Condensed, Silly Fun at Opera Undone: Tosca & La Bohemeby Randi / February 12, 2020It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is The Visit, which opens tonight and plays at the National Theatre (Olivier Theatre) until May 13.
Full confesh time: As soon as The Visit went on sale, I bought tickets to the first preview because I assumed it was the Kander & Ebb musical version that I never got to see on Broadway with Chita and I was like YESS I CAN FINALLY SEE THIS WEIRD AF SHOW THAT DID THE TONY AWARDS PERFORMANCE THAT MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE! It is not the musical version. This is the latest adaptation of the classic 1956 German play, more faithful to the original than the musical (and the many other adaptations that have come before) and this time translated/written by Tony Kushner, if you can believe it. (“If I can believe it? Watch this – I believe it!”) The Visit, a classic play about humanity, revenge, and also the stain of capitalism (true), tells of the world’s richest lady, Claire Zachanassian, who returns to her poverty-stricken hometown and makes them an offer they should refuse but don’t. The questions it raises about morality and greed and wrath are the sort that stick with you and make you uneasy, a sign of effective theatre.
Although I have lots of problems with the third act and the overall success of the show, I enjoyed this production and recommend seeing it, if only for the strong star turns from the great Lesley Manville and Hugo Weaving (who I took a picture with at one of the Lord of the Rings premieres but it was before smartphones and I don’t know where that photo is dammit). Kushner’s adaptation updates the location of the action to New York state, namely the destitute town of Slurry, which is a terrible name (on purpose; the original German name was supposed to evoke manure). When the hot witch? seductive demon? sexy bionic elder lady Claire finally comes back for a visit (the visit) after leaving as a teen, the down-on-their-luck residents hope that she will be their savior. Maybe if she paid enough in taxes you wouldn’t have to rely on her feeling philanthropic! Claire indeed is willing to give the town lots of money, like the kind that starts with a ‘b’ and that no private citizen should have control of. This money would more than save the town; it would make every penniless resident rich. But there’s a condition, and it’s dark, which you guessed because she is a scary scary sexy lady (like the song from Crazy Ex Girlfriend): she will only give the money in exchange for what she considers ‘justice’. Her version of ‘justice’? The townspeople killing her ex-boyfriend Alfred. YEP.
So like, 40 maybe 50 years have passed since Claire and Alfred, who still lives in Slurry, had their little teenage romance, and despite 7 husbands and traveling all over the world and becoming the richest person on earth, Claire is still angry that Alfred broke up with her. Or so it seems at first. At first you’re like oh this bitch cray, no one in that town better think twice about telling her to shove her money. I mean you’re talking about MURDER. But despite initially laughing off her proposal and telling Alfred that they would never even consider it, the townspeople slowly start to realize how much their lives would change by sacrificing just one eensy person.
And as more details come out about their history, what Claire suffered through, and who exactly composes her entourage (this part straight f-ed me up), you understand Claire’s position better: Alfred didn’t just abandon her. What he did was pure evil. I completely get being furious about what he did for decades and wanting some kind of justice. But, murdering him isn’t justice. My biggest disappointment with this show is that at no point does anyone say that murdering a wrongdoer does not beget justice, and that enacting such revenge doesn’t help anyone. Every time someone said the word justice I thought to myself “you keep a-using that word. I don’t-a think you know what it means.” I had recently watched The Good Place finale, so the whole ‘he did a horrible deed 50 years ago and should be punished eternally for it’ thing was a stark contrast to that show’s message that everyone should at least have a chance at redemption. (I mean not that Alfred ever seemed interesting in apologizing for his actions, but I guess that would have changed things too much.)
