All About Eve: Fasten Your Seatbeats, It’s Going to be a Bumpy Night Because This Show is Terribleby Randi / March 28, 2019Six the Musical: Divorced! Beheaded! Live! And Here to Save British Musical Theatre
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is the new musical Six, playing at London’s Arts Theatre.
Longtime Laughfrodisiac readers (or people who have spoken to me in real life for more than five minutes) have heard me bitch and moan about the sorry state of British musical theatre before, and often. The only great shows for literally decades came courtesy of Andrew Lloyd Webber (and he wasn’t immune to some straight-up horseshit), and a random few from Elton John (Billy Elliot) and Tim Minchin (Matilda). Matilda premiered in 2010, so that’s almost a decade without a great new British musical. And people wonder why I always say musical theatre is better on Broadway. While that’s still true, finally, forking g-d FINALLY, a new, original, fantastic musical written by Brits has arrived. It seems what the world of British musicals needed wasn’t another old white man (honestly when has that ever been the answer), but two young Cambridge students ready to make their mark before even graduating (I know, I hate them too). Six the Musical is a girl-power retelling of the stories of Henry VIII’s six wives, a concert-style show that is fast and furious in its remarkable ability to share history through modern pop music that is funny, inspired, and absurdly catchy.
From just the tagline – “Divorced, Beheaded, Live!” playing on the famous rhyme for remembering how the wives died – I knew this was going to be fun, but I was not ready to be blown away by the brilliant music. The six wives, onstage with their all-female band, are outfitted in the coolest of costumes, a shiny modern slant on medieval garb, kind of like it’s Halloween and they decided on ‘sexy Tudor.’ They’ve gathered now to have a sort of contest, to see which of them suffered the most and ‘wins’ that dubious title of most unfortunate of the six wives, kind of like how Monica won the title of giving the best bad massages. As soon as they begin singing “Welcome to the show, to the histor-remix” I was like OH DIP (because I speak like Jason Mendoza as a rule now), WORDPLAY, this is going to be spectacular. And from that opening number, “Ex-Wives”, I was enthralled and honestly elated at how good the music was.
From the opening onward, the lyrics are clever and the music is fun and memorable. Throughout all of it, there are amazing nerdy history jokes peppered in, which, as nerds, we adored, and straight up historical lessons on things we never knew. Since English people are super nerdy about knowing and loving their history (would be cool, America!), there’s an immediate sense that everyone is sharing inside jokes, which is a surefire way to solidify audience engagement and enjoyment, and guarantee positive word of mouth. In fact, this is the first show in a while where the audience was so engaged that there wasn’t much extraneous chatter or phone use, which is a g-d miracle.
Pretty much every musical number – and since it is a concert-style show, it’s a series of musical numbers with limited dialogue in between – delivers, with the badass energy of “Ex-Wives” continuing into the first solo, Catherine of Aragon’s (Jarneia Richard-Noel) “No Way”, about how she was not about to give this jackass the annulment he wanted. “No Way” is one of the catchier songs, one I could see being played on the radio (it’s even on my running playlist). It is a forking great time and Richard-Noel has a blast with it. The girl-power vibe remains into the second wife’s solo, but in a much different way. If you know your history, you know that second wife is the most famous one, Anne Boleyn. Where Catherine #1 had self-assurance, Anne goes for cheeky and trades in on innocent-seeming adorableness to gloss over anything she may have done wrong in the funny “Don’t Lose UR Head”. Definitely the millennial character of the bunch, Boleyn (Millie O’Connell) sings how she’s “sorry not sorry bout what I said…I didn’t mean to hurt anyone, lol.” It’s a bold move to show Boleyn as a naughty young girl trying to make her actions seem cute, and I liked that even though she’s the most famous wife, she doesn’t get the most attention or development. We have more interesting wives to learn about.
