165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Dec 17, 2018 10:26:09 GMT
I've been in love with the NYTW cast recording for over a year now, so I was absolutely ecstatic to find out that we will get the opportunity to see it in London as a pre-Broadway run. The score is perhaps the best music written for the theatre in the last three years, at least since Hamilton. It's original, emotive, and the vocal arrangements are absolutely breathtaking. Hadestown will struggle as a commercial musical, especially against its competitors on Broadway. It is intellectual, ambitious and magical at times, but mainly flawed throughout throughout the first act, has an underwritten lead character played by a very weak performer (more later), and only reaches its emotional peak at the very end. Competing against other commercial projects, it takes it a very long period to deliver. That might be a problem with Broadway audiences who want and need instant stimulation from the moment a show starts. Hades town needs to focus in its staging and its main character. We’re told at the very beginning that this is a tale about Orpheus and Eurydice, when in fact it is about Orpheus. By the end, he comes to represent human nature’s doubt and unintentional neglect and selfishness. And although we seem to identify these flaws, we keep on making them over and over again. The opening number does a great job introducing the characters, but not exactly what they want. Early on, it’s very clear what Eurydice wants and what her motivations are. Persephone wants to have fun, and Hades wants power. But what is Orpehsus’? Does he just want to sit around and make music? How are we supposed to care and root for a character who is so lazy? This oversight is combined with Reeve Carney completely unable to make us see beyond these flaws. Easily the weakest member of the entire ensemble, he’s uninteresting, unattractive and quite untalented. He’s lost, and it becomes very obvious when things get heated in Act II by the time he reaches Hadestown. He has no place against Eva’s smooth vocals, Andre DeShield’s magical charisma, Amber Grey delivering a modern day Eartha Kitt and Patrick Page’s as a silver fox dictator. There are also key moments with sung plot points in Act I that involve multiple characters (in different dimensions; above ground and underground) that are over-staged and busy. There was one particular scene (Wind Theme?) that was completely confusing and unclear. Some parts of the unit set are never put to good use (phone booth, jukebox), and so is the ensemble. But in other times, they are asked to do too much when it’s unncessary (again, Wind Theme). There are several Chavkinisms: beautiful staging using classic theatre craftsmanship (Wait for Me), and a small but racially and physically diverse cast. For now with very little time before Broadway, I think it’s time for her to stop worrying too much about the concept and form and focus on the substance. As a suggestion, I’d follow Eurydice from “Going, I’m Gone” straight to Hadestown and into “Why We Build The Wall”. By that time, Orpheus would have noticed her absence, and I think the character should get a moment to realize his loss before jumping into “Wait For Me”. By then, we would be ready to end Act I and want to come back after intermission of find out what will happen. I still can’t wrap my head around Act II, because I think it’s probably much stronger than Act I and can be left alone. The last twenty minutes were extremely profound, and finally delivered the emotional connection I needed thorough the show. But please. Replace Reeve Carney. That is a great and interesting review, Ali, thanks! I knew little about the history and development of the material prior to seeing the show last week, although of course I was familiar with the original myth (so I was never in doubt as to where the overall plot would be going). I thought the visual and audio impact of the production were amazing... maybe it helped that I sat super close to the stage, but I found myself captured and drawn in from the very start, and musically it felt like a cuddle on my ears. At the same time, I very much agree with you that it is at times too intellectual and almost smug because of how cleverly some themes are dealt with, and this may mean it will struggle on Broadway. I am afraid I also have to agree that Reeve Carney's performance felt like the weakest one on that stage... and of course it is tough when everybody else, down to practically every single ensemble member seems to be way more grounded and actively connecting with the material, the other characters and the audience. I was in awe of pretty much everybody else's work that evening! However, I can't help wondering if it all really boiled down to him not being brilliant enough or rather to his role being a bit thankless and underwritten... I mean, at some point the poor guy is relegated to a side of the stage for almost half an hour allegedly writing the song that will make the world a happy place again, but he ends up having this Roger-spending-a-whole-f-ing-year-to-write-Your-Eyes vibe about him. Yes, it's a nice little tune and perhaps if sung by someone with another set of pipes and with more charisma that la la la la la la would have a different impact, but to me it did feel less than spellbinding. And after that, he is meant to travel to the underworld, but as the audience we are not shown practically anything of that journey - which cannot have been a walk in the park. So perhaps they missed a couple opportunities to get the audience to root for him a bit more?
