Doctor Faustus at Shakespeare’s Globe: Marlowe’s Old Classic Fails to Move Meby Randi / January 10, 2019
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are talking about the new revival of Aspects of Love at London’s Southwark Playhouse, on until February 9. Run, don’t walk, to miss it.
Certain demons down at Bad Place headquarters are waiting for the creators of “Aspects of Love” – Andrew Lloyd Webber, Charles Hart, and Don Black – to join them in their circus of torture, and have been ever since the show was written in 1989 (based on a novella by David Garnett). They will move into the neighborhood where Jared from Subway is heading, along with the guy who created Girls Gone Wild. They’ll all fit together nicely. And into their little torture neighborhood, we will add whoever though it was a good idea to revive this monstrosity of a show at the Southwark Playhouse this season. A rare miss from a theatre whose work we usually adore, “Aspects of Love” is an affront to decent humans. Sure, we are realizing with each passing day that there are fewer and fewer decent humans among us in this brave new world of ours, but that doesn’t excuse this portrayal of domestic abuse, misogyny, incest and more as normal, or worse, as anything remotely resembling love.
Certain demons down at Bad Place headquarters are waiting for the creators of “Aspects of Love” – Andrew Lloyd Webber, Charles Hart, and Don Black – to join them in their circus of torture, and have been ever since the show was written in 1989 (based on a novella by David Garnett). They will move into the neighborhood where Jared from Subway is heading, along with the guy who created Girls Gone Wild. They’ll all fit together nicely. And into their little torture neighborhood, we will add whoever though it was a good idea to revive this monstrosity of a show at the Southwark Playhouse this season. A rare miss from a theatre whose work we usually adore, “Aspects of Love” is an affront to decent humans. Sure, we are realizing with each passing day that there are fewer and fewer decent humans among us in this brave new world of ours, but that doesn’t excuse this portrayal of domestic abuse, misogyny, incest and more as normal, or worse, as anything remotely resembling love.
Frank Rich’s 1990 review of the Broadway production in the failing New York Times has one of my favorite Frank Rich lines of all time OF ALL TIME. He states that while ALW has written a musical about people (as opposed to cats), “whether ‘Aspects of Love’ is a musical for people is another matter.” I mean get Dubs to the ER for those burns am I right. The story presented here is offensive, despicable, and all around gross. The main idea is that it’s about love in all these various forms, in all these different romances depicted. The problem is, none of it is love, NONE OF IT, and putting some of these relationships forward as love – as opposed to what they really are, toxic power trips or ACTUAL CRIMES – is irresponsible and disturbing.
Let’s get into it, shall we? “Aspects of Love” is about a boy named Alex living in France who is obsessed with a local actress. Alex is 17 years old, so a minor, if they count things like that in France. He goes to the actress, Rose, after a show one night and is like, hot damn I love you, even though I don’t know you and this is the first time we’ve ever spoken, that’s love. Rose’s show is cancelled and she’s broke, so Alex says she can come stay with him in his uncle’s villa for a few weeks. Rose decides that spending a few weeks having an affair with a minor is a good solution to a problem that could also be solved ANY OTHER WAY. Off Rose and the child Alex go to the uncle’s villa, happy in their disgusting little bubble of impropriety until the uncle finds out and goes to disrupt their fun. The uncle, George, finds them one evening when Rose is wearing George’s dead wife’s gown. Naturally, this upsets him, but not because it’s a flagrant overstep on the part of a guest. No, it’s because he is attracted to Rose, who looks a lot like his dead wife in this gown, and he apologizes to her for his being upset instead of making her apologize to him for wearing the damn dress and at THIS point I was ready to scream at everyone for being wrong and dumb so you can imagine how I felt when shit really hit the fan. Rose decides to leave Alex after a week or so and go back to the stage. They say that they love each other a few times and you are like a) you don’t even know each other and b) so gross.
