The Addams Family (25 April 2017)

The Addams Family

Edinburgh Festival Theatre

25 April 2017

The Addams Family musical was one of my absolute favourite shows when I saw it on broadway in 2010 (nearly seven years ago… how?!), so needless to say I was thrilled to see that it was being brought to the UK, and even more thrilled that the first stop on the tour would be the city nearest to my University town. By pure coincidence, I bought a ticket for what turned out to be press night, so I was one of many reviewers in the audience. 

As much as I enjoyed The Addams Family on Broadway, the UK tour was not nearly the same calibre. Though I had a good time watching it, and a number of performances were very strong, there were issues of design and staging, as well as a few notably poor performances by certain characters. 

© Addams Family UK Tour

The standout performances of the show came from Cameron Blakely (Gomez), Samantha Womack (Morticia), and Charlotte Page (Alice Beineke). Blakely's humour - and accent - were on point; his line delivery was stellar, he had a solid voice, and he built real and believable relationships between himself and all other characters. I particularly enjoyed the scenes between Gomez and Mal Beineke for their humour and quick wit. Womack as Morticia was very enjoyable (if one can say that); she had the right balance of stoicism and dark humour, coupled with a beautiful voice and charming stage presence. Womack and Blakely worked well together, and were utterly convincing as two deeply in love, and incredibly morbid, people. Blakely's airy humour balanced out Womack's darkness nicely. These two also appeared the best rehearsed out of anyone onstage. Page as Alice was the surprise standout of the show; a character I didn't even remember from the Broadway production. Page has a surprisingly strong voice, but also brought incredible intelligence and comedy to her role without turning it into a caricature. Page also managed to create a believable arc of character development that greatly added to her performance. Of all performers, Page appeared to understand her character the best. She was living rather than acting. 

Good performances also came from Dale Rapley (Mal Beineke), Valda Aviks (Grandma), and Les Dennis (Fester). While I disagree with the choice to cast an adult as Pugsley (though I understand the practicality of it for a touring production), Grant MacIntyre did an excellent job with the material he had. 

© Addams Family UK Tour

I was not particularly fond of the set design, and combined with poorly thought out staging, the whole effect was lacklustre. The colours chosen for the set were good, I'll give them that. But the set was very shaky and unstable, and the balconies seemed unnecessary (one would have sufficed, if they needed to have them at all). Few plot developments required the balcony (the only scene it benefitted was one between Wednesday and Lucas), and use of the balconies mostly consisted of the Ancestors hanging around watching the action below. Another noticeable error in judgement was the torture device during 'Pulled'. For most of the song, Wednesday was entirely obscured behind the device (unless you were sitting on the far left side of the theatre), meaning you missed any acting that was happening. My favourite sets were Morticia's Boudoir and the Entrance Hall, which were detailed and interesting. Most of the rest felt as though they were missing something, or could use some rearranging.

© Addams Family UK Tour

Costume design and construction were also not to my liking. The Beineke's were adequate, as was Gomez. But Morticia's famous black dress was poorly fitted and featured an odd patterned material around the bust. Wednesday's dresses were far too frilly and fussy for her character, and the black corset was just completely out of place. I did like the colour and material of Wednesday's green dress, so I believe they could've chosen a better design and still used that material. The Ancestor's costumes were also too colourful; I much preferred the Broadway's all-white look. It made them more interesting. Coloured costumes blended into the background too easily, and made it less believable that they were invisible. On that note, I also really disliked the choreography. It was far too peppy and excitable, basic corrections hadn't been made (everyone's legs at the same level when there are kicks involved - if that means 45 degrees, 45 degrees it is!) with the result that the entire thing looked sloppy. While the Ancestors are clearly well trained and talented, I did not like the material they were given. They were far too smiley as well; basically, the ancestors were not nearly macabre enough. 

The two weakest performances came from Carrie Hope Fletcher as Wednesday and Oliver Ormson as Lucas. Fletcher has an undeniably strong voice and sung the score with ease, but her acting varied between wooden (at best) and robotic (at worst). Though she manages to act a bit when singing, when she's not singing, Fletcher appears to forget she's still meant to be performing, and instead fiddles with her plaits or her costume, or glances out into the audience. She performed the blocking as blocking, rather than natural movements. Fletcher's Wednesday also lacked character development; there was no change in her from beginning to end - a kind of stagnant melancholia. Wednesday is a beautifully written character with so much opportunity for expression and growth, but Fletcher encompassed none of that. There was no ferocity or determination in her character; instead, it was, to use my companion for the evening's words, "sad and awkward." Ormson on the other hand appeared to have some understanding of his character, and with Gomez or his parents was an interesting character. But on his own, Ormson became almost too feminine in his movements and mannerism. There was nothing of the "College Football player" image in him anymore. This combination of a feminine Lucas and a wooden Wednesday meant there was absolutely no chemistry between the two, which is difficult because this is the couple you're meant to be rooting for the entire show. The director needed to be reminded that you can't force chemistry by making two characters kiss multiple times a scene. This lack of chemistry really showed itself in Crazier than You, which was easily the most awkward scene of the musical. 

