Eating Vegan in Warsaw, Poland: Pierogi Paradise and Moreby Randi / June 26, 2018
It’s Theatre Thursday! We’re talking about “The King and I”, which is now playing in the West End after transferring from Broadway!
Seeing “The King and I” at Lincoln Center Theatre three years ago (I remember because it was my birthday) was a magical theatrical experience, one that felt majestic and classic, as well as classy. From the opening scene with that enormous boat gliding into the orchestra, to the last moving moments, I was enraptured with its perfect direction and flawless performances. With that Broadway production’s transfer to London, complete with its top two stars, Kelli O’Hara finally gets to show the West End what incredible talent looks/sounds like and Ken Watanabe keeps getting to make audiences laugh. But the production feels like the final moments of “Pippin” when compared to the Broadway incarnation – like when everything is stripped away to show what the stage would be like without magic. Sure the lights and costumes and music are all there, but it feels like the magic is missing. The lackluster feel is partly due to the theatre it’s in (the Palladium), partly due to a West End cast that just isn’t as top notch, and partly due to the wackiness of the source material being exposed in this new light.
Don’t get me (too) wrong: it’s still one of the better productions currently on the West End, but it doesn’t hold a candle to the Broadway version. Something feels off, and the audience reaction (weird audience, btw) made me realize what it was: England is treating this show as if it were a pantomime. If you aren’t familiar, a panto is a beast native to England, a musical comedy extravaganza that is for families (i.e. little kids). Different from a musical that happens to be a comedy, a panto is more like commedia dell’arte (another thing I can’t stand) – silly and slapstick, with sight gags and over the top performances. And a big part of it is audience reaction – they cheer, they boo the bad guys, they hiss, they oooh at romance, they shout “he’s behind you!”. I avoid pantos because they are super annoying and I don’t want to explode at children. God just thinking about pantos is giving me a skin rash all of a sudden. My blood boils at the thought that someone might make me go to one. So you can see it’s a big problem with interpretation that London audiences are treating “The King and I”, this golden age classic, even a little bit like they treat pantos.
And you can’t really blame the audiences for reacting like they’re at one (well you can, and I will, but it’s a little understandable) because the show itself is kind of weird. I never noticed it before, and I’m not sure why it was so glaring now, especially since the director (Barlett Sher) is the same as on Broadway. Maybe it takes a familiarity with the source material to finally get to that point where you can focus on just how strange it is. But the starkness with how this is presented – with none of the glitz or grandeur or sumptuousness of the previous production – exposes the problems of the book.
“The King and I” tells the story of Anna Leonowens, real life English lady who traveled to Siam to serve as a schoolteacher to the children of King Mongkut in the 1860s. One of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s most beloved works, the show includes familiar song after familiar song, and is so well known for a reason. The score is gorgeous and for the most part sounds great here. But the book falls flat. Okay so Anna and her son (will he ever not be annoying?) arrive in Siam and ask the King’s men where her house is. They tell her she is to stay at the palace. But the King had promised her her own house! She needs privacy! No one argues with the King (not YET), so she stays in the palace while she waits to talk to him about his promise. Um then in the next line we learn that more than a YEAR has gone by, and she’s still waiting but she loves the kids and loves teaching them and so you’re like well fun I guess I don’t mind too much that we made a huge time jump and wow we’re going to keep on making them. Discussion about her house seems to be like most of the first act. I get that it’s one aspect chosen to be representative of the communication barriers and the fact that independent women were foreign to this culture, but it seems like a lame thing to focus on. The King is always frustrated with this woman who keeps combating him at every turn, and Ken wins the audience over with his song “Puzzlement” even though you can’t really understand what he’s saying when it’s sooo fast. It’s honestly more difficult to understand than it was before but eh he’s such a good actor and he’s so winning in most of his book scenes.
Then we watch the two lovers, Lun Tha (Dean-John Wilson, in freaking everything it seems) and Tuptim (Na-Young Jeon) sing about how much they love each other but how they can only meet in the shadows because, well, Lun Tha brought Tuptim over from Burma as a gift to the King, so she is like one of his slave-wives now. Why they didn’t just flee before he presented her as a gift to the king is beyond me. Also what is he still doing in town years after delivering her? They both sing the roles decently, although both cracked a few times. Their voices might not be 100% fitted to these parts. I think Jeon’s upper register is still a little too weak for 8 shows a week and not to be mean but I missed Ashley Park’s incredible voice.
Anna’s relationship with the King stresses you out most of the time, because she isn’t afraid to speak her mind but he’s the King and is like no one fights with me! Et cetera! Et cetera! Oh so in the beginning Anna uses the phrase ‘et cetera’ and the King is like WHAT IS THIS YOU SAY and she explains what it means and so then EVERY SINGLE FUCKING LINE from then on the King uses it and for the first few times it’s funny but then at the 10th time it is infuriating and by the 90th time he says it you are literally breathing fire. It is so annoying Hammerstein! Literally my least favorite decision Hams has ever made.
