Operation Mincemeat (mostly the musical)
Feb. 5th, 2026 09:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnokay, I was not expecting to have quite SO MANY feelings about Operation Mincemeat, the musical, but indeed I do. (I have listened to the cast recording about seventy times and have not been able to see it live, though I, uh. Have now seen it, see end of post.) I don't think I have had so many strong feelings about a musical since Hamilton, only in many ways they are wildly different feelings?? Hamilton is a fancy big-chorus-dancing musical that is concerned predominantly with valorizing a particular hero (Alexander Hamilton) in a eh-mostly-historical way while offering up somewhat revisionist-considerations of some of the other US's famous Founding Fathers, with a major thematic concern of race, but which adheres to pretty standard gender considerations. OM is a budget-vibe musical starring five people who are both the big parts and the chorus, that is concerned predominantly with both rather revisionist-considerations, in a mostly-historical-fiction way, of a particular type of hero (a heavily fictionalized Ewen Montagu) who is known for his part in the WWII shenanigans of Operation Mincemeat, while at the same time offering up larger parts to people who were not at all famous, with a major thematic concern of gender.
- There are. FIVE. people in the cast. FIVE. They play all the parts. There are a lot of parts, which swing wildly from one end of the spectrum to another, including nationality, class, and gender. For example, the same person plays a older female English secretary, a young male American pilot, a male Cockney-inflected pathologist, and more I am forgetting right now. I cannot tell you how absolutely brilliant this is and also I'm like, wow, they must all be exhausted at the end of the night??
- I, er, happen to absolutely adore the Broadway musical character of the dashing charismatic jerk that the narrative doesn't at all take seriously. See also: Kevin Price from The Book of Mormon, Warner Huntington III from Legally Blonde. Ewen Montagu's character falls in that same category, so I would have liked his character in any case, but then they made the awesome decision to have Montagu be played by a hot dashing charismatic mezzo (Natasha Hodgson) who is clearly having the time of her life getting away with saying all the charismatically jerkish lines that a woman character would never be able to get away with, and I was basically completely in love with her character by the end of the first song. Also, I had to confront some things that I've always kind of known but not really articulated that well to myself, which have to do with how much of the fact that I like baritones have to do with how baritones get all the best parts! If mezzos regularly got to play the kinds of parts baritones did, it turns out I would like mezzos much better. (Tenors too, in fact. IDK about sopranos. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but right now I'm having a hard time seeing it.)what does it say about me that I am now tempted to get a pinstripe suit (I won't), don't answer that
- Hodgson happens to have this low huskiness in her voice that she often uses for Montagu's character, which is both extremely hot and also makes me worry about her voice. (I also have a very low range, but if I tried to do it that kind of thing with my voice every night, it would go up in flames in less than a month.) As far as I can tell from various online posts, a) she seems to be able to do this without any ill effects and is on record as saying she doesn't notice any issues, which, wow, she is amazing! and b) apparently (?) none of the other actresses playing Montagus do this, which good for them for protecting their voices :)
- Montagu is definitely the most eye-catching part of the musical (and I might ship him with everyone?) but Hester Leggatt, the middle-aged secretary, and Jean Leslie, the young firebrand secretary, are the heart of the musical, which was both surprising and super awesome.
- Relatedly, the musical has a lot of thoughts on the splashy public face of heroism, and remembering those who aren't the splashy public face of heroism, and how contributions don't have to be splashy and/or public to be contributions, which I absolutely love
- On the songs: musically, they are fine, not intensely musically interesting at first look but also rather catchy (but maybe that's because I have been listening to them nonstop). The lyrics are just great, a lot of very high-powered high-velocity banter that I loved. But further note below:
- O:M definitely is written in a post-Hamilton world. Some of this is pretty obviously seen in the heavy dependence on spoken-in-rhythm-with-music lines, much higher density than in most musicals, with some songs being almost purely spoken (although there are other reasons for this, see below). There is also the occasional number that seems to have a direct musical antecedent (e.g. "All the Ladies" seems to be the 1940's version of "The Schuyler Sisters" (only with less men, which is good!)).
