Review: Mozart L'Opera Rock (2010)

What is it about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart that makes people think, "His life needs to be turned into an embarrassingly bad musical"? First Mozart! das Musical, now this... thing.

Mozart L'Opera Rock (French for Mozart the Rock Opera) is a 2009 musical very loosely based on the life of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. While Mozart! das Musical focused on his clashes with Colloredo, this one focuses instead on his life in general and his (fictional) rivalry with Antonio Salieri.

I didn't recognise any of the cast, so let's move on to what I thought while I was watching the show.

The opening scene looks like something out of a horror movie. Red costumes, red lights, red background, incredibly ominous Latin(?) chanting... is this musical inspired by Mozart or Dante's Inferno?

Some of the extras' costumes look relatively accurate. (From a distance. In poor lighting. As long as you don't look too hard.) All the other costumes give Mozart! das Musical a run for its money. Seriously? Eighteenth-century clothes and hairstyles could be incredibly beautiful and elaborate. (Of course they could also be incredibly tacky; there have been fashion victims in every era.) Historically accurate costumes would not only be more logical; from an aesthetic standpoint I'd vastly prefer them to those modern eyesores.

For that matter, the real Mozart's life was dramatic enough without adding completely fictional rivalries. The real Colloredo did nothing to deserve his portrayal in MdM. The real Salieri did even less to deserve his portrayal here.

The way the camera zooms around in front of the stage is better suited to filming a concert than a musical. It's very distracting. Speaking of the filming, why the sudden cuts to the, er, musicians playing off-stage? (I hesitate to call them an orchestra; they appear to be a few drums, an electric guitar, and not much else. Less an orchestra, more a rock band who somehow ended up playing at the same time as a musical.)

Leopold Mozart sounds like he has a sore throat. The whole time he was "singing" my only thought was, "Someone give that man a throat lozenge!"

Just because it's a musical doesn't mean there has to be a song in every other scene. That tavern song is one of the most pointless musical numbers I've ever seen.

One minute the story is an underwhelming pseudo-historical "biography", the next it takes a bizarre detour into science fiction. I rolled my eyes so hard it's a miracle they didn't fall out. "Bim bam bim boum" is unexpectedly terrifying. Aloysia's alternatively blank and deranged expressions, the demented ballet sequence, the (lack of) lighting... I have to wonder if it was originally written for some sci-fi/horror musical.

The brief excerpts of historically-accurate music and opera only make the rest of the show much more jarring. It should be either entirely modern or entirely historical, not some Frankenstein-esque combination!

Some of the costumes are so crazy there's only one proper response: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This snail hat and pink hair, for instance.

Is it a snail's shell? Is it an ice cream cone? No, it's something dreamed up by a misguided milliner.

Even by musical standards the relationship between Constanze and Wolfgang is absurdly abrupt. She sees him once, when he's infatuated with her sister and barely even notices her, and immediately falls in love with him 🙄

The choreography is a mess. Half the time it's nothing but the actors and actresses wandering around the stage and waving their arms.

What the hell is that clown doing dancing around the stage? Did the director think he was adapting It? On the same note, why is Anna Maria Mozart's death witnessed by people in plague doctor and Venice carnival masks? Make it make sense, someone. Please.

Act 1 ends with another crazy ballet sequence. Will things be any saner in act 2? Hell no. The clown reappears within minutes. It's all downhill from there.

The only historically accurate part of the entire musical is the Webers running a boarding house. Honestly I'm amazed they bothered. The rest of the show bears as much resemblance to history as a dilapidated cottage does to Buckingham Palace.

Leopold Mozart's funeral would be sad if it wasn't for the dancers with horned headdresses(?) leaping around behind Nannerl. Similarly, the mysterious man who tells Wolfgang to write a requiem would be much more sinister without that ridiculous mask and weird voice.

The part where the actors run through the audience in "Victime de ma victoire" is so chaotic and poorly-lit it's impossible to actually see them. And Wolfgang's death is a chaotic mess of flashing lights and people running around.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually prefer Mozart! das Musical to this show. Partly it's because of the languages. I know I'm in the minority, but to me French looks and sounds incredibly ugly. On the other hand German looks intimidating yet sounds much more pleasant. And on a more practical note, I know more German than French. But to get back to the musicals, the other reason I prefer MDM is the music itself. That version actually sounds like a musical. This one sounds like a rock concert with a threadbare plot strung between the songs.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles, in case you feel like being hopelessly confused for two hours.

Rating: 1/10.

Review: A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder (Broadway, 2014)

I love so many musicals that it's impossible to decide which one I like best. This one might not be at the top of the list, but it's certainly in the top ten.

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder is a 2012 musical based on the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets, which in turn is based on the novel Israel Rank. I haven't read the novel, but I have seen the film. In some ways the musical sticks closely to it -- most notably, almost an entire family (including the women!) are played by the same actor.

I didn't recognise any of the cast, so on to the plot.

Like the film, the musical starts with the main character in prison for murder. The rest of the show explains how he got there. Two years earlier, Monty Navarro learns that his recently-deceased mother was actually an aristocrat who was disowned by her family. He's ninth in line to become an earl. So he decides to move up the line of succession by murdering everyone in front of him. Hilarity ensues, impossible though it sounds.

Now, a few of my thoughts while I was watching it.

