Giselle (June 18th and 19th, 2016)

The National Ballet of Canada's 

Giselle

June 18th (eve) and June 19th, 2016

Giselle was certainly not something I'd planned on seeing (my mother openly criticises the ballet at every chance she gets), but a ticket came with the summer intensive I was part of. Then we (meaning the summer intensive lot) found out that our ballet teacher wouldn't be dancing in the performance we were attending, so a number of us decided to get rush tickets for that performance as well. Despite my mother's critiques, I really enjoyed Giselle. Part of that was because I'd learned some of the choreography and could relate to how difficult it was, but also because it was a beautiful, classical, story-telling ballet, and that's what I love to watch. Because of seeing two shows with totally different casts less than 24 hours apart, I can write this review in my favourite way - comparisons! Yay!

Seat/Venue Review: I sat in M3 in the Orchestra on the 18th, and it was $140. Pretty good seat; really close to the action (I like being able to see everyone's faces), the only issue was if anyone above average hight sits in front of you, the stage gets cut in half. On the 19th, I sat in CC151 in the Orchestra, and it was a $95 rush ticket. Although farther back than I'd ideally like to be, the view was  central, entirely unobstructed and offered an excellent overall view of the stage. The Four Season's Centre is spacious, clean, has ample leg room, and free wifi! The ballet talks beforehand are also a great addition. The only problem is having just one bathroom for the orchestra; the backlog is terrible and happens at every single performance. They really should consider adding a second bathroom at the other end of the stalls. 

Casts: 18th Eve: McGee Maddox (Albrecht), Ben Rudisin (u/s Wilfred), Lorna Geddes (Giselle's Mother), Piotr Stanczyk (Hilarion), Svetlana Lunkina (Giselle), Jenna Savella, Tina Pereira, Laurynas Vejalis, Donald Thom (Giselle's Friends), Stephanie Hutchinson (Albrecht's Fiancee), Peter Ottman (Albrecht's Father), Heather Ogden (Queen of the Wilis), Jenna Savella and Tina Pereira (Lead Wilis). 

19th: Harrison James (Albrecht), Jack Bertinshaw (Wilfred), Rebekah Rimsay (Giselle's Mother), Jonathan Renna (Hilarion), Jurgita Dronina (Giselle), Selene Guerrero-Trujillo, Rui Huang, Christopher Gerty, Ethan Watts (Giselle's Friends), Alejandra Perez-Gomez (Albrecht's Fiancee), Peter Ottman (Albrecht's Father), Alexandra MacDonald (Queen of the Wilis), Jordana Daumec and Chelsea Meiss (Lead Wilis).

Giselle

Lunkina as Giselle

Svetlana Lunkina certainly gave the standout performance here. Her technique is absolutely flawless; each movement is absolutely solid, her feet are always beautifully pointed, and her flexibility accentuates her arabesques, rather than making them look grotesque (as some overly flexible dancers can do). She also has a soft, lyrical quality to her dancing, which makes her quite lovely to watch. Although her beautiful technique is important, it's Lunkina's acting that really brings the character to life. She interpreted each facet of Giselle's character in such a way that they combined together to create a single, multi-dimensional character. In sweet, innocent, vulnerable act 1 Giselle, you could see a few moments of bravery, compassion, intelligence, and hints of madness, making her descent into complete madness and eventual suicide much more believable. Because of the character Lunkina established in act 1,  act 2 Giselle's compassionate self-sacrifice to benefit Albrecht was heartrending and convincing. There was not a moment I doubted the sincerity of the character. Lunkina really gave everything she had to this performance and character, and it showed. Jurgita Dronina, on the other hand, was lacklustre by comparison. Though also a technically good dancer, I felt that she did not commit to the character or display any interesting qualities. She simply didn't go 'all in' the way that Lunkina did (for example, Dronina just touched Bathilde's skirt gently, rather than kneeling down and holding it to her face as Lunkina did, and Dronina's bout of madness seemed to be thrown off by the fact that she couldn't get her hair undone); it's little touches like that that differentiate between average and extraordinary. 

