1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 7, 2017 22:57:27 GMT
Thank you to the Theatre Board! I won the prize last month of two tickets for this show. I also bought two tickets so a group of four of us went to see this tonight (two of whom had never been to the Southwark before, so I feel I'm spreading the news.) I really enjoyed it. There was a technical hitch which gave us an extra interval, but it wasn't a problem. This was a fantastically sung show. Will write more about it tomorrow!
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 8, 2017 10:37:42 GMT
This was a really well cast and staged show, full of interesting touches (the moment when the sex workers are looking at the wallet one got from a client and come upon an unexpected photograph, for example.) The band sounded great and the singing was fantastic.
Other positives: Standouts were Sharon D. Clarke (of course) and Cornell S. John (who was new to me, but was so ominous - at one point when he entered one of my friends and I both gasped.) Another character makes a surprising switch and I truly was surprised - I had thought the narrative was going one way, but then it went an entirely different way, which I liked. The characters, even the smallest roles, are well-individualised and there were some great costumes.
Negatives: About 2/3's of the way through the first act, there was a technical glitch and they had to bring the show to a halt. Everyone was ushered to the bar for an additional interval. Then about 20 minutes later there was a shortened real interval which did add to what, as others have mentioned, is already a pretty long evening. I wasn't bored for a second, but I know one of friends fell asleep on the train home, so perhaps it was a bit long. Given the grimness of the subject matter, sometimes the jaunty music and occasionally clunky lyrics jarred - at one point the audience was clapping right after something awful has happened which felt odd. The dancing was so energetic it looked like a woman in the front row almost got kicked in the face, she was flustered and laughing for a bit afterwards. Two performers have to do a dance in bathrobes. No one should be asked to do that. Ever.
My husband liked it but he had two concerns: 'Where is it's moral centre?' and 'Would it have been better if it hadn't been about sex workers?' (Hmmm....so really, it would just be a totally different piece.) The two of us in the group who had lived in NYC for a while liked it better than the two who hadn't - we both thought one of the male dancers was exactly like guys we'd see downtown (Matthew Caputo who wore red a lot - also a really good and committed dancer.)
So I would recommend, it's a good 4* from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 11:46:13 GMT
Have just seen that this has 7 producers. Any idea why so many?
|
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Apr 8, 2017 17:30:18 GMT
No, no idea why there are so many (there are three producers and four co-producers) - perhaps a sign of hoping that it has a future life? Some are very experienced (Catherine Schrieber brought Scottsboro Boys to London. That first played in a small venue and then the West End, so possibly thinking the same for this?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 18:02:34 GMT
This is based on Blakemore's New York production isn't it? Possibly some of the producers relate to that?
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Apr 11, 2017 21:10:29 GMT
Have just seen that this has 7 producers. Any idea why so many? Try reading An American In Paris's programme. There are 2 pages of producers! I didn't count up but there must be at least 30 listed. I have never seen even half as many listed for any other production before. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 22:39:10 GMT
Have just seen that this has 7 producers. Any idea why so many? Try reading An American In Paris's programme. There are 2 pages of producers! I didn't count up but there must be at least 30 listed. I have never seen even half as many listed for any other production before. Broadway shows tend to have more 'money' producers - I think Kinky Boots has about 30. But this is Southwark?! |
|
155 posts
|
Post by synchrony on Apr 11, 2017 22:42:21 GMT
Just saw this. Not sure what I can add that's new, I agree with many of the other comments.
I really liked Mary and thought she and Memphis were well cast.
Sharon D Clarke stole the show, I couldn't keep my eyes off her and LOVED The Oldest Profession.
Too long. I'd have cut the pointless gambling number for a start.
I hadn't read this thread before going in, but also spent a lot of time thinking 'hey, this number sounds very like' I won't send roses'! (which also sounds like 'the colours of my life').
Glad I saw it with such a good cast and enjoyed the score, but the book didn't thrill me so wouldn't rush back. Lots I liked but found it up and down.
|
|
571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Apr 12, 2017 16:11:59 GMT
Have just seen that this has 7 producers. Any idea why so many? It's all about money. Anyone who throws 30k in can call themselves a producer. It's the split cost of the production. |
|
4,778 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Apr 17, 2017 9:00:05 GMT
I saw the Saturday matinee, and I thought it was a good show, with a score that worked very well.