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Dec 7, 2018 22:42:19 GMT
In all honesty, I think I have rarely seen anything as crappy and pretentiously meta than this. I so want my money back... but even more than that, I want those two and a half hours of my life back!!
It’s not just the unmistakable lack of refinement and the fact that it’s not just a work in progress, but a random pile of often inconsistent and incoherent undeveloped deas thrown together... but also that - as someone else that has seen the play has brilliantly expressed in a tweet - all of that meta-referential stuff is quite busy disappearing up the director’s behind.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Nov 26, 2018 13:13:00 GMT
I've been thinking of a few things: 1-Was Tick Tock in the first preview? That was the only performance I saw, and from the way Tic-Tock is being described, I could swear I never saw this scene. 2-Apparently Tic-Tock is not performed when Rosalie is not on. Do we have any days that Rosalie scheduled off? 3-I've been told keys were lowered for Rosalie. 4-Rumor mill: There's something going on between Mel and Patti. A lot of petty passive-aggressive cattiness from what I hear. 1 - indeed it wasn't. I thought they were still workshopping it and it just wasn't as ready as the rest in time for the first preview... probably, since it doesn't really progress the story and is less essential than other numbers and transitions, it was "sacrificed" during the rehearsal process in favour of the rest of the show. 3 - keys that make a song sit well in a tenor voice do not work equally well for a mezzo/soprano - Jeremy Jordan sings 'She used to be mine' a fifth above - a fourth below Sara Bareilles/Jessie Mueller (I'm talking in terms of keys, he sings in C major, while they sing in F major)
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 19, 2018 13:34:54 GMT
This is genius: The cast of Company try to sing "Not Getting Married Today". End of the video, Jonny B: "Just come to the show, I'll show you how its done". 😂😂 That's brilliant! I love that Patti does not need to read the lyrics.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 17, 2018 13:07:39 GMT
Now booking through March on the Delfont website. Isn't it warm, isn't it rosy? I am so happy... this also means more trips to the Gielgud!
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 12, 2018 10:54:05 GMT
And what can I say about Barcelona and Mr Fleeshman. Can anyone who has seen it and sat near the front tell me where he hides his battery pack? Having sat in the front row, I can report that the battery pack is carefully hidden inside those blue boxers on his right hip. Ah, the details one takes notice of (purely for the sake of spreading information about technical aspects of a show, of course...)
