|
Post by 141920grm on Jan 30, 2020 0:27:49 GMT
Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star. I wouldn't exactly say the chandelier, falling the way it has since 1986, existed for for 33 years simply for "fabulosity"'s sake. If we're talking about the original West End production, Hal Prince himself described it as very much of a "black box" set, with only the most essential elements included/set pieces selected so the audience can fill in the rest. IMO, the staging of the "brilliant original" was perfect at letting the show spill out into the auditorium at the right moments (the chandelier rise from the stage, the surround sound effects); or conversely, drawing the audience in onto the other side of the proscenium (Think of Me sequence, chandelier crash), while still managing to strike a very elegant balance of minimal and extravagant, depending on scene. If Hal didn't skimp on the chandelier, why do new productions think they have the right to revise his vision? My biggest complaint about the restaged tour was how literal everything had become, the sets becoming more sumptuous at first glance, every scene happening where it looks like it's supposed to, everything being "filled in" for you. All the lavishness contained within each set creates a very clear boundary between what's happening onstage (the Performance) and what's outside of it (us the audience). The chandelier then becomes a mere gimmick, not really being part of the stage, already on the ceiling from the beginning, being uncovered in a dramatic swoosh of fabric because the auction scene mentions it, or dropping a few metres for a bit of shock value because the audience expect it. Why reduce the chandelier to a special effects prop when it arguably plays such a big role in the plot of the story? I could go on and on but you probably get my point
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 9:18:44 GMT
Does make me think more broadly how much a single 'set piece' defines the mega musical. How much do the audience expect/need it? Cats = flying tyre Starlight = rotating flying bridge Les Mis = revolve Phantom = chandelier Miss Saigon = helicopter Sunset Boulevard = flown in house.... I'd argue within reason, that though these things are indeed fabulous, it is the music that is the true star. I wouldn't exactly say the chandelier, falling the way it has since 1986, existed for for 33 years simply for "fabulosity"'s sake.
If we're talking about the original West End production, Hal Prince himself described it as very much of a "black box" set, with only the most essential elements included/set pieces selected so the audience can fill in the rest. IMO, the staging of the "brilliant original" was perfect at letting the show spill out into the auditorium at the right moments (the chandelier rise from the stage, the surround sound effects); or conversely, drawing the audience in onto the other side of the proscenium (Think of Me sequence, chandelier crash), while still managing to strike a very elegant balance of minimal and extravagant, depending on scene. If Hal didn't skimp on the chandelier, why do new productions think they have the right to revise his vision? My biggest complaint about the restaged tour was how literal everything had become, the sets becoming more sumptuous at first glance, every scene happening where it looks like it's supposed to, everything being "filled in" for you. All the lavishness contained within each set creates a very clear boundary between what's happening onstage (the Performance) and what's outside of it (us the audience). The chandelier then becomes a mere gimmick, not really being part of the stage, already on the ceiling from the beginning, being uncovered in a dramatic swoosh of fabric because the auction scene mentions it, or dropping a few metres for a bit of shock value because the audience expect it. Why reduce the chandelier to a special effects prop when it arguably plays such a big role in the plot of the story? I could go on and on but you probably get my point Oh I agree, but that is in a version that already exists, so you'd never remove it! I guess my question is, is it so essential to the Phantom experience that every new production must include it, or the public will be very disappointed?
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jan 30, 2020 11:44:56 GMT
Oh I agree, but that is in a version that already exists, so you'd never remove it! I guess my question is, is it so essential to the Phantom experience that every new production must include it, or the public will be very disappointed? My point is that the chandelier becomes almost a character on its own, not just in the West End production but as it is written in the musical's libretto- so yes, I think the chandelier, along with its original choreography that so brilliantly bridges the stage set and the auditorium, is essential to any ALW "Phantom experience". Even though the chandelier sequence exists in the restaged version it does not make half as much impact, which, I think, is the cause of furore in the previous posts over the exact way it will rise and drop, this tour being marked as the original but obviously not a 100% replica.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 12:56:37 GMT
Oh I agree, but that is in a version that already exists, so you'd never remove it! I guess my question is, is it so essential to the Phantom experience that every new production must include it, or the public will be very disappointed? My point is that the chandelier becomes almost a character on its own, not just in the West End production but as it is written in the musical's libretto- so yes, I think the chandelier, along with its original choreography that so brilliantly bridges the stage set and the auditorium, is essential to any ALW "Phantom experience". Even though the chandelier sequence exists in the restaged version it does not make half as much impact, which, I think, is the cause of furore in the previous posts over the exact way it will rise and drop, this tour being marked as the original but obviously not a 100% replica. Yeah good point, get where you’re coming from. It is indeed written in to the story. Unlike the Starlight bridge or Les Mis resolve....
