|
|
Post by 141920grm on Oct 20, 2021 8:14:14 GMT
I literally saw it 10+ times from Sept-Dec 2019 (and a few more times just before Covid closed it)... never had a show stop- apart from a long interval at the anniversary show for Adam to get into makeup/costume stepping in for Josh, plus a little issue with the throne one show where Scott just had to sit very still under his cloak and tell Meg to hold the veil to the spotlight instead- both more human “errors” than technical, and didn’t interrupt the flow of the show at all- the quirks of live theatre!
Actual show stops between scenes like what’s apparently happening regularly now sound annoying though.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Oct 20, 2021 12:07:24 GMT
All these show stops. Are they part of the new 'blurring the boundry' between stage and audience?
He's here The Phantom of the Opera.
Haunting the backstage. Causing injuries to cast. Forcing the set to malfunction.
He's with us it's the ghost.
Immersive.
Very 21st century.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Oct 20, 2021 12:30:33 GMT
All these show stops. Are they part of the new 'blurring the boundry' between stage and audience? He's here The Phantom of the Opera. Haunting the backstage. Causing injuries to cast. Forcing the set to malfunction. He's with us it's the ghost. Immersive. Very 21st century. Don't forget the tight-fisted double act of managers. "We're ruined Andrew, ruined!". |
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Oct 21, 2021 1:24:50 GMT
The Helsinki non-replica production looks horrific. A trailer is here at the bottom of the page: oopperabaletti.fi/en/repertoire-and-tickets/the-phantom-of-the-opera/Looks like a dreadful amateur production. Anyone lucky enough to be seeing this mess?! Some of the officially released pictures aren't even in focus! Why is Christine wearing bondage gear during PONR?! How is this an official production?! |
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Oct 21, 2021 4:22:01 GMT
I notice on social media RUG is now falsely claiming the West End production is 35 years old, despite the poster outside the theatre and the programme stating that its first performance was this year on 27 July. Typical. Well hey - the BBC was promoting Doctor Who's 50th anniversary in 2013, even though between 1989 and 2005 the show was off the air, although there was a single television movie with Paul McGann in 1996. If the Beeb can't count, why should RUG be able to do so? It's kind of up there with celebrating Mozart's 250th birthday even though he didn't see 40... |
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Oct 21, 2021 4:55:27 GMT
Who saw Crawford and Brightman and what were they like? Also any anecdotes about Crawford being a complete diva such as summoning other cast members to his dressing room and giving them notes are always welcome 😀 I saw Crawford in the role, although there was an understudy playing Christine (not even the alternate). I knew him for a time in the 90s, and the stories about him being a bit difficult are true. As long as people defer to him and acknowledge what he feels is his due, he's lovely, but you don't want to deal with him when he's tired and cross. Or if he feels that others aren't working as hard as him. Having said that, he's willing to break his neck for a role if it means that it makes the theatrical moment that much more magical.
As far as his acting, he went for pathos as the Phantom, which left half the audience an emotional mess. He could switch from strong and confident to fearful and pathetic in a split second and take the audience with him. He moved with a certain panther-like grace, and every single bit of stage business, every gesture was carefully worked out and duplicated unless something went wrong. One night I was there, for example, the boat didn't want to go, the trap doors weren't opening correctly, and the chandelier didn't want to drop. The show ended up running about 30 minutes longer due to the tech problems, but as he told me later, the audience were very nice about the problems. By the time I saw him, his voice had developed a LOT, and it wasn't as reed thin as it is on the OLC album. But he'd also gotten into this thing where he wanted reverb in some places, so that was interesting. He was a damn powerful performer. If you saw him in his prime, he was an absolute beast, and although he had moments where his Christines got thrown around, he wasn't quite as physical as I've seen in the past ten years. He had the kind of charisma that could hold the entire audience in rapt attention. You could have heard a pin drop in some of the silent spaces of "Music of the Night." I asked him once how he did what he did - being able to hold an audience so spellbound, and radiating the character and emotion to the back row of the top tier, and he couldn't explain it. He said he just did what he did. He was incredibly graceful, he absolutely communicated the emotion of the moment to the audience, he could have the hair standing on the back of your neck at times, but then you'd be weeping your eyes out along with him in the final lair.
