"Yes, Prime Minister"- Her Majesty's Theatre, Adelaide

 The seminal 80's British political satire makes it to the stage in this vivid staging. A new script by the show's creators Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn brings the action into the 21st century with the PM Jim Hacker at his country estate "Checkers" hosting talks with foreign dignitaries. As usual, Sir Humphrey has a plan to bring 10 trillion dollars into the British coffers via an oil pipeline. Listening to the voices of his secretary, Bernard and his special policy advisor, Claire Sutton turns things on its head, especially when a preposterous situation arises that threatens to send the whole British government into a tailspin.
 Performances across the board are exceptional. Mark Owen-Taylor as Hacker is a young, vibrant Blair-esque Hacker as opposed to the older, more refined version presented by the late Paul Eddington in the original series. Caroline Craig looks gorgeous in green as Claire and plays the role to perfection. Alex Menglet and Tony Llewellyn-Jones, as the Kumranistan ambassador and the Director-General of the BBC respectively, make the most of their relatively small roles.
 John Lloyd Fillingham as Hacker's embattled secretary positively bounces off the walls with nervous energy and plays his role to the absolute fullest. But it is the performance of Phillip Quast as Sir Humphrey that makes the evening worthwhile. Every nuance of voice and physicality is important and Quast doesn't let any of them slide by proving to be the big crowd favourite on the night (as indeed, was Nigel Hawthorne's original performance).
 Shaun Gurton's set is impressive (complete with rain and televisions used to great effect) and the lighting of Keith Tucker plus some solid use of sound effects add some icing to the cake.
 What lets the show down is some rather odd directing in Act Two. Director Tom Gutteridge seems to believe that a British PM can be a total goofball who gets all flustered and jumps around like a lunatic. I think this spoils the character of Hacker incredibly. Whilst he is never meant to be the sharpest tool in the shed, he still had the brains to become PM. To see the PM yelling like a madman and cowering under a desk is a little ridiculous and takes the polish off some otherwise stellar work. Also, many people might feel a little uneasy at the dilemma placed upon the PM and his cohorts which propels the narrative.
 Quibbles aside, this a wonderful night at the theatre and one that fans of the classic series will lap up in droves. Be courageous- see this show.

Easter, Cal Wilson and Rebirth

Oh wow, has it really been 4 months since I last blogged?? Clearly I haven't felt the need to say anything worthwhile- some might argue that it hasn't stopped me in the past....

Today, on Easter Sunday, I am inspired by the wonderfully funny Cal Wilson and her Easter column on rebirth.

It's a wonderful piece about the what you would do if you were reborn. Like a lot of people I get asked "Do you have any regrets?" and my answer draws upon- of all things- some comments made by Captain Picard in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". In the episode "Tapestry" he states that once he started unravelling the threads of his life the whole tapestry collapsed. It's very true. We are shaped by the good AND the bad incidents in our life. As such I would generally have no "real regrets". Neither does Cal. Here's some of the things I would do differently if reborn...

- I wouldn't have lent my Starlight Express cd to Bruce Alcorn- which he then lent to someone else who then lent it to someone else and now is heck knows where.

- I would have fessed up Morag that it wasn't Gus who started listening to the Starlight Express tape in music class.

-When I filled in my application form for "Wheel Of Fortune" I wouldn't have written "Date with Adriana" as my number one choice of prize. Reckon that's what kept me off the show.

- Would have told Suzanne Dyer that putting me between a piccolo and a trumpet in the pit for "How To Succeed" is a REALLY stupid idea which might cost me some of my hearing.

- Perhaps I wouldn't have crapped on about how great The Brady Bunch were when I was studying at Flinders Street in the mid-90's.

Of course, if it was rebirth today (as in my day of birth was 8/4/2012) I could grow up blissfully ignorant of Justin Bieber and when he's 40 and checking out of rehab for the 10th time I'll just see him as a washed up hasbeen. I can listen to all the music today and say in 20 years time- "Man, they just never made it as good as LMFAO did they?". I'll bawk in disbelief of a time when things weren't downloaded and the internet never existed. That'll be like ancient history!

On this day, I hope you have a wonderful Easter whatever your religion, race or creed.

On critics and criticism...

Nothing amuses me more than when actors get their hackles up at critics. I've seen tears and tantrums over the reviews handed out by critics. Inevitably these only occur when the review is a negative one or someone has been overlooked for awards nights.

