★★★ REVIEW: Treason (Alexandra Palace Theatre) | 2023 new musical London / UK Tour

[@Merina2222]

This show baffles me. It's been knocking around for years, and everyone I've spoken to says it's dull and underwhelming. Yet it somehow keeps getting promoted to high heavens, with big concerts and high quality recordings and now a full production...I'm fascinated to know what's going on behind the scenes.

[@bartgreenberg9001]

As an older reviewer (in NYC) who admires your work, can I just encourage you not to ever apologize for your reviews. You clearly have good opinions for what you believe.

[@aerials_etc]

Seconded. You have a very clearly articulated, thoughtful, and fair analysis of the show including what worked well and how they could improve, shared in a constructive, caring way. That's about all any writer can hope for (I say as both a theater critic myself and an early career playwright who has presented some not so strong scripts). I would have been happy to get a review like this! It's not mean spirited or hurtful. So you have nothing to apologize for! If you were trying to say that you're sorry you didn't like the show more, maybe "I see the potential and am so excited to see where it goes" is a less self effacing (?) way of expressing the same idea? In any case, love your work Mickey J, thanks for the insight to this show and theater in general.

[@DWhoLover]

I get thematically why they show GF being burned as a possible metaphor, but I’ve now seen two reviews of this show say that he actually was in real life, and this is why historical inaccuracies in things like this show make me crazy. This is one event in UK history I actually learned a lot about in in the US. I appreciate this review a lot, especially following on the previous version. I’m now strangely invested in whether this show can ultimately morph into something really strong.

[@Nikki-tx6kh]

Guy wasn't burnt in the stake, he was hanged. History Nerd here.

[@ChienaAvtzon]

Even as an American, I knew Guy Fawkes was hanged.

[@clairedeacon2178]

Yes! He was hung, drawn and quartered, I had a what(?) moment when he said burned! Did the writers do the research 😂

[@mahaliasmusings]

I was just going to say that also - not in criticism of Mickey (great review as always) but on the writers. Although I did have to have this argument with colleagues recently so perhaps it’s one of those mistakes of history that people just assume?

[@missybump]

Historian here! Yeah he was hung 😂 technically if the sentence had been successfully carried out he would have died during the quartering, but most evidence suggests he died during the hanging. Im going to be very kind and say that I guess burning allows for more theatricality?

[@IloveHeartlandX]

I was going to say this also! Such a basic thing to get wrong, raises some red flags about the writers' research!

[@mysticaldesign858]

your character descriptions where the best you can muster is "also catholic" are sending me

[@MsJaytee1975]

You can’t say that casting is diverse when Robert Cecil’s real life disability has been erased. He had scoliosis of the spine. Given most of the positives I’ve seen in reviews have been praising the actor who plays Robert Cecil, it feels like whatever the result of this tour, it will be a career boost for him. What a difference they could’ve made by giving that opportunity to a disabled actor. Last year finally saw a disabled man play Richard III for the first time in a major production. Richard III did have scoliosis, but it wasn’t particularly pronounced and it was rarely commented on in his lifetime. The reason he has a pronounced disability in Richard III was Shakespeare was having a dig at Robert Cecil, primarily for being so anti-catholic. We’ve finally managed to portray Richard III as a fully human disabled man, but not Robert Cecil. Guy Fawkes was hung, he wasn’t burnt to death. Did these writers do any research? I know I’m a history nerd but that’s a basic. The problem with linking the persecution of catholics to the persecution of people today is the plotters were the 1% almost to a man. From my point of view as a disabled person, someone whose community takes a regular kicking from this government, I would be thinking that they had choices, many people left England to avoid persecution, many pretended to convert, the plotters chose violence. Most people oppressed by this government have no alternative choices, that link will never land. Back to the casting of Robert Cecil. The reason he had to manipulate the king rather be straightforward in real life is the king didn’t take him seriously, he called Cecil ‘my little beagle’, mostly due to his height and disability. They seem to misrepresent the dynamic between the two. I wonder how the show will play in Scotland given the only Scottish character is an antagonist, and we were certainly taught at school that the plotters were anti-Scottish. I don’t think they will flop, but some of the material won’t land in the same way. Like when I saw We Will Rock You in Glasgow and ‘Hello Wembley’ got booed.