I wish there were photos or video of what he used to do at the end of the first act. On the "he was bound to love you" line in the angel, he came up from this sort of defeated, hunched posture and did this body wave (ask a dancer) where he would finish moving the entire torso by grinding his pelvis into the angel. It was extremely sexual. Then in the line, "you will curse the day you did not do/all that the Phantom asked of you" he did this crazy physical business that I haven't seen anyone else do and the show is more boring for it. During "you will curse..." he had his hands spread wide over the top of the sculpture supporting himself as he slightly leaned out. Then when he spat out "Phantom" he spread out the sides of his cape - so it was the full semi circle - and at the same time he would lean even further out. I know they had him belted into a harness so he couldn't take a tumble out of the angel, but it looked as if he could fall into the audience. Very much in horror-movie character. He'd then drop one side of the cloak and let that hand down, and with the other arm, reach up and hold his arm straight up as the angel ascended to the gods holding out the note for "you." It was absolutely amazing to watch. Then the maniacal laughter that went on and on and on even after the blackout. Oh - another thing he did that was very sexual was during Point of No Return. While Christine was singing her part, he sat on the bench and started fondling himself, for lack of a better term. He worked up his hands over his chest and started circling what I presume were his nipples. Eventually, the hands made their way back down and he started rubbing his thighs, which I have seen other actors do. However, MC rubbed them high enough in such a way that it appeared he was masturbating before Christine came up behind him. And then with the physical interplay between the Phantom and Christine, he pretty much continued doing what I've seen in the old video with Sarah. I was told that Hal Prince told him to knock the fondling off multiple times, and he just kept doing it - although I know at the talk he did at the V&A, it was the same "I don't know why I did that" answer he gave me years ago.
I wish there were a way of seeing his Phantom performances in his prime. As much as he could be a pain at times to certain folks in the crew, he was absolutely astonishing live. Karimloo has nothing on him, I don't care what the fan girls believe. And he is the one who set the template making this ugly, middle aged recluse who was grasping at straws for his last chance at companionship absolutely believable as a sensual, romantic, and ultimately tragic Byronic figure. He really was the toast of the town back then - everyone wanted to meet him, everyone wanted to see him, everyone wanted to be associated with him. I mean, the Ken Russell video of "Music of the Night" gives you a taste, but the closeups kind of ruin it - you need the distance of the theatrical space, as well as the shared emotion of the moment between performers and audience. He was absolutely magical onstage - it was a special kind of alchemy that we won't seen repeated anytime soon. I'm sorry for those who didn't get to experience Crawford in his prime as the Phantom.
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Oct 21, 2021 7:05:10 GMT
Who saw Crawford and Brightman and what were they like? Also any anecdotes about Crawford being a complete diva such as summoning other cast members to his dressing room and giving them notes are always welcome 😀 I saw Crawford in the role, although there was an understudy playing Christine (not even the alternate). I knew him for a time in the 90s, and the stories about him being a bit difficult are true. As long as people defer to him and acknowledge what he feels is his due, he's lovely, but you don't want to deal with him when he's tired and cross. Or if he feels that others aren't working as hard as him. Having said that, he's willing to break his neck for a role if it means that it makes the theatrical moment that much more magical.
As far as his acting, he went for pathos as the Phantom, which left half the audience an emotional mess. He could switch from strong and confident to fearful and pathetic in a split second and take the audience with him. He moved with a certain panther-like grace, and every single bit of stage business, every gesture was carefully worked out and duplicated unless something went wrong. One night I was there, for example, the boat didn't want to go, the trap doors weren't opening correctly, and the chandelier didn't want to drop. The show ended up running about 30 minutes longer due to the tech problems, but as he told me later, the audience were very nice about the problems. By the time I saw him, his voice had developed a LOT, and it wasn't as reed thin as it is on the OLC album. But he'd also gotten into this thing where he wanted reverb in some places, so that was interesting. He was a damn powerful performer. If you saw him in his prime, he was an absolute beast, and although he had moments where his Christines got thrown around, he wasn't quite as physical as I've seen in the past ten years. He had the kind of charisma that could hold the entire audience in rapt attention. You could have heard a pin drop in some of the silent spaces of "Music of the Night." I asked him once how he did what he did - being able to hold an audience so spellbound, and radiating the character and emotion to the back row of the top tier, and he couldn't explain it. He said he just did what he did. He was incredibly graceful, he absolutely communicated the emotion of the moment to the audience, he could have the hair standing on the back of your neck at times, but then you'd be weeping your eyes out along with him in the final lair.
