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.

Aladdin the Musical

Yesterday, I attended the premiere of Polar Illusions' production of Disney's Aladdin.
Polar Illusions is a brand-new company that specialises in musical theatre, and Aladdin, directed by Samuel Harjanne, is their very first show. The company mentions increasing the quality of Nordic musical theatre as their goal. I was curious to see if their first production is a step towards the right direction.

Aladdin is one of the best-known Disney films, and the musical's plot followed the movie quite closely. It had, expectedly, to cut some of the big action scenes, but the basics were there: the poor guy, the princess, the genie, the magic carpet ride...
I guess I could've also expected the musical to have very little actual music. The original movie has five songs and two reprises. Even though many songs were cut from the movie before it was released, only one of them made a return onstage, resulting in a musical with six songs and their reprises. The show, however, was quite short, so that didn't matter too much. The movie's songs are classics, they sounded amazing live. The one extra song... we'll come to that.

The most interesting part about this production, to me, was the fact it's in both Finnish and Swedish (originally, this version was done in the USA in English and Spanish). It's nice to see bilingualism celebrated by a piece of theatre that uses both of the official languages of this country. Sadly, I can't help wondering if the script to the bilingual version was written by people who just don't really care.
In my opinion, the bilingualism brought nothing new to the story. It sounded like a good idea that the people of the street and the court would speak different languages, and I was looking forward some commentary about how this affects the relationship in between the Sultan and his subjects. There was hardly any mention of that, you mostly had either these annoying narrator characters or one of the talking animals translating everything into the other language. The ending, where (very meek spoilers ahoy) the curse is lifted and the people of Agrabah are able to understand each other again, was anticlimatic. So what? The audience never felt for their problem. They could've also squeezed more jokes out of the language gap.
When it comes to Aladdin and Jasmine, their animal sidekicks acted as their interpreters. Seemed like a copout to me. I'd have loved to see Aladdin and Jasmine struggling with the languages, understanding a word here and there, falling in love nevertheless and learning to understand each other as the story progresses... Where's the challenge if you have a translator with you at all times?

Finally, I think the fourth wall was broken a time too many. I didn't care when the Genie did it, he's a supernatural creature - but a little of that stuff goes a long way. I think it'd been better if the rest of the characters had been unaware of the audience.

When it comes to the cast, I enjoyed everybody. Highlights were Antti L. J. Pääkkönen as the Genie and Anna Victoria Eriksson as princess Jasmine. The former was full of energy and managed to fill the huge shoes worn by Vesa-Matti Loiri of the Finnish film dub, the latter has just the right amount of attitude, and, in my opinion, way too little time onstage and few songs to sing. Jon-Jon Geitel was not bad in the title role, either. Almost everybody had a crush on Aladdin as a kid, so it's again hard to live up the expectations – and while Geitel wasn't identical to the movie, I think he didn't disappoint.

I've got a big problem with the villain Jafar. Not with the actor: Markku Nenonen did his best with the material he was given. But the material... Many Disney villains serve as comic reliefs. They have their one-liners and silly moments, but there's always the dark and evil side bubbling under. Too bad the musical's Jafar has no malice at all. Just mincing and prancing onstage. I think, for the campy moments to be funny, his default setting would have to be more serious.
As Disney fans know, Jafar hasn't got a proper song in the movie, so I was happy they added one for him here - for about five seconds. Jafar's solo was the least threatening villain song ever. For a bad guy like him, you think something among the lines of Be Prepared and Poor Unfortunate Souls... Nope. He got this. It's very easy to see why that didn't make it to the movie. Even though Jafar had a couple of moments to be genuinely threatening in the show, a song like that was quite enough to make the efforts useless. The villain became a clown, the story lost a part of its driving force.

