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
“She Loves Me” and I Love It: Broadway’s Cheeriest & Loveliest Revival
Honestly? I don’t think I’ve ever smiled so much during a show. Okay, well aside from funnier comedies that make you laugh the whole way through (this season’s “Noises Off” hurt my face, Martin Short’s “Fame Becomes Me” did the same, probably “The Book of Mormon” too). But this was a different kind of constant grinning, the kind that you can’t help but do when you are in the presence of perfection and nothing can bring you down from this floating type of elation. Okay, well aside from the bitches next to you who won’t stop talking until you glare at their male companion until he feels embarrassed on their behalf and then you finally just say shut your mouths or I’ll shut them for you permanently you ungodly pieces of heaving garbage. Okay I didn’t say that but what I am saying is, “She Loves Me” was flawless (well, aside from the actual flaw in the performance I attended, but we will get there) and will live in my heart like a little pink bubble that won’t kill you.
Confession: Although “She Loves Me” is a musical theatre classic from the 1960s, by all- stars Harnick & Bock (also responsible for the sublime music of “Fiddler on the Roof”), and is the source of one of Barbara Cook’s most iconic roles…I didn’t actually know it. I never listened to the original cast album. I didn’t know that the lovely heartfelt showtune “Will He Like Me” was from it, even though I loved that song. Worst of all guys, I mean, what is my favorite movie? Tied for first with “The Princess Bride”? “You’ve Got Mail”, of course, because I’m of sound mind. Well, guess what, “She Loves Me” is of the “You’ve Got Mail”/”Shop Around the Corner” lineage, being also based on the story of “Parfumerie”, the gift that keeps on giving to reinvention. So the fact that I, professional musical theatre obsessor, didn’t know that there was a CLASSIC MUSICAL that was an earlier version of YOU’VE GOT MAIL, well, let’s just say it made me question everything. The only thing I didn’t question was that holy shit, a musical version of “You’ve Got Mail” was going to be the one single [show] in the world that filled [my] heart with joy. (“Well don’t be ridiculous. Have I ever [seen a show] that fit that description? Have you?!”)
So I knew it was going to be good, because of my YGM bias and because the cast was even better than when Broadway forums dream-cast stuff. Man alive, I didn’t know it would be a vegan cream puff of perfection. About that dream cast: Laura Benanti would take the Meg Ryan role, of course, because Laura Benanti is probably the funniest actress there is who is also a sublime soprano. Her Amalia Balash would be edgier than Kathleen Kelly because Laura has the sarcastic deadpan delivery to deadpan all deadpans. Done, amazing, Tony nom guaranteed (and win in any other year). The rest of the cast is where things get interesting. Josh Radnor, the actor behind the much maligned Ted from “How I Met Your Mother” (mostly maligned by me), was initially supposed to play the Tom Hanks role of Georg Novack (spelled like The Sound of Music’s ‘Gay-org’ but just pronounced ‘George’, so why not use the second e huh? Huh?), which is interesting to me because I’ve never heard him sing for real. And also I would just see Ted the whole time and be like UGH YOU SUCK TED STOP WHINING. But luckily, Josh pulled out (so he won’t get preeeeeeeeeeeggggggggggnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnttttt) and Broadway favorite (in just two shows!) Zachary Levi (of “Chuck” fame) stepped in. Listen. Several years ago, Zachary starred in “First Date” on Broadway, which wasn’t a great show but he delighted the whole theatre community, which recognized like, oh Broadway does have the potential to have handsome talented Clooney-style leading men. With Robert Fairchild last year, Steven Pasquale, and now Zachary Levi in his greatest performance yet, we’re in like a golden age of Broadway leading men to match the golden age of actual theatre productions we’re also in. (Can we please get Raul back onstage?)
Levi is even more delightful and enthralling and captivating and joyous than he’s ever been before. He really was perfection. Even better than THanks. His big number, the title song (“she LOOOOVES me!”), was the best moment of the night. There was so much damn joy on that stage, even though he was all by himself, and then he did a cartwheel and it was even more joyous. The song itself is wonderful, with its adorable lyrics that Levi played perfectly (my favorite line is “I’m trembling, what the hell does that mean? I’m freezing. That’s because it’s cold out”. He made it hilarious). I was so surprised at how winning his performance was, even as he was sharing the stage with Benanti and the supporting cast that initially was the reason for drawing me in: Jane Krakowski, Gavin Creel, and Michael McGrath. All my <3s! It’s a relentlessly great cast that was only almost outdone by the jaw-dropping set design. Set in a perfumerie like the original story and not in bookstores, “She Loves Me” tells the story of a group of lovable Hungarian perfumerie clerks in the 1930s, selling their wares while developing relationships with each other, as friends, as lovers, and sometimes as haters. Georg and Amalia initially get on each others nerves, like big time, and they caaaan’t staaaand each other. Little do they know that they have been writing love letters to each other through a Lonely Hearts pen pal kind of thing (the old version of online dating I guess). Their letters start with ‘Dear Friend’, which is where YGM gets it!! loved that!
