1,005 posts
|
Post by David J on Jun 7, 2020 19:11:47 GMT
And if anybody mentions, La La Land had the advantage of being a call-back to the old stylistic musical films. The Oscars love call-back films like The Artist
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 19:22:57 GMT
Is Alan Parker still active? He’d be an excellent choice. He has shown time and time again his ability to do both intimate and large stories in ‘epic’ settings, and handle a musical. Does anyone have his address? i was about to come on here and ask if u were kidding?? hes been dead well over a decade..........!!! i wonder who iv been thinking of all this time?!?!!?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 19:24:32 GMT
Is Alan Parker still active? He’d be an excellent choice. He has shown time and time again his ability to do both intimate and large stories in ‘epic’ settings, and handle a musical. Does anyone have his address? i was about to come on here and ask if u were kidding?? hes been dead well over a decade..........!!! i wonder who iv been thinking of all this time?!?!!? ANTHONY MINGHELLA!!! i honestly thought they were the same person!
|
|
6,338 posts
|
Post by danb on Jun 7, 2020 19:47:14 GMT
Ahhh Minghella....well known for his grip on a filmic Lloyd Webber and a slavishly stylish Sondheim flick 😂😂😂 Alan Parker (80 odd years old) got an actual performance out of Madonna in Evita, marshalled a load of kids with splurge guns in ‘Bugsy Malone’ and created one of my faves the creepily stylish thriller ‘Angel Heart’ with Mickey Rourke & Lisa Bonet. He could handle the scale, the romance and the tragedy.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 7, 2020 20:46:05 GMT
It's racist for Diep Tran to complain about the way white writers chose to portray a character from her own country and culture? Please explain how. It's been a long few months and I could really use a laugh. First, "white writers", is a racist and world alienated remark. This says nothing about the story, the boat people, refugees and bargirls and the story of madame butterfly this is based on. But I think you hit the nail on its head there. The writer of that article is racist and this given is her problem per definition. She just hates white people. If you really want a laugh, look at these remarks in the article: "Kim shoots herself over race. This show is about "whiteness kills you". Kim chooses Chris over Thuy because of race." Secondly, she says: "Asian women are resilient, resourceful, strong, not victims. Instead, in Miss Saigon, Kim, a woman with no last name, sings about her longing for a man to save her". If you weren't laughing loud enough I'm sure you do it now. Of course it's bizarre to hate white people and hate a show were a character is not embodying your perfect fantasy person or doesn't have the job she feels that represents her well enough, but you know, characters are not meant to represent a whole group of people or an ego. This is a story about a bargil, and many of them existed. The thing is, Kim is everything she describes (resilient, strong, not a victim) and fights till the end for her son, so she clearly hasn't seen the show. She just wants to diss white people. In reality most bargirls and boat people were probably not nearly as heroic or strong, but the writers chose to make her a strong heroine. But that's ok. It is still believable and that's what counts, even when the story is partially real and partially fiction.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 7, 2020 20:55:43 GMT
It's racist for Diep Tran to complain about the way white writers chose to portray a character from her own country and culture? Please explain how. It's been a long few months and I could really use a laugh. First, "white writers", is a racist and world alienated remark. This says nothing about the story, the boat people, refugees and bargirls and the story of madame butterfly this is based on. But I think you hit the nail on its head there. The writer of that article is racist and this given is her problem per definition. She just hates white people. If you really want a laugh, look at these remarks in the article: "Kim shoots herself over race. This show is about "whiteness kills you". Kim chooses Chris over Thuy because of race." Secondly, she says: "Asian women are resilient, resourceful, strong, not victims. Instead, in Miss Saigon, Kim, a woman with no last name, sings about her longing for a man to save her". If you weren't laughing loud enough I'm sure you do it now. Of course it's bizarre to hate white people and hate a show were a character is not embodying your perfect fantasy person or doesn't have the job she feels that represents her well enough, but you know, characters are not meant to represent a country or an ego. This is a story about a bargil, and many of them existed. The thing is, Kim is everything she describes (resilient, strong, not a victim) and fights till the end for her son, so she clearly hasn't seen the show. She just wants to diss white people. In reality most bargirls and boat people were probably not nearly as heroic or strong, but the writers chose to make her a strong heroine. But that's ok. It is still believable and that's what counts, even when the story is partially real and partially fiction. Mmm. Word salad. Was any of that supposed to make sense?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 7, 2020 21:03:32 GMT
Nope, it doesn't make any sense at all. We have spent too much time and attention on that racist article.