© Addams Family UK Tour

There were also a number of mess-ups that one does not expect to see by the time press night rolls around (perhaps the show would've benefitted from another week of previews). Ensemble members were constantly checking their spacing and looking around at each other, particularly when changing formations. There was a major flub when the dancer portraying the moon had her wig come off, and instead of calming letting it go, she had a minor on-stage freak out. While she recovered quickly, it is not the reaction one expects to see in a professional production. Only Page, Womack, Rapley, Dennis, and Blakely appeared absolutely confident in their abilities. That's not to say the ensemble were not strong individual performers. If anything, they just appeared underrehearsed. 

While I enjoyed The Addams Family, and it benefitted from some strong performances, it was significantly weakened by poor staging and choreography, an interesting but poorly thought out set, inconsistent costuming, and a few uninspired performances. I would be curious to see it again in a few months, but for now, I would give it three out of five stars (which would've been two if it weren't for the strength of the source material). 

Off-Topic: "A Theological Reflection on The Phantom of the Opera"

The following post is a bit of a departure from my usual style. It's definitely not a review, anyway. Below, you will find an essay I wrote in March of 2016, exploring the theological themes and implications of The Phantom of the Opera, for a theology class at the University of St Andrews. Taught by Dr Ian Bradley, the course, which is the only one of its kind globally, focused on the theology of musicals in the 20th and 21st centuries. I was a bit out of my comfort zone on this one - I'm technically a history student, not a theologian. But my love of musicals prompted a leap into the unknown, and I ended up having the best time (and getting the highest mark in the class, but that was just a nice bonus). This essay was my second piece of coursework, after a very fun Godspell presentation, and I had a wonderful time researching further into one of my favourite musicals. So, enjoy! It's written in a loose academic style, but I hope you'll find it an enjoyable read nonetheless (I threw some pictures in to loosen up the wall of text). 

A Theological Reflection on The Phantom of the Opera

The Musical The Phantom of the Opera (herein after referred to as Phantom) premiered in London in 1986, and continues to run in both London and New York City to this day. Based on Gaston Leroux’s 1909 novel Le Fantôme de l'Opéra, it introduces a mysterious Phantom who haunts the Opera Populaire in Paris, and chronicles the story of his muse and obsession: the young soprano Christine Daae. At first glance, Phantom appears as a secular musical, with no outward expressions of God or faith in God. Nevertheless, it is packed with biblical innuendo, echoing people, places, and themes found in popular theology. To understand the theology inherent in Phantom, this reflection will begin by examining the affect the production design had upon its theological messages. It will then look at the theological themes that are most prominent in the show, followed by an analysis of lyrics and songs that evoke biblical imagery. Finally, the reflection will conclude with an investigation into the characters of Christine Daae and the Phantom himself, and their parallels with biblical figures. 

Andrew Lloyd Webber, composer of Phantom, has obvious and well-known links to Christianity and theology. As the composer of Jesus Christ Superstar and a patron of Open Churches Trust, it is clear that he is influenced by theology in his writing of music. Because of this, I would instead like to briefly discuss Maria Bjørnson’s, the production designer, influence on the visual theology of the show. In a 1988 interview for Connoisseur  magazine, Bjørnson noted her interest in creating the familiarity of a church setting for many audience members. With the appearance of organs, candles, and drapes, Bjørnson created a church-like setting for the show (and particularly for the Phantom’s Lair). This understanding of Bjørnson’s use of religious imagery is part of the understanding of the show, and will be explored further in this essay.

There is a distinct comparison between the physical and emotional spaces of Jesus’ Garden of Gethsemane and the Phantom’s Lair. The Phantom’s Lair is his place of contemplation, meditation, and creation. In it, the Phantom feels that he can be left undisturbed in order to devote his life to his music (for example, he composes the score for Don Juan Triumphant and countless other unknown pieces). Moreover, as Jesus teaches his disciples about prayer and a relationship with God in the Garden, the Phantom uses his Lair to teach Christine about her voice and a relationship with music (and more importantly, with him, her “Angel of Music”). The Lair also plays a part in the Phantom’s capture, as Gethsemane does in Jesus’ capture. A night spent in the company of others culminates in the storming of the Garden and the Lair by a multitude of soldiers, intent on the destruction of the subject they hunt.[1] Because of this parallel, despite knowing full well the atrocities the Phantom has committed, the audience feels sympathy for the Phantom, and often acts as though they believe he is being unjustly persecuted. Though I do not think a comparison between the characters of Jesus and the Phantom is warranted, their ‘safe spaces’ are remarkably similar to one another’s, a detail I believe that Lloyd Webber and Bjørnson constructed purposefully based upon Lloyd Webber’s foundation in Jesus Christ Superstar and Bjørnson’s desire to create a church-like atmosphere.

The knowledge of Lloyd Webber and Bjørnson’s emotional and visual goals in mind allows us now to turn to theological themes inherent in Phantom. Phantom abounds with any number of possible themes, but this essay will discuss the themes of appearance versus reality and forgiveness. Appearance versus reality harkens at once to the Phantom’s physical appearance; on the outside, he appears calm, cool, and sophisticated in his debonair suit and luminous white mask. But the reality is that this cool exterior masks a deeply twisted persona, which emerges in moments of rage or upset during the show. This depiction is reminiscent of 1 Samuel 16.7, which says, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” Bjornson intended the Phantom’s outward appearance to look like he had poured his effort into it; the mask is meant to resemble finely crafted porcelain. Thus, it is not immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the Phantom that he is a madman. Until he reveals his true personality to Christine, only God knows.

