Prick Up Your Ears (Comedy Theatre 29/10/09) 30 October 2009

This is one I almost missed. I've seen three previous productions that director Daniel Kramer has directed - all revivals of plays that I love - Hair, Angels in America, Bent - and I found his vision to be uber gay and tacky. Question - how do you make Bent, a play about debauched homosexuals and Nazi concentration camps gayer? Have Daniel Kramer direct it and turn a few of the Nazis into raging queens, that's how.

Anyway, I have been a big fan of Joe Orton (Loot, Entertaining Mr Sloane, What the Butler Saw) for years, ever since I stumbled across a copy of John Lahr's biography of Orton Prick Up Your Ears in the mid eighties. SInce then I've read it numerous times and have been fascinated by the relationship between Orton and his lover/friend Kenneth Halliwell - what kept them together and the steps leading to Halliwell bludgeoning Orton in the head with a hammer in 1967. For me it has high psychological appeal.

I wasn't entirely thrilled with Stephen Frears film version of the story because it lacked balance. Halliwell seemed to be more of a foil than a major player and there was too much emphasis on the peripheral charcters and the writing of the biography. It was all very academic and high brow which is certainly not what Orton was all about. So, I was thrilled when I heard a stage adpatation was coming to the West End, then I was somewhat put off that Matt Lucas of Little Brittain fame was playing Halliwell. When I found out that Daniel Kramer was directing that nailed the coffin shut. Surely it would be a debauched, superficially gay review of Orton's life. I vowed not to attend.

What eventually got me to go along? First Matt Lucas dropped out for personal reasons, then, Con O'Neill (who I have seen in other productions - and most recently in the film Telstar which is a role he created on stage and was Olivier nominated for) was announced as the new Halliwell. Finally, they really dropped the prices for this transitional period. Well not so much dropped but there were a few offers out there that made it a very attractive proposition - fourth row centre for £15. Excellent. So I booked, I attended and it was excellent. It had all the elements - great script, excellent performances, good set and yes, even good direction. I was wrong to have stayed away.

On a single set that reproduces Orton and Halliwells single room Islington flat, with only three characters (the third being the stupendous Gwen Taylor as their downstairs neighbour Mrs Corden) Prick Up Your Ears managed to cover all the major points of their story from the time right before Orton and Halliwell went to prison for 'redesigning' library books to the murder. What sets this production apart from the film is it gives depth of character to both Orton and Halliwell. It charts the elements that caused friction between the two and helps us understand what their relationship was like, on a physical and emotional level. Halliwell is given an equal voice to Orton's, which oddly enough is what was not present in their lives at the time. He doesn't come across as the irritating and despised monster that the film depicts. In a recent interview Orton's sister remarked that Halliwell wasn't a hated man. I'm glad they put this right because watching Halliwell grasp at straws in various attempts to get Orton to make him feel worthy and needed gives the story a whole new perspective so you sympathise with him. I'm not condoning the behaviour but you understand why things happened the way they did.

All of this storytelling would be nothing without three strong leads. Chris New (who was also in Kramer's Bent and Richard Eyers The Reporter at the National Theatre) gives an energetic, bouyant and cheeky performance as Orton, and as I previously stated Gewn Taylor as the Mrs Corden pitches what could have been a stock performance of the cooky older femail neighbour just right. In fact, all those who know the story will recognise her character as inspriation for some of Orton's characters. This is fact and it's good that playwright Simon Bent picked up on it as well as other details from Orotn's life that influenced his work.

Another nice touch was the use of dialogue to get across background information. This technique is used alot but in this instance it works a charm. Not once do you feel pulled from the flow of the story to listen to lists of background information. It's all organic. Again, in lesser hands it could have been a disaster because however great I think the script is I don't think it's actor proof.

Although all three actors are strong, however, everything depends on the final moments - the murder of Joe Orton by Kenneth Halliwell. Con O'Neill came up trumps and then some. No over the top hystrionics were on display, rather he plumbed the depths of his very being and connected in a way that one rarely gets to witness. During Halliwell's final moments of the play, after the murder, I felt really choked up. I felt his pain. I know it sounds cliche but I was a bit shaken and was wiping moisture from the corner of my eyes. And, it wasn't just me, I heard sniffling from a few others around me as well. When the actors came out for the curtain call Mr O'Neill himself was really holding back the tears, as if a flood of emotions that were stockpiled in the character of Halliwell were trying to burst forth from him. It was then that I realised that he had gone to a very real place in his performance and that reality had a real effect on the audience. A rare treat. Another big plus for live theatre.

