50 posts
|
Post by mmmbop on May 1, 2018 21:33:10 GMT
I saw Jamael one week after opening, and he was as stiff as a board - which I attributed to the show being very new and him not quite settling into the role yet. From all accounts, that hasn't improved, and I'm pleased to discover that Ash is on all week, just in time for my return visit. I am curious to compare the two - and also the chance to see Miriam in Rachel's role (although I thought Rachel was really excellent), as I've heard good things about Miriam's portrayal. I went in mid Feb and he was still stiff as a board.He had nothing of a young and passionate revolutionary and zero energy. I felt it made the other's flat at times too, especially in the battles, there was no energy to bounce off. I saw him on Thursday and thought he had really improved since I saw him in January, he had way more energy during My Shot than previously. Having seen both him and Ash, Ash definitely had more fire as the young Hamilton but I found him less believable in Act 2. Think Jamael is finally finding a good balance.
|
|
36 posts
|
Post by etceteranz on May 2, 2018 9:18:36 GMT
please could i check with anyone in the know - im sat in dress circle box C - is the views hugely restricted?
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on May 2, 2018 10:34:09 GMT
please could i check with anyone in the know - im sat in dress circle box C - is the views hugely restricted? I'm in one of the Royal Circle side boxes this weekend. I think box C, although set slightly further back, may just have the better sight lines than the other box on that side due to the angle it's set at. However, for the price you pay, and the fact that legroom is a total non-issue (plus the general comfort of having an entire box to yourselves), I think they might be a bit of a bargain! Two of our party are in side aisle seats in the rear royal circle, which were the same price. I was debating for ages whether to take those tickets, and give them the box seats but, in the end, the comfort of the box, as well as being much closer to the stage won out. My companion sitting with me in the box has some sight problems, and that was another factor in eventually choosing those seats, given you're practically on top of the stage there! I'll let you know if I notice any serious compromises with these side boxes, in terms of missed action. From my memory of the show, when I saw it from the back of the stalls in December, there are no major numbers that are performed entirely from the extreme sides of the stage. It's more about the cast when they use the stairs, balconies etc, but I honestly don't think there's a lot of action missed, just because you're on the edge of the auditorium. You can't see the whole stage, obviously, but it's not a deal breaker (at least not for me - we'll see this weekend)!
|
|
1,199 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on May 2, 2018 12:37:38 GMT
You will miss some action on the stairs and the balcony on the left hand side, but nothing major. What you lose in view you win in comfort as you will have plenty of leg room and can move the chairs around. I was quite happy with box C and will sit there again in August.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 14:50:20 GMT
You won't miss much I reckon. Not a lot of action on either side of the stage. Depending on which side you are sitting at you just miss King George having a little dance during act two or George Washington talking to Hamilton a couple of times. Nothing crucial.
|
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on May 2, 2018 15:26:08 GMT
You won't miss much I reckon. Not a lot of action on either side of the stage. Depending on which side you are sitting at you just miss King George having a little dance during act two or George Washington talking to Hamilton a couple of times. Nothing crucial. I love that little dance he does during The Reynolds Pamphlet. One of the funniest things in the show.
|
|
253 posts
|
Post by No. on May 3, 2018 15:58:54 GMT
I think I may have sourced the issue with this show’s pricing after a discussion today. It’s a show that embodies diversity in its cast and creative team, but it isn’t made accessible for those who need to see it most. The people represented on stage who would gain lots more theatrical confidence from seeing it can’t because the pricing is too high. Coming from a rural and diverse area with a lack of frequent diversity in theatre, I feel like there’s a big mistake there.
|
|
851 posts
|
Post by longinthetooth on May 3, 2018 20:23:56 GMT
My first visit this afternoon. Not sure what to say, really. It didn't blow me away, but it wasn't bad either (sorry, diehard Hamilton fans). I read the story of Alexander Hamilton, and was up to speed with the story, so it wasn't that. I just found I didn't care about any of the characters.
