125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 7, 2016 14:47:51 GMT
I was there that night too, it was amazing! Also there opening night so going for the 10th was a no-brainer (will be a while before I get to book for closing night I think!) Pun intended given your username?.....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 7, 2016 13:52:46 GMT
I got an invite too. I was a bit surprised because I seem to remember filling in a survey after my visit and I certainly didn't gush. Maybe they want a cross-section of views represented though (I know I would). I'd also guess it has something to do with wanting a cross-section of people. I don't think I've ever been sent a survey. I imagine the first set of invitations have been sent based on criteria like age, gender, address , membership and maybe ticket purchasing habits (which I assume is all info that the Old Vic has about us). Alternatively, those who haven't received an invite should look in their Spam folder! Or maybe you unwittingly (un)ticked a box at some stage about being contacted for marketing purposes.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 7, 2016 13:44:40 GMT
I've been struggling with what I think of the ending, but I'm not sure how I would change it without the show becoming horribly twee. I think I might prefer it if she didn't sleep with him at the end, with the spell instead being broken by him turning down sex (maybe because she's drunk or he feels like he's rushing her because he's had so many days to get to know her whereas she's only had one). That might then be the opportunity for a quiet moment of reflection song. So he promises to see her the next day and is woken up by a phone call from her instead of the usual wake up call set by her. But I really don't know if you could get something like that to work.
Anyway, I think the show just about gets away with it as it is. I certainly don't see Rita as weak. And I think some of the faults in the story are cleverly acknowledged by Playing Nancy. I've been reading the mixed reviews on here and was wondering how perceptions split along gender lines. I'm actually getting the feeling that in general* it's men who are finding it sexist and also tend not to "get" Playing Nancy. I'd like to put this to the test (not that I actually know what I would do with this information once acquired, but humour me!)
So a quick poll:
(i) Are you male or female? (ii) What are your feelings on Playing Nancy? (iii) Do you think the ending is sexist?
*Note I am very much generalising here, hence the question.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 7, 2016 9:40:30 GMT
Hah. The panel is probably going to consist entirely of people from this board. Add me to the list of those who have applied.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 6, 2016 15:39:45 GMT
I noticed Rachel kept some of her American accent. She's still saying "Wizuurrd" like she would on Broadway. I guess it takes some getting used to after doing it with that accent for 10 months. Notably only when she sang some of the American slightly came through... but then I remembered it was Rachel Tucker that was singing and I didn't even notice. Quite honestly, I think I was slightly in awe the whole time! It's not necessarily a hangover from singing with an American accent. It could just be her own accent coming through. It always used to on certain vowels (most notably in I'm not that Girl). Admittedly it was easier to hide a Belfast accent under the American, as they're much more similar. She's said as much in a previous interview. The English accent takes more work. I wish they'd just let her use her own accent in the show. It's adorable.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 5, 2016 21:06:35 GMT
Oh God. This was even worse than I envisaged. It's like a hideous mash-up of TOWIE and Glee. Eurgh.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 5, 2016 19:39:07 GMT
It feels like something they'd show at Halloween Horror Nights in Universal Studios.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 5, 2016 19:24:40 GMT
Just kidding! I'll get me goooooat, sorry coat.....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 5, 2016 19:09:40 GMT
"Something Bad" from Wicked. I wish they just had dialogue in that scene. I'd prefer it if they cut the scene completely! I zone out in that one every time. Suspect there will be a completely new song in its place in the movie.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 5, 2016 19:03:56 GMT
I hope that this does appear at some point, I bought the cast recording and really like the music, and love the film that it is based on. For those who saw it on Broadway, what was the problem with it? I quite liked it on Broadway. It was nice. But that's all I really have to say about it and therein lies the problem.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 5, 2016 9:35:07 GMT
I spoke too soon! It got much warmer in the second Act. Luckily the show improved in that Act too. I thought the first Act dragged but I quite enjoyed the second. I think it's worth seeing. It's not a classic but it was an enjoyable way to spend a Sunday afternoon. I agree with a lot of the previous comments. It's a bit of a mixed bag in terms of casting, but there are some really good performers too and the show has some lovely moments. Particularly when they're singing acapella. In general I thought the keyboard sounded too harsh against the singers. Only a couple of people could really cope with singing over it. I do think the union should consider using microphones for some shows. Perhaps most importantly, the bar at the Union is much improved - I was informed that prosecco on tap is on its way!
