Catherine Bennett resumes the weekly look at the performing arts world, with the sad end of Jerusalem, the luck of a cabbie, and French revolt. Do you hear the people sing?
Adam Alcock reviews Nigel Kennedy playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons and his own Four Elements at York Opera House.
Catherine Bennett highlights the trends in the performing arts world today.
Jonathan Cridford reviews 'Ghosts', one of the Freshers' plays for this year.
Seeing Central Hall Musical Society’s production of Jekyll and Hyde on Thursday marked the second time I have entered Central Hall this term. The first time was for a long-dreaded exam. Fortunately, this occasion was more enjoyable, although perhaps not to the degree that one might have hoped.
Jekyll and Hyde was always going to be a brave venture as it follows last year’s fantastic production of RENT. Unfortunately, Jekyll fails to live up to this previous production to such a degree that it is barely worthy of mention in the same breath. The first thing the audience is greeted with when entering the venue is a distinctly underwhelming set. Far from evoking the gothic decadence that I expected (and is suggested by the production’s wonderfully simple posters), the set looks like scaffolding draped in old curtains, the shiny metal poles completely at odds with the musical’s macabre tone. Sadly, this sets the tone for a production that can perhaps best be described as a series of poor decisions broken up by the occasional flash of transcendent talent.
Having said this, there is still much to praise in the production. The orchestra, skilfully conducted by musical director James Oliver, is particularly wonderful and I frequently found my eyes wandering over to stage left, allowing myself to become captivated by their masterful performance of the show’s spellbinding score. This is perhaps partly because the sound balance between the actors and the orchestra is a little bit off, meaning that quite a lot of what happens on stage is drowned out by the orchestra. This a technical issue however and not the fault of the orchestra who do do a fantastic job.
The performances are also something of a mixed bag. Some of the minor cast members have a tendency to go over the top, particularly a group of fusty aristocrats who (with the exception of Emily Thommes who manages to be rather good) march around the stage delivering parodic and somewhat silly performances that dispel the gothic atmosphere that the rest of the production is trying to create. This sense pervades much of the show and means that the darker and more emotional scenes on which the main storyline is hung often feel a bit out of place making it hard to care about the tragic plight of the main characters.
That being said, the three lead performances are frequently impressive. Alistair Phillips in the title role has a fantastic voice and is a joy to listen to. His acting is also proficient and he brings a likeable earnestness to the Jekyll side of his character. His Hyde on the other hand is rather less impressive as it simply isn’t scary, all heavy breathing and hunching and no menace. This can perhaps be put down to directorial decisions and is not helped by the clumsy staging of the murder scenes, which end up feeling rather flat and bloodless rather than shocking and depraved. Anna Czornyj is also quite good as Jekyll’s fiancée, Emma. It’s a part that’s a little bit prissy and therefore probably difficult to make wildly interesting but her acting is good enough to maintain an audience's attention and her singing is often very impressive, her performance of ‘Once Upon a Dream’ being a particularly memorable example of this.
The cast’s standout is undoubtedly Florence Stratton as Lucy who manages to bring an emotional depth to her East End prostitute that is entirely lacking from the rest of the production. Occasionally this can be somewhat jarring; because she is the only one of the actors who seems to have an emotional connection with the material, it sometimes feels like if she has wandered in from another production. Her performance is fantastic though; she is both a talented actor and a wonderful singer and it is in the moments when she brings these two skills together that the show really comes alive. Her renditions of ‘Someone Like You’ and ‘A New Life’ are almost worth the price of admission alone. Amusing performances from James Robert Ball, Rosie Fletcher and Max Tyler ably support these three lead actors.
Unfortunately, a couple of the best and most intimate moments of the show (including Stratton’s aforementioned performance of ‘Someone Like You’) are hampered by some badly choreographed dancers clomping around in the background, a distracting and irritating experience akin to trying to watch the best moment of a film while someone jumps up and down in front of the screen and throws popcorn at your head. In fact, much of the dance in the show felt unnecessary and even the scenes that definitely called for some dance corps action (a bawdy brothel scene for example) are poorly choreographed and noticeably out of time.
Sloppy lighting design also detracts a lot from the performance. ‘Confrontation’, the famous one man duet that Jekyll sings with his evil alter ego falls particularly foul of this; the decision to have the lights flash between dark and moody and bright and airy in order to indicate his rapid changes in personality feels obvious, unnecessary and somewhat patronising given Phillips’ energetic and not-exactly-subtle shifts in physicality and voice. The lighting also seems rather at odds with the blocking throughout the show and the cast frequently stands in parts of the stage that are almost entirely unlit, frequently hovering just on the edge of a large pool of light so that the audience’s attention is drawn to a vast stretch of empty stage.
It feels sad to end this review on a negative note given how much effort and money has clearly been poured into this production and it is definitely worth reiterating that the show is not without its strengths and does feature some stellar moments of performance and wonderful music. Ultimately however, and it pains me to write this, Jekyll and Hyde is a show in which weaknesses equal (and perhaps overshadow) strengths and one which definitely could have done with a few more weeks of rehearsal, a sprinkling of adrenaline and a dash of Viagra.
Personally I am unsure what show is being reviewed here. While there are always faults and room for improvement with any campus production the show I saw did not deserve a review as harsh as this. It was very much on a par with RENT, and I personally enjoyed this a little more, although it was a close run thing.