The absolute best part of this, the way that they have improved on Hamilton, in fact, is that they have taken the way that Hamilton doesn't really depend on the beauty of the tunes (which is good, that's not LMM's or SplitLip's forte) and instead depends on rhythm and intense layering of the different melodies, and they have run with it, though their layering tends to be more sequential than at the same time as Hamilton does so well. "Just for Tonight," the finale of the first half, not only layers three songs but also combines it with theme, contributing to which I felt is this very impressive use of a minimum of lighting/costume/actor-body-language switch cues to evoke character/scene switching
- yes, there is a Nazis boyband number which could probably have been cut, though it may have been worth it for one of the characters coming in when the audience is cheering after the song and going, "...really? Whose side are you on?"
- On the singing. All five of the cast are competent singers but none of them are standout soloists (which probably explains in large part why there is such a heavy dependence on spoken-not-sung lines) -- though they are amazing for breadth if not for depth of singing and acting -- but what they are is a standout ensemble. When they sing as one, their voices completely blend, which is hard with just a few voices when each voice also has to carry a lot of soloist work, and in addition each pair and trio of voices has to blend because they're often in situations where it's just two to four voices harmonizing against a soloist or duet. It's really a seamless ensemble piece.
- which is of course a major theme and in fact what the entire musical ends with, that history is not about Great Man heroes, it's about people working together, and yes, maybe some of them contribute in bigger or splashier ways, but everyone is needed and is valuable and let's not forget any of them. And of course the entire structure of the musical itself is a demonstration of that taken to extremes, in the way there's really no "leading actor" or "supporting actor," they are all both leads and supports. Just SO well done in the way that structure follows theme follows structure, I'm still marveling at this
- At the end of Act I I was quite worried about Montagu even though I knew (from history) he couldn't possibly be a spy... right? Right??
- My hold on the Ben MacIntyre book about Operation Mincemeat just came in and it is really great so far. I did find it amusing when MacIntyre says that "A barrister and workaholic, Montagu possessed organizational skills and a mastery of detail that perfectly complemented Cholmondeley's 'fertile brain.' Where Cholmondeley was awkward and charming, Montagu was smooth and sardonic, refined, romantic, and luminously intelligent." There is of course a plethora of evidence that historical!Montagu was quite a bit more detail-oriented and organized and intelligent than musical!Montagu (who is not... really... any of these things), but I did laugh that the only footnote given at that point is to Montagu's own memoir. Which is one of the points of the musical, really!
- Here's what I saw, it is amusing to me that the recorder clearly was as taken by Hodgson as I was, though sometimes I would actually have liked a bit less of the obsessive spotlight on her when, say, someone else was singing
- There are. FIVE. people in the cast. FIVE. They play all the parts. There are a lot of parts, which swing wildly from one end of the spectrum to another, including nationality, class, and gender. For example, the same person plays a older female English secretary, a young male American pilot, a male Cockney-inflected pathologist, and more I am forgetting right now. I cannot tell you how absolutely brilliant this is and also I'm like, wow, they must all be exhausted at the end of the night??
- I, er, happen to absolutely adore the Broadway musical character of the dashing charismatic jerk that the narrative doesn't at all take seriously. See also: Kevin Price from The Book of Mormon, Warner Huntington III from Legally Blonde. Ewen Montagu's character falls in that same category, so I would have liked his character in any case, but then they made the awesome decision to have Montagu be played by a hot dashing charismatic mezzo (Natasha Hodgson) who is clearly having the time of her life getting away with saying all the charismatically jerkish lines that a woman character would never be able to get away with, and I was basically completely in love with her character by the end of the first song. Also, I had to confront some things that I've always kind of known but not really articulated that well to myself, which have to do with how much of the fact that I like baritones have to do with how baritones get all the best parts! If mezzos regularly got to play the kinds of parts baritones did, it turns out I would like mezzos much better. (Tenors too, in fact. IDK about sopranos. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise but right now I'm having a hard time seeing it.)
