Rent Scenarios

This post will be a bit different from my usual reviews and complaints. If you're not interested in Rent and what-if scenarios, skip this one! This is just my little analysis on some aspects of the show. Will contain spoilers.

Ever since I saw Rent in Alexander Theatre two weeks ago, I've been wondering: what's wrong with Rent's plot, actually? I like many shows that lack something when it comes to the story, shows that have a silly plot, shows that hardly have a plot at all. Why does Rent, with its story about love, annoy me so much?

Well, something about the naivete of the whole thing bugs me. As I've mentioned previously, I think the show gets better if the production kills Mimi in the end. I've had the luck of seeing a production that made that choice once, and it improved the whole thing. The no day but today message – that's usually chanted for two hours straight but doesn't really mean anything since returning from the dead is apparently possible – gained an actual meaning for once.

But I guess that's not all that could be fixed.
I wonder if Rent would be better if either Roger or Collins didn't have HIV/AIDS.

Petrus Kähkönen as Roger in Suomen Musiikkiteatteriensemble's production.

Let's discuss Roger first.
He has a song – one of the best musical songs of all times, if you ask me – about how the disease has destroyed his dreams. He has a scenes with other characters where they discuss his illness. He takes his medicine, he has that little moment when he sings along the Life Support group...
But still, not once have I felt he's really suffering from something severe and incurable.

Maybe this has to do with people responsible for the productions I've seen. Maybe they didn't know how to make it work. But a part of it, I think, lies within the script. It never shows him suffering. It's Mimi who's getting pale and thin, Roger's still healthy. Even though that's completely possible when it comes to real HIV-posive people, it's not very effective in a story.
The song Another Day is problematic. What does Roger mean by it? I'm under the impression that Roger pushes Mimi away because of his HIV, since he doesn't know she has it too. Maybe he's afraid of relationships and doesn't want that Mimi destroys him inside like April did. But he also doesn't want Mimi to get the disease, he doesn't want that Mimi breaks her heart when he dies. Or that's how I see it.
So, how does an another day fit to this? With an incurable disease, there won't be a day when those things aren't relevant anymore. Is Roger lying to himself and trying to assure himself that his nightmare will end one day? Or is this just bad thinking on the composer's part?

One thing would be changing the plot so Roger's disease is more visible. But what would happen if he didn't have it at all?

It'd add a whole new layer of problems to the plot, which could be interesting. How could Roger and Mimi be together if only one of them had a sexually transmitted, fatal disease? It's a difficult scenario, but it could add some realism to the show.
It should be noted Mimi already doesn't care. In her song Out Tonight, she tries to seduce Roger, unaware of him having the disease too. The show doesn't bluntly state Mimi's goal is to sleep with Roger, but one could pretty easily interpret the scene like that. What's more, dating an HIV-positive person course doesn't mean you'll automatically become HIV-positive yourself. Copypasting from fda.gov: Condoms are not 100% safe, but if used properly, will reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. The audience knows this, and maybe the characters also do: Benny isn't HIV-positive (or at least it's not mentioned) but the show still implies he and Mimi have been together. It's almost as if the show doesn't care either...
If Roger didn't have the illness, it'd add an element of but-what-if-he-gets-it-too to his relationship with Mimi – would that make it unrealistic? Or more interesting?

In short, I feel it could be more realistic and closer to the source material (Puccini's La bohème) to have Roger not have HIV. It'd add more reason to him avoiding Mimi during the course of the show. He knows she will, eventually, break his heart like April did, he's afraid he will catch the disease too... It'd make Roger's selfishness more real and his motivations clearer.

Of course, curing Roger would change his character, and that's quite problematic.
It might be I've never felt he's dying, but that's still important in the script. One Song Glory, Another Day... You'd need a new way to justify these songs. Maybe only April got the disease, and her death alone impacted him so much he became severely depressed and started shielding himself from the world? That might justify Another Day but doesn't work with One Song Glory. I don't know if I'd be okay with my favourite song being removed from the show, even if it was for the greater good...
More importantly, the show would need a new way to get Mimi and Roger together, to show their love is stronger than his fear of the disease. Might add to the naivete part of things.

Maybe the disease is too important to Roger's character to have him cured.

Jyri Numminen as Angel and Mikael Haavisto as Collins
in Suomen Musiikkiteatteriensemble's production.

But let's not forget Collins.

Collins and Angel are a bit more minor characters. Both get solos, but where One Song Glory, Out Tonight, Another Day and other Mimi and Roger songs tell about their feelings and characters, Collins's and Angel's songs are a bit more vague. We don't know as much about their lives, other than what they feel for each other. Therefore, with them, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to go too deep into the what-if-he-gets-it-too element of the thing. That's their problem, our problem is Collins's pain when he loses Angel. Besides, do we ever worry about Rodolfo from La bohème or Christian from Moulin Rouge! catching tuberculosis, even though they're very likely to?
In a nutshell, I feel Collins's disease is nothing more than a plot device to remove the problems of him and Angel getting together. He refers to having it once, and that's the end of that. Unlike Roger, curing Collins wouldn't change his character.