Anna also has a very tense relationship with his Wife #1, Lady Thiang (Naoko Mori) and strives to win her over even though Lady Thiang is intermittently jealous and encouraging Anna and the King to become closer. It’s never comprehensible why she would want that. Mori is fine as Thiang, but she doesn’t bring anything more to the role than how it is written. Which is fine – no one ever really can bring more to what’s written simply by using their acting and singing skills. No one except Ruthie Ann Miles, that is, the Lady Thiang from Broadway who won the Tony for her performance. She was supposed to be in this production – and the production itself refuses to say that she isn’t in it even though, well, she’s not (she’s still in the programme and the website and everything but she isn’t in it) – but she had to take time to herself due to her personal tragedy. It was an honor to see her performance on Broadway, and seeing this show again made me realize just how astonishing she is, turning what is usually just a whatever role into a fully fleshed out character whose motivations were clear and understandable for the first time.
So the big drama of Act II is that an English diplomat is going to visit from Singapore and bring other hoity Englishmen, and the Siamese have to use this visit to convince them how great they are SO THE ENGLISH DON’T TAKE THEM OVER. Yeah so England was threatening to take over Siam as a protectorate, and everyone, literally everyone, just accepts that the burden is on the Siamese to prove that they aren’t barbarians and so the British, um, shouldn’t take them over. It’s so f-ing weird, and no one even mentions the thought that decent people first have, which is, why is it on them to convince the whites that they are decent people so the whites don’t steal their land? If you were unfamiliar with the show, you would surely expect that Anna’s whole purpose as an intermediary between the two parties would be to take the opportunity to say ‘hey wait a minute old British friends. These people shouldn’t have to prove to you that they are worthy of KEEPING THEIR COUNTRY AND FREEDOM! And isn’t it patently obvious that the people threatening to takeover another land and their inhabitants would be the real barbarians?’ No, no one says any of this. They have to prove that they are western-friendly, and that’s that. I get that it’s old-fashioned but surely people have always been able to see that taking over other lands is wrong? no?
So they prepare for this important visit by dressing everyone in Western garb and singing the moooost racist song. But it works out because Tuptim reads her play based on Uncle Tom’s Cabin, called ‘Small House of Uncle Thomas’, and they do a TWENTY MINUTE BALLET ABOUT IT and honestly it’s the best most amazing thing to have in a big musical because WHAAAT. It’s so f-ing random and amazing and we’ve been singing “Tricky little Topsy!” all day err day. SO RANDOM. Well it’s not too random, the story at least, because Tuptim is a slave and she’s narrating a play directly at the King about how bad slavery is and how evil King Simon of Legree (the best) was to poor Eliza (run Eliza run! run Eliza run! erma it’s amazing). But having this crazy 20 minute ballet about it is pretty damn ballsy to put in the middle of a musical and it’s so good. I’m obsessed. I love the choreography of this ballet, with Eliza running away by hopping on one foot. Anyway Buddha saves Eliza and then the lovers meet again and discuss how Anna always helped them meet by going out in the courtyard or whatever with them and you’re like huh we never saw that, that’s weird to just mention like that instead of ever showing I mean we’ve had three hours to do so. They decide to run away. And then Anna and the King have a beautiful dance (“Shall We Dance”) and seem to be friends and there’s also a weird spark there and you’re like holy crap that’s powerful but that’s kind of not the show I want to see and then the guards bring in Tuptim who escaped and they’re like we’re gonna kill her now and Anna is like no you’re a barbarian and everyone cries and Anna decides to leave Siam for good (but the veg fest…) but then the King has heart sadness and is dying from Anna calling him a barbarian so Anna decides to stay. What. Et cetera.
The book is kind of frustrating, as you could tell from my repeated stabbing of the capslock key, and the pacing feels off. At least a good twenty minutes could have and should have been cut (but not my Uncle Tom ballet! Never!). I don’t remember this show ever feeling as long, and unnecessarily so. It is a satisfactory production, but it isn’t the magical splendor I remember. Well, except for the performance of our Anna Leonowens. As Miss Anna, O’Hara’s performance seems like it has been marinating for the past three years because it’s even more nuanced, touching, and gorgeous than it was before – and she deservedly won a Tony for it before. I am not surprised, because she is the best working soprano in musical theatre today, but I didn’t even realize how much more realized her performance could be. It’s a marvel and it’s worth sitting through the three hours of sometimes-nonsense to witness her thrilling performance. Her “Hello Young Lovers” is the best sung moment I’ve ever heard in this city. Yep I said it and I will fight you on that. Truly, as much as I’m complaining about this production, and as horrible as the audience was, I will absolutely be returning to watch Kelli perform. She’s a triumph.
INFORMATION
The Palladium Theatre is a real POS. The toilets are near the entrance, on the other side of the huge lobby and bar area. And even though there are so many hallways and rooms and corners, everything feels squashed together. It’s a real claustrophobic place, outside the actual auditorium. The auditorium is at least airier, but it’s the wrong theatre from this show. I think it benefits from a thrust stage and this kind of shirty proscenium stage does nothing for this production.
