Nicole schreibt...

After reading about it so often, I decided it was time to visit the Edinburgh Fringe Festival myself and despite the fact that it was raining half of the time, I enjoyed myself very much up north in Scotland. Edinburgh is a really beautiful city, neatly divided into the medieval Old Town and the Georgian New Town with Princes Street Gardens in-between and the huge castle overlooking the whole city. While the orderly New Town is good for shopping, the Old Town is the most attractive part as it's not like in other cities where one or two medieval houses are lost between new blocks of concrete - the whole Royal Mile is full of ancient buildings and all the the narrow murky alleyways, closes and wynds explain where the inspiration for Jekyll & Hyde came from. During the rare times when the sun was shining the Royal Mile was crowded with tourists and street performers, but since I had come for the festival, I had expected this and rather enjoyed the buzz. But as a musical lover, the festival was a bit of a let-down for me as the focus is now on stand-up comedy and a few serious dramas. The only new musical I saw was called Soho Story and set in the Soho of the 60's. According to the information it was an update of John Gay's "Beggar's Opera" but with a cast of only four people and rather dull rock music, it didn't bring any message across and failed to engage me throughout. Now I'm too young to really know about the 60's, but I know it was the time of rock'n'roll, the Beatles and Carnaby Street - in short, the beginning of a new youth culture. So why was there only one young black woman (a newly arrived immigrant from the West Indies) and both men were grey and certainly in their 50's? Sorry, but the show left me entirely cold except for 1-2 nice songs by the second female performer (no information about the cast was available). Even the amateur performances were better. I saw a nice adaption of Maury Yeston's Phantom by South Lakes High School in the USA, which made me want to see this version of the story done professionally in a big theatre. Considering the high vocal demands, the leading ladies Christine and Carlotta sang well, though the Phantom was a let-down. I liked the way in which the story was told here, as it includes an opera director called Carriere who turns out to be the Phantom's father and tells the bewildered Christine about the opera dancer he loved. This background makes Erik (the Phantom) more human than in Lloyd-Webber's version, so I felt more compassionate towards him. I also liked the more evident rivalry between Carlotta and Christine and the music of the show. Leicester Youth Arts staged (among other show) A Slice of Saturday Night, a show I had always wanted to see on stage. Since the characters are all teenagers, it suited them well and most of the cast was very good, except one glorious exception in the role of Sue, who threatened to spoil the thing with her constant over-acting, but I just tried to ignore her (shame about a good role being wasted) The audience enjoyed themselves throughout and though some songs were cut to make the show fit into the 90 mins slot, it was nice light entertainment. The last musical I saw was The Fantasticks, a show I've seen in professional versions both in London and New York and which I love very much. However, this productions, by Midatlantic Productions from the US suffered from the fact that all roles were done by very young performers. The weary, yet wise fathers of the young couple Matt and Luisa can't be done by young people the same age as their children and although the guy singing El Gallo had a nice voice and looked the part, he also was far too young to convince as the world-wise, smart narrator. So after these experiences, I decided to give other musicals a miss. My decision was helped by the fact that most musicals were done in Church Hill Theatre, a mile's walk out of the city centre, and I couldn't be bothered to walk there again. Since I feared that my comprehension of spoken English wasn't good enough for stand-up comedy, I went for some concerts and dance performances instead. And when the sun finally came out on Tuesday, I spent all afternoon in Princes Street Gardens, reading a book and watching the various performances on a big stage in the middle of the park. The nice thing about the festival is, that it offers so much for everyone and when you're short of money, there are also plenty of things to do and see for free. And if the fringe isn't enough, there's still the film and book festivals for you. Quite a few of my favourite British writers made an appearance at the book festival, but sadly not in those days I was in Edinburgh. Anyway, the town itself is certainly worth a visit, too, even without the festival, so it had definitely been worth the trip!

