POSH - Duke of York's - July 28, 2012

I'm rather sad POSH is closing so soon after I finally got a chance to see it. I really liked the immediacy of it. If the economy were better, this play by Laura Wade, could easily have been described as “light-hearted, with an edge”. The thing about POSH is that it is complicated and that it is very ‘now’. It has serious bite and the aesthetic pleasure of watching these 10 young men is very much mitigated by the fact that the audience must look beneath the surface that is presented. With times as they are, with views on people in government as they are, with the existence of the “Occupy” movement, this play would not have the impact it does without those circumstances, informing both the playwright and the audience. “Occupy” was about the 98% - this play is about the young and upcoming, Oxford graduating, we’re going to change things, 2%. These people take posh seriously; it is part of their history, culture, blood and sweat of the land – THEIR land, handed down through the generations. There is a joke in the play about Harry Villiers’s family owning half (or was it most?) of Warwickshire and what looks like a cross between mock humility and the correctness of the fact, Harry replies, “Well, not quite.” (or similar). 

The narrative of the play opens with Toby and a young man named Edgar, who Toby has nominated for membership into the Riot Club, and who is very keen. Toby is very anxious because, as it happens, it is his doing that the Club hasn’t been able to meet for two terms as Toby had become very drunk several months ago, began sharing details of the Club to a young woman of his brief acquaintance, who, being less drunk than Toby, recorded the entire conversation and sold it to the Daily Mail. Now that a suitable period of desistance has passed, the Club is to resume meeting, Toby is to be punished for his indiscretion, hopes his protégé will not be the cause of further embarrassment, and waits for the rest of the members to arrive. Spirits are high and during the course of the evening, run even higher. Guy, his diminutive stature making him more eager to prove himself to the group, has sought advice from his uncle and godfather as to how to sufficiently impress the others so as to become the next president. One of the others, Dimitri, has the same ambition and aims to equally impress. To this group, the Club is much more than “posh boys prancing about in tailcoats once a term”. Membership has its privileges, and past membership opens doors to careers in business and government. 

This group is highly educated, sometimes impractically so, in the example of George Balfour advising Steffan Rhodri’s landlord of the redundancy of saying the word ‘Number’ after the acronym ‘PIN’ (as the N in PIN stands for Number). Although he is absolutely correct in the facts, is it actually correct for him to correct the man after so brief an acquaintance? He certainly thought so.

There are a number of lighter moments, most notably in the handful of musical interludes. The first is a handful of cast members ‘coming to life’ from the 17th and 18th century portraits comprising the shallow backdrop at the close of the first scene to the song “I’m sexy and I know it”. “I got the moves” is later and then a further one as well. It is incredibly funny to watch these posh boys rapping about poshness. As Alastair puts it, it’s about “living unapologetically”. The group discuss what it’s like at home, “held to ransom by the National Trust”. Why? To fix the roof. “Why is it always the roof?” James queries, but does admit “mistakes were made” by previous generations. There is a definite disconnect between their world view and that of ordinary mortals. On one side, you have the likes of Hugo telling the landlord “we may not be to your taste, but we’ll always pay our way” and the likes of Alastair who is “sick to death of effing poor people”, which ends the first half and a great speech. Leo Bill’s Alastair is the driving force that gets the group’s already high spirits whipped into a frenzy. His delivery is impressive, his speech impassioned, and his face so red by the end, you’re almost afraid he’s going to go apoplectic. Fantastic! The direct contrast to this is a line by Harry Villiers: “Doctor Doolittle talked to the animals but that didn’t mean they wanted to be friends with him.” Great analogy of class relations. 

