Equus at Theatre Royal Stratford East: Insanity Beyond Reproachby Randi / March 19, 2019It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is Jesus Hopped the “A” Train, playing at the Young Vic until April 6.
I love going into shows blind, knowing as little as possible about the plot or even what type of show it is. With Jesus Hopped the “A” Train, I have never been so surprised by a show’s subject matter. Even though the play is from 2000, I managed to miss it the first time-round (‘twas a child) and so with that intriguing title, my brain assumed it was about trains, and probably Jesus. It is not about trains, though it is sort of about Jesus, or religion in general. What Jesus, A Train! (best fake title) really is about is the horrors of the United States prison system, a subject that needs to be spoken about more and in harsher words. This play, by Stephen Adly Guirgis, definitely understands the need to denounce the broken system, but the result is more like a set of speeches than a play.
That’s great for actors preparing for auditions, since the monologues in this show are often powerful and seem important, perfect for showing off out of context. But it’s not great for a cohesive drama, with a plot, with a dramatic purpose. It’s two hours of monologues. Even the ‘dialogue’ between characters is, if you look closely, really a monologue followed by a one word response, lather rinse repeat. With this composing the show, you see that Guirgis had a lot of important things to say, a lot a lot, but without fitting these thoughts into a structured drama, it’s unclear what he’s actually saying.
As for the thin narrative, it’s about a young man who is imprisoned for shooting a despised cult leader, an act of violence that by all accounts is warranted, but vigilante justice isn’t rewarded when the perpetrator is a man of color. Following the imprisonment and trials of this young man, Angel Cruz, we see – no, we are told – how broken the American justice system is, how awful prison is, how unhinged prison guards are. This is all true, if not novel. But then Angel’s plight isn’t simply due to the system; it’s due to his shitty lawyer, Mary Jane Hanrahan, who shows off several times how bad a lawyer she is, with her most egregious, to me, mistake being her failure to share an offered plea deal with her client (I mean, literally gtfo). She also instructs him to lie without mincing her words, as you normally do, such that Angel breaks down in court and incriminates her and gets her disbarred. Which she deserves, sure, but why didn’t he get a mistrial? Why didn’t the court grant him another lawyer and trial? Why does Mary Jane also have SO. MANY. MONOLOGUES? The b.s. of the Mary Jane business was distractingly annoying.
So Angel is in Rikers with an amiable prisoner played by Oberon KA Adjepong. Oberon, as I’ll refer to him because I can’t remember the character’s name and there’s no way in hell it’s better than Oberon, is terrifying yet charismatic, the mark of a true serial killer – which, it turns out, he is! Oberon is hell-bent on saving Angel’s soul by getting him to find Jesus, as he himself has during his incarceration, and the two convicts have long, long-winded monologue-fights about what it means to seek forgiveness, what it means to find god, why it’s important. There are some nice thoughts bandied about in these scenes, but overall, the content is unfocused and unconvincing. Lucius (ah that’s his name! not as good as Oberon!) WAS A SERIAL KILLER. I don’t care how much you pray to god, you don’t deserve forgiveness. You joke still about how you killed more than eight people but they only caught you for eight, ha ha, and how some of them were white so they don’t count, ha ha, and you want to convince us that you deserve any semblance of forgiveness? Give me a g-d break! Are we supposed to connect with his rants about forgiveness and religion? Are they supposed to make us go, ‘hm that really makes you think’? Because instead, his monologues successfully make you agree that he deserved to die in prison. I guess all the Jesus talk could have been an interesting comparison between the lunatic killer’s belief that he’s going to be saved versus the kinder, gentler convict’s refusal to think that way, but what comes across is mere proselytizing that doesn’t land. Oberon was a captivating performer, save for the several moments he got tongue-tied, but with endless monologues to memorize, that’s forgivable, unlike the character he’s playing.
