WICKED: Reviews in LONDON- Page 2

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:38am

One review incorrectly credited Wayne Cilento with set design! I'm really surprised no one mentioned the weak choreography. I'm wondering if the London productions of "Avenue Q" and "Wicked" will be up against each other during awards time.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:45am

The reveiws in NY were a little...nicer.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:47am

Neither WICKED or AVENUE Q were particularly well received in London: I'm not sure how the reviews will affect the Awards race over there. I don't forsee an Olivier Award in Idina Menzel or Helen Dallimore's futures though.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:47am

It's not schadenfreude to agree with these critics, is it?

[MorribleMan]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:55am

Come on you don't think they've all seen the show in New York already and have been sitting waiting for it to open there? Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel if you ask me. Fortunately for the impenetrable Wicked they are not even going to hit the barrel. I was hoping for a more scholarly discussion from the Brits Crix. Sure it’s not perfect, sure it’s not the best staging of a musical but I love it and (sadly) I ain’t no teeny bopper. Here was a great opportunity for them to delve into why the show’s such a mega success rather this same old tired snooty intelligentsia shtick.

PS: This is my first post, getting used to the surroundings, thanks for the reviews.

Updated On: 9/28/06 at 11:55 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 11:59am

Who cares if they saw it in New York, or Chicago, or LA? They still saw the show again in London and reviewed that production. What's the problem?

Just because they hated it and you love it doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong, or they're right and you're wrong. Plenty of shows that I have liked have gotten bad reviews...whatever...it comes with the territory.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 12:34pm

If memory serves me correctly, the Appollo Victoria has been home to another loathed show that ran for years, Starlight Express. It's in a pretty remote location, far from the West End. The only other theater in the area is The Victoria Palace, home to the original (1937) production of "Me And My Girl" and many shows that failed to find an audience.

So Wicked is a schlep from the theatre district. It will be interesting to see what happens....

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 12:50pm

I have to criticize the Times for giving away some "surprise" plot points in Act II.

They can dislike the show all they want, but that was REALLY an amateurish move on the reviewer's part.

I do like the show quite a bit (although it's not my favorite by any means)... but I agree that it's biggest fault is the "sanitizing" of Elphaba. She's not supposed to be congenial-yet-misunderstood. They took the poison out of her personality. That was my biggest problem with her as well.

Most of them don't like the story to begin with... and that's fine. I happen to COMPLETELY disagree with them, and think it's one of the better "stories" to come out of the fantasy genre in the past 25 years.

Updated On: 9/28/06 at 12:50 PM

[landryjames2]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 1:11pm

I agree best12bars--I think it is a fine story, and I enjoy it very much. I think the core of it is very creative. My main problem with the show is that the primary cause of the rift between Elphaba and Glinda in the second half is a man--and turns into a pedestrian love triangle as opposed to the two witches deciding to conduct their politics differently (which would have induced the writers not to make Elphaba so squeaky clean--and would have given her a true edge).

[MorribleMan]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 2:40pm

Hey Munk I'm just commenting on the dismissive quality of some of the reviews. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the show there is something about it that transcends all the issues everyone, including myself, have with it. I just thought it would have been treated with a little more analysis and less vitriol because it is not just another show to open in the West End. Believe you me Wicked is not a musical I would defend in the cannon the way I would A Chorus Line or Chicago or Follies or Company or Sunday in the Park… or Falsettoland or Chess even. I don’t even know where it falls with regard to the shows I would most want with me on a deserted island. I just think…and here’s an original line …attention must be paid.

[FoscasBohemianDream]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 2:56pm

I agree with best12bars, my problem with the reviews is that they are criticizing the story itself (the Maguire story) I wonder if this is because as presented by Holzman it loses its appeal. I'm intrigued to see Miriam Margolyes' Morrible, she has been singled out in all the reviews I have read so far as the best thing in the show (she must be giving quite a star turn, I always thought the role was too underwritten for anyone to leave much of an impression).

[swerve]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 3:24pm

More positive:
https://www.theatre.com/story/id/3003910

The first glowing one I've seen:
https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=12542

...It has a lot to say about politics, about leadership and power; in our Bush-Blair world there seems to be some nicely ironic statements, about silencing those who speak out. And though it’s on an epic scale with huge sets, effects and costumes, thankfully Wicked maintains its integrity even when succumbing to spectacle – it still feels very intimate, and in a two thousand seater auditorium it’s incredible to feel such a rapt attention to the story, which is naturally very strong. There are few musicals in London that have such a pleasing narrative, that fulfils and maintains through a near three-hour show. Wicked clearly holds a strong affection for The Wizard of Oz, but can also stand alone as a brilliant piece of storytelling. That being said, it’s a great feeling to be able to piece the two stories together, a gimmick giving the theatregoer a warm rush of fulfillment at their own musical theatre knowledge.