I think making Collins HIV-negative would make his and Angel's story even more effective. Now, when they enter each other's lives, either of them could die first. Basically, just like any other relationship, though dying is closer to them than average young couples. Making Collins healthy would mean he knows Angel will die first, and soon. Unlike Roger, who would be afraid for his own safety and his own heart, Collins would go into the relationship nevertheless. Sugary and romantic, sure, but it'd also add a heartbreaking undertone to their story from the first minute. Even though theirs is the happiest of them all in the whole show.
Seriously, why isn't this a thing?

Do you have any thoughts about these scenarios? I'm curious to hear other opinions!

Photos from Suomen Musiikkiteatteriensemble ry's production.

Not Gonna Pay

I've talked about my relationship with Rent before. In a nutshell: when I think about the show with sense and logic, I hate it like burning. But when I see the show live, there's usually something that lifts me up. My brain says it's bad, but I tend to end up having a good time nevertheless.
However, seeing the production directed by Marco Bjurström that premiered in Alexander Theatre last week... I'm afraid I've reached a magical point (of no return?): I didn't enjoy myself like before anymore. I felt, mostly, nothing.

Maybe I'm just fed up. Or maybe it's my I dislike towards the material speaking. I adore how clever an adaptation of La bohème Rent is, and the songs are mostly great, but some parts of the story don't fly with me. After my last rant, I've realised I side with the wrong character: Benny. I don't really see what's so evil about his studio plans. Frankly, I'd like to work there.
But disagreeing with the characters doesn't automatically mean anything. I think I would have liked this production a lot better if it had been more innovative. The direction resembled the Broadway production. That's good if you love that production. I don't. And since we can all buy the DVD of the final performance, what's the point of showing us the same thing? Last year in Lahti, Suomen Musiikkiteatteriensemble ry changed the ending a notch darker, removed the song that grates the most, switched scenes around a little bit, and boom, twice better than the Broadway DVD. This production, then, went through the whole Broadway routine – and felt like something I've already seen.

As is, I feel the show only reached its full potential during the last fifteen minutes. What You Own, sung by Heikki Mäkäräinen (Mark, reprising his role from the aforementioned Musiikkiteatteriensemble production, great job again) and Raine Heiskanen (Roger) was the turning point for me: they sung with huge energy, I suddenly felt the show is amazing. Too bad the moment came an act too late.
Nevertheless, I thought the actors did a good job overall. Apart from Mäkäräinen, I liked Ilari Hämäläinen as Benny and Sanna Parviainen as Maureen the most. The former avoided the trap of portraying the character as a jerk and did a great job with his few sung bits. The latter sparkled with energy and attitude, just like Maureen should.
When it comes to character chemistry, I think there was some in between Maureen and Joanne and maybe also Angel and Collins, but not too much in between Mimi and Roger. While Mira Luoti was a cute, vulnerable Mimi, I don't think she and Roger seemed too infatuated with each other. Another Day seemed angry on everybody's part.

Not amused by your accusations of lacking character chemistry.

The production looked, set-wise, just like every other Rent I've seen.
The scaffoldings and industrial tables on wheels aren't pretty, but they do what they're supposed to and give the events a backdrop. Maybe you shouldn't fix what's broken. They're one of musical theatre's omnipresent things: Phantom and the chandelier, Les Mis and the barricade, Rent and the scaffoldings. But why are they so holy they never seem to get replaced? It'd be refreshing to see something different. The sets were designed by Bjurström and Heiskanen, the director and one of the leads. Maybe they had too much else on their minds to start reinventing.

The costumes by Jarkko Valtee, then, had undergone some chances from the traditional. Mostly, it was okay – losing the most stereotypical 90s costumes might not be period-accurate, but 90s fashion also looks pretty silly, so...
There was one costume change above the others: they had completely redone Angel's wardrobe. An artistic drag queen, you can do lots with her, so I tip my hat to this production completely changing things. Too bad I also hated said changes. Little panties, crop tops, a green mohawk... She looked less like a drag queen, more like the guys from Blades of Glory. Except for way more naked. I think it's easier to see Angel as the heart of the story she's supposed to be if her outfits don't make me gape for all the wrong reasons (though what do I know – maybe I'm alone and everyone else found her gorgeous).
To nitpick further, it bothered me that some characters were wearing such skimpy clothing, tiny tops and fishnet stockings, without a jacket. The show takes place on Christmas Eve, for heaven's sake!