I liked the visuals of the production well enough. The costume designs especially were very close to the original movie - but, for whatever reason, it didn't bother me this time. It was actually nice to see the cartoon characters become flesh and blood like that. I suppose I wouldn't have minded a different take, either, but I wasn't annoyed by the replicating.
I think I was the most impressed by the way they staged the Genie's first song, A Friend Like Me. Matching the visual insanity of the movie scene must've been a hard task... having the whole cast as genies dancing onstage looked amazing!

In short, however, I'm afraid Aladdin the musical doesn't rank too high on my list of musical adaptations. The cast and crew are talented, there are fun moments and good songs, but the script and especially the use of the two languages are a bit of a mess. If you're a huge Aladdin fan, you'll enjoy the movie better... and if you're not, you'll probably still enjoy the movie better.

I'm still intrigued by the idea of bilingual theatre and wish Polar Illusions all the best for the future. It's clear the company has enough talent to create a great show. Let them just pick one with a more solid script next time.

Photos by Matti Rajala.
My blog entry from the time of Aladdin's press release event: click. 
Thumbs down for not singing the baklava line in A Friend Like Me in Finnish.

Price Politics

It's again the time of the year to ponder about the upcoming musical season, and to buy the tickets yet unbought!
It's also the time to get angry about the prices, and to openly weep after spending an unthinkable amount of money on the tickets anyway.

I know seeing theatre in Finland is cheap compared to West End, let alone Broadway. We don't have to pay hundreds for a good ticket. But still - for a system that, thanks to public funding, doesn't have to cover all expenses with the ticket profit - there are some weird things going on.
I suppose theatres should do their best to get us hooked young. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a person who learns to enjoy theatre at a young age will keep visiting later in their life, instead of thinking theatre's a waste of time only elitists enjoy. However, no student is made of money, and theatre is never as cheap as pretty much any other activity out there. So I suppose keeping the student prices affordable would be a good idea. We fall in love with the genre now and will return to pay the full price a couple of years later.
Sadly, it's not always as simple as that. Student discounts, while they exist, are usually very small. And then there are the theatres that seem to specify in frightening young people away...

Helsingin kaupunginteatteri annoys me the most. According to their logic, people such as students and pensioners simply don't exist from October to December, and for the most of the year, they stop existing on weekends.
HKT has a pricing system where certain months are more expensive than others. Ironically, during the most expensive months, the theatre doesn't offer students the usual 6€ discount (let alone the incredible 2€ discount for pensioners, for that matter). During the most of the time, the discounts only exist during weeks, at weekends everyone has to pay the same price.
HKT, here's the thing: maybe it's surprising, but students also have things to do during the week, just like everyone else. Going to school, for example. So most of us would rather see theatre on the weekend. I think a pricing system like this has some nasty implications. Of course, it may be debated if anyone who really wants to see some play changes their mind because they can't get that 6€ off, but it still sends a message: students are second-grade theatregoers who can be used to fill the empty seats on the days no one else wants to see shows.

Similar attitude lurks in other theatres, too. In Åbo Svenska Teater's Hair, students can get whole four euros off from the best and tolerable seats - and then 11€ off when it comes to the rickety stools where you can see about half of the stage. Sounds fair? It'd be, if they also warned the first-time visitors that they won't be getting a good view. As is, I haven't managed to find any warning on their website. Even though weirdly cheap price is usually an indicator of something being off, I think it's always nice to say that out loud too.
Svenska Teatern with their Kristina från Duvemåla is a lot worse, though. The prices are sheer robbery: the cheapest ticket for the remaining 2012 season costs 45€ for a student. People have complained that you can hardly see the stage from those. Svenska Teatern doesn't like making that fact very clear either, but luckily they'll change the system a bit for 2013: the worst seats will be considerably cheaper. Too bad the most expensive tickets, which compose the biggest part of the auditorium and cost 65€ for students these days, will get more expensive. In theory, I guess if people are willing to pay - and they seem to be, since the show's sold out for months in advance -  you can ask for as much money as you want. But I don't know if asking over 70€ per seat where you can actually see is the best way of making young people interested in your show. I love Kristina to bits (more about that later) but I'll have to think about seeing it multiple times pretty carefully.

