The Best Vegan Restaurant in London: Club Mexicana at Spread Eagle Pubby Randi / December 17, 2018
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is The Inheritance, Part 1, which has transferred from the Young Vic to the West End’s Noel Coward Theatre, playing there until January 19.
I have put off seeing The Inheritance for actual years now. It’s not that I didn’t want to see it, but Matthew Lopez’s two-part, sweeping look at today’s culture of gay men, and how they grapple with their position in life compared to the generation that came before them and paved the way, is…long. It’s really long. And it’s in two parts, so you have to go back to the theatre another night to finish the story. And I got things to do! So I put it off. If I’m going to sit through two plays at nearly four hours each, I said to myself, about gay men and AIDs and stuff, I’m going to see Angels in America. (It might sound pretty narrow-minded to compare to the two works, like ‘oh they’re both about gay men so you’re going to compare them, you bigot’ but please, tell me of another eight-hour play in two parts, I’ll wait.) Also, the hype was ludicrous. I assumed there was no way this is ‘the best play of the year, and of next year too, probably’, to quote a mainstream critic (one of those). But I finally decided to bite the bullet and start this epic journey into hours and hours of theatre, and you know what? It’s probably the best play of the year, and of next year too.
I have put off seeing The Inheritance for actual years now. It’s not that I didn’t want to see it, but Matthew Lopez’s two-part, sweeping look at today’s culture of gay men, and how they grapple with their position in life compared to the generation that came before them and paved the way, is…long. It’s really long. And it’s in two parts, so you have to go back to the theatre another night to finish the story. And I got things to do! So I put it off. If I’m going to sit through two plays at nearly four hours each, I said to myself, about gay men and AIDs and stuff, I’m going to see Angels in America. (It might sound pretty narrow-minded to compare to the two works, like ‘oh they’re both about gay men so you’re going to compare them, you bigot’ but please, tell me of another eight-hour play in two parts, I’ll wait.) Also, the hype was ludicrous. I assumed there was no way this is ‘the best play of the year, and of next year too, probably’, to quote a mainstream critic (one of those). But I finally decided to bite the bullet and start this epic journey into hours and hours of theatre, and you know what? It’s probably the best play of the year, and of next year too.
Granted, I have only seen Part 1 so far. You can see both parts in one day if you want, but ain’t nobody got time for that. (Or energy. How do the actors do it? are they spidermen?) I’m really glad I scheduled this extra time in between so I can sit with and think about Part 1 and give it the due it deserves. As a standalone play, Part 1 was sensational, and I’m honestly wowed. I really can’t believe that I would be willing to see it again. For the first time in my life, I bought the script of the play instead of the programme. It’s that good. I made a sort-of joke about Angels in America above, but The Inheritance is truly the clear successor to Angels, not just because they are about the same demographic, but – and gird your loins, people who hate tautologies – because it is a successor to Angels. That’s what it’s about – what gay men living today have inherited from the generation before and what they have to do to honor their memory and their sacrifice. So REALLY, it’s like a four-part 16 hour play. Just kidding. But it’s important to know where gay men of the previous generation have been in order to understand what these gay men of our generation are thinking about when they think about honoring those who came before them. Both plays bear crucial witness to the gay culture of their time.
The idea of honoring the past without getting trapped by it runs through all the multiple layers and character arcs in this play. Not only are there so many vibrant layers to the story that all seem compelling in their own right, there’s also an homage to the novel Howards End woven into the frame of the show. It begins with a group of male writing students bouncing ideas off of each other, guided by their teacher Morgan, a representation of Howards End author E.M. Forster (the M was for Morgan), who hid his homosexuality from the public (his famous works about homosexual themes were published after his death). Morgan and the students brainstorm ways to start the story, eventually focusing on one student’s idea and snowballing. As an opening gimmick, this kind of annoyed me at first, but it really does pay off. We delve into the story and just when you forget that it’s anything but real, it returns to Morgan leading the writing process.
The story being written tells of Eric Glass (Kyle Soller, wonderful) and Toby Darling (Andrew Burnap, my choice for a supporting actor Olivier), a gay couple living in New York in Eric’s Holocaust-surviving grandparents’ great apartment. If you take that central idea and think of it like a small glass sphere, the play is like taking a hammer to that glass and watching all the thousands of shards shower away from it. There is so much happening and it all is part of the same whole, all kinds of side stories you think maybe should have been cut for time, until you realize they are all necessary to add to this realistic, vivid world they’re creating onstage. Eric is an actually decent guy, the kind you root for even without knowing him too well. He’s a better person than he believes himself to be, a sensitive, thoughtful soul. Toby is vivacious, hilarious, and altogether Too Much. He’s written a well-known book that is getting transformed into a Broadway play, because his head needs to get bigger. A chance meeting with a younger gay man, Adam (Samuel Levine, responsible for the ‘male nudity’ warning), throws a wrench into Eric and Toby’s happy life together, especially when Adam is cast in Toby’s play.
