Thought it would be nice to start a thread for fans to leave reviews once they've seen the show ;D . Typing my report up tonight!
Here's mine. Done in Word and attached and copied, so no smileys. Please read, enjoy, and comment........
Breakfast at Tiffany’s’: what do you think of the show so far?
So what is ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’?
‘It’s a movie,’ you all say. Sure, a romantic comedy about a sixties good time girl, played by eternal darling Audrey Hepburn (who gained an Oscar nomination for her effort) and a writer, played by George Peppard, whose performance only went to prove his suitability to play the lead in TV dross like ‘The A-Team’.
‘It’s a novella.’ It’s a what? Yes, it was originally a story written by Truman Capote. Who? He’s the guy played by Philip Seymour Hoffman in the 2005 movie – strange guy, much acclaimed movie and Hoffman won the Oscar for Best Actor for his performance.
‘So what’s this thing going on at the Theatre Royal in Haymarket that our Anna Friel’s in then?’ It’s an adaptation of the novella – not the movie – adapted by Samuel Adamson and directed by Sean Mathias and designed by Anthony Ward. They’re famous, and successful, in the art of staging shows.
‘Is it any good? Is it worth fifty quid of my hard-earned cash?’ Ah, now that’s not quite such an easy one!
First off, the shows so far, of which I’ve seen two, are previews. The theatre world seems to have its own rule book and previews are shows staged for the paying public where the cast and director can practise the show, refine and improve and get it all together before the ‘First Night’, which for ‘Tiffany’s’, as they nickname it, is not until Tuesday 29th September. Until then the great and the good of the theatre critics’ union are not allowed to pass judgement. But as I’m not in their crowd, I can say what I think of the show so far!
You should know the basic plot, and if you don’t it’s adequately summed up on the show’s website and in all their blurb. The plot’s neither sophisticated, nor is it original, and plays only a modest part in determining the level of the audience’s enjoyment of the show. The key word is ‘show’. It’s supposed to be entertainment.
Is it shocking? Is it visually or audibly stunning? Does it make you laugh? Does it make you cry? Do you care about what happens at the end? Do you like (or hate) the characters? Is there any goddamn emotion?
Much has been made by the theatre of the ‘darker’ edge of the show, as against the softer movie adaptation, but things have moved on a lot since the sixties and the idea of a gorgeous and lively girl using her sexual attractiveness in a pretty mercenary way for pecuniary advantage at the expense of true love should not shock any of us, particularly fans of the leading lady who saw her latest, and excellent, British TV outing.
Much has been made by the tabloids of the nudity in the show. Both leads have their parts in the spotlights for short, but interesting moments, purely for the sake of their art, of course. If that shocks you, then you do need to get out and see some shows! If it entertains you, well join the club. If it’s the only reason you want to see the show, well go to a lap dancing club instead.
So, is it shocking? Not in my book. Does that matter to me? No.
If you’ve seen the documentary series on the making of the show, you’ll appreciate the complexities and size of the set. Two huge three-storey steel fire escapes frame the large stage and link the main stage floor with a mezzanine upper stage on which some of the scenes are played out. The fire escapes move in and out and go round and round, sometimes at the same time, and sometimes while the cast are moving about on them – all without a safety net, or even a high visibility jacket.
Key items of furniture – beds, tables, even a bath tub pinched by Anna Friel from the set of ‘Bathory’, are wheeled on and off stage by US services personnel on home leave. There are various backdrops to depict the New York skyline and to advise the audience of the prevailing weather conditions and hour of day. Additionally even to that, Anna pops up from a trap door in front of stage to sing us a song on a couple of occasions.
The fire escapes are nicely used to provide separate locations from the main scenes – to listen in on both sides of telephone conversations for instance - and at times there’s snappy dialogue buzzing from stage floor to mezzanine and around the various levels of the fire escapes. This can be sharp and sparky when the timing’s right, which it often was.
There’s some dancing, which was much crisper on the second show I saw, and I could have done with a bit more to be honest. Anna’s a graceful and sexy dancer with her shapely legs and Minoguesque derriere, which she shows off to excellent effect throughout the show. It’s a big stage and movement can help fill it and when done in context; a party girl flirting with her quarry. I thought it was good fun.
