Review of ‘Jane Eyre: A Musical’ (Southwark Playhouse, 2026): “Poor, obscure, plain, and little adaptation is also soulless and heartless”

From (half of) the directional team that brought you Les Misérables, here comes a show that won’t fail to let you down. Yes, I’m aware of what most critics said when the “unsellable French musical” premiered at the Barbican — and of how, 40 years later, it continues to prove them wrong. But as a hardcore fan of Boublil, Schoenberg and Kretzmer’s (let’s give the man the credit he’s always deserved) international hit, I can assure you this is nowhere near the masterful stage adaptation of Victor Hugo’s epic saga. And despite John Caird’s involvement, the piece doesn’t sing, let alone invite audiences to dream the dream.

The similarities between both works are unavoidable. Not only do they share some creative personnel, but their subjects are also alike. Both are set in the 1800s. Both deal with disadvantaged heroes going against the tide in a prejudiced society. And both would make excellent musicals—except one of them actually does.

Overall, the writing is plagued with flaws. From its faulty structure to its lazy character development and compositional approach, there are virtually no redeeming features. The play starts with the entire cast tunefully whispering the protagonist’s name. It’s nothing we haven’t seen already, with Kunze and Levay’s sung-through royal drama, Elizabeth, coming to mind, followed by Peter Schaffer’s antagonistic version in Amadeus. Those two cases are justified, as they create an effective dramatic propulsion. But there’s nothing of the kind here. All it delivers is an uninspired opening — in a clumsy attempt to explain why every actor reads from Jane’s first-person recounts.

That, in itself, is also a problem. There’s nothing wrong with including verbatim quotes from the source material, as long as it’s done with flair. But that never happens. In the end, many of those insertions act like a hurdle instead of a tool to enhance the narrative. At the same time, the show seems oblivious to its own nature. There is too much spoken dialogue and underscored sections. Most numbers struggle to move the plot forward or provide any meaningful introspection. It’s like their sole reason for existence is that the genre requires people to sing. Yet, even with that outlook, the whole thing comes across as a musical that feels uncomfortable with the idea of being a musical.

The lyrics are mediocre, and the examples aren’t particularly scarce. “She’s not pretty. / He’s so ugly. / But there’s something else in there. / I wonder what.” The clunkiness speaks for itself, with little gems like “You could be a missionary wife / You could have a visionary life”. Nothing else to point out apart from how terrible the rhymes are and how the subtext, depth, and poetic aptitude are nowhere to be found — in the entire piece.

The same applies to the score, which is generic at best and insipid at worst. Nothing in it screams freshness. Quite the opposite, in fact. Although intricately orchestrated, the melodies are pedestrian and can’t convey any specific emotion, much less reinforce it. Its unoriginality is evident, even borrowing from well-known tunes like Bernstein’s Maria during the incidental sections.

All of that contributes to the show’s inability to build a story, leaving us with not much more than a sequence of events. The conflicts are shallow and too often resolved barely minutes after being introduced. The characters’ growth is therefore sketchy and their resonance nonexistent. Consequently, the audience can’t embark on a proper journey. And inevitably, their engagement fades almost completely.

The production is decent but unimpressive. Morgan Large’s scenic design brims with elegance, but the aesthetics get in the way of narrative efficiency and world-building. A stylised black box serves as its main feature, with video projections hinting at the settings. It might be adequate, but it lacks theatricality and inventiveness. In addition, the use of monotone dark clothes may be interpreted as a visual representation of Jane’s gloomy reality, but it comes off dull and unchallenging. Nonetheless, James Whiteside’s sharp lighting makes up for some of those shortcomings, even if it’s just to a degree.

The cast is the sole laudable element. And their contrast in quality is uncanny. Every member of the company flaunts impeccable vocals and acting skills, and their rapport is fairly palpable. Charlie Burn and Ashley Gilmour earn the highest praise as the leads, Jane and Rochester, both portrayed with extraordinary command, technical prowess, and magnetism. A final mention goes to Emily-Rose Samuel as Young Jane and Adele, whose superb performance precedes the birth of a new musical theatre star.

It’s been around for thirty years and even made it to Broadway. Still, it’s not until now that the Jane Eyre musical has found its place in the London scene; perhaps for a reason. Overall, it’s an extremely boring piece that hardly honours Charlotte Brontë’s magnum opus and turns it into a cheap melodrama that falls flat even in that category — and it’s even more shortsighted than its heartthrob.

All pictures credit to Victoria Davies.

Jane Eyre plays at London’s Southwark Playhouse Elephant until 24 October. Tickets are available on the following link.

By Guillermo Nazara