While Adam and Toby workshop the play out of town, Eric befriends Walter, an older gay man who was previously an acquaintance but becomes one of the most important people in Eric’s life. Walter lived through the ‘80s AIDs epidemic and tells Eric, in probably the longest (and most moving) monologue in theatre history, what it was like. And not just ‘what it was like’ like ‘oh, it was awful,’ but opening up and really showing the history to Eric like it’s a tangible thing you can hold and show someone. In a brilliant move, Walter is played by the same actor as Morgan (Paul Hilton), guiding the young men and helping them as much as he can. At the end of Act 1, Walter explains to Eric that his partner, the billionaire Henry Wilcox (John Benjamin Hickey, one of my faves), wanted to run away from the city during the epidemic and ignore it, along with their friends. But Walter in his kindness and empathy couldn’t, and so while Henry traveled, Walter opened up their country house to let their friends, and friends of friends and whoever needed to, have a serene place to die.
Walter’s friendship, guidance, and memories clearly make Eric even more thoughtful and considerate of (to quote another of this year’s ‘best of’(TV Edition)) what we owe to each other, and what we owe to the past and to the future. The inheritance of the title is that recognition of the importance of memory and respect in the culture. In a whole new layer to the story, it also refers to a Howards-End inspired deathbed bequeathment of important property that, like in its source material, gets infuriatingly disregarded. And as part of that property, it refers to the responsibility that these young gay men have inherited from the previous generation, the responsibility that every demographic or culture or race owes to their forebears: to recognize their struggles and understand what they went through so that you can live the life you’re living and make things better for the next group.
I know, it sounds like a lot of heavy material. And it is, and you’ll forking SOB, especially at the final scene of Part 1. Or, if you’re like me, you’ll save your hardest cries for what’s supposed to be a kind of funny moment – Eric’s friends’ 2016 Election Returns Watch Party (sigh (too real)). But you also laugh a whole lot, especially at Toby’s lines and his incredible physicality. It’s like he’s dancing through his character’s lines while fully becoming him and it is incredible. The ensemble is wonderful, and even though most have not much to say in Part 1, the cast remains onstage the entire time. Stephen Daldry’s direction has truly never been cleverer or sharper. It’s his best work yet. There is absolutely no set, other than a raised platform in the middle. No painted backdrops, no nothing. There are barely any props (save for the frequent wine glasses, the odd chair, the Hillary balloon). Yet the stage pulsates with life. The ensemble sits around the platform and watches the action, sometimes chiming in with suggestions to the author (reminding you of the framing device, which I still don’t know how I feel about). Most importantly, the ensemble moves with the story in a way I have never seen before. When you react internally to a line reading, the ensemble will react physically in a way that makes complete sense. They seem to be constantly moving but not in a distracting way, rather in a totally natural, necessary way that adds to the import of every scene. It’s like a reminder of something, maybe that your actions affect lives around you, or that you’re never alone.
Going into Part 2, I’m eager to see more of John Benjamin Hickey’s Wilcox, who was only in Part 1 for a portion of the time, and of course I’m excited for the ‘cameo’ by Vanessa Redgrave. But even more than seeing these stars, I can’t wait to get back into this world. I’m honestly still shook by the story and anxious about where things left off. This play felt like a long book that becomes important to you as you read along, the kind where you feel it in your soul and worry about the story and the characters for life, even though you know it’s not real. That the Inheritance Part 1 accomplished that is a testament to the genius of Matthew Lopez, as well as the pitch-perfect direction and the great acting that brought me fully into their world.
INFORMATION
The Inheritance ends its run at the Noel Coward Theatre on January 19 so hurry, or wait to see it on Broadway because it is definitely going.
Tickets are pretty easy to get, especially using TodayTix (which runs their rush ticket system). I got a £15 ticket (talk about value for money) in the Royal Circle, fifth row in and on the right side of center, and it was a perfect view. Too far to the extreme sides will be okay but a little restricted. The audience was pretty good, but actually the staff was awful. I could hear them talking in the lobby really loudly, proving my opinion that Delfont Mackintosh theatres and staff have to undergo a whole rehaul.
The idea of honoring the past without getting trapped by it runs through all the multiple layers and character arcs in this play. Not only are there so many vibrant layers to the story that all seem compelling in their own right, there’s also an homage to the novel Howards End woven into the frame of the show. It begins with a group of male writing students bouncing ideas off of each other, guided by their teacher Morgan, a representation of Howards End author E.M. Forster (the M was for Morgan), who hid his homosexuality from the public (his famous works about homosexual themes were published after his death). Morgan and the students brainstorm ways to start the story, eventually focusing on one student’s idea and snowballing. As an opening gimmick, this kind of annoyed me at first, but it really does pay off. We delve into the story and just when you forget that it’s anything but real, it returns to Morgan leading the writing process.
