103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 13, 2024 9:28:48 GMT
I am not that bothered was just curious about the prices and entered 5 mins ago without any queues. Most dates are red but still yellow availability for mid week. So maybe for those queuing since 8am - just try to enter anew from another device - it could work. ^I tried this on your suggestion - on the alternate device, I got put at 60,000 in the queue! So strange that the system let you slip by. What page did you enter from?
EDIT: Just saw your follow-up post above. Same result!
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 13, 2024 9:08:24 GMT
^I was wondering the same - seems to be paused for me too. Has been stuck at 376 for almost 10 minutes now. Glad it's not just me, but dang it's frustrating!
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 13, 2023 15:31:44 GMT
Thanks all! Apologies for not looking more carefully through the thread + website (afterward, I did manage to find it on the website but it did take some digging around). Regardless, I appreciate your directing me to that info.
Anyway, it looks like I lucked out! The Wednesday Matinee I'm attending is NOT listed as one of her absences.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 13, 2023 14:43:24 GMT
Hello,
I'm coming in from the US next month to see some shows, and I purchased a ticket to Cabaret with the intention of seeing Aimee Lou Wood in the role.
Just this morning I saw an article saying that she would be out for certain performances, which, as far as I can tell, wasn't indicated in the initial press release. There also doesn't seem to be any indication of which performances she'll be out. But given that I have a ticket to a Wednesday matinee, it seems like I'm right in the "danger zone."
Given everything I've heard about the refund policies on the West End, I'm assuming that I would NOT be entitled to a refund if she was out for my performance, even though it wasn't announced beforehand. Is that correct?
In either case, has anyone seen her performance schedule published anywhere?
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 1, 2023 17:10:35 GMT
Managed to snag one of the £25 tickets this morning right when they went onsale. I must have been one of the first people in the queue, because I didn't wait at all.
About an hour before the tickets went on sale, I was looking at the page and noticed that non-members could access the calendar showing the availability, even though we still couldn't click on the individual dates: there were ZERO dates showing tickets below £67 (or whatever that price point was). But as I kept refreshing the page closer to 10:00, the cheaper tickets began to appear as available for nearly all the dates. So yes, it must be that they were holding back tickets from the pre-sale.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Jan 31, 2023 14:50:29 GMT
Can anyone indicate what the absolute cheapest price point is for the transfer, and where in the theatre those seats are located?
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 14, 2020 15:43:37 GMT
I picked 12 - oh well, sue me! As I said with my other list in the Shakespeare thread, I feel compelled to add the disclaimer that my list would surely look very different if not for the fact that I only just started seeing theatre regularly around 2008. And I didn't start seeing plays regularly until about 2014 (as this list reflects) - though in my defense, I have seen quite an impressive number of plays in that time, if I do say so myself Anyway, without further self-aggrandizement or self-deprecation: The Glass Menagerie - West End 2017 - dir. John Tiffany King Charles III - Broadway, 2015 - Mike Bartlett/Rupert Goold Smokefall - MCC, Off-Broadway 2016 - Noah Haidle/Anne Kauffman (starring Zachary Quinto) Yerma - Young Vic 2016 - Simon Stone (starring Billie Piper) You For Me For You - Royal Court 2015 - Mia Chung/Richard Twyman An Octoroon - TFANA, Off-Broadway 2015 - Branden Jacobs-Jenkins/Sarah Benson One Man Two Guvnors - Broadway 2012 - Richard Bean/Nick Hytner (starring James Corden) Fairview - SoHo Rep, Off-Broadway 2018 - Jackie Sibblies Drury/Sarah Benson Hand to God - Broadway 2015 - Robert Askins/Moritz von Steulpnagel Pygmalion - Bedlam, Off-Broadway 2018 - dir. Eric Tucker The Elephant Man - Broadway 2014 - dir. Scott Ellis (starring Bradley Cooper) The Little Foxes - Broadway 2017 - dir. Daniel Sullivan (starring Laura Linney & Cynthia Nixon alternating roles - happy to say I saw both versions)
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 5, 2020 20:54:23 GMT
Reading this thread makes me incredibly jealous! So many productions mentioned that I desperately wish I could have seen myself. Sir Mark Rylance is one of my all-time favorite actors, and if I had been given the opportunity to see more of his Shakespeare performances, I'm sure my "favorites" list would look very different.