Two years later, Alex has joined the army so he has a gun, important plot point. He goes to visit his uncle George and lo and behold, guess who is at his apartment? ROSE, who is now George’s mistress. Alex is so upset and scolds Rose for sleeping with his uncle just for his money, but Rose says she really loves George. She ALSO says that she really loved Alex two years ago and so they have sex again in George’s apartment. The next day, Rose tells Alex he has to go before George returns, so Alex THREATENS TO SHOOT HER, because that’s what real love is. How dare you not love me back when I love you so much, Alex says, I love you so much that I’d rather kill you than see you be happy with someone else! SURE GUYS. Rose is like dude stop it and she throws a candlestick at him, which makes him fire the gun “accidentally” but not really an accident because you’re forking POINTING A LOADED GUN AT HER and threatening to shoot her so like not really an UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCE YOU LITTLE SHIT, and Rose is shot in the arm and faints. And then George arrives and instead of taking Rose to a hospital or something, he and Alex sing about how much they love her and how they think the other one is the best man for her AS SHE IS PASSED OUT. George is literally singing to Alex that maybe he is the right man for Rose because he clearly loves her so much and has such strong passion that it made him shoot her. I CANNOT.
George goes to see his other mistress, Giulietta, and it looks like Rose and Alex will stay together even though he just shot her but she soon orders him to leave so she can go race after George. Rose and Giulietta meet, and they’re like ‘oh you’re not as bad as I expected you to be, let’s be friends/lovers’ and then Rose and George get married with Giulietta as the witness and they form this gross little threesome and George is skeevily elated and that’s Act 1.
I didn’t think Act II could be worse, but I was mistaken. In Act II, the married couple George and Rose have a daughter, Jenny, who has a crush on Alex, HER COUSIN. When Jenny is 14 and Alex is 34, Alex is visiting the villa and Jenny puts on the gown that Rose first put on, the dead wife’s gown. George, instead of being like ‘it’s forking weird that my daughter is dressing up like my dead wife and I’m super attracted to women who wear this gown’, decides the right thing to do is dance with Jenny in a gross manner. When alone, Jenny and Alex dance in a very very inappropriate manner. Jenny tells Alex that she loves him and they kiss. Again, 14, and 34. AND COUSINS.
Later, Alex is putting Jenny to bed one evening and Jenny tells him how much she loves him. Alex sings to himself about all his complicated feelings (he is attracted to his child cousin; not complicated, go away from her) and George overhears and assumes they’ve been having sex and he HAS A HEART ATTACK AND DIES.
At George’s wake, Alex and Giulietta meet and they have sex. Then Alex tells Jenny that their relationship can’t continue, and then he tries to leave but Rose begs him not to leave because she loves him too, and then the whole building explodes from the sheer unbelievability of how fucked up this show is and how they are treating domestic abuse, incest, and pedophilia as acceptable kinds of love.
I know what you’re thinking – all of this must be put forth as satire or criticism of these people and what they think love is, right? Like the art of it must be that they are presenting this as super fucked up and not love at all, RIGHT? Sadly, no. There would be merit in presenting this story with a commentary on how it’s wrong or bad or literally ANY kind of commentary, but this is purely a celebration of this super fuckeduppery as ‘love’.
If you would like to know how the show is aside from the plot, because the entire story is something you can definitely ignore to focus on what, the melodies? then sure let’s talk about that. It is garbage. True, it has created a standard in musical theatre, the opening song “Love Changes Everything”, and it is indeed a catchy, hummable tune that is inoffensive and extraordinarily ordinary. So that’s say five points in their favor. But an easy way to lose those points is, instead of writing other decent melodies and improving the rest of the score, simply repeating “Love Changes Everything” ad infinitum in seemingly endless reprises. If we say minus 1 point for every reprise or repetition of the main LCE theme, they end the show with a total of negative eleventy billion points. And the rest of the score is cringeworthy. I honestly have never cringed so much at a score. It doesn’t help that virtually all of it is sung-through, with what should be dialogue in book scenes replaced with opera-style recitative. It is very hard to make that stylistic choice work in musicals. It does not work here. The melodies chosen for these scenes are the equivalent of when Buddy the Elf in ‘Elf’ tries to explain to Zooey Deschanel that singing is just like talking but you move your voice up and down and then to demonstrate he just sing-shouts “I’M SINGING! I’M IN A STORE AND I’M SIIIINGIIIING” to no real tune, just random tones. That’s what this score is. And the lyrics, good god. When the uncle finds out that his (minor) nephew is affairing it up at his country house with an actress, he sing-shouts “How handy! My bed, my brandy!” I literally HEARD the sound my husband’s face made as he tried to contain his shudder of abhorrence. It hurts in my tumnus to think about that line and the hundreds like it.
