The Phantom of the Opera (July 22nd, 2016)

The Phantom of the Opera

July 22nd, 2016

My 60th time seeing Phantom! I've seen the show in three countries, with countless combinations of Christines, Phantoms, etc. Though not my favourite show (it's up there, but it's not my absolute favourite), Phantom will always hold a special place in my heart for the difficult times it got me through. Most of my favourite cast members left at the last cast change (just Lisa-Anne Wood remained), so I hadn't been to see it in a while (just a research trip for an essay), which made this visit so much more special. Anyway, I had a great cast of people I knew I loved and some exciting understudies that I had never seen but ended up loving. So here are my thoughts, organised by character :)

Seat/Venue Review: I sat F8 in the stalls, and it was £68 (Her Majesty's Theatre). Decent view aside from one pesky head, and the seats are nice and comfy, but the ushers in this theatre are terrible. People were taking photos and videos during the show, on their phones, playing games, talking loudly, and the ushers did absolutely nothing (except at curtain call, when suddenly stopping photography became their favourite hobby). Not too impressed. 

Lisa-Anne Wood (Christine)

Lisa-Anne Wood (Pinterest)

What can I say about Lisa that I haven't already? She is the perfect Christine; that wonderful combination of exquisite voice, thoughtful acting, and the exact right look. Of course, that means I walk into the theatre expecting quite a lot from her, which could be dangerous. However, Lisa rose to and exceeded expectations. There's too many things I love about her to narrow down to just a paragraph or two, so forgive me, but this is going to get long. She's also totally one of those Christines where you don't think there's much they can or need to improve on, but then somehow she does, and it's even better than the first time (and when the first - ok, first five - times were pretty incredible - it's an impressive feat). I think the first thing I noticed during this performance was her voice; it's really grown and matured a lot since I last saw her. She's not shrill in the least bit anymore, but she has still retained whatever it is that makes her voice unique. She doesn't sound 'girlish' anymore, and with the rest of her portrayal maturing quite a lot, it was the perfect adjustment. I love that even though she's been an incredible Christine all along, she's still constantly evolving and trying new things. It keeps her performances very fresh. So now's my favourite part; I get to talk about all the tiny little things I loved!

Lisa really blends in with the Ballet Girls at the beginning (right height and all), so it really does seem like she comes out of nowhere when Meg volunteers her to sing. She was very timid to start out, but you can clearly see when 'Christine's' resolve strengthens and she really starts to sing out. Easily rivals Harriet for best Think of Me. It's truly an experience. There's such joy and exuberance in that performance, and I loved how happy and excited she seemed by the end. You could really feel just how important this moment was to Christine (actually I think that's something that carries through Lisa's performance; every emotion she puts across is something the audience can feel and identify with. It's great).

Lisa-Anne Wood (Pinterest)

I actually forgot to watch Degas Ballet because Lisa's acting was so interesting (which hasn't happened since the days of Olivia-Christine). I just found it so cool seeing how her relationships with Meg, Mme Giry, and Raoul started out. It was the cutest thing when Meg got told off; Lisa just started giggling. It was such a cute moment, and a nice nod to Christine's youth and personality. Often, Christine can become far too moody, or too deer-in-headlights with no actual personality. Lisa gave her Christine a clear personality. Since I've seen the show so many times, I really care about the details of the acting, and I adore that Lisa's taken the time to put all of these unique little touches into her performance. Anyways! Cute little scene with Mme Giry; thought Lizzie and Lisa were a nice combo. Two detailed portrayals that mesh well; yay! Loved the Lisa/Nadim dynamic; he wasn't too overbearing, she played up Christine's childlike side. They're a nice duo, but I would've loved to see Lisa opposite Antony Hansen. The sheer amount of detail in both of their portrayals would've been incredible to witness. Maybe someday.

