|
Post by singularsensation10 on Aug 18, 2018 8:49:41 GMT
I haven’t really liked a musical here Since the days of Hello Dolly And Crazy For You They were amazing This is awful Truly truly dreadful I am talking Below nursery school level I don’t like the atmosphere of the Open Air Or the people who attend There are huge queues And I don’t understand the concept To pay £65 to sit outside On hard garden seating With concrete flooring I didn’t even make it to the interval People who attend seem to have Rock bottom standards And treat it like an amazing event of sophistication Just because it’s outside For me the whole experience stinks of the crappy I tell you what Glyndebourne It ain’t Again £50-£65 Pay £75 and see Tina I think some context wouldn’t go a miss here. Hello Dolly and Crazy For You are completely different shows to Little Shop. Little Shop is not at all serious - un-subtle, over the top, loud and crass in its nature. I love the show, and loved this production - did I think it was perfect? No - the sound design (even though someone above said it was good?) was terrible, ‘let’s run everything through one speaker and turn it up really loud’ does not constitute as good sound design. I thought the set was a little flimsy and it wasn’t overly well acted on the whole. BUT as far as a night out at the theatre goes, it was fun and the audience loved it (even the lady two rows ahead doing her knitting). The cast had heaps of energy and the three street urchin girls were stand out. The production overcomes the challenges of an open air theatre really well. Don’t go expecting Glyndebourne and you won’t be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 16:38:36 GMT
I haven’t really liked a musical here Since the days of Hello Dolly And Crazy For You They were amazing This is awful Truly truly dreadful I am talking Below nursery school level I don’t like the atmosphere of the Open Air Or the people who attend There are huge queues And I don’t understand the concept To pay £65 to sit outside On hard garden seating With concrete flooring I didn’t even make it to the interval People who attend seem to have Rock bottom standards And treat it like an amazing event of sophistication Just because it’s outside For me the whole experience stinks of the crappy I tell you what Glyndebourne It ain’t Again £50-£65 Pay £75 and see Tina I think some context wouldn’t go a miss here. Hello Dolly and Crazy For You are completely different shows to Little Shop. Little Shop is not at all serious - un-subtle, over the top, loud and crass in its nature. I love the show, and loved this production - did I think it was perfect? No - the sound design (even though someone above said it was good?) was terrible, ‘let’s run everything through one speaker and turn it up really loud’ does not constitute as good sound design. I thought the set was a little flimsy and it wasn’t overly well acted on the whole. BUT as far as a night out at the theatre goes, it was fun and the audience loved it (even the lady two rows ahead doing her knitting). The cast had heaps of energy and the three street urchin girls were stand out. The production overcomes the challenges of an open air theatre really well. Don’t go expecting Glyndebourne and you won’t be disappointed. I am glad you had fun But what you are really saying Is lower your standards And you will enjoy it Despite negative comments About the acting Sound and set It’s still “fun” A bit like saying I went for a meal And the starter main course and dessert were not very nice But the meal was good Again I suppose it depends how low people are willing to drop their standards in order to have “fun”
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 16:45:11 GMT
Also
What do comments like
“Heaps of energy”
Actually mean??
A group of toddlers running about Also have “heaps of energy”
I do think the acceptance of things
Which are “mediocre”
And then pretending they were good
Is a scourge of modern society
And applies to food clothing jobs housing etc etc
|
|
|
Post by singularsensation10 on Aug 18, 2018 17:36:39 GMT
I am glad you had fun But what you are really saying Is lower your standards And you will enjoy it Despite negative comments About the acting Sound and set It’s still “fun” A bit like saying I went for a meal And the starter main course and dessert were not very nice But the meal was good Again I suppose it depends how low people are willing to drop their standards in order to have “fun” I meant more along the lines of: if you’re used to driving a Rolls Royce, don’t be surprised if a Fiesta isn’t quite the same plush experience. This show is far from mediocre...
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Aug 18, 2018 18:16:30 GMT
I had very low expectations of this production. I didn’t much like Matt Willis when I saw him in Wicked, thought Forbes Masson was a very strange piece of casting for Mushnik and didn’t warm to the notion of the plant being played by a drag queen ( I also found the advertising artwork really offputting).
