2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Nov 23, 2017 8:38:35 GMT
Where's the review? I looked on the Metro website for a minute, read an article about a woman wanting to ban Sleeping Beauty and another abbout a statue being covered up because of a suggestive piece of bread and decided I couldn't take any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 9:07:04 GMT
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Nov 23, 2017 9:14:54 GMT
Ah thanks! I just saw the three links further up when I got up. Clearly need more coffee.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Nov 23, 2017 9:19:43 GMT
|
|
1,827 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Nov 23, 2017 9:21:38 GMT
5* The Stage, WhatsOnStage, LondonTheatre, LondonTheatre1, Times
4* Evening Standard, Arts Desk, Metro, Broadway World
|
|
|
|
Post by bluetoothpick on Nov 23, 2017 9:35:56 GMT
Hmmmmmm,
If the Whatsonstage review can pass comment such as "It's not a perfect musical, with perhaps a track too many and the first half taking a little time to get where it needs to be" and "The grey, box-tower set occasionally feels clunky - the slightly jarring projections get a little lost within it all." and then gives it the maximum rating of 5* - what is the metric here?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 9:44:13 GMT
People have different ideas of what star ratings mean. Lyn Gardner for instance once pointed out that she thinks 2* means a show is basically fine, whereas I always viewed it as meaning below par. Also, in some ways it would be unreasonable to expect 5* to mean a show is flawless and perfect; there are so few shows that are absolutely beyond reproach that you would essentially reduce the 5* rating system to functionally a 4* rating system, as we'd only get a 5* show maybe once a decade. After all, what was the last truly 100% flawless show you saw? There's been some damn fine theatre this year, but even Follies and Angels and the Almeida Hamlet and The Ferryman have had their flaws.
|
|
1,827 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Nov 23, 2017 9:54:28 GMT
Quentin Letts' review of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is one that sticks in the memory.
"A musical with not much more than one tune and a thin plot."
"Carly Bawden and Andrew Durand are fearfully unsexy. Their groping is more like a judo demonstration."
"The show begins with a terrible, nine-minute monologue."
"Mr Durand’s clear tenor repeatedly has trouble with lower notes, and he looks about as French as the late Sir Norman Wisdom."
"Director Emma Rice hammers home the port theme by inventing a trio of sailors who keep lifting other characters by the armpits and depositing them in different parts of the stage. This device becomes extremely irritating."
"Oh no . . . puppet alert!"
Verdict - Three Stars!
I'm expecting a cynical two stars for Jamie from him but hope I'm pleasantly surprised!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 9:55:34 GMT
Yeah I don't put much store by * ratings other than against what that particular reviewer ranks them as- so for example as @baemax says, I know Lyn thinks 2* is 'alright' wheras other reviewers would rank that as "pants". But it's fairly useless pitting them against each other because a WoS 5* isn't the same as a Guardian one or The Stage (also some use a 4* system others a 5).
Personally I think the system is a bit redundant because a) it's all relative b) again as above even the most BRILLIANT show isn't flawless.
|
|
52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 10:10:19 GMT
I REALLY wanted to love this show but I think the accolades it's been getting are more of a result of people not wanting to seem homophobic or being negative about original British theatre. Either that or the producer has paid for them.
This show is average at best and hasn't transformed enough from the Sheffield staging to warrant a West End transfer. The book and direction are clunky and apart from the opening number lacks energy. There are some good one-liners but a lot of the show falls flat. The entire section in the drag dress shop (also for a small town it's slightly astounding that there would be a such a shop - I wouldn't know where in London to go and get a good drag frock in men's sizes) literally drags and the actor playing the "legendary" Loco Chanel just looks uncomfortable. The big moments of the show fail to ever materialise. We never actually get to see Jamie in drag as Me Me Me and the second act gets taken over with a confusing arc to go to the prom in drag but in the end lets you down as well by confusing drag with transgender issues.
I really don't want to hate on something that I really enjoyed and shouted about in concept album stage and the show is a story that should be told in 2017 I just didn't think it was good enough. John McCrea is an excellent actor but a below par singer, the staging of the ballads in act 2 just become samey and dull and if you're going to have contemporary dance in one part - make it a part of the whole show or it just feels like a lazy way of filling the stage when you don't have any interesting set. Also pick a finale and end on it - don't have three lack lustre ones that never get a WOW factor.
