274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 9, 2024 10:39:27 GMT
Perhaps I'm easily pleased but I loved it. Back in the 60s, I saw the production with Ron Moody as Fagin and Barry Humphries, in his pre-Edna days, as Sowerberry, and I have very fond memories of that but, if anything, I preferred this version. I thought Shanay Holmes as Nancy was sensational and I hope this does for her career what "Half A Sixpence" did for Charlie Stemp's.
I loved the sets by Lez Brotherston. I had been worried about them as I hated his sets for The Nutcracker, televised over Christmas, so much that I had to switch off. I was also worried about it being described as "reconceived" by Matthew Bourne and Cameron Mackintosh, but these fears were groundless.
My only quibble: I wasn't sure about an older actor playing the Artful Dodger. For some reason he reminded me of a young Robin Askwith and my imagination started to take me to places I didn't want it to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Aug 9, 2024 19:16:14 GMT
Forgot if I already asked this, but with the set I see in the trailer I get a lot of Les Mis tour set vibes from this production and I assume that the idea is to go on a tour if this closes in April.
I've booked to see this in December and I'm getting the feeling I am going to like this!
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 10, 2024 13:29:02 GMT
Forgot if I already asked this, but with the set I see in the trailer I get a lot of Les Mis tour set vibes from this production and I assume that the idea is to go on a tour if this closes in April.
I've booked to see this in December and I'm getting the feeling I am going to like this!
I think it'll run longer than April. Probably 1-2 years is Cameron's aim. |
|
4,970 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 10, 2024 17:54:43 GMT
I am just on my way back from Chichester from their big summer musical. I fess up and say I have never been a fan of Oliver, saw it several times at Drury Lane. I find the score more annoying than a pleasure, when played on EP or Magical.
So what went right for me in this production, why I just happened to fall in love with this. I would say no other reason than the casting choices and the absence of a star name, so therefore the show was performed with solid theatre actors and this shined through because of. The score I wasn’t a fan of when listening to individual songs, but worked for me in a dramatic context and performed by a solid cast. So therefore found Simon Lipkin, Aaron Sidwell and Shanay Holmes all were utterly charming. Katy Secombe although not in a leading role, is certainly a veteran.
So maybe a great lesson for producers and that less can be far far more and give deference to the piece and use that as a vehicle to sell tickets, rather than a stellar name, it worked in a sold out Festival Theatre and will work out up West too. Next time I hear a song, I maybe have a visceral reaction and tap my foot.
The set was nothing really fancy but still evoked a Victorian dystopian London, the lighting which was dark at times worked perfectly with the set, no bells and whistles here, just a set and lighting that represented and presented the show perfectly. Matthew Bourne, the director/choreographer and 9 times Olivier winner needs no praise from me he understands how to get the best from a stage.
I might set my alarm early tomorrow and start queuing for an ice cream at the Gielgud.
An easy and unexpected 5 stars. This will run.
|
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 10, 2024 21:28:01 GMT
Perhaps I'm easily pleased but I loved it. Back in the 60s, I saw the production with Ron Moody as Fagin and Barry Humphries, in his pre-Edna days, as Sowerberry, and I have very fond memories of that but, if anything, I preferred this version. I thought Shanay Holmes as Nancy was sensational and I hope this does for her career what "Half A Sixpence" did for Charlie Stemp's. I loved the sets by Lez Brotherston. I had been worried about them as I hated his sets for The Nutcracker, televised over Christmas, so much that I had to switch off. I was also worried about it being described as "reconceived" by Matthew Bourne and Cameron Mackintosh, but these fears were groundless. My only quibble: I wasn't sure about an older actor playing the Artful Dodger. For some reason he reminded me of a young Robin Askwith and my imagination started to take me to places I didn't want it to go. He didn’t design Nutcracker though… |
|
274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 11, 2024 11:47:20 GMT
Perhaps I'm easily pleased but I loved it. Back in the 60s, I saw the production with Ron Moody as Fagin and Barry Humphries, in his pre-Edna days, as Sowerberry, and I have very fond memories of that but, if anything, I preferred this version. I thought Shanay Holmes as Nancy was sensational and I hope this does for her career what "Half A Sixpence" did for Charlie Stemp's. I loved the sets by Lez Brotherston. I had been worried about them as I hated his sets for The Nutcracker, televised over Christmas, so much that I had to switch off. I was also worried about it being described as "reconceived" by Matthew Bourne and Cameron Mackintosh, but these fears were groundless. My only quibble: I wasn't sure about an older actor playing the Artful Dodger. For some reason he reminded me of a young Robin Askwith and my imagination started to take me to places I didn't want it to go. He didn’t design Nutcracker though… Really? I was sure the "Radio Times" said Lez Brotherston designed the "Nutcracker" sets. In that case, I apologise to Mr. Brotherston. |
|
|
|
Post by SilverFox on Aug 11, 2024 15:08:22 GMT
He didn’t design Nutcracker though… Really? I was sure the "Radio Times" said Lez Brotherston designed the "Nutcracker" sets. In that case, I apologise to Mr. Brotherston. Radio Times wouldn't surprise me, but I think it was actually Anthony Ward for Nutcracker, although Lez has collaborated with Bourne in the past. |
|
274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 11, 2024 17:33:04 GMT
Yes, it was Anthony Ward. I was wrong.
