935 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 3, 2021 9:50:18 GMT
That's a good question. I think there's definitely a town with that name. I'm pretty sure it's in France, so not a country. I was thinking about it like an independent duchy (or I suppose kingdom, because they will have a King somewhere). I think there must just be lots of little fairytale kingdoms about! Although unusually she didn't try to marry him off to a Princess from a different one. I'm going to think about that at the same time as their illogical rules of succession. My personal favourite rule of succession in Belleville is 'the kingdom needs a king and the king must have a wife'. Why does the king need a wife? And furthermore, Belleville currently has no king and seemed to be doing just fine up until the Statue Incident?? Why is the queen, ruling without a king, so insistent there must be one? I understand that someone needs to inherit the throne, but I'm unconvinced it needs to be a king specifically. |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Aug 3, 2021 9:55:03 GMT
We all know it's a pantomime, don't we?
I come here to escape from the Doctor Who forums where they are always trying to find logic and continuity in a 60 year old programme - it's not gonna happen.
edit: that reads grumpy - I don't mean it - please theorise all you like.
|
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Aug 3, 2021 10:16:47 GMT
To be honest, the little kingdom thing doesn't bother me too much. It's very fairytale.
How the Queen has ended up as the sole ruler annoys me more, because that seems to break fairytale rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2021 10:20:57 GMT
We all know it's a pantomime, don't we? I come here to escape from the Doctor Who forums where they are always trying to find logic and continuity in a 60 year old programme - it's not gonna happen. edit: that reads grumpy - I don't mean it - please theorise all you like. Very much this. It's a fantasy musical/fairytale. Brilliant fun and has been very well received in the theatre in previews. If you're going in wanting logic and for everything to make perfect sense, it's not the show for you! On the topic of people thinking they should be using the time off to make changes, I disagree. No amount of tinkling will change the essence of this show and I personally think it'll make it worse. IMHO it's a finished product! Some will like it, some won't. I do and I plan to go again ASAP :-) Look at Chess! It's been re-written and re-written and re-written and it's still very much Chess. The differences between London Love Never Dies and Australia Love Never Dies are also insanely exaggerated. The premise is identical. Leave Cinderella be I say. It's charming! |
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Aug 3, 2021 10:24:32 GMT
We all know it's a pantomime, don't we? I come here to escape from the Doctor Who forums where they are always trying to find logic and continuity in a 60 year old programme - it's not gonna happen. edit: that reads grumpy - I don't mean it - please theorise all you like. The Doctor Who fandom should be a happy one with the prospect of being able to watch a beloved show again in 2023. At least I am.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2021 10:24:58 GMT
It's also VERY close to HOW DOES A MOMENT LAST FOREVER from Beauty and the Beast. Again... no surprises there. It's not close let alone very close. Yes, there is a passing similarity early on in the phrasing but so what? You can find these sorts of comparisons everywhere in music. A phrase is not a composition. You might as well accuse Bernstein of plagiarising Beethoven in "There's a place for us" from West Side Story (which would be equally ridiculous). I'm guessing from your "again... no surprises there" comment that you are one of the people who dismisses ALW is a plagiarist? You're wrong just as all the people who have accused other famous composers of plagiarism (Bernstein included) were. Totally agree. Years of "ALW has plagiarised himself - gotcha!" gets a huge eyeroll from me. There is nothing in Cinderella that is the same as anything ALW has previously written. All composers have styles, keys, chord progressions, phrases they will prefer so of course ALW sounds like ALW. Sondheim sounds like Sondheim. Menken sounds like Menken. Schwartz sounds like Schwartz! |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Aug 3, 2021 10:36:21 GMT
We don’t know though, as it’s form or ‘genre’ is the most muddled thing about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Aug 3, 2021 10:48:43 GMT
That's a good question. I think there's definitely a town with that name. I'm pretty sure it's in France, so not a country. I was thinking about it like an independent duchy (or I suppose kingdom, because they will have a King somewhere). I think there must just be lots of little fairytale kingdoms about! Although unusually she didn't try to marry him off to a Princess from a different one. I'm going to think about that at the same time as their illogical rules of succession. My personal favourite rule of succession in Belleville is 'the kingdom needs a king and the king must have a wife'. Why does the king need a wife? And furthermore, Belleville currently has no king and seemed to be doing just fine up until the Statue Incident?? Why is the queen, ruling without a king, so insistent there must be one? I understand that someone needs to inherit the throne, but I'm unconvinced it needs to be a king specifically. I have many, many issues with the show, but these don't bother me that much. The implication in every version of Cinderella is that the prince needs a wife so he'll have kids of his own to continue the line to the throne, and we can just assume the Queen herself inherited the crown from one of her parents (i.e. she is the heir, not Queen through marriage) and so she can keep ruling even after her husband/the King has died - just like our own Queen Elizabeth is doing now. What doesn't quite add up in all of it is that if the lineage issue is such a big deal that they are forcing the prince(s) to find brides, why is it suddenly a non issue at the end of the show? Because - {Spoiler - click to view}
even though Prince Charming returns and gets married, there's still no clear route for him to produce an heir. Just like the "history" between the Queen and the Stepmother which was so important it warranted a whole song in Act 1, it's like everyone just has a swift change of heart and stops caring in Act 2. That really sums up the problems with the plot of the show for me - it feels like seeds are sown, things take some quite interesting turns, but ultimately they all hit a dead end, everyone forgets what they were fighting about, and just throw a party. |
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Aug 3, 2021 11:06:15 GMT
But if the Queen inherited the crown from her parents, there isn't much scope for her to have a dodgy past with the Stepmother. That's the main thing that bothers me.
