Vegan Guide to Michelin Restaurants: The Clove Club, London, UKby Randi / August 22, 2016
I was so pumped to finally be seeing “Funny Girl” performed live, to hear in context the classic songs Barbra Streisand made famous and “Glee” made intolerable. Going into “Funny Girl”, the Menier Chocolate Factory (no it doesn’t make chocolate (I know it’s such bullshit (f-ing London))) production now playing at the West End’s Savoy Theatre, I knew to dial back expectations. Every single reviewer I trust (theatre fans and people on the forums, and not reviewers for The Guardian and other b.s. spewers) repeated that our star, Sheridan Smith, is not the strongest singer, and so to be warned. (I mean if anyone saw her turn as Elle Woods, then you know (but her acting is what you come for.)) Sheridan is famous (and infamous – we will get to that) over here in the UK, known for being a great comedian, a good actress, and a decent singer. Okay, that’s fine. Even for musicals where you want the (classic, ingrained-in-our-culture, wonderful) score to be sung with the heft it deserves, they can still be very enjoyable with a lesser singer if the acting is superb. Hell I saw “Evita” with Elena “I’m going to whisper all the high notes but I can dance like a Latina Hough sibling” Roger and I still thought it was great. So I was fully ready to be disappointed that the songs we all know and love weren’t belted to the rafters.
What I wasn’t expecting was that the singing wouldn’t even come close to being the real problem with this show. Not this production, but this show as written. And, yes, consequently the production for just, like, doing the show. Without changing anything! Or issuing a warning! “Funny Girl” needs to come with a freaking surgeon general’s warning because PEOPLE (PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE) it may be the most offensive piece of theatre or, hell, piece of art. It’s definitely the most offensive one I can think of right now anyway! I understand that it is from a very different age, but that doesn’t excuse the decision to do a straightforward revival of it, with no commentary or even nuance to say hey, we know this is crazy and we don’t believe it. It’s not like anyone’s doing a straight remake of “Song of the South” anytime soon. It’s too common for the values espoused in the show to still be held today, so the production and all involved so easily seem to be supporters of its messages instead of critics of them, as everyone with a brain and/or a pulse should be. It played like a PSA from Fox News during its Family Values Hour. Or as an infomercial from the campaign of he who shall not be named. So even though it is an old show, like old for the earth, that’s no excuse, because audiences are being fed the themes straight no chaser and taking them as continued gospel for the insane.
Okay, maybe you’d like to know what these messages are. Well, “Funny Girl” is a very fictionalized tale of Fanny Brice, the legendary actress from the ’20s and ‘30s known for the Ziegfeld Follies and the song “My Man” (not in the musical). It debuted on Broadway in 1964 with the score by Jules Styne and Bob Merrill and book by Isobel Lennart. I know you’re thinking ‘how can it be so anti-feminist if the book was written by a woman’ but hello Palin & Fiorina & Bachmann and the rest of those self-hating toxic beach diapers. (Also she was a COMMIEEEEEEEE!) So we see Fanny, this totally goofy Jewish girl from Brooklyn, trying to break into show business but everyone in her life – her friends, peers, family, and all the old yentas from the neighborhood – keep quoting my girl Shug Avery and telling her “damn you sho is ugly!” and so no one takes her dreams or her talent seriously for a while. Um, side note, I know I’m newer to the earth and wasn’t around, but I’m pretty sure the characterization of Fanny as overwhelmingly goofy physically, and as waddling like a duck/unable to look like a human when she walks because lol so chub, was a decision of the director and production and actors, so ick. I know Real Fanny was a comedian and made some amazingly silly faces as part of that but I don’t think her face was stuck in sideways baby duck face during every moment of her life.
Anyway, Fanny tells the people of horseville that she’s destined for stardom because she is the greatest star of all, in a song called “I Am the Greatest Star of All”. It’s hard to buy it when we haven’t seen her really do anything yet and it isn’t being sung by the greatest singer ever, as it was when Barbra sang it, so just gotta trust her on this one. She gets into vaudeville and her career takes off because she’s so outrageous and funny and untraditional, and she joins the esteemed Ziegfeld Follies, where she soon meets Nicky Arnstein, a suave tall person in a nice suit who is also a gambler and really a shit. (He’s played pretty perfectly by Darius Campbell, who really reminded me of Andy Garcia in “Ocean’s Eleven” #thatmonotonetho) Because he is so tall and suave and she is so disgusting and unlovable, Fanny falls for Nicky hard and is just counting her lucky stars every few seconds that he likes her back. (They sing “People” when they first meet, which I was excited for but it was kind of underwhelming.) No one can believe that anyone could ever love someone as repulsive as Fanny, and all the people in her life pretty much say that to her face, and Fanny can’t believe it either, so she resolves to marry Nicky as fast as she can to prove that she is worth something as a woman, because her stellar career and personal success means bupkis mit kaduchas if she can’t get a man. When she leaves a tour to find him and marry him, she sings to pretty much a random train conductor “Don’t Rain On My Parade”, which in my version she sings to Nicky when she decides not to marry him so she can focus on her career and finding someone worthy of her.
