|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 18:25:23 GMT
Playwrights, yes...
Chekhov, no. Was once "blocked in" at the end of a row up against a wall seat in a performance of The Seagull at the Almeida. One of those rave reviews productions. I didn't understand a word of it. And I've never seen a Chekhov since.
Caryl Churchill. What's she all about?
David Hare. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn.
Shakespeare's comedies. They're not funny, are they?
(Is it good to let it out, I ask myself...?)
|
|
18,697 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 13, 2016 19:08:44 GMT
Kathy Burke.
Played herself in everything she's ever done.
|
|
18,697 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 13, 2016 19:13:15 GMT
Book of Mormon.
Cheap looking, crass, unfunny and not a decent tune in it. I never cracked a smile.
|
|
742 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 13, 2016 19:33:59 GMT
The single moment of delight for me was the quick change into red waistcoats. That was it.
|
|
5,571 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 13, 2016 19:39:54 GMT
Playwrights, yes... Chekhov, no. Was once "blocked in" at the end of a row up against a wall seat in a performance of The Seagull at the Almeida. One of those rave reviews productions. I didn't understand a word of it. And I've never seen a Chekhov since. Caryl Churchill. What's she all about? David Hare. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. Shakespeare's comedies. They're not funny, are they? (Is it good to let it out, I ask myself...?) I love this Board
|
|
3,919 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jun 13, 2016 20:15:57 GMT
Playwrights, yes... Chekhov, no. Was once "blocked in" at the end of a row up against a wall seat in a performance of The Seagull at the Almeida. One of those rave reviews productions. I didn't understand a word of it. And I've never seen a Chekhov since. Caryl Churchill. What's she all about? David Hare. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. Shakespeare's comedies. They're not funny, are they? (Is it good to let it out, I ask myself...?) By the end of The Seagull I practically wanted to shoot myself let alone the characters. So depressing. I then tried Uncle Vanya & found that equally depressing so have given up on Chekhov. If I want to be depressed I can just read the news. I enjoy Shakespeare's comedies overall but do usually find the "clown" scenes tedious. Even Much Ado, my favourite Shakespeare play, would be so much better if Dogberry & co were cut.
|
|
645 posts
|
Post by ptwest on Jun 13, 2016 20:53:57 GMT
Ok then...
I wish Id left the revival of Miss Saigon at the interval and just kept my memories of act one. The hotel scene needs a huge rewrite / scrapping for something else and "the American Dream" just gets on my nerves. The Fall of Saigon was well done though!
I enjoyed Elaine Paige as Norma Desmond far more than I enjoyed Patti Lupone.
I can't wait for Master Of The House to end in Les Mis - the comedy jars with the rest of the show. The same goes for Herods song in JCS - most productions I have seen have played this for laughs, in my opinion out of the ones I've seen for myself, only the Lyceum production got it right.
|
|
|
Post by Coated on Jun 14, 2016 0:10:04 GMT
I find all Pinter apart from The Birthday Part intolerable. Birthday Party I can tolerate- just. Triple YES. Though I'd happily consign The Birthday Party to the same midden as the rest of Pinter's delights.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 14, 2016 0:50:28 GMT
So many otherwise intelligent people so totally wrong about Wicked - blinded by its success. It is, in fact, one of the smartest and most innovative shows of this young century, casting a long shadow and much influence on a myriad of shows that have followed it. It is Stephen Schwartz's masterwork, far more musically sophisticated than anything else he has done. It also has a brilliant book, full of genuine surprises and inventive solutions to the problems set up by The Wizard of Oz. I think this way, I believe, because I saw it with its original cast a couple of weeks after it opened in New York in 2003 - knowing nothing about it! - and was absolutely blown away by it. That memory lingers on. If everyone could have had that experience no one would be dumping on it now. It's worth noting that Wicked didn't even get nominated for an Olivier Award, but is the show a mess? No, some well written songs in there, however the book is a mess.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jun 14, 2016 1:18:36 GMT
I don't get the hype over Hamilton and don't think anything's worth the obscene prices it charges on Broadway. Anyone who queues more than a couple of hours for tickets to that or anything else is crazy.
I don't think the Harry Potter play should have been done - there is no need to revisit that franchise.
I have never had any desire to see the Book of Mormon.
Bernadette Peters does not know how to put on a show.