RENT at Alexander Theatre also peeves me. Even though RENT is partially starting to morph into a nostalgia trip for people who were teenagers when it first premiered in the 90's, it's still not exactly for senior citizens. So, I was rather surprised to see there's no student discount available, that the tickets cost from 43 to 48€, and that apparently only the more expensive ones can be bought via internet.
Compare to Suomen Musiikkiteatteriensemble's RENT from 2011: 16€/student. Compare to Aladdin, the other musical premiering in Alexander Theatre this fall: 25€/student. When you remember Aladdin is the Disney one that has a flying carpet, and RENT is the one about poor artists where traditional set design consists of a table and a string of light bulbs... I can't, of course, know the reasons behind the pricing of RENT's tickets (who knows if the production will be filled with pyrotechnics?), but I feel very discouraged to see it for such a bloated price. It's hard to imagine RENT as a theatre event for middle-aged people to sip at their glasses of champagne - but since there's zero effort towards making it affordable for young people, I suppose that's what they're aiming for.

When will we see the first Finnish theatre following in the footsteps of the National Opera and offering students tickets that cost 50% of the normal price?

Other ideas (theatres, feel free to steal): 
Det Ny Teater (Copenhagen) style: discounts for everybody under 25 years old - a student or not.
Ryanair style booking system: book early, pay less.
Last minute discount: big discount if you buy a ticket for a show on the same day. 
Car wash style: get every 6th play for free.

Let the Spectacle Astound You

I've been meaning to write about this show ever since I started this blog. However, each time I try, it turns out I have nothing to say. 

Let me break this summer hiatus by trying once more.

The overture to The Phantom of the Opera is one of my favourite theatre experiences.

It's neat enough when you listen to it from a cast recording, but - as is the case with all great theatre moments - nothing can compare to seeing it live. To sit there in the theatre, when the chandelier rises, when the music blasts and you feel the notes going through your body... I get excited just thinking about it. It's like a promise: you'll see a great show tonight!

I've been to London (after falling in love with musical theatre) without seeing Phantom only once. It's a staple like Les Mis: I don't have to ponder about getting tickets at all. I go to see it, marvel the huge scale of the production... and leave without having gained much anything at all, beyond some delicious eye and ear candy.

I keep returning to Phantom because I remember seeing it for the first time. I was amazed. I had never seen a show as big, a show as beautiful. It still ranks there as one of the most visually gorgeous shows I've ever seen. I see it for my favourite moments: the Overture, the dropping of the chandelier, the intense Final Lair scene...

I don't see Phantom to get any food for thought. I don't see it for the performances, either. While I'm sure I could tell an awful Phantom from a good one, ranking the good ones I've seen is something else. Last summer, I saw John Owen-Jones, the man many Phantom fans praise as the best Phantom ever. I can't really remember what, if anything, made his performance different from the others I've seen.

There are the couple of musicals that seem to be less about the performances and art, and more about the show, or phenomenom, itself. Shows like Les Mis, Wicked and Phantom - I feel they, in their West End forms, are quite centered around their reputation as the world's favourite musicals.

Entering a theatre in Finland is entering a theatre. Entering a theatre in West End, then? When it comes to the type of shows I mentioned, I feel it's like visiting Disneyland. The place is crowded with travellers and complete with souvenir stands, ice cream and people in costumes. Cameras flash during the intermissions, lines to meet and greet with the stars are formed after the show.

Many of the most popular productions in London hardly feel like pieces of theatre to me anymore. They feel like tourist attractions, every single detail perfected - every single detail always similar. I suppose, when you change casts for 26 years in a row, everything has to be fixed so you can change one person without everything falling apart. And I suppose some of the tiniest movements the original cast happened to come up with 26 years ago are indeed still intact.

In short: visiting Her Majesty's for Phantom from year to year, the tourists sitting next to me change, the actors change. The experience stays the same.

