The Third Man - Menier

[alece10]

Jun 20, 2023 16:00:09 GMT Someone in a tree said:

looking at the reviews for this, the MCF are sadly channelling Paradise Found.

I haven't seen Third Man but I struggle to see the logic in programming it at this time. Couldn't we have had a crowd pleaser? Hello Dolly, Pal Joey and Witches of Eastwick are all crying out to be staged.

They wouldn't be able to get the rights for Hello Dolly as it is pencilled in for next year with Imelda Staunton after she has finished filming The Crown. It unfortunately got cancelled due to covid.

[Someone in a tree]

Is Imelda's gunning Dolly still happening? I was hoping it got quietly shelved.

[shownut]

Jun 20, 2023 19:54:53 GMT Someone in a tree said:

Is Imelda's gunning Dolly still happening? I was hoping it got quietly shelved.

Palladium. Summer 2024.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[mrbarnaby]

Jun 20, 2023 19:54:53 GMT Someone in a tree said:

Is Imelda's gunning Dolly still happening? I was hoping it got quietly shelved.

Yes as the poster above said- it’s the summer musical at the palladium

[Steve]

Saw this tonight, and agree with much of what has been said above: a shaggy dog story, gussied up by a masterful filmmaker into art, feels a little boring when stripped of the cinematics.

However, there were things I loved: the opening number, utilising the whole ensemble; the atmospherically murky design; and the lead, Sam Underwood, carrying the story effortlessly and emotively.

Some spoilers follow. . .

This is essentially a shaggy dog story, made into something brilliant by Carol Reed in the film: by shooting on the streets of actually divided and destroyed postwar Vienna; by his further fetishistic division of that space into dark and suggestively mysterious shots; by the everpresent Anton Karas zither theme that slyly celebrates and simultaneously critiques a merry-go-round of deep corruption, that climaxes in well known musical themes, but which is much more fully formed than those mere musical highlights; and by Orson Welles's charismatic, dastardly and preciously brief appearance.

This shaggy dog story, of one man questioning one person after the other after the other after the other after the other, is essentially boring, and what elevates that story in the film can't be replicated on stage.

There are some things that really worked for me tonight:-

(1) The opening number, utilising the entire ensemble singing and dancing, felt very Fiddler on the Roof shtetl, beautifully suggesting the desperation and searching of a population who survived a war;

(2) Sam Underwood rocks as a musical theatre actor, carrying the book emotively, and excelling in singing as well. God help this show without him making all the questioning of one person after another seem interesting lol;

(3) There is a "Cabaret"-like emphasis imposed on the piece, with out-of-towner, Underwood, falling for invidualistic morally-compromised nightclub singer, Natalie Dunne. This works best, when the lights go down and she sings commandingly, like Sally Bowles.

Unfortunately, the writers of this musical are too slavish to the film to allow the more buttoned up chanteuse of the film to get fully naked emotionally on stage, the way Bowles unleashes her every inner demon. That would have distinguished the musical from the film in a theatrical way the film could never have aspired to, and would have excited the audience, but unfortunately, this aspect is only partially realised, and all too soon we are simply questioning another witness in shaggy dog style.

Overall, there was enough I liked for me to rate this 3 stars.

PS: I also missed the cat from the film lol!

[robertb213]

Do you think audiences are more likely to enjoy this if they haven't seen the film to compare it to? I have a show slot and need to fill it with something and I've never seen this film, so wondered if there's potential to enjoy it more if you're going in blind?

[Steve]

Jun 28, 2023 10:43:35 GMT robertb213 said:

Do you think audiences are more likely to enjoy this if they haven't seen the film to compare it to? I have a show slot and need to fill it with something and I've never seen this film, so wondered if there's potential to enjoy it more if you're going in blind?

I think it's a wash.

Those who've seen it may enjoy the nostalgia of revisiting the film, but will likely end up disappointed that the musical doesn't add much.

Those who haven't seen it may experience an enjoyable extra twist or two (I haven't revealed any twists in my review), but the shaggy dog nature of most of the story may still bore them a bit, given that they won't experience what makes the film work.

