258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jan 14, 2018 23:31:56 GMT
They've changed the height requirements for Glinda and Fiyero but forgotten to remove the old ones so the specification contradicts itself. GLINDA: female, 20-30, white, maximum height 5'8. The "good" witch. Pretty, charming, entrancing, ambitious, perky, vain, very "popular", but also vulnerable and sympathetic. This actor needs to have excellent comic acting skills and star power. Needs an effortless lyrical soprano to a TOP C, even a TOP E with a strong musical theatre belt. Must be a genuine top Soprano. Playing age 20 - 30. Height, 4'11-5'11FIYERO: male, 20-30, any ethnicity. Must be above 5'9. The Winkie prince, a wealthy party boy. Very handsome with striking presence. Not really shallow and self-absorbed as first impressions would suggest. Glinda pursues him, but he is intrigued by Elphaba. A good actor with an effortless contemporary tenor voice to a TOP B. Must have strong movement and dance skills. Tall, dashing and handsome, with edge. Playing age 20 - 30. Height, 5'5-6'5.Cast change is Saturday 21st July, 2018. The one after that is Saturday 20th July, 2019. I'm sure there's an answer, but I'm just wondering why Glinda has to be white? I'm mainly wondering as Fiyero can be "any ethnicity" so is there something in the script that means Glinda has to be white? I get that in order to contrast Glinda to Elphaba and to play on the themes of what is good and evil/popularity vs righteousness and integrity/things not being as they appear/exploring what appears dark and light vs what actually is, they need to *dress* Glinda in white clothes whilst Elphaba is in black, but what prevents Glinda being another ethnicity? On an entirely different note, I don't think I've noticed a Glinda sing a Top E - does it happen in Thank Goodness sometimes?
|
|
258 posts
|
Follies
Jan 7, 2018 9:12:26 GMT
via mobile
sf likes this
Post by notmymuse on Jan 7, 2018 9:12:26 GMT
So pleased to have had a chance to see this (at the cinema, a bit late to the party note but nevermind!). It's one of the few of Sondheim's I've never seen before and I'm glad to have caught it.
Overall, I really enjoyed this. With such a strong cast is hard to pick stand outs, but I forgot what an amazing dancer Zizi Strallen is and really enjoyed watching her. Quite stunning.
My favourite moment was the operetta-style duet which I thought was quite wonderfully sung and very touching.
It dragged as little for me with the different Follies part for the main characters (I guess my short attention span would have liked an interval) but apart from that, I was pretty gripped.
The cinema was pretty packed too, and whilst I guess nothing can match being there in person, it's great to see NT using cinemas to make its work more accessible, to people outside London and on lower incomes - I guess cinema is helping NT be more "National" which is a good thing. I'm thankful to have had the chance to see it.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Dec 6, 2017 0:02:36 GMT
Can anyone give a bit more detail about the changes to the score? I'm curious since it was reported that ALW and Zippel had been working on and off again on this over the last decade what major changes were done to it (and even more, would that be enough to encourage a new recording with this cast that has universally been praised) There aren’t enough changes in my opinion. Some new songs, a new beginning (maybe stand out song) and cutting of the recitivie would really help. If they've been working on it for a decade they've not been very productive... Lammastide and Marion's Dream are cut along with perhaps a verse here and there, there aren't any new songs (although there may be some new incidental music or recitative but not that I noticed anything major). That's about it. I think there's a fair amount of dialogue cut. It seems to fairly gallop along now. It's hard to say for sure what's cut or not as they made reasonably significant changes when the original London cast changed over and it's hard to remember what changes they made then!! But it's nothing particularly dramatic. I wish I was able to go again though. It's a lovely score and really well sung.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Dec 3, 2017 11:49:01 GMT
Ones that spring to mind are Dusty at Charing Cross (several months of previews if I recall, and big changes) and Spiderman. Quite a few have had 2 or 3 weeks I think.
Are previews a fairly modern thing? I'm sure I don't remember them from more than 10 years ago it so. Things would tour or open in ab regional theatre before transferring I think, or is that my memory failing?
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Nov 27, 2017 11:45:29 GMT
I saw the matinee on Saturday - about 4/5 full and the people sitting around me at least appeared to be genuine punters, so I don't think it was papered much (if at all).
I really really enjoyed this. I was listening to the OCR this morning, and I thought the singing was far better in this new version. I must have mis-read the news about this as I thought Greg Castiglioni was playing Hartright, so that caused me a bit of confusion for a while, but Ashley Stillburn had a lovely voice and sang beautifully. The three women were also all very strong, and there are some just lovely moments of harmony singing throughout. The cast coped really well with the score in general, and Caroline Maitland was able to belt higher than Maria Friedman could, so adds more power to All for Laura. Chris Peluso seemed to struggle at one point with a higher phrase or two which is odd as I was sure Glyde was a bass-baritone and it should be comfortably in his range, but I could be wrong on all counts. I didn't like him as much as I did in Death, but he was still fine.
