Indecent at the Menier: A Glorious and Wrenching Jewish Triumphby Randi / September 21, 2021Anything ANYthing ANYTHING GOOOOES at the Barbican is Pure Silly Joy
In 2011, the absolute ledge Sutton Foster gave us the definitive Reno Sweeney in the definitive production of Anything Goes, directed and choreographed by Kathleen Marshall in a way that warned anyone who tried to do it differently in the future to buzz off, Bambadjan. Heeding that warning, I imagine this is what happened to get this production back in action: the peeps at the Barbican were like ‘we want a new production of Anything Goes!’ and everyone was like ‘you can’t beat the 2011 Broadway revival!’ and the Barbican was like ‘so let’s just do that one!’ and everyone was like ‘ok cool but it really needs Sutton Foster too’ and Barbs was like ‘ok let’s get her!’ and everyone was like ‘can she still do it it’s been 10 years’ and Barbs was like ‘let’s ask’ and Sutton and the rest of the conscious world was like ‘of course she can still do it and probably better than ever she’s Sutton Foster for chrissakes!’ and I was like OH MY GOOD GOD I GET TO SEE MY FAVORITE THING AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! /end scene. (Yes I know it was originally supposed to be Megan Mullally and Sutton came in last minute but Megan would have been more of a Patti LuPone Reno and we cannot go back to those tapless days.)
Now I realize if you search ‘this is my favorite thing!’ in the search box at the top of this site, almost every single post of the thousands I’ve written will come up (barring everything from Mongolia and Mamet) but this is truly one of my faves. By ‘this’ of course I mean Marshall’s incredible, jaw-droppingly amazing 10-minute tap extravaganza of the title song that ends Act I. Me and Jonathan Groff are literally the same person (not literally (or figuratively (we just have this in common) and our love of Lin)) because we were both so obsessed with this number that we learned the whole darn thing, step-by-step, day-by-day, hilarious-Sutton-inflection-by-hilarious-Sutton-inflection.
Literally all of this is chiselled in my mind grapes forever. Okay so I can’t actually DO it, mind you, but I KNOW it, okay.
No matter what the rest of the show is, no matter who the rest of this London cast was going to be, I was in. I was going to see Sutton do this again. I remember every time I saw it on Broadway sitting in shocked excited silence as the curtain came down at intermission, which you KNOW is huge because you know I had to pee. So even though it is still a pandemic, which no one at the Barbican seems to realize, I was going to double mask and double down on seeing my favorite tap number of all time.
Even if the rest of the show was garbage and the rest of the cast was weak, it would still be worth it because that number is just as strong as ever. But fortunately the rest of the show is just as good (mostly) and the rest of the cast is wonderful (mostly).
Before we saw this production, husbo asked me what Anything Goes was about, and even though I know it so well, I really didn’t know how to answer besides to say it’s a lot of silly fun and lots of tapping and that’s all that matters.’ And he was like ‘come on’ and I was like ‘okay it’s like a cruise ship and there’s all these characters like gangsters and fake priests and rich old ladies and a boring debutante and Yale men and Richard you’re a Yale man and your father was a Yale man well we want Rory to be whatever kind of man she wants..I’ve gotten off track.’
The Barbican production was funnier than I remember, truly. ‘Anything Goes’ is a classic Cole Porter romp in which Sutton Foster is a famous New York singer (true!) who loves men, and loves-ish one in particular, her good friend who for some reason doesn’t want to marry her (not believable!) but wants instead to marry the most boring drip of a socialite girl named Hope (also not believable! men hate boring!) who is engaged to a rich British man who seems boring but actually isn’t, but Hope and her mom need his money so they aren’t ruined. So there’s like a sort of love triangle in there among the endless comic antics, but it doesn’t truly matter because you’re just laughing the whole time (except when Hope sings). The physical comedy of this production is endlessly hysterical, and the hundo p Porteresque double entendres and asides and references squeezed into every inch of the show are hilarious (and risque!!) as ever. And no matter how often you see this show, you are still (well I am) surprised at just how many classic Porter songs it features. Of course the title song, and the close second-best number ‘Blow Gabriel Blow’, but also “I Get a Kick Out of You’, ‘Delovely’ (I always forget Delovely!), ‘You’re the Top’, so many! At the Barbican, I found ‘You’re the Top’ even funnier and more enjoyable than ever, poss/prob because Sutton has become so much more comfortable and can mine all the humor possible. Her jovial Billy Crocker, Samuel Edwards, was a great match for her and the two were having an obvious blast with the endless Dad joke lyrics of this song. I love this song because I can never remember any of the actual lyrics. When I sing it it’s like, “You’re the Rockford Peaches, that kid from Beaches…you’re cellophane” or “There’s something startin’/It’s John McMartin…you’re cellophane.” That cellophane lyric really sticks. I don’t like that Sutton still has the harmony on the final line because her voice cuts through EVERYTHING so you mainly hear her kind of weird harmony sounding like the leading vocal instead of the melody line but WHO CARES.
Although the 2011 cast (I will never stop regaling this perfect production, sorry) was definitive (that’s the word of the day/show) cannot be beat — you had muhfucking Joel Grey, Jessica Walter (RIPYAL), Colin Donnell, John McMartin (it wasn’t just random before!), Adam Godley, all absolute perfection — this cast was very enjoyable. It’s not definitive in every single way like the prevs were because that’s not possible, but the all did a fine job. I think the show’s pacing would be improved by cutting the gd blue bird song in Act II – if you don’t have Joel Grey doing it there’s no reason to suffer through it (even with Joel it was a stretch!). Haydn Oakley as Lord Oakleigh (omg is that why they hired him??) was good fun but Adam Godley was just a bit more silly and joyous (and made that ‘gypsy in me’ song funnier…which btw they REALLY need to update. Just change it to Spanish or something instead of Gypsy; it’s already totally a Spanish dance). And Hope was fine, perfectly serviceable but not a standout. I am spoiled by how perfect Laura Osnes (RIP) (she’s not dead just dead to me) was in the role, because come on — a beautiful and angelic-sounding but dull as dishwater debutante with zero character development or depth who just has to sound lovely and move gracefully and be as deep as a sheet of looseleaf? OSNES TO A TEE!
