Aspects of Love - Hope Mill MCR / Southwark Playhouse

Tables aside, is it a single block of seating?

Also are the aisles at the sides or in the middle or both? Thanks!

View from first row behind tables

http://instagram.com/p/Bk50A5ggoEBEy9xETQiaN1rdLdyVTJjDh-i7Es0

Aisle just one side of the tier.
120 is the capacity I read on the wall.
It sounds ok. Actors are mic-ed, you can hear *mostly* everything. But ‘orchestration’ is questionable.
Will do a full report tomorrow so fire away with any more questions.

Look forward to hearing your full review. One of my fave ALW musicals. Desperately wanting it to be good!

Mindful that last night was the first preview, I'm going to try to be careful with some of my thoughts and opinions knowing that things can change once a piece finds its rhythm and tightens up.
However there are some fundamental issues that seem to stem from decisions made in the creative process which prevents this production from showing resolute success before its even begun.

I'm assuming my experience was fairly different to that of richey in that - having never seen Aspects of Love before and only being familiar with the two biggest numbers from the show - I had no preconceptions or ideas of what to expect (other than the Parisian cafe aspect promoted on social media). AoL struck me as Lloyd-Webbers attempt at a Sondheim-type show, not necessarily musically, but thematically and dramatically.
It's interesting that this week in another thread I've read people defending the case of Lloyd-Webber's recycled musical ideas, saying he doesn't do it, yet I noted a number of musical themes and tunes borrowed from other shows in this piece including Starlight, Joseph and most notably one re-occurring musical theme which was developed further into 'The Lady's Paying' in Sunset. Its no criticism, just an observation.

What expectations I did have for this production were based on two incredibly strong preceding Hope Mill shows by Aria - Pippin and Spring Awakening. They set the bar for conjecture, as did promotional materials and press releases penning this as "their most ambitious production to date". Like Richey, I went in wanting to love it, but left rather underwhelmed. 

More fundamental an issue that the aforementioned mis-casting of roles was the criminal decision to proceed with an "orchestra" of two keyboards and a selection of things being hit. I'm fairly certain that for Act 1 there was no second keyboard player present as the only additional layer of instrumentation came from some subtle vibraphones which could legitimately have been played by the percussion section. There were moments of duelling pianos in the second act, but not nearly creative or emotive enough to have justified this move. The simple addition of 1 violin and 1 cello (instead of a second keyboard player) would really have added a depth to the instrumentation so crucially lacking to make this piece convincing. The problem with electronic keyboards, pianos especially, is the relative inability translate dynamic, when a player needs to get some really fortissimo going and he's playing as hard as he can, it become a low end, muddy messy. It seemed in the second act when the keys wanted to create some instruction of emotion he'd resolve to glissandi which got tiresome quickly. Lloyd-Webber scores are naturally romantic and dynamic and restricting it to a pair of electronic keyboards grossly affected this pieces ability to translate emotion. 

And the subject of lacking emotion brings me onto the casting of Alex, who I'm sure is a lovely guy in really life, but ill suited to this role. He seems to have studied at the Jamael Westman school of acting whereby you don't present emotion physically... When he belts it out he's vocally competent but for the majority of the time his performance is severely diminished and muted. There's an innocence which overrules his performance and I guess this comes from inexperience. He, like a number of other cast members, fall over at basic stage disciplines like the ability to find their place in a tight spot of light which results in periods of dialogue and song unlit. 

The greatest - or worst - example of this is a moment where Rose, George, Alex & Jenny were all sat down and lit with very tight spots of light (par 36 pin spots). When cue-d no-one was in the right place (their chairs positions hadn't been spiked) meaning non of them were lit. The more experienced actors though - Rose and George - both immediately responded and moved subtly to get themselves lit. Alex and Jenny did not respond and stuck where they were, unfortunately leaving one audience members crotch illuminated for the duration. 

This issue is not limited to Alex and seems to be part of a number of flaws in the lighting design. This piece is littered with moments of unlit cast and darkened areas of stage - although this could be down to blocking and a lack of tech rehearsal time. Some questionable programming of lighting cues (particularly flashing during the finale) as well as some weird positioning of some LED fixtures just felt sloppy in areas.

There's a white backdrop upstage which is effectively lit for depth but for some reason despite what looks to be good clearance above it, is about 2 foot too short and as a result leaves a gaping black hole and rigging truss on show. A quick change/prop store area masked off with black fabric up-stage left eats up into the cyc too much as well. Even more distracting though was a suspended parallelogram, meant to represent a ceiling (I think), which was not centered to the rest of the set and hung on the piss. I couldn't stop staring at it and it really set an element OCD off. This lack of attention to detail seems prevalent throughout.