I honestly don’t believe that someone okayed this revival of this production like it’s a classic that doesn’t need modern social commentary or new direction to show that none of this is okay. It is clear that those involved don’t see any problem with these storylines and are okay with saying that ‘that’s love.’ And none of the (old men) reviewing this for the big publications seem to find any problem with it because men are disgusting. I can’t believe this is a real show. Also it’s 2 hours and 40 minutes, which is just adding insult to injury. Unless this show was redone as a primer on What Not to Do in the #MeToo Era, it needs to be put away for good. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
Let’s get into it, shall we? “Aspects of Love” is about a boy named Alex living in France who is obsessed with a local actress. Alex is 17 years old, so a minor, if they count things like that in France. He goes to the actress, Rose, after a show one night and is like, hot damn I love you, even though I don’t know you and this is the first time we’ve ever spoken, that’s love. Rose’s show is cancelled and she’s broke, so Alex says she can come stay with him in his uncle’s villa for a few weeks. Rose decides that spending a few weeks having an affair with a minor is a good solution to a problem that could also be solved ANY OTHER WAY. Off Rose and the child Alex go to the uncle’s villa, happy in their disgusting little bubble of impropriety until the uncle finds out and goes to disrupt their fun. The uncle, George, finds them one evening when Rose is wearing George’s dead wife’s gown. Naturally, this upsets him, but not because it’s a flagrant overstep on the part of a guest. No, it’s because he is attracted to Rose, who looks a lot like his dead wife in this gown, and he apologizes to her for his being upset instead of making her apologize to him for wearing the damn dress and at THIS point I was ready to scream at everyone for being wrong and dumb so you can imagine how I felt when shit really hit the fan. Rose decides to leave Alex after a week or so and go back to the stage. They say that they love each other a few times and you are like a) you don’t even know each other and b) so gross.
Two years later, Alex has joined the army so he has a gun, important plot point. He goes to visit his uncle George and lo and behold, guess who is at his apartment? ROSE, who is now George’s mistress. Alex is so upset and scolds Rose for sleeping with his uncle just for his money, but Rose says she really loves George. She ALSO says that she really loved Alex two years ago and so they have sex again in George’s apartment. The next day, Rose tells Alex he has to go before George returns, so Alex THREATENS TO SHOOT HER, because that’s what real love is. How dare you not love me back when I love you so much, Alex says, I love you so much that I’d rather kill you than see you be happy with someone else! SURE GUYS. Rose is like dude stop it and she throws a candlestick at him, which makes him fire the gun “accidentally” but not really an accident because you’re forking POINTING A LOADED GUN AT HER and threatening to shoot her so like not really an UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCE YOU LITTLE SHIT, and Rose is shot in the arm and faints. And then George arrives and instead of taking Rose to a hospital or something, he and Alex sing about how much they love her and how they think the other one is the best man for her AS SHE IS PASSED OUT. George is literally singing to Alex that maybe he is the right man for Rose because he clearly loves her so much and has such strong passion that it made him shoot her. I CANNOT.
George goes to see his other mistress, Giulietta, and it looks like Rose and Alex will stay together even though he just shot her but she soon orders him to leave so she can go race after George. Rose and Giulietta meet, and they’re like ‘oh you’re not as bad as I expected you to be, let’s be friends/lovers’ and then Rose and George get married with Giulietta as the witness and they form this gross little threesome and George is skeevily elated and that’s Act 1.
I didn’t think Act II could be worse, but I was mistaken. In Act II, the married couple George and Rose have a daughter, Jenny, who has a crush on Alex, HER COUSIN. When Jenny is 14 and Alex is 34, Alex is visiting the villa and Jenny puts on the gown that Rose first put on, the dead wife’s gown. George, instead of being like ‘it’s forking weird that my daughter is dressing up like my dead wife and I’m super attracted to women who wear this gown’, decides the right thing to do is dance with Jenny in a gross manner. When alone, Jenny and Alex dance in a very very inappropriate manner. Jenny tells Alex that she loves him and they kiss. Again, 14, and 34. AND COUSINS.
