573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 21, 2019 12:59:29 GMT
It only seems to work in crying scenes. It was more like, ok she can't sing anymore because she's crying so hard, poor girl. Which still is a disconnect and even though she acted well in spite of song, the singing didn't really make sense anymore. In all other emotions the live bleating makes even less sense.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 21, 2019 10:29:33 GMT
DOESN’T work on film and the theatrical suspension of disbelief needed by the audience in real life is smashed into a million pieces. It’s mainy due to the anthropomorphism (the way cats are imbued with human traits, emotions, or intentions). It really doesn’t work and is just plain arkward and weird; human hands, human noses and teeth? Eek... It looks like a creepy horror film and in short, what worked on stage sadly DOESN’T always carry over to the larger silver screen. Are the actors meant to be feline creatures or a strange alien hybrid of humans or not? ...and I hated that the average “speak singing” that according to Director Tom Hooper is better than professional musical talent... I find it bizarre that any studio can accept Tom Hoopers butchering of the material and art form. His vision is "let's make everything as close to realistic humans in daily life" because only then audiences will understand it. Let's not use natural singing anymore, but instead let's speak/bleat in eachother's face because only then audiences will understand. Let's not embrace the fantasy element of soaring sung thoughts which is the definition of this art form, and let's switch all the time if a performer doesn't have the talent. Let's not embrace the fantasy element of cats having thoughts and stories, but instead make them look like people, because only then audiences can understand it and it's nicely raw and real. Real people that is. Wrong. The raw and realness in this material lies in the opposite. In embracing the fantasy. In not trying to make the sung dialoge try to sound spoken, because that makes it cringeworthy, and in not trying to make animals humans in suits. Stay away from realistic norms in musicals. Therefore live singing in musicals on screen is the worst thing you can do. There needs to be a separation between the real speaking world and the world of sung thoughts. Pre recorded tracks create that bridge, that essential separation in language versus sung thoughts, a non literal language. This art form on screen is per definition non literal.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 19, 2019 19:12:08 GMT
I read an interesting article on the whitewashing issue with this film too. The fact that one of the black actors are playing the white cat? Seems the woke culture will pick at anything! I can’t wait to see it! I wouldn't call that a "woke" culture. That culture is asleep and trapped in a racist psychosis. Maybe in 100 years people are woke, and we can enjoy the celebration of inclusion, where black girls can dress up as Snow white and white girls can dress up as Tiana if they like to, and celebrate it, and actors can play animals without people judging them on their fur.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 19, 2019 9:43:14 GMT
I fear that Tom Hooper understands so little about this art form on screen, that he is single handedly destroying the genre and making people think they hate musicals.
Let's hope Steven Spielberg can reverse that somewhat. Spielberg does seem to understand what sincerity means in this art form a bit more.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 23:14:02 GMT
FPTP I feel is the best system. First, you only have to look at what happens here when we have coalition minority government, and the stalemates of other nations who have PR systems to see what really works. Second, you have to break down FPTP. The nation is divided into constituencies. Each individual constituency chooses among themselves someone to represent them in Parliament. That's as democratic as you can get. You have a local community choosing who they want to send. If you lump votes together and dish out a number of seats, how do you keep that link with each local group? What you describe only works if there are 2 parties. If more, it's not democratic any longer.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 23:10:35 GMT
If the younger voters hugely supported Labour then they must have hemorrhaged votes amongst the older people to be down 8% and lose 2.5 million votes. The Marxists in Russia couldn't even make that many people disappear under Stalin. Actually they did, the voting majority was just ignored by the FPTO system that lets the biggest minority win.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 13:56:20 GMT
In spite of all this media brainwashing and manipulating, the voting majority still did not vote Conservative. They were just lucky that the FPTP election system gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority. The fact that the majority of people voted for something else is completely overlooked.
I think the minority that did vote conservative will get even smaller in years. I think it is a reaction of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of losing traditions, fear of progressiveness. New generations show that this is quickly changing. It's like a (in some ways understandable), last spasm of powerlessness, resulting in protective behaviour and voting against it, no mater if it costs them £2000,- a year, rips apart the complete UK and starts 10 years of uncertainty.
In 20 years the youth from now will have children of their own and a big part of elderly people with traditions that do not suit this day anymore will be gone. It's nature. Maybe already in 10 years. Change is coming like a landslide. I truly see this as a last spasm. I also think that there is no need for this chauvinism and that excellent trade deals (which are up for grabs now) with EU countries and a good attitude and harmony and forming a front in the world makes you stronger as a country and gives you more (self) respect. It's the future.
It's not a matter of "if" we will rejoin the EU, it's a matter of "when".