Highlight for me was Joanna Woodward as Mary. She was just so natural and had "it"... whatever "it" is. She's definitely one to watch! Of course Sharon D Clarke was fantastic... she had a look that was so unforced and genuine, and I always adore her voice.
Worth seeing!
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Apr 18, 2017 17:44:46 GMT
Cancelled tonight due to cast illness - planning to be back tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 12:24:02 GMT
Tonight's performance is going ahead.
Really enjoyed this at the weekend. Only annoyance was a 3PM start for a 3 hour show made it difficult to plan a show for the evening.
|
|
204 posts
|
Post by argon on Apr 19, 2017 23:22:55 GMT
Some very impressive vocal performances SD Clarke and Cornell S John ( both have great vocal control). The music & lyrics work well together but by then Cy Coleman was a seasoned pro. An enjoyable production considering the space constrictions and cast size. Considering the dross that's been milling around lately just the tonic that was needed to right the imbalance. The Girls next but I fear the green Barlow will be in Cy's shadow on the musical level.
|
|
91 posts
|
Post by gazzaw13 on Apr 24, 2017 8:05:36 GMT
Saw this on Saturday afternoon ad was blown away by the amazing performances. Yes it's 20 minutes too long but Sharon and Cornell are excellent as always - the first time I'd seen Joanna Woodward who played Mary to perfection. Highly recommended
|
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Apr 25, 2017 17:32:57 GMT
Attended today's matinee. Very strange show!
Uneven, confused tone and overly long, but nonetheless ultimately enjoyable. The show deals with a very serious subject matter, but it's very unsure of what it is actually trying to be. "Guys and Dolls" meets "Sweet Charity"? Yes, but those shows both have a much clearer identity as musicals in terms of tone and content. Part of this musical wants to be taken seriously - evidenced in the engaging, dramatic finale - but so much of it is frankly ridiculous it's hard to feel any pathos in the piece.
Solid performances. Sharon D. Clarke plays Sharon D. Clarke with aplomb. Always exactly the same, always great at what she does. In great voice as ever. The standard gospel belting, finger wagging and head wobbling in full force. John Addison I've seen in loads of stuff over the years and he's always a very solid hand. He's suitably smarmy in this. T'Shan Williams as Queenie (not the Blackadder one) who has fantastically comical hair, but struggles vocally a little in places. Very easy on the eye though (despite having a fully grown black poodle growing out her head). Also nice on the eyes is Joanna Woodward as Mary, who is one of the few characters to actually have a "journey". We get to see her semi-nude too which was an unexpected bouncy bonus. Cornell John is imposing and sinister as gangster pimp don Memphis. Weird singing technique, lovely sound though! Much better in this than his Javert back in 2005, where he was over-exposed opposite much better singers. It's very much an ensemble piece and the (small) cast is solid enough throughout.
Two major things struck me; firstly, this production felt cheap, cheap, CHEAP. Even for this venue, with its volunteer ushers et al. The projections on the back wall were out of focus, and appeared to be low resolution stock photos or displayed on very poor equipment. One scene had a rickety coffee trolley at a supposedly luxury locale, but it was visibly broken with one wheel not even touching the floor. No excuses for the fakest plastic strawberries I've ever seen either. The "dance podium" set piece - the bed without the mattress on it I think - was rickety and loudly creaked when stood upon. Why are these things an issue? Well, being merely inches away from the action, these become glaring and distracting issues to a miserly old theatre snob.
Secondly, the sound quality and mixing was abysmal. Everything sounded tinny and the mic balancing left a lot to be desired. I don't know if it's the audio equipment in the venue at fault or what, but it sounded awful acoustically.
Neither of the above issues did I notice at my only other visit for a musical at the venue (the absolutely outstanding Mack & Mabel, a few years back), and I can only judge on what I see and hear.