The story being written tells of Eric Glass (Kyle Soller, wonderful) and Toby Darling (Andrew Burnap, my choice for a supporting actor Olivier), a gay couple living in New York in Eric’s Holocaust-surviving grandparents’ great apartment. If you take that central idea and think of it like a small glass sphere, the play is like taking a hammer to that glass and watching all the thousands of shards shower away from it. There is so much happening and it all is part of the same whole, all kinds of side stories you think maybe should have been cut for time, until you realize they are all necessary to add to this realistic, vivid world they’re creating onstage. Eric is an actually decent guy, the kind you root for even without knowing him too well. He’s a better person than he believes himself to be, a sensitive, thoughtful soul. Toby is vivacious, hilarious, and altogether Too Much. He’s written a well-known book that is getting transformed into a Broadway play, because his head needs to get bigger. A chance meeting with a younger gay man, Adam (Samuel Levine, responsible for the ‘male nudity’ warning), throws a wrench into Eric and Toby’s happy life together, especially when Adam is cast in Toby’s play.
While Adam and Toby workshop the play out of town, Eric befriends Walter, an older gay man who was previously an acquaintance but becomes one of the most important people in Eric’s life. Walter lived through the ‘80s AIDs epidemic and tells Eric, in probably the longest (and most moving) monologue in theatre history, what it was like. And not just ‘what it was like’ like ‘oh, it was awful,’ but opening up and really showing the history to Eric like it’s a tangible thing you can hold and show someone. In a brilliant move, Walter is played by the same actor as Morgan (Paul Hilton), guiding the young men and helping them as much as he can. At the end of Act 1, Walter explains to Eric that his partner, the billionaire Henry Wilcox (John Benjamin Hickey, one of my faves), wanted to run away from the city during the epidemic and ignore it, along with their friends. But Walter in his kindness and empathy couldn’t, and so while Henry traveled, Walter opened up their country house to let their friends, and friends of friends and whoever needed to, have a serene place to die.
Walter’s friendship, guidance, and memories clearly make Eric even more thoughtful and considerate of (to quote another of this year’s ‘best of’(TV Edition)) what we owe to each other, and what we owe to the past and to the future. The inheritance of the title is that recognition of the importance of memory and respect in the culture. In a whole new layer to the story, it also refers to a Howards-End inspired deathbed bequeathment of important property that, like in its source material, gets infuriatingly disregarded. And as part of that property, it refers to the responsibility that these young gay men have inherited from the previous generation, the responsibility that every demographic or culture or race owes to their forebears: to recognize their struggles and understand what they went through so that you can live the life you’re living and make things better for the next group.
I know, it sounds like a lot of heavy material. And it is, and you’ll forking SOB, especially at the final scene of Part 1. Or, if you’re like me, you’ll save your hardest cries for what’s supposed to be a kind of funny moment – Eric’s friends’ 2016 Election Returns Watch Party (sigh (too real)). But you also laugh a whole lot, especially at Toby’s lines and his incredible physicality. It’s like he’s dancing through his character’s lines while fully becoming him and it is incredible. The ensemble is wonderful, and even though most have not much to say in Part 1, the cast remains onstage the entire time. Stephen Daldry’s direction has truly never been cleverer or sharper. It’s his best work yet. There is absolutely no set, other than a raised platform in the middle. No painted backdrops, no nothing. There are barely any props (save for the frequent wine glasses, the odd chair, the Hillary balloon). Yet the stage pulsates with life. The ensemble sits around the platform and watches the action, sometimes chiming in with suggestions to the author (reminding you of the framing device, which I still don’t know how I feel about). Most importantly, the ensemble moves with the story in a way I have never seen before. When you react internally to a line reading, the ensemble will react physically in a way that makes complete sense. They seem to be constantly moving but not in a distracting way, rather in a totally natural, necessary way that adds to the import of every scene. It’s like a reminder of something, maybe that your actions affect lives around you, or that you’re never alone.
Going into Part 2, I’m eager to see more of John Benjamin Hickey’s Wilcox, who was only in Part 1 for a portion of the time, and of course I’m excited for the ‘cameo’ by Vanessa Redgrave. But even more than seeing these stars, I can’t wait to get back into this world. I’m honestly still shook by the story and anxious about where things left off. This play felt like a long book that becomes important to you as you read along, the kind where you feel it in your soul and worry about the story and the characters for life, even though you know it’s not real. That the Inheritance Part 1 accomplished that is a testament to the genius of Matthew Lopez, as well as the pitch-perfect direction and the great acting that brought me fully into their world.
INFORMATION
The Inheritance ends its run at the Noel Coward Theatre on January 19 so hurry, or wait to see it on Broadway because it is definitely going.
Tickets are pretty easy to get, especially using TodayTix (which runs their rush ticket system). I got a £15 ticket (talk about value for money) in the Royal Circle, fifth row in and on the right side of center, and it was a perfect view. Too far to the extreme sides will be okay but a little restricted. The audience was pretty good, but actually the staff was awful. I could hear them talking in the lobby really loudly, proving my opinion that Delfont Mackintosh theatres and staff have to undergo a whole rehaul.
