573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 15, 2019 8:23:11 GMT
I was responding to Dave’s “cheap revival set” comment. I totally get how the new version releases CM from paying royalties to the original creatives. He’s a businessman and without him the show wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Everyone involved in the original has made a very fine living off it for over 30 years. I should have said "cheaper production". It goes indeed further than just the set. Cheaper orchestrations, royalties, etc. Could it also be that the dates in the projections are part of the copyrighted set too?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 14, 2019 12:52:54 GMT
Poster J, do you think the same counts for Phantom? That removing the chandelier, costumes, stairs, boat, chandeliers would not harm the show? And putting a cheap revival set in its place?
I think a big part of the "brand" is not the name of the show alone, but the fact that is has a solid, 30 year running original production that stands as a house.
True, les Mis became somewhat of a name because of Susan Boyle and the film, but fact is that the production has closed and a new, cheaper revival is going to replace the show. Will tourists, who visit London once, who only might choose 1 show to visit, choose an original legendary blockbuster production that has been running for 30 years or a cheap modern revival production? Time will tell.
Also, the concerts audiences were full of long time fans, not random tourists.
Has there ever, in the histpry of musical theatre, been a case, where a revival of a show, toned down and cheaper, has been more successful than the long-running original of the same show?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 14, 2019 11:12:26 GMT
Imagine they would close the Phantom of the Opera and replace it with the tour version. I think that with these shows it's the "iconic original version" that becomes a brand. That's why people who have seen the shows take their own kids to the same original production years later and revisit multiple times. They want to see the original. The details in set and costume that are iconic and that hey love and cherish. The revolve in les Mis, the candles and the blue/green smoke in Phantom, etc.
It's very dangerous ground to toy with the public like this and it could very well end in the show closing as a whole. History shows that unoriginal revival productions just don't do that well. Of course there are people/tourists who don't notice, but many people do.
I suspect Cameron is going to pretend in PR that it's the same long-running show, and that it's the same production but it is not. The original show has closed. The new version is a revival and should be presented as a new revival production. Actors who perform in both should add it as 2 different credits on their cv.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 12, 2019 21:17:35 GMT
What really doesn't work for me is the photo-realistic animals, with no expression on their face at all, lifeless, and then only the mouth is moving like a human? What on earth is that?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 7, 2019 0:10:26 GMT
Maybe audiences don't really recognize quality anymore and are numb because of all the lifeless garbage and autotune. That could be a reason why Emma Watson was somewhat accepted.
But I'd take this unknown, young, very well singing, beautifully voiced girl as Ariel, full of life and who sings with glow and passion over someone like Emma Watson any time. I think it's never too late to teach audiences how it can be done too and what actually works better.
And in the end, what will stand the test of time? Myself for example, I never need to see or hear the live action BATB again. But I still listen to and watch The Sound of Music, Grease, The original BATB sometimes.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 5, 2019 9:09:52 GMT
And aside from the acting and singing, I think she is the wrong type for the role. What I would look for is the opposite of her type.
It seems many producers and casting directors do not understand the character. In the Hollywood Bowl, The theatre versions, other projects,the role has always been miscast.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 4, 2019 21:17:29 GMT
I think Melissa McCarthy is a terrible choice for Ursula.
Ursula is not meant to be this typical American kind of goofy housewife with a funny twist. Ursula should be more vicious, more drag queen-like, maybe a bot more damaged, like she's been through a lot, with a hint of faded glamour.
That would make it much more interesting in my opinion.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 3, 2019 21:53:06 GMT
Looks like they have found their Ariel:
At first I thought it was an odd choice, because of her color. Then I started to look up many clips of her.
She does have this certain quality in her voice that reminds me of the old Disney classics (Snow white, Cinderella, Ariel), and her type/balance between the sweetness and rebellious teenager seems to be fitting too.
All the previous options mentioned for the role didn't have any of that and sounded uninteresting to me. This could actually work.
I wonder how it would be if it had been the other way around, and for example, Sebastian would be played by a white dude. How would people react on that? That is a good way to check if people think in equality or not.
I also have to add that I think that the current blackwashing in films is getting extremely out of hand, and often feels forced, as if it's very obvious that the are better fitting candidates for a role out there, but I am objective and think in this case, the girl kind of fits the role, voice and type-wise.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 20, 2019 22:15:23 GMT
This movie is sublime.
