I say that I am no great fan of Ibsen, but whenever I see a good production of one of his plays (or work on one) I forget that he’s one of the greats for very good reason. This production of A Doll’s House had me interested for 3 things. 1) Gillian Anderson as Nora, 2) Christopher Eccleston as Neil Kelman, and 3) I’ll see anything at this theatre. I also wanted to see Scully vs. Dr. Who. Because I am a dork.

Also I had heard that it was a “new” version of the play by Zinnie Harris. I’m always curious to see when a classic has been updated - butchered or improved? It’s hard for me to say really - not knowing the original all that well. But whatever changes Harris made to the original text, it worked.

The story line is so dated it’s almost painful to watch, and makes me glad I wasn’t born in that era. Basically, Nora loves her husband Torvald (”Thomas” in this Britishized version), a politician. So when he has a nervous breakdown, she takes him out of the public eye to save his career. In order to do this, she has to take out a loan under her father’s name - who is dead - and for whom she’s forged a signature on the loan papers. This is fraud. Because in this time period, women weren’t allowed to borrow money. And if this fraud was exposed both she and her husband would be shamed and her husbands political career, over.

What?

Man am I glad stuff doesn’t suck as bad for women these days. I mean, doesn’t suck as bad.

And the kicker of it is, Torvald/Thomas denies ever having a breakdown and never thanks her for the sacrifice she made for him. Quite the opposite, sadly. Nora is a strong, decent, moral woman who did what she had to do, and is punished for it, and feels horrific guilt. It’s very sad. Hence Gillian Anderson crying for 2 hours. She really did. I was amazed that she was able to stay so deeply emotionally committed to the role, for such a duration. Usually you have to do one or two crying scenes but she basically cried the entire play. I mean, tears running down her cheeks. Very impressed. And of course as we know already from her film work (Bleak House, House of Mirth), we already know she can do period drama and has a flawless British dialect. It’s so good in fact that I just saw her in the film “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People” and it was almost odd to hear her speak in her regular American speech pattern.

I wonder with roles of this emotional depth, how long will she be able to keep up that level of performance? We saw the second show, but I wonder how much of a wreck she’ll be after 2 months of that? Or will she be just numb to it? Acting is hard work.

Christoper Eccleston I only know from Dr. Who and from season 2 of Heroes, but he seems to do one thing really really well - and that’s to play super intense scary dudes. He is just as effective, if not more so, in his portrayal of Kelman. He is downright terrifying. Threatening and ominous is he. It’s very well done. Each entrance - just the clomping of his boots as he throws himself onstage - signals an upping of the stakes. Really good work from him.

Toby Stephens as Thomas is quite good as the slimy politician who doesn’t know he’s slimy. You forgive him because of the time period. But he plays the deeply flawed character well, but perhaps a bit over the top. His last moment on stage was a bit maudlin for my taste.

I really liked Anton Lesser as Dr. Rank. Another tragic character. A trusted friend of Nora’s for years and years, he is dying of some unnamed disease (syphilis?) and deeply, secretly in love with Nora. You pity him from his first entrance, you know things just do not go well for this guy.

Rounding up the cast is Tara Fitzgerald as Christine Lyle, who is the most out-of-place character. An old school friend of Nora’s, she’s come in search of a job with Torvald, and Nora lands it for her, provided she can keep Nora in macaroons. (Torvald doesn’t approve - doesn’t want his wife getting fat. Ah, men.) It’s an interesting take on the character - sort of gruff and manly, almost. This actress makes a lot of surprising choices with the role. Good work.

The set is interesting - the action takes place in their new home’s library, at Christmastime, but hardly any of the books have been put on the shelves so it’s mostly just empty shelves up to the ceiling. Very sad and lonely in appearance. Effectively so.

So - rounding out my theatre experience in London of seeing shows I don’t care much about but great productions of - this definitely fit the bill.

A special shout out and big Thank you to the group that canceled and allowed me to purchase their center floor seats at the last minute.

So, the things I knew about La Clique before purchasing tickets were:
1) It was highly recommended by Time Out London
2) Sounded like a burlesque/cabaret show, and therefore was very appealing
3) Had an 8pm start time on Wednesdays, so if you didn’t get into your first choice of show you can just run to Leicester Square and buy tickets
4) They do standing room tickets for 15 pounds

So - when there weren’t any returns for A Doll’s House (it was their opening night, after all), that’s how we ended up at this show. And I’m glad we did. Even tho we had mostly already seen it.

