131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 12, 2016 17:20:14 GMT
I don't think that's a certainty at all. Yes, it's a colossal hit on Broadway, but that's meaningless to anyone who's not a big theatre fan/follower. Anything that has played on Broadway is advertised as "the Broadway smash hit/direct from Broadway", so that sort of advertising won't help it any more than any other show, and it doesn't have a popular movie/book behind it to help the advertising either (the book it's based on is more relevant to the US than here). Plus Lin-Manuel Miranda is not a big name to the general UK public. Yes, it will probably be a hit the same way Mormon was, but I don't think an instant advance sell-out for months is at all guaranteed. Mormon had a lot of other factors going for it, besides being a runaway megasmash on Broadway. Not least of those is the South Park factor, which is something recognised outside of the USA. And that is where Hamilton will, I think, struggle. I don't want to sound like a Debbie Downer, but there are many MANY Broadway and off-Broadway juggernauts which have paraded into London on a huge wave of hype and glory only to implode under so-so reviews and awful ticket sales in a matter of weeks or months because they are just too American for British audiences to connect with. Rent Hair (the recent revival) The Fantasticks I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change City of Angels Fosse And many many more. The list of shows to come in and succeed is, sadly, much shorter. And Hamilton is the very model of a modern American musical, so I am really not so sure its success and longevity is a guaranteed thing in the West End at all. Especially if there isn't any name recognition for a wider audience to connect with. And especially if it goes into a theatre which seats 300-400 more than its Broadway home and is off the beaten West End track. I know Victoria is a mega busy station, but it's somewhere people pass through rather than go to. I'm not saying the show is bad, by any means. But Broadway is a VERY different place to the West End. As a cultural phenomenon, the only comparable one on that list is Rent. And Hamilton is a better musical than Rent. ::ducks for cover, runs out door::
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 4, 2016 12:00:21 GMT
Whether it deserves to win in all of them I'm not sure, but every one of those nominations is justifiable, it really is a musical which excelled in every department. Yep I agree. I don't think it deserves to win them all and I don't think it will, but it definitely deserved to break the nominations record. I think most people consider it to be a better show than Billy Elliot and The Producers, so why not? What's funny is The Producers won 12, and even though I think Hamilton is far and away better than the The Producers overall, I agree there are categories where Hamilton won't or probably shouldn't win so will probably end up far short of The Producers' win record. So it's just as much about the relative strength of the year in which it's competing.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 3, 2016 13:31:56 GMT
The Producers and Billy Elliot both had 15.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 3, 2016 13:19:05 GMT
And there we go. 16 nominations, breaking the prior record:
Best performance by an actor in a leading role in a musical: Lin Manuel-Miranda Leslie Odom Jr
Best performance by an actress in a leading role in a musical: Phillipa Soo
Best musical
Best book of a musical
Best original score, music or lyrics LMM
Best choreography Andy Blankenbuehler
Best orchestrations Alex Lacamore
Best scenic design in a musical David Korins
Best costume design for a musical Paul Gtazwell
Best lighting design for a musical Howell Binkley
Best direction of a musical Thomas Kail
Best performance by an actor in a featured role in a musical Daveed Diggs Jonathan Groff Christopher Jackson
Best performance by an actress in a featured role in a musical Renee Elise Goldsberry
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 3, 2016 11:50:10 GMT
I'm ALL ABOARD the Hamilton band-wagon, but it will continue to do a-okay without any further awards. Though I will throw something if Daveed Diggs doesn't get a nom. If you're talking about noms, I think that's a safe bet. Find out in 40 min!