For some reason our "hero"'s name has been changed. So has the surname of the family. But Sibella's name is unchanged. Why?

There are a lot of songs. And they're all incredibly catchy. (I caught myself humming "A Warning to the Company" while washing dishes.)

The staging of the reverend's death is frankly ridiculous. I know it's a black comedy, and a stage performance, but how did anyone think "staggering around the stage like a drunkard" was a convincing way to show "falling to his death"?

In the same scene Monty goes from acting out what happened, to sitting in his prison cell and writing his memoirs. The way he has to frantically rush from one part of the stage to the other, in full view of the audience, struck me as incredibly amateurish and better-suited to high school productions than Broadway. Couldn't they at least dim the lights to show the scene had changed?

That massive... curtain... thing in the middle of the stage leaves the actors with very little room to move around it. I spent several scenes expecting someone to trip or bump into it.

When I was annoyed or puzzled by the blocking I frequently found myself picturing how I'd stage a performance of this musical. (I suppose if I can't find any other job I could always try to get work as a theatre director!)

All right, so a black comedy isn't exactly the place to look for character development, but Sibella's decision to marry Lionel when she knows she won't be happy makes no sense. Monty just asked her to marry him, she knows he has money, and she certainly doesn't love Lionel, so... why?

For some reason Edith is renamed Phoebe. So Sibella and Lionel are the only characters to keep their names from Kind Hearts and Coronets. Again, why? If they were changing names anyway, why leave those two the same?

"Inside Out" had me in stitches XD A love song while someone's dying in the background should not be funny. But a love song where one of the singers is the murderer, about how the world would be better if we could see people's true natures? While the victim runs around chased by bees? Priceless!

Phoebe is Monty's cousin here, unlike in the film. I was confused. Was she going to become another victim? (Nope; she's one of the few D'Ysquiths Monty doesn't kill.)

All but two of the murders happen in the first act. Unfortunately, this means that the first act is much longer than the second. Too long, in fact. The second act feels incredibly rushed as a result.

"Why Are All the D'Ysquiths Dying?" is wonderfully morbid and funny. And it has some of my favourite lines in the show: "What a tasteless way of showing off!", "To lose one relative one can certainly forgive. But how can you excuse losing two or three or four or seven?", and "I can't imagine missing someone less." (Perfectly sums up my reaction to news of some people's deaths!)

Phoebe proposing to Monty while Sibella is in the house made me giggle even while being irritated by Monty and Sibella. I prefer the film's version of this sordid mess to the musical's. At least the film made me feel sorry for Edith/Phoebe; she did nothing to deserve being married to a serial killer. Here I was just impatiently waiting for the inevitable next murder and Monty's arrest.

The circumstances of Monty's arrest are different here. He's arrested for murdering the earl, and Sibella and Phoebe both pretend they're the murderer to get him released. The part that really annoyed me about this was when it's suddenly revealed Miss Shingle was the murderer this time. That comes out of nowhere and makes no sense 😒

Weirdest of all is the twist ending that there's another D'Ysquith still alive who's planning to kill Monty. I prefer the film's ending, especially the ambiguity about whether or not his memoirs were discovered.

Overall the musical is thoroughly entertaining and frequently very funny. The good parts outweigh the bad, and I love all of the songs!

Is it available online?: Yes, but I'd better not say where.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: Corpse Bride (2005)

Halloween is just around the corner! If you're anything like me, that means you're rewatching your favourite spooky films. This is one of mine.

Corpse Bride is a 2005 stop-motion animated film, based on a Russian folktale. It's very similar in appearance and atmosphere to The Nightmare Before Christmas. But it isn't a sequel or spin-off of Nightmare. I made that mistake when I first watched it and spent much of the film wondering why no one mentioned Halloween Town. (In my defence, I was eleven.)

Like a lot of my reviews, this is basically a rambling list of things I liked or disliked about the film. Right up at the top of the "things I liked" list: the theme music. It's so beautifully eerie! I'm not so enthusiastic about some of the songs, but more about that later.

The plot revolves around Victor, who's engaged to marry Victoria, but who accidentally ends up married to Emily instead. Problem is, Emily's dead. And she drags Victor down to the land of the dead after their "marriage". Meanwhile, Victoria's loathsome parents try to marry her off to the repulsive Lord Barkis. It all works out in the end... sort of.

Emily and Victor

The characters are extremely stylised to the point of being caricatures. It fits such a spooky film, but some people might find it off-putting. Victor, Emily and Victoria aren't too bad, but the less said about the utterly hideous background characters, the better. This film manages to make you wish most of the characters were skeletons just so they'd look normal. Case in point: Victoria's parents.

...I'll let this picture speak for itself.

Can't say I like all the songs. Some are memorable, while others dive into speak-singing. As for some of the singers... how should I put this? Let's just say, singing is not their greatest talent.

Even though Emily's not trying to hurt Victor, her first appearance is pretty darn creepy 😨 Especially when he turns around and she's right there! But once you get used to the creepiness of the corpses, they're actually more likable than most of the living characters. They're certainly funnier, in a very dark sort of way. And the scene where they return to the land of the living is priceless 😆

This is pretty dark for a family film, and that's reflected in its humour. Almost all the funny moments are black comedy of some sort. (The only real exception is that town crier who's determined to humiliate Victor.) Who'd have thought a maggot living in a corpse's head would be so hilarious? On a much more serious note, who'd have thought that a film aimed at children would include a character who murdered his bride-to-be? 😱

I don't like this film quite as much as The Nightmare Before Christmas, but it's still a good film, and perfect for watching in October.