|
|
3,557 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Aug 12, 2024 2:39:18 GMT
This failed to win me over. I've never seen, or wanted to see, the film or any previous stage version, so when the CFT new season was announced & I wanted to book for multiple other productions, I was relieved and happy to be able to rule one out. However, my ex then said he did want to see it (same situation last year with The Sound Of Music, but that proved to be a pleasant surprise), so as I'm the person with the membership, I agreed to book tickets.
In the event it was everything I'd expected/feared and though I obviously sat through it and it wasn't exactly an ordeal, it wasn't enjoyable or entertaining, though provided the weather is fine and the trains behave, I'd always prefer Chichester or another provincial town, rather than ghastly London, for a theatre trip unless in the dead of winter.
No surpise that the set and costumes were largely monochrome or perhaps that the story was told in so broad a way ("panto-like" is a term to which I often resort and would apply again here); nor that the songs, almost wholly unmemorable, were sung in unattractive accents and I really don't warm to largely sung-through musicals, which this was, as there's little or nothing for your mind to engage with while you're looking at the visual aspects.
The only plot thread which did seem to have more bite and resonance was that of Nancy and "As Long As He Needs Me" has stayed with me. Still, I can say that the trip satisfied any curiosity I had (none!) and that my ex loved it.
|
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 12, 2024 7:27:49 GMT
Yes, it was Anthony Ward. I was wrong. And you didn’t like the design of Nutcracker?! You may be the first. |
|
5,795 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 12, 2024 7:28:47 GMT
This failed to win me over. I've never seen, or wanted to see, the film or any previous stage version, so when the CFT new season was announced & I wanted to book for multiple other productions, I was relieved and happy to be able to rule one out. However, my ex then said he did want to see it (same situation last year with The Sound Of Music, but that proved to be a pleasant surprise), so as I'm the person with the membership, I agreed to book tickets. In the event it was everything I'd expected/feared and though I obviously sat through it and it wasn't exactly an ordeal, it wasn't enjoyable or entertaining, though provided the weather is fine and the trains behave, I'd always prefer Chichester or another provincial town, rather than ghastly London, for a theatre trip unless in the dead of winter. No surpise that the set and costumes were largely monochrome or perhaps that the story was told in so broad a way ("panto-like" is a term to which I often resort and would apply again here); nor that the songs, almost wholly unmemorable, were sung in unattractive accents and I really don't warm to largely sung-through musicals, which this was, as there's little or nothing for your mind to engage with while you're looking at the visual aspects. The only plot thread which did seem to have more bite and resonance was that of Nancy and "As Long As He Needs Me" has stayed with me. Still, I can say that the trip satisfied any curiosity I had (none!) and that my ex loved it. Unmemorable songs? Okaaayyyyy |
|
|
|
Post by blamerobots on Aug 12, 2024 14:30:09 GMT
Might want to talk with a neurologist if you can't remember the songs from Oliver... I mean how many times do they repeat Consider Yourself in this production?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenandbrownandblue on Aug 29, 2024 7:40:14 GMT
Saw this yesterday. It's a solid, if rather straightforward, revival of a great musical.
