(no subject)

[pensnest]

Last night we went to see The Mikado. But we left at the interval.

The little theatre where it was being performed by one of the local amateur groups is a charming place, but seats in the balcony have very restricted legroom (which I hadn't remembered when I booked). I love Mikado, and, to be fair, the chorus sang well and everybody enunciated beautifully. It helps that, having both performed in the show and directed it, I probably knew the words anyway, but Beast also understood them.

That said, what a boring production. No imagination at all in the stageing—the show had been the first one performed by this group sixty years earlier, and I seriously wondered whether they were doing the same production. Rather bad costumes, and those horrific wigs for the men with a 'bald' front. Entirely 'traditional' with the only gesture to modernity being Ko Ko pulling out his phone to read his little list (which was not bad but didn't rhyme, tsssss!). Three of the people on stage looked to be under forty (and only two of them were Little Maids From School). The singing was good - Pitti Sing definitely the standout - but two of the principals forgot their words, which on a Friday night in a run that started on Wednesday is pretty appalling. The contributions of Sir Arthur and Mr W S were not enough to make me want to sit uncomfortably through another hour of this.

Comments

[sylvaine]

Oh no, how disappointing!

[ephemera]

That sounds ... dissapointing (although physically miserable seating can ding even the strongest performance!)

[pensnest]

Yeah... I'd been looking forward to it, and even, because I know how much it meant at my theatre group if this happened, planned to write to someone with praise afterwards. Hah.

[pensnest]

True, being uncomfortable means the production *really* has to work! In more comfortable circumstances we might have stayed, I suppose.

[turlough]

What a letdown! I wonder if they think people won't go and see a play they've seen before so there's no need to inovate?

[pensnest]

I seriously wondered if they were trying to recreate the production from their very first year (1959). We left the programme behind so I can't check.

It has resolved me not to bother to go and see that company doing anything else, which is a pity as they only do G&S and I *like* G&S.

[watervole]

Unlikely. I'm happy to see the same G+S show in different years, and I enjoy innovation. I think musicals have more replay value, as knowing the songs is part of the enjoyment.

[pensnest]

I agree. I've seen Guys and Dolls many times! And I really enjoy G&S, but having directed four of them myself, I can't help but look at something and think I wouldn't have done it like that, or just critique it in my head, or else, think ooh, that's good, I should steal that! even though my directing days are probably over.

I saw Pinafore done as 1950s, with the "his sisters and his cousins and his aunts" presented as sorta rock 'n' roll, which was weird but fun. And I think it may have been that same production which had an impersonation of Prince Charles for one of the leading men, which wasn't what I'd have done but was funny.

[watervole]

Indeed, I'd happily see Guys and Dolls again "Sit down you're rocking the boat" is a great song and capable of many ways of staging it.

[pensnest]

Oh, yes! Though I don't think I'll ever see it done better than it was done with Clive Rowe as Nicely Nicely Johnson in the National Theatre production in which it actually stopped the show. What a voice! I think we had four encores, possibly five, before the cast made it clear they weren't doing it again and things got back on track.