If you’re looking for pyrotechnics and special effects, try a different show. You need your imagination switched on here, especially for the outdoor scenes. I liked most of them, as they usually involved the leading couple and contained some of the best lines in the show, though the horse riding through Central Park needs Anna’s full energy to distract you from the absurdity of the scene. They also need to put bigger batteries in the sail boat that falteringly passes behind Anna during one of her songs and had to be rescued from the doldrums by a poorly camouflaged stage hand.
The lighting’s cool, as I would expect from a top notch West End theatre, and overall I would say yes, it is a visually stunning show, and I haven’t even talked about the main star yet!
So what about the sound? This is quite a challenge for the cast. The stage is on two levels, more if you count the floors on the fire escapes, and the audience is seated on four levels. Add to that, the mezzanine stage being at the back of the main stage means there are considerable acoustic barriers. The show is at its best acoustically during the showy bits, the quick fire reposts given by Holly to the predatory press after her arrest, the shouting matches between Holly and William, the loud party scenes, and especially Anna’s wonderful, piercing scream when Holly hears of Fred’s tragic demise. Yes, there are lots of these good bits.
The quieter, more thoughtful scenes are more difficult. The sound of the voices, especially Anna’s, can lose volume and therefore impact, especially in the second half of the show where the relationship between Holly and William develops its intimacy. Shouting out the lines would reduce their subtlety and yet not being able to hear at all negates their meaning!
For most scenes on the main stage the sound from the stalls was sharper and clearer, but the sound from the mezzanine floor was better from the Royal Circle.
And, of course, Anna sings a few songs to her own guitar and you want to know what that was like. Well, the songs are lovely, award winning songs from the movie, and Anna has a sweet, if not powerful, singing voice. I was enchanted, but then I would be.
There’s loads of humour in the show. Laugh out loud humour at that. There are some great interventions by Suzanne Bertish as the extrovert Madame Spanella who despises the ‘whore’ in the next apartment, roller skates unsteadily across the stage and tries repeatedly and unsuccessfully to seduce William with her filet mignon.
There are other very funny exchanges, notably between Holly and her female rivals, but also some crackling dialogue between Holly and William and some visual gags that border on farce. Anna showed off her comic timing much better in the second show I saw. Increased familiarity with the script and choreography has surely left her free to hone the finer points of the comedic elements of the show.
Overall I found it great fun.
So finally, we get to the performances. Well, if Anna Friel was a newsreader I’d sit transfixed watching reports of the end of the world, so I’ll leave her to last.
The supporting cast range from the bland to the eccentric, which is probably how they’re supposed to be. Holly’s various ‘rats’ are generally portrayed as spineless, stupid, self-obsessed, and rich – and unworthy of the attention Holly gives them. As such, they are peripheral to the show’s entertainment value, as is the character of Holly’s husband Doc, who comes and goes almost unnoticed.
Other characters include the familiar figure of James Dreyfus, who has little to so, but he injects some energy and flamboyance into the show at just the right time. The aforementioned Suzanne Bertish performs the same service more frequently with added humour and Natalie Klamar less frequently with reduced impact. These characters really need to be on top form to relieve the two main stars of the need to carry every scene.
Apart from the leading couple, there were two other stars of the show. Jasper, the ginger cat with no name, never fluffed his lines and looked perfectly at ease when hugged tight to Anna’s bosom when many hearts would be pounding out loud. He gained an emotive response from the audience whenever he appeared.
The other was Dermot Crowley’s understated performance as Joe Bell the bartender around whom the whole story unravels. He is everyone’s dependable friend, a rock of Gibraltar in a stormy sea of turmoil, whose every word is a wise one. I found his performance in the final scene really moving, even on second viewing.
So, to the two names atop the bill.
Joe Cross is not an actor with whose work I’m familiar, though I have heard of ‘Milk’ and ‘Flags of our Fathers’ and understand they have been well received by critics and audiences. The first performance I saw of ‘Tiffany’s’ did not lead me to believe he had been well-cast. His performance did not really gel with that of Anna and he was not sufficiently different to Holly’s ‘rats’ to persuade me that he was worthy of her true love.
My take on the story is that William starts as a naïve, but morally sound and attractive young man who meets Holly and gets to know her. He finds her attractive, but cannot come to terms with her amorality – promiscuity, gold-digging, thieving etc. As he spends more time with her he begins to see through her faults, come to terms with her failings and so fall in love with her.