Onwards; we all know my feelings about the title song (my all-time favourite moment in the show is in that song). But Lisa's acting was good, her lip-synching is flawless (if you didn't know, you'd have no clue). Great sense of wonder coming from her. As well, Lisa's acting in Music of the Night is really unique. She plays it half trance, half "what the hell is going on right now?" It's a really interesting combination, and makes the scene fascinating to watch. Yes, Scott is the focus in that moment (more on that below), but Christine having a sincere and believable reaction to this entirely new situation is so important. In the rest of the first act, Lisa's obviously very good. Really touching acting in All I Ask of You coupled with enchanting vocals, and she's a really adorable Serafimo in Il Muto (thought I'm still made they changed the blocking and cut my favourite bit of Serafimo's). Not much to say there; just general awesomeness.

Onto the second act; really great ferocity when facing off with Carlotta in Notes II; it's great that Lisa's Christine really stands up for herself and is completely willing to get right in Carlotta's face. Her little emotional breakdown was realistic and hard to watch (way too identifiable!), and her storming off stage was the perfect combination of angry and distressed.

As for Lisa's performance of Wishing: flawless. Acting, voice, everything is just on point. Also she does that Olivia thing with "And speaks my name," where she almost belts 'name' rather than opera-sings it (that being the technical term, of course) and this makes me very happy. Can't say much about this other than she's one of two people's versions of this song I actually like (I'm sorry, it's a beautiful song, but only Lisa and Olivia Brereton can actually act it realistically. Everyone else is just too… staged). Anyhow, I really love how, in Wandering Child, Lisa at first looks confused, then goes into that trancelike state. When she turns towards the grave, her eyes almost rolled back into her head a bit. You can completely believe that the Phantom has some otherworldly power over her. As silly as I've always found that bit of blocking, I think Lisa makes it as believable as possible. Especially with Scott's melodic and enticing voice. When Raoul breaks the trance, Lisa shuddered a bit, again contributing to that illusion. It was a nice touch.

Lisa-Anne Wood (her twitter)

As much as I love Lisa's Wishing and Think of Me, her standout performance easily comes in Point of No Return. And this is also the song where I think Lisa's growth and improvement is most apparent; her PONR was always a bit of a stark contrast to the rest of her portrayal; she went from quite girlish and naive to completely confident and mature in one song. But now that her whole portrayal has matured, and her PONR has become more darkly sultry rather than peppy and sassy, it just gives a whole different dimension to the song. I'm not really sure how to describe it, but she just oozes confidence. It's an interesting dichotomy with Music of the Night; here, it's Christine's voice putting the Phantom under the trance (Scott's acting needs another mention here. These two are a fabulous combination). You can't take your eyes off of Lisa in this song, so you're almost seeing her the way the Phantom would. But I also love her complete and utter panic when she feels the mask, and she pulls her arms away at the exact right second. Her removal of the hood and mask are also more flawlessly executed than any other Christine; she moves as if she's about to take his hand, and then BAM hood off. Then she reaches up as if to kiss him… and there goes the mask. Great attention to detail, as usual. Didn't see the journey to the lair acting sadly; eyes were too busy tearing up.

I wish I could talk about the Final Lair, but all I remember is that I loved it. Lisa gets really fierce here, and really goes after the Phantom, sort of letting all that anger of how much he's screwed up her life get out. I appreciate that Lisa's Christine (or LAWstine, if you will) is never in love with the Phantom (or at least that's how I see it in her portrayal; would be interesting to hear from her how she's thinking of it). She appreciates him as a friend and teacher, and it is hard for her to let go of him, but she doesn't love him the way he loves her. The goodbye is heartbreaking, because you know they're both devastated for different reasons. Scott gripping Lisa's hands for dear life nearly destroyed me. I can't say much else about the Final Lair because it was all a blur of tears and sniffling. Only issue in this scene is I think she could've taken another second or two before the "Tears of hate" line. The theatre was dead silent and could've used a moment to appreciate the tension in the air.