The first act was quite gripping, despite a slow start due to some weird acting choices on the part of the townspeople (also in New York state there should not be southern accents, but that is the most common ‘American accent’ choice usually). Also in that first kind of rocky opening were some REALLY WEIRD lines about Jews? Like very very disturbing that would be okay if anything came of them or they were supposed to be important but it just felt like random slurs? I’m really surprised at Kushner here, who is a Jew, and what he was trying to achieve. I have noticed his other works having such weird anti-Jew lines almost seemingly for the hell of it, not doing anything with them to make it worthwhile (I wonder if he uses it as an easy way to show that certain characters are flawed/bad, not realizing how anti-Semitic London/UK/Europe is). It took me out of it for a bit as I tried to understand his purpose. Ugh I got Kushlash.
Then, the second act is truly superb, one of the best, most gripping pieces of theatre. It was only 45 minutes and every second of that was perfectly calibrated. As the townspeople grapple with their decision, the whole play felt like a slow creeping movement towards evil, almost like a secret of the ooze, and it’s reflected incredibly in the blocking, with excellent direction from Jeremy Herrin. If the first act’s dark comedy was a B, this second act’s riveting psychological thriller was an A+.
And then the third act was beyond disappointing. It didn’t effectively capitalize on the gripping psycho-drama proffered in Act II. So much happens that is indefensible from a dramaturg perspective: Why don’t Alfred’s wife and kids seem to care about what’s happening AT ALL? Why is Alfred letting the press take pictures of him and his family in his shop? Why is this townsperson pretending to stab Alfred for a photo – when the journalist asking for it has NO idea about the deal?? (That last one really bugs me to no end. Like wtaf.) That is nonsense. There’s also so much that needed to be cut: the entire car ride with Alfred’s family was a waste of time, as was the horrible annoying TV personalities doing their bits at the town meeting, and then, to add insult to injury, repeating everything because their feeds weren’t working or something. This was some real nonsense that almost had me screaming.
So this first preview was four hours (although it never really felt long at all; it was well paced aside from some bullshit in the third act). A few days later, I saw on the NT website that the run time had been amended to 3 hours 50 minutes, and then a few days later to 3 hours 40 minutes, and now it’s at 3 hours 30 minutes. I hope that’s all due to work on the third act, because if ONE SECOND of the second act was touched, that’s a real tragedy. (Apparently the Broadway musical version was 95 minutes, which is hilarious to me. What did Chita just show up and sing one song and then they all do a murder and you’re out before you even have to pee? I peed 5 times during this event.)
But the most disappointing thing (well the TV reporters bit was pretty terrible) was that there is no discussion of forgiveness, or redemption, or how by considering this offer the townspeople are just as bad or worse as teenage Alfred. While the play is overall pretty good, always interesting, and almost never boring, it’s still such a wasted opportunity for exploring these themes. There is so much fodder for how to deal with remorse and past sins as well as anger and desire for vengeance, and of course what actual justice is, but any real contemplation of all this happens offstage.
INFORMATION
There are two intervals so regardless of what the ever-changing run time is, that’s always good.
My favorite place to sit in the Olivier is the front row of the circle. I usually do stalls but the Olivier is such an enormous cavern of a place that you get a better view from the circle. Also the inner aisles are pretty central. Best of all, it’s formed so you only see the stage and none of the people in the stalls on their phones. Also people don’t seem to know that there are bathrooms on either side of the circle, inside the doors, and there are usually okay lines. What does have a line is the new water dispenser on the bar, which is a nice idea but now since there’s only one instead of a few pitchers that line is longer than the bar’s!
My best tip for the NT as always is to bring your small bag, not a big one. They make you check purses and backpacks &c that are bigger than like a piece of paper.
Related Posts
“Everyman” at the National Theatre: Worth Seeing For Chiwetel, But Disappointing
The show “Everyman” is about probably every human’s nightmare – facing untimely death – but the first 10 minutes are literally my nightmare. It’s a loud rave in a dark, creepy, possibly swanky club with inst-inst-inst music and well-to-do assholes doing drugs and taking selfies of how messed up and fun and awesome they are while lights are flashing and people are drinking more than they’re breathing and tossing their garbage on the floor and it’s just all awful and that’s my nightmare.