Forgiveness is essential to the ending of the story of Phantom. Christine has been wronged enormously by the Phantom; but also by Raoul, Madame Giry, the Managers, and Carlotta. Though Christine expresses anger and fear during “Twisted Every Way” and “Final Lair”, she nevertheless provides a biblical model of forgiveness at the end of the show. Christine begs for God to give her courage to show the Phantom the love and acceptance he needs, and doing so, is able to forgive him for the suffering he has put her through. Because she does this, Christine is able to rescue herself and Raoul (and really, the entire opera house) from the “dominion of darkness” that is the Phantom’s Lair.[2] The Phantom, on the other hand, is more of an example of what not to do. Matthew 6.14-15 notes, “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” The Phantom blames his sadistic behavior on never having been loved, appreciated, or understood, and being, “met with hatred everywhere!” In fact, the Phantom outright accuses others of sins and attempts to punish them. Again in the Final Lair, he sings to Raoul, “Why should I make her pay for the sins which are yours?” before hanging Raoul from a portcullis. The Phantom’s inability to forgive others for their sins against him turns him farther towards hatred; his very soul is corrupted, and he cannot be saved or welcomed back into the human world.

With those theological and biblical themes in mind, it is time now to turn to the characters of the Phantom and Christine. Both the individuals and relationship between them parallel significant biblical characters, almost too clearly to have been accidental. The Phantom himself bears many similarities to the biblical representation of the Devil; the “Angel of Music” (as mentioned above) literally becomes the “Angel in Hell,” following the ‘fallen angel’ archetype as referenced in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3.4 says, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell.” This is, essentially, what happens to the Phantom during the show. His sins (murder, lust, and all manner of malevolent deeds) are what condemn him to the hell that is the underbelly of the Opera house, where he is doomed to suffer an eternity alone. Moreover, like the Devil, the Phantom longs to be worshipped and revered, and is also guilty of the sin of Pride.[3] Lloyd Webber wanted the Phantom to appear as an “unrecognized genius,” far ahead of his time musically. The Phantom believes he is more skilled than everyone else, yet no one recognizes his gifts.  In this way, we can see how closely the Phantom resembles the biblical Devil.

Christine Daae, the young, innocent ingénue who is our protagonist in Phantom, reflects many characteristics of the biblical Virgin Mary. Stacy Wolf, in her book Changed for Good, notes that women in 1980s musical theatre fall into two categories; either virgin or whore, wherein a virgin is the one with whom the hero falls in love.[4] But Christine does not simply represent a virgin or virginal figure; in many ways, she represents the Virgin: Mary. For example, as God uses Mary as his instrument on earth, the Phantom uses Christine as his literal instrument in the world of the Opera Populaire.  Mary bears God’s child, Christine bears the Phantom’s music. Moreover, the Phantom can be perceived as Christine’s God for a time. He gives her the gift of music; he is her saviour, and she is dependent on his instruction, grace, and love to excel as a performer. At certain points, Christine’s physical appearance is representative of Mary; in ‘Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,’ Christine appears in a blue cloak and red scarf. These are the traditional colours that highlight Mary as she appears in artwork from late antiquity onwards. Furthermore, it is significant that Christine appears in this costume in ‘Wishing’, a song in which she speaks to her father, who is referenced throughout the show as a God-like figure in her life – never there physically, but always spiritually present. Christine ‘speaking to God’ in an overtly and unashamedly Marian costume, and in front of a large, imposing cross, is a powerful piece of imagery intended to further emphasize Christine’s innocence, naivety, and blind faith in her God-figure.

There is also somewhat of an Eve/Serpent (as represented in Genesis 3) dynamic between Christine and the Phantom. It is more subtle than the comparisons above, but the theme of temptation underpins the entirety of the show. I believe the scenes where this comparison is most evident are “Angel of Music” and “Point of No Return.” But there are also strong serpent-esque vibes within “Stranger Than You Dreamt It,” wherein the Phantom literally slithers across the floor like a snake. Moreover, I have seen some Phantoms (including veteran Scott Davies and newcomer Ben Forster) incorporate snake-like characteristics into their performances. Davies hisses all of the ‘S’ sounds in the show, but it becomes most pronounced when his Phantom feels threatened. Forster’s body language is very reminiscent of a cobra about to strike; dangerous, yet sensual. It is clear that performers have made acting choices to reflect the serpent-like quality of the Phantom’s character. There are actions, too that make the Phantom appear as the serpent to Christine’s Eve. In “Angel of Music,” he lures her through the mirror with some sort of hypnotic power; Christine walks towards him as if in a trance, and remains in said trance through until the end of “Music of the Night.” Moreover, in “Point of No Return,” there is the explicit imagery of a bright red apple with which the Phantom attempts to seduce Christine. The Phantom, like the biblical serpent, beguiles, tempts, and enchants Christine for much of the show. After having consumed the fruit of knowledge in the preceding scene, the enchantment breaks; Christine, now full of knowledge, has removed herself from the imaginary Garden of Eden she had seen the Phantom as part of, and now beholds him for what he truly is – evil; the devil represented in flesh. 

