131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 2, 2018 14:17:11 GMT
Sorry, I'll take it over there. Can this thread be deleted please.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 2, 2018 13:53:02 GMT
I hope it's broadcast in the UK, because the production was incredible. The sets, the costumes, the ensemble. Sara Bareilles as Mary Magdalene and Brandon Victor Dixon as Judas especially. And this closing shot. On live TV. Wow.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 17, 2017 14:57:29 GMT
Nothing wrong with it! Check sites like awardswatch.com/forums. They discuss which performances are going to win Oscars before they even know what the films are about. See, I think that just reinforces my skepticism
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 17, 2017 14:34:38 GMT
I totally get the basis for discussing the plays / musicals that will be nominated, but the *performances*? Some of these productions haven't been cast yet! Hell, we only found out the lead for Hamilton two weeks ago, and he's a virtual unknown at that.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 17, 2017 13:34:20 GMT
Man, that first scene... and that very last line from Dany. We're off!
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 12, 2017 20:16:29 GMT
And a #Ham4All from the man himself, Jamael Westman:
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 28, 2017 14:29:52 GMT
Not directly related, but there is now an official music video for "Immigrants (We Get the Job Done)" from the Hamilton Mixtape, including an appearance by Riz Ahmed as Riz MC. It's quite well done.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 21, 2017 15:01:37 GMT
I actually like this idea and am happy that Springsteen's doing it. Good way to keep the lights on in between shows and gives rock stars a more intimate venue for a time.
As for the rumors of a Springsteen musical: jukebox musicals aren't my thing, but given that they exist I mean why not a Springsteen one?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jun 16, 2017 1:40:23 GMT
I will just say that though Riz Ahmed was my first choice, I knew that was a reach and likely wouldn't happen. Failing that, I'm really excited Hamilton went to a young unknown actor. Obviously the first priority is talent, but it makes me happy that this is going to launch this young man's career into the stratosphere.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 30, 2017 13:20:34 GMT
I'm currently less than halfway through the Chernow biography of Hamilton, but among all the very many interesting things I've learn so far the one that stands out the most is... Thomas Jefferson was a total git! I can't remember if it was in the Chernow biography, but my favorite Jefferson anecdote was how with one hand he personally lamented to Washington the treatment he (Washington) was receiving in the press, while with the other hand he was directing that very smear campaign in his allied newspapers. On the other hand, Jefferson was a passionate civil libertarian (with the crucial caveat, of course, of slavery), anti-elitist, and pro-immigrant. Suffice it to say, Thomas Jefferson was a piece of work.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 25, 2017 20:51:48 GMT
Oh, and if I had to make a play into a musical, I'd do this one, which I got to see on stage. Dark and twisted but brilliant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Burns,_a_Post-Electric_Play
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 25, 2017 19:18:50 GMT
Movie: The Shawshank Redemption - has the crucial advantage of being a splendid story. Has the downside of starting out sad and getting (very gradually) happier as it goes but in the right hands it could work well.
Book: Grendel - admittedly pulling a bit of a Wicked here but doing Beowulf from the monster's perspective sounds intriguing.
Biography: Marquis de Lafayette - thrust back in the limelight by Hamilton, his life is amazing. Hero in America, then comes back to France and is for a brief period one of the leading figures of the French Revolution, founding the National Guard and leading the charge for the Declaration of the Rights of Man, before the Revolution almost eats him alive. Tries to escape back to America, gets thrown in an Austrian prison, only released years later after Napoleon intervenes. And then gets caught up in *another* French revolution (1830) and is asked by some to become king, though he refuses. All the while, his reputation in France ebbs and flows between arrogant grand stander and national hero. Plus he's constantly in touch with other revolutionaries throughout the world (Bolivar, Louverture) and after Waterloo even manages to visit America again where he's given a hero's welcome everywhere he goes.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 15, 2017 16:39:48 GMT
It's remarkable that not one but *two* of the best works of television to come out last year revolved around OJ Simpson.
