Singin' in the Rain?

So, let me start by saying something that my fella would find abhorrent. Well. Ummm.

I don’t really like the theatre

“What?”
I don’t...really...like.... the theatre.


"Excuse me?"


I DON’T LIKE IT. ALRIGHT. I JUST....DON’T.

I am, unashamedly, a child of the television era. I like my drama realistic and the acting believable. I struggle to take seriously the rounded plumy booming voices, exaggerated facial expressions and dramatic flourishes used on the stage. They irritate me. I laugh, scornfully. Yeah, I’m a bit of a dick like that.

I’m also especially riled by musical theatre. I just cannot understand people who clamour to get tickets to The Lion King, and, frankly I’d rather get my bikini line waxed than be forced to endure the sheer horror of "We Will Rock You”

Musical theatre face - I want to kick each one of them in the nads.

Tell me that these faces don't annoy you.

I HATE QUEEN

Finally, I don’t think classic films should be remade (read: tampered with).

So, you may well wonder why I accepted the offer of free tickets for Singin’ in the Rain.

Well – it was free, there was a free drink included, I’d get to catch up with some pals and...well...I was really hoping for a chance to write a scathing blog post about how dreadful I thought it was. I wanted to have a good old moan about the acting, the poor costumes, how they has ruined a classic...

I’m so very annoyed. So very, very annoyed, because, bugger me sideways, I really enjoyed it.

Yes, it was hammy, but it was meant to be – it is a script about hammy actors. Yes, there was singing, but I know all the songs from the film anyway.

So, yes, I admit it. I enjoyed a play.

What did I like about it? Well, the dancing was excellent, obviously not as good as the original movie as Gene Kelly cannot be matched, but still very impressive. Scarlett Strallon (part of the seemingly ever growing clan of Strallon sisters in the West end – are they cloned in a lab somewhere) makes an great Kathy and has a lovely singing voice. The costumes weren’t half bad either – some a little too 1930s for 1927 and some a little too short (flappers didn’t wear miniskirts – sigh) – but overall pretty good. The rain effect was impressive too and I very much enjoyed sitting in the dress circle with a great view, watching the first few rows of the audience get soaking wet. Hehheheheheheh.

What I didn’t like – well the first half was long. Usually a long first half is a good thing as my interest tends to wane in the interval, but thanks to the free wine I started needing the toilet at about an hour in. Another 30 minutes or so later the rain scene started. Cue myself and about 90% of the audience wriggling and wiggling in discomfort. Not the greatest plan really.

Also, somewhat controversially given her rave reviews, I was not greatly enamoured of Katherine Kingsley’s turn as Lina Lamont – the silent movie actress who finds her career in tatters when it turns out she can’t sing and has a Brooklyn accented speaking voice that clashes with her elegant film star persona. She was too shrill, too cartoonish, the voice so overblown as to render it humourless by the time of her turn to sing “What’s Wrong with Me.”

Oh, and the sunglasses they had her wear at the start of the play were just....wrong.

These are 20’s sunglasses:

These are not:

Ah, the white Rayban, as worn by Bieber and Paris Hilton. 
Impossible to wear without looking like an arse.

So.  As much as it pains me to say it, its a great show.

Go and see it.  Really.

Harrumph.