Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jan 9, 2017 9:10:36 GMT
Look on the bright side, there are another 12 rows or so behind you!
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jan 9, 2017 9:39:23 GMT
Due to train strikes I've twice had to change my tickets for this, starting on the front row im now on row Z. Has anyone sat this far back? Is there any point going? My children sat in the next to last row and although they said they thought it would be better close up, they (particularly my son) enjoyed it. My daughter is v. short and since there was no one behind her, took advice from folks on here, and sat on three coats, which helped sightlines. The music is loud and the projections big so that's all fine from the back, but son confessed that when one character came on with a different hair colour (wig?) he thought it was a different person altogether so daughter reckons he wasn't taking enough care trying to follow the 'plot' - he was just enjoying the music and spectacle. I'm in first row at this Wednesday's matinee. I feel like I bought this ticket a lifetime ago.
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Jan 9, 2017 11:55:15 GMT
Due to train strikes I've twice had to change my tickets for this, starting on the front row im now on row Z. Has anyone sat this far back? Is there any point going? Its a pretty sparse set and there is a fair amount of low action on the stage, there is a decent rake to the seating though. It's apparently totally sold out apart from the lottery now or I'd be trying to go again..
|
|
688 posts
|
Post by sophie92 on Jan 9, 2017 13:53:12 GMT
Due to train strikes I've twice had to change my tickets for this, starting on the front row im now on row Z. Has anyone sat this far back? Is there any point going? I was ZA for the first show and I was able to see everything with a bit of craning my head round the couple in front who could not sit still! Am happy to admit that I may have just been lucky and not had anyone particularly tall in my line of vision, but even so, your view shouldn't be completely obstructed from row Z.
|
|
30 posts
|
Post by Sven on Jan 11, 2017 7:16:23 GMT
Saw the show on Sunday, Bowie's 70th Birthday. Full house. We were in row ZK for £15, and I was surprised how good the view was. Nothing obstructing our view, even when the actors were on the floor it was decent. Not chilly either at the back of the theatre. I also liked how the sound was great even at the back. Nice 3D soundplan, perfect volume. The show is visually really well done, perfect use of cameras, projections and effects. Michael C Hall, Michael Esper and Sophia Anne Caruso really really were a joy to watch and listen to. Unexpectedly I broke a few times during the show (Absolute Beginners, the end, ...) and I was completely into it. Lots of sobbing around me too. After the curtain call, when the cast had left, suddenly a guy 2 rows in front of me started singing "Happy Birthday dear David" and the whole audience joined in, which was quite heartwrenching. And the box office staff are great. I had a spare ticket and they immediately refunded it to my credit card. Nice service!
|
|
|
Post by floorshow on Jan 11, 2017 9:31:56 GMT
I was completely onboard from the moment the geisha appeared And the joyful "I'll drink all the time" and "I wish I could swim" deliveries did catch me off guard, think I had something in my eye.. Theres a nice Enda Walsh chat about the evolution of the play here:
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by charliec on Jan 11, 2017 12:58:47 GMT
Sorry if someone else has already spotted this... on the official Laz site they have a recording this sunday which is a "filmed performance", no seating plan but you can buy a ticket for £25 and it says its restricted view. Friend is keen to see the show so tempted to book and hope the stage isn't completely obscured by cameras!
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Jan 11, 2017 13:14:46 GMT
Sorry if someone else has already spotted this... on the official Laz site they have a recording this sunday which is a "filmed performance", no seating plan but you can buy a ticket for £25 and it says its restricted view. Friend is keen to see the show so tempted to book and hope the stage isn't completely obscured by cameras! Excellent so pleased this is being recorded for posterity
|
|
34 posts
|
Post by theatrehound on Jan 11, 2017 17:58:09 GMT
That's great news! So glad this amazing show is being recorded, hope it gets released to the general public
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by hjalmberi on Jan 13, 2017 14:09:02 GMT
Going to see it next weekend, the ticket says "All ticket holders should arrive at least 45 minutes prior to the start of the performance to allow time for venue staff to verify tickets and conduct bag searches", do they indeed have issues with lines, or would getting 15-20 minutes in advance be fine?