Albrecht

I was quite interested to see the newly-promoted Harrison James; I saw McGee Maddox shortly before his promotion and immediately thought he was principal material. It's always interesting to see whether you agree or not. In this case, I didn't find James particularly inspiring. Although technically a stronger dancer than Maddox, James's acting and general performance left something to be desired. He had no connection to his Giselle (Dronina), and seemed to be more focused on showing off to the audience rather than telling the story. Maddox, on the other hand, is a charismatic dancer with enormous stage presence, such that an un-pointed foot or a few inches short on a turn are noticeable, but do not detract from the overall performance. Like Lunkina, he gives his emotional all. It never feels like he's performing to an audience; rather, he is utterly involved in and committed to the story at hand. He lives in the moment. That's not to say he's not a great dancer; he certainly is. His jumps are so powerful, and even when Albrecht is entirely exhausted and near dead, Maddox never loses height or extension. But his emotional execution is the highlight; I nearly lost it when he was crying over Giselle's death. It was really heartbreaking. Maddox has always been a favourite of mine (ok, partially because he's adorable, but mostly because I love his performances - Tybalt is still a favourite), but he truly gave his everything to Albrecht. At the end of the day, I will always favour the emotional performance over the technically perfect, but empty one, and that is why I greatly preferred Maddox's performance over James'. 

Queen of the Wilis

I'd say Heather Ogden and Alexandra McDonald are on equal footing technically; I could not fault either of them (though anyone that can do that scary bourre across the stage plus have the stamina for the jumping solo doesn't deserve any criticism). I preferred Ogden only because her acting was better; she had this very regal, haunting stage presence and absolutely radiated fear and intimidation. Even from the audience, I felt scared and wary of Ogden's Queen. 

Hilarion

I'm definitely slightly biased here, but I think I would've preferred Jonathan Renna's Hilarion either way. Stanczyk was too angry, too bitter, and far too smug. I couldn't feel any sympathy for his character (and his character's eventual ugly demise) because of this. Even his tears at the end seemed false, and he seemed to prize Giselle as a beautiful catch rather than truly caring for her and her mother. Renna, on the other hand, presented a far more likeable Hilarion. He truly seemed to love Giselle and wants what's best for her; he doesn't reveal Albrecht to hurt her and 'win' her (as Stanczyk's Hilarion seems to), but to save her from further hurt. Renna's devastation at Giselle's death was so genuine and palpable, and because Renna established this very likeable, sympathetic character, it was quite hard to watch him get murdered by evil ghost women. Speaking of the death, Stanczyk kind of awkwardly bellyflopped into the lake, while Renna seemed pushed by a supernatural force (evil ghost ladies strike again!) and maintained his pose until he fell out of sight. Much more effective, in my opinion.

Other Notes

Lunkina and James in Giselle

The corps of Wilis was stronger on the 19th; the 18th was full of dropped legs, out of time chugs, and sloppy arms. Speaking from experience, the corps part of act 2 is extremely challenging (especially trying to control those veils), so I suspect by the evening performance on the 18th the corps were simply exhausted. The act 1 soloists on the 18th were no doubt better rehearsed; the act 1 soloists on the 19th were out of synch, off the music, and a bit of a mess. The act 2 soloists on both nights were equal; the only thing I can say is that none of them brought any particular personality to their roles.

All in all, I really enjoyed Giselle. I always love a classical narrative ballet, and the choreography and storytelling of this production of Giselle was beautiful and wonderfully communicated. It's a ballet I'd happily see again (sorry, Mum!).

Doctor Faustus (May 26th, 2016)

Doctor Faustus

May 26th, 2016 (matinee)

I'll be honest: this show wasn't on my radar at all. My trip to Doctor Faustus was the result of needing a Thursday matinee, and wanting to see something I hadn't seen. I thought of Doctor Faustus because it's next door to Mrs Henderson Presents, so I'd seen the marquis, and thought, "Eh, the guy from GOT is in it, it can't be that bad." So I bought my ticket at 2am, and that afternoon headed to the theatre with absolutely no expectations or preconceived notions (I didn't even know what the show was about - I ran out of time to wikipedia it). While I don't regret seeing it, I can't say I particularly enjoyed it. I'm keeping this review very brief, but will include my usual seat/venue review and a few comments on the show. I'm not going to attempt to describe the plot of the show; check that out here.