I do agree it's all loosely set up to hang the Cinderella/Sebastian story on, but it would be be nice if the book would work as an actual book!
|
|
935 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 3, 2021 11:19:47 GMT
Please no one think I'm picking holes in this show because I want to try to tear it apart, or anything of the sort. I actually rather enjoy it. It's just where your mind wanders too when you've seen the show a few times and you're sitting through the still-too-long wedding march again :') Re: plot holes - They could just let any theoretical child Charming has through surrogacy inherit the throne. Or, hell, since it’s a fictional place and all – any child he and his poor nameless husband might adopt. Agree 100% about the Stepmother and Queen’s backstory, though. What is that all about?? And if the queen was born into royalty, why was she allowed to go to some ‘tawdry inn’  Unrelated, but I’m curious – does anyone know how far the Vanquishing of the Three-Headed Sea Witch made it before getting cut? I’m so intrigued as to how they would have staged it. Charming just standing their singing, a little like the staging of Man’s Man Reprise, would get a little boring for such a long song, but I’m at a loss to imagine how they’d actually stage everything he says! |
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Aug 3, 2021 11:27:25 GMT
Re: plot holes - They could just let any theoretical child Charming has through surrogacy inherit the throne. Or, hell, since it’s a fictional place and all – any child he and his poor nameless husband might adopt. Agree 100% about the Stepmother and Queen’s backstory, though. What is that all about?? And if the queen was born into royalty, why was she allowed to go to some ‘tawdry inn’ Of course Prince Charming could conceive through any manner of ways, but that then takes away the whole necessity and urgency of his original forced marriage. Unfortunately, the more you try to make sense of the book the more muddled it gets and the more holes open up!  |
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on Aug 3, 2021 11:36:16 GMT
It's not close let alone very close. Yes, there is a passing similarity early on in the phrasing but so what? You can find these sorts of comparisons everywhere in music. A phrase is not a composition. You might as well accuse Bernstein of plagiarising Beethoven in "There's a place for us" from West Side Story (which would be equally ridiculous). I'm guessing from your "again... no surprises there" comment that you are one of the people who dismisses ALW is a plagiarist? You're wrong just as all the people who have accused other famous composers of plagiarism (Bernstein included) were. Totally agree. Years of "ALW has plagiarised himself - gotcha!" gets a huge eyeroll from me. There is nothing in Cinderella that is the same as anything ALW has previously written. All composers have styles, keys, chord progressions, phrases they will prefer so of course ALW sounds like ALW. Sondheim sounds like Sondheim. Menken sounds like Menken. Schwartz sounds like Schwartz! Thanks for your reply. I was responding to the Beauty and the Beast comparison, not the No Matter What one. I don't see any similarity at all between Far too Late and No Matter What but I may be missing something. I don't mind the "ALW plagiarised himself" accusations so much, even though I don't agree with them, because they're innocuous. It's not considered a bad thing for a composer to plagiarise himself necessarily but it is if the composer plagiarises others (which ALW does not). I feel that while both are erroneous accusations, it's more important to object to one over the other. |
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Aug 3, 2021 11:37:01 GMT
We all know it's a pantomime, don't we? I come here to escape from the Doctor Who forums where they are always trying to find logic and continuity in a 60 year old programme - it's not gonna happen. edit: that reads grumpy - I don't mean it - please theorise all you like. The Doctor Who fandom should be a happy one with the prospect of being able to watch a beloved show again in 2023. At least I am. Doesn’t it depend on who the new show runner is? I can’t see an a cous choice and that worries me! |
|
935 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 3, 2021 11:39:15 GMT
Re: plot holes - They could just let any theoretical child Charming has through surrogacy inherit the throne. Or, hell, since it’s a fictional place and all – any child he and his poor nameless husband might adopt. Agree 100% about the Stepmother and Queen’s backstory, though. What is that all about?? And if the queen was born into royalty, why was she allowed to go to some ‘tawdry inn’ Of course Prince Charming could conceive through any manner of ways, but that then takes away the whole necessity and urgency of his original forced marriage. Unfortunately, the more you try to make sense of the book the more muddled it gets and the more holes open up! They aren’t pushing Sebastian to get married to have heirs, though. The queen wants there to be a royal wedding so she can throw a party and distract everyone from the danger the town/kingdom/realm is in (..oh the irony) now that they have no money. |