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on May 2, 2016 22:25:37 GMT
Are we seriously having a conversation about how Hamilton is not winning enough awards?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 29, 2016 16:06:27 GMT
Hopefully Lin pulls off a better British accent than Dick Van Dyke.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 28, 2016 2:19:31 GMT
This brought a broad smile to my face. It's the cast of Hamilton performing the opening number, rejiggered to be about Sweeney Todd (for the Broadway Cares Easter Bonnet competition):
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 26, 2016 18:03:48 GMT
I'm a little crestfallen that the reviews aren't better, as I really like Sara Bareilles. But still hope to see it next time I'm in NYC.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 19, 2016 1:44:03 GMT
Only other musicals to win the Pulitzer in recent memory are Next to Normal and Rent right? Also Baz tweeted congratulations saying it was going to the Victoria Palace... Is that him confirming its going there do we think? Right, with Sunday in the Park with George winning in 1985 and A Chorus Line winning in 1976. In the Heights and Fun Home were both finalists but didn't win their respective years. Basically, musicals win the Drama prize roughly about once a decade. Do you have the link to the Baz tweet?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 15, 2016 17:10:14 GMT
At the risk of igniting a raging fire: what do you all think is the best Les Miz recording? I was browsing through Spotify and it suddenly dawned on me that, despite seeing it on stage and on screen, I only had the 10th Anniversary Concert growing up and that's all I've listened to. I'm going to rectify this gross oversight in my life but wanted some expert opinions on where to start.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 14, 2016 16:19:44 GMT
Daughter's copy of the Hamiltome has just arrived (ordered from Amazon on April 5th). If she has got homework tonight it is unlikely to get done. I like the way that she, and other teenagers, are getting their knowledge of American history via musical theatre. Not just Hamilton, but Assassins and the Pajama Game, among others. If only the GCSE boards could be encouraged to set their exams to reflect this specialist knowledge! That's awesome. You should all check out Chernow's biography too if you're interested... the musical only manages to touch on half of the amazing stories in Hamilton's life, and the book is able to fill in the broader context of American politics and Hamilton's place in them.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 12, 2016 16:28:42 GMT
How do the bots work now? Don't the primary ticket sale sites have captcha protection? In a recent interview with the NY Times, producer Jeffrey Seller was quoted as follows: A complicating factor is that the money being divided derives from the face value of tickets that range from $67 to $477, hardly small change but short of what the tickets are fetching on StubHub and other secondary-market sites — anywhere from $500 to $2,000 or more. The money from these secondary-market sales goes to brokers, many of whom get their hands on tickets by using computer programs, or “bots,” to scoop up huge volumes of seats each time a new batch becomes available. The demand is heightened by a distinct lack of supply. Broadway theaters, in general, are small, much smaller than some of the bigger houses in other American cities. The Richard Rodgers, midsize for Broadway, seats just over 1,300, so during the course of eight shows in a week, far fewer people see “Hamilton” than attend a single Knicks game. Early this year, Seller says, a single bot purchased 20,000 “Hamilton” tickets. Even when the brokers’ methods are discovered, he says, “they figure out a new way to hack the system. It’s frustrating, and it’s infuriating.” Here's the full (very long) interview: www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/magazine/the-ceo-of-hamilton-inc.html?_r=0So, anyway, yes, apparently still a big problem with bots. Thanks very much for posting that. First off, I'm very suspicious about the incentives here. Captchas and other human verifications are now commonplace and ought to be easy to implement, so it's curious that this is a problem at all. I would note, however, that sites like Ticketmaster also host second-hand tickets, for which they take a cut on both the buying and selling end. That means there's basically no incentive for them to clamp down on shenanigans with primary purchases. But taking a step back: yes, the prices absolutely suck, but if scalpers find it worthwhile to buy tickets en masse and then resell them on secondary market sites even with cuts being taken out, then clearly the demand is there and the producers were underpricing tickets to begin with. And the thing is, even if scalping and resales were stopped dead in their tracks and the producers mandated that prices were lower, it'd still be frustrating to get a ticket; not because it was expensive, but because the queue would run the entire length of Manhattan and it would require days or weeks of camping out to have a shot.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 11, 2016 19:41:41 GMT
How do the bots work now? Don't the primary ticket sale sites have captcha protection?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 11, 2016 17:08:20 GMT
It's still cheaper than drugs! Well, so long as you don't like the show and don't keep going back!
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 11, 2016 16:13:23 GMT
I mentioned the hype because some twits will leap to the conclusion that I dislike the show because of the huge amount of attention and praise it has garnered. I wanted to clarify that I did not like the material, music, staging from the outset, regardless of its reception elsewhere. Incidentally, I really like old school rap and hip hop but I find Lin's style in Hamilton and In the Heights too bland and trite. The thing I really hate is when people try to belittle other people's dislike of a show. For some, it seems impossible to accept that others just don't like a show. I like shows ranging from 'Hair' to 'Amour', 'Rent' to 'Pacific Overtures', 'Evita' to 'La Cage'. 'Hamilton' I find irritating- to full of tell instead of show. We have threads going on ad infinitum about how excited people are to see one show or another. We should be equally able to express our dislike. With some exceptions, this board has been pretty good about being open to criticism of the show -- better than some other theatre boards at the very least -- and I think most of the readers who like 'Hamilton' have been accepting of this. Certainly, I've read plenty of negative-to-luke-warm reactions here and on balance it's been interesting reading since I myself love the show from a musical theatre perspective (I'm a little more reserved over the history depicted in the show but that's probably out of the purview of a forum like this). In fact the dissents are often more interesting than the praises. That said, detractors of any show should never fall into a martyr complex. We've all disliked popular shows at some point in our lives (unless there are teenagers reading this, in which case, take it from me: IT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU TOO). "Popularity" and "hype" don't make a show great, but they also make lousy reasons for disliking a show, particularly if it's sight unseen. Best to ignore all of that and decide for yourself.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 11, 2016 13:32:53 GMT
I suspect that I am not the only one for whom this show does absolutely nothing. Even before the hype, I didn't enjoy it. I suspect you haven't read this forum. Plenty of folks have voiced disapproval. Also, why would "hype" make a difference in your personal opinion of the show?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 11, 2016 12:48:35 GMT
A few thoughts: 1. This spliced-together B-roll footage is a very poor representation for how the directing, staging, and choreography feels in the actual, coherent show. So how is the direction, staging and choreography different? I think it's exactly how it is and what we see. If you try to say that certain flaws feel less obvious when you sit in the theatre because the audience is screaming etc, that is possible but it does not change the material. I mean, it's different because contra this video the choreography is not jazz hands-pose-dance twirl-repeat ad nauseum. I can see exactly how one might think that relying solely on this (again, poorly done) B-roll video, but having, you know, seen the actual show and the full numbers, I can attest that in fact it is not.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 11, 2016 1:42:08 GMT
A few thoughts:
1. This spliced-together B-roll footage is a very poor representation for how the directing, staging, and choreography feels in the actual, coherent show.
