|
Post by crabtree on Mar 29, 2017 18:58:59 GMT
I always assumed it was not Daffodils, but the daffy dills mentioned above, and thought it was a camp slang to some sort of aesthetics of easy virtue...in the Busby B numbers there are so often ladies, and men, walking the street.
I'm not sure that this is a jukebox musical, as such musicals usually use the songs in totally different contexts and supply new dialogue. This is essential fleshly out the movie of the same name by including numbers and dialogue from the other films in the BB canon to make one big homage to those 1930s classics.
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Mar 29, 2017 19:01:15 GMT
and whilst I am at it, I would claim that The Beggar's Opera could be the first jukebox musical.
|
|
7,059 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 29, 2017 19:12:50 GMT
I'm not sure that this is a jukebox musical, as such musicals usually use the songs in totally different contexts and supply new dialogue. This is essential fleshly out the movie of the same name by including numbers and dialogue from the other films in the BB canon to make one big homage to those 1930s classics. Singin' in the Rain has songs from a variety of MGM movies so it wasn't a novel idea when 42nd Street did it in 1980. It's no different to Crazy for You or An American in Paris which uses Gershwin songs from different musicals. I believe Mark Brambles and Michael Stewart approached Jerry Herman to write new songs for 42nd Street but he refused saying that it wasn't 42nd Street without songs from Al Dubin and Harry Warren. Even though We're in the Money, Dames and Lullaby of Broadway aren't originally from 42nd Street the movie, it's so seamless that you'd assume it was written for the show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 19:53:23 GMT
Ha. I've been humming You're Getting To Be a Habit With Me - can't get it out of my head.
If if helps, it’s a song that has been parodied with other lyrics However Google is failing me because there’s another version where “getting to be a rabbit” has other connotations and eventually this persistence has the singer reluctantly concluding the song with “…Can’t take it.” You're Getting To Be A Hobbit With Me, Lord of the Rings version......
|
|
4,786 posts
|
Post by Mark on Mar 29, 2017 23:50:20 GMT
Stunned.
Absolutely fantastic - and those £15 front row seats are a total steal (our two G&Ts at interval were more than a ticket!). Quite overwhelming actually to be that close to everything. I did tear up a bit as well. The tap! Beats American in Paris hands down I must say.
Done something I have never done before - just got home and immediately booked two more tickets for June for Mum and I - Side row A. It seems the view will be great from there too.
Hope the word of mouth spreads like wild fire for this one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 0:28:08 GMT
So funny
The first 10 pages of this post
Were insults about pricing Boring nature of show Moaning about revival
And now it's the BEST thing ever you have all seen
So funny
Keep the profits rolling in I say !!!
It is THE expected show we knew we wills get when it was announced
A large full scale revival of a well known show
Amazing that people are acting like it a massive revelation
It's not as if they have set it on the moon 100 years in the future
|
|
1,562 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Mar 30, 2017 5:27:38 GMT
So funny The first 10 pages of this post Were insults about pricing Boring nature of show Moaning about revival And now it's the BEST thing ever you have all seen So funny Keep the profits rolling in I say !!! It is THE expected show we knew we wills get when it was announced A large full scale revival of a well known show Amazing that people are acting like it a massive revelation It's not as if they have set it on the moon 100 years in the future Gotta love a Haiku...
|
|
5,811 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Mar 30, 2017 6:56:45 GMT
I for one am delighted to have gone from feeling very negative about this to being totally wowed and surprised by it.
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Mar 30, 2017 7:28:31 GMT
Tonight, tonight, TONIGHT...! Excited? Me? Well, I have heard it's a bit good ;-)
|
|
571 posts
|
Post by westendwendy on Mar 30, 2017 7:39:29 GMT
Tonight 20 of us went to see 42nd Street the musical at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane theatre on the West End. Dear god it was so brilliant it should be put on the NHS. Magnificent dancing, sets, performances and one the few West End shows I've ever seen where I felt I was watching a real Broadway spectacular. An incredible show with over 50 dancing in the cast. Even the none musical lovers in our group adored it. Wow... London has rarely seen anything like it. If there is anything you do tomorrow - book tickets for this show. One of the best we have all seen in years. Just brilliant 9.5/10.
|
|
19,670 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 30, 2017 7:49:39 GMT
9.5?