That is why I find it so hard to review Phantom.

I feel it's pointless to talk about the piece itself. I'm sure everyone has seen it, every opinion out there has been expressed already. I like the show well enough, but I'm not into it enough to notice the tiny differences in between performances, so deeper analysis is ruled out.

I just keep seeing the show to enjoy the spectacle, to rest my eyes on the glitter and glamour for two hours and a half.

Photo from Phantom of the Opera's photo gallery.

Two Quick Reviews: Dream-come-trues

This spring, two longtime musical dreams of mine have come true.
Whenever asked about musicals I'd like to see but haven't, Sweeney Todd and Hairspray have been on top of my list. Sweeney Todd because when it was released, I thought the Tim Burton movie was better than breathing, Hairspray because ever since watching the movie I've just had the feeling I'd enjoy it live (and since I was silly enough not to see it in West End when I had the chance, it has bothered me ever since).
In the past few weeks, I've seen both of my wishlist musicals live. Now, only give me Evita and Book of Mormon, and my life's about complete!


Sweeney Todd
12.5.2012, Adelphi Theatre, London 

Indeed, I used to be in love with the Sweeney Todd movie. It was, actually, my first touch to the death-and-sorrow sub-genre of musical theatre most of my favourites seem to be a part of. So genius! So dark and gruesome! So filled with Johnny Depp! I watched the movie three times during the premiere weekend and then all the time for quite some time. It's only natural I got so fed up with the film I didn't watch it for three years after the initial crush.
That, luckily, didn't stop me from being curious about the stage production, and I got a ticket. I knew a live Sweeney Todd would be very different from the movie Sweeney, so no disappointments there. After leaving the theatre, I had the feeling I had seen exactly what I was looking for: a prime example of a good production of Sweeney Todd.

As for Sweeney in general, I love the music to bits. But then there's the story.
There are musicals that are sad, like Next to Normal. There are musicals that are so sad it's ridiculous, like Les Mis. And then there's Sweeney Todd - a show so filled with sorrow, pain, blood, brooding and angst that you don't know what you should think about it. One man's vengeance towards the world via slitting the throats of barbershop customers and letting them be turned into pies... Well, I suppose that shouldn't be thought about too hard. I did that mistake during my fangirl days, and I can assure you: the plot holes are there, and there are plenty.
However, I think the production I saw had worked its way around the melodrama cleverly: it suggested the whole story is an exaggerated legend. The Ballad of Sweeney Todd, heard in the beginning and end of the piece, looked like the ensemble was telling each other rumours they had heard. Sweeney Todd is so angsty and brooding, I hear he sings love songs to his razors. I think that makes perfect sense. The story of Sweeney Todd begun as an urban legend in the 19th century, and it was nice to see this production returning the tale to its roots.  

Michael Ball played the title role. I was of course curious to see him, him being the original Marius. I went to listen to an interview with him the previous day. It was exciting seeing the show, after hearing the lead tell how Sweeney's a dream role of his - and Ball didn't disappoint. If I hadn't know it's him, I'd never recognised this dark, depressed slayer as the sweet romantic student from the Les Mis anniversary concert!
Imelda Staunton as Mrs. Lovett was just as amazing in her role as Michael Ball was in his. While her vocals weren't always perfect, she did the black comedy of the part perfect justice. I think I'm finally starting to understand why some people despise Helena Bonham Carter's take of the role.
Every role wasn't casted spot on, though. Lucy May Barker, who played Johanna, seemed to have difficulties with her songs, as if the role didn't really fit her voice. No wonder her solo has been cut off from the CD.

The show was, looks-wise, set in the 30's. I don't think I've seen a West End production where the text's time period and the looks of the thing don't match before, but I liked the visuals. One complaint, though. I've heard comments about the show being very bloody, but I'd like to disagree. You could hardly see the splatter high from the balcony where I sat. Being used to the Tim Burton movie, I guess I'd been happier with a little bit more gore...
But as a whole, a great show. My dad, who accompanied me, would like to agree: he only fell asleep once!