Like Wife #3, Jane Seymour, or as the other wives mock her, “the only one he really loved.” To have a needed break from all the loud fast songs so far, Jane gets the slow Adele-like power ballad about her “Heart of Stone”. Natalie Paris does a fantastic job with this well-placed song and gets to really show off, while selling a convincing and honestly heartbreaking take on why she wasn’t lucky just because Henry loved her. I love that this show makes you reconsider all of your assumptions about these women. Like Wife #4, Anna of Cleves. First of all, I always thought it was Anne. Second of all, obviously liberties were taken, but I adore thinking of her as having made out like a g-d bandit after Henry divorced her. In her hilarious song, “Get Down”, Anna (a great Alexia McIntosh) says since Henry divorced her rather quickly because she wasn’t actually as hot as she looked in her profile pic (erm, oil painting), she put up with a few months of his crap until he divorced her and then she got to live like a queen for the rest of her life. Not a bad deal at all, she admits, taking herself out of the competition with her proud acknowledgement that her life post-Henry was theeee shit. And nothing is funnier and more perfect than the group number introducing Anna – “Haus Of Holbein”. In it, we learn how Henry turned to Germany for his next wife, and what better way to tell us than in a spot-on spoof of a German club anthem, absolutely hysterical and perfect.
Of course, Anna was the lucky one, and after he divorced her he was right back to treating his wives horribly. Next came Katherine Howard, my favorite of the bunch, with her incredible number “All You Wanna Do”, which has her channeling Ariana Grande while bragging about her promiscuous past in the beginning and then turning it into a devastating post-mortem on how her whole life was about being used and abused by men. Aimee Atkinson, with this show since the beginning, was the standout for me, and in one song she achieved the kind of character development most shows dream about. It doesn’t hurt that this song has some of the cleverest lyrics, and the greatest use of the phrase ‘birds and the bees’ maybe ever.
With all these truly amazing songs, it was inevitable that there would be a slight dip in quality, and that happened when we got to the sixth wife, Catherine Parr (Courtney Stapleton, on as alternate). She didn’t get to really shine as the others did, because her song is the weakest. It also ends abruptly as she decides to change their focus, so it’s not as crucial to have strengthened since it segues into a group number. And that group number is pretty moving, as the wives decide to change their perspective, and ours. Maybe instead of regarding them as being famous just because they were married to Henry, they say, maybe we should consider that hewas only famous because he was married to them. Whenever you have a show that sets out to be ‘girl-power’, it runs the risk of pandering for applause, and while they came close to that line, the way they presented this discussion saved it.
The downsides are few: For one, the sound in the Arts Theatre isn’t great. It’s a tiny almost-black box of a theatre, with acoustics that do not measure up to what a West End theatre should have. It was often hard to make out the extraordinarily clever lyrics, which is a shame, because they are extraordinarily clever. Whether it was solely due to the sound engineering or a mix of sound issues plus enunciation needs, I don’t know, but it would be wise to shore up the clarity on either front. My only other issue is that, because it is so strong, it’s a shame it’s not a full-fledged book musical. With equal focus on six different characters, you’d think they would have had trouble cutting it to a suitable length for modern audience’s attention spans. Instead, it presents the opposite situation, with an adoring audience eager for more. At 75 minutes, it’s great that it never overstays its welcome – always leave them wanting more, I guess – but it could easily take another 15 minutes, flesh out a few of the more superficial characters, and still be a breezy show. But I guess it’s best to count our lucky stars that there is nary a weak moment in this show, and that the audience was fully rapt (and off their phones, praise be) the whole time, so who am I to dare risk all that magic? Six is a joyous, provocative, inspired show and I will gladly see it again and again, which is something I have never said about a British musical.
INFORMATION
The Arts Theatre is tiny, so it is a madhouse in the lobby. The bathrooms are tiny so get in line early. This is one show where it’s fun to be super close.
Related Posts
National Theatre’s Romeo & Juliet a Big Success Despite it Still Being So GD Stupid
This past Easter Sunday, the National Theatre and Sky Arts teamed up to present a truly relevant theatrical film for the holiday: Romeo & Juliet. Not super relevant you say? Tell me to my face that Juliet and Jesus didn’t have the same journey. Seemed like they died for a few days but then they woke up??? CHECK. Too much faith in other people to not be stupid? FORKING CHECK.
