|
|
Post by apubleed on Jul 8, 2018 10:28:25 GMT
Musical theatre fans: "Musicals are rubbish if they don't have an assortment of stand-out stand-alone hummable tunes!" Also musical theatre fans: "STEPHEN SONDHEIM IS GOD" I think Sondheim has commented on this and claims that 'hummability' often just comes through repetition. When you have a score like Phantom of the Opera that constantly reuses the same melodies over and over again of course it will seem memorable. Most good musicals have a diverse, varied and complex score that is hard to take in on one listen. Some might find that to be a weakness of the musical theatre discipline but I personally find it rewarding that we do have a 'work' a little bit to fully appreciate something. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 10:32:10 GMT
Great Comet is an interesting one. I found it incredibly hard work on first listen but I did think there was something special and different there. Which made me want to listen again.
Funnily enough I didn’t like Hamilton at first. But it does make you want to listen again. And now I see there really are some incredible songs in it.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Jul 8, 2018 11:46:58 GMT
I think what I was expecting from Fun Home was the same sort of mind blowing experience I had when I saw Next To Normal.
Challenging themes, complex score and characters who were relatable even if you hadn’t experienced their challenges personally.
I came out of NTN feeling both very emotional and elated.
I was so involved with the show from the off that my back hurt from hardly having moved an inch during the performance as I was so wrapped up in it.
Sadly in my case, none of the above happened to me during FH. I actually found myself checking my watch several times.
I wonder what the thinking is by withholding rights for NTN in the Uk but granting them to so many other companies. Maybe David Stone is afraid that we’d cast it with Tommy Steele,Lesley Joseph, Jason Donovan and Catherine Tate !
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 11:48:22 GMT
Musical theatre fans: "Musicals are rubbish if they don't have an assortment of stand-out stand-alone hummable tunes!" Also musical theatre fans: "STEPHEN SONDHEIM IS GOD" I think Sondheim has commented on this and claims that 'hummability' often just comes through repetition. When you have a score like Phantom of the Opera that constantly reuses the same melodies over and over again of course it will seem memorable. Most good musicals have a diverse, varied and complex score that is hard to take in on one listen. Some might find that to be a weakness of the musical theatre discipline but I personally find it rewarding that we do have a 'work' a little bit to fully appreciate something. And if anyone knows about repetition, it's Stephen Sondheim. |
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jul 8, 2018 12:07:44 GMT
Saw it this afternoon (appropriate day, I know, and there were Pride stickers available in the foyer). Knew nothing about it at all before seeing it - managed to avoid the spoiler here. OK, it's polished and absorbing and done very beautifully by the Young Vic. My only reservations are that the American emotional open-ness, that "child like" quality American writing invariably has, took a little acceptance. I did, as it deserved it. Second, I did feel that there wasn't quite the impact at the end that I was expecting. I perhaps wanted a clearer meaning of it all to be telegraphed. Still, delighted I saw it, and am looking for the book now. That's a really good point. I think if you're not into that American thing or been influenced by watching lots of US TV and theatre (e.g. like me), British sensibilities can find it quite jarring. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 12:58:26 GMT
The book always comes first for a piece of theatre, music first is best left in the recording studio. Without a decent book you are left with something as mind numbingly shallow as 42nd Street (I appreciate that others liked it). The other way round, with a poor score and decent book, is better exemplified by something like Kinky Boots which had, for me, one of the most forgettable and badly written scores of the last decade but just about survived because of the decent book.