At first I was worried about being able to keep all 10 of them apart from one another, but that was unnecessary. Each of the actors brought unique qualities to their respective roles and portray a wide range of personalities. There’s Harry Villiers played by Max Bennett, he’s a good fencer and a bit of a slag; Alastair Ryle played with conviction and fervour by Leo Bill; Hugo Fraser-Tyrwhitt played by Pip Carter, nominator of new member Miles and subscriber to the school of thought that money solves most problems; Toby Maitland played by Jolyon Coy, who nominated Edgar to membership, who was so proud of his own membership he committed the ultimate sin of being indiscrete about it to the uninitiated and man enough to take the disgusting punishment; George Balfour played by Richard Goulding, not a man of too many words, but a solid and reliable one; Miles Richards played by Edward Killingback, a new member but from the onset of the shenanigans belongs to this group, both in tone and in body language; Edgar Montgomery  played by Harry Lister Smith, the youngest of the group in looks and maturity, a new member, eager to belong and sometimes a bit impetuous; Dimitri Mitropoulos played by Henry Lloyd-Hughes, ambitious, different from the others in heritage and dress-sense, but every bit as privileged as the other 9; Guy Bellingfield played by Joshua McGuire, who has to try twice as hard to be noticed, wants desperately to be noticed and plans the dinner menu accordingly; and James Leighton-Masters played by Tom Mison, the president, providing the calming presence of a leader at times and for others is just as willing to be led if it suits. Other cast members include Steffan Rhodri played the role of Chris, the inn’s landlord where the dinner takes place, Jessica Ransom plays his daughter Rachel, down from university in Newcastle where she studies modern languages, including ‘Geordie’ as the Riot Club members joke, Charlotte Lucas plays Charlie, the prostitute who so flummoxes the group by saying no, and Simon Shepherd played Jeremy, Guy’s uncle/godfather, MP, former member of the Riot Club himself as well as Lord Ryott himself.  

What about women? You may well ask: What do they think of women? I don’t believe they think of women much at all, other than in the recreational sense. At one point when the group are trying to persuade the prostitute to stay, they refer to group members as a ‘thoroughbred’, and I think that speaks to their upbringing. There are women for sport and pleasure and then there are the women one marries in order to continue the line. They have difficulty with a woman saying no to them (Rachel) and they have even more difficulty when a prostitute says no to them (Charlie) and no amount of money can persuade her to do what they’re asking her to do. In this they are virtually united. You had a clue of the status of women after the ‘Toast to the Lady Anne’, which served as a history lesson into the Club but elicited an incredulous outburst from Edgar: “Do you mean the Club was founded by a GIRL?”. Acceptance of Hugo’s homosexuality is also par for the course. A few members maintain a sense of the ‘other’ in Dimitri (the only Riot Club member wearing an Ascot), whose family, though wealthy enough to belong to the Oxford set, is not English enough for some. He is accepted as a Riot Club member, but a few (notably Guy, his chief rival) would deny him the presidency of the Club based on his heritage. 

Do not be fooled: this is not a play about ‘genteel’ people, this is a microscope on all things posh. For North Americans (or anyone else) to truly understand what the word means and entails, you need to see this play. It is crass and gross in parts. There is profanity, rather a lot of it. You are watching boys being boys, but ones of privilege. And when the fun and games are suddenly over, there is a rude awakening. In the second half the cast work ever so skilfully at weaving an undercurrent of violence into their hijinx. When I became aware of it, I hoped it was not going to lead to a gang rape of Rachel, but that would’ve been too obvious, and I am glad Wade decided to go a different route. Instead there’s another crime but one at the heart of the class conflict we have been witness to. It may seem that things go horribly wrong, but even that you leave the theatre questioning. POSH is self-aggrandising more than it can be called self-righteous. There was no other possible title for this play in my opinion. Ever.  In the end the audience realises, as the boys do, it’s not about co-existence, but an ability to adapt in order to survive.

For this performance of POSH at the Duke of York’s Theatre I was in the 3rd row (Row B), towards house right. According to the 4 pound programme, it was a new work by Laura Wade first performed for the Royal Court Theatre which then transferred to the West End. The show closes Saturday, August 4, 2012. The stage is high, 3rd row is almost a bit too close.

N.B.: The Underground runs directly below the theatre, but you do forget all about it once the show begins.  

Image from: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/06/25/bullingdon-club-the-politics-of-posh/

