April 2010

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2010.

Why staged concept albums are better than (and different to) jukebox musicals

April 29, 2010 in General, Social Media | 5 comments

I’ve been issued a challenge.

Last night over dinner I mentioned to my fiancé my excitement over the cast recording of American Idiot coming out in May. Yes, I am that sad. I then went on to explain exactly what American Idiot was, ie a staged version of two of Green Day’s albums.

You can imagine how exciting it is living with me.

For some reason, a wry smile appeared on her face. Knowing my disdain for jukebox musicals, she commented ‘but isn’t that a jukebox musical…’ I protested, making it clear that American Idiot was originally a concept album, and therefore this is just a staged version of a concept album, just like Chess or Jon English’s Paris… Ok, so not all concept albums deserve to be staged, but they sure aren’t jukebox musicals. Thus, a challenge was issued.

Prove that staged concept albums are better than, deserve more appreciation, and are ultimately different to jukebox musicals.

Easy.

First off, the definitions. A jukebox musical, according to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, “is a stage or film musical that uses previously released popular songs as its musical score.” Jukebox musicals have recently become a plague hit on Broadway and the West End, with shows such as Mamma Mia, Priscilla: Queen of the Desert and Jersey Boys taking other people’s songs, placing them within the show and raking in the money.

Wikipedia also, incorrectly, includes American Idiot on it’s list of jukebox musicals.

Jukebox musicals use previously released popular songs within the context of their plot. That is, they take a song out of it’s original context and give it new meaning within the story of their show. Sure, some could argue that shows such as Buddy, Dusty or Jersey Boys don’t fit within this classification due to the fact that the songs are being performed as part of the artists story. However, I would still argue that they are jukebox musicals, due to the fact that the songs weren’t originally intended to fit as a reference to that artist’s life. They were released as pop songs, devoid of context within a story.

Now we come to American Idiot.

American Idiot was released by Green Day in 2004 as a concept album. The songs follow a narrative based around the story of Jesus of Suburbia.

Green Day’s most recent release is another concept album called ‘21st Century Breakdown.’ The songs also follow a narrative.

American Idiot is also a musical that just premiered on Broadway. American Idiot, the musical, is an amalgamation of the American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown storylines into one story. That is, the songs that are used within the show, with the exception of the curtain call, are all used in their original context, fitting into the storyline that they were written for.

This, to me, is the fundamental difference between a jukebox musical and a stage concept album. Why do I think the latter is better than the former? Mostly due to the fact that the songs were written and intended for a narrative. Writing for musical theatre, or cabaret for that matter, is a very different beast to writing a pop song. Concept albums flirt with the line a little, but generally fall into the musical side of the fence, due to the fact that these songs are written to progress a story. They don’t need to be altered or played with very much because that element already exists within the song. Jukebox musicals, however, usually need to alter the source material slightly to make it relevant to the story. Quite often, due to the fairly strict Verse/Chorus/Verse/Chorus format of most pop songs, when they are appropriated to the stage they seem slightly naff. A show like Priscilla works for this reason. They don’t want, or need, to provide deep emotional connection through the songs, but simply need to entertain.

Actually, I think most jukebox musicals can be summed up in that last statement.

I get quite snobbish when I get on the subject of jukebox musicals, but I seem to prefer songs within musicals when they were written specifically for the musical/story.

If you think otherwise (and you probably do) then comment.

Convince me otherwise.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Review: The Rap Guide to Evolution

April 27, 2010 in Review, Theatre | 3 comments

The Rap Guide to Evolution is the brainchild of Baba Brinkman, a white, middle class man from Vancouver. It came about when he was touring his previous show, The Rap Canterbury Tales (i’m not making this up), and he was approached by a professor involved in the Darwin Festival last year. He asked him to “do for Darwin what you did for Chaucer.” That is, to create a show that is part standup, part spoken word piece and part biology lesson.

I managed to get tickets for free for this show at Greenwich Theatre and had no idea what to expect. I knew nothing about the performer and thought that the subject matter was a little precarious. I also assumed that whilst the title mentions evolution, the show would work around the themes mentioned in the title, and wouldn’t focus on the science. How could anyone possibly think of doing a rap piece that centres entirely on science?

Oh, how I was wrong.

