The Prince of Egypt Hits London: That DreamWorks Money Though!by Randi / March 10, 2020It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is City of Angels, playing at London’s Garrick Theatre after a transfer from the Donmar Warehouse.
The 1989 musical City of Angels may feel just like a 1940s noir film, but the intrigue and twists are all in cheeky good fun. And the new production in London’s West End is definitely good fun. While the great Cy Coleman’s score is less than great, this well directed, inventive production betters even the less exciting parts. The cast seems to delight in Larry Gelbart’s funny, clever book, and it’s all around a great time – if you have the right seat, in a theatre where at least half the seats are garbage.
City of Angels tells the story of a LA writer named Stine (a fantastic Hadley Fraser my goodness) who is working on the film adaptation of his acclaimed novel. As he writes in real life and deals with a wife he cheats on but it’s NBD and a girl he has affairs with but it’s NBD and a Hollywood producer who’s an ass and it’s a BD, we also see the pages he’s writing come to life, with his characters acting out the plot as Stine works on it (with hilarious effect when he deletes and redoes something). Despite being in his imagination, the characters in his story feel real, and the barrier between real life and fiction break down when Stine interacts with his leading man, Stone (a great Theo James, yes that one, such stage presence, very wow), in the most fun parts of this show.
With this super clever, original premise comes tons of humor and creativity, and this production is probably the best we’ll see of this show. The direction is almost flawless (see below) and everything feels purposeful. I never really call out the lighting in a show, but the lighting design here is everything. Stine’s real Los Angeles life is lit in color, whereas the scenes from his script are mainly in black and white, an effect that was impressive as hell when both worlds would share the stage simultaneously, and extraordinary as Stone and Stine toy with the barrier between them. Those clashes between the two S men play out to pretty much the only big song in the show, “You’re Nothing Without Me”, overused a bit as it closes both acts but when it’s the main theme as well as the only strong song for our leading men – and lets Fraser do his main job in this show, which is belting and holding big final notes to impress you and distract you and it works because man alive he is some shit – you can’t fault that use too much.
And yes, while the clever book mostly delights, the score somewhat pales in comparison. There are some strong songs in addition to the aforementioned, like Stine’s wife’s “It Needs Work”, a clever almost patter sort of song that Rosalie Craig does brilliantly. (Craig only plays characters named Bobbi I guess now, and this underwritten one is as satisfying as the previous. (That sounds like a huge compliment since everyone and their mother loved the famous gender-flipped Company but recall that I did not.)) It shows off her acting ability fantastically, but like a lot of the score (save for Hadley’s big belted notes) it doesn’t allow for showing off vocal ability. The only real chance for that comes from Rebecca Trehearn’s “You Can Always Count on Me”. Accustomed to stealing shows, Trehearn’s performance is a highlight.
But there are also some duds that fail the ‘does-this-need-to-be-a-song-and-if-not-is-it-at-least-worth-it’ test. I don’t even recall the underused Vanessa Williams (yes, that Vanessa Williams) singing, which is odd for someone who famously can sing well, but I know she did. (She also gets a cringeworthy line about ‘saving the best for last’. I cannot imagine that was in the original script, so the addition is so corny. But if it original, I will eat my words – but if it WAS is that why they cast her??? Honestly that would make me love everything about this production even more, that’s some baller move for one stupid joke, and I respect that.) For a character as vibrant as Stine’s producer, Jimmy Powers (a good Jonathan Slinger in a JK Simmons role) really should have stronger songs. And Bobbie’s cabaret sections just seem awkward.
Some of the performances left me cold as well. Nicola Roberts, from the pop group Girls Aloud, is not well suited to her one big song, which sounded like when our Kim McAfee in high school started rehearsal without warming up. And the Angel City 4, the ensemble that kind of narrates sometimes, and acts as a Greek chorus sometimes, and serves as the producer Jimmy Powers’ backup singers sometimes, sounded insanely off key all the times. I was literally making Chrissy-Tiegen-at-the-Globes gif face whenever they sang, which is super rude, but I couldn’t help it because holy wow those were some wrong ass notes! Fortunately, they don’t ruin another strong number, Munoz’s (Marc Elliott’s) fun “All Ya Have to Do is Wait”, although I don’t think there was any Hispanic representation in this show which is bad when there are some real yikesy slurs used.
All my endless raving about how well designed and directed this show is does actually have an end, though, and it’s now: This show is staged for 40% of the audience. The Garrick has notoriously horrible sightlines from too many seats, and pillars blocking the view for many of the rest. Add in a narrower-seeming stalls and stage than most, a mezzanine overhang that seems to start at the stage, and a chaotic wackiness to the seating plan, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. That knowledge should make the director and crew more careful with what they are doing, but instead, here, they seemed to go ‘you know what, fuck it, let’s stage everything in that one top stage right corner even when it’s completely unnecessary, just to be dicks about it.’ There is so much happening at that spot that literally no one around us could see, and we had good seats. Given the overhang and sightlines, I am sure no one behind row M could see a good portion of the action, which is bullshit. If you’re lucky enough to be in that 40%, you’re going to have a phenomenal time. Otherwise, your resentment is going to color your experience, which is unfair both to you and this great production.
