WEST VALLEY CITY — It is easy to sum up my impression of the Hale Centre Theatre production of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang: it’s all about the car. The actors, the choreography, the costumes, and even the script are all just window dressing for what is a pretty cool live special effect.
Show closes April 13, 2013.
Staying true to its reputation for spectacle, the creative staff at the Hale have created a show that constantly had me guessing about the next new visual surprise. Whimsical machines, such as the breakfast machine and the candy manufacturer (from set designer Kacey Udy), smoke effects, and gorgeous lighting (designed by Spencer Brown) all create a live experience that will persist in many audience members’ memory for a long time. Few theaters in Utah could have given full justice to audience expectations for a floating (and later flying) car.
And yet, I can’t shake the feeling that the spectacle is just a veneer that the technical staff have applied to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to cover a lackluster script (written by Jeremy Sams and Ray Roderick) and score (with music by Richard M. Sherman and lyrics by Robert B. Sherman). The play tells the story of the Potts family, which includes two children named Jeremy and Jamima, who enjoy playing on the rusted remains of an old race car. When someone is poised to buy the car for scrap metal, the children encourage their widower father, Caractacus, to purchase it instead. Caractacus must quickly earn the 30 shillings needed to purchase the car, but his efforts are complicated by his faulty inventions. Add in two spies from the fictional country of Vulgaria, and the story takes on a cartoonish intrigue that propels it into the second act.
The Potts family.
David Smith plays Caractacus Potts, the frustrated inventor and loving father who buys Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Smith is certainly enthusiastic in all of his scenes, and he plays the role of parent with great sincerity (such as in the song “Hushabye Mountain” or when explaining to his children that he doesn’t have the money to buy the car). Smith is also wonderful to watch as he athletically executes the choreography in “Me Ol’ Bamboo.” Opposite Smith is Megan Lynn Heaps as Truly Scrumptious. Heaps plays the part well enough, but unfortunately the script doesn’t give her much to do. Often her character is tagging along behind Caractacus as he moves the story forward. The main purpose of Truly is to be a romantic interest for Caractacus.
Unfortunately, there was not much chemistry between Smith and Heaps. I don’t blame the performers for this, however. I have seen Smith play romantic leads successfully before in Crazy for You and The Drowsy Chaperone, and Heaps’s credits are too impressive for me to believe that playing a basic emotion like love is a challenge for her. Rather, I believe that the lack of chemistry between the two is a result of John J. Sweeney‘s direction. Judging by what I saw, Sweeney seemed more concerned about the literal and figurative mechanics of putting this production on the stage than he was about the show’s message, character development or relationships (such as the relationship between Caractacus and his father). During the entire show, the cast seemed more concerned with making it to the end of their song or scene than they were about storytelling. This left me feeling like the show was just an amalgamation of a bunch of disconnected scenes and that characters didn’t have much to do with each other.
I also disliked Sweeney’s treatment of the antagonists in the play. The Childcatcher (played by Anthony LeRoy Lovato) particularly drove me crazy as he minced around the stage. This undercut his credibility as a villain and made it difficult for me to put any serious credence into the conflict in the second act. The Baron and Baroness Bomburst (played by Kyle Olsen and Ali Bennett, respectively) were more acceptable as silly characters, however, because of their status as comic relief. But all three characters were a pitiful force that was so easily dispatched in the last scene that it robbed the previous two hours of any seriousness. Finally, all directors should take note that slow motion action/fight scenes never work on stage.
That being said, the performances from every actor were quite good, given the mediocre script and the diffused directing. Will Breinholt and Abigail Edwards are charming as Jeremy and Jamima Potts, and the way they beg for the new car is very familiar to anyone who has had a child ask them to buy them an expensive toy. Olsen and Bennett were also hilariously goofy as the Baron and Baroness, and they practically stole the show in the second act with “Chu Chi Face” and “Bombie Samba.” Unfortunately, neither song serves any purpose in advancing the plot.
Although I have complaints about the directing, the script, and the score, I just can’t ignore the fact that this production isn’t about those things. It’s about the car. And judged by that standard, the Hale staff has created a Chitty Chitty Bang Bang that is worth seeing.
Russell, I’ve enjoyed reading your reviews for years and agree with most of them but I think you missed the boat with this one. Are you familiar with the style of the 1960’s movie? Have you seen it?
I saw the show last week and thought the Hale did a remarkable job. The
actors, lighting, sets, costumes and choreography were set to a high and impressive bar. That’s without the flying car.
An italicized ‘never’? Although I would have liked to see more controlled chaos in the final battle, saying slow motion can’t be done onstage is in itself, absurd. It absolutely works in something like Urinetown. I understand you’re more accustomed to reviewing Shakespeare or something meatier so maybe someone else should have reviewed this one? Paige wrote in her Scapin review that it wasn’t “her cup of tea” but she still gave a glowing review on what the show actually was. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang WAS entertaining.
I was interested to see if Utah Theatre Bloggers would actually try to dissect the details on this one. Sadly, I was right. I don’t think anyone needs to be told that Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is getting knocked because the relationship and character development between Grandpa and Caractacus should have been stronger. Really?
It IS fluff. It IS a cartoon. I think it’s in bad form to blame the substance and script on a director that catered to what the style and world of the play actually is. The show is based on a children’s book about a floating/flying car set in a fictional country called Vulgaria.
What were you expecting?
Ryan,
I think you’re completely right. The tone of “CCBB” is very whimsical, and it IS based on a children’s movie. Those aspects of the play are great, and I felt like the production was true to the movie in that respect.
