4,159 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 6, 2018 13:36:29 GMT
I thought he was very good. Maybe i would have liked him to have better singing voice but he only has a couple of sung through songs so it's not too big a deal.
I've not seen Ash Hunter.
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on May 6, 2018 14:37:14 GMT
Do people think there’s a problem with Jamael from a distance, because I’ve only seen the show from very front stalls seats and didn’t think he was “wooden” or poor in any way. Just can’t get my head around why so many people aren’t keen on him.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on May 6, 2018 15:17:03 GMT
For me the thankless part is really Peggy/Maria as neither of those characters is developed in the slightest. The problem with Eliza is that in comparison to Angelica I just don't think she's that interesting until right at the end - Eliza is the faithful wife and mother (nothing wrong with that), whereas Angelica is the more politically engaged and sassy, which grabs the attention more. Her self-sacrifice gets an entire song, whereas everything Eliza did only comes to the fore in the finale. Philippa Soo would probably have won a Tony if it weren't for Cynthia Erivo's tour de force performance, so I don't think Eliza is really that thankless overall, she just isn't written to be as intellectual or engaging as Angelica.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 15:46:33 GMT
For me the thankless part is really Peggy/Maria as neither of those characters is developed in the slightest. The problem with Eliza is that in comparison to Angelica I just don't think she's that interesting until right at the end - Eliza is the faithful wife and mother (nothing wrong with that), whereas Angelica is the more politically engaged and sassy, which grabs the attention more. Her self-sacrifice gets an entire song, whereas everything Eliza did only comes to the fore in the finale. Philippa Soo would probably have won a Tony if it weren't for Cynthia Erivo's tour de force performance, so I don't think Eliza is really that thankless overall, she just isn't written to be as intellectual or engaging as Angelica. Having not seen Hamilton yet, I always assumed next in line for the Tony would of been Jessie Mueller for Waitress based on word of mouth. Especially considering Philippa didn't really get much awards love in America with regards to the awards circuit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 18:00:35 GMT
It's a pretty fair article really. For such an 'inclusive', game changing show with a diverse cast, it really is surprising and disappointing that it has some of the weakest female roles around, they really are insipid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 18:45:11 GMT
I wish everyone had the opportunity to see this show with that original cast because with those people in the roles to me it really deserved absolutely all of the acclaim and attention it got. Pure theatrical magic and yes, a masterpiece. Can't make my mind up if it's a hard show to cast and they got lucky the first time or if they're just being lazy with some of their current choices. I've seen videos of the original cast and I don't think I would have liked the show half as much if I'd seen them (indeed I hated it when I watched the Tony Awards performances) - the ladies are obviously very talented, but their performances are very different to the London trio, who to me seem much more soulful and better singers. And I don't particularly rate LMM as an actor. I appreciate there's a difference between watching videos and seeing it on stage, but I don't think it's fair to call the London casting lazy at all just because it isn't identical in style to the OBC. Well you're right that wouldn't be fair but that's also not what I said haha. I said some of the current casting for this show (I'm not just talking about the London cast and I'm not talking about everyone in the London cast either) doesn't work IMO and I also said that I don't know if it is laziness or it's just exceptionally hard to cast and they got lucky the first time. That's not to say I thought the OBC were perfect, I had my issues with Reneé Elise Goldsberry in particular but those issues are just very small in comparison to the issues I have with Rachelle Ann Go and Jason Penneycooke for example. And obviously everyone has preferences with certain performances but I do think it's clear that there's a notable difference in the way UK theatre fans are reacting to this show and the way Broadway fans went wild for it the first time round. That's not to say that it's not loved, it clearly is, but there's a lot more talk of it being overrated and so on, and that's with the tickets going for a quarter of the price. And when the only real difference there is the cast, well that's the obvious conclusion to be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 18:52:04 GMT