But it’s an effective opening of indulgent horrors, showing how our main character, Everyman (Chiwetel Ejiofor), has a certain kind of unaware, boorish, privileged lifestyle, spending his money and not really caring about much else. He passes out at the club and wakes up as the cleaning woman (who turns out to be God, naturally) is mopping up the disgusting floor, and he offers her some money to apologize for her job. But then he meets a man in a white jumpsuit who introduces himself as Death (Dermot Crowley, so good), and announces that Everyman’s time is up. This play is about how Everyman, sometimes horrifyingly called ‘Ev’ like it’s his actual name, deals with his impending doom.
“Everyman” is an update of the 15th century morality play titled “Somonyng [Summoning] of Everyman”, an allegory about humanity and death and how you have to do good deeds to attain salvation. It sounds like a great piece prime for updating to our modern times, with the lesson that no matter what, all you are left with to present to God for final judgment is a recounting of your good deeds.
It’s such an overdone topic, man’s struggle with his own mortality, and so this update needed to be handled in a fresh way to be worth doing. I assumed that the revival of it would bring about a relevant reimagining that made it original. But despite the we’re so cool vibe of the opening, nothing Everyman did in the face of death was new or original. He freaked out, and that was pretty much it.
One interesting aspect was that the original 15th text was rhyming, so this modern update also rhymed. But oof. They should have called Lin-Manuel. Some of the rhymes were embarrassing. One line went something like “Ev, mate, we’re totally your fandom, but all of this is just…random.” I apologize to the person sitting in front of me for throwing up on you.
So Everyman was super upset, naturally, and tried to get out of it. He tried to get his family to vouch for him, then his friends, none of whom seemed to care that much.
Everyman’s mother was good but had awful lines. She made jokes about her daughter-caregiver (the good child, as it were) being a lesbian, and the audience loved it, which was super weird. How messed up is that? It didn’t even contribute any meaningful character development or anything, just cheap laughter. Another joke was about how the daughter was vegan and how at least Ev doesn’t have to cook for a vegan, thank his lucky stars, or eat tofu scramble. The audience DIED at the tofu scramble joke. Again, didn’t add anything, just was super lame and cringeworthy. I was really surprised that they took this ancient work and updated it not with worthwhile insights but with cheap jokes, especially when the play is about using your life as best you can, being a good person while you are alive, and yet the only person in the show being a good person is used as a punching bag. And the most bothersome part is that this wasn’t done intentionally! It wasn’t like the creative team realized at all what they were doing, as clever as that could have been – a show about shitty people wasting life while making fun of the only person trying to do good could send a really powerful message about how we treat and think of others. But that wasn’t what they were going for here, it was clear, because the very brief jabs were clearly just to make the audience laugh, not to imply any deeper meaning. Which is a missed opportunity for actual depth.
No, this show was all about Everyman’s reaction to his death, not about other characters’ interactions or reveals. He freaked out pretty consistently. After trying to persuade the people in his life to help him, he tried to use his vast material wealth as a thing that God would give a shit about; obviously that backfired. Finally, he befriends a homeless man and learns a tiny bit about being a good person? But not really. I mean he realizes that he wasn’t much of one.
The most promising scene came when Everyman says goodbye to the embodiments of all his senses and abilities (taste, touch, knowledge, &c.). It was like the human-live action version of “Inside Out”. That’s a really cool idea but I wish it was better done. After like 100 minutes of loud tearful desperate cries with no level changes, no variation, when he just continued yelling crying at his attributes it wasn’t as heavy as it should have been. Chiwetel was good, and it was wonderful to see this great actor live onstage (long ‘i’ live; he doesn’t live). But the performance and the show seemed pretty one note, trying to sustain an intensified level of energy that just felt flat with no variation.