Go on then... why wasn't it a 10?
|
|
4,786 posts
|
Post by Mark on Mar 30, 2017 10:22:54 GMT
A23/24 and apparently have a slightly restricted view and legroom. Does anyone have any experience of these seats? I gave the £15 seats a full check last night, and my notes are, "Avoid A 0 and 24 unless very short - these have no legroom on one side of the seat, and barely enough for anyone over 5ft 2 tall on the other, due to the curve of the pit wall in front. A 1 and 23 have legroom for those up to around 5ft 5 to be almost comfortable. For some reason, 0 and 1 have a tiny bit more legroom than 23 and 24, the monkey felt. The view from all four seats is clear without speakers (fixed to the proscenium wall in front of 0 and 24) intruding into sightlines, but 1 and 23 have superior views as they are "inside" the proscenium opening, rather than looking onto the stage from an angle just beside the wall. In order, the monkey would take 1, 23, 0 and 24." Aaah I missed you monkey. You should of said hi! I've booked A23/24 for a future visit. Mum is fairly short so I'll aim to cope with A23. They didn't look too bad when I walked past them (and view looked good!)
|
|
|
Post by singularsensation10 on Mar 30, 2017 11:02:05 GMT
Dear god it was so brilliant it should be put on the NHS. Why isn't this on the side of every bus in London?
|
|
1,046 posts
|
Post by jgblunners on Mar 30, 2017 11:16:41 GMT
I sat in A23 for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - I'm 6'2" with most of the height in my legs and I found it bearable. To be fair I didn't have anyone in A24 next to me so had a bit of extra room to play with. The view's amazing and as long as I'm enthralled by the show (which I was for Charlie and imagine everyone will be for this), I tend to find that I can put up with my legs being in mediocre comfort!
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by Steve on Mar 30, 2017 12:41:24 GMT
Saw this last night, and loved it. Thin plot and characters can't detract from the gorgeous tunes and sheer spectacle! Human beings marching in lockstep, mechanical men and women, pretty much every horrible event in history has involved this sort of thing, so I'm suspicious. Why should I be impressed by something the North Korean state could do better? If the producers of this show can put 50 people on stage and have them form perfect clone cogs in an ever-moving, clattering musical machine, couldn't North Korea get 100,000 people to do the same thing? Would that be more impressive or sickening? And isn't this the sort of glittering dog and pony show, involving marching to music, and scantily clad people, that gambling meccas use to make their punters stupid? A primal call to the baby in you to just get in line and dance your money and mind away? Yes, it probably is all these things, so, beyond the primal call to our inner child to leap up onstage and tap away in unison, beyond the instinct to admire perfection in form and beauty, beyond the desire to be lost in an earthquake of legs, what individual humanity makes this show worth watching? There's those glorious life-affirming tunes from Warren and Dubin. For the above-stated reasons, I loved that they included solos and duets as well as the whole shebang. Sheena Easton was surprisingly special singing "Boulevard of Broken Dreams," which even seemed to benefit from the wear and tear of the years on her now husky voice. She also managed to belt "I Only Have Eyes for You," which I found affecting. I loved Stuart Neal as Billy Lawlor. That is a horribly underwritten role, but he infuses it with such charisma and charm, and for my money is the best singer in the whole ensemble. There's a funny joke in the show about Lawlor being a better singer than Julian Marsh, and in my mind, it's even funnier when you realise the amount of songs that are started by other characters, like the above-mentioned "I Only Have Eyes For You," by Sheena Easton's Dorothy, that he comes on and finishes, packing a bigger punch, and infusing even more emotion. Basically, it's not only Marsh Lawlor sings better than, it's everybody! "Dames," which Neal's Lawlor leads on splendidly is an absolute SMASH, with it's structural sandwich around the song "Keep Young and Beautiful" giving it a variety in mood and tone and music that is only matched by the dazzling "42nd street" title song. The only thing that could have improved "Dames" for me, would have been if Theatremonkey and Mallardo (who are always duetting on the same theme on this board in their never-ending quest to see "faces") had donned bowler hats, jumped up