Sunset Boulevard – Savoy Theatre 2023/24

Maybe- and this is just a thought- it's black and white, not only to reflect Norma's time in front of the camera, but also as she slips in and out of sanity?

So, Joe's world, with Sheldrake, Betty and Artie- the scenes at Swabs- are all in colour. But the scenes inside the mansion- the dead chimp, Max shuffling about, the screenings of her old films, that sort of this are in black and white.

I don't have a ticket or any inside knowledge however again, just a thought.

Like City of Angels?

Perhaps there’s still a vat full of theatrical blood somewhere backstage at the Savoy, left behind from A Little Life…

Except however atmospheric it may be, grey is really quite boring to watch on stage for the 90 minutes before she makes it back to the studio.

Or The Wizard of Oz?

This little story is slightly O/T but generally related because of the design aspect.

The most hideous-yet-expensive set I’ve personally ever seen was at the ROH for an interminable production of Tamerlano. Placido Domingo pulled out (allegedly after seeing the set) and we left at the second interval. This was about three hours in mind you, with another hour and a half to run. The production got scathing reviews; (https://theartsdesk.com/opera/tamerlano-royal-opera?amp) which were richly deserved.

My main memory was the set was absolutely hideous. Almost everything was in black and white, from the backdrops to the solitary giant orb, to the costumes. The lighting was bright white. It was sterile and clinical. It was dreadful and completely brutal.

In my view - and I appreciate others will disagree - this show is meant to be opulent. You can be earnest and honest with the story while still portraying in a literal sense Norma’s frivolous grandiosity. The Watermill production and subsequent West End transfer showed that you don’t need a whopping budget to “signpost” what things literally represent.

Norma Desmond actually lives in a “palazzo”, she actually is loaded. She actually is a faded movie star from the silent era. These aspects are absolutely crucial to the telling of the story.

Why must directors put their ego above the telling of the story? Is this a money issue? Can they quite literally not afford sets which actually the represent the things they are meant to?

I am at the stage where I avoid shows by certain directors because I know what they’ll be and what gimmicks will resurface right on schedule. Ivo Van Hove, for instance, would stage the whole thing in a box, and you’ll spend most the show watching a shaking Go-Pro camera feed.

Just honour the original work, for pity’s sake, and for these ticket prices show me some of the money on the stage!!!

Said the 'Cher Show' ensemble to the wardrobe dept.

I agree, I get the original production was visually stunning but it also lost money and theatre is always evolving and unless you want theatre to be the equivalent of a museum then you have to accept different interpretations. 

Honouring the original does not, and has never, meant only performing a piece exactly as it was in the first production.

It does mean staying true to the essence of what the creators intended and not seeking to impose things on a show that do not have strong roots in the text/score.

Some of the most exciting theatre I have seen stays true to that approach. Always using the material as the basis for each production material and not seeking to use the material to tell another story.

No one has argued that theatre should be trapped in a museum. Innovation is key. But it has to come from within and not be imposed.

There's a hell of a lot of music in that show devoted to the entrances,exits, transitions, really bad car chase etc etc. You have to fill that time with something to look at or you're left with a lot of nothing connected by a few big numbers.

😂