So…upon entering the Hippodrome (which is a converted nightclub), the staff is brusque and sort of rude to you, I guess that’s part of the appeal - it’s dingy, it’s crass, and the staff can treat you like dirt because they’re “in character.” I’m not sure how I feel about that; rude is still rude. They were giving us shit for buying the cheap tickets. Ha ha, very funny. If you only knew how much I’d spent in the last month on theatre tickets alone…

Anyway we get into our standing area and I hear a voice in the dark as the show begins and turn to Chris and say, “Wait, is that Meow Meow?” And indeed it is. Having seen her perform I think 3 times in the last year or so I can apparently pick her voice out in the dark. Confusingly, she is not billed as one of the performers in any of the literature, so I didn’t know she was involved. Had I, I would have seen the show even earlier. She’s amazing. I don’t understand why they producers of the show don’t promote her at all; if I know who she is, she’s certainly somewhat of a name.

So it’s her, then the first act comes on and it’s the acrobatic guys I’d seen in the show Absinthe at Speigletent 2 years prior - not just the same guys, the same exact routine. I’m like, cool, this was an awesome routine, glad to see it again. But as the show progresses, I’d say roughly 60% of it was acts from last years’ Absinthe. I guess there is only one mainstream world-wide burlesque circuit nowadays?

But that’s really ok. The familiar acts were just as good as ever and the new ones were great too. And we even stole some seats and got to sit in actual chairs for the second half. Score.

And there’s a Queen singalong at the finale. Who doesn’t love a singalong. Clarke McFarlene plays “Mario, Queen of the Circus,” with a fake Spanish accent. He’s a Freddy Mercury wanna-be, clad all in leather, but is much funnier and a better juggler. His riding a unicycle while juggling pins to the tune of Queen’s “Bicycle Race” was a highlight, especially cuz he messed it up, and stopped the music so he could start over. In addition to comedy and juggling, the character also acts as the MC throughout the show. He actually reminds me a lot of Sasha Baron Cohen.

Other acts include Captain Frodo the Rubber Man (hilarious and disturbing!), Amy G. from the NY cabaret circuit, The Skating Willers (terrifyingly fast spinny roller skatey tricks to techno music), Marawa (hula-hoop act), and a super fabulous Canadian on a flying trapeze swinging around to 80s emo rock and being all bendy and hilarious. He’s not listed on the La Clique website leading me to believe that performers probably come and go quite a bit.

So - La Clique is highly commercial vaudeville, really, more so than burlesque. Much more circus oriented than nudity oriented. I suspect “burlesque” has become a buzz word to sell tickets but were it actual burlesque, people wouldn’t be filling the Hippodrome to capacity every night.

Definitely a super awesome fun time. You’ll giggle and gasp and cheer and laugh.

Trevor Nunn does good work. The Mernier Chocolate Factory puts on good shows. Sondheim - well we know where I stand with him. So, all in all, a formula for success, which is why I decided to see it. T’was a wise choice.

I had actually never seen A Little Night Music before, having been told by many musical theatrey friends that it is one of Sondheim’s weakest pieces. After seeing it, I can see why that might be the assumption. It’s not a terribly marketable or upbeat show, but really, none of his stuff is, so I’m not sure why this one in particular gets such a bad reputation. It’s right up there with Merrily We Roll Along on the scale of “everyone hates it but it’s brilliant and I love it.”

Perhaps it is the weak-ish plot? Not a whole lot happens. The plot centers around Frederick, a kind, older man who’s married a sweet but stupid girl young enough to be his daugher, named Anne. Frederick gets in touch with an old flame, the aging but still glamorous actress, Desiree Armfeldt. Act one is general exposition and introduction to the characters, and it ends with the somewhat known song “A Weekend in the Country,” which sets the scene for act 2. Joining Desiree and her mother and daughter at their summer home is Desiree’s married lover, Carl-Magnus, who is a violent dolt, and his wife, Charlotte, a complex character because she knows of her husband’s affair and yet stays with him. Also joining them is Frederick’s son Henrick (from his previous marriage), Petra, the family maid and Anne’s best friend, and Frid, the Armfeldt’s servant.

So, the show is heavy on characters and their development and how they intertwine and where they end up and how. Not so heavy on actual events. Perhaps this is why people tend to not like it? Because there’s no helicopter landings on stage? I don’t know. I found it fascinating. It is essentially just a classed-up slamming-door sex farce, but done with style and all the characters have a lot of money.

I liked that it truly feels like an ensemble piece as well, no one person stands out as the superstar and everyone else as supporting cast - it had a real family feel to it - which is great, because that’s the underlying theme of the piece. Family and love. Also, deception and betrayal and all that.

I was also glad to see that the vocal prowess of the cast was solid throughout. I’ve always felt that West End singing pales in comparison to that of Broadway, (and conversely their acting is usually better)- but I suppose as the market gets more and more saturated with talent from all over Europe, the West End is finally catching up to us in it’s singing talent.