|
|
316 posts
|
Post by ABr on Jan 30, 2020 13:20:54 GMT
My point is that the chandelier becomes almost a character on its own, not just in the West End production but as it is written in the musical's libretto- so yes, I think the chandelier, along with its original choreography that so brilliantly bridges the stage set and the auditorium, is essential to any ALW "Phantom experience". Even though the chandelier sequence exists in the restaged version it does not make half as much impact, which, I think, is the cause of furore in the previous posts over the exact way it will rise and drop, this tour being marked as the original but obviously not a 100% replica. Yeah good point, get where you’re coming from. It is indeed written in to the story. Unlike the Starlight bridge or Les Mis resolve.... The entire opening scene with the auction would not make sense if there was no chandelier, its one of the few things that I felt the film did really well, was setting up the scene with the chandelier raising back into its original place, and the theatre transforming back as it takes you back to that time. Where like you mention the bridge for Starlight or the resolve are just theatre staging that were used to create the show, which some people will always mourn if they are replaced. So I think the chandelier needs to featured, its just it may not be in the same capacity as in London, with it being on tour!
|
|
14 posts
|
Post by onair on Jan 30, 2020 19:29:30 GMT
The chandelier in the Phantom is such and iconic scene. It amazes me how many current production are destroying so many iconic scenes from musicals when on tour.
Worst offender The current Priscilla Uk tour which cheapest set and bus and costumes they could find. This 2019 / 2020 will be remembered for this. Next up We will rock you uk tour which had its heart ripped out with an awful video screen set. Now we have a budget Phantom tour.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 9:19:41 GMT
The chandelier in the Phantom is such and iconic scene. It amazes me how many current production are destroying so many iconic scenes from musicals when on tour. Worst offender The current Priscilla Uk tour which cheapest set and bus and costumes they could find. This 2019 / 2020 will be remembered for this. Next up We will rock you uk tour which had its heart ripped out with an awful video screen set. Now we have a budget Phantom tour.Sorry, I've been very nervous about this tour and possibly the cause of some panic about reductions in the production etc but need to confirm that my fears have been eased after conversation with the producers. Hopefully they won't mind my posting if it helps ease criticism:
|
|
18,811 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 31, 2020 11:51:33 GMT
“The chandelier will rise”
But not necessarily fall!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 12:24:45 GMT
I'm a tad suspicious of that wording too. It will rise, but from where? Given the rehearsal video shows the model set, and we can see the chandelier already hanging but covered in a sack, I don't think it's going to start on the stage. Or fall as far as the stage.
I guess we don't have much longer to wait.
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by daniel on Jan 31, 2020 13:13:19 GMT
On the most recent UK tour, the chandelier started (as I recall) hanging above the front stalls, approximately 2/3 of the way towards the ceiling, covered in a sack. During the auction scene, when they are talking about the chandelier, it slowly lowered, and then at the start of the overture the sack pulls away revealing the chandelier, lit in all of it's sparkly glory. It would then rise vertically to the ceiling during the overture.
At the end of Act I, Erik would appear in the fake box, fire his magic shooty wand stick towards the chandelier, it would wobble, kinda pop and some sugar glass would fall to the floor.
In the US tour (which used the UK set) the chandelier actually falls vertically towards the stalls, but still doesn't go anywhere near the stage. (there is footage of this on a well-known video sharing site. I won't link to it for copyright reasons but it's easy enough to find).
As for what will happen with this tour, given how angry people were to see now chandelier drop, I would like to think that they would implement the US-style vertical drop, but equally I wouldn't be surprised if we get the same sequence as the last UK tour.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 13:24:21 GMT
Thanks for the tip - just watched.
The 25th tour was underrated I truly believe. Yes I agree it's not as good as the original, and certainly it's not as good as it's older sister, the 25th Les Mis.
But it was good, and provided a great solution to touring the show easily to more venues. Shows should be re-staged and re-conceived. And although on this occasion it didn't click how the original did and (unlike Les Mis) could not replace it; it was still a good effort and a very enjoyable evening.