I understand that tickets are like gold dust, so can someone please explain why the theatre seemed to be full of repeat visitors, whooping and cheering throughout, and screaming with laughter at King George (who I have to say left me stone cold, stupid not funny). Then they sobbed at the sad bit (won't say what, just in case I'm not the last person to have seen it) - which again did nothing for me.
The cast performed their socks off (if that's a theatrical term!), it was slick and clever, but not for me.
|
|
1,644 posts
|
Post by fiyero on May 3, 2018 20:49:06 GMT
I think I may have sourced the issue with this show’s pricing after a discussion today. It’s a show that embodies diversity in its cast and creative team, but it isn’t made accessible for those who need to see it most. The people represented on stage who would gain lots more theatrical confidence from seeing it can’t because the pricing is too high. Coming from a rural and diverse area with a lack of frequent diversity in theatre, I feel like there’s a big mistake there. It is selling out at high prices, If it was cheaper would the tickets still get be bought by the same people? I am not sure price alone is enough to get them to the diverse audience.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on May 3, 2018 21:33:06 GMT
I think I may have sourced the issue with this show’s pricing after a discussion today. It’s a show that embodies diversity in its cast and creative team, but it isn’t made accessible for those who need to see it most. The people represented on stage who would gain lots more theatrical confidence from seeing it can’t because the pricing is too high. Coming from a rural and diverse area with a lack of frequent diversity in theatre, I feel like there’s a big mistake there. I think in NY they did some sort of generous ticket offer for school and low-waged/unwaged people. At least I think that's what I read. I just assumed, given LMM's social conscience that the same offers would be happening here.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on May 3, 2018 21:56:24 GMT
I think I may have sourced the issue with this show’s pricing after a discussion today. It’s a show that embodies diversity in its cast and creative team, but it isn’t made accessible for those who need to see it most. The people represented on stage who would gain lots more theatrical confidence from seeing it can’t because the pricing is too high. Coming from a rural and diverse area with a lack of frequent diversity in theatre, I feel like there’s a big mistake there. I think in NY they did some sort of generous ticket offer for school and low-waged/unwaged people. At least I think that's what I read. I just assumed, given LMM's social conscience that the same offers would be happening here. In the US, each company does regular low cost performances for schools, and they are pretty socially engaged with the local communities. CamMac seems to have resisted any urge to do the same in London. Another difference in the US, is that they deliberately rolled out touring productions very quickly after the Broadway one - something you rarely see over here. Again, this was because LMM wanted the show to be as accessible as possible, not just to people who could afford the huge costs of attending the B'way production (mind you, even the US tour tickets are horrendously expensive, in comparison to the average UK price). I suspect the difference in pushing for disadvantaged groups of people to see the show, is that Miranda considers the show to be his personal crusade, Mackintosh sees this as a purely commercial venture, with no social responsibilities attached (at least at the moment).