When this closes early (and sadly I think it will) everyone will be talking about how audiences don't support British writing and the West End is doomed to be filled with a plethora of Jukebox musicals - when actually that isn't true. If something is TRUELY great people will go and see it, Jamie just isn't it.
|
|
4,179 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Nov 23, 2017 10:13:13 GMT
Actually the management team have been discussing opening a "theatre fashion' section and to let you all into a secret, Parsley was the top of the list to head it up as our resident TheatreBoard Fashion Editor.
|
|
5,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 23, 2017 10:17:15 GMT
Hmmmmmm, If the Whatsonstage review can pass comment such as "It's not a perfect musical, with perhaps a track too many and the first half taking a little time to get where it needs to be" and "The grey, box-tower set occasionally feels clunky - the slightly jarring projections get a little lost within it all." and then gives it the maximum rating of 5* - what is the metric here? Thoughts? People have different ideas of what star ratings mean. Lyn Gardner for instance once pointed out that she thinks 2* means a show is basically fine, whereas I always viewed it as meaning below par. Also, in some ways it would be unreasonable to expect 5* to mean a show is flawless and perfect; there are so few shows that are absolutely beyond reproach that you would essentially reduce the 5* rating system to functionally a 4* rating system, as we'd only get a 5* show maybe once a decade. After all, what was the last truly 100% flawless show you saw? There's been some damn fine theatre this year, but even Follies and Angels and the Almeida Hamlet and The Ferryman have had their flaws. Yeah I don't put much store by * ratings other than against what that particular reviewer ranks them as- so for example as @baemax says, I know Lyn thinks 2* is 'alright' wheras other reviewers would rank that as "pants". But it's fairly useless pitting them against each other because a WoS 5* isn't the same as a Guardian one or The Stage (also some use a 4* system others a 5). Personally I think the system is a bit redundant because a) it's all relative b) again as above even the most BRILLIANT show isn't flawless. Apart from Michael Billington the stars aren't awarded by the reviewer and by the section editor, that's why sometimes you read a difference between the stars awarded and the review, for instance a 4 star review can read like a 3 star review, I wonder what motivates the section editor? For the record I see; 1 Star - Poor 2 Star - Poor, but with some good elements 3 Star - Average, you can have a low/high 3 star review, depending how it's written 4 Star - Very Good 5 Star - Superlative |
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Nov 23, 2017 10:17:17 GMT
I REALLY wanted to love this show but I think the accolades it's been getting are more of a result of people not wanting to seem homophobic or being negative about original British theatre. Either that or the producer has paid for them. This show is average at best and hasn't transformed enough from the Sheffield staging to warrant a West End transfer. The book and direction are clunky and apart from the opening number lacks energy. There are some good one-liners but a lot of the show falls flat. The entire section in the drag dress shop (also for a small town it's slightly astounding that there would be a such a shop - I wouldn't know where in London to go and get a good drag frock in men's sizes) literally drags and the actor playing the "legendary" Loco Chanel just looks uncomfortable. The big moments of the show fail to ever materialise. We never actually get to see Jamie in drag as Me Me Me and the second act gets taken over with a confusing arc to go to the prom in drag but in the end lets you down as well by confusing drag with transgender issues. I really don't want to hate on something that I really enjoyed and shouted about in concept album stage and the show is a story that should be told in 2017 I just didn't think it was good enough. John McCrea is an excellent actor but a below par singer, the staging of the ballads in act 2 just become samey and dull and if you're going to have contemporary dance in one part - make it a part of the whole show or it just feels like a lazy way of filling the stage when you don't have any interesting set. Also pick a finale and end on it - don't have three lack lustre ones that never get a WOW factor. When this closes early (and sadly I think it will) everyone will be talking about how audiences don't support British writing and the West End is doomed to be filled with a plethora of Jukebox musicals - when actually that isn't true. If something is TRUELY great people will go and see it, Jamie just isn't it. You’re suggesting the reviews are to do with not being homophobic or they have bribed the reviewers? This has to be one of the most idiotic posts I’ve seen on Theatreboard... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 10:18:59 GMT
... isn't Jamie set in Sheffield? One of the top ten largest cities (by population) in the UK? The Rome of the north, with a thriving student population thanks to its two universities (one of which is the eighth largest in the UK)? I mean, stop me if I'm wrong and Jamie is actually set in a small town outside Sheffield, I haven't seen it yet, but if it is indeed set in Sheffield, then please allow my defence of Sheffield as "not a small town actually" to stand.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Nov 23, 2017 10:31:17 GMT
I don't specifically disagree with Althea's assessment- sans the bribery and fear of being labeled homophobic.
No- it's not expertly put together - that is obvious from the points you have pointed. But just because the form and structure of the show isn't completely polished, it doesn't make it less delightful or entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 10:34:20 GMT
It has the same sorts of reviews
As Bend It Like Beckham
And I think reviewers do drop their standards
For new British musicals
Which are generally scrappy and crappy
And cheapy
|
|
52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 10:41:15 GMT
Sorry what I meant about the reviews was that if the reviewers had torn the show apart they might have been criticised for being homophobic by Jamie fans.