And some other little things I loved about Lisa that don't fit anywhere else: clearly has ballet training. Hooray! Always love a Christine that can dance. The lipstick colour she picked: I want. Its a really cool colour. It looks fabulous on her, suits the colouring of the wigs and the costumes - excellent choice. Actually something interesting was that I brought my best friend to see the show for the first time, and even she said that Lisa just looked exactly like a Christine should. So there you go, I'm not the only person who thinks she's the quintessential Christine. Can we get a billboard with her on it, please? Also something another friend who saw the show the next day pointed out; Lisa has this great vulnerability that carries through the entire performance. Yes, her Christine can be very strong, and naive, and many other things. But this touch of vulnerability, that sense that she is under threat in her own 'home' is a lovely detail that lends some consistency to an ever-evolving portrayal.

Anyway, honestly the only reason Lisa doesn't top my favourite Christine's list is because she's too perfect (and also I don't like how she handles the Don Juan skirt, but that's just me being exceptionally pedantic). She's just missing a bit of that rawness. She's completely flawless, but almost too much so.  Interestingly, she actually does a lot more things the way I want them than my official favourite Christine. But I absolutely think that anyone would be hard-pressed to find a more textbook perfect Christine; What really makes her special is that she's the total package, and I do entirely believe that Lisa is probably the best and most well-rounded Christine currently performing (and maybe ever). 

Scott Davies (Phantom)

Scott Davies (Pinterest)

Love a Scotty show! Since he was likely my very first ever Phantom (age 6! Whew!), he's got a special place in my Phantom history book. I love seeing Scott because he's such a fluid performer; every movement is flawlessly executed (the cape flip, disappearing Phantom - you name it, Scott does it perfectly) without feeling over rehearsed. Even though I must've seen him a dozen times by now, it always feels as though I'm watching him for the first time. He's never stale or dull. I do find that Scott can overact at times (final lair, anyone?), but it bothers me less when he's paired with Lisa, who's also a big personality onstage. They work off of each other nicely and are a really solid Phantom/Christine pairing.  Anyway, one of the moments I really liked (mostly because it felt so spontaneous) was just before "You try my patience;" Scott lunged towards LAWstine and threw out an arm as if to strike her; she ducked backwards just in time, and looked at him with this intriguing combination of fear and loathing. I'd never seen anyone do that before, but it worked so well. The dynamic that they both brought to that relationship was really interesting. I also like that he's toned down the hissing in that part. One of my other favourite details is when Christine comes back to the lair at the end, and Scott stands up and straightens his clothing before turning around. He is so desperate to be loved by her, even though he knows it's not possible. I teared up; it was quite a sad moment, even though you knew Christine was making the right decision. The final highlight I want to mention has to be Scott's Music of the Night. It's so wonderfully sung; there's a moment of silence when Scott just breathes in, and in that moment I realised I was breathing in time with the rhythm of the music. You can see why Christine could be hypnotised by a voice like that. It just sucks you right in, and you're living in that moment. Scott's acting in that scene is great too, but the voice and the breath is what pulls it all together. 

Nadim Naaman (Raoul)

(Pinterest)

I love Nadim, but I thought he blended in a bit too much. I didn't really feel the relationship between him and Christine (to be totally honest, I kind of forgot it existed…). Nadim has a very strong voice though; you can clearly hear his lines in all of the songs where Raoul's voice is usually obscured. I liked how clearly he was struggling during the Final Lair, and how he made it evident that Raoul was really upset and confused by the Phantom and Christine's twisted relationship. I also really liked his interaction with Christine in the dressing room scene; very sweet and gentlemanly, and not overwhelming as some Raouls can be. So great voice, good acting, but could've made his presence felt more. 

