Mickey Joe (0:00)

So obviously after last summer's production of Romeo and Juliet, I had some concerns going into the Tempest, and in many ways it's as though director Jamie Lloyd heard all of the criticism about that version of the play and said, you know what? Fine, no microphones, no cameras, no blood. We're going to do a boring traditional Shakespeare and we're all going to be miserable together. Oh my God. Hey, welcome back to my theatre themed YouTube channel, or hello to you if you are listening on podcast platforms. My name is Mickey Joe and I am obsessed with all things theater theatre. I am a professional theatre critic here on social media as well as a content creator who you can find all across the musical theatre Internet. And earlier this week I went to go and see the Tempest, a new production of the last of William Shakespeare's plays, directed by Jamie Lloyd, an Olivier Award winning director best known for his recent productions of Romeo and Juliet, as well as Sunset Boulevard, the big revival that played in the West End. Currently enjoying success on Broadway, he also has many upcoming projects, including a major West End revival of the musical Evita, Angela Webber's new upcoming musical, a Broadway revival of Waiting for Godot, and the next play that will follow the Tempest in this return of Shakespeare to theater Royal Jury Lane, which will be much ado about nothing. But for now, we have a storm to settle. And I was very intrigued to see the Tempest despite the largely negative critical response that I was hearing when it first opened back in December. And I was intrigued because I have a lot of time for the Tempest. I like the Tempest an awful lot. I think as Shakespeare plays go, this is right up there in terms of everything that it offers you. There is comedy, plenty in the Tempest. There is pageantry, there is drama, there is romance, there are epic grudges and feuds and there is royalty. And there are these soaring, beautiful speeches and there is magic, and there are these fascinating, ethereal, otherworldly characters and there are betrayals and plots. And so if you like your Shakespeare, I feel like the Tempest has everything to offer you. And this was actually the first Shakespearean play that I ever saw on stage. I saw it at Shakespeare's globe in perhaps 2011, 2012, in a production hugely different from the one that I saw earlier this week at Theatre Royal Drury Lane, which I'm going to be telling you about right now in this full review. Now, if you have been to see this already, I am so curious to hear your thoughts. I know that not everyone will necessarily agree with me. Please let me know what you think of it in the comments down below, especially if you don't share my opinions. And since we're talking about Shakespeare, I would love to hear about any other productions of the Tempest that you have seen previously anywhere else in the world. Finally, if you do enjoy this review, make sure to subscribe to my theatre themed YouTube channel or follow me wherever you are hearing my voice. There will be many more reviews coming soon, including next month More Shakespeare with not only my thoughts on Jamie Lloyd's interpretation of my favorite Shakespearean play, Much Ado About Nothing, but also the hugely anticipated production of Richard II at the Bridge Theatre starring Jonathan Bailey. In the meantime though, let's talk about Sigourney Weaver and company in the Tempest. So a brief overview to familiarize you all with the plot. There will be some spoilers in here, but much of it is introduced fairly, fairly early on and just sort of plays out in traditional Shakespearean fashion. So the thing commences with a shipwreck as a result of a magically infused storm, leaving the company on board not killed or injured, but stranded upon an island. An island which is home to the betrayed, dethroned and marooned Prospero, former Duke of Milan, or in this interpretation of the play, Prospero, the former Duchess of Milan. That's because this time around, the role of Prospero, usually a male character, has been reconceived as a woman. Not for the first time. This was done in a 2011 film film by Julie Taymor, where Dame Helen Mirren played the role, and it was reconceived as Prospera. In this, it is still Prospero, but the titles and pronouns throughout the thing have been adjusted to reflect this change. So Prospero is referred to by her daughter Miranda as a mother, is referred to by their magical servant Ariel as mistress, and when revealing the details of their past to Miranda, refers to themselves as the former Duchess of Milan. Now the party who have been brought to the island by the shipwreck include Alonso, who is King of Milan, as well as his son Ferdinand, who he he presumes dead because they were separated in the shipwreck. In fact, Ferdinand is alive and well and immediately becomes infatuated with the young Miranda, Prospero's daughter alongside the king. There is his brother Sebastian, and there is the nefarious Antonio, the brother of Prospero, who was principally behind the plot to push Prospero out of the dukedom, the duchessdom, whatever it may be. They are joined also by the kindly Gonzalo, to whom Prospero Miranda's survival during this malicious coup can be attributed because Gonzalo was the one who helped them escape. Now, interestingly, in this production, Gonzalo also reconceived as a female