|
|
2,785 posts
|
Post by ceebee on May 3, 2018 21:57:27 GMT
My first visit this afternoon. Not sure what to say, really. It didn't blow me away, but it wasn't bad either (sorry, diehard Hamilton fans). I read the story of Alexander Hamilton, and was up to speed with the story, so it wasn't that. I just found I didn't care about any of the characters. I understand that tickets are like gold dust, so can someone please explain why the theatre seemed to be full of repeat visitors, whooping and cheering throughout, and screaming with laughter at King George (who I have to say left me stone cold, stupid not funny). Then they sobbed at the sad bit (won't say what, just in case I'm not the last person to have seen it) - which again did nothing for me. The cast performed their socks off (if that's a theatrical term!), it was slick and clever, but not for me. Longinthetooth, you have written exactly what I was going to say after tonight's performance. Hamilton is undoubtedly very good, but emotionally detached. To plunge from all that rap and hip-hop into emotions hitherto unseen felt very unnatural. That said, I thought the cast were excellent. The lighting was good and it was nice to see a set that wasn't overly technical or flashy. As a ground-breaking show, it deserves all the plaudits, but I get the right rrrs when people who know the show pre-empt the "jokes" and laugh very loudly. It's like that "cliquey" feeling you get watching Shakespeare when somebody is laughing at all the really vague innuendo wanting everybody to know that they know. It was a good mix of people But I sense there are alot of repeat visitors who enjoy their Hamilton fix. My view is that it's good - very good in places. But not good enough to make me want to see it several times. This isn't to deny it is a slick well-produced show with high standards. Having enjoyed the recording, I felt visually it added little to what my imagination had created. I didn't get a programme but standout for me was the guy playing Burr who I felt was extraordinarily good. And the music director was excellent.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on May 3, 2018 23:49:42 GMT
I think in NY they did some sort of generous ticket offer for school and low-waged/unwaged people. At least I think that's what I read. I just assumed, given LMM's social conscience that the same offers would be happening here. In the US, each company does regular low cost performances for schools, and they are pretty socially engaged with the local communities. CamMac seems to have resisted any urge to do the same in London. Another difference in the US, is that they deliberately rolled out touring productions very quickly after the Broadway one - something you rarely see over here. Again, this was because LMM wanted the show to be as accessible as possible, not just to people who could afford the huge costs of attending the B'way production (mind you, even the US tour tickets are horrendously expensive, in comparison to the average UK price). I suspect the difference in pushing for disadvantaged groups of people to see the show, is that Miranda considers the show to be his personal crusade, Mackintosh sees this as a purely commercial venture, with no social responsibilities attached (at least at the moment). I guess CM would always have the final decision over something like this, but I would have hoped it might have been something LMM may have pushed for. Who knows? Maybe he did, but there’s something really sad about tickets being at a price point that rules out so many people . I know that’s the way the business works in general, but this show was presented as something different and I doubt there will be any standard ticket offers that can be picked up for a lot of other shows. Shame.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on May 4, 2018 0:19:24 GMT
My first visit this afternoon. Not sure what to say, really. It didn't blow me away, but it wasn't bad either (sorry, diehard Hamilton fans). I read the story of Alexander Hamilton, and was up to speed with the story, so it wasn't that. I just found I didn't care about any of the characters. I understand that tickets are like gold dust, so can someone please explain why the theatre seemed to be full of repeat visitors, whooping and cheering throughout, and screaming with laughter at King George (who I have to say left me stone cold, stupid not funny). Then they sobbed at the sad bit (won't say what, just in case I'm not the last person to have seen it) - which again did nothing for me. The cast performed their socks off (if that's a theatrical term!), it was slick and clever, but not for me. Longinthetooth, you have written exactly what I was going to say after tonight's performance. Hamilton is undoubtedly very good, but emotionally detached. To plunge from all that rap and hip-hop into emotions hitherto unseen felt very unnatural. That said, I thought the cast were excellent. The lighting was good and it was nice to see a set that wasn't overly technical or flashy. As a ground-breaking show, it deserves all the plaudits, but I get the right rrrs when people who know the show pre-empt the "jokes" and laugh very loudly. It's like that "cliquey" feeling you get watching Shakespeare when somebody is laughing at all the really vague innuendo wanting everybody to know that they know. It was a good mix of people But I sense there are alot of repeat visitors who enjoy their Hamilton fix. My view is that it's good - very good in places. But not good enough to make me want to see it several times. This isn't to deny it is a slick well-produced show with high standards. Having enjoyed the recording, I felt visually it added little to what my imagination had created. I didn't get a programme but standout for me was the guy playing Burr who I felt was extraordinarily good. And the music director was excellent. I’m with you both on this. I’ve covered many of the same points in my earlier review, specifically that I felt more engaged and moved by listening to the CD than when I saw the show. I think the massive hype before it came to the Uk whipped all the fans of the music up into a frenzy and maybe for some of us, our expectations were never going to live up to what we’d imagined the show would be like. Also some of the casting choices really threw me (particularly the lead) and I found myself drifting off during Act 2, which is never a good sign. There are a few times when I’ve wanted to re-book another visit to a show the day after I’ve seen it for the first time. With Hamilton, once was definitely enough.