Is it available online?: No, I don't think so.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: The Mikado (English National Opera, 2015)

Well. This was not what I was expecting from a performance of The Mikado.

That's got to be the blandest title-card I've ever seen. Could no one be bothered to design something better? Something that didn't look like a business's logo?

The Mikado is an operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan, first performed in 1885. It's been staged many times and translated into many languages.

Opera isn't something I watch a lot of, so I didn't recognise any of the actors.

As you might have guessed from the title, it's set in Japan. A very fictionalised Japan, that bears no resemblance to the real country; it's actually a satire of England but given an exotic setting. This particular version apparently missed that fact and just set it in England... without changing any of the references to Japan 😖

Picture this, if you will. You've clicked on a video of The Mikado. The music plays, the curtain rises... and this is what meets your eyes:

If you're anything like me your response is, "There must be some mistake! This can't be the right video!"

The video helpfully provides subtitles/lyrics to the songs. (Unfortunately they can't be turned off, and they don't always match what's being sung.) So if you're too amazed by this sight to process what the people pictured above are saying, the subtitles translate for you. "If you want to know who we are" (Yes, I do actually!) "We are gentlemen of Japan." (Sure you are. And I'm the Queen of Sheba.)

I was so bewildered by this spectacle that I had to pause the video and search the comments for some explanation. Turns out, at some point in the past the English National Opera had the genius idea to set The Mikado in 1930s England. Whaaaaaat. This is a revival of that version. Once wasn't enough? They had to revive it?

Well, at least I knew I wasn't watching the wrong video. I pressed play, and steeled myself for a painful two hours. This was not what I had in mind when I decided to watch a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

The weirdness gets even worse when Nanki-Poo arrives. To start with, he looks like a Jeeves and Wooster character who was standing next to a make-up shop when it exploded.

Someone call Madame Tussauds. One of their waxworks is missing.

Everyone's make-up is utterly terrible here. It can't be stage make-up; I've seen other stage shows that don't make their actors look like walking mannequins.

After a while the insanity of the staging almost faded into the background and I managed to focus on the plot. I even found plenty of intentionally funny things to laugh at. Every word Pooh-Ba says had me in stitches 😆 ("Another insult, and I think a light one" is a line I really want to use in real life some day 😄) The trouble is, some new absurdity forces its way on stage with every scene change, and some are harder to ignore than others. For some reason the thing that especially drives me round the bend is "Lord Hey Executioner". Excuse me! That is not how you pronounce "High"! 😒 If that was an attempt at a joke, it fell flat.

Very few of the characters made any impression on me. I noticed them mostly for how bizarre they looked. Katisha's hat might not take the cake, but it certainly takes a good few slices. And I spent at least five minutes trying to decide if the Mikado is wearing a barrel.

Katisha's hat, the very latest fashion on Mars. Oh, and Katisha herself is there too.

There are so many strange things in this screencap that I don't know where to start. The guy on the left who's stolen Stan Laurel's hat? The servants wearing small buckets on their heads? The Mikado who's almost indistinguishable from a tub of lard? And last but by no means least, that... circular... object... in the foreground? Words fail.

As ridiculous as this production is, at least the music and singing are consistently good. Alas, this wasn't enough to make me feel any interest in the characters or the plot. I'd much rather watch a more traditional production of The Mikado, one which doesn't look like the entire production team were drunk.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube, if for some reason you want to watch it.

Rating: 2/10.

Review: Phantom (Wichita, 1993)

No, this isn't a review of the Arthur Lloyd Webber musical. This review's of the Maury Yeston/Arthur Kopit musical, also based on the novel The Phantom of the Opera.

This musical was actually written before Lloyd Webber's version, but the first production was in 1991. Since then it's been performed many times, including by the Takarazuka Revue. It was the basis for the 1990 miniseries The Phantom of the Opera. (Yes, the series based on it was shown before the musical was performed. It's confusing.)

Unfortunately, the video quality of this version is very poor, so taking screenshots is a waste of time. The sound quality is also poor; there's a constant droning noise in the background that makes watching it a trial.

Christine in this version is selling flowers when Count Philippe (the musical's equivalent of Raoul; no idea why they gave him the name of Raoul's brother and changed his title 😑) hears her sing and tells her to go the Paris Opera to get singing lessons. At the same time, the Opera House has changed managers: Alain (who isn't in any other version, as far as I can tell) and Carlotta. Erik is not amused. He's even less amused by Carlotta's singing. If you thought Carlotta's singing in the other musical is ear-splitting, wait until you hear this one.

Carlotta gives Christine a job sorting out costumes. Erik hears her singing and offers to give her lessons. I'm sure you can already see where this is going. It ends... badly. The ending is simultaneously better and worse than the other musical's. (Figuring out how to differentiate between two shows with similar titles and the same basic story is a pain!) ALW!Phantom never made me cry at the end. This one does.

Like the other musical, this version deviates pretty sharply from the novel's plot. Sometimes this is a good thing. Other times, not so much. Erik/the Phantom is much more human and less of a psychopathic murderer in this version. (Side note: I was amazed to realise this Phantom is played by the same guy who voiced Gaston in Beauty and the Beast!) But the sub-plot about his parents and his past isn't particularly interesting, and the story stops for about fifteen minutes for this sub-plot. I would really have preferred if they'd stayed closer to Erik's history as shown in the book.