One of the worst, WORST, trends in London theatre this past year, is on full parade at Jesus, A Train. The Young Vic and director Kate Hewitt have decided to deafen, and annoy, its patrons by marking scene changes with a BANG! And I mean a loud forking BANG! I don’t know who decided this was the cool way to change scenes in London recently, but hear me now, fools: it is not. It doesn’t jar the audience in a thoughtful way, if that’s what you were going for; it doesn’t demarcate the difference between drama and reality, if that’s what you were going for; it doesn’t remind the audience of all the world’s troubles in a visceral way, if that’s what you were going for. All it does is forking PISS US OFF. It doesn’t help that that other favorite trend of London theatre is also in full use here: nonstop smoking. This isn’t the ‘50s, guys; it doesn’t do much to define a character to have him smoking the entire play. It’s just silly.
The bright spot is Ukweli Roach as Angel Cruz, who I would have sworn was American. Ukweli captures that difficult role of being a tough young man capable of, well, killing, who also is incredibly sympathetic. Unlike for Lucius, you do feel that Angel deserves better than he got, which is a huge feat considering how little the actor actually gets to play with. Guirgis has created such defined characters, but he doesn’t use them to their fullest potential to convey whatever it is he’s actually trying to say.
INFORMATION
Jesus, A Train! is playing at London’s Young Vic until April 6. It is two hours, with a 15-minute intermission, which is the best kind of show structure. If you go, bring ear plugs and a face mask. It is in the round, another overused, under-considered ploy of this year.
Related Posts
You Are Here at Southwark Playhouse: A Pleasant Surprise
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is the new musical You Are Here, playing at the Southwark Playhouse until June 12. I watched via livestream but unforch I think only in person tickets remain for the rest of the run, even though no one under 40 gets second doses till August.
All I knew going in about Southwark Playhouse’s new musical ‘You Are Here’ was that it was ‘roughly about the moon landing’, according to my husband. I assumed that meant it was going to feature a sparkly Neil Armstrong doing jazz hands with comic relief Buzz Aldrin as they sang “I’m walking on the moooooon, yeah yeah, look at us leap so hiiigh, yeah yeah” or something like that (there is a reason I do not write musicals). So, it’s not like that uh-TALL, as you Brits would say. ‘You Are Here’ is the super personal and heartfelt journey of one nice little old lady who is inspired by the moon landing to bring a little joy into her humdrum life.
Starring Wendi Peters (from Coronation Street which I still haven’t seen an episode of; will they revoke my citizenship) as a woman who is onstage singing literally for an hour and a half without stopping and possibly without ever having water, which I just cannot fathom, this show was a pleasant surprise, as it says on the tin/title. When her Diana sees muhfucking men walking on the gd moon, she’s like a) that’s my moon and b) I should do something brave and exciting and something with my life instead of simply cooking and cleaning for my husband and playing canasta once a week with that nosy gossip next door (I’m paraphrasing but that’s the gist. Do gentiles play canasta?) So, she’s inspired by this momentous event, naturally, inspired to…walk out her door…and keep walking. She takes the subway (!) at night (!) alone (!) into the big city (!) (Chicago) and gets a motel room (!) all without a plan or a note left for Gerard.
And she does it all with an American accent that didn’t make me squirm! Although, as per uzh, husbo and I both shouted IT’S AMERICAN ACCENT TIIIME! we will miss being able to shout that once we return to in-person theatre.
With music by Neil Bartram, the score has some lovely moments and shows promise, although I had issues with a few bits. The first few songs struck me as a little bit not passing the ‘does this need to be sung/is this improved by being a song’ musical theatre test, although both improved within themselves as they progressed. The second song’s improvement was drastic: it starts with pedestrian (no pun intended) lyrics like “I’m walking to the station” “I’m looking for a token” but then, once it makes some incred The King & I references, it turns around and has a great second half. Once the show gets moving and hits its groove though, the music strengthens, or maybe the show just started growing on me more. Everything fit well and I didn’t even think about the music – in the good way of it melding into the story.
There’s a lot of heartfelt emotion infused throughout, as well as great humor (we laughed out loud at the Bonanza line, even though we are not old). I cracked up at the lyric that drew out saying Jackie O’s entire name with all her last names so it could rhyme with glasses. Brian Hill’s book had really hilarious parts too, like when Diana said “I’m having my bags sent round”, which made us giggle. But the book and the show’s magic is the twist reveal of Diana’s home life, a real dramatic shock that brought an already lovely show to a higher level of poignancy.