I’m finding it hard to write about this piece. Probably because while there was nothing particularly bad about it, I also can’t think of anything to rave about. It was just very, very good overall and in every capacity. I do hope it comes to Broadway, and I hope it does well. And I hope they keep the same cast. The casting really was great.

Oh and I totally didn’t know that it’s Desiree who sings the most famous song of the show, “Send in the Clowns.” I always imagined the character as being much older. But Desiree (played convincingly by Hannah Waddingham) is still kinda hot - maybe only in her mid 40s. So that was a surprise. When we meet the character of her mother (hilariously portrayed by Maureen Lipman) and not knowing the play at all, I assumed it would be she, the old lady in the wheelchair, to do that song. I was wrong. It happens.

So, for my second theatrical excursion on my most recent trip to London, I had to see the production of Oliver that was happening. I went into it quite cynically, knowing that it’s a big expensive West End musical - probably on par with going to see Phantom in terms of it’s artistic value. For example, the woman playing Nancy (Jodie Prenger) got the job by winning in the UK reality series “I’d do Anything” which was how they cast the role. Come on, really? Having not seen this show I didn’t know or care who she was, and also Rowan Atkinson as Fagin didn’t interest me terribly as I’m not all that familiar with his work. But I really wanted to see it because of two actors that I love - Burn Gorman (from the show Torchwood) was playing Bill Sikes and Julian Bleach (who I saw in Shockheaded Peter a few times and is Davros on Dr. Who) was playing Mr. Sowerberry.

So, like Waiting For Godot, I went to see a play I don’t care for but it ended up being an excellent production. This perhaps became the theme of my trip.

Visually, this show really couldn’t have been more impressive. We ran in at the last minute and asked if they had any returns, so we ended up in the 8th row. Not having been to this theatre before, I didn’t realize it is the size of an opera house. It is massive. I think there were 4 balconies. Just amazing. And the set is designed to reach all the way up to the people in the 4th circle. So there was no reason to be sitting in the 8th row, it just happened to work out that way. But I sort of felt like I was IN the show, almost like the show was so big it just enveloped us in an attempt to play out to the back of the house, which is miles away from the stage.

The set was so amazing that even in the 8th row, my eyes couldn’t distinguish where the set pieces ended and where the backdrop began. Everything melded together so perfectly that when the street set came on, I literally couldn’t believe my eyes, it was that well done. And when the young boys take Oliver underground for the first time, the street level rises up on hydraulics and then they come through a hole in the false floor (a sewer grate) and then the stage transforms into Fagin’s lair before your eyes.

And then the audience applauds the set change.

Really, this is a glorious spectacle. But is it necessary? I mean I suppose it is, as tickets are selling like hotcakes. I mean, of course they would - Britain loves their reality TV stars, and Oliver is a family show - so lots of kids to sell tickets to. But Oliver itself is really not a good play. I understand why it gets done in community theatres around the world so often - there’s lots of parts and it’s fairly easy to put on, and most importantly, lots of roles for kids. But the play itself is actually pretty bad. It’s poorly written, there are extraneous characters that serve no purpose whatsoever (Widow Corney? Mrs. Bedwin? Mrs. Sowerberry? Why are they even there!?!?!) and the music isn’t even good. I would say there are a couple songs that are pretty - “Boy For Sale” has always had a melancholic charm to it, as well as the beginning of “Who Will Buy.” (Except the grammatical syntax of that song has always bugged me - the lyrics being “Who will buy, this wonderful morning?” and even as a child I wondered, who would want to buy the morning? That’s not even possible! So yeah - that needs a grammar do-over.) Oh, also I’ve always liked “Reviewing the Situation” although it sounds more like it should be in Fiddler on the Roof than in Oliver.

But really, the majority of the music is really, really bad (”I shall Scream?” Yikes.) And the plot, particularly at the end, is so full of holes it just about completely falls apart. Only a child or a dolt wouldn’t question the events that occur at the climax of this story. It really doesn’t make any sense. But I digress.

I have to say, Prenger did a great job with “Oom-pah-pah,” a really stupid, pointless act 2 opener that she made sound like a proper drinking tune. In fact, I think the English public did a great job choosing her, she was really quite good. Her singing and acting both were solid - and I appreciated the fact that she’s a real woman (i.e. kinda chunky.) Apparently on the show both Andrew Lloyd Weber and Cameron McIntosh both told her she was too fat for the role but she got the job anyway, so huzzah for that. I really did like her interpretation of the character. Nothing ground-breakingly new or different, but in a production of this size and commercial appeal, I’m sure you’re not really allowed to take too many liberties with characters that are already so well known and loved.