I like to believe I am a reformed critic-basher. When I was younger (so much younger than today), I took pen to paper to write at what I felt was an unfair review of Mayfair's "Sweeney Todd" in DB Magazine. I thought I was so clever. I was wrong. The reviewer waited a fortnight to respond and when he did, he shot me down in flames. I'm sure the 15 people that read DB magazine got a huge laugh at my expense. He still writes reviews today (and has a penchant for quoting the entire works of Douglas Adams or Charles M. Shultz on their facebook page) and I learnt a valuable lesson. In the words of Tim Sexton "Don't argue with a critic- you'll never win".

What bought this up is a comment that sparked a massive debate on the Adelaide Theatre Collective FB group. From what I can gather, two "amateur" actors were nominated in a "professional" category and it raised the ire of some people. The initial comment was quite brutal in its assessment-

" Hmmm... Concerned that Santos "Exploitation Managers" earning over 150kpa have the gall to call themselves "theatre critics"! Such critics have become the "judges" of theatre companies and productions who often receive NO or LIMITED funding. Their criticism exhibits no practical or even theoretical expertise about theatre. At best it expresses personal opinion with an uber middle class view. At worst it simply shows up their own stupidity and ignorance. How would they like it if all us thespians turned up at Olympic Dam to tell them we didn't like the way the rock strata had formatted? Ignorant they would say... Well yes. My point exactly. Please, can we make our theatre critics credible? Could they at least know the difference between Ionesco and iron ore?"

That started a cavalcade of responses- 168 (at the time of writing) to be precise. You'll need to not only take a lunch break to read through it all but also bring a dictionary and have google on standby.

As I've gotten older, I've come to really understand critics. I've had good reviews and bad reviews. The funny thing is, when you step dispassionately away from the work you are presenting you realise that the critics are usually right. Yes, sometimes they can be as tactful as a sledgehammer to glass, but quite frankly all I can say is suck it in.

People whinge that there are far too many internet review sites (some even suggesting that they only exist so people can get free tickets- oh the outrage!), but here's some food for thought- barely any member of the general public reads them. The only critiques worth "bums on seats" are the ones written in print media and even then most people won't hinge their purchase of a ticket on a single opinion from one person- certainly not in Adelaide anyway. I have seen shows sell-out DESPITE bad reviews. I can't think of any shows where people have demanded refunds en-masse following a bad notice from the ATG or Barefoot Review websites.

Back when I was pilloried by this critic in DB, they stated the oft-used, well worn catch cry of the critic- "it's only one person's opinion"- and they are right. Maybe instead of whining about how under-qualified critics are, or how ignorant they are etc, maybe actors and producers need to look at their own product and take note of what they say. Look at the audience response and evaluate. Some theatre companies ask the audience for feedback (as if ticket sales were not an indication enough). The point is that critics voice one opinion and often they speak the truth on some level.

As for awards I can only say that it is incredibly frustrating when the show you've spent months on and poured blood, sweat and tears over is ignored nut then again, I don't believe we put on shows for the sole purpose of getting awards. It's wonderful when you get nominated but at the same time, rather than moping about who didn't get the nod why not celebrate the performances that did?

Critics are a necessary evil in the theatre world- they remind us of where we are and what we can do to be better. Do I agree with every review written? No. Do I think every critic that writes reviews is brilliant and should be allowed to continue? No. But I remind myself that I am in an industry that needs to come to terms with public scrutiny and criticism and that no matter how hard we try, we can always be better at what we do.

The outcome of the Facebook debate was a decision to have a forum to discuss the matters offline. Wow. I'm sure that will be riveting listening. Can I review that for an online site? It will not achieve anything except to molly-coddle a few actors with their noses out of joint. The other outcome was a post from the group's founder, Elena pleading for the debate to end and to remind us all of the reason the group was created- in other words "please critics, don't hang any negative crap on me- I didn't start it...they did!! (points finger furiously at the original poster)" If I sound a bit jaded on the matter then I guess I am. Publicly venting about critics always a dangerous game. I found out the hard way many years ago (and thankfully with few consequences)- maybe some actors need to learn from others past mistakes....

Steely Dan & Steve Winwood- Entertainment Center, Adelaide- Oct 30

By the time Steely Dan finished their two hour set alongside Winwood (singing "Roll With It") the Adelaide audience leapt to its feet having realised what a special night they had encountered. For fans of the popular acts it was a dream come true.