Then there's the case of Sami Parkkinen's translation.
I stand in awe.
I don't remember hearing a Finnish translation that fails at resembling the original text and rhyming and rythm. Glad life's full of surprises and I got to experience this. If I was rolling my eyes in my seat, which I know I was – actors, please don't think it was because I thought you were so bad. You weren't, it was the words you sung... Ilona Kangas of Turun Sanomat says, in her review, that "Sami Parkkinen has made a new Finnish translation and done it well." I guess you can have many different opinions about this translation, then, but I'm afraid I can't understand Kangas's. Sure, the translation had a couple of good moments, but I don't think that's enough to make up for the major clumsiness.
It annoys me to no end how they didn't use the translation from Suomen Musiikkiteatteriensemble's production. Jyri Numminen's version compromised a couple of rhymes too, I seem to recall, but it did that so much better. It got rid of American terms Finns might find hard to understand (for example, changed Labor Day to vappu/May Day), it flowed, it didn't make me cringe once. Why on earth use a new translation when it can't hold a candle to the previous one?

Oddly enough, even after all this, I can't call this a bad production of Rent. Everything but the translation worked okay, even if nothing was especially exciting. All the scenes were there, looking and sounding like you'd expect. The actors were good fits for their roles. I should mention that the rest of the audience, in the half-full auditorium, loved the show: the applause went on and on, culminating in a standing ovation.
In my opinion, this production simply lacked the creativity and heart to really lift it off the ground.

Photos by Lasse Lindqvist.

Hairy Noon and Night

When I want to see a musical, I don't let distance bother me. Six hours in train per day for a show isn't that bad. Honestly! But this fall, I've moved into a town with a couple of theatres that do musicals. One of them is called Åbo Svenska Teater. You might've heard me mention it here fleetingly once or twice.

So, of course I was there for Hair's premiere.

Beforehand, I was pretty sure I wouldn't like Hair. Hippies? 60s? Sounds like a bore, a nostalgia trip for people three times my age. I had to see it because, come on... it's in the theatre I spent so much time in during last year, Les Mis director Georg Malvius is directing, so on. But that doesn't mean I would much like the show.

After seeing the show, yes, it is a nostalgia trip for people three times my age. But! I also enjoyed myself enough to start thinking about when to the show the next time right after stepping out of the theatre.

Of the musicals I've seen, Hair strongly reminds me of Cats. Not because of the themes or the style of music, but because of the structure of the show. Hair, just like Cats, is a collection of scenes centered around the same theme and group of characters. I haven't seen many shows like this, and at first, I was a bit annoyed. Where's the story?

As the show progressed, I got more into it. Maybe it's sometimes nice not to force the events to follow a traditional story arc. I think, in this case, it worked better than a complicated story with these themes and songs would've.

From what I understand, different productions of Hair vary a lot script-wise, so I don't know if some of them are marginally more story-driven. Checking out the plot for the original stage show and the movie, ÅST's production seems to vaguely follow the film, while the one currently playing in Lahden kaupunginteatteri is closer to the original Broadway script. Hopefully I can see that one too and return to this.

When it comes to ÅST's Hair, there were scenes I didn't like. Most notable was the drug sequence during the first act. I suppose it's a good message to tell: doing drugs is hideously boring. No one's going to start because this musical made it seem exciting... That was the part of the show when I kept telling myself that yes, I was right, this is stupid. 

Luckily, I thoroughly enjoyed the second act. The story, the little of it you can find here, got a move on and I felt genuinely touched by it. Not to mention the amazing finale medley with all the best songs. I'm afraid that was my favourite part. It reminded me of Mamma Mia!, to have the show end with an encore like that – but is there something wrong with a simple feel-good moment every now and then? Without the cheerful ending, I'm afraid this would've left the audience in tears... There certainly was some darkness under the happy surface.

However, I must say that the issues the musical deals with felt a bit distant to me. The piece's clearly a product of its own time. So, maybe it should be thought of as a period piece instead of thinking about what, if anything, it tells about modern society. Maybe it's about hippies and that's about it. I mean, I enjoy Les Mis and Kristina från Duvemåla, even though I've never experienced poverty and famine. 

But still, with no complicated story, with all the hit songs, with so many references to 1960's (American) history... As mentioned, I feel this show is, first and foremost, a nostalgic musical for older folks. It doesn't necessarily stop the rest of us from enjoying it, I just think it should be noted. I gather Hair was a huge thing in the late 60s and early 70s. A part of the audience first saw it when they were young and the issues were relevant. I bet Hair will never mean the same to me as it does to them. For me, it's not about my past, it's about history.

But, like I keep repeating, I still enjoyed Hair. That's probably because the young cast is not affected by any 60s nostalgia either. There's an explosion of energy onstage. Once again, I have difficulty naming any weak links in the cast. Every performance seemed strong to me. I know I've said this about every show I've seen this fall, but I'm serious. (Hopefully there's some odd miscast in something I see soon. It would make my review look realistic for once.)

