Stephen Sondheim (A discussion) – Cheltenham Town Hall (October 13th 2010)

It is very hard for me to write this. You see, just a few hours ago, I spoke to Stephen Sondheim. One of the most influential Broadway composers of all time, and generally considered to be amongst the great American composers of the last Century and one of the best composer/lyricists in theatre history (having such works as West Side Story [lyrics], Gypsy [lyrics], Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street [music & lyrics] and A Little Night Music [music & lyrics] under his belt) . And tonight, he was in Cheltenham. He was giving an interview for the Cheltenham Literary festival.

The event was mainly to publicise his book Finishing The Hat which is a collection of all of his lyrics (cut songs and kept songs) for all of his shows from West Side Story (his professional debut in 1957) to Merrily We Roll Along (his last show with Hal Prince in 1981 until Bounce in 2003).

He goes through in great detail, annotating, showing alternate lyrics and even shows photocopies of original scoring and writing. The book also contains Sondheim’s view of the many people he has associated himself with and worked with throughout his life, from Jerome Robbins to Oscar Hammerstein II.



Mr. Stephen Joshua Sondheim



The start of the interview was marked by the interviewer (who I can’t remember the name of) pointing out that in the book, Sondheim expresses his displeasure for the English lyricists Noel Coward and W.S. Gilbert. OK, so it is apparent that Sondheim is a very critical man. But not critical of the people you understand, he is critical of their lyrics, just like he is critical of his own lyrics. He states that he finds nothing about Gilbert’s lyrics funny and in comparison to Cole Porter, Noel Coward is somewhat more crass and vulgar in his satirical outlook on the upper classes.

Another lyricist who Sondheim is critical of is Oscar Hammerstein II, whose lyrics are said by Sondheim to be ‘too sunshiney’ and his characters to be ‘not actual characters, just a set of characteristics’ – by this he appears to be implying that Hammerstein’s shows are normally made of stock characters who play off one another. This criticism is not completely unfounded though; Sondheim says that is was Hammerstein himself who taught him to be critical. Sondheim was partially raised by Hammerstein, and he refers to the legendary lyricist as his ‘mentor’ and ‘surrogate father’. Sondheim had a hard upbringing with his mother and would it not for Oscar Hammerstein, probably would have drifted into the same low life his mother had led.

As mentioned before, Sondheim is also critical of his own lyrics. He mentions the difficult in writing to fit a specific accent or dialect and also talks of having to re-write some of his lyrics for different audiences. The show containing what Sondheim calls his most ‘embarrassing’ lyrics is probably his most famous. In 1957, Sondheim wrote the lyrics for Leonard Bernstein’s music in West Side Story. And he openly detests many of the ‘overly romantic’ lyrics to this show and things that were completely out of character such as most of Maria’s lyrics in I Feel Pretty. Sondheim personally refers to this stage of his career as his ‘My Fair lady period’.

Sondheim went on to talk about other parts of his career including more on lyrics, how he fits his music together with the lyrics (he writes lyrics first and the tune applies itself to the conversational style of his lyrics) and people who have interpreted his work (he holds a particular affection for Glynis Johns [who played Desiree Armfeldt in the Original Broadway Production of A Little Night Music].)

He then took questions from the audience, which in the most part were quite average (what’s your favourite show of yours) and one particularly embarrassing one, as one man in the audience proceeded to talk about his favourite Sondheim song One from A Chorus Line…only to be interrupted by the man himself to be told that he neither wrote that song or that show.

When the interview had concluded (after a brief discussion about modern musical theatre and how Mr. Sondheim doesn’t agree that contemporary rock and rap music should have a place in the theatre) it was announced that Mr. Sondheim would be doing a signing of his book.

Stephen Sondheim: Finishing the Hat

So all rushed to quickly buy the book (which was a handsome £30) and get it signed by the man himself. Personal photos weren’t allowed, but a friend of mine managed to take a photo of me talking to Mr. Sondheim. And he was very nice, wishing me good luck for my career. He could only sign for half an hour due to arthritis (he was challenged with rhyming that) but many people came away happy with their new book.

It was a truly unique evening for people to meet the man they admire and have a definite divine experience.



My friend and I meeting Mr. Sondheim



Theatre Review – Enron (Theatre Royal, Bath 6th October 2010)

Not one for choosing an easy subject matter, Lucy Prebble’s play Enron, based on the story of the company of the same name, deals with tough relations in the corporate world, Fraud, and Wall Street Crashes.

The play was very successful on the West-End (having a healthy run at the Noel Coward Theatre), but a modest failure on Broadway. Now, the play reaches the end of its current incarnation as the UK tour of the West-End production draws to a close in Bath.

The Theatre Royal in Bath was a perfect venue for this play – the play itself is not exactly intimate, but the intricacies of its staging and action can be best observed in a smaller, more intimate playhouse.

As mentioned before, Enron deals with the history of the energy company of the same name; from the company’s position in the 1990’s as just another Texan oil and gas dealer to having one of the largest interest in stocks and shares in history. We follow four lead characters: Claudia Rowe, who is a lifelong devotee and employee of Enron and who wants to succeed Kenneth Lay as chairman/CEO of the company, Jeffrey Skilling who ultimately wins the post and Andy Fastow who becomes CFO of the company. And we follow the way they work together as they transform Enron into one of the most successful companies of the late 1990’s (albeit through the illegal methods masterminded by Fastow).