Related Posts
“Big Fish” in London: New & Improved Production of an Okay Musical
It’s Theatre Thursday y’all! Today we are talking about the new production of “Big Fish” at London’s The Other Palace, which is playing until December 31.
“Big Fish”, directed by Tim Burton and starring some faves of mine (Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Marion Cotillard, Danny DeVito (go back and watch it’s true)), was a great movie that screamed out to me for an amazing big spectacular Broadway musical. That story would be perfect for one, right? It would be hard to match the magic of the movie but I had faith that it could because theatre is the best. Unfortunately, the Broadway bow it got in 2013 wasn’t very good. It was hugely fun and entertaining and I enjoyed it, but not as good as it should have been with that source material. The book was messy and Andrew Lippa’s score was mostly unmemorable. After a few years and a lot of retooling, ‘Big Fish’ is back, now in London, new and improved. I think. I’m still not sure.
“Big Fish”, directed by Tim Burton and starring some faves of mine (Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Marion Cotillard, Danny DeVito (go back and watch it’s true)), was a great movie that screamed out to me for an amazing big spectacular Broadway musical. That story would be perfect for one, right? It would be hard to match the magic of the movie but I had faith that it could because theatre is the best. Unfortunately, the Broadway bow it got in 2013 wasn’t very good. It was hugely fun and entertaining and I enjoyed it, but not as good as it should have been with that source material. The book was messy and Andrew Lippa’s score was mostly unmemorable. After a few years and a lot of retooling, ‘Big Fish’ is back, now in London, new and improved. I think. I’m still not sure.
When The Other Palace in London announced that it would do a revised version of the musical, I didn’t have high hopes like I naively did for the Broadway production, since London is consistently less ‘spectacular’ with musicals than Broadway. There’s just an inherent spark and magic that is often missing. I was right – there was no way this small theatre was going to beat Broadway in terms of magic and spectacle. However, the revisions may have worked better on the whole. It’s not as much fun and it’s not as grand, but it’s moving in a more subdued nature that packs more of an emotional punch.
My eagerness to love the show back in 2013 may have been responsible for some of my enjoyment back then. It starred my favorite musical theatre actor, Norbert Leo Butz, so I was working as hard as I could while sitting in a seat in the dark to love it, and no one should have to work that hard to love a show. It was joyous but inconsistently, flawed and kind of flat a lot of the time. The music felt mostly uninspired, but a few songs were stellar. The book was a bit messy, but had enough good feeling and intention for the movie’s amazing story to make it okay. But most of all, Norbert put everything he had into his performance, so much energy and love and emotion, that that’s what you remembered and loved about the show. Norbert is so amazing, he blinds you from noticing anything lackluster or actually bad. So when the London revival/rehashing this fall announced that it would star Kelsey Grammer, I was extremely skeptical. How on earth could old Republican buffoon Kelsey Grammer do what Norbert in all his energy and youth did? How is he going to distract us from noticing that the show doesn’t live up to its potential and is kind of flat? Answer: He doesn’t – because the show is entirely redone and suits him better. John August, who wrote the movie and the book of the musical, clearly has been working hard on this. I missed Norbert’s energy (and voice) the whole time, but I think mayyyyybeeee it makes more sense this way. It’s not as much fun, and it’s a smaller, more delicately emotional show, but I think – I’m pretty sure – it’s hard to say because Norbert – that it’s a smarter, better done show now.
I knew to expect changes with this production, but I thought maybe it would be a few lines here or there, maybe new and better songs. But I almost gasped when the very first song of the show was “Fight the Dragons”, in which Edward Bloom (Grammer) sings to his young son about why he lives such a fantastic fantasy life. I remembered this one because it’s the best song from the show and I listen to it regularly. So I remembered that on Broadway it came in the middle of the show. In this new version, it OPENS the show! I realized then just how different this was going to be, and I was shocked and scared and I wanted to break my #1 rule and TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT but mostly I was intrigued. The new framing device was quickly evident: Instead of jumping back and forth between present day and past, showing Edward as a yoot as he embarks on all the fake-sounding adventures he tells his son about and having the same actor (Norbert) jump from old man to young teenager and in between Edward (he’s amazing) and do everything he could to sell it to you that he could be all these ages, Kelsey’s Edward just was the old man version. In his old, dying state, he shared his memories with the dream-ghost young version of his now-grown son, Will. So Kelsey would be like ‘oh hey little ghost boy version of my Will who now hates me, remember when I met that witch’ and then ANOTHER ACTOR played young Edward and met the witch and stuff. I know, serious changes, guys. But it is so much better because no one is going to believe Kelsey as an 18-year-old with a sparkle in his eye. His sparkle died long ago.
Despite my reluctance to admit that it worked to have a different actor play young Edward (or ‘Story Edward’ as they’re calling it), it was hard to stay mad at you bro because Story Edward was maybe the best performer on the stage. Jamie Muscato, who was great a few years ago in ‘Dogfight’ here at Southwark Playhouse (still one of the best productions of the hundos I’ve seen in London), sings wonderfully and charms as the young version of Edward, saving Kelsey from having to get up from his hospital bed. I was so worried that we’d have to listen to Kelsey’s passable but not fantastic singing voice for most of the score. Having people who could actually sing musically theatrey play important roles was a huge relief. I sound mean to Kelsey but he knows he is an actor who sings, not a singer who acts.