|
|
253 posts
|
Post by No. on May 4, 2018 6:41:39 GMT
I think I may have sourced the issue with this show’s pricing after a discussion today. It’s a show that embodies diversity in its cast and creative team, but it isn’t made accessible for those who need to see it most. The people represented on stage who would gain lots more theatrical confidence from seeing it can’t because the pricing is too high. Coming from a rural and diverse area with a lack of frequent diversity in theatre, I feel like there’s a big mistake there. It is selling out at high prices, If it was cheaper would the tickets still get be bought by the same people? I am not sure price alone is enough to get them to the diverse audience. I’m not saying the same people wouldn’t buy the tickets, but it would be diluted by those on a lower wage who actually had an opportunity to buy a ticket that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. I know I’d try if they were cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by learfan on May 4, 2018 7:01:02 GMT
My first visit this afternoon. Not sure what to say, really. It didn't blow me away, but it wasn't bad either (sorry, diehard Hamilton fans). I read the story of Alexander Hamilton, and was up to speed with the story, so it wasn't that. I just found I didn't care about any of the characters. I understand that tickets are like gold dust, so can someone please explain why the theatre seemed to be full of repeat visitors, whooping and cheering throughout, and screaming with laughter at King George (who I have to say left me stone cold, stupid not funny). Then they sobbed at the sad bit (won't say what, just in case I'm not the last person to have seen it) - which again did nothing for me. The cast performed their socks off (if that's a theatrical term!), it was slick and clever, but not for me. Longinthetooth, you have written exactly what I was going to say after tonight's performance. Hamilton is undoubtedly very good, but emotionally detached. To plunge from all that rap and hip-hop into emotions hitherto unseen felt very unnatural. That said, I thought the cast were excellent. The lighting was good and it was nice to see a set that wasn't overly technical or flashy. As a ground-breaking show, it deserves all the plaudits, but I get the right rrrs when people who know the show pre-empt the "jokes" and laugh very loudly. It's like that "cliquey" feeling you get watching Shakespeare when somebody is laughing at all the really vague innuendo wanting everybody to know that they know. It was a good mix of people But I sense there are alot of repeat visitors who enjoy their Hamilton fix. My view is that it's good - very good in places. But not good enough to make me want to see it several times. This isn't to deny it is a slick well-produced show with high standards. Having enjoyed the recording, I felt visually it added little to what my imagination had created. I didn't get a programme but standout for me was the guy playing Burr who I felt was extraordinarily good. And the music director was excellent. Exactly what i was going to post last wkd after seeing it Friday night but didnt for fear of being lynched! Im glad ive now seen it but it really isnt the masterpiece a lot have been making out. Burr is clearly the best role as evidenced by the Tony and Olivier awards. This is a bit odd as LMM wrote the title role for himself. It is a very cleverly put together show but will it still be running after five years? I have my doubts. Curiously underpowered curtain call too, especially as the overexcited audience leapt to their feet straight away.
|
|
2,785 posts
|
Post by ceebee on May 4, 2018 10:18:07 GMT
It's just an oddly quick, dystopic piece of synergy. Without a doubt, the cast have got great energy. But how does a myopic biopic of a 'nobody' bring punters to their feet all roaring a cacophany?
Speak less, smile more.
