Vegan Michelin Series: Il Gallo d'Oro in Funchal, Madeiraby Randi / November 13, 2018
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is In the Height of the Storm, which plays Wyndham’s Theatre in London until December 1.
Although a play about two old white married people and their mysterious behavior and all their emotions is like Play 101 material, Florian Zeller’s play In the Height of the Storm feels exciting and surprisingly original. This is because the characters are so specific and so fascinating while the truth about their lives (or deaths) is so perplexing. Ostensibly a family drama, this play feels more like a mystery, as things you accepted as fact quickly get turned on their heads, and, more critically, people you accepted as alive or dead seem the opposite.
Although a play about two old white married people and their mysterious behavior and all their emotions is like Play 101 material, Florian Zeller’s play In the Height of the Storm feels exciting and surprisingly original. This is because the characters are so specific and so fascinating while the truth about their lives (or deaths) is so perplexing. Ostensibly a family drama, this play feels more like a mystery, as things you accepted as fact quickly get turned on their heads, and, more critically, people you accepted as alive or dead seem the opposite.
I’m not going to lie – the main reason I saw this new play was to see if the world would explode when two actors with the same exact face do a play together. Seriously look at this picture:
I mean come on! I’m a fan of Jonathan Pryce (who isn’t? even though his playing the og Engineer is a hilarious case study in old-fashioned racism and ‘it was a product of the era!’ kinds of excuses (it’s true though)), but the first thing I proclaimed when I saw the announcement of this production was not “Hey I love Jonathan Pryce!” or “Hey I wanna see him onstage again!” but “WOW these two actors have THE SAME FACE. Is that what it’s about??” Reader, that is not what it’s about.
ITHOTS (omg it’s like a British baby trying to say ‘it hurts’ omg cutest), instead, is about a family in mourning. We meet the ordinary, average family early in the grieving process. There’s Andre (Pryce), the elderly patriarch who stares out the window for time on end as he loses a firm grip on his mind; there’s Madeleine (Dame Eileen Atkins I mean hello cast), his beloved wife who, in true British old lady form, is stern and austere but hilariously so (as long as she’s not your mum); and there’s the two grown daughters, Anne (Amanda Drew) the elder seemingly always forced by her sister’s immaturity (and her own comfort in the role) to be the more responsible one, and Elise (Anna Madeley), pregnant and single but completely unfussed about it.
The only problem is, we don’t know who they’re grieving, and neither does Andre. When we meet Andre and his one daughter, it’s clear that Andre’s beloved Madeleine has passed and the girls came in for the funeral. Friends are sending flowers constantly (so we hear – weird that there were none on set except the one bouquet we see delivered) and the pain and sadness is fresh. Except…a minute after the audience figures out who must have died, Madeleine herself waltzes in, strong and full of life, and changes the narrative we thought we figured out. Thank goodness, I guess? Andre and Madeleine seem fine and happy as they talk about lunch and share old stories.
Those stories are more than they initially seem, however. Names of old friends or people who were in the news come back later to add to the mystery of what’s real and what’s not. Or, considering Andre’s mental capacities, what’s real and what’s a product of his mind trying to deal with reality when it has trouble distinguishing between it and memory, and possibly fantasy. And considering how quickly we go from thinking “Oh it’s Madeleine who is dead…no wait both of these same-facers are alive?” to “no waiiiit, Andre is the one who died!”, we are quickly and effectively made to feel like Andre, or anyone suffering with loss of mental acuity. Efficiently, with just a few words or movements, the play flips existence as we know it on its head. The facts of the story remained incessantly vague and always changing, so that you couldn’t be sure of anything. But the feelings and emotions of the characters rang true, consistently clear.
Just as quickly as your guess as to who they’re mourning changes, so do actual characters sometimes. Andre’s confusion as to what’s going on becomes much more poignant when it seems as if he’s the one who’s died, and suddenly no one can hear him but us. And, when Madeleine meets a woman in the market who gives her condolences for Andre’s passing, the two meet for tea and discuss how this mysterious woman actually knew Andre, and how well. The conversation quickly turns from polite to disrespectful and almost vulgar. But then the same woman is having her tea with Andre and we’re mourning Madeleine, and her name is different, recalling one of the stories the couple had lightheartedly shared earlier. And just when you find it frustrating that you can’t get a handle on what’s real and what’s happening, one of the characters says something brilliant that breaks your heart, a musing on how sometimes you can’t tell the different between what’s really happening and what you are just remembering, or wanting to remember.
Suddenly, everything mysterious and confusing about this play makes sense. You’re left in wonderment that almost nothing said on that stage was certain, we’re not sure what if anything was facts, yet what the characters were feeling was what was real and concrete. And it feels entirely accurate that the person whose mind was sharing all the action with us would be confusing reality and memory and maybe even false memories, or things they wanted to have happened but never would. Regardless of what facts were real, the heartbreak was real and undeniable. It’s a powerful play that lets you connect so whole-heartedly with characters and situations even when they are this obscured, because the simplest things, like love and pain, are the easiest to understand.