As for Fun Home I found it more tuneful than both of the above. Rather than bludgeoning you to death with one or two phrases there's just a greater number of melodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Jul 8, 2018 13:21:34 GMT
Has anyone seen another production of this show? I'm curious how they have done the transition for the city apartment set - the bland, cold white screen into the absolutely carnivorous, lavish mansion, complete with two rooms. I'm guessing previous productions didn't quite achieve the same effect? It was chilling to suddenly realise that Jenna's character has been 'locked up' in this cold, empty mansion for a long time...leading into "Days and Days". It was so much more hopeless and depressing than the earlier 'memories' of the sparse house that seemed at least a little intimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 13:46:40 GMT
Musical theatre fans: "Musicals are rubbish if they don't have an assortment of stand-out stand-alone hummable tunes!" Also musical theatre fans: "STEPHEN SONDHEIM IS GOD" 'WHEN DID YOU LAST HUM A SONDHEIM MUSICAL ON FIRST HEARING' Well I’m not a musician and have no talents in music as such. I would probably have made a good drummer as I have a natural feel for rhythm but drums weren’t on offer to me when I was at school. But that aside, I reckon that I’m fairly good at recognising a nice tune, and my CD collection is large enough to contain allsorts. Musical theatre is only one type of music I like. And I’ve been seeing musicals for much, much longer than quite a few of our posters have been alive. I can still remember where I heard some of Sondheim’s music for the first time. Glynis Johns singing Clowns on Parkinson for instance. Had an instant effect on me even at a very young age. Some of the Follies songs in the concert version the show with Lee Remick and Elaine Stritch; this was shown on UK TV, quite late at night and I watched it while staying with parents once they’d gone up to bed! The Sweeney songs in a huge scale version of the show at Drury Lane. Sent chills through me. I don’t hum but I can often remember a line or two and I reckon I came out with the following in my head, repeated over and over, after first hearing: Comedy Tonight/Everybody Ought to Have a Maid from A Funny Thing Happened.. Beautiful Girls/In Buddy's Eyes/I'm Still Here/Losing My Mind from FolliesWeekend in the Country/Send in the Clowns/The Miller’s Son from Night Music
Not a Day Goes By from MerrilyThe Little Things You Do Together/You Could Drive a Person Crazy/Side by Side/Ladies who Lunch/Being Alive* from CompanyFinishing the Hat/Sunday* from SundayInto the Woods/Giants in the Sky/Children will Listen/No-one is Alone from Into the WoodsAnd far too many to list from Sweeney Todd... * Two of the most ‘hummable’ tunes ever in Musical Theatre... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 13:49:04 GMT
Alright dears cool your beans, it was something of a flippant response  (Honestly I'm not that invested in this debate, it was an observation and it's too damn hot to debate today) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 14:30:34 GMT
Alright dears cool your beans, it was something of a flippant response (Honestly I'm not that invested in this debate, it was an observation and it's too damn hot to debate today) Em, please... You took offence recently when you were addressed as “Our Em”. I know because I saw your response before you edited and removed it. You found it patronising, I seem to remember. So please do not refer to me as a “dear”... It’s just as patronising. If you are not “invested in this debate”, why contribute to it, albeit flippantly? I note you haven’t even seen this production yet. But you were one of the first to comment on my review, erroneously stating that I was one of those theatre-goers who writes off a musical because they couldn’t come out humming one of its tunes. I haven’t written it off; I simply stated that it wasn’t for me and gave my reasons. One was the music. Another was the staging which omitted any representation of her cartoons. You are “invested” enough to respond to my post, to ‘like’ others’ who were clearly in the other camp, and to mention being “brave enough” to come up with the old Sondheim chestnut. I’m not sure why bravery was mentioned actually; perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you might feel that these discussions are some kind of battle. Someone has to win... It’s okay to have other views; we don’t have to convince anyone else that we are right, they are wrong. And I mentioned that in my review too. I hope you enjoy it when you get round to seeing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 14:39:22 GMT
Alright dears cool your beans, it was something of a flippant response (Honestly I'm not that invested in this debate, it was an observation and it's too damn hot to debate today) Em, please... You took offence recently when you were addressed as “Our Em”. I know because I saw your response before you edited and removed it. You found it patronising, I seem to remember. So please do not refer to me as a “dear”... It’s just as patronising. If you are not “invested in this debate”, why contribute to it, albeit flippantly? I note you haven’t even seen this production yet. But you were one of the first to comment on my review, erroneously stating that I was one of those theatre-goers who writes off a musical because they couldn’t come out humming one of its tunes. I haven’t written it off; I simply stated that it wasn’t for me and gave my reasons. One was the music. Another was the staging which omitted any representation of her cartoons. You are “invested” enough to resond to my post, to ‘like’ others’ who were clearly in the other camp, and to mention being “brave enough” to come up with the old Sondheim chestnut. I’m not sure why bravery was mentioned actually; perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you might feel that these discussions are some kind of battle. Someone has to win... It’s okay to have other views; we don’t have to convince anyone else that we are right, they are wrong. And I mentioned that in my review too. I hope you enjoy it when you get round to seeing it. Ok firstly I apologise. No offence was meant. It was also a flippant response designed not to spark further, needless argument or conflict. To that end I'm not going to engage any further with your post, simply to apologies again no condescension was meant, it was meant in jest. As was my comment to Baemax (we are friends, as is apparent from reading our posts on here, and that is the spirit it was meant, not as an attack on anyone else). Clearly we aren't on the same page in our approach today so I'll not aggravate things further, because honestly all I intended to do today was put some observations and have a general discussion. My apology is genuine and no offense was intended. But actually I do have to edit to add: if commenting on a production we haven't seen yet is now not allowed or frowned upon what is the point? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 17:28:12 GMT
