Singing in London

I promised my sister while I was in England, I would complete three tasks.  Task number one was to wear a scarf.  Considering that Oxford has had the coldest March it has had in the last fifty years, that first one was more of a necessity of life than an obligation.  Task number two was to ride on the top story of a double-decker bus.  I have taken the bus into London twice so far, and both times I have ridden on the top story.  It was the third task that I had trouble accomplishing; to see a show in London.  Thanks to a good friend (Robert Kehrein) from school, today, I have accomplished this third and most important of task.  I had the opportunity to attend the matinee showing of Singing in the Rain, which has been playing for the last several months at the Palace Theatre in London.

For those who have been living under a rock and do not know Singing in the Rain, I will provide a quick summary of the story before going into a review of the performance and an analysis of the play itself.  If you have been living under a rock, do not know the story, and do not want to have the story spoiled for you, I have only one thing more to say… GO SEE THE SHOW!  Singing in the Rain is an amazing film, a fantastic play, and well worth the money or effort required to see it (although perhaps not flying to London if you are a reader in one of the many other countries in the world).

So, on with the summary.  Singing in the Rain is a musical set in 1929 Hollywood, on the eve of the advent of “talking pictures.”  Silent actor Don Lockwood a great career and is rumored to be in a relationship with his beautiful co-star Lina Lamont.  The real situation is not quite so glamorous; Lamont is a self-absorbed diva with the most aggravating voice never before heard on the big screen, while Lockwood has fallen in love with the lovely Kathy Selden, a stage actress who tells Don he is only a dumb-show actor.  The story increases pace when The Jazz Singer shakes up the Hollywood scene with the introduction of a new dimension, talking, to the movies.  With the help of his best friend, Cosmo Brown, Lockwood must navigate the tumultuous world of the transition to sound, overcoming technical difficulties, his own overly dramatic silent-acting style, and most importantly, his prima-dona co-star’s terrible voice to save his career and win the lady he loves.

Sound like a cheesy story?  It absolutely is.  The great thing about Singing in the Rain is not the script, not the story itself, but the fantastic music, extraordinary dance numbers, and sympathetic characters.  The humor of watching these actors forced to cope with a new form of technology they have never experienced before is classic, and the antics of both Lockwood and Cosmo Brown leave the viewer laughing in pure enjoyment.

If you happen to be in London for a day and you are looking for a relatively cheap, good time, definitely consider checking out the show.  It cost 19 British pounds for me to pre-order tickets online, and they were available at the box office for 15.  Granted, I was in the cheap seats back in the balcony, and the view of the stage from my seat was partially obstructed, but if you are a poor starving college student, cheap seats is the way to go.  For the matinee performance, there were some extra seats on the floor, and for an additional 10 pounds you could upgrade your seat, a very good deal if you could afford to take advantage of it.

As a critic, I have a couple of small complaints about the performance.  One of the critical plot points of the story develops around the fact that Kathy Selden has a beautiful speaking and singing voice.  While Selden’s voice was decent in the show yesterday, it was very similar to the voice of Lina Lamont.  At some points, the two characters voices sounded so similar to me that the only way I could tell the difference between the two was based upon my previous knowledge of the story and the fact that Lina Lamont does not generally say anything intelligent.  I understand that there is a specific type of voice expected in women in the theatre world, however, in a show where the distinctiveness of voice determines the outcome of the entire story, the situation was problematic.  The other criticism I will make of the performance also relates to the talking.  Singing in the Rain is set in 1929 in Hollywood, a situation which can be problematic when the entire cast is British.  The entire cast had to attempt an American accent for the performance.  This might not be a problem for any Brits in the audience, but as an American I was highly amused by the attempts of the actors to portray an American accent.  There is a huge difference between the regional accents of different parts of the United States.  The cast did a very good job of portraying a New York/ Brooklin accent, but the story is supposed to take place in California, which has a completely different accent.  I was very amused through the whole play listening to what Brits think American’s sound like, but some of the other Americans in my group were a little bit annoyed by the situation.

Those two small issues were the only negative aspects of the entire show.  The musical and dance numbers were extremely well staged and performed, and the transitions between scenes and gap times during costume changes were efficiently and creatively dealt with through chorus reprises of several songs.  The title song, “Singing in the Rain” was beautifully choreographed, and performed, with exuberantly playful splashing of the front row of the audience.  Group numbers like “Broadway Melody” and “Beautiful Girls” were likewise sensational, combining beautiful dancing with superb musical performances.  In my opinion, however, the show was completely stolen by the Stephane Anelli’s performance as Cosmo Brown.

Before I continue, let me make a quick admission- I have been in love with Cosmo Brown since I was four and I first saw Donald O’Connor play the part.  His humor and exuberance has made him one of my favorite characters in musical theatre history.  I was a little hesitant going into the performance, as Donald O’Connor left some big shoes to fill.  Anelli’s performance added a new dimension to the character for me, and performance of the classic “Make ‘Em Laugh” number had me laughing and smiling in unabashed joy.  If you consider attending the play for nothing else, go for that single scene, it was well staged, well performed, and a delight to watch.

