| |
Just
why is Chicago so popular these days? Premiered in 1975, it failed
to win a single award before fading into relative obscurity. Revived
in 1997, however, it took London's West End by storm, attracting a
wealth of celebrities to its leading roles, and sparking the current
UK tour.
Does it's success lie in its plot? This can hardly be the case: though
self-proclaimed as a "story of murder, greed, violence, corruption,
exploitation [and] treachery", writer Fred Ebb seems deliberately
to have side-lined the story in order to turn the show into a series
of self-conscious set-pieces. More importantly, the rousing, emotionally
cathartic ending, so essential a part of any musical, is entirely
missing: Chicago seems rather to peter out towards the end, leaving
one wondering whether one has missed something . Is it its quirky,
post-modern, meta-theatrical structure - a structure which questions
the accepted notions of performer and audience, of the boundary between
life and show-business? Probably not - Kander and Ebb had already
explored these themes to far more powerful effect in their 1966 show
Cabaret. Perhaps it is the music? Again unlikely. Although undoubtedly
a very clever, witty and intricately constructed pastiche of 1920s
jazz, Joh Kander's music fails almost entirely to achieve the two
most important goals of any musical score - to keep up the audience's
excitement, and to give them something to hum on their way home.
Undoubtedly, the minimalist approach to costuming, especially of the
female performers, must be a factor in getting at least male punters
into the theatre. One would hope, however, that Chicago aspires to
be more than just a peep-show. And it is more - what makes this touring
production worth seeing, and what presumably keeps the show popular
with London audiences, is the sheer quality of the performance. The
choreography is slick, understated, and executed with impeccable,
erotic vibrancy. The singing is impressive all round, with each character
adopting an appropriately individual timbre, and each finding something
different with which to interest the listener: Martin Callaghan (Amos)
particularly impressed with his thunderous close to an otherwise timid
"Mister Cellophane". John Altman, too, was good, bucking
the trend of soap stars who find themselves out of their depth on
a stage. The Eastenders star showed himself to have a powerful, gruff
voice, and his cockney twinkle was ideally suited to his role. The
band is also superb, negotiating the score with lively flair, and
not shirking on the choreography when the occasion demands.
In short, this is a production which does its utmost to inject Chicago
with the "Razzle Dazzle" which the piece so unfortunately
lacks. On the whole they succeed - the result is a spectacular, jazzy,
and thoroughly raunchy evening's entertainment. Just don't expect
to come out whistling the tunes.
Matthew
Rogers, 19 / 12 / 01
|
