Shuler Hensley - An Outstanding Actor Who Brings Humanity To Dysfunctionality

Shuler Hensley in The Whale

Shuler Hensley is an American actor who, outside of the theatre world and especially the musical theatre world, is little known in the UK. 

Currently he can currently be found in the Theatre Royal Bath’s Ustinov Studio in the modern tragedy The Whale, in which he plays the morbidly obese Charlie, an Idaho man who is close to death. Critics have raved about the play (my own review is here), but The Whale is only the most recent of Hensley’s achievements on these shores. 

Twenty years ago (and the only American playing in that South Bank cast) he won the Best Supporting Actor Olivier Award for his portrayal of Jud in Trevor Nunn’s Oklahoma! at the National Theatre. That production was one of the few American shows ever to have enjoyed a fresh UK revival that itself was then shipped back across the Atlantic to become a hit in New York too. On Broadway in 2002, reprising the National Theatre production, Hensley’s Jud earned him not only that year’s Drama Desk Award and Outer Critics’ Award, he scooped the Tony too! For those of us lucky enough to have seen the show (I was one) Hensley’s work was unforgettable. 

Nunn's Oklahoma! was choreographed by Susan Stroman – who went on to work closely with Mel Brooks in transferring his Young Frankenstein from a hit comedy movie onto the stage. Stroman didn’t hesitate in proposing Hensley to create The Monster when the show opened on Broadway in 2007. Ten years later Brooks and Stroman brought the show to London, where Hensley was again the only American actor employed, going on to magnificently (and far from monstrously) recreate his Monster for the West End. 

After The Whale's opening night in Bath last week I caught up with Hensley to learn a little more about him and his career.

JB:    Jud, The Monster, and now Charlie. What draws you to playing such dysfunctional individuals? 

Shuler:    That's a very interesting question. I think as a character/actor, I guess I'm just drawn to characters who we (by which I mean the general public or society) think we know based on our initial impression. Usually it's a visual impression. He's the dirty farm hand. Or he's the morbidly obese guy who can't get out of his apartment. It could be anything. Then , understanding that, and sort of as an actor, just trying to figure it all out. People don't go into life wanting to be labelled. I think we want to fit in. We want to be a part of everyone else's journey.  

That's the interesting thing about these characters - finding something that I think we all can recognise in a person, and then sort of flip it and say, "Well, wait a minute. Actually, I can relate to that." 

And once you're able to do that with an audience, and you're able to take a stereotypical character and make people start questioning that, then I think it's really powerful and interesting for the viewer to say, "Wow. Maybe there is some worthiness to these people."  

I mean, I play a lot of villains. I play a lot of darker characters. But with my research and with my knowledge of these people, in reality I have found that these dark souls don’t thinks of themselves as psychopaths or a villains. They often think, "Well, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so it's not like I'm evil." And once you can figure that out then you can really portray someone who is deeply believing in what they're saying. Does that make sense? 

JB:    It makes perfect sense. In The Whale, where you have to endure a particularly spiteful daughter – there is a moment when you, her scorned and obese father, realise the good that lies within her. It’s a heartbreaking, powerful moment that you perform beautifully.  

Moving on, what sympathy do you think we can or should feel for Jud in Oklahoma!? 

Shuler Hensley's Jud Fry

Shuler:    Well, Jud's an interesting character. When Oklahoma! first came out especially the film, I think there was a necessity to draw a line between who's good and who's bad. But what I find fascinating about Rodgers and Hammerstein is that actually they don't write that way. 

If you look at things like South Pacific and you look at Oklahoma!, there's a lot of good and bad in everyone. And Curly, although he may be all fluffed up in the movie, he's got a dark side. He's got a very vengeful side. In the song Lonely Room for Jud, which incredibly was cut from the movie, that's a vitally important moment to get inside Jud’s head.  

Listen to the lyrics of Lonely Room - it's a love poem. It's a wanting to belong. It's a wanting to get a bride and fit in, and be loved, and to love someone. I mean, we all can relate to that, but what's interesting about Richard Rodgers' music is that underneath that love poem is dissonance. 

I talked to Mary Rodgers about this, his daughter before she passed, and she said that he considered Lonely Room to be one of his greatest compositions ever because it so well contained the emotion in what's happening within the song. Jud is a perfect example of somebody who doesn't think of themselves as being a villain, but for whatever reason has been put into that situation and is defensive. 

Think of “Poor Jud Is Daid”. If you take that out of being a comedic duet and saw what Curly was doing, he’s being horrible to Jud. 

JB:    It's horrendous bullying. 

Shuler:    Quite. People laugh and scoff in that song, but if you can create moments where the audience - and I mean Oklahoma! is the quintessential American musical – if you can get them to hear a song for the first time in a way that makes them start to question their judgement, THAT is what live theatre is all about. 

