‘Shrek the Musical’ at Young People’s Theatre is a big, bright delight — despite some spotty material

Wait, you ask, wasn’t the show just here in the summer of 2024? Yes, it was. And if you were unfortunate enough to catch that gobsmackingly cheap and unimaginative touring production at Mirvish (as I did), you may still find yourself trying to rid yourself of its lingering aftertaste (as I am). 

But to all those parents I saw at that production, who seemed to be questioning their life choices as they stammered out of the Princess of Wales Theatre, may I suggest you nab a ticket for yourself (and your kids) to this new “Shrek” revival. 

I promise it doesn’t feature a dragon that more closely resembles a sad chicken dunked in Tabasco sauce. Nor does it include freaky, human-sized puppets that look pinched from the set of a Stephen King horror flick. No, this “Shrek” has none of those things. 

Instead, director Herbie Barnes’s latest production is a big, bright and (mostly) beautiful delight, buoyed by a uniformly strong cast that elevates some of the spotty material in this abridged version of the children’s musical. It’s also just the right antidote to purge all your memories of that previous, ill-conceived production.

“Shrek,” based on the 2001 animated film, which itself was loosely inspired by William Steig’s children’s book of the same name, follows a reclusive ogre who goes on a journey to reclaim his swamp from the tyrannical Lord Farquaad. But our green-skinned protagonist, joined by a loquacious, asinine Donkey, must first rescue Princess Fiona from a tower guarded by an imposing red Dragon (Tat Austrie).

David Lindsay-Abaire’s book, like the movie, subverts the tropes of the damsel-in-distress fairy tale genre. For one, Shrek isn’t exactly your traditional Prince Charming. He’s awkward, reclusive and has a penchant for ripping loud farts (the flatulence jokes blow hard in this show). Fiona, meanwhile, especially as performed by Ellen Denny, is a strong-willed woman with an independent streak.

If it isn’t already apparent, “Shrek” is one of those demanding shows that lives and dies by the quality of its staging. On one end of the spectrum, you have that recent touring production I can’t help but continually skewer. (OK, I’ll stop now.) On the other end, you have the musical’s original Broadway production, directed by Jason Moore with wild, creative abandon.

While Barnes’s iteration never reaches the same heights as Moore’s creation (which was, thankfully, filmed for posterity), it does come pretty close. 

It starts with William Layton’s immersive set, which stretches into the house and conjures the world of “Shrek” in vivid technicolour. Not to be outdone, Joyce Padua has crafted an array of whimsical costumes, with an air of fairy-tale charm. 

If there’s anything still left to be desired from this revival’s overall production design, it’s perhaps Echo Zhou’s murky lighting, which makes it difficult to identify the soloists in some of the musical’s group numbers. On opening night, there were also several missed sound cues and balance issues between the cast and orchestra. (The sound design is by Brian Kenny.) 

These minor quibbles, however, are more than made up by the talent of this cast. Denny, who possesses a clear, resounding voice, is superb as Fiona, while Joema Frith steals every scene he’s in as the smooth-talking Donkey, always with a toothy grin plastered on his face. And Michael Therriault, as the vertically challenged, tantrum-throwing Lord Farquaad, is delightfully camp without ever becoming kitsch. 

I haven’t forgotten about Trevor Patt, who’s solid as Shrek — his version even more of a no-nonsense, straight-shooter than other interpretations I’ve seen. He also nails the tough Scottish accent. But the fact is that his role feels very much like a secondary part and often fades into the background. And it’s Fiona, rather, who undergoes the most significant transformation from the show’s beginning to its end. 

That has always been the case with this musical, though it feels especially apparent in this 85-minute version, which has cut many of Shrek’s key scenes, including a prologue recounting his turbulent childhood. 

But this all begs the question: if the original two-act “Shrek” was already a near-perfect children’s show, why was it necessary to create a separate version, geared toward “theatre for young audiences,” as this one is billed? 

I get why a company like Young People’s Theatre has opted for this shorter version. (Logistically, the many school groups that frequent the theatre would find it difficult to fit a show longer than two hours into their schedules.) 

But “Shrek” feels like the wrong show to truncate. And even with a production as inspiredly crafted and soundly performed as this one, something still feels missing.