INFORMATION
In the Height of the Storm plays the Wyndham’s Theatre until December 1. The theatre royalty starring in the show is scheduled to play all performances.
The show runs 90 minutes with no interval.
$25 rush tickets are easy to obtain via the TodayTix app, and at least from my experience the rush tickets will be in the front row (front row dead center if you get the 4th-from-last ticket available).
ITHOTS (omg it’s like a British baby trying to say ‘it hurts’ omg cutest), instead, is about a family in mourning. We meet the ordinary, average family early in the grieving process. There’s Andre (Pryce), the elderly patriarch who stares out the window for time on end as he loses a firm grip on his mind; there’s Madeleine (Dame Eileen Atkins I mean hello cast), his beloved wife who, in true British old lady form, is stern and austere but hilariously so (as long as she’s not your mum); and there’s the two grown daughters, Anne (Amanda Drew) the elder seemingly always forced by her sister’s immaturity (and her own comfort in the role) to be the more responsible one, and Elise (Anna Madeley), pregnant and single but completely unfussed about it.
The only problem is, we don’t know who they’re grieving, and neither does Andre. When we meet Andre and his one daughter, it’s clear that Andre’s beloved Madeleine has passed and the girls came in for the funeral. Friends are sending flowers constantly (so we hear – weird that there were none on set except the one bouquet we see delivered) and the pain and sadness is fresh. Except…a minute after the audience figures out who must have died, Madeleine herself waltzes in, strong and full of life, and changes the narrative we thought we figured out. Thank goodness, I guess? Andre and Madeleine seem fine and happy as they talk about lunch and share old stories.
Those stories are more than they initially seem, however. Names of old friends or people who were in the news come back later to add to the mystery of what’s real and what’s not. Or, considering Andre’s mental capacities, what’s real and what’s a product of his mind trying to deal with reality when it has trouble distinguishing between it and memory, and possibly fantasy. And considering how quickly we go from thinking “Oh it’s Madeleine who is dead…no wait both of these same-facers are alive?” to “no waiiiit, Andre is the one who died!”, we are quickly and effectively made to feel like Andre, or anyone suffering with loss of mental acuity. Efficiently, with just a few words or movements, the play flips existence as we know it on its head. The facts of the story remained incessantly vague and always changing, so that you couldn’t be sure of anything. But the feelings and emotions of the characters rang true, consistently clear.
Just as quickly as your guess as to who they’re mourning changes, so do actual characters sometimes. Andre’s confusion as to what’s going on becomes much more poignant when it seems as if he’s the one who’s died, and suddenly no one can hear him but us. And, when Madeleine meets a woman in the market who gives her condolences for Andre’s passing, the two meet for tea and discuss how this mysterious woman actually knew Andre, and how well. The conversation quickly turns from polite to disrespectful and almost vulgar. But then the same woman is having her tea with Andre and we’re mourning Madeleine, and her name is different, recalling one of the stories the couple had lightheartedly shared earlier. And just when you find it frustrating that you can’t get a handle on what’s real and what’s happening, one of the characters says something brilliant that breaks your heart, a musing on how sometimes you can’t tell the different between what’s really happening and what you are just remembering, or wanting to remember.
Suddenly, everything mysterious and confusing about this play makes sense. You’re left in wonderment that almost nothing said on that stage was certain, we’re not sure what if anything was facts, yet what the characters were feeling was what was real and concrete. And it feels entirely accurate that the person whose mind was sharing all the action with us would be confusing reality and memory and maybe even false memories, or things they wanted to have happened but never would. Regardless of what facts were real, the heartbreak was real and undeniable. It’s a powerful play that lets you connect so whole-heartedly with characters and situations even when they are this obscured, because the simplest things, like love and pain, are the easiest to understand.
INFORMATION
In the Height of the Storm plays the Wyndham’s Theatre until December 1. The theatre royalty starring in the show is scheduled to play all performances.
The show runs 90 minutes with no interval.
$25 rush tickets are easy to obtain via the TodayTix app, and at least from my experience the rush tickets will be in the front row (front row dead center if you get the 4th-from-last ticket available).
Related Posts
Thoughts on: Unbroken Circle, Off-Broadway
I have seen hundreds and hundreds of theatrical productions, and I can count the number of shows containing a plot twist that made me gasp on one hand. This was one of them.