The outstanding actress Idina Menzel, who created the role of Elphaba at the start of its three year life, has flown in from New York to give one of the best performances on a London stage – you’ll feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end as she rips her way through several blockbuster numbers. She effortlessly soars her way through a repertoire of belting songs; The Wizard and I - the first spine-tingling moment of the night, I’m Not That Girl – which though a complete plot hold-up, is a beautiful song, and then the, literally, soaring Act 1 finale Defying Gravity. We’re treated to more of her voice in Act 2; the belting numbers As Long As You’re Mine and No Good Deed before her finale duet For Good. But it’s not just her voice that captivates, it’s everything about her. She enchants the audience with such an excellently measured performance – a true star in the same league as Broadway’s best.

Having been overwhelmed by Kristin Chenoweth’s dazzling Broadway performance as Glinda – one I felt sure to win the Tony – it’s quite a shock to find a more subdued, polite actress in London, characteristics that unfortunately come from giving the character an English accent, which simply doesn’t work. Helen Dallimore may not have that natural comic time bomb the part demands, but she does have a beautiful voice, attractive appearance and highly proficient acting skills. Her character makes a mature personal journey and Dallimore confidently addresses this, making a clear transformation throughout. But Glinda is a very American creation, so it’s a shame she speaks with such a taut English voice – especially against Menzel’s natural American accent, it makes her seem uptight. Otherwise, an excellent West End debut (Dallimore is Australian).

In the supporting roles there’s much to enjoy with plenty of consistent cameos. Miriam Margoyles – though speaking her way through Madame Morrible’s already limited musical moments – is a real treat as the University professor, finding laughs where they ought to be but creating terror where terror is needed. I strongly suspect she will be a Best Supporting Actress nominee next year. Nigel Planer as The Wizard has two largely unmemorable songs, but for the brief moments he’s on stage he confidently handles his part and creates quite a warm-hearted, kind old Wizard. Adam Garcia as love interest Fiyero makes little impact thanks to his weakly written role - what exactly is the point of his character? He has little to work with and his English accent makes him sound very false – the part is so clearly American.

Unless you haven’t already grasped, accents are a problem in the London production. In order to achieve consistency with the film, we expect them to be American, but it’s obvious in places it was written that way as well; many of Glinda’s lines would be much better delivered in a dizzy American voice instead of with clear-cut English diction. Fantasy land may demand a suspension of disbelief anyway, but it’s confused by multiple accents; student Boq is Scottish, Elphaba American and her sister English! A reversion to all-American voices would be so much more pleasing I feel, and from speaking to those around me, it’s an opinion shared by many. The show is an obvious Broadway import, it’s hard to disguise it as English!

Nevertheless, this will do very well, I’m sure. Any niggles – relatively poor choreography, occasionally weak written characters - are easily cast aside. It’s a strong, family orientated musical and delves out an array of heartfelt messages too. The unlikely friendship between the Good Witch and the Wicked one has a never-ending curiosity for all ages and both sexes, which should therefore see audiences packing the theatre for years.

[Jwaa]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:08pm

lol english reviewers make me laugh....
because theyre soo oppionated and most of them have **** opinions....i would never go and see a show in london judged by someone elses mind...never....
id go find out for myself...and im sorry i dont think the thousands of adoring fans wo are gonna be pouring into that theatre every night are really gonna listen to it....so they might as well not bothered!
x

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:20pm

I really feel bad for the guy playing the Wizard. It seems like he is just getting picked apart.

[NewMusical]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:25pm

Umm, I was there and its was a great show.

However, I would be disappointed if i'd paid 55 pounds to see it, it wasn't worth that. Not when you can pay 10 to see Fame.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:30pm

"One review incorrectly credited Wayne Cilento with set design! I'm really surprised no one mentioned the weak choreography. I'm wondering if the London productions of "Avenue Q" and "Wicked" will be up against each other during awards time."

A lot of negative reviews of the show (both here and in London) have gotten many simple facts wrong. For example, in one of the London reviews, it says that the Wizard captured winged monkeys and in the US, a critic said that the first number celebrated the death of the Wicked Withc of the East and that No Good Deed was in the first act. While I can always respect different opinions, these reviews offer little justification for their bashing.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:32pm

English critics' opinions are crap because they don't like your beloved show? Kay.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:33pm

"English critics' opinions are crap because they don't like your beloved show? Kay."

Is this directed at me?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 4:37pm

No. Jwaa.

[DreamFlyer22]

Posted: 9/28/06 at 10:11pm

Honestly, I'd be shocked if these reviews WERE raves. I agree that it's grown in to myth that Wicked opened to outright pans, but it wasn't exactly a critic's darling in America either.

Wicked is a strange creature- while I won't say it's critic-proof, it has some pretty damn powerful shields from the fanbase. I think the Broadway production will run longer in the end, but I'm sure London will have a healthy run.