I know Oliver! quite well and I noticed a few small line changes here and there. The biggest change is the addition of a bedroom scene with Bill and Nancy at the end of My Name, which worked well I thought. But there are no big revisions or reinventions. It's essentially a smaller version of the Palladium/Lane revival with (unsurprisingly) very similar choreography, although now there's a revolve in a clear nod to Sean Kenny.
I enjoyed it - it zips along, Lipkin is very good (and he still gets a puppet in there!), and I loved Jamie Birkett as Mrs Sowerberry. It's a role which usually makes no impact but she did so much with it.
But I had two gripes:
Firstly, no Bullseye! He gets referenced, we hear him bark, but we never see him. Cut him altogether if you don't want a real dog!
Secondly, this has so clearly been designed and staged for the Gielgud. I've been going to Chichester for 15+ years and I've never seen anything so directed to the front. Most of the time the actors don't even acknowledge there's an audience on the side. Why open in Chichester if you're going to pretend there's a proc arch there anyway? It's not like they need to try it out. Other shows that have subsequently transferred (Gypsy, Sweeney) have been designed and staged for the thrust, then redesigned for their new home. Don't act as if the thrust is an inconvenience!
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Aug 29, 2024 8:10:03 GMT
Thanka for the good review greenandbrownandblueSuch a shame when this stage is used in this way. Can you tell us a bit more about the bedroom scene ? Please & ta |
|
|
|
Post by greenandbrownandblue on Aug 29, 2024 9:17:45 GMT
Thanka for the good review greenandbrownandblueSuch a shame when this stage is used in this way. Can you tell us a bit more about the bedroom scene ? Please & ta My Name has been moved to Act 1 (straight after Pick A Pocket - it links nicely to Fagin's first mention of Sykes' name) and towards the end of the song, the set revolves to reveal Bill and Nancy's bedroom. Nancy sings a short verse of My Name, and then the scene ends with them starting to have sex (there's no other way to put it!) and the set revolving once more. It works well as it fleshes out Sykes' character a bit more, as well as their toxic relationship. A few other things I didn't mention in my earlier post: they should also cut the picket gates on castors during Who Will Buy. Unnecessary, let the revolve provide the movement, not actors pushing little gates around. Philip Franks also adds a lot of depth to Mr Brownlow, usually a pretty thankless role. Makes Act 2 more moving, though one flaw of the musical is that the plotline involving his daughter is never really fleshed out. |
|
703 posts
|
Post by theatremiss on Aug 29, 2024 10:40:31 GMT
Saw this yesterday. It's a solid, if rather straightforward, revival of a great musical. I know Oliver! quite well and I noticed a few small line changes here and there. The biggest change is the addition of a bedroom scene with Bill and Nancy at the end of My Name, which worked well I thought. But there are no big revisions or reinventions. It's essentially a smaller version of the Palladium/Lane revival with (unsurprisingly) very similar choreography, although now there's a revolve in a clear nod to Sean Kenny. I enjoyed it - it zips along, Lipkin is very good (and he still gets a puppet in there!), and I loved Jamie Birkett as Mrs Sowerberry. It's a role which usually makes no impact but she did so much with it. But I had two gripes: Firstly, no Bullseye! He gets referenced, we hear him bark, but we never see him. Cut him altogether if you don't want a real dog! Secondly, this has so clearly been designed and staged for the Gielgud. I've been going to Chichester for 15+ years and I've never seen anything so directed to the front. Most of the time the actors don't even acknowledge there's an audience on the side. Why open in Chichester if you're going to pretend there's a proc arch there anyway? It's not like they need to try it out. Other shows that have subsequently transferred (Gypsy, Sweeney) have been designed and staged for the thrust, then redesigned for their new home. Don't act as if the thrust is an inconvenience! I’ve seen it twice now and after my first visit, on the side )seats we always sit in and have good views) but I missed so much and decided to book again for a central seat. The experience front facing is far better. How anyone on side far seats saw anything is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by kit66 on Aug 29, 2024 11:39:50 GMT
Getting a bit sick of directors and designers not taking into consideration sightlines.