AUDIENCE
Just expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. Well you will be disappointed, in humanity, but you won’t be surprised. Aside from the panto reactions (oh I forgot, they also enjoyed clapping along to the music), we also had parents and children just flat-out talking, loudly, to each other the whole time. One 10-year-old ish girl in our row was having the worst time, and she kept asking her mother if they could leave. Instead of taking her out, which she should have done, the mother kept fishing around her bags to give her kid more and more food – all wrapped in the noisiest plastic you could imagine. Literally without even a moment’s pause, this happened for three straight hours. Aside from that kid, this was a different situation in that most of the trouble came from older people, when usually people our age are the worst. There was one older lady who was playing with paper the whole time, like balling it up, and it was actually so loud and she had no idea because she couldn’t really hear anyway. Omg there’s that skin rash.
STAGE DOOR
Speaking of how much of a POS this theatre is, the security staff at stage door had NOOO idea what was happening. After everyone had lined up, the guards then brought out barriers and made everyone re-line up behind them. Why weren’t they out at the start of things, she asks not expecting anyone to ever have a good enough answer. Right away Ken came out, skipped the beginning of the line of course, where I was, signed a few programs, and left. Then the guards announced that that was it. They went through all that trouble just for Ken? Ughh I was so upset that no one else was coming out. The guards broke down the barriers and told everyone to go home. I waited a minute just to be sure, and literally one minute later the entire cast came out. What the actual fuck. These guards were SO DUMB. But I got to freak out Kelli again as I always do so that was fun/humiliating. Et cetera.
And you can’t really blame the audiences for reacting like they’re at one (well you can, and I will, but it’s a little understandable) because the show itself is kind of weird. I never noticed it before, and I’m not sure why it was so glaring now, especially since the director (Barlett Sher) is the same as on Broadway. Maybe it takes a familiarity with the source material to finally get to that point where you can focus on just how strange it is. But the starkness with how this is presented – with none of the glitz or grandeur or sumptuousness of the previous production – exposes the problems of the book.
“The King and I” tells the story of Anna Leonowens, real life English lady who traveled to Siam to serve as a schoolteacher to the children of King Mongkut in the 1860s. One of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s most beloved works, the show includes familiar song after familiar song, and is so well known for a reason. The score is gorgeous and for the most part sounds great here. But the book falls flat. Okay so Anna and her son (will he ever not be annoying?) arrive in Siam and ask the King’s men where her house is. They tell her she is to stay at the palace. But the King had promised her her own house! She needs privacy! No one argues with the King (not YET), so she stays in the palace while she waits to talk to him about his promise. Um then in the next line we learn that more than a YEAR has gone by, and she’s still waiting but she loves the kids and loves teaching them and so you’re like well fun I guess I don’t mind too much that we made a huge time jump and wow we’re going to keep on making them. Discussion about her house seems to be like most of the first act. I get that it’s one aspect chosen to be representative of the communication barriers and the fact that independent women were foreign to this culture, but it seems like a lame thing to focus on. The King is always frustrated with this woman who keeps combating him at every turn, and Ken wins the audience over with his song “Puzzlement” even though you can’t really understand what he’s saying when it’s sooo fast. It’s honestly more difficult to understand than it was before but eh he’s such a good actor and he’s so winning in most of his book scenes.
Then we watch the two lovers, Lun Tha (Dean-John Wilson, in freaking everything it seems) and Tuptim (Na-Young Jeon) sing about how much they love each other but how they can only meet in the shadows because, well, Lun Tha brought Tuptim over from Burma as a gift to the King, so she is like one of his slave-wives now. Why they didn’t just flee before he presented her as a gift to the king is beyond me. Also what is he still doing in town years after delivering her? They both sing the roles decently, although both cracked a few times. Their voices might not be 100% fitted to these parts. I think Jeon’s upper register is still a little too weak for 8 shows a week and not to be mean but I missed Ashley Park’s incredible voice.
Anna’s relationship with the King stresses you out most of the time, because she isn’t afraid to speak her mind but he’s the King and is like no one fights with me! Et cetera! Et cetera! Oh so in the beginning Anna uses the phrase ‘et cetera’ and the King is like WHAT IS THIS YOU SAY and she explains what it means and so then EVERY SINGLE FUCKING LINE from then on the King uses it and for the first few times it’s funny but then at the 10th time it is infuriating and by the 90th time he says it you are literally breathing fire. It is so annoying Hammerstein! Literally my least favorite decision Hams has ever made.