Nicky’s shifty business deals and gambles go up and down, and Fanny supports him through everything. This makes up the bulk of Act II, interspersed with some sort of painful scenes from the Follies and tooooo many numbers with the mother and the yentas and Fanny’s friend Eddie who is in love with her and is soooo the token ‘nice guy’ who thinks that just because he isn’t an outright asshat he is entitled to the thing he’s being sort of ‘nice’ to. I did appreciate “Sadie Sadie Married Lady” if only because I’m currently doing a “Gilmore Girls” rewatch and that’s the name of the episode where Lorelai gets engaged (the first time) and Sookie sings a bit of it (side note, Sheridan looked just like Melissa McCarthy at points! So that was a plus), but in truth it is as horrifying as the rest of the show’s messages. The whole point is how lucky an unattractive woman (obviously she is not really unattractive, not that that matters, but this is how it’s presented) is to find a man, any man, who cares if he’s a shit, and she better lock him down before he realizes that she isn’t a model. Then, when Fanny reaches the heights of success and makes a lot of money, she shouldn’t be proud, she should be ashamed because it makes her dickless husband struggle with being dickless, and her ability to pay for everything he could ever want makes Nicky feel like she’s choking him? Nicky gets sent to jail because of shady business deals and embezzlement, but every single person in the whole show blames Fanny for his crimes, because having a successful wife forced him to commit crimes, pretty much. Nicky leaves her when he gets out of jail because he can’t be suffocated by a wife who is happy to support him, and Fanny and her mother don’t fight the accuracy of his statements. I mean. No. I get that this is old but come the f on Bridget. The moral of this show was literally telling women not to do anything with their lives that could lead to success because it might make your raisin-balled husband feel the sads about his raisins.
When these types of messages are put forward with no commentary, it’s problematic because many people have zero critical reasoning skills. People who are these intellectual blank slates will accept them and swallow them without a second thought and just nod and say okay this is okay, sure sure. Then people who are already terrible people or at least moonlight as terrible people will hear this overt support for outdated, dangerous, and harmful views and they’ll think oh okay, I can make this my day job now. It’s kind of like why I despise “SVU” for normalizing violence against women by showing so goddamn much of it. Even though they are showing it as ‘bad’ and perpetrators get ‘punished’ (maybe/sometimes/never), it still normalizes the occurrence and lets people continue to accept it as just how the world works, without any urging to change that foundational way of operating. Likewise, by having most of the drama rely on accepted forms of misogyny, “Funny Girl” perpetuates this misogyny as just how the world works and that we should follow their lead and not challenge that. I mean she sort of sings a reprise of “Don’t Rain on My Parade” at the end through her tears about Dicky Nicky leaving her but 30 seconds of ‘maybe one day I won’t care about him’ doesn’t make up for 2 and 1/2 hours of wimmins better stay in the kitchen.
What really bothers me is, well, several things. Fanny Brice was a real person, with an incredibly interesting life that is still remembered and revered by performers today. This main depiction of her is a great disservice to her memory, and that’s unbelievably sad and unfair. To say the creators took liberties with the facts is putting it lightly. “Funny Girl” is highly, highly fictionalized, and most of the horrible crap I’ve discussed is part of what was fictionalized. That means the creators of the original Broadway show implemented unnecessary, added misogyny. They thought ‘let’s make a show about this legend in show business, but because she’s a woman, let’s just show part of her success but then make most of the show about how she was so ugly that she thought she could never find a man, and then she meets Nicky and can’t believe her luck that a handsome man wants to be with her because come on all men want is someone pretty so she really is lucky but then she ruins everything because she makes money and gives him everything he wants and he doesn’t have much success and she shouldn’t support their family and be successful because that’s so mean and he feels totally emasculated which is the worst crime on earth and so she drives him into criminal behavior and he goes to jail and it’s all her fault obviously and everyone even her mother and even herself believe that Fanny is to blame for a totally separate fully functioning human being’s bad decisions and like women should just stay at home amiright.’ First of all, fuck all of that. Second of all, Fanny Brice, the real one, was married before she married Nicky Armstein. She was married. Yet the main action of the first act of the musical is every single person in her life absolutely kvelling because a man might actually not vomit at the sight of her! Praise Moses! Why, creators, did that strike you as the necessary change to make when rewriting Brice’s life for the stage? Did it just seem more realistic to you? More realistic than reality? To say ‘well she was no looker so instead of showing how she was so awesome and talented that it didn’t matter or that it doesn’t matter, let’s open with a number about how all actresses just need to be hot, and then make the whole show about how desperate she is for a man to notice her and how lucky she is that a good one does, but then she ruins him and makes him a bad one with her success, he wasn’t bad at the start it was her evil wimmin doings.’ I cannot wrap my brain about the thought process that takes an interesting life and makes it just another bullshit story about how desperate and awful women are.