The fantasy element of sung thoughts is what makes it for me. The surrealistic scenes create very realistic emotions. It is what this language on film should be about. A non-literal language.
Every scene is a work of art. Also very well acted, beautiful usage of underscores flowing into musical sequences and fantastic editing. Very well done.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 1, 2019 6:40:17 GMT
To me, good music/singing is about painting with nuances. Especially with singing, aside from the beauty and tone of a voice, it's all the details and nuances in the placement of a note, the change of color in a note, the building up that create magic. The subtle vibrato. That's why early Whitney clips are works of art.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 23, 2019 12:21:44 GMT
Does Celinde Schoenmaker also sing in the film?
There is a duet with her and Taron on Itunes (Don't let the sun go down on me), but often only half of those tracks is in the actual film, just like in Mamma Mia, here we go again.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 23, 2019 12:11:48 GMT
What you describe is essentially the bigger picture. People thinking in race only, people defending stereotypes when it suits them (as we see here), people rejecting stereotypes when it doesn't suit them (double agenda), people demanding certain privileges based on race when it suits them, people using race only as a victim role to get what they want (exclusion), and in opposite situations, people using race only as means for inclusion (casting).
This whole attitude is the epitome of racism. In the basis it's treating people differently, taking on double agenda's and rank people higher or lower based on race.
I always see people first and people only. But sometimes it's incredibly hard when you deal with people who don't see themselves and others as people and think and reason in race only. I really think parents are responsible for this too, when they use the word "color" in every sentence ever spoken to their child, even if it's about the weather. That might make it harder for the child to develop a stable human mind later on. I mean, what can you discuss with someone who only thinks in race and doesn't think in human?
Do people (especially in the USA) realize that this is the cause of the problem?
The man in te audience would have shushed anyone making noise. The daughter and mom should have apologized. That is human behaviour. The man wouldn't even think about race in the whole situation. Now, the daughter actually shouted "black, race, color" immediately and basically attacked the man with words, so what is this man supposed to think now? The daughter obviously thinks it's not about people, but color only, but now the man should go home and feel negatively about black people? Why should he do that? It had nothing to do with color. And why does this daughter want other people to feel negatively about black people? The possibility of any situation being about another subject than color is no option for her? How does she think that attitude will change the world? The road to equality begins where her behaviour ends.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 19, 2019 22:43:34 GMT
Eva Peron was South American so get somebody of that origin to play the role..... And Alexander Hamilton was caucasian. You either want diverse casting or you don't.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 18, 2019 14:43:31 GMT
"Well. Interesting and slightly terrifying. The theatre isn’t like church imo." "Who hasn’t wanted to shout out to Romeo, hang on a minute, she is alive - but there is convention and that says we listen and watch in silence." "As for people‘picking on’ black people, well, I think that is a teeny bit paranoid. I don’t have the American experience of course but in London, I don’t think it would immediately come to mind that that women is giving me a ‘look’ when I scrabble in my noisy bag for another sweetie because I am black." I agree, the difference is that panto is for kids and most adults don't feel the need to make that noise anymore when watching a show or play, or at least understand that most other adults would find that annoying. Or have developed a sense of internal processing. I also agree about the "paranoid". Black people would be astonished if they find out how many situations and other people are not about color in the slightest. When I shush someone in theatre, it's because that person is disturbing and it's dark and 3 rows back so I don't even see the person. It is a real problem when you use the victim role/race card in every situation that is not about that. That results in deranged and derailed views and attitudes as the ladies who wrote these articles. Completely world alienated and anti social.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 18, 2019 14:17:47 GMT
So this white woman gives her a free ticket for the show and she gets bratty behaviour, aggression and almost a slap in the face in return. Is this how far the victim role of black people is pushed these days? Bizarre. It's time for a reporting point for racism against white people. I would be much more grateful and respectful if someone had given me a ticket for free. Being less loud in the first place and especially after she aks me to be less loud and disturbing is a normal form of respect. She should thank that woman for the ticket and apologize to her. The writer of this article still has a lot to learn in life and needs to learn to start seeing people instead of color.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 18, 2019 12:07:00 GMT