For me the thankless part is really Peggy/Maria as neither of those characters is developed in the slightest. The problem with Eliza is that in comparison to Angelica I just don't think she's that interesting until right at the end - Eliza is the faithful wife and mother (nothing wrong with that), whereas Angelica is the more politically engaged and sassy, which grabs the attention more. Her self-sacrifice gets an entire song, whereas everything Eliza did only comes to the fore in the finale. Philippa Soo would probably have won a Tony if it weren't for Cynthia Erivo's tour de force performance, so I don't think Eliza is really that thankless overall, she just isn't written to be as intellectual or engaging as Angelica. Having not seen Hamilton yet, I always assumed next in line for the Tony would of been Jessie Mueller for Waitress based on word of mouth. Especially considering Philippa didn't really get much awards love in America with regards to the awards circuit. Phillipa won the Lucille Lortel award and the Clarence Derwent award. I don't know which would have won but to me Phillipa should have won over Erivo so.. Anyway when played correctly, Eliza is my favorite character in the show and I don't think she is remotely thankless. She is the only female character to get an entire fleshed out arc and the show ends with her in the spotlight (180 from 'I have never been the type to try and grab the spotlight') becoming the epitome of the legacy which is the message of the show. The actress that plays her gets to play infatuation, love, grief, heartbreak, betrayal, pride and self affirmation. That's a lot to work with IMO whilst also being very faithful to who the woman clearly was in real life.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on May 6, 2018 21:54:22 GMT
Do people think there’s a problem with Jamael from a distance, because I’ve only seen the show from very front stalls seats and didn’t think he was “wooden” or poor in any way. Just can’t get my head around why so many people aren’t keen on him. I was also up front (first row of stalls) and thought he was wonderful.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on May 7, 2018 1:44:32 GMT
I've seen videos of the original cast and I don't think I would have liked the show half as much if I'd seen them (indeed I hated it when I watched the Tony Awards performances) - the ladies are obviously very talented, but their performances are very different to the London trio, who to me seem much more soulful and better singers. And I don't particularly rate LMM as an actor. I appreciate there's a difference between watching videos and seeing it on stage, but I don't think it's fair to call the London casting lazy at all just because it isn't identical in style to the OBC. Well you're right that wouldn't be fair but that's also not what I said haha. I said some of the current casting for this show (I'm not just talking about the London cast and I'm not talking about everyone in the London cast either) doesn't work IMO and I also said that I don't know if it is laziness or it's just exceptionally hard to cast and they got lucky the first time. That's not to say I thought the OBC were perfect, I had my issues with Reneé Elise Goldsberry in particular but those issues are just very small in comparison to the issues I have with Rachelle Ann Go and Jason Penneycooke for example. And obviously everyone has preferences with certain performances but I do think it's clear that there's a notable difference in the way UK theatre fans are reacting to this show and the way Broadway fans went wild for it the first time round. That's not to say that it's not loved, it clearly is, but there's a lot more talk of it being overrated and so on, and that's with the tickets going for a quarter of the price. And when the only real difference there is the cast, well that's the obvious conclusion to be drawn.To be fair, your post wasn't clear in the slightest as to whether you were talking about just the London cast (which would be the most likely given this is the thread about the London production), I read it as if you were. And I disagree entirely with the bit I've highlighted in bold - that isn't the obvious conclusion to be drawn at all. In fact, as far as I'm concerned the obvious conclusion is the point your post misses entirely - there isn't the history here. The show is US history, which American audiences will be much more familiar with and relate to more than British audiences, even if they don't know Hamilton's story. That much is clear from the fact that there are two national tours and a sit down production in Chicago all getting massive hype. And besides, you said yourself you're not just talking about the London cast, so I don't see how your own argument that the difference between the US and UK reaction is all in the casting works on that basis either.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on May 7, 2018 4:24:44 GMT
I wish everyone had the opportunity to see this show with that original cast because with those people in the roles to me it really deserved absolutely all of the acclaim and attention it got. Pure theatrical magic and yes, a masterpiece. Can't make my mind up if it's a hard show to cast and they got lucky the first time or if they're just being lazy with some of their current choices. I've seen videos of the original cast and I don't think I would have liked the show half as much if I'd seen them (indeed I hated it when I watched the Tony Awards performances) - the ladies are obviously very talented, but their performances are very different to the London trio, who to me seem much more soulful and better singers. And I don't particularly rate LMM as an actor. I appreciate there's a difference between watching videos and seeing it on stage, but I don't think it's fair to call the London casting lazy at all just because it isn't identical in style to the OBC. My mention of lazy casting was nothing to do with comparison to the OBC. Trying to replicate those actors would have been largely impossible and stifling for any actor in a new version. It’s Just that I was so underwhelmed and disengaged by Jamael ‘s performance that I wondered why they’d settled for such a weird fit for the lead who seemed to be in a different show to everyone else on the show and , in my opinion, had no charisma whatsoever. As another poster mentioned, when the UK Hamilton and Burr are sharing scenes, there is a massive imbalance in their standard of performance which is a real problem for the narrative in my opinion ( if you don’t care about Hamilton, your take on the show is going to be very lopsided).