Next, you know what else was fictionalized? Like everything about their relationship. Nicky was in jail BEFORE they got married – and he was actually married at the time to another woman. So he wasn’t this perfect specimen of a unicorn sent to make her less pathetic or anything; he was the pathetic convicted criminal cheating on his wife from the very start. Nicky happily took Fanny’s money even before they were married. His later gang activities didn’t lead him to turn himself in, as the musical says, as a result of his emasculation by not being able to support his family. No, he continued relying on Fanny’s money in order to fight the charges against him for years. That doesn’t not sound like someone who has a problem using his wife’s money, but I guess to the creators it sounded like someone who should have felt emasculated and ruined because he was letting someone without a penis pay for things.
Almost as importantly, there is no evidence I could find of Brice performing a hilarious wartime number in the Follies as a German Private Schvartz as she does in the musical, which I assume is what “Springtime for Hitler” was based on. It was probably the most painful song in a musical I’ve ever seen. Jfc. Why on earth was this part of “Funny Girl”? DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
God it’s hard reliving this. It’s really sad too because who doesn’t remember loving the movie with Barbra, and who doesn’t love all the famous songs? But at least as shown in this production – which as far as I can find is pretty true to the original musical – it’s disturbing and hugely problematic, especially as society seems to be entering a downturn in progressive views. And it’s not a bad production, the bones of it anyway. The costumes were fine, the lighting was fine, the acting was good. Actually, I remember feeling cheated by the simple choreography. But the story, my god the story. But the audiences are eating this shit up, which really upsets me. Do they just not care about the messages? Or are they in agreement? Do they not even realize what’s being said? Sheridan got many ‘bravos’ and a standing ovation, which a) should be brava and b) I think were for her personal life more than for her performance. She is a good actress, but this was not the role. I know I said some big musical roles don’t necessarily need a great singer if the acting is strong enough, but this show isn’t strong enough to do without a baller voice. But I was happy to see Sheridan after the summer she had. She is well known in the tabloids here, sadly, for fighting with the producers about needing time off when her father got very sick. Since producers only care about money, they allegedly didn’t give her the time she wanted or needed and she quickly unraveled mentally – including onstage. Some lucky ticket holders in the beginning of the summer got to see her perform drunk. Which, since British people are drunk all the damn time, maybe no one really noticed. Anyway, after that she took a few months off and her understudy Natasha Barnes took over. Apparently Natasha was amazing, with a much more appropriate voice for the role. I’m really happy that Sheridan seems to be okay now and getting what she needs, and none of my more substantial problems with the show have anything to do with her.
I honestly think that British people are liking this show because they are just laughing at the name Fanny (fanny is actually slang for vagina here, not kidding) and so they aren’t really paying attention to the story because every time someone says Fanny they cover their mouths and mutter ‘oh tee hee, a proper tee hee’. Really the best part of this show was a blue velvet dinner jacket that Nicky wears at one point.
* * *
AUDIENCE
I’m flabbergasted that they weren’t all horrified. I’m also still bothered by the woman in front of me who brought her 7-year-old daughter. Not only was I scared that this child was learning from the terrible messages of this show, but they also talked the entire time – not just the girl turning to ask questions, which kids do, but the ADULT who is supposed to be the role model for how to behave in the theatre was also turning to the girl every 2 seconds I’m pretty sure to say ‘DID YOU SEE THAT? DID YOU HEAR THAT?’ jfc.
THEATRE
Um. The bars were selling bagels. That’s super offensive, right? No, they don’t usually sell bagels; yes, I think it’s because this is a ‘jewish show’ to them. I don’t know whether to be more offended by that decision or by the quality of British bagels. The programmes were beautiful though (see picture).