Philippe is even less interesting than Raoul, and I usually skip his scenes. But Carlotta is so melodramatic and diva-ish that she's probably my favourite character. I'm afraid Christine doesn't make much impression on me until the final scene. Speaking of the final scene, it took me fifteen minutes to stop crying when I watched it 😭

If you're new to this musical, it would be better to watch a different version first. But if you know the story and don't mind the poor quality, this is definitely worth watching.

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube.

Rating: The musical gets 7/10, but the terrible quality of this video knocks the rating down to 5/10.

Review: Calamity Jane (1953)

Today I've decided to review one of the late, great Doris Day's films. So obviously I picked my favourite of her films 😃

Calamity Jane is a 1953 musical loosely (very loosely) based on the life of the historical Calamity Jane, involving a probably-fictitious romance with Wild Bill Hickok. It was adapted into a 1961 stage musical of the same name.

I only recognised the main two actors:
Doris Day (Jo in The Man Who Knew Too Much 1956) as Calamity Jane
Howard Keel (Adam Pontipee in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers) as Wild Bill Hickok

A lot of musicals start with a memorable opening song. This is no exception: it starts with "The Deadwood Stage", which is both extremely memorable and pretty funny. Calamity's snippy remarks about different people always make me laugh, especially when she says someone stole his clothes from a washing line 😆

We're introduced to Calamity Jane herself, a not entirely honest braggart with a high opinion of herself; Wild Bill Hickok, "the man the sheriff watches" who isn't too impressed with Calamity; Danny Gilmartin, a lieutenant who Calamity thinks loves her; and Francis Fryer, an actor who (thanks to a misunderstanding about the spelling of his name) is believed to be a woman, and who reluctantly has to pretend to be a woman. Said pretense is, shall we say, unconvincing 😆 It sets in motion a chain of events that leads to Calamity bringing a woman she thinks is a famous actress to perform in Deadwood. Turns out the "famous actress" is actually the actress's maid, Katie Brown. Hilarity ensues, of course.

Calamity Jane and Wild Bill Hickok
(I tried to find a better picture, but these ones made me laugh the most, so I decided to use them.)

Calamity and Katie
(I admit, I only chose this picture because of Katie's hat. I'm not entirely sure it's a hat and not a bird that decided to land on her head.)

The story is very silly, but it makes up for that by being genuinely funny and having catchy songs. My favourite song is probably "Just Blew in From the Windy City", for Calamity tap-dancing as much as for the song itself... and for the whole song being filmed with very few cuts. It must have taken so much practice and effort to get that right!

For years this musical has been one of my favourites. I definitely recommend it if you want plenty of laughs, and don't mind implausible plots!

Is it available online?: Yes, on ok.ru.

Rating: 8/10.

Review: The Great Gatsby (Takarazuka, 1991)

The Great Gatsby is a novel I've never been able to like. Its film adaptations are even worse. I had fairly low expectations when I watched this musical. Did it surpass them? ...Yes. Sort of.

This version of The Great Gatsby is a 1991 musical performed by Japan's all-female Takarazuka Revue. It sticks fairly close to the book, with some notable differences. This is one case where I would really have preferred an adaptation wasn't close to the book.

Frankly, I wasn't interested in the story of this musical at all. I watched it for only one reason: I read a translation of a book written by Keaki Mori (who plays Gatsby here), and decided I wanted to see some of her performances. This was the only one I could find. So I watched it even though I don't like the story. Yes, I know how stupid that sounds. No, I don't actually regret it.

Actresses I recognised:
Maki Ichiro (Death in Elisabeth 1996) as Nick
Fubuki Takane (Franz Joseph in Elisabeth 1996) as Meyer Wolfsheim
Yuu Todoroki (many, many roles, including Lucheni in Elisabeth 1996 and Ravic in Arch of Triumph) as Biloxi
Tatsuki Kouju (Rupert in The Prisoner of Zenda 2000) as Raul
Youka Wao (Erik in Phantom 2004) as Eddie

TakaWiki says Mari Hanafusa was also somewhere in the cast. I tried to spot her, but failed. Maybe she was only in the revue (which wasn't included on the recording I watched). Or maybe it's another case of my poor recognisation skills.

Anyway, on to the story.

The recording begins with an interview/introduction with Keaki Mori, presumably about the show. I listened to about a minute, trying to understand something. After that I realised it was hopeless to listen to any more, so I skipped it.

The musical itself starts with Nick arriving in the middle of one of Gatsby's parties. At once one of the problems with the show becomes apparent. The songs, with a few exceptions, are unmemorable. This is a recurring problem with Takarazuka's original musicals. I don't know if they don't have very talented songwriters, or if the songwriters just can't be bothered to do better when the show will probably finish its run(s) and never be revived, but very few original songs stick in the viewer's mind. None of this musical's songs are painful to listen to. But a day after watching it, I could only remember a few bars from two songs, and couldn't remember anything about the others.