I've worked with Hugh Jackman (who played Curly in the Nunn production). That was his first thing here. I've worked on films and movies and people like Hugh and a lot of these guys like Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart who've made success in movies and TV come back to theatre. 

And the reason is that you can't re-create a live audience or a live experience because you're in it with the audience. And so when you create a touching moment for a villain like Jud or a touching moment for a morbidly obese gay man like Charlie, there's a palpable connection with the audience in a live environment that can't be re-created. 

JB:    You just mentioned Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart. You recently played alongside them in the Broadway production of No Man's Land. Tell me about working with those two theatrical knights, on Pinter.   

Shuler:    It reminds me of like a Sunday Times crossword puzzle. It's very cerebral on the surface, but if you go along with that then you realise that there's a lot of stuff going on that's beyond the words or underneath the words, or between the lines. And that's what was so fascinating with it. We actually worked with the neurologist Oliver Sacks who Patrick invited into to our rehearsal process.  

He helped us with the fascinating aspect of the whole play being about false memory. I think we all have it. I mean, if you have a sibling, you can both remember in great detail sometimes different versions of the same event. Both versions cannot be true because they don't line up. It's just a fascinating journey in false memory with Pinter dialogue. 

JB:    Let's move on to Mel Brooks and Young Frankenstein.

Hensley as The Monster

Shuler:    Well, where to begin? I consider Mel Brooks to be a dear friend of mine. I talk to him on a regular basis. He's nearly 92 and he couldn't be a younger soul. I think it's the throwback to when he started as a comedy writer to Sid Caesar's show of shows. I believe that's what it's called. In the writing room was Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, a very young Woody Allen. Those types of guys who had to come up with a weekly comedy line – No, I think Mel said there were about 70 shows a year. 

The idea of coming up with something funny and throwing it like a spaghetti, throwing it against the wall and seeing if it sticks. That's Mel's mentality with everything. He didn't want to re-create the movie. He wanted it the musical of Young Frankenstein to be an original experience even though everyone can relate to the lines and the scenes that everyone remembers from the film.  

Having him say that from the beginning was such a relief because I didn't want to try to create or re-create the version of The Monster from the film because there's just no way to do that. 

We had the Broadway run and then I did it on tour because I wanted to experience what that was like for the American audience, which was amazing because everyone loves Mel Brooks.

So after 10 years probably Mel just called me up. I talked to him occasionally within that gap, and he kept saying, "Shuler, I'm getting this to London. I'm telling you. It's going to go to London." And Susan Stroman and I would laugh about it because I've worked with Susan Stroman on a number of projects and we do readings. I'd say to Susan, "Have you heard from Mel?" And she's like, "Oh yeah." And lo and behold, he got it here.  

I said, "I'm going to do it. I'll do whatever you want me to do."

And then when we got here, he came in and completely re-designed it, re-thought it, let a lot of the leads and people experiment with lines. He was here for five, six weeks. I mean, he's very hands on, and super energised. I can't even begin to tell you how amazing that man is, and he's constantly thinking. 

JB:    The Whale – tell me about your journey with this astonishing piece.

Shuler Hensley and Ruth Gemmell in The Whale

Shuler:    It started six years ago. They had a reading of this play called The Whale and they said, "We'd be interested in Shuler reading this." So, they sent me a copy of it, and when I read it my jaw dropped. I just felt such a connection to not only the characters, but the style of writing and the rhythm of the writing, and the use of pauses and things not said that should be. It was all contained within the script. That was just reading it. 

And then you get to the actual table read. A lot of times the things you think are going to happen just don't, but pretty much everything that I was hoping for just naturally happened within the table read. I think we all went away from that thinking, "This is something really amazing to be a part of." 

And then the writer, Sam Hunter, is just one of those people that's just an old soul and a wonderful human being. He sets all his plays in Idaho, which is where he's from. And it's sort of autobiographical in some aspects, but in others it's hints of people he knows and has entered his life. The storyline of Mormonism reflects how prolific that creed is that part of the country.  

Idaho’s up in the north west corner. It's sort of a No Man's Land (not to bring another play into it of course!) but it really is. I mean, if you ask a typical American about what would a normal person from Idaho be like? They'd have no clue. No clue. 

JB:    And in the politics of modern America, Where would you say Idaho sits? 

Shuler:    I don't know. I think it's a mystery. It's just like a frontier. I have been to Moscow, Idaho once. I drove down from Seattle, Washington because there was a wedding that I was a part of. The bachelor party was in Moscow, Idaho. It feels like you're in the middle of outer space because there were no street lights at the time, so you're driving through these massive national parks in the dark. You can just see as far as your headlights are, and then all of a sudden there's this town. It's a big town but it's sort of surrounded by wilderness, so very isolated. It's just a really interesting area. I wouldn't know what the politics are because it's its own world. 