This same device of course was used for Sandra, Edward’s wife, as Edward’s courtship of her constitutes a big chunk of the flashback/memory/story plot. Present day Sandra was played by Clare Burt, who was nice and fine, and Story Sandra was the spunky ginger Laura Baldwin, who looked like she grew up taking musical theatre classes, very textbook proficiency and skill. Good job ginger spice. You’d think this would mean Laura got to shine with big songs and stuff, but for some reason they gave the slowest most boringest most unnecessary song to Old Sandra, and it was bo-rang. Sorry Clare. You’re good and stuff this just should have been cut. The relationship between Edward and Sandra as oldies is believable because we see their backstory, so the attempt to shore up their current feelings instead of showing us more of what their love is based on failed for me dawg.
The weirdest thing that worked for me in this production was that Josephine, grown-up Will’s fiancé who I think had one line in the original production and could have easily been cut, was my favorite. I think it was really because the actress, Frances McNamee (omg that is so the last name you give when you want to give a fake name and can’t think of shit), was so wonderful and made a fully realized character with what little she is given. I so bought every single one of her reactions and facial expressions. She clearly deserves much bigger and better parts and I would totally go see a show if I knew she was in it. It was like obviously good acting which is very exciting to see every so often instead of like ‘oh hey look I’m in a play’ acting. You don’t know what I mean.
As grown-up Will, Matthew Seadon-Young was pretty decent. It’s kind of a thankless role because you’re like, hey dude your dad seems really FUN and yeah he wasn’t really there for you growing up but like, he has good stories and your mom did a good job so like take a chill pill. And then he finds out how good a person his dad was, just to other people, and you’re like see I told you you should have taken that stick out of your bum. I said bum! Hashtag so british. Anyway so it’s a little thankless but he did a good job making us feel for his predicament (wanting to still resent his absent father even though he’s dying) despite our instinct to shout ‘just be niceeeee he hella old.’ And Kelsey is so winning and likable and such a good actor that it made it hard to agree with Will that he sucked.
So the family relationships and characters were pretty well done, which is why this production felt more based in emotion and not in the fun spectacle aspect of the movie. Both are important sides of the story to tell, and while Broadway sold the spectacle amazingly and some of the emotion, this production sold the family story and emotion and less so the spectacle. The spectacle, of course, being the crazy characters of Edward’s stories, the ones we don’t know whether to believe he actually knew. The giant, the witch, the mermaid, all the people in the circus he worked in. This is a difficult balance to achieve with this show, and I think that’s why no production has been able to really achieve it properly. Broadway leaned too heavily to one side; this one tried to make up for that but ended up overcompensating on the other side. The actors were all good – Landi Oshinowo (almost my name!) as the witch has a kickass voice erma erma, and Dean Nolan as the giant Karl was solid – but in the small space with no effects there’s really only so much you can leave to the imagination. And so the pendulum swung to the side of focusing on the family dynamics and stuck there. They made up for this in very clever ways, like having the witch’s costume and her forest made from hospital supplies – because that’s where Edward is recounting her tale – and I loved that, but it didn’t lead to that same level of impressive drama that you want. This was hardest for me in my favorite part from the Broadway show – when Norbert I mean Edward sings “Daffodils” as he proposes to Sandra. On Broadway, thousands of daffodils ‘grew’ from the stage and all around and it was pure magic. I remember gasping. Here, that couldn’t happen, and they made up for it by having lots of deliveries of daffodils to Edward’s hospital room happening. So, again, it was a clever choice and made it sweet, but I can’t say I didn’t miss the thrill of all those flowers growing out of a stage.
Honestly the best part of the show is Forbes Masson, and not just because of that name. He played a few comedic roles, first as Don, Edward’s high school nemesis and a blithering idiot who in a movie (a different movie) would be played by Randy Quaid, and then as Amos, the leader of the circus where young Edward works. He was flipping hilarious and it’s worth seeing the show just to laugh at his dumb jokes. The circus parts were more enjoyable because he was so ridiculously fun and honestly I will hold ‘The Greatest Showman’ and Hugh Jackman to a higher standard because of it.
A few things fell seriously flat. First of all, there was no mermaid. Edward makes a big deal about how he once met a mermaid, and they cut that scene. Sure he sees a girl in the hospital in a wheelchair and sees a flash of a mermaid tail on her, but if you blinked you missed it, and that doesn’t count. The other thing was that one of the ensemble girls playing one of his high school classmates held a box with a weird cat on it in all her scenes. In the programme she’s listed I shit you not as ‘girl with cat’. There is no reason for this. This was just a dumb sight gag that no one even realized was supposed to be funny, and I feel bad for the girl holding that dumb box. Whoever came to work the day that decision was approved was flying high like Mindy St. Claire.
