|
|
Post by matty on May 16, 2023 6:56:41 GMT
Saw this last night and really enjoyed myself, although was dismayed when the 130mins (incl interval) running time listed on the SP website turned out to be false. We started about 5 mins late and I left the theatre at just before 10.20pm - I think it should finish usually about 10.05 according to the sign I saw.
That aside, loved the songs, cast was great - I'm not sure what the gender swapped casting added, but I didn't hate it.
I would love to see this done in a bigger theatre with a bigger cast - while it was great, you can tell that those songs are dying to done even bigger.
|
|
1,477 posts
|
Post by Steve on May 16, 2023 8:27:49 GMT
Not once in the 35 years of knowing How to Succeed, did I ever think it sounded like Superstar. Even listening to it above, I still don't hear it, probably because the time signatures are different. I think ALW's "JCS" is an improvement on "Rosemary," whether or not one song influenced the other.  This is ridiculous. They sound nothing alike
I was referring to the motif, not the whole song.
In Tim Rice's autobiography, "Oh What a Circus," he refers to the similarity.
In his review of Rice's autobiography for "The Independent," David Benedict writes of Rice: "his equivocal depiction of his erstwhile writing partner is a quietly lethal cross between assessment and assassination. Beneath the praise he justifiably heaps upon Lloyd Webber, there's a faint beat of resentment. We are told at least three times that life is tougher for lyricists who cannot recycle their words, whereas composers regularly disinter dead tunes. He ensures we learn about previous appearances of the music of the title song in Sunset Boulevard, and drops in references to Lloyd Webber's alleged borrowings - from the slow movement of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto reappearing as "I Don't Know How to Love Him", to the central phrase of "Rosemary" from Frank Loesser's How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying triumphing as the basic chords of "Jesus Christ Superstar".
|
|
253 posts
|
Post by frankubelik on May 16, 2023 9:06:59 GMT
Back to the production! A favourite "Musical Comedy" from the Golden Age which I found to be well sung (but quite why they are miked in this venue is baffling), played by the band and was overall enjoyable. The gender switching is unnecessary, does not work and with some strange directorial choices some performers are battling with the style. Not a fan of Ms Bennett who resorts to her standard gurning, is spectacularly unfunny and I wonder why she would accept such a role. Also the leading performer simply lacks the charm, charisma (and previously mentioned) style for this in my opinion. There was a terrific production at Chichester in 2005 (with Joe McFadden) which was pitch perfect and even the Jonathan Groff concert at RFH got much of it right. Maybe some issues will be ironed out during the previews.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbievanhusen on May 16, 2023 9:20:47 GMT
The motif of just 3 notes? Seeing as the same song, Rosemary, has big chunks of Grieg's Concerto in A Minor in it, it just comes off as a cheap dig at ALW.
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on May 16, 2023 10:41:54 GMT
Saw this last night and really enjoyed myself, although was dismayed when the 130mins (incl interval) running time listed on the SP website turned out to be false. We started about 5 mins late and I left the theatre at just before 10.20pm - I think it should finish usually about 10.05 according to the sign I saw. That aside, loved the songs, cast was great - I'm not sure what the gender swapped casting added, but I didn't hate it. I would love to see this done in a bigger theatre with a bigger cast - while it was great, you can tell that those songs are dying to done even bigger. I was there last night as well. Bolted at the interval but husband stayed for Act 2 which he said was slightly better than Act One, but not much. I thought it was badly cast, amateurish and mis-directed. Tracy Bennett must have lost a huge bet to be tied up in this mess. H2$ is a period piece that doesn't work at all unless it remains in the time, place and style for which it was intended OR has a brilliant director/concept that can take it to new places. The most recent Broadway revival, which stayed true to the classic vibe of the show, was thrilling. This production was the opposite and dull as hell. That said, I am glad others have found something to enjoy in it. |
|
|
|
Post by adamkinsey on May 16, 2023 11:23:45 GMT
Sorry, but no. I wanted to leave at the interval but sat it out and sort of regretted staying. Some good singing and a nice band but felt like a university rag week show and not a professional piece of musical theatre. I've seen far better amateur productions and ones with bigger budgets too. This looked cheap and basic. I'm afraid as I didn't enjoy Anyone Can Whistle (bar Alex) I think I need to add Georgie to my "Directors To Avoid" list. Jamie Lloyd is on said list too.
|
|
148 posts
|
Post by FJ on May 16, 2023 15:22:47 GMT
I’ve got a spare row A ticket for this Thursday evening (18/05) if anyone wants it.
Bought 2 tickets with my PAYG credits and my friend can’t go now so free if anyone wants the spare.
|
|
|
|
Post by capybara on May 17, 2023 11:05:28 GMT
Is this more or less mental than Anyone Can Whistle? That production was borderline but Alex Young carried it and was worth the entrance fee alone.
