131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 11, 2016 21:33:41 GMT
Of course Carrie isn't right for a role in the show, however I do think some of the youtube/twitter commenters got out of hand. She was only singing a cover of a song she liked, not campaigning for the role. And as has already been said, the song is not specific to race, it's about an untrustworthy husband, a more universal subject. However, I saw this same discussion on a facebook theatre fanpage and watching people not only defend Carrie but go above and beyond to suggest she should play the role in the show itself was quite frankly mind boggling to watch. People calling themselves fans of the show and then refuting one of its main messages - that of diversity in casting. Tens of people saying the same this as the above tweet 'the real Eliza was white though sooo...' etc. etc. As if Eliza Schuyler herself wrote and performed this song first. One hilarious comment went something like 'Elphaba is green, but anyone is aloud to sing her song...' yeah, because real life green witches don't actually exist. Some people were going to the ends of the earth to argue why Carrie should be able to play the role in London, and it was so embarrassing to witness. In other words, I'm so happy I'm a part of this forum. It's nice to be able to discuss with people who actually have an understanding of context, controversies and other issues. Well said. "Strict on casting, permissive on fandom" seems like the right balance here.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 11, 2016 3:30:18 GMT
Wait, she can't cover "Burn", but Celine Dion can do this?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 9, 2016 19:29:28 GMT
The opening monologue was brilliant ("Never gonna be president now..."), but have to say that Crucible Cast Party just nailed it on so many personal levels...
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 8, 2016 16:09:43 GMT
Listened to this 4 times today. Such a good song, really sad this was cut from the show! Excellent, but the editor needs to put "Sit Down John!" back in! Too good a line.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 7, 2016 22:44:13 GMT
I agree with the sentiment but that water has been gradually boiling for far longer in NY. Broadway audiences have now baked high prices for hit shows into their expectations even if they don't necessarily like it. It would be a far bigger shock for West End audiences. I'd agree if we were talking about the $849 premium that Hamilton on Broadway currently charges but Book of Mormon charges £150 in London as we speak. And as much as I like Mormon, Hamilton is the better show. Yes, that's what I meant, that $849 simply won't fly in London. And I grudgingly agree though I love BOM.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Oct 7, 2016 17:13:53 GMT
This is gonna be an unpopular opinion but I honestly don't care what they charge (up to £150) providing this lives upto the Broadway production. The best nights in recent memory for me have been the nights I've seen Hamilton and I just think it's worth the £100-£145 I've paid to see it, especially when I've paid more than half of that to see trash. As long as this isn't gonna take on the Broadway premium prices and as long as there are these cheaper options and lottery that Cameron is promising then I'm fine with whatever. And hey if I can pay £150 and get the best seat in the house compared to £150 for limited view which is what I got last time on Broadway then I'm cool with that. I agree with the sentiment but that water has been gradually boiling for far longer in NY. Broadway audiences have now baked high prices for hit shows into their expectations even if they don't necessarily like it. It would be a far bigger shock for West End audiences.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 29, 2016 19:21:48 GMT
I'm actually still scratching my head at that article. Obviously, someone leaked the actors' emails, but why? What's the agenda? The actors come across as nervous but reasonable and firm. The producers play a little hard ball but of course in the end gave in. LMM is disengaged for much of it but finally expresses support for them. It's not really a hit job on anyone. In the end it feels like there was color taken out of the article. The narrative of the affair reads like it just caused a modest burst of tension in the cast that then subsided, but there are these hints throughout the article that it was worse than that, like the stage manager quote 49thand8th mentioned. Was there longer-term bad blood between the actors and the producers, or with LMM? There was a sense of some tension when the filming was being arranged and Leslie Odom Jr was refusing to take part because of fee discussions. I think he declared at least once he didn't want to be part of it. And then a few other cast members seemed to leave quite abruptly with little fanfare, which seemed a little off. Yeah, that line from A to Z makes sense, but I wonder why the article doesn't explicitly draw it. It's almost like the editors chickened out at the last minute and softened it.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 29, 2016 14:01:51 GMT
Yikes. It was clear for a while there was tension amongst that company. A shame, really. I'm actually still scratching my head at that article. Obviously, someone leaked the actors' emails, but why? What's the agenda? The actors come across as nervous but reasonable and firm. The producers play a little hard ball but of course in the end gave in. LMM is disengaged for much of it but finally expresses support for them. It's not really a hit job on anyone. In the end it feels like there was color taken out of the article. The narrative of the affair reads like it just caused a modest burst of tension in the cast that then subsided, but there are these hints throughout the article that it was worse than that, like the stage manager quote 49thand8th mentioned. Was there longer-term bad blood between the actors and the producers, or with LMM?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 28, 2016 18:30:12 GMT