I wish there were photos or video of what he used to do at the end of the first act. On the "he was bound to love you" line in the angel, he came up from this sort of defeated, hunched posture and did this body wave (ask a dancer) where he would finish moving the entire torso by grinding his pelvis into the angel. It was extremely sexual. Then in the line, "you will curse the day you did not do/all that the Phantom asked of you" he did this crazy physical business that I haven't seen anyone else do and the show is more boring for it. During "you will curse..." he had his hands spread wide over the top of the sculpture supporting himself as he slightly leaned out. Then when he spat out "Phantom" he spread out the sides of his cape - so it was the full semi circle - and at the same time he would lean even further out. I know they had him belted into a harness so he couldn't take a tumble out of the angel, but it looked as if he could fall into the audience. Very much in horror-movie character. He'd then drop one side of the cloak and let that hand down, and with the other arm, reach up and hold his arm straight up as the angel ascended to the gods holding out the note for "you." It was absolutely amazing to watch. Then the maniacal laughter that went on and on and on even after the blackout. Oh - another thing he did that was very sexual was during Point of No Return. While Christine was singing her part, he sat on the bench and started fondling himself, for lack of a better term. He worked up his hands over his chest and started circling what I presume were his nipples. Eventually, the hands made their way back down and he started rubbing his thighs, which I have seen other actors do. However, MC rubbed them high enough in such a way that it appeared he was masturbating before Christine came up behind him. And then with the physical interplay between the Phantom and Christine, he pretty much continued doing what I've seen in the old video with Sarah. I was told that Hal Prince told him to knock the fondling off multiple times, and he just kept doing it - although I know at the talk he did at the V&A, it was the same "I don't know why I did that" answer he gave me years ago.
I wish there were a way of seeing his Phantom performances in his prime. As much as he could be a pain at times to certain folks in the crew, he was absolutely astonishing live. Karimloo has nothing on him, I don't care what the fan girls believe. And he is the one who set the template making this ugly, middle aged recluse who was grasping at straws for his last chance at companionship absolutely believable as a sensual, romantic, and ultimately tragic Byronic figure. He really was the toast of the town back then - everyone wanted to meet him, everyone wanted to see him, everyone wanted to be associated with him. I mean, the Ken Russell video of "Music of the Night" gives you a taste, but the closeups kind of ruin it - you need the distance of the theatrical space, as well as the shared emotion of the moment between performers and audience. He was absolutely magical onstage - it was a special kind of alchemy that we won't seen repeated anytime soon. I'm sorry for those who didn't get to experience Crawford in his prime as the Phantom.
Incredible post. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2021 8:52:30 GMT
The Helsinki non-replica production looks horrific. A trailer is here at the bottom of the page: oopperabaletti.fi/en/repertoire-and-tickets/the-phantom-of-the-opera/Looks like a dreadful amateur production. Anyone lucky enough to be seeing this mess?! Some of the officially released pictures aren't even in focus! Why is Christine wearing bondage gear during PONR?! How is this an official production?! I dont think it looks horrific tbh. For a limited run production its got some interesting ideas. The main thing I like is how dark it looks in tone, compared to the slightly disneyfied London production I like this is keeping to the original stories darker roots. Plus in a way I'd rather someone try something radical than a watered down version of the original. |
|
|
|
Post by cezbear on Oct 21, 2021 9:06:50 GMT
Who saw Crawford and Brightman and what were they like? Also any anecdotes about Crawford being a complete diva such as summoning other cast members to his dressing room and giving them notes are always welcome 😀 I saw Crawford in the role, although there was an understudy playing Christine (not even the alternate). I knew him for a time in the 90s, and the stories about him being a bit difficult are true. As long as people defer to him and acknowledge what he feels is his due, he's lovely, but you don't want to deal with him when he's tired and cross. Or if he feels that others aren't working as hard as him. Having said that, he's willing to break his neck for a role if it means that it makes the theatrical moment that much more magical.
As far as his acting, he went for pathos as the Phantom, which left half the audience an emotional mess. He could switch from strong and confident to fearful and pathetic in a split second and take the audience with him. He moved with a certain panther-like grace, and every single bit of stage business, every gesture was carefully worked out and duplicated unless something went wrong. One night I was there, for example, the boat didn't want to go, the trap doors weren't opening correctly, and the chandelier didn't want to drop. The show ended up running about 30 minutes longer due to the tech problems, but as he told me later, the audience were very nice about the problems. By the time I saw him, his voice had developed a LOT, and it wasn't as reed thin as it is on the OLC album. But he'd also gotten into this thing where he wanted reverb in some places, so that was interesting. He was a damn powerful performer. If you saw him in his prime, he was an absolute beast, and although he had moments where his Christines got thrown around, he wasn't quite as physical as I've seen in the past ten years. He had the kind of charisma that could hold the entire audience in rapt attention. You could have heard a pin drop in some of the silent spaces of "Music of the Night." I asked him once how he did what he did - being able to hold an audience so spellbound, and radiating the character and emotion to the back row of the top tier, and he couldn't explain it. He said he just did what he did. He was incredibly graceful, he absolutely communicated the emotion of the moment to the audience, he could have the hair standing on the back of your neck at times, but then you'd be weeping your eyes out along with him in the final lair.