[@fittydee]

Rather gutted, booked to see the palladium on 21st and they’ve cancelled and only doing 1 night now 😢

[@zartig09]

The show opened its tour in Edinburgh, so has already played in Scotland. And I saw a fair bit more praise during its Scottish week than I have done since it changed venues. Perhaps that was due to it being the opening week, or maybe outside London people are less critical as we only get touring or local productions (which rarely are the same high level as a West End show). But I enjoyed the show much more than most big critics in the past week, and I personally see it as a low 4 star show. And I’m Scottish. I had no issue with the King characterisation, though I felt him tonally odd. It was either the actors fault or the writing, but it felt like a pantomime villain performing serious non-panto writing, and it didn’t work for me. But me, and the Edinburgh audience I’ve spoke to, have not had any issues with the character or show from who I’ve spoken to.

[@HelenRosemarySmith]

@@zartig09 Agree, I think it was the other way round that the Scottish audience enjoyed seeing his performance more because he was Scottish rather than being alienated by it. The plot of the show didn't really get into any of the anger the plotters had at James' ideas to unify his Kingdoms anyway beyond one line.

[@HelenRosemarySmith]

Thanks for raising this about Cecil! I think they did attempt to show that there were divisions within the community about whether violence was the answer but they just didn't really get into that enough. Like they showed the women as preferring non-violent resistance but they were pretty sidelined.

[@ktscd]

I saw it on Edinburgh and there was initial positive response to James as he initially agrees to the plotters' requests. The show frames the reversion to persecution as being the result of Cecil's influence which, I think, means the show gets away with Scottish King being the antagonist for a Scottish audience.

[@amber9585]

Quick edit note: around 20:47 you delve into your segment on Oscar Conlon-Morrey (big Oscar fan here!) but you pull up a photo of Joe McFadden to illustrate him. I don't know how KZbin editing works or if that's fixable but just thought I'd throw it out there in case it's worth mentioning. Also thanks as always for your detailed reviews! I was in the audience for their opening night in Edinburgh and had many similar thoughts. A musical should make you feel SOMETHING but this one really just drew a blank. The woman sitting next to me was (rather annoyingly) on her phone for the entire first act and she didn't return for the second. The most significant emotion I came away with was a sense of infuriation to see work that's more of an empty imitation rather than something that explores its own true voice and the message it has to offer. I certainly think the idea behind it could work though and I'm intrigued to see what they do next! I'm a new musical writer and I find your reviews really very helpful in reflecting on my own work so thank you again! :-)

[@trixiftube]

Thank you! I did. wonder why Oscar wasn‘t looking like himself 😂 …

[@kathleenewing3673]

Hamilton, Six and Les Mis are all excellent inspirations, but pick a template. Also, maybe when Hadestown reappears in February, they'll realize that Hermes is an excellent way to repurpose Guy Fawkes.

[@minirth.maggie]

Speaking on representation, I saw the US tour of Hamilton in June and we got to see a swing named John Devereaux for King George, and he was phenomenal. The audience LOVED him from the moment he stepped on stage. First black King George I've seen live or recorded, and he KILLED it. I cannot overstate his rapport witu the audience. MVP all the way. So good to see the tradition of keeping that role white broken in such a decisive way.

[@linkzelda8610]

In Hamburg theres also been a black swing covering kg3 :D

[@minirth.maggie]

​@@linkzelda8610that's wonderful!

[@BauerandBagwell]

In the concert version last year, you gave it a 3 star rating, and yet this year you said it had improved and gave it a low 3 star- was the cast so much stronger last year or was it more suited to a concert version? Not critiquing, just curious as to why it’s arguably a lower rating despite improvement?