I’m more nervous about this because I’m genuinely intrigued to see this classic musical but I am not convinced this version of it is the greatest representation.
Reviews have been fairly mixed so far, it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by winonaforever on May 17, 2023 18:36:38 GMT
I was at the Saturday matinee. That's the last time I'll EVER book for a show without first finding out who is in the cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 18, 2023 7:21:26 GMT
Well we enjoyed it.
For once the blind (is that the right term here with so much variety) was never a distraction and probably part of the 'modernisation ' or softening of the misanthropy of the original. After all, if the old man who exploits his position to employ a much younger girlfriend is comically played by a woman, it's somehow less creepy.
Enjoyed (nearly)all the cast but Ainee Aitken had a spectacular voice when given the chance.
Re Orchestrations worked, good band. But I missed the original for "A secretary..." Worth checking out.
Have never really liked HTSIB. They also tried to soften Pierpoints sheer narcissism and it left the actor in no man's land. Would like someone to revive where's Charlie or Greenwillow, amazing to think Loesser may be remembered as a One hit wonder.
Fun evening out, but the piece is not suited to todays thinking. Needs to be revived as a period piece in 100 years - "Come and see what life in offices was really like".
Last night probably 2/3 full. There's a lot of mouths to feed...
|
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on May 18, 2023 7:55:02 GMT
Would like someone to revive where's Charlie or Greenwillow, amazing to think Loesser may be remembered as a One hit wonder. I always forget he wrote musicals at all to be honest — my instant association is with his one-off songs (Heart and Soul, Baby It's Cold Outside, Two Sleepy People etc). Oh, and Hans Christian Andersen. |
|
1,741 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by FrontroverPaul on May 18, 2023 9:59:02 GMT
I Just don't understand the thinking behind the gender swap which for me just seemed weird and didn't work !
|
|
184 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on May 18, 2023 13:51:19 GMT
I saw this production earlier this week and enjoyed it, although admittedly I thought that Act One dragged a little, but that's down to the book and to a plot whereby - as Steve pointed out above - the protagonist is not actually challenged, and even when something resembling a hurdle comes up, they get over it with stroke of luck after stroke of luck.
I saw another production of HTSIBWRT years ago, but I'm certainly not familiar with (or even fond of) the material as some here are, so perhaps I went in with no specific expectations and I was just happy to be lightly entertained, and I felt that the show delivered precisely that.
The cast is indeed very young, with the obvious exception of Tracie Bennett, but that did not bother me at all, as they're all competent singers/dancers/actors. Some performances actually stood out for me, especially Allie Daniel inhabited Rosemary in a very earnest and heartfelt way, which is not the easiest thing to do when your role is written pretty much as a stereotype and has barely any arc. All in all, however, this production sat around the 3.5/5 stars for me.
I didn't think that there was necessarily a major "design" behind the choice of gender-swapping the casting for some of the roles, just as there often isn't one when an actress is cast in a traditionally male-cast Shakespeare role. It's curious to see how much more of a "strong" reaction this choice elicits in this context, where with Shakespearean revivals it's often welcome as a breath of fresh air offering some new approach, etc. At the same time, I don't think it was just a "gimmick". I'm not sure that all the swaps worked equally well, as I was not always convinced by Gabrielle Friedman's Finch, but in general I thought it was just a beautiful way of honouring the fact that in 2023, in contrast to 1961 when HTSIBWRT was first staged, there's a pool of performers to choose amongst who can give more of a voice and representation to the whole LGBTQIA+ community.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 18, 2023 14:51:56 GMT
Representation does matter. But it is better to be represented in work that is true to the communities you are seeking to represent rather than trying to change scripts/scores just to be representative.
Gender switching in Shakespeare only works when the intentions are followed through completely with respect to the social structures and language of the original.
For example, changing Brutus to a female character only works if you change or cut the language that repeatedly calls Brutus 'an honourable man'. As the RSC recently found, failing to deal with this contributes to a failed production.
I don't want to see any community inserted into someone else's story. Be authentic and let them tell their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by theatre22 on May 18, 2023 17:39:09 GMT
Just received an email saying tonight’s show has been cancelled due to a cast injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by thistimetomorrow on May 18, 2023 20:07:20 GMT
I really liked their production of Anyone Can Whistle so had high hopes for this, but unfortunately just didn't really enjoy it that much. I thought some of the score sounded awkward to sing with the key changes/gender swaps and Gabrielle's Finch was just quite boring for me. I did really like Annie Aitken's Heddy and generally enjoyed Allie Daniel's Rosemary too though.
|
|
70 posts
|
Post by TheOneOnTheLeft on May 20, 2023 17:54:39 GMT
At today’s matinee director Georgie Rankcom played Rosemary, stepping in for Allie Daniel (with this they did a decent job, considering they are not a performer).