[Dawnstar]

Steve What is this "shaggy dog" that you keep referring to? I've never come across that phrase as a metaphor before.

[keyspi]

Jun 28, 2023 16:34:41 GMT Dawnstar said:

Steve What is this "shaggy dog" that you keep referring to? I've never come across that phrase as a metaphor before.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story

[Steve]

Jun 28, 2023 16:34:41 GMT Dawnstar said:

Steve What is this "shaggy dog" that you keep referring to? I've never come across that phrase as a metaphor before.

Literally, a shaggy dog story is where you want some information from someone, and they, amusingly and deliberately, keep delaying giving you that information by extending and extending and extending the middle part of the story.

Maybe the wikipedia story explains why it's called a shaggy dog story lol. I've seen it done in stand-up getting major laughs by testing the audience's patience to the point of fury by just constantly padding the middle of the story some more, refusing to ever get to the point.

Some spoilers follow. . .

For me, this is like a shaggy dog story, without the benefit of being funny: the A storyline is that the lead character wants to know what happened to his friend, Harry Lime, and he then approaches one character after another for the answer, each pointing him to the next person to ask. It's as if the storyteller, to fill the running time, just keeps adding people in the middle of the story to pad it out.

The real A storyline is in the periphery, the small details in each interaction that build up a picture of a corrupt and dangerous world, and doing that before the audience's patience runs out.

And luckily, there is a B storyline as well, offering the lead character a potential for romance. . .

[TallPaul]

I'm far too young, obvs, but those of a certain age will remember that Ronnie Corbett, sitting in an armchair, usually wearing a stylish Lyle & Scott sweater, was a master at telling a shaggy dog story.

[Dawnstar]

Thanks for the explanation.

[joem]

Having read the posts here on the Chocolate Menier's latest offering I went zither with trepidation and ended up.... relieved. Certainly no-one can accuse this of being a masterpiece but it is no better and no worse than many other musicals I have watched over the years.

On the plus side: the stage is nicely done, evocative but neutral enough to suggest most of the crucial arenas. It is an atmospheric piece and the first song sets the scene and ambience and period very well (unfortunately there are few musical highlights after that). The singing is good if not spectacular and the musicians do their work effectively too.

Minus side. The songs aren't strong enough, at times it feels like a play with music. Too much jaw-jaw and, as tends to happen in musicals, this is of a flat informative nature, which is fine when it's between great songs but less so when it bridges nondescript music. Sightlines are terrible in certain seats, despite not having been warned on booking there are severe restrictions on some of the side seats. Why on Earth is Harry Lime given an English accent?

I noticed that at one point the film music was quoted for a few notes - there was a recurring motif which referenced but didn't copy it - and wondered if this was a copyright issue?

Sam Underwood as Holly Martins carries the show, in narrative terms, and did well. Natalie Dunne was good as Anna Schmidt but (I felt) a bit within herself. Simon Bailey as Orson Welles, sorry I meant Harry Lime, is flashy and extroverted (he actually has a passing resemblance to the Artemus Gordon character from tv's "The Wild Wild West". The ensemble work well together.

I was expecting a 1/5 and got a 2.5/5 but there were empty spaces - perhaps 10 to 15% - and not sure this augurs well. Has to be said the audience were supportive and appreciative.

[dlevi]

Well I made it through the first half but just barely. This was as sad a theatrical experience as I've had in recent years. This has a terrific creative team and all of them failed. It simply shouldn't have been produced. Trevor's direction is leaden. There were musical numbers ( not a lot in the first place) where there was a place for applause but no one did. ( we're not talking Sondhiem's Passion here) I don't blame the performers because they had nothing with which to play. Just awful and there were 82 people in the audience ( I had time to count) - this is supposed to r un through the 9th of September. I doubt they'll even get to the end of July at this rate.

[bee]

Musicals aren't really my thing - I've seen a few, and enjoyed them, but somehow never got bitten by the bug. But in an effort to broaden my horizons a bit I though I'd try this since the movie is so great.