Seat/Venue Review: Doctor Faustus was presented at the Duke of York Theatre in Covent Garden. I sat in the Stalls in seat H4, and it was £65. Great view, appropriately priced. I wouldn't've paid more for premium as the view is no better, just slightly more centred. No issues with the theatre or the staff; the only thing I wasn't too fond of was the very loud music in the lobby - it got you in the mood for the show, certainly, but it was so loud I could barely hear the staff. I appreciate that the ushers allowed people to take photos before the show officially began and during curtain call. I believe that that attitude prevented people taking photos during the show. 

As I mentioned, I wasn't a fan of the show at all. First of all, it was not made accessible to a modern audience. An attempt was made to set it in a more modern (looked to be the 70's or 80's, and they included presidents and other notable contemporary characters) period, and the idea of Faustus becoming a magic-performing celebrity (almost a la Jesus Christ Superstar) was certainly comprehensible, but the dialogue remained difficult to understand and make sense of. By the time I'd thought through one piece of dialogue, I'd missed a significant amount of  the rest of the scene. It made it very hard to keep track of what was happening (hence, I didn't). The script was another problem; I never studied it, but a friend who performed it in school says it's very strange and hard to understand no matter how it's read. Perhaps if there had been less going on on stage, and more attention paid to the dialogue and establishment of a story, it would've been easier to follow the action of the play. I think that's the main pitfall of Doctor Faustus - there was just too much going on in one place, at one time. As The Stage points out, "It never shuts up!"

I really did not appreciate the costuming - or lack thereof, I should say. Nudity in a show like Mrs Henderson is necessary; the story cannot go on without it. In Doctor Faustus, the nudity was entirely gratuitous. There was no rhyme or reason for it; it seemed far to much like, "how many boobs do we have onstage and how much can we show them? Oh, and lets throw in a little male nudity to make it fair." I liked the idea of the costumes, when the characters had them on. Each wore white/grey underclothing or night clothing; since everyone played a number of characters, it created a nice blank slate for each character. I liked the contrast in the costuming between the good angel and the bad angel; the bad was wearing a satiny dress and the good was a simple white tank top and shorts. They very much personified the angel/devil on the shoulder (a la Emperor's New Groove). 

The acting itself was very good; each actor did an excellent job with the material they were given. I particularly enjoyed the actor who personified the seven deadly sins. Kit Harington is actually quite a good actor (and not too hard on the eyes either, which is good considering he spends most of the show in his underwear), and fully committed to the variety of unsavoury things his character had to do. I also enjoyed the actress who place Mephistopheles; she had a great voice, interacted wonderfully with the audience, and was appropriately darkly satirical. 

Although the cast gave their all, I feel like the direction (and the script itself) left a lot to be desired. The show was unnecessarily graphic (the sexual violence was particularly unsavoury), and disgusting for the sake of being shocking. I was left thinking not about the story or the moral message, but how grossed out I was by the sheer amount of fluid these actors were covered in. Even now, weeks later, it makes my stomach turn. Because of that, I would not recommend this to anyone unless they were mega Kit Harington fans with a very strong stomach. 

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder (June 5th, 2016)

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder

June 5th, 2016 (evening performance)

I was so excited to see this show again, after seeing it for the first time on Broadway nearly two years ago. It's one of my favourite shows, and the soundtrack is constantly playing in my flat (hence having all the lyrics memorised - I also have a pretty awesome "Poison in my Pocket" dance, if I do say so myself). GGLAM also features my favourite character in any musical ever, Sibella. She's blonde, she's vain, she's not particularly nice (unless she wants to be), and she loves pink - essentially myself in a nutshell. So, there was no better way to spend the last few hours of my birthday than watching this fantastic show. I'm going to follow my usual format for this review; seat review, then review each actor individually, and any extra comments at the end. Enjoy!