Either this recording is poor quality, or the camera wasn't the best. Everything looks blurry. If this was a show from, say, 2011 that would be a major annoyance, but allowances can be made for a show from 1991. What's worse than the picture quality is how the cameraman never seems to be sure what to focus on. It's especially glaring in Gatsby and Nick's first conversation, when the camera focuses on Nick then abruptly jumps to follow him when he moves, and then focuses on Gatsby while Nick is still talking. The viewer is left with the impression that this was filmed by a rather amateur cameraman. Takarazuka has been filming performances since at least the 1970s; surely by the 90s they should have known what they were doing.

What the Dickens is happening in Gatsby's first appearance? A policeman is about to shoot someone, it looks like the party is going to turn into a fight, and then Gatsby just wanders on-stage. Huh? I don't remember any of that happening in the book. Did the director want to give Gatsby a more exciting entrance than just sitting beside Nick?

Gatsby

Nick

Just about everyone in the book drives me up the wall. Here few characters are as immediately infuriating. Even Tom and Myrtle, who usually make me want to scream and throw things, are almost bearable... at first. Daisy in the book started out pitiable then quickly became infuriating. Here she's more pitiable for much longer.

Daisy

I laughed at Nick's terror when Daisy hands him the baby 😆 That's one of the few comical moments in a pretty depressing show.

The staging of the flashback confused me at first. One minute Nick and Jordan are on the phone, the next Daisy and a bunch of new characters have appeared. It took a while to realise what was happening. Once I did realise it, though, I was amazed to find I actually felt sorry for Daisy and Gatsby when they were forced to part.

Probably dialogue explained what was happening in the (very long!) scene in a bar, but I could only guess at parts of it. It was clear enough when Gatsby was convincing Nick to help him, but what were all those other characters doing? 🤷

Any sympathy I had for Daisy very quickly disappears when she meets Gatsby again and is more interested in his expensive house and clothes than in him. Daisy's a spoilt brat, Gatsby's a naïve idiot, Nick's standing by and doing nothing, Tom and Myrtle are just revolting... That's the main reason I can't stand The Great Gatsby in any version. When I read or watch something, I want to find at least one likeable character.

Tom confronting Gatsby lost some of its impact for me because I didn't understand what he was saying, but I got the general idea. Unfortunately I didn't get the general idea of that scene at the golf course.

The musical, unlike the book, isn't confined to only Nick's point of view. We actually get to see Gatsby's death here. I don't think Gatsby and George had a prolonged confrontation in the book, but I suppose the director didn't want to kill off the top star's character as abruptly as in the book.

Gatsby's death and its aftermath is the only part of the book where I actually feel sorry for any of the characters, and even then it's more a sort of melancholy, depressed feeling than sympathy. The show's ending elicits the same feeling. The final scene left me scratching my head, though. What on earth is the point of a long line of people standing between Gatsby and his younger self? 😕

Overall the show is just average. Honestly I expected it to be unbearable, and was pleasantly surprised to find it wasn't that bad. It has some decent moments. If I liked the book more, I would probably like the show more.

Is it available online?: Yes, but better not say where.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd..." Except you can't, at least not in song form, because this film made the thoroughly disappointing decision to cut "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" 😒

Even the opening credits are gory!

This was the first version of Sweeney Todd I ever saw. I was vaguely aware of what the stage play was about -- I thought it was about a murderer who bakes his victims into pies -- but I didn't know any of the songs or the full plot. After watching the film I decided I didn't like the musical. It was much too gory, and the final twist made no sense. Fast-forward several years, and I watched the 1982 production of the musical. I was shocked. It's an interesting story! It has some great songs! The final twist actually does make sense! So, armed with my new knowledge of the stage version, I rewatched the film. This time I enjoyed it much more.

Recognisable actors include:
Johnny Depp (Ichabod in Sleepy Hollow 1999) as Sweeney Todd
Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange in Harry Potter) as Mrs. Lovett
Jamie Campbell Bower (Grindelwald in Harry Potter) as Anthony
Alan Rickman (Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility 1995) as Judge Turpin
Timothy Spall (Charles Cheeryble in Nicholas Nickleby 2002) as the Beadle
Laura Michelle Kelly (Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings musical) as Lucy
Sacha Baron Cohen (Thénardier in Les Misérables 2012) as Pirelli

The story starts with Sweeney and Anthony arriving in London. We immediately discover one of the main problems with this film. The actors, shall we say, weren't chosen for their singing ability. No one is absolutely atrocious, and you can listen to their singing without cringing, but when compared to stage performances the singing in the film is pretty poor.

Anthony

Sweeney Todd

The lighting is also poor. I've seen black-and-white films that have clearer pictures. There's no need to be so gloomy that the viewer can barely see a thing. The stage version manages to be both grim and well-lit.

Not only is "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" missing, so are most of the beggar woman's lines. On the one hand, we can do without hearing a lot of what she says. On the other, this means she has very few appearances before her death, which is why I thought the final twist made no sense. Someone should have realised this before they cut so many of her scenes.

We get to see Mrs. Lovett's pie shop in all its *ahem* "glory". Complete with meat of unidentifiable origin and insects crawling over the place. It's really a wonder she didn't kill plenty of customers on her own, with the atrocious hygiene in her kitchen.

Mrs. Lovett

"Poor Thing" is even more depressing and horrifying in the film than in the stage versions. All those people staring, and poor Lucy's screams... *shudders*

"Johanna" is one of my favourite songs in the show. I vaguely remembered the film made it creepy (you could argue it's creepy on-stage too, but the film makes it creepier). Thankfully the film doesn't ruin it. Anthony singing while covered in blood is unsettling, but downright tame by the standards of this film.