JB:    Is there a hope that The Whale may come into London? 

Shuler:    That is our hope! 

Whenever there's something I'm doing in the States that I really believe in, I always think of how we can get it to England because I think the theatre community here is very knowledgeable. The British are very supportive of theatre and I've just loved working here.


The Whale plays at the Ustinov Studio until 2nd June
Photo credits for The Whale images: Simon Annand

Josefina Gabrielle talks about Chicago

Sarah Soetaert and Josefina Gabrielle

As Chicago returns to London, I spoke with Josefina Gabrielle who as Velma is sharing the show’s leading credits, about the piece and her career.

Josefina:    Well, it's the longest running American musical. It's been running for 21 years on Broadway and it is wonderful to have it back in the West End. Chicago holds a very dear place in my heart, because I've had so many wonderful experiences with it. And I also have to admit an obsession with it too! Before I’d even saw the show, the original cast album had been a favourite of mine. I love to watch it and I love being in it.

It also has a real international appeal. Not only do theatre lovers come to see the show, but it brings other audiences too. It makes me feel very proud, and Cuba Gooding Jr., by the way, is a diamond. We love him, an absolute superstar. He's a true star - a lovely, warm, funny man and an excellent company leader too. And of course, to work with Ruthie Henshall is a privilege and a dream. I've followed her for years and admired her and we've meet socially on occasions too, but to finally get to work together, and to sing Class with such a classy lady, is a thrill.

JB:    You’re playing Velma but when Chicago was last in town you played Roxie. Tell me about that contrast.

Josefina:    It is terribly interesting, because I played Roxie for the first time, 18 years ago. I went in and out of Chicago on various occasions during its run. I think the last time I was involved as 10 years ago. So now I am Velma watching Roxie, having been Roxie watching Velma.

I suppose, maybe because of who I am now, 18 years later, my Velma certainly feels very grown up. Looking back at Roxie, I felt more sort of twinkly and girlie then. Now I feel more calculating, more of a planner, whereas Roxie didn't really think about consequences. She sort of turns on a six pence and just cleans up as she goes along, whereas Velma is more calculating. 

JB:    You’ve played a number of phenomenal roles in recent years. What have you brought from your experience to date, to add to your take on Velma?

Josefina:    Interestingly and thinking of Merrily We Roll Along from four years ago, I've tapped into Gussie quite a few times. 

JB:    The sexual politics of Chicago take on a different hue post-Weinstein. This production’s publicity shots follow the tradition of presenting Roxie, Velma and here, Mama Morton too, clad in underwear, while Billy Flynn (and Amos) remain fully clothed. How can that styling be explained, today?

Josefina:    I feel that the entire company, men and women, with the exception of Billy and Amos maybe, are owning their life with sexuality and physicality. Fosse is such a very strong, wonderful style of choreography, and we are wearing outfits and costumes that represent that style of the show and its dance.

If you think of any ballet company, any dance company, it's no different. It is a dance and singing and acting show, so you're covering everything, really. I don't feel anyone is being exploited or feeling weak, because of what they're wearing. 

JB:    Tell me your thoughts on performing Kander and Ebb's work. 

Josefina:    My experience with Kander and Ebb and also Rodgers and Hammerstein are that the subjects that they pick are so fascinating and very often ahead of their times. How they portray those subjects, the structure of the shows and the music is just so wonderful, such brilliant numbers, that is it pure, pure entertainment that really sort of picks you up and makes you soar, soar as in fly to the sky.

But when you really think about the message that you're putting across, it is wonderful food for thought of the whole sensationalising criminal behaviour in Chicago. Cabaret with the rise of the Nazis in Berlin. They touch on such fascinating subjects, moving you. And then, when you explore what you've celebrated, it opens your eyes. It's wonderful. 

JB:    I'm glad that you touched upon Rodgers and Hammerstein because the first time that I came across your work was at the National Theatre 20 years ago in Trevor Nunn’s remarkable Oklahoma! What do you mean by those composers being "ahead of their time"?

Josefina:    Well I've done three Rodgers and Hammersteins now. Oklahoma!, Carousel and The King and I and every time it's an education. It's the birth of a nation in Oklahoma! as that state was just coming into existence. The musical is about the land rush, starting from scratch and setting up communities. That's an entire education on the history of the birth of a state.

The King and I is all about cultural differences. Where you believe yourself to be superior, because you think you know better, but then another culture opens your eyes to your ignorance and you learn from each other. It's always been a wonderful education, and a sort of sense of coming home to, every time I've done a Rodgers and Hammerstein – the material is just so rich. 

JB:    And of course you are one of the few West End leading ladies to have played opposite Hugh Jackman!

Josefina:    Yes. I mean on stage, it's just me, isn't it?

JB:    And now, together with Ruthie Henshall and Sarah Soetaert, you can add Cuba Gooding Jnr to that tally too!