In this exploration of Diana’s relationships – with her husband, her moon, her life in general – I loved the friendship that Diana formed with the maid Ruby, or as I called it, “Pursie and Hoover, being best friends” (sing that like Kimmy Schmidt would). Having Diana find someone to help her navigate this adventure brought a lot of heart and love into a story that was already all heart. (“I’M ALL HEART MUHFUCKA!” I know I have cursed more than I should for a play this Safe For Families but I couldn’t not just quote that line; I walked right into that.)
There are some ridiculous parts, like when this lady gets high with a homeless 20 year-old (ridiculous! in a fun way), although their relationship was often glorious to watch too. Or how poor Evan Hansen’s mom was sitting smack dab in the middle back of the stage for like, the entire second half (ridiculous in a bad oversight way). Just snitting. Not even snittin next to Borpo. And Ruby’s cooking song could have been cut; it was very See Spot Run in its lyrics and my attention dropped at that point. Their friendship was so lovely to watch; literally any other sort of song or use of that time to show them together would have been stronger.
But these little dips didn’t really affect the overall quality too much. Diana’s song/s about her moon (Diana is the goddess of the moon after all, or at least related in a triad, mythology is all very magoo), her song in the mirror about being old, all had high levels of artistry and emotion (except that latter one is kind of rude to have this actress sing?? like how very dare you). And that reveal. I pulled a full-on Chris Pratt as Andy Dwyer in that ‘wowwww’ gif face, I tell you. This was a lovely gem of a truly original show and I couldn’t have appreciated it more even if it had tap-dancing astronauts.
“Funny Girl” on the West End: I’m Here to Monsoon on this G-D Parade
I was so pumped to finally be seeing “Funny Girl” performed live, to hear in context the classic songs Barbra Streisand made famous and “Glee” made intolerable. Going into “Funny Girl”, the Menier Chocolate Factory (no it doesn’t make chocolate (I know it’s such bullshit (f-ing London))) production now playing at the West End’s Savoy Theatre, I knew to dial back expectations. Every single reviewer I trust (theatre fans and people on the forums, and not reviewers for The Guardian and other b.s. spewers) repeated that our star, Sheridan Smith, is not the strongest singer, and so to be warned. (I mean if anyone saw her turn as Elle Woods, then you know (but her acting is what you come for.)) Sheridan is famous (and infamous – we will get to that) over here in the UK, known for being a great comedian, a good actress, and a decent singer. Okay, that’s fine. Even for musicals where you want the (classic, ingrained-in-our-culture, wonderful) score to be sung with the heft it deserves, they can still be very enjoyable with a lesser singer if the acting is superb. Hell I saw “Evita” with Elena “I’m going to whisper all the high notes but I can dance like a Latina Hough sibling” Roger and I still thought it was great. So I was fully ready to be disappointed that the songs we all know and love weren’t belted to the rafters.
What I wasn’t expecting was that the singing wouldn’t even come close to being the real problem with this show. Not this production, but this show as written. And, yes, consequently the production for just, like, doing the show. Without changing anything! Or issuing a warning! “Funny Girl” needs to come with a freaking surgeon general’s warning because PEOPLE (PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE) it may be the most offensive piece of theatre or, hell, piece of art. It’s definitely the most offensive one I can think of right now anyway! I understand that it is from a very different age, but that doesn’t excuse the decision to do a straightforward revival of it, with no commentary or even nuance to say hey, we know this is crazy and we don’t believe it. It’s not like anyone’s doing a straight remake of “Song of the South” anytime soon. It’s too common for the values espoused in the show to still be held today, so the production and all involved so easily seem to be supporters of its messages instead of critics of them, as everyone with a brain and/or a pulse should be. It played like a PSA from Fox News during its Family Values Hour. Or as an infomercial from the campaign of he who shall not be named. So even though it is an old show, like old for the earth, that’s no excuse, because audiences are being fed the themes straight no chaser and taking them as continued gospel for the insane.