Later, Alex is putting Jenny to bed one evening and Jenny tells him how much she loves him. Alex sings to himself about all his complicated feelings (he is attracted to his child cousin; not complicated, go away from her) and George overhears and assumes they’ve been having sex and he HAS A HEART ATTACK AND DIES.
At George’s wake, Alex and Giulietta meet and they have sex. Then Alex tells Jenny that their relationship can’t continue, and then he tries to leave but Rose begs him not to leave because she loves him too, and then the whole building explodes from the sheer unbelievability of how fucked up this show is and how they are treating domestic abuse, incest, and pedophilia as acceptable kinds of love.
I know what you’re thinking – all of this must be put forth as satire or criticism of these people and what they think love is, right? Like the art of it must be that they are presenting this as super fucked up and not love at all, RIGHT? Sadly, no. There would be merit in presenting this story with a commentary on how it’s wrong or bad or literally ANY kind of commentary, but this is purely a celebration of this super fuckeduppery as ‘love’.
If you would like to know how the show is aside from the plot, because the entire story is something you can definitely ignore to focus on what, the melodies? then sure let’s talk about that. It is garbage. True, it has created a standard in musical theatre, the opening song “Love Changes Everything”, and it is indeed a catchy, hummable tune that is inoffensive and extraordinarily ordinary. So that’s say five points in their favor. But an easy way to lose those points is, instead of writing other decent melodies and improving the rest of the score, simply repeating “Love Changes Everything” ad infinitum in seemingly endless reprises. If we say minus 1 point for every reprise or repetition of the main LCE theme, they end the show with a total of negative eleventy billion points. And the rest of the score is cringeworthy. I honestly have never cringed so much at a score. It doesn’t help that virtually all of it is sung-through, with what should be dialogue in book scenes replaced with opera-style recitative. It is very hard to make that stylistic choice work in musicals. It does not work here. The melodies chosen for these scenes are the equivalent of when Buddy the Elf in ‘Elf’ tries to explain to Zooey Deschanel that singing is just like talking but you move your voice up and down and then to demonstrate he just sing-shouts “I’M SINGING! I’M IN A STORE AND I’M SIIIINGIIIING” to no real tune, just random tones. That’s what this score is. And the lyrics, good god. When the uncle finds out that his (minor) nephew is affairing it up at his country house with an actress, he sing-shouts “How handy! My bed, my brandy!” I literally HEARD the sound my husband’s face made as he tried to contain his shudder of abhorrence. It hurts in my tumnus to think about that line and the hundreds like it.
I honestly don’t believe that someone okayed this revival of this production like it’s a classic that doesn’t need modern social commentary or new direction to show that none of this is okay. It is clear that those involved don’t see any problem with these storylines and are okay with saying that ‘that’s love.’ And none of the (old men) reviewing this for the big publications seem to find any problem with it because men are disgusting. I can’t believe this is a real show. Also it’s 2 hours and 40 minutes, which is just adding insult to injury. Unless this show was redone as a primer on What Not to Do in the #MeToo Era, it needs to be put away for good. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
Related Posts
“Peter Pan Live!”: Could Have Fooled Me, NBC
Watch this instead
This may be totally over as a conversation by now but a) I am not in America and b) I couldn’t get through this in one sitting.
Big takeaway: Peter Pan is a weird ass show. If people came into the NBC musical broadcast without having a background in the story, they would deem it the stuff of nightmares. Mostly the nightmares of people who are against problematic gender norms, pedophilia, kidnapping, and weird sexual relationships. Considering that these live musicals are chosen to appeal to families – i.e. children – I’m sure that this production was indeed the first exposure to Pan for a big portion of the audience. This realization isn’t so much sad as f-ing nuts. Can you imagine seeing this broadcast without having a foundation in the story to protect your soul? Nightmares.
Big takeaway: Peter Pan is a weird ass show. If people came into the NBC musical broadcast without having a background in the story, they would deem it the stuff of nightmares. Mostly the nightmares of people who are against problematic gender norms, pedophilia, kidnapping, and weird sexual relationships. Considering that these live musicals are chosen to appeal to families – i.e. children – I’m sure that this production was indeed the first exposure to Pan for a big portion of the audience. This realization isn’t so much sad as f-ing nuts. Can you imagine seeing this broadcast without having a foundation in the story to protect your soul? Nightmares.