The event was a made-for-TV film version of the Shakespeare play, so really covering all bases of entertainment. There was also a scene that was very reminiscent of the nightclubs in East London, my absolutely nightmare but, you know, something for everyone. This take felt new and energetic and modern, at once both a movie and a stage show. Some changes worked well, although no clever decisions in any version have yet to justify the absolute inanity of how f-ing stupid the whole plan was. Goddammit Friar, you’re as simple as these overly dramatic teenagers. (I wasn’t going to mention how Juliet is 13 as written but I simply must. What a gross play.) Can’t believe we’ve had 400 years of this moronic plan. People like to shit on Shakespeare in Love but that’s honestly the only thing that redeems this play even a little. (I’m talking classic representations here, not stuff like West Side Story which is undeniably a genius improvement. (And the musical & Juliet doesn’t count because it rightly says a big ‘hell no’ to the play after like 3 pages.))
As the two ill-fated idiots, Josh O’Connor and Jessie Buckley put their screen experience (him The Crown, her movies and stuff) to good use, though I was surprised that his Romeo was far stronger than her Juliet, since I usually really like her while I have never watched The Crown out of support for Meghan and Harry (just kidding it seems boring). R&J puts you in such a predicament, because you don’t want to cast very young people because THAT’S GROSS, but the plot only really makes sense if they are very young/stupid people. I mean, they meet at a party and get married like within 24 hours? Who do they think they are, Dharma and Greg? And then instead of telling anyone so she doesn’t have to marry Paris (didn’t husbands immediately have ownership over their wives back then? like what could her parents have done at this point?), instead she and the Friar concoct the ferkakte plan of faking her death and having Romeo rescue her from a mausoleum in secret. WOOF.
So yes while the actual play always makes me throw up my hands and shout incomprehensibles, this version made some welcome creative decisions that I appreciated. I liked that it was clearly a stage-version despite being a film, although I thought the rehearsal-room footage was too inconsistent and took me outside the story. I wanted a whole lot more of Fisayo Akinade’s Mercutio, who is equally captivating onscreen as he is onstage (we stan a short king!). I loved that they made his relationship with Benvolio a romantic one, but his screentime was definitely a victim of the hatchet job of cutting this play down to 1 1/2 hours. Ben Affleck would have been PISSED.
The pacing was interesting, as it moved so fast, which I mostly liked, but with that you miss out on the ability to foster depth, character development, and emotional connection. It could have benefited from another 20 minutes or so to make any of the characters, connections, or actions more truly felt. (This may be the first time I’ve said something could have been longer and not shorter.) I saw SO MANY REVIEWERS saying how ‘pacey’ this show was. Ugh. You mean like Joshua Jackson? You mean fast-paced. There’s a word for that and it’s fast-paced, or quick. When Romeo & Juliet clocks in at like 90 minutes, you can just say that. Petition to ban “pacey” and “stagey” please. (While we’re at it: add noms to the list if it’s about anything other than nominations. And if everyone could move on from the adverb du month of ‘deeply’, we will all be for the better.))
No matter the various weaknesses, which did exist despite…everyone else’s commentary, this version stood out for one strong reason: Tamsin Grieg. (Okay, two strong reasons: Tamsin plus her early scenes architectural sweater, doing more character work than NYC in “Sex and the City”.) My favorite move of this production was switching Lord and Lady Capulet’s roles, so that Lady was the one with all the juicy parts and Lord was the one who showed up for like a second and grunted and left. Tamsin’s Lady Capulet with all the power of the og Lord was FIRE. My god. There is a reason she is such a celebrated actress and it is all on display here. Whereas Lord Capulet is sometimes argued to be a good father, doing what he needs to for his family in this era, Tamsin’s version is harsher. She is a cruel old broad in an amazing sweater and I am HERE FOR IT. Nothing in this production was more convincing than her authoritative take on what she needed to do for her daughter and her family and even though she was mean I almost wanted everyone to listen to her. I can’t wait to see her Lear.