I travelled from Edinburgh to London by overnight coach, arriving at 7am in the morning. I wasn't sure what to do with my first evening, so I let the Half Price Ticket Booth decide andended up seeing Fosse at the Prince of Wales Theatre. Which was lucky, for as I was hanging out in Leicester Square before the show, I noticed a huge crowd in front of the Odeon cinema - it was the big opening of Guy Ritchie's new movie Snatch that evening. I managed to catch a glance of the arriving celebrities, including Brad Pitt, who stars in the movie (and yes, he is as gorgeous as he looks on screen!). Anyway, the show is billed as Fosse - The Musical, but musical it is not. Call it a dance revue highlighting the work of Bob Fosse and you're fine. There's no story and no dialogue, just dance numbers derived from the shows and movies Fosse choreographed. The dancing was perfect though and I enjoyed almost each number, presented by various cast members. Some were sung, others were just danced. If dancing does nothing to do, you should avoid the show, but if you like dancing, this is a must.

On Thursday I saw Notre Dame de Paris, which seems to be the most controversial new show in London. Now I say for myself that I have always loved the CD (the original French soundtrack even better than the English one) and was quite looking forward to seeing it live. My joy was a bit dampened by the fact that I had just about missed Bruno Pelletier, the original Gringoire, whom I had adored on the CD and the French video of the show. But at least I was seeing the star of the show, Aussie pop singer Tina Arena as Esmeralda. She had a great voice indeed and the right charisma for the sexy, vibrant gypsy girl who drives all the men crazy. It's not easy to admit this as a woman but she was also incredibly pretty. Compared to his charismatic Jesus, I found Steve Balsamo rather dull as Phoebus, but then he didn't really have much to do except singing "Torn Apart". Ian Pirie was good as Quasimodo and his voice wasn't quite as gravelly as that of original Quasimodo Garou. The leads were completed by Fred Johanson as Frollo, Camilla Bard as Fleur-de-Lys and Sylvain Cossette as Gringoire who did such a great job that he eased my disappointment of missing both Bruno and the new Gringoire John Partridge. Now for the show itself - I agree that it has one weak point and that is the narrative. They tell the story as if everyone knows it. This might have worked in France were Victor Hugo is a national hero, but not in Britain (or anywhere else in the world). So people who are upset about the missing direction or dialogues, certainly have a point. But if you are familiar with the story - and I am thanks to seeing the Disney musical in Berlin and having struggled to read the original novel in French - you can just enjoy the fantastic songs and amazing choreography. What those acrobatic dancers do is really breathtaking sometimes. I also liked the avantgardistic outfits that brought Clopin and the gypsies closer to modern-day asylum seekers (much in contrast to the cutesy gypsies of the Disney version). But here is another weak point of the English version, namely the weak translation by Will Jennings that often fails to make the point. The best example is Esmeralda's rousing anthem "Vivre", which in its original French version is a plea to let people live the way they want, live free to make their own choices without rules imposed onto them by religions and ideologies. The English title "Live for the one you love" already hints that it has now become a rather soppy love song demanding no more than a happy love life. But then that's not the show's fault! Another widely critized point was the fact that no live band was employed and only a backing tape used. Now I agree that this practice mustn't spread as the orchestra is essential for a show and I understand about musicians being upset and worried. But in this particular case I don't think it's that bad - judging from the CD the original band consisted of four players only and if you don't know that they're using a backing tape, you wouldn't guess it from the show. After all, synthezisers are no real instruments either. The house was almost full as far as I could see and the audience responded with a wild applause and standing ovations, so I hope that it is catching on and word-out-of-mouth will spread. It's certainly different and avantgardistic and makes a refreshing change from all the bad novel-adaptions of the post-Les Miz era trying to copy the principle of through-sung light opera with weepy heroines.

