We’re nearly beyond the annual list season, where everyone compiles their best and worst of the year (and some have gone even further to offer their best and worst of the last decade). I did it myself in the pages of The Stage before Christmas, where I wrapped up the year by nominating six of the best plays, revivals, musical productions, actors and actresses, as well as six of the worst of the year, too.
But this was filed before I saw Sandi Tokvig’s Christmas Cracker at the Royal Festival Hall, and have eclipsed the lot in terms of the worst of the year. Still, at least it wasn’t around long, even if the memory of it may unfortunately linger.
But once again proving that one man’s meat is another’s poison is the fact that Annie Get Your Gun at the Young Vic made it onto my musical productions of the year - but the West End Whingers nominated it as their worst musical of the year, calling it “such a crime against musical theatre that the Young Vic production wins hands down.”
I was far from alone in enjoying the production - it had also received five star reviews from Michael Billington in The Guardian and Michael Coveney on Whatsonstage.com; and I’ve also previously also reported here on Independent columnist Christina Patterson’s rave endorsement, too.
But I rather like shows that divide audiences as well as critics: they give us something to chew on and argue about. And sometimes it’s instructive, as I’ve often done before, to go back and see something with fresh eyes. So last night I returned to Annie Get Your Gun, just ahead of it closing tomorrow, to see if I’d made a huge mistake in praising it as much as I had done.
Actually, I enjoyed it even more last night: I watched it a second time knowing just what it was up to. And though it’s probably true that director Richard Jones doesn’t trust the source material much as he imposes his own viewpoint on it, the fact is that there isn’t much to trust. Sure, the score is a bubblingly tuneful delight, but it is bound together by the most threadbare book imaginable.
Yet the show has weirdly had two major West End revivals in my theatregoing lifetime - at the Aldwych, with Suzi Quatro, in 1986; and at the Prince of Wales, with Kim Criswell, in 1992 - and another on Broadway, with Bernadette Peters and then Reba McIntyre, at the Marriot Marquis, in 1999. I’ve seen all of those productions, but I have to say that though McIntyre proved a real firebrand in the latter to put some soul into a threadbare staging, I’ve never seen it work quite as well as it does at the Young Vic.
That is a matter of several paradoxes, not least the fact that it is full of perverse choices, both in staging and casting. I’m sure that Ultz’s design concept creates serious problems from some seats, particularly in the mostly unraked stalls; but watching it from the front of the circle last night, with a clear, uninterrupted view, lent perspective to the unusual perspectives.
And if Jane Horrocks’s sometimes uncertain pitch strained the ears, Julian Ovenden is an ongoing delight as Frank Butler; it’s a surprise he hasn’t emerged yet as a major musical star, despite years of solid apprenticeship that has stretched from the Donmar’s Merrily We Roll Along to the ill-fated Boublil/Schonberg/Legrand collaboration Marguerite. There’s also a performance of wholesome comic delight from John Marquez as travelling circus sidekick Charlie.
Oh Mark! Here's my question: why did they do it in the first place? If as you say the show is threadbare with only a tuneful score why oh why would they then hire someone who -as fina an actress as she is - can't really sing it? AGYG is a musical musical - it's all about those lively show tunes, it's about charm and the glory of the musical theatre voice. It is not, despite Mr Jones's seriously misguided effort , an anti- American portrait of dust bowl shoot -em down Depression-era miscreants with an eye on show biz. It was written as a vehicle for a great musical theatre star and that's all . And it serves that purpose very well when there is a musical theatre star ( and by that I mean someone who can sing a tune) in the role , from Merman to Mary Martin to Betty Hutton to Kim Criswell to the blissful Reba McIntrye. Jane Horrocks is not on that list. Plain and simple. You ( and many of your fellow critics) often bemoan the fact that British musical theatre lags bheind the US in terms of creativity and originality and performance skills and yet if you heap praise on the likes of this production how can we hope things on this side of the pond will improve?
I'm not exaggerating when I call Annie Get Your Gun not just the worst show of last year, not just the worst show of the decade but quite simply the worst production I have ever seen. And I don't even use the phrase 'professional production' here; give me amdram or school shows any day over this - it is the worst production of anything I have ever seen. Offensively dreadful on every level. A complete con that it's played to good business. And then to have it rewarded by some of the strongest reviews of the year is an equal travesty that somehow validates the shoddiness of it. Dire. Even the usually fabulously spot-on Charlie Spencer was muted in his critique of it, he should have got the knives out!
"it is the worst production of anything I have ever seen."
Can't you accept difference of opinion ? I guess it is human nature to love the critics that confirm our own views and hate those that differ I guess....
Theatre isn't mathematics, there is no correct answer, everything is subjective *
* Apart from people that didn't like Spring Awakening, they are clearly wrong, but apart from that... :-)
She might not be able to sing it as beautifully as you want but she acts the socks off most musical theatre performers and she makes the songs mean something. Who cares if there's the odd duff note. I want to see a living, breathing character not a beautiful, musical theatre performer who hasn't any depth. Jane Horrocks all the way!
Well Simon, It's all subjective and if AGYG were a searing Brechtian indicment of the inhumanity imposed on the Native American population in Depression era America, then maybe an "odd duff" note wouldn't be so bad . And one could look at the show as a showcase for serious depth filled performances ; but at least at my performance it there were more duff notes than good ones and the show was written as musical theatre entertainment - and the songs speak for themselves - they're among the glories of the Great American Songbook, they were meant to be sung on pitch.
Well Simon it's all subjective, and if AGYG were a searing Brechtian indictment of the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of US Show Business then Ms Horrocks duff noted warbling could be justified - but her multi regional accented hillbilly was for me a complete disaster. The songs, many of which are among the glories of the Great American Songbook , were written to be sung and sung on pitch. All one has to do is to listen to Mr Ovenden sing them to know what a pleasurable experience the purity of an Irving Berlin score is.