But that’s the easy bit. The element that really matters is that Holly has to love him back. That is the crux of the denouement of the story. There must be qualities that Holly grows to recognise in William that persuade her to consider choosing him over richer men.
In the first performance I saw, Joe didn’t convince me that Holly would fall in love with his William.
However, in the second performance a week later things have moved on, and very positively. The relationship between William and Holly was much more developed in the second half of the show. I think the two actors have grown more comfortable with each other as well as their parts, and the storyline was thus much more believable and engaging. Holly had a genuine choice to make.
The performance of Joe is vital to the success of the show, because………
Anna Friel, is well, Anna Friel. Who wouldn’t fall in love with Holly if she is played by Anna Friel?
Anna has taken on a huge challenge with this part. She is in almost every scene, very often as the principal character in the scene. She’s on the mezzanine stage, she’s up and down the fire escapes, she pops out of a trap door, she plays guitar, she sings songs, she dances quick, she dances slow, she screams, she shouts, she laughs and she cries.
I just can’t believe they brought on that bath tub and then didn’t put her in it – she always does a bath tub scene!
You know with Anna what you get. You get her all.
The first show I saw, at the end of an exhausting week for her, wore me out to watch her.
The second show showed she had recovered her energy. Her voice was stronger, particularly in the first half, her dancing was crisper, her steps had her familiar spring and vitality. She was cheeky, sassy, sexy and superb.
Anna plays Holly as I expected her to play Holly, and very convincingly too. She’s outwardly super-confident, always winning the sniping exchanges and having the last word. She’s single-minded, scheming and ruthless in her pursuit of her goals. She is blind to her own amorality, and that of others, and unappreciative of the qualities of those who care for her. When things go wrong, which they do, she gladly accepts the help of others when offered, and then shakes off her troubles along with their love and moves remorselessly on. And yet, is there just that hint of vulnerability that will give William his chance?
And, of course, Anna looks sensational. Forget the poster, Anna wears a shoulder length blonde wig for most of the show, changing to a short-cut, very blonde wig towards the end – very, very cute. You must have seen the pictures.
Anna wears a variety of costumes, even changing on stage on some occasions, and she always has a strong visual presence on stage, even in the few scenes when she’s not directly in the action.
Sure, you can be picky about Anna’s performance. She’s not a professional singer, so don’t expect soprano singing, but enjoy her sweet voice. She’s not a professional guitar player, but accept the few notes she strums as sufficient accompaniment. She not a professional dancer, but revel in the sway of her hips and the grace of her fairy-light steps as she flits effortlessly across the stage.
Anna is a professional actress and a maturing, developing actress with a growing reputation for sensitive and engaging performances in serious and less serious drama. I think she shows these qualities very well in this show. She combines the subtleties she has learnt through excellent TV work with the flamboyance and showmanship she needs to fill a huge stage with her personality. The show comes alive when Anna takes over the narration (when William falls off his horse!) as her energy and enthusiasm soak through the whole theatre and saturate the audience. She can’t do it on her own for two and a half hours, and that’s why the supporting cast, and especially Joe, need to be razor sharp and larger than life.
I do hope the critics appreciate all the great things about Anna’s performance and the show in general. Above all, it really is a lot of fun and it will continue to improve as the words and actions become naturally learnt and the cast can concentrate their efforts on adding those tiny refinements that make the audience’s experience just that little bit more special.
So, to answer that question from so long ago – is it any good?
The facts are these (as someone used to say rather too often):
• For £50 you get half an hour of sex with Anna Friel’s single mum prostitute from ‘The Street’
• For $50 for the powder room you get Anna Friel’s Holly Golightly from ‘Breakfast in Tiffany’s’
But in the real world, for £50 you get two and a half hours of Anna Friel, and others, to entertain you – to make you laugh, to make you cry, and maybe to make you horny as hell!
So my advice –
Get your tickets in the stalls, row F, seat 9 would be just about the best possible, but anywhere fairly close to that and you’ll have a great viewing and listening position. The Royal Circle is next best, front middle being the best spot up there.
Take someone with you that you care for and with whom you won’t be ashamed to laugh and cry! Thanks, Amanda.
Attachments:
!!