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.

20 Feet from Stardom

A documentary!  Not my usually favoured medium.  But soul and pop music are among my favoured subject matters.  There is plenty of music to enjoy in 20 Feet.  There are also big characters and surprising stories and very stylish artwork, making the whole an unmissable film and a major contender in the upcoming awards season.

The stories are often an indictment on practices common in the music industry, but are also personal tales of struggle and acceptance.  Some of the film's subjects have suffered great injustice, but they tell their stories with fondness and a cheerful spirit.  It inspires a great deal of hope.

Certainly, if one had less interest in pop music one might enjoy this film a little less.  However, I expect the characters at the heart of the stories would appeal to even the least musical viewer.

See this film for a bundle of touching stories and a masterclass in documentary making.

The Butler film review

The Butler has an all-star cast that includes Oprah Winfrey, Forest Whitaker and Terence Howard, with notable appearances from such Hollywood royalty as Vanessa Redgrave and Robin Williams.  It is something of a Forrest Gump-style film, telling the story of Cecil Gaines from childhood to retirement, using notable moments in Black American history as its backdrop.  It is a mammoth story.  Perhaps it is too big for 132 minutes.

Certainly, it does not feel like a long film.  That is testament to the pace it maintains and the level to which the viewer invests in the central characters.  However, the choice to tell such an all-encompassing story, and to personalise events of great social significance is at the expense of the development of some characters and inter-personal relationships.  This is Gaines' story, but the most interesting parts of the film relate to his relationship with his eldest son.  Father and son represent different approaches to the fight to end racism and - like most fathers and sons - their relationship is complicated.  Sadly, though, there are few memorable moments the two men share.  The strain between them is demonstrated mostly through how it impacts Gloria Gaines (Winfrey) - the wife/mother caught in the middle.  This provides Winfrey with some rich material and she shines in this role.  Understandably, these events also place a strain on the relationship between Gloria and Cecil.  But what of this?  It is tough to know what to make of their turbulent relationship as it seems to have been that way from early on.  Did they marry for love?  Did they learn to love each other only after marriage?  It's not very clear.

There are so many interesting stories within The Butler that I can't help but feel they would have been better served in long-form.  It could have made a riveting television mini-series, but as a film it lacks the depth to truly hook its audience.  Furthermore, the most memorable scenes do not include the central character.  There are times he feels like a bit-part in his own film.

See this film for a heart-rending tale of injustice and the struggle to fight it.  Unfortunately the tale is not quite provided the depth it deserves.

Kill Your Darlings film review

This film is the ultimate tease.  The events I would expect to take centre-stage, instead serve as the climax, culminating from a series of nods in that direction.  This sense of foreplay is also reflected in the visual style.  There is a definite homo-eroticism in the long, languid shots of our central characters - but it is not till much later on that we are shown anything explicit.

We are told Allen Ginsberg's story, and his role in the events that unfold.  Ginsberg, though, is often on the sidelines of the major developments.  It is not an obvious choice, then, to tell the story from his point of view.  It is a wise choice, though.  He is a very relatable character and undergoes a palpable change from sheltered, literary talent to independent, audacious poet.  Ginsberg finds his voice, and that is a satisfying story.  So, for the story to also include a mysterious and dramatic criminal case becomes icing on the cake.

It is a smart film, and I took the bait it casually litters along the way.  I can see this style could be too understated to reach a wide audience.  

See this film for some fine performances and a new take on what suspense can be.

Thanks for Sharing film review

Thanks for Sharing is a study of addiction and what living with it can look like.  That is a big topic.  And it shows several types of addiction, and several ways of dealing with it.  Thankfully though, despite its earnestness, it remains a film about interesting characters with unique stories, so I enjoyed it.  

Thanks for Sharing is also a romantic comedy.  Or maybe there is not enough comedy to call it that.  But there is enough romance.

Thanks for Sharing is a drama about the intersecting lives of New Yorkers.  Life isn't easy in the big city, but as they pool together they find there is hope.

Thanks for Sharing is so many things it is difficult to categorise, but one thing that is clear is that it boasts a magnificent cast.  Mark Ruffalo and Tim Robbins turn in terrific performances as long-time sex addicts with no shortage of baggage.  Gwyneth Paltrow, Joely Richardson, Alecia Moore, Patrick Fugit and Josh Gad round out the core cast, each of whom has a moment in the spotlight.  Perhaps Thanks for Sharing is an ensemble drama...?

Ultimately, I enjoyed the film for its strong performances and thought-provoking themes.  It certainly could have benefited, though,  from a more assured script and a more assured tone.

See this film and be surprised.  There is food for thought and light entertainment, and though they may be clumsily matched I was won over by the charms of the cast.  I was reminded of 28 Days.  If you liked that, you'll like this.