But those are really the only bad things I can point to. The creators clearly worked really hard to improve this show, and although apparently this show requires a choice between family-based emotion and story-based spectacle, I think they made the right choice while still telling a complete tale. So overall, it was a lovely night at the theatre. Everyone in the audience seemed to be rooting for the show to succeed, and there was a bit of bawling at the end and not just on my part. However, this might be the one time where a piece is better on film than in the theatre. I know I can’t believe I said it but it has happened, and despite multiple attempts, the show really can’t match the movie. It’s a great time in the theatre, it really is, and it’s an enjoyable show and I recommend that you see it if you can, but the film is just better.
My eagerness to love the show back in 2013 may have been responsible for some of my enjoyment back then. It starred my favorite musical theatre actor, Norbert Leo Butz, so I was working as hard as I could while sitting in a seat in the dark to love it, and no one should have to work that hard to love a show. It was joyous but inconsistently, flawed and kind of flat a lot of the time. The music felt mostly uninspired, but a few songs were stellar. The book was a bit messy, but had enough good feeling and intention for the movie’s amazing story to make it okay. But most of all, Norbert put everything he had into his performance, so much energy and love and emotion, that that’s what you remembered and loved about the show. Norbert is so amazing, he blinds you from noticing anything lackluster or actually bad. So when the London revival/rehashing this fall announced that it would star Kelsey Grammer, I was extremely skeptical. How on earth could old Republican buffoon Kelsey Grammer do what Norbert in all his energy and youth did? How is he going to distract us from noticing that the show doesn’t live up to its potential and is kind of flat? Answer: He doesn’t – because the show is entirely redone and suits him better. John August, who wrote the movie and the book of the musical, clearly has been working hard on this. I missed Norbert’s energy (and voice) the whole time, but I think mayyyyybeeee it makes more sense this way. It’s not as much fun, and it’s a smaller, more delicately emotional show, but I think – I’m pretty sure – it’s hard to say because Norbert – that it’s a smarter, better done show now.
I knew to expect changes with this production, but I thought maybe it would be a few lines here or there, maybe new and better songs. But I almost gasped when the very first song of the show was “Fight the Dragons”, in which Edward Bloom (Grammer) sings to his young son about why he lives such a fantastic fantasy life. I remembered this one because it’s the best song from the show and I listen to it regularly. So I remembered that on Broadway it came in the middle of the show. In this new version, it OPENS the show! I realized then just how different this was going to be, and I was shocked and scared and I wanted to break my #1 rule and TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT but mostly I was intrigued. The new framing device was quickly evident: Instead of jumping back and forth between present day and past, showing Edward as a yoot as he embarks on all the fake-sounding adventures he tells his son about and having the same actor (Norbert) jump from old man to young teenager and in between Edward (he’s amazing) and do everything he could to sell it to you that he could be all these ages, Kelsey’s Edward just was the old man version. In his old, dying state, he shared his memories with the dream-ghost young version of his now-grown son, Will. So Kelsey would be like ‘oh hey little ghost boy version of my Will who now hates me, remember when I met that witch’ and then ANOTHER ACTOR played young Edward and met the witch and stuff. I know, serious changes, guys. But it is so much better because no one is going to believe Kelsey as an 18-year-old with a sparkle in his eye. His sparkle died long ago.
Despite my reluctance to admit that it worked to have a different actor play young Edward (or ‘Story Edward’ as they’re calling it), it was hard to stay mad at you bro because Story Edward was maybe the best performer on the stage. Jamie Muscato, who was great a few years ago in ‘Dogfight’ here at Southwark Playhouse (still one of the best productions of the hundos I’ve seen in London), sings wonderfully and charms as the young version of Edward, saving Kelsey from having to get up from his hospital bed. I was so worried that we’d have to listen to Kelsey’s passable but not fantastic singing voice for most of the score. Having people who could actually sing musically theatrey play important roles was a huge relief. I sound mean to Kelsey but he knows he is an actor who sings, not a singer who acts.
This same device of course was used for Sandra, Edward’s wife, as Edward’s courtship of her constitutes a big chunk of the flashback/memory/story plot. Present day Sandra was played by Clare Burt, who was nice and fine, and Story Sandra was the spunky ginger Laura Baldwin, who looked like she grew up taking musical theatre classes, very textbook proficiency and skill. Good job ginger spice. You’d think this would mean Laura got to shine with big songs and stuff, but for some reason they gave the slowest most boringest most unnecessary song to Old Sandra, and it was bo-rang. Sorry Clare. You’re good and stuff this just should have been cut. The relationship between Edward and Sandra as oldies is believable because we see their backstory, so the attempt to shore up their current feelings instead of showing us more of what their love is based on failed for me dawg.