Hairspray
9.6.2012, Alexander Theatre, Helsinki

It's somewhat surprising I like Hairspray.
As said, out of the musicals I like, 90% have to do with murder, death and sorrow. Then there's this one, with cheerful tunes and a happy ending. How did that happen? I'm not sure, but I certainly enjoy listening to the movie soundtrack every now and then. The second act of the show drags a little, apart from the catchiest finale of any musical ever written, but I feel the first act is as good as they come.

Musical Theatre School Skene's production of Hairspray was, as said, my first live Hairsrpray, and I truely enjoyed the production. I went there with some prejudice, as I guess I always do with student productions. I know they can be good, and I know I'm being awful when I expect the worst - but a pessimist is never disappointed, right? I didn't expect seeing anything special, but it's always a pleasure being proven wrong in cases like this.
First of all, I loved that the piece didn't feel, in any way, simpler than a professional Hairspray would be. With the student version of RENT I saw some time ago, the director apparently didn't trust the skills of the young cast: she cut songs short and filled the stage with unnecessary action. Here, every scene was done, every line sung, nothing cut and no cheating. That's actually more than what can be said about some professional productions I've seen! The production also looked surprisingly good for an amateur show, with video screens and rather nice costumes.

The most important thing, of course, is the cast. I was amazed. Out of the whole cast, consisting of over thirty people, there were only one or two performances I didn't enjoy. And even them - I think they simply were on the skill level you'd expect of an amateur production, instead of shining the professional-like star quality some of their cast mates had.
I think a huge part of any show being enjoyable is whether the cast does what they do with enthusiasm or because they just happen to work there. Here, the energy and good mood was almost overwhelming in my row three seat! Every single step of the choreography was danced with a smile on the dancers' faces.

The translation, which I always pay some attention to, was inoffensive. Mikko Koivusalo's Finnish rendering got the point across, delivered the message - and lost all the clever bits of the original libretto along the way. That's still better than most of Finnish translations: this didn't make me shake my head in disbelief a single time. It's hard translating into Finnish, sometimes you simply have to accept things get lost.
One thing I wondered about, though, was Motormouth Maybelle's dialogue. She occasionally spoke in a very, very poor rhyme that made me cringe. Does she do this in the original?

In short, I feel this was a production worth seeing. It left me in a good mood (I caught myself dancing in my seat at least once during the show and felt rather embarrassed). They still have performances this week. So, if you're located near Helsinki and have nothing to do this week, I recommend!

Sweeney Todd photos from the production's photo gallery.
Hairspray photos by Lasse Lindqvist.

Matilda

I've heard so much good about Matilda the Musical.
Ten Olivier nominations and seven wins. People I know telling me it's amazing and I'll love it. MusicalTalk, a musical theatre podcast I like, praising it in their episode Matilda: We're Crazy for You, calling it the best British musical ever. Of course I went to see the show when I was in London.
I haven't been this disappointed in a musical in years.

I keep referring to the MusicalTalk review, I'm afraid, so maybe take a listen after you've done reading. It simply fascinates me how differently they see the show from me.
I can't believe they compare Matilda to Book of Mormon. I of course haven't seen Book of Mormon, I've just listened to it. But just judging by what I hear, I dare to claim that Broadway's newest hit musical is clever, hilarious, offensive and filled with catchy tunes. After having seen Matilda, I have no idea where the comparison comes from. West End's newest hit musical tries very hard to be funny, gives the watcher a pile of hasty plot threads to suffer through, and doesn't leave a single one of its songs playing in your head after you leave the theatre.