Michael Matus (Firmin) and Christopher Dickins (Andre)
There's not much to say about these guys other than the fact that I really enjoyed them. I think they both bring the right amount of comedy coupled with enough intensity/seriousness to make the characters believable. I thought Christopher could've milked Andre's funnier moments (skeleton costume reveal, Il Muto ballet intro). Michael does a really wonderful job at bringing a fresh approach to Firmin; instead of boringly serious, Michael's Firmin is sort of the long-suffering, aggravated, manager who is firmly under the thumb of Carlotta. He's less the authoritative figure and more the equally confused buffoon, attempting to do his best under threat of grisly demise. Because of this, Michael and Christopher's characters seem to be more on equal footing, rather than Andre being the 'dippy' one. I liked a lot of Michael's details, like the shrug instead of the gasp in Notes when they're all looking at each other (I know, how vague can I be? Those that've seen the show will know what I'm talking about), and him actually getting on his knees (painfully!) to implore Carlotta to stay. It was a really fresh, unique approach. Anyway, loved them both, no complaints. 

Megan Llewellyn (Carlotta) and John Ellis (Piangi)

Megan Llewellyn

Megan is hysterical; she has a great voice, but she uses it to enhance the comedic aspect of the character. Her attention to detail is great, she never turns off her faces and unique little characteristics. Even when she's in the very back, Megan is doing something interesting and continuing to establish her character. The only thing I didn't like is that I think she could've gotten a bit more serious towards the end of the show, especially that, "she's mad!" line. John has significantly improved; I'm still not in love with his voice (it's a bit reedy) and I find his presence far too imposing (rather than comedic and jovial), but all in all, a solid, funny, and entertaining performance. As a pairing, I loved Megan and John's little 'kissy fingers' thing in Prima Donna, and loved how Carlotta totally treated Piangi like her little servant. It was funny watching extra-tall John trailing after Megan. An entertaining duo that I really enjoyed watching.

Lizzie Holmes (Madame Giry)

(LizzieHolmes.com)

A new understudy for me, and easily my new favourite Madame Giry. She brought so many different facets to the character that I had no idea existed. Every other Mme Giry has been very stern, very focus, and very unsympathetic. Lizzie (it feels weird typing my own name but not referring to myself!), on the other hand, was so multi-dimensional. She was very sympathetic and attentive when speaking to Christine; she really seemed to feel for her and want to try and protect her. At the beginning of Think of Me, she appeared as caring and encouraging rather than scaring Christine into singing. I also liked that she seemed a bit frightened of the Phantom too; when she said, "He will be pleased!" after Think of Me, it felt as if she was breathing a sigh of relief that all would be well thanks to Christine's success. That's not to say Lizzie's Giry didn't have a stern side; she definitely did. The 'Ronde de Jambes' line was so sharp and fierce that I jumped a bit; she was very reminiscent of the strict Russian ballet teachers I've had in the past. Lizzie also has a really incredible voice; possibly even stronger than Megan's. I loved listening to her in Notes/Prima Donna. I'd actually really love to see Lizzie have a go at Christine; she looks right for it and clearly has the voice and acting to pull it off. Maybe in the future. Anyway, the only thing I didn't like was silly little makeup thing; the extra lines drawn on her face were overdoing it. Mme Giry doesn't need to be old and creased! I like to think of her as quite glamorous, and Lizzie's got the right look for that, so that vision of a darkly glamorous Mme Giry works. But yeah, silly little detail aside, a really excellent Mme Giry! Would totally love to see her again. 

Alicia Beck (Meg)

In the past I've found her overwhelming and annoying, but this time she actually faded into the background quite easily. Her singing voice still needs a lot of work, but her dancing has improved and her acting is less obnoxious and buggy-eyed. Not much to say about her; really. 