2. To boot, I never once felt that these facets of the show were overwrought, and that's saying a lot since I have a very low tolerance for affectations in theatre. As a matter of fact, I thought most of the staging was tastefully understated (Having just recently seen Phantom and that damn chandelier for the umpteenth time, there I was watching Hamilton, a show whose most sophisticated special effect is a manually-moved stair ladder, and I kept saying, "THIS is the biggest show on Broadway?!")
3. To give one specific example, I was dead sure just from listening to the cast album that "Wait For It" was going to be, you know, one of those giant musical dance numbers. But (without spoiling it) it's absolutely not, and the actual staging was both surprising but in retrospect completely appropriate for the song.
4. To conclude on a broader note, if there's one thing the staged show conveys that the cast album doesn't, it's that this show wasn't conceived as a giant Broadway mega hit. It's the first buzz-y show I've seen since A Chorus Line or possibly Rent that really feels firmly rooted as a work of theatre art. It just feels like a smaller, more modest, more organic work than its peers topping the weekly Broadway box office would suggest.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 10, 2016 18:48:48 GMT
And as a counterpoint, remember the example of Rent: a hyped US musical with a story that was far more universal and ahistorical than Hamilton... and it only played for, what, less than 2 years in London IIRC? So it's just tough to predict.
I think Hamilton will do fine but with the caveat that the story arc and the stakes involved are a little more tied up in actual history than Les Miz or even Evita.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 6, 2016 1:16:47 GMT
Continental Europe which I assume is either Germany or the Netherlands would be risky as Hamilton might not play well there. Even Mormon hasn't opened in Europe yet. Hamilton could actually do quite well in France/among the French, since a) English-language musicals have a bit of a cult following in Paris, b) Hamilton touches on the history of France at several points, and c) much like in America, the pro-immigrant overtones of the musical make it all the more relevant to contemporary audiences there. The biggest challenge then is not the plot itself but the logistics of translating in real-time what is unofficially the most lyrically-dense major musical ever written. Do you resort to super/side titles? Or do you risk translated songs?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Apr 1, 2016 16:40:04 GMT
Adding my voice to the Book of Mormon - do not understand the obsession with this show at all. Interested that with all the discussion of sexism, Grease hadn't come up. Am I the only person that thinks Grease is one of the most sexist shows to exist? Not even sure if sexist is the right word - it just gives such a bad message to women, it shocks me that schools still put it on! I actually didn't name Grease because I figured, you know, of course someone would have mentioned it already. Yes, absolutely.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 30, 2016 20:28:20 GMT
Oh it is-and staged it can be utterly brilliant and fun (the off Broadway revival did it really well) but in terms of a musical number when I hear it I feel like it's fingernails on a blackboard. Agree to disagree on Act II personally with the exception of 'Contact' I think it's equal to act I. (With a few tweaks here and there that no doubt would have happened had Larson been around to do so) I've said it numerous times, but normally as soon as 'What You Own' finished it always felt like a really sad, desperate realisation that it had nearly finished and I had to soak up every last second that was left. (I'm talking Broadway & Shaftesbury casts here rather than Rickett & Bourret!). 'Over The Moon' was just a challenge to endure before 'La Vie Boheme' Yep, we'll have to agree to disagree. 'La Vie Boheme' pretty well sums up the best and the worst of Rent for me. Energetic, totally infectious song with some moving moments... but also overbearing, affectatious, pushy in a meaningless way, and completely aware of how cool it's trying to be.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 30, 2016 13:35:19 GMT