|
|
310 posts
|
Post by stuart on Jan 13, 2017 14:44:03 GMT
Going to see it next weekend, the ticket says "All ticket holders should arrive at least 45 minutes prior to the start of the performance to allow time for venue staff to verify tickets and conduct bag searches", do they indeed have issues with lines, or would getting 15-20 minutes in advance be fine? It should really say "Please arrive 45 minutes prior to the start of the performance so you can stand in a cold tent where there aren't enough seats for our patrons, browse the 4 pieces of merchandise we have on sale, wait in a queue for 15mins to use the dirty bathrooms and pay £4 for a warm can of coke before we rush you into the auditorium 10mins before the performance and start the show 5mins late". To answer your question, 15mins will be fine.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Jan 13, 2017 15:02:22 GMT
I went about a week ago and they had some FOH technical problems, so couldn't let people in till about 30 mins before the start. Most had arrived before then, so a huge queue had built up in the cold. We still had loads of time (but they still started about 10 minutes late).
|
|
2 posts
|
Post by hjalmberi on Jan 13, 2017 17:38:02 GMT
Thank you Stuart and bellboard27! I will dutifully arrive as late as possible then
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 0:02:42 GMT
This is bad. Really bad.
Michael C Hall is amazing. Very much enjoyed Michael Esper also. They are the only things I can recommend.
I sat in row V and paid £55 for the privilege. I'd guesstimate I saw maximum 40% of the show clearly. The majority of it seemed to be played out with actors sprawled on the floor, and with that many heads in front of me (including an irritating tall woman directly in front doing her best meerkat impersonation every time anyone on stage moved a muscle) I really struggled to see. Most of the time I was at an angle of 45 degrees, with my neck hyperextended into the aisle.
The less said about the 'plot', the better. Newton's storyline should be fascinating and worthy of exploration. Instead we get a lot of rubbish about some 2D woman who doesn't like her hubby very much, the pair of them having conversations I don't believe any normal people have ever had. Then some more rubbish about an irritating loved-up couple who appear to be there for one reason only (can't speak for their denouement to see if my guess was right, I had my eyes screwed up for ten minutes at that point trying to avoid some vicious strobe lighting. Perhaps someone can enlighten me using spoiler tags!).
Hall and Esper handle the songs beautifully, the two women not so much. They seem to think every line should be sung with an MT belt. I would have hoped they'd have troubled themselves to cast singers who have found their own 'voice' - I'm hard put to think of a Bowie song rendered with a production-line MT sound. Life on Mars was a real letdown, and as for Changes... Wish I'd ch-ch-ch-ch-changed my ticket for a show actually worth two hours of my life.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jan 16, 2017 1:26:20 GMT
Well different strokes for different folks I guess. I absolutely loved it and am totally gutted that I haven't been able to fit a second visit in. Given what i'd read about if before hand i expected to appreciate it as interesting at best, but i actually had a pretty emotional reaction to it to the point of not being able to speak about it for about half an hour afterwards. this was from the second to back row.
I have no criticism of the show and the venue was better than i expected but the rake on the seats is annoying to the point of me wondering if it's a joke. it seems purposefully designed to ensure that half of everybody's view is clipped off.
|
|
19 posts
|
Post by mapleglaze on Jan 16, 2017 10:10:51 GMT
This was an emotional rollercoaster for me. I think everyone in the cast was great, and tbh I liked Amy Lennox more than Cristin Milioti (well, based on what I've heard on the recording). Can't wait for the DVD to be released. Maybe it could even go to the cinemas? As to the plot and bland conversations, I think it's supposed to be that way as most of the characters are shattered in their own ways, so there's no room or will for eloquence.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by boybooshka on Jan 16, 2017 12:45:48 GMT
This was an emotional rollercoaster for me. I think everyone in the cast was great, and tbh I liked Amy Lennox more than Cristin Milioti (well, based on what I've heard on the recording). Can't wait for the DVD to be released. Maybe it could even go to the cinemas? As to the plot and bland conversations, I think it's supposed to be that way as most of the characters are shattered in their own ways, so there's no room or will for eloquence. That last sentence exactly sums up what i thought about the blank/ blandness in the show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 13:27:16 GMT
Totally get what you're saying, boybooshka and mapleglaze, and I'm pleased you had a more rewarding experience!