Unbroken Circle tells the story of a Texan family in the recent past whose secrets come to light during the aftermath of the patriarch’s death. It seemed so simple, this premise, and not exactly groundbreaking, but it was so surprisingly well constructed that it seemed novel. The play offers complex ideas of family dynamics, the need to protect loved and not-so-loved ones, and the decision behind bringing secrets to light. I expected another interesting family drama about interesting but not surprising familial narratives, but instead got an intense look at sexual abuse, incest, and deciding what the best bad option might be.
Unbroken Circle tells the story of a Texan family in the recent past whose secrets come to light during the aftermath of the patriarch’s death. It seemed so simple, this premise, and not exactly groundbreaking, but it was so surprisingly well constructed that it seemed novel. The play offers complex ideas of family dynamics, the need to protect loved and not-so-loved ones, and the decision behind bringing secrets to light. I expected another interesting family drama about interesting but not surprising familial narratives, but instead got an intense look at sexual abuse, incest, and deciding what the best bad option might be.
Standouts in the all-around great cast include Anika Larsen, whose character I most identified with until a shocking realization towards the end. I realized that you can’t always judge others for how they deal with an awful situation if you haven’t been in their shoes. This show expertly thwarts one’s preconceptions about what you’d do in such situations, because you can’t know. And just because you disagree with how someone may handle it doesn’t mean they don’t have good reasons.
Another standout was Susanna Hay as the family matriarch, Ruby. She was so realistic I thought perhaps Seth Rudetsky stole her from a conversative Texan family and threw her on that stage. Such excellent acting. The Brady Bunch’s Eve Plumb plays Ruby’s super-super-Christian sister, getting the most laughs per line because who doesn’t love laughing at crazy right-wingers who are out of touch with reality? The whole cast was great, though. I didn’t realize until after the first act that the playwright, James Wesley, plays Bobby, a very main character, and that his daughter in the show was played by his daughter in real life, Juli! That is a freaking talented family! (Juli’s other father is the aforementioned Rudetsky, whom I adore. I wouldn’t hate spending holidays with that family.) The real-life connection added such intensity.
I hope this show gets extended as much as it can so more people can enjoy it. It was refreshing to see a play showcasing its intent clearly and candidly, not hiding anything in pretext or confusing theses or an unsaid something the audience is magically supposed to grasp. Yet it was an still impressively deep, and overall impressive, little show, a highlight of the current scene.
Another standout was Susanna Hay as the family matriarch, Ruby. She was so realistic I thought perhaps Seth Rudetsky stole her from a conversative Texan family and threw her on that stage. Such excellent acting. The Brady Bunch’s Eve Plumb plays Ruby’s super-super-Christian sister, getting the most laughs per line because who doesn’t love laughing at crazy right-wingers who are out of touch with reality? The whole cast was great, though. I didn’t realize until after the first act that the playwright, James Wesley, plays Bobby, a very main character, and that his daughter in the show was played by his daughter in real life, Juli! That is a freaking talented family! (Juli’s other father is the aforementioned Rudetsky, whom I adore. I wouldn’t hate spending holidays with that family.) The real-life connection added such intensity.
I hope this show gets extended as much as it can so more people can enjoy it. It was refreshing to see a play showcasing its intent clearly and candidly, not hiding anything in pretext or confusing theses or an unsaid something the audience is magically supposed to grasp. Yet it was an still impressively deep, and overall impressive, little show, a highlight of the current scene.
Zorro the Musical: Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts
Today’s show is Zorro, playing at the Charing Cross Theatre (under the arches) until May 28.
Zorro the Musical, has a lot going for it: some great musical numbers, a few powerful scenes, an energy and excitement that runs through the theatre and audience. So, the experience as a whole is not bad; this is the rare experience where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts — and the parts could so easily be improved. But they do need to be. The show needs a good editing rinse-through, possibly with the services of a dramaturg (as always, I volunteer as tribute). Overall, it’s entertaining, and the audience has a blast, but the story does not pass the smell test, and all aspects could benefit from some more work.
The familiar story of Zorro (which I kind of didn’t know; I actually didn’t see the CZJ movie even though I grew up with the poster in my basement) starts with an important man in a Los Angeles pueblo sometime in the 1800s sending his young son Diego to Spain to get an education (opposite expected direction) so he will learn to take over command or kingship or whatever kind of leader he is. The older son Ramon is pisssssed because who has ever heard of bloodline succession that doesn’t go to the eldest male? Ramon calls bullshit! Come on Ramon, take off your shirt and tell us more! Diego goes to Spain, falls in with a group of gypsies, and has a gay old time drinking and dancing and performing and above all having a lottttt of hhhhhrrromantic times. (That’s my Spanish accent in print.) Meanwhile, Ramon takes over control of the pueblo after all because TURNS OUT, if the only person who can stop you is send to another continent, you can apparently fork up your dad and then take shit over willy nilly.