Everyone Else

There were a few standouts in the ensemble and corps at this show; the new ballet girl, Grace Horne, is lovely. Very lyrical and expressive, and I loved how attentive and 'present' she was. I believe she was Christine's 'bridge double', and if so, her timing was slightly off, but her movements and lip synching were perfect. She also had a little bobble on her pirouette in Il Muto, and you could tell on her face that it shocked her a bit, so that needs some work. But I quite liked her, and look forward to seeing her grow and improve. Your eye is drawn to her, and she definitely shows a lot of promise. On the ballet girl front, I really missed Georgia Ware in Masquerade, as now that Danielle and Layla are gone, she's my favourite (and also I love the butterfly in general). Not sure why she didn't do Masquerade, but I enjoyed her in the rest. I wish the choreography had her more in the front though. I'd like for her and Grace to be the front two. Final ballet girl comment; I still can't wrap my head around Lily Howes. Her costumes don't fit (she looks visibly uncomfortable in them), her movements lack flow and she has no expression - her face never changes. Yet she's always in the front, so you're forced to watch her. Swap her and Grace please!

In the rest of the ensemble, I enjoyed new u/s Christine Maria Coyne; she's very graceful and has great stage presence. I also liked her attention to detail and loved that she reacted to all that was happening around her. A lot of my favourite ensemble members were off today, which was a bit sad, but all the swings are great. 

I had such a wonderful time at Phantom this evening; the production itself is in great shape, and while I don't necessarily agree with all of the casting (and a lot of the costume design), everyone gives maximum effort and puts across an incredible performance. I would still highly recommend seeing Phantom (and especially Lisa) to everyone. 

Romeo and Juliet (July 12th, 2016)

Romeo & Juliet

July 12th, 2016

James and Madden

This may shock those who know me and my deep love of all things Romeo and Juliet, but I've never actually seen the play Romeo and Juliet live. It's been my favourite Shakespeare play since fourth grade (we had these cute little kids versions of R&J and a Midsummer Night's Dream in my classroom), and I played Romeo briefly in my 7th grade class' reading of the play (it was an all girls' school, and I'm very dramatic. I was an incredible Romeo). Since then, I've watched all the movies, seen two versions of the ballet, but never actually managed to see the live play itself. So there was a lot of anticipation for this moment; about 11 years' worth specifically. With something like that, it's very easy to be disappointed. Luckily, it was an absolutely wonderful performance. I can't really summarise why I loved it in just a sentence, so all I can say is go see it if you can. It's incredible.

Seat/Venue Review: R&J was presented at the Garrick Theatre; I sat in C4 in the Stalls, and it was a ticket bought on the day form £65. Unobstructed view, great view of the entire stage, close enough to see the details of the acting, but far enough away to get the 'full picture'. Good legroom, comfortable enough seats - no complaints at all. The only thing I wasn't fond of was the grand total of 3 bathrooms stalls in the stalls. The line wrapped around the entire theatre.

Onto the show! There are so many things I loved about it, and very few that I disliked. Since they're so few, it's easier to begin with what I wasn't fond of.

Tom Hanson played Romeo at this performance (filling in for Richard Madden, who is injured), and while I thought he was an excellent actor, I didn't like his interpretation of Romeo. While certainly teenager-ish (as Romeo is meant to be), I found he lacked the compassion and charm that I feel is so necessary to make Romeo 'loveable'. Logically, Romeo's quite an annoying persona (as he is written, anyway), so it's up to the actor to make the audience care. If the audience doesn't care and want what's best, the ending is far less heartrending than it could be. As it were Hanson's Romeo reminded me far too much of every single male at university; too much self-centred teenager, not enough charming gentleman. So while Hanson did commit to his character choices fully, and successfully established a clear relationship with Juliet, I just didn't find the character likeable enough. There's something else missing that I just couldn't put my finger on; he didn't exactly look like a 'Romeo' either (that sounds mean, but it's kind of important…). Romeo to me is Matthew Golding, or Guillaume Cote. So maybe it was the 'look' that was missing, maybe it was something else. Not sure, but something didn't quite work.