I wish there were photos or video of what he used to do at the end of the first act. On the "he was bound to love you" line in the angel, he came up from this sort of defeated, hunched posture and did this body wave (ask a dancer) where he would finish moving the entire torso by grinding his pelvis into the angel. It was extremely sexual. Then in the line, "you will curse the day you did not do/all that the Phantom asked of you" he did this crazy physical business that I haven't seen anyone else do and the show is more boring for it. During "you will curse..." he had his hands spread wide over the top of the sculpture supporting himself as he slightly leaned out. Then when he spat out "Phantom" he spread out the sides of his cape - so it was the full semi circle - and at the same time he would lean even further out. I know they had him belted into a harness so he couldn't take a tumble out of the angel, but it looked as if he could fall into the audience. Very much in horror-movie character. He'd then drop one side of the cloak and let that hand down, and with the other arm, reach up and hold his arm straight up as the angel ascended to the gods holding out the note for "you." It was absolutely amazing to watch. Then the maniacal laughter that went on and on and on even after the blackout. Oh - another thing he did that was very sexual was during Point of No Return. While Christine was singing her part, he sat on the bench and started fondling himself, for lack of a better term. He worked up his hands over his chest and started circling what I presume were his nipples. Eventually, the hands made their way back down and he started rubbing his thighs, which I have seen other actors do. However, MC rubbed them high enough in such a way that it appeared he was masturbating before Christine came up behind him. And then with the physical interplay between the Phantom and Christine, he pretty much continued doing what I've seen in the old video with Sarah. I was told that Hal Prince told him to knock the fondling off multiple times, and he just kept doing it - although I know at the talk he did at the V&A, it was the same "I don't know why I did that" answer he gave me years ago.
I wish there were a way of seeing his Phantom performances in his prime. As much as he could be a pain at times to certain folks in the crew, he was absolutely astonishing live. Karimloo has nothing on him, I don't care what the fan girls believe. And he is the one who set the template making this ugly, middle aged recluse who was grasping at straws for his last chance at companionship absolutely believable as a sensual, romantic, and ultimately tragic Byronic figure. He really was the toast of the town back then - everyone wanted to meet him, everyone wanted to see him, everyone wanted to be associated with him. I mean, the Ken Russell video of "Music of the Night" gives you a taste, but the closeups kind of ruin it - you need the distance of the theatrical space, as well as the shared emotion of the moment between performers and audience. He was absolutely magical onstage - it was a special kind of alchemy that we won't seen repeated anytime soon. I'm sorry for those who didn't get to experience Crawford in his prime as the Phantom.
Thanks for this, I would have given anything to see Crawford in the role. |
|
220 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Peter on Oct 21, 2021 19:29:22 GMT
I notice on social media RUG is now falsely claiming the West End production is 35 years old, despite the poster outside the theatre and the programme stating that its first performance was this year on 27 July. Typical. Well hey - the BBC was promoting Doctor Who's 50th anniversary in 2013, even though between 1989 and 2005 the show was off the air, although there was a single television movie with Paul McGann in 1996. If the Beeb can't count, why should RUG be able to do so? It's kind of up there with celebrating Mozart's 250th birthday even though he didn't see 40... To be fair there was still a deluge of original officially licensed stories during that time, so the narrative continued - just not on telly! The problem with Phantom is that it in uncharted waters - is it actually reasonable to expect a long running show to have changes to its physical production during it’s run? Lots of others have had massive changes to the actual script and score and still claimed to be continuously running (the many endings of Miss Saigon, We Will Rock You, Starlight Express etc). At what point do we call ‘Triggers Broom’? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2021 19:57:14 GMT
In the early days there were lots of issues with the scenery, Predominantly with the boat, as it was on the same sound frequency as taxis or emergency services or something like that. The candelabras also got stuck and they had to stop to clear them. Lets not pretend everything was perfect just because it was the original production.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Oct 22, 2021 18:50:53 GMT