Romeo & Juliet aired on Sunday on Sky Arts. It will re-air Thursday, April 8 at 10pm, and then Friday, April 23 at 9pm on PBS (that’s for you AMERICANOS).
The Rage of Narcissus: Provocative & Disturbing New Work at the Pleasance
With all the theatre we see (it’s a lot), there are only a few times when all we can say to each other at the end of a show is ‘well, shit.’ But that’s exactly what we said after the new production of The Rage of Narcissus by Sergio Blanco, a thrilling, frightening, too gory, captivating performance that’s powerful in its elusiveness and its vague metaphors but also will leave you thinking wait…what? and HOW? The dreamy abstractions were somehow effective in making us feel what we were supposed to feel (horrified?) while simultaneously being unclear in what exactly they were and why. The show is a hazy whirlwind that mixes reality and fantasy and fiction and biography into a cautionary tale of some sort. However, what it’s cautioning against is unclear, partly in the good artsy way and partly in a bit of an unsatisfying way.
The Rage of Narcissus tells the story of how Sam Crane, the adept actor, came to play Sergio Blanco, the writer, but a character version of Sergio in this not-all-true (I mean obvs) autobiographical-but-fictionalized account of his time at an academic conference in Ljubljana, which is a horribly fun word to try to type accurately. It’s an extremely meta show, with Sam-the-actor-but-also-a-characterized-version-of-himself playing Sergio-the-writer-but-fictionalized and repeatedly breaking the fourth wall to tell us the ‘truth’ about the story’s events outside how he’s presenting it that there are really no remnants of a fourth wall to be found once the show begins. The construction of this production, with its great use of video and lighting, is one of the most distinguishing aspects of it, intriguing and mind-bending and ensuring that what’s happening onstage is never boring, often super funny, and always interesting.
And while clearly, in a show of this title (it’s a good title, as we’re told in the meta discussion of how Sam and Sergio came to land on it), you’d assume it’s about the pitfalls of narcissistic tendencies, they didn’t add up to enough to demand the action that occurs. That vagueness of what the what and huh why is fun for the artistic experience, but not so fun to wrap your head around afterwards. In a show that ostensibly deals with narcissism, vanity, ego, selfishness, something along those lines, the punishment for these traits is neither justified nor doled out to the representation of those traits. That would be the character Igor, the clear narcissist in the story, though he’s not the victim of it. Is he even real? (What’s GOING ON.) To punish the more obvious narcissist may be too easy, sure, and it is interesting to reflect on how Sam’s Sergio and Sam himself showed flickers of the ego-driven behaviors to be warned against, but it feels like a bit of a stretch to rely on that for the result and/or whatever message we’re to take from it. There are also the jabs at the selfishness of our society at large, represented by the few and far between but still jarring interjections about genuine global tragedies, which seemed too fragmentary to be meaningful.
And so the representation of the punishment just seems wrong, and disturbing, and disturbance just for its own sake and not for any good reason isn’t good enough. The particular scene where we find out what actually happened in Sergio’s hotel room in excruciating detail is unnecessarily gory. It added nothing and risked cheapening the work from being a sophisticated thriller to being akin to a low-grade snuff film.
Aside from that part (and the fact that if you had to drink every time you heard the line “and then we began to f*&k”, you would die from alcohol poisoning), it was still an enjoyably riveting show, with Crane giving a pretty fantastic performance. This show raises a bunch of interesting questions, throwing threads of ideas into the ether, although not fully holding on to one. I appreciate when good art is more about emotions than facts, but this started to veer a little too far into “don’t think about it too hard, too too hard” territory for me. However, it was never boring, and it’s very provocative, which is a great accomplishment for new weird theatre.
INFORMATION
The one act show is about 100 minutes (not the 90 billed). The lobby and bar were so packed I had trouble leaving the building, which isn’t a great feeling. Seats are unreserved so get there early for an aisle, but there are no bad seats. Bathrooms are gender neutral with about 3-5 stalls/cubicles each, downstairs in the bar area.
The show runs at the Pleasance Theatre (near Caledonian Road station) until March 8.
1 Comment
Can’t wait to see this especially now after this wonderful review