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on May 7, 2018 9:34:32 GMT
So, I saw the show on Saturday, with Ash, and have been able to digest it and compare it to the performance I saw with 99% main cast in December. My opinion is that Ash is better than Jamael. I really enjoyed Ash's vocals (it may have just been the show I saw, but Jamael was off-key several times), and I think Ash got the 'scrappy, argumentative' aspect of Hamilton absolutely spot on. Ash seemed to meld well with the other cast members - My Shot was better than the first time I saw it, and his duets with Rachelle were more emotionally believable. When I saw Jamael, he certainly wasn't emoting to the back of the stalls (where I was sat), and the performance read as wooden to me.
Miriam-Teak was a servicable Angelica (great soulful voice), but she struggled with enunciation at times, whereas Rachel's version was impeccable. Seeing other cast members for the second time really solidified my opinions of them. Obioma is spectacular, his stage presence is mesmerising, and his voice is so beautiful that I could listen to him sing forever! Honestly, I think he's the best thing on that stage, possibly the best Washington (I love Christopher Jackson's performance, but Obioma is incredible). Rachelle is still pure Disney princess in the first act (this is deliberate, I'm sure, and is a perfectly valid choice to play Eliza), but seems to have developed more in the second act, and now has a wonderful depth to her performance. 'Burn' was much, much better to watch this time. Jason Pennycooke is still an annoying Lafayette, and improves when he switches to Jefferson, but I'm not sure anyone can match what Daveed Diggs did for this role - the vocal style was tailormade for Diggs, and every other actor who has to follow him, has to reach a ridiculous standard of speed rapping. The result, twice now, is Pennycooke delivering the rapid fire songs with just too many mumbled lyrics. If you can't hear the words he's saying, you lose so much of the song. But his Jefferson is so entertaining, and the vocal demands slightly less, so it becomes a better performance later in the show.
As for the theatre itself, we were extremely late getting into the theatre. 2 of our group got stuck when they closed Victoria station for a fire alert! They ended up having find an alternative route and then speed walk from much further away, managing to get there for just after 2.15pm. Luckily, this proved to be a bit of an advantage - the queue to get in was short and quick, toilets were basically empty, so we dashed in and out. The Royal Circle merchandise stall was completely free, and we purchased a couple of things, before strolling round to our box and settling in, mere moments before the performance started.
The box itself (Box D) was restricted viewing - there's no escaping that - for anything on the far left of the stage, but being so close to the stage offset that inconvenience. Being able to see the performers so close (you feel like you're nearly on top of the stage there), gave a fantastic perspective to the experience. A couple of moments missed on that side of the stage are fine with me, if they're keep that box priced at that level! My rear stalls seat, from my last visit, is now priced way higher than that box, and was the far inferior seat.