character. And there are others they brought with them to the island, one of whom is a butler, both of whom are drunken fools. They are Stefano and Trinculo, who travel as a pair and happen upon a creature known as Caliban. Now, Caliban lived upon the island as the offspring of another marooned individual called Sycorax, who was a witch from Algeria, I believe, who along with Ariel, is servant to Prospero, who has assumed control of the island. Though they have very different relationships to Prospero, Prospero treats Ariel with a warmth and a grace befitting their ethereal levity. And Ariel is associated with the air and the water. And though Ariel longs for their promised freedom, theirs is largely a positive relationship. Prospero and Caliban not so much. Prospero denounces Caliban as wretched, treats him like a slave, and so, unsurprisingly, when Caliban discovers Stefano and Trinculo, and because they provide Caliban with alcohol, is led to believe that they are some kind of gods who could possibly assume ownership of the island themselves and become reigning lords. Caliban convinces to try and overthrow Prospero by means of murder. I told you this was Shakespeare. None of this should be surprising to you. At the same time, the villain Antonio, brother of Prospero, is trying to convince the king's brother Sebastian to murder the king, which seems fairly fruitless because they're all stuck on an island regardless. But you know, Antonio got an Antonio. He's never really comfortable unless he's plotting against someone. Now Prospero is orchestrating this all the while with the help of Ariel, manipulating the minds of the stranded new arrivals, and also trying to broker a legitimate and honest relationship and marriage between the king's son Ferdinand and Prospero's daughter Miranda. And largely under Prospero's pre planned control, everything plays out unsurprisingly, with plenty of magic throughout. And that is the plot of the Tempest. Like I said before, a satisfying Shakespeare play. Technically speaking, a comedy. This is a technicality within the world of Shakespeare that indicates simply that it has a happy ending historically. It also contains within it a mask, which was a popular entertainment form of the time. However, that is not particularly a feature of this production, despite being briefly nodded to as it's no longer a popular entertainment form of this time. But it retains within its acts plenty of the characteristics of Shakespeare. Like I said, there is broad comedy, there is romance between newly met young lovers. There's a grand older figure who philosophizes around the events of their life and even the events that have unfolded over the past few hours, the past few hours traffic of that stage. There are historic grudges and royal politics and resentments and promises kept and promises broken, allegiances which come into play and plots foiled, and, of course, tons of magic. All of which, I think, offers so much to a director of this piece. Enter Jamie Lloyd, who has this very particular style of late or throughout his career, but increasingly in his recent productions. And while many of those same features have been celebrated in much of his recent work, they have also drawn criticism in other iterations, such as in last summer's production of Romeo and Juliet, which I famously had a distaste for here on my channel. So the question, I suppose, is how did this compare to Romeo and Juliet? Did I like it any better? And here is the answer. Now, I have been telling people I preferred this to Romeo and Juliet, and I did, because this, I feel, didn't fly directly in the face of the text. One of my biggest issues with Romeo and Juliet is it seemed to just wholeheartedly contravene the ideas of the material. It not only neglected its themes, but it sort of undermined them at the same time. And the Tempest doesn't do that. It doesn't work against itself in the same way, but it's also the littlest bit, like, go on, girl, give us nothing. What I mean by that, in a morph formal sense, is that presented with such an exciting variety of themes and tone, you know, we have the malice of it, and we have the romance of it. We have the comedy of it, we have the darkness, we have the magic. It is, for some perplexing reason, just relentlessly bleak. Pressed to summarize this, regrettably, I would tell you that it is fatally dull. Which isn't to say that they neglect the comedy entirely. There are moments where the broad comedy endures, really, only when we are with Stefano and Trinculo and they happen upon Caliban. They play, and we'll talk more about this later, as though they're on stage at Shakespeare's Globe, where everything is played quite broadly and in quite a comic way. But when we move away from them, and even visually and tonally when we're with them, the whole thing is still just unrelentingly bleak and sorrowful and mournful it had this palpable heaviness to it throughout and it evaded the ideas of wit or charm. There is little romance to this. There is little levity to this. There is no joy to this whatsoever. This is a tempest that happens entirely by night. There is no sunrise to this production. Even at the end, as things turn for the more optimistic. I told you, ultimately it's a comedy because things end well. But nobody told Jamie Lloyd that in his version of the Tempest. Technically, we're on an island, but we may