Knowing that I wanted to write a review of the play, I spent the bus ride home thinking about the performance and what made it particularly good.  I kept coming back to the character of Cosmo Brown.  Up to this part, I have always considered Cosmo a sidekick character, and to some extent, he fits the bill; he is constantly seen as backup to Don Lockwood, the comic relief character who ends the story basically where he started it, and without a girl.  Watching the show yesterday, however, I realized that Singing in the Rain is as much Cosmo’s story as it is Don Lockwood’s or Kathy Selden’s. Cosmo starts off the show completely in Don’s shadow, unappreciated by his friend’s fans, the company he works for, and left voiceless in the background of Don’s success.  As the story continues, however, Cosmo is able to find a voice as the movies begin to find theirs; as the “talking pictures” endanger Don’s career, Cosmo’s takes off as he is promoted to the head of the newly formed music department.  As the story progresses, Cosmo becomes a larger and larger presence, solving the problem of Lina’s screen voice, involving himself in the creation and production of the new Lockwood&Lamont movie, and, at the end, stepping out on stage to usurp both Lina Lamont and Kathy Selden’s places in the spotlight.  Of all the characters in the show, it was Cosmo who exhibited the greatest growth; Don got the girl, but it did not change his character.  Kathy got a new job and acclamation, but she did not learn to speak for herself; in the end, it is Don (and Cosmo) who place Kathy in the spotlight where she belongs.  Cosmo, however, is transformed from the behind the scenes shadow of his friend to the forefront of film and movie history, writing music, conceiving film scenes, and smoothing the transition from silence to talking in the movies.

Maybe I have let my imagination run wild and I am reading too much into the character, but perhaps not.  Perhaps there is a reason the actor who plays Cosmo Brown is given an equal billing with those playing Don Lockwood and Cathy Selden.  I hope that this review has given Cosmo the opportunity to step out of the shadow and onto the stage in your minds as he has in mine.  If you have the opportunity, I cannot stress enough how much fun it would be for you to watch this amazing performance.

Well, back to reality.

Fun with Rosecrantz and Guildenstern... in Oxford!

Hello all,

I had the opportunity last week to participate in one of the best theatrical experiences of my life.  As most of you know, I am currently studying at Oxford University for a term.  I have been living in a house with about thirty other students participating in the same program.  Last week, two of my fellow students performed, for the rest of the house, Tom Stoppard's play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.  The two young men filled the title roles, while the audience was able to participate in the play by reading the lines of the remaining characters.  The show ended up being one of the most enjoyable I have ever attended.

For those of you who are not familiar with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, the play is based around the story of Hamlet, following minor characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as they attempt to understand what is going on in the royal court at Denmark and to fulfill their roles within the play.  The work is fascinating because it wrestles with many of the same themes as Hamlet: death, fate, purpose, and the motif of the play within a play, but in a humorous manner as the two heroes, who do not even know their own names, bumble through some of the most recognizable and well loved scenes from Hamlet in their attempts to figure out what is going on.

Let me, for a moment, separate myself from my role as a critic.   There are far better actors, far better venues, and far better performances of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern than the one I saw last week.  As this is my review, however, I reserve to myself the right to enjoy and applaud those efforts that might, in more strictly critical circles, be regarded as lacking.  The enjoyment of partaking in the common experience of an excellent play with good friends is something that transcends the common critical questions of quality.  The unintended moments of humor that arose from the fact that oftentimes the audience did not know what was going on any more than the characters did added to the experience in the play by drawing the audience into the plights of the characters by allowing them a similar experience of confusion in their participation in a work with which they were unfamiliar.

The two young men who played Rosencrantz and Guildenstern did an excellent job.  They were reprising the roles from an earlier performance, and I could tell that they were familiar with the lines and the story, and they were obviously quite comfortable working with each other, which made for a very dynamic show.  Their performance took advantage of the stage they were given, the common room for the house, by moving in around and through the entirety of the space, including the audience, and this interaction with the people and the space heightened the sense of inclusion for the audience.  The performance was thoroughly enjoyable, and both young men were able to convey the darker themes of death and futility without lapsing into pomposity or despair.

Because of the relatively short amount of time for preparation that the two actors had, they kept their copies of the script with them through the performance, and had to occasionally check their lines.  Otherwise, they worked without props or scenery, except for whatever they could derive from the room and the audience, but in such a situation, the imagination easily filled in the required set pieces.

If you are familiar with Hamlet and Rosencranzt and Guildenstern are Dead, then take this piece of advice: find a copy of the play, get a group of friends together, dim the lights, and read through it, acting out as you think necessary.  It is well worth the time, and ends up being one of the most fun experiences ever.

Well, back to reality (although, right now the difference between reality and fantasy seems to be a bit blurry… everyone here is a bit crazy).