The Rap Guide to Evolution is ostensibly an hour long spoken word piece that takes the audience through not only the main topics covered in Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, but also the conflicting viewpoints of other biologists, covering topics such as sexual selection, evolutionary psychology and survival of the fittest. Brinkman presents these theories, often likening them to the evolution of rap music, and manages to do so in a highly entertaining way. None of the content is dumbed down, and yet the entire show is completely accessible to anyone with an open mind.

As a performer, Brinkman deserves the highest accolades. His delivery and comic timing were perfect, and more importantly, he came across as an expert on the subject material when it would seem that the only knowledge of it he had was from the research he did for this show. However, he did have help writing it. In fact, he mentions in his show that the entire show is plagiarised from the works of Darwin, Pallen, Diamond, Dawkins et al, and that there are only two original thoughts in the show: his theory of evolution as ‘performance, feedback, revision’, and his message to the people… ‘don’t sleep with mean people.’ Also, he seemed to have had some help from a professor in checking the scientific accuracy of his work, which could possibly mean that this is the first peer-reviewed rap show ever written.

Overall, The Rap Guide to Evolution was a surprising show. Brinkman manages to make concepts that are complex and rather dense easy to swallow through his rhymes. It’s not the first time I’ve seen spoken word and science meet, thanks to @phatmattbaker at Ignite last year, and after seeing a second brilliant example, I hope it’s not the last.

After Darwin and Chaucer, where to now? I would personally like to see the rap guide to economics.

The Rap Guide to Evolution played at the Greenwich Theatre on 26 April. Check here for where it is next playing.

Tags: , , ,

Review (of sorts): Ballet Shoes

April 26, 2010 in dance, Theatre | 2 comments

Ballet Shoes, if you didn’t know, is an extremely popular book amongst young British girls from the 1930s. It tells the story of three young orphans who have been picked up on an explorer’s travels and sent to live in his house in London. Throughout the book they learn to sing, dance and act so they can earn money as performers to support the household. The title comes from the pair of ballet shoes that arrive with the youngest, Posy. It’s a story I had never heard of until coming into this country. Reluctant to read it after having it forcibly thrust into my hands by my fiancé, I instead had it read to me, as I just couldn’t picture it with my antipodean accent in my head and instead needed a true Brit to read it to me (my best excuse yet).

Surprisingly, I really enjoyed the book. It’s witty and light, and the pace is perfect for children, never dwelling on any event too long. This is why I got rather excited when said fiancé secured tickets to a staging of Ballet Shoes by Sadler’s Wells and the London Children’s Ballet (LCB). I assumed I’d be witnessing a play with dancing and music. I assumed wrong. Instead I witnessed a ballet based on the story, performed entirely by children between the ages of 9 to 15. After recovering from the initial shock and slight disappointment (the entire story isn’t about ballet), I became quite confused. I have endeavoured to review every piece of theatre, dance and cabaret I see on stage in London. I’ve so far failed twice, once with Hairspray, due to laziness, and Every Good Boy Deserves Favour, due to seeing the final performance. However, I feel slightly at odds reviewing a piece that only contains children. How can I compare the work of 30 odd children to seasoned west end performers? Instead this is a psuedo-review. What that means exactly, I’m not sure, but it puts my conscience at rest.

This is the second time LCB, having commissioned and staged the ballet in 2001. The show suffers slightly as a ballet, as the whole story isn’t about ballet and therefore one of the characters becomes the focus. Also, the dialogue in the book is brilliant and witty and would work well staged. However, despite this I thoroughly enjoyed this show. Everythe bal dancer on stage was a pleasure to watch, and there was some truly exceptional talent amongst the cast. It’s surprising to read in the program that only 50% of LCB performers go on to pursue professional dance or theatre, with 25% not even retaining dance as a hobby. I always find it a shame to see talent like that wasted, usually due to a career in arts not being seen as a serious career.

There were some exceptional performers amongst a very strong cast. The three girls who play Pauline (Laura Croom), Petrova (Lowri Shone) and Posy (Maria Gregory) were all very good dancers. Surprisingly, it was Shone, as Petrova, who was the standout of the three. In the book, Petrova is the one girl who doesn’t excel, prefering cars and aeroplanes. However, to say she was the best dancer is like picking your favourite member of the Rat Pack. They were all very good, with perfect characterisation for each girl. The other two standouts for me were the young men who played Mr Simpson (Ben Radford) and the Stage Manager. Both were exquisite to watch, with immense talent, something that was made more apparent with the gorgeous pieces of choregraphy they were given. Really, there were only one or two dancers with parts who weren’t up to the same standard as the rest of the company. Even then, these were still extremely talented dancers, especially given their age.