Abigail's Party - Wyndham's - July 26, 2012

As much as Wyndham’s Theatre was the place to be on Thursday, July 26, 2012, it was Abigail’s Party the audience really wanted to be at. The party taking place at #13 Richmond Road, the residence of Laurence and Beverley Moss, was for people who revel in awkward pauses, passive aggressiveness, and outright bullying. In the 4 pound programme, Alan Bennett is quoted as saying “he would run a mile from all of Leigh’s characters and that the only puzzle about Beverly ... was that she had managed to escape strangulation for so long.”She is full of “d’you know what I mean”s and other clichés, she rather is one herself. She speaks very little of substance and has even less genuine affection/compassion for anyone, least of all the guests at her party. The only reason there is one is because Abigail is having one and the gathering is ostensibly for Sue, Abigail’s mother, and Tony & Angela, newly moved into the neighbourhood, but considering Beverly is in a slinky, revealing, flowing long gown, the party is really for her. You just get the feeling that Laurence is a bit hard done by: he likes classical music, art, wants to visit Paris – aiming for the finer things in life, but his wife Beverly wants none of that. The cracks in their relationship are swiftly apparent and Beverly’s tone when speaking to her husband can be best described as a patronising one, and that's when Beverly is being "nice". 

All is not well with Angela and Tony either. Angela is a nurse, devoid of tact and personality. She has no mental or verbal filter, so when she finds out Sue is divorced, Angela is quite interested in that and asks question after question, oblivious to Sue’s increasing discomfort and reluctance to share such a personal and painful experience with a stranger. Angela appears to always jump right in, in the bedroom as well, she tells the assembled party, but often her husband often rolls over in the opposite direction. Tony doesn’t talk much, and with Angela around, there is no need for him to – he just needs to nod or give assent another way. The cracks in their relationship are also clear, but in Angela’s oblivious way, when Beverly spends a good majority of the ‘party’ trying to seduce Tony and during a slow song they do reciprocally paw at one another, she notices nothing.

Jill Halfpenny is note perfect in her nasal Essex voice and seductive body language as Beverly. Laurence as played by Andy Nyman might be just as Essex, but has aspirations for so much more and Nyman’s performance is electric from start to finish. Tony’s so-called quick temper, as portrayed by Joe Absolom, is more of a reaction to endless drivel and his performance does evoke sympathy, to a point. Natalie Casey as Angela was terrific, right down to the awkward dance moves. Sue, as played by Susannah Harker, is really the only likable character and one can sympathise with her the most: quiet, mousy, divorced, agreeable – everything the other two women are not and yet most likely ‘should’ be. But with all those positive qualities, you also get the impression that she is very tightly wound and may be the 'doormat' in a relationship, so when she reaches her breaking point to finally shout "STOP", I remember thinking "YES! FINALLY!". None of these characters are happy people. None of them should be married to one another. While not a “feel-good” play, Mike Leigh’s 1977 story about a night in the lives of these horrid people does make one feel abundantly more cheerful about one’s own lot in life, whatever it may be, and brings on a fervent hope that things will never become THAT BAD.   

My seat was in the 4th row, house left in the Royal Circle (first balcony above stalls) and I would not have wanted to be further back or higher up in the house. At that distance, you do start losing subtler visual cues, but you could still hear absolutely everything. 

Abigail's Party by Mike Leigh is playing at Wyndham's on the Charing Cross Road (next door to Leicester Square Tube station) at least through the end of August 2012 and has a running time of 2 hours.   

Photo from a fellow blogger at oughttobeclowns.blogspot.com

Budra Notes: lecture by Dr Paul Budra (SFU) at Bard on the Beach on June 23, 2012

These are my personal notes from an informational lecture given by Dr Paul Budra (SFU) as part of the Bard Explored: Lecture Series. 

“The Elephant in the Room” – saying the name "Macbeth"
--  As old as the play itself.

--  Two possible sources for it

     a) a boy actor in the 17th century playing the role of Lady Macbeth, died at home
        shortly after returning home from a performance.

    b) real witches saw the play and upset at having their ‘trade secrets’ shared
        cursed the play

Historical Background and Context

--  Mary, Queen of Scots was executed in 1587. Her son was James VI of Scotland. He
    married Anne of Denmark in 1589 and when returning with her to England by ship
    the party were beset by such storms that, in James’s estimation, they could only
    be of supernatural origin. 

--  Witches in Denmark were subsequently found and executed, but they also had to
     find one in England. Enter Agnes Sampson. Under torture she confessed she had
     christened a cat, tied pieces of a dead man to it, set it afloat in a sieve and
     started the storm. James VI was said to be Satan’s greatest enemy on earth and it
     was only his great Christian faith that saved him. Agnes Sampson was executed by
     garrotte and her body burned. This was documented in a pamphlet entitled
     “Wonderful News from Scotland”, published in London.

