134 posts
|
Post by spendleb on Dec 3, 2017 10:57:11 GMT
Went to the Friday evening performance and absolutely loved it, beautifully sung by all and great performances, the staging is simple but being that the theatre is so small it worked and felt intimate, my only gripe was the benches, brilliant view but so uncomfortable, literally no leg room for big lads like us, we sneaked upstairs to the balcony at the interval which was a slightly worse view but blessed relief on the legs!
Even my other half loved it and he's not a big musical fan 😊
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 3, 2017 11:32:17 GMT
Isn’t it strange and amazing how a show can not work and be disliked by so many people in 2004 and the same score and story re-invisioned in 2017 can have so many favourable reviews. I’ve even been listening to the cast recording! Total success but just wish there was less recitative.
|
|
1,511 posts
|
Post by anita on Dec 3, 2017 11:42:13 GMT
I loved it in 2004.
|
|
426 posts
|
Post by alison on Dec 3, 2017 15:33:49 GMT
Went to the Friday evening performance and absolutely loved it, beautifully sung by all and great performances, the staging is simple but being that the theatre is so small it worked and felt intimate, my only gripe was the benches, brilliant view but so uncomfortable, literally no leg room for big lads like us, we sneaked upstairs to the balcony at the interval which was a slightly worse view but blessed relief on the legs! Even my other half loved it and he's not a big musical fan 😊 Ahhh, that's why I noticed a gap in the benches in the second half. I wondered if someone had walked out. I was in row G (upgraded from rear stalls when I arrived) and loved it, but then I'm another one who saw and enjoyed the original production. I thought the cast were all excellent, and definitely preferred the slightly "straighter" take on Fosco without the fat suit, mice and various accoutrements. I caught quite a few of the changes while watching (tbh, I was surprised by how much of it I remembered, and how much they jumped out at me), then I listened to the cast recording on the way home to see what else I could identify. Here's what I picked up: {Spoiler - click to view}* There were a few minor changes to the lyrics when Walter tells Marian and Laura about meeting the woman in white. * Several sections have gone from Perspective, it now seems to be a cross between the original and Broadway versions. * In place of Lammastide is a very brief scene with Mr Fairlie talking about the harvest festival, then it cuts straight to the scene with Walter and the corn dolly girl. While they're talking, we can clearly hear a hymn being sung in the church. * Fosco's initial entrance is obviously a little different without the whole "mouse guest" thing - I can't remember the exact lines but something about being surprised there was no one to meet him, then Marian arrives. * When Walter leaves, Marian sings the "unspoken, unexpressed" line before the usual "I close my eyes". * Although Lammastide itself is out, the tune is still used for the wedding celebration. * All For Laura has been taken up, so the high "I will live" at the end is now taken down. * If I Could Only Dream This World Away is now a duet between Laura and Marian. * Marian's nightmare is gone. After Fosco vists her room, we see Fosco and Glyde incapacitate both sisters then cut straight to the funeral scene. * Fosco no longer tells Marian of Laura's death. The speech about her falling out of the window is done at her funeral (while Carolyn is getting changed, she then enters the scene slightly later). * Lost Souls is out, although the musical underscore is still there before If Not For Me, For Her. * The biggest change: Fosco is the one to tell Marian about Anne's identity. After The Seduction, before she leaves he tells her that if she wanted to know, she only had to ask. He then tells her the story, and adds, "Sir Percival Glyde, check mate." before singing his reprise. * At the asylum, rather than saying they should stay together now, Walter doesn't make any response to Marian's admission. * As they already know Anne's identity, after rescuing Laura our trio don't return to Limmeridge to see Mr Fairlie, we just go straight to the final scene with Glyde going to catch the train. There's now no mention of Glyde raping Anne, it's more ambiguous. The line has been changed to, "You kicked me and you beat me until my baby died."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2017 16:36:10 GMT
I saw this on Friday and was pleasantly surprised how much I loved it. Thought it was a beautiful production. Really pleasant night at the theatre.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 3, 2017 19:16:30 GMT
Surely you didn’t love the set?!! Lol....
|
|
500 posts
|
Post by anthony on Dec 3, 2017 19:54:01 GMT
Saw the matinee yesterday and loved it. Glad others have mentioned Love Never Dies and Stephen Ward... some bits are identical. Only downside is I thought the entire theatre smelled of urine The auditorium was so cold that people were sitting around me in scarves and hat. They turned the heating up during the interval.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by spendleb on Dec 4, 2017 9:59:28 GMT
Hilarious chat between two young girls close to our seats, one was telling the other this was a SEQUEL to The Woman in Black but wasn't as scary in her opinion!!!
|
|
1,511 posts
|
Post by anita on Dec 4, 2017 10:34:21 GMT
Surely you didn’t love the set?!! Lol.... Actually I did , especially the scene where Marion is eavesdropping on Fosco & Glyde. - Much better than standing on a table.
|
|
500 posts
|
Post by anthony on Dec 4, 2017 12:27:48 GMT
Also forgot -- they double booked our seats and we were moved closer (to the row that divides the two halfs of the auditorium, so a perfect view and unlimited leg room! I believe row K?).