Looking at the pricing chart, both now, and when the prices increase again in August, it's hard to fathom that the box stays the same price, and yet they are increasing almost every standard seat (not premium ones, or the few side aisle ones) in the stalls and royal circle to £100. My recommendation - go for the box seats, if you want a comfortable theatre experience, combined with being able to see the performers up close! There's that tiny disadvantage of losing a few lines/moments due to the restricted view of the extreme side of the stage, but what you lose there makes up in so many other ways, not least that they are a total bargain now, compared with most of the rest of the theatre!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 10:38:15 GMT
Well you're right that wouldn't be fair but that's also not what I said haha. I said some of the current casting for this show (I'm not just talking about the London cast and I'm not talking about everyone in the London cast either) doesn't work IMO and I also said that I don't know if it is laziness or it's just exceptionally hard to cast and they got lucky the first time. That's not to say I thought the OBC were perfect, I had my issues with Reneé Elise Goldsberry in particular but those issues are just very small in comparison to the issues I have with Rachelle Ann Go and Jason Penneycooke for example. And obviously everyone has preferences with certain performances but I do think it's clear that there's a notable difference in the way UK theatre fans are reacting to this show and the way Broadway fans went wild for it the first time round. That's not to say that it's not loved, it clearly is, but there's a lot more talk of it being overrated and so on, and that's with the tickets going for a quarter of the price. And when the only real difference there is the cast, well that's the obvious conclusion to be drawn.To be fair, your post wasn't clear in the slightest as to whether you were talking about just the London cast (which would be the most likely given this is the thread about the London production), I read it as if you were. And I disagree entirely with the bit I've highlighted in bold - that isn't the obvious conclusion to be drawn at all. In fact, as far as I'm concerned the obvious conclusion is the point your post misses entirely - there isn't the history here. The show is US history, which American audiences will be much more familiar with and relate to more than British audiences, even if they don't know Hamilton's story. That much is clear from the fact that there are two national tours and a sit down production in Chicago all getting massive hype. And besides, you said yourself you're not just talking about the London cast, so I don't see how your own argument that the difference between the US and UK reaction is all in the casting works on that basis either. Fair enough to your first point but all I said was 'some of their current choices', there was never any specification for London. And I don't follow the hype for those other American productions particularly but from what I can tell they do not come close to the hype that it originally had on Broadway. Likewise, you just have to take a look on the BroadwayWorld board to see how people that love the show feel about it with the current Broadway cast. Again, I'm not saying people don't love it, people wont spend a lot of money to see it and so on but there is a marked difference between the 'masterpiece of modern theatre', 'somehow exceeds the hype', 'worth the $900 I spent' that I constantly heard about this show two years ago and what I hear about it now. And I'm obviously drawing from my own experience here too. I'm British, I had no interest in American history before seeing Hamilton and was completely swept away by the show when I saw it with the OBC. The fact that it was not my history did not matter one bit, in fact I was far more interested in Hamilton and Burr at that point of my life than I have ever been in any aspect of British history. I've seen the UK production three times now (all purchased before I saw it the first time) and every time I am half enjoying it, half wincing my way through it because of some of the acting choices. I have no desire to see the UK production again until there's a cast change. Likewise I feel the same about some of the bootlegs I've seen of the American casts. On the other hand if you told me I could see the original cast again in this show tomorrow I would pay a LOT of money to do so, despite the fact that I already got to see them twice. And I have no desire to see actors make exact replications of that cast. There are interpretations (both in the London cast and out of it) that are new and that I love. I just want to see actors make choices that work. For me, that isn't necessarily happening to the extent that it should be and that this material deserves. You're entitled to your own opinion if you think the London cast are better or preferable, but I stand by mine that more people would understand the intense hype for this show if they had seen the OBC.
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 7, 2018 11:52:11 GMT
Just managed to grab two 20 pound seats in the grand circle slips. How is the legroom and the view there?
|
|
853 posts
|
Post by bordeaux on May 7, 2018 13:49:00 GMT
All our group - from 11 to 82 - loved this as expected (everyone but the 82 year old very familiar with the music). We had the replacement Hamilton, who was excellent. Not a weak link in the cast. Music and lyrics are superb - up there with Sweeney Todd, Guys and Dolls as a great American musical in my view. We appreciated the one lyrical change (re John Adams) we noticed. Incidentally the 82 year-old got her ticket on Friday, £57.50 restricted view in the stalls, not really restricted in her view anyway.