But I think the most unpopular opinion I have is likely to be that I don't particularly like Sondheim...
|
|
2,203 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 14, 2016 6:02:10 GMT
I don't get the hype over Hamilton and don't think anything's worth the obscene prices it charges on Broadway. Anyone who queues more than a couple of hours for tickets to that or anything else is crazy. I don't think the Harry Potter play should have been done - there is no need to revisit that franchise. I have never had any desire to see the Book of Mormon. Bernadette Peters does not know how to put on a show. But I think the most unpopular opinion I have is likely to be that I don't particularly like Sondheim... Not liking Sondheim seems quite a popular opinion reading this board
|
|
2,203 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 14, 2016 6:07:07 GMT
Audiences are responsible for more negative feelings in a theatre than all the actors/writers/directors than I've seen put together. Negative reviews are worthless in isolation, positive reviews in isolation can, however, be very useful. Jerry Herman never wrote a good musical theatre score, only good songs that make for poor drama. George Bernard Shaw never wrote a good play, not even Pygmalion or Saint Joan. European theatre is years ahead of British theatre, we're only just catching up (and that gap may soon stop closing). Really interested why you think European theatre is 'years ahead of British theatre' (aren't negative views worthless in isolation). But even more interested why we're 'just catching up' and truly fascinated why 'that gap may stop closing' soon.
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Jun 14, 2016 7:47:58 GMT
ooh I've remembered another long held one of mine...Patti luPone's Gypsy was 'meh'...and I do like la luPone.
Another for the no desire to see Book of Mormon.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Jun 14, 2016 8:17:14 GMT
I thought "The Comedy About a Bank Robbery" was painfully unfunny and left at the interval
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 14, 2016 8:48:19 GMT
Audiences are responsible for more negative feelings in a theatre than all the actors/writers/directors than I've seen put together. Negative reviews are worthless in isolation, positive reviews in isolation can, however, be very useful. Jerry Herman never wrote a good musical theatre score, only good songs that make for poor drama. George Bernard Shaw never wrote a good play, not even Pygmalion or Saint Joan. European theatre is years ahead of British theatre, we're only just catching up (and that gap may soon stop closing). Really interested why you think European theatre is 'years ahead of British theatre' (aren't negative views worthless in isolation). But even more interested why we're 'just catching up' and truly fascinated why 'that gap may stop closing' soon. Negative 'reviews', responses to a specific show, are only relevant to that show and pretty much 'I didn't like it', 'I liked it' and that's that, positive reviews at least prompt me to go and see something I might not (steve's review of Clytemnestra at The Gate for example, thanks steve!); negative 'views' are at least a topic for conversation and debate, given their broader range. I'm not talking musical theatre here, where the US is streets ahead but in the field of non-musical theatre. I see a lot of international theatre and the ideas and approaches take a while to seep through to British theatre, which is relatively conservative and parochial. What I see now from young directors is what the likes of Ostermeier and Van Hove have been doing for years. It's no surprise that as the UK has become closer to Europe and, with populations intermingling to a greater degree, that that gap has been closed. It's not all to do with political integration as on the edges you have somewhere like Iceland and Vesturport who have made waves. Polls show that, across Europe, however, there is a growing mood of isolationism and that mood can only hamper the cross-pollination of international theatres and theatremakers. EDIT: Just realised that Iceland is a member of the EEA so there is free movement. Russia maybe and the Vakhtangov instead?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 10:31:45 GMT
Viva Forever! was great fun.
The Lion King is overrated bar some amazing musical numbers.
Dirty Dancing was boring.
Women on the Verge deserved to run longer.
Bend It Like Beckham was a disappointment because of the reviews being so over-the-top so expectations were set high.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jun 14, 2016 10:55:35 GMT
Really interested why you think European theatre is 'years ahead of British theatre' (aren't negative views worthless in isolation). But even more interested why we're 'just catching up' and truly fascinated why 'that gap may stop closing' soon. Negative 'reviews', responses to a specific show, are only relevant to that show and pretty much 'I didn't like it', 'I liked it' and that's that, positive reviews at least prompt me to go and see something I might not (steve's review of Clytemnestra at The Gate for example, thanks steve!); negative 'views' are at least a topic for conversation and debate, given their broader range. I'm not talking musical theatre here, where the US is streets ahead but in the field of non-musical theatre. I see a lot of international theatre and the ideas and approaches take a while to seep through to British theatre, which is relatively conservative and parochial. What I see now from young directors is what the likes of Ostermeier and Van Hove have been doing for years. It's no surprise that as the UK has become closer to Europe and, with populations intermingling to a greater degree, that that gap has been closed. It's not all to do with political integration as on the edges you have somewhere like Iceland and Vesturport who have made waves. Polls show that, across Europe, however, there is a growing mood of isolationism and that mood can only hamper the cross-pollination of international theatres and theatremakers. EDIT: Just realised that Iceland is a member of the EEA so there is free movement. Russia maybe and the Vakhtangov instead?