I do have a problem with the theatre owners and the producers, not just here but with all West End shows. The opposite of Broadway’s policy, the policy here is that refunds are not issued if a star above the title is out. That means all the people who bought tickets to see Sheridan over the summer while she was out could not get their money back, as they can on Broadway when the star is out. There is a lotttttt of argument about this policy lately, with people saying that introducing such a policy would be unfair to understudies if people would leave when they were announced. But, in practice on Broadway, few people actually do this; it’s the ones who came only to see the star that really take advantage of it, or someone who already has seen the understudy and was trying again to get the star. The real concern is just that the producers don’t want to lose money. But that’s bullshit. I fully support Bway’s policy and wish that they had it here, because when a star like Sheridan is above the title, producers hike up the prices. If they are charging more because of a name, and then the name is out, you should get your money back if you want it, period. If they don’t want to give you your money back in those situations, then they need to stop having celebrity price hikes.
Related Posts
Broadway’s New Revival of “Carousel”: Mediocrity is Busting Out All Over
It’s Theatre Thursday! We’re talking about “Carousel” at Broadway’s Imperial Theatre.
When the current revival of “Carousel” was announced last year, everyone was beside themselves with excitement. With a cast including Jessie Mueller as Julie Jordan, Joshua Henry as Billy Bigelow, and opera diva Renee Fleming as Nettie Fowler, it ranked among the most incredible Broadway news in recent memory. Finally a phenomenal leading role for Josh Henry! Jessie Mueller never disappoints! Renee f-ing Fleming! This cast singing that wonderful, much-loved score? Hopes were insanely high all across the Broadway community, and of course such expectations could not go unfulfilled, right? I mean, this is “Carousel”, one of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s most beloved works and the musical that many (including Time Magazine in 1999) consider the best of the 20th century. Bring this shit on!, we all thought expectantly. Well, a word in that previous sentence applies to this production more than I ever could have guessed.
Despite having some pretty tough-to-fork-up material, director Jack O’Brien does just that, by presenting a lackluster, perplexing version of the musical that is somehow completely devoid of emotion. Is boredom an emotion? Devoid of most emotions. I heard a lot of the complaints on the boards that this production cut a few songs and scenes for no good reason and made some changes that die-hard fans of the musical objected to, but since I had actually never seen a full-fledged production of “Carousel” before, I figured that I wouldn’t know enough to be upset about any changes. So I went in assuming that I would adore this production. I did not. Turns out there is plenty wrong that doesn’t require intense fandom or deep knowledge of the original to recognize.
From the start, I knew someone had some ‘splaining to do. It’s forking called “Carousel” because a lot of the important action centers around one at a carnival (and life is like a merry-go-round too I guess such symbolism) and so when a Broadway production doesn’t actually have a carousel on stage – or virtually anysets at all – you’re asking for disappointment. True, the contraption that came down from the rafters – a sort of cardboard origami light fixture that expanded into a very pretty circle that acted as the suggestion of a carousel (or at least the top section of it) – was an impressive moment of stagecraft and it is a pretty lil bit of paper funtimes that would be excellent decoration in a backyard barbecue, but as the main set piece in a Broadway production it made my stomach hurt like Chidi when making a small decision. It doesn’t help that the show I saw before this was “My Fair Lady”, which has some of the most impressive and imposing set design I’ve ever seen, but seeing the barest of stages here at the Imperial was beyond dissatisfying.
The show begins with the Carousel Waltz, sort of an overture and an introduction to the setting and the story. We’re in coastal Maine in the late 1800s (the show was written in 1945), and we see Billy Bigelow exaggeratedly miming his duties as carnival barker (the “step right up!” job) as the ensemble dances for more than 10 minutes. Choreographer Justin Peck of the New York City Ballet is one of the most famous and esteemed, so in this production it’s clear that O’Brien just let him run wild with SO MUCH BALLET. If you’ve read my past reviews of musicals and ballets, you know that I always want more and more ballet in anything. Even full-on ballets sometimes haven’t had enough dancing for me. This production has too much. It’s not that it isn’t impressive; the problem is that it rarely is doing the job that dance should be doing in musicals: helping to tell the story. Instead, all the excessive ballet seems to be there just for its own sake instead of to further the story.