Four hours earlier and Winwood took to the stage with his little ensemble. Starting with and ending his set with Spencer Davis Group classics "I'm A Man" and "Gimme Some Lovin'" got the audience clapping but the vast majority of the set left the fans scratching their head. Whilst I must confess to not being a huge Winwood fan, I appreciated his musicianship and that of his small but effective ensemble. It's also obvious that the years have taken nothing off his voice. But for the bulk of his 90-minute set people simply didn't know what he was singing. Winwood rarely spoke to the audience which I always have felt is a bit of a sin- an audience will be forgiving of you if you hold their hand a little and tell them what's going on. It was well into the set before he finally struck arguably his biggest hit- "Higher Love" which finally elicited a response from the crowd.

When Steely Dan took to the stage there was a rousing cheer. Launching into the title track of their classic "Aja" album, the Dan let it be known that they were here to entertain and thrill their audience. Songs like "Deacon Blues", "Do it Again" and "Josie" were left off the setlist in favour of bigger hits like "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" and "Reeling In The Years" (The latter bringing the main set to a rousing close). Along the way both Donald Fagen and Walter Becker engaged with the audience with jokes about their age whilst keeping the great music pumping. There is no doubting that the Dan has one of the finest backing bands on the planet- a point made by the long, self-indulgent jam session that took over ten minutes (one of the few lowpoints in proceedings) but when it came to doing their job (ie- playing backup) they did it with style and panache. Personally, I would have liked to have heard more numbers from their comeback albums of 2000 and 2003 (we only got the title track from 2000's "Two Against Nature") but the audience didn't seem to care by and large.

Both acts were helped by great sound and Steely Dan were also helped out by some pinpoint lighting work. But as many people starting leaving they were in for in for one final treat as Winwood came out and jammed with Steely Dan for the last two songs to bring the great evening to a close.

This was a night for the people who enjoy their music un-protooled and clean and musically delicious. There will never be another band like Steely Dan and it was great to worship at their altar.

Dusty- Arts Theatre, The Met

The Met continue to break new ground for themselves with this jukebox bio-musical based on the life of Dusty Springfield. The same creative team that gave us "Shout!" have cobbled together the hits of Ms. Springfield within a script that is better than its predecessor but still not stellar.

Like the previous musical, you need a strong lead-one that can pretty much hold the show together. Fortunately The Met has come up trumps with Emma Gordon-Smith. Blessed with a gorgeous figure, killer smile and an amazingly free voice, she commands the stage when singing. Her acting is also more than up to the challenge and she makes the most of the often patchy dialogue she is given. She is also doubly blessed to be dressed in the professional costumes originally created for the show's original star, Tamsin Carroll. Her backstage dressers must be commended for the lightning quick changes they have to do.

Gordon-Smith is joined onstage by a strong band of actors. Belinda Price is wonderful as Mary O'Brien (the young Dusty), Adam Harrison and Fiona Aitken make a great comedy duo as Dusty's best friends Rodney and Peg and it's wonderful to hear Kaye Hamlyn sing again onstage in the role of Dusty's mother, Kay O'Brien. Max Rayner defies some atrocious wigs to bring several characters to life as well. Alisa James as Dusty's lover, Reno, does struggle with the meatier aspects of her character. She sings up a storm, but there seems little connect between herself and the character she portrays.

Jo Hunt has, once again, done outstanding work with her chorus- especially Dusty's backup singers. Her orchestra is generally well balanced but the brass struggled towards the end of the night and intonation got flatter and flatter.

Rebecca Stanley has provided some wonderful choreography to match the various moods of the show.

Director Amanda Rowe has done a great deal of work here and it shows, I hope The Met use her skills again.

Kudos must also be given to David Lampard for his set which is practical and colourful and to the cast who move the furniture around seamlessly, silently and effortlessly so that the action doesn't drop.

All up, this is a wonderful show with an enormous number of highlights- especially if you're a fan of Dusty Springfield.

Casting matters

Podcasting has been around for a while I must admit, but I came into it fairly recently. About two years ago I received a little tweet from one of my favourite comedians, Wil Anderson, that he was starting a podcast with his mate Charlie Clausen called Thirty Odd Foot Of Pod. 55 episodes later and it is one of the must listen things I do every week.

The great thing about podcasts is that they are usually free and easy to access via itunes or a podcatcher program on your laptop. After a few episodes you really feel you know the hosts and their foibles well. There are many sorts of podcasts but my top three are all Australian and all hosted by comics. They make me laugh a lot and they also get you thinking. Here are my three favourite podcasts-

TOFOP- http://tofop.com/

The above-mentioned podcast is an amazing clash of minds. Wil Anderson is a sharp, edgy comic and has the ability to pull a gag out of every orifice in his being. Far from being a "straight man", Charlie Clausen also proves his abilities as a comic, even though he isn't one. These two are kindred spirits and frequently surprise each other with their observations. Over the course of their show they have a number of topics ranging from the political to the downright weird. My favourite discussions have involved Kathy Bates and a time machine, the demise of the Black-Eyed Peas, the argument that ensues when Charlie admits to never having heard Radiohead's "OK Computer" Album and anytime that Justin Hamilton has been on the show. It can get crude often so it's not recommended for the faint at heart (John Deeks warns of such a thing at the start of the podcast in more recent times).