as well be in purgatory. And listen, there are enough new productions of Shakespeare continuously in the UK and throughout the uk, where we have the Royal Shakespeare Company, we have Shakespeare's Globe, and we have more than enough theaters in London alone producing lots of Shakespeare. Not as many Tempests, I will say, as a handful of the other ones. But I'm all for a darker version and a version that chooses to draw out more of those themes. But it's, it's not a satisfying audience experience. And my problem with this is it's at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and they have Sigourney Weaver. And this is bringing in a lot of people who may not be as familiar with Shakespeare. This may be their first experience of Shakespeare because it's kind of being framed as the hot ticket. It's the celebrity casting. It's a big thing happening over Christmas. And they're like, go on, I'll give it a chance. I haven't necessarily read Shakespeare since school, but I'll go and give it a chance. And my issue is this is going to falsely confirm a lot of the stereotypes and preconceptions people have about going to see Shakespeare. And it's going to make people think that Shakespeare is consistently this, you know, unengaging and dull and flat and gray. And I worry that those people, those same people who didn't wait to the interval to leave, halfway through, no, no, left amidst the ongoing first act parties next to me, parties behind me, multiple people walking out of this production. I'm worried that those people are going to walk out of that theater, never walk back in to another Shakespeare play, possibly to another theater. I think I said this in the Romeo and Juliet review as well, but we have a responsibility to our audiences and productions like this alienate people. Anyway, before I become too passionate about this particular topic, let me tell you more about this production, specifically what it looks like, how it works, and why I came to this conclusion. So you may be pleased to know that it moves away from many of the Jamie Lloyd signature conventions which have been established over his last few productions. There are no handheld microphones in this one. There are no cameras nor screens on stage. We see no blood, which would be unusual in the Tempest anyway. The staging is in a more naturalistic fashion. You don't have people stood in a line and facing forwards, even though they're meant to be talking to each other. All of those sort of more stylized elements, the contemporary dress and things like that, have been taken away and we've reverted to something a little more traditional. Traditional, though not wholeheartedly. I would say that it's as bleak in its design as in its tone, but at least we have a set in this production, which I think in the Tempest would have been really egregious. If we didn't. I would have liked to see an actual shipwreck, but I didn't mind the way that they conjured it with this billowing piece of cloth behind Sigourney Weaver as Prospero, downstage center, uttering these magical incantations, dooming this passing vessel amidst thunderous noises and flashing lights, with her daughter Miranda, in petrified concern, rushing to her side, beseeching her not to continue this any further. And very early, I really liked the choice where Prospero says to Miranda, remove my magic garment from me. And it was at that moment that the giant cloth like structure disappears, sort of floated away in this very ethereal fashion. And that did sort of set the tone for the world that we were living in now. The set that was revealed was multiple mounds of sort of dirt, stones, which continued across the floor, conjuring the idea of an island, which, despite insistences on its greenery in the text, was barren and desolate and sorrowful. It was all incredibly gray. It looked a little like the surface of hell on a cold day. And in both that set and the costume design, which were provided by Jamie Lloyd's frequent collaborator, Sutra Gilmour, it felt as though we were going for a slightly science fiction aesthetic, but a contemporary science fiction aesthetic. In the costumes particularly, it was sort of bohemian meets Space Age, like Star Wars Original Trilogy or Dune, like we're on an alien plant, but also it's a desert, like, you know what I mean? Now, I liked the mounds that surrounded the production. I liked the moments where characters interacted with them and people scaled them. And there were some lovely images of Ferdinand and Miranda strolling together in the background and walking up the hill and walking down the hill. This was a lovely way of invoking them, but largely the playing space was just in between these mountains and not necessarily utilizing them. Another slightly puzzling feature of the entire was that you could see the exposed walls of the stage at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. We weren't trying to hide those with cloth or draping or lighting. However, you could see lighting rigs and you could see the exposed. They were meant to be the dock doors, but I don't actually think they were. I think they were just meant to sort of suggest dock doors. The reason for this is something I'll talk about later in the video when I talk about performances. And I would say again, just like with Romeo and Juliet, which splashed a lot of red over the stage, this one has everyone in