As their relationship grows in starkly different ways in the shop and in their letters, Georg and Amalia are buoyed by a glorious supporting cast having their own excitement. Amalia’s Miss Rhode Island here is Ilona Ritter, played by the hilarious Jane Krakowski. As hilarious as Jane gets to be on television, her role here was more gentle and endearing, probably because, while she had lots of great lines, Laura’s Amalia had all the zingers. Ilona begins the show by having a very imprudent dalliance with fellow clerk Kodaly, a suave and unkind man played by the suave and very kind and very talented Gavin Creel. Their big number is rousing fun and features Jane doing full splits and then being pulled across the stage – still in the split. Pretty impressive! However, at my performance, some crazy loud whirring noise was coming out behind the speakers on the right side wall, like from behind the boxes. They didn’t stop the show, and I wish they would have. Sometimes you have to keep the show going, and it’s not the actors’ call usually, but man I really wish they stopped it because it was so loud for the mezzanine that you couldn’t even hear Gavin sing. I missed his whole number, pretty much. Actually now that I think about it I wish I asked for a free ticket to another performance. Actually now I’m really mad they didn’t stop the show. Stupid whoever is in charge of that. I could see members of the orchestra looking towards the sound and being like ‘wtf is that!’ grrrr anger.
Okay, breathe, let’s breathe, and whoever knows people at Roundabout make sure they get me a free ticket. Moving on. The only strangely downer part in “She Loves Me” comes courtesy of Byron Jenkins’ Dabney Coleman, I’m assuming. As Maraczek, the owner of the perfumerie (named Maraczek’s), Byron is very mean to poor nicest person ever Georg for no good reason, going so far as to fire him at one point. We find out that it was because he suspected Georg of having an affair with his wife, when of course it wasn’t and of course it was the scoundrel employee among them (Kodaly). When Maraczek finds out he was wrong and fired the wrong man, he tries to kill himself. Fortunately we don’t really see it (just some red lights behind closed doors), and fortunately he doesn’t succeed, but damn, that is some jarring, out-of-place drama if I ever saw it. That poor sad multi-millionaire I feel so *sorry* for him. Happily, Mr. Maraczek is (quickly) fine and makes it up to Georg by promising him the store. So that’s quite good.
Then we have the very lovable Michael McGrath in the Dave Chappelle role of Georg’s bestie and confidante. Listen. Dave Chappelle in “You’ve Got Mail” is one of the great cinematic performances of the century. “She gon be a real dog” is #1 on all AFI lists of Most Influential and Important Film Quotes of all time. Say it with me Kanye-style: OF ALL TIME! He was amazing. So for anyone to try to top that performance is a real test. Luckily, this being set in 1930s Hungary and Michael McGrath being a 58-year-old white man, he was directed differently than Dave was. McGrath plays a kind-hearted, decent man who wants everyone to be happy and everything to run smoothly. He also sees early on that Georg and Amalia love each other, even though they think they hate each other. McGrath was so perfect in this role, I am very sad to report that I think I saw his last performance, because he left the show for personal reasons. I don’t think anyone really knows why and I hope he is okay.
In addition to the perfect cast and the perfect score and direction and everything was the set, perhaps my favorite traditional set design ever. Oh my goodness this set had me jumping up and down in my seat in giddiness metaphorically of course because I would never disturb the people around me in a theatre like that even though everyone else who goes to the theatre seems to have no problem disturbing those around them because we live in an age of entitlement and zero manners. The set was so gorgeous, like a little (but giant) toybox that spun around and opened into endless compartments to form all the different rooms of the shop. It was BIG and BEEYOOTIFUL. Like the architectural version of a French pastry on display in a window.