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by daniel on Jan 31, 2020 13:48:15 GMT
Thanks for the tip - just watched. The 25th tour was underrated I truly believe. Yes I agree it's not as good as the original, and certainly it's not as good as it's older sister, the 25th Les Mis. But it was good, and provided a great solution to touring the show easily to more venues. Shows should be re-staged and re-conceived. And although on this occasion it didn't click how the original did and (unlike Les Mis) could not replace it; it was still a good effort and a very enjoyable evening. Interestingly I saw the tour before I saw the London show, and I really enjoyed it. As a contrast, I found the London production to be tired, dated and phoned-in by some of the cast. Personally I’m excited for this tour as I would love to see the original designs etc, but a slightly fresher production than that which is currently running in town.
|
|
1,244 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jan 31, 2020 17:41:50 GMT
On the most recent UK tour, the chandelier started (as I recall) hanging above the front stalls, approximately 2/3 of the way towards the ceiling, covered in a sack. During the auction scene, when they are talking about the chandelier, it slowly lowered, and then at the start of the overture the sack pulls away revealing the chandelier, lit in all of it's sparkly glory. It would then rise vertically to the ceiling during the overture. At the end of Act I, Erik would appear in the fake box, fire his magic shooty wand stick towards the chandelier, it would wobble, kinda pop and some sugar glass would fall to the floor. In the US tour (which used the UK set) the chandelier actually falls vertically towards the stalls, but still doesn't go anywhere near the stage. (there is footage of this on a well-known video sharing site. I won't link to it for copyright reasons but it's easy enough to find). As for what will happen with this tour, given how angry people were to see now chandelier drop, I would like to think that they would implement the US-style vertical drop, but equally I wouldn't be surprised if we get the same sequence as the last UK tour. This sounds like the show at The Venetian in Las Vegas. It was quite low over the stalls and from our seats rear stalls my friend was peed off when we sat down, moaning about "that thing" being in our eyeline ....
|
|
18,811 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 31, 2020 17:52:24 GMT
The chandelier in the Poland vid on YouTube looks friggin’ huge!
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 1, 2020 20:46:31 GMT
Excuse the rant, but I've had it with Cameron Mackintosh. This is piss poor and unacceptable. If it’s no longer economically viable to tour the actual “Brilliant Original” Phantom, then fine – but be honest about it! Don’t bill it as the “Brilliant Original” in all the publicity and advertising! And for heaven’s sake, don’t insult our intelligence with ridiculously PR-managed comments in that publicity video which makes spurious claims that this is any kind of improvement on what Hal Prince, Maria Björnson and Andrew Bridge achieved in 1986. The set looks even worse than the current World Tour. Not only is the Angel missing (it’ll be replaced by a tacky statue, à la Laurence Connor crap we got in 2012), but what on earth is going on with the proscenium sculptures? They’ve also replaced the chandelier with that very odd- (and IMHO cheap-) looking Regency one, rather than the original which is based on the actual chandelier in the Paris Opera House. I had a horrible feeling when Hal Prince passed away that Cameron Mackintosh was going to capitalise on that by taking an axe to his beautiful production and making it as cheap as possible to line his already well-lined pockets. I hope the audience who comes to see it react in the same way as audiences did in 2012 to that awful restaged ‘SPECTACULAR’ production; when I went to see that, many people in the audience remembered the previous full-scale tours of the original production and didn’t have much nice to say about what they were seeing in its place. I’ve got my tickets, anyway, but I suspect I will need to see the show again in London to remind myself of the beauty of the true ‘Brilliant Original’. I used to have massive respect for Sir Cameron in the 1990s when he insisted that tour audiences should not get a lower-quality product that West End and Broadway ones. He’s now chucked that philosophy out the window and is going into full Kenwright mode, destroying his legacy in the process and simultaneously disrespecting a Broadway legend who’s barely cold in his grave. Hmmmm, this is a bit harsh. Especially as we haven't even seen the set yet! To compare Dame Cameron to Kenwright is just mad - they are still chasms apart. And he really has remained one of the few to bring West End quality to the regions. Miss Saigon (very recently) and Les Mis (now) are the same! And Mary Poppins in the West End now is the same as the recent tour. We will have to wait and see how Phantom turns out. But I feel sure the quality will be good. We've seen the set model in quite some detail. It's obvious what's happening. And yes, Poppins, Miz and Saigon are now the same in the West End as the tour version because Cameron replaced them with the cheaper touring versions in the West End! That's not subscribing to the initial philosophy of touring audiences deserving the best; it's simply dumbing down the productions in the West End. Erm, Phantom has toured the UK (and the US) on multiple occasions in the past. They did not remove the Angel or dumb down the chandelier in those previous tours. There is precedent here. Cameron just wants to make a faster buck.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 1, 2020 20:51:19 GMT
It's definitely not how Maria Björnson intended it. She is on record on having vetoed the removal of the Angel from the proscenium when they discussed doing this in the US tour in the 1990s, as she felt it was integral to the piece.