--  No British monarch published as much as James VI did.
--  In 1597 James VI published an encyclopaedia on Daemonology and was very
    interested in witches and witchcraft
--  Elizabeth I of England died in 1603 and James is proclaimed her successor as
    James I of England.
--  His coronation medal read: James I, Caesar Augustus of Britain, Caesar born of
    Caesars.
--  All things Scottish suddenly became very fashionable at the royal court.
--  James had a morbid fear of violent death and believed in the sanctity of the
    monarch as God’s Anointed on Earth (published the Basilikon Doron (royal gift) in
    1597/98).
--  1603 – James I took over the patronage of Shakespeare’s theatre company, the            Lord Chamberlain’s Men, which then became the King’s Men.
--  1605 – Gunpowder Plot (he’d only been on the throne 2 years at that point)
--  1606 – Shakespeare wrote Macbeth featuring witches, the scenario of “what
     happens when you overthrow a king”, and even included topical references to the
     Gunpowder Plot.
--  In Holinshed’s Chronicles, there was a story of a Macbeth who had killed his king
    and was punished for it. A nobleman by the name of Banquo helped Macbeth in the
    murder. Shakespeare could not use that in his play as James I (who was also very
    interested in genealogy) traced his lineage back to that same nobleman. In the            Chronicles, Macbeth was a good ruler and was king for over 10 years. That bit of
    information Shakespeare also needed to change. 
--  In the story, the prophecy came from “goddesses of destiny”, but because of
    James and his particular interest in the supernatural, they became evil witches.
--  Although James I enjoyed plays, they could not be ‘too long’. Macbeth is
    Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy (N.B. The 2012 Bard on the Beach production runs
    just over 2 and a half hours, including a 20-minute interval).
--  Christopher Marlowe, in his Dr Faustus, changed the function of a ‘stage devil’
    from clownish and over-the-top to a serious and creepy character. Stories about
    seeing ‘real’ devils on stage started to circulate.
--  Shakespeare plays up common conceptions of witches   
      -> They had familiars (Grey Malkin was a popular name for a cat, Paddock was
          a name for a toad)

      -> They could fly

      -> They reverse things (foul is fair and fair is foul)
--  BUT, the name of Satan is never invoked, the witches are never referred to as
    such; Macbeth and Banquo always call them the “Weird Sisters” (or Wyrd, the
    Anglo-Saxon word) and they seem to be elemental natural forces and ambiguous in
    their sex.
--  Critics ask if the witches are actually important. If they are, why do they
    disappear after Act IV and if they’re not, would Macbeth have done what he did if
    they hadn’t been. Lady Mac calls her husband ambitious but for the milk of human
    kindness he is filled with.

Why are witches usually female?

--  The theory goes that Satan wants to invert the natural order of things and
    therefore empowers women over men.
--  Shakespeare shows this inversion by language and rhythm in the spells of the
   sisters:
    Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble  
    Fire burn and cauldron bubble  
--  Instead of using the usual iambic pentameter (10 syllables of unstressed/stressed
    pairs (iambs), he starts a shorter pattern with a stressed syllable followed by  
    unstressed, and so on.

Mac and Lady Mac

--   Parallel set-up: “Great Glamis (pronounced Gloms)! Worthy Cawdor!”

--  Lady Macbeth greets Macbeth in virtually the same way the Weird Sisters did

--  She is humanised only when she says she couldn’t kill Duncan because he resembled
      her father. (Act II, scene ii). He calls her “dearest love” (Act I, Scene v), “love”
      and “dearest chuck” (Act III, Scene ii) she has no terms of endearment for him
      (my note: unless there is affection in her calling him “My husband”).