The Little Dum Dum Club- http://www.dumdumclub.libsyn.com/

Comedians Karl Chandler and Tommy Dassalo may not be household names like Wil, but they are an amazing double act. Every week (mostly) they are joined by fellow comics and they carve out a brilliant podcast that threatens to go anywhere- and usually does. Like with TOFOP, there is a real sense of friendship here and it shines through. I discovered these guys when I was in desperate need of a serious laugh and in many ways they, along with the other podcasts, shook me out of a really bad place. My favourite episodes include Shaun Micallef, Robyn Butler & Wayne Hope, Anyone For Tennis?, Bart Freebairn and Kate McLennan. Their two episodes where they have no guests are also priceless. Not as rude as TOFOP but can still get down and dirty when needed.

Can You Take This Photo Please?- http://canyoutakethisphoto.com/

One of Australia's funniest men, Justin Hamilton, doesn't just flex his comedic muscle on this podcast but proves himself to be a wonderful interviewer in the style of Denton and Michael Parkinson. His partner in crime, Bron Robinson, often has no choice but to sit back and laugh- a lot- and it's so infectous a laugh that you smile regardless of what is being said. Like Dum Dum Club, Hamilton brings in a guest every week and discusses life with them. Mostly these are comics but every now and then he throws in some other people. Actress Hannah Norris appears twice and each time it is an acting masterclass. A young actress talking about her process of preparing roles is a rarity these days and I recommend any aspiring young actor hear these podcasts (plus you get a lot of penis jokes thrown in for good measure). Guests like Rove and Tim Ferguson absolutely shine in this format. I walked away from the chats with Wil Anderson and Charlie Clausen with an even deeper understanding of them then I did listening to TOFOP. Also listen out to Tony Martin's interview (all done to piano accompaniment in the background) about life in the D-Generation and the Late Show.

I would love to know which podcasts you guys listen to as well!

Buddy- Arts Theatre, Marie Clark Musical Theatre Company

Marie Clark has a tough act to follow after its astounding production of "Miss Saigon" earlier in the year. It's fair to say that this little company has worked hard, very hard, to try and punch above its own weight for a number of years now. "Buddy" has some great positives and a few negatives.

The cast give it their absolute best. The show has many wonderful performances, headlined by the brilliant Dominic Hodges as the iconic rocker Buddy Holly. Hodges looks the part and does a pretty good impression of the man's unique voice. His accent is consistent and his charisma on the stage is pretty good as well. He may be lacking the absolute final polish on his concert persona but for the most part it is an outstanding performance.

The rest of the cast ably back him. Sophie Hamilton absolutely shines as Holly's wife, Maria Elena. Blessed with gorgeous looks and charisma, she makes a joy out of, what is, a fairly minor role in the show. Sadly, we are only granted a small hint at her amazing vocal skills. Brendon Liley does a brilliant job recapturing the vibe of The Big Bopper whilst Travis Rae delivers two solid performances as both producer Norman Petty and Ritchie Valens. Cara Brown, Jessica Knights, Kristin Stefanoff, Shay Aitken and Angus Smith all provide memorable highlights in their various roles throughout the night.

Victoria Beal has provided some catchy choreography while Emma Knights has an amazing little ensemble at her command (including Brody Green and Milush Piochaud who double as The Crickets extremely well). Greg Donhardt directs the show admirably for his first outing as director.

The biggest let down of this show is the show itself. One of the first jukebox musicals, it suffers from a lack of plot, poor dialogue and small scenes that mean a lot of blackouts and scene changes, especially in act one. It ruins the momentum that the actors develop and as a consequence drags the show to about 15 minutes longer than it needs to be. Also the creators felt that the only way to present Holly's songs onstage was to either show him recording them or performing them in concert. In a way it's more realistic, but it also limits where and when these wonderful songs can be heard. It's also true that the stage crew were a little slow with their changes which doesn't help things either. It's really the only thing that brings the evening down.

If you are a fan of Holly, or of 50's music in general (as most of the audience were on the night I was there) then you'll enjoy this retelling immensely.