I loved most of the songs, I loved the performances. I was especially blown away by Filip Ohls's (Woof) rendition of Frank Mills. I believe the song is not usually given to this character, but who cares; the way he sung it, I think it's maybe the best musical song about unrequited love I've ever heard. Forget On My Own! Linus Fagerström's (Berger) version of Donna, then, has been playing in my head ever since the open rehearsal two weeks ago.

The visuals, by Ellen Cairns, were a slightly mixed bag. I liked the costumes and some of the sets, but I found for example the giant puppets pretty tacky, not to my tastes at all. Palle Palmé's lights, however, were beautiful all the way.

Finally, two thumbs up for the Finnish subtitles.

ÅST's Les Mis had the Finnish translation as subtitles. Translated librettos are of course meant to be sung and therefore aren't exact translations of the original lyrics. So, the Finnish text often had nothing to do with the sung Swedish. But now, the subtitles matched the Swedish lyrics pretty perfectly. Weirdly, the programme claims they're based on the Finnish libretto, but I think they fit way too well for that be true. In any case, this is the way subtitles should be. Understanding the Swedish lyrics partially, I could check out the parts I didn't get and see the exact Finnish equivalent instead of having to think that huh, how does that match the previous sentence... Good!

All in all, I'd recommend seeing this show, even if it doesn't hold any nostalgic value to you. You'll get two hours filled with great songs and very energetic performances. That made at least me leave the theatre feeling twice as cheerful as I was when entering.

Photos by Robert Seger.
See a sneak peek of the show.
The day I finally manage to write a whole musical review without referring to Les Misérables once, I shall reward myself by buying some Hair tickets. If the show is still playing on that extraordinary day, that is.

Duvemåla's Kristina

It's an adaptation based on a classic novel a whole nation adores. It's a huge mammoth of a musical: very long, sung-through, lots of characters. It's confusing. It's filled with show-stopping numbers that literally make the show screech to a halt for five minutes just so we can admire the lead's vocals. At times, it seems like it's constructed to force tears and sadness out of you. I know that there's a lot to fix when it comes to the structure of the piece... But I'm afraid I've hardly ever enjoyed a show this much.

And, for once, I'm not talking about Les Misérables.

Everybody should go see Svenska Teatern's production of Kristina från Duvemåla.

Kristina från Duvemåla tells a story about a group of Swedish people emigrating to the USA in the 19th century. It deals with heavy themes: the decision to move to another country and abandon your old live forever can't be an easy one, and the musical touches issues like death and religion, dreams and love. It's also wildly popular. Performances keep going until next spring, and they're practically all sold out already.

The musical is based on Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants series, and I've never seen a musical adaptation this true to its source material. Of course, I read the Finnish translations of the books, but I was still amazed by how closely the dialogue sometimes corresponds with the libretto. Especially the first two books of the series seemed to translate from page to stage without changing a word.

I admire the close accuracy whenever it works, and there are moments when it does, but it's also a problem. I think the books were great reads, but that doesn't mean there aren't any problems in them. Instead of fixing the books' odd bits, though, the musical amplifies them. Moments that are explained badly in the books aren't explained at all in the musical, and following the books too closely results in pretty clumsy storytelling.

For example, there's a scene where the audience meets the young farmhand Arvid for the first time, as he talks with his friend Robert: I'm-going-to-kill-the-old-woman-she-claims-I'm-a-zoophile-no-don't-do-that-dear-friend-I'll-read-to-you-about-rice-and-we-shall-move-to-America-wait-what? The first half of the scene is never mentioned again. The show has some way too fast-paced scenes that are lifted straight from the book. The details originally spread across dozens of pages get crammed into thirty seconds.

The first time I saw Kristina, I was convinced it should get shortened. I'm not so sure anymore, personal preference is overriding sense: I've started to enjoy every overlong minute. But, even so, I probably wouldn't throw a fit over a couple of cuts. There are some things I wish future productions would get rid of.

First, there's the tacky Jesus vision that one of the side characters has. The show's relationship with religion is convoluted enough [Laura talked about this in her Finnish review, check her text out if you know the language] – a campy, glittering Jesus doesn't really make things better. Then there's the very first scene. After the overture, we're shown an old man who has broken his leg, and his son who swears he can take care of the farm. This is one of the worst beginnings for a musical I can recall. It doesn't feel interesting, doesn't introduce us to the title character and has little relevance to the rest of the plot. Why start the show with a character we only meet twice during the following three hours? I think the overture should lead straight into Duvemåla hage, and Karl Oskar telling his bride "the farm is mine, Kristina" would be quite enough background. The very end of the second act also introduces a confusing plot point the show could very well do without.

