Heaven Helpmann the Aussie Musical

The Helpmann Award Winners were announced this week. Television news coverage of the event was, of course, limited, but what did manage to make the 6pm reports was the winner of Best Musical. A Chorus Line.

 

My first thought was – really? 

 

To give some context, I saw this show with my ‘theatre group’. The group is made up of my partner’s mother, sister, sister’s best friend, and aunt, so it is really a family affair and I wouldn’t necessarily call us the most discerning, critical group of theatre goers (and ‘theatre’ generally translates just to musical theatre). However, when I saw that A Chorus Line was coming to Sydney I couldn’t wait to pitch it to the group as our next outing. 

 

Why was I so excited? Well for one, I’d never seen the show performed live. I had also sung a few numbers during my period of regular singing lessons (Dance 10 anyone?) and knew that it was musically very entertaining. Plus, as a fan of dance I had high expectations for a show taking its name from one of the most well-known dance ‘moves’ ever.

 

We booked our tickets months in advance, such was my enthusiasm, and when the day finally rolled around I was so enthusiastic I arrived an hour early (but I bought some killer heels while I was killing time so it all worked out for the best). Program in hand, and safely ensconced in our stall seats, I braced myself for the leotards, chorus shoes and kick lines I’d been dreaming about.

 

Admittedly we did see a matinee, and it was very early on in the season, but I left feeling very disappointed. 

A case of too much anticipation getting in the way of objectivity? No, I don’t think so. Here’s my critique (such as it is being several months after the event)…

• The Director’s voice-overs were terrible. He sounded flat, bored, and for the first part of the show I actually thought they’d been pre-recorded. There was no engagement in the dialogue, and it sounded as though he could care less about the answers to the questions he was asking. I guess maybe he was cast for his dancing ability and not his acting.
• The choreography was dated and formulaic. I realise that the choreographer was one of the original A Chorus Line performers and she was drawing on history but in this day and age I thought a dance show could have benefited from some new ideas and fresher moves.
• The Music and the Mirror dance number was below average. The song is all about how great a dancer Cassie is – so you expect a dynamic, captivating performance. I thought instead that the performer was holding back (perhaps like me she has difficulty keeping balance in chorus shoes and didn’t want to slip over). I wanted a Catherine-Zeta-Jones-In-Chicago-like effort, and I got marking it.
• Finally, the much anticipated Dance 10, Looks 3 – more like Dance 7, Looks 5, Singing 2. This is meant to be a sassy belt and sounded more like a whimper. And I didn’t think the actress looked like she’d had work done or understood why anyone would.

Sigh.

 

Okay, it wasn't all bad. Paul's monologue was beautifully delivered, the costumes were gorgeous and exactly what I expected, and the staging was minimal but utilised mirrors wonderfully.

 

So does all this ranting have a point? Yes. When I heard that this same production had won a prestigious Helpmann I was gobsmacked. But then I looked at the list of nominees:

• An Officer and a Gentleman – probably one of the biggest flops in Australian-premiered musical history
• Rock of Ages – which did so badly in Melbourne it didn’t even make it to Sydney
• Grey Gardens – never even heard of it.

Right, so perhaps it was a case of the best of a bad bunch. I can’t say that any of the others were better as I didn’t see them (because An Officer and a Gentleman had such bad reviews and because Rock of Ages didn’t make it to Sydney and because I’d never heard of Grey Gardens), but I felt saddened that this was the selection this year’s judges had to choose from.

 

Fingers crossed that the 2012-13 crop of musical theatre brings more choice, not just for the judges but also for my theatre group.

Side By Side (apologies to Mr Sondheim)

In my last (and technically first) piece I talked about the similarities between the Belvoir and STC 2013 Season line-ups. In the hopes of determining who to subscribe to, I have decided to analyse the plays side-by-side. Here goes…