In my humble opinion firstly a musical should have a story that needs to "sing",a solid book and when words aren't enough a song takes over.The song should further the story rather than stop the show in its tracks.The book should give the composer a launching pad for a song.On top of this director and particularly the choreographer should then improve the song by adding movement and dance. with actors,musicians and design hopefully a stand out musical is born.if one of these pieces is missing or below par a flop is on the cards.As the old song goes "you can't have one without the other"on a personal note although I
used to dance round my bedroom wrapped in a candlewick bedspread to Camelot I prefer not to take showtunes out of context these days and only hear the songs whilst watching the show so always come to them "cold"
|
|
1,089 posts
|
Post by andrew on Jul 8, 2018 18:49:54 GMT
I was there last night (the ecstatic cheers of 'Happy Pride' from the cast during the bows were a great addition to the several rainbow Young Vic stickers I was encouraged to take), I've read everything that's been posted here with great interest. It's not the perfect homecoming I might have expected for Fun Home. But that's good I suppose, it wouldn't be interesting on here if everyone loved everything. I had heard the music of Fun Home before and had taken quite a shine to it, I had also read the graphic novel. We can therefore assume that my response is not necessarily representative of a total newcomer to the show, which it seems like most people here were. I'm glad to say I didn't have any of the problems other posters have experienced. Despite being a fan of the cartoons I didn't feel the need to see them projected, I felt the framing device of older Alison drawing these experiences and reliving them on stage for us was really effective and more than enough. I would have been happy to see more of the cartoons right at the end, almost like a montage where you can see everything coming together in the final scenes, culminating in the last one we saw anyway. That would have been nice, but it didn't occur to me until I read people lamenting their absence on here. I really enjoyed the songs, all of them, and feel there were hummable tunes as well as non-hummable tunes, and I'm happy with that mix. I always think 'Ring Of Keys' is a testament to the challenge, and occasional great success, of theatrical songwriting. How on earth do you go about writing a song for a child to sing about burgeoning feelings of differentness and homosexuality and keep it sweet, innocent, delicate. I don't know how you do that, but in this case it's what we got. I think the whole show just seems like something that would be an enormous struggle to musicalise, and the music is so effortless at achieving this task it's easy to forget that. Interestingly my partner has the same issue with the end of the musical as he had with the end of the graphic novel, which I see the Monkey had as well, that there's no particularly satisfying conclusion and that the story doesn't really resolve. (For anyone interested, the musical takes a slightly different memory to end on, although the sentiment is mildly similar). My interpretation of the novels finale is that there wasn't a true linear story so there can't be a true clear ending, unless Alison Bechdel somehow finds the key solution to everything. {I'll put this bit in spoilers}
But her father died, it may have been a suicide, it may not have been. She doesn't know if it was her fault, she doesn't know how much he'd planned it, if she was the source of his suicidality or just the spark that lit the fire or nothing to do with it all. His death stopped her from truly getting to know her father, from connecting with this soul that seemed to share so many of the quirks of her own, it stopped her from understanding him - and I think the graphic novel is an attempt for her to do those things.
The musical is an adaption of the novels author trying to do those things. Unfortunately she finds no conclusion, just a sense that she's tried to uncover her relationship with her Dad and that it's full of gaps, and misrememberings, and problems. In the musical I think you get a sense at the end that she's confronted everything, that she sees everything, but that it's just "a picture of her father". What's not said, is that there's no comfort to draw from that, just that now she can see it. That's frustrating, but the reality of the situation for Bechdel is also frustrating. All she can do is remember that "every so often, there was a rare moment of perfect balance, when [she] soared above him." It's a valid criticism of the play as it is for the novel that this isn't what an audience or reader wants to see, it's up to you if you can go along with that. I did. The production itself did everything beautifully, I have no qualms or complaints. It was delivered perfectly. I won't bore anyone by listing all the cast, they were all standouts. Varla's take on Bruce is certainly... unique... but I settled into him. I really enjoyed Fun Home, I think it's such an interestingly brutal journey through someone elses struggle with their deeply flawed relationship with their deeply flawed father. I think it moves wonderfully through moments of humour, joy, love, hope, sorrow and tragedy. I found the last 25 minutes, from 'Days and Days' onwards, incredibly emotional to watch. I wish everyone could love it as much as I do, it gets the easiest five stars I could give. Truly brilliant. |
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jul 8, 2018 18:58:20 GMT
For those complaining about the lack of Bechdel's cartoons in the design of Fun Home, the idea was tried out in early workshops and dropped fairly quickly because it didn't work well and got in the way of the story. It's a long process from the page to the stage.