But for me I suppose it's a question of: when you've got such a fascinating central storyline, why on earth would you opt for blandness in the subplots? Where is the entertainment value in blandness? Why not either make the subplots more interesting - or jettison them altogether?
I didn't feel any of the women were remotely characters in their own right - can't even remember their names - at least with the blokes Valentine had a purpose, we knew the assistant's husband worked in IT and Newton's friend had worked in the business with him. Actually, God only knows how the blonde ditz landed a role as a rich bloke's personal assistant - these people are usually hyper-organised and 'together', so I can only assume the rest of the applicants must have been catatonic.
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 13:37:02 GMT
Listening to Enda Walsh talk I loved the expression he used as it being a "fever dream" and imagining the perfectly structured storyline coming from a person whose mind it collapsing on itself. Makes total sense to me.
It's like in that doumentary Bowie said he's not Bob Dylan he can't find all the right words to explain the situation but always can tell you how it makes him feel. For me Lazarus is all about imagination, experience through surreal. More a sensation, a flick rather than a clearly communicated idea.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Jan 16, 2017 14:37:45 GMT
I sympathise with Jean Hunt - I would have felt the same I think except I only paid £15 for a clear view from the front row - so I did see all the sprawling around on the floor!
I completely gave up trying to work out the "plot" and just enjoyed it more as a piece of performance art rather than musical theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 16:44:23 GMT
Yes, I think performance art is probably a better description than 'musical'. I generally find that stuff a bit 'up itself' - for want of a better expression! - so to be fair, it's probably not surprising I wasn't that taken with it.
I hasten to add I'm not alone - the reaction from several friends I've spoken to has been 'thank God, I thought it was just me!'
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Jan 16, 2017 18:37:37 GMT
Looks like it's a marmite show. I hate marmite itself but Lazarus just crawled under my skin before I was able to process it even. Many peeps I know walked out with WFT just happened? look on their faces, others poored they heart out adoring this. I think it's a good sign when the show resonates that strongly, differently and deeply rather than being given "okay, fine, cool" kind of review by all.
Judging by what Enda said during the interview kindly shared on the previous page Bowie hinself didn't much interested in positive response - he wanted to do it his way, make it that abstract dream, 5 seconds before you die agony and hope stretched into 1h45min and so he did. It's great if some of us can relate to that, but it's okay if some of us don't.
|
|
571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Jan 20, 2017 0:09:13 GMT
Saw this tonight, what utter nonsense and a horrible vast letter box of a theatre designed to make maximum money on the poor mans death.
It should have been staged at the almeida or somewhere and no it's not a musical but an arty acid trip on toast.
Mayhem. Some neat tunes, good projections and Amy Lennox is talented, but damn what a hot 1 hour 45 minute MESS!
I need a drink. The worse show in the worst auditorium ever - no one could see what was on stage with them all lying down! Madness
|
|
14 posts
|
Post by richard2711 on Jan 21, 2017 0:52:04 GMT
I saw this a few nignts ago and it was silly of not to think to come on here and ask a few questions about the venue before booking. I have MS which gives me severe mobility problems but I'm also visually impaired. When I booed my ticket, the box office were so helpful and I was asked "Can you manage a few steps?" which I can, with a bit of help. It turns out that "a few" was a bit too much for me in this instance! FOH staff were on it and found a lady who was on her own on the end of a row I could make it to and she kindly sat in my front row seat.
The FOH staff were amazingly helpful. They all chatted to me and also asked me at all times what I needed them to do to help, rather than just assuming. I got a bit of goss too. One lady said they'd had a few complaints about the venue and they had to explain it was purposefully built for this production. Someone else told me that the cast rarely did stage door appearances which didn't stop some partrons waiting quite a while in the cold after the show. I asked what the behaviour has been like as I saw a young guy taking a flash photo during the actual performance (!) and they said that, on the whole, people were respectful but that there were people who went, particularly at the start of the run, who were a little difficult. It was apparently rather clear that they were merely Bowie fans rather than regular theatregoers.