Jacobi, Madden, and Colgrave Hirst (The Guardian)

The other things I disliked were Mercutio (Derek Jacobi) as an old man and the interpretation of Tybalt (Ansu Kabia). I didn't understand the purpose of this at all (other than to throw an extra famous name in the mix). Yes, Jacobi was charming, and entertaining, and I really enjoyed his performance; I just could not figure out how or why this decision was made. It didn't make sense, and added nothing to the show (if anything it detracted, I spent time wondering who the man was, and why are Romeo and Benvolio friends with him?). I spent more time being confused than being able to fully absorb Jacobi's performance. As for Tybalt, he was all anger, all the time. There was only that single dimension to the character, and though it did the job, the character could've been more multidimensional.

The majority of the show, however, I loved. It was quirky and different, yet it stayed incredibly true to the original dialogue. There are so many aspects of the show that I'd like to comment on, but I can't possibly fit them all in. So safe to assume if I didn't mention something or someone, I did like it/them, I just forgot to write about it.

James (Juliet) and Madden (Romeo)
(The Guardian)

I'm always a bit wary of celebrities being cast in West End musicals and plays, usually with the concern that they're only being cast to bring in sales rather than for talent. I'm very happy to report that that is absolutely not the case with Lily James. From the moment she stepped on stage, she just was Juliet. I liked that she didn't try to play it childishly; much is made of Juliet's young age, and the fact of the matter is that James does not look 13. So she didn't try to play 13. She wasn't necessarily a mature Juliet, she was just her (does that make any sense?). What stood out the most was James' acting; she began the show as a cheerful, innocent young lady, and by the end had 'grown up' and devolved into a somewhat manic-depressive adult. Her communication of this complete devolution was spectacular to witness, and really held the show together (I thought it was an exaggeration when other people said this about her - it's entirely true). It's so important that the character not change too quickly or too slowly, and James found the perfect balance to create a very convincing portrayal. Watching her range of emotions really helps the audience to feel what Juliet was feeling, from joy, to love, to despair, to complete heartbreak. Despite knowing the ending that was coming, it was a very sad thing to witness Juliet's distress and desperation, especially in the scene where she drinks the sleeping potion and in the final scene. Her complete and utter despair was palpable; in that moment, James made you feel what Juliet was feeling. It was hard to watch, but in the best possible way. I also liked that she injected some humour into the whole thing; James breathed new life into the classic balcony scene with her somewhat drunken rendition of everyone's favourite, "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" It was very refreshing (and entertaining). To top it all off, James is a wonderful triple threat. She sang a brief number in the first act's ballroom scene, and her voice is lovely and rich (very Sally Bowles in Cabaret-esque). She can also dance wonderfully (and has some very nice cartwheels). James really was the total package; that perfect combination of raw talent mixed with incredible training that creates magic onstage. Watching her wasn't watching Lily James the movie star; it was watching Juliet. The only things I thought were weird were that cartwheel sequence (James was not a childish Juliet. It was a silly choice on the part of the director) and that she spent an awful lot of time clutching her stomach, which seemed like a bizarre acting choice, and as she was doing it at curtain call too, I suspect she may not have been feeling well. But it didn't detract from her performance, just a little thing that I noticed that seemed a bit off. Altogether, James was completely wonderful. She was everything I could want a Juliet to be, yet not overly predictable. She was glorious.

While James was entrancing, she was certainly not the only performer to make an impact. I particularly enjoyed the performances of Zoe Rainey (Lady Montague), Meera Syal (Nurse), Michael Prouse (Lord Capulet), and Kathryn Wilder (Peter). Rainey stood out with her incredible stage presence, sweet disposition, and incredible emotional execution. Her sobbing at the many deaths occurring was heartbreaking. Syal was humorous and engaging, yet also grasped the more sensitive and serious aspects of the Nurse's character (such as her changing relationship with Juliet and relationship with Juliet's parents). I really enjoyed how she mocked Romeo and refused to take him seriously, and subtly threatened him when it became clear his and Juliet's fates were intertwined. Prouse was imposing and absolutely radiated a sense of power and control. It was quite scary to watch this generally calm character completely lose it at Juliet's refusal to marry Paris. He threw Juliet all over the place (you could see bruises on James' arms, so this is clearly a nightly thing) with complete reckless abandon that was really terrifying. It was a very passionate performance. Wilder as Peter was funny and quirky, always hanging around, speaking in a very thick (London?) accent. Though she did not have many lines, Wilder made her presence felt constantly, and was always engaged and interested in the action occurring around her.