Yet after Everyman exhausts all his avenues of redemption and faces Death for good, Death tells him that his struggle really touched him. I was confused. How was his reaction different from anyone else’s? It seemed textbook, to react to death with unhappiness and anger, freaking out, trying to make bargains, trying to get people in your life to stand up for you. Like what else do people do? I didn’t get why Death, and also God, actually, (the cleaning woman, remember, which was clever) were impressed by his reaction. They still killed him, but they maybe felt bad about it? It was weird!
A lot of people seemed to be really touched by this story, which surprised me. Like I think I heard crying. Maybe I just think about this dreary stuff more frequently than others, so it wasn’t a novelty? I’m way existential. But no, everyone thinks about it at least a tiny bit, and nothing in this show offered anything new to the subject. Be a good person, it said, do good deeds, but even if you don’t, we will be impressed with how much you don’t want to die? I think that’s what it was saying.
It’s such an overdone topic, man’s struggle with his own mortality, and so this update needed to be handled in a fresh way to be worth doing. I assumed that the revival of it would bring about a relevant reimagining that made it original. But despite the we’re so cool vibe of the opening, nothing Everyman did in the face of death was new or original. He freaked out, and that was pretty much it.
One interesting aspect was that the original 15th text was rhyming, so this modern update also rhymed. But oof. They should have called Lin-Manuel. Some of the rhymes were embarrassing. One line went something like “Ev, mate, we’re totally your fandom, but all of this is just…random.” I apologize to the person sitting in front of me for throwing up on you.
So Everyman was super upset, naturally, and tried to get out of it. He tried to get his family to vouch for him, then his friends, none of whom seemed to care that much.
Everyman’s mother was good but had awful lines. She made jokes about her daughter-caregiver (the good child, as it were) being a lesbian, and the audience loved it, which was super weird. How messed up is that? It didn’t even contribute any meaningful character development or anything, just cheap laughter. Another joke was about how the daughter was vegan and how at least Ev doesn’t have to cook for a vegan, thank his lucky stars, or eat tofu scramble. The audience DIED at the tofu scramble joke. Again, didn’t add anything, just was super lame and cringeworthy. I was really surprised that they took this ancient work and updated it not with worthwhile insights but with cheap jokes, especially when the play is about using your life as best you can, being a good person while you are alive, and yet the only person in the show being a good person is used as a punching bag. And the most bothersome part is that this wasn’t done intentionally! It wasn’t like the creative team realized at all what they were doing, as clever as that could have been – a show about shitty people wasting life while making fun of the only person trying to do good could send a really powerful message about how we treat and think of others. But that wasn’t what they were going for here, it was clear, because the very brief jabs were clearly just to make the audience laugh, not to imply any deeper meaning. Which is a missed opportunity for actual depth.
No, this show was all about Everyman’s reaction to his death, not about other characters’ interactions or reveals. He freaked out pretty consistently. After trying to persuade the people in his life to help him, he tried to use his vast material wealth as a thing that God would give a shit about; obviously that backfired. Finally, he befriends a homeless man and learns a tiny bit about being a good person? But not really. I mean he realizes that he wasn’t much of one.
The most promising scene came when Everyman says goodbye to the embodiments of all his senses and abilities (taste, touch, knowledge, &c.). It was like the human-live action version of “Inside Out”. That’s a really cool idea but I wish it was better done. After like 100 minutes of loud tearful desperate cries with no level changes, no variation, when he just continued yelling crying at his attributes it wasn’t as heavy as it should have been. Chiwetel was good, and it was wonderful to see this great actor live onstage (long ‘i’ live; he doesn’t live). But the performance and the show seemed pretty one note, trying to sustain an intensified level of energy that just felt flat with no variation.
Yet after Everyman exhausts all his avenues of redemption and faces Death for good, Death tells him that his struggle really touched him. I was confused. How was his reaction different from anyone else’s? It seemed textbook, to react to death with unhappiness and anger, freaking out, trying to make bargains, trying to get people in your life to stand up for you. Like what else do people do? I didn’t get why Death, and also God, actually, (the cleaning woman, remember, which was clever) were impressed by his reaction. They still killed him, but they maybe felt bad about it? It was weird!