The fact that this show was included in the Sadler’s Wells season is a testament to the talent of these youngsters. However, it’s heartening to see a major dance company like Sadler’s Wells work with a company like LCB. Not enough large theatre companies are supporting youth arts initiatives such as this and puting them in seasons amongst the best performers in their field.

Ballet Shoes played at the Peacock Theatre from 22-25 April.

Tags: , , ,

Review: Women Beware Women

April 21, 2010 in Review, Theatre | No comments

Thomas Middleton was one of Shakespeare’s contemporaries. He wrote works for most major playhouses in London during the early 17th century. However, his name doesn’t conjure the same reaction as the bard. Most people when hearing his name would probably reply with ‘Thomas Who? Does he play for Chelsea?’ I would like to count myself as one of the few who actually know his name, but alas, I cannot. Before seeing Women Beware Women at the National Theatre, I had only seen his name in passing, not knowing him from any other playwright, or football player for that matter.

There is possibly a reason for this.

Women Beware Women is a flawed piece (that seems to be my motto recently). I overheard somebody saying after the show that it was amazing how a show that is so overblown can be so under written. This is a fair statement. This production clocks in at almost three and a half hours, with enough action to comfortably fill ninety minutes.

Women Beware Women is a confused piece of work that centres around a social group of characters in Florence. Leantio, a poor banker’s clerk, has married Bianca, an heiress from Venice. Soon after the wedding, Leantio is called back to his business and leaves his wife in the care of his mother. Meanwhile, Isabella has been promised to Guardiano’s Ward by her father Fabritio. However, Isabella’s uncle, Hippolito, is in love with Isabella and confesses this to her sister Livia, who then conspires to bring them together. Confused? This is only the first two scenes…

What transpires is worthy of a Jerry Springer episode, with rape, betrayal, incest and murder. This culminates into a climax that leaves your head spinning and asking exactly what just happened. Unfortunately, this climax comes in 10 minutes at the end of 3 hours, and the questioning isn’t due to an unexpected twist or turn, but utter dumbfoundedness.

In saying that, Middleton does have a way with words. While his scenes tend to go on forever with very little progress, he certainly knows how to turn a phrase. His evocative dialogue is full of wit and substance, and his darker turns are close to immaculate. Bianca’s exchange with Guardiano after being effectively locked in a room for the Duke to do with her what he will is so full of malice, yet still maintains an air of propriety, and echoes some of the greats of this period. However, what Middleton seems to fail at is progressing the story, and creating scenes that make sense. The aforementioned climax of the play is nothing short of a pointless blood bath. It’s as if the author saw Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, liked how many people died at the end, then emulated with not much reasoning behind it. Also, the predominant theme is that women are the cause of all evil. However, a deeper reading of the text (and the programme) suggests that it is the men who cause these actions by treating the women as possessions and pets. Somehow, both of these readings merely come across as misogynistic.

In terms of this production, The National Theatre has yet again assembled a fine cast and thrown all the production values they could at a less than perfect play. The entire cast did an admirable job with a sluggish play. However, there were some who stood out above others. In general, the three women at the centre of the play, Bianca (Lauren O’Neill), Livia (Harriet Walter) and Isabella (Vanessa Kirby), were incredibly strong. O’Neill’s darker moments during the first act brought a beautiful sense of malice to the character. Walter shone as the controlling matriarch who loses it all in the end. Out of the men, Hippolito (Raymond Coulthard), Ward (Harry Melling) and Laentio (Samuel Barnett), were the standout performers. Barnett made Laentio by far the most likable characters in the show. His wit and bumbling charm served the character perfectly, and made you feel for him, even when his actions aren’t always pure. Melling is a brilliant comic actor. Having only ever seen him as Dudley Dursley in the Harry Potter films, he is a revelation. He completely steals every scene he is in.

At just under three and a half hours, Women Beware Women isn’t an easy watch. However, if you have a penchant for Jacobean drama and want to see one of the lesser appreciated playwrights, then have a look at Women Beware Women.

Just remember, Middleton is no Shakespeare.

Women Beware Women is playing at the National Theatre until July 4.

Tags: , , ,

Neglected Musicals – Evil Dead: The Musical

April 20, 2010 in Neglected Musicals, Theatre | No comments

Based on the cult 80s schlock horror films by Sam Raimi, better known for the recent Spiderman trilogy, Evil Dead: The Musical was a chance find. A friend of mine has a penchant for obscure musicals and classic flops. He was also the man to introduce me to the biggest flop of all time, Carrie, surprisingly also based on a cult horror movie.