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Aug 3, 2021 11:44:18 GMT
We all know it's a pantomime, don't we? I come here to escape from the Doctor Who forums where they are always trying to find logic and continuity in a 60 year old programme - it's not gonna happen. edit: that reads grumpy - I don't mean it - please theorise all you like. Very much this. It's a fantasy musical/fairytale. Brilliant fun and has been very well received in the theatre in previews. If you're going in wanting logic and for everything to make perfect sense, it's not the show for you!On the topic of people thinking they should be using the time off to make changes, I disagree. No amount of tinkling will change the essence of this show and I personally think it'll make it worse. IMHO it's a finished product! Some will like it, some won't. I do and I plan to go again ASAP :-) Look at Chess! It's been re-written and re-written and re-written and it's still very much Chess. The differences between London Love Never Dies and Australia Love Never Dies are also insanely exaggerated. The premise is identical. Leave Cinderella be I say. It's charming! But shouldn't writers and creators be striving for something that does hang together? Something that works in all aspects - delivering strong and memorable music, clever lyrics, imaginative visuals, and a strong coherent story which delivers a fitting resolution to all its twists? Your Chess analogy is good, but for the opposite reason you use it - they keep re-writing because they want it to work in all aspects, and producers must not think the work as it stands does that else they wouldn't re-write and revamp. They're striving for better rather than just settling. My opinion is that not using this time off to make some changes to Cinderella would very much be settling, because despite what you say the reaction to the show has been mixed at best, and there are clear issues which could be addressed with some dramaturgy and tweaking without losing the essence of the show in any way. If they want to settle on what they have, then so be it. I just wish there was an appetite there to make something great which British Theatre could be proud of rather than settling for "that'll do". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2021 11:57:26 GMT
Very much this. It's a fantasy musical/fairytale. Brilliant fun and has been very well received in the theatre in previews. If you're going in wanting logic and for everything to make perfect sense, it's not the show for you!On the topic of people thinking they should be using the time off to make changes, I disagree. No amount of tinkling will change the essence of this show and I personally think it'll make it worse. IMHO it's a finished product! Some will like it, some won't. I do and I plan to go again ASAP :-) Look at Chess! It's been re-written and re-written and re-written and it's still very much Chess. The differences between London Love Never Dies and Australia Love Never Dies are also insanely exaggerated. The premise is identical. Leave Cinderella be I say. It's charming! But shouldn't writers and creators be striving for something that does hang together? Something that works in all aspects - delivering strong and memorable music, clever lyrics, imaginative visuals, and a strong coherent story which delivers a fitting resolution to all its twists? Your Chess analogy is good, but for the opposite reason you use it - they keep re-writing because they want it to work in all aspects, and producers must not think the work as it stands does that else they wouldn't re-write and revamp. They're striving for better rather than just settling. My opinion is that not using this time off to make some changes to Cinderella would very much be settling, because despite what you say the reaction to the show has been mixed at best, and there are clear issues which could be addressed with some dramaturgy and tweaking without losing the essence of the show in any way. If they want to settle on what they have, then so be it. I just wish there was an appetite there to make something great which British Theatre could be proud of rather than settling for "that'll do". I fully agree with you - but for me it does hang together! That's what I mean - it's a taste thing. I think lots of people simply don't like it. For me the score, lyrics, story, set, lighting, staging all do come together as a whole which I rather like :-) I can't really see how it can be changed - short of writing a different musical. I think it has an innocent simplicity. I think tinkering will remove some of that simple charm. It will become more forced more deliberate. (I mean I don't think Chess has ever been better than the Prince Edward version). Totally a taste thing of what works for someone might not work for someone else. But yes absolutely writers should strive for their best - but I think as of 2021 that IS their best. (Also explaining all the plot 'holes' people are finding really won't change the experience of the whole by more than a percent or so!) Just my thoughts of course.... |