The weirdest thing that worked for me in this production was that Josephine, grown-up Will’s fiancé who I think had one line in the original production and could have easily been cut, was my favorite. I think it was really because the actress, Frances McNamee (omg that is so the last name you give when you want to give a fake name and can’t think of shit), was so wonderful and made a fully realized character with what little she is given. I so bought every single one of her reactions and facial expressions. She clearly deserves much bigger and better parts and I would totally go see a show if I knew she was in it. It was like obviously good acting which is very exciting to see every so often instead of like ‘oh hey look I’m in a play’ acting. You don’t know what I mean.
As grown-up Will, Matthew Seadon-Young was pretty decent. It’s kind of a thankless role because you’re like, hey dude your dad seems really FUN and yeah he wasn’t really there for you growing up but like, he has good stories and your mom did a good job so like take a chill pill. And then he finds out how good a person his dad was, just to other people, and you’re like see I told you you should have taken that stick out of your bum. I said bum! Hashtag so british. Anyway so it’s a little thankless but he did a good job making us feel for his predicament (wanting to still resent his absent father even though he’s dying) despite our instinct to shout ‘just be niceeeee he hella old.’ And Kelsey is so winning and likable and such a good actor that it made it hard to agree with Will that he sucked.
So the family relationships and characters were pretty well done, which is why this production felt more based in emotion and not in the fun spectacle aspect of the movie. Both are important sides of the story to tell, and while Broadway sold the spectacle amazingly and some of the emotion, this production sold the family story and emotion and less so the spectacle. The spectacle, of course, being the crazy characters of Edward’s stories, the ones we don’t know whether to believe he actually knew. The giant, the witch, the mermaid, all the people in the circus he worked in. This is a difficult balance to achieve with this show, and I think that’s why no production has been able to really achieve it properly. Broadway leaned too heavily to one side; this one tried to make up for that but ended up overcompensating on the other side. The actors were all good – Landi Oshinowo (almost my name!) as the witch has a kickass voice erma erma, and Dean Nolan as the giant Karl was solid – but in the small space with no effects there’s really only so much you can leave to the imagination. And so the pendulum swung to the side of focusing on the family dynamics and stuck there. They made up for this in very clever ways, like having the witch’s costume and her forest made from hospital supplies – because that’s where Edward is recounting her tale – and I loved that, but it didn’t lead to that same level of impressive drama that you want. This was hardest for me in my favorite part from the Broadway show – when Norbert I mean Edward sings “Daffodils” as he proposes to Sandra. On Broadway, thousands of daffodils ‘grew’ from the stage and all around and it was pure magic. I remember gasping. Here, that couldn’t happen, and they made up for it by having lots of deliveries of daffodils to Edward’s hospital room happening. So, again, it was a clever choice and made it sweet, but I can’t say I didn’t miss the thrill of all those flowers growing out of a stage.
Honestly the best part of the show is Forbes Masson, and not just because of that name. He played a few comedic roles, first as Don, Edward’s high school nemesis and a blithering idiot who in a movie (a different movie) would be played by Randy Quaid, and then as Amos, the leader of the circus where young Edward works. He was flipping hilarious and it’s worth seeing the show just to laugh at his dumb jokes. The circus parts were more enjoyable because he was so ridiculously fun and honestly I will hold ‘The Greatest Showman’ and Hugh Jackman to a higher standard because of it.
A few things fell seriously flat. First of all, there was no mermaid. Edward makes a big deal about how he once met a mermaid, and they cut that scene. Sure he sees a girl in the hospital in a wheelchair and sees a flash of a mermaid tail on her, but if you blinked you missed it, and that doesn’t count. The other thing was that one of the ensemble girls playing one of his high school classmates held a box with a weird cat on it in all her scenes. In the programme she’s listed I shit you not as ‘girl with cat’. There is no reason for this. This was just a dumb sight gag that no one even realized was supposed to be funny, and I feel bad for the girl holding that dumb box. Whoever came to work the day that decision was approved was flying high like Mindy St. Claire.
But those are really the only bad things I can point to. The creators clearly worked really hard to improve this show, and although apparently this show requires a choice between family-based emotion and story-based spectacle, I think they made the right choice while still telling a complete tale. So overall, it was a lovely night at the theatre. Everyone in the audience seemed to be rooting for the show to succeed, and there was a bit of bawling at the end and not just on my part. However, this might be the one time where a piece is better on film than in the theatre. I know I can’t believe I said it but it has happened, and despite multiple attempts, the show really can’t match the movie. It’s a great time in the theatre, it really is, and it’s an enjoyable show and I recommend that you see it if you can, but the film is just better.
INFORMATION
The Other Palace, having been remodeled and rebranded by Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, looks mostly the same except for one very important change – the backstage bathrooms are now actually signed so people sitting in the front section know about them. It’s cool to go through this hallway where the racks of costumes are stationed but even cooler to have a human-sized bathroom with no lines! Watch for the ice cream seller at intermission though who for some reason has to position his cart right in front of that door to the hallway eye roll eye roll eye roll.