The set is a step above the usual Charing Cross standards, and given the quality of the cast I didn't mind paying the higher price.
I saw (and loved) the original at The Palace and was trying to work out the differences. Lammastide has been cut, and the chorus don't have a lot to do in general. I also think there may be a scene or two between Count Fosco and Sir Glyde that has been cut, and the rats are gone. It works better without them, to be honest. The ending I'm not sure lands too well now, and the train scene needs to be re-staged - if he was standing just a few steps more upstage, it would work fine so it's an odd choice.
In general, I found all the characters pretty convincing and there's not really a weak link. The one thing I didn't like amazingly was the pace. The show rockets along (it seems a fair bit shorter than the original - maybe 15 minutes or so?) with barely a chance to catch breath. Which occasionally makes lurching from one song into another seem a bit jarring, and a bit of time to pause would allow it to seem more menacing and brooding. As it is, you've barely a chance to think before they launch into another song.
But that's a quibble really. A nice production of a very good show, with some beautiful songs and sung really well. I'll go again if I get the chance.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Nov 12, 2017 21:00:04 GMT
I'm guessing the run time is 2h30 but can anyone who has seen it let me know? Seeing if I can get home after!
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Nov 6, 2017 18:47:39 GMT
Thanks for posting. Really enjoyed seeing that. Looking forward to it even more now!
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Oct 22, 2017 9:21:36 GMT
Sorry if this has already been mentioned (I searched for it but couldn't see anything) but just found out via offwestend.com that this is playing November 21 to December 9 at the Drayton Arms. Cast was announced a couple of days ago and includes Natalie Day, Taite-Elliot Drew, Neil Cameron and Nora Perone. Apparently, the same production as was at the Edinburgh Fringe recently and seems to have reviewed well. This has been on my bucket list for ages so very excited to have booked, £14 seems a bargain. And you can even choose your own seat, so no hideous queuing and dashing to not be behind a pillar. www.facebook.com/OrdinaryDaysLDN/ and www.thedraytonarmstheatre.co.uk/menu/discover/listings/eventdetail/4776/-/ordinary-days
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Oct 12, 2017 21:57:14 GMT
Just discovered the OLC of this. Seems like quite a charming musical. Did anyone see the 1989 Trevor Nunn version at The Phoenix? Seemed it lasted just over a month. Some great names attached though (Nunn/John Napier/David Cullen and of course Stephen Schwartz). Hope there's a future for it somewhere. Nope, but I caught it at the Union a few years back. It was great, and to be honest I didn't think the OBC did it justice!
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Oct 3, 2017 23:02:23 GMT
BFG was touring when I was a kid (as a play) I mean there are certainly worse things to adapt for the stage so on one hand crack on NT. On the other I've no desire to see it so meh, personally. I saw the BFG play about 7 years ago. Loved it.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Sept 14, 2017 0:16:05 GMT
It will be interesting if the cast is this small. To be fair, the chorus songs were the worst ones ("sing cos it's Lammastide" or whatever they sang) so they could probably cut them and make it just about the principals. I felt they had a chorus in the West end because that's what your have to do rather than it adding much.
I'm really excited by this cast a production. Peluso has such a lovely voice.
I'm less excited by the prices. High end cast has brought in high end prices or seems. Never seen seats this expensive at this theatre, ever. Still, have booked for a preview which seems a bit cheaper.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Sept 11, 2017 20:46:58 GMT
Really excited about Laura Main being cast. I may well have to go and see this just to hear her sing. I haven't seen her on a stage for ages, last time was State Fair (and I think Me and Juliet shortly after). A lovely actress and singer. Glad they've cast someone strong for the lead, glad for her too.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Sept 10, 2017 10:13:44 GMT
Sounds like the actress who plays Jane's mother/Tim's aunt was indisposed, so they covered "Find Yourself Something To Do" as she has important lines, but then cut her hairdresser scene when she's being Jane's mother (which is a bit of filler anyway and doesn't do much to advance the plot - it's just her having a fairly short one-sided conversation on the phone which is tittersome but not hilarious) and made "We Don't Understand Our Children" a solo when it's usually a duet (but most of it is sung together, so it's not a big change and wouldn't be much noticed).
Those are probably the only real changes. The song sung by the nightclub singer is usually done by the actress playing Tim's mother I think, so I assume that remained? The rest of the plot is mainly the principles.
