Reader Reviews
Naked Boys Singing! - 2009 (The King's Head Theatre, Inner London)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | Richard's suggestion (May 26) has been heeded, and for a mere pound you can read conventional background blurbs about the seven talented, professionally trained actors brave enough to 'pull off' this unconventional, fun show. - USA Bart | 03 Jul 09 |
| Despite some sexually frank lyrics and full frontal nudity, there's something rather old fashioned and conservative about this reviw. It takes three-quarters of its short 60-min length before you get what it says on the can, but along the way there are some good (though formulaic) songs well sung. A fun hour, but don't expect anything in any way ground-breaking. - GarGar | 22 Jun 09 |
| Interesting posts! There seem to be two camps here. After seeing the show for myself, I'm more or less on the side of the critics. I think this is a talented cast in a misguided production. For me, the genius thing about this show as it's been done everywhere else was that it was able to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand it was gently satirising a whole genre of gay theatre that used male nudity to draw in the punters, and on the other hand it managed to cram in more cock than any of the shows it was satirising. Then, in a final twist, by making the nudity so ubiquitous, it actually deflates the genre as satire should, by effectively normalising the nudity and making it less exploitative. This may be over the head of Mr Wilmott and his chums. Or maybe they have a sophisticated counter-argument that they have ditched in favour of "lighten up" and "hey, it's rubbish anyway, so who cares?". If Betty Buckley, Bernadette Peters and Harvey Fierstein, among many others, liked it as it was, I'd like to hear better arguments than that for Mr Wilmott's re-think. I don't think any of the production's critics are saying this is Chekhov, but if the director decides to radically alter the show, he and his advocates need to stop being such babies about people disagreeing with choices none of them seem able to defend. - UKBen | 15 Jun 09 |
| I mean, really. Get over yourselves. It's just a bit a fun froth without a serious message. If the point is to 'celebrate' male nudity in all its forms (and I don't believe for one minute it was at the forefront of the creators' minds) then the material really should be a lot better. As it is, this is a middling show made vastly enjoyable by the talented cast and direction. Trying to look deeply into it is, pardon the pun, fruitless. - Stephen Thompson | 06 Jun 09 |
| enjoyed - alan acorn | 01 Jun 09 |
| I agree with Chris and Barnsbury below. For me there was a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this production: is it meant to be more exploitative than the original, or less? The performances were great, but I think the director lacks the bravery of the guys on stage. Presumably the director thought he was taking a more 'sophisticated' approach, when in fact he was just being bourgeois and small-minded. I think his decision to keep everybody nicely wrapped up for most of the show betrays the same confusion shown by Sepha below: is this show about challenging our perceptions of nudity in a repressive culture, or is it about exploiting that repressiveness so that showing some cock after an hour-long build-up can give a cheap thrill? Judging by this production, Mr Wilmot clearly thinks it's the latter. I thought there was also something rather tawdry about riding on the reputation of the US productions in the publicity when this is such a radically different show offering a much less accurate reflection of the title. Perhaps Mr Wilmot was too focused on putting bums on seats, and not enough on putting bums on stage... - Writertype | 31 May 09 |
| Sadly, this was something of a disappointment. (the performers were great, music, too) and though no doubt well-intentioned, delaying "what it says on the tin" towards the end of the show betrays the original purpose of the show, as I understand it. Barnsbury (below) has got it exactly right and expresses it very well. Indeed, Sepha's comment unwittingly, confirms it. Sepha found it "much more fun waiting for the boys to go naked.." EXACTLY She/he says the production "creates tension" , and some of the audience "starts giggling" "which distracts from"..... Exactly! As it will, always, for some minutes when the audience gets used to the guys being naked... Then, of course, the giggling tendency stops...and people really listen and enjoy the show as originally conceived. Because they HAVE TO. You can't continue to giggle ten minutes after the performers have stripped off. Then, you have to appreciate (or ignore) them as skillful performers (not naked strippers) doing their