I was wondering what people on the board think of this and I couldn't find another thread about it. Recently I read this article: www.theroot.com/ain-t-too-proud-to-sing-claiming-black-space-on-the-gr-1834448909Summary: "I visited a show. My mother is doing what black folks do at a musical, she sang along." "And then from two rows in front of me, a balding white man turns towards my mother and says, “SHUSH!” "This man shushed my mama?" "When intermission hit, I walked up to that man."Was that you who shushed earlier?” I asked. "Yes," he said, open and pleasant, as if he thought I was going to thank him for lending a hand to the larger, "well-trained" theater-going community. "Please don’t shush my mother again. I just wanted to let you know that it was not kind what you did and if you shush her again, I’m going to sing along with her." "Well," he said, “I didn’t pay money to hear your mother sing." "Oh, Black Jesus, help me. Was that a snub about my mama?" "And so I said, “Let me tell you something—When you entered this theater, you entered into black culture. People will sing along. It’s what we do. And if you wanted a quiet theater, you should’ve seen My Fair Lady.” "When I went back to my seat, my mother asked, “What did you say to him?” And I told her. And she laughed and laughed." She also talks about how she visited Hamilton once and made noise during the show and another horrible white man looked at her in an annoying way. Now, this is an American article and I have noticed that in current American society people can't look past race and make everything about race. I think we need to see this article in perspective. On American fora people are saying: That white gatekeeper needs to stfu, and those kind of comments are generally embraced and accepted there, as well as these kind of articles. In fact, if you suggest to look at people and the actual subject, your posts tend to get removed there. There is no life beyond race, they must think. But to me, this is all about human respect. To me, the gentleman was fighting for decency and respect but it was a lost cause unfortunately. Because the gentleman was right, he did not pay this amount of money to hear her mother sing. The fact that he had to explain himself is bad enough. How extremely rude to try and silence this gentleman by saying "when he walked into the theatre he entered black culture". He did not. He visited a show he was interested in and he wanted to concentrate on the actual show. I am wondering how other audience members reacted on this? The disdain for other people and races of this lady is unbelievable. I also don't get the "insulting white people's balding heads" for no reason. I believe the man would have shushed anyone making noise during the show. My opinion is, just because you can engage with the material on a different level, doesn’t mean you can act however you like in the theater. If I was in the audience and people were disturbing the show in any way I would shush them too. I would also accept an apology from the lady at intermission. But if I was assaulted like that at intermission, I would have had the lady removed from the theatre for the 2nd act. What are your opinions on this and have you had experiences like this? Edit: I think that all theatregoers should be some sort of "gatekeeper" in a way. People pay $170,- for a ticket and sometimes have to save money all year to be able to purchase one. It's just common sense and general respect.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 16, 2019 21:37:56 GMT
A show with very bad, generic, forgettable music and a huge group of people running around the stage shouting "what do we do? It's war". Sometimes they stand in a row singing "If we don't do anything, who does"? And sometimes someone laughs, cries or dies on stage but you have no idea who it is and why you should particularly care for that character. Oh, and the scene changes are a result of the audience turning a bit. Which you see in theme parks a lot.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 3, 2019 23:26:51 GMT
I also hope they will include the wonderful "The Bargain / The Thénardier Waltz of Treachery". I really missed this in the 10th and 25th anniversary shows. It's my favorite part of the score.
Valjean: I found her wandering in the wood This little child, I found her trembling in the shadows And I am here to help Cosette And I will settle any debt you may think proper I will pay what I must pay To take Cosette away.
There is a duty I must heed There is a promise I have made For I was blind to one in need I did not see what stood before me Now her mother is with God Fantine's suffering is over And I speak here with her voice And I stand here in her place
And from this day and evermore
Mme. Thénardier: Let me take your coat, M'sieur...
Valjean: Cosette shall live in my protection
Thénardier: You are very welcome here.
Valjean: I shall not forget my vow
Thénardier: Take a glass.
Mme. Thénardier: Take a chair.