And I agree with all the superlatives. Such a brilliant job of setting up the cultural context, and conveying just *how* extraordinary an athlete OJ Simpson was, which helps you understand why so many were in awe of him.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 11, 2017 13:25:46 GMT
One interesting quirk is that King George changes costumes to match the rest of the ensemble for the curtain call.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 5, 2017 19:05:58 GMT
In my mind, the wedge between book and score gets no wider than in West Side Story. Horrible book, legendary score. So you dont think that story has legs? Are you trying to provoke a negative response, or would you like to justify the comment? I honestly didn't think it was exactly inventing fire to argue that WSS had a bad book. The story arc is fine (it's just Romeo and Juliet after all) but it has a fair number of clunker or cringe-worthy lines. Not the worst book in absolute terms but the soaring heights of the music/lyrics make it worse by comparison.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 5, 2017 2:17:14 GMT
Okay brilliant answer. Out of interest would you guys have to do languages, Religious Studies or History? Why I ask the U.S. doesn't have near neighbours that speak languages and the U.S. Being the biggest country in the world, would expect other countries to speak their language. History, we spent forever learning about the British monarchy, which America doesn't have. Religious Studies, not sure if you would teach this, I always assume religion in America is about personal choice. Languages are a standard requirement in American high schools, but the years required vary from one to all four years. In general, language education in the US is focused on vocabulary and rules of grammar rather than conversation; in other words, highly frustrating and impractical. Spanish is a bit easier for students to immerse themselves in thanks to the relatively-large US Spanish-speaking population, but it's not like Europe where you can take a train, cross borders, and easily be in a different language area the same day. As a student taking French in California, the only way I had to practice was to watch French films (might have been easier had I lived in Louisiana or northern New England where there actually are native French speakers). My high schools were both Catholic so we had religious classes all four years. I think that would be highly unusual in US state-run schools due to the First Amendment but I have heard of schools offering classes with a more anthropological rather than theological study of religion. History is standard and generally three to four years. Instruction is highly influenced by the Advanced Placement (AP) exams, which are subject-specific baccalaureate exams that often give college credit to students who score highly enough. A typical high school curriculum might be World History in year 1, European History in year 2, and American History in year 3 (all of which have AP exams associated with them), with other social science classes like government or economics in year 4. World History in US schools is quick and doesn't really do justice to anyone, particularly Africa or Asia, but the Roman Empire and the UK are probably the least-poorly covered, though even then we're talking only a rough understanding of broad arcs of history. We Americans would be in big trouble if we had a gun to our heads to explain, say, the Wars of the Roses. We mercifully don't have a string of dynastic successions to memorize. Forty-five presidents under a single written Constitution over the last 230 years with no coups makes American History, if not "simple", then relatively straight-forward. Probably the most conceptually complex part is understanding the legal and philosophical underpinnings of the American Revolution (the political writings of people like Locke, Rousseau, Madison, and, well, Hamilton (natch)). But I don't think any episode in our history can match the English Civil Wars or the French Revolution for sheer complexity.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 4, 2017 19:15:12 GMT
In my mind, the wedge between book and score gets no wider than in West Side Story. Horrible book, legendary score.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 4, 2017 13:53:18 GMT
However in the UK could argue that politics are always meddling with the curriculum and have unrelenting standards. I am not sure in North America if you also have to do Languages (French and Spanish ((4/5 year option)), Religious Studies (A Waste of Time) and History (4/5 year option)? On top of; Maths English Games Physical Education Personal Development Science (4/5 year option) Further Science (4/5 year option) Geography (4/5 year option) Sociology (3rd year, the 4/5 year option) Technical Drawing (4/5 year option) Home Economics (4/5 year option) Craft, Design and Technology (4/5 year option) Art (4/5 year option) Music (4/5 year option) Drama Personal Development (4/5 year option) The irony of all this is that Americans have a deep inferiority complex about the arts in their education curriculum (the film Mr. Holland's Opus captures this). I have little doubt that the average American just assumes that the UK *must* have better arts programs in their schools. Grass is always greener, etc. But I'm not sure that, in reality, things are significantly better or worse in the US. It varies by state and region of course, but I think it's fair to say that a typical middle-class state-run suburban high school in the US will in all likelihood have a marching band and/or an orchestra, and a drama program that may do a play prior to Christmas and then a musical right before summer. Lacking these options isn't unheard of, particularly in the past or in rural or poorer areas today, but close to cities their absence would probably raise eyebrows among parents nowadays. Larger high schools in and around major cities may have further options, e.g. a dance troupe or a Shakespeare company. Quality varies widely, as you'd expect. Medium-to-large cities may have one or two schools particularly well-known for their drama programs, and the others will be... well, passable, but