750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 16, 2016 17:00:04 GMT
That lighting design...
And the choreography looked so tame by modern standards.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 16, 2016 16:16:55 GMT
Completely agree about the re-naming: they will always be the Strand, Albery and Comedy to me. (even though I know the Albery was the New Theatre before).
I appreciate the £7m donation and all, but not sure it has to be recognized with a re-naming- it makes it seem vainglorious even if he didn't ask for it.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 16, 2016 14:10:16 GMT
I've had a show there too- but given the size of the main house I'm surprised they felt the need for a studio, too.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 16, 2016 14:06:20 GMT
This thread has become very intellectual! I'm so proud how it turned out.
btw I really object to the Cottesloe being re-named (I don't know if that's unpopular, actually)
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 16, 2016 6:29:56 GMT
I'm not sure he was "notorious". In several cases the script, published after the premiere, acknowledged that stage directions were added to the published text after the play had opened, ie the directors had contributed to the process and Shaffer was merely recording their concepts.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 15, 2016 12:20:58 GMT
I'm very fond of the Fortune.
I find the Shaftesbury to be one of the most beautiful and "theatre-ish"
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 14, 2016 19:03:11 GMT
Oh Theatremonkey- did you go too far? Did you mention one of the untouchables?
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 13, 2016 19:33:59 GMT
The single moment of delight for me was the quick change into red waistcoats. That was it.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 13, 2016 16:21:48 GMT
I find all Pinter apart from The Birthday Part intolerable. Birthday Party I can tolerate- just.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 12, 2016 18:17:11 GMT
I'm glad this thread is proving useful...
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 12, 2016 17:04:58 GMT
viserys I love Starmania and Le Petit Prince- do they count? Caiaphas I loved that ENO Pacific Overtures. Hated Michael Ball as Sweeney though.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 11, 2016 19:19:50 GMT
Not strictly theatre (except for all the theatrics!) but I can't stand the last night of the Proms.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 11, 2016 17:29:11 GMT
And while we're here, what the hell is the problem if someone sees a show like Wicked then only ever sees Wicked? How is it anyone's business but their own? What right does anyone have to judge them for their devotion? What kind of snobbery says you only count as a person if you see more than an arbitrarily decided number of shows? Why is a person who sees Wicked thirty times a year somehow worthy of disdain but no one ever feels the need to bitch and moan about a person who only goes to the theatre once a year, or less, or never? I'm not judging them as a person, I'm judging them as a so-called fan of "live theatre". They are clearly not a "theatre fan", but a "Wicked fan". If that's what they want to be then that's their choice, but just call it for what it is. If I only ever ate crisps, I wouldn't presume to call myself a gourmet. Personally, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I am greatly concerned for the industry and for our culture, when there is so little diversity of programming in the West End compared to 30 years ago. New work is at an all-time low, with only a few juggernauts making anything like a reasonable return. I am horrified to see that GCSE Drama will no longer require students to see a live performance, (though I'm sure most teachers will still try to include it in the courses), and I am even more horrified by the way this government is sidelining the arts in school and pressurizing headteachers into squeezing the expressive arts out of the curriculum. How are we to expect future generations to be aware of anything other than reality TV drama, if we do not pass on our incredible heritage and shared knowledge? Contrary to the education minister's assertions, the entertainment industry offers many excellent career paths and films,TV and theatre make a huge contribution to our economy. Who is going to sustain those businesses if all we have are X-Factor participants and TOWIE "stars" to delight us? More than ever, "live theatre" needs promoting. In all its weird and wonderful forms.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 10, 2016 18:19:09 GMT
Natasha is not an understudy at the moment she is a replacement and should be billed as such. False advertizing.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 10, 2016 15:44:50 GMT
That seems a little churlish since you were so willing to tell all about Part 1 . Sounds like Part 2 must have been quite disappointing by comparison if you've decided not to share. I moved house on Sunday, saw Romeo and Juliet Monday, Harry Potter Tuesday and Thursday, worked a full week and am throwing a party tonight. If you want spoilers, see the show before deciding that it 'must have been quite disappointing' just because I've simply not had time. I meant disappointing for you rather than me. It's not something I am in a hurry to see.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 10, 2016 15:43:15 GMT
In my experience, "real fans" and "superfans" create shudders amongst cast and crew. I've only ever heard "oh god, he's in again" and never, "oh how lovely, he's in again".