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 12, 2018 10:40:21 GMT
I really, really hope you're wrong mrbarnaby... leaving aside the fact that in the good old Smash days I've always found her terribly overrated, while I haven't seen her on Broadway I have seen several videos of her performing numbers from the show on YouTube. My (very personal) opinion is that she can of course sing all the notes (although I find that she constantly goes for a pop-py voice quality, which is too much even for this material), but she seems to never have got the memo reminding her she is meant to act through song when doing musical theatre. Of course, if you're right and she is cast, I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong and I promise I'll be back here saying it out loud if she makes me change my mind. But I can't hide I'll be hoping for her understudy to be on, when I see the show, at least as fervently as when I cross my fingers for Rachelle Ann Go to not be on when I see 'Hamilton'
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 11, 2018 15:55:30 GMT
@theatremonkey what do you think of the dress circle boxes at £19.50 per ticket? I'm sure our most favourite Monkey will give you more qualified advice than I ever could, but I thought I'd share a couple of thoughts. While I've never sat in those boxes, I suspect you're going to have to spend quite some time leaning forward and it's probably not by accident that they're on sale for so little compared with the majority of the seats in the house. Particularly given how the show is staged here, I suspect there are going to be quite a few moments when you may not really get to see all of the action. I'm kind of guessing what your view would be from there, so take my words with a pinch of salt, but I guess at some points you may even have elements on stage blocking your view of the actors entirely.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 5, 2018 15:21:31 GMT
Emily, please... don't misread my words. I apologise if my tone sounded condescending, it was not my intention: I must say I did find your comment alleging that there was a "damage" in me slightly offensive, and my response came as a reaction to that. I chose to use "Dr" lightly, the expression I used in my post is the one I would have used to address a medical doctor or a psychologist who would have diagnosed a "damage" in me. (I am not at all familiar with 'Heathers', so apologies for not getting the funny in there, if there was meant to be one). I don't see what this has to do with me being a man. I am sorry you have often encountered unworthy men who have resorted to being condescending with you and belittled your title, but I like to think I am not like them. (And, just as an aside, I happen to have a Ph.D. as well. I may not remind people that I have one, because I feel it does not define who I am and it doesn't even have much to do with what I do for a living, but I have spent enough time in university to obtain the same title you have attained, so why would I ever choose to use it in a condescending manner?). Having said this, and having meant to be a very peaceful attempt at clarifying things, I am more than happy to talk with you privately - we have channels for doing that, and I think it's past time this thread went back to the topic it was created for Well if you didn't get the original joke, it could have been more productive to ask about that. It's a line from the show and a fairly commonly quoted one from the film, and as there's a lot of chatter about both I assumed most people knew it. No bother if not, but a simple 'I don't get that reference' probably would have cleared it up? I really don't like the 'I don't remind people that I have one' because that implies that I do? On this board I mention it in two specific instances 1. Discussing Angels in America, because it was directly relevant. 2. Occasionally if talking about 'real life' in the appropriate thread, because there is is 'relevant to my life' occasionally. So I don't know why you feel that I 'remind people I have one'...it's on my twitter bio/handle yes, but that's not part of this forum and there are specific reasons for that also. All of which frankly is my own business and not something to be used in an accusatory manner- people here have put 'Dr' in their forum names, do you want to tell them off as well? I've answered this publicly, as I always believe on here we have a 'right of reply' to anything said about us in public. If you have a problem or issue with me to discuss privately you're most welcome to do so. Again, Emily, I meant there to be no hidden, offensive intentions behind my choice of words. On this board you and another person know that I have a PhD because I've told you privately. I have simply never mentioned it publicly. That was all I meant by my words. However, again, I apologise if my words could be read in a negative way, it was not my intention to hurt or offend. Oh, and my suggestion to talk privately only stemmed from my suspicion that the rest of the board members probably don't care too much about this and would rather go back to talking about theatre, I am all in favour of right of reply as well
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 5, 2018 15:02:31 GMT
