134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jan 12, 2017 23:40:15 GMT
I'm glad I got my priority booking mail. (I'm even gladder I got tickets for Angels in America this morning.) But I’m also one of those who believe that the excitement on this side of the world seem to exist mainly among the people who follow the show. Apart from me, I don't know anyone else who has heard about Hamilton. Of course, the people I know may not be representative, but they certainly like shows and art in general.
I'm keeping cautious about the Hamilton, though. I am not very enthusiastic about the show’s music and, more especially, the lyrics. Maybe I’m just old school. But I am curious, and hoping that the staging will be good enough to justify at least part of the hype. It's always best to keep expectations under tight control and get pleasantly surprised in the end.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jan 5, 2017 17:42:56 GMT
Loads of unforgettable firsts:
First theatrical experience: it was in my native Rio, a play by Valentin Kataiev called Comrade Miussov.
First musical in the West End: Jesus Christ Superstar (the original production)
First play in the West End: The Constant Wife (the John Gielgud production with Ingrid Bergman)
First musical on Broadway: Evita (the original production)
First play on Broadway: The Weir
First Shakespeare and National Theatre visit: Anthony and Cleopatra (Judi Dench and Anthony Hopkins)
First Donmar show: Nine
First Royal Court show: Cloud Nine
First RSC show in Stradford: Richard III
First Almeida show: Rosmersholm
First Chekhov: The Seagull
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Dec 29, 2016 8:46:51 GMT
I absolutely echo that. I would also love to see a stunning production of Wild Duck and a completely new, refreshed, rejuvenated, modern version of West Side Story (similar to what was done to Carousel or Oklahoma).
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Dec 19, 2016 12:36:27 GMT
Very eerie and atmospheric play. I felt it to be about the type of destructiveness a relentlessly unforgiving superego can bring about. How falling short from what people believe they should expect from themselves can lead to devastating consequences. Mark Strong’s seemingly suave character, Donald Dodd, feels miserable because of how he sees himself and, especially, how he feels everyone else sees him.
The story is told as a thriller, in a very cinematic style, and things never quite happen the way you expect, but somehow events culminate to a very inexorable, unavoidable and unstoppable climax, almost as harrowing and intense as Iphigenia’s death in Icke’s own Oresteia. Mark Strong is very good and Hope Davis is just brilliant. I'm really glad I saw it.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Dec 19, 2016 11:39:57 GMT
I really enjoyed this too. A happy, feel-good story, with some rather dark undertones. The result, I think, is a very humane show, where vices and virtues mix vigorously to flesh out its ordinary characters and make them vibrantly real.
The cast was excellent, especially Katherine Kingsley, Dominic Tighe and Callum Howells, but I guess it wouldn't have moved me so much if it didn't have such strong performances from the two leads, who after all, are the true heart of the piece. Mark Umbers and Scarlett Strallen were so tender and affecting that their characters stayed with me long after I left the theatre. I hope they all win awards.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Dec 12, 2016 12:08:23 GMT
A very long time ago (1989-1990), I paid (through an agency) 160 USD to see Phantom of the Opera in New York. According to a website called US Inflation Calculator, that would be about 295.92 USD in today's money.
I don't think I would ever do this again, not for a musical anyway.
If I remember correctly, in the early eighties, when Nicholas Nickleby was brought to Broadway, you could see the whole show in one day for 300 USD. That would be in today's money the equivalent of 751.49 USD.
So, I suppose high prices for theatre tickets have been around for quite a while.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Nov 28, 2016 19:59:14 GMT
My first membership was also at the time of Othello. It was brilliant. I used to get great seats. Little by little, however, this changed, and in the end I invariably got the last seats in the lateral rows. The rather restricted view I got for City of Angels made me drop the membership. I live in Dublin and can only fly to London to see shows on weekends. I understand these are the busiest days for theatres and it's harder to give everybody a good seat. So I gave up. It's NT and Almeida for me these days. It is curious that I never had a similar problem with the Almeida.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Nov 21, 2016 15:42:58 GMT
I'd love to see Pack of Lies (Hugh Whitemore). Please, Santa!