As I've only been seeing Shakespeare regularly for the past 5-6 years or so, I'm limited to that timeframe, as well as films, and filmed stage productions - of which, I will say, I've seen quite a few. But for what it's worth, here are some of my favorites (note also that I live in New York, though most of my favorites have been UK productions).
--Hamlet - Icke/Scott at the Almeida - Hamlet is the play I've seen the most, but I doubt I'll ever see a production that moves me as deeply as that one.
--Donmar Shakespeare Trilogy - Phyllida Lloyd - I saw the full trilogy in one day and it was among the most thrilling theatrical experiences I'v ever had.
--Roman Tragedies - not necessarily my favorite in terms of interpretation of the text, but it was quite an experience. I agree with the poster above who said that Hand Kesting's "Friends, Romans Countrymen" speech was the best I've ever seen it done.
--Macbeth - dir. Yukio Ninagawa - undoubtedly the most emotional, melancholic take on Macbeth I've seen, which was a delightful shift from the many productions that work too hard to be chilling.
--Richard III - Ostermeier/Schaubühne - while many actors and directors love to talk about how Richard is supposed to have a seductive, deceptive charm about him, Lars Eidinger's performance (with Ostermeier's direction) was the only time I've really felt that palpably as an anchor to the production.
--Troilus and Cressida - NYC Shakespeare in the Park - dir. Daniel Sullivan - an absolutely thrilling production that, unfortunately, didn't receive much attention at the time. I was lucky enough to see David Harbour (from Stranger Things) as Achilles during his one week of performances, before injuring his foot and departing the production.
--Winter's Tale - Cheek By Jowl - the only time I've really enjoyed the troublesome and overly-long Act IV, which really helped the whole play click into place for me.
--Romeo & Juliet - Baz Luhrmann, 1996 - one of my favorite film adaptations of Shakespeare, and to date, the version of the text that moves me the most profoundly.
--Much Ado - Rourke/Tennant/Tate - in my experience, the funniest rendition of Shakespeare's funniest play. The chemistry between Tate and Tennant was excellent.
--Twelfth Night - Godwin, National Theatre - I found this production really delightful - definitely the most fun I've had at Twelfth Night in the (too) many versions I've seen. Though the Rylance production at the Globe is certainly a close second, and nobody can hold a candle to Rylance's Olivia.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Feb 15, 2020 15:53:11 GMT
Bumping this - anyone see this last night? Considering it for my upcoming trip.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Sept 30, 2017 6:23:28 GMT
This isn't quite "overheard," but rather a funny encounter with a stranger. It was during the interval of Bright Star on Broadway
**CONTAINS SPOILERS**, for those of you who may be visiting the states and planning to see one of the post-Broadway productions
At the end of act 1, a man throws a bag off a train, knowing that the bag contains a live human baby.
At the interval, a seemingly inebriated man addressed me out of the blue in the queue for the toilet, telling me "if you ever write a musical, don't end the first act with someone throwing a baby off a train, because now it's already been done."
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Aug 17, 2017 5:42:53 GMT
I had the immense pleasure of having an extended conversation with Sir Derek Jacobi recently, in a real-life social situation - not a stage-door. He could not have been lovelier. One memorable bit of our conversation:
We came to discuss Bernard Shaw, and he said "the last play that I did onstage was Shaw's Heartbreak House several years ago" and I said "But sir, didn't you do Romeo & Juliet at the Garrick last summer?" He laughed and said "Oh my goodness! You're absolutely right! I'd forgotten. I'm getting so old..."