Within the song, “Point of No Return,” there is a line in that song which has always intrigued me. Christine sings, “Past the point of no return, no going back now. Our Passion Play has now, at last, begun!” At first, this seems out of place. Did Lloyd Webber and Hart not realize what a passion play was, thereby using it in a romantic or sexualized way? It is possible, but I do not believe that is case. The passion play reference comes at a climactic moment in the action; the Phantom has cornered Christine onstage in a mock opera. In mere moments, he will be unmasked, and will flee with Christine into his lair, where the grand final scene will take place. And so, the passion play, as it is, is literally about to begin. The audience will watch as they experience the Phantom’s, rather than Jesus’, trial, suffering, and ultimate sacrifice (it is a stretch, but one could also argue that the banquet scene preceding Point of No Return represents the Last Supper). The Phantom does not sacrifice his literal life for the good of others. Or does he? Ben Forster, current West End Phantom and former Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, notes the Phantom does sacrifice his life, because Christine is all he has left of life. “He sacrifices his dream and obsession […] she is the only person to show him humanity and kindness;” Forster adds that the Phantom knows she needs to be free, even though it will literally kill him to let her go.[5] Kieran Brown, current West End understudy Phantom, agrees, “She is his everything, but he has to let her leave.”[6] So we can see that this major sacrifice is written into the script and ingrained in the performances of various Phantoms. The Phantom experiences the trial and judgment of the audience and other characters, he suffers loneliness and betrayal from those he trusts most. When the Phantom sacrifices his life and his love for the benefit of Christine and all of those at the Opera Populaire, the Passion play narrative is completed.

Another lyric that stands out, and is repeated frequently throughout the show, is, “Angel of Music.” It’s a phrase used occasionally by the Phantom to refer to Christine (“Sing, my Angel of Music!”), but more often is Christine who applies it  the mysterious figure that sings to her (“Angel of Music, guide and guardian,” for example). With Christine’s comparison to Mary already in place, it seems apt to mention this quote from Luke 1.28, “And the angel that came unto her, and said, Hail, thou art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.” Christine sees the Phantom as the angel sent by her ‘God’, her father, just as the angel Gabriel was sent by God for Mary. As God uses Mary, the Phantom uses Christine, heightening the comparison between the two. Christine believes that the Phantom favours her above all others as he not only teaches her to sing, but also seeks to remove those who stand in the way of a successful operatic career. Moreover, in the song “Angel of Music” itself, the Phantom appears to Christine quite miraculously, similar to Gabriel’s appearance before Mary. The Phantom materializes out of the mirror and, like Mary, Christine has a moment of doubt and fear, before coming to trust and be comforted by the mysterious apparition that sings to her in her dreams.

Though presented as a secular piece of theatre, The Phantom of the Opera is a musical which abounds with theological themes and imagery. Though they may not first be apparent, once realized, they are impossible to ignore, and the knowledge of these themes and parallels add depth to one’s impression of the story, sets, costuming, and characters. The themes within the show, both theological and secular, are universally recognizable, which contributes to Phantom’s unending popularity. The lyrics and staging of many songs allude directly to biblical verses or situations, and the characters of the Phantom and Christine themselves personify key biblical figures. Phantom is a musical that has something for everyone within it; there is a love story for the romantic, dancing for the balletically-inclined, scenes which pass the Bechdel test for the feminist, and, most importantly, biblical parallels and theological themes for the theologian.

---

[1] John 18.1-11, Holy Bible: King James Version. New Edition. Collins, 2011. Print.

[2] Colossians 1.13, Holy Bible: King James Version. New Edition. Collins, 2011. Print.

[3] Isaiah 14.12-14, Holy Bible: King James Version. New Edition. Collins, 2011. Print.

[4] Stacy Wolf, Changed for Good: A Feminist History of the Broadway Musical (New York, 2011), p. 128

[5] Twitter Exchange with Ben Forster (@BenForster)(March 16^th, 2015)

[6] Twitter Exchange with Kieran Brown (@KierBro)(March 15^th, 2015)

Please note: this is a piece of academic work and should not be reproduced or quoted without the express permission of the author. 

The Definitive Ranking of Musicals

My Definitive Ranking of Musicals
I've long been trying to keep track of which shows I've seen, and how many times. I love musicals - not so much plays, though there's the odd good one - and though I've always had a top 10, I've never tried to put every musical I've seen into a list. So, here it is! My attempt at putting all 49 musicals I've seen in my 21 years into one mega list. This is my opinion only, of course. Everyone has their personal favourites for a variety of reasons. Enjoy!