I'm not sure I agree. I say this from a position of relative ignorance, but I often wonder if we romanticise ‘foreign theatre’. I haven’t been abroad in two years now, but whenever I go abroad I find it fascinating to look at the cinema listings. The last time I saw Paris, there were posters all over the place for ‘Un film de Ken Loach, scenario de Paul Laverty’ – Jimmy’s Hall, a film that made pennies at the box office and was treated as a footnote by a past-it leftie windbag by half the papers here, but represented the best of English auteur cinema by a rare double Palme d'Or winner (hooray!) when it played as a ‘foreign film’ – and posters all over the place for a sh*tty little French rom com that was so bad it never reached our shores but was clearly doing well over there. Walk through London a few years ago, and there’d have been adverts for the new Xavier Dolan movie next to Pudsey The Dog: The Movie. I bet artistically minded cinemagoers were having identical conversations on both sides of the channel: “Look at the cinema they make over there, look at the sh*t we make over here, the grass is so much greener.”
Is that not true of theatre? Having only been to one theatre outside England, on Broadway ten years ago, my encounters with foreign theatre have been OStermeier, Ninagawa, Vakhtangov, where my encounters with UK theatre have been Thriller Live and Mamma Mia. On that basis we’re not years behind but epochs. However, in Germany, similarly, is Mamma Mia not the hottest ticket, not Ostermeier? Are there not people talking about how they’re still years behind Katie Mitchell, Simon Mcburney, Cheek by Jowl, let alone upstart wünderkinds like Rupert Goold (now a wünder-middle-age), Joe Hill-Gibbons and Robert Icke? Is German theatre actually represented by Ostermeier, or is the best of German theatre represented by OStermeier?
Besides, I don’t think the distinction between us and them really exists now, let alone as a gap that's mercifully closing. There've been great talents we've produced, on whose shoulders EUropean directors are now standing, on whose shoulders young British directors are beginning to stand. Look at West End sell-out Simon Stephens, a channel hopping auteur-endorsing juggernaut, and West End sell-out Duncan Macmillan who, with Atmen/Lungs, The Forbidden Zone and 2071, is surely snapping at Stephens’ heels for the position of Anglo-European playwright-laureate (not to mention West End sell-out Florian Zeller, it goes two ways). I don’t think we’re many years behind: I think the best stuff there is as good as the best stuff here, the worst stuff there is probably as bad as the worst stuff but mercifully we dodge that bullet, and there’s a really healthy, ever growing relationship between theatres across Europe and indeed America and we’re lucky to be in the middle. Is there not something telling that in this country Ivo van Hove won the Olivier, sold out the West End, warranted a cinematic run and built up the momentum to go to Broadway and win the Tony (woop woop!) and is now part of England’s National Theatre?
|
|
628 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on Jun 14, 2016 11:16:49 GMT
I absolutely love "Love Never Dies" and long for a revival. Detest with an absolute passion Wicked; pointless, futile and dull. A couple of hours of my life I'll never get back. Grease and Dirty Dancing are dire, I never want to see either of these shows cluttering up the West End again.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Jun 14, 2016 12:42:52 GMT
The Lion King is overrated bar some amazing musical Judging from the Lion King thread that's a pretty popular opinion here (and one I entirely concur with!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 12:44:41 GMT
The Lion King is overrated bar some amazing musical Judging from the Lion King thread that's a pretty popular opinion here (and one I entirely concur with!) Don't get me wrong, the staging, design and some of the production numbers are stunning, but the book itself just doesn't work very well for the stage in my opinion, much as I love the film!
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jun 14, 2016 12:55:20 GMT
I greatly respect your opinions on this forum, mallardo, and enjoy reading your posts... With this in mind, I feel I have perhaps missed something in Wicked. Something I should be appreciating, but didn't get. (I saw it soon after it opened in London, after reading all the hype. I remember it was sparkly. There was no Defying Gravity moment for me, alas, that night (something to do with the cherry picker???) and so it all felt a bit flat. Literally. Apart from that I was hoping to fall in love with it. I even bought the book, but didn't enjoy that either. (I have never been tempted to return for fear I should feel like everyone else's grandfather in the audience. I think you know what I'm getting at. I'm afraid this kind of audience leave me cold.) So... I set you a challenge: educate me and convert me!