No, I didn’t go to the WV Hale expecting a deep, probing philosophical discussion about mankind’s place in society. I know when to expect depth and when not to. (After all, I’ve reviewed Shakespeare plays over a dozen times and I’ve reviewed “Xanadu” twice. I can tell the difference.) What I felt was lacking in this production was relationships among characters and continuity of mood from scene to scene. Maybe it’s because I’m a psychologist, but if character development is shallow and reasons for characters’ behaviors aren’t clear, then it drives me nuts. I didn’t feel like there was a romantic spark between Cractacus and Truly, nor did I feel like there was any familial relationship between the grandpa and the other Potts family members. Maybe I’m wrong, which I can accept.
And it sounds like we have an honest disagreement about slow motion. That’s OK. I’ve never seen “Urinetown” (an oversight that I hope to remedy one day), and I know it has a slow motion sequence at the end of Act I. From what I understand the use of slow motion in “Urinetown” is tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken seriously. In “CCBB” the slow motion was used to vanquish the Baron and Baroness and it was used with more seriousness than had been seen in any other scene with the characters. I think that when slow motion is used earnestly that it doesn’t work on stage. (I’ve seen slow motion used this way also in productions of “Les Mis” and “West Side Story,” also with no success.) But you’re right that if it’s playful (as in “Urinetown”) that it can work; maybe I didn’t find the end of the second act playful enough for the slow motion to work.
Hale still has a gorgeous production. If you’re in it for the magic and the spectacle, you won’t be disappointed. Maybe UTBA reviewers overanalyze details, but that’s because attending a show as a reviewer is different from attending it as an audience member. It’s our duty to be extra attentive to all aspects of a show. Perhaps a consequence of that is overanalyzing parts of a play that weren’t meant to be studied closely. I don’t know…
Finally, I’m glad you felt the desire to comment. Everyone in the theatre arts needs feedback, and that includes reviewers. My opinion is not special, so I appreciate it when someone lets me know when they disagree with me. I think you’ve built a strong case that I’ve missed the boat when it comes to this show. If nothing else, the dissenting opinion is healthy for our readers to see. The Utah theatre community benefits when as many opinions as possible are heard.
Russell, thank you for your honest reply! I too am surprised to see so few people voice their opinions on UTBA; whether they agree or disagree with the reviewer. However, I feel you paint a much brighter and accurate picture of the show in your reply than in your actual critique. I wish even the first paragraph of your comment was somehow incorporated into your review. I hope readers will scroll down to read your explanation on reviewers and overanalyzing. I very much agree with you there.
The stage version of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang isn’t trying to recreate the movie nor do I think it should. Staged movie musicals have an expectation that precedes them. When you have something as cherished and popular as “Chitty”, you can’t reinvent the wheel. Imagine a stage production of Shrek where the title character was yellow instead of green and sported a British accent? How about Disney’s Beauty and the Beast where the Beast looked like a rat and Belle was blonde in a tight purple skirt? (I’ve actually seen this “reimagined” production. It didn’t work. Especially for the 7 year old in the audience dressed as Belle sitting in front of me.)
The same can be said with this production of Chitty. There are set expectations and I don’t think harping on the director for the portrayal of the antagonists because they “drove [you] crazy” is fair to him nor the accomplished actors portraying these iconic roles. Yes, I absolutely agree that they seem to be dispatched from the show rather quickly. The Baron and Baroness were so hilariously extravagant, I expected and wanted them to leave the stage in a bigger fashion. However, I think you’re missing the point if they’re a “pitiful force that…robbed the previous two hours of any seriousness.” In no way do I think seriousness should be sought out in this show let alone within these three light hearted characters. If you have a problem here, I think you should take it up with the 45 year old classic and not “Sweeney’s treatment” of the play.
“My opinion is not so special…” What? Certainly it’s more special than others. Hundreds will be reading your review and possibly laying down cash for their entertainment! If someone were to mention even your name, I would know who you were and might even reply, “I’ve read countless reviews from him.” I think readers would trust your review over a guy at the water cooler. Shouldn’t UTBA reviewers strive for honest critiques?
Ryan,
I can see how someone might see the review as being pretty negative. My choice in title doesn’t help. I won’t minimize my qualms with the directing, but I think that my last paragraph sums up my opinion about the show correctly: “CCBB” is about the spectacle, and this cast and crew delivers that quite well.
You’re right that stage adaptations shouldn’t be slavish reproductions of the film. I purposely didn’t rewatch the film (which I hadn’t seen in over 15 years) in preparation for this review because I wanted to evaluate the play as its own work of art. I’m also not watching the film that is the basis for the show I’m reviewing on Friday.
As for my opinion not being special, yes more people hear my opinion than that of the average theatre goer’s. Yes, I have quite a bit of training in critiquing theatre and I train others in this craft. But my opinions aren’t engraven on stone tablets that came down from the heavens. If a piece of theatre entertains, moves, or changes the life of someone in the audience and I hate the piece, then the show may well be a success. I’m not the final arbitrator of good taste (and I hope to never be). I merely strive to be professional and articulate in stating my opinion.
UTBA members always strive for honest critiques, but we also recognize that our reviewers are mortals. It sounds like I’m usually on target with your opinions, and that you usually agree with what I have to say. Maybe that’s why our disagreement over “CCBB” led you to comment (which I’m glad it did). I don’t think I’ve changed your mind, but that wasn’t my goal. My goal in replying to your comment was to continue the conversation about the show because that’s the reason UTBA was created: to get people talking about all the live theatre we have in this great state. I’d be thrilled to hear what others have to say about this play.