As for the production not being 'exactly as experienced' in London or New York, why did the head of Really Useful say it would be an 'exact replica' in the publicity piece in the Daily Mail?
How many 'years in the making' was this production? Does this mean CML was planning it even while his 'SPECTACULAR' new production that disappointed audiences around the country was doing wobbly business at the box office, even though Sir Cameron stated it was 'as warmly received' as the original?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 9:29:44 GMT
We've seen the set model in quite some detail. It's obvious what's happening. And yes, Poppins, Miz and Saigon are now the same in the West End as the tour version because Cameron replaced them with the cheaper touring versions in the West End! That's not subscribing to the initial philosophy of touring audiences deserving the best; it's simply dumbing down the productions in the West End. Erm, Phantom has toured the UK (and the US) on multiple occasions in the past. They did not remove the Angel or dumb down the chandelier in those previous tours. There is precedent here. Cameron just wants to make a faster buck. Believe me, nobody mourns the loss of the mega musical more than I do and if Les Mis (Palace) Saigon (Drury Lane) and the original Poppins were still in the West End I'd be very happy. But that's not how musicals are made now; not by Cameron, not by anyone! These 'tour' versions remain the best of the touring circuit by a long way and even in the West End are the most lavish productions there. Cameron is a producer and no doubt wants to make money, but saying he dumbs down production values when he is one of the few preserving them is not only unfair, it's incorrect. And as for #Chandelier/Angel-gate we really do need to wait to see this production before judging.
|
|
18,811 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 2, 2020 9:39:50 GMT
Can’t help but wonder if CM is going to pull the Les Mis trick with POTO.
Has the original version ever been updated whist in situ ay Her Majestys? Anything they’ve done must presumably be on a small scale to avoid interrupting the schedule. So is all of the technology that of four decades ago? Sounds expensive to run, so isn’t the smart (from a business perspective) approach be to rip it out and bring the whole thing into the 21st century?
Prepare for the scramble for tickets to the staged concert... Ramin, Sierra and Brightman as Carlotta!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2020 9:56:47 GMT
Can’t help but wonder if CM is going to pull the Les Mis trick with POTO. Has the original version ever been updated whist in situ ay Her Majestys? Anything they’ve done must presumably be on a small scale to avoid interrupting the schedule. So is all of the technology that of four decades ago? Sounds expensive to run, so isn’t the smart (from a business perspective) approach be to rip it out and bring the whole thing into the 21st century? Prepare for the scramble for tickets to the staged concert... Ramin, Sierra and Brightman as Carlotta! The sound was re-designed and made digital (whatever that means) about 10 years ago. Other than that, very little I think. It's still mentioned in the programme how all the old technology is still being used. Agree while may have been quaint in 2016, must be a very non economic way of running things now. I have never quite understood if the ultimate decision maker for Phantom productions is ALW or CM. Certainly the latter seems to control the advertising and have the ideas for tours and special events as it's all so similar to Les Mis. And was CM at the tour cast rehearsals vid above. So for someone who likes to control everything, ALW seems, in my opinion, to let CM lead quite a lot on Phantom. Though quite who has the bigger share as producer, who knows....