Interrupting Diego’s Spanish funtimes is Luisa, his childhood friend who we saw as a wee puppet and honestly I assumed was the boys’ sister until it came out that adult Luisa was in love with Diego even though she only knew him as a child. She boated over to Spain to drag his ass back to California to stop his brother’s authoritarian rule, because no one else had the courage to do so, which actually is highly believable. Diego goes with her but so does his entire gypsy gang! Alright sure! What fun! The portrayal of the gypsies feeeeels problematic, as does the whole ‘this rich Californian made us gypsies who we are, he’s our savior!’ feel, but I guess I don’t know enough to say more.
Here’s where we start needing more to the story. We see the three baby puppets play together for like, 10 seconds. We need more of this origin story for anything that follows to hold up. Nothing is established to make it clear that a) Luisa is in love with Diego and is not in fact his little sister, b) Diego cares about the pueblo enough to forge a lifelong connection to the land despite his words, and mostly c) Ramon is a psychopathic villain who doesn’t feel like his father loves him, even though the father seems fine and is as nice as someone can be while saying ‘I just don’t think you’re the right person to rule this land’, which is fair. It’s hard to believe that this kid would become pure evil just because his father says he’d be perfect for a DIFFERENT enormously powerful position.
As for b), Diego initially has no desire to return to Los Angeles with Luisa. He’s happy as can be partying and living freely with his friends in Spain. I mean yeah, IT SOUNDS GREAT. So then what changes for him to suddenly feel a connection to the pueblo, a responsibility to save it, and the courage to go full Pimpernel as the masked savior El Zorro? SHORE IT UP FOR ME, BABIES.
As for a), I need the character of Luisa to be developed…at all. She is a complete Cosette, where we are told that she’s so great and brave and amazing but we never see her do literally anything to merit her reputation. Show us, please, I’m begging. Why should we care about her, or want her to end up with our hero, when the Eponine of the show (the gypsy Inez) is the coolest fucking person for MILES? It’s also not clear (or understandable) why Diego and Inez who were happy little FBs in Spain are instantly no longer a couple as soon as their feet touch American soil, all ‘what happens in Spain stays in Spain’, when they seemed to have a pretty good thing going and, like I said, she’s the coolest person around.
Musically, I would love for the differences between Luisa and Inez to be highlighted just as they were for Cosette and Eponine, meaning Luisa should be changed from a belting role to a soprano. With both of the female leads belting (or trying to belt) pretty much 100% of the time, it’s too much of the same sound and it doesn’t help to differentiate them. Also, belting should be used sparingly and not as a sub for character definition.
The story is buoyed with well-fitting Spanish-style music from the Gipsy Kings, who give some of their most famous songs to the show….is this a jukebox musical? I think some of the songs are (must be) written for this, so it’s like a half juke, weird! I recognized several songs from, of all things, the ‘Bedazzled’ soundtrack (amazing movie btw). The highlights by far include the big cantina number led by Inez, ‘Bamboleo’, so fun, and the quintet of Spanish women wailing in the beginning which I just forking loved. The individual numbers don’t achieve as much and could use another pass.
The second act is a little slower and has a bunch ready to be cut. But it includes the most powerful dramatic scene of the show and the best book scene — the cave scene when the truth about the father is revealed, which is done masterfully as it builds to a climax as the energy and drama build and build and thennnnnnnnnn all forward momentum comes screeching to a halt for a random ten minute+ scene out of Stomp with the chorus doing meh choreo and losing all dramatic motion in the plot. It was nigh infuriating to finally have the book achieve its potential, all for what it established to dissipate for no good reason. Le sigh!
While we are talking about Act II book improvements, I think it’s a cop-out for Ramon to pull a Jud Fry. Someone just do a murder, it’s justified.
It’s also hard to believe that Ramon would NEVER notice that his brother is only not right at his side when the mysterious Zorro appears. I think it would be SO funny if they treated that humorously. Would def lighten the mood and help the show settle on the right tone between lighthearted romp or serious drama.
The highlights of the show include Marc Pickering (always great and hilarious) as Sergeant Garcia, our comic relief, and Phoebe Panaretos as Inez. We saw Diego’s understudy (I believe Maxwell Griffin), who did a fine job and it was lovely to see how much the cast supported him. A highlight that wasn’t meant to be was hearing all these white British people attempt Spanish accents (grathias for that). With more work on character development, making the book make more sense (and cutting prob 15-20 mins), improving some of the songs, and figuring out the buttons (no one knew when to clap), this could be a great show.
INFORMATION
Mask total: 14
Best seat in the house: M1, mine, the aisle in the second row (it’s a traverse stage) right by the exit.
It gets HOT in this place, they really need better ventilation and not just because of the mask count.
Start time: 19:30 (19:35ish as usual)
Act I ended: 20:44 (long!)
Act II ended: 22:12