The film takes full advantage of its special effects to make the deaths as gory as possible. There is no need for so many close-ups of Sweeney cutting people's throats!

"A Little Priest" is a real let-down. When done right it's priceless black comedy. When done wrong it's just dull. Even the puns in this version aren't particularly funny. I think the main problem is how seriously it's played. This song isn't meant to be serious. It's meant to make the audience laugh, and that's completely missing here.

Johanna is reduced to a non-entity in the film. Most of her songs are removed, and she only gets about a quarter of her scenes. "Johanna (Quartet)" becomes "Johanna (Trio)". Even the scene in the madhouse loses most of its emotional impact. Very, very disappointing.

At least "By the Sea" is still relatively funny 🙂 Notice the "relatively". Most Mrs. Lovetts are very over-the-top in this song. This Mrs. Lovett is far too calm and restrained.

The dream sequence is comically absurd 😄 And the only time in the film there are any bright colours!

Judge Turpin's death is nauseating. Yes, he deserved it, but... good grief. All that blood 😱 The beggar woman's death should be tragic. Instead it's just another grisly murder in a film full of grisly murders, and even learning who she really was isn't as shocking as it should be. I'm glad the film removed Toby singing "Pat-A-Cake", though. That always struck me as incredibly silly under the circumstances.

The film ends with Sweeney's death, with no epilogue to be seen. Anthony and Johanna are completely forgotten about. Really? Here if anywhere is an excellent place to put "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd". But no, not a line of it to be heard. Just the occasional instrumental excerpt from it 😒

As a musical film on its own, this is a fairly good (though gruesome) movie. As an adaptation of the stage play, it falls pretty far short of what I'd expect. It's best to watch at least one stage production before watching this film. You'll have a better idea of how the story should be performed, and you won't be left scratching your head at some plot twists.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 5/10.

Review: Ernest in Love (Takarazuka, 2016)

Camp NaNoWriMo has begun. That sound you just heard was hundreds of authors (including me!) crying in despair as they struggle to reach the daily word count. Taking breaks to watch musicals is the only way to stay sane. Luckily, this is a good musical to cheer me up, even amid the horrors of writing 1000+ words a day.

Ernest in Love is a musical adaptation of Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. It was first performed in 1960. This version is a Japanese translation performed (for the third or fourth time, depending on how you count it) by the Takarazuka Revue. I've never seen/listened to the English version of the musical, so I don't know how closely it sticks to that. But I have seen The Importance of Being Earnest, so I wasn't completely lost.

Takarazuka fans tend to have one or more actress they especially love. For me it's Mirio (Asumi Rio or Rio Asumi, depending on whether you use the Japanese or Western name order). What will I do when she retires in November? ...Cry. Cry a lot 😭 In the meantime I'm doing my best to watch every one of her shows I can find.

Actresses I recognised:
Rio Asumi (Death in Elisabeth 2014) as Jack/Ernest
Toa Serika (Rudolf in Elisabeth 2014) as Algernon
Juria Hanano (Rachel in The Poe Clan) as Miss Prism
Rin Yuuma (Inspector Ledoux in Phantom 2011) as Lady Bracknell

For some reason the orchestra isn't in an orchestra pit. (Apparently this show was in a theatre that doesn't have an orchestra pit?? I can't see one, anyway 🤷) Instead they're on the stage, inside a... conservatory? This is the first Takarazuka production I've seen that does this.

The orchestra, in what looks like a bird cage. Goodness knows why.

The musical starts with Algernon's butler having a song and dance routine with some townsfolk. It's safe to assume this is the opening narration, but I understood maybe one word in twenty. Then Algernon wanders onstage, into what's apparently some sort of market-place, in his nightclothes. Huh?

I suppose dialogue provides some context for this scene, but it's pretty weird for non-Japanese speakers.

I fully expected most of the comedy to go over my head (the trials of watching anything in a language you don't speak...). Some of it certainly did, but I still roared with laughter frequently. Even when you don't understand everything (or anything), you can still tell when someone's telling a joke by their expressions and tone. And then there's the sheer absurdity of some scenes, which requires no translation to be funny.

Jack (AKA Ernest) and Gwendolen's first appearance is one of my favourite scenes 😃 Jack rehearsing his proposal in front of a mirror is funny on its own. Jack and Gwendolen pushing the mirror back and forth is even funnier. Sure, it makes no sense (they aren't even in the same house, let alone on different sides of the same mirror), but who cares about little things like that?

Jack 😍

Gwendolen

I laughed and laughed when Algernon stops Jack from eating sweets(?). Jack tries and tries to get those sweets or whatever they are, even moving his chair closer and giving Algernon puppy-dog eyes. Instead Algernon eats them himself. What a great friend 😆

Jack, Algernon, and a plate of... something edible. Can't be more specific than that, I'm sorry to say. (The joys of missing almost every word! 😔)

Love that song where Jack and Algernon get off the stage and walk around next to the audience! (Can only imagine how cool that must have been for the audience!) Doesn't hurt that the song itself is perfect for humming (and whistling, and clapping, and nodding...) along to.

