Synopsis The Far Pavilions spans the 25 years between the Sepoy Uprisings of 1857 and the Second Afghan War, telling the story of forbidden love between a British Officer 'Ashton Pelham-Martyn' and an Indian Princess 'Anjuli'. This epic story evokes the romance of India, the intrigue of the Rajput Court and the over-confidence of an Empire at the height of its power.
Just when shows like The Producers and Spamalot (on Broadway) have made it safe to go to musicals again simply to have a good time, along comes this lumbering great Asian white elephant of a musical that sets the genre back 20 years to the long shadows cast by Les Miserables.
There’s nothing new in that, of course. Les Mis has spawned any number of imitators on both sides of the Atlantic - from Jane Eyre and Jekyll and Hyde on Broadway to Tess over here - that earnestly fillet epic romantic novels, full of incident and character, and condenses them into big through-sung theatrical spectacles.
But then there’s nothing new in The Far Pavilions to justify the extravagantly staged effort or expense either, notwithstanding the passing orchestral and choreographic nod to its exotic north Indian setting that inevitably recalls another recent West End show, Bombay Dreams (though without any comparable sense of ironic fun).
And certainly no effort or expense has been spared here in Gale Edwards’ production. With a hard-working cast of nine principals, an ensemble of 23 plus three kids, and an orchestra of 14, that’s nearly 50 on stage and in the pit alone. Nor do Lez Brotherston’s lavish design or Andreane Neofitou’s beautiful costumes stint on ravishing the eye (though I could have done without the constantly turning revolve that mainly seems to slide a low ramp wall into and out of view).
Meanwhile, the constantly churning, convoluted narrative that book writer Stephen Clark has condensed from a best-selling 960-page novel by MM Kaye into two-and-a-half hours of stage time is both galloping and difficult to follow at times. Sketched against the social, political and military background of a quarter of a century of Indian history from 1857 as the subcontinent was taken over by the British Raj, it simultaneously seeks to tell the story of one man’s troubled identity, as we (try to) comprehend the journey of one Ashton Pelham-Martyn.
Pelham-Martyn is an orphaned Englishman brought up as a Hindu in India (where he’s known as Ashok). After the death of his native foster mother, he reclaims his Britishness via a Marlborough and Sandhurst education, before returning to India as a British army officer. The inevitable moment arrives: “Let the journey start/the journey of my heart”, as he’s divided between the conflicting romantic claims of his past (a childhood sweetheart, Princess Anjuli) and present (a woman called Belinda, with Clark’s lyrics helpfully telling us such gems as: “She’s skittish/he’s British” and “he’s willing/she’s thrilling”).
All of this is communicated against the relentless wash of the blandly anthemic musical statements and soupy, syrupy tunes of composer Philip Henderson – it’s Les Mis without that show’s melodic sweep. But it’s performed with a fierce vocal conviction by a cast that includes Hadley Fraser as Ashton, Simon Gleeson as his best friend Lt Walter Hamilton, Gayatri Iyer and Dianne Pilkington as the two women in Ashton’s life, and David Burt, giving another of his hapless turns as a stock villain.
Would that the show were half as engaging or involving as the company’s undoubted talents.
Very very disappointing. The story is strong and should make for a wonderfully sweeping, passionate and diverse score - all it gets in a unimaginative monotony with few stand out moments. It starts quite positively, but never builds on it. The thing about through-composed shows is that they requirre 'big' numbers which are different from the music which is moving the show along. Unfortunatly The Far Pavilions rarely has these, and there is little in a dire second half to either captivate you and draw you emotionally into the show. Fraser is the bright spot for the show, and his voice is outstanding - in fact the whole cast are (as you'd expect from a big West End show) very talented. It's understandable why this show has flopped. The West End needs new innovative and imaginative shows (like Billy Elliot) not downgrade clones of previous hits. - 193.37.180.1)
19 Sep 05
We all know the pop opera has had it's day, so they were perhaps unwise to try once more. However, if this is the last of the genre, better a first division one like this (which owes much to the premiere league one Les Mis) than the fourth division Woman in White. The music is a bit mushy, but the singing is some of the best in the West End, the (live) orchestra plays very well, the story sweeps along and it looks gorgeous. The critics have been rather unfair on this - it certainly shouldn't bow out before we've got rid of WIW. - 81.157.183.6)
15 Sep 05
Hadley Fraser is a legend!!! The show is amazing, u have to see it. It's basically a mixture between les mis and bombay dreams. You have to see it. - 82.43.103.24)
23 Aug 05
I saw The Far Pavillions for 2 reasons: Firstly to see the wonderful Hadley Fraser, and secondly because I needed to see a show on a Sunday.