Anyway, in short, I liked this. For such a small scale production they did a fine job of recreating the atmosphere of the movie and even made a decent fist of some of the iconic scenes like the Prater Wheel and especially Harry's first appearance.

Regarding the songs/music, I thought it was fine, though none of the songs really stuck in my head, and as noted by other posters, some of the rhymes were a bit clunky. The quality of the singing was good, with Natalie Dunne in particular having a great voice.

In summary, a decent night out.

[colelarson]

Just in case anyone hasn't received a message...I have just been informed due to illness the show has been cancelled. I was due to see the Matinee so don't know if evening also cancelled?

[colelarson]

Finally saw this after the cancellation last time. Positives are the staging, harmonies and atmosphere. Also nice interval ice cream!

The showtunes are just not memorable,funny with some of the lyrics and the rhyming dictionary being used like Harry Lime and Slime!

Glad I saw it, but think a play would be better than a musical. Kudos to the cast there is a plethora of talent and interesting to see the Menier look different to my last visits for concerts there.

[mkb]

At Friday night's performance, the house was only two-thirds full, and there seemed to be many thespians in the audience who all ovated enthusiastically at the end. I could put a name to Jamie Bogyo, but others also looked familiar.

The empty seats were not deserved because The Third Man is a thoroughly enjoyable musical; act 1 is quite marvellous in fact, conjuring up a cinematic mood of noir and post-war underground superbly. The set, music, movement, performances and direction all blend magnificently to achieve that effect.

And then we peak. The denouement comes at the end of act 1, and the shorter act 2 has little to do. The fault is the writer's -- and I think I had the same feeling when I watched the movie, but that was some while ago so I may be wrong -- and I don't know how you solve that. (The careless inclusion of one character in the programmes' cast list rather gives the game away to anyone not familiar with the story.)

Sam Underwood is on good form as the hapless American out of his depth in Vienna, but Simon Bailey is too busy trying to ape Orson Welles from the movie for my liking.

I am at a loss to understand why this show has taken such a critical mauling. (Nunn seems to be like Lloyd Webber, and in everyone's target crosshairs right now, whether deserved or not.) The running time suggests it might have been tightened up by ten minutes during the run, now ended, so possibly it improved? Either way, it was a solid evening of entertainment for me, despite dipping a little after the break.

Four stars.

Act 1: 19:32-20:46
Act 2: 21:02-21:51

[Fleance]

Sept 12, 2023 13:20:41 GMT mkb said:

At Friday night's performance, the house was only two-thirds full, and there seemed to be many thespians in the audience who all ovated enthusiastically at the end. I could put a name to Jamie Bogyo, but others also looked familiar.

The empty seats were not deserved because The Third Man is a thoroughly enjoyable musical; act 1 is quite marvellous in fact, conjuring up a cinematic mood of noir and post-war underground superbly. The set, music, movement, performances and direction all blend magnificently to achieve that effect.

And then we peak. The denouement comes at the end of act 1, and the shorter act 2 has little to do. The fault is the writer's -- and I think I had the same feeling when I watched the movie, but that was some while ago so I may be wrong -- and I don't know how you solve that. (The careless inclusion of one character in the programmes' cast list rather gives the game away to anyone not familiar with the story.)

Sam Underwood is on good form as the hapless American out of his depth in Vienna, but Simon Bailey is too busy trying to ape Orson Welles from the movie for my liking.

I am at a loss to understand why this show has taken such a critical mauling. (Nunn seems to be like Lloyd Webber, and in everyone's target crosshairs, right now, whether deserved or not.) The running time suggests it might have been tightened up by ten minutes during the run, now ended, so possibly it improved? Either way, it was a solid evening of entertainment for me, despite dipping a little after the break.

Four stars.

Act 1: 19:32-20:46
Act 2: 21:02-21:51

I agree with you. The reviews were unnecessarily cruel. It's a decent, enjoyable show. I think the sanctity of the film clouded critics' judgment.