Accentuating the Depression era setting and political allegory of one of the most iconic musicals in history was never going to be popular during a credit crunch. That doesn’t mean that Jude Kelly’s decision to add a little kitchen-sink grit to ‘The Wizard of Oz’ stardust wasn’t brave. But for a show billed as a feel-good family for the summer holidays, it was probably ill-advised.
The marketing department hasn’t helped by alluding to a glittering Emerald City-style transformation when what audiences really get is a corrugated Kansas shack bathed in rude green light. In Kelly’s version of L Frank Baum’s tribute to friendship, Dorothy never actually leaves Kansas. It’s a clever way to get over the hurdle of creating a magical green cityscape on the restrictive RFH stage but it feels like a bit of a cop out. And while set designer Michael Vale’s giant public-service posters effectively root the story in rural hardship and pre-war economic instability, the bizarre, scrawled animations and general austerity of the production does little for those who delighted in the Technicolor majesty of MGM’s 1939 film.
On the plus side, the cast, choreography and 20-piece orchestra are excellent. Gary Wilmot’s Lion is a real crowd-pleaser, while Julie Legrand and Roy Hudd are great fun as the Wicked Witch and Wizard. Sian Brookes’s Dorothy is a little too assured to carry off her transformative journey, but kudos for trying to exorcise the ghost of Garland. Kelly’s ‘Oz’ may be one of little wizardry, but it’s an ambitious journey nonetheless.
Hello. I am going to see this production tomorrow but after reading all the comments feel like going shopping instead !
Still will make my own judgement.....watch this space !
What a complete bore. Uninspired, unintelligent and lazy attempt at what could have been a great show. If Jude Kelly does to the London Olympics what she did to this show, we're in a lot of trouble. In fact, Kelly should stand down now.
I thought the costumes and sets were really disappointing. I loved the idea of the Western trees but the props and outfits looked like they'd been rustled up by someone's kids on a wet afternoon. The use of projections was a good idea wasted, by the use of uninspired images. When they turn and see the Emerald City-a scrawl of felt pen that someone might scribble on a napkin to show you how to find the South Bank - and Dorothy says "its so beautiful", it was laughable, The Emerald City was about as beautiful as a cabbage. Was there a Trinny and Susannah type budget for costumes...here's 30 quid to spend at Oxfam? Whilst the actors were great and the crows were inspired, somehow they seemed dwarfed by the stage. The addition of a few good jokes really improved the script but frankly I was disappointed, especially ahving spent £70 on tickets.
It's just struck me that the Scarecrows expression on the above picture matches that of most of the audience when we went to see this big disappointment.
What a great show! It upsets me greatly some people just simply expect a film on stage. If you want just that why not sit your children down in front of a TV set. If you want to let your imagination free and give allowance for interpretation this is a must see. The acting and performances are great. The projections remind consistently this is a world of imagination and juxtaposed to great effect with refined the live action. This is live theatre the magic is in the interpretation but the production hold true to the sentiment of the 'original' film. Go be happy and let your imagination run wild with the chop chop animation and be gripped by the great ensemble numbers and individual performances.
we're off to the southbank....
This was the first time my two children (aged 8 and 5) had been to a London show and they were both enchanted by it - as was I. Yes, I probably could have done without the giant screen, but it didn't detract from my enjoyment of some stunning dancing, fabulous costumes and witty dialogue - I'd forgotten how funny this play is. We had a fabulous evening out and I don't begrudge a penny of the ticket prices.
Ah Yes, the long awaited South Bank full theatrical, all singing, all dancing Wizard of Oz.... Well, what went wrong?
Perhaps it was Jude's decision to use none of the experienced house production staff and bring in a bunch of people better suited to children's colouring in books to design the show.
Or perhaps it was the idea that rather than actually build anything resembling the emerald city they opted for what? - the revolving yellow brick treadmill?
And don't get me started on the bloomin' munchkins! If I wanted to see a primary school production I would have sought one out.
Overall, a crying shame for what could have been a fun show and without so much as a moving house or a flying monkey in sight, they may as well have handed out acid on the door and said imagine it yourself.
Shocking. And I didn't even mention the 'semi professional dog.'
What a bunch of whiners! I saw this on Saturday, and loved it - the cast was perfect, from the headliners to the ensemble, the Munchkins were adorable (what did the earlier correspondent expect?!), the graphics were perfectly adequate as representational artwork, and Toto, quite clearly being kept in character by surreptitiously-palmed Scooby snacks, stole the show.
Yes the graphics and visuals were rubbish, but what really spoiled this show for me was the actress playing Dorothy (and no, it wasn't the understudy). She was absolutely apalling. The way she spoke with a slow American drawl was so distracting and often quite cringeworthy. I cannot believe that out of all the young up and coming musical theatre actresses in the country, they picked this one- a truly bizarre choice. All that said, my 2 young daughters were completely captivated for the long 3 hours that the show lasted, and for that reason I feel it was worth the £100 I spent on a family ticket (although my husband fell asleep!) The scarecrow, lion, and particularly the tin man, carried this show- they were absolutely excellent!