--  She is very tightly wound, but when her subconscious takes over (i.e. when she
     sleepwalks), she can no longer hold down her emotions. When the cracks in her
     composure become too great, she kills herself.
--  Macbeth – is a soldier. As a soldier, he is a killing machine. As a soldier, he believes
    in hierarchy. Act I, Scene ii refers to “another Golgotha”, Golgotha, the ‘hill of
    skulls’ on which Christ is believed to have been crucified.
--  In Macbeth’s Act II, Scene i soliloquy, he doesn’t worry about an afterlife, he
    worries about ‘this’ life and that is what he struggles with. Not sure if he sees a
    dagger or not is a manifestation of the struggle he has about breaking rank. All his
    training percolates when he breaks hierarchy. It takes a little while until he gets it
    back together.
--  Macbeth counts as the only protagonist in the Shakespeare canon who knowingly
    does evil. Even Richard III has henchmen, but doesn’t bloody his own hands.
--  Macbeth later comes to the realisation of what he has lost

     o   He does not have what other people of his rank and age ‘should’ have

     o   He has no real friends, only fear and blood.

     o   Orders the killing of children

     o   He is humanised by his own bravery and that he remains courteous throughout
          (in my words: a kind of gentle murderer)

The Porter

--  Is from a medieval dramatic tradition. Between the time Christ is crucifed and is
    resurrected, three days pass. The tradition holds that he descended into hell
    where he cleans house, the so-called “harrowing of hell”. But he has to get by hell’s
    doorman first.
--  The character of the Porter calls upon that tradition and plays with it.
--  Act II, Scene iii the Porter talks about opening the door to three sinners, the first
    a farmer, the second an equivocator, the third a tailor. Equivocator is a reference
    to one of the men convicted (executed) for his part in the Gunpowder Plot. Father
    Henry Garnet was a Jesuit priest. The Jesuits were founded in 1540 by Ignatius of
    Loyola in the Counter-Reformation. Their purpose was to win people back to
    Catholicism (their presence was forbidden in England for that reason) and they
    were a kind of Papal “SWAT” team.
--  The term ‘equivocator’ was used in reference to Garnet because he would not
     impeach himself. He answered questions put to him in riddles, seen as lies.
--  The use of riddles by the Weird Sisters echoes through the play.

Juxtapositions throughout 

--  Hierarchy and order for the soldier descend into chaos --> witches, Satan’s attempts to invert the natural order of things. Taking off ‘the head’ does not mean Macbeth can easily slip into its place.

--  Hospitality --> murder

--  Sterile --> found dynasties

--  Friends --> betrayal

--  Act II, Scene iv

     --> reference to an unnatural storm (lines 6-12)

         ROSS:                   Thou seest, the heavens, as troubled with man's act,

                                     Threaten his bloody stage: by the clock, 'tis day,

                                     And yet dark night strangles the travelling lamp:

                                     Is't night's predominance, or the day's shame,

                                     That darkness does the face of earth entomb,

                                     When living light should kiss it?

         Old Man:                'Tis unnatural,

     --> reversal of hierarchy of birds (lines 13-15)

         Old Man:                 ... On Tuesday last,

                                      A falcon, towering in her pride of place,

                                      Was by a mousing owl hawk'd at and kill'd.

     --> horses become cannibals (lines 16-23)

         ROSS:                     Duncan's horses--a thing most strange and certain --

                                       Beauteous and swift, the minions of their race,

                                       Turn'd wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out,

                                       Contending 'gainst obedience, as they would make

                                       War with mankind.

         Old Man:                  'Tis said they eat each other.

         ROSS:                      They did so, to the amazement of mine eyes That look'd  
                                         upon't.

Image Patterns

Include:

   --  Blood (most bloody in the world)
   --  Night (never any sunshine)
   --  Time (Where things come together in Macbeth’s mind is in Act V, Scene v, lines
       19-28) – all we’re doing is marking time, it’s all meaningless – absolutely nihilistic. 
        MACBETH:         To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,                      

                                  Creeps in this petty pace from day to day                               
                                  To the last syllable of recorded time,                                 
                                  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools                                 
                                  The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!   
                                  Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player                                  
                                  That struts and frets his hour upon the stage              
                                  And then is heard no more: it is a tale                               
                                  Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,                                 
                                  Signifying nothing.
--  The play is saved by its ending: With Malcolm, the good guys win (Act V, Scene
     viii) time will mean something again, now the days of the “dead butcher and his            fiend-like queen” (line 69) are behind them; Scotland is redeemed.

Q & A

How is Macbeth like/unlike Richard III

--  Richard III – gleeful and theatrical in his evil doing, he doesn’t care about human
     life
--  Macbeth – solemn, thinks things through, understands the value of a human life,
    that what he’s doing is bad, and then goes ahead regardless.