C.B. Esquire.
|
|
2,785 posts
|
Post by ceebee on May 4, 2018 12:34:10 GMT
I’m not saying the same people wouldn’t buy the tickets, but it would be diluted by those on a lower wage who actually had an opportunity to buy a ticket that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. I know I’d try if they were cheaper. Not sure. It would depend if those on a lower wage were already theatregoers who knew how to snap up cheap tickets before anyone else gets a look in. I mean, how many Brits can truthfully say they knew who Hamilton was, or even that he appeared on American currency, before the show? Not me. Hamilton was always a non-descript place to stop on the outskirts of Glasgow. Now I know better, but I'm still not throwing away my stop...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 12:51:29 GMT
Has anyone seen the dance challenge videos they released this week? I love it! Touring company: For the London company video, check its Instagram account. Quoting myself to update this: West End company's challenge now on Youtube: Broadway: Chicago: No one can beat the fabulous West End video!
|
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on May 4, 2018 15:16:02 GMT
Has anyone seen the dance challenge videos they released this week? I love it! Touring company: For the London company video, check its Instagram account. Quoting myself to update this: West End company's challenge now on Youtube: Broadway: Chicago: No one can beat the fabulous West End video! I like the Broadway one best, but I think they cheated because it’s clearly not all in one take. Therefore West End wins!
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on May 4, 2018 15:44:57 GMT
Longinthetooth, you have written exactly what I was going to say after tonight's performance. Hamilton is undoubtedly very good, but emotionally detached. To plunge from all that rap and hip-hop into emotions hitherto unseen felt very unnatural. That said, I thought the cast were excellent. The lighting was good and it was nice to see a set that wasn't overly technical or flashy. As a ground-breaking show, it deserves all the plaudits, but I get the right rrrs when people who know the show pre-empt the "jokes" and laugh very loudly. It's like that "cliquey" feeling you get watching Shakespeare when somebody is laughing at all the really vague innuendo wanting everybody to know that they know. It was a good mix of people But I sense there are alot of repeat visitors who enjoy their Hamilton fix. My view is that it's good - very good in places. But not good enough to make me want to see it several times. This isn't to deny it is a slick well-produced show with high standards. Having enjoyed the recording, I felt visually it added little to what my imagination had created. I didn't get a programme but standout for me was the guy playing Burr who I felt was extraordinarily good. And the music director was excellent. Exactly what i was going to post last wkd after seeing it Friday night but didnt for fear of being lynched! Im glad ive now seen it but it really isnt the masterpiece a lot have been making out. Burr is clearly the best role as evidenced by the Tony and Olivier awards. This is a bit odd as LMM wrote the title role for himself. It is a very cleverly put together show but will it still be running after five years? I have my doubts. Curiously underpowered curtain call too, especially as the overexcited audience leapt to their feet straight away.
LMM has charisma and star power though, you want to look at him when he is on stage - the lead in London doesn't, when I saw it he was just there. A charisma free portrayal that was drowned out by Burr. Burr is the showier role of the two leads so unless you cast Hamilton right you are always going to end up with a strangely lopsided show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2018 23:14:00 GMT
I wish everyone had the opportunity to see this show with that original cast because with those people in the roles to me it really deserved absolutely all of the acclaim and attention it got. Pure theatrical magic and yes, a masterpiece.
Can't make my mind up if it's a hard show to cast and they got lucky the first time or if they're just being lazy with some of their current choices.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 7:00:56 GMT
I think Jamael was always going to be a bit wooden and lacking in charisma, especially when compared to the legendary LMM, but it is apparently the guy's West End (and professional I believe?) debut.
If I was going to see Hamilton, I'd probably want to see Ash in the role because based on the programme it seems like he's a bit more experienced in the industry.