Next on the list was ;The King and I at the London Palladium, where my initial fear proved true: Elaine Paige may be a big name to draw an audience but she is totally wrong for the role of Anna. Not only is she far too old, she also can't handle the songs written for a soprano."I whistle a happy tune" has been lowered several keys to accommodate her voice. However, she was a good actress with great stage presence and we all know that the lady can sing. So I'm a bit sad that now that I finally got a chance to see her live on stage, it was in the wrong show. Paul Nagauchi played the King rather light-weight and funny, so he was never a menacing dictator who could decide over life and death in the whim of a minute. This and the fact that there was no chemistry at all between him and Anna meant that the show was devoid of its key plot - the clash between cultures, the fact that Anna has to win him over and make him see that being an absolute monarch doesn't necessarily mean being cruel to his underlings and of course the sexual tension between them. What's left is a pleasant light-weight show, gorgeous to look at with its huge golden-red stage sets (and anyone complaining about the schmaltz of it should go and look at the real temples in Bangkok which are even more colourful and overloaded with gold). There were good supporting performances by Irene Alamo as Lady Thiang (standing in for the first cast who was indisposed), Sean Ghazi as Lun Tha and Aura Deva as Tuptim. Since she had been our first Kim in Germany's Miss Saigon it was nice to see her again now in such a rewarding role. But I can't help feeling sad about the wasted chance - it's a good show, but it could have been a perfect show with the right leading performers.
My next show was Mamma mia which I hadn't yet seen and didn't really feel like seeing. I had frankly expected the show to be one in the long line of compilation shows following Buddy; for which Half Price Tickets would be available quickly. How wrong can you be. But now I know why. The show took a few minutes to get going, but then it took off and the first act flied by without me looking at my watch once. Okay, so the story is very light-weight, but I think it's better to have made the effort to write a story around Abba's famous songs than going the easy way of just another compilation show. And I think it must have been very difficult to build a story on existing pop songs. Abba's music is still unrivalled and although I'm too young to remember the real thing, I couldn't help thinking that this was real music and not the kind of techno trash that's clogging up the charts nowadays. I hadn't expected the show to be that funny either – especially the three older women Donna (who was played by understudy Louise Davidson), Tanya (Louise Gold) and Rosie (Lesley Nicol) were a hoot. Maybe it's not the brightest show, but it does what Broadway musicals used to do in the golden days of the musical - it makes you leave the theatre with a smile, humming the songs and virtually dancing down Old Compton Street. If there are no composers and writers anymore who can write real musical comedies, Mamma mia may be as good as it gets and I'm happy that the sheer fun and entertainment is back on stage.

The last show on my agenda was The Witches of Eastwick, another one which seemed to have sparked some controversy. But when I'm saying that there are no writers of true old-fashioned musical comedy anymore, at least John Dempsey and Dana Rowe gave it a damn good try. I've never seen the movie version and I didn't like the original novel by John Updike, but I liked this stage version a lot. It was funny, had great leading characters and light-weight tunes that included both ballads for the witches and great dancing numbers for the company, most notably "Dance with the devil" in the second act. And the "flying" of the witches across the stalls and up to the balcony at the end of the first act is a nice surprise (at least for those who hadn't read about this previously and didn't see the three sets of ropes dangling over the stalls all the time), but it's not taking the focus away from the story or the musicThe three witches - Lucie Arnaz, Maria Friedman and Joanna Riding - were all wonderful and though Ian McShane may not be Jack Nicholson, he isn't as bad as some made him out to be either. He can sing and move and even though he didn't appeal to me at all, older women may find him attractive nonetheless (give me John Barrowman as Darryl and I'll be a happy person). I was only a bit sad to see the wonderful Peter Joback being wasted as Michael, having only one duet to sing and a part in a big dance routine.I think the show's biggest obstacle is simply that it's being produced by Cameron Mackintosh at the former home of "Miss Saigon". Everyone seems to be expecting another of those lavishly designed weepy operas and cannot handle the fact that they are getting a light-weight comedy instead. If the show had been done at another theatre and by another producer I'm sure it had received a better reception. I think we must all realize that the blockbuster era is over - there were a few shows in the 80's (in fact there were only three: Cats, Phantom, Les Miz) that travelled all over the world on a carbon copy principle, supported by heavy marketing and they were ground-breaking in those days as they proved that musicals could be serious as well and handle dark stories instead of light love stories. But the grand masters of the weepy soaps, Boublil & Schoenberg seem to have blown their whole potential on Martin Guerre and Andrew Lloyd-Webber, just like Cameron Mackintosh, has seen the writing on the wall and gone back to writing rock scores and collaborating with a witty cynic like Ben Elton on a contemporary topic now. All the shows I've seen incorporated a lot of dancing and had upbeat scores and the phenomenal success of "Mamma mia" proves that the audience wants to laugh and swing again. Shows like Les Miz und Phantom are classics in their own way and no one would argue that they are masterpieces, but there have been too many bad imitations in recent years and the originals have had their day now. All those who are whining about the new shows now had better accept the fact that trends are irreversible. And personally, as a big lover of both dance and rock music, I am glad about this.