Difficult to dislike

--  Precisely because he does consider the consequences of his actions, that his
    murders have a purpose (mind, to further ambition and to get rid of the
    competition), a lecture participant expressed that because Macbeth shows again
    and again that he has a conscience, that he’s difficult to dislike.
--  Not so much a question, but a comment. Dr Budra did not disagree.

The view to English Bay is obscured

--  Rightly so, Dr Budra observed. It makes sense: it’s dark, foggy, night (never day)
    in the play. By covering the view it sets the mood. Seeing party boats in the
    distance and kites flying off Kits Point only distract. At the Globe Theatre,
    performances would happen in the daytime, so the repeated mentions of night and
    darkness serve to remind the audience that it’s supposed to be nighttime.

Significance of sleep / dream

--  People in the 16th century were very interested in dream states: changes in
    traits, behaviour, people can act strangely in their dreams.
--  Sleep was viewed as important to rest.
--  Idea/Horror of sleeplessness
--  Guilt bubbled up in sleep – Lady Macbeth is so in control when she’s awake, but
     asleep, she loses control of her emotions.

How was it received?

--  The earliest published record was in 1610 by a Dr Simon Forman and he did not
     review it as much as he gave a fairly accurate plot summary.

Destiny vs Free Will

--  Ask me something easier.

Banquo’s Ghost: is it real

--  It’s only real to the person seeing it and that’s what counts. So, it is real to
    Macbeth and the audience.

The End.

NT Live Encore Presentation: One Man, Two Guvnors - April 2012

Preface: I really wanted to get this review up before the final NTlive encore presentation on the afternoon of May 5. In the meantime a month has gone by, Corden has won the Best Actor Tony Award for his performance in the same role since the show transferred to Broadway a few months ago, and, on a personal note, my physio appointments are done and I can move my right arm and shoulder again without pain.

It seems a little odd to write a review of an encore presentation I saw in a movie theatre on April 26, 2012 of a delayed live broadcast from September 15, 2011. However, since One Man, Two Guvnors recently transferred to Broadway with the “Man” James Corden, his two Guvnors Oliver Chris and Jemima Rooper, as well as Tom Edden (Alfie), Martyn Ellis (Harry Dangle), Trevor Laird (Lloyd), Claire Lams (Pauline), Fred Ridgeway (Charlie), Daniel Rigby (Alan), AND Suzie Toase (Dolly) – essentially everyone in the main roles but the actor who played Gareth (David Benson) in the production I just saw, I believe it still has relevance. If my little review can get more butts in seats both in London with Owain Arthur in the role of Francis and in New York, then all the better, because this is a proper funny show and it’s a lot of fun to watch.

There’s a reason Corden carries the show. As an admirer of the Gavin & Stacey series Corden created and co-wrote with Ruth Jones, I have often tried to put my finger on his appeal - an actor by trade, to my perception, he just exudes sincerity – and then I read a review of the show in an LA Times article in the middle of May that really nailed it for me: “Part of the secret of Corden's comic gift is that he combines innocence so naturally with mischief. Although he's 33, his face is that of an adolescent boy who has just discovered beer, Internet porn and some new flavor of potato chip.”

For those of you who don’t like spoilers, just read this: I found the show utterly enjoyable. Richard Bean’s script pokes fun at the future, it’s witty, and isn’t ‘mere’ slapstick (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and physical comedy; it has a noticeable depth to it which raises it a notch or two above slapstick. There are even educational components such as theatre history in the area of commedia dell’arte and biology in the difference between identical and fraternal twins, all done in a really funny way. 

Jemima Rooper is a joy as Rachel Crabbe masquerading as her deceased brother. I hadn’t seen her in much of anything since the Lost in Austen mini-series was broadcast here in Canada, so it was great to see her wonderful talent on the stage. Oliver Chris as Stanley Stubbers is note perfect as a very posh, highly educated but not that bright, gangster and these two actors play the two Guvnors Corden’s Francis Henshall is man to. It’s 1963 and the scene is first London and then Brighton. The plot is set in motion when Francis takes on a second job with Stubbers, spends the whole of the play trying to keep them apart (when he’s not falling in love or imagining the deliciousness of food – he’s an uncomplicated man, in search of simple pleasures, and sometimes his mind doesn’t work quite quickly enough to get himself out of situations), not realising that they are a couple and have travelled to Brighton to meet up and run away with one another as Stanley is a wanted man for killing Rachel’s gangster brother while she’s in town collecting some of her brother’s debts so she and Stanley have money to run away with and start over somewhere else. Sounds simple enough, but as the saying goes, nothing is ever easy. 

