Sunday in the Park with George

Sunday in the Park with George is a work of fiction that imagines the lives of neo-impressionist Georges Seurat and several subjects of his masterpiece Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, then goes on to imagine the influence of Seurat's life and art 100 years later. It is a comedy, an ill-fated romance, a musical, and a study of the creative process and what art gives us. Its blend of whimsy and gravitas takes the audience on quite the journey. When done right, it is at once heartbreaking, hilarious, and thought-provoking. The Victorian season from Watch This does it right.

This production is brought to the stage with a level of attention to detail that would impress Seurat himself. The band sound utterly sublime under the direction of Ned Wright-Smith, while the bold costumes, minimal set, and well-integrated projections give us a strong, interesting aesthetic that supports the cast in telling the story. And it is the cast who bear the brunt of this story-telling responsibility. The lyrics and dialogue are rich with subtext, and the 15-strong cast honour every bit of it, with their nuanced performances of larger-than-life-but-still-believable characters. Each one, in their own way "added a certain humanity to the proceedings". I was surprised to find that the show felt like an ensemble cast, considering most of the musical numbers feature either George or Dot (the socially awkward artist and his lover/muse). The audience have to wait till the end of Act I for a full ensemble number. This is unusual for a musical, but I found it dramatically effective, and thematically appropriate. The elements of Seurat's masterwork are introduced to us bit by bit, piece by piece, and Act I closer Sunday illustrates the coming together of all elements. The musical layers and harmonies reflect this in a way that comes close to a religious experience.

Vidya Makan, as Dot/Marie, has the audience on her side from start to finish; she charms from the moment she steps onstage. The challenging dual role allows her to showcase her impressive vocal versatility; displaying richness, power, and depth of character, all as her singing appears effortless. Not so with her characterisation of Dot, which seemed rather mechanical at first. In my mind the role of Dot is somewhat akin to the flower-selling Eliza Doolittle, while Makan's rendering was more like a ballroom-attending Eliza Doolittle, so I found it a little jarring, but those less familiar with the show embraced Dot whole-heartedly. As Marie, in Act II, we see a very different character, one Makan plays to perfection.

In the title role (sorta) of Georges/George, Nick Simpson-Deeks gives a performance worthy of Broadway, and suited to the intimacy of The Lawler Theatre. In his characters, there is intensity, groundedness, soaring vocals, warmth, and a longing that made my heart ache. In the show's most tender moments, I was brought to tears more than once, as was Simpson-Deeks himself. But the show is also laugh-out-loud funny, and the biggest laughs went to Simpson-Deeks performing a duet between two dogs. That wasn't a typo.

Sunday in the Park with George proves to be as relevant now as it was in 1984, when it opened on Broadway. It has always been a daring show, one that takes risks and encourages the viewer to do the same. Presumably, this is the reason few producers are willing to bring it to life, and why it lacks the same recognition as mega-musicals from the same era. I am so grateful to Watch This for taking a risk and I applaud what they have achieved with this production.

Mary Poppins Returns film review

I have a difficult relationship with Mary Poppins. Being an ardent member of the Julie Andrews Forever Association (JAFA), it troubles me that I never warmed to her magical nanny-cal ways. As a child, Disney's 1964 film was completely lost on me. Although I have since developed an appreciation for the music and the story, I remain critical of Andrews' Poppins and the film as a whole.

It is with this history that I approached Mary Poppins Returns. I hoped for the best but feared the worst, entering the cinema as world-weary as Mr Banks himself. From the first few frames of this film, though, all anxiety about 2019 and adult responsibilities lifted and I was suddenly lost in London with the leeries, laneways and lolly-jars. 

Stepping into Poppins' shoes for her latest outing is the properly British Emily Blunt, while the cockney accent of her sidekick is this time approximated by Broadway royalty Lin-Manuel Miranda. Blunt's career to date has seen her impress as a leading lady, sarcastic fashionista, action hero, and moralising soprano, and she uses her own brand of magic to combine all of these qualities into one flying nanny. Blunt gives us a stern Poppins with spoonfuls of sugar enough to endear her to children,  old and young. Miranda, as Jack, is everything the role demands and more charming than any Disney prince.  The cast is rounded out with enough star power to offer an alternative to fossil fuels. Colin Firth is sinister, Meryl Streep is dotty, Emily Mortimer is joyous, Angela Lansbury is knowing, Dick van Dyke is alive. Special mention goes to Ben Whishaw as Michael, and the three young actors who play his children. Michael is Mr Banks now, and struggling to provide for his family since the loss of his wife. It's a premise that can lead to only one thing: tears. So many tears. That gorgeous family drained me of saline in all the best possible ways. 