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 13:12:44 GMT
We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. Really? That's bizarre. I think this is not something the public should vote about. The FPTP approach should be out of the question per definition. It's so undemocratic and separated from the will of the majority of people that voting in favor of it would be totally undemocratic and ironic.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 12:54:44 GMT
If you are in favor of a well-functioning democracy, you have to ask yourself how democratic it is that a party with 43,6 % of the votes achieves such a big parliamentary majority. Labour and LibDems received 43,7 %. We need proportional representation.
FPTP elections became meaningless the moment there were more than two parties. Any system that consistently gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority is not going to work.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 10:26:24 GMT
Actually, the majority of votes was against the Conservatives. The seat system is flawed. We now have an outcome that a minority wanted. So it's the seat system and the real public opinion that clashes. This was a final spasm of a disappearing generation. Change will come.
Yes, I'm still bitter. Working on it.
Next step. Release the IC report into Russian interference. And a decision on the investigation on Johnson and Arcuri and bribery allegations looked into. If referendum is declared invalid, what will the conservative minority have voted for? Brexit and Government are still 2 very different things.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 13, 2019 20:06:15 GMT
it's an unfair system whoever wins. I think there's only ever been one occasion when a majority party in Parliament had a majority share of the vote, way back in 1931 - and even then, the Tories got 76% of the seats with only 55% of the votes. It's bizarre. There is a huge disconnect between how they do this and how they treat seats in parliament. This should change. Parliament should be formed on how people actually voted and not be formed based on a minority vote.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 13, 2019 15:50:10 GMT
" until it comes to am actual ballot box?"
Given the fact that a majority of all voters voted anti Conservatives I would say it reflects the polling, the marching and the online petitions. It's just the seat system that is extremely flawed, as it results in the opposite of what a majority of the country wants.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 13, 2019 15:40:28 GMT
Labour + Lib-Dem is "towering" above the Conservatives by only 0.1%. I still think it's peculiar that when you have a majority of voters voting against Conservatives (so a minority for Conservatives), or basically, more votes for the opposition, the Conservatives can win so much seats with a minority vote. This system is totally wrong in my opinion. Now we have the majority of the country disappointed. And stuck with a government that a minority voted for.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 13, 2019 13:33:56 GMT
The real outcome of this election: the Leave/Remain share of the vote is as follows:
▪️Leave 47%
▪️Remain 53%
And a vast majority of the people voting against the Conservatives. The number of votes for Labour and Libdems combined is already towering above the number of votes for Conservatives. And then I'm not even counting the SNP and other parties.
It's amazing how flawed this seat system is. Resulting in seats that do not represent the will of the people.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 4, 2019 14:41:34 GMT
I see your point and it does attract people to (quality) shows for the wrong reasons, which can spark a love for the actual artform, which can indeed teach them how wonderful the arftorm is and so they learn to recognize and love it. Which was my point too, but then it will have to be the other cast members to introduce them to the real quality.
So your (and my)conclusion is still that respect for the art is not there in the first place, and this has a reason. If they learn to love it after seeing it, it means they haven't been properly introduced before. If people would be exposed to the delicate quality from a younger age, I feel these sophism reasons would not be necessary.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 4, 2019 14:23:56 GMT
Park and bark.
She can shout the notes, so she will be fine.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 4, 2019 12:20:03 GMT
Yes, and we should continue doing so till we have productions that are about quality and the actual best people for a role. If that doesn't bring in enough money, we must re-educate people. I mean, it would have been easy to hire the most current pop-cheap-ish "name" for a role like Maria in the West Side Story movie too (almost happened), but luckily there are producers out there who trust the material and quality more. re-educate people? You mean until they come around to your way of thinking
No, not my way of thinking. This goes beyond that. It's a fact that people form their reference frame based on what they know, have experienced and recognize. This is actually a very interesting subject and I see cause and result of this every day, in many fields in many forms. Some random examples: People may say they hate musicals because all they have seen is the horrendous disconnect between bad singing and acting in recent musical films. Maybe they have never heard other versions of "Bring him home" than Hugh Jackman's, and have no reference frame at all. Maybe they have only listened to Rihanna or Bruce Springsteen and think Hugh Jackman must be the best singer for these type of musicals. I have heard people say that Lea Salonga is not really singing in "a whole new world", because she doesn't belt, the live action version Jasmine supposedly only really sings. The reference frame of these people is often "Frozen", and they believe that what Idina Menzel does in "Let it go" is only real singing. Somehow, somewhere along the way these people have adopted the idea that only shouting is singing. My brother always said he hates musicals. And yet, when he saw "Rocketman" he said it was the best film he has ever seen. His reference frame changed, he learned. He was prejudiced because of previous experiences and what he has known and seen so far. After seeing the les Mis film he thought songs in live action films would mean a disconnect per definition. There are always choices. For example the new West Side Story film. There were 2 girls in the finals for the role of Maria. Camila Cabello and Rachel Zegler. It would have been easy to cast the latest fleeting pop sensation and probably a whole generation wouldn't have even noticed or cared that she couldn't sing the material due to her hoarse and limited range. Because she couldn't, they found out in rehearsals and the audition process. Rachel Zegler, a complete unknown, was perfect for the role, and sings it like an angel. This should be the only right choice, if you respect the material and the artform. And it has huge consequences. Because if Cabello was cast, a whole new generation would learn to think that is somehow how it should be done, it wil be what they know and learn and form their judgement and shapes their reference frame. Now, with Zegler, they will experience what true singing and acting through song is. They will know what notes can do and how delicate the art is. That is an incredible responsibility and task you have as a producer or director in the arts. It actually shapes generations. Don't underestimate that.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 3, 2019 22:28:25 GMT
Yes, and we should continue doing so till we have productions that are about quality and the actual best people for a role.