I can't convert you, Caiaphas, but the fact that you saw it when it was already a phenomenon is problematic. In situations like that one goes into the theatre with a different attitude. No matter how much you wanted to love it your expectations were high (perhaps grudgingly so) and losing the act one closer - one of the greatest ever - was a huge blow.
I would encourage you to simply listen to it - it's all there on the OBCR if you're open to it. The music perfectly captures the sound world of the story. It sounds like no other show. And, as I said earlier, it's a huge leap forward for Stephen Schwartz. The fact that teenage girls can't get enough of it is hardly a bad thing. It's a show that is perfectly attuned to its audience. Its message of acceptance and friendship hits home. "For Good" is the greatest friendship song I know.
Any show as successful as Wicked is worth taking seriously. Success in the theatre is hard to come by and when it's achieved it's for good reasons. I would say the same thing about Les Mis or Phantom, other shows too often derided. So man up - confront that youthful audience. It's actually fun to be in a crowd that's loving what they're seeing. You might find it catching.
As a kid without access to London/NY theatre, my first experience with Wicked was the cast recording- and i hated it, couldn't get past Popular. I think it's one of the least succeful translation to cast recordings. a few years ago i got a chance to see it live and wasn't too invested- can't remmember much of it. BUT last year I dayseated it because I took a night bus to london that dropped me at the stage door at 7 am- so why not? and fell in love- such a smart story, the score was fun, some songs, melodically are very clever... i suggest go see it caiaphas (maybe wait for a better cast than the current London one though- Rachel Tucker is coming back soon that's a pretty safe bet), I feel like you might have a change of heart- maybe Now I do listen to the OBCR, and enjoy it for what it is- because some songs on there are lovely still, but I wouldn't say it's one of my more frequent cd's. EDIT: mallardo I want to like your original post so bad- but the like feature won't work for some reason...
|
|
1,510 posts
|
Post by anita on Jun 14, 2016 13:15:06 GMT
Never seen "Wicked". - It just doesn't appeal to me. My youngest son loved it. My daughter hated it.
|
|
1,465 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jun 14, 2016 14:25:14 GMT
I can't convert you, Caiaphas, but the fact that you saw it when it was already a phenomenon is problematic. In situations like that one goes into the theatre with a different attitude. No matter how much you wanted to love it your expectations were high (perhaps grudgingly so) and losing the act one closer - one of the greatest ever - was a huge blow.
I would encourage you to simply listen to it - it's all there on the OBCR if you're open to it. The music perfectly captures the sound world of the story. It sounds like no other show. And, as I said earlier, it's a huge leap forward for Stephen Schwartz. The fact that teenage girls can't get enough of it is hardly a bad thing. It's a show that is perfectly attuned to its audience. Its message of acceptance and friendship hits home. "For Good" is the greatest friendship song I know.
Any show as successful as Wicked is worth taking seriously. Success in the theatre is hard to come by and when it's achieved it's for good reasons. I would say the same thing about Les Mis or Phantom, other shows too often derided. So man up - confront that youthful audience. It's actually fun to be in a crowd that's loving what they're seeing. You might find it catching.
Thank you, mallardo. I will do as you suggest, and "man up". (F*** me! That's one hell of a challenge! ) And I will give it a listen... I have been in a crowd that's loving what they're seeing on several occasions, and loved every second of it! It might surprise you to know that I'm usually the one "loving it" more than anyone else around me! I can whoop and cheer and stand and put teenage girls to shame. Honest! Wow - what an incredibly civilised disagreement - is this the internet? ;-) For what it's worth - I saw Wicked twice. The first time was with my daughter when she was about 12 and I knew very little about the show - and it was heaven, largely because it was fresh, new to me, and TOTALLY relevant to what a 12 year old is going through. I was hanging onto the rhymes of 'Popular' and I could see the theme of friendship was just what she needed/wanted to see. The second time, I brought a school group of eleven year olds and I was a little more jaded towards its charms - we were further back, the air was fizzing with Haribo and there was lots of merchandising (though they sweetly gave our whole school group free witch's hats.) Memorably, the coolest kid in the class threw up in his witch's hat on the tube ride home.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 14:33:24 GMT
I have also never seen Jersey Boys, I just never have had the desire to watch it, it has no appeal to me and I don't really understand how or why it is still running. I am sure if I see the show, my mind will be changed.