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on May 1, 2017 20:47:19 GMT
Thanks sondheimhats for the interesting and thought provoking view. Firstly, there are clear transatlantic differences in style, yet the dominant culture (the USA in this case) has gradually become the unspoken arbiter of musical theatre right and wrong. Understand, however, that for the UK the whole question of the US's ability to be that arbiter is in question. With Europe we are traditionally much closer in terms of style (hence the success of the Boublil/Schoenberg shows, less jazz inflected, more diatonically based) and, because there is no such dominance (well, not since German operetta and, there, Gilbert & Sullivan had a large say) there is no real issue. Some decades ago and in a different place on the internet I was berated by an angry American commenter, saying that I didn't have a right to comment on American musicals and that British directors were 'ruining our shows' by emphasising darker elements, foregrounding more naturalistic acting etc. (I think that was the Hytner Carousel, it was over twenty years ago and the disgust an non traditional casting and such has, I hope, moved on). So, what an American sees is not necessarily what a Brit sees (or hears), where the blandness of much US musical theatre can grate (though generally not via the Sondheim of your screen name), the feelgood piety and shallowness of intent deflate. As such, London Road and Pacifist's Guide, although aimed at an audience who are smaller in number, if not as receptive to the dominant culture, can be to someone like myself a breath of fresh harmonic air. A show that interrogates a neighbourhood terrorised by a serial killer? Fine. Sung in a style that nobody has really heard before. Thank you very much and give me a bit more dissonance please, the grit that makes me work a bit more at listening. Cancer? Well, why not and merge it with a bit of performance art so that, in the second half, the show decides that a musical is the wrong medium for the story? Brilliant. I looked at the Outer Critics Circle awards last week and, after a quick check if the panel, had my thoughts confirmed. Someone in the same circle as the person who warned me off 'our musicals', someone who had lambasted Minchin's 'Groundhog Day' score was there. To my mind the British musical should stop looking across the Atlantic and trying to ape what is done there, it's a fool's errand, it should create a different type of musical theatre and trust in itself. All very fair points. I totally agree that our tastes have been formed by the culture of our respective countries, and because of that, the music styles across the pond will naturally have a tendency to grate on our ears. I also totally agree that lots of American musicals - even successful ones - do have a very bland, generic quality to their scores, but more and more I think we can see more ambitious and carefully constructed scores getting the attention they deserve here in the US. Your comments about London Road and Pacifist's Guide are apt, and I do think both shows were pushing the boundaries of musical theatre, which I appreciate. But the manner in which they pushed the boundaries was very telling. As I said, the music seemed to be there for intellectual purposes more than emotional/storytelling purposes. Pushing boundaries of the sake of pushing boundaries, I might argue. I find it to be very misguided, but I can certainly understand why one might find it refreshing.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on May 1, 2017 18:08:49 GMT
As an American who has spent the last 8 months in the UK, I'd like to weigh in on this. I've observed several things about the difference between British and American musical theatre that I think contribute to the issue. Some of what I have to say may be a bit controversial, but I'm just gonna go for it anyway.
As others have already said, musical theatre is an inherently American art form. It is, indeed, in our theatrical DNA. That isn't to say that all American musicals are better than all British musicals, but it does mean that American musical theatre writers in general simply have a better cultural understanding of how to construct a good musical, how to make the music and lyrics work together to advance the plot, develop character, and deepen the emotion. As others have pointed out, Billy Elliot and Matilda have been the most successful recent British musicals, and I genuinely believe it's because they manage to achieve that synergy. Billy Elliot even goes so far as to utilize dance to further develop the character and deepen the emotions, an added layer that musicals these days rarely achieve. I don't think that British musical theatre writers are unwilling to take risks. I think London Road and A Pacifist's Guide to the War on Cancer, for example, were both risky pieces of musical theatre, but IMO they were too intellectual, and failed to use the music to serve the story in a significant way. I have a hunch that "Committee" at the Donmar will have the same problem.