onstage either side of Neal's Lawlor, and sung that cheeky refrain "What do you go for, go see a show for, tell the truth you go to see those beautiful dames" lol! Another charming human touch to this show was the lasciviousness of Clare Halse's Peggy Sawyer, succombing to multiple kisses. Indeed, Halse completely graduates from her former role as a Toreadorable in Gypsy with her impish loveable starring role in this. I also loved Bruce Montague's lecherous Abner Dillon. Incidentally, his presence made me think of "Funny Girl," in which he played Ziegfeld, and I was amused at how the plot of this show perfectly mirrors the history of staging that show at the Savoy, with Natasha J. Barnes the real Peggy Sawyer, and Sheridan Smith the real Dorothy Brock. Heck, even the fictional show in this show is called "Pretty Lady," which is just a knock-off of "Funny Girl," anyway! Ultimately, the sound and fury of this show overwhelmed me, despite my overly suspicious nature, and I too wished I was onstage tapping away myself. For the above reasons, though, this show will never be as impressive and romantic and characterful and all-round celebratory of humanity as the current version of "An American in Paris." 4 and a half stars
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 13:06:58 GMT
Great review from Steve. He's so erudite, isn't he? Agree about Stuart Neal. I thought he was really terrific. All the nice boys love a sailor but I did think he pretty much stole the show. And I have to say that I loved Sheena Easton and while she's no great shakes as an actress, vocally I thought she was just gorgeous. 'I Only Have Eyes For You' was a genuinely lovely moment in the show.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Mar 30, 2017 17:31:00 GMT
The only thing that could have improved "Dames" for me, would have been if Theatremonkey and Mallardo (who are always duetting on the same theme on this board in their never-ending quest to see "faces") had donned bowler hats, jumped up onstage either side of Neal's Lawlor, and sung that cheeky refrain "What do you go for, go see a show for, tell the truth you go to see those beautiful dames" lol! Just wait for the "muck up matinee," Steve...
Ha!!! I confess I had exactly that reaction while I was watching and listening to "Dames". How true those lyrics are!
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Mar 30, 2017 23:41:32 GMT
Everything everyone's already said... about the show, about those seats, about the flimsy plot and that not mattering a jot, about those dancing feet. Just loved it, start to finish
|
|
133 posts
|
Post by japhun on Mar 31, 2017 11:38:09 GMT
So are we to blame for the price hike? In future we should all moan like mad about the awful view. 😃 I was behind you! And I have seen it again since (and booked for two more performances!) Absolutely LOVE this show. It was perma-grin from the second the orchestra started until they stopped!
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Mar 31, 2017 11:54:54 GMT
Absolutely LOVE this show. It was perma-grin from the second the orchestra started until they stopped! Ooh, I loved the MD's rising podium - great to see him 'giving it large' during the overture and entr'acte (but relieved when he sunk again to a less instrusive position for the main action!)
|
|
61 posts
|
Post by junet on Mar 31, 2017 11:59:14 GMT
I was also there last night. What can I say that hasn't already been said. It was Wonderful.
Over the years I have seen this show seven times, including once on Broadway with Christine Ebersole, but this was hands down the best.
I was impressed with every single cast member and am fast becoming a big fan of Tom Lister. I thought he was perfect for the role of Julian Marsh.
|
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Mar 31, 2017 12:10:20 GMT
Agreed junet - have seen 42nd Street on Broadway (2003), in Paris last year and now in London and this latest production is, as you say, "hands down the best". And ditto re Tom Lister
|
|
115 posts
|
Post by Peach on Mar 31, 2017 12:25:35 GMT
Have had friends message me and say I must see this show so just booked A1 for £15 as a pre birthday treat at the beginning of May.
Couldn't quite believe I could book a single seat with no difficulty and there is no 'levy', no booking fee and no postage charge.
|
|
219 posts
|
Post by PalelyLaura on Mar 31, 2017 12:55:45 GMT
Seeing this tomorrow night!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 12:59:47 GMT
I genuinely cannot remember a single musical on here that has ever been universally recieved so positively!
|
|