I think I'm in the camp of posters who have said they're glad they saw this, didn't quite understand it and possibly wouldn't see it again. Mixed review from my broken body!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 19:38:34 GMT
Saw this Friday with viserys and I think we both ended up in the 'well it was interesting and I'm glad I saw it but no idea what happened' camp. For me I thought all the performances were brilliant. Everyone was engagingly watch-able and I was interested in their characters even without knowing what the beejesus was going on. For me it was sheer curiousity (and a £15 ticket) that got me there, I respect Bowie for what he achieved but I'd struggle in a pub quiz to name more than 3 of his songs. I freely admit my ignorance of his work, and if nothing else I'm more inclined to explore that further after Lazurus. I'm also intrigued by Van Hove's work, and to be honest I got exactly what I would have expected from the combination of those too- and interesting but ultimatly incomprehensible piece of work. Michael C Hall really is a fascinating, and very beautiful man though. If I may have a shallow thought to close, and I enjoyed very much sitting in the front row very close to him for 2 hours.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 2, 2017 4:03:49 GMT
“I started getting into the idea of writing a kind of a non-narrative that just had situations within it and the audience kind of joins up the dots in their own way, in the way they want to make it. They remake the material they’re offered.” – This quote, from The Last Five Years (a wonderful documentary, well worth catching up on) may have come from the 70s, but boy does it apply to Lazarus.
There’s divisive, there’s confusing, and then there’s Lazarus. This is a curate’s egg covered in marmite – a divisive show about which I feel divided. I love being baffled by a work of art. It’s why I loved Misterman and Ballyturk, which were like Rorschach tests when discussing them with family afterwards. It’s why I truly believe that the disjointed stories and zig-zag perspective of Ziggy Stardust is one of the great narratives of the twentieth century. It’s why I’m fascinated by The Man Who Fell To Earth – I’ve seen that film twice, and where it confused me so much the first time around, it confused me much more the second, but revealed itself as a deliberately debilitating piece of work, the most alienating study of alienation imaginable. What links Walsh and Roeg as directors, though, is that I get the impression that they absolutely understand their story – its central simple meaning – and afterwards deliberately confound, confuse, control the mystery. With Lazarus, I didn’t feel that; or I only felt it in parts. I really don’t think there was that purity of vision or narrative control, which gave us the opportunity to interpret what we interpret. Instead I felt there was confusion. It's a fine difference, but a vital one.
I think that, at its heart, there’s a great musical in here. It’s between a three and five hander. It’s Newton, the girl, Mary Lou, and maybe Mary Lou’s husband and maybe Valentine. But it's swamped by so much. There are Bowie songs for the sake of it. There's an alien who sold his business, but we're told he's a man and it's the earth wot he sold. There are young dudes just to sing that one song about all of them carrying the news. There seems to be a character called Valentine because this is a great song (correct me if I'm wrong, but Valentine was Newton’s ex-lover’s reincarnation’s boyfriend’s friend’s murderer, yes?). If it's true that Bowie gave Walsh a list of well over a hundred songs, then either Bowie was writing about the same character for his entire career (before he even played the role, in which case why not make more of this autobiographical link?), or Bowie wasn't picky enough and pruning needed to be done (also, weird though it is to say, Bowie is SUCH a great songwriter that when a song as iconic as "Changes" comes on, it's so iconic it overtakes the show itself, and without strong enough context we're in Mamma Mia territory). There seemed to be digressions for the sake of digressions; there seemed to be a lot of stuff jumbled up, and why? Too much of it just can’t be unwrapped, and whereas part of the fun of, say, Ballyturk was trying to unwrap it and successfully coming up with interpretations, I think too much of Lazarus is either knotted so tightly that it takes a genius of Bowie’s scale to untie; or between the three main creative voices something’s gotten muddled and the show at King’s Cross is just a bit of a muddle. In a nutshell, I think it’s telling how many people here have simply said “No idea what happened, but I enjoyed it” (or “Hated it, no idea what happened”). There are one or two themes about which we’re all in agreement – and unsurprisingly, it’s in dealing with these themes that the show shines – but rather than take the time to fight our case, to say what we saw in it and why we saw it, we just throw up our hands and give up, saying instead "it’s just bloody confusing, isn’t it?". And I think that’s something of a failing, because I really didn’t feel that amidst the confusion there really was some clear vision, some clear statement – I think that three wonderful creatives laid out three sets of dots, and if we try and match them to anything more complex than its one central idea (more on which later), we just get a muddle.
