This space is available for advertising
|
|
This space is available for advertising
|
|
New
York! New York!
|
|
|
|
New York Theatre Reviews 2October 1998Lyrics by Fred Ebb Starring Karen Ziemba and Ute Lemper Sam S. Shubert Theatre If the O.J. Simpson and Louise Woodward trials have done one thing, it's been to point up the relevance of Chicago, and the Monica Lewinski affair has just confirmed that feeling. Without these three recent cases, we might be tempted to think of the idea of a criminal trial as entertainment as a hangover from a less moral age. They show us that the machinations of Billy Flynn on behalf of Velma Kelly and Roxie Hart are firmly rooted in reality, no matter how contrary to truly civilised behaviour we might believe that to be. For all its exaggeration and cold-hearted rejection of the idea of justice, the world of Chicago has some disturbing echoes of our own world. But it's fun! There has been much comment about the bare-stage "black box" presentation of this production, but it's hard to see how it can be done as effectively in any other way: the bare black walls with the band taking up much of the stage immediately behind the action perfecty convey the noisy hall where there's a nightly brawl - for the setting is not "the house", "the jail" or "the courtroom", but a sleazy dive where the events are portrayed as a series of vaudeville acts, Also very much in keeping are the costumes which represent a sexy nineties "re-invention" of the twenties - and remarkably reminiscent of the Kit Kat Klub dancers' costumes in the Cabaret film. In fact, the two shows have much in common. Both use the cabaret/vaudeville setting as commentary on the action, although in Chicago the metaphor is taken further than in Cabaret, where the performances in the Kit Kat Klub serve as a kind of chorus commenting upon the action, as in Greek tragedy. There is a further similarity, too: Ann Reinking's choreography is described in the programme as being "in the style of Bob Fosse" - Fosse, of course, choreographed the original production - and all the Fosse trademarks are there. I found myself sitting there thinking, "He used that idea in Mein Herr" or "He used that one in ..." quite often! But enough of this historical chat! The question which needs to be asked is "Does the show still work?" (One might also add, "Was it worth the $75 I paid for the seat?") Emphatically yes, to both questions. As one has every right to expect, the performances were uniformly excellent - if they weren't, the performers shouldn't be working on Broadway! Fosse's dance style is a bit of an acquired taste - it's a taste I for one acquired a long time ago! - but it suits the show perfectly. The music remains strong, albeit a little derivative at times: listening to Mr Cellophane, for instance, you'd swear you've heard it before, even if you haven't. And yes, Ute Lemper was magnificent! And so was Karen Ziemba - although I do wish I'd seen Ruthie Henshall play Roxie (but that's the British prejudice speaking!). By William Shakespeare Back room in Drag Bar There were two things I was advised by New Yorkers to do, theatre-wise. One was never to go to an Off-off-Broadway show and the other was to avoid, like the plague, young Americans playing Shakespeare. I ignored both bits of advice, and, boy, was I pleased that I had! I have to admit that Hell's Kitchen, at 40th and 9th, put me very much in mind of Hill Street Blues, and when I first ventured into Drag (named, incidentally, for cigarettes, not transvestites!), those words of warning came to mind and my heart sank somewhat. This was not the setting I would expect to see Shakespeare. Entering the back room, I felt as though my ventricles were dragging (pun) along the floor. A rather seedy, dilapidated space, with one corner closed in as a dressing room and an amazing assortment of chairs set out on two sides for the audience. Being the first to arrive, I took a fifties swivel armchair - at least I'd be comfortable! Fifties music was playing (quite loudly) in the background, and, as I glanced through the programme, I saw that the company had set the play in the fifties. I'm afraid I went into Edinburgh Fringe mode: expect the worst and, with luck, you might be surprised. I was. The Christopher Sly episode at the beginning - which I've never really been convinced by - had with a modernised text and the anonymous "Lord" replaced by the supposed director of the play. Gradually more of the original text slipped in and we were in full Shakespearean flow when the play proper began. This company got the humour of the play right from the start and there were huge guffaws at times from the tiny audience. Partly these came from the business the director, Rachel Scott, had introduced, and partly from the lines themselves, and I soon realised that, contrary to what I had been advised beforehand, young American actors can handle Shakespearean language with real skill. The majority managed that fine balance between keeping the poetry and naturalness, which defeats so many would-be Shakespeareans. There were moments of weakness, when the odd character slipped into a bit of a gabble, but this didn't happen often, and certainly the principals - Rachel Russell as Kate and Carl Bradford as Petruchio - were faultless, and the famous wooing scene ("Good morrow, Kate, for that's your name, I hear") was as well done as I've seen it. It was a very inventive production, using the most basic of props and furniture and no set whatsoever: actors would conceal themselves, for instance, by holding a twig in front of their faces, and I loved the idea of having a wife for Baptista (who was played by the same actor, Scott T. Thompson, as played Christopher Sly), the Page in the introduction who dresses up to fool Sly, and who, in this production, did most of the furniture/prop changes. I also liked the - very un-Shakespearean - ending, which reverted back to the Christopher Sly episode and gave the whole thing a dream-like quality which is very much in keeping with the "feel" of all Shakespeare's comedies. The dire warnings were wrong: this is a production worth seeing. It runs until 21st November, and, with a suggested donation of $10-$15 (this is a pending not-for-profit company), it's a real value-for-money night at the theatre in a most unexpected setting. Pub theatre, I am told, is not something particularly common in the US, unlike here in Britain. Even by British pub theatre standards, this was an unusual venue and, I have to say, an unusually high standard of production and performance. |
|
|