'Take your passion and make it happen!'

I was a little sad to see yesterday that Flashdance is the latest casualty of the West End - unable to secure audiences and therefore packing up its leg warmers and heading off after only 3 months.

A little sad: yes. But not surprised. I went to see it with a friend in September and the writing was already on the wall:

Firstly, and just a minor point, there were only 3 songs (out of 14/15) we recognised. This would usually not be a problem but none of the others had any sense of longevity the way songs in Wicked or Les Mis become a part of your soul the first time you hear them.

Secondly, we bought (as is customary for two 20 somethings) seats for the Balcony but found ourselves 'Upgraded' by a level - never a good sign two weeks in!

Thricely, the whole production, although enjoyable (Matt Willis from Busted is surprisingly good!) lacked something. At times it had Fame! like dance sequences that filled the stage with colour and energy and took you on a journey either of emotional or historical significance, yet the interweaving of street dance into what would otherwise be traditional musical theatre choreograhy, felt forced and disjointed.

And finally... Come on guys - the water scene at the end of Act 1? HUGELY disappointing! Its supposed to be an industrial gush not a tepid shower!

In short it just didn't have the magic, humour and emotion of Dirty Dancing, which is why its 80s counterpart is still going strong, and Flashdance, like Footloose before it, is shaking its permed hair all the way out of town.

A few of my favourte things...?

It's a conflit I feel every time I receive an email advertising the upoming Ghost musical - I am just a little bored (and maybe disappointed) at the number of musicals being based on well known films. I can't deny that many of the recent adaptions have been some of my favourite films - I am unashamedly curious to see how Ghost will work (?!?) and I flocked to Flashdance with my girl friends in the first few weeks of opening like the 80s child I am - but something in me still misses original productions that take you on a journey you neither know (word for word) or can predict.

I am no theatre snob - I sshhed the audience along with every other female in the audience as Johnny approached the stage in Dirty Dancing to say 'Nobody Puts Baby in the Corner', yet there is a relentless barrage of Shrek!, Ghost, Legally Blonde, Flashdance, Sister Act... that light up the West End skyline and I can't help but be a little disheartened that producers aren't investing in new stories; instead opting for a quick buck and guaranteed three month audience with familiar, beloved but predictable adaptations that rarely offer anything new.

~

Where do you stand? Film adaptations: Too many or bringing a new audience to theatre?

Critical acclaim?

There are many shows that fall foul of critic's scathing comments. Spiderman: Turn off the Dark is the most recent victim of the razor sharp critcism that spreads like wildfire across the internet. (www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/nov/30/spiderman-musical-web-critics-broadway) Before coming anywhere near our shores I'm scepital and possibly put off entirely from seeing it - a 2 second judgement based on bad wiring (and a loathing for U2) that productions can't afford in today's economic climate.

I have seen a number of shows come and go from the West End with lightening speed largely because reviews during preview week have been deemed them too long; too boring; lacking in charm; clunky and uninspired.

Yet I can't help but feel that some of the produtions simply weren't given the chance. The Trevor Nunn Directed prodution of Gone with the Wind immediately springs to mind. The film to musial adaption at the New London Theatre (2008) was ambitious (it was always going to be when translating a 1000 page book onto stage.) Yet it had a clasical charm, cantar-like pace and impressive spinning set which told the story beautifully while developing the characters well enough to win over the most seasoned GWTW fan. Unfortunately it had its run unceremoniously cut short largely due to its initial (bum numbing) 4 hour running time - which they eventually got down to 3.5 hours (did i say it's a 1000 page book?)

I guess where i'm going with this is that we need to give theatre a chance - not just fringe theatre or local theatre (although it is exceptionally important to support this) but the big productions that open with big casts and fanfares.

Do the critics go back after the changes are made?
Do people re-read a review and decide to book tickets not on thir first impression but their second?
Do they go and see for themselves?

Sadly too often the critic's review is judge, jury and executioner.

~

What shows do you think have had their run cut too short?

The Mousetrap

I've just come across this theatre company for young people - Shakespeare busking at South Kensington of all places! www.mousetrap.org.uk

'If you go down to the woods today...'

The top of my to see list over the next month is 'Into the Woods' at the open air theatre in Regents Park, London.

See how the set is built here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10942354

Others include;

~ Hayfever at the Rose Theatre in Kingston

~ Sam Mendes' production of The Tempest at The Old Vic

~ Whoopi Goldberg (who is meant to be sublime) in Sister Act at The Palladium

'In the creative process there is the father, the author of the play, the mother, the actor pregnant with the part, and the child, the role to be born.'

(Konstantin Stanislavsky, Russian actor who co-founded the Moscow Art Theatre and the method of theory acting in which the actor identifies with the role.)

'I'm off to see the wizard...'

I thought I'd mark the 71st anniversary of the 'Wizard of Oz' with a few interesting facts

~ The running time is 101 minutes - the original cut was 112mins - only test audiences have ever seen the cut 11.

~ Reports suggest each actor playing a Munchkin earned $50 p/w while Toto took home $125

~Margaret Hamilton's performance as the Wicked Witch of the West was so frightening it had to be heavily edited and cut.

~ The original production costs were $2,777,000 with it only making $3m on release. It is subsequent TV screenings that have made it one of the most famous films in the world.

~ As for the ruby slippers? There were five pairs made for production and a subsequent pair were made in 1989 to mark the 50th anniversary- they were valued at $3m!

Top Designers re-create Dorothy's rub slippers... http://thedailypump.com/tag/swarovski

'Please Sir, can I have some more?'

In 27.5 years I had never seen Oliver.

As a HUGE fan of musicals I really should have. The 1968 film won 5 Oscars. The stage show has been performed in 22 languages but something always put me off. It's not the music- the songs are all wonderfully emotive (some massive, flamboyant romps; others heart wrenchingly magnificant solos.) It's not that it was unfamiliar - my friend Clare put on many a solo performance in her front room when we were children, singing along to the cassette tape of the soundtrack in full cockney accent; yet I still never sat down and watched it. In fact I've always avoided it. Why? Because I expected it to be depressing - the one thing musicals should never be. Surely it goes against their very point!

Plays can be depressing - they can rip at every emotion you have until you're bruised and battered but musicals? Surely there's no place for the heorine to be killed by her abusive lover here? Well in Oliver! there is. And 20 years after Clare's one person show, I've seen it. And it was worth the wait.

First off the stage at the Theatre Royal is gigantic! From the poor people's seats right up in the balcony you get a real sense for the depth of space yet the scenery, the huge chorus and throng of orphaned children that fill the stage transport you to 1838 in a whirl of colourful exhuberence and contageous energy. The cast were phenomenal - Russ Abbott is a playful, endearing but often short fused Fagin while Kerry Ellis is flawless as the flawed leading lady. Every song is a classic and even though Bill Sykes is possibly top of my list of on-stage baddies, he's supposed to be. Because the 1830s wouldn't have been an easy time for the poor, homeless or abandoned and characters like Sykes would have (albeit momentarily) thrived.

I can't fault this production. I loved the staging, i loved the costumes (the jewel colours throughout the underground den are a fantatsic choice) and god Kerry Ellis can sing! Oliver! was simply everything it could have been and more. It's just a shame it took me so long to see it.

Oliver! At the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Runs until the new year.

Some quotes to get us started

''I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being.'' (Oscar Wilde)

''Theatre is life, film is art, television is furniture.'' (Unknown)

''Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage...' (William Shakespeare)