Chicago plays at the Phoenix Theatre and is booking until 6th October.

Photo credit: Tristram Kenton

Les Miserables - Movie

Certificate 12A - On general release

***

Screenplay by Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schönberg and William Nicholson

Lyrics by Herbert Kretzmer

Music by  Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg

Directed by Tom Hooper

Samntha Barks as Eponine

Evolving from 27 years of spectacular live performance, Tom Hooper has taken Boublil, Schonberg and Kretzmer’s Les Miserables and  transplanted  their masterpiece from stage to screen.

As an exercise in pushing the technical boundaries of some aspects of musical performance in cinema, the film is an unqualified success, but as an adaptation of one of the most celebrated works in the musical theatre canon, it fails to satisfy.

In the Prologue, an impressive blend of performance and CGI, we first encounter Jean Valjean the convict amongst a team of prisoners hauling in a massive shipwreck. The scenery is breathtakingly vast, but the vocal work is intimate and up close and thereby hangs the movie's flaw. Boublil and Schonbergs' compositions are grand and beautiful and do not lend themselves well to the repeated scrutiny of solo close up that is Hooper's signature. His directorial style worked well in The King's Speech, and also in television's EastEnders, where individual intimacy is crucial to the flowing of the story. Few canvases however are as vast as that of Victor Hugo's french classic and an enormous tale demands a similarly proportioned sense of perspective from the director and not just in the rumbustious ensemble numbers.

Hugh Jackman as Valjean is not only an actor of global presence but also possesses a fine pedigree in musical theatre. His performance of Valjean, that has already garnered a Golden Globe, is a noble depiction of a heroic journey. But where cinema has permitted the “zooming out” of the visual experience of this story,  the decision to “zoom in” on the vocal work robs these songs of the impressive majesty that the writers conceived some thirty odd years ago. In One Day More, arguably one of the finest “Act One Closers” ever written, the fragmented camerawork, with Jackman making Valjean’s contribution whilst fleeing in a stagecoach, robs a fantastic number of its impact. This is a song written for the stage, not the screen and Hooper’s adaptation has stripped the number of both magic and also of its gut-wrenching power. On stage this song is pivotal but on screen it is reduced to not much more than an inventory of different character's perspectives, adding little value to the tale.  All too often in this film, wonderful songs are reduced to simply rhyming dialogue with a muslcal background.

Jackman’s fellow antipodean Russell Crowe is Javert, Valjean’s nemesis, and the face of authority that pursues him throughout the story. Thankfully, Crowe is a masterful actor because his singing disappoints. His big number Stars, a song that has a beautiful poetic lilt to its construction is terribly mauled in his rendition, sung as it is from a high rooftop parapet looking out across a Parisian backdrop in a setting that suggests the singing gargoyles from Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Much has been made of the use of live singing to camera, rather than the miming to a previously recorded soundtrack, that this movie espouses. Technically, this is impressive, and it is generally pleasing to see voice so well linked to face.  Perfect musical theatre (or musical cinema) however is a trinity  of voice, physical movement and music and whilst in earlier filmed musicals the pre-recorded vocals may have been disconnected from the on-screen acting, in Les Miserables, the performers' acting has been severed from the orchestral accompaniment that plays through almost the entire length of the film. This was of course not the intention when these songs were first written and whilst the score has by its nature required adaptation from stage to screen, the adaptive process has diluted much of the brilliance of Boublil and Schonberg's composition. It is of no small significance that on the website of Working Title, who co-produced the movie, writing credits are displayed but no credit at all is shown for the composers of the music.

Where scenes and structure do permit, then the ensemble performances in the film are glorious. Sasha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter as the Thenardiers lead a wonderful Master Of The House, whilst the students'  Red & Black also stirs. Up close, Ann Hathaway’s I Dreamed a Dream and Come to Me reach out to touch the emotions alongside Eddie Redmayne’s Empty Chairs At Empty Tables that is equally a performance of powerful poignance. But when Samantha Barks performs On My Own and A Little Fall of Rain, the barrier of the screen between audience and actor descends and whilst her singing is exquisite, she fails to tug those same heartstrings that Boublil, Schonberg and Kretzmer so cunningly detected all those years ago in composing these tragic blockbusters.

It is impossible not to compare this film with the stage show. It is certainly as long as what one will find in the West End, albeit without the interval, although at least one advantage of the inevitable DVD release will be the ability to pause the movie after One Day More to take a comfort break. Stripped of its on-stage majesty, whilst the acting is magnificent throughout, the adaptation as a whole is a somewhat castrated version of the original work.   Some of the singing is wonderful and many of the visuals are magnificent. The credits list a vast team of talented and crafted folk who have laboured hard to deliver this film, which does deserve to be seen. Just don’t set your expectations too high.