Very interested in your thoughts...
We saw
‘Here We Are’ last night, at the National Theatre in London. For context, we are long time fans of Stephen Sondheim’s work, and this show is the only one of his entire catalogue that we had not seen, so we were predisposed to enjoy, regardless of the choices made by Sondheim and (writer) David Ives.
First, it is unmistakably Sondheim. The music, the lyrics, the challenge to the performers seemed like the essence of Sondheim, distilled down to his fundamental strengths, shorn of much of the attributes that a typical musical relies on. There was not much need for attending the tale, as there was not much of a story to focus on. By choice, the show is based on two movies from surrealist film makes Luis Bunel, so much of the time I felt like I was watching the love child of Stephen Sondheim and Salvador Dali. It didn’t need a story to make sense, it was smart and funny, and the first Act was gloriously bonkers. From start to finish there were lots of laughs, and the more surreal it became the better the show was.
The cast, including one understudy, were uniformly excellent, and the set, lighting and sound were terrific. I’m not sure how many players were in the band, but it sounded rich and lush. There’s not much in the way of a standout song, but it all bounced along in a typical Sondheim way. I think much of Sondheim’s work is regarded as a singing challenge, and this was no different, including the longest sustained note I’ve ever heard a singer hold, in any context. It just went on and on and on. Richard Fleeshman must have astonishing lung capacity! The individual characters are not fully drawn, although there’s a bit of character development as the show goes on as some of their true nature is exposed when they are placed under a little stress. None of the characters draw much empathy, they are written as flawed and many would say unpleasant people. You can simply indulge in the absurdity of the piece, or you can reflect on the individual characters in terms of people who are rich or poor, grasping or content, thoughtful or shallow. In both aspects I think the show provides plenty for the audience to enjoy and get their teeth in to. It would have been interesting to see what Sondheim would have made of the entire show if he had lived long enough to complete the work, there's a very obvious difference in the second Act to the first, with not much in the way of Sondheim's contribution after the interval.
However, this is not a show for everyone. If you’ve not seen much musical theatre you would understandably be confused as to what the hell is going on. Not much in the way of a hummable tune. No story, no beginning, no middle, not much of an end. Not that that’s a bad thing, you could say exactly the same about Waiting for Godot or No Man’s Land, both of which are lauded was wonderful plays, quite rightly. When I’ve seen those plays it felt to me like they were writing and acting masterclasses, not typical storytelling vehicles. Here We Are felt like a Sondheim masterclass, reduced to its glorious bare minimum. But to really enjoy that you need to have plenty of exposure to his broad catalogue of work. For that reason I loved it, and it appeared that the audience at the National shared my enthusiasm. But it’s a show for a dedicated audience and I don’t think it will appeal to a wide, mainstream theatre-going audience.
Next weekend we are seeing a revival of Sondheim's 'The Frogs'. It will be our second time seeing a version of one of Sondheim's earlier works, and it's ironic that it's following Here We Are so closely as both are quite madcap, distinctly Sondheim.