|
|
6,318 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 3, 2020 16:53:49 GMT
Can’t imagine they’d replace the production at Her Majesty’s unless ALW decides to refurbish the theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 13:08:08 GMT
Can’t help but wonder if CM is going to pull the Les Mis trick with POTO. Has the original version ever been updated whist in situ ay Her Majestys? Anything they’ve done must presumably be on a small scale to avoid interrupting the schedule. So is all of the technology that of four decades ago? Sounds expensive to run, so isn’t the smart (from a business perspective) approach be to rip it out and bring the whole thing into the 21st century? Prepare for the scramble for tickets to the staged concert... Ramin, Sierra and Brightman as Carlotta! The sound was re-designed and made digital (whatever that means) about 10 years ago.Other than that, very little I think. It's still mentioned in the programme how all the old technology is still being used. Agree while may have been quaint in 2016, must be a very non economic way of running things now. I have never quite understood if the ultimate decision maker for Phantom productions is ALW or CM. Certainly the latter seems to control the advertising and have the ideas for tours and special events as it's all so similar to Les Mis. And was CM at the tour cast rehearsals vid above. So for someone who likes to control everything, ALW seems, in my opinion, to let CM lead quite a lot on Phantom. Though quite who has the bigger share as producer, who knows.... The sound was re-designed and made digital (whatever that means) about 10 years ago. Other than that, very little I think.True. There have been minor technical tweaks (like new radio microphones, mixing desks, keyboards etc) along the way but some of the lighting fixtures are veritably antique now and most of the shows on-stage automation is hand and foot driven using the sub-stage Victorian machinery; somewhat of a major bragging right now Theatre Royal Drury Lane has been decimated. However, in a world of health and safety legislation and the ongoing precedent to rip out anything older than 100 years, I also suspect this could be a dry run for a London revamp. Though quite who has the bigger share as producer, who knows....
This tour is a Cameron Macintosh Ltd production, having got the rights from RUG, so it's Really Useful Group under CML's jurisdiction. ALW is probably happy with the performance rights of his score and book flowing through whilst he focuses his energy on Cinderella.
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Feb 5, 2020 19:52:20 GMT
However, in a world of health and safety legislation and the ongoing precedent to rip out anything older than 100 years, I also suspect this could be a dry run for a London revamp. God I hope not...! This may be wishful thinking but surely they could subtly mechanise the machinery/upgrade the lighting tech without touching the actual contents of the show? "If it ain't broke" and all that... If they want to call it the "brilliant original" the most I can accept is, say, a few degrees' difference in colour temperature of the lighting because the older bulbs are less energy-efficient or something 😂😂 NOT restaging half of it or simply because it's cheaper and easier to have a vertical drop chandelier!!
|
|
2,149 posts
|
Post by richey on Feb 6, 2020 8:07:08 GMT
Well they've upped the publicity a notch in Manchester as we now have a rather lovely Phantom of the Opera liveried tram which I saw on my way to work this morning.
|
|
|
Post by Theatrefan48 on Feb 9, 2020 7:23:37 GMT
Chandelier news! So, my friend who is in the know says that apparently there has been a problem with the new chandelier and that they have had to bring in the US tour one as a temporary measure while they sort the new one. Also the Curve is not the largest theatre in the world. Perhaps the new one just didn't fit.
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Feb 9, 2020 15:02:25 GMT
Chandelier news! So, my friend who is in the know says that apparently there has been a problem with the new chandelier and that they have had to bring in the US tour one as a temporary measure while they sort the new one. Also the Curve is not the largest theatre in the world. Perhaps the new one just didn't fit. Do they mean the recent US tour one, as opposed to the replica tours of the 90s and early 2000s? In which case, that hideous light fixture that looks more like a hotel lobby piece than the chandelier in the Palais Garnier has nothing to do with Maria Björnson, so they should adjust their advertising accordingly. I doubt that will change in London; it's part of the history/charm of the production, although they don't advertise it enough. They didn't have to use the Victorian machinery when they conceived the show but when they found it was still in working order, they incorporated it into the show. When the show then transferred to other countries, they used computer technology but Hal Prince decided it was too 'clean', so even on Broadway where computers are used, it is done in a way to make (for example) the rising of the candelabra during the boat scene slightly off and juddery to mimic the London effect.
|
|
4,159 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Feb 9, 2020 15:12:01 GMT
Surely they would have measured these things beforehand to make sure it could fit?
|
|
38 posts
|
Post by mjr on Feb 10, 2020 17:24:31 GMT
I did wonder whether they might close the london production at some point for a few week's and replace major set pieces that have had their day. The noise the dressing room make's when it is moved on and off is rather noticeable!
|
|
1,005 posts
|
Post by David J on Feb 15, 2020 1:52:52 GMT
Had a 'become a member' leaflet today from the Mayflower Theatre, Southampton saying the show will be coming February 2021
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2020 6:37:35 GMT
Yea was announced a few days ago. top price £75! will wait for first reports on the tour before I decide
|
|
637 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on Feb 15, 2020 19:12:03 GMT
A week until this begins performances. Anybody going to the first preview?
|
|