The only disappointment was the curtain call. The audience (justifiably) stood as one and applauded and whooped, but the cast simply came back on, bowed and went off: no second or third bow, no individual or group bows. I thought that was a shame and robbed the audience of their chance to express their appreciation.
We will be going back for a second viewing in a year or two. I am fascinated to note that my colleagues (teachers) haven't heard of the show - has word got out beyond the usual, London-based theatre-goers?
|
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on May 7, 2018 14:40:56 GMT
The box itself (Box D) was restricted viewing - there's no escaping that - for anything on the far left of the stage, but being so close to the stage offset that inconvenience. Being able to see the performers so close (you feel like you're nearly on top of the stage there), gave a fantastic perspective to the experience. A couple of moments missed on that side of the stage are fine with me, if they're keep that box priced at that level! My rear stalls seat, from my last visit, is now priced way higher than that box, and was the far inferior seat. Looking at the pricing chart, both now, and when the prices increase again in August, it's hard to fathom that the box stays the same price, and yet they are increasing almost every standard seat (not premium ones, or the few side aisle ones) in the stalls and royal circle to £100. My recommendation - go for the box seats, if you want a comfortable theatre experience, combined with being able to see the performers up close! There's that tiny disadvantage of losing a few lines/moments due to the restricted view of the extreme side of the stage, but what you lose there makes up in so many other ways, not least that they are a total bargain now, compared with most of the rest of the theatre! Thanks for this. I’m sitting in Box D in September (price was £57.50 each) and was wondering about the restricted view - so far I’d only heard about the more expensive Box C. Taking my housemate for her first time and she needs leg room as recently had an operation, so this was my only shot of getting her to come,
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on May 7, 2018 15:27:32 GMT
The box itself (Box D) was restricted viewing - there's no escaping that - for anything on the far left of the stage, but being so close to the stage offset that inconvenience. Being able to see the performers so close (you feel like you're nearly on top of the stage there), gave a fantastic perspective to the experience. A couple of moments missed on that side of the stage are fine with me, if they're keep that box priced at that level! My rear stalls seat, from my last visit, is now priced way higher than that box, and was the far inferior seat. Looking at the pricing chart, both now, and when the prices increase again in August, it's hard to fathom that the box stays the same price, and yet they are increasing almost every standard seat (not premium ones, or the few side aisle ones) in the stalls and royal circle to £100. My recommendation - go for the box seats, if you want a comfortable theatre experience, combined with being able to see the performers up close! There's that tiny disadvantage of losing a few lines/moments due to the restricted view of the extreme side of the stage, but what you lose there makes up in so many other ways, not least that they are a total bargain now, compared with most of the rest of the theatre! Thanks for this. I’m sitting in Box D in September (price was £57.50 each) and was wondering about the restricted view - so far I’d only heard about the more expensive Box C. Taking my housemate for her first time and she needs leg room as recently had an operation, so this was my only shot of getting her to come, As long as your friend can manage the flight of stairs to the royal circle level (there's no lift), it should be a far more comfortable experience, in that there is so much room in box D to spread out. I remember looking at the old theatre plan, back when Billy Elliot was playing, and they put 4 seats in that box! So, even between box C and D, box D is bigger and offers the most room per seat of any of the boxes in the theatre, now that there are just 2 seats. The extra cost per ticket for Box C is purely for the very slightly better angle of the box, that means there is just a bit less missed from the side restriction. Honestly, I'd rather have the complete bargain seat in box D any time!! The £17.50 difference in ticket price would buy me (maybe!) a couple of drinks in the interval!
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 9, 2018 18:40:50 GMT
Utterly confused and hope that someone can help me here.
I've send an email to the box office with the question if the grand circle slip seats are near an aisle and how the legroom is. Unbeknownest to me my girlfriend send the exact same question to the box office during her work.
This is the response I got:
Dear Tim, Your Grand Circle Slip Seats are located at the end of an aisle. These are moveable seats, not bench seats. You can move the seats to make the performance as comfortable as possible for yourselves.
I was relieved. Then my girlfriend arrived home and told me she send the question.