I really don't want to say much more about this. One reason is that it seems to have divided the audiences. In my row there were about four or five people who didn't return after the interval. After the performance I saw a woman crying, bu them I overheard someone saying that they 'didn't come to the theatre to hear people argue onstage' and one young woman said that she thought it would be a comedy as it was on at the Comedy Theatre. Hmmmm. On a plus side, Stephen Fry was in the audience and he tweeted later that night about how fantastic it was. He even took Con and Chris out to dinner after the show.

If you see it and I recommend that you do, you have to listen. It's deceptivey simple, the structure, the story, but in reality it's been meticulously constructed. You have to listen.


The Offical Prick Up Your Ears Website


You can also follow me on Twitter @thisbarry.

Hair - Conceptual Bliss 20 June 2009

A friend of mine saw the Broadway revival of Hair yesterday. It's one of my favourite shows so I emailed her for her update - I'd seen it and wanted to know what she thought.

Hair is a show I discovered in a backwards way, much like many others who remember the music from their youth and childhood in the 70's.

Long before I understood or was even aware of what a Broadway show was, I fell in love with the songs - not the score but the hit songs, not from the original cast album but from three hit cover versions, all of which I still love. The Fifth Dimension did 'Aquarius / Let The Sun Shine In', Three Dog Night did 'Easy To Be Hard' and Oliver (what ever happened to him /them) did 'Good Morning Starshine' - all staples on American radio during the 70's. As I got older and became more interested in theatre and discovered the show that the songs came from. But to be honest, Hair seemed more like a concept than a stage show. I never really understood, from what I read, exactly what Hair was all about, or if there was indeed any sort of storyline. It was never described in that way, the descriptions always seemed to be about hippies or it being a revolutionary groundbreaking show with nudity and hit songs.

Then in 1979 came the Milos Foreman film. This was my first proper introduction to all the songs in the show. I became obsessed with it for a while. I had the film soundtrack on heavy rotation and dismissed the Broadway cast album for its rawness of sound and delivery. It sounded small and insignificant to my young ears, unlike the full 'produced' movie soundtrack which was very slick. This lead me to further investigate the original production but again I couldn't make heads or tails of any original plot or storyline although there was an occasional mention that it was changed for the movie so I figured there had to be one.

Fast forward to London in the early 00's. The tiny well respected Gate Theatre in Notting Hill, London was producing a new revival. It had been a while since there was a proper London revival of Hair. Adding to that we were post 9/11 in a mostly unpopular war, there was 'young director to watch' Daniel Kramer at the helm and they were updating it to present day. Although those facts were interesting, none really mattered as I was only interested in seeing Hair with its original storyline.

I loved the production. There were only two rows stretched out the length of the space, a very small band tucked off to one end of the playing space, excellent performances and singing and one of the most powerful endings I have ever experienced in theatre. What was different was the Hud, traditionally played by an African American male, was played as an Afro Caribbean woman without loosing any of the characters gruff traits and there was a strong gay element in many of the scenes and characters. Dialogue was obviously altered to make it relevant as well as the general look of the show. The nudity remained and being in such close proximity to the actors made me think that this must of been what it felt like to see the original production - these days nudity doesn't have the same power to shock as it once had.

Because it had the three news worthy aspects, this production had a fair amount of press and interviews. From an interview with Daniel Kramer I discovered that James Rado, one of the composers and the original Claude, was involved with the production in some way. I happened to know a few people involved with the show, one who was in it and one involved on the creative side, and after the performance I got a bit more information about Rado's involvement. He was indeed involved, but more in a creative approval sense. I also found out that although he had given his approval, he liked the show but didn't seem to love it. There were rumours of the production transferring to the West End, and I know through one of my sources that they were even looking for funding and reimagining the sets and costumes for a larger space. I also heard that there was a possibility that James Rado was not on board with this transfer, I seem to remember that he was more partial to Hair remaining in the 60's. I have to say that at the time, I put that preference down to someone who was unable to move forward and as a result we would only see 'museum piece' productions of Hair in the future. This is probably the main reason it never happened. Just my feeling. Anyway, it was sad - I was gearing up to be a Hair groupie!