INFORMATION
For a 7:30 curtain, Act I ended at 9pm and the show ended at 10:28, which is about 15 minutes longer than it should be; there were issues at front of house before starting. Yes I really had to pee.
The Garrick Theatre is another stalls-in-the-basement one, so if you want to be at street level, sit in the circle. Also, the ladies bathrooms for the house left side of the stalls are upstairs anyway.
It is one of the smokiest shows in London right now, which is saying something since creators really love to keep those with respiratory problems and asthma away. Even for a 1940s noir show, smoking added nothing to the ambience they created with lights, performances, costumes, and sets. I am still waiting for someone to defend the use of smoking in the theatre to me.
The show is running until September 5, but the cast is changing several times (names this starry don’t do long runs anymore I guess).
STAGEDOOR
Everyone but Trehearn ran or snuck out a different entrance (as is their right yes but darn). The setup is nonexistent, so expect a mosh pit on the busiest sidewalk in London and a guard who doesn’t receive any information.
Related Posts
The Visit at the National Theatre, Or This Old Broad is Crazy But She Ain’t Wrong
It’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.
“Bobbie We’ve Been Trying to [Like] You”: I Saw the West End Revival of Company Again
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are taking a second look at the West End revival of Sondheim’s Company, which has extended its much-celebrated run and is eyeing Broadway.
Theatre followers will know that the current revival of Stephen Sondheim’s Company is the most celebrated show in London right now, at least. It might be the most celebrated show in the world, given how reviewers are positively falling over themselves to exalt it more than everyone else, trying to get closer to it so some of its glory can rub off on them OR SOMETHING. I don’t know why they’re doing it, because I am literally the only reviewer not joining the overhype club. As we saw a few months ago, I thought this gender-switched revival of Company was…fine. Not life-changing, and certainly not revolutionary in the musical theatre realm as so many are claiming, as they’re distracted by the main character now being female and overlooking that, even with the switch, it remains an out-dated, old-fashioned, kind of sexist show. So why did I see it again?
Well, I wanted to see if I was wrong. I can be wrong! I gave it another chance to see if everyone else was right to be lauding this production more than any of the great theatre on right now (like Hadestown). Also, a good portion of my dislike of the show the first go-round was due to seeing the understudy for Bobbie. With lead Rosalie Craig getting unprecedented raves, and heavily favored to sweep awards, I had to actually catch her apparently jaw-dropping performance. Since she is always good, I got re-excited. I was super open and ready to fall in love with this show and admit that I was wrong.
Bitch I’m never wrong.
It’s fine, and yes it was a lot more enjoyable with Rosalie. She is so nuanced and likable in all her work, and she’s lovely here, and best in the book scenes. However, some of the music still falls flat without a big-voiced singer, and there doesn’t seem to be any emotional stakes for her. I didn’t feel anything during “Marry Me a Little”. “Being Alive” has always been one of my favorite musical theatre songs, yet this production has made me question that, because it’s performed kind of quietly and without power. Is this song only riveting when it’s sung to the rafters? The repeated, simple melody and its concise, moving lyrics require an obvious showing of growth and reflection and decision-making shown through dynamic, evolving, and emotional singing – otherwise, it’s stagnant and weak. And that’s what happens here. Her acting is great but it’s not coming across through the music as it should. Without the emotion that belting can help express, the song lost its power. And I’m not usually one to worship belting over acting, but for this song, it only fulfills its fullest emotional potential when the singer’s soul is laid bare, when they’re being completely vulnerable and opening up to the audience and getting everything they feel out there. It’s no longer a mesmerizing character moment when it’s “hmm I guess I do want to find love, as I already told you” versus “HOLY SHIT IF I DON’T FIND LOVE I AM GOING TO EXPLODE.” The latter way is gripping and powerful; the former is just meh.
That’s generally how I feel about the show overall. I still don’t find the gender switch all that interesting. Yes, it’s great to switch up classic roles so that it’s not just white men getting big parts, but I feel that others are forcing more meaning onto the switch than it actually has. It’s cool to see how the show works with a female Bobbie, but that’s really it. Having one doesn’t make this the definitive story of our times or anything. I said before that I found a female Bobbie less compelling than a male Bobby, because of two (potentially contradictory) reasons: 1) society has always bothered women about getting married up, so it’s not anything radical to have a woman thinking about the pressure versus the desire to marry; whereas for a man it did seem more unique; and 2) in this age, it’s bullshit to put that pressure to marry on women anymore.