- Hodgson happens to have this low huskiness in her voice that she often uses for Montagu's character, which is both extremely hot and also makes me worry about her voice. (I also have a very low range, but if I tried to do it that kind of thing with my voice every night, it would go up in flames in less than a month.) As far as I can tell from various online posts, a) she seems to be able to do this without any ill effects and is on record as saying she doesn't notice any issues, which, wow, she is amazing! and b) apparently (?) none of the other actresses playing Montagus do this, which good for them for protecting their voices :)
- Montagu is definitely the most eye-catching part of the musical (and I might ship him with everyone?) but Hester Leggatt, the middle-aged secretary, and Jean Leslie, the young firebrand secretary, are the heart of the musical, which was both surprising and super awesome.
- Relatedly, the musical has a lot of thoughts on the splashy public face of heroism, and remembering those who aren't the splashy public face of heroism, and how contributions don't have to be splashy and/or public to be contributions, which I absolutely love
- On the songs: musically, they are fine, not intensely musically interesting at first look but also rather catchy (but maybe that's because I have been listening to them nonstop). The lyrics are just great, a lot of very high-powered high-velocity banter that I loved. But further note below:
- O:M definitely is written in a post-Hamilton world. Some of this is pretty obviously seen in the heavy dependence on spoken-in-rhythm-with-music lines, much higher density than in most musicals, with some songs being almost purely spoken (although there are other reasons for this, see below). There is also the occasional number that seems to have a direct musical antecedent (e.g. "All the Ladies" seems to be the 1940's version of "The Schuyler Sisters" (only with less men, which is good!)).
The absolute best part of this, the way that they have improved on Hamilton, in fact, is that they have taken the way that Hamilton doesn't really depend on the beauty of the tunes (which is good, that's not LMM's or SplitLip's forte) and instead depends on rhythm and intense layering of the different melodies, and they have run with it, though their layering tends to be more sequential than at the same time as Hamilton does so well. "Just for Tonight," the finale of the first half, not only layers three songs but also combines it with theme, contributing to which I felt is this very impressive use of a minimum of lighting/costume/actor-body-language switch cues to evoke character/scene switching
- yes, there is a Nazis boyband number which could probably have been cut, though it may have been worth it for one of the characters coming in when the audience is cheering after the song and going, "...really? Whose side are you on?"
- On the singing. All five of the cast are competent singers but none of them are standout soloists (which probably explains in large part why there is such a heavy dependence on spoken-not-sung lines) -- though they are amazing for breadth if not for depth of singing and acting -- but what they are is a standout ensemble. When they sing as one, their voices completely blend, which is hard with just a few voices when each voice also has to carry a lot of soloist work, and in addition each pair and trio of voices has to blend because they're often in situations where it's just two to four voices harmonizing against a soloist or duet. It's really a seamless ensemble piece.
- which is of course a major theme and in fact what the entire musical ends with, that history is not about Great Man heroes, it's about people working together, and yes, maybe some of them contribute in bigger or splashier ways, but everyone is needed and is valuable and let's not forget any of them. And of course the entire structure of the musical itself is a demonstration of that taken to extremes, in the way there's really no "leading actor" or "supporting actor," they are all both leads and supports. Just SO well done in the way that structure follows theme follows structure, I'm still marveling at this
- At the end of Act I I was quite worried about Montagu even though I knew (from history) he couldn't possibly be a spy... right? Right??
- My hold on the Ben MacIntyre book about Operation Mincemeat just came in and it is really great so far. I did find it amusing when MacIntyre says that "A barrister and workaholic, Montagu possessed organizational skills and a mastery of detail that perfectly complemented Cholmondeley's 'fertile brain.' Where Cholmondeley was awkward and charming, Montagu was smooth and sardonic, refined, romantic, and luminously intelligent." There is of course a plethora of evidence that historical!Montagu was quite a bit more detail-oriented and organized and intelligent than musical!Montagu (who is not... really... any of these things), but I did laugh that the only footnote given at that point is to Montagu's own memoir. Which is one of the points of the musical, really!
- Here's what I saw, it is amusing to me that the recorder clearly was as taken by Hodgson as I was, though sometimes I would actually have liked a bit less of the obsessive spotlight on her when, say, someone else was singing