It would seem natural I'd hate the show, with this many gripes... But that's not how it is. Even with all this, I love Kristina. I don't know if this love will last, but at the moment, it's one of my top five favourite musicals of all times.

As implied earlier, I think Kristina is closely related to Les Misérables. I seem to have a tendency to like musicals like this, ones where bodycount rises, ones that are long and heavy with strong themes. First time watching, both Les Mis and Kristina left me with the same confused feeling: I had a good time, but have no idea what happened there. And still, the performances elevated me. Every time I see these shows, they make me feel lighter, just overall better. They make me enjoy myself.

My reaction to Kristina is quite carthartic. I don't necessarily relate with all the themes the musical deals with, but it still fills me with feelings. I don't cry easily when seeing musicals, but the first time I heard Maria Ylipää sing Du måste finnas, I wept for the next five minutes. Second time watching, the biggest solos didn't make me cry anymore – but everything in between did. I tend to take constant mental notes even during shows I really like, it's hard for me to turn the little critical voice in my head off. So it's fantastic to find a show that lets me forget that from time to time.

The music, by Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus, is gorgeous. I like ABBA songs, but I admit I've never been that into Chess, the duo's other musical (might help if I saw it live, though). But here, I can't get enough of the tunes. Kristina has some of the very best music I've ever heard. It's hard to explain why, it just works for me. If you find the tickets too pricey for you – which wouldn't be surprising, this is the most expensive musical in the whole country – at least find the original cast recording and take a listen.

Not to say seeing the show isn't worth it, though. Svenska Teatern's Kristina joins my mental list of perfect musical casts. It's as if these roles and people were made for each other. There isn't a single weak link. I feel it's useless to go into more depth; I would just mention names and yell "PERFECTION" after each one.

The show also looks good. Judging from the photos I've seen from the Swedish original production, Svenska Teatern's version looks very similar to it, set-wise. The replica strikes, yet again... Luckily, the sets they've copied look great. The staging is pretty minimalistic, and it works. You don't have to show a lot to show exactly where the events are happening. In the first performance I saw, the audience was truely pleased with the visuals: one of the set changes resulted in an applause.

Conclusion?

There are dozens of things to fix in Kristina från Duvemåla when I think about it with sense. But when feelings come into play... If a show can make me feel as strongly as Kristina did, it has done more right than wrong.

Photos by Cata Portin.
See the trailer of the production.

Something Next to Normal

A word of warning for starters: written in white text, there are major spoilers for Next to Normal in this review. In my opinion, they will ruin your experience if you don't know the plot of the show. So, please, only highlight the invisible part if you have seen Next to Normal already. (Also, if you ask me, avoid reading the reviews in newspapers. The same spoiler appears there with no warnings.) Other than the white part, this should be safe to read.

Next to Normal is one of the musicals I can't decide whether to call my favourite or not.

In a way, Next to Normal is one of the best musicals of the recent years. With so many jukebox musicals and adaptations nowadays, it's very refreshing to see an original story. It's not an easy one, either: it's about a family struggling with mental ilness. A very interesting subject for a musical, I think.

Yet, I'm afraid every repeat viewing has further opened my eyes to see the weaknesses of the piece. I'm rather annoyed at its black-and-white view about whether to treat mental illnesses with medical science or therapy. The show definitely takes a side, and I think it tries to shove its opinions down our throats a bit too forcibly. Next to Normal also has a rather weak second act. The combination of the songs being less interesting and the action slowing down near the end is sure to make me yawn every time.

Still, I admire Next to Normal for its music (I can't stop looping the songs from the first act), and for telling a touching story with realistic, layered characters, especially the leading couple. It's not often you get all that in a single show. No wonder both Wasa Teater and Tampereen Työväen Teatteri stage Next this fall!

When it comes to the Wasa Teater version I just saw, my expectations were through the roof. Starring three people from my favourite musical cast of all times and, judging by photos and videos beforehand, looking visually so much better than the recent Helsingin kaupunginteatteri version... I was looking forward seeing a great production. And, for the most part, I got one.

Anna-Maria Hallgarn and Sören Lillkung made the two main roles feel very realistic and genuine (interesting that the male lead got the final bow at the curtain call, by the way – but with such a voice and performance, who am I to argue?). Furthermore, I don't think there was a single weak link in the remaining cast, composed of Johan Aspelin, Samuel Harjanne, Markus Lytts and Mikaela Tidermark. Add this one to the long list of Finnish productions I wish they would record a cast album of!

For the most part, I also enjoyed Victoria Brattström's directional choices. I think she seemed to have a very clear view of the story she's telling and the dynamics in between the characters. For example, the character of Natalie, who I found rather annoying in HKT, felt compelling and real to me here.