various grays and blues. It still felt like the who whole thing was largely without color. Like we had a color. Blue was the color. And I just felt like I needed more. It makes me concerned for Much Ado About Nothing. I'll mention this again later, but maybe everyone's just gonna be in pink for that. I don't know. And the thing is, I advocated for Jamie Lloyd to move away from constantly using the microphones and constantly using the cameras and the same sort of techniques, because I want each choice made in the direction of each production that he does to serve the material in an honest and authentic way. And the problem that I have here is he stripped all those elements away, but I don't know that he added enough. And it's sort of a little bit of an indictment on him as a creative, that without perhaps that box of tricks, it's a little bit harder to articulate the story in Sunset Boulevard. I think the meaning emerges so clearly in Romeo and Juliet. Even though we all know that story, we were utterly lost. It was rendered by everything that was put on top of it, entirely inexplicable. And the Tempest, unfortunately, is left similarly mystifying. Sigourney Weaver, as Prospero, sits on a chair central to the space for much of the duration. With the action unfolding around her, she is watching calmly. And this, coupled with the design, makes it very difficult to infer location. Not that that matters hugely in the Tempest, but it's sort of an abstract, ethereal, vague quality to the staging as it flows from one scene into the next. And the piercing of the poetic quality of the verse, as most of it is delivered in prose, leaves us a little confused. It's hard to infer intention from any of these characters. Other than Ferdinand, who so desperately wants to be with Miranda, other than Caliban, who so desperately wants to overthrow Prospero. And other than Stefano and Trinculo, who just want to drink, just like in Romeo and Juliet, everyone else just broods. And there is a place in Shakespeare for brooding. And if you're an audience member who's already very familiar with the Tempest, then you may have enjoyed this because you were already equipped with an adequate understanding of. Of the plot and the characters and all of the different machinations and where everyone is and their relationships to each other, which are all important factors in this narrative. But for everyone else, it's. You can tell that it's intense and you can tell that they feel things, but you can't quite qualify what any of those actually are. And that's why I think it becomes inaccessible to an audience. And that same kind of unrelenting intensity was a criticism that I had for Romeo and Juliet. Like, we can be tense, but if it's tense throughout, even in those comic scenes, then the whole thing becomes difficult to endure. It's not a pleasant experience on a purely superficial level. Something that continuously looks so visually desaturated, that has this sort of a low booming quality and this harsh lighting throughout becomes a difficult watch. Now separate to the design. One of the components that I struggled with the most in this production was the implementation of the sound design by Ben and Max Righam. Not to say that they didn't do a good job, but the way that this was utilized, we had these sort of low booming and piercing soundscapes, which on occasion were effective, but overused in such a way that it undermined their capabilities. And it also made the whole thing more than a little bit uncomfortable. And I have no idea whatsoever why they were implemented in the comic scenes with Stefano and Trinculo. They came on, Matthew Horn came on and immediately started getting laughs. But it's still harshly lit it from the front in a very unflinching way. And we still have this dirge of a soundscape giving it, like, underneath. And I have no idea why. The whole thing plays out like it's Jaws or a horror film where they're laughing together drunkenly, and they have no idea that they're about to be eaten or killed by an angst murderer. And while they don't quite understand Caliban, he never really poses a threat to them. So that doesn't really feel appropriate here. It just makes us question whether or not we're even meant to be laughing, because it looks miserable and it sounds miserable, but they seem to be doing funny things, things. It's misleading to us as an audience. And not in a way that I think is beneficial. I also think that in the absence of wit, a lot of the comedy that they do perpetrate those two characters is a little bit cheap. Like we're resorting to vomit gags to get laughs for somewhere. Just really drawing out that physical comedy moment. And on the subject of the lighting design, which was done very well by John Clarke, I don't know why that is the lighting state for those scenes with Stefano and Trinculo and Caliban, when Ferdinand and Miranda in their courtroom ship get a lovely. Like a soft blue wash. I don't know why we go back to this very intense sort of a police room interview with Stefano and Trinculo. It doesn't befit the tone of those scenes. All of this being said, there were some creative choices that I really enjoyed. When we first meet Caliban, he is crawling out from beneath the stage, emerging from below. Ariel, conversely, descends, flying from above and flies for much of this production, usually only in a straight line, either