Anna also has a very tense relationship with his Wife #1, Lady Thiang (Naoko Mori) and strives to win her over even though Lady Thiang is intermittently jealous and encouraging Anna and the King to become closer. It’s never comprehensible why she would want that. Mori is fine as Thiang, but she doesn’t bring anything more to the role than how it is written. Which is fine – no one ever really can bring more to what’s written simply by using their acting and singing skills. No one except Ruthie Ann Miles, that is, the Lady Thiang from Broadway who won the Tony for her performance. She was supposed to be in this production – and the production itself refuses to say that she isn’t in it even though, well, she’s not (she’s still in the programme and the website and everything but she isn’t in it) – but she had to take time to herself due to her personal tragedy. It was an honor to see her performance on Broadway, and seeing this show again made me realize just how astonishing she is, turning what is usually just a whatever role into a fully fleshed out character whose motivations were clear and understandable for the first time.
So the big drama of Act II is that an English diplomat is going to visit from Singapore and bring other hoity Englishmen, and the Siamese have to use this visit to convince them how great they are SO THE ENGLISH DON’T TAKE THEM OVER. Yeah so England was threatening to take over Siam as a protectorate, and everyone, literally everyone, just accepts that the burden is on the Siamese to prove that they aren’t barbarians and so the British, um, shouldn’t take them over. It’s so f-ing weird, and no one even mentions the thought that decent people first have, which is, why is it on them to convince the whites that they are decent people so the whites don’t steal their land? If you were unfamiliar with the show, you would surely expect that Anna’s whole purpose as an intermediary between the two parties would be to take the opportunity to say ‘hey wait a minute old British friends. These people shouldn’t have to prove to you that they are worthy of KEEPING THEIR COUNTRY AND FREEDOM! And isn’t it patently obvious that the people threatening to takeover another land and their inhabitants would be the real barbarians?’ No, no one says any of this. They have to prove that they are western-friendly, and that’s that. I get that it’s old-fashioned but surely people have always been able to see that taking over other lands is wrong? no?
So they prepare for this important visit by dressing everyone in Western garb and singing the moooost racist song. But it works out because Tuptim reads her play based on Uncle Tom’s Cabin, called ‘Small House of Uncle Thomas’, and they do a TWENTY MINUTE BALLET ABOUT IT and honestly it’s the best most amazing thing to have in a big musical because WHAAAT. It’s so f-ing random and amazing and we’ve been singing “Tricky little Topsy!” all day err day. SO RANDOM. Well it’s not too random, the story at least, because Tuptim is a slave and she’s narrating a play directly at the King about how bad slavery is and how evil King Simon of Legree (the best) was to poor Eliza (run Eliza run! run Eliza run! erma it’s amazing). But having this crazy 20 minute ballet about it is pretty damn ballsy to put in the middle of a musical and it’s so good. I’m obsessed. I love the choreography of this ballet, with Eliza running away by hopping on one foot. Anyway Buddha saves Eliza and then the lovers meet again and discuss how Anna always helped them meet by going out in the courtyard or whatever with them and you’re like huh we never saw that, that’s weird to just mention like that instead of ever showing I mean we’ve had three hours to do so. They decide to run away. And then Anna and the King have a beautiful dance (“Shall We Dance”) and seem to be friends and there’s also a weird spark there and you’re like holy crap that’s powerful but that’s kind of not the show I want to see and then the guards bring in Tuptim who escaped and they’re like we’re gonna kill her now and Anna is like no you’re a barbarian and everyone cries and Anna decides to leave Siam for good (but the veg fest…) but then the King has heart sadness and is dying from Anna calling him a barbarian so Anna decides to stay. What. Et cetera.
The book is kind of frustrating, as you could tell from my repeated stabbing of the capslock key, and the pacing feels off. At least a good twenty minutes could have and should have been cut (but not my Uncle Tom ballet! Never!). I don’t remember this show ever feeling as long, and unnecessarily so. It is a satisfactory production, but it isn’t the magical splendor I remember. Well, except for the performance of our Anna Leonowens. As Miss Anna, O’Hara’s performance seems like it has been marinating for the past three years because it’s even more nuanced, touching, and gorgeous than it was before – and she deservedly won a Tony for it before. I am not surprised, because she is the best working soprano in musical theatre today, but I didn’t even realize how much more realized her performance could be. It’s a marvel and it’s worth sitting through the three hours of sometimes-nonsense to witness her thrilling performance. Her “Hello Young Lovers” is the best sung moment I’ve ever heard in this city. Yep I said it and I will fight you on that. Truly, as much as I’m complaining about this production, and as horrible as the audience was, I will absolutely be returning to watch Kelli perform. She’s a triumph.
INFORMATION
The Palladium Theatre is a real POS. The toilets are near the entrance, on the other side of the huge lobby and bar area. And even though there are so many hallways and rooms and corners, everything feels squashed together. It’s a real claustrophobic place, outside the actual auditorium. The auditorium is at least airier, but it’s the wrong theatre from this show. I think it benefits from a thrust stage and this kind of shirty proscenium stage does nothing for this production.