I guess Roald Dahl was everybody's favourite author when they were kids, and messing with a classic is always dangerous... But Matilda wasn't an especially important Roald Dahl book for me. I loved George's Marvellous Medicine, The Twits, Esio Trot, The Witches especially... But I only read Matilda on my own after I had grown too old for bedtime stories. Still, while it's not an especially nostalgic book for me, it's a nostalgic enough to make me slightly angrier than I would be if I had only read it in preparation for seeing the show.

The most striking problem in Matilda, to my mind, was how awkward the pacing of the plot was. I hadn't read Matilda in years when I went to see it, and here's what I remembered of it (here be spoilers, if your childhood reading didn't include Matilda): Matilda is a very smart girl who reads a lot and can move things with her eyes. Which part of that sentence sounds the most interesting to you? I don't know, maybe you're a fan of bookworms, but I was certainly looking forward the moving-stuff-with-a-glance action.
To my disappointment, the whole eye thing was rushed through in about six minutes near the end of the second act. Same thing with the whole Miss Honey sideplot. Instead, they wasted precious time with an unrelated intervention by the Russian mafia. What.
A story that Matilda was telling to Mrs. Phelps, a librarian, and to herself when she was feeling upset, took up a big part of the show. I think it was an useless add. I found it boring as tar, for starters. What's more, I disliked how they had changed Mrs. Phelps's character. In the book, she was a voice of reason, the only adult nice to Matilda before Miss Honey. In the musical, she's so silly she hardly qualifies as a grown-up.
In short, I felt hardly anything happened in the first act and too many things in the second.

I thought the songs suffered from the same problem as songs in Ghost did: they didn't move the story forward but brought it to a screeching halt to indulge in loud music and spectacle for three minutes. Then the dialogue started again and the plot got going. It's easy to make this mistake in musicals with lots of dialogue, which is one of the reasons why sung-through shows are my favourites.
In many cases, the songs in Matilda had hardly anything to do with the plot. The song Loud for example: Matilda's mother and her dancing partner/lover/whatever sung about how you can't be like Miss Honey to succeed in life but must be like Mrs. Wormwood. I found it painfully unnecessary. The moment is in the book, sure, but it's a part of a bigger scene: Matilda's parents explain why they dislike Matilda so. No explanation existed in the musical, and they wasted the perfect chance to put it in. Why.
I've heard praise for the lyrics and suppose they were clever - I didn't understand half of them from first time hearing. That always happens to me with Sondheim, who's often thought to be the cleverest lyricist around, so I guess Matilda is lyrically on a good level. I don't even mean this ironically. I just mean that, as a person whose native language isn't English, it was occasionally hard to understand what they were singing.

I don't have a single bad thing to say about the kid actors. They were all so young, and I sat there thinking that they're already more talented in what they do than I'll probably ever be in anything... They did an amazing job, every single one of them. They deserved every shreak and clap they got from the audience.
The adult cast wasn't bad either. They played their roles as caricatures, but that's what Matilda's characters are, so no problem there. Bertie Carvel as Miss Trunchbull was the highlight of the cast, his performance was hilarious. His character had the few lines that actually made me laugh. (Needless to say, the rest of the audience loved everything going on and roared with laughter. I guess I'm rather alone in the world, disliking this show.)

I'm happy the musical drew some influence from Quentin Blake's illustrations when designing the characters. Blake's amazing illustrations are, to me, an essential part of any Roald Dahl story - I remember getting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory from the library and feeling brutally cheated when I noticed the book lacked pictures. Glad to see the people behind the musical didn't ignore them! Mr. Wormwood looked like he had escaped Blake's sketchbook, and Miss Trunchbull also came disturbingly close.
Some of the other visuals and tricks were amazing, too. The moment with lasers is one of the neatest-looking things I've ever seen in theatre. I don't want to spoil it, I'll just say that there's also a stunt involving a kid that made my jaw drop.
But here we are, comparing Matilda with Ghost again: astounding visuals can only go so far if the piece in itself is flawed.

Since Matilda is so loved by everyone else than me, I guess everybody should see it for themselves if they can. It truely might be I'm the only one who dislikes it. But here you have it, MusicalTalk: there's at least one person who hasn't been won over by Matilda the Musical.