That article never explicitly comes out and says it but you can feel the egg shells LMM and the cast must have been walking on with each other.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 27, 2016 19:27:36 GMT
j
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 27, 2016 19:26:54 GMT
By the way, here's a trailer for a documentary on the musical (and the man) that's going to air on PBS in the US late next month.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 27, 2016 13:05:39 GMT
Interesting article in the NY Times about second acting broadway shows and how lots of prominent theatremakers etc. freely admitted to doing it in the past, despite that also being illegal, stealing, and also very cheeky. www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/nyregion/a-lost-art-on-broadway-sneaking-in-for-act-2.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/theater&action=click&contentCollection=theater®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0I'm not really interested in wading into the bootleg debate, but as much as I do agree that it's wrong, I don't agree that it's stopping people from seeing live shows, or hurting sales in any way. In fact, I think it's done the opposite. (Also as a side note, Eldermillan, I know that you're clearly the person on the right in your photo, but whenever I see your name I picture Nic Rouleau anyway! ) That's interesting. I admit I used to do it too, but a series of conversations over the year with friends and family who are in theatre--several of whom have written their own shows--dissuaded me and made me feel small for doing it. I understand why some think it does no financial harm but I tend to think it makes you change your mind on the margin: oh, I won't go see that show a second time, or meh, I'll just stay in tonight. Maybe that won't be make-or-break for many shows, but it pinches. I also think that argument paints the producers as on the one hand money-obsessed business types who, on the other hand, would just make more money if they were smart enough to allow this. I'm not sure I buy that. But I've always been more persuaded by the argument that artists should have ultimate agency over their work. All that said, artists and producers should crawl kicking and screaming into the 21st century and come up with better ways to reach audiences. Hopefully sites like BroadwayHD will catch on, and will be seen not as cannibalizing the industry but expanding it. And to bring this back to Hamilton, while I believe strongly that it's the artist and producers' call to make, I also think their strategy of highly constrained supply is going to hurt the show in the long-run.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 22:08:55 GMT
After 30 years, bootlegs are called "audience captures." Jaywalking is also illegal, but 80% of New York would be behind bars if anyone followed up on it. Come on. I have no interest in being a scold here but the better analogy is sneaking into a cinema. At the very least, it's not something to brag openly about. We should move on.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 21:40:43 GMT
It harms shows, it's basically stealing, and it's against the wishes of the artist. Nobody should do it regardless of how chic it is. BOORRRING... Also, where do you derive that fact from? I am an avid bootleg(er) and bootleg collector. And I can guarantee you that I massively support theatre (enthusiastically and financially), and no bootleg has ever stopped me from seeing the show myself (in some cases over many repeated visits). Having been part of the bootleg "community" since 1994, I can almost vouch that no one has ever preferred to see the bootleg from their TV at home (or laptop) over the live experience. I can understand the argument that it might be "theft" and how there are ethical arguments against it, but I honestly don't feel that there is a financial case to be made. These are not Hollywood DVDs that are sold on the corner of the streets. It's a bunch of recordings that are viewed by a few thousand people, at best, who are big show fans to begin with. The general public does NOT want to see a bootleg at all, and wouldn't even dream of pursuing one or even begin to know where to find one. Have you been to Broadwayworld.com recently? Practically their entire video archive and video stories use bootlegs. This is an industry-followed website, perhaps one of the top five globally. If there were oh, so, serious concerns from creatives over these videos, they'll be down. Documentaries even use them now..I'll have to think of which ones to draw a list, but the current trailer of the Merrily We Roll Along Broadway production clearly features bootleg recordings. Not only do I find them fun and interesting, but I actually think they are NECESSARY to reserve a record of shows for posterity. Plus, how else do you think I perfected the choreography of Hot Honey Rag from Chicago? You can rationalize and self-justify all you want, but this is cut and dry. It's literally illegal in New York and at least forbidden by trade rules in London. And Hamilton is not some grey area where the artist says he's personally cool with it and knock yourself out taking video. You may not care about that, and you may find ethical considerations boring, but that's how it is.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 14:34:15 GMT
Bootleg-guilting is so early 90s. It harms shows, it's basically stealing, and it's against the wishes of the artist. Nobody should do it regardless of how chic it is.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 1:09:04 GMT