Let's contribute to the movie director discussion and other Miss Saigon stuff.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 7, 2020 21:24:13 GMT
We have spent too much time and attention on that racist article. Since nobody in this thread has posted a link to a racist article, I'm at a loss to understand what you're talking about.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 7, 2020 21:40:09 GMT
Whilst talking about racism in this thread it is also worth noting that;
American Soldiers were sent to the Vietnamese villages to win the locals hearts and minds, unfortunately it was the Vietnamese that won the heart and minds through prostitution and opium, essentially what Miss Saigon is about. The American soldiers were conscripted and were mainly not like Chris but John, by being black as a lot of white Americans avoided the draft, just as the current President did.
What Miss Saigon did well and that was make America finally take ownership of the problems they left behind and that was the Bui Doi children the ‘dust of life,’ who were despised and abhorred in Vietnam, ‘conceived by a pig,’ It made the president At the time of Miss Saigon and I believe it to be George Bush Senior, to allow the Bui Doi generation to settle in America and start a life a new, one that is free, peaceful and not judged..
|
|
172 posts
|
Post by justsaying113 on Jun 22, 2020 7:39:34 GMT
The lungs on this fella:
Saw him do 'Kristina' at Carnegie Hall and Royal Albert Hall - he really should be a huge star!
|
|
3,762 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Jun 22, 2020 7:53:01 GMT
The lungs on this fella: Saw him do 'Kristina' at Carnegie Hall and Royal Albert Hall - he really should be a huge star! I too saw in in Kristina at the Royal Albert Hall singing the part of Robert, Kristina's brother and I agree, an incredible voice. Oh Kristina, gold can turn to sand
|
|
|
Post by cjamess on Jun 23, 2020 13:13:48 GMT
It's racist for Diep Tran to complain about the way white writers chose to portray a character from her own country and culture? Please explain how. It's been a long few months and I could really use a laugh. First, "white writers", is a racist and world alienated remark. This says nothing about the story, the boat people, refugees and bargirls and the story of madame butterfly this is based on. But I think you hit the nail on its head there. The writer of that article is racist and this given is her problem per definition. She just hates white people. If you really want a laugh, look at these remarks in the article: "Kim shoots herself over race. This show is about "whiteness kills you". Kim chooses Chris over Thuy because of race." Secondly, she says: "Asian women are resilient, resourceful, strong, not victims. Instead, in Miss Saigon, Kim, a woman with no last name, sings about her longing for a man to save her". If you weren't laughing loud enough I'm sure you do it now. Of course it's bizarre to hate white people and hate a show were a character is not embodying your perfect fantasy person or doesn't have the job she feels that represents her well enough, but you know, characters are not meant to represent a whole group of people or an ego. This is a story about a bargil, and many of them existed. The thing is, Kim is everything she describes (resilient, strong, not a victim) and fights till the end for her son, so she clearly hasn't seen the show. She just wants to diss white people. In reality most bargirls and boat people were probably not nearly as heroic or strong, but the writers chose to make her a strong heroine. But that's ok. It is still believable and that's what counts, even when the story is partially real and partially fiction. Saying they are white writers is not racist at all. It is stating the truth. The writer is not racist at all as I will describe below. The problem discussed is similar with that of the Book of Mormon, the white saviour complex of the writing. Kim and the other prostitutes are disposable to Chris and the GI's are portrayed as going to help them when in reality they cause more damage than good. Similar to BOM where the whites are hailed as heroes and saving the village where in reality they do nothing to change the issues at hand. The issue with the writers comes due to the fact there was no Asian person on the creative team - nor an expert in the war: how can you accurately show a group of people if you don't have someone representing them on the creative team. However, the inclusion of Bui Doi children for context shows how damaging the racism and war was at the time so it does to some extent represent the struggles of race but not to a good extent. I believe if the musical was written today there would be several changes in the writing such as the use of the term 'slits' in Heat is On and the use of a white actor initially as the Engineer (which if I remember Cameron threatened to axe the Broadway prod. as they insisted on having an Asian actor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2021 16:37:49 GMT
Miss Saigon is coming to Netflix on 16th November. Assume its the filmed London revival
|
|
|
Post by cezbear on Oct 21, 2021 9:22:06 GMT
I don't know why, I thought I'd already watched this on Netflix. Maybe it's been on Amazon Prime? Will be good to have another watch of this anyway, can't remember if it has the gala ending with Lea, etc. included? Hope so.
|
|
2,149 posts
|
Post by richey on Oct 21, 2021 12:07:59 GMT
I don't know why, I thought I'd already watched this on Netflix. Maybe it's been on Amazon Prime? Will be good to have another watch of this anyway, can't remember if it has the gala ending with Lea, etc. included? Hope so. it's been on Sky Arts I think
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 22, 2022 21:53:32 GMT
The press statement says that the Sheffield production is the first different UK production since the 1989 original, but is that really true? Surely the Connor one that toured and then became the West End revival was the first (even if it wasn't a total reimaging, just a downscaling)?