Peter Pan, based on this travesty from NBC, is about a rebellious girl who can fly between worlds. You know she is rebellious because she has short hair, ugly clothing, and a lack of emotion despite a constant smile. This rebel kidnaps two little boys and their inappropriately dressed older aunt and takes them to a modern version of the tunnel scene in Willy Wonka. Although the little boys have a lovely mother with the most beautiful voice ever (and I guess the aunt has such a sister?), their dad is a jackwagon so you’re okay with them getting some air for a while.
One of the boys wears a top hat. All the time. Even at bedtime. Even while flying. The other boy, no doubt scarred by his emotionally unavailable father, can’t think of any happy thoughts except for candy, setting him up for serious dental problems later in life, if not the ‘betus itself.
These three Darling people are tended to by Nana, a big fluffy dog who is smart enough to sense danger and protect her human siblings. Whyyy is the musical not about Nana? One of life’s unanswered questions. That dog is wicked smaht.
Peter Pan and his twinkling ball of light, which we are supposed to accept as a fairy even though we’ve seen full-bodied fairies like Stanley Tucci in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and all over New York, teach dear old aunt Wendy and the two boys how to fly, or really how to jerk around panicked and gracelessly when hoisted by very visible wires. Seeing the wires doesn’t bother me as much as everyone’s inability to fly without appearing to have constipation-induced seizures. Why are they so awkward? Did anyone teach them how to do the flying bits? Did they even have a chance to practice flying around before the live show? It doesn’t seem like it. They should have just done all CGI flying if it was going to be this bad.
In very little time at all, thanks to dear old Aunt Wendy’s breathlessness and fluttery eyes, we realize that this is actually a love story between Peter and Wendy, making J. M. Barrie’s tale perhaps the first lesbian fairy tale. But why does Peter, ostensibly a 25-year-old girl, need a 28-year-old girl to tuck her and her male followers in at night? It’s very creepy. But the story is quite progressive: Not only are Peter and Wendy lesbian lovers, but they are in an interspecies love triangle with a jealous ball of light. Wow. Much progress.
So the littlest boy, Michael, starts out as adorable before gradually getting more and more annoying. During the adorable phase, he grabs his teddy bear before flying off to Neverland. That is cute. What’s not cute is what would actually happen to the humans if they flew unprotected by spacesuits between freaking realms. Skin melting and stuff. That might be more entertaining though. This shit be dull. Peter/Allison Williams seems too embarrassed to fully commit to the role as lead lesbian lover. Gotta get over that before the second show.
Commercial break: Cool, a Wal-mart commercial with Melissa Joan Hart and I’m guessing her actual family of husband and three boy children who are playing with a toy fairy. It’s cute until the husband person says “I’m pretending it’s a helicopter.” That’s a cool message to send to all young boys, Wal-Mart, that to be male you can’t play with pretty colored toys or fairies unless you pretend it’s something MACHINE and MANLY. Cool. Outdated gender roles are the coolest. This is a good place to share one of my favorite infographics:
One of the boys wears a top hat. All the time. Even at bedtime. Even while flying. The other boy, no doubt scarred by his emotionally unavailable father, can’t think of any happy thoughts except for candy, setting him up for serious dental problems later in life, if not the ‘betus itself.
These three Darling people are tended to by Nana, a big fluffy dog who is smart enough to sense danger and protect her human siblings. Whyyy is the musical not about Nana? One of life’s unanswered questions. That dog is wicked smaht.
Peter Pan and his twinkling ball of light, which we are supposed to accept as a fairy even though we’ve seen full-bodied fairies like Stanley Tucci in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and all over New York, teach dear old aunt Wendy and the two boys how to fly, or really how to jerk around panicked and gracelessly when hoisted by very visible wires. Seeing the wires doesn’t bother me as much as everyone’s inability to fly without appearing to have constipation-induced seizures. Why are they so awkward? Did anyone teach them how to do the flying bits? Did they even have a chance to practice flying around before the live show? It doesn’t seem like it. They should have just done all CGI flying if it was going to be this bad.