It really doesn’t matter what little qualms I have because it’s the best, it’s so much fun, it’s de-lovely. Marshall’s production is a joy to watch. It’s still way too long – like 2 hours 45 which is kind of pushing the rompness of a romp – but it’s hard to know what hilarious bits you could possibly live without (just kidding it’s the blue bird song and the THREATS TO THE DOG, OVVIAMENTE). Sutton has now left, because she has to go be Marion the Librarian on Broadway and I hope prove to everyone (including me) that she actually will be right for that part, and Rachel York has filled her shoes. I guess Rachel can tap? Awesome. Regardless, so fun, so joy, so wow. Loves it.
What is NOT FUN or joy or wow is the Barbican’s compleeeete laaaaack of caring that we are still in a pandemic. This was by far the worst showing for masks/caring we had ever seen (until this past weekend’s show; look out for a post on that later this week). They recommend that people wear masks, but unless and until staffers actually enforce an actual mask mandate, no one is going to wear one. I really wish that ushers would a) be visible anywhere and b) legit kick people out if you can see their noses. I honestly would volunteer my time to do the kicking out. Ugh it was really bad. I especially loved the unmasked family with two teens (too young to be vaxed at that time!) coughing the entire time. I’m not going to say RIP for the third time in this post but you know I’m thinking it. DO BETTER, BARBICAN AND EVERY LONDON THEATRE.
Related Posts
Watch on the Rhine at the Donmar is the Best Play in London RN NL
(that means right now no lie)
Guys I had literally no idea what Watch on the Rhine was, so much so that every time I saw it in my calendar I thought that my husband was reminding us to watch something called “On the Rhine”. For like MONTHS. Very embarrassing for me, since it was a 1941 Lillian Hellman play (and 1943 movie) and I love Lillian Hellman but I guess that love was based on a very small too small sample size of her work. Regardless we stan a Jewish commie lady! This play came as you can see smack dabbadoo in the middle of World War II; Lillz was really like “gird your loins, world!” with this one.
We meet a rich family in D.C. whose grown daughter is coming back to her mother and old maid brother for the first time in 20 years after going to Europe and marrying a man named Kurt (OR IS HE) and having three amazing kids. They fled Germany probably because he’s prob Jewish and they might be (the names are! it’s unsaid! come on!) and really, it turns out, because he’s a professional anti-fascist and one of the top faces posted on Wanted signs around the Nazi offices. How it comes out is so good, with the old rich gramma being like ‘well we are all anti-fascist OBVIOUSLY’ (the obviously in the tone made me look around the audience to see who shifted uncomfortably) and the daughter was like ‘yeah well Kurt WORKS at it.’ So he’s on lists and shit and they had to flee and shit gets IN. TENSE. because there’s a Friend of Nazis named Teck (jfc) staying at the house who wants to cash in on what he knows.
Once I figured out whyyyy the leading lady, our Sara the returning daughter, was so familiar (it was because of It’s Complicated) (it’s a fantastic movie btw) (I really recommend it) (I love famous old people romcoms so much) I was fully taken into the drama and invested in the story. Sara and Kurt’s relationship was SO INTERESTING. They were madly in love with each other still but that was clearly predicated on having respect for each other as strong warriors for justice, so they were never gonna settle down and enjoy peace for a moment unforch no not ever. Teck (jfc) probably just sped up the process with the wrench he throws into their plans. This guy really does some excellent Nazi-friend acting, Naziing so hard in so many ways to play the bad guy but wow did he do it. The climactic scene where he explains calmly that he’s going to blackmail Kurt was SO tense and simmering so much that I think I actually gasped out loud when Kurt (finally) lunges for him and attacks him. (Actually…I think I said YES or LET’S GO so yeah I was REALLY INTO IT sorry (not sorry)). I love when Nazis get hurt! Here’s a great infographic that fits well here!
The cast was uniformly excellent (okay minus one but I’m not gonna name names), but what really struck me was how good the children were. Child actors are rarely tolerable, and no offense but what I’ve seen in this country is even worse than in the USA (I think it’s because of the West End’s child labor laws — there are too many protections, too many kids for each role, there’s no fear or suffering and you gotta have the fear for a good child actor.) (I am JOKING.) No but seriously these kids, especially the two boys, holy WOW. Some of the most believable, real, raw, honest acting I’ve seen in this CITY let alone from BABIES. In total awe. Poor little Bodo who was so smart and so funny and cute but still a baby, as they say, and poor little Joshua who acts so brave and so grown up because he has had to grow up too fast but he is still just a kid too. Ugh I’m gonna cry again give them all the awards it’s just not right that Back to the Future won an Olivier but not these kids. Also give them a hug.
Anyway considering how full-no-idea I was going in, I’m like full evangelical now about how strong this production of this super intense and smart and moving play is. If I gave star ratings I’d be giving five yellow ones.
Aspects of Love at the Southwark Playhouse: A.L. DUBS YOU GOT SOME SPLAININ TO DO!!!!
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.
1 Comment
Welcome back
Missed you and Sutton