A lot of people seemed to be really touched by this story, which surprised me. Like I think I heard crying. Maybe I just think about this dreary stuff more frequently than others, so it wasn’t a novelty? I’m way existential. But no, everyone thinks about it at least a tiny bit, and nothing in this show offered anything new to the subject. Be a good person, it said, do good deeds, but even if you don’t, we will be impressed with how much you don’t want to die? I think that’s what it was saying.
Sugar, Butter, Fl-uck This Show is Amazing: Sara Bareilles Joins Waitress in London
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is Waitress, again, because it’s the best but also because composer Sara Bareilles is playing Jenna until March 7! We went to her opening night and it’s time to rave.
OH, IT IS ON. One of the best musicals ever (I mean it; I know all the musicals and I will fight you on this) is now even more special. Grammy-winner (that’s right babies!) Sara Bareilles has joined the London production of Waitress, the musical she wrote, playing forlorn but super talented pie-making waitress Jenna, singing the songs how she meant them to be sung and being like ‘oh WHAT yeah that’s right’. And Sara, praise the lord, brought Broadway’s favorite boyfriend/lovable goof Gavin Creel over with her to play Jenna’s inappropes/super adorbs gynecologist Dr. Pomatter, to the delight of everyone who is conscious. Waitress is a strong show that’s absolute joyous heartbreaking and heartbuilding perfection no matter what, but having Bareilles herself play Jenna Hunterson is one of those Experiences that despite sky-high expectations more than lived up to them.
We’ve talked about Waitress before on this site, and if we know each other in real life you have definitely heard me preach about how wonderful this show is and how anyone who disagrees just like DOESN’T GET IT or DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT SET OF EMOTION RECEPTORS or WAS ON THEIR PHONE DESPITE SARA’S WONDERFUL PRE-SHOW SHUT-YOUR-PHONE-OFF SONG or anything else that lets me shout at people who disagree with me like a true g-d American. But to recap, Waitress is based on Adrienne Shelley’s 2007 movie about a Russian spy (no) who makes amazing pies but is les miserables. Jenna, our waitress, is stuck in a loveless and abusive marriage and then she gets pregnant and doesn’t want the baby and instead of calling me for help (just like last week’s show) she decides to begrudgingly have the baby and she has a pretty rocking affair with her super fantastic gyno and then she has the baby and it all works out (unlike last week’s show) and it’s beautiful and amazing and the score is sensational and the book (by Jessie Nelson) is hilarious and poignant and I LOVE IT.
We were front and center (well, side; aisles baby you know) for Sara’s official London debut, scared that her stans might be annoyingly vocal when they shouldn’t be but too excited to care much (and for the record the audience was surprisingly well behaved for London) (although I did tell one man to put his phone away when he was taking photos and he was like shocked that someone didn’t want a phone sticking up during a show, so). Every time this show begins and I hear the motif of ‘sugar, butter, flour’ start, I get chills. To hear it from SB herself made the chills more like convulsions. Her Jenna is everything you hope for. Her quiet moments in the gorgeous opener and in “Soft Place to Land” are moving and lovely, while the belted notes that everyone expects and discusses like it’s some kind of sport now were there and were incredible, but they were also there for a reason. You absolutely felt the emotion and meaning behind them. Her acting is pretty impressive too. In the first scene, there were a few moments that reminded you that she isn’t a trained actress, but as she got her footing she only improved, and there were even some line deliveries that absolutely slayed more than they have in the past (her perfectly timed ‘she could be gay’, omg).
And yes, there was an immediate standing ovation after her flawless “She Used to Be Mine”, that extraordinary song. Sometimes that sort of thing feels like pandering or like the standers just want to be able to say they were a part of that, and it’s not based in truth. But here, it felt like a show of hospitality and thanks, the perfect way to welcome Sara to the West End and recognize what she has created. If it happens every performance it might seem forced, but given how special and how rare it is to see a writer perform a role they composed, it’ll still be meaningful.