Really, I'm not damaged, Dr Garside. Thanks for checking. Why, why do men feel the need to say 'Dr Garside' in a condescending manner. Yes, that is my title, thanks for using it. Emily, please... don't misread my words. I apologise if my tone sounded condescending, it was not my intention: I must say I did find your comment alleging that there was a "damage" in me slightly offensive, and my response came as a reaction to that. I chose to use "Dr" lightly, the expression I used in my post is the one I would have used to address a medical doctor or a psychologist who would have diagnosed a "damage" in me. (I am not at all familiar with 'Heathers', so apologies for not getting the funny in there, if there was meant to be one). I don't see what this has to do with me being a man. I am sorry you have often encountered unworthy men who have resorted to being condescending with you and belittled your title, but I like to think I am not like them. (And, just as an aside, I happen to have a Ph.D. as well. I may not remind people that I have one, because I feel it does not define who I am and it doesn't even have much to do with what I do for a living, but I have spent enough time in university to obtain the same title you have attained, so why would I ever choose to use it in a condescending manner?). Having said this, and having meant to be a very peaceful attempt at clarifying things, I am more than happy to talk with you privately - we have channels for doing that, and I think it's past time this thread went back to the topic it was created for
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 5, 2018 14:27:41 GMT
Are you saying that Jamie and Eugenius are not heavily pop-sounding They might well and I'm generally not a fan of modern pop sounds (I'm old) but I find both Jamie and Eugenius more melodic and catchy than DEH, which often sounds overamplified and just noisy. I can't really put it in words, it's just how I feel about the music. How can you explain why one singer/band appeals to you and another not entirely different singer/band appeals not at all? Jamie also has more "typical" musical sounds, like both of the Mom's big ballads "If I met myself again" and "My Boy" which I both love, and the quiet but oh so lovely "It means beautiful". The only quieter tone I can detect in DEH is - as I mentioned "So Big/So Small" when it's finally just a lovely melody and voice. I've been told that DEH doesn't sound quite so overamplified in the theatre, which is one of the things I want to check on. Another thing is simply that Jamie fells like these typically British small shows that just keep plugging on and do good business based on word of mouth, whereas DEH feels so massively overhyped - I am not saying it's a bad show, I just don't think it deserves the adoration it gets, because there's so much potential for it to be better in the way it tells its story or could polish the music and lyrics. When it comes to Jamie, I simply have no idea how it could be bettered, it's just a little gem as it is. (I'm leaving Eugenius out here, because a) the story is quite different from Jamie and DEH and not half as seriously and b) the music is consciously 80s pastiche, which appeals quite a lot to this 80s gal). Thanks, viserys, I truly appreciate your reply. Thanks for helping me see your point, that's exactly what I had hoped for when I made my post. It's so nice when a fellow poster can eloquently share their view and start a constructive exchange of thoughts
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 5, 2018 14:23:50 GMT
I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth so I'll leave Viserys to actually answer what she meant ....but I think the point she, I and Kathryn above have made was 'well I didn't LOVE this in the recording/bits I've seen, but I'm happy to give it a go now it's coming here and see if I like it' In fact that's EXACTLY what we all said...? To borrow from another thread 'what's your damage Heather?' (we're all happy it's happening) Really, I'm not damaged, Dr Garside. Thanks for checking.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 5, 2018 12:16:16 GMT
But I'm still glad it's coming so I can see it properly, you know not just judge it on the cast recording and weird promo clips That's my thinking, too. For me it's an "okay" musical, something like a decent first try-out that could be polished both story-wise and musically. I don't think I'm too old for it, as I can love "teenage stories" too - I adored both Jamie and Eugenius in London. But I'm not a fan of this kind of noisy pop music (my favorite song by a mile is the much quieter "So Big / So Small"), I think the lyrics are clumsy and the story doesn't sit quite right with me. I just don't get how it could turn into such a crazy hype in New York. However, I am fine accepting that I might be missing somehing here and will be happy to give it a go when it comes to London. Just so I can understand your point better, I've got a couple of questions: Are you saying that Jamie and Eugenius are not heavily pop-sounding? Mind you, I adore Jamie and will defend the value and relevance of that show if anyone tries to attack it, but "I'll keep on climbing and climbing and climbing / This wall in my head, head, head / This wall in my head / This wall in my head" has a rather distinct pop feel about it, and doesn't exactly sound like Stephen Sondheim spent a month working on it... Is a plot about a teenage guy who draws cartoons about a superhero coming from outer space (very much à-la-Superman), whose work is selected to be turned into a blockbuster of sorts, where the baddie he created on paper actually comes to chase him in real life one that sits right with you? Mind you, I've enjoyed Eugenius a lot, it's fresh and bubbly and everyone in the cast does an amazing job and it deserves its West End transfer, and we can all do with a few hours of mindless musical fun, but it's not exactly the pinnacle of dramaturgy... Perhaps we could just wait to see the show instead of pre-judging it based on the cast recording or the impressions we got from a promotional video on youtube?