Magic not only describes Poppins' talents, but this new film as a whole. There are plenty of magical episodes in unlikely worlds, which are not only diverting, but each serve a point: teaching us lessons and revealing out characters' strengths and weakness. This is the main contrast to the 1964 Mary Poppins, in which diversion is often a point unto itself. Similarly, the songs are closely knitted to the characters and circumstances and work to advance the plot. "The world is turning turtle", for example, won't make sense in any other context. Ever. The film is cohesive in a way that the first film isn't, but it also honours the original with a lot of references that will reward the observant viewer. The proper integration and songs and diversions rewards all viewers. Like Mary Poppins, Mary Poppins Returns is a long film, so by the time the climax arrives (and it really puts the climb into climax), we know the characters and care for them deeply, while they in turn are newly equipped to handle the situation in which they find themselves.

The musical style of the songs also honours the original, and should warm the hearts of anyone who bemoans the musical taste of "young people today". Marc Shaiman is a master of pastiche, and has given this film eleven original songs that fit perfectly next to those of the the Sherman brothers. Except maybe that rap verse in A Cover is not the Book. Such moments illustrate the difficulty of the task Disney gave themselves: create a family musical that appeals equally to children of the past and the future. Elements such as Miranda rapping (it's kind of patter singing, but the rhythms are more familiar to freestyle rap), hip-hop inspired choreography, and parkour stunts are clearly there for the younger audience, and in my opinion are successfully stitched together with the more classic elements. I have no doubt this film will appeal to all ages, but I'd be surprised if children find themselves humming these tunes in place of the radio hits of the day. 

I loved this film so much and will definitely be returning to it regularly. My relationship with Ms P just got way less complicated. I now love her as much as she loves her own reflection.

Mary Poppins Returns is practically perfect in every way.

Into the Woods theatre review (Victoria Opera)

Into the Woods is a much loved musical for many of those who know it.  For those who are unfamiliar with it, it can be a confusing blend of familiar stories told through very wordy songs - some catchier than others.  Victorian Opera present a conservative rendering of how these fairy tale characters and the woods they inhabit may look.  This production keeps the narrative front and centre, which succeeds in making a rather complex tale very clear.  In presenting such a literal interpretation, however, many of the themes and morals become all but lost.

The cast perform to a very high standard, but differing styles of acting have a jarring effect.  At one end of the scale David Harris' naturalism gives us an endearing vulnerable Baker, while at the other end Melissa Langton, Jeremy Kleeman and Matthew McFarlane give the Princes and Jack's Mother a pantomimic treatment (and bring in the laughs).  Similarly, the broad Australian accents of John Diedrich's Mysterious Man and Josie Lane's Little Red Ridinghood sat uncomfortably beside the slightly American cadence of Christina O'Neill's Baker's Wife and the more neutral accents of others.  At times it felt each character was performing in a different play, which seems to defy the spirit of the story that brings them all together.  I feel a stronger directorial hand was needed to pull every element of production toward one cohesive style.

Notably lacking in this production was the grim, gritty flavour that bares its teeth in Act II [spoiler alert].  By maintaining the light tone established in Act I, it becomes laughable as the cast drop dead in quick succession.  In fact, the stage deaths were so awkwardly staged there was a distinct air of embarrassment in the audience.

Into The Woods is very much a show of two halves, and that is very much the point of it.  Anyone can find their Happily Ever After when times are good, but it is much more complex finding hope when times are bleak.  This production shies away from such bleakness, so in my mind it misses the point.  Although Act II is much shorter than Act I, it started to feel very cumbersome and by its end I felt exhausted.  Watching a musical should not feel like so much hard work.

There are some gorgeous voices to be heard, and several fine performances.  In particular, Queenie van de Zandt proves herself once again in the coveted role of the Witch.  

See this show if you are unfamiliar with it, as this is a good introduction to a wonderful story.  Unfortunately, for fans of the show it misses the mark by lacking a distinct point of view.