If that doesn't bring in enough money, we must re-educate people.
I mean, it would have been easy to hire the most current pop-cheap-ish "name" for a role like Maria in the West Side Story movie too (almost happened), but luckily there are producers out there who trust the material and quality more.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 3, 2019 22:20:07 GMT
I just find some of the comments from JOJ/Earl fans, directed at Alfie/Michael, rather tiresome. But hey-ho, the run has finished now... The difference in quality and craftmanship is so gigantic that it can't be emphasized often enough in my opinion.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 2, 2019 10:40:55 GMT
I love these songs:
A Winter's Tale (Queen):
O Holy Night (David Phelps):
Do You hear what I hear (Kristin Chenoweth):
Somewhere in my memory (John Williams, Home Alone 2):
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 30, 2019 12:46:02 GMT
Politically, we are in a truly sorry state. I'm a centrist, believe in compromise and generally think collaboration is the best way of working. I find the current state of all three major political parties depressing beyond words. Genuinely don't know how I can vote for any of them with a clear conscience. Those leading our parties are all either deplorable or incompetent. Then vote Labour. It's the only party that treats the public somewhat like adults.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 27, 2019 19:18:59 GMT
Tom Hooper is completely clueless about this artform.
The essence of this artform is to stay away from realistic norms, as the language is per definition a triumph of the fantasy.
In Les Mis the biggest pitfall was to choose a too literal approach. Because this artform per definition is not. He fell into it. Result: 2,5 hours of cringe worthy bleating in eachother's face in a literal world.
In Cats the biggest pitfall was to make the characters look too much like humans in a suit. Because there are only 2 routes here that could work, either realistic looking cats, or embracing the fantasy and create more cartoon-esque cats. He fell into it. They look like humans in a suit.
He does not seem to grasp what actually takes audiences on a sincere journey in this artform. I think he might even be convinced that both films work, because he has a different view of what is "real" in this artform than most audience members?
In Les Mis he's apologizing for the singing and the fantasy, in Cats he's apologizing for the cats. Embracing it is the only option in my opinion. Raw and real, a sincere journey lies in different things from what he thinks.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 26, 2019 21:41:41 GMT
Hmm, I would normally agree with you about light and shade being a valuable asset to a show, but to be honest, with Titanic, I just love the wall of sound the chorus creates on these numbers. The changes in volume also sound really overdone on these clips, as if someone's just grabbed the volume dial and turned it down, then back up again. Thanks for your reply! Yes, maybe it comes across better when seeing it live. It really was done with their voices, not with a volume button. It really gave me goosebumps. I guess I am just used to hearing these nuances in the ensemble numbers of this show so the other versions just sounded a bit too much based on power and the same volume all the time to me.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 26, 2019 21:23:04 GMT
The moment where Cynthia gives Evan Connor‘s tie ahead of his speech was screaming for a big solo for Evan, reflecting on what happened and telling the audience what he feels about the whole mess he‘s created. And then the saccharine ending - I wish American writing would have the guts more often to not drown stories in sugar. Leave Evan alone behind and head to college sadder but wiser, why not? It is like the writers either do not care for this reflection or consequences because the victim role is all that matters to them? Maybe it's all they know/recognize in handling daily situations in the way they are raised? It seems like their mindset and comes across as quite selective. I am really worried about the millennial generation in the USA at the moment. Like another poster beautifully described: The fact that he faces no consequence for his actions and that on the contrary his lies are showed to be the source of new harmony seems to put the stamp of approval on this kind of behaviour. Good things come out of bad actions is a grim moral to a show. The question is, why would any writer exclude consequences? What's the point? Is it really only about using pshychological manipulation and the sympathy that deserves?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 26, 2019 21:17:22 GMT
It’s almost a celebration and defence of appalling behaviour, just because. The thing is, when I listen to it I connect but watching how awful a person he is was a real disconnect. I agree. "Just because", is apparently just because the writers of this show feel like it is something you can use, which is probably how they see the world. They refused to write any form of reflection or consequences, which worries me even more.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 23, 2019 22:52:59 GMT
This is not specifically about this version of the show but about Titanic the Musical in general and I couldn't find another thread.