not extraordinary. Some US cities now also have magnet (specialist) state-run schools devoted to the arts, and they tend to be quite good (Lin-Manuel Miranda for example went to magnet state-run high school in New York, though it didn't specialize in the arts per se, it was for smart kids generally). The actual education component varies even more widely than the actual programs or activities. The US doesn't have a national curriculum and even most US states don't have a state-wide curriculum; it varies regionally. Some schools offer an array of formal classes that students can take in tandem with their arts activities. Other schools don't offer much in the way of classes but may give students equivalent credit for the time they spend participating in each arts program. Furthermore, some schools *require* a certain amount of arts-related credit, others do not. The other dynamic to keep in mind here that's driving parental demand for these programs is university. US secondary education has become increasingly tailored toward making students competitive for university admissions. This should not be *over* emphasized since the bulk of Americans go to state-run colleges or universities where admissions is minimally competitive. But in the US any state-funded or private university that is at least mildly competitive tends to take a holistic view of applicants: looking not just at standardized testing and academic achievement but also activities. This desire to have kids with a bit of balance fuels some of the demand for, and participation in, US arts programs. All of this is to say: while there are definitely individual US secondary schools that are stellar at drama, it's not something I'd expect to be significantly better *in the education system as a whole* than the UK.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 2, 2017 20:33:43 GMT
1) In the USA the tax structure is very different. The cash the wealthy can use to support new musicals flows far more freely. The risk is higher, but worth taking for them. They can afford to "think big" from the very start in a way the UK can't. If you take Miz - that was using public cash to start with, and much else followed for Big Mac after. If we take that as being the same as US tax breaks, the result is the same. I think there's an economic angle too but I see it differently. The cost of producing a Broadway show is more expensive than West End for a whole host of different reasons -- stronger NYC unions, generally (IMHO) higher standards of physical theatre infrastructure in NYC, fewer subsidies in the States, etc. One side-effect of this higher cost is that it's incentivized the network of feeder regional theatres / workshops that incubate so many of Broadway's hits. The upside is that it's a way of managing risk and so makes investors more comfortable engaging with musicals (the downside is that you could argue it homogenizes shows). Let's remember too that while theatre and cinema are distinct art forms, many skills are substitutable between them and the industries do compete with one another for writing, musical, and production talent to a certain extent. But this is contained in the US by both its large population and also by physical distance. The epicenter of the US film industry, Los Angeles, is on the complete opposite side of the continent from the epicenter of the US theatre industry, New York (fun fact: Baghdad is closer to London than LA is to NY). That doesn't eliminate cross-pollination between theatre and cinema but it has given each industry the elbow room to grow independent talent ecosystems in the US. By contrast, in the UK each of these industries is London-based which I would guess has stunted the growth of each.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 21, 2017 1:49:31 GMT
It's probably not entirely coincidental... clearly, Lin and Riz are friends and have plenty of mutual professional respect.
But Riz getting *asked* to play Hamilton is not the only limiting factor here. He'd have to *accept*. Or he may want to only commit to a couple months and the producers may prefer a longer stint. Or it could be one of a thousand other sticking points. It's this strange situation where neither the actor nor the show obviously *needs* the other (Hamilton has plenty of buzz as is, Ahmed is a rising film star). I do agree it'd be a terrific fit but I also wouldn't be surprised if negotiations fell through. And honestly, if they did fall through and it forced the producers to cast a lesser known actor to play Hamilton, such as an up and coming South Asian actor, then there's still plenty of upside.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Nov 25, 2016 19:19:51 GMT
Also, if you think about it, at their core rap & hip hop are extraordinarily avant garde. I mean, rapidly spewing fast lyrics with unusual rhyme schemes over a beat? That makes beat poetry sound like Top 40 radio by comparison. So it's completely understandable that it's a divisive genre period, let alone in musical theatre.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Nov 21, 2016 2:23:42 GMT
The other sad thing in all of this is that a musical that is remarkable in being a political work of art with crossover appeal (at least in the American context) is now being polarized before our very eyes. 'Hamilton' often gets pigeon-holed as a work of the Left but neither the musical nor certainly the man himself fit neatly into that category. That it honed an American myth that both Left and Right could latch onto was one of the many things I liked about it.
That said, it's a natural artistic rebuttal to Trumpism and the rise of nativist movements around the world; prior to Trump's win I thought it would be poised to do well in London as a sort of extended metaphor against Brexit. Now if it's going to be cast as the cultural front line against a Trump administration, it will do even better internationally.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Nov 4, 2016 11:55:02 GMT
My Shot isn't a straight cover, it's a new song that heavily samples the original. So long as you're not expecting the musical version, it's pretty hot, especially Busta's verses at the end with the Hercules Mulligan shout out.