AUDIENCE
Just expect the worst and you won’t be disappointed. Well you will be disappointed, in humanity, but you won’t be surprised. Aside from the panto reactions (oh I forgot, they also enjoyed clapping along to the music), we also had parents and children just flat-out talking, loudly, to each other the whole time. One 10-year-old ish girl in our row was having the worst time, and she kept asking her mother if they could leave. Instead of taking her out, which she should have done, the mother kept fishing around her bags to give her kid more and more food – all wrapped in the noisiest plastic you could imagine. Literally without even a moment’s pause, this happened for three straight hours. Aside from that kid, this was a different situation in that most of the trouble came from older people, when usually people our age are the worst. There was one older lady who was playing with paper the whole time, like balling it up, and it was actually so loud and she had no idea because she couldn’t really hear anyway. Omg there’s that skin rash.
STAGE DOOR
Speaking of how much of a POS this theatre is, the security staff at stage door had NOOO idea what was happening. After everyone had lined up, the guards then brought out barriers and made everyone re-line up behind them. Why weren’t they out at the start of things, she asks not expecting anyone to ever have a good enough answer. Right away Ken came out, skipped the beginning of the line of course, where I was, signed a few programs, and left. Then the guards announced that that was it. They went through all that trouble just for Ken? Ughh I was so upset that no one else was coming out. The guards broke down the barriers and told everyone to go home. I waited a minute just to be sure, and literally one minute later the entire cast came out. What the actual fuck. These guards were SO DUMB. But I got to freak out Kelli again as I always do so that was fun/humiliating. Et cetera.
Related Posts
Home, I’m Darling at the Duke of York: London’s Best New (ish) Play of 2019
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are talking about Home, I’m Darling, which is currently playing on theWest End at the Duke of York theatre.
If this picture looks familiar to you, it’s for a good reason: we looked at the new play Home, I’m Darling only five months ago, when it played London’s National Theatre. Further confusing the rules about what constitutes West End and what doesn’t (and more confusingly, since shows at the National are sometimes eligible for Olivier Awards, what the fork the Olivier eligibility is), this play that I absolutely adored last time around has transferred to the official West End. Funnily enough, I saw the very last performance of this show at the National, and I didn’t realize until the interval that I was at the very first preview performance of this West End run, so even though they were five months apart, I saw back-to-back performances. Usually I would frown upon any public critique of a first preview, since they are supposed to be used for making changes. But I have nothing but praise for this show, so I don’t think they’ll mind. Despite a few changes from the last go round, the show was just as I remembered, except tighter and maybe even more enjoyable.
Home, I’m Darling, the pitch perfect comedy from Laura Wade, is the story of Judy (Katherine Parkinson, perfect as ever) and Johnny (Richard Harrington), a married couple who decides to fully immerse themselves in the ‘50s lifestyle they admire by having Judy stop work to become a housewife. Judy is devoted to cleaning the house with era-appropriate methods, cooking era-appropriate meals, wearing era-appropriate clothes (the costumes are still amazing) and generally letting her husband lead the way. While the concept could easily become cartoony, or fail to connect if audiences (like me) think ‘that’s a bad move, Judy’, the play delves into all the issues around this kind of lifestyle and all the problems people would encounter whether they are fully on board or not, making the story much more thought-provoking and interesting than it’s (incredible) candy-colored set would have you initially guess. Doing this in such a masterful way means the whole ‘50s thing is kind of just a framing device for analyzing a typical marriage and the problems couples face after a certain amount of time. I can’t think of another modern play that explores the intricacies of the relationship between husband and wife in such a compelling way while remaining as entertaining and funny.
As ever, Katherine Parkinson gives a star performance, with every decision and movement the property of Judy, even, I believe, the intriguing tone of her voice and manner of delivery. But my real surprise here was Harrington, who didn’t strike me the last time through as Parkinson did. With the passage of time, he has really come to understand Johnny and make his decisions much more convincing and understandable. Together, the two are flawless.
Excitingly, the rest of the cast is mostly changed, and all the newcomers were giving spot-on performances at the first performance. Judy’s mother, now played by Susan Brown, continues to be the persuasive voice of reason, at least to me, in her quest to end this game of her daughter’s that is wasting her potential. It’s a small role, though the mother does get some great monologues, but Brown makes her presence felt so strongly and does so much with what she has that she seems a much bigger character.
I was upset at first to see that Judy’s friend Fran was recast, because at the National, Fran was played by the only actor of color in the whole cast (Kathryn Drysdale). Being a woman of color gave Fran’s interest in following Judy’s lead as a ‘50s-style housewife even more depth, and could have been enhanced to show her assessment of the role. But the new Fran, Siubhan Harrison, really is fantastic. I’ve only seen her in musicals before, so I was impressed by her performance in this straight play. My absolute favorite small moment of the whole show came from her: when Fran and her husband Marcus (still an entertaining scumbag!) are at Judy and Johnny’s house having tea, and Judy brings out her ridiculous achievement of a cake (which Marcus proclaims the best he has ever had), Judy cuts herself a piece and I noticed she shoved the rest of her slice of the ‘interesting’ cake that Fran brought back onto the serving tray. As everyone kept talking and the focus was elsewhere, Fran looked downward for a second and seemed embarrassed. I found this moment incredible, doing so much in literally one second when we’re not even supposed to be looking at Fran.