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Oct 3, 2018 15:06:20 GMT
I have no horse in this race in terms of desperation to see it (I will live without) what my particular nerd brain gets annoyed about is the use of spaces at the NT in the 'wrong' way. The Dorf/Shed/Cottesloe has always been the 'experimental' space supported (financially and artistically) by the other two. With the other two also being where you make your money (so whacking out a bog standard Shakespeare, or putting a star on stage). Anyway it's a minor nerd point but it irks me. I personally don’t think this is a minor nerd point at all. Blanchett’s salary alone must have eaten up a sizeable chunk of the budget - unless she’s on fee waiver. Emily makes a very sensible point - this production would have made the NT a significant amount of money, had they put it in the Lyttleton, whereas in the Dorfman and with this ballot arrangement it will certainly make people talk about it and give free publicity to the NT, but do rather little for its pockets. As far as Blanchett's salary is concerned, of course there may be exceptions and the actual numbers may fall within a relatively large range, but I seem to remember from the 'Angels' days that even an A-list actor like Andrew Garfield was paid a lot less than people could have imagined, since they have some kind of cap anyway. Emily may know/remember more than I do and I'm sure she will share her knowledge
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Sept 27, 2018 14:47:06 GMT
One asks @ryan , of course! I've not seen them yet to be able to comment but I have a lovely pair of pink shoes which look like this. Are they similar? I'll wait for your report after you see the show, Ryan! These shoes are probably the type Paul would wear, I'd say Jamie would go for something slightly less conventional.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Sept 27, 2018 11:23:28 GMT
The view from the front row - got lucky at the Rush game yesterday - is amazing. The stage is lower than average, which means you really don't miss a thing - plus, the show is almost entirely staged very much downstage, so you're really close to the action.
I have to say I adored it, and yes of course there was that buzzy excited feeling coming with us being the first ones to see it, which added to it, but mostly I was thrilled by how well the show worked, how I enjoyed the consequences of the gender swap and just in general how well written the score and book are, so much so that it felt much fresher than your average 50-year-old show.
As ali973 mentioned, there was perhaps more than a nod to the recent NT production of 'Angels in America'. Having found certain choices very effective there, I thought they worked very nicely here, too, but of course they may not be to everybody's taste.
For a first preview - and one coming after a single dress run - I thought it was pretty sleek and everyone on stage dealt with the few, small glitches very professionally and used them for comedy, which clearly worked with the general mood and energy of the evening.
The performances were great across the board, and one can only commend the cast for navigating through some of those manic ensemble choreos - I very rapidly lost count of the times chairs, tables and other props were moved on specific syllables - but some just have to be singled out for their sheer brilliance! Rosalie Craig did a truly amazing job, she sang beautifully throughout and gave life to a richly multi-layered Bobbie... her vulnerability and tears at a number of moments during her solos will sure stay with me for a while. Patti Lupone was certainly "luponesque" in her take on Joanne, and this was perhaps somehow predictable, but I thought it worked really well (and yes, I can see the Karen-Walker-like bitchiness there, but by bringing it a good, safe pair of octaves lower than the real thing, she gives her a different edge...). And last but certainly not least, Jonny Bailey did bring the house down, not just because of how successfully he tamed the torrential lyrics of his solo, but because of how effectively he brought Jamie and his hilarious nervous breakdown to life (on a related note: where does one get a pair of those wedding day pink shoes?)
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Aug 23, 2018 10:56:45 GMT
You forgot to say half his age too. She is 34 , he is 68! Ah, but love is blind...
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Aug 22, 2018 15:48:35 GMT
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Aug 22, 2018 15:24:18 GMT
Has anyone else read the book? I found it to be a pretentious pile of tosh with big words and literary references scattered throughout which makes you feel the author is showing off. I love the book. I did find the followup, Are You My Mother? to be a bit too wordy and pretentious, though. Same here, I loved 'Fun Home', but struggled to finish the follow-up. I liked what she meant to do by setting up that connection with literature and psychoanalysis, but it became a bit too much for me after a while.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Aug 22, 2018 9:49:46 GMT
Ugh, get someone British. No, get the best, most talented person for the job. I don't care where they come from. Agreed! And that should reasonably rule out Ms McPhee, right?