1. Zorro the Musical 

2. A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder (x2)

3. Titanic the Musical (x2)

4. Mrs Henderson Presents (x2)

5. The Phantom of the Opera (x63)

6. Billy Elliot (x2)

7. Matilda the Musical (x23)

8. The Book of Mormon

9. Vanities the Musical

10. Sweeney Todd

11. Evita (x2)

12.Wicked (x10)

13. Top Hat

14. The Addams Family Musical

15. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (x3)

16. South Pacific

17. Show Boat (x2)

18. Oklahoma

19. Kinky Boots (x2)

20. Urinetown
21. Come From Away
22. Half a Sixpence

23. Annie

24. The Sound of Music

25. High Society (x2)

26. Mamma Mia (x3)

27. Annie Get Your Gun

28. Les Miserables (x5)

29. Once

30. Newsies

31. An American in Paris

32. Into the Woods

33. Cats (x3)

34. The Go-Between

35. Miss Saigon

36. Singing in the Rain

37. Anne of Green Gables

38. Anything Goes

39. Gypsy

40. Drowsy Chaperone

41. Starlight Express

42. We Will Rock You

43. The Commitments (x3)

44. The Lion King 

45. On a Clear Day You Can See Forever

46. Wizard of Oz

47. Guys and Dolls (x2)

48. Memphis

49. Assassins

The Royal Ballet: Chroma/Multiverse/Carbon Life (November 19th, 2016)

The Royal Ballet

Chroma

Multiverse

Carbon Life

Nov. 19th, 2016

Rarely have I ever been so excited to see a ballet. And a contemporary ballet at that! I have to admit: I'm a bit of a classical ballet snob. I love a simple, romantic story with beautiful and clean choreography. I've pretty much always condemned contemporary as glorified writhing on the floor with a few pirouettes thrown in. Thankfully, the Royal Ballet's works have been doing a good deal to dispel this opinion. I don't think I'll ever really understand contemporary ballet (I don't even try to comprehend the 'stories' or inspiration behind the pieces), but I've gotten to the place where I can really appreciate the dancing, choreography, costuming, lights - I could go on. 

But back to the excitement; I decided to attend this ballet for one purpose: Olivia Cowley (aka my favourite ballet dancer ever) was dancing in the latter two pieces, and I'd seen a rehearsal video for Carbon Life shortly after I'd discovered her as a dancer, and it was part of the reason I'd wanted to see more of her dancing. A year plus later, she's my absolute favourite dancer, so I was beyond excited for tonight. Plus, I got to sit in the stalls with my best friend, which I've never gotten to do before (day seats are my usual thing). So yeah, excited. Very. I was literally bouncing in my seat before it started.  

I'm going to write about each ballet individually; any general notes will be dispersed throughout. There's no way I won't miss details, so apologies to anyone/anything I've left out! There was too much I loved to write about it all. Please keep in mind that I rarely read the introductory 'story' summaries, as I prefer to watch the piece and draw my own conclusions. This is also very delayed, as I had a dance show and teaching to do - of course what finally enabled me to have enough time to finish this review was an injury that's taken me out of dance for the foreseeable future. So hopefully I have not forgotten too much!

---

Chroma

Chroma was the opening ballet of the night. Weird as this may sound, I actually don't have a lot to say about it. I liked Chroma, a lot, but there aren't too many particular details I felt the need to highlight. Probably what I liked most was the set; it was very open and airy, with lots of clean lines. I'm not sure what colour it was, because the lighting enabled the background to shift and change colours, while also creating or removing shadows that added a completely new dimension to each section of dance. It felt very much like being in a modern art gallery, and the dancers were the subject of a painting coming to life. I'm not sure if the costumes really added to that; some blended with the complexions of the dancers (Sarah Lamb's peach outfit) while others didn't (Luca Acri's - I believe - green costume). I guess it fit with the modern art theme in that it didn't make a lot of sense, and it didn't necessarily detract from the piece - it was just an odd little detail that I couldn't quite make sense of.

It was interesting having the combination of Alvin Ailey dancers with Royal Ballet dancers. There was certainly a huge difference in style; the AA dancers were more muscular, more dynamic, while the Royal dancers were slimmer, more flexible, and had cleaner technique. The latter also had a more lyrical quality to their movements, while the former was often quite jerky and abrupt. I'm not saying one or the other was better; they were just different. It was a bit awkward watching the trios or group numbers, as the AA dancers seemed more focus on individual performance rather than completing the group. It may have just been a lack of rehearsal time, but where two Royal dancers and an AA dancer were together; the AA dancer was a beat behind. Legs weren't at the same heights, arms weren't in the same places on lifts - it was the only moment when Chroma felt chaotic. As individuals, every single dancer was incredible. But the group dynamic was off, something I felt further rehearsal or a cast of dancers from a single company - or two more similar companies - would have resolved this problem.

Based on McGregor's choreography, he really likes using the flexibility of the dancers (and has a fondness for tilts and penches). It didn't really surprise me, as he seems to particularly enjoy working with dancers like Sarah Lamb and Olivia Cowley, known for their flexibility. This proved a problem for other dancers though (particularly the men); while clearly excellent technicians and very flexible from the average person's point of view, some of the dancers clearly struggled with the extreme amount of flexibility required, and this showed in the absence of 'ease' in the dance. Many of them have to make other adjustments in their body positions to achieve the desired effect, which, from my perspective as a dancer and gymnast, looked off. But on a more positive note, I adored the use of strength and classical technique - which all dancers have in abundance. The lifts were very cool and intricate, and
Another highlight of Chroma was the music. It was what really drew me in right off the bat, and made the oddness of the choreography (it's something I don't think I'll ever get over about contemporary dance) more palpable. I got definite Alice in Wonderland vibes off of it, which is a good thing as I loved that music. Considering both the music and choreography, my favourite duet of this piece was a very quiet, yet intense, lyrical duet about midway through. I unfortunately cannot remember the dancers involved (I believe it may have been Lauren Cuthbertson?), but it was a stunningly presented duet. 