Evil Dead: The Musical is a tongue in cheek musical that tells the story of a group of friends who go to a cabin in the woods for spring break. There they find the book of the dead, zombies show up, people get raped by trees and almost everyone dies. The original film was one of the first to truly combine horror and comedy, and the musical doesn’t so much take this a step further, but runs into the sunset wih it. Whilst including some of the best cheesy lines from the film, they’ve added in songs such as ‘what the fuck was that’, ‘ode to an accidental stabbing’ and ‘all the men in my life were killed by candarian demons.’

To boot, most productions regard the first few rows of audience as ‘splatter zone’ and hand out plastic ponchos due to the excessive amounts of stage blood that cover the audience. There are also only 10 actors to play a whole bunch of parts, and the ensuing madness echoes shows like Bat Boy or Silence!. Originally choreographed by Hinton Battle, more famous for his turn as Sweet in the cult Buffy episode, Once More With Feeling, the show features brilliantly funny dance routines, my personal favourite being ‘Do The Necronomicon‘, which should go down in history as the best choreography of all time (watch the video… Trust me).

And as icing on the cake, they had one of the best advertising campaigns I’ve ever seen. Check out these amazing posters lovably stolen from Neatorama…

I hope somebody brings Evil Dead: The Musical to London soon. Until then, have a listen to the cast recording on Grooveshark and check out some videos on YouTube.

Favourite moment: After the song ‘Bit Part Demon’, Ash’s response after using his shotgun ‘Now you’ll have a bit part… in HELL.’

Bonus: Fortuitously, I found this brilliant Ash shirt on FashionablyGeek. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.

Tags: , , ,

Review: last five years

April 17, 2010 in Review, Theatre | 2 comments

I think I’m in love. His name is Jason Robert Brown, and he is musical theatre’s savior.

A tad dramatic, and possibly influenced by the love-in that was Hair last week, but an apt statement after seeing The Last Five Years last Friday at the Barbican.

The Last Five Years is a two hander that sits somewhere between a song cycle and a musical. It premiered in Chicago in 2001 and then moved Off-Broadway in 2002, with two of the most talented performers I’ve ever seen (thanks to bootlegs). Norbert Leo Butz (better known as the original Fiyero in Wicked or Freddy in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels) and Sherie Rene Scott (original Amneris in Aida and Christine in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels) are, and will always be, one of the hardest acts to follow when it comes to this show, bringing bucketloads of talent, emotion and intelligence to a beautiful score by Mr Brown. It has been one of my favourite shows since I first found the original cast recording in 2005, and I’m always slightly apprehensive when seeing a production.

It tells the story of Jamie and Cathy, and the arc of their relationship over the course of five years. He is a writer, who has success with his latest book, and she is a struggling musical theatre actress. The show takes form as a song cycle, with small monologues linking some songs. The unique element of the story is that whilst Jamie’s story plays from their first meeting through to their last goodbye, her story starts at the end and moves backwards. This means that from the beginning you are aware that they are doomed. What makes the rest interesting is finding out why. It’s an intense, emotional and very real look at relationships, which makes sense considering it’s loosely based on the composer’s relationship with his ex-wife. How loosely we don’t know, but considering he was forced to rewrite parts of the show, including replacing Jamie’s opening number, due to the reaction from said ex-wife, I’m not sure it was that loose an interpretation.

Before seeing this production at the Barbican, I have seen the show twice before. One I enjoyed immensely, with one of my favourite directors in Sydney who deserves to be directing professionally. The other I did not. There are two problems with this show. One, it is very difficult to interpret this show in any way other than the author’s intention without messing it up, and two, it is a rather difficult piece that requires two strong actors who can sing the pants off of the score, which is no mean feat. The range, control and tone that is required to sustain a 90 minute performance with no breaks and actually make the audience enjoy it is a rather tall order, and it seems not all productions succeed in finding the right people.