|
|
1,429 posts
|
Post by showtoones on May 6, 2018 8:05:55 GMT
I think Jamael was always going to be a bit wooden and lacking in charisma, especially when compared to the legendary LMM, but it is apparently the guy's West End (and professional I believe?) debut. If I was going to see Hamilton, I'd probably want to see Ash in the role because based on the programme it seems like he's a bit more experienced in the industry. I’ve seen LMM and two other Hamilton’s and Jamael was right up there as one of the best. Look Lin is a genius of course but he wasn’t the best Hamilton I’ve seen...Jamael is wonderful in the role IMHO
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 8:19:58 GMT
It's not quite Jamael's professional debut, but I don't know how much some supporting/background work at he Sam Wanamaker Playhouse really counts. It's irrelevant though, people are not paying £200 a ticket to go "awww, isn't he sweet, he'll be really something a couple more shows down the line", nor would they have cast him in the role if they didn't believe he wasn't quite up to West End leading man standard just yet. Although experienced performers have a wealth of professional history to bring to the table, it's maybe a little patronising to let a newcomer off just 'cos he's newish.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 9:14:37 GMT
In terms of the leading man discussion it's all relative to personal taste. Personally, I really dislike LMM as a performer. I'm not apologising for that stance in the slightest- he's an incredibly talented writer and composer and I love and respect what he's achieved there. However as a performer for me he veers between leaving me cold at best and irritating me at worst. That's personal preference, others find him really engaging and charismastic.
I saw Javier as Hamilton when I first saw it. I adored his performance- I thought he had a vulnerability as well as charm and charisma. Now me personally, had I seen LMM the first time...perhaps I wouldn't have liked the show as much.
I really liked Ash, particularly as he isn't trying to be Lin 2.0 and doing his own thing. If I was writing a review I could pick apart certain elements of the performance that I would say didn't quite work, but if someone asked me in the street 'did you like the guy playing Hamilton?' I'd reply 'Yeah he's doing a good job, and I like him as an actor' but much like me and LMM doens't mean the person in the seat next to me wouldn't be irritated to all hell by him.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on May 6, 2018 9:39:31 GMT
I wish everyone had the opportunity to see this show with that original cast because with those people in the roles to me it really deserved absolutely all of the acclaim and attention it got. Pure theatrical magic and yes, a masterpiece. Can't make my mind up if it's a hard show to cast and they got lucky the first time or if they're just being lazy with some of their current choices. I've seen videos of the original cast and I don't think I would have liked the show half as much if I'd seen them (indeed I hated it when I watched the Tony Awards performances) - the ladies are obviously very talented, but their performances are very different to the London trio, who to me seem much more soulful and better singers. And I don't particularly rate LMM as an actor. I appreciate there's a difference between watching videos and seeing it on stage, but I don't think it's fair to call the London casting lazy at all just because it isn't identical in style to the OBC.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 9:48:18 GMT
I wish everyone had the opportunity to see this show with that original cast because with those people in the roles to me it really deserved absolutely all of the acclaim and attention it got. Pure theatrical magic and yes, a masterpiece. Can't make my mind up if it's a hard show to cast and they got lucky the first time or if they're just being lazy with some of their current choices. I've seen videos of the original cast and I don't think I would have liked the show half as much if I'd seen them (indeed I hated it when I watched the Tony Awards performances) - the ladies are obviously very talented, but their performances are very different to the London trio, who to me seem much more soulful and better singers. And I don't particularly rate LMM as an actor. I appreciate there's a difference between watching videos and seeing it on stage, but I don't think it's fair to call the London casting lazy at all just because it isn't identical in style to the OBC. One of the things I loved about the London cast is that none of them seemed to be trying to mimic the OBC. I haven't seen any replacements on Broadway or touring casts in the US but I'd imagine there's more of that going on there- the trying to replicate the original 'smash hit' team. However clearly someone in the London team had the sense to think 'Hey we're never going to replicate that so let's just let this team be them' and for me it really works.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 12:03:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 13:24:40 GMT
It's not quite Jamael's professional debut, but I don't know how much some supporting/background work at he Sam Wanamaker Playhouse really counts. It's irrelevant though, people are not paying £200 a ticket to go "awww, isn't he sweet, he'll be really something a couple more shows down the line", nor would they have cast him in the role if they didn't believe he wasn't quite up to West End leading man standard just yet. Although experienced performers have a wealth of professional history to bring to the table, it's maybe a little patronising to let a newcomer off just 'cos he's newish. To be honest, most of the people who I know have seen Hamilton saw it because of the hype and they honestly didn’t care who the performers were or what they had done, because the name of the show alone was enough to make them want to see it.
|
|