A review of National Ballet of Canada's production of Chroma called it a "delirious frenzy of movement," a statement which I feel summarises the piece quite nicely. It has its calmer moments, but all in all, its a busy, but well-crafted, frenzy of dance and motion. I really, really enjoyed Chroma, and I'd definitely be looking to see it again. It was such an intricate piece, I'm sure I missed a lot of details. 

Multiverse

Multiverse was the newest piece of this triple bill, so new that when I bought my ticket a few weeks ago, it didn't even have a name. No new work is ever going to be perfect, even from an experienced choreographer like Wayne McGregor, and that was certainly the case here. I think the concept was interesting, and the backdrop was very cool, but in terms of visuals, I didn't really understand the costumes. The variance between pointe and soft shoes didn't make any sense, first of all. Also, the costumes seemed to be quite organic; stained, earthy colours, styled into leotards with looser skirts/tops. This contrasted confusingly with the very modern, technological background (Think Curious Incident, with less lighting) and techno-style music. Speaking of music, I wasn't overly fond (quite in contrast to Chroma); instead of complimenting or instigating the dancing, it proved an overloud distraction. I guess it went with the chaos of the dancing, but I found it very difficult to listen to, and it was giving me a bit of a headache. That, combined with trying to follow four different pieces of choreography at once just made the piece overwhelming and difficult to watch and enjoy.

Multiverse was the piece where I liked the choreography the least. It was too chaotic; there was too much going on at once, and brief moments of symmetry and unity were far too fleeting. I liked the steps themselves, I just didn't enjoy the chaos. You don't know where to look, so you end up missing almost everything because your eyes are darting all over the place. When Olivia Cowley was onstage, I watched whatever section she was doing, but otherwise, I sort of had to pick a dancer and watch only them (and their partners; I mostly watched Sarah Lamb, Lauren Cuthbertson, and Francesca Hayward), which meant I probably missed a lot of action. It was the only way I could actually process a small segment of what was happening onstage. I also didn't like the duet at the beginning; as far as I understand it, the two dancers were supposed to be following each other, so not perfectly in synch. However, because the second dancer was only a split second behind, it looked too much like he was just off time rather than this being a part of the choreography. I think that distinction needs to be more clearly made. That said, I can't fault the dancers at all. Every single performer clearly gave every ounce of energy to create as dynamic and exciting a piece as possible.

To me, this was a piece about contrast, especially in the world as we know it. The transitions between modern war (?) and historical (represented as a fractured painting on the screen), and the uneasiness of the dancing itself communicated that theme. However, the dancing itself was just too chaotic, and not balletic enough, for my liking. Overall, I felt that Multiverse was more of a performance art piece rather than a contemporary ballet, more at home performed in a gallery, not the Royal Opera House. 

Carbon Life

Carbon Life was the final piece of the evening, and might just have knocked Connectome out of the top spot for favourite contemporary ballet piece (which is odd as they're very different pieces). I got very cirque-du-soleil vibes from it; the music, the dance, the lighting, and the costuming all came together for that effect. It was a true performance. I really liked that the music and dance worked so seamlessly together; one could easily have overwhelmed the other, but McGregor skilfully weaved the two together to create a whole, such that you couldn't picture one without the other. Having the live band and singers proved quite useful; the piece had so many different tones and emotions involved, and having singers and musicians coming on and off stage worked well at communicating these transitions. I also liked the combination of vocal and instrumental music, it added a nice variety to the piece.

I really loved the choreography of Carbon Life; it was the perfect combination of classical steps and beautiful technique with a modern quality of movement. The turns and the legs and the arms were so clean and precise, but the body waves and rolls and general 'reckless abandon'-esque quality of movement gave it that more visceral, raw feel. It was a great combination. Speaking of combinations, I loved that synchronised tendu-port de bras thing that was going on in a large V and in the background of a duet for a while (confession time: I didn't realise there was a duet going on until my friend told me later. I was enjoying watching the synchronicity of the tend-ptb bit). I may or may not have stolen that combo and used a slowed-down version in my ballet class… Anyway, I don't have much else to say about the choreography other than that I loved it. It was just a wonderful, aesthetically pleasing combination of classical and contemporary.

Lighting, set design, and costuming/makeup of Carbon Life are definitely worth noting. Unfortunately, since I'm writing this so belatedly and don't have pictures to remind me, I can't actually remember why I liked the set. But I did like it! The lighting I do remember; it was dusky and 'smoky' and dark, but there was still enough light that you could actually see what was happening. It was kind of cool with the black costumes and smoky atmosphere at the end, you almost felt as if you were in this industrial coal mine or something. It was a very Silent Hill-esque vibe. I wasn't hugely fond of the makeup; yes it suited the them, but it aged the dancers, and the invisible eyebrows and lips thing make it so much harder for them to use their facial expressions. If you weren't front row, you missed a lot. I'll talk a bit more about the costuming below, but I liked the simplicity and uniformity of the costumes. I don't want to call them androgynous, but to a certain extent the men and women were dressed very similarly, such that it was only by body shape that you could tell them apart. The skimpiness of the opening costumes meant you could focus a lot more on the shapes and lines the dancers were creating with their bodies and the quality of movement rather than any loose bits wafting distracting (like in Multiverse).