The repeated ballet of chairs and tables gets tedious in the second act (I had to remind myself I was watching Aspects of Love and not Chicago!) but that becomes quite forgivable in comparison to the f***ing glowsticks that come out in the circus scene. Glowsticks and ribbons on sticks, topped off with some balls thrown in a hat. Hardly circus. Parsley would tear this scene apart. 

It's these elements, and more, that unfortunately make this production fairly futile. Isolated these issues are excusable but cumulatively they highlight a wider contention and that is that this piece suffers as a result of poor direction. Alex, when he delivers, has great potential but he seems un-directed resolving to hands in pockets too frequently. The material itself doesn't help matters, with its abrupt changes in action and drama. Characters jumping from in love, to gun slinging, to friends again, with the diplomacy of a learner drive's first attempt at the clutch, but the direction does nothing to resolve this. What also doesn't help is the confusion surrounding the age of everyone, which ultimately again is a flaw in the casting. Resolute opinion outside the theater afterwards was no-one really understood who was what age and this hampered the productions integrity as a result.

There is one saving grace however and that is Rose. She holds the cast together and rightfully commands the stage. This show is hers. 

At the interval I was of the opinion I'd like the return to see this again once its settled and found a rhythm, however at the end of the second act, after clocking in just shy of 3 hours with the interval in the stifling humidity I was less than encouraged to return.

For those excited about a visit ultimately the best way to approach this production is to go in without any expectations, that way you won't be leaving disappointed.

Glow sticks. Is this production set at the time of the musicals composition?

Thanks so much for your review serialshusher, a really interesting read. And certainly confirms a lot of the worries I have had about this production.

Though still very much looking forward to seeing for myself in two weeks. And hopefully will improve as the run gets going.

So disappointed by the orchestration though. Who is credited for it? Assume not David Cullen or ALW. Wonder if the latter sanctioned it. Or has indeed heard it. Intimate is fine, but this just says cheap to me. They could have at least assembled a 5 or 6 piece.

Feel a bit sorry for the guy playing Alex as sure he is very talented. But it’s producers and casting directors who are to blame when in so many shows they cast people inappropriately straight out of drama school when they have not had the chance to mature. I assume as they cost less.

And Aspects is a show that requires actors who can sing!

Yes, thanks for your detailed review. I wouldn’t have been coming up to Hope Mill to see it (much as I’m tempted by the venue which I’m told is great) but I would have gone along if it’d transferred down south after its run. I really liked their version of Pippin, like you, which I saw at Southwark Playhouse.

But reading your comments about the reduced ‘orchestra’ has made my heart sink...

I have such fond memories of this show which I (and others) have commmented on before, but it doesn’t mean that I’m averse to new productions. Far from it. But this sounds dreadful and beyond repair, particularly musically.

Smaller scale, (‘intimate’/‘chamber’) reinventions can often work: many considered the NT’s Sweeney Todd an improvement on the original Broadway transfer which played at Drury Lane; the Menier’s Sunday was superior to the NT’s; the recent Charing Cross Woman in White worked far better than the Palace Theatre version, but I really wish some of these little fringe venues would stop doing some of these rather good pieces on a shoestring. They’re often completely ruined by cost-cutting orchestrations, cheap sets and costumes and (often) inappropriate casting. 

Those who come to the show new wonder must what all the fuss was about. 

The Union’s Children of Eden was awful. And I’m afraid I hated their version of Chess (which I know some on here loved). I’ve stopped going there now. 

I’d rather live with the memory of a happy moment. 

Damnit. The very last thing I expected after Spring Awakening was a cut back version of Aspects. Surely this is the one musical this year that from name recognition alone is pretty much guaranteed to get new punters through the HM doors and if those people see a bargain basement version of the show it could colour their opinion of fringe theatre in Manchester irrevocably.

Let’s hope the niggles with the set are due to lack of preparedness and will be corrected, but incompetent acting and a 3 person band trying to do justice to an ALW score seems difficult to forgive.

I’m going at the end of the month.

That’s really cool that you worked on the Gale Edwards tour - I enjoyed that very much.

Yeah I never really think of Aspects as a “small” musical. It has many intimate elements, but also is great typical ALW orchestral sweep for much.

I think possibly it’s thought of as smaller/chamber as it came just after the gargantuine Cats/Starlight/Phantom trio. But in it’s own right I think a 15+ band and some money on sets suit it well. That said I also think it COULD work well in a small space.

Ahh ok, apologies, I didn’t realise that about Felix Mosse. So does have some decent MT acting credentials.

stevej678 good spot on the paralleogram being recycled from Spring Awakening. As was the on-stage piano.