Wicked – ‘orrible

Wednesday 18 October 2006

Wicked maskPhil has always wanted to use the word “behemoth” in a review and at last an opportunity presented itself last night when West End Whingers put the cork in the bottle and subjected themselves to three very long hours of the broadway import Wicked.

The good news? Idina Menzel’s performance as Elphaba is strong despite having performed her role hundreds of times after which the dialogue and songs must have worn very thin; Andrew and Phil were finding them threadbare by the end of Act 1.

Oh, and there’s one good joke. But that’s the last kind remark you’ll be hearing from us today.

For a musical comedy it doesn’t have much in the way of music and it takes itself very seriously.

Wicked posterIn case you don’t know, this is an imagined prequel to the Wizard of Oz (whose charms and tunes Andrew – not previously a huge fan – yearned for). It tells (rather laboriously) the story of how the Glinda and Ephaba respectively became the good and evil witches. Or didn’t. They were both terribly misunderstood.

The music is and lyrics by Stpehen Schwartz (Godspell, Children of Eden) is dreadful and the orchestrations smack of rock opera inclinations which put Andrew in mind of the appalling Rent, as did the applause of the uncritical audience before every song. It just sounded like a bad rock concert – over-amplified and swamping the singers.

In fact, from our seats the sound mix was so appalling we couldn’t hear a word the chorus was singing, and precious little else. Probably a blessing.

Phil felt it was less of a show than a behemoth (see) – it’s big and overblown. Strangely, although the production looks expensive there’s not much “wow factor” and WEW came away feeling that investing a little less money and a little more imagination would have paid dividends.

Andrew felt it was one of those occasions when you can see your money up there on the stage, but wish that they had spent it more wisely.

Phil might have been able to see his money up there on the stage, but from his seat in side block C of the stalls, half of the rear of the stage was obscured by the vast mechanical construction that adorns the proscenium.

This was compounded by bad blocking which plonked performers too near the front, frequently obscuring the action futher up-stage. Apparently there was a lion puppet in a cage at some point but Phil saw none of it. He was also flummoxed when a Tin Man appeared on stage without any apparent explanation, Phil’s line of sight ensuring that he missed a key transformation scene.

As for performances: Menzel put her all into it (but you would think that by now someone would have pointed out that her green make up stops halfway ‘tween wrist and elbow); Miriam Margolyes as Madame Morrible is wasted; Nigel Planer makes so little impact as the Wizard he could have stayed at home; Adam Garcia works his way through it with very little to build on apart from prosthetic buttocks (we don’t know why either); Helen Dallimore as Glinda is passable, but lacks the charm needed to overcome the monstrousness of her teenage high school character. Perhaps a few lessons from Alicia Silverstone who pulled that particular coup off in Clueless would have helped.

We weren’t even sure quite who this show is aimed at. Not us. Kids? WEW were thankful that there were few in evidence at the beautiful barn of a theatre the Apollo Victoria Theatre.

By the interval, Andrew was close to leaving, but WEW stuck it out. By the end, Phil was close to tears. A woman near him did sob at the end, but for quite different reasons.

And £6 for a programme? It’s called a “souvenir programme” but isn’t every programme a souvenir? And whats wrong with an ordinary one? £55 for seats from which we couldn’t see plus another six quid to find out the titles of the songs we couldn’t hear – no wonder it’s called Wicked.

Pay no attention to that show behind the curtain!

5 Responses to “Wicked – ‘orrible”

  1. DaveC Says:

    Sorry to hear that some people had bad seats for this with obstructed views, but how can more seats be a consolation?

    Sitting through this show once was an endurance test for me but seeing it twice would be absolute torture

    I found the music in this show so uninspiring and bland that it didn’t matter how much effort the cast made, it was just dull. Visually, it dazzles, but a musical with bad music is never going to redeem itself, no matter how spectacular the sets & lighting

    I did enjoy the story – the glimpses of the Wizard of Oz tale unfolding in the background and the unexpected twists – but that was scant consolation during hours of turgid songs

    This show doesn’t defy gravity – it defies belief!

    (Then again, aside from Colours of the Wind, when did Stephen Schwartz ever write a good song? The Bakers Wife, Children of Eden, Hunchback of Notre Dame anyone? I guess we should’ve seen this one coming)

  2. william Says:

    This is an appauling review!
    you have focused on everything that YOU saw wrong in it, could you not have picked out some good things from it, like when she flew, the dragon, the wizards head, the virtual rain, the great story line, the great idea, i could go on. Why didnt you add any of this stuff? I would like a reply, co’s this is an awful review, even i could do better.
    The program is so expensive becuase its of such high quality! its made of card and full of beautiful pictures.
    So please review wicked again, including its good points.
    Thankyou

  3. The Spirit of Julie Walters Says:

    Couldn’t disagree more. The show is good fun, the score is easy to listen to (though I do agree that whoever’s on the soundboard at the Apollo Victoria should be fired; they seem to keep the orchestra quiet during the instrumental bits [so there’s absolutely no oomph cause you can barely hear it!], and pump it up when the chorus are singing so they get drowned out!), you see your money onstage, it’s an innovative idea and it entertains plenty of people, and isn’t that what theatre is about? Huzzah for undemanding, middlebrow entertainment! Long may it live! Long may it irritate the sh!t out of the cynics!

    And ‘william’ please don’t accuse a review of being “appalling” (that’s how the word is actually spelt btw) just because you disagree with it. This is a clear and cohesive review and, whilst I may disagree with it as much as you do, I can tell it is not appalling in any sense of the word. They clearly state why they did not enjoy the show very specifically. That’s all a reviewer has to do. Have you ever thought that the reason they didn’t mention the flying, the Wizard’s Head and the Dragon (which actually all fall under the umbrella of “Set Design”) because they DIDN’T like those aspects? Just because you liked it doesn’t mean it’s “good” (nor, of course, does it mean it’s “bad”).

    Now these reviewers may have high levels of pretension and vitriol fuelling their reviews, but their reviews are very well written and they have every right to voice their opinion.


  4. […] Too Close To Th…jmc on Review – Too Close To Th…Review – Too C… on Wicked – ‘orr…Andrew (a west end w… on Picture post: recycling at the…Mark Shenton on Picture post: […]

  5. Jane Says:

    Blimey, when I wrote to the theatre after seeing the show in 2008 and told them I couldn’t see half the action from my top-priced seat, they acted surprised. Yet it had obviously been mentioned to them before. More than once. Luckily they didn’t send me free tickets.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s