The Last 5 Years theatre review

The Last 5 Years is one of the most popular musicals amongst fans of the genre to emerge this century.  It tells the sweet and sad story of a couple who come together at the start of their careers, whose relationship falls apart as their respective careers take very different turns.  The gimmick with this show is that Cathy's story is told in reverse chronological order, while Jamie's is told from start to finish.  Their scenes alternate, and the only time the two appear together in the same time zone is at the midpoint, when he proposes marriage.  With such a bold device to accommodate, the staging of the action is an interesting challenge.  Auckland Music Theatre's new production misses the mark where staging is concerned, failing to serve skilled singers Heather Wilcock and Andrew Allen.

This show is a two-hander.  That is what it is.  That is how it is written and a large part of what makes it interesting theatrically.  Director Andrew Potvin would disagree with me.  His vision includes a chorus of six nubile young women.  Their first appearance was surprising and somewhat cryptic, but I was open to the possibility that they might add to the experience.  Having more to watch could mean more to like.  But in this case it doesn't.  The chorus are choreographed in a way that they often illustrate lyrics on a very literal level.  And it made me cringe.  One would expect that supporting actors would provide ears for the singers to bend.  Well, no, our leads still sing to themselves or to an imagined partner.  So...

Presuming one can ignore the pointless chorus, there are some great beautiful moments to enjoy.  The highlights for me, though, are vocal ones.  Wilcock's voice is pure and strident and sounds somehow effortless and powerful.  For the most part, she sings the songs very straight.  It is hard to fault, but I feel that the part lends itself to greater personalisation.  Allen's voice is less evenly matched to the demands of these songs, however he proves his musicality with some stylish licks and unique runs.  Certainly, both singers prove themselves worthy of their place on stage.

When it comes to acting, though, the characterisation of both parts is slight.  Most songs were given a rather basic emotional wash, rather than the dynamic mile-a-minute thought processes that would best serve the writing.  Both actors, though, are rather young.  It could well be that they will understand Cathy and Jamie far better five years from now.

See this show if you are unfamiliar with the material; the material is so strong it nearly stands on its own.  The vocal performances are admirable, but the rest struggles to reach adequacy.

Chicago theatre review

Chicago is perhaps the most popular of Kander and Ebb's impressive catalogue of musicals.  It is currently the third longest-running show in Broadway history and 2002's film adaptation kick-started a slew of film musicals.  It has surpassed cult status to become one of the most familiar and recognisable shows of our time.  So for ATC to programme it as the end of year musical feels safer than safe (by which I mean more boring than boring).  Thankfully, director Michael Hurst had other ideas.

Hurst sets the story in the present day, and shows us how today's generation might grapple with the situations at hand.  This new interpretation of a classic flips many standard features on their head, and brand new musical arrangements present the songs in such a way that it is like hearing them for the first time.  The musical arrangements are mostly very successful, which is testament to the strength each song has to stand on its own.

Where the original Chicago has a script chock-filled with innuendo and laced with cynicism, Hurst's direction eschews subtlety, wearing its tits on it sleeve as it were.  This makes for some awkward moments where the understated script and the outspoken presentation are at odds.  In regard to such occasions, though, I would rather see the script altered to accommodate the style of this production rather than the reverse.

Amanda Billing is the stand-out star as Roxy.  Shane Cortese also delivers a delightfully sleazy Billy Flynn.  Lucy Lawless, though, gave rather a patchy performance.  Her take on Velma started off assured, but as Velma's confidence takes knocks, so too did Lawless' grasp on the character.  She felt like a different person each time she appeared.  And her vocals sounded best in the more standard musical treatments.  

See this show for a bold new take on a strong musical.  This is Chicago for the porn-watching, smart-phone dependent generation.

South Pacific theatre review

The opening scene of South Pacific includes three of its best songs: Cockeyed Optimist, Twin Soliloquies and Some Enchanted Evening.  It sets a high standard.  As the first scene drew to a close I wondered how the remainder of this production would match such perfection.  Yet, throughout Act I, my wonder only increased.  Song upon song is brought to life with style and conviction, and I was reminded how expertly crafted the show is.  And, while it is now very much a period piece, the majority of the script rings true today and feels current.  Could it really be 64 years old?  It is a long way from retirement.

Act II provides a few obstacles - it is rather unevenly paced and many key turning points take place offstage.  Story development stalls for a good 20 minutes or so to make room for a fun, but frivolous, Thanksgiving pageant.  I give thanks to the production team and credit some very clever staging with keeping the audience engaged.  So I cannot fault the direction, lighting, sound, set design or costumes.  What of the performances?