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 4, 2016 14:47:12 GMT
Here today. They seem to have invested in fans! The cast look pretty warm but it's comfortable for those of us sitting watching.
Definitely an improvement on the old union.
Will post full thoughts later but I can definitely hear Wicked in this.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 29, 2016 11:23:07 GMT
I propose the innuendo/outeundo awards: A pair of prizes for those of a dirty mind.
Innuendo: theatremonkey for being partial to a pun. Outuendo: Ryan for dispensing with subtext completely
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 27, 2016 23:52:36 GMT
Saw this tonight. Absolutely loved it. I have nothing but the film to compare it to but I thought it was perfect. Hilarious and dark in just the right measures, and the entire cast was brilliant. With this and Groundhog Day in the space of a week I'm in musical heaven.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 27, 2016 15:29:05 GMT
I don't know if some of the screaming was very localised to particular parts of the auditorium but I don't remember people screaming over the songs during Rachel's final show. That would have really annoyed me and I remember being pleasantly surprised by how people were pretty restrained, particularly as I was in the front row and was fully expecting some loud fangirling. Luckily my side of the front row was very well-behaved. No outward sobbing from anyone!
She got sustained entrance applause and the same at the end of each big song, but I don't think there was much during the songs themselves - With the exception of Defying Gravity where there was a cheer when she stood up with the cloak on (but there's no singing at that stage so it seemed to be a pretty natural place to applaud). And then a standing ovation right at the end of the song, just before the lights went out. Again, that one seemed pretty natural since she wouldn't see the standing if it happened after the song finished.
In general I've found Broadway audiences worse for this (and not in particularly special performances, or limited to Wicked). They seem more than happy to vocally show their appreciation during the show. Really annoying, especially in emotional shows like The Color Purple.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 23, 2016 10:10:37 GMT
I finally saw this last night. I can't decide whether I like the ending or not but I think the production itself is near perfect. I loved the opening of Act 2 (and I just about think it offsets the ending). I don't even know how to compare it to Matilda (which I also love). It's too different. It's typically Tim Minchin wordy but I didn't find it difficult to hear any of the words at all.
I remember someone saying way back in previews that this is something you will either get or you won't. Based on audience reactions last night I definitely think you can "get" it on different levels. There was quite a lot of laughter in places which I didn't think were meant to be funny. I thought it was much darker than the people sitting around me seemed to. But they also loved it.
For those questioning seating choices (if you can even get seats now) I sat smack bang in the centre of the front row and it's great. The stage is high but I don't think it really matters.
On a different note, how hot must the cast be?! So many of them were wearing winter coats for almost the entire show.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 19, 2016 13:08:12 GMT
Sad times. I had no email. I've used TodayTix here and in New York, and would very much like £50 credit in return for a nice chat!
