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.