It's jarring in exactly the right way -- these are kids after all, but they've become trapped in a terrifying situation. That's captured by the light, humorous veneer to the song contrasting with what just happened. And of course the lyrics are a pretty sharp social commentary. From the stage version of West Side Story I would have chosen "America", but the movie version of that song is a vast improvement. Anyway, my own contributions: "Without You" and "What You Own" in Rent, when Act II starts buckling. "High Flying, Adored" from Evita. Many have mentioned "American Dream" from Miss Saigon but I far prefer that to "If You Want to Die in Bed" which hits most of the same themes. Whoah there Neddy! "When act II starts buckling"? WTF? If it buckles anywhere it's the self indulgent nonsense of 'Over The Moon', but as soon as they return to the stage for 'Seasons of Love' to the last notes of 'Finale B', Act 2 has always sizzled along at a fair old pace when performed well. (ok 'Contact' is a bit of an oddity but...) Buckling...hmph! :/ See, even though I've fallen out of love with Rent, I still really like 'Over the Moon'. I always took its self-indulgence as one of the few self-aware bits of parody in the musical. But Act II... with the exception of 'Seasons of Love', ugh.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 28, 2016 13:33:09 GMT
I have a slight issue with what Prince says here. I truly appreciate the intension and the gesture If he wants to "elevate" the caliber of the show/musical theatre by giving Shakespeare credit for inspiration. But in reality, it IS inspired by hip-hop, which is a legitimate art form that needs to be recognized. To belittle it is kind of ignorant and uninformed. This is a very good point. To add, I hate the praise of a show as "important". To me that just feeds into a substance-free hype machine and often just translates to "everyone likes it." To be fair, it could also be taken to mean "this show is innovative" or "it's doing something different that theatre really needs if it's going to thrive" but why not just say that?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 28, 2016 3:24:39 GMT
Dare I mention 'Gee, Officer Krupke?' > To me it seems to be not only in the wrong place in the show, but in the wrong show itself. It's jarring in exactly the right way -- these are kids after all, but they've become trapped in a terrifying situation. That's captured by the light, humorous veneer to the song contrasting with what just happened. And of course the lyrics are a pretty sharp social commentary. From the stage version of West Side Story I would have chosen "America", but the movie version of that song is a vast improvement. Anyway, my own contributions: "Without You" and "What You Own" in Rent, when Act II starts buckling. "High Flying, Adored" from Evita. Many have mentioned "American Dream" from Miss Saigon but I far prefer that to "If You Want to Die in Bed" which hits most of the same themes.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 14, 2016 13:22:30 GMT
I am unfair, I admit, although it was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek... I'll take it back. (I suppose what I meant was "Overhyped Musical"- is there a thread for that?- so much talk about it, and listening to ALW bigging up the composer on Radio 2 a few weeks back was the final nail in the coffin for me. Did you really mean those things you said, Andrew?) I completely agree about cast recordings- they rarely do justice to a show. Once you've seen a production, the recording slots into place. I don't know, I came out thinking it hit pretty close to the hype, and I'm someone who spent the last 15 years being consistently disappointed by every new "Best. Musical. EVER." But you may end up not caring for it, of course, and at any rate it's clearly being hyped a lot in an absolute sense. Then again, you might like it!
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 14, 2016 1:20:20 GMT
Am I allowed to nominate Hamilton, even though it hasn't arrived here (yet) and I haven't seen it? (I did see its sister, In the Heights, and found it SO overrated...) Have already heard enough about Hamilton to reckon it's completetly overrated! You're asking if you're allowed to pre-judge a show sight unseen? I mean, no one's going to stop you, but do you think that's fair?
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 13, 2016 16:31:37 GMT
Is it possible Hamilton would choose a smaller-sized West End house as a precaution? Mormon did when it first opened on Broadway, and that seemed to have served it well. I thought there was an specific West End theatre that had been rumored? I don't know NYC theatres well but the Richard Rodgers struck me as smallish, and since then I've heard that Hamilton has a built-in seat disadvantage against some other big shows like Lion King (~300 fewer seats IIRC). Hamilton's not quite as bare bones as, say, A Chorus Line but it would not surprise me at all if it runs on the cheap side to keep the lights on, so maybe the economics allow for a smaller venue.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Mar 13, 2016 16:00:15 GMT
I think it'll most likely be another reference to Bend it like Beckham, though I could be wrong of course! I was thinking Spider-Man but wasn't sure as that was Broadway not West End.
|
|