I have personal experience of this!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 10, 2016 14:04:45 GMT
That seems a little churlish since you were so willing to tell all about Part 1 . Sounds like Part 2 must have been quite disappointing by comparison if you've decided not to share.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 10, 2016 8:39:27 GMT
My point is, it's only the Victoria Apollo they go into- 20+ times...
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 10, 2016 8:14:10 GMT
Some threads on this excellent board a clearly places where fans go to enthuse about their favourite shows or people- fair enough. It seems churlish to go into those to say you don't share their enthusiasm. It tends to lead to very circular, dull arguments. So how about this thread as a refuge and/ or confessional where people can express their unpopular opinions without offending the fans?So I'll get the ball rolling... HARRY POTTER at the Palace Theatre!!! One of our loveliest theatres has been taken over by a theme park of a show. No, it's not "deeper than just a boy wizard story". {Spoiler - click to view}
Any plot that has to start time travelling to undo the bad events and create "alternate realities" immediately undermines its own dramatic tension. It's how Dr Who started to disappear up its own rear end, too. People dressing up as wizards to go to the theatre? Really? OK so I'd appreciate seeing some people go to La Cage as Cagelles, and yes Rocky Horror encourages audience participation, but this feels to grumpy old me like theme park mentality. Of course the fans love it- they have shown themselves to be indiscriminately accepting of every aspect of the saga- or "loyal" as they would probably put it- but my absolute biggest gripe is that the play will not "encourage new audiences to see live theatre". They will see Harry Potter and that's it. Just as 'Wicked' hasn't created a generation of young people desperate to sample all original new musicals, (see the demise of our musical industry), these plays will continue to boost the Harry Potter brand, but not enrich live theatre more widely. And the lazy media will fall in line because they won't have to think or work too hard, seeking out exceptional new writing. So no doubt when it comes to the people's choice awards etc the mass exposure will mean Harry Potter will sweep the board and prove how brilliant the brand is. Yikes I sound a real kill-joy. Anyway, it doesn't have to be Harry Potter, but feel free to confess the thoughts that would only lead to accusations of being a meanie elsewhere!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 9, 2016 17:03:24 GMT
It's been off the syllabus for years and has only just come back on hence this revival
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 9, 2016 8:21:36 GMT
Who dropped out as Judas?
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 9, 2016 7:58:48 GMT
Andrew Lloyd Webber's autobiography would be his biggest work of fiction to date: he lives in a fantasy of his own making.
'The Master and Margarita' needs a composer like Adam Guettel at the very least. The trouble with 'Love Never Dies' was that it wasn't ABOUT anything- it was just a series of characters shuffling around the stage liking and disliking each other with as much reason as a Facebook status. If ALW couldn't understand his own creations, he'd never manage Bulgakov's!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 9, 2016 7:45:13 GMT
I agree 100% with BurlyBeaR. If the producers have been notified that Sheridan is not coming back at all/ not coming back till July they should make a public announcement.
If Sheridan is not coming back Natasha is not currently filling the role of an understudy; she is a replacement.
Continuing to promote the show with Sheridan's name and/ or face is false advertizing if they are fully aware she will not perform.
On the subject of being a fitting replacement, I think the romantic idea that an understudy has stepped in at the last minute will become old-hat quite quickly and the show will merely become an adequate revival rather than a must-see star turn.
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 8, 2016 9:49:02 GMT
I really want to see this, but that trailer made it look dull as hell. Conflicted!
|
|
750 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 6, 2016 22:19:29 GMT
I'm not sure the creative team would be happy with all the effort translating into just a 6 week run.
|
|