Rowan Atkinson was also a pleasant surprise. His Fagin was not at all hammy like I had expected. He carefully balanced the line between comic and darkly disturbing. Brilliant bit of casting - his performance was comical enough to keep children entertained, yet nuanced and complex enough to keep the adults interested. And although I haven’t ever watched Mr. Bean, I know it’s a lot of physical comedy, and watching him do Fagin I just went, oh, right - he’s got hardcore mime/clown training. His physical work was incredible. And somehow not over the top, even though he was playing the largest theatre ever. He was a joy to watch and I now get why he’s so famous in Britain.

Burn Gorman as Bill Sykes was more panto villain than I would have liked. I’m sure he was directed that way - and I know him from doing very subtle TV work, so this was really different territory. I think he did a good job but I wonder how much input he had in creating the character and how much of it was coerced direction. It was still great to see him do stage. And his song “My Name,” which I had completely forgotten about, he really did good things with - reminded me a bit of Epiphany from Sweeney. But in general he was too much of a stereotypical evil guy. And when the role is played that way, you have no idea why Nancy stays with him. Even tho she tells us. Over and over.

And of course Julian Bleach was his creepy, comic horror villain self. I wonder if he’s ever played a normal human? I’d like to see that sometime. Anyway his creepy brilliance was lost on this audience because his part was too small and he gets swallowed up by all the other stuff. Like pickpocketing orphans.

And I haven’t even mentioned the kids yet. They were ok. Really not the focal point of the production. I think “Where is Love” might be the sappiest song ever written, but the kid belted it out, rather than doing it in falsetto (which is how I am used to hearing it) and it worked much better. Much less saccharine when the kid is bordering on yelling, so his desperation is more apparent.

So - again, another bad play done extraordinarily well. One of the most expensive-looking shows I think I’ve ever seen. And even in the top price seats, still cheaper than Broadway.

Ok I’ll be honest. I’ve never actually seen a production of Waiting For Godot before this one. In fact, I don’t think I ever even read it all the way through in school. I’ve been forever put off by the concept of plays that don’t have a plot. But perhaps I’ve been overly hasty in my judgment that plot-less means boring, because boring this certainly was not. More on the side of riveting.

I’ll be honest about something else. I was mostly excited to see this play because I’m such a fan of the two lead actors - Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen. I wanted to see Professor Xavier and Magneto on stage together. Because I am apparently that level of dork. And based on the fact that tickets are sold out through July (I had to queue for returns and luckily got them) - I’m not the only one that was in it for the names attached. But really, is that such a bad thing? I think not. I probably wouldn’t have gone to see this particular play if it didn’t have such a powerhouse cast. And they made it into something really unexpected.

Not much to summarize here in terms of plot - (spoiler alert - if you really care -) two tramps stand around all day and can’t leave because they’re waiting for the elusive Godot to come. Come and save them, apparently. It can be interpreted in a number of ways but the most common and obvious is that Godot is God and they’re two miserable old souls just sitting around waiting for death. Cheery stuff, here. The arrival of Potso and Lucky (played by Simon Callow and Ronald Pickup) add a much needed diversion from the boredom of their interminable waiting. For some unexplained reason, Potso treats Lucky like a slave or a dog. Then a little boy comes, a messenger for Mr. Godot, saying he can’t come today but will most definitely come tomorrow. The next day, Vladimir (Stewart) and Estragon (McKellen) go through their normal, time-killing routine as usual, Potso and Lucky reappear, but no one seems to remember the events of the previous day, except Vladimir. It seems he is in a kind of purgatory in which he’s the only one who can remember what has already transpired. Quite a lot like the film Groundhog Day, actually. I wonder if the makers of that film are Beckett fans?

Not a lot to look at in terms of set either - just a bleak barren wasteland, and one tree - which exists as the sole marker in their universe as the one constant thing in a sea of sand and nothing.

Acting wise, everybody is amazing, but as expected, McKellen just blows everyone out of the water. And he does this by playing a soft spoken, old, weak, sad old man. That’s just how good he is. I think back to the last play I saw him in (The Cut, at the Donmar) and he is completely indistinguishable from that character. You’d never even know it was the same guy, he completely transforms himself from role to role. Whereas Stewart is good, I still think you’d always be able to tell that it’s him. Granted this is the first live performance of his that I’ve seen.

There was even some subtle chemistry between the two leads indicating that in this universe, Vladimir and Estragon might have been a couple. But like most things about this play, it’s wide open to interpretation.

I can’t believe how much I enjoyed a play in which absolutely nothing happens, for 3 hours. But it’s really really good. Just wish I hadn’t been so jet lagged. Would have appreciated it more.

Oh and the best part about it? Before the show were were eating in a restaurant across the street from the theatre and Patrick Stewart comes in to have his dinner and sits near us and we hear him order the puttanesca. Just picture Patrick Stewart saying that. It’s just as funny in your head as it was in real life, I bet.