I have to say, I was very pleasantly surprised to find all my reservations were unfounded ( except maybe the advertising artwork, wonder why it didn’t feature Vicky Vox?).
I absolutely loved this production. I saw the very first one in London with Ellen Greene and Barry James and several other versions since ( including the Menier one which I hated so much that I left at the interval), but this one was a fresh and really inventive reimagining of the original.
The design concept was great and I’m surprised to hear people complaining about the sound,because it was faultless on the night I saw it.
My opinion of Matt Willis was overturned. I thought he did a great job of Orin and various other characters in Act 2. The guy has funny bones, who knew? And he was in fine voice.
The three urchins were outstanding, Marc Antolin was adorable and Forbes Masson made a good enough fist of Mushnik. I liked Jemima Rooper’s performance ( she did a really touching rendition of ‘Somewhere That’s Green’). It’s hard to rid oneself of Ellen Greene’s definitive performance on stage and screen, but it was good to see that Jemima Rooper wasn’t just doing an impression of her, which I think many subsequent Audreys have done.
I thought the way Maria Ahberg had integrated Vicky Vox into the part of Audrey 2 was excellent. The combination of that powerhouse performance with the set design for the character worked like a charm and never got overly camp or off message.
Obviously this version didn’t work for everyone, but I thought it was really innovative and absolutely delightful. A perfect production for the Open Air setting ( particularly during Act 2 as it got dark) with a joyous finale that was a perfect uplifting antidote to the rather dark space the real world seems to be inhabiting right now. Highly recommended- 10/10 from me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 20:51:36 GMT
I am glad you had fun But what you are really saying Is lower your standards And you will enjoy it Despite negative comments About the acting Sound and set It’s still “fun” A bit like saying I went for a meal And the starter main course and dessert were not very nice But the meal was good Again I suppose it depends how low people are willing to drop their standards in order to have “fun” I meant more along the lines of: if you’re used to driving a Rolls Royce, don’t be surprised if a Fiesta isn’t quite the same plush experience. This show is far from mediocre... What is “Fiesta” ?
|
|
|
Post by waybeyondblue on Aug 19, 2018 7:44:59 GMT
I meant more along the lines of: if you’re used to driving a Rolls Royce, don’t be surprised if a Fiesta isn’t quite the same plush experience. This show is far from mediocre... What is “Fiesta” ? It’s the vehicle your batman uses to meet and bonk your partner in whilst you are busy attending the first half of every new show. Wipe clean seats if you get the right model.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2018 11:07:57 GMT
It’s the vehicle your batman uses to meet and bonk your partner in whilst you are busy attending the first half of every new show. Wipe clean seats if you get the right model. Now one couldn't possibly be expected to know how the common people get from a to be could one? I mean one is barely over the fact that they're allowed to attend the theatre (rather than racing whippets or whatever it is the common man does...)
|
|
1,896 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 22, 2018 7:23:17 GMT
In a nutshell. Loved the piece, hated the production design.
I've only ever seen small scale amateur production of it before (think Village Hall level) and I enjoyed that just as much as last night's which I thought looked cheap for a London/Regent's Park show.
3.5 out of 5.
|
|
1,896 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 22, 2018 7:27:01 GMT
Saw it last night and overall I enjoyed it. The vocals were very strong and the music sounded great. The cast were in general great with the guy playing the dentist being the weakest link imho. His number was so boring and terribly choreographed that it was almost embarrassing. They should really rethink that number before opening night. Fortunately the rest of the musical numbers were generally very good. The set looked ok to start with, although it was pretty much a copy of the one they used for Ragtime a few years ago. Unfortunately once the action started and the homeless people start moving around the supermarket carts containing big skyscrapers, one couldn't help but wondering 'what are they thinking?'. It looked really awful. The whole set became the Open Air Ragtime meets the recent National's Macbeth, very weird. And the strange lightning design didn't help either. The costumes looked in general very amateurish, really badly designed with very few exceptions, only the outfits for Audrey and the three narrator girls looked fine. And finally Audrey II. The plant's design is awful, the first time you see it, it looks like a badly designed children's toy. The drag queen was good, but if you are not familiar with the story, like some children in the area where I was, you might find confusing why a draft queen comes out of the plant and sings. It's not made clear to start with that she's actually the plant. Having said that she was quite funny, looked and sounded la bit like Divine which in my book is a good thing. It was enjoyable overall but it could have been so much better in the right hands.