As for #1, I guess I can understand people finding Bobbie’s situation compelling even if it’s absolutely run-of-the-mill, because maybe they identify with it as an everywoman kind of thing. I just didn’t feel any conflict in Bobbie’s own perspective of her situation, because she says throughout the show to her friends that she is ready for marriage and has indeed been trying. They don’t seem to bother her about being unmarried so much as they ask her a question and she eagerly tells them that she wants to get married. There’s no big change in her thought process or anything, nor is there pressure from the married friends. The people around Bobby in past productions seemed to be incessantly bothering him, with the staging effectively showing them crowding him and coming closer and closer into his personal space, while he needed to finally come to this conclusion himself. Here, it’s like Bobbie already knows and tells her friends from the start that she wants to get married and has been trying, so like…yeah, that’s that. So the big revelation of “Being Alive” actually feels ill-timed here, and overall ill-fitting, since Bobbie has already told us – repeatedly – the revelations she’s supposed to be having in the song.
As for #2, in my first review, I shot this down from my perspective as a woman about Bobbie’s age: Since I don’t feel it or see it, I said this pressure isn’t a thing nowadays and no one cares about unmarried 30-somethings. And while this is my experience, I realize that’s not true for everyone. And, aligning my perspective with Bobbie’s since we’re the same demographic was ill-informed, because the character/s I should be identifying with are the married friends. Of course no one is bothering me about getting married since I am; and although I don’t see it with my single friends or with society at large, it’s not my place to say that it’s wrongly represented. But what I can say is that literally no younger married couples bother their single friends about getting married. We don’t give a shit as long as you’re happy. And if you do want to get married, no actual friends would nag about how you should really hurry up. That’s not a friend, then. In this production, there really isn’t any nagging anyway, not compared to others. Her married friends kind of say ‘eh you looking to marry soon’ and Bobbie’s like ‘YEAH LOVE TO’ and that’s that. There’s more of the couples hoping that she’s happy than anything, and telling her she’s lucky to be single. So the more I think about it, it’s not even that the pressure on the lead character wouldn’t be a thing today – the pressure doesn’t even seem to exist in the play universe. So what’s the conflict? Just that she’s putting the pressure on herself? She seems pretty content though, just aware that she wants to find the right person. WHERE IS THE PROBLEM.
Aside from the nonexistence of the central plot or emotional journey, the show is very entertaining. The supporting cast is great, although I was terrified from more recent word of mouth that the hamminess had upped to unbearable levels. Considering how much scenery Patti LuPone was chewing in previews, I was scared that none of the amazing set would be left. Luckily, everyone was still operating within optimal limits. While I still don’t think Patti’s/Joanne’s new book scenes around “Ladies Who Lunch” work at all, her performance of that song and of “The Little Things You Do Together” were stronger. Best of all, Jonathan Bailey is still stealing the show and making it all worthwhile with his “Getting Married Today”. His Jamie is manic hilarity without going to over-the-top annoying, and it’s the funniest scene, absolutely pitch perfect in every way, with credit to Daisy Maywood’s Priest and just impeccable staging. And I still love Gavin Spokes’s Harry (so heartfelt with is “Sorry/Grateful”) and Richard Fleeshman’s Andy. They’re wonderful.
I don’t often get to see shows in previews and again after opening, so I was shocked that a lot of changes actually did happen. For one, the entirety of the “Tick, Tock” sequence exists now. There was absolutely nothing of that when I saw it earlier, and now there’s at least a five-minute segment of Bobbie having a nightmare about her biological clock and seeing snippets of her potential lives (played by new company members – there are so many silent ensemble members now!) if she married this guy or that and had a baby or several. It’s pretty interesting although it’s unclear what her takeaway is.
Speaking of those new cast members, they’re also used to fill the subway carriages even more in the wholly substandard “Another Hundred People”. I said enough before about how bad it is, so suffice it to say it’s still bad, just with more people involved.
The other disappointing thing that I didn’t mind the first time was the production of “Side by Side/What Would We Do Without You”. The choreography – some of the only choreography in the show – is mostly fun complicated hand movements while the cast is seated, very “War is a Science”. It’s not dancing. Sometimes they play party games. Yet they felt the need to have the cast do exaggerated, vocalized ‘huffs’ no less than FOUR times during the song. Guys. Musical theatre usually requires dancing while singing; all of these performers have done and can do that easily. It’s weird to pretend the cast is so exhausted from their one bit of choreo, and it’s not funny to repeat the same ‘huff huff huff huff!’ four times. Man alive.
So, I tried again and while I am so happy I saw Rosalie, who is great, it’s still not a compelling take on the material. This version, which on paper seems like a no brainer, somehow lacks any reason for us to be interested in Bobbie’s situation. Whenever a higher-up takes a look at a movie script or an early novel draft, the first question they ask about the lead character is “Why do we care about them??” It’s important to be able to answer that.