Lady Bracknell and Gwendolen arrive. Gwendolen and Jack spend the next few minutes trying to get closer to each other without anyone noticing. When they're finally left alone they're apparently struck with a complete inability to speak. Their awkward grins at each other and the way neither can find anything to say are adorable. And of course, very funny. So is their "conversation". They run at each other, both say "はじめまして" (hajimemashite, "nice to meet you"; one of the few Japanese phrases I recognised immediately), and then they spend a minute frantically rushing around the stage. It's even funnier than it sounds 😆

What farce would be complete without a disapproving parent walking in at the worst possible moment? Gwendolen and Jack fall onto a sofa just in time for Lady Bracknell to see them. Naturally, she gets the wrong impression.

It's not what it looks like... but tell that to Lady Bracknell.

Lady Bracknell isn't pleased about her daughter's engagement. She's even less pleased to learn Jack was found in a handbag as a baby. There's a truly weird song here. It involves a giant handbag, dozens of extras in unconvincing wigs, and Jack wearing a baby bonnet. Goodness knows why.

Algernon -- using the name Ernest -- goes to visit Jack's ward, Cecily. His attempts at getting Cecily's attention while she's singing are priceless 😄 Of course they fall in love. Of course Jack doesn't approve. And of course Gwendolen turns up, learns Cecily is engaged to "Ernest Worthing", and gets the wrong impression.

Cecily

Love the bit where Jack, pretending to be in mourning, tells Miss Prism and the pastor that his brother Ernest has died, then learns "Ernest" is visiting 😆 And his face when Algernon appears! He looks so utterly disgusted!

The mix-up about who's engaged to whom is eventually resolved, and Gwendolen and Cecily learn neither of them is engaged to the non-existent Ernest. They aren't happy about it. Jack's and Algernon's reactions are priceless 😆 My favourite part is when Algernon calmly has a cup of tea while Jack sulks on the floor. Then Gwendolen and Cecily forgive them... just before Lady Bracknell arrives.

This scene is comedy gold, but special mention must go to the discovery of Jack's real parentage. Jack's excited shouting, Algernon and Jack hugging and crying, the onlookers' reactions... Perfect chaotic hilarity. And of course, all the implausibilities are wrapped up with a happy ending 😄

Takarazuka shows end with a revue of varying length. As far as I can tell, for one-act shows, the revue is about an hour long and separate from the musical that preceded it. For two-act shows like this one, the revue is much shorter and is an assortment of songs from the musical. The actresses wear very (very) glittery costumes as they dance and sing.

Some of the glittery, glittery costumes 😍

Ernest in Love is not the sort of musical you'd watch if you want a gripping plot or excellent songs. But as a hilarious farce with enjoyable songs, it's perfect. It's certainly very good at cheering up unhappy writers 😃

Is it available online?: ...Yes, but better not say where.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Elisabeth das Musical (Vienna, 1992)

Stage musicals, more than any other form of entertainment, are prone to changing dramatically over the years. Things are added or removed between productions, and within twenty years you can end up with something that looks nothing like the first production. Elisabeth is a perfect example of this.

This version doesn't have a title-card, so here, have the Original Cast Recording cover instead.

This is a filmed version of a dress rehearsal for Elisabeth's original production. It's not as polished as the 2005 version, which was an actual filmed performance, but it gives a pretty good idea of how the original version was performed.

I recognised only the main two actors:
Pia Douwes (Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca das Musical) as Elisabeth
Uwe Kröger (Colloredo in Mozart! das Musical 1999) as Death

First things first. I like the overlapping-lines bit in the prologue where Elisabeth's relatives sing one line while the ensemble sing a different one. (Is there a technical name for that?) No idea why it was removed from most later German versions.

Death's costume in the prologue is as ridiculous as in the 2005 version. Was the costume designer drunk? Or did they sincerely believe that nothing screams "personification of Death" quite like "frilly lacy whatever-that-thing-is"?

Death, with Lucheni in the background. I try not to look at that "costume", but it's... hard to ignore 😣

Elisabeth makes her first appearance and falls to her death... and Death. They fall in love at first sight. Does anyone think this will end well? Surprise! It doesn't. Elisabeth meets Franz Joseph and falls in love with him.

Sophie, Franz Joseph, and some rather ghoulish-looking courtiers.

What on earth is that eagle thing? It looks like something you'd find in an amusement park, and it's certainly not historically accurate. This is just one of the many weird things scattered through this production.

What better setting for a romantic duet than something that looks like it's borrowed from a horror movie set in a funfair?

I'm not a fan of the Vienna stagings of the wedding. The puppet-like dancing? Yes, it's suitably eerie. The "wedding clothes" that look like plastic bags? No, no, a thousand times no. It's not only ugly, it looks silly.

Elisabeth, wearing a not-at-all accurate "wedding dress". All right, so Empress Elisabeth's real wedding dress is lost and no one knows exactly what it looked like. But I think it's safe to say it wasn't made of plastic! Was this really the best the costume department could do?

But on the bright side, I like Death and his angels rising out of the floor before "Der letzte Tanz". That's much more impressive than some later versions, where they just walk onstage. Speaking of "Der letzte Tanz", this is my favourite version of it ever. It's also one of the worst ear worms I've ever had stuck in my head.

The picture isn't the clearest, but that's Franz Joseph and Elisabeth in the left corner, and Death reaching out to Elisabeth.

The lighting is much better here than in the 2005 DVD, but why is everything so blue? Blue sets, blue lights, blue costumes (even when they're clearly not blue), even bluish actors... Either the director really loved blue, or something went badly wrong with the camera.