Seat/Venue Review: I sat in C15 of the Dress Circle, and it was $60 (on a special sale, usually those are premium seats) at the Princess of Wales Theatre, Toronto. Excellent value for money, unobstructed view. It was slightly off to one side, but that didn't restrict my view much at all. Lots of leg room, lots of bathrooms - my only complaint was that you have to go all the way to the ground floor for merchandise (because everyone needs a D'Ysquith t-shirt). 

Kristen Beth Williams (Sibella)

Kristen Beth Williams, Adrienne Eller, and Kevin Massey

Absolutely loved her! She was very different from Scarlett Strallen (who was more on the high-pitched, ditzy-blonde side), but I really did like her. She played Sibella as very intelligent and aware, and somewhat on the manipulative side. She very much understood the power she had over Monty, and enjoyed exploiting that power. It was interesting watching her during 'Sibella', where Monty was singing about her faults - she looked a bit like she couldn't believe what he was saying at first, then began to look a bit afraid. I liked this a lot; it's the first time Sibella sees Monty's darker side, as he's usually quite fluffy around her. I guess all in all I really liked the wide range of emotions Kristen portrayed; she made Sibella seem very real, and even if she wasn't necessarily a likeable character, you can still feel sympathy for her (for example, when you can see her going from perky, to angry, to completely defeated during 'Poor Monty') and care what happens to the character. In general, Kristen didn't play the comedic side so much; she was more realistic and 'human' than I thought Sibella could be. Kristen also has a wonderful voice; it's not too shrill, and it really suits the score. Long story short, I couldn't've asked for a better portrayal of my favourite character. 

Adrienne Eller (Phoebe)

I don't usually notice Phoebe that much (I honestly can't remember a thing about Catherine Walker's Phoebe), but I thought Adrienne did an incredible job at making Phoebe noticeable and very likeable. You have to want her to end up with Monty and actually care about the character, or you just get annoyed with her. So kudos to Adrienne for that; it's not an easy thing to do with the way Phoebe is written. One of my favourite things about Adrienne is that she has wonderful comedic timing; her bouncing up and down on the chair during 'I've Decided to Marry You' was such a small detail, but it was the most hysterical thing ever. She's sooo tiny and adorable too, so it just makes all the little giggles and jumping around even funnier. Phoebe is just a tiny ball of energy - like a hamster! Even though she was so small, she projected her emotions and voice perfectly; you could see everything, but it wasn't overdone. I also really liked Adrienne's voice; the first Phoebe I saw was very much on the shrill and squeaky side - Adrienne was still very high-pitched (obviously), but sounded so much more smooth and 'adult' (kind of like Magnolia in Show Boat). She had some unique little 'trills' in certain parts, but it worked. I don't really have any complaints about her; a great, well-thought-out performance, and I'd be very happy to see her as Phoebe again.

Kevin Massey (Monty)

Kevin Massey (Monty)

He was very different from the other Monty I've seen, but not in a bad way. I really loved that you could see him slowly falling out of love with Sibella as he fell in love with Phoebe. By the end, he does love them both, but it's a different kind of love, and Kevin did a great job of establishing the changing relationships between himself and his two love interests. I also liked how he made Monty quite a dark character throughout the show, who perked up when he was around Sibella (and later Phoebe). It made his transition to murderer seem more plausible, yet he still maintained an aura of innocent 'boyishness' (as Mrs Shingle comments). His singing voice wasn't as strong as Jeff Kready's, but he made up for it with very expressive uses of his voice.  It may have been because four shows in two days has to be hard on the voice, but I can't make that judgement call. My only other main issue with him was he didn't really utilise the comedic moments as well as he could have; one of the things I (and my Mum, oddly) remembered most vividly was the 'Poison in my Pocket' 'dance' (the little hip twist on 'pocket'), and Kevin barely did it. He sort of twitched a bit, but the defined movement wasn't there. Because it wasn't clear what he was doing, it wasn't as funny as it could've been. 