The first singing comes from Carrie Pipperidge, a role I know well because Audra McDonald won her first Tony for it. The Tony-nominated performer (who is likely to win it this Sunday) playing the role now, Lindsay Mendez, was out, so she must have been pretty darn sick or exhausted considering I was there two weeks before the awards, when voters are coming out in droves. Her understudy, Scarlett Walker, was very impressive, but I am disappointed to have missed probably this production’s best shot at an acting Tony. Anyway, Carrie sings to her best good friend Julie (Mueller) “You’re a Queer One, Julie Jordan” and you’re like this is how the show starts, mmkay. Julie was just yelled at by Mrs. Mullins, the mean old widow (Margaret Colin (Eleanor Waldorf from ‘Gossip Girl’ lolz)) who runs the carousel, because Julie let Billy put his arm around her when she rode the carousel. Mullins is bitter that no one’s putting his arm around her and also it’s the 1800s so I guess it was improper but it all seems a bit silly. After Carrie tells Julie how queer she is, Carrie sings about her new engagement in one of my favorite songs, “Mister Snow”, which is her fiancé’s name. At this point Julie hasn’t really sung and you’re like…is Carrie really the main female character? In this production, she really seems it. Even with an understudy on, Carrie shone much brighter than Julie and seemed to have MUCH more to do. Somehow O’Brien made Julie Jordan seem like the supporting character. That takes effort to make the leading lady seem so unimportant and inconsequential, especially when you have the usually divine Jessie Mueller playing her. But Jessie seems incredibly miscast here. The thought she always puts into her characters seems to be misleading her here (along with her director) and the performance is simply awkward.
Mueller’s unsuitability for this role is amplified like someone was shouting about it with a bullhorn when Billy comes to join the girls. Joshua Henry is a great performer and I’ve loved many of his performances. This is not one of them. Individually, Mueller and Henry are miscast, but thrown together, with all their lack of chemistry and tension and really anything, they’re a disaster. They just don’t work as a couple. I’m sure it must be an extremely big ask to turn down even one of these esteemed performers when you could have both, but that kind of decision making is required for the good of a show.
Even aside from the poor casting and zero chemistry, this production suffers from…the story of “Carousel”. It’s outdated and problematic, and it really doesn’t hold up in modern times, and instead of refocusing the story or using different direction techniques to reframe it, this production presents the old story straight. After the girls sing, Billy comes to join them and he tells off Mrs. Mullins and subsequently gets fired. He doesn’t seem to care. Carrie tells Julie that they better get home before curfew at their mill-workers quarters or whatever, but Julie wants Billy to think she’s cool, I guess, so she gets fired too. So these two miscast fools who just lost their jobs so they could stay out a little later and ‘flirt’ (talk to each other with zero emotion) tiptoe around awkwardly and sing one of the best musical theatre songs, “If I Loved You”, beautiful but with zero emotion. It’s a real shame that this song is done such a disservice by being given to this pair. Not the miscast Mueller and Henry – they sound lovely and would even if singing the phone book – but the pair of Julie and Billy. They’re revered as one of the important love stories in musical theatre, but really, they and the story of “Carousel” are a mess. A timid, clumsy girl meets an aggressive, cold man at a carnival and gives up everything because she wants him to love her. After they get fired, they…get married?! And Julie gets pregnant. Billy may claim he does eventually but he never, ever shows any sign of it, instead abusing Julie verbally and physically after they marry because he’s so sad he can’t find a job. Julie always defends his actions, understanding that it’s so hard for him to deal with the pressure of being a provider for his family. The biggest problem of all with this revival is that it doesn’t do anything to reframe their relationship in the modern day and age, and presents all these sentiments as not the products of their time, which they are, but as good enough to stand on their own with no new way of looking at it. It’s presented as fine for Julie to excuse her abuser’s actions because he can’t find a job. It’s not. In the second act, when Billy hits another female member of his family and she defends it as feeling like a kiss instead of a slap, it just lies there again. It’s weird.