This cast is nigh on perfect.  Mitchell Butel shines as Luther Billis, which is something of a dream role for a character actor.  He appears equally at home with his more tender moments as with those that are purely comic.  Christine Anu, as Bloody Mary, also stands out.  Anu delivers a measured performance, displaying a wide repertoire of vocal tricks and often opting for the understated choice.  This tightly restrained interpretation of a potentially wild character imbues Mary with a high status that makes sense of her presence and her influence.  

But the show belongs to Nellie and Emile.  In these roles Lisa McCune and Teddy Tahu Rhodes are nothing short of exquisite, not to mention perfectly matched.  Rhodes' voice alone could rob a handmaiden of her virtue, while McCune is a true triple threat.  The audience warmed to each of them immediately and their ongoing chemistry proved to be quite the tease, which is essential in selling the final chapter of the play.

See this show to hear two of the purest voices in show business, and to witness an exquisite rendition of one of the most significant theatrical works of the twentieth century.

Midsummer theatre review

During its best moments, Midsummer is riotously funny and tremendous fun.  At other times it drags and the story has a few sticky moments.  I felt that the slower paced moments came not from the writing, but the performers, and could have been overcome with more energetic performances.  Aidee Walker and Dan Musgrove are both adept at holding the stage with a still strong presence, as we often see them in storyteller mode.  But the play comes alive during its more frenetic periods and I would have liked to see the direction make better use of that.  For it is often playful and I loved the extravagant use of simple props such as a bag of money and some pieces of rope.  

I admire Walker's ability to craft an interesting, likable character in Helena, when the script offers nothing to endear us to her, while Musgrove's small-time crook oozes an effortless charm.  These two provide the centre of our love story, but there is a full compliment of crazy supporting characters poking and prodding these two towards each other.  Walker and Musgrove are also responsible for bringing the supporting cast to life, but they do not seem to have as much fun with that as such larger-than-life characters warrant.

Midsummer bills itself as a play with songs, so I have to mention the songs.  There were songs.  They were forgettable, and Walker in particular seemed to be out of her element on guitar.  

Midsummer seems to have been created as a fun, frivolous night out with laughter, music and naughty bits.  Silo's production misses the mark on most of these counts.  It feels more serious than it should.

See this show for the bright moments it contains.  Unfortunately they are fewer than one would hope for.

Prisoners film review

If this film is to be believed, small town America is a frightening place.  The unspecified setting is non-descript, poor, rural and there is no shortage of creepy villagers.  Prisoners examines justice and injustice through the stories of families who lose their young children.  Hugh Jackman is our central figure, who takes justice into his own hands.  This pits him directly against a hard-working police officer who believes following the law is the only way to salvation.  No wait, that's Les Miserables.  No wait, it is Prisoners too!  In this case, though, Jake Gyllenhaal provides the foil to Jackman's loose cannon.  Gyllenhaal's performance is engrossing, helped by his thuggish appearance, which hints at a dark past we are not privy to.  I guess it is easier to make such a stickler for the rules interesting when no singing is involved.

In Prisoners, these two men employ different methods - but ultimately they want the same thing.  For when it comes to the lives of children, don't we all want the same thing?  Every child deserves a warm home and a family who loves them and nourishes their growth.  In Prisoners we see the outcome of children growing up without such positive influences.

The story is very cleverly constructed, and it retains a sense of mystery through to the end.  There are many brutal elements, though, and the tone is generally quite raw.

See this film to enjoy an intriguing, if disturbing, yarn.  

Diana film review

The story told in this boutique biopic is that of the relationship between the most famous woman in the world (in 1995) and a quiet-living heart surgeon.

It is a story with many familiar elements, and a few new ones.  There is a touch of Cinderella and a touch of Notting Hill - but where these stories have a strong structure and are secure in tone, Diana is uneven on both counts.  The film has some rather bold cinematography, but it is a boldness not always matched by the subject matter at hand, so what could have been exciting dramatic choices are more often quite jarring or simply fall flat.  Similarly the dialogue is at times corny, sometimes trite, and seldom natural.

Diana does get some things right, though: Naomi Watts' performance is studied, charismatic and true to the spirit of Diana (I think...I don't remember Diana as well as I probably should); the film demonstrates very well how convoluted and unusual Diana's life had become, while maintaining focus on the simple love story at the its heart.  And there is much examination of hearts: what with her being the queen of people's hearts and him being the in doctor of people's hearts and each of them being a poor caretaker of their own hearts.

I enjoyed the story Diana tells, and appreciate that it does so with a strong point of view.  I would like to think that there is a lot of truth in this version of events.

See this film if you are interested in Lady Di, or to admire her unique way with fashion.  There is much to enjoy in this film, despite some poor craftsmanship putting it together.