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 19, 2016 11:44:49 GMT
Oh for goodness sake PC crazy lefty Britain. Of course the two young boys in HPATCC are not gay - they are just young school mates!!! Goodness!! I believe someone made a similar point earlier in the thread, but please think about the effect of what you post. I think it probably goes without saying that a fairly significant proportion of people who read this board are gay. And many of them will have known this (and quite probably struggled with it) at around the age of the characters portrayed in this play. I'm sure some will have had feelings for their "young school mates" and won't appreciate being belittled in this way. Wanting to see something of yourself in a piece of art does not make you "PC crazy lefty". I say this as somebody who is now married to her female best friend from secondary school. As I have said previously on here, I did think they were going there for a brief moment but I don't think it was intentional. I believe the characters were written straight. I was slightly disappointed that they didn't take the storyline in that direction. It has always sat uneasily with me that JKR felt the need to out Dumbledore after the book series was written. That felt disingenuous to me. If she had felt it important to the story, she should have written it in. The impression her later revelation leaves is that she didn't want to take a risk on introducing something like that into a children's book. Which is fine. The story didn't need it and she had no moral obligation to take on any sort of LGBT cause. But saying it later just feels like she wanted to make herself out to be ground-breaking. And it's all very well arguing that she thought that it's something that didn't need to be made explicit in the books because sexual orientation is not a big deal. Sensationally revealing this secret years later suggests the opposite. I was hoping that if she truly felt it necessary to introduce a gay character (or explore Dumbledore's character further), the play might be the place to do it. It didn't happen, which is still fine, but I can completely see why people are reading that into it. And as for "gay-baiting", that is definitely something which certain television producers are guilty of in order to keep up the ratings.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 12, 2016 13:09:46 GMT
I prefer front row seats too, but I think it isn't worth camping the whole night for imo. I'd rather pay £40 extra and be certain I'll have a good seat and be well rested. I never have any problems with people blocking my view anyway, because I'm 6"4. I think people camping out for a new iPhone or whatever ridiculous too. Just go to bed and then go to the store when you're up. I don't see why you need it in the middle of the night when you're supposed to be sleeping anyway. Please never sit in front of me!! (Unlikely due to my aforementioned preference for front row.) I do agree with you though - I think it was a fun thing to do once but I am not doing it for Rachel's next last (presumably also her last last, not to be confused with her past last). I was very sleepy that day. Although I do think that made the whole day more emotional. And the camping made it more of an event. Again, a bit like Wimbledon - I enjoy the Queue. It's not the same when you get show court tickets online and can just waltz in. Admittedly drinking Pimm's at 6am is acceptable in a field in Wimbledon but may be frowned upon on a pavement in Victoria..... Ditto re iPhones. Same debate recently happened in the Harry Potter thread re books.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 12, 2016 12:35:11 GMT
I camped for one night for Rachel's last show. As I have said previously, I didn't think I was quite mad enough to be in that queue! I honestly didn't do it to show how much of a fan I am. (I very rarely go to stage door - only if I want a new programme signed. And all I do is get it signed/get a picture. I am under no illusion that the cast are my friends!) I just have a really strong preference for front row seats. Plus dayseats are miles cheaper than the seats immediately behind them, in which you risk having someone tall blocking your view.
And the camping was quite fun! Good excuse to sit around and read/chat all day. Nobody ever seems to bat an eyelid when people do likewise for the latest iPhone. Or Wimbledon tickets (which incidentally is the only other time I have ever camped in my life).
Incidentally, the people who purportedly camped for a week actually had a hostel nearby, and spent a lot of time going back to it while other people kept their place in the queue. They didn't stay overnight for the whole week. Only the last two nights I think. Still bonkers though. I thought one of them might die, due to being totally unprepared for sleeping outside. (It snowed at one point.) I was wearing ski gear and had a sleeping bag. She was wearing pyjamas and had a blanket!
There was also nearly a mutiny when some of the campers went to the Friday evening show and tried to come back to their place in the queue.
p.s. Michael - I made the same rookie error dayseating Miss Saigon on New Year's Day.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 4, 2016 22:38:59 GMT
I suggest building a new double auditorium theatre, where Parts 1 & 2 could be performed both nights in different spaces. The casts alternate so that you have the same actors on successive performances of Parts 1 and 2(as much as possible anyway). People wouldn't be able to turn up at the wrong building, but separate front of house areas would be best to avoid spoilers. Why stop there? Add a trip on the Hogwarts Express to take you from one space to the other if you book Part 1 and 2 on the same day (and a Great Hall dining experience during the break between shows).... I fully expect a purpose-built theatre to pop up at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 4, 2016 10:59:56 GMT
I keep my tickets in a photograph album and I use the same vertical filing system as the Monkey. Me too! Said vertical filing system now sits on an old grand piano frame that our local theatre threw out, which we reclaimed and bolted to the wall - Not the most effective of shelves but looks pretty. And still cheaper than a binder!
