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.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
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.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)