This is the response my girlfriend received:
The Grand circle slip seats are on a fixed bench and are non movable. Only one end is an aisle.
Theatremonkey or anyone else: Which answer is the right answer?
|
|
688 posts
|
Post by sophie92 on May 9, 2018 18:44:47 GMT
Utterly confused and hope that someone can help me here. I've send an email to the box office with the question if the grand circle slip seats are near an aisle and how the legroom is. Unbeknownest to me my girlfriend send the exact same question to the box office during her work. This is the response I got: Dear Tim, Your Grand Circle Slip Seats are located at the end of an aisle. These are moveable seats, not bench seats. You can move the seats to make the performance as comfortable as possible for yourselves. I was relieved. Then my girlfriend arrived home and told me she send the question. This is the response my girlfriend received: The Grand circle slip seats are on a fixed bench and are non movable. Only one end is an aisle. Theatremonkey or anyone else: Which answer is the right answer? The response your girlfriend received is the correct one
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 9, 2018 18:50:02 GMT
Thanks for your quick reply. And that's a shame. Was looking forward to the show but this means I'll have to ask for a refund. Really disappointing. .
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on May 9, 2018 19:02:17 GMT
Are the Royal Circle ones movable? Otherwise it is only the boxes which have movable seats.
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 9, 2018 19:06:47 GMT
Happy that my girlfriend send a message as well otherwise we would have had a problem when we arrived at the venue.
|
|
638 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on May 9, 2018 23:49:01 GMT
Yes the Royal Circle slips (adjacent to Row L) are moveable aren’t they?
|
|
638 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on May 9, 2018 23:50:21 GMT
What have people’s experiences been with altering card info? I’m seeing the show this month but I now have a different card to that which I booked with well over a year ago (which expired).
I gather the best thing is to phone Ticketmaster help (it’s Ticketmaster I booked through) and change the details?
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Post by daniel on May 9, 2018 23:52:13 GMT
What have people’s experiences been with altering card info? I’m seeing the show this month but I now have a different card to that which I booked with well over a year ago (which expired). I gather the best thing is to phone Ticketmaster help (it’s Ticketmaster I booked through) and change the details? ring Ticketmaster and the process takes about half an hour - 29 minutes on hold and 1 minute to make the change!
|
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on May 10, 2018 4:28:04 GMT
What have people’s experiences been with altering card info? I’m seeing the show this month but I now have a different card to that which I booked with well over a year ago (which expired). I gather the best thing is to phone Ticketmaster help (it’s Ticketmaster I booked through) and change the details? ring Ticketmaster and the process takes about half an hour - 29 minutes on hold and 1 minute to make the change! They actually called me when one of my cards expired to save me the time, but maybe they were only doing that for ones that booked before the show opened.
|
|
25 posts
|
Post by cmj on May 10, 2018 7:54:14 GMT
ring Ticketmaster and the process takes about half an hour - 29 minutes on hold and 1 minute to make the change! They actually called me when one of my cards expired to save me the time, but maybe they were only doing that for ones that booked before the show opened. If you still have the old card - From ticketmaster website IMPORTANT: If you already have a booking for a Paperless event you will need to take the credit/debit card you booked with, don’t worry if it has expired, you can still use it to gain entry to your event. If you no longer have the card you booked with for a Paperless event please call us to update your card details.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 10, 2018 10:15:24 GMT
Apologies for another seat question, but Ticketmaster aren't being too much help at the mo. Anyone know what the restriction on the low end of Row H in the dress circle is? Apparently they're the only seats in the dress circle with an obstructed view but then they're cheaper because of it...just wondered if anyone knew why just those couple of seats and how bad it may be? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 10, 2018 10:58:12 GMT
Unfortunately it seems the only thing they can do now is give a refund. No option to change seats. Bummer.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on May 10, 2018 11:29:58 GMT
Thanks as always, TM!
|
|
|
Post by timothyd on May 10, 2018 11:42:23 GMT
There's indeed nothing they can do. So for the people who are interested in the 20 slip seats: I'm going to ask for a refund and they will become available later today at Ticketmaster for the evening performance on Saturday.
|
|