When: 10th October (Matinee)
Where: Piccadilly Theatre, London
Writer: John Logan
Director: Alex Timbers
Moulin Rouge is one of my favourite films, and whilst I was excited to see it transferred onto the stage there was also a lot at stake. Adapting a fan-favourite can come with a lot of backlash, and while yes, there are changes in this production that I found confusing and frustrating, overall I really enjoyed watching it.
I think the biggest way in which this production of Moulin Rouge gets around backlash and anger from movie lovers is through the ways that it harnesses the techniques of theatre that are not present in film. It allows audiences to experience the story in a new way and makes it feel less like its trying to recreate and more like its trying to build on what the film started. It proves this in a number of ways but most notably through its use of immersive experience. From the moment you step into the theatre you can tell that this is about the experience, then stepping into the auditorium you are immediately transported into The Moulin Rouge. Unlike most productions, for this show the entire auditorium is decked out in red curtains, chandeliers, bright lights, a windmill and a giant elephant. Its in its use of the extravagant that this production finds its self in the West End, it's a spectacle from start to end (for better or worse).
Not only is this immersivity brought to life through the stage design but its woven into the script. Harold Zidlers character becomes the bridge between the audience and the story, addressing the audience as if we are the patrons of The Moulin Rouge. I think this is a really interesting change, whilst it is perfect for the spectacle and experience that the production aims to create sometimes it feels as though the story comes secondary to it. The production ends up coming from Zidlers point of view instead of Christians, as it is in the film, causing the placement of the audience to become lost when we leave The Moulin Rouge, as it changes our position in the story. I do think the shift of perspective to have us experience what it is like to be in the Moulin Rouge is a brilliant use of theatre, however it provides challenges for the story which should lie at the heart of the production.
It's very hard to analyse this production without comparing it to the film it is based on. Many changes have been made from the original film, many of which had a drastic impact of the overall feeling of the story. So much of the joy of the film comes from Baz Luhrmann's directing, each shot is specifically choreographed and everything has a sense of awe and wonder to it, not to mention the heightened sound effects put on in post. Its the direction that makes what is essentially a tragic and somewhat realistic love story feel fantastical. Many of the techniques he uses to do this aren't present in theatre, Luhrmann uses the form of film to support his story in the same way the show uses theatre. Therefore I understand why it was impossible to recreate, but with it missing, the story lost its quirkiness. Specifically in certain scenes such as the pitch scene which felt really flat on stage without the video effects and fast pace.
I wonder whether the changes made in the music style were supposed to encapsulate the fast-pace style of Luhrmann's directing. In the musical the songs mostly consist of medleys containing a variety of well known pop songs. There is a focus on the lyrics with each medley using the lyrics of the songs to share the characters feelings, but often it feels superficial which provides a sense of comedy. I think at times this style worked for the fun atmosphere that the show was aiming to create, and whilst it is present within the film in the "Elephant Love Medley" the musicals soundtrack quickly becomes same-y. At times the pop hits overshadowed the heart of the story's emotion, as it kept changing the actors were never allowed to sink into the emotional arch of the song. I'm happy that they left "Your Song" but scenes such as Satine's entrance with "Sparkling Diamonds" lacked the sexual drama that the film oozes. So whilst I admire the decision to switch it up, particularly as they were focusing on the spectacle of the piece, personally the change disappointed me.
The final big change of this production from the film was within the the storyline its self. While the basics are still the same, Christian and Satine fall in love but can't be together, there are some details that are either missed out or changed. Some of these changes are for the best, particularly the changes made to the show they put on removing some of the cultural appropriation of the original. The biggest negative change was the absinthe scene. In the film Zidler tells Satine that the Duke will have Christian killed, and towards the end of the film we get a highly dramatic scene with someone pointing a gun at Christian while Christian chases Satine, backstage while Satine is close to death. In the musical Harold Zidler tells Satine that he will sort the problem, yet this appears to be simply to get him drunk on Absinthe in their flat? A scene which does appear in the film but much earlier on and has very little relevance to the story, he hasn't actually met Satine yet. Moving the absinthe scene to here really confused me when watching, and it felt out of place. The removal of the attempt made on Christians life took away a lot of the heartbreak and emotion of Satine's death, the melodrama of it all. Similarly whilst it appears subtly at a few moments it's not made clear that Satine is dying throughout the entire thing, particularly in the first half and so there's something that feels rushed about her death. Again all this points to the idea that the show is focused on the spectacle of it all and the fun of the film. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I really enjoyed it, but I think it plays against the emotional turmoil of the film. Underneath its bright façade Moulin Rouge is not a happy film.
One of the standout elements of this show is the performers, every single one of them was brilliant. David Fienauri was amazing as Christian, there was something innocent in his performance and a softness to his voice which contrasted beautifully with Tanisha Spring as Satine. Their chemistry was visible and their love story was fully believable despite its short timeline. Tanisha Spring was the perfect Satine, she captured the character beautifully, oozing sexuality, and vulnerability when it was required. I love Nicole Kidman's Satine but dare I say it Spring's was better, there was something about her performance that proved she understood the character and held the power that she needed to portray that. Together they created a highly engaging love story. Sometimes the characters felt underdeveloped but I think this goes back to the writing and the struggles of fitting everything into such a short space of time on stage.
Overall I really enjoyed watching this show and it was great fun, but it's very different from the original film that I love so much. Perhaps I need to view them as different things, the show as a West End spectacle and the film as a quirky film that is full of emotional turmoil. Whilst it was nice to be able to experience the story for the first time again, I think the film still holds onto a niche that the mainstreamed West End production is unable to do. I also wanted to briefly mention that I went with a friend who hadn't seen the film before and thought the stage production was incredible and heartfelt, so it's a subjective topic and it has clearly found it audience in the London's theatre scene.
Comments
Post a Comment