If you don’t know the rest of the story, I’ll tell you real quick. After they get married and Billy yells at Julie a lot and hits her and everyone is DEPRESSED ALL THE TIME, Billy’s friend Jigger cooks up a hare-brained scheme for the two of them to rob a rich man. Oh and kill him. Billy at first says nah thanks but after he finds out he’s going to be a father and has nothing to give his kid, he decides to do it. Kids are expensive. And Jigger is super persuasive – Amar Ramasar was one of my favorite parts of this production, mostly because he is given the enormous dance solo that actually feels intentional. Amar is absolutely electric in his dancing and it was the most exhilarating scene of the entire production. Well, tied with Billy’s “Soliloquy”, when he thinks about what having a son, or a daughter, will be like. You know this song; it’s the big “My boy Bill” moment. This is where Henry absolutely shines – it’s helped by the fact that he’s alone on stage and just singing, which is what he does best. His version of this 7-minute epic song, one of the best and most challenging for men in musical theatre, is nearly flawless. He’s great here. It’s a shame that the rest of the performance doesn’t get the chance to live up to it (and given how great he is here, I do blame the director and other aspects and not Henry). His final decision, as he sings “I never knew how to make money but I’ll try! I’ll try! I’ll try! I’ll go out and make it or steal it or take it! Or die!” is riveting and you know one of those things is going to come true. Spoilers (for a 1945 show?? really?): it’s the last one. Jigger’s plan goes awry and the mark fights back long enough for cops to arrive, and instead of getting arrested or killed by cops, Billy kills himself. Julie is distraught, and Billy goes into the afterlife. He’s met by the Starkeeper, one of heaven’s administrative assistants or what not. The Starkeeper tells Billy that he has a chance to go back to earth for one day, to try to redeem himself since he has not earned enough points to get into heaven yet. Listen, Billy is an asshole. I don’t know what a mean abusive jackwagon can do in a day to redeem himself enough for entry into heaven, but I do know that what he does – give a pep talk to his now-grown daughter (time moves suuuuper fast on earth when one is off of it) – does not seem like it should be enough, especially since the tiny pep talk comes after he hits her. Yes Dream Ghost Billy goes back down to earth, watches his daughter do the famous Louise Ballet to introduce her character and her troubles, he meets his daughter, doesn’t tell her who he is obviously because she’s be like um what, but he still F-ING HITS HER, and then at her high school graduation he tells her to believe the words of “You’ll Never Walk Alone”, and that’s enough for him to get into heaven? PUH. LEASE. Also, not to beat the dead horse that is my review of this production, but the Louise Ballet was so upsetting for me. It was actually ugly. I was so disappointed. I get having the dance convey the character’s awkwardness as an outcast teenager, but there are ways to do that without having the dancing be so hideous and disjointed and just unenjoyable. At least it was overly long too.
So yeah, while the score is gorgeous and well sung, the book of “Carousel” is not something that such weak directing and producing can help with when revived today. Fortunately, there are enough highlights in this production to make watching the show bearable and often enjoyable, even through my exasperation. As I said, Ramasar’s Jigger is a highlight, as is Henry’s outstanding “Soliloquy”, even if the rest of his performance left me freezing cold. Carrie Pipperidge and Enoch Snow (our understudy Scarlett Walker and the always great Alexander Gemignani) seem like the main characters because they are the only energetic, charming people on that stage (well, at least until Snow achieves his desired level of success and lets it go straight to his head). And our Nettie Fowler is a consistent bright spot on this bare stage, as Renee Fleming is doing a bangup job in her first Broadway musical role, and seems to be carrying the entire show and company in her warm, loving arms. Her “You’ll Never Walk Alone” is as gorgeous as you’d expect, and although she didn’t say anything about the hucka the bejeepers, her “June is Busting Out All Over” was a joyous romp. She even made the weird song “That was a Real Nice Clambake” (real song title) enjoyable. So yeah, there is a lot wrong with this production, and it’s disappointing that we weren’t given a revival for the ages like we are with the current “My Fair Lady”, especially since it will be a while now before we’ll get another one. But there are some good things about this production (thank god), so it’s not a total loss.
INFORMATION
The front row of the rear mezzanine has a big barricade tight
at your knees with a heavy curtain hanging down it, so you can’t just jump up
and go like I thought you could when I bought the seat. If you are limber, you
are able to slither through the bars and through the curtain’s onto the floor
below like I did instead of waiting for my row to get up because IDGAF what
anyone else thinks (they thought I was bananas though for sure).
Run time is about 2 hours and 40 minutes.
STAGE DOOR
The ensemble comes out pretty quickly and everyone is very
friendly (except Eleanor Waldorf, actually, who was kind of a b word to me).
Renee Fleming actually took selfies which was amazing and she was absolutely
lovely. I called it after an hour waiting for Henry and Mueller, the longest
I’ve ever waited, but I could not defend wasting any more time waiting for
them. I mean I was going to lie to them anyway, so it’s for the best.
The Convert at the Young Vic: Help Me Baby Jesus
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is The Convert, which just ended its run at the Young Vic but will probably be seen again soon.
At the end of 2018, I read that Letitia Wright was the most bankable star of the year, based on her appearance in two of the biggest blockbusters – Black Panther and Avengers: Yet Another – as well as Ready Player One. I thought wow, that’s a pretty big accomplishment for this what, teenager? what a lucky break for her. But it’s not luck (and she’s not a teenager, just blessed). Letitia Wright is a forking marvel (see what I did there) and deserves to bring in all the box office dollars, for screen or stage. As the star of the new play The Convert, Wright showed that she can do a lot more than turn all of modern science on its head and cure all injuries with alien metal and make cars that are being driven by a remote computer program or whatever, I can’t even wrap my head around what she did in Black Panther. What she did in The Convert, though, was prove that she has the ability to lead an intense stage work and to improve whatever she’s in with her dynamic presence.