Also producers have been known in the past to buy star ratings from papers because they agree a certain amount of ad spend in the paper in return for a starry review.
|
|
52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 10:43:48 GMT
I don't specifically disagree with Althea's assessment- sans the bribery and fear of being labeled homophobic. No- it's not expertly put together - that is obvious from the points you have pointed. But just because the form and structure of the show isn't completely polished, it doesn't make it less delightful or entertaining. Isn’t it just a shame that it isn’t better? There are so many things they could have done to fix it in previews and let it develop. My opinion is that the creative team were too close to it and the producers should have brought in an outside source to help them shape the West End incarnation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 10:46:53 GMT
... isn't Jamie set in Sheffield? One of the top ten largest cities (by population) in the UK? The Rome of the north, with a thriving student population thanks to its two universities (one of which is the eighth largest in the UK)? I mean, stop me if I'm wrong and Jamie is actually set in a small town outside Sheffield, I haven't seen it yet, but if it is indeed set in Sheffield, then please allow my defence of Sheffield as "not a small town actually" to stand. In my experience, it's astonishing how many people think that any city outside of London is a "small town", no matter how large or important those cities may be. |
|
52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 10:47:46 GMT
... isn't Jamie set in Sheffield? One of the top ten largest cities (by population) in the UK? The Rome of the north, with a thriving student population thanks to its two universities (one of which is the eighth largest in the UK)? I mean, stop me if I'm wrong and Jamie is actually set in a small town outside Sheffield, I haven't seen it yet, but if it is indeed set in Sheffield, then please allow my defence of Sheffield as "not a small town actually" to stand. I thought it was set just outside Sheffield. Needless to say it’s still surprising that there’s an exclusive shop for drag queens when I can’t think of a place like that in London. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 10:49:45 GMT
I don't specifically disagree with Althea's assessment- sans the bribery and fear of being labeled homophobic. No- it's not expertly put together - that is obvious from the points you have pointed. But just because the form and structure of the show isn't completely polished, it doesn't make it less delightful or entertaining. Isn’t it just a shame that it isn’t better? There are so many things they could have done to fix it in previews and let it develop. My opinion is that the creative team were too close to it and the producers should have brought in an outside source to help them shape the West End incarnation. But it's joyous and it has a real heart and soul. I'd rather it be a bit rough around the edges and have that warmth than for it be super slick and sanitised. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 10:55:45 GMT
We do have Drag Queens in the Provinces darlings...Sheffield is about the same size or slightly bigger than Cardiff. And though they don't call themselves 'Shops for Drag Queens' I could certainly point you towards a couple of shops of that nature here.
And I haven't seen Jamie yet, but I'm in agreement with @ryan I'd rather have something new and different and yes heartwarming that's a bit 'rough around the edges' than theatrical 'perfection' that is soulless.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Nov 23, 2017 11:08:14 GMT
I don't specifically disagree with Althea's assessment- sans the bribery and fear of being labeled homophobic. No- it's not expertly put together - that is obvious from the points you have pointed. But just because the form and structure of the show isn't completely polished, it doesn't make it less delightful or entertaining. Isn’t it just a shame that it isn’t better? There are so many things they could have done to fix it in previews and let it develop. My opinion is that the creative team were too close to it and the producers should have brought in an outside source to help them shape the West End incarnation. Yes - all is true. But this is a team that is clearly young, inexperienced and doing this for the first time. They don't have the backing, cash or resources that a Sonia Friedman or Cameron Mackintosh have to doctor a show. But you can tell that to them it's a lot more than just commercial enterprise. In ways that is naive if you have a show on the West End - in other ways, it's completely admirable, and I think their passion and love totally floods the auditorium. I'm not easy to please and I am such a huge cynic and very unforgiving to West End musicals, but this little show, despite its flaws, completely won me over. Can't wait to see it and share with my friend on Saturday evening. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 11:11:51 GMT
Isn’t it just a shame that it isn’t better? There are so many things they could have done to fix it in previews and let it develop. My opinion is that the creative team were too close to it and the producers should have brought in an outside source to help them shape the West End incarnation. Yes - all is true. But this is a team that is clearly young, inexperienced and doing this for the first time. They don't have the backing, cash or resources that a Sonia Friedman or Cameron Mackintosh have to doctor a show. But you can tell that to them it's a lot more than just commercial enterprise. In ways that is naive if you have a show on the West End - in other ways, it's completely admirable, and I think their passion and love totally floods the auditorium. I'm not easy to please and I am such a huge cynic and very unforgiving to West End musicals, but this little show, despite its flaws, completely won me over. Can't wait to see it and share with my friend on Saturday evening. Exactly Ali- as much as they're 'sharing stages' with other musicals in the West End with that backing it's unfair to compare note for note (or pound for pound) because they simply don't have the resources that the 'Big Boys' have- and I think it's really admirable what they've done. I also think it's really important we DO see smaller producers/theatres get their West End transfers because otherwise we'll be back to the 80s with homogenised 'Super Shows' that say nothing, do nothing and are just 'pretty'. I'm all for a slick West End Friedman produced spectacle, but there's space for a few Jamies alongside that too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 11:16:30 GMT
because otherwise we'll be back to the 80s with homogenised 'Super Shows' that say nothing, do nothing and are just 'pretty'. Well hang on just a moment! To be honest I do like a show filled with pretty homos as well though. Don't we all? |
|