Okay, maybe you’d like to know what these messages are. Well, “Funny Girl” is a very fictionalized tale of Fanny Brice, the legendary actress from the ’20s and ‘30s known for the Ziegfeld Follies and the song “My Man” (not in the musical). It debuted on Broadway in 1964 with the score by Jules Styne and Bob Merrill and book by Isobel Lennart. I know you’re thinking ‘how can it be so anti-feminist if the book was written by a woman’ but hello Palin & Fiorina & Bachmann and the rest of those self-hating toxic beach diapers. (Also she was a COMMIEEEEEEEE!) So we see Fanny, this totally goofy Jewish girl from Brooklyn, trying to break into show business but everyone in her life – her friends, peers, family, and all the old yentas from the neighborhood – keep quoting my girl Shug Avery and telling her “damn you sho is ugly!” and so no one takes her dreams or her talent seriously for a while. Um, side note, I know I’m newer to the earth and wasn’t around, but I’m pretty sure the characterization of Fanny as overwhelmingly goofy physically, and as waddling like a duck/unable to look like a human when she walks because lol so chub, was a decision of the director and production and actors, so ick. I know Real Fanny was a comedian and made some amazingly silly faces as part of that but I don’t think her face was stuck in sideways baby duck face during every moment of her life.
Anyway, Fanny tells the people of horseville that she’s destined for stardom because she is the greatest star of all, in a song called “I Am the Greatest Star of All”. It’s hard to buy it when we haven’t seen her really do anything yet and it isn’t being sung by the greatest singer ever, as it was when Barbra sang it, so just gotta trust her on this one. She gets into vaudeville and her career takes off because she’s so outrageous and funny and untraditional, and she joins the esteemed Ziegfeld Follies, where she soon meets Nicky Arnstein, a suave tall person in a nice suit who is also a gambler and really a shit. (He’s played pretty perfectly by Darius Campbell, who really reminded me of Andy Garcia in “Ocean’s Eleven” #thatmonotonetho) Because he is so tall and suave and she is so disgusting and unlovable, Fanny falls for Nicky hard and is just counting her lucky stars every few seconds that he likes her back. (They sing “People” when they first meet, which I was excited for but it was kind of underwhelming.) No one can believe that anyone could ever love someone as repulsive as Fanny, and all the people in her life pretty much say that to her face, and Fanny can’t believe it either, so she resolves to marry Nicky as fast as she can to prove that she is worth something as a woman, because her stellar career and personal success means bupkis mit kaduchas if she can’t get a man. When she leaves a tour to find him and marry him, she sings to pretty much a random train conductor “Don’t Rain On My Parade”, which in my version she sings to Nicky when she decides not to marry him so she can focus on her career and finding someone worthy of her.
Nicky’s shifty business deals and gambles go up and down, and Fanny supports him through everything. This makes up the bulk of Act II, interspersed with some sort of painful scenes from the Follies and tooooo many numbers with the mother and the yentas and Fanny’s friend Eddie who is in love with her and is soooo the token ‘nice guy’ who thinks that just because he isn’t an outright asshat he is entitled to the thing he’s being sort of ‘nice’ to. I did appreciate “Sadie Sadie Married Lady” if only because I’m currently doing a “Gilmore Girls” rewatch and that’s the name of the episode where Lorelai gets engaged (the first time) and Sookie sings a bit of it (side note, Sheridan looked just like Melissa McCarthy at points! So that was a plus), but in truth it is as horrifying as the rest of the show’s messages. The whole point is how lucky an unattractive woman (obviously she is not really unattractive, not that that matters, but this is how it’s presented) is to find a man, any man, who cares if he’s a shit, and she better lock him down before he realizes that she isn’t a model. Then, when Fanny reaches the heights of success and makes a lot of money, she shouldn’t be proud, she should be ashamed because it makes her dickless husband struggle with being dickless, and her ability to pay for everything he could ever want makes Nicky feel like she’s choking him? Nicky gets sent to jail because of shady business deals and embezzlement, but every single person in the whole show blames Fanny for his crimes, because having a successful wife forced him to commit crimes, pretty much. Nicky leaves her when he gets out of jail because he can’t be suffocated by a wife who is happy to support him, and Fanny and her mother don’t fight the accuracy of his statements. I mean. No. I get that this is old but come the f on Bridget. The moral of this show was literally telling women not to do anything with their lives that could lead to success because it might make your raisin-balled husband feel the sads about his raisins.