In the early days there were lots of issues with the scenery, Predominantly with the boat, as it was on the same sound frequency as taxis or emergency services or something like that. The candelabras also got stuck and they had to stop to clear them. Lets not pretend everything was perfect just because it was the original production. In the very early days, yes. But we've never heard of this frequency of stops to the show before during the main run post-previews. I don't have a problem with RUG saying happy 35th to Phantom; but what *is* misleading is saying the actual West End production has turned 35 years old, especially when the actual front-of-house posters outside the theatre and the programme says the opposite. Some of these were things were replicated by early Phantoms but seem to have got lost over time. I used to love the laughter that went on and on and on even after the chandelier had dropped, just as the lights for the interval were coming on. That really did blur the boundary, as it were. And I think the positions Crawford took on the Angel must have been in discussion with Björnson, because I remember her saying how one of the reasons it was her favourite set piece was because she liked the sexual imagery of the Phantom over it and how his poses mirrored those of the Angel itself. Loved your post, btw--thank you! Sadly it seems some of the weird new blocking has gone into the Broadway production (doubles excised etc), which is opening tonight. But they do have the full set and orchestra, thankfully (with ALW even saying how proud he is of the size of the latter, notwithstanding his agreement to cull the London counterpart). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 20:27:50 GMT
If anyone doesn't know about it, look into the history of Colm Wilkinson and Rebecca Cain in the Canadian production. Yikes. Yes, I've been following this closely through Rebecca's Twitter and Instagram, and it's shocking how she was treated. This recent tweet is an interesting read... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 23:27:46 GMT
In the very early days, yes. But we've never heard of this frequency of stops to the show before during the main run post-previews. As you said yourself, there wasn't any form of social media in those days, so you wouldn't have heard about them, unless you were in the production or close to someone associated with it. You can't state something is so much worse now, if you don't know how bad it was then. I can't give you figures either, but having spoken with people involved with it, it wasn't great. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 23:42:23 GMT
Yes, I've been following this closely through Rebecca's Twitter and Instagram, and it's shocking how she was treated. This recent tweet is an interesting read... The sad thing is that it's not that much better now in some places. The big name draw will always get their way. People don't want to upset those who make the money for them. No one should have to work in the conditions that she had to. |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Oct 23, 2021 7:31:38 GMT
In the very early days, yes. But we've never heard of this frequency of stops to the show before during the main run post-previews. As you said yourself, there wasn't any form of social media in those days, so you wouldn't have heard about them, unless you were in the production or close to someone associated with it. You can't state something is so much worse now, if you don't know how bad it was then. I can't give you figures either, but having spoken with people involved with it, it wasn't great. Fair, but have they not had literally 35 years to refine these sets now? Isn't the whole point of all that automation they've claimed to put in to enable them to make any adjustments in a quick and timely manner, as to be expected of shows (re)designed in this time and age? My optimistic designer side wants to believe they're experimenting with new automation tech which understandably needs time to settle in, which would be fine if they'd claimed the production was all-new and would have its usual breaking-in period, but that's not what has been done- and now audiences will have come from all over, expecting to see the brilliant 35-years-strong show and are instead given a faulty, unsatisfactory show with no apologies, explanation or refunds given My cynical realist side believes whatever technical know-how that has been accrued over the years has been tossed out alongside the "old guard", and the bosses are making the inexperienced, cheap young hires run the show like it's always been done but without any seasoned veteran to guide them... which will deliver a cr*ppy experience on both crew & audience side of things |
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on Oct 23, 2021 8:47:33 GMT
As you said yourself, there wasn't any form of social media in those days, so you wouldn't have heard about them, unless you were in the production or close to someone associated with it. You can't state something is so much worse now, if you don't know how bad it was then. I can't give you figures either, but having spoken with people involved with it, it wasn't great. My optimistic designer side wants to believe they're experimenting with new automation tech which understandably needs time to settle in, which would be fine if they'd claimed the production was all-new and would have its usual breaking-in period, but that's not what has been done- and now audiences will have come from all over, expecting to see the brilliant 35-years-strong show and are instead given a faulty, unsatisfactory show with no apologies, explanation or refunds given My cynical realist side believes whatever technical know-how that has been accrued over the years has been tossed out alongside the "old guard", and the bosses are making the inexperienced, cheap young hires run the show like it's always been done but without any seasoned veteran to guide them... which will deliver a cr*ppy experience on both crew & audience side of things.