John Rapson (D'Ysquith Family)
I don't have too much to say about John Rapson, but that's mostly because he was just all-around incredible! He really embraced the very different characters, giving each a unique personality, voice, and even walk. My favourites had to be Reverend Ezekiel D'Ysquith (his voice and acting were just hysterical) and Lord Bartholomew D'Ysquith (that walk! Every time he moved I cracked up). I also really loved how he did Henry (who is my favourite D'Ysquith - aside from Phoebe); Henry is written so fabulously, and John really got all of the intricacies of the character. Just a lot of fun to watch. I guess what I liked most about John in general; every character was suitably funny, but in a unique way, and without making it more obnoxious than was necessary. The only complaint I have about him is that at the high note in Lady Hyacinth's song, he completely missed the start of it, so instead of looking like a smooth (albeit obvious) transition, it just looked clumsy. Other than that little thing, loved him!

Ensemble

John Rapson (The D'Ysquith Family)

Such a small ensemble! There didn't seem to be people missing (based on the cast board), but it was noticeable how few people there were onstage at any given time. I don't think it necessarily detracted from the show, and every one of the ensemble members gave their all, but it did feel a little empty at times. However, despite their small size, the ensemble was a very cohesive group that had perfect synchronisation during certain songs and dances, and all exhibited great voices and interesting and varied acting abilities. Special shout out to Kristen Mengelkoch (Lady Eugenia), who was absolutely hysterical. She and John Rapson played off of each other so well; they knew exactly when to milk the comedy and when to let it go. I really enjoyed watching their characters interact; they had me in stitches every time they spoke to one another. I also liked whoever played the Policeman; his face while he was reading Monty's journal was hilarious. 

Other

No noticeable mistakes or errors (which is both a good and bad thing; I love bloopers, but a smooth show is always nice too). All of the accents were relatively good and fairly consistent; sometimes people would slip into American for a few words, but they always caught themselves quickly. Such thick English accents are definitely difficult to do. 

I really love the set and costumes of this show. Each costume so perfectly suits the character it appears on, and the fits and details are just impeccable. 

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder is an amazing show, and I can't believe it's only playing on one production at the moment (can we get it in London - or at least a UK tour - please?!). I highly, highly recommended this show to anyone who loves blends of comedy and drama, interesting lyrics, and just an all-around good time at the theatre. GGLAM closes in Toronto June 26th, but the tour is continuing into 2017. Make sure you see it!

Show Boat (May 27th, 2016)

Show Boat

May 27th, 2016 (eve)

The final evening of my latest trip to London found me at the New London Theatre, excited to see Show Boat. I hadn't heard much about the show other than that it had generally favourable reviews, and that it was closing sooner than expected. We'd also discussed it briefly in my theology class, but generally, I knew nothing about the show other than that it was nearly 100 years old. I was curious to see how (and if) such a classic would be adapted for a modern audience.

Seat/Venue Review: I sat H36 in the Stalls, and it was £69.99. The Premium Seats (£90) were a little farther forward, but I had an entirely unobstructed view that was perfect for the height and depth of the Show Boat set. I couldn’t’ve picked a better seat. The New London is a lovely theatre, with lots of bathrooms, comfortable seats, and friendly staff. My only complaint would be how difficult it is to navigate, and the huge number of stairs (not ideal if you have mobility issues).