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 22, 2022 22:09:03 GMT
The press statement says that the Sheffield production is the first different UK production since the 1989 original, but is that really true? Surely the Connor one that toured and then became the West End revival was the first (even if it wasn't a total reimaging, just a downscaling)? Yes, unlike the prior tour, Connor’s tour/West End transfer was indeed a “new production” rather than a revival. New director, new smaller sets, new smaller orchestra and a few new designs/cloths/set pieces. Some venues couldn’t even fit the helicopter, so were treated to just an extended version of the projection, while the actors ran off stage. At the larger venues and in the West End, a shorter version of the projection was played on a mid stage cloth, used to mask the helicopter being pushed in place. There were also new arrangements for the Connor tour, including the new version of “The Ceremony/Dju Vui Vai” which actually means something in Vietnamese, and isn’t just gibberish words like the original. Plenty of lyric tweaks and little orchestration changes. But that tour was designed intentionally to play much, much smaller houses on the road. The prior tour could only fit into the very biggest venues because of the size of the sets/helicopter, and they wanted this one to go anywhere/everywhere possible (including Europe, which I don’t think happened in the end). FWIW, it was Laurence Connor’s best work.
|
|
6,338 posts
|
Post by danb on Sept 23, 2022 5:39:15 GMT
It certainly didn’t feel like a downgrade; more just a minor restaging.
|
|
82 posts
|
Post by theatremadhatter on Sept 23, 2022 13:56:13 GMT
The press statement says that the Sheffield production is the first different UK production since the 1989 original, but is that really true? Surely the Connor one that toured and then became the West End revival was the first (even if it wasn't a total reimaging, just a downscaling)? Yes, unlike the prior tour, Connor’s tour/West End transfer was indeed a “new production” rather than a revival. New director, new smaller sets, new smaller orchestra and a few new designs/cloths/set pieces. Some venues couldn’t even fit the helicopter, so were treated to just an extended version of the projection, while the actors ran off stage. At the larger venues and in the West End, a shorter version of the projection was played on a mid stage cloth, used to mask the helicopter being pushed in place. There were also new arrangements for the Connor tour, including the new version of “The Ceremony/Dju Vui Vai” which actually means something in Vietnamese, and isn’t just gibberish words like the original. Plenty of lyric tweaks and little orchestration changes. But that tour was designed intentionally to play much, much smaller houses on the road. The prior tour could only fit into the very biggest venues because of the size of the sets/helicopter, and they wanted this one to go anywhere/everywhere possible (including Europe, which I don’t think happened in the end). FWIW, it was Laurence Connor’s best work. The reason it was Laurence Connors best work is because it wasn't his. It was Mitchell Lemsky's, he reimagined the production and mounted it in 2004 the then 'new' tour. I remember reading an article at the time how he spent 6 months in Vietnam to come up with the re-imagined version. It opened with Jon Jon Briones as the Engineer. The assistant director was none other than Laurence Connor. After opening night Mitchell walked away from the production after a disagreement with Cameron. Laurence as Assistant stepped in and took the badge of Director in his absence. I always found it odd when it ended up in the West End he happily claimed it as his without the huge amount of work and re-imagining Mitchell did to get it to that stage. link to story which correctly cites Mitchell as Director
|
|
372 posts
|
Post by hitmewithurbethshot on Sept 23, 2022 14:19:34 GMT
Connor can’t really take credit for the bargirls singing actual Vietnamese either, that was one of the Broadway revival ensemble members who pointed it out and contributed a translation
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 23, 2022 14:24:06 GMT
Yes, unlike the prior tour, Connor’s tour/West End transfer was indeed a “new production” rather than a revival. New director, new smaller sets, new smaller orchestra and a few new designs/cloths/set pieces. Some venues couldn’t even fit the helicopter, so were treated to just an extended version of the projection, while the actors ran off stage. At the larger venues and in the West End, a shorter version of the projection was played on a mid stage cloth, used to mask the helicopter being pushed in place. There were also new arrangements for the Connor tour, including the new version of “The Ceremony/Dju Vui Vai” which actually means something in Vietnamese, and isn’t just gibberish words like the original. Plenty of lyric tweaks and little orchestration changes. But that tour was designed intentionally to play much, much smaller houses on the road. The prior tour could only fit into the very biggest venues because of the size of the sets/helicopter, and they wanted this one to go anywhere/everywhere possible (including Europe, which I don’t think happened in the end). FWIW, it was Laurence Connor’s best work. The reason it was Laurence Connors best work is because it wasn't his. It was Mitchell Lemsky's, he reimagined the production and mounted it in 2004 the then 'new' tour. I remember reading an article at the time how he spent 6 months in Vietnam to come up with the re-imagined version. It opened with Jon Jon Briones as the Engineer. The assistant director was none other than Laurence Connor. After opening night Mitchell walked away from the production after a disagreement with Cameron. Laurence as Assistant stepped in and took the badge of Director in his absence. I always found it odd when it ended up in the West End he happily claimed it as his without the huge amount of work and re-imagining Mitchell did to get it to that stage. link to story which correctly cites Mitchell as DirectorThat's fascinating. So how different was the West End revival to the 2004 Lemsky version? It looks like Lemsky also worked his way up 'in house' like Seth Sklar-Heyn, with stints in the original Song & Dance, Miz, Phantom and Saigon on Broadway.