There's one very big but about me liking the direction, though, and here come the spoilers. Only highlight the following empty-looking space if you've seen some production of Next to Normal.

I didn't like what Wasa Teater's production did with the character of Gabe. 
I think Gabe's one of the most interesting musical theatre characters out there. It's intriguing how we don't really know what he is. A ghost? Diana's illusion? A physical manifestation of the whole family's suffering? All of these at once? It's up to each director, actor and member of the audience to find their own interpretation. However, not everyone has to agree with every idea, and I didn't agree with the director's here...

From the beginning on, Gabe felt rather unreal. If WT's Next was your first time seeing the show, let me know: did you suspect something was awry even before the truth was revealed? I thought that everything from Gabe's simple black clothing on hammered it in that he's different, and his discussions with his mother seemed like two adults speaking. Of course, it can be asked if the it's even important keeping the fact that Gabe isn't real concealed – but personally, I like it better when he seems like a real teenager.
 
The other thing I didn't like was the lack of physicality in Gabe. After seeing Tuukka Leppänen perform the role in Helsingin kaupunginteatteri's production, with all that movement, jumping and running, aggression... This Gabe seemed very meek in comparison. HKT's Gabe kept looming in the background even when he didn't have a part in the scene, as a reminder that he's still there in Diana's mind. WT's Gabe kept disappearing. He didn't feel like a true threat to Diana at any point. Also, without any physical contact, his duet with his dad at the end felt rather empty. 

To me, Gabe is the main conflict keeping the show together, so it's a shame the character doesn't feel more interesting here. As far as the direction allowed him, though, Markus Lytts gave a good performance in the disappointing role. His I'm Alive/Jag är här is truely worth hearing. With different direction, I'm certain he would shine even brighter.

Enough of the negativity, since this is after all the better of the two Next to Normals I've seen so far...

One thing I liked was how the family seemed like people any of us could know. I think that's how the show's supposed to be like, that these events could happen to any family the audience knows. The decision to translate the family's name helped a lot. In retrospect, I think HKT's (and it seems, TTT's too) decision to keep the American names in the Finnish translation was rather alienating. The story felt lot more natural and hit closer to home when we were watching the Fennoswedish family Sundqvist that could just as well live next door to the theatre.

What's more, the little moments in between the characters felt very natural to me.
The moment in the beginning when Dan helps Diana to fix the salad and toast blew me away by taking the time it needed, by being so darn real. Other lovely little moments include the whole It's Gonna Be Good/Nu ska det bli bra scene with the hilarious cast interactions, and Natalie and Henry (or Henrik, he's been turned into a local too) playing snippets by the composers they mention during their banter in the first act. Kudos to Mikaela Tidermark for playing the piano herself!

All in all, even with the script's annoying bits and even with the choices I didn't agree with, I think Wasa Teater's Next to Normal is well worth seeing. The cast is talented and feels like a real family, and I wonder if the songs have ever sounded better. I'm considering taking another look at this before it closes in December.

Photos by Frank A. Unger.
Related: my thoughts about WT Next to Normal's cast before seeing the show.
See the opening scene from the show.

Return of the Replica

Keeping in mind it's now only a year to go until Les Misérables premieres in Tampereen Teatteri, I thought it's time to do some background research.

I of course knew that Georg Malvius, who directed Åbo Svenska Teater's Les Mis and will direct TT's, had done the show once before [edited to add: maybe twice? I found a mention about a production in Tallinn, but can't find any info about it]. Earlier, though, I didn't much care about that production. It was 2007, it was somewhere in German, it's not my problem...
But today, I figured that checking out how closely Malvius's Füssen production of the musical corresponds to ÅST's Les Mis might give me a hint at how closely TT's will, in turn, resemble ÅST.

So, I took a look.

Okay, to be fair, every Javert everywhere always looks the same.

Curiously, our Cosette inherited their Mme Thénardier's dress.

There is more, but on a site that doesn't permit copying their photos. If you want to see, follow the links to compare the Füssen set with the ÅST set. Or how about the white costumes the dead characters wore for the finale? Yep, old news.

Oooooh boy.
Remember me hating replicas for a full blog post earlier this year?
Yeah. My favourite production of all times just turned out to be one. 

I feel a bit – wonder if disappointed is the right word? Naturally, I assumed there were similarities in Malvius's previous work and ÅST Les Mis. And to be fair, the productions certainly aren't 100% the same, even when only judging by the photos. Seeing I can't find but one video from Füssen, I can't know if the acting choices were similar at all.
But still... I somehow imagined ÅST Les Mis was an original, something never seen before. How wrong I was. Many major motives I thought were unique to ÅST were actually repeats from the Füssen version. The tree that serves as a backdrop to every scene and becomes a part of the barricade. The little bridge on the right side of the stage. The doors with scenery in mock tile wall on the left. The doorways in mock stone wall on the right. The golden frames surrounding the stage. The white costumes for the dead characters. Even the colours of the lights during certain scenes...

