Two new musicals in London this week revealed opposite problems: Burlesque, at Jermyn Street Theatre, has a little bit too much of everything; and EX, at Soho Theatre, has too little of anything (a problem its lead lothario character admits to suffering from inside his underpants).
Excess is a better problem to have (in every department) - it means there is material to work with that can be pared back. It’s difficult, with the second show, to see what there is to build on.
As regular readers of this blog will know, I love (and champion) musicals more than most things; even Graham Cowley, the producer of Ex, looked at me tentatively before Tuesday’s opening and said how nervous he was that I was there, since “you’re an authority” (his words, not mine).
But after I reported my feelings on Twitter after the performance, he replied publicly, “Are you blind and deaf? What Soho Theatre were you in last night? The Soho Theatre I was in contained a funny play, with lovely songs, greeted with joy by the audience.”
That’s, of course, inevitably a subjective take; but a colleague who saw it the night before told me by e-mail, “When I saw EX I thought the entire audience would leave at the interval. Still not sure why they didn’t. Some maniac was shrieking approval at the end but he doubtless had a hand in its concoction!”
I’m not saying that either of us are necessarily right, and I also don’t think that this discourse should descend into a slanging match; it’s always my hope that critics can be part of the creative discussion around a show and its future development. I realise that a highly negative critical response might bring that development to an end, so critics have a lot of responsibility; but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, either. Sometimes people need to move on from something if it is palpably not working.
Inevitably, too, Mr Cowley is very close to the show, and feelings around it are no doubt running high within the cast and creative team, especially as here when they lost one of their cast of four late in the day, with Gerard Carey stepping into the lead role of Jack after Gabriel Vick suffered a broken foot. It’s an established theatre tradition to wish actors luck by saying ‘Break a leg’, but in this case Vick’s luck may have been even greater by breaking a foot, since he could avoid being in it.
Once again, EX demonstrated for me the yawning chasm between ambition and achievement in lots of young British musicals. The problems are apparent even before you get into the theatre, since it’s not even sure what it is: on the publicity leaflet, it’s described as a “new British musical”; on the billing page of the programme, as “a play with songs”.
But those are the least of the difficulties of a show whose tone in matters of the heart as well as art is fatally misjudged. A few pleasant songs along the way do not a musical make. By comparison, I had a far better time at Burlesque, another new musical that at least has the dignity of a properly told story, not a collection of random romantic vignettes; and if it bites off rather more than it can chew, in terms of the number of stories it asks us to follow and takes its time to establish which of those is the main one, at least there’s plenty to chew on.
Adam Meggido is best known for his improvisational Showstopper! musicals — of which he says in a programme note, “To date I have improvised almost 300 musicals”, and says about writing the music for this one and co-writing its book and lyrics with Roy Smiles, “It was time to write one down.”
As also directed by Meggido, with a first-rate West End ready cast of principals that include veterans Linal Half and Buster Skeggs and younger leads Chris Holland and Jon-Paul Hevey, there’s commitment and craft on offer. I would love to see it again; and I will also follow its future progress with interest.
And that shock and awe, of course, is inevitably going to happen when the critics get too close to the practitioners. Keep the buggers at arm's length, Mr Shenton...
Graham Cowley may think he has a "a funny play, with lovely songs, greeted with joy by the audience" - the reality is that EX is a mish-mash of ropey songs, dire dialogue, and some indifferent acting, pulled together by four of the most toxic characters you're ever likely to meet on a stage. The night I attended, many of the audience I overheard during the interval were deciding whether or not to endure the second act. It would have been a shame if they hadn't as the second was marginally less yawnsome than the first.
All credit has to go to Gerard Carey for giving the strongest performance of the quartet, despite having arrived late to the party, but there's just something about EX that makes you think all four actors would rather have been at home watching X-Factor or in A&E getting treated for something painful.
Here's a reality check for you, Mr Cowley, from someone who has no axe to grind except with bad theatre: EX is misconceived, appallingly executed (no pun intended), and has a shelf life shorter than a home-made yoghurt. Deal with the fact that you've got a turkey - learn from it, get over it, and move on.
Interesting how Graham Cowley implicitly suggests that Mark is divorced from reality as regards Ex, whereas Paul C EXplicitly declares that Cowley is, and Mark's observation that his opinion, as anyone's, is "inevitably a subjective take" gets lost in the wind.
