So, no blog on Saturday (sorry about that) because I have been rather a busy bee. Anyway, I was in Birmingham, seeing "Jekyll and Hyde" at the Hippodrome, and so that's what I'm going to talk about.
You see, there are three different types of good show that I see, and "Jekyll and Hyde" was most certainly the third type. The first type is the best kind of all, the kind of show where I just go "Wow!". David Tennant's Hamlet at the RSC springs to mind. Shows that just completely blow you away and leave you unable to think anything but "Wow!". Then there's type two. With type two I see a show and think "That was awesome, I'd love to play that part". A show becomes type two if I can actually think of how I would play a certain part. This is the most common type of show; it was Toby Stephens as Hamlet (Bloody good type two show years ago) that first got me into drama properly. Then there's type three, which is what "Jekyll and Hyde" was. Type three shows I watch and I think "This is a pretty good show. But I'd do it differently. That doesn't quite work, I'd try this instead". The thing is, if I see a show that I want to put on my own production of as soon as I've seen someone else's version of it then clearly, for me at least, their production was missing something.
I'd like to make it clear that Jekyll and Hyde was spectacular, no doubt about that. But I'd do it differently
No comments:
Post a Comment