I'm really glad you enjoyed it though - such a lovely show.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Sept 7, 2017 21:24:04 GMT
I saw this at the Landor years ago and was really disappointed. There was a lovely song about dogs (or it may have been cats...) but that was the only highlight. Hopefully the union will do a better job.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 26, 2017 14:09:54 GMT
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 18, 2017 8:05:17 GMT
I know what Burly means. I saw The Mousetrap shortly after coming back from holiday where I went to a tourist attraction which was about the history of the city I was in. I would not have called the tourist attraction theatre, and I found myself in the Mousetrap thinking that it was as much tourist attraction as theatre now, and that people were going to see it (probably myself included) because of the length of it's fun and fame, not to see the play. The Mousetrap was seriously stale, and I wondered how many of the scripts wanted to be in it because it gave them a year's steady work rather than anything else.
I think the line is passion. I know Wicked, POTO are money making machines, but I think when the people in them and the technical staff stop caring and being passionate about it, then the art leaves. Many of the actors cast in the big shows were likely motivated to go to stage school to be in one of the shows they'd seen and loved, and it's their dream role, so they put their all in, night after night. I've had one technician friend who was thrilled to work on one big show. I think it's that passion that keeps it fresh.
I saw Blood Brothers a year before it shut and it was flat and stale too. I wonder if that's partly why people stopped going and it closed.
So, apart from the Mousetrap which probably gets away with it as it's in such a small theatre, I wonder if the skill is in the resident director or whoever keeping it fresh, and when that fails, the production shows it and shuts. So, to be a money making machine most shows maybe need to keep being theatre?!?
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 14, 2017 19:54:27 GMT
Sorry if someone's posted this already, but for those of you thinking of seeing Follies in the cinema I thought some of you might like to know it's possible to book for £9 (and probably even slightly cheaper, rather than the £20 or so most cinemas are charging). This works in cineworld, and probably others but I haven't checked. If you go onto Ebay and search for "cineworld ticket" and buy one voucher code. I paid £8.50 for one to be sent instantly, but you can pay less and wait a bit longer. The pages say the tickets aren't valid for theatre productions, but ignore it. Then go to the booking page for Follies at your cineworld, and put in your voucher code. Then checkout, and it'll charge you another 50p for booking. That's it. I don't think they'll close this loophole and it's worked for ages (I used it for Newsies ages ago) so no rush. For those who want to be sure it'll work, I bought my voucher from www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Cineworld-Tickets-Instant-Adult-Ticket/253067842147?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649 but I'd imagine the other sellers are the same. Looking forward to this now. One of the few Sondheims I've yet to see.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 7, 2017 18:19:01 GMT
Pleased for Gina Beck. I might be tempted to revisit now.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 1, 2017 23:07:54 GMT
Yes, I do think this would be as good if it was a cast of mixed genders. It's the way it's performed straight, directed well, sung well in a more accessible modern MT style that makes it. A gender-blind production would likely work just as well, and perhaps bring a totally different edge.
I think the falsetto singing is also hugely impressive to be fair.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 29, 2017 21:19:07 GMT
Burley, I've seen a few and it's hard to say why then being all male makes a difference. I'm not actually sure it does. The thing I love is it's G+S sung really well, but with musical theatre voices target than opera voices which I prefer and I can understand the words better, directed and choreographed really well, played in a pretty sincere and earnest way which lets the source material shine. It's more how an all male sixth form would approach it than anything else. You kind of forget it's all men after a while.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 23, 2017 20:09:56 GMT
I feel for Ruth. She must have been so excited to be cast, and thought it would change her life and be an amazing adventure etc. etc. Now she finds herself almost further back than before she was given the role, as industry people will be judging her, her pride is hurt and likely her confidence, and her chances of being cast in any show anytime soon is not high. To deal with all of that, and reasonably publicly, at a fairly young age is tough. But I guess she's just another talented person who wanted to perform and make it big and hasn't cos there are too many other talented people and too few chances to go around.
For my money her I'm guessing her acting wasn't up to scratch which is why she never went on, and after much trying to help her improve, she couldn't. But who knows. If she wasn't good enough to go on, fair dues to the producers for getting Marisha over here in time (which must have been a visa/rehearsal nightmare) to ensure another performer was available. I'm guessing the producers probably enjoyed telling Ruth she was fired about as much as she enjoyed being fired...
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 19, 2017 7:08:15 GMT
A little house from half a sixpence. Something happened and Finally to know from death takes a holiday (actually, seems Yeston uses this a lot
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 19, 2017 6:59:30 GMT
You can't help but feel a little sorry for Marisha. It must be really difficult hearing the reaction of disappointment from the audience when you come on and they want someone else, but then carrying on regardless...