When these types of messages are put forward with no commentary, it’s problematic because many people have zero critical reasoning skills. People who are these intellectual blank slates will accept them and swallow them without a second thought and just nod and say okay this is okay, sure sure. Then people who are already terrible people or at least moonlight as terrible people will hear this overt support for outdated, dangerous, and harmful views and they’ll think oh okay, I can make this my day job now. It’s kind of like why I despise “SVU” for normalizing violence against women by showing so goddamn much of it. Even though they are showing it as ‘bad’ and perpetrators get ‘punished’ (maybe/sometimes/never), it still normalizes the occurrence and lets people continue to accept it as just how the world works, without any urging to change that foundational way of operating. Likewise, by having most of the drama rely on accepted forms of misogyny, “Funny Girl” perpetuates this misogyny as just how the world works and that we should follow their lead and not challenge that. I mean she sort of sings a reprise of “Don’t Rain on My Parade” at the end through her tears about Dicky Nicky leaving her but 30 seconds of ‘maybe one day I won’t care about him’ doesn’t make up for 2 and 1/2 hours of wimmins better stay in the kitchen.
What really bothers me is, well, several things. Fanny Brice was a real person, with an incredibly interesting life that is still remembered and revered by performers today. This main depiction of her is a great disservice to her memory, and that’s unbelievably sad and unfair. To say the creators took liberties with the facts is putting it lightly. “Funny Girl” is highly, highly fictionalized, and most of the horrible crap I’ve discussed is part of what was fictionalized. That means the creators of the original Broadway show implemented unnecessary, added misogyny. They thought ‘let’s make a show about this legend in show business, but because she’s a woman, let’s just show part of her success but then make most of the show about how she was so ugly that she thought she could never find a man, and then she meets Nicky and can’t believe her luck that a handsome man wants to be with her because come on all men want is someone pretty so she really is lucky but then she ruins everything because she makes money and gives him everything he wants and he doesn’t have much success and she shouldn’t support their family and be successful because that’s so mean and he feels totally emasculated which is the worst crime on earth and so she drives him into criminal behavior and he goes to jail and it’s all her fault obviously and everyone even her mother and even herself believe that Fanny is to blame for a totally separate fully functioning human being’s bad decisions and like women should just stay at home amiright.’ First of all, fuck all of that. Second of all, Fanny Brice, the real one, was married before she married Nicky Armstein. She was married. Yet the main action of the first act of the musical is every single person in her life absolutely kvelling because a man might actually not vomit at the sight of her! Praise Moses! Why, creators, did that strike you as the necessary change to make when rewriting Brice’s life for the stage? Did it just seem more realistic to you? More realistic than reality? To say ‘well she was no looker so instead of showing how she was so awesome and talented that it didn’t matter or that it doesn’t matter, let’s open with a number about how all actresses just need to be hot, and then make the whole show about how desperate she is for a man to notice her and how lucky she is that a good one does, but then she ruins him and makes him a bad one with her success, he wasn’t bad at the start it was her evil wimmin doings.’ I cannot wrap my brain about the thought process that takes an interesting life and makes it just another bullshit story about how desperate and awful women are.
Next, you know what else was fictionalized? Like everything about their relationship. Nicky was in jail BEFORE they got married – and he was actually married at the time to another woman. So he wasn’t this perfect specimen of a unicorn sent to make her less pathetic or anything; he was the pathetic convicted criminal cheating on his wife from the very start. Nicky happily took Fanny’s money even before they were married. His later gang activities didn’t lead him to turn himself in, as the musical says, as a result of his emasculation by not being able to support his family. No, he continued relying on Fanny’s money in order to fight the charges against him for years. That doesn’t not sound like someone who has a problem using his wife’s money, but I guess to the creators it sounded like someone who should have felt emasculated and ruined because he was letting someone without a penis pay for things.