I agreed that the performances were good Howard - it's purely the computer graphics that spoil this show - they actually DETRACT from the performances. As a freelance designer, believe me I know what its like not being employed all year round. I also know bad design when I see it - simply removing the computer graphics and replacing them with nice moving skies would work beautifully.
I went to see the show on Thursday last 24th July. I must have seen a different show to your other critics. I enjoyed it both Gary Wilmott & Roy Hudd were brilliant. People should bear in mind that its only a short run so therefore i think that you have to accept that the Scenery etc are not going to be as grand if it were here to stay in a lavish West End Theatre!! Look at Gone With The Wind & Lord of The Rings both very lavish productions put on at great expense and whats happened well they are both flops. This surely re-iterates my point about Shows etc in the West End today. As an Actor's Agent who i was talking to the Standard expected in live Thetre today is a lot higher than 10 years ago. So you critics remember that not all Actors/ress are guarenteed employment for 52 weeks of the year!!
This had been described as a 'must-see' theatrical event by the Southbank Centre - it's more of a 'the designers must-see an optician'event if you ask me. This show is insulting to the eye. If the producers want to salvage this then please remove the horrendous scribbles that disgrace the set. Poorly animated, often jerking accidentally - its not the Witch that wants melting, it's the production designer.
Absolutely agree. I felt cheated that the posters, programme and advertising all showed a fantastic design of the emerald city - then in the actual show you are confronted with a pixelated, glitchy, hurriedly drawn fairground. I felt embarrassed when Dorothy looked up at the screen saying 'isnt it beautiful' - when the audience was thinking - erm, what on earth is that supposed to be? And why does the Wizard go up in a Ferris Wheel? Why does the Witch live in a cottage when they keep calling it a castle? So much actually annoyed me about this show! Im sorry, but the design of this show is dire. I'm glad I only paid £20 for my seat - if I was a tourist expecting a decent show worthy of the West End (as this show leads you to believe it is),paid £40 and was confronted with this, I really would want a refund. As the people n the seats behind me said - what a wasted opportunity'. I too will watch the film again to regain my love of the story. I fear this version could put some kids of this classic for life. A real shame this.
I saw the show last night - my birthday treat! What a let down. The set was truly awful, children from a primary school as the munchkins?? Some of the performances were lovely but the appalling set , awful graphics pulling focus on the screens above and a lack of pace and magic made this a real disappointment. I shall have to watch the film again to restore my faith.
Saw this last night and left rather disappointed to say the least. The performances are great and the costumes are nigh on perfect to the original film. It starts well and the atmosphere and times of Kansas are recreated beautifully. However. As soon as the tornado starts, the visuals take a huge downturn and the atmospheric photographs and moving imagery on the large screen behind the built set are replaced with very rushed, very distracting, ugly computer graphics which don't suit the piece in the slightest. These graphics really spoil what could be a wonderful show. I know this show is aimed at children, but even so, children today are used to more sophisticated imagery - especially with shows such as Wicked proving so popular with a younger audience. I really wanted to love this show, but I just can't get over the appalling visualisations. See Wicked instead as you get much much more for your money. 4/10 I'm afraid.
15 comments
Hello. I am going to see this production tomorrow but after reading all the comments feel like going shopping instead !
Still will make my own judgement.....watch this space !
What a complete bore. Uninspired, unintelligent and lazy attempt at what could have been a great show. If Jude Kelly does to the London Olympics what she did to this show, we're in a lot of trouble. In fact, Kelly should stand down now.
I thought the costumes and sets were really disappointing. I loved the idea of the Western trees but the props and outfits looked like they'd been rustled up by someone's kids on a wet afternoon. The use of projections was a good idea wasted, by the use of uninspired images. When they turn and see the Emerald City-a scrawl of felt pen that someone might scribble on a napkin to show you how to find the South Bank - and Dorothy says "its so beautiful", it was laughable, The Emerald City was about as beautiful as a cabbage. Was there a Trinny and Susannah type budget for costumes...here's 30 quid to spend at Oxfam? Whilst the actors were great and the crows were inspired, somehow they seemed dwarfed by the stage. The addition of a few good jokes really improved the script but frankly I was disappointed, especially ahving spent £70 on tickets.
It's just struck me that the Scarecrows expression on the above picture matches that of most of the audience when we went to see this big disappointment.
What a great show! It upsets me greatly some people just simply expect a film on stage. If you want just that why not sit your children down in front of a TV set. If you want to let your imagination free and give allowance for interpretation this is a must see. The acting and performances are great. The projections remind consistently this is a world of imagination and juxtaposed to great effect with refined the live action. This is live theatre the magic is in the interpretation but the production hold true to the sentiment of the 'original' film. Go be happy and let your imagination run wild with the chop chop animation and be gripped by the great ensemble numbers and individual performances.
we're off to the southbank....