STC	Belvoir
The Secret River Adaptation of a (Booker prize-winning) book by Kate Grenville, directed by Neil Armfield (former Belvoir artistic director) The first show of the 2013 Season, the story follows convict’s journey to the Hawkesbury where he encounters the Dharug people, unwilling to give up their land. A glimpse into Australia’s dark history, and persecution of the indigenous population.	Peter Pan Adaptation of a (very famous) book by JM Barrie, directed by Ralph Myers (current Belvoir artistic director) The first show of the 2013 Season, the story follows a boy’s journey to Neverland, where he encounters the Lost Boys (to whom Myers hopes to draw a parallel with Australia’s stolen generation). A glimpse into Australia’s dark history, and persecution of the indigenous population.
Mrs Warren’s Profession Starring Helen Thomson, a likely reinvention* of a George Bernard Shaw classic. A woman working her way to independence and a top career finds out her education was bankrolled by a prostitute – her mother. Written in 1893, but not performed until 1925 because of its content, the play deals with class, love and lust. *Guessing due to the fact that the ‘dress-up’ spectrum of the play as indicated by the infographic representing each production is relatively small	Miss Julie Starring Brendan Cowell, a reinvention of Strindberg’s classic. A woman, born into privilege, uses sex to gain power and independence. She partners with Jean (poor but ambitious) to achieve her goals. Written in 1888, while not banned it dealt with the controversial topic of sex outside marriage and class, love and lust.
The Maids Starring Cate Blanchett and Isabelle Huppert in a reworking of a French play by Jean Genet. Two maids fantasise about killing their employer, while dressing up in her outfits, imitating one another in a series of ‘performances’. Written in 1947. Billed as “one of the theatre events of the year”, it features 2 strong female leads.	Persona Based on the film by Ingmar Bergman, a massive hit in Melbourne in 2012. An actress, who falls suddenly dumb, is sent to the seaside to recover. Her nurse begins to speak to her. Reviewed as one of the best theatrical productions of 2012, it features two strong female leads.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Starring Tim Minchin and Toby Schmitz Tom Stoppard’s comedy which follows two characters from Hamlet – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.	Cat on a Hot Tin Roof Starring Ewen Leslie and Jacqui McKenzie, directed by Simon Stone (who delivered 2012’s hit Death of a Salesman). An American classic, with heat at its heart.
Romeo and Juliet One of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, given a youthful treatment by Kip Williams (who directed 2012’s physically driven Under Milkwood). Likely to be a very watchable production, especially given Williams’ deft touch with poetry (evidenced by Under Milkwood).	Hamlet One of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, given the Simon Stone treatment (who directed 2012’s beautifully stylised Strange Interlude) Starring one of the hottest acting properties around – Toby Schmitz – this could go either way (due to Stone’s sometimes controversial reinventionist approach), but is likely to be a big hit.
Waiting for Godot Starring Richard Roxburgh and Hugo Weaving, directed by Tamas Ascher (who worked with both stars on the highly successful Uncle Vanya). A play about nothing. Or waiting. Or God. Depends on your point of view really. Modern classic.	Angels in America (Parts 1 & 2) A massive undertaking of both shows, billed as “the newest classic in the canon”. A comedy about heaven and earth, past and future. Directed by Eamon Flack, who works well with both classic and modern texts.

Okay, well that's just made my job harder. There's nothing else for it. Additional assistance is required. To the pub!

To subscribe, or not to subscribe. That is the question.

With the two big Sydney theatre players unveiling their 2013 seasons this fortnight, along comes the conundrum: who gets my hard-earned dollars?

This year, for the first time in over a decade, I subscribed to a theatre company. It is a big financial commitment, especially when you have no idea whether the productions will actually live up to expectations.

For example, among our choices from STC’s 2012 line-up was Pygmalion. I love this story, but had never seen the original in the theatre. But Shaw’s writing is fabulously English, witty and challenging, so I felt it would be a safe bet. Sadly the production left me cold. The choice to reset the play (at least in terms of its sparse set and costumes) in the present did not marry-up with the period text. The class comedy was lost because as far as we knew, class wasn’t a factor. A conscious choice of juxtaposition? Perhaps, but I was underwhelmed. 

I had similar high hopes for Liaisons Dangerous, with the always sublime Pamela Rabe and – while I’ve never seen him on stage – equally compelling Hugo Weaving. But alas, this adaptation was also a disappointment. Although harder to put my finger on exactly why it failed to achieve the dizzying heights of my expectations, I walked from the Wharf Theatre feeling bored, and tired. Perhaps the intimacy of the space (sitting three rows back meant we were practically in the drawing room rather than merely observing it through a window) gave me too close a view of characterisations that I felt missed the mark. Or maybe I wanted more sex from the production, having first encountered the story in its filmic form, Cruel Intentions (which was perhaps most famous for the lesbian kiss between Sarah Michelle Buffy and Selma Blair). Regardless, two plays out of my carefully selected sextet were, in my mind, a waste.

But the three other shows that made the cut in my 2012 compilation were surprisingly good. I would even go so far as to say excellent, particularly in the case of Midsummer (albeit a touring production so not entirely the achievement of local creatives). Does the fact I, as a subscriber, get to see three good shows in a year outweigh the cost of paying for two shows I did not enjoy? Even if I had bought tickets ad-hoc, would I still have gone to see the two poor shows anyway? I know that in the case of two shows at Belvoir this year, for which I can obtain free tickets thanks to the fact I volunteer with the marketing team regularly, I deliberately chose not to attend, because of poor reviews and content that did not appeal (apparently to many but that’s a whole other blog).

With one to go I am pondering the potential value exchange in having at least had tickets and gone to see shows, against a backdrop of ten years in the theatrical wilderness, as it were.

I’m not alone in attributing the value of a theatre company subscription to the simple act of regularly attending performances. A number of 2012 Belvoir subscribers, surveyed for the company’s future marketing activities, said the main reason they purchased a bulk pack of performance each year was to ensure they actually went to the theatre. ‘Life gets in the way. You hear about a production, decide you want to go, but by the time you get around to booking tickets the show’s finished or the season’s sold out,’ explained one.

Then of course there is the guarantee of good seats, not missing out on a show which sells out faster than you can say Cate Blanchett, and the discounted prices. And the perks like discounted books, meals, travel – although I am yet to use any of these. Hmmm. Scratch that last then.

On balance, I think subscribing is worthwhile, if only for one of the main reasons I have yet to outline here – that I am doing my bit to ensure theatre continues to be made. Theatre companies rely on subscriber dollars to fund their existence. They give an excellent indication of which shows will be popular among individual ticket buyers (allowing valuable marketing dollars to be funnelled into projects that require a little extra help), and they allow budgets to be set well in advance.

So to the big decision – who to subscribe to? Both STC and Belvoir are offering big names (actors, directors, playwrights), re imagined classics, popular Shakespeare and quirky newbies. In many ways both seasons are very similar. It gives me an idea for my next musing… Until then, wish me luck in my quest for the perfect program.