Obviously audiences should realise you can never guarantee seeing anyone, but in real life many people will make the trip to the West End once a year and will have booked to see Amber so you can also understand it.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 17, 2017 16:29:44 GMT
Is "A kiss is a terrible thing to waste" in "Whistle down the Wind" counterpoint? Yep, I'd say so. 3 characters singing their hearts out about their own feelings and situation. I forgot this one. I've been thinking about this all day as I'd never noticed how this is one of my favourite things about musicals. The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a lovely example (and is great in general), and was also thinking about Shrek - I think this happens twice, with the 3 Fionas and then again with another song.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 17, 2017 13:53:36 GMT
im actually not so sure WIW did projections any good. Shows have used them since, but im struggling to think of one thats used them to the degree WIW did. I seem to remember at the time up to that point a few shows had used projections but not to the extent of WIW. WIW didnt have much set other than the cylinders that the projections are projected onto. Most shows that use projections use them to enhance the set, not as the only set I never saw Woman in White, but I bet the theatre company 1927 uses projections more. I've seen a 1927 production and the West End Woman in White, and it's a close run thing. Women in White was literally a set of two quarters of a cylinder (which moved to make a half-cylinder at times) but that was it. Literally everything (moving trains, doors opening, you name it) was projected, including journies between locations (as 1927 might). They didn't project onto people as much, but it was pretty close. And, remaining in my minority of one, I loved it and thought it was magical.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 17, 2017 13:49:36 GMT
Wow, thanks so much for flagging this up! I just booked. Bizarre experience booking so far ahead as I literally have no idea what'll be going on in a year, and may well forget I booked at all, but I'm not risking missing out.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 17, 2017 13:45:06 GMT
Great thread. Totally agree. There's something just so intense and moving about a good bit of counterpoint! Quintet from West Side Story probably wins for me, but I remember sitting in a theatre hearing one in Seven Brides years ago (no idea of the song?) and also I'm sure Chess also?
Am off to going and listen to my Rebecca Caine bootleg from Phantom now to hear a good bit of POTO now I've been reminded of it.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 14, 2017 17:02:04 GMT
I'm in the minority on this one, but I loved the original version. Going to see it is one of my fondest theatre-memories; I loved the projections; and I think it's one of his strongest scores. The voices on the cast recording aren't my favourite, with the exception of the young evil dude (whatever his name was) but it's a great score.
And Thom is usually great at this kind of small-scale re-invention of musicals, so I'm there. And I'd put money on Pitt-Pulford starring (do she and Thom still share a flat? They at least used to and she's starred in probably half of all of his output in recent years).
In totally unrelated Thom Southerland news, when I saw Umbrellas of Cherbourg years ago, he sat in front of me. He has a big head and is very tall and so totally blocked my view. Which wasn't a problem as it wasn't the best show...
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 8, 2017 7:45:31 GMT
I was just reading an article which referred to someone as the First Lady of British musical theatre. Who do you think it was talking about? And regardless of who the article was about, who do YOU believe is our 'First Lady'? I'd imagine they were talking about La Paige. I've always found that odd, as her career featured some huge hits but she hasn't done much for years, really. In terms of working consistently in significant shows, Joanna Riding must deserve a mention, and in terms of younger actors, Rosalie Craig is rarely off stage (recent maternity leave excepted), and obviously Kerry Ellis has been called the First Lady of Musical Theatre before. Emma Williams is obviously known for musicals but not sure she'd be called first lady. Hmmm. I'm sure I've forgotten some really obvious people now! But for me it would have to be about longevity and significant roles.
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Jul 1, 2017 9:05:26 GMT
I finally got to see this this week (thanks to TodayTix and Rush Tickets). I might be a lone voice, but I was a bit underwhelmed. Don't get me wrong, it was a perfectly pleasant afternoon in the theatre, Peggy danced absolutely beautifully, Sheena Easton was far better than I'd been led to believe she was, I always like seeing Stuart Neal, but it didn't live up to the hype for me.
As with everything in the arts I guess it mainly comes down to personal taste, but I just didn't feel emotionally involved. The score had a couple of good numbers but for me the songs were mostly serviceable rather than ones I'd want to hear again, and the plot was a bit thin...
The spectacle was amazing, I'm not sure I've seen such a big cast outside ENO/ROH in the West End, and the dancing was lovely, but it made me feel a bit like a detached spectator than anything else.
I think the main thing is that the acting was a bit "pantomime" for me. Everything was very over-done and *big* and just didn't ring true. Maybe this is a choice of the director to ensure it plays well to the whole house, given Drury Lane's size (although I was at the back of the Dress so not that close myself), but it made it hard to get emotionally connected.
Anyway, I am very glad indeed that this show is being enjoyed by so many of you and that it seems to be selling OK, as it's always nice to see a big musical surviving and to tick another off my bucket list. And awesome cheap ticket thanks to TodayTix.
Oh, and the most biazarre moment of the whole thing was queuing to get in. The entire queue was identical to the end of Act 1 from The Producers: - from 2.10. Coach trip, I guess, but a very odd sight as they were all dressed alike and moved forward on zimmerframes in unison!
|
|