Almost as importantly, there is no evidence I could find of Brice performing a hilarious wartime number in the Follies as a German Private Schvartz as she does in the musical, which I assume is what “Springtime for Hitler” was based on. It was probably the most painful song in a musical I’ve ever seen. Jfc. Why on earth was this part of “Funny Girl”? DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
God it’s hard reliving this. It’s really sad too because who doesn’t remember loving the movie with Barbra, and who doesn’t love all the famous songs? But at least as shown in this production – which as far as I can find is pretty true to the original musical – it’s disturbing and hugely problematic, especially as society seems to be entering a downturn in progressive views. And it’s not a bad production, the bones of it anyway. The costumes were fine, the lighting was fine, the acting was good. Actually, I remember feeling cheated by the simple choreography. But the story, my god the story. But the audiences are eating this shit up, which really upsets me. Do they just not care about the messages? Or are they in agreement? Do they not even realize what’s being said? Sheridan got many ‘bravos’ and a standing ovation, which a) should be brava and b) I think were for her personal life more than for her performance. She is a good actress, but this was not the role. I know I said some big musical roles don’t necessarily need a great singer if the acting is strong enough, but this show isn’t strong enough to do without a baller voice. But I was happy to see Sheridan after the summer she had. She is well known in the tabloids here, sadly, for fighting with the producers about needing time off when her father got very sick. Since producers only care about money, they allegedly didn’t give her the time she wanted or needed and she quickly unraveled mentally – including onstage. Some lucky ticket holders in the beginning of the summer got to see her perform drunk. Which, since British people are drunk all the damn time, maybe no one really noticed. Anyway, after that she took a few months off and her understudy Natasha Barnes took over. Apparently Natasha was amazing, with a much more appropriate voice for the role. I’m really happy that Sheridan seems to be okay now and getting what she needs, and none of my more substantial problems with the show have anything to do with her.
I honestly think that British people are liking this show because they are just laughing at the name Fanny (fanny is actually slang for vagina here, not kidding) and so they aren’t really paying attention to the story because every time someone says Fanny they cover their mouths and mutter ‘oh tee hee, a proper tee hee’. Really the best part of this show was a blue velvet dinner jacket that Nicky wears at one point.
* * *
AUDIENCE
I’m flabbergasted that they weren’t all horrified. I’m also still bothered by the woman in front of me who brought her 7-year-old daughter. Not only was I scared that this child was learning from the terrible messages of this show, but they also talked the entire time – not just the girl turning to ask questions, which kids do, but the ADULT who is supposed to be the role model for how to behave in the theatre was also turning to the girl every 2 seconds I’m pretty sure to say ‘DID YOU SEE THAT? DID YOU HEAR THAT?’ jfc.
THEATRE
Um. The bars were selling bagels. That’s super offensive, right? No, they don’t usually sell bagels; yes, I think it’s because this is a ‘jewish show’ to them. I don’t know whether to be more offended by that decision or by the quality of British bagels. The programmes were beautiful though (see picture).
I do have a problem with the theatre owners and the producers, not just here but with all West End shows. The opposite of Broadway’s policy, the policy here is that refunds are not issued if a star above the title is out. That means all the people who bought tickets to see Sheridan over the summer while she was out could not get their money back, as they can on Broadway when the star is out. There is a lotttttt of argument about this policy lately, with people saying that introducing such a policy would be unfair to understudies if people would leave when they were announced. But, in practice on Broadway, few people actually do this; it’s the ones who came only to see the star that really take advantage of it, or someone who already has seen the understudy and was trying again to get the star. The real concern is just that the producers don’t want to lose money. But that’s bullshit. I fully support Bway’s policy and wish that they had it here, because when a star like Sheridan is above the title, producers hike up the prices. If they are charging more because of a name, and then the name is out, you should get your money back if you want it, period. If they don’t want to give you your money back in those situations, then they need to stop having celebrity price hikes.