best, singing and dancing for you. I saw the Madam Jojo's show and then various NYC shows..and my conclusion is: if you want the titillation to stop and appreciation of the "philosophy" behind the show (and the witty and poignant numbers to take over), and people to really listen, then, please, get the titillation over right at the start. If you are about "creating tension" in this revealing situation then this production does it. ARE YOU? But I don't think this is what The King's Head is about. I think the KHT is about making the audience think, be challenged, having fun, being a bit disturbed thinking "how would it be if my friend Adam was up there on the stage" So, I conclude, I would like the director to reconsider the setting up of his premise.. "actors are auditioning..." and get straight on with it..as originally conceived and face The KHT audience with not titillation but challenge. Titillation is easy. The idea of presenting an audience a challenge about nudity is quite different.. IT could challenge themselves about nakedness, etc.. Anyone can set up strippers these days Asking people to think about their ideas about bodies (and their bodies) is different.. WHY NOT HAVE A NBS PERFORMANCE AT THE THEATRE WHERE ALL THE AUDIENCE IS NAKED. no difference there.. anyway TO YOU; GREAT PERFORMERS..i enjoyed your singing and dancing, best I've seen... Good for you and KHT for putting on this show.. So..I am suggesting a rethink..Phil and the KHT this is just the first week... Make a few adjustments, ... Phil.. congratulations for your persistence in bringing this show back to london... I THINK THIS SHOW COULD BE A LONG-RUNNING all-challenging show but please get the giggling over in the first few minutes.. Of course I shall come again with friends, hoping for a somewhat change in the show best CHRIS - CHRIS PARKIN | 31 May 09 |
| Disagree with previous comment...much more fun waiting for the boys to go naked.....creates tension, and after all, when you've had a look, it doesn't take long to start giggling at all those willies bouncing around, which distracts from the very witty and sometimes poignant songs. Great singing too - Sepha | 30 May 09 |
| I went along to see the new London production of Naked Boys Singing. Tonight was the first preview, so allowances must be made, but I found it a bit of a disappointment! Unlike every other production I've seen, including the film version, the guys do not actually get naked until very close to the end of the show. Although I can understand that this may be intended to build up anticipation and make the final reveal more exciting, it actually feels like a bit of a cop-out, and somewhat sordid. The songs were written to be performed nude, and many of them don't quite make sense when the guys performing them are still in their jeans and sneakers. The boys take their shirts off half-way through, which is even worse - it just felt like we were being presented with a bowdlerised version of the original. For all its dodgy exploitation of hungry young chorus boys who are required to spend an hour shaking their bits in front of the audience, I think the original NBS's integrity has been betrayed by this London production. The show as originally conceived has a point to make about nudity and about throwing off the shackles of repression as symbolised by clothes. People might come to look at the naked guys but most people soon become accustomed to the nudity, by all accounts, so it stops being an issue. That's a meaningful arc for the audience. By keeping the guys clothed until the finale, this production actually makes the nudity seem like a rather sad, timid and anti-climactic attempt at titillation, while failing to offer the sense of liberation and abandonment of the original. What a shame! - Barnsbury | 26 May 09 |
| Guy, Guys, Guys… three and a half out of five. This is a perky little show, with lots of perky little peckers on display. Some great little songs – ‘I’m a perky little porn star from Poughkeepsie’… - some not so great, but all in all a very enjoyable, and very gay hour, just about. But guys…get on to your agents. You’d have got four out of five if we could have found out who you were, and who the creatives were. It’s shameful that The Kings Head had no programmes available after you’d all been working your little arses off. I popped back into the auditorium after the show and discovered that the cast was English, as was the MD. You’d never have guessed, as the accents were faultlessly ‘American’. The show could have done with a little anglicising. I couldn’t have been the only person not to know the meaning of the word ‘bris’ could I? Anyway, cute guys, some great dancing, and well, lets be honest, it does what it says on the tin. Naked Boys Singing about sums it up. - Richard Voyce | 26 May 09 |