But for £20 this was well worth a visit. Entertaining, if befuddled and, as I say, too long at nearly 3hrs.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Apr 30, 2017 11:13:20 GMT
I saw this yesterday and was blown away. Absolutely loved it, such an astonishing piece to theatre in such an intimate space. We were in the front row, so definitely in the 'splash zone'. The best £25 I think I have ever spent in a theatre. I didn't know anything about the show or songs, or what to expect, but I thought the contrast of the gritty subject matter with some of the more 'showtuney' songs really worked. It helped that it was in the Southwark Playhouse, which I know everyone says is an amazing creative space, but to me looks like it needs a bloody good scrub with a bucket of soapy water... (those toilets..shudder!), but it all added to the flavour of the show, along with the torn tights and cheap, nasty sets. Sharon D Clarke is wonderful, you can't take your eyes off her, but then the whole cast is. It's long...but it flew by, if it wasn't closing, I would definitely go see it again. 5 * from me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 16:44:01 GMT
'Ho' ho?
So am I supposed to be laughing and whooping at this? Women degraded into a life of violent dependency and self abuse? Yes, I know that isn't the intent here but isn't that somewhat, you know, horrifying or at least grating? Surely cognitive distance kicks in at some point or is that a luxury for musical theatre?
'Ho' hum.
Yet, when Cy Coleman's score kicks in, with its Isaac Hayes/Quincy Jones blare, its blaxploitation licks and pitch perfect seventies grooves there is a great show in there. Or there is until the book slides back in and someone behind me giggles at a quip that suggests bit of whoring is just an irritation that a of diva belt and sassiness is going to cure.
Sure, a tacked on intro tells us that the bit players mostly die but what of the white girl ? Off to make porn films and that's it? The decade where AIDS moved through, inexorably scything down whole communities and she gets a happy ending?
'Ho' hmm.
The problem is partly an issue with the old white guy view of its authors (yeah, I know, easy target, but a show that would benefit from having at least a little black/female perspective, given its milieu) and their never showing an understanding that writers closer to the material could have mustered. Having said that, good direction could have softened that if the subtext had been foregrounded but the production doesn't help and lets the audience off the hook for the most part. One actor manages this, Cornell S John, and his scenes sizzle. There is life beneath for his Memphis and he mines it to perfection. The others often just indicate and their characterisation is paper thin. As said earlier in the thread, there is little rehearsal time at this venue so that could partly be the reason but there's too much generic musical theatre acting. A song like Easy Money for example is one of self delusion but here they might just have well been singing We're in the Money from another show across the river.
'Ho' no
When someone in the audience nearby goes 'uh-oh' and giggles when a pimp is likely to kill a terrified young woman you have to wonder if there is a bigger issue than script or direction. This could be a good show but it needs the audience's conscience to be pricked rather than their pricks being teased.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Apr 30, 2017 17:28:30 GMT
Well, I take all your points, CP, and there's no denying the split personality of the show - Cy Coleman's upbeat Broadway optimism versus Ira Gasman's patchy synthetic take on the "real" world of prostitution, drugs and the abuse of women.
Coleman, bless his heart, could write in any style, from operetta (On The 20th Century) to jazz (City of Angels) to country (Will Rogers Follies) to mainstream Broadway but he couldn't write dark and serious and he never did. Yet, because of Gasman's superficial book it's Coleman's contribution that shines and brings the show to life. So what we get is a raunchier version of Sweet Charity with true hookers instead of sort-of hookers - the taxi dancers. It works only so far as the music takes it.
I agree that Cornell S. John was on a different level than everyone else because he was playing it real and he was genuinely terrifying. I don't agree that a directorial approach that underlined the bleak truth John's character represents would have worked better. The music would have been against that in every moment and the show would have been even more schizophrenic that it now is. You have to take it for what it is, I'm afraid - not the life but a Broadway show tunes version of The Life.
I think Michael Blakemore knew exactly what he was doing in staging the show as he did. He directed the original, after all. And a quick survey of the very positive reports in this thread tells you that, once again, he was successful - people liked it. There is a serious show in there somewhere, maybe. But not with a Cy Coleman score.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 21:29:58 GMT
...and I just realised that cognitive dissonance got autocorrected to cognitive distance (which might mean something but not what I intended). Also 'a of diva belt' should be 'a bit of diva belt'. Back home in the grim north now, at least my train wasn't delayed by two hours like the one yesterday morning.
|
|