Gina Beck and Chris Peluso 

The highlight of Show Boat had to be a few of the incredible individual performances given. The casting in general was very well-done; everyone looked exactly like their character (if that makes any sense at all). Gina Beck (Magnolia) was, as always, an absolute superstar, with a glorious voice and thoughtful acting. I loved how she portrayed Magnolia's transition from ditzy, wanna-be actress, to girl-in-love, to defeated young woman, to adult and proud mother. She also absolutely owned that accent. Her voice was stunning, as one would expect; my dad was so shocked the first time she opened her mouth. It definitely doesn't look like a voice that big could come from someone so small. The only thing I'd say is that I thought she could've made her voice a bit more girlish at the beginning, so her singing voice could've evolved with her character. I also really loved Rebecca Trehearn (Julie); such a talented actress with the voice to match. Julie didn't get much time on stage, but Rebecca managed to use that short time to establish a solid, likeable, sympathetic character. I especially liked how in just a few words in the second act, you could see how Julie's emotions had been hidden beneath a tough exterior. I also enjoyed how Alex Young (Ellie) brought much-needed comedic relief to the show without overdoing it. The performances of Grace Schneider (Young Kim), Sandra Martin (Queenie), Lucy Briers (Parthy) and Malcolm Sinclair (Captain Andy) also stood out for various reasons. Grace was adorable and had a lovely voice, Sandra was wonderfully comedic, Lucy captured the moodiness of her character perfectly, and Malcolm was very entertaining. 

I didn't favour the performances of Emmanuel Kojo (Joe) or Chris Peluso (Gaylord). Emmanuel had a brilliant voice, but failed to establish his character beyond the great voice. Chris had a similar problem; I can't fault his voice, but I could not figure out how he was trying to play his character, and the result was a rather uninteresting, one-dimensional character (and I couldn't for the life of me see any reason why Magnolia would've fallen in love with him. There was absolutely nothing interesting about him. I also couldn't figure out why Magnolia and Kim so easily forgive him for running off). I think part of the problem with Show Boat is the way the characters were written; in general, they are extremely one-dimensional. Because there are so many characters, you don't get to see the depth of anyone, meaning it's difficult to find a character to relate to (I feel like there could be so much more to Kim and Magnolia, and I really would've loved to see both of them, and their lives, expanded upon. Nevertheless, some actors were able to find more to work with than others, and those were the ones that gave more interesting, emotionally-driven performances. 

The sets and costumes were also absolutely fabulous. I don't study American history, but from what I know, the costumes were very accurate to the time period. It was a bit of a stark transition from the 1800s scenes to the 1927 scenes, but there's not a whole lot you can do about that. It was a little hard to believe that the residents of a Show Boat in the deep south would be at the height of fashion, but I suspect that's more my neuroses rather than something other people would notice. My only issue costume-wise is the statement that Kim looked exactly like Magnolia, and then Kim showed up in a dark wig (especially when Young Kim was blonde, and looked very much like Gina Beck - whose blonde wig was glorious, by the way). Other than that, costumes were beautiful, fit well, and had perfectly chosen colours. I also thought the technological aspects of the show blended seamlessly with the physical sets; I thought they used each appropriately, without overdoing it on one or the other. I particularly liked the multiple uses of the set of the Show Boat itself, and the way the screen was used to transition from 1900 to 1927. It was very simple, yet effective, and helped the audience understand how time had shifted so drastically, and what had happened in the 'in-between'. 

I think Show Boat's main fault is its writing. None of the songs are particularly catchy (I can't remember a single one; it's not like when you walk out of the Book of Mormon singing "I Believe!" or Wicked singing "Defying Gravity"). It's very much a product of its time period, where music didn't necessarily need to be catchy. Hammerstein pieces always focus on their moral messages rather than a show tune, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, it means that the show is less memorable than it could be. 

Gina Beck and Rebecca Trehearn

Show Boat had everything I love in a show; magnificent sets and costuming, talented and skilled performers, and huge amounts of energy. However, I felt that something was missing, and I couldn't connect with any of the characters or situations in the way I can with other shows. In a way, I can see why it hasn't had an extended West End run. I think it misses having relevance to modern (especially British) audience; the situations seem so far removed, and almost too sensationalised to be real, and the characters are simply archetypes rather than complex human beings. The way they respond to their situations are almost too predictable (from the second it was apparent Gaylord had left Magnolia, I knew immediately she would wait around for him). The conflicts and 'messages' (i.e. the problem of gambling) were completely lost on me until my mum pointed them out later that night - it just doesn't resonate with the current generation. While I commend the cast and production team on doing the best with the material they had, the material itself needs to be updated or altered if one wishes to appeal to a contemporary audience.