I love this show and its music. Lately I have been watching some versions on youtube. All great in their own way, but I noticed that the chorus parts always seem to be a battle of power and volume. For example the songs "I must get on that ship", "Godspeed Titanic" and "Finale", in all those versions including the Broadway CD, everything is as loud as possible and every line is sung on the same volume, no nuance whatsoever.
Now the power does give me goosebumps here and there, but not always, all the time. Then it loses its power a bit. The first time I heard this show was the Dutch cast recording. I remember the chorus parts being much more nuanced, more "painting" with the notes and more finesse. They use crescendo's and soft passages, which makes it incredibly dynamic and more emotional.
What do you think about the chorus songs in Titanic?
Here is an example of that CD (unfortunately the clips are of bad quality):
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 23, 2019 22:23:53 GMT
Wanted to love this so much, but I found myself just frustrated and ultimately, disappointed. I think it's largely because I found the character of Evan to be so unlikeable. When he makes the decision to tell the lie, and it snowballs, I just couldn't get on board with it. Sam Tutty is giving a great performance though, there's no denying that. I dunno, it all just felt very jarring. When you fundamentally don't like the central protagonist, there's a huge barrier in your enjoyment. I feel giving this 2 stars is unfair, so I'll give it 3. But I thought this would be my new favourite show, and it's one I probably won't return to... I can't help but think this show fits modern American audiences more. We must not underestimate the cultural differences between the USA and the UK. Subjects as "the victim role" and "anxiety" are perceived in a different way. Of course these are universal issues, but there are definitely cultural differences. I went to the USA a few weeks ago and truly, the youth there felt like aliens to me at times. People at the table next to me in a restaurant actually bragging about their victim roles and how it gets things done, people on public transport literally saying "Heeey, how's your anxiety today? Oh, I've been better, how's yours? Mwah....Like it's common or even essential to have anxiety because then you have a sort of safe space you can use in daily situations? It's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it. And not just 3 or 4 people, no, the whole journey long, everywhere I went. The show felt jarring to me too. America may accept anxiety as a free pass for being mean and getting your way or feeling equal or a way of false attention, but I'm not exactly there yet. The way this show is written, and the "protagonist" receives a figurative pat on the shoulder/sympathy for doing so feels like some cult of world alienated people to me, trying to manipulate or to demand a sort of equality in a very twisted way. Like "This is your punishment, scary and bad world, this is what you get in return when you make us so insecure. Well, we don't care, because we can use anxiety to get sympathy anyway, so the laugh is on you". Twisted and not good. By the way, I'm not saying that anxiety should be ignored or is not a serious issue, I know it can be a real problem, but the solution lies in people trying to understand and look into the causes and solutions more. This musical and the general public cult in the USA today is not helping.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 5, 2019 23:06:58 GMT
Off topic and probably one for the unpopular opinions thread, but I have never got the love for Ramin Karimloo at all. *runs and hides* I share this opinion. I think Ramin does not sing, but howl. Hysterically. Constantly. Never is a note relaxed. The thing that irritates me the most of that, is that nearly all of his notes are so tense/hysterical that they are above the actual note it should be. he's always sharp. For example, the words: "secretly, secretly" in Phantom should be sung in a very seductive, silky, way, and it should be the same note. Ramin starts the first "se" already a note too high, elevating the "cret" to a whole different note, and the "ly" is 3 notes higher. This man is completely creating his own melodies. When I watched Les Mis with him as Valjean I was completely stunned that in Valjean's Soliloquy, NOT 1 note was on key. Not 1. I couldn't handle it. Also, in the 25th Les Mis concert, his Enjolras makes me laugh, it's a complete parody.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 5, 2019 8:27:19 GMT
"My concern is the celebrity culture and the deterioration of standards in the musical theatre world. That's all, actually." This is what the discussion is about indeed. I don't see how (like Shady23 says), how preferring one over the other has anything to do with both groups having something "in common"? One group only cares about celebrity, the other cares about actual quality. 2 different worlds. The only thing in common is that people voice their opinion, which everybody does.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Nov 4, 2019 19:21:25 GMT
I think Cosette in the Les Mis 25th concert was Camilla Kerslake and Carlotta in the Phantom 25th concert was Keira Duffy. Both have rehearsed and were replaced last minute.
Edit: I believe Camilla even played the role for a few weeks in the actual West End show together with Nick Jonas as Marius and Samantha Barks as Eponine to prepare this trio for the concert.
In the making of the Phantom 25th dvd you can also see rehearsal footage of one of the final dress rehearsals and even there Keira Duffy was Carlotta. These replacements (Katie Hall and Wendy Ferguson) took place days before the concerts I think.
|
|