All this being said, I thoroughly enjoyed this production. While not produced in the style that I would of chosen (something that plagues my opinion every time I see this show), the staging was thoughtful and intelligent. However, I did take issue with the fact that Jamie and Cathy interact throughout the entire show. This is a personal gripe that I have with directors who choose this interpretation. I think it detracts from the beautiful moment where the two meet in the middle, but the people who attended the show with me seemed to love it and I conceded in the end. The use of the cellist toward the end for Jamie’s heartbreaking ‘Nobody Needs to Know’ was inspired. Again, introducing another actor to the stage was not how this was written, but it completely changed the dynamic of the scene. In fact, it made me not only focus on Jamie’s problems and the situation he has been forced into, but also on the impact this was having on the other character on stage. When the song was finished, I’m fairly certain that there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. Apologies for the cliché.

Freddie Fox and Lily James are both students at Guildhall School of Music and Drama, and considering this, they did an extremely good job of bringing these characters to life. As Cathy, James managed well to perform what is one of the most challenging female roles in contemporary music theatre. Her tone is beautiful and warm, and while she struggles slightly with her upper register when belting, her quieter moments were extremely evocative, and often brought my fellow attendees to tears. She did suffer slightly from ‘stage school’ acting at times, but on the whole did an admirable job for a role that is extremely complex and layered with subtleties. Fox, as Jamie, is a fantastic actor. So good, in fact, that he manages to act his way out of most songs, choosing to speak-sing a lot of the songs. At first, this irritated me to no end, feeling like he was committing a crime against Brown’s score. However, his characterisation was so strong that despite this, I enjoyed every minute of his performance. his intensity, mixed with playfulness, shaped Jamie into a character I hadn’t seen him before, colouring him with a far wider spectrum of blacks, greys and whites than I had seen.  Also, when he did choose to sing his songs, he has a formidable voice and great control, the highlight of which being his heartbreaking rendition of Nobody Needs to Know.

However, what made the show were the flawless seven piece orchestra. They brought the music to life, often interacting with the actors through knowing winks, smiles and scowls, which worked perfectly.

I wish I could go back and see this before I knew about the show. If I could have unlistened to the music the three hundred thousand or so times I’ve already listened to it, I’m sure I would have found this to be the show of the season. Of the year. Of the decade.  However, what I did see was a very good production of an amazing show.

And by students, nonetheless.

The Last Five Years was playing at the Pit Theatre at the Barbican Centre from 12 – 16 April. Unfortunately it isn’t anymore.

Tags: , , , , ,

Review: Hair

April 14, 2010 in Review, Theatre | 4 comments

It seems that recently I’ve been in quite the quandry when it comes to shows. So far it’s been that the production is top notch, but the cast struggle with a bad script, or the cast aren’t too crash hot, but the production is just so darn fun that it makes it impossible to dislike it. I’ve been waiting for a peice of theatre to come along and knock my socks off with cast, production and the actual text itself. Sadly, I’m still waiting. However, I’m not exactly sure why.

Hair first premiered Off Broadway in 1967. It was an extremely controversial show, featuring foul language, drugs, sex, nudity and *gasp* rock and African American music. It was the perfect anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-everything theatrical masterpiece that blew everyone away. Critics seemed to love it, whilst state governments did not. Regional productions were cancelled due to the nudity and use of the American flag, and a bomb was even thrown at a theatre where Hair was showing. When it first played in London in 1968 it had a similar response. Critics loved it and it had a marked effect on London theatre, ostensibly stopping stage censorship. All this said, I just don’t really get it.

Hair, to me, is a vast collection of songs tied extremely loosely to a plot surrounding a commune of hippies and the vietnam war. Firstly, there seems to be no quality control around the songs themselves. Some songs are fantastic, while others barely warrant a listen. Secondly, most of te songs have little reason to be in the story, apart from being vaguely anti. The way these songs are presented are by turning a phrase and bursting into song, much like Godspell, which doesn’t do the musical any favours. However, this is what is often lauded as the brilliance of Hair. It breaks most theatrical and musical conventions. It has provided much fodder for academics to talk about the musical influences, the significance of particular scenes (the nude scene, especially), the sloppy style and every other aspect of the show and the performing of the show. Still, I just don’t feel the same things that other people seem to feel when they see this production.