And her costar in those two big blockbusters, Danai Gurira, has shown that she can do more than lead entire armies and be generally the baddest ass in the world. She can also write interesting, compelling, original plays, and produce works that satisfy a need in today’s theatre. Those of you in the know will be like, she didn’t ‘just’ prove any of this; she’s an accomplished playwright. But see, until the current ad campaign for this production of The Convert that went on about how the two Black Panther stars were reuniting, I didn’t know that General Okoye was the same person that wrote In the Continuum and freaking Eclipsed. She has a Tony nom! I didn’t know when I saw Black Panther that this total boss was a multi-award-winning playwright. If I did I would have pegged her to win the battle from the start.
Well that’s enough raving about the playwright and the star considering I thought this play, written in 2012, was just okay. I know, plot twist. The Convert takes place in 1895 in a village in Africa that is in the midst of being colonized by Bad White People. A young girl named Jekesai (Wright) escapes from an arranged marriage with the help of her aunt (Pamela Nomvete), who works for a prominent black man named Chilford (Paapa Essiedu). Whereas Jekesai and her aunt come from a family of the native tribal people, Chilford is much more westernized. He wears suits in the sweltering heat, compared to their less modest, more weather appropriate clothes. He speaks the Queen’s English (different queen then, if you can imagine) while they speak an African tongue. Most important, he has found Jesus, and he’s even a pastor of some sort, set on converting as many ‘savages’ as he can away from their pagan traditions. He agrees to let Jekesai stay in his house if she changes her name to Ester and begins on a serious journey towards Christianity. What starts off rather humorously (Wright’s first attempt at crossing herself is hysterical) and lighthearted (her aunt getting confused by which name to call her niece) turns serious and rather grim as Jekesai fully accepts a new life as Ester and takes her new religion to its extreme. In her acceptance, she scorns nearly all of her past life, including family and traditions, in the name of Jesus. It’s not funny anymore when she blesses herself; it’s upsetting, because you want to remind her that things are more important than blind faith. Things like family, or a semblance of reason.
While Ester is becoming a superfriend to Big J and trying to convert her fair share of villagers, the native people are getting less and less pleased with the white colonizers taking over things. We hear of more and more problems between the groups, growing in severity and breadth. The angry villagers are no longer just targeting white people; they’re targeting black people who get too close, or act too much like, the white people. People like Chilford, and his friend Chancellor (these names) and his fiancée Prudence, similarly westernized but less tight with Jesus, at least in Chancellor’s case (he’s a bad man). Chancy, as they call him, wants a piece of Ester, and he doesn’t understand what she means by no, or what Jesus says about cheating on your fiancee. One problem I had with this show is that we’re supposed to feel something, probably, about what befalls Chancy, but I was like, okay, justice served.
So about that. Ester’s place in the middle of two worlds begins to take a toll on her, reaching its climax when her uncle and cousin, big on the whole ‘kill whoever is white or acting white’ thing, break into Chilford’s home when she is there with Chancy. The encounter escalates into violence, whether accidental or not, and Ester’s deciding whether to protect her relatives or not in the face of the law builds in a way you can’t see coming.
Although the story is interesting, I didn’t get enough about the why of it all, why the characters were acting like this, why Ester would so fully commit to her conversion and take it beyond what was expected and then why she would react so terribly to the climactic events. I didn’t get enough of why Prudence would go so quickly from wanting to kill Ester’s cousin to agreeing to advocate for him. Her change literally happens in the span of 2-3 lines, and there’s no real reason shoring up her behavior unless it’s simply that allegiance to your people and the need to fight together against your oppressors should overcome everything else, even love and justice. I mean it sounds right, difficult but right, but her change of heart happened so unexpectedly that it took me out of the play’s universe for a minute.
I also expected some slight recognition that the church maybe wasn’t the answer to everything. Ester’s actions at the end were shocking and awful, but the awfulness of them seemed to be brushed aside with her request for forgiveness from Jesus and from her spiritual leader, Chilford. I get that forgiveness is like Real Big in Christianity but I don’t think it should just be given away as a matter of procedure. It should be earned or deserved. And maybe in this situation, there’s nothing to be gained from having Chilford hold out on doling it out when it’s not his to give, and when it’s not deserved. However, the impression that she actually was forgiven bothered me. I guess Jesus will have the last say and everything but I really wanted to look around at the audience and just reassure myself by getting everyone to agree that what she did was wrong, right, y’all know that was wrong? I just wanted to be sure.