Yet everything in this play feels this detailed, from the delightful set (and that Act II change, wonderful) to the accurate costumes to the never-ending ballet of food. I mentioned last time that I’ve never seen so much food in a play before. I think we see Judy preparing all three of Johnny’s daily meals (plus snacks and drinks and dessert) for every day we see. I don’t know how they keep it all straight (and I really hope it doesn’t all go to waste). But every aspect of the play had to be this precise to keep up with the writing, which is engaging and unpredictably captivating. Home, I’m Darling is such an unexpected gem that I can’t help but love.
INFORMATION
Every single other piece about this show annoyingly repeats “for 11 weeks only” so I will give you the actual end date: April 13. Was that so hard, everyone else?
After the run on the West End, the show will be touring the UK, with dates in Bath, Salford, and back to its Welsh home of Theatre Clwyd which no I have no idea how to pronounce, it’s probably like Smith or something.
The show is 2 hours 30 minutes with one interval. Like all West End theatres, the Duke of York is in need of a refurb, especially when it comes to the bathrooms – if you sit in the front right stalls, the closest ladies room is up the stairs in the mezzanine, which is very, very stupid.
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are talking about Home, I’m Darling, which is currently playing on theWest End at the Duke of York theatre.
If this picture looks familiar to you, it’s for a good reason: we looked at the new play Home, I’m Darling only five months ago, when it played London’s National Theatre. Further confusing the rules about what constitutes West End and what doesn’t (and more confusingly, since shows at the National are sometimes eligible for Olivier Awards, what the fork the Olivier eligibility is), this play that I absolutely adored last time around has transferred to the official West End. Funnily enough, I saw the very last performance of this show at the National, and I didn’t realize until the interval that I was at the very first preview performance of this West End run, so even though they were five months apart, I saw back-to-back performances. Usually I would frown upon any public critique of a first preview, since they are supposed to be used for making changes. But I have nothing but praise for this show, so I don’t think they’ll mind. Despite a few changes from the last go round, the show was just as I remembered, except tighter and maybe even more enjoyable.
Home, I’m Darling, the pitch perfect comedy from Laura Wade, is the story of Judy (Katherine Parkinson, perfect as ever) and Johnny (Richard Harrington), a married couple who decides to fully immerse themselves in the ‘50s lifestyle they admire by having Judy stop work to become a housewife. Judy is devoted to cleaning the house with era-appropriate methods, cooking era-appropriate meals, wearing era-appropriate clothes (the costumes are still amazing) and generally letting her husband lead the way. While the concept could easily become cartoony, or fail to connect if audiences (like me) think ‘that’s a bad move, Judy’, the play delves into all the issues around this kind of lifestyle and all the problems people would encounter whether they are fully on board or not, making the story much more thought-provoking and interesting than it’s (incredible) candy-colored set would have you initially guess. Doing this in such a masterful way means the whole ‘50s thing is kind of just a framing device for analyzing a typical marriage and the problems couples face after a certain amount of time. I can’t think of another modern play that explores the intricacies of the relationship between husband and wife in such a compelling way while remaining as entertaining and funny.
As ever, Katherine Parkinson gives a star performance, with every decision and movement the property of Judy, even, I believe, the intriguing tone of her voice and manner of delivery. But my real surprise here was Harrington, who didn’t strike me the last time through as Parkinson did. With the passage of time, he has really come to understand Johnny and make his decisions much more convincing and understandable. Together, the two are flawless.
Excitingly, the rest of the cast is mostly changed, and all the newcomers were giving spot-on performances at the first performance. Judy’s mother, now played by Susan Brown, continues to be the persuasive voice of reason, at least to me, in her quest to end this game of her daughter’s that is wasting her potential. It’s a small role, though the mother does get some great monologues, but Brown makes her presence felt so strongly and does so much with what she has that she seems a much bigger character.
I was upset at first to see that Judy’s friend Fran was recast, because at the National, Fran was played by the only actor of color in the whole cast (Kathryn Drysdale). Being a woman of color gave Fran’s interest in following Judy’s lead as a ‘50s-style housewife even more depth, and could have been enhanced to show her assessment of the role. But the new Fran, Siubhan Harrison, really is fantastic. I’ve only seen her in musicals before, so I was impressed by her performance in this straight play. My absolute favorite small moment of the whole show came from her: when Fran and her husband Marcus (still an entertaining scumbag!) are at Judy and Johnny’s house having tea, and Judy brings out her ridiculous achievement of a cake (which Marcus proclaims the best he has ever had), Judy cuts herself a piece and I noticed she shoved the rest of her slice of the ‘interesting’ cake that Fran brought back onto the serving tray. As everyone kept talking and the focus was elsewhere, Fran looked downward for a second and seemed embarrassed. I found this moment incredible, doing so much in literally one second when we’re not even supposed to be looking at Fran.