I'm glad I went, because its interesting to see many different kind of shows, but I wouldn't go again. This show is average, to put it kindly.
The main problem, for me, was the story and the spectacle reminded me more of a pantomime than a play. It was a silly love story which we all knew the outcome of in the end.
The music was also bland and unmemorable..except for the hilarious lyrics of "Afganistan". I think someone sang a ballad every 5 minutes. Maybe they were just added in every time a cast member had a quick costume change, or the set needed to be fixed.
On a positive side...the cast were all stunning. They all gave their best performances despite everything being against them. Hadley Fraser didn't fail to please me, again.
I only feel too sorry for this show, as it was a good try. Boring is the best word I could use to describe it. If you are the kind of person who likes to see good and bad theatre (like me), Go! - 62.252.0.10)
04 Aug 05
Best show I have seen in years!My wife had seen it twice and encouraged me to see it with her for a third time.I was blown away by the acting,the voices,the costuming and the spirit of the whole production;it was definately worth the trip to London.Long may it run!Bill - 152.163.101.9)
13 Jul 05
I flew from Los Angeles to see the show and loved every minute! I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone and everyone. It's a wonderful way to spend an evening - watching the beautiful dancers and the spectacular sets not to mention the fact that one couldn't help tapping ones feet to nearly every song! Congratulations and long may it play - 207.200.116.200)
08 Jul 05
If you cross two thoroughbreds like Les Miserables with Bombay Dreams you always risk getting a Mongrel. And that is what Far Pavilions is. Nearly every number is so agonised and sung with the loud pedal hard down that it is difficult to tell one from another. and by half way through the second half this just became plain boring. The little humour that is there is a welcome relief to what is otherwise a turgid evening. - 62.253.64.18)
26 Jun 05
Congratulations! Great show! I hope it will run very long!
Wonderful charismatic actors
xxx Caro - 84.178.184.49)
07 Jun 05
What a dreadful waste of money and talent: this cross between Les Mis and Bombay Dreams (but without the wit or the tunes) piles on every cliche in the book. Sure, it looks beautiful and the voices are great but the lyrics are appalling, the plot is confusing, and the most fun to be had here is spotting which other (infinitely better) shows this derivative production is ripping off at any given moment. I came out with a headache, from the relentless vocal belting, and the sad thought that so much money had been lavished on such mediocre material. - 195.82.123.181)
28 May 05
I don't recommend this. It's really old fashioned and derivative. In the direction it steals shamelessly from far better shows. It's far too long and slow and it lacks decent music. There are some pretty scenes with nice costumes and sets, and some talented performers, it's just a shame the show isn't worthy of them. - 80.46.145.244)
The first theatre to open in Shaftesbury Avenue on 20 Oct 1888. The original theatre was destroyed by bombs in 1941. A second theatre opened 26 Dec 1911 (originally the Prince's), badly damaged in 1940/41. Changed name to Shaftesbury in 1963. Housed the famous Hair performances in 1968. 1404 seats. Member of the Society of London Theatre.
Whatsonstage.com - Discount London theatre tickets, theatre news and reviews, Theatre videos, Theatre discussion, National Theatre Listings. Covering London's West End, all of Theatreland and all UK theatre. The best
for London Theatre Ticket Discounts.