Valjean: Cosette shall have a father now
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 3, 2019 11:43:24 GMT
John Owen Jones superior to Alfie Boe in the role in every way. The subtlety in his voice, the color, the nuances, the acting, the building of the notes, the changes between the notes, the changing of intention in a note. He is a master of this craft and especially in this role. I find his performance to be incredibly refined, sincere and truthful.
Boe is a good operatic singer, but lacks all nuance and leans on technique and loudness most of the time. Are JOJ's dates announced?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 26, 2019 21:00:59 GMT
My opinion on this matter is that someone's personal sexual preference should not matter at all in casting. This is called acting for a reason. An actor has to play characters with different interests and different preferences and different worldviews than their own every day.
It would be a bizarre world if you would have to come out of the closet on a casting or that casting directors and producers ask you what you like in bed in order to be able to give you a role. Aside from that being very disrespectful and invasive (and people could say things just to get a role), why on earth should actors only be allowed to play preferences, desires or characters that resemble them in real life? Should murderers only be played by real murderers? Should blind people only be played by blind people? Should people with autism only be played by people with autism? Some people have a sexual preference for old people only. When a role is written like that, do you then have to prove that that matches your personal preference? If you play a bisexual role, do you have to prove you are sexually attracted to both sexes?
All actors should be able to play all roles. In principle this should be a 1 way street. That is equality and not using any minority status to get or demand roles. Fact is that it is definitely not necessary to have lived what you play in order to make it believable. What is important in casting is how believable it looks.
This is where the difference comes in for me, if we speak about the subject of being a gay actor. There are gay actors who can play straight very convincingly. Good. They can play both straight and gay roles. There are also gay actors who will never come across as straight. No matter how they try. For straight roles, where a man and a woman fall in love, in order to make the scenes convincing, this is not very helpful. So that limits the amount of roles for a certain amount of gay actors because they just don't come across as straight and therefore not as the right type. That does not mean they are somehow more entitled to demand all the gay roles. I would even go further and say that the gay community in general prefers to have gay roles played in a way that is normal/neutral/more straight looking, to show the world that not all gay people are stereotypes. So straight actors could play both straight roles and gay roles, and gay actors could play both straight and gay roles as long as it's 100% believable. That's all that counts. Straight actors just have the luck that "not noticing someone is gay" is often preferred in both cases.
This may not be what some people want to hear, but if you are gay and people can't tell you are, it gives you more role opportunities. That has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with casting and being more believable for a bigger group of people. That is how the world works.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 26, 2019 10:16:32 GMT
I don't like the fact that natural, good singing is not allowed in musicalfilms anymore, such as Olivia Newton John did in Grease, Julie Andrews did in the Sound of Music and Lea Salonga did in Aladdin.
We all know that people walked out of the cinema because they couldn't handle it. Luckily they changed it up, this era will go down in history with Amanda Seyfried, Emily Blunt, Russel Crowe, who speak their songs or the screamers like Idina Menzel and Naomi Scott. Now the shine, subtlety, naturalness and radiance is removed from singing, they are on the right track.
*sarcasm off*
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 7, 2019 12:36:21 GMT
I think it's wonderful. The production value is great, scenes are well acted. Sets look amazing and the spoken language fits the literal style.
If only the musical film version had this kind of production quality or understanding of the chosen language. I did miss the music from Boublil and Schönberg now and then, it could have been used in many scenes as a voice over, instrumental, in creative ways to respect the spoken, literal style of the film. The other choice could have been: fully embracing the language of sung thoughts, using pre-recorded tracks to create a better than life reality, which is essential for this non-literal language on screen, more like an emotional videoclip. Both versions could work really well.
But at least we now have one version of les Mis on screen that is watchable.
|
|
573 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 6, 2019 12:27:11 GMT
Post by Dave25 on Apr 6, 2019 12:27:11 GMT
This drawing shows the current possibilities. With every new development they make a new one, and I always see the option "cancel brexit" everywhere. How could this occur and who would decide that? www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46393399
|
|
573 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 5, 2019 13:03:01 GMT
Post by Dave25 on Apr 5, 2019 13:03:01 GMT
UK is afraid to jump, EU is afraid to push.
But why would the EU grant yet another extension if may just wants a few more attempts to push her deal through? The choice is already there. This will not change in months.