I seriously adored the technical aspects of this show. The costumes were nearly flawless; each was perfectly suited to the time period and the character. I loved that Juliet was always dressed in flowy white garments; it added to the appearance of her as an 'innocent' and made her an almost ghostly, surreal figure. It was a great effect. Compared to the rest of the cast, she stuck out as this bright light that was just a little bit different than the rest of the world. The only thing I didn't like about the costumes was I felt that more of a distinction could've been made between Capulets and Montagues in the colours or styles of costumes. But otherwise, I thought everything was beautifully conceived, and fit the time period perfectly. The dresses were gorgeously made and looked great onstage and moved so well during the dance scenes. The set design, too, was very clever. I loved the look of the 'stone', and they did a wonderful job of moving the 'stone' columns and adding small set details (tables and chairs, a balcony that rose from the floor, etc.). With just a few movements, and very little actual set change, they were able to completely transform the space. It was so innovative and effective, and is easily my favourite set designs in a production, ever. I think the lighting also played a big part in the effectiveness of the set (it easily changes the mood of the set), but I don't really feel qualified to comment on the intricacies of that as lighting is, I find, the hardest specialty to understand. The only other little detail I wanted to mention was the the 'curtains' used in Juliet's fake death. I loved how, when Juliet drank the potion, they were pulled all around her, and when she fell, it created her 'bed', as well as a ghostly, eerie shroud. It was a wonderful effect. So, all in all, the visual aspects of the production were essentially flawless.

A very unique feature of this production of Romeo and Juliet was the 'musical' aspect of the play. Instead of being a straight read-through of the play, dialogue became song, scene changes became dance parties; it really felt like being in a musical. I feel that plays can often become far too serious and 'scripted', and this felt like a fresh, unique, and engaging new approach that was tremendously well executed. I think that it kept the audience really 'in the moment' because although nearly everyone knows the story, no one knew exactly what was coming next. Anything could happen. And in the spirit of 'anything can happen', I also wanted to comment quickly about the 'realism' of the play. 'Glass' bottles smashed on the ground, blood flying everywhere (at one point, a blood pack got left on the stage. It was pretty funny), chairs and tables being thrown around - it was glorious.

James and Madden (The Guardian)

I really loved how classically Shakespeare this production was; that sounds very odd, but so many 'modernised' versions of Shakespeare lose that special something that makes Shakespeare's works so unique and charming. Branagh's production, though set in 1950's/60's Verona, maintained that classical, 'dated' (in a good way) feel that I so love about Shakespeare. Branagh made this production accessible to a modern audience through clearly spoken dialogue and clever uses of music and technology, yet maintained the integrity of the words and story which Shakespeare originally wrote. Moreover (and this is going to sound weird), but I've been so sick of classic shows (like Doctor Faustus) gratuitously over-sexualizing their performances. Even Phantom is going that way - the bodices are getting lower and tighter (hello costume mishaps!) A lot of classic pieces of theatre have become games of "how many boobs can we put in this scene?" It's exhausting, and unnecessary. So I applaud this production for its complete lack of nudity, sexual content, etc. The show is successful because of the incredible performances, direction, set, and costuming - not because it sells body parts.

Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company's Romeo and Juliet was one of the most stunning pieces of live theatre I've ever seen. I absolutely plan on returning if I can get my hands on a ticket, and I highly recommend it to anyone. Whether you like Shakespeare or not, I believe this production has something for everyone.

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.