All in all, I don't think this is very promising when you think about the upcoming TT production.

Again, this is pure speculation. But, looking at the two productions, it's impossible not to notice they're by the same creative team. For example: even when two versions of the same character's costume aren't exactly identical, Ellen Cairns's style is still so similar in both that you could swap the outfits without no one noticing.
There's been talk of the ÅST (and Füssen) Les Mis creative team being transported to TT as a whole, not just the director. I've no doubt they're all talented and versatile people. But still, I'm afraid the temptation to take the easiest route and do what was successful the previous two times is too strong.
We've heard the reasons. It was easier to get Cameron Mackintosh's blessing for the production by promising it'll be similar to the popular ÅST one. But still – I just hope they remember how small a country Finland is. When replicating, for a Finnish stage, an obscure German production that only ran for a month, chances are no one here has seen the original. But, as we know, Les Mis was ÅST's biggest success to date, there were certainly more than a handful of people who saw it. And Tampere is not that far from Turku...

TT Les Mis, please: surprise us.

Or at least fix the translation.
ÅST photos taken by Nana Simelius and Robert Seger. Füssen press photos from here, originally from All-in.de. Photos scanned from the newspaper by Jan van der Velden. Füssen barricade photo from here, Füssen Javert screencapped from here. As always, hover over the photos for specific info.
This site was a valuable source for this entry.

The Kings' Speeches

The kings giving a speech: Charles Edwards on the left, Carl-Kristian Rundman on the right.

Last spring, I was lucky enough to see both the West End and Finnish versions of the play The King's Speech.
With musicals, it's surprisingly easy enough to see multiple versions of the same thing. Everyone (or at least several theatres in each of the Nordic countries) wants to have their own Les Mis, Next to Normal, Evita. You even have the term hit musical. Hit plays, on the other hand... Before this, I hadn't much considered seeing two productions of the same play. I had hardly considered seeing a straight play at all.
However, earlier this year, The King's Speech (or Kuninkaan puhe) premiered in Helsingin kaupunginteatteri. I saw it in April, and a month later, I found myself in London during the last week of performances of the West End version.

I consider The King's Speech, a real history based story about King George VI's struggle with stuttering and finding his place as the monarch of the Great Britain, a great story in any form. I loved the movie, just like the rest of the world did, and found the play just as good. I rarely cry while seeing musicals, even though most of the ones I enjoy are about dying and misery, but this play made me shed tears quite uncontrollably just when the curtain fell. In both countries.
I think the whole concept of royalty is interesting. How come it's possible that in 20th-century-and-onwards Europe, there remains a system where certain people officially have a certain stature just because they happen to be born to a certain family? I like how the play addresses those issues. Not to mention I think there's always something very interesting about stories that are based on real events.

Taking lessons. Jonathan Hyde and Charles Edwards on top, Pertti Sveholm and Carl-Kristian Rundman below.

I've been trying to make decisions (for the whole summer, it seems, since this post has been sitting in my drafts since May), but I don't think either of the casts I saw was stronger than the other. There were stronger individual performances, and maybe by mixing people from both you could have a sort of an ultimate cast – but as a whole, I enjoyed both casts about as much.

If I have to find differences, I think the Finnish one can boast a slightly stronger speech therapist Lionel Logue, portrayed by Pertti Sveholm. I thought his performance felt a tad more genuine than his British counterpart's, Jonathan Hyde's, though Hyde wasn't bad at all either.
There's a fun story relating to that bit of casting, though. The movie Titanic is one of my all-time favourites. So, you might've recognised the name and thought I was over the moon to see an actor who had a prominent role, as J. Bruce Ismay, in my favourite movie. Well, I'm sure I would've been – if I had known it was him! I simply didn't recognise Hyde onstage, nor did the name ring a bell. Back at hotel, I leafed through the programme and started thinking that no way, this says he was in Titanic, and he kind of looks like... could it be... I blame the lack of a moustache!

But resuming to the casts.
I'm afraid Vuokko Hovatta is one of those actors who simply annoy me, no matter the role. I've yet to see her in a part I'd honestly enjoy her in. True to my sentiments, I found her Elizabeth slightly annoying and lacking much emotion whatsoever. Therefore I enjoyed the British Elizabeth, Emma Fielding, better. Thinking about the other major female role – if we're being superficial, West End's Myrtle Logue, Charlotte Randle, seemed a bit too young to me. I don't know her actual age age, but she has such a young look I felt she could've almost been Jonathan Hyde's daughter. I preferred the Finnish version, with Eija Vilpas as Myrtle, since the couple seemed closer to each others' age. When it comes to actual performances, though, I think the both did a good job.
Continuing the nitpicks, I found the Charles Edwards's stutter, as King George VI (or Bertie), more believable than Carl-Kristian Rundman's. Then again, I don't really know anyone who suffers from stutter, not anyone Finnish nor anyone who speaks English. So who am I to judge? Other than that, I'm afraid I can't pick a favourite king, they both gave great performances.