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Jul 17, 2018 9:01:03 GMT
Also, I loved the house reveal, but why did we need it? And why at that particular point in the show? Every scene up until that point has used the set to suggest environment rather than creating it explicitly, so why do we suddenly need to see it for real? I suppose that scene represents a very significant moment for Alison, but I'm still struggling to understand the reasons behind that particular choice. I asked myself the same question and I've come up with more than one possible reason behind the choice, so here are my two cents about it... For one thing, all the scenes we've seen take place in the house until then have been scenes involving small Alison - medium Alison has only been seen on campus. This means it's a more recent memory, it originated in the mind of a young adult, and it's attached to the first time Alison went home after coming out, the time she had an open and adult conversation with her mum, as well as the last time she saw her dad... so the picture we get of the space, the furniture, etc is much clearer and better defined because, in a way, it's such an indelible, mature memory. The other thing that makes this memory different is that we're also seeing the house through Joan's eyes, as she sees it for the very first time. That's when she tells Alison something along the lines of "oh, you described it to me, but I couldn't imagine it would really be like this". Does any of that make any sense to you?
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Jul 11, 2018 9:33:31 GMT
Every American writer does this? What a load of twaddle. Alison spends the whole show analysing and reflecting on her relationship with her father, looking for answers that aren't always forthcoming. Generally I find it the case, yes. And I didn't think she really did do much analysis. What there was, yes, was her father / daughter relationship, but work on herself, not so much, though to me that was the focus of the show. I have to say I have had the opposite impression, although maybe that comes from my prior knowledge of both 'Fun Home' and 'Are you my mother?' in their original graphic novel form. I think I can see where you're coming from, because by placing the adult Alison on the outside looking in, remembering moments in her life as she picks the right ones to turn into drawings, it feels as though she is being removed from the main narrative. However, I think we can't forget we're never actually seeing three distinct characters, but just one character at three different times in her life, so Alison is constantly at the very heart of it all, the whole show being basically her self-analysis process taking place before our eyes. {Spoiler - click to view} I think it may be fair to say that Alison Bechdel chose to write 'Fun Home' as part of her self-analysis process, as by sitting down to reminisce and draw she inevitably had to elaborate events and memories. and there are questions she's been asking herself and that - in the show - are presented to the audience, as well. Alison can't get a definitive answer to most of them, nobody can tell for sure whether her dad committed suicide or was the victim of an accident... nobody can tell whether her choice to embrace her sexuality has played any role in that, whether it has made him acknowledge how much he's missed out on in life, and in how many ways he's hurt his wife and himself... All in all, it seems to me that the whole show is an analysis of how, as a person, she has been impacted by her father's teachings and influence, how there are small things that make them incredibly similar (the score often underlines this by having Alison sing certain lyrics and melodic lines that Bruce sings before her, or vice versa), and yet how they have always been distinct individuals with their own personalities. There are many reasons why, watching the show or reading the book, you see that Bruce was flawed and did some rather despicable things, both as a husband and as a father. And yet, through all her reminiscing, Alison does find moments where her dad was actually praising or encouraging her, and you can appreciate how many of his teachings have stuck with her and are part of what made her into the adult woman she is now. I very much agree with Andrew that the show does not provide you, as an audience member, with a prepacked answer, and this can perhaps be slightly unsettling for some, because it means that you're called to do some emotional analysis of your own, and to ask yourself questions. But I think that's where the power of the show lies, it's not meant to be an essay about what happened and why... but rather like that old diary you wrote in and go back to read, years later, and suddenly feel that some pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place on their own, and you're just a bit more aware of who you are and what brought you there.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Jun 27, 2018 11:57:46 GMT