|
|
522 posts
|
Post by theatreliker on Jul 8, 2018 19:59:09 GMT
I thought I was going to enjoy this, but I enjoyed it so much more than I thought. What a masterpiece of a musical with staging to match. A beautiful, complex memory piece.
I was surprised to see it was staged end on - was it in the round of traverse on Broadway? Does anyone know if it might transfer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 22:09:25 GMT
how was the second half reveal done when the show was in the round??
|
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jul 9, 2018 13:29:59 GMT
American writing, to me at least, always tends towards stating very baldly the emotions out loud. There's no attempt to analyse or reason it through, it is always, "I am feeling this, please will you validate it because I have said it." That is how a younger person reacts too. Read more: theatreboard.co.uk/thread/2748/fun-home-young-vic?page=31#ixzz5KlN0Sh3nEvery American writer does this? What a load of twaddle. Alison spends the whole show analysing and reflecting on her relationship with her father, looking for answers that aren't always forthcoming. |
|
382 posts
|
Post by stevemar on Jul 9, 2018 13:47:45 GMT
I was at the same performance as Andrew on Saturday night - the atmosphere at the Young Vic following Pride and the football was celebratory. I can't comment in detail (thought it would be better to post than not at all), but liked this a great deal. I'd agree that the staging was simple, but fluid - yes, they could have taken the decision to show more cartoon projections but the simplicity of most of the staging worked well. I'd agree that (like Caroline or Change), many of the songs don't have the "hummability" factor, but that didn't make them less effective. The use of the three ages of Alison was very well done. The youngest Alison was the stand-out for me. I can see how the oldest Alison had a limited amount to do until one particular scene. I was slightly disappointed that Jenna Russell had a limited amount of stage time, but picking actors who can act well and sing meant she still make a real impact. No issues with Zubin Varla's acting from the second row. Some of the singing could (for me) have been better. I had inadvertently read a spoiler posted here on Saturday morning, which did mar the beginning of the show, until that plot point was actually signposted.
The context of the family made this a very effective show for me. I liked how it was not mawkish, but truthful. Liked it enough to book again which is rare for me.
PS. Noticed this interview today - . After watching it today, I suddenly realised we were sat next to Alison Bechdel for about 1.5 hours on the balcony after the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 2:56:13 GMT
I absolutely loved the graphic novel of Fun Homw and was intrigued by the clips I saw from the NY production. I really didn't love what I saw at The Young Vic tonight and for me the biggest problem was Zubin Varla whose performance was over the top from the very beginning. Lots of gurning and scenery chewing. {Spoiler - click to view}
By the time he got to the penultimate song before he commits suicide, I couldn't wait for him to step in front of that lorry Young and middle Alison were terrific. Kaisa Hammerlund didn't make much of an impression on me,but to be honest she didn't have much to get her teeth into really. Jenna Russell did her best with a tremendously underwritten role. For a story that is framed by the writing of a graphic novel, I don't understand why they didn't utilise more of the art from Alison Bechdel's book in the design. The one image they did use at the end really packed a punch. I always struggle with Jeanine Tesori's music. This score (barring a couple of numbers) sounded like reheated Sondheim to me. I kept hearing musical phrases that sounded very close to ones from Sunday in the Park with George. All in all, it didn't move me in the way that the book did, but I think much of that was to do with the central relationship between Alison and her father which was clouded for me by Zubin Varla's peculiar acting choices which left him seemingly in a different production to the rest of the cast. I wish I'd been able to see the brilliant Michael Ceveris in the role that he played in NY instead. I know I'm in the minority, but to me this production was a big disappointment. Same here! I'm not even a Sondheim fan and even I had thoughts about his musicals as I listened to this. I found this strangely unaffecting. I was moved by the knowledge about what happened to Bechdel's father in reality, but the songs and music didn't move me at all. There seemed to be something undercooked about it all. I know this is mainly about repression but I wanted at least one character to let rip but that never happened. The set was beautiful and it was all very well done, so I would give it 4 stars overall. |
|
185 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Jul 11, 2018 9:33:31 GMT