Rush tickets now available via TodayTix. Will 100% be picking up tickets again in the near future.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 4, 2017 15:14:07 GMT
Managed to get a £15 tkt for the Saturday matinee and you realise how good the seating is here. It a dull auditorium and this afternoon was appropriately chilly in there but you get loads of leg room and great sight lines and nice staff. Of the show there is little left to say. Yes this plot is much clearer but the songs are still resonate of so many of ALWs other tunes from JCS and Evita to Boys in the photograph and those reworked for the later Love never dies which I would argue is far superior. And yes I agree that in the end it is all rather grey. All these years later it's hard to imagine how our greatest theatre brains could have got so excited by it all as to believe it would be a worthy successor to the blockbusters like Les Mis and fill The Palace eight shows a week for a multi decades run. But the singing is first class and the production runs like clockwork and for this alone I take the shame of paying so little. Our theatre is worth so much more than the cheap prices we are all currently driving the market down to. I fear that as in retail, cheaper prices will ultimately leave us with poorer product. I agree with this about driving prices down. I go to the theatre once or twice a week and pay 15, 20, 25 pounds all the time and generally have the best seats in the West End to Fringe. Maybe it’s just because I know so many loopholes? Dayseats? Cheating seats like A0 in 42nd Street? Lotteries? Group booking discounts? Today Tix? Papering sites? In comparison to what people pay on Broadway to see shows it is rather shocking. In April I spent a fortune seeing 6 shows in New York. Do UK audiences earn far less than American ones? Have different spendin habits? Do UK audiences need bargains? (Tourists aside)
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Dec 4, 2017 15:46:50 GMT
I got a TodayTix seat in row W for £15 which was then upgraded by the box office to an excellent row K seat. Since I loved the production it was an absolute bargain.
|
|
638 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on Dec 5, 2017 1:41:20 GMT
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by spendleb on Dec 5, 2017 9:53:50 GMT
Ridiculous, did they see a different show to me???
|
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Dec 5, 2017 10:05:41 GMT
The Stage sent someone who doesn't actually like the material, a move that never fails to baffle me.
|
|
500 posts
|
Post by anthony on Dec 5, 2017 10:21:35 GMT
|
|
638 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on Dec 5, 2017 12:28:03 GMT
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 5, 2017 13:44:52 GMT
Hard to imagine this EVER getting 4 stars given how fundamentally ludicrous the creatives' treatment of the material is. You can't make a silk pursue out of an etc etc etc ..... :-)
As for the Standard 4 star review, it's from the same nitwit who also gave five stars to the Menier's truly execrable revival of ASPECTS OF LOVE, which had poor Kathering Kingsley speaking with a fake French accent and it was downward from there.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 5, 2017 14:07:00 GMT
I would meet them in the middle and give it 3.5/5 it’s not a perfect musical but 1252 times better than the 2004 original. I might even go again despite its flaws. It doesn’t deserve 2 stars at all. The cast alone are 5/5. I agree about the complicated plot and not so ideal material though but still.....
|
|
501 posts
|
Post by chernjam on Dec 5, 2017 14:29:04 GMT
Can anyone give a bit more detail about the changes to the score? I'm curious since it was reported that ALW and Zippel had been working on and off again on this over the last decade what major changes were done to it (and even more, would that be enough to encourage a new recording with this cast that has universally been praised)
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 5, 2017 14:40:13 GMT
Can anyone give a bit more detail about the changes to the score? I'm curious since it was reported that ALW and Zippel had been working on and off again on this over the last decade what major changes were done to it (and even more, would that be enough to encourage a new recording with this cast that has universally been praised) There aren’t enough changes in my opinion. Some new songs, a new beginning (maybe stand out song) and cutting of the recitivie would really help.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Dec 6, 2017 0:02:36 GMT
Can anyone give a bit more detail about the changes to the score? I'm curious since it was reported that ALW and Zippel had been working on and off again on this over the last decade what major changes were done to it (and even more, would that be enough to encourage a new recording with this cast that has universally been praised) There aren’t enough changes in my opinion. Some new songs, a new beginning (maybe stand out song) and cutting of the recitivie would really help. If they've been working on it for a decade they've not been very productive... Lammastide and Marion's Dream are cut along with perhaps a verse here and there, there aren't any new songs (although there may be some new incidental music or recitative but not that I noticed anything major). That's about it. I think there's a fair amount of dialogue cut. It seems to fairly gallop along now. It's hard to say for sure what's cut or not as they made reasonably significant changes when the original London cast changed over and it's hard to remember what changes they made then!! But it's nothing particularly dramatic. I wish I was able to go again though. It's a lovely score and really well sung.
|
|
885 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Dec 6, 2017 0:35:21 GMT
It's gaseous and vacuous and sounds tinny. Good cast though.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by spendleb on Dec 6, 2017 9:47:34 GMT
There aren’t enough changes in my opinion. Some new songs, a new beginning (maybe stand out song) and cutting of the recitivie would really help. If they've been working on it for a decade they've not been very productive... Lammastide and Marion's Dream are cut along with perhaps a verse here and there, there aren't any new songs (although there may be some new incidental music or recitative but not that I noticed anything major). That's about it. I think there's a fair amount of dialogue cut. It seems to fairly gallop along now. It's hard to say for sure what's cut or not as they made reasonably significant changes when the original London cast changed over and it's hard to remember what changes they made then!! But it's nothing particularly dramatic. I wish I was able to go again though. It's a lovely score and really well sung. Listening again to the original cast recording I can now realise how much is cut, lots of exposition!
