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.