As much as I loved the piece as a whole, the highlight for me was the duet between Olivia Cowley and Matthew Ball (covering for Edward Watson). It was fierce, dynamic yet fluid, and utterly captivating - you couldn't tear your eyes away even for a second. Olivia and Matthew have incredible chemistry, particularly considering this was a fairly recent partnership, due to Watson's injury. I saw a whole new dimension of Matthew, whom I'd previously only seen playing fairly youthful, innocent roles. He certainly showed his capacity to execute darker characters. I also thought he and Olivia had an excellent emotional and physical connection; apparently this duet was meant to be about a certain kind of love - my friend theorised it's about that dysfunctional, violent, yet passionate love, which made sense to me from the way the two dancers interacted. And then there's Olivia Cowley herself. Just everything about her performance was perfect. The effortless flexibility in her back and hips (her tilt gave me seriously flexibility envy) made everything she did look easy - which is, ultimately, the goal of most dance pieces. Although she's a technically stellar dancer, my favourite part about Olivia in this piece was her emotional expression. She makes all of her emotions and facial expressions big without overdoing it. Everything looks and feels so genuine, and because of this, I find it far easier to connect to her dancing. There's no disconnect between the steps and the acting, and she doesn't prioritise one over the other. It's a very rare skill to have (most of the dancers in this triple bill, as talented as they all are, were clearly focusing more on getting the steps and choreography rather than letting the audience feel the raw emotion), and I think it's what made her stand out so much onstage, and particularly in this duet. Although I've loved everything I've seen her dance so far, Carbon Life was certainly a standout (up there with Raven Girl and Afternoon of a Faun).

Although I loved Carbon Life to bits, there were things I just didn't get. The angular black costumes that appeared later in the ballet were a cool effect, but they left me confused as to the purpose, especially when most of them were removed for curtain call (for practical reasons, of course, but it didn't make sense to have a complete costume change for five seconds). Especially the men in the tutu and Lady Gaga-eqsue outfits. I just didn't get it, and it detracted from the conclusion of the ballet. I also thought the rap element of the music felt a bit out of place; the rhythmic beat was good for the dancing it accompanied, but the political notes of the song and ill-conceived Trump joke detracted. These are just a few small issues in an otherwise excellent performance, and Carbon Life really is one of my new favourite contemporary ballets. 

---

Part of my enjoyment of triple bills comes from the variety of choreographers' work you can see; they're all so different that you don't get the chance to get bored or too used to anything. Because of this, I expected that seeing three works by the same choreographer in quick succession would be tiring and monotonous, but although McGregor has a definite style (all of the body rolls - I swear he's been watching AGG. And he seriously overuses the cat walks - not sure what the technical term for those are), each of the pieces was just different enough to maintain my interest. Whether it was loud and dynamic like Carbon Life, quietly brilliant like Chroma, or so confusing you were forced into intent focus, for Multiverse, everything kept your attention. I'd certainly be happy to see this triple bill again, and I look forward to seeing more of McGregor's work in the future. 

Vanities the Musical (September 10th, 2016)

Vanities 

The Musical

September 10th eve, 2016

(LoveTheatre.com)

The sad fact of the matter right now is that most of my favourite theatre performers haven’t been in a show for a while. The one that is, I’ve been somewhat obsessively stalking, and trying to see everything she in. So when I saw that Lizzy Connolly was going to be in a show called Vanities, I knew I was seeing it, no matter what it was about. With a three person cast, tiny theatre, and a fairly simple plot, I honestly wasn’t expecting too much. I figured since Lizzy was in it, it would at least be entertaining. But somehow, this little show was way more than I expected it to be.

Seat/Venue Review: I much prefer Studio 2 to Studio 1 at Trafalgar Studios. It’s an intimate yet comfortable venue (not a bad seat in the place, I think), with a nice bar area, friendly and helpful ushers, and very reasonably priced programmes. The seats are a bit dodgy as you have to share with a second person to get them to stay down properly, and front row has you right on the stage, but for £30, I’m not complaining.

Vanities tells the story of three Texas cheerleaders, checking in at four different points in their lives – senior year of high school, final semester of college, age 28, and middle age. Kathy, Joanne, and Mary start of as an inseparable group; different personalities but obsessed with the same goal: to be popular. As they age, we watch the three girls grow and change as life hands them situations they never could’ve prepared for.

The three stars couldn’t have been more perfectly cast. Lizzy Connolly as Joanne was every bit the traditional southern belle. Lauren Samuels as Mary was delightfully sarcastic, and Ashleigh Gray was calm and self-assured as Kathy. The characters were so well developed; they truly seemed like they’d been best friends since childhood. Every little nuance and interaction seemed completely natural. It’s something anyone with best friends (so, anyone at all) will recognize, and I think that’s an incredible achievement. The three characters so wonderfully reflected the time period, and how attitudes changed during this period – it felt like watching a documentary rather than a musical.