up or down. Like, Ariel isn't whipping around the space, which would be cool. But there is still a lot of drama and majesty to the way that Mason Alexander park as Ariel, descends from above the enormous Theater Royal Drury Lane stage. There is one particular sound effect when Ariel is standing behind Matthew Horn as Trinculo and imitating his voice so as to mislead his companions Stefano and Caliban. And the sound effect that was used in that moment to have Maester Matthew's voices echoing around the auditorium. That was great, great. And I wonder if, to a certain extent, I am just in favor of a lot of these choices that serve to more plainly explicate the nature of what is going on to an audience, especially when you're doing Shakespeare at a big, popular West End venue. I think that comes with a certain responsibility, a certain duty of care, if you will, of narrative clarity. As we enter into this protracted ending sequence in which it felt like I'd aged months, we return to these abstract choices where the characters are walking in circle around Prospero for what seems like the longest time, conveying nothing and achieving little beyond familiarity of, like a drama exercise or primary school parachute play. Like, at any minute, Prospero was going to pick one of them and say goose, and they were going to have to run around in a circle. Anyway, I feel I have spoken enough about the creative choices made in this production by Jamie Lloyd and his creative team. Let me tell you about the performances now. Obviously, there is considerable interest about Sigourney Weaver as Prospero, because she's a legitimate Hollywood star, and those are the ones that we get the most excited about when they come to the West End. And I'll start with the positive, because she has been largely criticized for this performance, and I do think inherently she brings a very stately, very regal quality to her stage presence. It feels appropriately majestic and powerful and magical. I also welcome the choice to reinterpret Prospero as a female character, because I think there are more inherently maternal qualities in her relationship with Miranda than paternal. It's interesting to see that. But otherwise, I think a lot of the. The femininity of Prospero is not really played on as effectively as it could be in this production, particularly the kinship between a female Prospero and a female Gonzalo. What I did find very interesting through that new lens was Sigourney Weaver as Prospero's decision to choose forgiveness rather than vengeance towards the end of the thing, and really just at war with herself to release the resentment towards her brother. Even in the moment of reunion, she goes to strike him and stops herself. And you can feel the anger coursing through her now. Unfortunately, that kind of an emotional expression is not really a strong enough feature of the rest of her performance for much of the thing. She surprisingly lacks much emotional range after having conjured this storm that has brought her villainous brother to the island and sets in motion everything that she has been trying to achieve since, like, banishment, presumably, for years. What we know for years. It's hard to reconcile the meaning of all of that with how dispassionately she plays all of the following scenes. Like, this is the culmination of. Of years of desire, presumably, and she is hours away from having all of this within her grasp. This is a late stage chess game for Prospero and it's all finally coming together. This is, you know, both exciting and scary, and there's an impatience to it and a manic glee to it as well. But Sigourney Weaver isn't playing any of that. Sigourney Weaver is remarkably calm this entire time, like it's any other Tuesday. This improved, like I said, towards the end of the play, she found that necessary rage. And in much her Shakespearean delivery, I thought there was a poetry that was not really apparent in many of the rest of the performances. She does speak with a lisp in this production, which is not inherently a bad thing. People have spoken about this, and I don't want to go as far as to suggest that people who have a lisp ought not to be doing Shakespeare on the stage, I think that's hugely dismissive. The only oddity here is that she isn't known for this historically. And so I think what's unusual here is casting someone with celebrity stakes status and then this lisp happening, and that sort of throws the audience off a little bit. You also ultimately want to see that Hollywood star shining the most in this production. And though Prospero has the bulk of the material, the show is utterly stolen by Mason Alexander park as Ariel Mason, who, though also known for television, is really establishing themselves as an invaluable stage performer. I had already seen them as the MC in Cabaret and they were fantastic and they are a wonderful choice for Ariel. I was already excited about this casting, but from the moment, moment that they first descend and are conjuring this airy, beautiful and also dark, dangerous, magical incantation, it's. It's a really fantastic performance. Mason has this natural magnetism on stage regardless, and has crafted this sort of a dark charm as Ariel. There's a genuine quality to the relationship with Prospero. A lot of the physicality throughout is brilliant. Back on creative choices, I will say I really enjoyed Mason being