Also, British composers tend to prefer very different sorts of melodic structures than Americans, and though I can't speak for everyone, I think it just sounds kind of gross. British musical theatre scores often sound very dissonant and chaotic. Matilda is an example of this, although I think Minchin (who I realize is Australian) manages to utilize that sound to the show's advantage. Still, I think some American audiences were turned off by it, which is why it was such a divisive show in the States, and why it lost the Tony for Best Musical and Best Score.
The sound I'm referring to could be heard in shows like Wonder.Land, London Road, and the recent Peter Pan (which was not a proper musical, but did have a lot of original, non-diegetic music). You can also hear it in Barlow, as well as Styles, though not as much. You can hear it a LOT in Andrew Lloyd Webber's work. In my opinion, ALW is virtually incapable of writing a cohesive musical theatre score, and large portions of his shows are needlessly dissonant and highly unpleasant. Webber gets away with it, and rakes in millions, because he always throws in a few beautiful melodies that get stuck in the audience's head as they leave the theatre. Who's going to remember the awful "Mungojeree and Rumpleteezer" when they have "Memory" to sing on the way home?
All entirely subjective, I know. And there are, of course, exceptions. But that's this American's take on the situation. Sorry to offend the Web-heads out there.
EDIT: I'd just like to clarify that I'm not one of those people who thinks all musicals should have "hummable" melodies. In fact, I hate it when people say things like that. I'm all in favor of dissonance, complexity, alternative sounds, etc. But only when it helps the storytelling, like in "Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812" to use a current example. I just don't feel that's the case with most British musicals, Matilda being the most notable exception.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 25, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
Don't ask. Just go and be surprised. It's wonderful. I can't! I saw part one, but I won't be able to see part 2 as I'm now back in the states. I'm even busy on the day they're broadcasting it, though I suppose maybe I could catch an encore screening.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 25, 2017 17:43:37 GMT
For anyone who's seen part 2: I'm dying to know what the giant metal structure upstage is used for.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 24, 2017 1:53:54 GMT
I saw this in Brooklyn and thought it was simply extraordinary. One of the most bold and brilliant plays I've seen in my life. I would highly recommend it.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 19, 2017 19:11:32 GMT
Any stage door experiences so far? No luck on the first preview. They all left the theatre to have notes session elsewhere, or so we were told. I also keep tabs on instagram and I haven't seen any photos from the stage door.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 19, 2017 15:44:54 GMT
Has anyone queued for dayseats yet? Forgive me if this has already been answered further back but I can't see it. I'm really keen to see it later this month perhaps. And wondered what time to queue. Ideally I'd do both in the same day. Thanks! I queued for the first preview. I got there at 5:40am, and I was something like 5th in line, and I got the 8th ticket (as some people got 2 tickets). I think the last people to successfully get day-seats got there around 7:15 - 7:20.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 16, 2017 4:15:43 GMT
Ramin is a better fit for the role than Alfie, but to be honest I don't think he has the acting chops for this either.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 15, 2017 7:59:09 GMT
My London vacation air tickets are 15 Jul - 8 Aug 2017. By haunting the HPCC website I was able to secure nice tickets for 2 Aug. My issue is that I'm trying to clear last week of vacation for a possible (won't know till I'm already in London) detour to Tunis. It will be so much better for me if I'm able to get tickets for an earlier date. Does this sound feasible to you? Wed 19-Jul go to returns early in morning and try for 2 play tickets for that day (I'm solo so need ticket for 1 person). Will be prepared to pay premium. I can then return my tickets for 2 Aug. I will still be haunting website between now and then. There are 3 dates that would be good for me. I'm fully prepared to be there stupidly early to try to secure ticket. My most important question for this part is.... is there a WC available??? :0 :0 You can use the McDonald's WC down the block, as long as the people behind you in the queue aren't sticklers about leaving for short periods - which they shouldn't be, in my experience of return-queue etiquette.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 12, 2017 17:54:55 GMT
I've been thinking about the show all day, trying to analyze my reaction and figure out why it wasn't quite up to my expectations. Last night, I said I wasn't crazy about Marianne Elliott's direction. In retrospect, I don't think that's entirely true. I think she directed the scenes and actors very well, I just didn't love the way in which it was physically staged. There were 3 revolves, on which they had somewhat amorphous segments of rooms and hallways. To me, it just felt kind of clunky. I was relieved when they cleared the stage in Act 3. But at one point, a whole room set was lifted up from the below the stage for Roy Cohn's house. It was just used for the one scene, and didn't really feel all that necessary.