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Dec 6, 2017 19:34:36 GMT
Saw this today at a well-attended mid-week matinee and thoroughly enjoyed it. I also liked the original back in '04 but this production was infinitely more involving.
It made me realize that the main problem with the Trevor Nunn take was not the projections which, despite inducing motion sickness in the audience, were quite effective at times. The main problem was the characterization of Count Fosco as a bloated human cartoon in a fat suit. Fosco is in every way the most interesting character in the show - already a problem because he is in fact peripheral to the main action - but to make him a grotesque is to amplify the issue. In the Nunn production he was a show unto himself, not a guy who slotted seamlessly into the prevailing melodrama.
Issues still remain with him in this new production but at least he is presented - and wonderfully played by Greg Castiglioni - as a human being who, though still occupying a tangential role in the plot, is nevertheless a member of the cast and not some freakish outlier. His two very good songs now fit into the show's context and not as stand alone diversions.
As noted above the book of the show has been trimmed and well trimmed - no time for ennui. The show has a decent plot and that plot has been streamlined. It works well - kudos once again to Thom Southerland and his crew. And it as been cast well, strong actors with strong voices across the board. I happen to think that this is one of ALW's premier scores and it sounds amazing in David Cullen's elegantly reduced orchestrations.
But I still have issues with David Zippel's too-clever-by-half lyics. His pointed, ostentatious rhymes, which worked so well in a shows like City of Angels and The Goodbye Girl, are misplaced and jarring here. They don't go with ALW's lush melodies nor with the overall atmosphere of the piece. They're always calling attention to themselves, which in this case is a bad thing.
Still, my admiration for this show has been underlined and increased by this production. Well done to all involved.
|
|
1,037 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Dec 6, 2017 22:56:10 GMT
I saw the evening show today and mostly agree with mallardo - Greg Castaglioni and Carolyn Maitland were the stand-outs for me, I thought both of them were really excellent. Southerland has put together another fantastic show at the Charing Cross, using a simple but effective set once more to aid his superb direction. The score is one of ALWs weaker compositions I think, but there’s a lot in there that’s very good. Not much else to say really except that I had a great time.
|
|
501 posts
|
Post by chernjam on Dec 8, 2017 1:17:12 GMT
Saw this today at a well-attended mid-week matinee and thoroughly enjoyed it. I also liked the original back in '04 but this production was infinitely more involving. It made me realize that the main problem with the Trevor Nunn take was not the projections which, despite inducing motion sickness in the audience, were quite effective at times. The main problem was the characterization of Count Fosco as a bloated human cartoon in a fat suit. Fosco is in every way the most interesting character in the show - already a problem because he is in fact peripheral to the main action - but to make him a grotesque is to amplify the issue. In the Nunn production he was a show unto himself, not a guy who slotted seamlessly into the prevailing melodrama. Issues still remain with him in this new production but at least he is presented - and wonderfully played by Greg Castiglioni - as a human being who, though still occupying a tangential role in the plot, is nevertheless a member of the cast and not some freakish outlier. His two very good songs now fit into the show's context and not as stand alone diversions. As noted above the book of the show has been trimmed and well trimmed - no time for ennui. The show has a decent plot and that plot has been streamlined. It works well - kudos once again to Thom Southerland and his crew. And it as been cast well, strong actors with strong voices across the board. I happen to think that this is one of ALW's premier scores and it sounds amazing in David Cullen's elegantly reduced orchestrations. But I still have issues with David Zippel's too-clever-by-half lyics. His pointed, ostentatious rhymes, which worked so well in a shows like City of Angels and The Goodbye Girl, are misplaced and jarring here. They don't go with ALW's lush melodies nor with the overall atmosphere of the piece. They're always calling attention to themselves, which in this case is a bad thing. Still, my admiration for this show has been underlined and increased by this production. Well done to all involved. I really appreciate reading this... As was the case with Aspects of Love, I think the problem was Trevor Nunn. Can only hope that we get to see this over here in the states
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Dec 8, 2017 15:08:39 GMT
I enjoyed this more than Hamilton!
|
|
176 posts
|
Post by tom on Dec 8, 2017 20:41:55 GMT
At the show this evening. Interval at mo and loving it so far. Think this size production suits the piece. Contrary to what the producer of BILB was saying... The
Cast
Sound
Glorious!
Enjoying it WAY more than the performance I saw of Les Mis a few weeks back.
|
|
185 posts
|
Post by argon on Dec 8, 2017 20:55:18 GMT
Parsley said the singing was bad? I thought it was just superb! Utter nonsense.... [/quote]
It wasn't bad it just wasn't good. All 3 female leads struggled with the score @ times. Occasionally shouting which is not ainging
|
|