And on to the topic of the guy playing the Wizard for a moment here. I seem to recall the term "under-utilized" when Joel Grey played the part. I've gotta wonder if the criticism is as much about the character as the portrayal. If legend Grey hadn't originated the role in New York, I think the critical reaction to the character would have been the same as the reviews we're seeing coming out of London.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 2:05am

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I recall Stokes saying something that made a lot of sense about critics. Coming from an actor it seems pretty objective. He said 1 or 2 critics can have an opinion and you take it with a grain of salt. But if a group of critics mention the same things, well something's obviously wrong. I think thus is the case with Wicked. It's a monster success before most people have seen it. Now critics from 2 different countries with 2 different cultures, 2 different casts and 2 years difference have come up with a lot of the same conclusions...attention must be paid indeed.

[algy]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 7:58am

"I really feel bad for the guy playing the Wizard. It seems like he is just getting picked apart. "

That would be Nigel Planer. He's probably used to it by now - His first play was ripped to shreds by the critic, and he took some flack when he was in the OLC of WWRY.

Nugget from The Times this morning:

The former We Will Rock You star Nigel Planer is enjoying playing the Wizard in the new West End hit, Wicked. "We Will Rock You had big costumes and the look. This one has the story telling." Harsh. THe writer of WWRY is his close friend Ben Elton

I'm sure someone will have some thoughts on that!

[swerve]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 10:49am

Variety:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931728?categoryid=33&cs=1

By DAVID BENEDICT

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That, largely speaking, appears to be the mantra behind the London production of Broadway's celebrated record-breaker "Wicked." There have been tiny tweaks to Winnie Holzman's book, but the only people likely to notice are the show's devoted fans. Many were at opening night, screaming with happiness the moment the lights went down. But will this supremely American show make fans out of Brits not already in the know?
In terms of reception, history may repeat itself. This is, after all, a show that survived tepid reviews and went on to become Broadway's No. 1 draw.

Initial London reviews are lackluster, ranging from dutiful nods toward the production to grumpy dismissals. There's nothing London critics like less than being told they're sitting down to a Broadway triumph: It leaves them nothing to discover for themselves. Opening-night factions attempting to whip up an atmosphere by yelling their approval only raise critical hackles further.

The principle change to the show is aural: not to Stephen Schwartz's "American Idol"-ized score, which remains intact, but to the accents.

Message boards on theater Web sites have been enlivened by fans arguing over the virtues of the added English accents. Elphaba (Tony winner Idina Menzel, repeating her utterly committed perf) remains American, while Glinda is now English, or, rather, as English as Australian Helen Dallimore can get. Nigel Planer's Wizard is American, while Miriam Margolyes' stentorian Madame Morrible is English and don't you forget it.

In reality, it makes little difference because the show's storytelling has always been subsidiary to its power-balladeering. The overarching tone and concept remain robustly American in a politically correct celebration of difference beneath a heavy coating of universal appeal.

Visually, the show looks stronger than at the Gershwin because the proportions of the Apollo Victoria frame Eugene Lee's set better. The stage is less wide, and the design elements beyond the proscenium arch are built even further out along the walls of the auditorium. That's particularly useful in this, one of the U.K.'s largest houses. When Twyla Tharp's "Movin' Out" played (and died) here in the spring, the building's white walls made the atmosphere about as welcoming as an aircraft hangar. The "Wicked"-toned refurbishment -- hint: it's very green -- is a notable success.

The same cannot quite be said of all the cast, who perform with more gusto than grace. Dallimore had some pitch problems at the top of the show. At its considerable best, her voice has real soprano power, but it lacks the almost comic "ping" of Kristin Chenoweth, who created the role. She is so outclassed by Menzel that when they take the curtain call together you could sense disappointment because, rightly, the audience wanted to scream for Elphaba alone.

Planer looks horribly lost in the underwritten role of the Wizard; while Adam Garcia's Fiyero and James Gillan's Boq are efficient, neither makes much impact. But every awards judge will likely put Margolyes' magnificently ripe turn as Madam Morrible on top of their noms list for supporting performance in a musical.

London is snowed under with 19 tuners on the boards, with "Dirty Dancing," "Cabaret," "Caroline, or Change," "Porgy and Bess" and "The Sound of Music" all opening in the next six weeks. Whatever the "Wicked" detractors may say -- and, rumored healthy box office advances aside, there are plenty of them -- in terms of musical spectacle, "The Lion King" is its only London rival.

The major sticking point is that Oz, let alone Gregory Maguire's backstory novel, simply isn't the cultural touchstone here that it is in the U.S. The movie of "The Wizard of Oz" is well loved, but L. Frank Baum's books are little read. To succeed in the U.K., the producers are going to have to work hard to market the teen and family word of mouth that has made it such a well-branded property back home.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 11:00am

Mr. Benedict is right: the Brits like to discover hits for themselves, and this show has already been discovered by American audiences. I'm sure Caroline will receive glowing reviews, though.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/29/06 at 11:04am

"I mean, everyone who is supposed to be informed on theater hates this show, but it is a monster hit."

That is because as a general rule, those who believe themselves to be "informed on theater" usually believe they are supposed to put down shows that are created strictly for entertainment. But considering Broadway shows depend mostly on tourists, it is the popular entertainment that generally survives. Those who consider themselves "informed on theater" are in the minority.