Lizzy Connolly (LoveTheatre.com)

Lizzy Connolly, as expected, was wonderfully entertaining. She just has the most perfect comedic timing; a recurring joke (about how Joanne would kill herself/slit her wrists/slit her throat/kill someone else) had the potential to be quite dark, but Lizzie just said it with the perfect tone (almost a drawl) and timing to make it funny. She also really played up Joanne’s ditziness and naiveté without making her seem entirely stupid. It made her character seem more real. Because Lizzie’s such a strong dancer, it gives her a great sense of how movement and posture can affect a character – to that end, she goes from very prim and upright in the first three acts, to a bit hunched over in the final act, showing how her character’s outlook on life has changed. Lizzy doesn’t need the costume or wig changes to accurately communicate her character. Her accent is also perfection; funny and exaggerated without being ridiculous. My favourite part was in Act III when Joanne gets very drunk on champagne and starts dancing around the apartment, basically going completely crazy and complaining about all that’s frustrating in her life – it was hilarious and refreshing to see the character completely let loose. All in all, an absolutely brilliant performance.

Lauren Samuels (LoveTheatre.com)

Lauren Samuels gave a very strong performance as Mary. Her character wasn’t likeable in the least bit; you felt a bit of sympathy for her, but at the end of the day, I was mostly shocked and disgusted by the things she’d done (like sleeping with Joanne’s husband). I’d love to know what led her to the things she did (surely it was more than just having such a stifled childhood and wanting to see the world), but nevertheless found her character intriguing. You could definitely see from the beginning that Mary was a bit bitter about her life, and that feeling grew and grew through the show. The character was delightfully sarcastic, and spent a good deal of time making fun of both Kathy and Joanne. She was more darkly humorous than Joanne though, which offered a nice contrast. In some ways, I thought Mary was the most fully fleshed-out character in terms of writing, and Lauren worked with that to produce an really intriguing performance.

Kathy was easily the most relatable character in the first two acts (for me, anyway, as a neurotic list-maker myself), and Ashleigh Gray, with her huge voice and sensitive, thoughtful acting, carried it off beautifully. I thought that she really captured Kathy’s need for an ‘organized life’ without making her unbearably fussy. Kathy was certainly the quieter presence onstage; the one always watching, listening, and taking in everything that was happening. That was probably Kathy’s downfall, she knew too much and cared too deeply that everything be in a certain way. Ashleigh’s accent was also incredible; she sounded just southern enough to be believable, then went to a very mild, almost Canadian accent for the second half. It made Kathy’s slight personality shift seem more complete. I also loved how she went from very peppy and bouncy (almost a bit twitchy) in Acts I and II, to very ‘still’, not moving unless she absolutely had to. Another great indicator of the transition the character had made.

Ashleigh Gray (LoveTheatre.com)

I really enjoyed the set; it was very cleverly designed so that everything the actors needed for the show was right in front of them. The set could be anything; a highschool locker room, a sorority house, a new york apartment, or a funeral home – it actually reminded me a lot of the off-broadway production of Heathers. Definitely a ‘less is more’ approach. Also, the set was pink, and we all know how I feel about anything pink. The changes between scene had the potential to be awkward and shuffly, but were executed smoothly. I liked that the three actresses went into a sort of ‘trance’; they weren’t really themselves, and it helped to communicate the passing of time. The lights were kept up (though dim) and the music continued  playing (the same tune for every scene shift), which was better than if they tried to hide the transitions completely. It wouldn’t’ve worked in that small a theatre. The ‘Mirror Song’ (Mystery I-IV) was used to illustrate how their lives have changed based on which makeup products they were using. It also helped maintain some consistency through the show.

The costumes were also really nice, and suited each character perfectly. A number of the pieces looked vintage (some were nearly falling apart, like Lizzie’s act I and II shoes), but everything fit the actresses and matched the time period. The onstage change into the cheerleader uniform was a bit dodgy (I honestly wasn’t sure if they’d all get their sweaters buttoned up in time, and they kept having to do one or two up slyly during the following scene), but the outfits themselves were adorable. I really want one of those skirts; they were so cute! (yes, I’d totally wear it to school. In freezing cold Scotland. Don’t judge!)

Connolly, Gray, and Samuels (LoveTheatre.com)

The only things I really disliked about show was that sometimes the direction had the actors walking up the stairs into the audience – they always had to push through legs and be wary of bags. It seemed unnecessary and impractical. I also felt that there was something missing with Kathy’s character. We never really find out what happened with her other than that she had a nervous breakdown. She clearly was the point of connection for the group for their entire lives (Mary and Joanne kept in touch with her when they weren’t speaking to each other) and she’s the one who brings them together for the ‘tea party’. But I didn’t understand why. And how she ended up in the situation she did; there was a bit about her being laughed at for being enthusiastic, then becoming to neurotic, but that doesn’t lead to a complete personality shift… (speaking from experience). I found Kathy very relatable and fleshed-out in the beginning, but by the end of the show, I was just confused. Kathy just felt incomplete; however, I think that was a writing error rather than anything Ashleigh did with her portrayal.

I don’t usually do the stars thing, but if I had to, I’d give this production 4.9/5. Vanities will make you need to gather up all of your friends and give them a big hug (and make them promise never to sleep with your future husband). It’s heartwarming, shocking, cleverly executed, and just a great evening out. The performances are astounding (so much talent in such a tiny theatre). I highly recommend seeing this production; it’s playing at Trafalgar Studios 2 until October 1. Tickets here: http://www.atgtickets.com/shows/vanities-the-musical/trafalgar-studios/