STAGE DOOR
At this theatre, the actors just come out through the lobby so yay you can wait inside! It’s a little awkward because without fail, every time I’ve seen a show here, the actor’s friends or family members are waiting with you and you’re like oh I just want to be weird, sorry. But they’re usually all nice and everyone was happy to sign or take pictures. Kelsey did not come out though, which is dumb not because I care but because the staff made everyone waiting make a single file line for him, and I was like ‘but I just want the others’ and they were like ‘tough’ and then he didn’t even come out and we were in a line for no reason.
The Haystack at the Hampstead Theatre: What Modern Theatre Wants to Be
If you still take your iPhone into the bathroom with you, then this is the show for you! Man alive you won’t be doing that shit anymore. The Haystack is the fantastic new play that all modern theatre wants to be. It’s fascinating, provocative, gripping, and best of all completely original. Nearly every minute of this show felt warranted and every plot twist had me simultaneously gasping (quietly) in surprise and smiling at how well done it was. I have been waiting for a new play (or a revival, I mean see my last theatre review) that was this close to being flawless.
The Haystack is not, as I originally guessed just when I heard the title, a farm show that’s sort of like Oklahoma! but without music. Instead, it’s a thrilling look at modern society and how our government watches all of us, for ‘good reason’, so they say. Told in flashback after what seems like it’s going to be for sure a tragedy, the story centers on the work of Neil (Oliver Johnstone, I mean, so good) and Zef (Enyi Okoronkwo, airtight performance) at the GCHQ, which is like the UK version of the NSA. It’s the government agency where they spy on you, pretty much, with technology that is mind-boggling. Neil and Zef are best friends, video game aficionados, and incredible spygame wizards (hackers? Are they hackers? I mean probably also?). When the two get assigned a particularly important case that falls under the terrorism unit’s purview, everything changes, and not in the fun ‘last song of Waitress’ kind of way. The subject of their surveillance, a young journalist named Cora (excellent Rona Morison), captures Neil’s attention, and then he starts to Adam-Sandler-in-Uncut-Gems it up real hard (i.e. make bad decisions).
The play depicts a huge issue – government’s alarming incursions into civilians’ privacy – while telling an interpersonal story about how the larger actions of the government agencies controlling our society play out on the small scale. As someone who remembers when the USA passed the Patriot Act (super typical America to call something so insidious such a delightful name), I appreciated how they used this fictional tale to remind us that we should be horrified at what rights to privacy we have given up without a fight, in a way that worked without being overbearing.
What’s great about this show is that, with Neil’s central performance, you know he’s doing bad things but you understand why, and I can’t really fault his reasoning for first going down this path (for continuing it, sure, lots of bad moves, but the initial part, I probably would have done the same). By establishing that empathy with him, you feel the anguish of his conflict, and his stress, my god the stress. Johnstone’s Neil is a guy we all know and like and root for, and he handles the weight of this role wonderfully, as does Morison’s Cora, fully fleshed out like an actual real person, with flaws and heart and vulnerability. The rest of the small cast is equally strong and believable.
I was impressed with how thrilling the first act was that I even said “even if the second half of this is the second act of Oslo it’ll still be overall a good evening.” But that second act, and its two twists in particular (I seriously would never have guessed), is brilliant and harrowingly formed. That line about how if we turned off our devices, the agencies tracking us would be blind made me want to go build a cabin in the middle of nowhere and just live off the land, which if you know me is a huge feat (and probably a mistake). This show will stick with me for a while. Also, it’s all well researched. My date has a masters in computer security and worked at similar agencies I shall not name, AND knows all the gaming references they make in the show, to things like godcodes and other things that I don’t know about because I went outside as a teen. Aside from a few things that he found out were simply UK vs. USA differences, the content was pretty much unassailable.
The look of this show holds its own with this text. With impeccable direction by Roxana Silbert (female directors do exist, hallelujer!) and captivating movement from Wayne Parsons (the shrewd blocking was one of my favorite aspects), the show visually impresses despite a minimal set. The projections, of all the various tracking and video captures, are also well done, and Ivo could learn a few things in When Projections are a Good Idea.
The only thing that makes me mad (besides government corruption and control) is that the playwright, Al Blyth, is making his professional full-length debut with this. His first full play and it’s this good. What an asshole.
Okay now that you’re finished reading it, let’s all go destroy our smartphones (you first).
INFORMATION
With about a 19:33 start, the first act finished at 20:47 (I was so captivated I didn’t even notice I went past my bladder time limit so that’s really quite something). After a 20 minute interval, Act II finished at 22:19.
THE HAMPSTEAD THEATRE BAR SELLS VEGAN SAUSAGE ROLLS AND THEY ARE REALLY GOOD! They also have vegan focaccia. WIN.
My seat J1 was absolutely perfect – you want to be house left/stage right to be nearest Door 1 which is right next to the bathrooms, and rows around G-K are closest to the door. Also this particular seat doesn’t have one behind it so you don’t get anyone kicking your chair.
This audience was faaaairly okay. Someone only set their phone to vibrate and they didn’t hear when it rang but we did, of course. VIBRATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