I do not think Helen, the mother is underwritten. It reflects the role she has been relegated to in her own life … "And no one clocks the day you disappear" Hence the warning she offers at the end of the heartbreaking Days and Days: "Don't you come back here I didn't raise you To give away your days Like me" I've had the same thought, jbc. In so many ways, Helen is relegated to being in the background, as she is a minor character in her own life, as well as in Alison's - at least the way this is told on stage - whereas Alison's relationship with her father is clearly central to the show. Every time we do see her take centre stage, she is essentially going through what her "social role" as a woman trapped in an unhappy marriage prescribes, whilst seeking some respite from her "duties" as Bruce's wife in her music and acting. She has "given away" her days and clearly has to deal with regret and anger, etc. Alison Bechdel has explored her relationship with her mother in a lot more detail in her other graphic novel "Are you my mother?" - "Fun Home" was always meant to be more about her analysing her relationship with her dad and what his death meant, etc. From reading "Are you my mother" I got the impression that especially through childhood and adolescence Alison and her mum weren't particularly close and I think that distance and difficulty to communicate are what inform Helen's portrayal in "Fun Home" on stage.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Jun 25, 2018 13:23:35 GMT
This is an emphatically original musical then about initiations and discoveries, both wittily irreverent and emotionally compelling, which captures the poetry of everyday surprise in the most magical, beautiful way. It left me standing to applaud moved to tears yet leaving the Young Vic bouyant and invigorated. Caption. I'm changing my major to Fun Home. Five stars. That's a most eloquent review of the show, and I very much agree with your analysis and share the emotional response you've had to it. It was the build-up during the whole hour and 40 minutes that got to me, in the end. Yes, there were several really powerful moments throughout, but I was so keen on taking in as many details as possible that I pretty much held it together... until the very end! Guess I'll be seeing you in class, Steve - I can do with majoring in Fun Home
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on May 29, 2018 10:08:50 GMT
Hi folks: Have some questions: I´ll have the chance to see this show, allready heard the music and I think is just simply amaizing. The story seems really moving too (readed on wikipedia, don´t mind to be spoild at all, and I don´t do Drag, but as a gay man, I really identify myself with Jaimie and his jurney) First: I´m tempted to buy the 95 pounds tickets (first time in London after 15 years and I allready don´t know when I we´ll come back. I assume this are the Premium ones, Right? What are the diference between the 75 pounds (most expensive in regular price) and premium??? Just the locaition of the theater and thats it? By the way, I allready saw a map of the auditorium, and they seem almost the same to me in terms of locition, but could certanly be totally wrong. So, why the prices are so diferent? Legroom maybe? Second: Anyone we´ll have differents opinions, about the next questions but: For the ones that saw it: Is really a upbeat and "good feeling" show like the critics said? Or there is a dark side in the story? I mean, something too depressive or too dramatic?. Do you consider that is very "british" (like Billy Eliot) or the story could happen everywhere and don´t seems very local???. As we´ll be there in London, well, I really want to try to see something that has a very English feeling (I´ll see Harry Potter for example). Tthird: I´ll go with my family, they don´t speack english very well (nether do I but they speack a lot less than me). Do you think that if I explin the story to them before the show, they will enojoy it? How visual is it? (Allready saw a video and it seems nice but I don´t know if is it more focussed on the acting and devlopement of characthers than the scenary and dance, like 42 street for example) or is balanced between those aspects?. All help we´ll be really apreciete. Thank you and have a great day! Hi and welcome to the forum! Given the size of this theatre, you may definitely avoid the most expensive, premium seats and still have a very good view of the stage and overall experience. There's hardly any difference in terms of legroom... I'd definitely call this one a feel-good kind of show, where you leave the theatre in a good mood, energised and with a smile on your face. Rather than a "dark side" in the story, I would say there are - as in any story that works - hurdles that Jamie has to get over, and antagonists he has to deal with. As you certainly know, this is based on a real story and as in all real schools bullying is a thing... and not all families are perfect, we don't always have ideal relationships with our parents, etc. So you won't be smiling non-stop from start to finish, but the more serious notes and more emotional moments are the ones that'll make the smiling and good mood at the end more worthy. If your family don't speak English super well, I think it wouldn't hurt to tell them briefly what the story is about. It's easy to follow, in general, it's not nearly as dance-heavy as 42nd St, but rather about characters interactions. There are a couple of moments when someone with a lesser command of English may get a bit confused - I'm thinking of the bit where Loco Chanel shares her story with Jamie, for example. Also, as the story is set in Sheffield, actors speak with a regional accent which may not be immediately easy to follow (because they don't pronounce some words the way you, as a non native speaker, were taught in school), so some preparation will definitely help them enjoy the show even better. Hope you all enjoy it!