In very little time at all, thanks to dear old Aunt Wendy’s breathlessness and fluttery eyes, we realize that this is actually a love story between Peter and Wendy, making J. M. Barrie’s tale perhaps the first lesbian fairy tale. But why does Peter, ostensibly a 25-year-old girl, need a 28-year-old girl to tuck her and her male followers in at night? It’s very creepy. But the story is quite progressive: Not only are Peter and Wendy lesbian lovers, but they are in an interspecies love triangle with a jealous ball of light. Wow. Much progress.
So the littlest boy, Michael, starts out as adorable before gradually getting more and more annoying. During the adorable phase, he grabs his teddy bear before flying off to Neverland. That is cute. What’s not cute is what would actually happen to the humans if they flew unprotected by spacesuits between freaking realms. Skin melting and stuff. That might be more entertaining though. This shit be dull. Peter/Allison Williams seems too embarrassed to fully commit to the role as lead lesbian lover. Gotta get over that before the second show.
Commercial break: Cool, a Wal-mart commercial with Melissa Joan Hart and I’m guessing her actual family of husband and three boy children who are playing with a toy fairy. It’s cute until the husband person says “I’m pretending it’s a helicopter.” That’s a cool message to send to all young boys, Wal-Mart, that to be male you can’t play with pretty colored toys or fairies unless you pretend it’s something MACHINE and MANLY. Cool. Outdated gender roles are the coolest. This is a good place to share one of my favorite infographics:
Back to the show: This narrator sounds like that English tart Lorraine Finster!!!
Once Peter, his new lover, and the boys get to Neverland – an impressively technicolored set – we get to meet our Captain Hook. No, not Christian Borle (Smee and Mr. Darling), who actually won a TONY for playing Captain Hook (at least a variation), but Christopher Walken, that singular adjuster of all rhythms of language that we thought were okay to accept as unchanging. Christopher Walken is on many drugs here but none of the ones that give energy, so that doesn’t bode well for the next too many hours.
Side note, when did Christian Borle DOUBLE his arm size?
Once Peter, his new lover, and the boys get to Neverland – an impressively technicolored set – we get to meet our Captain Hook. No, not Christian Borle (Smee and Mr. Darling), who actually won a TONY for playing Captain Hook (at least a variation), but Christopher Walken, that singular adjuster of all rhythms of language that we thought were okay to accept as unchanging. Christopher Walken is on many drugs here but none of the ones that give energy, so that doesn’t bode well for the next too many hours.
Side note, when did Christian Borle DOUBLE his arm size?
As we watch Christopher Walken stare at the cue cards next to the camera, we learn that pirates are these long-haired hot people who dance well. Why are people scared of pirates? They seem awesome. They probably have good tips for detangling hair after swimming in the ocean.
Although the story keeps telling us that we are supposed to be scared of Hook, a notorious pirate ship captain, it seems he’s really a Lower East Side drag queen with general malaise and a too-light shade of pancake makeup.
So distracted by Smee’s arms! I guess the camera does add 10 pounds, and it all goes to Christian Borle’s arms? Maybe he’s wearing fake arms?
The pirates’ carrying Hook on a sedan chair as his face betrays zero emotion is a metaphor for this show.
Christian Borle deserves a freaking Emmy for trying to breathe life into Walken. Seriously, he just blew into Walken’s arse. He literally tried to breathe life into him. He is not holding anything back. Gotta try everything.
Now we meet the Lost Boys. Given their costumes and homoerotic physicality, the Lost Boys are just Chilton drop-outs? Duke lacrosse players? Ah! Aside from giving us the progressive lesbian relationship, “Peter Pan” also tells important lessons about white male privilege. The whole Lost Boys aspect, it seems, is a precautionary tale about the current state of our society and its persistent, ignorant condoning of bad male behavior, continually excused as ‘just boys being boys’ or rewritten as a slam on irrelevant female behavior. These preppy prepschool boys in their striped rugby shirts and popped collars and colorful caps represent the Duke lacrosse players, the Steubenville football players, and all the other masses of men who are ‘lost’ because they don’t face necessary punishment and therefore never learn responsibility or proper ways to behave as respectable members of our society. So that’s what Peter Pan is about? Interesting. Is that why he’s played by a woman always? For feminism? Is that why they are singing this awful song about how Wendy will be their mother? “We have a mother at last we have a mother”, because their mothers are the only women they are able to recognize as deserving respect and the only ones who probably believe that they are decent at heart? I find the basic premise of rooting for the Lost Boys to defeat the Pirates as flawed. I want the pirates to win. These boys are trouble, if my hypothesis is correct. They will just inflict lots of pain and torture throughout their lives and get away with it. At least the pirates are honest about their intentions. Wow, Barrie was pretty prescient.