Ignoring the blueness, "Ich gehör nur mir" is one of the most awesome songs in musical theatre, and this is one of the most awesome renditions of it.

"Denn iiiiiiiich! Gehör! Nur miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir!"

The scene where Elisabeth's daughter dies is very eerie. This Death is much more inhuman and emotionless than 2005!Death, and the way he stares at Elisabeth after she sees her daughter's body is downright terrifying. Less jealous love interest, more supernatural creature unable to understand her grief.

One of the problems with the way this is filmed is how the camera focuses on one part of the stage and doesn't show the rest of it. During the second half of "Elisabeth, mach auf mein Engel", the camera stays on Elisabeth for most of it and only briefly shows Death. So without knowledge of other productions, you'll have no idea where Death is on the stage. Not the best decision there, editors.

This version of "Ich will dir nur sagen" doesn't include Death's part of the song. Apparently that was only added later. Very disappointing 😒 On the bright side, Elisabeth's dress is great.

Act I was much less polished than later versions. I'm sorry to say it, but Act II is a mess.

To start with, "Wenn ich tanzen will" is missing. It wouldn't be written until ten years later. The show jumps straight from "Éljen" to "Mama, wo bist du?". Then, for some reason known only to the choreographer, "Nichts, nichts, gar nichts" ends in... The YouTube description calls it a "chaotic dance sequence", and that's the only way to describe it. Why? Goodness knows.

Some Deaths are disturbingly gleeful when they tell Elisabeth about Franz Joseph's adultery. Some are more cold about it. And then there's this Death, who sounds downright bored until Elisabeth considers suicide. I'm not sure which portrayal I prefer, but this is one time when Death being emotionless is less "cold and distant" and more "just plain indifferent". He's in love with Elisabeth; shouldn't he show some emotion? Even if it's just triumphing over his rival's sin?

And we briefly dive into near-2005 levels of poor lighting, too.

Rudolf's subplot in the Vienna stagings makes very little sense to anyone who hasn't done an in-depth study of 19th century Austrian history. He appears as an adult for the first time immediately before "Die Schatten werden länger", sings a duet with Death even though there's no explanation of what he's afraid of, and then disappears from the story until he goes to Elisabeth, is turned away, and kills himself. It's exactly as confusing as it sounds.

Rudolf asking Elisabeth for help

But not even the mishandling of his subplot can make his death any less tragic 😭

The heartbreak only gets worse from then on. (And it was hardly a jolly, cheerful show before!) We get a very depressing "Boote in der Nacht", a chilling "Am Deck der sinkenden Welt" (side note: I like how the platform literally sinks at the end of the song), and then an even more depressing "Der Schleier fällt". I'm still not a fan of Death basically dropping Elisabeth on the ground after he kisses her. That's a terribly underwhelming ending.

It took me a long time to realise that thing outlined in white is meant to be Elisabeth's coffin.

Despite what you might have thought from my sarcasm, I really do like this production. It's a decent rendition of the story, and an interesting look at where the show started. But it just isn't as complete as later productions, nor does the plot make as much sense without the songs that were added later. It's a good introduction to Elisabeth, though, and well worth watching!

Is it available online?: Yes, on YouTube with English subtitles.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Oh look! A review that isn't of a book!

Musicals are rather silly by their very nature. It's not exactly realistic for people to burst out singing at random moments. The mark of a good musical is if it can make the viewers overlook the silliness. Or, if it's Singin' in the Rain, use the silliness to make it good.

Singin' in the Rain is a 1952 musical about making a musical, starring actors playing actors. I swear it makes more sense in the film.

I've heard of most of the actors, but I haven't seen any of their other films, so I didn't recognise any of them.

It's 1927. Lina and Don are the most popular stars of Monumental Pictures, but Don makes all their speeches. Approximately fifteen minutes into the film, we learn why. Lina's voice could peel paint. Everyone knows this... except her. But it's the era of silent films, so her voice doesn't matter to the public, right? 😏

Don and Lina

Then the first ever talking picture appears. While Don and Lina are making another silent film, The Dueling Cavalier. Naturally, the producer decides that instead of giving up on the film currently being filmed, they should turn it into a talking picture. There's just one problem: Lina.

The minute everyone realised there might be a few problems with this "talking picture" business 😆

The film gets made in spite of Lina's voice and sound-related difficulties ("The mike's picking up her heartbeat!" 😆). Only trouble is, said film is utterly ridiculous... which everyone only realises at the preview. Don assumes his career's over. But his friends Cosmo and Kathy have an idea: they'll turn The Dueling Cavalier into a musical, and dub Lina's voice with Kathy's!

Don, Kathy and Cosmo

Unfortunately, Lina has an idea of her own. She wants Kathy to keep dubbing her for years. Things look pretty bad... until she decides to make a speech...

One of the best -- not to mention funniest -- endings ever seen in musicals.

From start to end Singin' in the Rain is frothy, ridiculous nonsense. The frequent out-of-nowhere song and dance sequences are just plain weird. Only two of the songs are memorable. But it's funny enough that I don't care. From Lina's mishaps with the microphone, to Cosmo's hilarious antics, to the side-splitting final scene, the film is full of comical moments. So ignoring the silliness and judging it only on how enjoyable it is, it's a pretty good film!

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 5/10.