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on May 18, 2018 11:07:16 GMT
That’s got to be a kick in the teeth for Noah Galvin hasn’t it?! Not good enough for Broadway fulltime, so stepped into the role between Ben leaving and Taylor starting... and now not good enough to lead the first US tour?! Well... based on word of mouth and on what little I could hear in recordings appeared on YouTube at some point (which of course are not the best to get an exact idea, but they may be enough to notice not too great vocals), Noah Galvin wasn't good enough full stop .
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on May 16, 2018 11:42:04 GMT
Controversial, but also predictable one for me: Rent. I've always considered it 'unfinished' as it never got the re-writes that no doubt would have happened before Broadway, and I'd love to get my hands on it and fix it. Can we finally get rid of "Your eyes", please? It always makes me so sad to think that it took Roger a whole year to write that...
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on May 1, 2018 10:36:13 GMT
Just adding my two cents to the discussion here. I regret to say that I am one of the very many who have left at the interval. And I did feel bad for the actors who were doing their job, albeit following directions often leading them to overact and very professionally working with a script that perhaps isn't flawless to begin with, but... I chose to leave nonetheless.
Was it because I felt that my time is too precious for that? I had only left at the interval once before, and that was because the venue was freezing cold and I was feverish... so I'm clearly not that type of person.
Was it because I am generally unable to stay focussed and can only seek instant gratification? I would say that my "track record" - for lack of a better expression - as a theatre goer over the years suggests otherwise.
I chose to leave because after one hour and a half I had not felt any sort of genuine interest for any one of those characters or honestly cared for their stories. I'd got tired of their constant rambling, endless drinking, superficial interactions, brief conversations leading nowhere, their repeatedly leaving the club only to come back minutes later... when that final scene came at the end of act one, to me it felt as the play could have ended there and then. It had not gone anywhere for me, emotionally or intellectually, and there was nothing to suggest that it would in the second act.
Perhaps I have missed out on a major revelation in act two, perhaps I would have caught a glimpse of genius at some point... but personally I found that first hour and a half unpleasant and unrewarding, and so I chose not to sit through what I feared would be another hour and a half of a similarly uninteresting (to me) affair.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Apr 26, 2018 14:09:40 GMT
Been listening to the OBCR for this one a lot recently, and I'm definitely fascinated... There's quite a bit of material on Youtube in the form of interviews and talks, and a beautiful 360-degree video of 'Answer me' - I may be falling a bit in love with this piece of music, so I thought I'd share it here.
|
|
165 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Apr 20, 2018 15:15:03 GMT
I missed the hoopla over this last week...but £75 tickets? is Carrie going to personally shout at me on twitter after for that?!!! Join me as I patiently wait for those £75 tickets to go on sale at a discounted rate on TodayTix (or perhaps at an even more heavily discounted rate at TKTS, etc.) While I wholeheartedly wish The Other Palace and any other venue and/or producer willing to take a risk with a piece of contemporary MT every success, I am not quite convinced that Ms Fletcher alone can sell a whole run. And while I appreciate that many devoted "Hopefuls" have bought multiple ones of the cheaper tickets to ensure that they can go bow before their muse again and again, I am even less convinced that the presence of Ms Fletcher in a show can justify a ticket price in the same range as the pairing of Rosalie Craig and Patti Lupone directed by Marianne Elliott. I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm quite confident cheaper tickets will become available at some point or other...
|
|