Now about that boy. Gavin Creel is one of the best, like ever, and he makes the not-too-big part of Dr. Pomatter feel like the meatiest musical theatre role. He is the reason for the word ‘adorkable’, not Zooey Deschanel, and his Pomatter was so goshdarn adorkable and charming that I felt like that gif of the little squeeing girl, you know with her little fists by her cheeks? That was me the whole time. He makes so much out of every moment and gesture and my god, it’s just a nonstop ball of endless awkwardness and goofiness and charm and that forking voice. I was nervous because Gavin and Sara are good friends and sometimes it’s hard for friends in real life to have romantic chemistry onstage (which I know because in a college show I had to pretend to be in love with my best friend’s boyfriend (now husband) and we were so uncomfortable that we won 3rd Most Awkward Onstage Couple that season) but they were quite convincing.
As for the rest of the cast, they were great. I believe this was also the first performance for Evelyn Hoskins’ Dawn, and she was super winning and the audience was fully behind her, and she will surely only grow and improve as she learns to control her projection while dealing with that adrenaline. Marisha Wallace is back in the production after a break from playing Becky, and thank goodness because her Becky, man, dayum. Her book scenes were much different this go round, much quieter and almost deadpan sometimes, which is not what you get from the usually ‘sassy’ Becky (it seemed like a purposeful approach to avoid that word). I don’t know if I like it better but it was interesting, and her “I Didn’t Plan It” was as mind-blowing as ever. I always get chills (I mean just the whole show, really) on the line “to open your eyes and look around/and seeee the skyyyy when you’re underground” and she forking nailed it.
The supporting men were great too. Joel Montague’s Ogie was new to me, and although he doesn’t have the comedic brilliance that Mr. Kenneth Ellen Parcell did last year, he has a much better voice (not hard to), and that part is so well written and constructed that I don’t think it’s possible to be performed poorly. And my goodness, I think Andrew Boyer’s Joe might be my favorite Joe yet, yeah even more than Headmaster Charleston (I know)! He was super grouchy but his grouchiness was so clearly underwritten with loneliness and heart that it really moved me. His crotchety interplay with Sara was so realistic and so spirited (they may have had the best acting chemistry on that stage) and their last moment shocked me with how striking and simple it was (more nuanced acting from Sara).
There were some noticeable differences with the show too. Earl (Tamlyn Henderson/Will Forte) seemed much more obviously abusive and horrible (though a good performance), almost like they are making it too easy to paint him as the villain. He’s definitely bad news but when he’s less physically abusive I think it makes for a more interesting dynamic and more educational for people who might not even realize how bad emotional abuse is. Also, everything felt slower than than before. This isn’t necessarily bad, since I love to be enveloped by the world of this show for as long as possible, but it was noticeably slower pacing. I also recognized the simple and lovely choreography more than usual and enjoyed it, especially the truly riveting moment where Jenna packs up a suitcase, puts her jacket on, and the cast takes her jacket off, all in the span of about 6 seconds of her imagining a new pie and running away. That was the most incredible moment of the night for me, proving that while brilliant star power and fabulous performances are welcome, this show is beautiful and strong no matter who’s in it.
INFORMATION
Sara and Gavin will be in the show until March 7.
After a 7:36 ish start, Act I ended at 8:45 and the show ended at 10:06. A few minutes longer than it should be, possibly due to the extended applause breaks and also the aforementioned pacing.
If you sit on house right/stage left, there’s a sign for LADIES at around row H or so, but that bathroom only has 3 stalls. It DOES NOT lead you to the giant main bathroom downstairs – for that, go past that Ladies sign and enter the house right doors that say BAR and then you’ll find it there and you’ll beat everyone else who exits the house and goes from the lobby YOU’RE WELCOME.
I did not even attempt stage dooring are you crazy I’m sure it’s a madhouse.