This was the first time my two children (aged 8 and 5) had been to a London show and they were both enchanted by it - as was I. Yes, I probably could have done without the giant screen, but it didn't detract from my enjoyment of some stunning dancing, fabulous costumes and witty dialogue - I'd forgotten how funny this play is. We had a fabulous evening out and I don't begrudge a penny of the ticket prices.
Ah Yes, the long awaited South Bank full theatrical, all singing, all dancing Wizard of Oz.... Well, what went wrong?
Perhaps it was Jude's decision to use none of the experienced house production staff and bring in a bunch of people better suited to children's colouring in books to design the show.
Or perhaps it was the idea that rather than actually build anything resembling the emerald city they opted for what? - the revolving yellow brick treadmill?
And don't get me started on the bloomin' munchkins! If I wanted to see a primary school production I would have sought one out.
Overall, a crying shame for what could have been a fun show and without so much as a moving house or a flying monkey in sight, they may as well have handed out acid on the door and said imagine it yourself.
Shocking. And I didn't even mention the 'semi professional dog.'
What a bunch of whiners! I saw this on Saturday, and loved it - the cast was perfect, from the headliners to the ensemble, the Munchkins were adorable (what did the earlier correspondent expect?!), the graphics were perfectly adequate as representational artwork, and Toto, quite clearly being kept in character by surreptitiously-palmed Scooby snacks, stole the show.
Yes the graphics and visuals were rubbish, but what really spoiled this show for me was the actress playing Dorothy (and no, it wasn't the understudy). She was absolutely apalling. The way she spoke with a slow American drawl was so distracting and often quite cringeworthy. I cannot believe that out of all the young up and coming musical theatre actresses in the country, they picked this one- a truly bizarre choice. All that said, my 2 young daughters were completely captivated for the long 3 hours that the show lasted, and for that reason I feel it was worth the £100 I spent on a family ticket (although my husband fell asleep!) The scarecrow, lion, and particularly the tin man, carried this show- they were absolutely excellent!
I agreed that the performances were good Howard - it's purely the computer graphics that spoil this show - they actually DETRACT from the performances. As a freelance designer, believe me I know what its like not being employed all year round. I also know bad design when I see it - simply removing the computer graphics and replacing them with nice moving skies would work beautifully.
I went to see the show on Thursday last 24th July. I must have seen a different show to your other critics. I enjoyed it both Gary Wilmott & Roy Hudd were brilliant. People should bear in mind that its only a short run so therefore i think that you have to accept that the Scenery etc are not going to be as grand if it were here to stay in a lavish West End Theatre!! Look at Gone With The Wind & Lord of The Rings both very lavish productions put on at great expense and whats happened well they are both flops. This surely re-iterates my point about Shows etc in the West End today. As an Actor's Agent who i was talking to the Standard expected in live Thetre today is a lot higher than 10 years ago. So you critics remember that not all Actors/ress are guarenteed employment for 52 weeks of the year!!
This had been described as a 'must-see' theatrical event by the Southbank Centre - it's more of a 'the designers must-see an optician'event if you ask me. This show is insulting to the eye. If the producers want to salvage this then please remove the horrendous scribbles that disgrace the set. Poorly animated, often jerking accidentally - its not the Witch that wants melting, it's the production designer.
Absolutely agree. I felt cheated that the posters, programme and advertising all showed a fantastic design of the emerald city - then in the actual show you are confronted with a pixelated, glitchy, hurriedly drawn fairground. I felt embarrassed when Dorothy looked up at the screen saying 'isnt it beautiful' - when the audience was thinking - erm, what on earth is that supposed to be? And why does the Wizard go up in a Ferris Wheel? Why does the Witch live in a cottage when they keep calling it a castle? So much actually annoyed me about this show! Im sorry, but the design of this show is dire. I'm glad I only paid £20 for my seat - if I was a tourist expecting a decent show worthy of the West End (as this show leads you to believe it is),paid £40 and was confronted with this, I really would want a refund. As the people n the seats behind me said - what a wasted opportunity'. I too will watch the film again to regain my love of the story. I fear this version could put some kids of this classic for life. A real shame this.
I saw the show last night - my birthday treat! What a let down. The set was truly awful, children from a primary school as the munchkins?? Some of the performances were lovely but the appalling set , awful graphics pulling focus on the screens above and a lack of pace and magic made this a real disappointment. I shall have to watch the film again to restore my faith.
Saw this last night and left rather disappointed to say the least. The performances are great and the costumes are nigh on perfect to the original film. It starts well and the atmosphere and times of Kansas are recreated beautifully. However. As soon as the tornado starts, the visuals take a huge downturn and the atmospheric photographs and moving imagery on the large screen behind the built set are replaced with very rushed, very distracting, ugly computer graphics which don't suit the piece in the slightest. These graphics really spoil what could be a wonderful show. I know this show is aimed at children, but even so, children today are used to more sophisticated imagery - especially with shows such as Wicked proving so popular with a younger audience. I really wanted to love this show, but I just can't get over the appalling visualisations. See Wicked instead as you get much much more for your money. 4/10 I'm afraid.