The King and I theatre review

Last year I saw a marvellous production of South Pacific, starring Lisa McCune and Teddy Tahu Rhodes.  The two are stars of the highest calibre and I immensely enjoyed their performances in said musical.  Furthermore, the show felt as relevant and as fresh as it must have done upon opening 65 years ago.  No mean feat!

This year Rhodes and McCune have been paired up to revitalise another Rogers and Hammerstein classic: The King and I.  Weirdly though, the resulting production is somehow less than the sum of its parts.  The cast do an excellent job, the costumes and set are outlandishly impressive, every element of production is top notch...but...but...the show is just lacking.  I think it is the book that lets it down.  The King and I just does not grab me and make me care.  The book lacks subtlety, so that is the most glaring flaw.  There is not much depth to the characters either, and that is what troubles me the most.  I like to think that a fine actor can make any character interesting, but the script certainly places limitations.

McCune does her best to flesh out Anna Leonowens as a fully realised individual.  It is an uphill battle, though, as there are not many opportunities to show the warmer, lighter side of her character that could have endeared her to the audience (but didn't).  Similarly, Rhodes' characterisation of the king makes him out to be exotic, quixotic and interesting - which is fun - but falls short of ever being sympathetic.  Without any close associations with the lead roles, the audience has to work hard to stay engaged.  Entertainment should now be hard.

The show's score features many beautiful tunes, but the content of these songs just never packs the same punch as we know Rogers and Hammerstein to be capable of.  It makes me want to cry.  One aspect of the music that proves troublesome is that it is semi-operatic, which by nature makes for a tough transition from scene to song.  These transitions are dealt with as well as can be, but for an audience used to contemporary singing voice qualities it is a bridge too far (if that means what I think it means).

Overall, this is a sumptuous production, but one in which the many positive attributes do not quite come together cohesively.  The story never reached my heart.  

See this show for a  pleasant journey from one gorgeous musical number to another...but if you're looking for deep meaningful connections this is not the right show for you (you'd be better off watching Anna and the King and reading Uncle Tom's Cabin).

Strictly Ballroom the Musical theatre review

Baz Luhrman's stage adaptation of his 1992 hit film begins with a surprisingly low-key opening.  Camp frontman JJ Silvers plays host as he introduces us to the first of several bouts of audience participation, in this case assigning different areas of the audience with different dance couples for whom to cheer.  This struck me as a very clever way to establish the competitive element of the story (which needs to be fierce), but sadly the potential of this device was squandered.  Despite our dutiful cheering, the audience was not rewarded with a clear result to the opening competition.  I found myself wanting to know how "my" couple had scored, but to no avail.  As chance would have it, my date for the evening (although seated beside me) was cheering for a different couple to me and I would have loved to have known whether my couple beat hers.  But this was not to be, and the competitive spirit faded as the story developed and I wondered what the point had been in cheering at all.

As far as audience participation goes, Strictly Ballroom employs the device better than most shows.  I usually find the practice cringe-worthy and I liked to think that One Man Two Guvnors had had the last word on the matter.  But it seems that it is here to stay, so I appreciate that Luhrman incorporated it into the story and avoided the common pitfall of tacking it on in an adjunct fashion.  He could have gone further with it, though.  Indeed, that is what we expect of Luhrman: take it as far as it will go without breaking.  If we are to be cheering on different couples, give us more opportunities to do so.  Give us banners to wave and names to yell.  As it was, the audience participation did not make me cringe - but it was bland.

What about the rest of the show?  Most elements remained very faithful to the film, so consider those boxes ticked.  The biggest difference is that the stage version includes singing.  So my main interest is in the singing.  Is it justified?  Sometimes.  Certainly, the tone of the story is a natural fit for musical theatre and it did not seem out of place for the characters to break into song.  Unfortunately, the music itself was sometimes an awkward fit.  The songs include well-loved pop songs, new commissioned works, and reworded classical favourites.  Quality varies.  As does the singing ability of the cast members.  I actually felt sorry for Heather Mitchell.  As Scott's Mum she is big and bold and brash and the audience immediately warmed to her, the flaming gallah, but singing is just not her thing.  Thomas Lacey as Scott, meanwhile, has the voice of an angel.  Sadly, though,  his big song and dance number falls flat.  In it, he sings of how it feels to dance his own steps (Electricity, anyone?).  The song is terrible.  The words were uninspired, the tune seemed to be reaching for dramatic effect that it just could not obtain.  The dancing was ok, but the choreography far less fun than its subject matter would suggest.  Dramatically, this is the crux of the show - and it was botched.  I suspect that if this song were more successful, the rest would follow.