Behind the Candelabra film review

The story of Scott Thorson's relationship with Liberace provides rich material for actors and film-makers to play with.  Unfortunately the story is really rather unpleasant, so Behind the Candelabra is a tough film to enjoy.  I loved the kitsch glamour of Liberace's homes and apparel, and I was in awe of Michael Douglas' and Matt Damon's performances.  But the story made me itch more than it made me laugh or cry or think.  There is something very uncomfortable about watching an unhealthy relationship run its course.

Steven Soderbergh is known for his confidence to stray from the safe and formulaic and experiment with new structures for his films.  This film fits that bill with various levels of success.  Soderbergh maintains a consistency despite an unusual structure by keeping the film's focus squarely on Thorson...until he doesn't.  The final act of the film is quite a mess.  I hardly knew where to look anymore.  Similarly the tone of the piece shifts throughout, which I really struggled with.  My favourite scenes were those in which Rob Lowe lifted the tone to that of a light comedy.  My least favourite scenes were those that implied some political axe to grind.  Most of the film, though, was unlike either of these sections.

I would liken this film to a buffet; the viewer is presented with a range of goods, and can take what he wants.  Most of what is on offer is of the very highest quality, but it is hard not to question why the Black Forest Gateau is presented between the Duck Cassoulet and the Meatloaf.

I am not qualified to say how accurate the depiction is to actual events, but I felt that the film was perhaps hampered by trying to portray things faithfully.  In the end it felt like a string of events rather than a story with a heart and a climax.

See this film to witness some of this year's best performances caught on camera.  Just watch it all and take what you like, but I would be surprised if many of us go back for seconds.

Gravity film review

Gravity lives up to its name.  There is weight to the subject matter, despite the matter of the subjects' weightlessness.  Certainly, the film can be enjoyed as a hero story or disaster movie but there is more to it.  It raises questions about being alone in the universe, and weaves a motif of birth, death, and humanity.  I may be making it sound heavy, but these themes are presented in outer space so actually they float freely.  There isn't even any friction!

Sandra Bullock is less action hero and more everyman (her character has a boy's name and amazing legs, so she represents both genders).  For me, that is what makes this film work on a personal level.  At first I struggled to reconcile how a seemingly frail person might realistically have come to be that overachieving medical doctor who transfers to NASA and six months later is freewheeling through space, but soon enough I just got enveloped by the story, for this is a film that transports its audience.  I felt so close to Bullock's character and so close to the action I noticed myself flinching to avoid debris.  The 3D element is effective in immersing the audience in the story, but so too is the cinematography.  There is a remarkable fluidity to the camerawork that gives the impression of the whole 90 minutes being filmed in one take.  Although not all events unfold in real time, many do and this gives the film a relaxed pace that makes the rushed and dramatic moments truly rather stressful.

I am quite in awe of the symbolism Alfonso Cuaron works into his cinematography.  There are many beautiful images that fit perfectly into the story but could represent far more.  It is touches such as these that make Gravity more than only an action/adventure/disaster movie.

See this film for a rollicking ride through space, or a pensive consideration of life's difficult questions.  You choose.

Live Live Cinema: Dementia 13 review

Is it theatre?  Is it film?  Is it a musical event?  Yes to all these.  The concept is interesting: a film is screened without its soundtrack, while all dialogue, music and sound effects are performed live.  This sounds like just a gimmick; does the film gain anything from such a treatment?  Well, that probably depends largely on the source material.  In this case, Dementia 13 is a disturbing and intriguing horror, but it has not aged well and now feels rather unsophisticated.  Providing new character voices and a fresh, original score invigorates an otherwise stale film by emphasising the melodrama in the piece.  This is a fun way to give new life to an otherwise dated artwork.

This unusual format provides unique challenges for the performers.  I was rather impressed at how accurately the live actors matched the lip movements of the film actors.  Similarly, it was impressive and fascinating to watch the Foley artist provides such a vast array of sound effects. 

With so many things competing for audience attention, the experience was initially overwhelming.  I wanted to watch everything at once.  As the story progressed, however, I found I watched the film footage nearly exclusively.  

The film footage, then, must be good for this concept to be successful.  In this case, the film was adequate and I enjoyed the experience due more to the interesting presentation.  I struggle with horror films, though - it is not a genre that appeals to me.  Certainly, a horror fan would have got a lot more out of it.

Overall, the strongest feature was the tremendous original music performed by a seven piece band.  The music was contemporary and catchy and appropriate to the mood.  It was really quite exceptional.  Unfortunately it was also at times too loud to enjoy.  

See this production for a unique experience, particularly if you enjoy horror films.  I see great potential in this art-form and hope to see more of it.