[@MickeyJoTheatre]

At the time, I clearly felt a 3 was correct - in hindsight it probably ought to have been a 2. What keeps this show from a lower rating consistently is talented performers and some very dynamic material lost within a messy book. There is enough objective entertainment value in a few sweeping songs sung very well.

[@BauerandBagwell]

@@MickeyJoTheatre That’s fair enough- I didn’t get chance to see it last year, and while I was hoping to go this year, it’s not looking likely… Hope it comes to the Mayflower one day!

[@TheatreKidTom]

I feel whenever a show with little story line happens - like Treason - the makers often read into things too much, there is not that much plot really, so they start reading into a 20 minute ball scene and poetic scenes and relationships and things that the producers guested what happened.

[@edfidk]

Thanks!

[@louiseb2115]

I went to see this in Edinburgh last month and I completely agree with everything you said. I still don’t understand Martha’s reasoning at the end, and I think her character’s decision and the lack of explanation for it, meant that the conclusion and the meaning of the show felt completely confusing. I felt the same about Guy Fawkes’ final words 🤔 what was he trying to convey? A lot of the songs were really beautiful and the cast were all great, but the story needs a lot of work. I left the theatre feeling so confused and really underwhelmed.

[@HelenRosemarySmith]

Also knowing that what happened was one of the plotters wrote to warn someone he knew to stay away from parliament that day and that letter was intercepted took me out of that scene. Thought it was a.disservice to Martha after everything she's sung about her husband the whole way through that she would condemn him like that, and have it happen offstage too.

[@davesmith5470]

So glad to hear your articulate review - I couldn't put my finger on why I didn't come out humming some tunes and mulling over the story, and feeling flat - but you nailed it as usual. Saw it in Sheffield, had no idea what was going on, couldn't hear the words clearly so lost most of the narrative you referenced, who was who and what their perspective was. Especially Guy Fawkes speeches - I had no idea he was supposed to be dead either, and the finale was just theatrically poor and lazy I thought - if your going to burn a character at the stake (even if historically inaccurate...) surely you can do better than a couple of red lights under a wooden platform, it should have been a thrilling heart rending scene (...I felt "chorus line" nothing..... ;-) It did feel like it was trying too hard to be Hamilton, with a bit of Phantom (boat scene and masquerade) tossed in, and had an air of Martin Gurre about it too - so too formulaic rather than authentically itself. The singing was magnificent, even if most the songs weren't catchy, it needs more musical motifs repeating, nothing seemed familiar as it rolled on (and on)....and that awfully frustrating thing where you want to clap a brilliantly sung song but the music doesn't come to a proper ending and before you know it the character who has just left their guts on the stage has left it and your left with your hands ready to clap but can't - that happened too many times!

[@kittymae335]

The literal 'we have Hamilton at home'

[@filmsociety1311]

I saw the musical on 28th October at the Festival Theatre Edinburgh. Enjoyed it but was sceptical about the dubious historical accuracy of certain aspects of the performance.

[@boozytortoise]

I had tickets for Edinburgh but couldn't attend due to illness. Doesn't sound like I missed a once in a lifetime musical

[@HelenRosemarySmith]

I agree with a lot of what you said. There needed to be more depth - for example, showing rather than telling us Martha and Percy's (and Robert etc) backstories! A lot of the script/lyrics were quite literal but I felt that letting emotions do more of the leading could've increased emotional impact. Having only two women characters, with one a bit sidelined, was a wasted opportunity, especially as they appeared to be looking at how violent and nonviolent resistance movements take hold and giving this a gendered aspect.* Anne was smuggling Catholic priests from Europe to England and it was just mentioned once in a throwaway line! And making Martha the one to write the letter felt a disservice to her; and if they are going to write it that way at least show those moments rather than tell us after the fact. Agree that Guy's poetic speeches made them vague. One thing the ending one made me think about though is how a real person got mythologised into this idea of Guy Fawkes that people know. (Like in this lyric: (Men: "You've got to fight fire with fire, fire with fire!" / Women: "If you fight fire with fire, you're gonna get burned" )

[@dylan-kv5xu]

It was really lovely to meet you at the press night (i asked for a photo after the show) !! I thought the choreography in the show was also a bit boring, and the songs started to get so overly repetitive that i'd just lost interest

[@MartynThomas]

I sat through the concert version last year - it was punishingly dull and uncreative. It sounds like it's not really improved and seems to still be more interested in copying other people's homework than do something of it's own. There's a good musical about the gunpowder plot waiting to happen....maybe this just isn't the creative team to pull it off.