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Nov 10, 2016 17:50:40 GMT
My vote goes to the The Long Wait (2011).
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Oct 31, 2016 14:17:05 GMT
I think the discussion about what is more important, the book or the score, is not very dissimilar to the one on what’s preferable: a brilliant actor who is not so brilliant at singing? Or a great singer who cannot act that well? The answer will depend on whether you find that musicals should be more operatic or theatrical. Musicality seems to be the most important goal in opera, with everything else – acting, dialogues, story, etc – playing second fiddle to it. Many people expect the same in musicals: sweeping music, wonderful voices, glorious singers, etc. For the theatrical crowd, drama is what matters, and lyrics, book, great acting, etc., defines quality. That probably explains why Stephen Sondheim, and to some extent Rodgers and Hammerstein, are not so popular with those who hope to leave the theatre at least humming a few of the show’s songs. The theatrically-minded artists use music to enhance drama. The magnificence of their work is less obvious as they are placed unobtrusively in the play, organically, to serve the narrative and help to tell a credible story. I think there’s an incredible amount of artistry in that. >What if you're like me who prefers a fantastic score to a fantastic book but who also values great acting in musicals over great singing in musicals? Haha. Ha! This is how perfectly reasonable theories get knocked out. No Noble prize for best musical theatre theory for me this year... :-)
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Oct 31, 2016 12:25:32 GMT
I think the discussion about what is more important, the book or the score, is not very dissimilar to the one on what’s preferable: a brilliant actor who is not so brilliant at singing? Or a great singer who cannot act that well? The answer will depend on whether you find that musicals should be more operatic or theatrical. Musicality seems to be the most important goal in opera, with everything else – acting, dialogues, story, etc – playing second fiddle to it. Many people expect the same in musicals: sweeping music, wonderful voices, glorious singers, etc. For the theatrical crowd, drama is what matters, and lyrics, book, great acting, etc., defines quality. That probably explains why Stephen Sondheim, and to some extent Rodgers and Hammerstein, are not so popular with those who hope to leave the theatre at least humming a few of the show’s songs. The theatrically-minded artists use music to enhance drama. The magnificence of their work is less obvious as they are placed unobtrusively in the play, organically, to serve the narrative and help to tell a credible story. I think there’s an incredible amount of artistry in that.
Well, after all the speech, I’d like to suggest Candide as a show with a great score but not-so-great book (even if the Menier production was one of the best shows I have ever seen).
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Oct 28, 2016 10:00:01 GMT
I don't remember ever seeing a play where nudity seemed gratuitous to me. It has never been something that affected my appreciation of a production in any good or bad way. It usually seems natural to me.
I do, however, find that most sex scenes in films could be cut without making really any difference to the story. Most of the time they don't advance the plot, provides a psychological insight about the characters or show us something we didn't know about them, or add any dramatic information. It's not that I dislike these scenes, I just find them dramatically useless. But still, I'd much rather have the gratuitous sex than the violence.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Oct 25, 2016 11:46:10 GMT
I would be really sorry if Emma was not professionally treated by the board - I don't know all the facts to be able to say anything about that. And what I write below must be taken with a pinch of salt, as my comments are made from the precarious position of someone who never saw any of Emma's work in the Globe. Having said that, it seems to me that we must focus on the Globe's raison d'être, goals and rules.
What was the Globe originally designed for? As space for theatre in general, ANY theatre, any experimental theatrical art form? Or was it designed as stated above for a specific type of "radical experiment to explore the conditions within which Shakespeare and his contemporaries worked."
If the latter was the case, the whole point is to be creative without modern devices and technology, such as designed sound and lighting. This is a challenge in itself, considering how modern audiences are used to controlled theatrical spaces, geared with modern equipment designed to create specific atmospheres and direct their attention to the stage or specific points of that stage. I think the idea of the Globe is to force artists to work harder to make people concentrate on the text, on the words, rather than experience emotions with the help of artificial enhancements.