Moving on from sexism and misogyny to racism, within these enormous wedding bouquet trees, the Lost Boys are surrounded by the natives but they don’t know it. The natives (at least they are no longer calling them the Indians? I think?) literally have their feet on the Lost Boys’s asses but the Boys have no idea what’s going on. Is this a metaphor for American history, that the white Lost Boys can’t see the Indians right next to them? Or that they are blinded by their disregard of them?
Commercial break: F-ing A but “Into the Woods” looks AMAZING. I am so eager to see this movie instead of finish watching “Peter Pan” that I don’t think I can form full paragraphs for a while.
The Lost Boys KILL Wendy? What in the actual hell is this show? See, preppy prepschool white boys are TROUBLE TO WOMEN. And Tinkerbell is legit evil! Why is that ball of light not being extinguished? Why do people care if people don’t believe in her? She is EVIL.
Peter is actually singing about ‘Oh the pleasure she’ll bring to us’ about Wendy. This is so lesbians love story!
Omg MASS GROUP SHOWER SCENE this is vulgar. Why are all the Newsies in one small bathtub together? Do I have to rewatch Newsies to understand all the homoerotic subtext is that as well? Are all musicals this batshit? No.
“I Won’t Grow Up” really drives home my newly realized theory about this show being a scathing indictment of masculinity in modern society. These boys refuse to learn how to be better citizens! Refuse to mature and take responsibility! This show is deep. Neverland represents their mental state of everlasting “youth and joy and liberty”, their escape from being better members of actual society and living in a fantasy world of privilege and ignorance instead. Whoa.
Back to Peter and Wendy. They are going on a moonlight canoe ride on the lagoon. It’s pretty much the same setting as “Kiss The Girl” but without that amazing song. Or any song at all! Why can’t these two lovebirds have a beautiful duet on the water at this point? Nonetheless, this is pretty special. We don’t really get a lot of legit lesbian romance on television. There’s a lot of gay male relationships on TV, and thanks primarily to “How To Get Away With Murder” a lot of gay sex, but TV doesn’t give equal airtime to gay women. So this is nice.
Yet the story is making the common ignorant assumption that all women are jealous of each other over the menfolk or some shit like that. Why does every single female character need to be jealous of the others because they all love Peter? That look Wendy gave to Tiger Lily was a ‘bitch stay away’ if I ever saw one. And Even Older Aunt Wendy (who is ACTUALLY that English tart Lorraine Finster) lets her daughter run away with Peter? And they all wish that ALL the female descendants of Wendy will forever be taken away by Peter when they come of age? What is THAT creepy shit about! That’s a level of disgusting not even seen in Greek tragedies.
I’m focusing on the gay lovers and the Lost Boys’ metaphor because the rest of this is too dull to bother with. In the big climax sword fight between Hook and Pan, the pirates either fell asleep or sacrificed themselves to the sea witch to avoid having to watch any more. It was the slowest, most painfully uneventful sword fight OF ALL TIME. Who choreographed this? Kids do a better job playfighting with swords cut out of construction paper.
And as much as I love the Newsies, they are too old to be Lost Boys if the little Darling boys are meant to be their peers. They are actually old enough to be their fathers, and so the whole ‘Wendy be our mother!’ thing is just gross. That’s just gross.
I don’t have the energy to think any more about how dull this production was. I’m too disappointed in such a wasted opportunity. All I can say is thank god for Kelli O’Hara. And next year they better do “Hair”. Something worth watching.
“Funny Girl” on the West End: I’m Here to Monsoon on this G-D Parade
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.