I agree, Vicky Vox needed to have more plant aspects to her costume. It was too much of an abstract interpretation (Audrey II suddenly in human form) that didn't match the production as a whole.
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Aug 23, 2018 21:42:53 GMT
Aah I loved it. As a piece it’s very strong and the book/score comes together so so well. Really liked the production and especially the atmosphere in Regents Park. Highly recommended!
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Aug 24, 2018 20:27:56 GMT
Rained off tonight
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2018 19:21:47 GMT
Inspired casting of Vicky Vox, so authentic yet so completely subversive.
The sound was amazing! Those three girls and Vicky rocked.
I didn’t like the leads. Personally I think those characters need to be rooted in reality but these were cartoon characters.
I loved the set and the skyscrapers in trolleys. I felt the plant could have gotten bigger and maintained a puppet face character sharing the space with Vicky.
I loved how grey it was but I think Audrey should have been dressed brighter.
I think it’s impossible for any actor to take on the role of the dentist after Steve Martin but for the most part he was ok. I just think those moments of violence need to be a jolt for the audience.
All in all, I loved it and would return easily.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 31, 2018 0:15:14 GMT
Saw this tonight......
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
What a mess!!!!
|
|
1,896 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 31, 2018 8:10:10 GMT
Inspired casting of Vicky Vox, so authentic yet so completely subversive. The sound was amazing! Those three girls and Vicky rocked. I didn’t like the leads. Personally I think those characters need to be rooted in reality but these were cartoon characters. I loved the set and the skyscrapers in trolleys. I felt the plant could have gotten bigger and maintained a puppet face character sharing the space with Vicky. I loved how grey it was but I think Audrey should have been dressed brighter. I think it’s impossible for any actor to take on the role of the dentist after Steve Martin but for the most part he was ok. I just think those moments of violence need to be a jolt for the audience. All in all, I loved it and would return easily.
Great points!
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 31, 2018 10:57:01 GMT
Can someone PLEASE CAST AN AUDREY WHO CAN SING?!!
Rant over .......
|
|
3,830 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 31, 2018 12:02:54 GMT
Like Ellen Greene’s (almost) vein popping performance of Suddenly Seymour in the film?
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Aug 31, 2018 12:10:51 GMT
The thing with Audrey is that Ellen Greene's performance and interpretation is so iconic that it can neither be matched nor mimicked. Is she the best singer? No! But she IS Audrey and its why it is such a difficult role to cast. I did love Sheridan Smith in the role mind.
|
|
1,896 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Aug 31, 2018 15:52:50 GMT
The thing with Audrey is that Ellen Greene's performance and interpretation is so iconic that it can neither be matched nor mimicked. Is she the best singer? No! But she IS Audrey and its why it is such a difficult role to cast. I did love Sheridan Smith in the role mind. I bet Sherrers knocked it out of the park...
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 31, 2018 17:48:13 GMT
I think Ellen Greene has an incredible voice actually. Great acting and a wonderful mix of head voice, belting and great phrasing. The girl at Regents Park last night was dreadful. I’ve seen and heard better amateurs.
|
|
|
Post by Boob on Aug 31, 2018 21:57:18 GMT
OMG LOVED IT! Esp the inspired choreography and wonderful musical direction. Matt Willis and Forbes Masson were awful, but the production is so fresh and invigorating and the show as a whole, while not without its problems, is such a delight. I’d gladly put my money behind a West End transfer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 22:48:42 GMT
OMG LOVED IT! Esp the inspired choreography and wonderful musical direction. Matt Willis and Forbes Masson were awful, but the production is so fresh and invigorating and the show as a whole, while not without its problems, is such a delight. I’d gladly put my money behind a West End transfer. A West End transfer would be amazing. I’d definitely go again. I saw a matinee so would love to see it lit.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 31, 2018 23:21:58 GMT
OMG LOVED IT! Esp the inspired choreography and wonderful musical direction. Matt Willis and Forbes Masson were awful, but the production is so fresh and invigorating and the show as a whole, while not without its problems, is such a delight. I’d gladly put my money behind a West End transfer. A West End transfer would be amazing. I’d definitely go again. I saw a matinee so would love to see it lit. Why does everything need to transfer?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 23:28:40 GMT
A West End transfer would be amazing. I’d definitely go again. I saw a matinee so would love to see it lit. Why does everything need to transfer? Everything doesn’t need to transfer, unlike your critique I was able to analytically describe what I liked and disliked about the performance. I spoke about a specific transfer and didn’t generalise. To be even more specific for you, I believe this production deserves a wider audience and I think an audience will eat it up! Pardon the pun!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 7:29:34 GMT
The thing with Audrey is that Ellen Greene's performance and interpretation is so iconic that it can neither be matched nor mimicked. Is she the best singer? No! But she IS Audrey and its why it is such a difficult role to cast. I did love Sheridan Smith in the role mind. I bet Sherrers knocked it out of the park... Audrey is the only performance of Sheridans I've really liked and thought really suited her. She was spot on
|
|
540 posts
|
Post by freckles on Sept 1, 2018 8:13:27 GMT
Nobody is suggesting everything does! But a well received production that has only a limited run sometimes deserves wider exposure. I agree this is the case for LSOH.
