Translate

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

The Woman In Black


          I was very excited to see this. Its the second longest running non-musical show in the West End, having been performed in a West End theatre since 1989, and has seen a resurgence in bookings thanks to the Danial Radciffe 2012 film. I went to see this with two of my friends and we all loved this show. A good scare, but some of the scares actually make you laugh afterwards.

          The theatre is on the smaller side, but that makes for a much better experience. Be prepared for a wordy play, with not much action, not a lot of scenery and to be honest a script that really is a bit slow. Why after all theses do I still think the show is good? To be honest I don't know, but it IS good. Admittedly you need to go with the understanding its a serious play, though that should be obvious. Its not scary in the since of say a gory film, if you've seen the film you'll understand that, but its more suspenseful. Suspense is something I'm not the best fan off. Ill go hide behind the chair as soon as I can, but I really was strangely looking forward to seeing this. Not the best play I've seen, but its well worth seeing it simply because its the second longest running West End show.

          To be honest I don't want to say to much as I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who decides to see it and you should. All I will day is a lot of the scaring is done with lighting as a lot of the stage is either darkened or totally in the dark. the woman in the title of the show, is only one aspect of the show that causes the scares. One has to concentrate slightly, well I did, to follow the story and the plot so the scares make for a good break in that. I also think its good to go with a group of people as your emotions can bounce of one another and you will most defiantly want to talk about it afterwards.

          The acting is good, with only two actors, though they are constrained by the 1987 script. The scripts is based on the 1983 book which was written by Susan Hill, which to an extent dictated the path the script took. The woman unfortunately is unaccredited so as to add to the story of her being a ghost/apparition.

          Like I said before its a play that should be seen, but go with the understanding its not exactly a nights light entertainment. Tickets and Info

Monday, 12 August 2013

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory


          This musical can be summed up in just two letters. 'O' and 'K', for that's all this show was. OK. Don't get me wrong, the music was good and the performances were good, but the show as a whole was just not up to what I had hoped.

          I think before I can go into the show, Ill have to start with me experiences with the two films that have been adapted from the original book. I am a massive fan of the original film from 1971, though that was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, staring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. The film had the best mixture of Gene Wilder's slightly bonkers and scary Willy Wonka and Peter Ostrum's exceptionally lovable Charlie. The film was marketed with the tagline 'It's Scrumdidilyumptious!'. I think that is the perfect word for the film. The best scene of all is when they go into 'The Chocolate Room'. In the 2005 remake it doesn't have a name though its been called 'The Candy Land scene'. In the original 1971 film, and to an extent the 2005 Tim Burton remake, this scene is absolutely fantastic. To an extent, awe inspiring. You believe, to an extent, the edible grass and flowers, as well as the chocolate waterfall and river. The remake less so than the original surprisingly because of the computer graphics.

          The 'Chocolate Room' scene in the musical was the most disappointing thing of all. it was as though a school project was rolled out onto the stage. I know the producers, director and creative team are limited by the size of the stage and theatre and, to a greater extent than film, money. This scene however, which is arguably the most important visually, appeared to have very little spent on it or even thought into it kick starting children's imaginations. The waterfall looked like cheap plastic with a few lights and the flowers and grass looked no more edible than than a bright blue frog with yellow spots.

          The Oompa Loompas are one of the most iconic aspects of both the book and the films. The 2005 remake was disappointing as the Oompa Loompas were all played by the same actor and were basically just clones of the same person. Don't get me wrong though, the actor, Deep Roy, is very good. In the original film though each Oompa Loompa was played by a different actor and that made the back story of them being a tribe from a far off land a lot more believable. The musical is brilliant in portraying these mythical peoples. The costumes the actors were are brilliant and, among other things, give the show a bit of light comical relief. The other comical relief comes in the form of Augustus Gloop. His comical relief in both the 1971 and 2005 films is minimal to non-existent. In the musical however he is a fantastic character played brilliantly by Jenson Steele, who is making his West End debut in this show and who was also a replacement for a child who left the show before it had started. From the song in which he is introduced, with his over exaggerated German accent and stereotypical German characteristics, you know he's going to be funny. Its a shame that he is the first child to fall foul of the chocolate factory in The Chocolate Room.

          I'm sad to say that I was distinctly disappointed with Douglas Hodge as Willy Wonka. Douglas is a very versatile actor, having appeared in many films, theatre productions and television shows as well as directing a number of times. I feel he is good with drama as well as comedy. Because of this, I had high hopes for his portrayal of the slightly 'mad scientist' chocolatier. I was left rather flat however. not because he was bad, but because I expected so much more from the character. I'm not sure who else should have been cast, but I'm not sure Douglas Hodge was the right choice. He didn't seems as approachable as the Willy Wonka in both the original film or the later remake. He also didn't. to me have an element of madness. He just seemed a little rude at times. In places he was funny, but it didn't seems like a fully forced character.

          Definitely a show that young children will enjoy, but if you know and are a fan of the 1971 film or even, to a lesser degree, the 2005 remake, be prepared to be at least a little disappointed. Tickets and Info


**UPDATE** - It has recently been announced that from the 19 May 2014 Alex Jennings will take over the role of Willy Wonka.