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Aug 29, 2024 12:00:51 GMT
They did this with Crazy for You though (although to a lesser extent) - it was so obviously designed for a transfer and basically forgot about the audiences round to the sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenandbrownandblue on Aug 29, 2024 12:08:25 GMT
They did this with Crazy for You though (although to a lesser extent) - it was so obviously designed for a transfer and basically forgot about the audiences round to the sides. I never saw Crazy for You at Chichester - but I'm not entirely surprised given the very side seats at the Gillian Lynne were awful because of the set design. However I've sat on the side for Gypsy, Sweeney, Oklahoma, Sound of Music, Kiss Me Kate, Mack and Mabel etc etc, plus countless plays there, and all felt like they'd been designed for a thrust, rather than pretending they weren't on thrust. |
|
|
|
Post by PineappleForYou on Aug 30, 2024 23:24:15 GMT
A really enjoyable evening at Oliver! plus a very interesting post-show Q&A with the cast, resident director and music director.
They talked a lot about the new scene for this production in act one that now introduces Bill and Nancy and shows their dynamic. One of the goals for this production was to flesh out their relationship and show that they do both love each other. Apparently Cameron Mackintosh was worried he had totally spoiled Nancy's entrance with the new scene which is usually in "It's a fine life". However, having her lusting after Bills muscles in the new scene made up for this in his mind. They also wanted to make the death more passionate by having them both on stage, looking into each other's eyes while it takes place rather than out of sight. Shanay Holmes says they didn't want Nancy to be a victim in this production and that their relationship is more intense passion than power abuse as it traditionally has been.
Simon Lipkin also talked about how he wanted to bring his Jewish identity to the front in his Fagin. They added a new violin part in "Reviewing the Situation" to emphasise this. He wants to portray a tragic comic type with his take on the character.
On a separate matter, the theatre nerd in me was smiling when I realised that the piano music in the pub at the top of act two is other Lionel Bart classics. If you listen before "Oom-Pah-Pah" starts, you can hear: "Who's This Geezer Hitler?" from Blitz!, "Maggie, Maggie May" from Maggie May and "Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'be" from the show of the same name. I thought this was a cool little easter egg and a nice little tribute to Bart who usually doesn't get the recognition he deserves.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayc on Sept 1, 2024 11:20:37 GMT
Caught one of the last shows at Chichester. Excellent production and choreography by Matthew Bourne. All the kids were great and the Artful Dodger stood out. But for me, some if the "comedic elements of Fagins character jarred. And Bill Sikes could have been more menacing. Also disappointed that more was not made of "Who will Buy". Just thought it cried out for more "show". Nevertheless an enjoyable afternoon. I'm sure it will do well in London.
|
|
128 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on Sept 17, 2024 15:46:24 GMT
|
|
128 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on Oct 16, 2024 4:28:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by parsley1 on Oct 16, 2024 22:09:00 GMT
Does anyone know
What is the rationale
Behind such a large scale and popular musical
Being shoehorned into a venue for plays
I saw this at Drury lane as directed by Rupert Goold
If I recall correctly it was a well received and anticipated production
With the highest box office advance of 15 million pounds at that time
It had a huge cast and was like a good pantomime
Why the contrast in scale?
I assume the cast is smaller etc?
Other than the 3 weeks it is running at Xmas
This revival has hardly set the box office in a panic
I doubt the advance is anywhere near 15 million
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Oct 16, 2024 22:22:53 GMT
Does anyone know What is the rationale Behind such a large scale and popular musical Being shoehorned into a venue for plays I saw this at Drury lane as directed by Rupert Goold If I recall correctly it was a well received and anticipated production With the highest box office advance of 15 million pounds at that time It had a huge cast and was like a good pantomime Why the contrast in scale? I assume the cast is smaller etc? Other than the 3 weeks it is running at Xmas This revival has hardly set the box office in a panic I doubt the advance is anywhere near 15 million To be fair, It started out at what is now the Noel Coward Theatre, a similar size to the Gielgud, and returned there for a revival some years later, so it clearly wasn't always the big Palladium/Drury Lane musical people might think of today. |
|