Having seen Curious Incident and War Horse, I expected the physical staging to be outstanding. So in that sense, it's just that my expectations got in the way. I still did genuinely love the show overall. The acting was top-notch, and of course the play is beautiful.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 11, 2017 23:20:31 GMT
Saw the show tonight. I have to go to bed, but some very quick thoughts (possible production spoilers (?) for those who care):
-excellent acting. Lane, Garfield and Gough were stand-outs for me. Tovey and McArdle were also quite good, but I wasn't quite as impressed by them as I was by the others. -obviously, a beautifully written play. Sometimes a tad meandering, I think, but the quality of the dialogue and thematic exploration make up for that. -Set-wise - the first 2 acts have a very cluttered, claustrophobic feel. Done deliberately for effect, I'm sure, but I found it a tad unsettling for nor real good reason other than that I don't like clutter. Act 3 uses the space in more interesting and varied ways. -There's a giant metal structure that hangs at the back of the stage for the whole show, but is never used. Nor is it ever lit up, despite being covered in lightbulbs. Probably something for Peristroika, which I unfortunately won't get to see. I'm very curious what the point of it is/was/will be. -the Angel was surprisingly scary. -lots of lurid, neon lighting, much like the promotional art and photos. -I don't have anything to compare this production to. I've read the plays, but never seen any version of it. Having said that, I have a feeling in my gut that it's been done better than this. Not to say I didn't enjoy it - I love the material and the performances, but I wasn't wildly blown away by Elliott's direction. I may feel differently in the morning though. I'm very tired. Speaking of being tired....
I got to the day-seat queue at 5:40 this morning, and got the 8th ticket - the last front-row seat. The queue was very long by 9:30, but I think the last people to get tickets arrived around 7:15. First person in line at around 4am.
Good night!
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 9, 2017 21:41:47 GMT
Has anyone else noticed that Brown Findlay has a really bruised leg in the post bath scene though? Can only assume she's really not holding back when she's punching herself in the mad scene.... No, they are fake bruises. I asked her after the performance whether they were real bruises or not, and she said they were just make-up. (though it only just occurred to me that she might have been fibbing, but I doubt it.)
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 9, 2017 18:51:38 GMT
Ok, I'm sorry, but now I'm even more inclined to call this a popularity contest. I actually really enjoyed Jamie Parker's performance in Harry Potter, and totally think he deserved his nomination spot. But the fact that he won is utterly ridiculous. Personally, I think every single other actor in that category gave a far more memorable performance than he did. I could MAYBE accept that he beat Tom Hollander, but McKellen and Harris were far, far better than Parker, in my opinion.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 9, 2017 18:30:01 GMT
Slightly disappointed by the acting wins for Harry Potter. Nothing against Boyle and Dumezweni, but I much preferred both of their "Glass Menagerie" competitors, Brian J. Smith and Kate O'Flynn. I know it's all subjective, but I can't help but feel like it was a bit of a popularity contest. Or maybe I'm just bitter.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 9, 2017 18:13:56 GMT
I admit I'm also curious about this bath scene. I missed it as well. I knew vaguely what was happening, because I'm familiar with her speech in the following scene in which she describes that encounter. But I couldn't see any of it. What exactly does he do to her?
Also, I hate to ask this very crude question, but given the earlier conversation about onstage nudity, I can't stop myself from wondering: exactly how much of her is revealed during this bath scene?