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Aug 3, 2021 12:05:01 GMT
They aren’t pushing Sebastian to get married to have heirs, though. The queen wants there to be a royal wedding so she can throw a party and distract everyone from the danger the town/kingdom/realm is in (..oh the irony) now that they have no money. It's all about selling those tea towels.  |
|
|
|
Post by nick on Aug 3, 2021 13:28:15 GMT
We all know it's a pantomime, don't we? I come here to escape from the Doctor Who forums where they are always trying to find logic and continuity in a 60 year old programme - it's not gonna happen. edit: that reads grumpy - I don't mean it - please theorise all you like. The Doctor Who fandom should be a happy one with the prospect of being able to watch a beloved show again in 2023. At least I am. Well Chibnall and Whittaker have certainly divided fans but I'm not seeing much consensus about how it should change in the future. And for Cinderella - it has an internal logic that works on a fantasy level like most pantos I've seen. I don't see that as the problem with the show. Personally I think the plot isn't quite strong and clear enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2021 17:16:45 GMT
But this Cinderella ISN'T a panto and i think calling it a panto is just a way to excuse its various shortcomings.
Besides, alot of pantomimes are better than ALW's Cinderella.
|
|
19,754 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 3, 2021 17:23:49 GMT
Haven’t seen Cinderella and won’t be doing so but isn’t the book following a similar approach to &Juliet where none of it really stands up to analysis and belief has to be stretched significantly?
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 3, 2021 17:32:51 GMT
I have given up listening to the concept album.
If the aim of a concept album is to give you a taste of the finished show then it is a failure.
It is not helped by the lack of synopsis or lyrics. Or the dreadful spoken dialogue sections which are not even close to a professional standard.
The score is just incoherent in terms of creating the sound world of the piece. The varied styles don't coalesce into a satisfying set of numbers.
ALW has frequently succeeded in blending disparate styles... Herod's song in JCS, the rock riffs in Phantom. But here it is just messy.
The worst choice he made was to reference the Rodgers score. It just made me want to spend time with In My Own Little Corner, Impossible and Ten Minutes Ago.
I can see no reason why he chose to do yet another version of this story. He hasn't radically reworked the setting or the narrative into something memorable and relevant. His score is derivative at best and forgettable at worst.
We have great musical versions of Cinderella. The R&H, Soho Cinders, The Slipper and the Rose.
Other than providing songs for CHF fangirls to sing in auditions for the next few years, there is nothing of any interest here.
And that saddens me. I can normally find something to like in a ALW show. I didn't hate Stephen Ward (I want to take that piece and refocus it on Profumo so that we have proper dramatic contrast), I cried at The Beautiful Game. But there is nothing in Cinderella for me. Nothing.
|
|
935 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Aug 3, 2021 17:52:25 GMT
To be fair to Cinderella, it's far from the most incoherently plotted show the West End has since in recent years. You don't need a video and a newspaper to explain the backstory to you before it starts, so it's already leaps and bounds ahead of the mess that was Bat Out of Hell :')
|
|
|
|
Post by nick on Aug 3, 2021 18:04:18 GMT
But this Cinderella ISN'T a panto and i think calling it a panto is just a way to excuse its various shortcomings. Besides, alot of pantomimes are better than ALW's Cinderella. Let’s say fairy tale then if that suits better. I have seen better written pantos but the music is often worse - the nadir for me was when they use Baby Shark as the singalong song - ugh. |
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on Aug 3, 2021 18:49:58 GMT
His score is derivative at best and forgettable at worst. Are you saying that you think it's memorable at best but that in all instances when it's memorable it's also derivative? |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 3, 2021 18:54:03 GMT
His score is derivative at best and forgettable at worst. Are you saying that you think it's memorable at best but that in all instances when it's memorable it's also derivative? Of course I don't mean that. It is perfectly clear what I mean. There is no need to be obtuse. |
|