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 4, 2016 9:26:07 GMT
Let's also remember that the name of the thread is "popular things you haven't seen and PROBABLY won't". I personally am not saying I don't want to see any of those things on my list. I just want to see other shows more. Ideally I would see every musical and judge for myself. But that takes time and money. And as there is always something new to see, those shows inevitably end up getting pushed to the back of my list.
I have generally not enjoyed jukebox musicals, so they tend to get pushed. Beautiful is the exception. Although I still didn't think it lived up to the hype.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 3, 2016 19:40:41 GMT
Additionally, when it comes to Beautiful, they don't do cheap day seats (which might entice me to give it a go) and someone whose opinion I value didn't like it at all. The box office will do you a cheap seat if you pop in and ask nicely though.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 3, 2016 14:28:45 GMT
Thriller, Stomp, Sunny Afternoon, Motown, Jersey Boys, Mamma Mia (although saw it years ago in New York - Put me right off Broadway for quite some time)
BONUS FEATURES: Popular things I have seen against my better judgement (which turned out to be spot on): We Will Rock You and Cats. Popular things I was disappointed by: The Lion King and Charlie & the Chocolate Factory.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 3, 2016 14:15:19 GMT
god, aren't I vile! It is the unpopular opinions thread though, so I'm peppering my ragu, so to speak! Spice it up for Burly.....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 3, 2016 12:52:35 GMT
I don't see the issue with actors crying at curtain. If it's genuine emotion, how can you judge them for it? If they're playing it up, I'm just impressed they can cry on cue.
As to crying at work more generally - As a tutor, I've somehow managed not to burst into tears at the end of every (or indeed any) class. Had a few students run out in tears, mind...
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 3, 2016 12:03:49 GMT
I also didn't particularly like the Hagrid scenes. I can see why they were there. I think it was the actor more than anything else. I felt he was trying to do an impression rather than trying to find his own Hagrid. It just didn't quite sit right.
I actually wonder whether the bit with baby Harry would have worked better if it had been silent. You'd still get the effect of seeing that scene but without fully breaking the mood as Nelly was talking about.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 2, 2016 16:47:27 GMT
I buy the scripts of all the plays I like, kind of like a soundtrack. I never tend to get around to reading them though. Good point re soundtrack - We could almost merge this discussion with the ongoing debate over whether to listen to the cast recording before seeing a show.....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 2, 2016 16:11:27 GMT
And it's all very well saying don't read the script before you see the show or it'll spoil it, but some of us have no idea when or even if we will ever get to see it. Those who have been fortunate enough to go already would do well to remember that. I've been telling everyone I know not to read it and to wait and see it. Because that's genuinely the better way round. Having experienced the show and now reading the script (and people's reactions to the script) it's a no-brained that seeing it all for the first time on stage is orders of magnitude better than reading the stage directions. It's up to you what you do but it's honest advice people are giving, even if it's not the easiest option. Agreed. Please don't think that those of us who have seen it are bragging. And I'm sorry if it comes across like that. I know I was very lucky to get tickets last month. And I also know that if I hadn't I would have been sorely tempted to read the play. And would have appreciated advice from people on here. It's not even really a spoiler thing. I don't mind spoilers. I was just concerned that people might be put off by the script which seems to have been happening this week. (Admittedly maybe not a problem for people on here who are regular theatregoers.) I also agree with those who have been suggesting that it should have been released as a book rather than a script. Then I wouldn't have suggested avoiding it. Just like I would never tell people not to read the HP books before seeing the films. They're different but in each case you are enjoying the same story but in a form in which it was intended to be enjoyed. A book is meant to be read. A film is meant to be watched. A play is meant to be seen, not read. I'd give the same advice on any play - Watch it first. It's just that it rarely needs to be said. Most people don't read plays at all, unless they're studying them. Out of interest, how many people on here read the script of other plays they have seen? Genuinely curious. I realise that I will almost certainly read this one, yet I never normally feel the need to get the script of a show I've seen. Something just makes it different - I guess old habits die hard, and this still feels to many people like the next Harry Potter book. Which it's not.
|
|