Obviously I have been saving the best for last. Laura Benanti is so wonderful in this. She’s played a lot of supporting characters, and here she gets the chance to really shine as she was meant to. Amalia lets her break out her rarely heard (lately) beautiful soprano voice, hitting high notes and staying up there with that great operatic style that we don’t really get anymore in newer musicals that are all about belting. But she also plays Amalia with a hardness in her that comes out as comedy and is understandable for her character, before she opens herself up to love. Her comic timing is impeccable, and her specific brand of it is different from anything I’ve seen from a musical theatre actress. Some find her sarcasm and cynicism off-putting but, maybe because that’s often my style of comedy, I love it. Amalia’s big famous number, “Vanilla Ice Cream” (what Georg brings her when she’s sick, like when THanks brings Kathleen daisies because they are her favorite flower and she sneezes in the intercom and it’s so funny and then she has her trio of amazing yeses) was indeed beautiful, but my favorite was the extraordinarily silly “Where’s My Shoe?” Some people hate that song because it’s silly, but omg it was so funny and well done. Amalia is trying to get dressed for work and can’t find her shoe. And she jumps around her bed and stuff and it’s just the funniest thing, so well orchestrated.
This year was unparalleled in the quality of musical revivals. Two fantastic ones, “Spring Awakening” and “The Color Purple”, reinvented their original stories in meaningful, effective ways. While “She Loves Me” didn’t do anything similarly revolutionary, this revival was instead a wonderfully traditional version of its show, nothing revelatory except how perfectly it was done. It’s special to have such insanely high quality of both kinds of reviving in the same season.
AUDIENCE
This is the show where Benanti famously stopped because someone’s phone was ringing. She looked out and said coolly “I’ll wait.” F-ing badass. And because it’s an older traditional show, it does attract the oldies who are typically the worst audience members. Like I said above, the people next to me were f-ing horrible. They weren’t so much old as they were girlfriends excited to be drinking overpriced drinks. Oy. Nothing worse than any other audiences though, really. Side note: Row E in the rearish mezzanine is actually sort of its own front row because there is a break that doesn’t show up on seating charts. So it’s a great seat that happens to be on the cheaper side. Studio 54 (not that one) (is it?) is an enormous cavernous theatre, though, so it all seems far away.
STAGE DOOR
Even though only Zachary Levi came out even though it was a Saturday night and I waited for everrrr, it was still the best stage door experience ever. Just as he did for “First Date”, Levi came out, as he does after every show, with his speakers and turned it into a dance party. He is just so full of joy and gratitude and kindness that it’s infectious and everyone has a gay old time. I hope he stays on Broadway forever. Benanti sent out signed Playbills, which she kindly does very often when she doesn’t sign. Both of them are going beyond the call of duty and it’s really nice.
“The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk”: Love, War, and Marc Chagall
IT’S THEATRE THURSDAY Y’ALL! Today we are talking about “The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk”, currently at Wilton’s Music Hall as it begins its tour.
A relatively new, fairly abstract play called “The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk” is currently playing at Wilton’s Music Hall in London, and you should see it. I had no idea what it was about, but I live nearby and it’s theatre so I was game. This charming little play, amusing and moving, surprised me with how much it accomplished with so little. It tells the love story of Marc Chagall and his wife Bella, and how they created art and love during world wars. Light acrobatics and mesmerizing movements augment their narrative, to create a touching, energetic story about a painter’s personal life. The play it seemed to be in the beginning was not the play we were left with in the end, but even so, it’s a worthwhile endeavor to tell this story.
Honestly the only thing I knew about Marc Chagall going in was that Julia Roberts owned the famous painting of his, the one with the goat playing a violin flying around in space, and gave it, the real one, to Hugh Grant in “Notting Hill”, as you do to shy lil bookkeepers who may or may not ever want to see you again. Luckily he did (spoilers!) so she didn’t like give away a priceless authentic Chagall painting that would be so stupid. Anyway it’s a great painting so I figured the creator of it might be interesting. Like all artists, his character seemed to have a not-great set of priorities, as they put creating their art ahead of things like oh I don’t know the birth of their child, but still seemed to be a man capable of great feeling and understanding of the more abstract things than common sense, like love. From writer Daniel Jamieson and director Emma Rice, this play – seemingly, from the director’s note, produced out of their actual love story – is small but often powerful.
At the start, we see young Marc and Bella meet in the town of Vitebsk, now in Belarus. More than half the population was Jewish and so it had a staggering number of synagogues at the time (early 1900s), and so it was completely decimated in the war, they tell us in the beginning. The 90-minute play, though it uses the two onstage musicians in the action sometimes, is essentially just Marc and Bella, what people in the theatre would call a ‘two-hander’ because there are only two actors but I will fight my whole life against that phrase unless the two actors each only have one hand. (It should be called a four-hander, am I right?) Anyway, it’s nice to see a play about two Jews in a room bitching. Especially in London, where many people think Jews are alien. So Marc and Bella instantly fall in love and their initial courtship is kind of adorable. They talk to the audience a lot, and Bella confides in us that she knew he liked her and yet he waited so long to kiss her. One day on a picnic she thought he was coming in for one but instead he asks for his jacket, which she is sitting on. Super awkward and so funnily adorable! It’s crazy to hindsight to think back on how lighthearted a romp it felt in these hilarious moments compared to the heartbreaking weight of the end. The best scene is when Bella celebrates Marc’s birthday – his first birthday, he says, because he never celebrated it before. This play, in its first iteration 25 years ago, was actually called ‘Birthday’, I assume to highlight this event which surely solidified Marc’s love for Bella.