Surprisingly, the best integration of singing into the action of the play was in the use of pop songs - notably Time after Time and Love is in the Air, but also a reworked version of Bizet's Habanera.  The commissioned works gave the impression that the composers have not seen any new musical theatre from the past ten years.  They felt dated, and lacked dramatic effect.  The many and varied styles could have been brought together in a Moulin Rouge style mashup - but this was only attempted once.  For me, it was the strongest musical moment of the show (Act I finale).

That about sums it up.  Oh, the dancing?  Yes, I forgot the dancing.  Buhrman nearly made the same mistake.  There are plenty of moments in which dances are practised, or spoken of, but I found myself waiting for the real dancing to begin.  When it finally comes it is too little too late.  I'm sure the cast are all expert dancers, so it seems a waste to have the dancing sidelined as it was.

This show is beautiful, at the same time as being gaudy, and it gets a lot of things right.  Overall, though, the various components come together too awkwardly.  Luhrman has made his reputation on successfully combining unlikely ingredients (Romeo + Juliet + L.A. anyone?).  I honestly think he could make this work if he tries a little harder.  As it is, though, this show is a mixed bag.

See this show for a good laugh and a fun night out.  The cast is mostly very strong, but I felt the material provided too few challenges for them to prove their talent.

Madama Butterfly - theatre review

Open air theatre is asking for trouble, right?  Certainly, the weather when I attended tested the commitment of audience and performers alike, with near constant rain from start to finish.  Aside from a minor delay and a brief interruption, the show trucked on and the audience stuck with it.  A lesser production may not have rewarded one's tenacity, but in this case it proved well worth it.

The ginormous stage was well utilised, with the outdoor wedding of Act I recognisable as one of today's many outdoor weddings.  The use of cranes, cars and fireworks further justified the outdoor space.

The action of Act I includes a lot of exposition and has the potential to drag, but Georgy Vasiliev, as our Pinkerton, has charisma enough to maintain my attention till our Butterfly enters.  And then it became tough to watch anyone else.  I'm grateful that Puccini does not allow her to leave the stage again.  The story is truly hers and Hiromi Omura does her story justice.  Omura is sublime to watch and fully believable in her journey from young blushing bride through devoted lover to desperate mother.

The supporting characters and chorus are uniformly excellent, such that I found myself fully absorbed in the world of Butterfly.

Perhaps the hardest thing to get right in this opera is the part of Butterfly's young son.  It is not easy to find a toddler who can act, so the child playing the part usually looks too old and is given very little to do.  I applaud this production for trusting their young actors with a fair amount of activity.  His plight was truly affecting.  

See this for an experience exquisite enough to lift one out of the adverse weather conditions and take one to a new world of heartbreak and sumptuous music.

Frozen film review

Frozen is Disney's latest adaptation of a classic children's story.  The animation is recognisably Disney, as is the obligatory comic sidekick.  It is an action-packed adventure with laughs and lessons and romance and the audience I belonged to never lost attention despite the longish running time (108 minutes).

It's a good children's film, and I did not doubt it would be.  My interest, though, is in whether it is a good musical.  Yes, there are songs too!  One half of the song-writing team is best known for his work on such risque material as Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon, so how do he and his wife fare writing material appropriate for children?  For the most part, the songs are immediately likable and serve to advance the story as well they should.  The film opens with a chorus of voices singing traditional Scandinavian music.  It is beautiful.  Henceforth, however, the music is more Broadway-influenced.  That makes for a slightly awkward transition, but it is no worse than the blend of pop/traditional achieved by The Lion King.  If I have any complaints about the existing music it is that I would have preferred fuller orchestral backing, it often sounds a little thin.  My other complaint is about the non-existent music.  The front of the film is densely packed with strong, dramatic songs.  As the story gets going, though, the songs became sparse and less integrated to the plot.  The musical climax is the arresting Let it Go, which is really just the first turning point to set the action in motion.

So, the film starts off like a musical, then ends up like a film with songs.  It's a good film, with good songs...but to really work as a musical it needs one or two more dramatic songs at key points later in the story.

See it with a child you love.  Have tissues handy.

SIDENOTE: I saw the 3D version.  It adds nothing to the film, just an extra few dollars to your entry ticket.