Pinocchio - National Theatre

During previews, it's had to run all week and all the regular nut NT preview attenders have squeezed themselves in, hence loads of adults.

But once it's open, it's scheduled for school holidays and weekends-only in term-time so it seems the NT is targeting this run squarely at families with pre-teen kids.

If it ever transferred, it would have to play all week, and attract more adults!

I don't really understand why people would be expecting a big splashy show. The movie isn't, in fact it's quite dark at times and the source material if you've read the book is even more twisted. The songs in the movie aren't exactly massive numbers either. It's not like the Disney movie musicals of the 90s.

It does need go be tight on the storytelling though

To be fair, this isn’t a Disney show, it’s a National Theatre production so it was never going to a slavish recreation

This is definitely more “NT Christmas Show” in its approach but, where the best of them captivated audiences young and old with fabulous storytelling, wonderful visuals and bags of heart, this one is anaemic on all fronts.

I must say, I am really enjoying it. Its got a certain charm to it that I really like, and the lead is fantastic.

It should be said though, the person wthere is no songs until an hour in, complete overreaction. The show began just after 7 and the interval just started. Hi Diddle Dee Dee comes about two thirds in and it is pretty much consistantly songs fro, the movie from then until the end of Act 1, and there is a song called Little Wooden Head sung by whatshisname, the puppet maker, at the start of the show, and the Fairy also gets a brief number. There is also music throughout. So its not like it is just a play with one or two songs. Not a full out musical either. Its a weird one.

But I'm really enjoying it!

I've seen it too...i wouldn't class it as lavish in terms of physical production in the same.way other Disney Broadway shows have been

Each to their own, I wouldn't call that lavish. To me its a clever, but simple design as it was never planned to be the hit it was so it didn't have the investment the likes of batb, Aladdin, lion king etc had.

I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away. I have an aversion to productions with a lot of puppetry anyway but, obviously this time it was pretty apt. I felt act one zipped along but act two dragged, particularly the pleasureland bit (there was some quite naff acting in this bit too.) As others have said the end was quite affecting but the concluding arrangement for 'When you wish upon a Star' was horrible and robbed the song of its effectiveness. In fact most of the re-orchestrations were poor.
On the whole a very effective production but the step-ladders because tiresome (a bit Sally Cookson in that respect but with more dosh thrown at it.)

Just back from this. I feel this is somewhat a jumbled mess, that has some shining moments! The magic is done very well, but is quite reminiscent in places of the Cursed Child. I feel the biggest flaw currently, is the use of puppets for the "real" characters. Whilst this could work the puppets whilst huge and dominating, are so expressionless if their mouths dont move, or their eyes, or anything!! We were essentially listening at points to the story whilst watching bits of wood not really doing very much! Jiminy was the only real stand out puppetry work for me. Loved the blue flames, and the whale was impressive and quite scary from row c, although the inside of the whale was underwhelming. I have to disagree and say that Pleasure Island was one of the stand out pieces of the show for me, and the humour and darkness in this scene were done brilliantly! This may be down to my dislike of being around children, and this scene encouraging them to basically harm themselves (it works in context and isnt as horrifying as i have made it sound). I really didnt like Joe as Pinocchio, found him very panto, and no real dark and shade in the performance for me, just one tone the whole way through. It kept my attention, and I wasn't bored, but can't say I was excited coming out, indifferent springs to mind.

I got the point of Geppetto, Stromboli and the Driver being a puppet, didn't understand at all why the Blue Fairy was, even for the one scene. Especially as she appears to Geppetto later in human form anyway. That part made no sense to me.

Wasn't the Blue Fairy the same person who (in human form) gave the magic wood to Geppetto in the opening, which was then carved to form Pinocchio?

I must admit, it's years since I've seen the film version which this is loosely based on (I will compare this to the Disney film, as the original novel is different again), so I may be muddling up the characters.

To me, the idea of the role reversal, that most of the characters are puppets, but Pinocchio is not, is one of the strongest parts of the production.

A human sized Geppetto wouldn't make sense though, he's got to be bigger than Pinocchio until then end. I thought the puppets were nicely made but as others have said the fact that their faces don't move at all didn't help me want to watch them. I remember how much the puppets and humans in Avenue Q became one but in this I gave up watching the giant puppet's because I wasn't involved in watching them. However I thought Jiminy was amazing and loved the puppet.

I don't see why people found the big blue fairy puppet at the start odd. It makes sense because she's showing herself to Geppetto as a woman so she'd be a similar size to him. Obviously we see her smaller later and in non human form and then at the end she's the same size as Geppetto again.