Buying from StubHub doesn't help the production at all though so wont do much to alleviate bootleg guilt! Probably better waiting until the show comes to London for that. Good point. Send them the price of a first-hand ticket in cash, anonymously. That's better too because you won't be crowding out a ticket that someone who can get to the show would actually use.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 25, 2016 18:30:41 GMT
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 24, 2016 18:28:28 GMT
I feel bad but I found a bootleg and downloaded it. Plan for tonight: pizza and Hamilton. At the very least, buy a ticket online and partially redeem yourself.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 15, 2016 14:35:16 GMT
My friend won the Hamilton lottery for the matinee yesterday. So I finally saw the show on Broadway. What an experience. I'd listened to the cast recording a million times and was almost worried the show wouldn't live up to the hype I had built up around it. But it did. Congrats!! And that's a particularly interesting reaction since it wasn't the OBC.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 12, 2016 20:21:47 GMT
Singability. In my case, shower-singability.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 1, 2016 12:44:05 GMT
I think the more interesting question is to what extent the London cast's diversity will reflect British rather than American questions of national identity. Hints that they'll cast Middle Eastern and South Asian actors show the producers are at least thinking about this; if so, it's a really good idea. Given Brexit and the migrant crisis, Hamilton just might resonate in Europe in unanticipated ways.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Aug 30, 2016 14:06:04 GMT
So breakdowns have just gone out on Spotlight for all characters and ensemble for the West End. As much as I'd love to, I'm not really at liberty to publically divulge in specific casting information as Spotlight make it clear that it's not allowed, but I'm sure MT actors up and down the country have just gone into meltdown! For each character, they do these "'Musical theatre character' meets 'well known rapper/R&B singer'" to give you an idea of the character. Some of them are quite inspired! Similar to what they've done before? Here are the Los Angeles casting descriptions:
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Aug 28, 2016 18:51:44 GMT
It's funny, I grew up listening to the original Evita concept album so I always assumed "The Lady's Got Potential" just got cut from Broadway, not West End too. I love that song especially the revised movie version.
Hamilton originally included an extended rap tirade against John Adams, which they cut since Adams doesn't appear as a character in the show, but it's still awesome:
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Aug 15, 2016 16:32:21 GMT
Looks like we are going to have the Phoenix, Noel Coward and Trafalgar Studio empty soon. Brexit reaction? Please would you expand on this hypothesis? Who has reacted? And why? If Brexit has saved the people of London from an outdated musical, perhaps Boris deserves praise? If anything, weak sterling should mean more international audiences in the short-term, particularly from Europe.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Aug 11, 2016 12:55:00 GMT
All of Gavroche's lines from "Little People" in Les Mis. No doubt it's a challenge to write musical theatre roles for kids, but... yep, I still cringe at this.
Also, "Over the Moon" from Rent.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Aug 9, 2016 3:19:34 GMT
Well, we paid about £230 each when we saw the OBC back in March. That's... a lot of money, period. On a per-hour basis, I've paid more for a couple of top rock acts, but not many. And if prices are much above that, it's hard to justify that amount for just about any show.
That said, I've never regretted the decision for one second. I would do it again without hesitation.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 31, 2016 21:19:22 GMT
- 1776 - West Side Story - Les Miz - Evita - Hamilton
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 27, 2016 16:35:35 GMT
Never heard of this musical but I'm a huge fan of the silent film. Would love to see it and it would be interesting for the creators to revisit now that the film has been completely reassembled with the original score.
Are there any good sites with production shots or audio clips?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 14, 2016 16:42:07 GMT
I don't even think it's a lack of swagger, it's just under-rehearsed. I agree there are some solid bits but I'm not so sure I would have gone through with a medley with so many non-traditional MT songs on just 30 minutes of rehearsal.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Jul 13, 2016 21:01:59 GMT
I'm so happy she has an interesting project coming up for her. Hamilton really upped her status and it's about time- she seems so lovely. On another note, what IS going on there backstage? Specifically in the producers' office?? Do we have any evidence that it's something other than just simple contract negotiations? I mean, from the producers' perspective: the OBC already has profit sharing, casting probably has more names than a phone book of interested aspiring stage actors, and there's a captive audience who will see the show regardless of who's cast (and the premium commanded by the OBC would be largely captured by scalpers anyway). So my guess is they felt totally comfortable taking a hard line with so many contracts expiring. From the OBC's perspective: well, they have profit sharing, most of them have exciting new projects waiting for them elsewhere if they leave (projects that may dry up if and when Hamilton-mania dies down), and staying means probably not much more money and risk of typecasting. And I still think at least one will end up in London or a touring company. That doesn't necessarily explain why Daveed's announcement came so suddenly but perhaps he's been in negotiations in the background for an extension or a touring role?
|
|