Fast forward. We now live an internet lead world where all sorts of information is just a Google search away. All sorts of Hair information is out there, from personal experiences of seeing the original production to recollections from those directly involved and I think I have found most of them. Through my research, I got a better sense of what the original production was all about - a collection of loosely connected scenes. I thought back to the Gate production, it had some of those original aspects but I think there was a concerted effort to 'strengthen' the storyline. The more I thought about it, there was definitely a shoehorn effect feeling about some of the scenes. I think I was just so thrilled to see a production that i brushed those negative feelings aside and just concentrated on everything else. From seeing it live, I also became a huge fan of the original cast album, learning to love the real quality of the performances. And I now have a real hard time watching the film (talk about shoehorning a storyline).

Living in London I was only vaguely aware of the semi recent Public Theater concerts and the subsequent In The Park production. I was more aware of the Park peformances from reading the message boards over at Broadway World dot com but I didn't get too into it, mainly because I wouldn't be able to see it. From what I can tell, through interviews, comments etc, it seemed to be a very transcendant experience. So, when they announced the transfer indoors, I wondered how it would be done. I saw video interviews with the Director Diane Paulus and Public Theatre Artistic Director Oskar Eustis who alluded to the exciting ways they were going to bring the experience indoors, make it a 'happening' that included the audience. Now I was excited. This seemed like the real thing and the timing was right. As my family is in the States I took the opportunity to book a ticket for the show (way in advance of first preview) that would coincide with a trip to see the folks in Philadelphia.

Hair - the experience.

As I queued waiting for the doors to open, I noticed something unusal about those waiting with me. I was on my own I had more of an opportunity to take it all in. The age range, as expected, was across the board age, but what I thought was interesting was the a lack of people there to impress - no airs and graces. Everyone was so kind and, well, peaceful. The woman in front of me asked me to save her space in the queue as she saw a friend of hers. When she returned, she immediately opened up and told me that she had only met the woman she went to greet about a week earlier at a bus stop and since then continuously ran into her in various locations throughout the city. Here she was again, at Hair. Cosmic? I think so.

At my seat (11th row centre orchestra) the woman next to me was kind and chatted with me although she was with her family. One of the members of the party next to me who I chatted with started chatting to the people in front of them. I looked around and everyone seemed to be chatty, friendly and very happy. The show started and I got chills, it was a great opening and the show sped along with song after song, hit after hit. I realised that the structure was less structured than what I saw in London.

Much has been said about the audience interaction, so I was prepared for it. I knew the people in the first row and on the aisles would play a big part, which they did. What I wasn't prepared for was the amount of time the Tribe spent in the audience, often staying and interacting for extended periods. This was fantastic. Many times there were three completely unrelated scenarios happening at the same time, Tribe member 1 in one aisle, Tribe member 2 in another aisle, both in a mini scene with an audience member, and whatever was happening on the stage. It's an amazing concept that in the wrong hands could have meant disaster - it could have been a study in pulling focus. It added immensely to the experience, it was so inclusive. The choreography was also skillfully integrated, wonderful organic movement that never crossed over to razzle dazzle. Funny thing though, there were bits of it that reminded me of what Twyla Tharpe did with the film version. I love Twyla so that wasn't a problem.

Back to my friend. Now granted, she admittedly was tired from a flight and was fighting off a cold. Basically, she thought Gavin Creel (Claude) was a star, Will Swenson (Berger) was somewhat showy, she didn't relate as much to the second act as the first ('the Vietnam parts' as she referred to them) but the audience on stage at the end along with, what I consider the greatest anthem ever, 'Let the Sun Shine In', brought tears to her eyes. It did to mine as well and I'm not afraid to admit it. I find that song very stirring and it hits a chord. I think it does with many. (Good Morning Starshine is still my favourite - gliddy glop gloopy!). Do I agree with the rest of what she said. Yes, to a degree.

Sure, there were some performances that worked better for me than others, and yes the second half has a somewhat different tone - either you relate to it or not. However, what I realised from what she said, and what prompted me to write this, was that with this production and Hair in general, the sum of its parts is greater than any of the individuals. It's about community, it's about coming together for the same cause and the disillusionment and confusion that can bring. Keeping it set in its original era is the only way to go as this production reminds us of where we came from but with its brilliant direction, keeps us firmly rooted in the now.

There has been some chatter about the strength of Hair as a musical, saying that in the traditional sense it's not good, structurally. I think that's the point. It's and experience, it's a real happening or as close as you can get whilst still being an audience member. It's an amalgamation of thoughts, ideas, ideologies, social criticism, social observation and personal awareness. It's conceptual art, and as conceptual art it's conceptual bliss.

s23qm8azgt