Without having seen Ex myself, I'd muse - make of it what you will - that the last time I recall "Break a leg" pre-empting a player out of a musical was Too Close To The Sun, the disastrous 2009 show about the final days of Ernest Hemingway. The West End Whingers shaded parts of that show's logo out so that it read To Close Sun. In fact it closed Sat.
subjectivity can only be taken so far, i think. at some point one has to admit things are objectively bad. if my five-year old son wrote a musical, it would most likely be objectively bad, i think. same here.
one has to wonder about the judgment of the new director of this theatre.
"at least has the dignity of a properly told story, not a collection of random romantic vignettes"
This strikes me as a rather unfair thing to pick on Ex for. If it didn't work, it didn't work, but a collection of random vignettes can and HAS led to truly great musicals. One assumes you're familiar with Company? :P
I'm trying to think of a time when critics have made a useful contribution to the development of a musical or play. To me it seems the opposite - the best recent musical I have seen was London Road, which was nurtured by the NT Studio away from critical opinion. Any suggestions?
My name is Rob Young and I wrote the thing. What we have here are two heavyweight critics who didn't like my show, at all. I'm cool with that. It's their job to give their opinion and they can't like everything. To be fair (is fair objective?) some critics did like it and last night we had a standing ovation. That's not just me being defensive, it's true (honest). Could the show have been better? Hell yeah. Were some of the critics a tad cruel? Gleefully so, and that's why we read 'em. Did the passionate producer spring to its defense? Gallantly! It's all part of the healthy discourse of theatre. And I love it. Sure, it would have been nice if Mark had said my show was "better than sex" but then again, I have no idea how good his sex life is. It's all subjective. Go see Ex yourself and make up your own mind, that's what I say (but then again, I would). Call me old fashioned, I know, but there's nothing I like more than hearing an actor sing, "have a banana", which makes me chuckle every time I hear it. So, apologies to Mark for two hours of his life that he'll never get back and a huge five-star thanks to Graham for being so spirited. If only every writer had such a champion. And if you don't like Ex, there's always next time. Next time being December 19th when my new play, Crush, opens at the Finborough. It has no songs whatsoever.
What a ridiculous notion from Jumper (above). Yes, the intention of critics is purely to undermine the work of true artists. How would that serve anyone's interests?
By 'critics', I'm referring of course to those who work professionally in journalism and the arts, rather that the current deluge of amateur bloggers who spout forth an opinion on anything without a care for objectivity, fact or the legal validity of their often half-baked waffle.
If writers, directors and producers weren't so precious about their work and actually engaged with those who have to sit through it, our theatres would probably be in far better shape than they are today.
I suspect with the sudden removal of stupid grants for politically correct and self-indulgent garbage, we're going to see a dramatic rise in quality on our stages, which can only benefit everyone (except for those who have been taking the p*ss for so many years).
So, any real examples then, Vanguard? I'm genuinely interested to find when critics have actually contributed usefully around a show and it's future development. The only cases I can think of seem oblique at best.
It would probably be more valid to hear from a director, writer or producer who has actually listened to feedback and considered it a valid opinion rather than a "what do they know?" knee-jerk reaction. The accredited critics often see dozens of productions a month across a wide spectrum of genres and, I believe, have a broad eye and fairly balanced view of whether something has real artistic merit and pulling power or has just been cobbled together on a self-indulgent whim.
In saying that, any critic's opinion is just that of one man or woman. At the end of the day, the reader is the one to make the value judgement on whether to attend or not.
In this case, in the same way as Frank Oz's dreadful Terrible Advice at the Menier, the show has been widely trounced, it just suits Cowley's ego not to acknowledge that. Enter the conspiracy theorists, SR.
I would agree with that, and from my dealings with successful writers, directors and producers, I would say they know the value of external opinion. I can understand the self-interest involved in a commercial critic aggrandizing their role by saying they assist in the creative process of a show. In reality, they are part of the fun and fluff around a show who don't really matter, and I have more respect for the critics who give a nodding wink to this.
Although Mark - I feel its Ok to write about this - you purport to be a huge proponent of new musicals...
When a show that I produced, LEND ME A TENOR THE MUSICAL, opened, you a) never ran anything on an interview you did prior to opening with our multi award winning Music Supervisor, Paul Gemignani - one of the true musical theatre super-stars -
and then you wrote a dismissive review, and not deeming that enough, continued to kick our show almost weekly, even delivering a mean spirited swipe after we posted closing notice.