[@annacalstone610]

I saw this in Sheffield and firstly was gutted they removed the song day Elizabeth died, that I'm disappointed by, secondly what on earth was with the opening of act 2. For me that was jarring and didn't work, if anything they could've used the song the day Elizabeth died there as a way of creating a play about King James coming to the throne (plotters in shadow still doing the we did not morn her part as almost ghostly figures contradicting the action on stage) The death of the plotters felt like such an anticlimax. I do feel you can tell the difference between original songs and new ones, new ones don't have as much of the folk style to them which is a shame

[@HelenRosemarySmith]

The programme didn't have a list of songs in which I found a shame. Now I'm wondering if it was because they were still finalising which would be in it when they made the programme... !

[@bibblek]

As someone who fell in love with the concert recording, I have never been more disappointed with a fully staged production 😓 I'd argue that it feels like an entirely new show with the choices that they've made, and not for the better. The inclusion of dialogue in the middle of the songs also just drew everything to a screeching stop, and the whole story felt so muddled and confused. And don't get me started on the use of Guy Fawkes because I don't think I'll ever understand why they included him the way they did (and got his death entirely wrong factually??) I don't think I've ever left a theatre more disappointed for a long time The finish on a better note though, the cast were absolutely carrying the material and killing it. I personally feel that Nicole's performance was an absolute stand out and worth the ticket price alone.

[@yankee04]

Interesting, thanks. Would you ever work as a dramaturg? I think you would be good at it. Have you ever reviewed Hamilton?

[@MickeyJoTheatre]

I've thought about it! And I haven't reviewed Hamilton yet, but might be for the first time later this year...

[@helliza_]

Saw this in Edinburgh and was left with the feeling of wishing I’d seen the performers in something else as they were the best part of it by far… material and message of the show felt quite weak and cliche :/

[@owenespejo6401]

Where is I Have a Dream ep 4 recap????

[@TheDavidConstable]

A very fair review. Saw it last night and it falls down with the poor storytelling. It was confusing, jumping around without clear explanation. You cannot engage with the characters if you don't understand what is going on. I came out knowing little about this bit of history. I completely lost interest when distracted by the person rowing the boat backwards! Good performers, poor material. one/two stars

[@bwilliams5338]

Saw it and thought the singers were amazing. But the show itself just seemed overly melodramatic and long winded while not much happened. I wouldn’t recommend it to friends.

[@chuckoneill2023]

I don't see this show becoming a hit in the UK -- apart from its own merits -- cause you just don't have as many anti-royalists as we do in the US.

[@harrybrook3406]

Nicole uses they/she pronouns.

[@Paul-xz3wx]

Genuine question but if Nicole uses they/she and Mickey said she… is there an issue?

[@harrybrook3406]

@@Paul-xz3wx it’s a strong preference, the order is important.

[@Paul-xz3wx]

@@harrybrook3406 if that’s the case then why is she part of the preference at all if people are going to get offended when it’s used? Again simply a question for my own education ☺️

[@harrybrook3406]

@@Paul-xz3wx it’s often about recognising that they present as feminine so can be comfortable with she pronouns if it’s a stranger etc., but for a review of this length it seems a little ignorant to only refer to someone by a pronoun they have expressed that they don’t prefer.

[@NicoleDennisUK]

@@Paul-xz3wxI can answer this! The order is very important for me. The ‘she’ in my pronouns is purely because I still present female. I prefer they. Have mentioned many times on my socials. Pronoun preference mean different things to every non binary person but for me that’s me explanation. Hope that helps :)

[@johnnynotty]

It’s no Hamilton because it’s not American.