If this is really the case, then the rules must be followed. Otherwise it would be like allowing football players to also score goals with their hands.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Sept 24, 2016 11:03:53 GMT
It felt very real to me too. And, yes, I think it's a good thing - a truly great thing. It's the best thing theatre can give audiences.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Aug 29, 2016 11:02:57 GMT
I saw the three plays on 13 August. I am not sure, to be honest, but I think it was just the cast of The Seagull.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Aug 27, 2016 8:47:36 GMT
He (James McArdle) was so different in Ivanov, as the gloomy, insufferably plain-speaking righteous doctor, that I might not have recognised him at all if it wasn't for the accent. I'm now beating myself for having missed the James trilogy.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Aug 26, 2016 14:22:20 GMT
Platonov reminded a lot of Norman, from Alan Ayckbourn's The Norman Conquests, a charming and witty brat, who, for all his wrongdoings and misdeeds, seduces the heart of all women around him. I thought James McArdle was excellent in the part.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Aug 10, 2016 10:39:41 GMT
Caught the final matinee on Saturday. I'm no fan of the play, but this was a very clear rendering, I thought. I think that’s what summarises this production for me: clarity. With so many characters and allusion to past events, it’s easy to find yourself lost in this play. I felt there was no such problem this time. I think they even made a point of using actors with very different physical features to make sure you wouldn’t mix, for instance, Lord Stanley with Lord Hastings… It was a pleasant surprise for me after the generally negative reviews here.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jun 20, 2016 11:32:43 GMT
I saw Funny Girl last Saturday, at a very busy matinee. Unfortunately I realised that it's definitely not my type of show, and I don't see myself visiting any new productions of it in the future. But, in spite of that, I thought the cast was uniformly excellent, and Natasha Barnes especially so. I felt she was the character, a funny girl full of talent and infinite energy. At the end of the show the audience spontaneously jumped to their feet all at the same time. I was in the middle of row P and it was exciting to see that mass of people stand up with such enthusiasm. I had never seen anything quite like it before. In my experience just part of the audience initially stands up, to be followed by others who, I think, often do so because they don't want to miss what's going on on stage. Natasha seemed quite overwhelmed by the audience reaction. It felt I was witnessing a star-is-born moment. I was very happy for her.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jun 20, 2016 11:11:59 GMT
I really enjoyed this Romeo and Juliet. I had previously seen Rupert Goold's, at the RSC, Dominic Dromgoole's, at the Globe, and some other in the West End I can't remember much about.
This was my favourite. I thought Richard Madden and Lily James were quite good, managing perfectly to convey the passion, youthfulness and pathos of the tragic couple. I thought it was a vibrant production which reminded me of the sudden bust of energy released when a match catches fire that then dies almost as suddenly, as it quickly exhausts itself. I thought the whole cast was good. At the final bow, Benvolio (Jack Colgrave Hirst), announced that it was Richard Madden's birthday and invited the audience to sing Happy Birthday to him, which the audience ebulliently did. I thought it was rather endearing to see Richard Madden, who "for the two hours traffic our stage", cried, laughed, made love to Juliet, fought with a sword, and carried out many other youthful and intrepid deeds, blush and show great shyness at the friendly gesture.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jun 12, 2016 12:17:16 GMT
What makes Stephen Sondheim so very special to me is that his musicals are basically theatre. It seems to me that many musicals are more opera-rooted than actually dramatic. Operas tend to touch emotion via music and singing: beautiful voices, and grandiloquent songs. Theatre does it through words, words that capture human dilemma, and that's how its dramatic tension comes about.
Even in a supposedly fairy tale setting, like Into the Woods, Sondheim’s songs explore the duality and darkness of the human soul: it's a story about desire, wishes, and ambitions, and how we sell ourselves and put our beliefs aside to reach them, and how we cope with our failings when we realise we have been less than we feel we ought to have been. And how we have regrets, and make up excuses for ourselves. It's all very human, and Sondheim express all that with uncommon verbal dexterity and, in my view, great musical pathos.