Yet everything in this play feels this detailed, from the delightful set (and that Act II change, wonderful) to the accurate costumes to the never-ending ballet of food. I mentioned last time that I’ve never seen so much food in a play before. I think we see Judy preparing all three of Johnny’s daily meals (plus snacks and drinks and dessert) for every day we see. I don’t know how they keep it all straight (and I really hope it doesn’t all go to waste). But every aspect of the play had to be this precise to keep up with the writing, which is engaging and unpredictably captivating. Home, I’m Darling is such an unexpected gem that I can’t help but love.
INFORMATION
Every single other piece about this show annoyingly repeats “for 11 weeks only” so I will give you the actual end date: April 13. Was that so hard, everyone else?
After the run on the West End, the show will be touring the UK, with dates in Bath, Salford, and back to its Welsh home of Theatre Clwyd which no I have no idea how to pronounce, it’s probably like Smith or something.
The show is 2 hours 30 minutes with one interval. Like all West End theatres, the Duke of York is in need of a refurb, especially when it comes to the bathrooms – if you sit in the front right stalls, the closest ladies room is up the stairs in the mezzanine, which is very, very stupid.
Young Marx at London’s Bridge Theatre: Who Knew Communism Was So Fun?
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are talking about “Young Marx” at the Bridge Theatre in London, running until December 31 so hurry up!
Apparently, communism is a (mostly) joyous romp that provides a ton of comedic fodder. I didn’t know this, but now that a play about it made me laugh for two hours, I might be sold! “Young Marx” at London’s brand new Bridge Theatre, under the south bank side of Tower Bridge, impresses by being both dramatically solid and comedically hysterical. I would not be surprised if the runner-up for the title was a Jeb! The Musical-inspired “Communism!” I realize that nothing about this is related to Borat, but I can’t help hearing him say “Great success!” in reply to that equally valid title.
Apparently, communism is a (mostly) joyous romp that provides a ton of comedic fodder. I didn’t know this, but now that a play about it made me laugh for two hours, I might be sold! “Young Marx” at London’s brand new Bridge Theatre, under the south bank side of Tower Bridge, impresses by being both dramatically solid and comedically hysterical. I would not be surprised if the runner-up for the title was a Jeb! The Musical-inspired “Communism!” I realize that nothing about this is related to Borat, but I can’t help hearing him say “Great success!” in reply to that equally valid title.
“Young Marx” tells the story of Karl Marx, famous anti-capitalism pro-socialism philosopher and writer &c., during his time living in London. It sounds pretty dull, at least to me, not really knowing anything other than the widely known basics about Marx. But you don’t have to know anything to enjoy this, and it is so damn enjoyable. Sure there are tons of little jokes that, if you are more familiar with his work (or with the German language) you might give a little (silent!) nod of recognition and appreciation, but even the most uninformed simpleton (me) off the street would be able to not only keep up the pace but also be fully invested in the show.
The clever play comes from writers Richard Bean and Clive Coleman, who I would take a chance on assuming knocked a couple back while writing this, but then again they are British, so that’s not really an assumption at all. But it really seems like they had fun with this, which lets the audience have fun too. And they’re no strangers to comedy. Richard Bean wrote one of the funniest plays I’ve ever seen – “One Man Two Guvnors” – which put James Corden on the map for Americans (should we thank him or….), like really a spit-take kind of show. Then again, he also wrote “Made in Dagenham” which I virulently despised with every fiber of my being…but I guess that’s kind of funny! You didn’t mean for that to be so terrible, did you! But it was! That’s funny!
As for Clive Coleman, this just in he has the career path I want: he was an English lawyer, then became a legal correspondent on the news (the news!), and then starting writing for sitcoms (TELEVISION!) and comedies and now has this very decent credit to his name in a theatre with amaaazing bathrooms (see below). I MEAN, here’s the path, let’s follow it. “The way is clear! The light is good!” &c.
Honestly, speaking of one, I could see this being a musical. There aren’t many new musical comedies with a classic feel. It could be so funny, although I don’t know how open to having Karl Marx jump into a tap break the snooty London theatergoers would be.
But jump around he does, in all sorts of hilarious twists and hijinx. Karl is played by the great Rory Kinnear, who you would definitely 100% recognize but I would say about 90% of you would be like ‘oh I know him from…what do I know him from?’ He’s one of those faces that you know but he’s not exactly a household name outside of the UK. Anyway, you know him from the three Daniel Craig James Bond films. He’s one of those guys that isn’t Bond or Judi Dench.