the logs that Ferdinand is forced to carry over and over again at Prospero's request in order to prove himself worthy of Miranda. So instead of picking up actual logs, Mason Alexander park is lying on the floor and kind of gets. It's not a fireman's lift, but it may as well be gets lifted onto James's back as Ferdinand and Code to the front of the stage and then walks back to repeat the whole thing and then is carried more effortlessly by Miranda to comic effect. Mason's very mystical presence is also at its greatest when they are singing. There are moments of song in this production, which usually in Shakespeare are the bits that don't really offer as much, but here they become highlights because Mason's voice is fantastic and brings with it all of the emotion, all of the magic and all of the intrigue that we've been missing in the rest of the product. Those parts of the play shimmer far brighter than the rest of it. I mentioned I would talk about the dock doors at the back of the stage. These may be the actual dock doors, but there is a gap that appears as they part for Mason to Jessica Chastain their way out of the theatre. If you're familiar with Jamie Lloyd's production of A Doll's House, Jessica Chastain left the playing space via the actual back door and walked out onto the street. And Mason, when Ariel is granted freedom in this production, does something similar. Now, the duality of Ariel and Caliban, always something I find interesting in the Tempest. And as much as I loved Mason, Alexand felt that Forbes Mason, who I have enjoyed very much in many other productions, was perhaps even a little bit miscast as Caliban. I didn't understand the intention behind this Caliban. I didn't understand what Jamie Lloyd was trying to say. This was the most puzzling of the costuming choices. Looked slightly like a BDSM wrestler wearing knee pads for just a functional reason, because crawling around on all of this dirt and getting dirt and mess all over their shoulders, it was suitably grotesque and full of disdain and resentment, but lacking in that real sorrow beneath it all, we were meant to feel any sort of sympathy for this. Caliban was unclear. And there's a lot that you could say in the relationship between Prospero and Caliban, because Caliban's existence on the island predates Prospero, so there's a narrative unfolding there, especially with then the others arriving, the shipwreck and everything else. You could talk about it in this very postcolonial way and you could acknowledge all of this. And this is one of many things that this Temple Tempest failed to say, I think I don't know what this Tempest was particularly trying to say, other than come see, there's Cassagoni weavers in it. And when reviving any work, my question is always, always, always going to be, why this? Why now? And what are you trying to say? And that is not a question that they could answer. That being said, I did think that there were further brilliant performances in the rest of the company, in particular Selena Cadell as Gonzalo. If it's not too sacrilegious to say so, I would have been intrigued to see what her Prospero might have been like. I also thought James Phoon was deeply charming and believably, inevitably enamored as Ferdinand, slightly more so than Mara Huff as Miranda, whose grasp on the characterization I never quite fully understood, and whose delivery was a little too disjointed and a little too contemporary for me. Finally, Joshua Barnett and Matthew Horn were comic standouts as Stefano and Trinculo, albeit tonally existing in a completely different interpretation of this play to just about everyone else on stage. And those are my thoughts about Jamie Load's production of the Tempest at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. I am happy, happy to see Shakespeare back at a major West End venue. I'm happy to see many brilliant performances and there is a distinct beauty to this show and there is this ethereal, fascinating, intriguing quality to it. But too much of the rest of its capabilities and real fruits as a piece have been forsaken, I think, in the name of, I don't know, sad Virginia vibes. All of which makes me more than a little bit concerned about the next Shakespeare play to be staged by Jamie Lloyd at the same venue coming very soon. Which will be Much Ado About Nothing, opening next month with Tom Hiddleston and Hayley Atwell as the famous feuding lovers Beatrice and Benedick, with many of the supporting cast from this production returning in that almost like a rep company, but not quite. And I'm reassured by the fact that this got the broad comedy right. And, you know, I'm comforted by the notion that Tom and Hayley will presumably do very well in those roles, but I'm not without my concerns for that production. In any case, I will be talking about that next month, as well as the upcoming Richard II with Jonathan Bailey over at the Bridge Theatre. So make sure you're following me and make sure you're subscribed with the notifications turned on right here on YouTube. In the meantime, I hope you have enjoyed this review. Make sure to comment down below with your own thoughts if you have seen this or any previous production of the Tempest. And I hope that everyone is staying safe and that you have a stagey day. For 10 more seconds, I'm Mickey Jo Theater. Oh my God. Hey, thanks for watching. Have a Stagey Day. Subscribe.