Pictures from Matilda the Musical's image gallery.
Related? My Ghost review.

A Miserable Spring

In the past few weeks, a lot has happened in the Les Misérables front.

You remember, a month ago Tampereen Teatteri told us their musical for the 2013-2014 season would be Les Mis. Ten weeks without my favourite musical in my country and they tell us we'll get another one! I couldn't be luckier!
The only negative side of getting a new Finnish Les Mis was the translation. Jukka Virtanen's rhymes don't do the original any justice at all, I belive its place in the hall of fame of worst Finnish musical translations is widely accepted. Laughing at it was nice while it was just subtitles on the concert DVD, but the thought of it becoming a real libretto they sing onstage again... A couple of jokes about a petition for a new translation were made and I ranted about it here, but then something wiped that out of my head:

It was time for a short vacation in London.
I'm working on a couple of proper reviews, but here's what I have to say about West End Les Mis in a nutshell: I was confused to find out how much I've grown to dislike some of the original production's choices. After seeing the Åbo Svenska Teater version so many times, I felt the original is too over-the-top, too melodramatic, simply too big. Its faults - the students fighting a faceless enemy and dying as saint-like martyrs, sickly-looking dead soldier dolls in a severe need of dusting, grandness during the wrong momens (look out, it's a runaway caaaaaart...) - suddenly all that seemed more apparent to me than before.
Even though it had four understudies, and even though I was a bit disappointed I didn't get to see David Shannon as Jean Valjean again, the cast was reasonably strong. Earl Carpenter, who briefly returned to play Javert, once again claimed the number one spot in my list of favourites. It was like seeing the Javert from the book materialise onstage! But I feel the direction, the production surrounding the performances, doesn't compare to the ÅST version.

I returned home to some rumours I - surprisingly! - found alarming: Georg Malvius, the director behing ÅST's Les Mis, would direct the upcoming TT Les Mis. The third Les Mis of his career, I believe? You'd think, knowing what I think about ÅST, I would be glad... But I'm not sure.
It might be Malvius has new ideas and will give the show a different spin, but I'm afraid we'll get an ÅST revival. Despite my love towards the production, I think it's time for something new. Of course an ÅST replica might not happen, and anyway, Malvius giving us a production similar to ÅST might be better than a director with no vision at all messing up the whole thing... But somehow, I think it'd been refreshing to give a new director a chance. Oh well.

After thinking that through, I remembered the matter of the translation again. After a couple words of encouragement from friends, I got the thing online: A New Translation for Tampereen Teatteri's Les Mis. The petition is in Finnish, has English signing instructions for foreign supporters, and speaks for itself. Check it out.

The Les Mis madness shows no signs of slowing down, though... Tampereen Teatteri just told us they'll be doing the piece the West End way, with over 15 minutes of cuts compared to the full show (they claimed half an hour would go, but if they're truely doing the West End cut as they also say, that's an exaggeration. Luckily).
I can't help being disappointed. One of the many things I loved about ÅST's Les Mis was the show being practically complete. I hear some people would like a shorter Les Mis, I know some think it's too long and boring - but, it being my favourite show, the last thing for me to do is to jump out of joy when I hear it'll be practically impossible to see the whole thing live again. The TT Twitter claims the show will be "even better" with the cuts. I, on the other hand, dislike how the cuts get rid of some lovely moments, little scenes I love. The little character development Cosette has is, for example, on the line. Her face is in the freaking logo - is it too much to ask for she could get her moments back?

They're auditioning today and tomorrow. I'm glad they're starting to use more auditions in Finnish theatres, giving the chance to everyone. Seems like a good idea to me. Here's to hoping they'll find an amazing cast! If the actors are stellar enough, I'll probably stop fretting about the cuts... But nothing will stop my disappointment if the hideous translation is not fixed.

Sign the petition.