No-deal scenario is already off the table. The choice is to cancel Brexit or to accept May's inadequate deal (which she should present now). Extension damages the country, the economy, and the people much more. Companies won't invest and are waiting, everything has been on hold for far too long already. There's chaos in streets. If the EU is smart they do not grant extension and protect the national security.
|
|
573 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 4, 2019 20:45:57 GMT
Post by Dave25 on Apr 4, 2019 20:45:57 GMT
She used it to try to push her inadequate deal through. Some mp's even fell for it.
|
|
573 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 4, 2019 9:22:43 GMT
Post by Dave25 on Apr 4, 2019 9:22:43 GMT
So May finally lost her number 1 blackmail tool to get her way?
It seems some hardcore Brexiteers are really clueless because they say they feel angry, while they actually should be angry that they were lied to in the campaign for the referendum.
I wonder if the EU grants extension.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 3, 2019 15:03:23 GMT
I think its success is fully based on the country's chauvinism. The events are about Dutch history, stories people heard from their grandparents and cities such as Rotterdam and Scheveningen.
Yes, the idea of the big stage and the audience turning around is fun and people tend to like some technical gadgets, but to be honest, the writing of the story, the pacing, the characters and the music are all very weak. It is a big group of people running around constantly, shouting "what do we do" "what choices do we make in war"? Often they just stand in a line singing "what do we do" or "if we don't do anything, who does", in that style. There are too many characters to be able to care for one. Some characters die, of which I had no idea who they are. In the 2nd act, some characters start a solo song, again, no idea who they are or why we should care for them or why they get a song. The writing is bad, some scenes or songs are meant to be funny (a whole song right before the end about the queen not liking tea) and the music is extremely generic, empty and forgettable.
I think it would be much better to make a similar show about British history, with fewer characters and actual good writing and music.
|
|
573 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 21:52:24 GMT
Post by Dave25 on Apr 2, 2019 21:52:24 GMT
By now the choice should have been: no deal or remain.
May has failed. Even if this plan, starting a reconnaissance phase to look for a deal, would get through, it will be something that both sides are not happy with.
It's too late for that, she is stealing the last time there is. Preventing the people from having any choice. This is dangerous.
|
|
573 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 18:47:16 GMT
Post by Dave25 on Apr 2, 2019 18:47:16 GMT
Can't the EU force the UK to choose between her deal or remain? Or force the UK to choose between no extension or long extension?
Why would the EU accept some short extension once again when May has no idea what will come out of it? For May to start a reconnaissance phase at this point to look for a deal should be out of the question.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 2, 2019 9:05:29 GMT
You suggest though that a victory - and it was a clear victory by over a million votes - should be ignored or reconfirmed by the public in what is a dangerous precedent. Why should there be a second vote? Because the remainers keep making a noise? Where then does it end? If we have a second one, why not another one the year after to see if the Brexiteers now have more support? Why not let Scotland have another independence vote just to see if they really meant they wanted to stay in the union? Should we start holding two votes every general election to make sure the people mean what they really said? We voted and we decided. At the very least, we need to first leave before we discuss whether there is a public appetite for rejoining - you can’t just ignore the electorate. The original referendum was based on misguidance, deception, false promises and a complete lack of truthful information. That in itself should undermine the validity. Re-checking this after years is democracy. Now there are double standards, because the MP's change their votes on a weekly basis. There is a whole new generation entitled to vote since 2016. And now there is actual information on the table to make a well considered choice, unlike in 2016. Also, both Vote Leave and Leave EU committed multiple offences under electoral law. This is in conflict with the validity of the referendum. Also, it was an advisory referendum, not legally binding. The leave side broke the law during the advisory referendum indeed, the government's own lawyer has indeed admitted if it had been a legally binding referendum then it would have been annulled because of it. Why is this information not clear to any mp debating? And, like another poster beautifully stated: If May had come back with a deal that fulfilled all of the promises that were given by leave in the referendum then it would pass the Commons. What she offers is so incredibly short of those promises then it could only pass through blackmailing parliament and, apart from the very weakest politicians such as Johnson, Raab, Rees Mogg et al, it has not worked. That is, in any circumstance, unacceptable. If they can’t fulfil the promises that were made then the result is undeliverable. If the result is undeliverable then ask the people what they would prefer instead.
|
|