|
|
6,232 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 14, 2016 14:50:32 GMT
I have also never seen Jersey Boys, I just never have had the desire to watch it, it has no appeal to me and I don't really understand how or why it is still running. I am sure if I see the show, my mind will be changed. Judging from what you like which is glitzy and campy musicals, I don't think you'll like Jersey Boys!!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 14:55:04 GMT
I have also never seen Jersey Boys, I just never have had the desire to watch it, it has no appeal to me and I don't really understand how or why it is still running. I am sure if I see the show, my mind will be changed. Judging from what you like which is glitzy and campy musicals, I don't think you'll like Jersey Boys!!! Hahaha I wouldn't say glitzy and campy is all I like, it makes up the vast majority though! One of my favourite musicals is Les Mis, and I wouldn't consider that campy or glitzy!
|
|
|
Post by emicardiff on Jun 14, 2016 14:55:52 GMT
I have also never seen Jersey Boys, I just never have had the desire to watch it, it has no appeal to me and I don't really understand how or why it is still running. I am sure if I see the show, my mind will be changed. Random aside- I saw Jersey Boys in the San Francisco tryout, just because I happened to be there. I somehow had gone 20 years at that point never encountering Fankie Valli's voice so I spent the first half hour with a distinct "What the ever-loving f**** is that noise?" viewpoint. I did after the inital shock enjoy it and had fond memories. However seeing the tour recently I could now gladly go the rest of my life without seeing or hearing it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 15:29:07 GMT
Cynthia Erivo is overrated who needs to tone down her diva antics
There I said it.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 14, 2016 18:12:58 GMT
Negative 'reviews', responses to a specific show, are only relevant to that show and pretty much 'I didn't like it', 'I liked it' and that's that, positive reviews at least prompt me to go and see something I might not (steve's review of Clytemnestra at The Gate for example, thanks steve!); negative 'views' are at least a topic for conversation and debate, given their broader range. Snip
I'm not sure I agree. I say this from a position of relative ignorance, but I often wonder if we romanticise ‘foreign theatre’. I haven’t been abroad in two years now, but whenever I go abroad I find it fascinating to look at the cinema listings. The last time I saw Paris, there were posters all over the place for ‘Un film de Ken Loach, scenario de Paul Laverty’ – Jimmy’s Hall, a film that made pennies at the box office and was treated as a footnote by a past-it leftie windbag by half the papers here, but represented the best of English auteur cinema by a rare double Palme d'Or winner (hooray!) when it played as a ‘foreign film’ – and posters all over the place for a sh*tty little French rom com that was so bad it never reached our shores but was clearly doing well over there.
Snip Nicholas, I think there's a clear distinction between playwriting, which has always been a British strength, and the creation of the actual theatrical event. Kane, Crimp etc. have long flown the flag and Macmillan, Stephens and such are continuing that. I'm afraid I don't rate Zeller, too much like hors d'oeuvres without the main meal I find (Steve's food metaphor is spreading!). Schimmelpfennig I quite like though. It's the director, the designer that are the primary movers there, and increasingly here. Writers such as Stephens succeed because they give space to the director, a number of plays giving no added authorial interpretation beyond the bare dialogue. They have also been successful because they have been able to harness those strengths of European theatre production. The populist theatre is, of course, the same. It's the Macdonalds of theatre, Manma Mia, Phantom etc., and musicals, which I consider as being separate (and something we only fitfully succeed in. Other countries have their dross but it is what travels that matters, McBurney, Mitchell, Donnellan, Rice and Goold (the last less so, apart from across the Atlantic) are our standard bearers. Respectively influenced by Lecoq, Bausch, Dodin, Staniewski and Lepage they have enriched our theatre and have become important exports for our theatre as much as the writers above. Without their international (and mostly European) influences British theatre production would be, as I stated, weaker and more parochial. This is even before I get to the newest work from young companies whose debt to German dramaturgy and theatre philosophy is highly prevalent. British strengths of acting and playwriting allied to the European theatre production makes our theatre as exciting as I can remember it. I hope it continues but the opportunities need to be there.
|
|
18,697 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 14, 2016 18:25:01 GMT
I have also never seen Jersey Boys, I just never have had the desire to watch it, it has no appeal to me and I don't really understand how or why it is still running. I am sure if I see the show, my mind will be changed. It won't. Its absolutely dire, relying entirely on someone impersonating (badly) someone else. And the incessant pushing on and off scenery. It was like observing a removal company at work, while your nan plays her tapes.
|
|