As Bella and Marc’s relationship grows, they portray this by doing aforementioned acrobatics, just a little bit, enough to completely captivate and convey their story and make you want more. It was so effective to see how they were falling for each other when they were literally falling through the air and being caught by the other and stuff, to see a representation of all of Marc’s famous paintings of them flying through the air together, buoyed by their love. LOVES IT. I loves it so much that the fact that they used this incredible movement only sparingly and only in the first half made me very upset. The selling point for this show, in my view, is that it’s telling this biographical tale in this fascinating new way. I mean it’s literally called “the FLYING lovers”, you know? I wanted much more flying. To take away the part that’s different, the part that sets it apart from other straight biographical plays, makes it just like any other straight drama and it’s not strong enough without its special quirks to stand out. Still good, still moving, but not as special as it would be if the movement were incorporated throughout. And I get that the directing choice may have been to decrease the brightness of such movement as the subject matter darkened, but I am sure that they still could have integrated some sort of choreography to tell the more serious parts of the story. And some of the movement we did see was valuable in conveying melancholy. I think it could have worked throughout the darker parts. I mean Cirque du Soleil is terrifying as shit.
It also uses music to tell the story, and also moreso in the beginning. I am not sure if I would call it a musical as opposed to a play with music, since it doesn’t actually tell the story but add to it, and of course because the music, like the fun movement, is front-loaded. The two onstage musicians, James Gow and Ian Ross, jump into the action a lot to lend their voices to some songs and to say a few lines as Soviet police officers here and there, and they do a fine job supporting the two stars. Marc Antolin as Marc (I know his name is with a ‘c’ too it was fate) and Daisy Maywood as Bella are lovely actors who really make you believe that they are feeling all the things. Their trust for each other is remarkable, and since it’s there I mean why not put it to more use with more of the acrobatic partner work? I know I can just repeat myself over and over but I just so want to see what this play could be with more of what made it special since that unique aspect was so effective.
We see Marc and Bella move to Paris and to St. Petersburg, then back to Vitebsk, and hither and thither during the war time as their safety and the lives of all Jews were threatened. As the second half loses the acrobatics and a lot of the music, a little magic was lost as well, but it may also be due to the story getting serious. It felt like it was dragging a bit as we learned about how terrible the war was, but that may be because war sucks. Also, as we learned more about the characters, the initial sheen fell away. Marc, it turns out, had anger issues like many artists have when their work isn’t seen as the end all be all of everybody’s lives. At one point, Bella gives birth to their daughter while they are living in a tiny apartment amid horrible atrocities occurring, and Marc is nowhere to be found. Days later, days after his child is born, he comes home and Bella’s like ‘duuude what the hell, I’m still in so much pain and I need your help taking care of a NEWBORN’ and Marc replies “Do you think what I do happens painlessly?” Artists are not in touch with reality, I guess, is a lesson of this play.
But this artist is in touch with his emotions, and his love for Bella helped him create some of his best work. The two characters talk about how they see new colors together, through and in each others’ eyes, and it’s true that Marc was considered one of the best when it came to understanding color, probably thanks to their love, which seemed significant. As I said, the second half did drag and lose some of its distinctiveness, because as a straight play without its special assets it has to measure up to other regular straight plays, better ones. But the end kind of tied everything together in a heartbreaking bow. A song that the characters sing to open the show seemed meaningless, just a fun period-appropriate song to get the party started, but when they reprise it at the end, it seems to envelop and explain the whole story in a superb, poignant way, and in turn to fortify whatever weaknesses in the play came before it.
INFORMATION
This Kneehigh company production of “The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk” is playing at Wilton’s Music Hall in London until February 10. After that, this production will tour England as well as the USA, making tour stops in Los Angeles and South Carolina. So if you are in those places, you should see it.