Unlike the casts, the stagings differed a lot. Musicals, no matter if non-replica or not, tend to be staged a bit similarly everywhere. So, it was interesting to see how much the visions can vary when it comes to staging a play.
I think Helsingin kaupunginteatteri's big scene is simply too big. I think there's too much space even for the hugest productions, like Wicked. But here, for once, the emptiness worked for the piece's advantage. I felt the king's loneliness and helplessness more achingly when I saw him struggling to give a speech in the middle of the vast space. The West End stage, at Wyndham's Theatre, was a lot more intimate. While the smaller space usually felt better, and there was no need to keep ensemble howering awkwardly at the background just to fill the room, the extra space certainly added feeling to the speech and church scenes at Helsinki.
HKT solved some of the space problems by adding a sort of a smaller stage, that served as a room, in the corner of the stage. In Wyndham's Theatre, then, they had a turntable with a big wall that rotated when there was a change from one space to another. I have to give a nod to Logue's office in the West End, it looked way more cosy there!

Top, Michael Feast, Ian McNeice and David Killick as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Winston Churchill and Stanley Baldwin. Below, Rauno Ahonen and Jari Pehkonen as the Archbishop and Churchill.

Direction-wise, HKT's under Kari Heiskanen's helm and West End by Adrian Noble, there were of course differences. I think even the scripts differed a bit, in ways that can't be blamed for confusion in translation. For example, I seem to recall the scene where the leaders of the land discuss at the urinal had rather different lines depending on the country (also noteworthy: in Britain, the scene was not urinal-based). The West End version gave the Nazi threat more emphasis. 

All in all, and maybe not surprisingly, the British version felt a bit more reserved. I think one of the most interesting differences was at the very end of the play [here be spoilers!]. In the Finnish version, after the line Thank you... my friend, Bertie and Lionel hug. In the British one, there was just a handshake.
The hug seemed like a very natural ending to me, and I was a bit surprised the West End version didn't have that. I felt it lacked something. Then I started wondering... maybe there are still some taboos considering the royalty in the UK? After all, even as a Finn, it's quite impossible to imagine the Queen hugging anyone. I guess that, to us Finns, the piece plays as any piece of historical fiction – maybe based on real events, but still fictional. If it suits the characters, we think it's normal when the King of Great Britain and his best friend share a brohug. But maybe that's too unbelievable for the British, some of whom might consider this not yet fiction but still real history?
Or maybe I'm reading too much into this one little detail. After all, apparently you can have the King creatively and repeteadly use a variety swearwords in that one famous scene, no matter which country.

In the West End, I sat next to a very nice old lady. Upon seeing me wipe my tears after the show, she opened a conversation, and told me she remembers the time George VI was crowned. To me, a Finnish teenager, the events portrayed in the play are very distant. Events like the ones the play's about don't feel very real to me. I know they have happened, but somehow it's a bit hard to believe.
So, it was eye-opening to talk to someone to whom they're real memories from her own childhood. The lady told me she loves the movie and that she enjoyed the play a lot too. She was also a true royalist and expressed her sympathy when I mentioned us Finns only have presidents... So I suppose the historical characters and events have been treated with certain respect and style.

I'm always curious to observe the audience reactions. I've seen the play three times now, twice at home and once abroad. Out of these, the first Finnish one had a dead audience, the second Finnish set seemed to be enjoying themselves a lot, but the British were simply roaring with laughter. I think it's a national difference. I've a feeling it's a lot quieter in Finnish theatres, no matter which show.

At last, the triuphant speech. Charles Edwards on the left, Carl-Kristian Rundman on the right.

Finally, I want to tip my hat to the British production for starting to renovate their theatre at the time I visited. I had bought the cheapest, worst balcony seat. When climbing upstairs, I found out the balcony's under renovation, and got relocated in the best seats of the theatre, right in the middle of the royal circle!
That stroke of luck was like a cherry on top of a great experience. The King's Speech was, after all, the first West End play I've seen. I think I should see a straight play during every visit to London from now on! And when it comes to seeing straight plays in Finland, The King's Speech was also a bit of a first: it's the first play I've ever seen completely voluntarily, not for school credit or because someone invited me. I was surprised to enjoy it as much as I did, and I'll definitely keep an eye out for interesting plays in the future.

Photos of the West End production from their website's gallery. 
Photos from the HKT production by Tapio Vanhatalo.