I feel that this is unnecessarily harsh critique. Also, immensely unfair. Fair for the West End maybe but not for Central Hall. The cast did a sterling job and I hope they and the production team pay equal attention to the audience response which was overwhelmingly positive from everything I heard.
It is also worth mentioning that the Board of Governors are meant to be grotesque parodies of the upper classes, the actors perform the roles as written superbly.
Might #1 possibly be involved in the production in some way perhaps? Review seems like a fair, unbiased one to me, I felt pretty unimpressed with it when I saw it.
If the dancing and acting are what you have a problem with might I suggest just going to watch an orchestra recital next time?
Both York Vision and Nouse were similarly underwhelmed by this performance. Just because we're students doesn't mean we can't be professional. It was marketed as a professional production so that's what people expect. Besides, all the reviews are still saying it was a decent performance, just not as good as previous years. I wouldn't be surprised if #1 was involved in the production - learn to take an honest opinion.
I personally think it is extremely dis-tasteful and very cruel to review a society performance in such a way. I'm not entirely sure the reviewer knows what he's reviewing in some instances. I'm watching the show tonight, and I am still very much looking forward to it
It's actually quite refreshing to see someone so honest about a campus production. Granted, we are all just university students, and it's never going to be West-End quality, but positive reviews I read almost always tend to be sugar-coating the truth. (I actually thought the same thing about the choreography in RENT last year - it often felt unnecessary and ruined the mood.) The strength of this review is that he justifies every claim he makes extensively, and any critique remains quite objective.
I'm sure Jekyll and Hyde is an achievement for all involved, and the most important thing is that they think it's been worthwhile and have had a good time. At the end of the day, what reviewers say shouldn't matter to them.
#5 how on earth is it "distasteful" and "cruel" ?
What would you prefer - "oh its by students...so well done it was amazing in every single way with not a single fault!" The real world isn't always nice with reviews, so why should university be any different. Grow up, this isn't even that harsh a review! It still says many aspects are really good!
I'm afraid the ball was dropped with regards to the comparison to RENT. The reviewer fails to realise that this years CHMS team are an entirely different collection of people. Would he write a review of a Drama barn play comparing it to another? I very much doubt it. So why do it with this?
In fact, a third of the people reading this will not have even had the chance to see RENT so why place it on a pedestal? I might as well compare it to another musical done by a local amateur group in an entirely different location; such is the use of this comparison.
An entire year will now think that RENT was the best thing since sliced bread. Not true. It was very good but let us not forget that it too had problems in all the areas mentioned here. Hindsight is an often beautiful and erroneous thing.
As the only person yet to put their name to a comment, I'd like to say without agenda or specific criticism of the reviewer that the show I saw last night was most definitely deserving of better write-ups than it has got across the board. The viewing experience was never anything short of enjoyable - unilaterally the result of care, attention and talent. I kept waiting for the moment of sheer disappointment that would at least twig me to whatever it is that's earned such universal dispassion from York's campus scribblers but I'm pleased to say it never came.
On seeing the final performance of Jekyll and Hyde, I am going to agree with Tom that it does not deserve some of the negative reviews it has gained. I can’t claim to be an expert in musicals, or any kind of acting for that matter but I felt the whole performance was really impressive. The three main parts particularly deserve a mention; Jekyll, Emma and Lucy. All three actors had fantastic voices and delivered a polished, convincing performance. Basically, I was entertained- surely this is the main point? I’d agree that at times the lighting was a little clumsy and it was a shame that the microphones faded slightly at times, but all in all everyone that took part in producing the performance did a fantastic job. I think anyone who puts in this level of time and effort into a production, whilst completing a degree and living the student life, deserves our admiration.
I thought this production was absolutely superb and totally undeserving of what you are saying! I thought the singing was beautiful, emotions captured brilliantly and definitely well lit and staged!! I had a great time seeing it and my heart goes out to all those who worked so hard only to read such unfair feedback.
no.8 I'd like to point out that a comparison to Rent is the only possible comparison anyone at the university is really able to make. That or to any of the previous Central Hall Musicals. At least the reviewer has had the correct attitude and not compared it to the likes of other Central Hall productions such as Happily Ever After Soc or G&S or even Panto. The reviewer has kept society-specific. The production itself was advertised in reference specifically to RENT (see their flyers) and on their facebook, quote:
"Central Hall Musical Society has a long reputation at the University of York for producing high quality musical theatre. Past productions have included; Rent, The Full Monty, Sweet Charity and Fame. Now, in WEEK 5, we bring you Jekyll & Hyde: The Musical and invite you to step behind the façade with us."
I do strongly believe that the performance had many positive factors, and there will be many people that enjoyed themselves. However, reviewing is not an easy task and the only way to be an informed reviewer is to have comparisons to draw on. Central Hall Musical has prided itself in the past on having a reputation of exceedingly high quality student performances. However, this year I think the ball was dropped somewhat and the production team did not keep up with past standards. They have a lot to be proud of, certainly, but for those of us with experience of the capabilities of a society production team with a specific budget, 8 months of planning and at least 4 months rehearsal, I would have expected more from the performance. This is why the comparison to RENT is relevant. Perhaps the reviewer could have mentioned Full Monty, or Sweet Charity or any other Central Hall Musial Society performances, perhaps that was their mistake, but the comparison exists and should not be ignored.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report