At the start, we see young Marc and Bella meet in the town of Vitebsk, now in Belarus. More than half the population was Jewish and so it had a staggering number of synagogues at the time (early 1900s), and so it was completely decimated in the war, they tell us in the beginning. The 90-minute play, though it uses the two onstage musicians in the action sometimes, is essentially just Marc and Bella, what people in the theatre would call a ‘two-hander’ because there are only two actors but I will fight my whole life against that phrase unless the two actors each only have one hand. (It should be called a four-hander, am I right?) Anyway, it’s nice to see a play about two Jews in a room bitching. Especially in London, where many people think Jews are alien. So Marc and Bella instantly fall in love and their initial courtship is kind of adorable. They talk to the audience a lot, and Bella confides in us that she knew he liked her and yet he waited so long to kiss her. One day on a picnic she thought he was coming in for one but instead he asks for his jacket, which she is sitting on. Super awkward and so funnily adorable! It’s crazy to hindsight to think back on how lighthearted a romp it felt in these hilarious moments compared to the heartbreaking weight of the end. The best scene is when Bella celebrates Marc’s birthday – his first birthday, he says, because he never celebrated it before. This play, in its first iteration 25 years ago, was actually called ‘Birthday’, I assume to highlight this event which surely solidified Marc’s love for Bella.
As Bella and Marc’s relationship grows, they portray this by doing aforementioned acrobatics, just a little bit, enough to completely captivate and convey their story and make you want more. It was so effective to see how they were falling for each other when they were literally falling through the air and being caught by the other and stuff, to see a representation of all of Marc’s famous paintings of them flying through the air together, buoyed by their love. LOVES IT. I loves it so much that the fact that they used this incredible movement only sparingly and only in the first half made me very upset. The selling point for this show, in my view, is that it’s telling this biographical tale in this fascinating new way. I mean it’s literally called “the FLYING lovers”, you know? I wanted much more flying. To take away the part that’s different, the part that sets it apart from other straight biographical plays, makes it just like any other straight drama and it’s not strong enough without its special quirks to stand out. Still good, still moving, but not as special as it would be if the movement were incorporated throughout. And I get that the directing choice may have been to decrease the brightness of such movement as the subject matter darkened, but I am sure that they still could have integrated some sort of choreography to tell the more serious parts of the story. And some of the movement we did see was valuable in conveying melancholy. I think it could have worked throughout the darker parts. I mean Cirque du Soleil is terrifying as shit.
It also uses music to tell the story, and also moreso in the beginning. I am not sure if I would call it a musical as opposed to a play with music, since it doesn’t actually tell the story but add to it, and of course because the music, like the fun movement, is front-loaded. The two onstage musicians, James Gow and Ian Ross, jump into the action a lot to lend their voices to some songs and to say a few lines as Soviet police officers here and there, and they do a fine job supporting the two stars. Marc Antolin as Marc (I know his name is with a ‘c’ too it was fate) and Daisy Maywood as Bella are lovely actors who really make you believe that they are feeling all the things. Their trust for each other is remarkable, and since it’s there I mean why not put it to more use with more of the acrobatic partner work? I know I can just repeat myself over and over but I just so want to see what this play could be with more of what made it special since that unique aspect was so effective.
We see Marc and Bella move to Paris and to St. Petersburg, then back to Vitebsk, and hither and thither during the war time as their safety and the lives of all Jews were threatened. As the second half loses the acrobatics and a lot of the music, a little magic was lost as well, but it may also be due to the story getting serious. It felt like it was dragging a bit as we learned about how terrible the war was, but that may be because war sucks. Also, as we learned more about the characters, the initial sheen fell away. Marc, it turns out, had anger issues like many artists have when their work isn’t seen as the end all be all of everybody’s lives. At one point, Bella gives birth to their daughter while they are living in a tiny apartment amid horrible atrocities occurring, and Marc is nowhere to be found. Days later, days after his child is born, he comes home and Bella’s like ‘duuude what the hell, I’m still in so much pain and I need your help taking care of a NEWBORN’ and Marc replies “Do you think what I do happens painlessly?” Artists are not in touch with reality, I guess, is a lesson of this play.
But this artist is in touch with his emotions, and his love for Bella helped him create some of his best work. The two characters talk about how they see new colors together, through and in each others’ eyes, and it’s true that Marc was considered one of the best when it came to understanding color, probably thanks to their love, which seemed significant. As I said, the second half did drag and lose some of its distinctiveness, because as a straight play without its special assets it has to measure up to other regular straight plays, better ones. But the end kind of tied everything together in a heartbreaking bow. A song that the characters sing to open the show seemed meaningless, just a fun period-appropriate song to get the party started, but when they reprise it at the end, it seems to envelop and explain the whole story in a superb, poignant way, and in turn to fortify whatever weaknesses in the play came before it.
INFORMATION
This Kneehigh company production of “The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk” is playing at Wilton’s Music Hall in London until February 10. After that, this production will tour England as well as the USA, making tour stops in Los Angeles and South Carolina. So if you are in those places, you should see it.