The whole production is a mess, though. I am all for new concepts and “reimagining”, if you want to call it that way, but all involved have to be at the top of their craft which I think is not the case here. (This goes from direction to design to choreography to the cast itself, with some exceptions, notably Annie Aitken.)
Having seen great performances there in the past, I have to say that I am more often disappointed at the Southwark Playhouse these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 26, 2023 0:06:09 GMT
The reviews and awards for this seem to list Bennett and Daniel as the standouts - but for me it was Annie Aitken who stood out head and shoulders above everyone else. Great acting and vocals.
I found this particular production to be cheap-looking and dull. I don't think the gender-blind casting really made the statement it seemed to be trying to, and a lot of the time, when I heard a line or a song I'd think "Ok, but that would probably land better in the original versions..."
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on May 30, 2023 22:54:58 GMT
This is two stars but only just, I was close to giving it 1 star which I don't actually think I've ever done before.
Every single person is miscast. Not a single genderblind choice works I'm afraid. Tracie Bennett being called Sir and Mr whatever was absurd.
It just feels to me like they got two weeks into rehearsals, realised what they were doing was absolutely bananas and didn't work, but carried on.
It got pulled to 2 stars by the band and it's varied members, and the voices in a couple of the big production numbers.
Otherwise this is a totally unintelligent mess.
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jun 4, 2023 7:35:42 GMT
Well, it was fun to hear where the theme for JCS comes from...but this musical has not aged well, and the score is average. If the book was darker or a total satire, then I could see the point to it.
The gender casting was fine but not insightful. Perhaps a total reversal of all roles would have worked better ?
I liked Gabriel Friedman, the neon ladder and the band. However this is not a piece I will listen to or want to see again.
|
|
1,470 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 4, 2023 7:48:19 GMT
I am fond of the film, and very much enjoyed the 2011 Broadway revival of this musical with Daniel Radcliffe. Sadly, this latest interpretation has sucked out all of the joy and comedy.
The show is meant to be populated by stereotypes -- the tyrannical, uncaring boss, the roguish but lovable chancer climbing up the ladder, the ditsy, wannabe girlfriend, the villainous colleague -- but by subverting types and apparent genders, there is nothing left to recognise and laugh at.
The costumes could not settle on period either, some being evocative of 50s, some 60s and some 70s. Wigs/hairstyles were period for half the cast and 2023 (i.e. actors' own) for the rest, which made little sense.
Of the performances, only Allie Daniel stood out for a sublime singing voice, but was nevertheless unconvincing as Rosemary.
I'm afraid I can only concur with those who have said this affair is a complete mess, and not an enjoyable one at that.
Two stars.
Act 1: 15:04-16:28
Act 2: 16:48-17:41
|
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Jun 4, 2023 9:39:19 GMT
I was a bit on the fence about booking this one; and with the reviews on here - quite glad I haven't. Thanks TB'ERS for all your posts - really insightful!
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on Jun 4, 2023 10:29:38 GMT
The show is meant to be populated by stereotypes -- the tyrannical, uncaring boss, the roguish but lovable chancer climbing up the ladder, the ditsy, wannabe girlfriend, the villainous colleague -- but by subverting types and apparent genders, there is nothing left to recognise and laugh at. I totally agree. That was exactly how I felt but couldn't quite come up with the proper words. |
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Jun 4, 2023 13:29:43 GMT
I did see the 2011 Broadway revival and ultimately that is the kind of interpretation I preferred. However, I actually really enjoyed this quirky LGBT gender bending type take on the show. I think the problem for me wasn’t the concept it’s the execution. I really think they could have made it funnier by swapping some of the cast or the Director getting more out of some of the current cast. The lead actress in particular - amazing voice, no charisma very little humour. A rare example of a production I’d prefer to listen to a cast recording of than see.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Jun 4, 2023 13:30:13 GMT
The show is meant to be populated by stereotypes -- the tyrannical, uncaring boss, the roguish but lovable chancer climbing up the ladder, the ditsy, wannabe girlfriend, the villainous colleague -- but by subverting types and apparent genders, there is nothing left to recognise and laugh at. I totally agree. That was exactly how I felt but couldn't quite come up with the proper words. Same here. It would be fine as a student production experimenting with gender as part of a thesis. As a piece of fully-realised musical theatre? Just didn't really land. Also, have to say, it was cast VERY young which we're seeing a lot in musicals nowadays. There are so many wonderful seasoned actors who are still age-appropriate for leading roles out there. |
|