Karl’s wife, Jenny von Westphalen, was a member of the Prussian aristocracy. Her family was maaad. She and Karl and their babies and their maid lived in squalor, with bailiffs coming every day to take more of their possessions to put against his debt. The show opens with Karl trying to hock one of his wife’s most prized possessions, a silver Argyll teapot or something (they just refer to it as the Argyll is that a thing) worth more money than he’s probably ever seen (or wants to see! Money evil burn the money burn the witch! I need to reread him I guesss) in order to pay off some of those debts, or maybe to buy food for his family. But the pawnshopper thinks he stole it, this poor man coming in with a piece like that, and calls the cops on him, but of course Rory hops around this way and that and hijinkilly outsmarts and outruns the cops. Jenny, obviously long-suffering but fully committed to fighting for socialism (which means, from the looks of it, simply living in squalor), helps her husband hide from the fuzz repeatedly in a manner it’s obvious has been done hundreds of times – in the fireplace, then in the cupboard, to very amusing result. Jenny is played by Nancy Carroll, who did a very good ‘ugh I hate having to give these bailiffs all my fancy dresses when I could still be rich af in Germany but ughhh I guess it’s for a good cause hooray for communism but also I’m going to flirt with this other rich guy just to make my husband feel bad about not providing for me despite that being impossible to do without buying into the capitalist system’ wife.
My favorite character was Oliver Chris’s (two first names!) portrayal of Friedrich Engels, Marx’s partner in crime and coauthor on a bunch of important works that I’ve definitely read. Engels was depicted as kind of suave and kind of goofy at the same time, indulging Karl’s way of life (poverty) by giving him money (Engels was loaded from his family, it appeared) whenever his children needed to eat or see a doctor and stuff so Marx would never need to get a real job and could just write and drink and smoke. Engels later goes to work at his father’s mill so he could keep sending money to Karl to support him while he worked, which is all kind of telling right, like that he needed an influx of cash from the capitalist pigs to let him keep writing about how terrible capitalism is? (Hypocrite, hypocrite tell you what he do.) The camaraderie between Karl and Engels was clear and fun and portrayed as kind of bros like they were Paul Rudd and Jason Segel in a movie. They played amusing little ditties on the piano while singing variations of what would be their Saturday morning cartoon theme song. Loves it!
“Young Marx” is so interesting because everything pretty much was true. And because it’s true, it wasn’t all happy fun. Like he has an affair with his maid and gets her pregnant, which is you know not the best thing to do to his unsmiling wife, and his young son Fauksy dies of illness, which I did NOT appreciate coming in a mostly comedic show. I wasn’t prepared for that shit, and it kind of didn’t pack the emotional punch they intended it to because it wasn’t an integral part of the plot. Sure it showed how much of an ass Karl could be, when he was late for his own son’s funeral, but it felt out of place. It was true though; Karl’s son Edgar died at 8, so sad. Even sadder, he had 7 children in real life (we only meet two) but only 3 survived to adulthood. Even sadder, they named four of their children Jenny. Communism is not creative, I guess.
Rory does an excellent job of carrying this show, proving why he is such an important actor here in the UK. He gives off a much more youthful vibe than I’m used to with him, I guess because the title calls for it, but it is very surprising and effective. Marx is not really that young in the time depicted but Rory gives off a youthful energy and enthusiasm in Marx that works to show his drive and zeal. He may not have shown the best work ethic or moral standards, but his passion for his beliefs was undeniable.
I was confused a little when the characters close to Marx kept referring to him as ‘Moor’ but apparently that was a true thing, and quite racist: His intimates used the nickname ‘Moor’ because he had a dark complexion and dark curly hair. I learned so much! What really stood out, though, was how clever Nicholas Hytner’s direction and staging were. In these scenes between Karl and his intimates, they would speak fluent English in their regular English accents. But as soon as a bailiff or someone not privy to their personal lives would enter the room, Marx & friends would start speaking broken English in German accents. So when they were shown to be speaking fluent English in the privacy of their home, we were to assume that they were really speaking German. Such genius! It worked so well, and showed so clearly how important it is for direction to elevate plays beyond what’s simply written on the page.
Hytner clearly considered his direction here, and it paid off with impeccable staging and clever decisions that gave the show so much of its dynamic energy. And it’s a good thing he worked so hard, because Hytner is a founder of the Bridge Theatre. And this is the first show ever playing at the Bridge! So much riding on this, and everyone did a fantastic job. I really am surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It wasn’t perfect by any means, and a future production or perhaps a transfer to the West End would be wise to make a few minor edits, but overall it’s an incredibly entertaining two hours about communists, people who don’t exactly scream ‘I’m so much fun’ but are shown to be just that.
INFORMATION
“Young Marx” is playing at the Bridge Theatre until December 31. Now that it’s open, the Bridge is the best physical venue in London. The bathrooms are well designed – there are SO MANY stalls, and so there was no intermission line. And, unlike most West End theatres, the line for the toilets does not go past the sinks, blocking everyone who needs to wash their hands from doing so. God whoever designed all the other theatres is REAL DUMB. AND, unlike ALL other West End theatres, the toilets actually flush. (The plumbing in this country is abysmal why does no one talk about it? Fix it! Anyway, point is, the Bridge is spectacular. There is a great lobby and bar on the main floor, with wifi (which they display the information for, so smart again) AND there are water taps with cups around. I hope this theatre does well and continues to have great shows because I would go just for the water and the toilets.