Kelly's Quiet Uptown is going to be divisive. It's a bit overproduced but Kelly's vocals floor me and she does a solid job universalizing the song, so in the end I'm thumbs up. But I can also see how the arrangement could turn some folks off.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Nov 3, 2016 15:21:16 GMT
Hamilton Mixtape tracklist has been revealed: No John Trumbull (Intro) - The Roots My Shot (feat. Busta Rhymes, Joell Ortiz & Nate Ruess) [Rise Up Remix] - The Roots Wrote My Way Out - Nas, Dave East, Lin-Manuel Miranda & Aloe Blacc Wait For It - Usher An Open Letter (feat. Shockwave) [Interlude] - Watsky Satisfied (feat. Miguel & Queen Latifah) - Sia Dear Theodosia (feat. Ben Folds) - Regina Spektor Valley Forge (Demo) - Lin-Manuel Miranda It's Quiet Uptown - Kelly Clarkson That Would Be Enough - Alicia Keys Immigrants (We Get The Job Done) - K'naan, Snow Tha Product, Riz MC, Residente You'll Be Back - Jimmy Fallon & The Roots Helpless (feat. Ja Rule) - Ashanti Take A Break (Interlude) - !llmind Say Yes To This - Jill Scott Congratulations - Dessa Burn - Andra Day Stay Alive (Interlude) - J.PERIOD & Stro Elliot Slavery Battle (Demo) - Lin-Manuel Miranda Washingtons By Your Side - Wiz Khalifa History Has Its Eyes On You - John Legend Who Tells Your Story (feat. Common & Ingrid Michaelson) - The Roots Dear Theodosia (Reprise) - Chance The Rapper & Francis and The Lights Release date December 2nd on Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01JR0QYGW/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1#featureBulletsAndDetailBullets_secondary_view_div_1478167890384Oh-so-slightly disappointed there's no Right Hand Man or Room Where It Happens, but very excited for a Sia/Queen Latifah Satisfied and an Usher Wait For It.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Nov 1, 2016 1:52:35 GMT
They should have titled that article "I like Hamilton but I feel guilty about it"
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Nov 1, 2016 1:42:04 GMT
West Side Story. By no means a terrible musical, but the score is so, so far beyond the book.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 24, 2016 16:35:12 GMT
I thought the documentary was alright. I would rather have gotten into the development of the show rather than the historical elements, which in their own way were good and actually broadened my understanding of some scenes. I would have preferred footage from the early developmental workshops rather than the Broadway version, which are pretty common. My only complaint is that at times it overly glorifying some of the characters and felt like I was watching a propaganda piece. A good watch, but not groundbreaking. I agree. It was basically an 80-minute commercial for the musical, or maybe to be a bit more generous an 80-minute souvenir program. Which is fine since I really like the musical. But what really would have been special would have been a deeper dive either into the creation and production process, or into Hamilton himself. I would have thoroughly enjoyed a documentary more focused on either one of those. Instead, they stayed only an inch deep on everything. For example, how is it possible they never discussed the Vassar readings, and only mentioned the Public run in quick passing? Moreover, what was particularly frustrating was that they had such good cameos largely wasted. Joanne Freemen is arguably the preeminent historian on both Hamilton and dueling in early America (her work was a major influence on "Ten Duel Commandments"), and they have her doing little more than just moving the narrative along with lines taken almost verbatim from the musical itself. And Annette Gordon-Reed is a highly respected Jefferson scholar and noted critic of both Hamilton the man and some aspects of the musical (though she likes it overall). Just giving the two of them more screen time would have been a massive improvement.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 14, 2016 13:47:41 GMT
It's wonderful that the Lit Prize has gone to more obscure writers recently, boosting their careers and canonizing their work. I expect that the Prize will return to doing just that in the years to come. But I see it as first and foremost about excellence, not elevating the underappreciated.
Moreover, the Committee has been awarding it to playwrights for decades now, so it's not like they're only just now straying from strict written word consumption. Not to mention that it's gone to plenty of poets, and poetry's origins are inextricably linked to music and the sung word. Poetry is, simply put, verse.
What brought me around to the idea of Dylan as a poet was Christopher Ricks *Dylan's Visions of Sin*. Ricks is a careful scholar of poetry and the English language and he shows that Dylan's work has the textual and emotional range of the great Anglophone poets. That music is threaded through Dylan's work doesn't make it less poetic (if anything, more so) and it doesn't make it any less literary, any more so than the fact that, say, most of George Bernard Shaw's works were intended to be performed on stage.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 14, 2016 12:06:08 GMT
Superb choice, and the Committee deserves a lot of credit as they must have known it would be controversial.
Also, I've largely enjoyed the ensuing debate (other than the comments of a few smug writers and apotheostic fans) because, at its core, it's a debate about what art is and the vaporous categories we use to organize it.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 13, 2016 1:34:33 GMT
A question that's come up discussing this show with friends: Can a British cast do justice to this musical? Playing now or coming soon to London: 42nd Street An American in Paris Bodyguard The Book of Mormon Dirty Dancing Dreamgirls In the Heights (ahem) Jersey Boys Judy Garland The Lion King Motown Wicked Methinks the Brits can handle American shows just fine.
|
|