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.