Every American writer does this? What a load of twaddle. Alison spends the whole show analysing and reflecting on her relationship with her father, looking for answers that aren't always forthcoming. Generally I find it the case, yes. And I didn't think she really did do much analysis. What there was, yes, was her father / daughter relationship, but work on herself, not so much, though to me that was the focus of the show. I have to say I have had the opposite impression, although maybe that comes from my prior knowledge of both 'Fun Home' and 'Are you my mother?' in their original graphic novel form. I think I can see where you're coming from, because by placing the adult Alison on the outside looking in, remembering moments in her life as she picks the right ones to turn into drawings, it feels as though she is being removed from the main narrative. However, I think we can't forget we're never actually seeing three distinct characters, but just one character at three different times in her life, so Alison is constantly at the very heart of it all, the whole show being basically her self-analysis process taking place before our eyes. {Spoiler - click to view}
I think it may be fair to say that Alison Bechdel chose to write 'Fun Home' as part of her self-analysis process, as by sitting down to reminisce and draw she inevitably had to elaborate events and memories. and there are questions she's been asking herself and that - in the show - are presented to the audience, as well. Alison can't get a definitive answer to most of them, nobody can tell for sure whether her dad committed suicide or was the victim of an accident... nobody can tell whether her choice to embrace her sexuality has played any role in that, whether it has made him acknowledge how much he's missed out on in life, and in how many ways he's hurt his wife and himself... All in all, it seems to me that the whole show is an analysis of how, as a person, she has been impacted by her father's teachings and influence, how there are small things that make them incredibly similar (the score often underlines this by having Alison sing certain lyrics and melodic lines that Bruce sings before her, or vice versa), and yet how they have always been distinct individuals with their own personalities. There are many reasons why, watching the show or reading the book, you see that Bruce was flawed and did some rather despicable things, both as a husband and as a father. And yet, through all her reminiscing, Alison does find moments where her dad was actually praising or encouraging her, and you can appreciate how many of his teachings have stuck with her and are part of what made her into the adult woman she is now. I very much agree with Andrew that the show does not provide you, as an audience member, with a prepacked answer, and this can perhaps be slightly unsettling for some, because it means that you're called to do some emotional analysis of your own, and to ask yourself questions. But I think that's where the power of the show lies, it's not meant to be an essay about what happened and why... but rather like that old diary you wrote in and go back to read, years later, and suddenly feel that some pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place on their own, and you're just a bit more aware of who you are and what brought you there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 1:21:17 GMT
how was the second half reveal done when the show was in the round?? Furniture rose from trap doors in the floor as other elements came down from the ceiling. Effective in a very different way. |
|
3,580 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jul 12, 2018 4:05:16 GMT
Eventually I quite enjoyed this yesterday and was glad to have seen it but it certainly took a while to grow on me and as with both parts of "Inheritance" at the same venue recently, I seemed to be considerably out of step with others in the audience in terms of engagement and enthusiasm.
I can see why some have compared the music to Sondheim (not a positive for me), though in the event it was OK, just not catchy or memorable. Zubin Varla's accent seemed wrong, but I don't know what he was aiming for and the rest were fine. I liked young and older Alisons but middle Alison really grated. It might have been a good and appropriate interpretation but it was so irritating that the actor (whose name I don't know and haven't found) seemed unable to speak or sing without making that odd bending/doubling up movement, which no-one else did.
|
|
904 posts
|
Post by lonlad on Jul 12, 2018 4:10:50 GMT
Shame you didn't like Middle Alison given how entirely sensational Eleanor Kane is --- a newcomer who slays it, and far surpasses Emily Skeggs in the same role in NYC. Ah well. But then you don't seem to like Sondheim either LOL .... :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 8:25:16 GMT
I don't think I could really get away from the fact that every time Zubin Varla came on he kept making me think of Eugene Levy.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Jul 12, 2018 9:55:03 GMT
I don't think I could really get away from the fact that every time Zubin Varla came on he kept making me think of Eugene Levy. YES!!! That’s who it was. I knew he reminded me of someone but couldn’t work out who it was. Thanks for insticking my mental block. |
|