The performances were masterful, and we saw each actor create a very honest representation of their characters. Portraying a factual person is always a hard job for an actor, but this is made even harder when that person is still alive. Yet, each of the four leads had a very real grasp of their characters and had clearly explored the incident, and particularly how this affected their characters.

However, for me, there were two standout performances. These were Sara Stewart as Claudia, who created a well-rounded character who starts off as the corporate bitch, and then faces leaving the company, but then realises that she left before the company meltdown. Corey Johnson executed Skilling brilliantly. He didn’t just play the role, he really was the man. He had clearly explored whether he thought his character was innocent or guilty, and although his character’s actions lead us to believe he’s guilty, the amazing final monologue shows another side to the character, and Johnson did this with great conviction. Suddenly the audience didn’t know what to think, and we were left to draw out own conclusion about Skilling.

The Company of Enron

The ensemble was made up of many talented actors, all playing multiple roles, and all bursting with energy, commitment, and a clear understanding of the context of the play. This isn’t an easy play to perform as any member of the cast either, because, while it is classed as a play, it has several pieces of music sung by the cast, in a musical-like fashion.

Enron has one of the best scores I’ve heard in modern theatre. Adam Cork’s score is not a conventional theatre score – it is perfection. It suits the mood of the scenes it supports and captures the essence of the play. Anthony Ward has also designed one of the most effective sets seen in a play in recent years – every single piece useful, and every single area of the stage used perfectly. He strikes the right balance between the uncomfortable enclosed feeling of the business world and the exciting enclosed feeling of Wall Street. The set involves the audience – we felt on edge when the characters did, and we also felt slightly claustrophobic.

Rupert Goold looked over no details in his brilliant production – everything about this show is slick, efortless and is simply…perfect.

Ok, so from the point of view of an average audience member, sometimes we get confused between the reality of the narrative and the abstract representational side of the piece. However, that is simply Prebble’s style, and in some ways and in the view of some people, it is just perfect.

But one thing cannot be doubted: As a production, Enron is the most innovative and electrifying West-End play of the last ten years.

4*

Theatre Review – Hair (Gielgud Theatre - 21st August 2010)

And so the Age of Aquarius dawned over London again for the first time since the groundbreaking original production of Hair opened at The Shaftesbury Theatre in 1968. The production has been closed for a month now, but for its short 5-month run, it reiterated its original message of peace and love, harmony and understanding in an electrifying, powerful way.

Hair was the first of the great rock musicals, and considered by some to be the best. Certainly, had it not been for Hair, it would have been less likely that we’d have shows like Jesus Christ Superstar or RENT. The score also produced more hits than any other Broadway score in history. Out of all of the great tunes in the piece, some songs like Let the Sunshine In, Aquarius, Good Morning Starshine and I Got Life continue to experience great popularity in the world of pop music and advertising to this day.

But the show itself is a unique blend of music, dialogue and theatrics that is quite different to any other show. For example, rather than the music and lyrics describing a particular scene, or advancing a particular character, they normally represent a particular emotion, feeling, or social occurrence (the opening song, Aquarius, for example, doesn’t really set the story up, but it immediately immerses the audience in the ideals of the hippy movement, and where the beliefs of the show and the characters themselves are rooted).

The performances were electrifying too, and seemed to possess a certain something not generally seen in theatre. Not once did the audience get the feeling that the actors were reciting lines written on a script. We believed them as characters, we believed them as people, and we believed the dialogue to be coming straight from the heart of the characters. Yes, this is something you would expect in the theatre of course, but no other show seems to manage it quite like Hair does.

The Company of Hair.

Steel Burkhardt replaced Will Swenson in the production about halfway through the run, and initially I was disappointed I wasn’t seeing the original Berger. However Burkhardt gave an unparalleled, electrifying performance and really connected with the audience on the right level. The role of Sheila was played by Megan Reinking and Dionne by Holly James who both gave very true, heartfelt performances.  I was fortunate enough to see Gavin Creel in what many people believe to be the definitive interpretation of Claude. Creel was on top form as an actor and a singer, but failed, where the rest of the cast succeeded, in creating an entirely believable character. His performance was marred somewhat by his apparent lack of ability to welcome his audience into his character. The tribe all gave committed energetic performances, in what is perhaps the most exciting show for a young actor. They were all incredibly believable, attractive people who played multiple roles each and contributed to the unique way that Hair is written and received.

Although this was a fantastic production of Hair, with fabulous lighting and set design, orchestrations and sound design, some of the flaws were not production based. At some points during the show, the linear telling of the story was interrupted and halted by seemingly needless songs, and after the first twenty minutes I was sat there wondering if the musical had any story at all.

True, Hair is a masterpiece, but unlike other pieces, it only works as an entire structure. If you take the music away, the show would falter. The same would be true if you removed any other element. But most of all, this show falls down on its book. It seems in some places that the author gave up and just decided to fill a scene with a song.

Surprisingly enough though, I think with Hair’s unique feel, energy and vibe, they might just be able to get away with it.

4*