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 9, 2017 17:50:10 GMT
It's all subjective and how you define 'groundbreaking'. Not as subjective as "the greatest musical of all time"
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 9, 2017 15:04:18 GMT
Well said, Steve . Seems like we felt much the same way about the production. I totally agree with you about tapping into that "primal power," as you so eloquently put it. I think many of R&H's other shows are more well-constructed than Carousel, but none of them achieve the same visceral emotion. There are some moments in which I feel like I can hear all the hopes, dreams, and mistakes of mankind in a single musical phrase. Just curious: why on earth is this considered/marketed as a "semi-staged" production? To me, there was nothing "semi" about this staging in the slightest. There entirety of the stage was utilized as playing space, plus there was a revolve, and additional set-pieces (not many, but enough). Plus it was fully costumed, fully lit, with whole dance sequences. I've seen Tony-winning Broadway productions that felt significantly more "semi-staged" than this.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 8, 2017 22:29:54 GMT
Saw this tonight, and really enjoyed it. Lonny Price has a deep understanding of what this text is about at its core, and reflects that brilliantly in many decisions throughout the production. What they did with the Carousel Waltz was a revelation, a stroke of genius. The whole production was beautifully staged, beautifully sung, and beautifully danced.
This COULD have been an extraordinary production, if it weren't for the acting. Mr. Price was dealt a very poor hand with Alfie Boe and Katherine Jenkins*. They simply do not have the acting chops to match Price's level of depth. Jenkins was alright, but playing into the demure archetype rather than the actual character. Boe was worse in my opinion. He strutted around the stage like a toddler pretending to be a grown-up (which might have made for an interesting character choice, had it been intentional). He had very poor diction, and generally didn't seem to understand what he was saying. And believe it or not, this is coming from a fan of his. I loved him in Les Mis, and I think he has an absolutely gorgeous voice. But he was just the wrong person for this role. The supporting actors were better, but no one stood out as particularly memorable.
I hope this production has a future beyond the ENO, as I think it could be something special with competent actors in the leadings roles.
*btw, am I right in assuming that Price had little to no influence in casting Billy and Julie, as is often the case with star casting? I imagine the producers roped all 3 of them in together.
|
|
103 posts
|
Post by sondheimhats on Apr 7, 2017 23:58:55 GMT
Seeing the show tomorrow night. I'm excited to see what Price has done with it, and excited to hear Boe sing the score. It took me a long time and several viewings to appreciate Carousel, so I can understand perfectly why people find it objectionable.
Personally, I think it has an unabashedly anti-violence stance. Other characters, including the Heavenly Friend, are constantly condemning Billy for his violent tendencies, and ultimately, it is his downfall. That said, it's psychologically very complex. It does paint Billy as somewhat sympathetic, which is hard to swallow in contemporary times. I think he is sympathetic, in that he's a person who has been brought up by a society that teaches him that to be a man, he has to assert his dominance by hitting his wife. He doesn't know how else to express himself and deal with his emotions - thus, in a sense, he is a victim of the deep-seated toxic masculinity of society. Julie is even more of a victim, obviously, given that she's the one who actually gets hit. But in a way, she sees through his facade of strength and masculinity to see how insecure he is, and she loves the person who he is inside. It's his insecurities and weakness that ruin their lives, and also his chance at redemption, but he does some good by helping Louise to not to let her father's mistakes define her.
It's an incredibly complex story, and I think this complexity can easily be mistaken for a defense of Billy's behavior. On that note, I don't want to sound as if I am defending Billy's actions either, or saying that victims of domestic abuse should all stay with men who abuse them. But that IS what happens in Carousel, and it results in a fascinating and profoundly emotional story that paints both of these lovers as both sympathetic and deeply damaged.
I think that R&H actually did a very good job telling this story, but much like in South Pacific, they had a clear progressive message that has become muddled with shifting values over time. South Pacific has an incredibly anti-racist message, but the character of Bloody Mary is still a racist stereotype. Similarly, they just didn't have the language to deal with the themes of domestic abuse in Carousel that we do today.
|
|