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Sept 23, 2022 15:58:45 GMT
Yes, unlike the prior tour, Connor’s tour/West End transfer was indeed a “new production” rather than a revival. New director, new smaller sets, new smaller orchestra and a few new designs/cloths/set pieces. Some venues couldn’t even fit the helicopter, so were treated to just an extended version of the projection, while the actors ran off stage. At the larger venues and in the West End, a shorter version of the projection was played on a mid stage cloth, used to mask the helicopter being pushed in place. There were also new arrangements for the Connor tour, including the new version of “The Ceremony/Dju Vui Vai” which actually means something in Vietnamese, and isn’t just gibberish words like the original. Plenty of lyric tweaks and little orchestration changes. But that tour was designed intentionally to play much, much smaller houses on the road. The prior tour could only fit into the very biggest venues because of the size of the sets/helicopter, and they wanted this one to go anywhere/everywhere possible (including Europe, which I don’t think happened in the end). FWIW, it was Laurence Connor’s best work. The reason it was Laurence Connors best work is because it wasn't his. It was Mitchell Lemsky's, he reimagined the production and mounted it in 2004 the then 'new' tour. I remember reading an article at the time how he spent 6 months in Vietnam to come up with the re-imagined version. It opened with Jon Jon Briones as the Engineer. The assistant director was none other than Laurence Connor. After opening night Mitchell walked away from the production after a disagreement with Cameron. Laurence as Assistant stepped in and took the badge of Director in his absence. I always found it odd when it ended up in the West End he happily claimed it as his without the huge amount of work and re-imagining Mitchell did to get it to that stage. link to story which correctly cites Mitchell as DirectorThanks, I had absolutely no idea this was the case. It did seem a strange outlier to have such a competently directed work come from him. It makes a LOT more sense now.
|
|
82 posts
|
Post by theatremadhatter on Sept 23, 2022 16:37:39 GMT
The reason it was Laurence Connors best work is because it wasn't his. It was Mitchell Lemsky's, he reimagined the production and mounted it in 2004 the then 'new' tour. I remember reading an article at the time how he spent 6 months in Vietnam to come up with the re-imagined version. It opened with Jon Jon Briones as the Engineer. The assistant director was none other than Laurence Connor. After opening night Mitchell walked away from the production after a disagreement with Cameron. Laurence as Assistant stepped in and took the badge of Director in his absence. I always found it odd when it ended up in the West End he happily claimed it as his without the huge amount of work and re-imagining Mitchell did to get it to that stage. link to story which correctly cites Mitchell as DirectorThat's fascinating. So how different was the West End revival to the 2004 Lemsky version? It looks like Lemsky also worked his way up 'in house' like Seth Sklar-Heyn, with stints in the original Song & Dance, Miz, Phantom and Saigon on Broadway. It was pretty much identical really. I believe Mitchell Lemsky had quite a big part in coming up with the breathing trucks left and right and the spin-able dreamland centre section hence why he was always mentioned alongside design and direction. I also think Laurence's key was keeping Jon Jon Briones from 2004 to West End as he created that slightly darker sleazier version of the Engineer with Mitchell. I found this trailer which seems otherwise erased (to probably hide the fact the West End Version wasn't as reimagined) on a Steven Houghton fan page who played Chris you can see how similar it is -
|
|