Great performances also from Tom Edden as the hapless Alfie, Daniel Rigby as Alan, the aspiring actor, and Suzie Toase, the worldly wise and Francis’s match, Dolly. The bonus comes when, on occasion, Corden appears to break character and just lose himself in laughter. It’s obvious he loves what he’s doing and it’s infectious. 

Not to be forgotten, the music! The play starts with the musicians and they return for scene changes as I’ve noticed the National Theatre likes to do. The music is very upbeat and fun and not just lyrically connecting the music to the play, but the actors take turns playing or singing something. Corden plays the xylophone, Chris plays a rack of bicycle horns, Lams, Rooper and Toase sing a song, Ellis plays guitar while Rigby plays his chest (oh yes), Boateng plays the steel drums and they all sing together at the end. With a little research (apparently encore presentations at Cineplex do not include the usual photocopied sheet that functions as a ‘programme’), I found that all the music is original to this production and was written by Grant Olding, the lead singer for the play’s band called The Craze. As an aside, he even looks like a nerdier and younger version of Martin Freeman with the period costuming (1963) and glasses, also not a bad thing. 

I’m not going to give this play a high-brow review because it isn’t a high-brow show. Sometimes you just want to laugh, and as an audience member of this show, laugh you will. One Man, Two Guvnors will continue its run on Broadway through the summer and is scheduled to close September 2/2012. 

Quote from: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/17/entertainment/la-ca-james-corden-20120520 by Charles McNulty.
Image from www.cineplex.com.

Snow Patrol & Ed Sheeran - The Orpheum - April 30, 2012

Writing this review and keeping it unbiased are two separate things for me. As a band, I adore Snow Patrol. The words and music have the ability to get under my skin, fill my mind, make my heart feel full and make my soul smile or sob. This was only the second time I saw them (the first time was when they supported Coldplay on the La Vida tour – I only bought my ticket 5 minutes I found out Snow Patrol would be opening for them, after the obligatory password reset) and my first time seeing them as the main attraction. They did not disappoint, but I’m getting ahead of myself. Snow Patrol had a support act in Ed Sheeran, someone who I’d only heard of as a consequence of this tour (he’s been getting some incredibly positive buzz) but whose music I was unfamiliar with. 

Ed Sheeran is an unassuming looking young man, of a gingery complexion and of English descent, with a much used and abused acoustic guitar (he broke a string on the first and final songs he played). He performed a grand total of 4 songs during his half hour in the spotlight and he used them to his full advantage. There was already a lot of love in the room. He even had the audience divide up and sing two part harmonies while he sang. I don’t buy into the whole singer/songwriter ‘thing’ – it generally bores me to changing the station. What sets Sheeran apart is his very intimate knowledge of his instrument, the flexibility of his voice, and the technology he employs to make him sound like he has a band and backing vocals supporting him. He creates loops – with his guitar, vocal harmonies, percussive sounds (on the body of the guitar as well as with beatboxing), and just layers on top of layers with impeccable timing as to when to use them or not – beat by beat, note by note. I don’t know the names of any of his songs, so my summary is vague:

• 1st song – more of an r&b-ish number with a nice little insta-loop at the end
• 2nd song – his guitar was getting restrung by a tech so he did it a capella with loops and beats. It was impressive. The person sitting next to me videoed it – I wish I had, it was generally wow.
• 3rd song - Sheeran called it his debut single. Had very much ‘that’ singer/songwriter vibe I don’t have a huge fondness for. It was pleasant enough.
• 4th (and final) song – another impressive number. Twanged up but guitar sounded stripped down, went from an ‘energetic spoken word’ song to morphing into a rap. This is where he really showed his mettle with the looping system. The song ended up really intricate and technical and above all precise. And it sounded so very good. The audience thought so as well – he left the stage after a standing ovation. 

At some point during the set Sheeran mentioned (to much cheering) that he would be back in September. I’ll see if I can get a ticket. I’d like to see more.    

