Synopsis New York's most outrageous musical comedy Naked Boys Singing is back following its triumphant run at the Arts last year. This hilarious revue features 16 original songs, 8 gorgeous guys and no clothes - a winning combination if ever there was one! From the sassy opening number Gratuitous Nudity to the screamingly funny Bliss of a Bris, audiences and critics alike have hailed Naked Boys Singing! a sure-fire crowd-pleaser.
This flimsy New York cabaret piece – apparently a huge hit across America – originally did just what it says on the poster. In Phil Wilmott’s production, it has been rejigged so that the cast only fully disrobe towards the end of the 65-minute show. Most of the time, it’s more a case of Clothed Boys Singing About Being Naked.
Willmott’s version – grandly entitled Naked Boys Singing! 2009 – takes the form of 16 numbers sung by a troupe ostensibly auditioning for the event we’re seeing, in a knowing homage to the putting-on-a-show musical A Chorus Line. There are solo audition songs (“From now until my ship comes in, I really wouldn’t trade/ The satisfaction that always comes/ with being your naked maid”); ensemble numbers as the hopefuls slug it out for a place in the line-up; and even a wistful hymn by the show’s pianist, Leigh Thompson, in which he rejects the buffed perfection of the modern male body in favour of the craggier looks of Robert Mitchum.
At first it all seems witty enough. The circumcision song “The Bliss of a Bris”, to a Fiddler on the Roof-style refrain, is full of smart, fast-paced rhyming, and another number contains the laugh-out-loud Sondheim parody line “side by side (and front to rear)”. But there’s a complacency about some of the lyrics (I’m sorry, but “Mitchum” just doesn’t rhyme with “smidgin”), and there is nothing smart about the number “I Beat My Meat”, which is pure adolescent crudity. The writers – astonishingly, 13 of them are credited – really need to pay another visit to Avenue Q if they want to learn how to do this sort of thing properly.
You have to remind yourself that this material emerged from a country where the spirit of the Pilgrim Fathers is alive and well – there are lots of references to defying Bible Belt values – and where they have not had years of exposure to Graham Norton. What may seem daring and exciting to Americans seems tired and coarse over here.
It’s also a logical mess. In the song “Fight the Urge”, the company manager is terrified that the naked auditioners will see he is aroused. In another number, they have all turned gay – so why would they care? Inconsistency like that may not matter on a cabaret stage, but if you put it in a proper theatre – even one beset by embarrassing technical glitches on opening night – then I’m afraid it does matter.
- Simon Edge
NOTE: The following FOUR-STAR review dates from June 2009 and this production’s original run at the King’s Head Theatre.
So what’s it about then? Umm… Put it this way: the title isn’t exactly cryptic. It’s not wholly accurate either – at least not until the home straight, when the much-heralded dévoilement finally occurs. Up until then Naked Boys Singing, a plot-free, gay-centric paean to the male physique, is more tell than show.
But hell, what’s so special about male nudity anyway? You’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all, and a 65-minute revue on the subject needs to offer a lot more than a sad little strip show for closeted voyeurs. It needs to be snappy, witty, catchy and entertaining. Happily, those are the very qualities that suffuse this good-natured, riotously funny evening of song, dance and, er, swing.
The 17-song score is credited to no fewer than 13 different American writers, which must be something of a record, so it’s not surprising that the quality of the material is variable. Alongside some forgettable sub-Stephen Schwartz numbers are one or two real gems, most notably a torch song to Robert Mitchum (sardonically delivered by musical director Leigh Thompson) and the irresistible showstopper 'Nothin’ but the Radio On'.
The seven-strong ensemble comprises six talented triple-threat guys who act with conviction, sing superbly and dance up a storm both individually and as a nicely matched ensemble. They are certainly more consistent than their material, and it’s a shame that the excellent Stephen Butler, David Lucas and Adam Mendlesohn are all lumbered with solos that don’t quite cut it (literally so in the case of Mendlesohn, whose dull song of circumcision could easily be snipped from the script). Joe van Haeften, Nathan Taylor and Duncan Leighton are equally adept at treading the fine line between solemnity and send-up, and there is a bright comic turn from Matthew Russell-Jones who is (or do I mean provides) the seventh member of the cast.
Phil ‘King of the Fringe’ Willmott does it again with some tight, fast-paced direction, although the show is really stolen by Andrew Wright’s terrific choreography. The gentlemen dance like crazy, in or out of clothes, and it’s always a hoot. If you’ve a mind to pop into the King’s Head you’ll enjoy a jolly spot of (semi-)innocent fun… but if it’s gratuitous nudity you’re after, be patient. The hour-and-a-bit flies by, and it ain’t over till the naked boys sing.
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
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
Society of London Theatre member. As part of the relaunch in 2008 the seating capacity has increased from 112 to 140. Home of London's Little Opera House in rep.
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.