story of, you guessed it, a horse. More specifically it follows the friendship between this boy and his horse, and how they get separated because the horse gets sold to serve in WWI. It was a moving play following a very touching friendship with solid acting and a really nice drawing/video projected backdrop, but the real standout of the play is the puppetry that really makes the play come alive. The horses (of which there are quite a few) are controlled mainly by three puppeteers, and the way they move - running, jumping, whinnying, and even just breathing - is really quite breathtaking. The horses are clearly puppets and not like real horses, but the movements and small quirks were so lifelike that they seemed just like real animals on stage. Other animals made their way on stage, most notably a very entertaining puppet goose. It was pretty surprising how gripped I was just staring at a horse puppet running around on stage with no dialogue and no other characters for like five minutes. The play was almost three hours, but in no way felt it.

The one thing I thought was a little weird was how the play really only worked because so many of the characters were equiphiles that bordered on the slightly disturbing. They seemed to care more about the horses than they did about their own lives and safety, which at time seemed a little ridiculous. But I guess that was symbolic of humanity and compassion even in a time of war - the ability for anyone to do good regardless of whether they were the "good guys" or the "bad guys."

Worth seeing. Go check it out.

About this blog

Given the amount of theater (or 'theatre,' as they say in this country) that I see, I figured it would be a good and nice idea to share my thoughts on the shows I see. So now we have a little forum where friends can follow along with some of the fun stuff I do and see in London (and eat on my companion blog "Stuff I Eat in London", where visitors can get some ideas for shows to see (or avoid) when you're visiting, and where fellow theatergoers can share their thoughts on the shows I see.

So to get a sense of my theater tastes, you can check out my old blog, that has now for years been neglected but I once faithfully kept with my New York theater buddy Lydia. Hopefully the bustling readership from that blog will transfer over to this new one (Hi Lydia's grandma!), and I might even get some new readers. Ambitious, I know.

In any case, since I've already seen a bunch of shows but haven't been blogging, I'll just try to throw up a quick post for each, but then really start reviewing starting now. Pretty exciting, huh? Enjoy!