Snow Patrol. Singer, front man, and main songwriter Gary Lightbody has been having troubles with his voice for the last week or so. Even under the weather, I don’t think the audience could complain about his performance in terms of voice or energy level. The crowd was very receptive and enthusiastic. It was a sold-out show and from school-age children to people who looked old enough to have been retired, this is definitely a band that appeals to all ages. I’m smack dab in the middle of them, I suppose. I have been a fan of Snow Patrol even before I knew their name. I still don’t know the names of all the members of the band. I’m there for the music and the experience. Run was the song that hooked me. Then came Chocolate. I needed a few more singles before the shoe finally dropped – THAT’s who they are. The year was 2001ish. 

As varied as their songs are, I’ve never not liked anything they’ve recorded (I have every CD since Final Straw) – the rhythmic flows of songs like Lifeboats and The Golden Floor always remind me of Sting during his Ten Summoner’s Tales period. I also enjoy their cover of that Beyonce song Crazy in love or whatever it’s called. There’s humour in it – they’re professionals, no doubt about that, but they also don’t take themselves too seriously. They’re also grateful. The liner notes on Final Straw say thank you to the fans who bought the CD instead of just downloading a pirated copy off the internet. 

Snow Patrol are often/invariably compared to Coldplay and while I understand the comparison in their sound (they like piano, they like percussion, they like syncopation), lyrically, I’ll take Lightbody over Martin any day. Snow Patrol also make better use of their guitars (with Lightbody and Connolly they can do a lead guitar and rhythm guitar configuration in addition to percussion, bass and piano) creating a consistently richer sound.

As far as the front man comparison goes: Martin is more like a geeky nerd boy in the way he dances, tells jokes or stories, but does it in an endearing and sympathetic way. He’s also big into audience interaction, and for an arena tour they have a main stage, a stage in the audience somewhere, and he’s very mobile – Coldplay don’t just own the stage, they make use of as much of the stadium as they can. There’s also the way they have of making you think you’re at a private show, one that you’re sharing with 30,000 other people. That kind of intimacy is really rather extraordinary. 

Snow Patrol don’t do those huge arena tours – they have projection screens like Coldplay do, but the rest is all them. On the stage Lightbody has a lot of presence, but he’s a different personality from Martin. As a band, they’ve been together for a very long time (28 years I thought he said – when did they first get together? When they were 10?), that they enjoy what they do and are humbled that they are able to continue. They were genuinely impressed by the venue. Other than the audience, the primary person he interacted with was fellow guitarist Nathan Connolly. Connolly in turn, visited the drummer and pianist a number of times (remember: I don’t know all their names), but the majority of the set was focused on either his own parts or on the audience.  

The set: Snow Patrol took to the stage to Berlin off Fallen Empires (it was also what plays when the crew starts taking everything down).

• Hands Open
• Take Back the City
• Crack the Shutters
• This isn’t everything you are
• Run
• In the end
• New York (Ed Sheeran was called back to the stage to help out)
• Set the Fire to the Third Bar (Lightbody solo, no one sang or played Martha Wainwright’s part – I did, but no one else around me knew the harmony, much less the song).
• Make this go on forever – which just kept going, with changing moods and it could have gone on longer as far as I was concerned.
• Shut your Eyes
• Chasing Cars (just about CD perfect)
• Final Straw
• Called out in the Dark
• All that I have 

Encore songs were This is all I ever wanted and Just Say Yes – with much audience participation encouraged and received. Standing ovation not necessary, everyone was already on their feet.   
   
Afterwards I headed to Seymour Street to the stage door. Lightbody had tweeted he’d be there and after an hour he and Connolly came out to say hello. I had a very personal reason for going. I had wanted to say thank you for the words Lightbody writes and the music Snow Patrol create. From excesses of joy to helping me get through the anniversary of my mother’s death every year, and that they collectively make the 30th of May not suck so much. That elicited one of those awkward shoulder touches – you just don’t know what else to do. Heck, if someone told me that, I wouldn’t know what to do either. But they both signed my ticket (Johnny Quinn, drums) had signed it earlier) and I went away a very happy camper.  

* I do not use the word ginger as a slight or a slur – can’t stand ginger root, love ginger people – some of the most creative people I know happen to be of that complexion and hair combination. 

Photo of Ed Sheeran from www.aceshowbiz.com
Photo of Snow Patrol from www.ssgmusic.com
Photo of ticket by Sigrid Bernhoerster