And sadly, I don’t think van Hove was the right director for this – I just don't think he's able to deal with whatever Walsh's script means, or whatever Bowie's legacy is. There’s no wit to its obtuseness, it just feels obtuse. Versweyveld’s design, meanwhile, doesn’t have the originality or oomph that this needs. It seems recycled from Song from Far Away, which is an issue. Stylistically, too, there’s nothing original or unnerving about watching overlapping dialogues or simultaneous time-zones in theatre which there is in the movies, and was in Roeg's movie. Where in cinema these cubist time-frames are unusual (and thus Roeg’s barmy timeline makes for disconcerting viewing), we see overlapping times all the time in theatre, which feels too run-of-the-mill here for such a non-run-of-the-mill script. The theatre itself is too big, and Newton’s claustrophobia is lost on us. Where Walsh and Bowie wrote a sequel to The Man Who Fell To Earth, in this set it felt like van Hove was directing a sequel to Song from Far Away, but without that show’s central loneliness. Perhaps this would have worked on film (and had it been on film, not only could it have preserved Roeg’s weird narrative mood, but filmed in 2015 could have offered this actor continuing this performance in this style). On the stage, though, it’s a surprisingly flat-footed production. I’ve always thought Walsh is a wonderful director in his own right, and seeing van Hove do this, I wished we had this one central (sound and) vision guiding us forwards – and under Walsh maybe it would have felt more in control, if no less unclear.
So that’s my predominant and overriding issue. I can’t tell you what this is about. That’s fine. But I can't interpret it, and tell you what I think it’s about. That's not fine. That seems to be the general opinion too. So rather than perplex us all into thinking different things, it perplexes us into giving up. Confusing is good, baffling better – but there’s a line between opaque and just muddy. There’s a difference between joining the dots, and joining random dots. There’s a difference between a Rorschach test and a dirty blobby piece of paper. This fell between these extremes.
And yet, I can’t tell you how I interpreted this, but I can tell you how this made me feel. And I can't tell you just how moving I found it. Strip all the baffling bits back and get to its heart, and what you have is Thomas Newton – and what a central character he is. There’s one caveat, which is that I don’t think anyone involved quite resolved whether Newton was just singing Bowie songs (it’s a new musical), was a tribute to Bowie (as I felt the "Where Are We Now" scene was, wonderfully too) or WAS Bowie (too many specific references, too many iconic songs) – but when the rest was stripped away, we had a character and his companions face death – and even without the metatextual awareness of Bowie’s life, it’s this that makes this so moving, and this emotion that makes this, ultimately, a confusing mess but a profound success.
It’s not just that Michael C Hall is tremendous in the role, strong to mask vulnerability and compelling in both stillness and song. It’s that the Bowie songs he’s given – especially the new ones – are songs which genuinely propel the character forwards. As a fan of the film, I found the Newton/Mary Lou relationship very touching. Given that his selfishness and addiction ruined the first Mary Lou, to watch him do the same – helplessly, guiltily – to a second Mary Lou brings things full-circle in an all too human way, and Elly/Mary Lou's ‘Always Crashing’ was such a good way of articulating this. It’s a brief aside, but it worked so well. I didn’t think her character had the identity or the complexity of Candy Clark in the movie and I think that was an issue, but I thought the way the Newton/Mary Lou relationship was drawn a second time was wonderfully done (going by the cast recording, I prefer Amy Lennox to Christin Miloti).