That being said, this is the strongest cast I have ever seen on stage. Every single member of the tribe was an unbelievably strong singer and actor, and the movement and staging of the entire thing was flawless. The ‘leads,’ if you can call them that, were each perfectly suited to the role. Will Swenson as Berger was a force to be reckoned with. He dominates the stage as a kind of leader to the Tribe. He has an intensity and something bordering on rage bubbling beneath the surface that makes him absolutely electric to watch on stage. Gavin Creel as Claude and Caissie Levy as Sheila had two of the most impressive voices I’ve ever seen on stage. I have never seen anyone match the purity of both of these singers. Sasha Allen as Dionne was everything Dionne should be: a black powerhouse who could belt the roof off the theatre. Andrew Kober took the cake with a comic tour de force as both Dad and Margaret Mead. His comic acting was amazing and it was quite impressive how well he could seamlessly slip back in with the Tribe, having to constantly go between Tribe and ‘straight’ characters. All in all, the cast were amazing and instead of gushing over the entire cast, I shall leave it at that. I think it’s fairly clear why they chose to tour this cast with the production, as I don’t think I could have seen a better cast made of west-end performers.

Also, I think Hair is a show that performers can really appreciate. While I didn’t particularly like the show, I was wishing that I was onstage with the cast. It is a show where the cast are so united as a group and so immersed into their performances that it makes other performers jealous. RENT is another show where this seems to happen. Another incredibly flawed show that looks like an absolute joy to be in (which I got to experience first hand in Sydney). Another show that critics seemed to go mental for that I didn’t particularly get.

I did enjoy Hair. I just didn’t enjoy it as much as I feel I should have.

I guess some shows just aren’t for me.

Hair is playing at the Gielgud Theatre from 14 April. Check out their facebook page for cheap tickets!

Tags: , , , , ,

Review: Meow Meow in Beyond Glamour: The Absinthe Tour

April 6, 2010 in Cabaret, Review | 1 comment

Meow Meow has changed my life.

This didn’t happen last Thursday at the Soho Theatre, but about three years ago in Sydney when I last saw Beyond Glamour at the Sydney Opera House.

Meow Meow is the cabaret alter ego of Melissa Madden Gray, an Australian actress who occasionally pops up in Shakespeare and opera in Melbourne and around Australia. However, you would never know this, considering neither the actress nor the persona will talk of each other. Instead, Meow Meow tours the globe performing in some of the world’s most prestigious and well known cabaret venues, regularly appearing in La Clique and being courted by people like David Bowie and John Cameron Mitchell. She is a force to be reckoned with and I’ve been lucky enough to see her grace the Sydney Opera House stage no less than five times. She is not just a singer, or a performer, but an artist who can take songs and breathe new life and meaning into them, bending them to her will.

When I first saw Meow Meow in Beyond Glamour, she inspired me to perform. After seeing her show I was driven to find my own niche within the cabaret scene and perform the hell out of it. What eventually became of it was a 6 month weekly stint performing and producing cabaret in one of my favourite cabaret venues in Sydney. Such is the power of Meow Meow.

Beyond Glamour is a show that Meow Meow has been performing around the world for nigh on five years. However, upon witnessing it again in London, I wouldn’t have guessed it. Her chaotic style and pace keeps the material original, as she throws herself through a set list comprised of originals and classics in around half a dozen languages. Her manic delivery and banter makes the audience genuinely believe that everything is going wrong as she manages to use audience members in a way I have never seen a performer pull off. Constantly climbing through the crowd, abusing and controlling people and pulling off one of the finest crowd surfing moments in a sit-down theatre I think I will ever see, Meow Meow is possibly the most chaotic cabaret show you will see.

Musically, backed by the Emmy award winning composer/producer/pianist Lance Horne, Meow Meow’s velvetty vocals have never sounded better. As a chanteuse, she echoes the greats of a genre dominated by singers who are long dead, such as Marlene Deitrich, Lotte Lenye and Edith Piaf. Her rendition of songs such as Surabaya Johnny echo the greats, and yet are infused with so much character that she makes you believe they were written just for her. To boot, her songwriting abilities are quite impressive too. Although she only performs one or two in this show, her songs sound like cabaret standards that have stood the test of time. She slots so easily into the genre, and then dominates it with a personality that is bigger than any other performer out there.

I hope she brings her other shows, such as Vamp and Meow to the World: Crisis is Born, to the London stage soon. Whilst Beyond Glamour still holds a place in my heart, affectionately dubbed by a colleague in Sydney as ‘the show where she can’t finish one fucking song,’ when Meow Meow gets into full swing she can produce shows that can no longer be seen as cabaret, but full blown classic theatre. With Beyond Glamour, Meow Meow is merely establishing herself as the best cabaret artist the world has to offer. Not bad for something that isn’t even her best work.

In fact, she’s made me start planning my cabaret again…

Beyond Glamour: The Absinthe Tour is playing at Soho Theatre until April 10.

Tags: , , , ,