I can only speak about our show, on which a lot of talent, and , yes, money, was expended. On a brand new musical with a writing team new to the UK. And a tried and true director, award winning choreographer and designers, and a strong multi Olivier winning West End cast. With a couple of actors in possibly career making roles.
It's fine that you seemed to dislike the show - not finding it up to the lofty standards of, say, Ghost.
But if you truly support new musicals and want to see them multiply and prosper, then perhaps you might write about them respectfully, and with some depth. Is this a team worth hearing from again? Strengths, weaknesses, and so forth.
But instead, you just kicked a pretty fine example of what you say you support to the side of the road. And then kicked it again and again.
And then you waxed rhapsodic about Ghost. Which has its moments, to be sure.
We had, as you may not know, a large quota of 4 and 5 star reviews from your colleagues - as well as a few stinkers from mega critics like Nick Curtis.
Perhaps if you truly believe in musical theatre, and want to see the form thrive in the UK, you should dial back the vitriol, understand fully how hard the process is, and use your bully pulpit to examine in a more level manner what is happening when a new musical appears in the West End or off West End for that matter.
Or, you might think of this before you go to Las Vegas to review the same Cirque shows again and again. I like Vegas too - but it's not a theatre mecca 0 is it?
I have been in New York and only just got back this morning, so have not monitored these comments as closely as I usually do.
@Rob Young: thank you for an impressively dignified response. I'm truly sorry I didn't like your show more than I could -- but I'm impressed to see you are taking a long-term view, urging me to come back to see your next show.
@Martin Platt: I'm also sorry I couldn't like your show more than I did -- though in fact, I am perplexed at how you continue to peddle a myth that I disliked it so much (and in your repeated postings here and on my personal Facebook page, you have also continued to contrast your critical failure with the greater commercial and critical success of GHOST; it can't help like feeling like a case of severely sour grapes).
In fact, in my THREE STAR published review in the SUNDAY EXPRESS, I wrote: "Lend Me a Tenor, a slight but likeably frantic backstage operatic farce first premiered on the London stage in 1986 and more recently revived on Broadway last year, doesn't really warrant another go-round, especially not as a new musical version in which songs tend to slow it down a bit and don't add much to the plotting or characterisation. But an ace cast of West End stalwarts give it some guts and gusto. Though Matthew Kelly, with his face set to a constantly eye-twitching scowl, rather over-does the panic of the opera impresario, there's terrific work from Michael Matus as the problematic visiting Italian opera star, Joanna Riding as his wife and Damian Humbley as his stand-in who finds his own voice."
That's what's known in the business as a mixed review, not a pan. But of course, in your determination to characterise this review as such, and now demonise me, you are trying to make it seem like I was alone in causing the show's premature demise. i think psychologists call that projection. In fact, the ongoing dialogue I had on the show on this blog was specifically encouraged by your regular postings.
As for the interview with Mr Gemignani not running: unfortunately its fairly common in journalism for features not to land ahead of the opening, and once the reviews were not great, it became even more difficult to place. Then the show closed. It happens. Move on.
@Martin: I rather enjoyed Lend Me a Tenor, it was tuneful and funny and had some terrific performances but it wasn’t a great musical, it was simply an agreeable one (and given its source material it was never going to be “great”.) You’re a producer and it takes sweat, passion and money to get a show on and then it’s a crapshoot. You rolled the dice and (sadly) lost.
However if you’re going to be a producer then you should know that most of the time, despite everyone’s best efforts shows fail. I wouldn’t blame Mr Shenton who is a huge supporter of new musicals ( sometimes unwarranted) , I would first blame your theatre owner who saw fit to announce the opening of “The Ladykillers” the week before your opening - this created an atmosphere of failure around your show with both the critics and the ticket agencies. Nothing but rave reviews across the board would have counter-balanced that perception.
But lets look at the bright side - You gave life to a show that many in the audience enjoyed, you have a recording that reflects the show honestly (whether one likes it or not) and that the show will live on in regional theatres and community productions for years to come.
No producer expects every show he or she produces to be a smash - they want that, but the reality is that this time around it didn’t happen for you. And let’s face it you aren’t alone this year - look at Betty Blue Eyes, it got the reviews but not the audience and it had the advantage of the producer owning the theatre.
Producing a failure has got to hurt and the temptation to find someone to blame is a great one but its a fruitless task. Stop wasting time mourning over what has happened and get on with producing another show or two or three and learn from the mistakes you’ve experienced. (The first one being - don’t take an interim booking!)