It’s also that his central issue is beautifully told. The only thing I do think this was about is death – perhaps Bowie’s own, perhaps not, but either way definitely it's about being resolute for it. This has a beautifully honest and indeed hopeful attitude towards death – one which takes the logic that a good death is simply what follows a good life, however difficult that may be to both prove and to accept. In Hall and Caruso’s friendship and Hall and Lennox’s forgiveness, this managed to shine through whatever else was happening on stage. Now, it is inescapable that something happened on the day he died, and this IS about Bowie’s own death and acceptance towards. But even ignoring this, to me it had a notion that dying is harder than death, but to go through the cathartic difficulties of accepting past mistakes, reliving past relationships, forgiving past discretions and living well is what makes a good death; to be awake to a good life matters more than, in this sleep of death, what moonage daydreams may come. It’s touching, important, and wonderfully told.
And what most affected me was this friendship. This had one of the best depictions of platonic love I’ve ever seen on stage. Sophie Ann Caruso (who very capably handled a technical fault when I saw it) more than matches Hall, with a mysterious maturity that’s compelling to watch and brings out the inner best in others. Quite what their relationship is I don’t know (father-daughter seems too obvious for this obtuse world, yet it very may be very simply that), but whatever it is, it’s such a pure and true and wonderful portrayal of platonic love, of simple perfect equal friendship. It’s telling that whilst other iconic songs felt like tagged-on tributes, "Heroes" didn’t – in the interplay between Newton and her, there was playfulness and happiness, which led into the ending with unbearable poignancy. Bowie’s final statement being about accepting death is haunting enough, but through Hall and Caruso, through Newton and her, it becomes about accepting death through living well and living together; and however I felt about Valentine or "Valentine’s Day" or van Hove, I found this message - these moments - so extremely affecting. It’s got narrative muddle, but such emotional weight.
So I had fairly hefty reservations which meant I couldn’t give my heart to it in a way I could give my heart to Song from Far Away or Ballyturk or Blackstar – and ultimately that’s just down to too many cooks, three incredibly strong narrators all pulling in their own directions (Walsh enigmatically, Bowie profoundly, van Hove unsuccessfully). I like being confused, but I don’t like watching other people be confused, and this had too much of that. And infuriatingly, there's a briefer, tauter, perhaps cinematic version of this which is no less clear, but far more in control. But when the stars aligned... When Walsh took the characters to just the right point, and Bowie’s sound and vision gave them just the right emotional escape... Always Crashing... Where Are We Now... Heroes... It’s less good than the movie, but it’s infinitely more moving, and for that, for all its faults, I find myself a fan. I'd give it four stars, because it overcomes its many faults through one genius writing stunning new songs, and one genius writing a baggy but beguiling script, and the end result's emotional impact being so affecting. Those moments, those songs, had so much to say about the difficult necessity of dying well but living well beforehand, justified the muddle around them. Yes, I would have rather had a director who I felt captured the confusing mood with greater claustrophobia, or a script with fewer digressions and greater emphasis on its central character, and fewer jukebox-musical-esque numbers – and it would have been stronger for it. But this had moment after moment where Newton and her dealt so movingly with this biggest of all themes, and song after song after song which illuminated this beautifully, hauntingly, profoundly – and one is all you need to make it work; as a great man once said, ain’t there one damn song that can make me break down and cry?
|
|
|
Post by raiseitup on Apr 12, 2017 13:20:12 GMT
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Apr 12, 2017 13:39:23 GMT
So, they've filmed it for V&A Archive and that's it? I can't tell how disappointed I am.. I thought they were going to do a broadcast to theatres across the globe..
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Apr 12, 2017 15:21:37 GMT
So, they've filmed it for V&A Archive and that's it? I can't tell how disappointed I am.. I thought they were going to do a broadcast to theatres across the globe.. It only says it's the latest recording in the V&A archive, not that it was recorded for that purpose nor that it would not be used for other purposes. So it could still be broadcast if wanted. Live in hope!
|
|
748 posts
|
Post by rumbledoll on Apr 12, 2017 17:46:20 GMT
So, they've filmed it for V&A Archive and that's it? I can't tell how disappointed I am.. I thought they were going to do a broadcast to theatres across the globe.. It only says it's the latest recording in the V&A archive, not that it was recorded for that purpose nor that it would not be used for other purposes. So it could still be broadcast if wanted. Live in hope! I needed this, thanks! It's just.. they filmed it (with significant media coverage of the event - additional performance added, etc.) but said nothing about how they are going to share it with wider audiences. Seemed odd from the start..
|
|