|
|
540 posts
|
Post by freckles on Sept 1, 2018 8:29:38 GMT
Well, I liked it. I was terribly nervous going in, as this is a musical I hold very dear. The adventurous departures from the usual that I had heard about, plus the mixed reviews from my esteemed fellow forum members worried me, and I wasn’t at all sure about the personification of the plant. But it was a joyful, colourful, fun interpretation - and I got totally on board with Vicky Vox’s Audrey 2. An amazing powerhouse vocalist, the naughtiness she brought to the role far exceeded anything I have seen a puppet plant achieve. Although I was glad to see a puppet plant in the early stages. The combination worked. Seymour was good, the Urchins were amazing, Matt Willis as the Dentist etc was better than expected. Mushnik was just ok, as was Audrey. The role seemed very played down to me, which didn’t seem to fit the overall concept. And Jemima’s vocals were only just good enough - Somewhere That’s Green was sweet, but she was helped out considerably by the trio in the belt parts of Suddenly Seymour. The set was a bit weird. I wasn’t sure the skyscrapers were necessary, but they did enable increasingly strange and interesting embellishments to be brought on, and the overall effect by the end was a visual treat. Oh, the end! No spoilers, you have to be there, but one of the best finales ever. As other posts have shown, this isn’t for everyone but I had a great time, left feeling very happy and uplifted and felt that the show represented the wonderful work of Ashman & Menken well, while adding new touches.
|
|
475 posts
|
Post by Deal J on Sept 1, 2018 10:26:18 GMT
...strange and interesting... Oh! Great to read your comments, I'm going tonight and have been very nervous about for similar reasons to yours. Now I'm less nervous and more excited!
|
|
4,159 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Sept 1, 2018 16:53:24 GMT
I went this afternoon. I going to just get straight to the point and that is that I think the whole thing would be a lot better at night and with full lighting. I just thought something was missing in the day. You realise how important lighting and stage effects are when you see something at an open air theatre in the day, especially when it comes to framing where your focus should be.
I preferred the recent tour version honestly but again I don't know if that's just because I don't feel like I saw a full production here and an other negative about it is that seeing everyone is terribly distracting and there was an abnormal amount of people coming on and out all the time.
I enjoyed it but sure it's twice as good in the evenings.
|
|
540 posts
|
Post by freckles on Sept 2, 2018 12:21:12 GMT
I went this afternoon. I going to just get straight to the point and that is that I think the whole thing would be a lot better at night and with full lighting. I just thought something was missing in the day. You realise how important lighting and stage effects are when you see something at an open air theatre in the day, especially when it comes to framing where your focus should be. I preferred the recent tour version honestly but again I don't know if that's just because I don't feel like I saw a full production here and an other negative about it is that seeing everyone is terribly distracting and there was an abnormal amount of people coming on and out all the time. I enjoyed it but sure it's twice as good in the evenings. That's a really interesting point; the lighting is a big part of it at the evening performances. I've seen other shows here where the lighting was different between performances, but both worked equally well. Maybe that's not the case here?
And yes, the audience movement is always a problem at this venue. Everyone seems to have a much more relaxed attitude but I too find it disruptive. I don't think the slightly odd start times help, they mean a lot of latecomers.
|
|