Apart from my feeling that there was a lack of apparent motivations, overall it was a compelling look into identity amid adversity and trauma. I’m still thinking about how I feel about certain aspects of it, which is the sign of a successful work. And despite my qualms, it’s definitely a worthwhile show, especially this production. The acting was mostly great, and I really liked how they made use of the in-the-round setting. It added tension to be so close to this distress, and it made everything more urgent and wrenching, adding layers of emotion to this show. Most of all, it was a showcase for Wright, who is a welcome addition to the London stage and will surely be considered one of the greats of her generation in no time.
Well that’s enough raving about the playwright and the star considering I thought this play, written in 2012, was just okay. I know, plot twist. The Convert takes place in 1895 in a village in Africa that is in the midst of being colonized by Bad White People. A young girl named Jekesai (Wright) escapes from an arranged marriage with the help of her aunt (Pamela Nomvete), who works for a prominent black man named Chilford (Paapa Essiedu). Whereas Jekesai and her aunt come from a family of the native tribal people, Chilford is much more westernized. He wears suits in the sweltering heat, compared to their less modest, more weather appropriate clothes. He speaks the Queen’s English (different queen then, if you can imagine) while they speak an African tongue. Most important, he has found Jesus, and he’s even a pastor of some sort, set on converting as many ‘savages’ as he can away from their pagan traditions. He agrees to let Jekesai stay in his house if she changes her name to Ester and begins on a serious journey towards Christianity. What starts off rather humorously (Wright’s first attempt at crossing herself is hysterical) and lighthearted (her aunt getting confused by which name to call her niece) turns serious and rather grim as Jekesai fully accepts a new life as Ester and takes her new religion to its extreme. In her acceptance, she scorns nearly all of her past life, including family and traditions, in the name of Jesus. It’s not funny anymore when she blesses herself; it’s upsetting, because you want to remind her that things are more important than blind faith. Things like family, or a semblance of reason.
While Ester is becoming a superfriend to Big J and trying to convert her fair share of villagers, the native people are getting less and less pleased with the white colonizers taking over things. We hear of more and more problems between the groups, growing in severity and breadth. The angry villagers are no longer just targeting white people; they’re targeting black people who get too close, or act too much like, the white people. People like Chilford, and his friend Chancellor (these names) and his fiancée Prudence, similarly westernized but less tight with Jesus, at least in Chancellor’s case (he’s a bad man). Chancy, as they call him, wants a piece of Ester, and he doesn’t understand what she means by no, or what Jesus says about cheating on your fiancee. One problem I had with this show is that we’re supposed to feel something, probably, about what befalls Chancy, but I was like, okay, justice served.
So about that. Ester’s place in the middle of two worlds begins to take a toll on her, reaching its climax when her uncle and cousin, big on the whole ‘kill whoever is white or acting white’ thing, break into Chilford’s home when she is there with Chancy. The encounter escalates into violence, whether accidental or not, and Ester’s deciding whether to protect her relatives or not in the face of the law builds in a way you can’t see coming.
Although the story is interesting, I didn’t get enough about the why of it all, why the characters were acting like this, why Ester would so fully commit to her conversion and take it beyond what was expected and then why she would react so terribly to the climactic events. I didn’t get enough of why Prudence would go so quickly from wanting to kill Ester’s cousin to agreeing to advocate for him. Her change literally happens in the span of 2-3 lines, and there’s no real reason shoring up her behavior unless it’s simply that allegiance to your people and the need to fight together against your oppressors should overcome everything else, even love and justice. I mean it sounds right, difficult but right, but her change of heart happened so unexpectedly that it took me out of the play’s universe for a minute.
I also expected some slight recognition that the church maybe wasn’t the answer to everything. Ester’s actions at the end were shocking and awful, but the awfulness of them seemed to be brushed aside with her request for forgiveness from Jesus and from her spiritual leader, Chilford. I get that forgiveness is like Real Big in Christianity but I don’t think it should just be given away as a matter of procedure. It should be earned or deserved. And maybe in this situation, there’s nothing to be gained from having Chilford hold out on doling it out when it’s not his to give, and when it’s not deserved. However, the impression that she actually was forgiven bothered me. I guess Jesus will have the last say and everything but I really wanted to look around at the audience and just reassure myself by getting everyone to agree that what she did was wrong, right, y’all know that was wrong? I just wanted to be sure.
Apart from my feeling that there was a lack of apparent motivations, overall it was a compelling look into identity amid adversity and trauma. I’m still thinking about how I feel about certain aspects of it, which is the sign of a successful work. And despite my qualms, it’s definitely a worthwhile show, especially this production. The acting was mostly great, and I really liked how they made use of the in-the-round setting. It added tension to be so close to this distress, and it made everything more urgent and wrenching, adding layers of emotion to this show. Most of all, it was a showcase for Wright, who is a welcome addition to the London stage and will surely be considered one of the greats of her generation in no time.