You know I'm always yammering on about my Disney work, and the pain in the neck things that happen when computers/automation take over. The problem is that it's just one of those things now - no big deal - when Ben Lewis was doing Company at the Gielgud, there were a few issues with set pieces sticking, one night in particular (there are videos floating around) when Patti Lupone came out onstage and sang acapella during a particularly long show stop because of the scenery. The audience loved it. I'm on the fence - there are a lot of folks who think that technology is the way to go when it comes to moving set pieces, but if your computer causes your automation to freeze, whether it's the flies, on or below stage, it's not great, and a seasoned crew generally won't let that happen. And of course, the audience at HM's is paying premium prices while the new crew gets their on-the-job-training... |
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Oct 23, 2021 10:29:53 GMT
Not that I'm making excuses, but I'm assuming working on the Toronto production was intense. If I recall correctly, it wasn't as successful as they hoped it would be, would pump out free tickets to schools to fill seats (and if I remember, there were reports of random people being offered free tickets in shopping centres, etc, to fill the house.) Rather than admit defeat, they resort to stunt casting (if you haven't watched Paul Stanley as Phantom, you should.. it's an experience! There is one version where he is OK vocally and one that is a genuine car crash - both are on YouTube! I don't know how Melissa Dye kept a straight face in them!) The stress must have been immense.
What I find really creepy, though, is the almost God-like status Wilkinson is given in these reports. When talking about risk of injury, it breaks off, just to point out that "Ms. Caine agreed that Mr Wilkinson was excellent in the part of the Phantom," presumably just to appease the company? Weird. The last line of the report is literally saying Wilkinson is amazing and his talent and performance as Phantom is unsurpassed. Creepy.
|
|
19,754 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 23, 2021 10:49:43 GMT
What does “Live” refer to on those documents?
|
|
220 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Peter on Oct 23, 2021 10:52:11 GMT
Presume it’s Live Entertainment or Livent who were the producers of Phantom in Toronto (and Ragtime, Showboat, Kiss of the Spiderwoman and a few other things before they went bust due to financial improprieties)
|
|
19,754 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 23, 2021 11:00:34 GMT
Presume it’s Live Entertainment or Livent who were the producers of Phantom in Toronto (and Ragtime, Showboat, Kiss of the Spiderwoman and a few other things before they went bust due to financial improprieties) Sounds like they’d have got sued if they hadn’t gone bust! |
|
58 posts
|
Post by carriesparkle on Oct 23, 2021 11:31:55 GMT
Not that I'm making excuses, but I'm assuming working on the Toronto production was intense. If I recall correctly, it wasn't as successful as they hoped it would be, would pump out free tickets to schools to fill seats (and if I remember, there were reports of random people being offered free tickets in shopping centres, etc, to fill the house.) Rather than admit defeat, they resort to stunt casting (if you haven't watched Paul Stanley as Phantom, you should.. it's an experience! There is one version where he is OK vocally and one that is a genuine car crash - both are on YouTube! I don't know how Melissa Dye kept a straight face in them!) The stress must have been immense. What I find really creepy, though, is the almost God-like status Wilkinson is given in these reports. When talking about risk of injury, it breaks off, just to point out that "Ms. Caine agreed that Mr Wilkinson was excellent in the part of the Phantom," presumably just to appease the company? Weird. The last line of the report is literally saying Wilkinson is amazing and his talent and performance as Phantom is unsurpassed. Creepy. Just as additional info, some of those reports she has tweeted are internal "show" reports - other pages are from the arbitration after Livent terminated her contract. You can see one of the news reports at the time here - |
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Oct 23, 2021 11:35:47 GMT
Has anyone tried day seats through the new system yet? How'd it go?
|
|
4,800 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Oct 23, 2021 11:55:45 GMT
Has anyone tried day seats through the new system yet? How'd it go? Looked this morning. Offered grand circle for evening or rear stalls for matinee. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2021 19:23:09 GMT
Presume it’s Live Entertainment or Livent who were the producers of Phantom in Toronto (and Ragtime, Showboat, Kiss of the Spiderwoman and a few other things before they went bust due to financial improprieties) Yes, it's Livent, founded by Garth Drabinksy. He was convicted and sent to prison in 2009 for fraud and forgery. But now he's bringing a new show to Broadway, "Paradise Square", which opens early next year. So unlike the likes of Scott Rudin, who has stepped back from his theatre and film projects, Drabinksy has never been held accountable for his abusive behaviour (I don't think Phantom was an isolated incident), and is the reason for Rebecca speaking out with her "Bring Back Better" posts. |
|