His songs powerfully emphasise the drama at play, the inventive lyrics meaningfully reveal much about the characters' motivations and internal working. Personally, I find the music glorious (I'm Still Here, Losing My Mind, Being Alive, Good Thing Going). What really amazes me, though, it’s the absolutely exquisite amalgamation of music and lyrics. How these two elements wonderful feed and help each other to create the perfect songs that so admirably and perfectly serve the narrative. Take a song about the anger and spitefulness resulting from years of an unhappy relationship, like Could I Leave You in “Follies”, and feel how the psychologically perceptive lyrics suit the music, and beautifully bitter music suit the lyrics, and how both wonderfully suit the story being told, explaining its acerbic characters and the actions they take.
In my view, if there is one body of work created in the 20th/21st century that I am sure will be considered a classic in the future, it is Sondheim’s artistic output.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on May 31, 2016 0:06:06 GMT
I must be in the minority of people that lived the original production! I thought it was a classy production , well designed and well marketed. I also enjoyed the original production very much. I was especially fond of the Brueghel-inspired visualisation of the village and its inhabitants, and the stomping dance. If I remember correctly, there was large use of oak in the scenery, that vividly evoked peasant life. I thought the characters were well-delineated and together provided a good idea of a small community in an isolated rural area. I found the way the Martin Guerre story was presented, focusing on how Martin and Bertrande were bullied and manipulated (and Arnaud used), to meet the petty interests of their family, neighbours and co-religionists, touching. The music movingly captured the mood of the story, intensifying its drama. Together with Les Misérables, this was my favourite Schönberg/Boublil piece.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on May 12, 2016 13:22:52 GMT
Calendar not working (changes month but days don't alter to match). Click 'all availability'. Get kicked out. Repeat ad infinitum. Sigh. That happened to me as well. But I noticed that if I waited a bit the right days eventually showed up in the calendar. Probably the system is too slow to refresh instantly. Anyway, good luck!
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on May 7, 2016 11:29:55 GMT
I'm not sure these have remained unrevived, but I do hope to see:
Hugh Whitemore's Pack of Lies C. P. Taylor's Good Tom Stoppard's The Real Inspector Hound Peter Shaffer's Black Comedy
Oh, and if bringing back whole productions were possible, I'd be delighted to be able to see Thea Sharrock's After the Dance, and Michael Longhurst's Constellations. I just can't believe I missed them.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on May 5, 2016 12:02:22 GMT
Two hours and I haven't. I wonder if I should try a different browser. Yes, I would try with different browsers. And keep trying from all of them.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on May 5, 2016 11:01:06 GMT
I finally managed to get my ticket. After one hour and forty-five minutes of refreshing screens in different browsers. Very nerve-wracking. I think it's gone more quiet now.
I had no difficulty getting the seat I wanted. So maybe the Almeida site just can't handle more than ten people booking at the same time.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Mar 29, 2016 11:25:06 GMT
Lambert Wilson and John Light were at last Saturday's matinée performance of Uncle Johnny... I mean Uncle Vanya..., at the Almeida, which I, btw, immensely enjoyed.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Mar 19, 2016 18:16:27 GMT
And I'm not English, not even British, and yet Jerusalem was one of the best plays I have ever seen. That final scene, whenever I think of it, still sends shivers down my spine.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Mar 11, 2016 18:37:19 GMT
Another vote for "Martin Guerre", the London version (even though there many songs from the second, such as Live with Somebody You Love, and Without You as a Friend, that I really like).
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Mar 11, 2016 11:47:02 GMT
“Book of Mormons” for me - Not because it was bad - it wasn't bad at all -, but just because it failed to meet the impossible levels of expectations created around it. And I was fully aware, when I saw it, that it was highly unlikely I would leave the theatre in a state of ecstasy and filled with an overwhelming feeling of blissful elation… but I was still disappointed...
"Spamalot" and "The Producers" let me down as well.
|
|