|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2022 15:52:05 GMT
The gay pool boy in LB is certainly a type of character we see in many TV shows and how people are in person. There were certain jobs which gay men would do and perhaps probably still form a higher percentage of than other sectors. Also today we will find some gay people are more OTT, camp in real life and are perhaps like the parody characters talked about. I'd assume this is as we are much more inclusive so people feel more confident to be like that. As regards this show I'd judge it by same levels I'd expect from any other show I saw with this ticket prices and pro cast. That might be true, but not all gay men are like that and that is very rarely represented in media and arts. The problem is musical theatre always returns to the same stereotypes of gay men, and often for a cheap laugh. Stereotyoes exist for a reason, yes, but imagine if only stereotypes of other minority demographics of society were shown. I was thinking of the likes of Louie Spence who is very OTT although that may be an act he puts on, Gareth Thomas although a former rugby player now comes across as very camp, John Barrowman sometimes does too. Okay some parts are played more OTT - Antony Cotton in Coronation Street plays an exagarated version of himself and a lot of his storylines were written by Jonathan Harvey. Other actors in the show who are gay and some playing straight parts wouldn't come across as "Camp". I've known people who are very camp who are hetrosexual and also gay people who are very camp and others you'd have no idea of their preferences unless they told you. I certainly seem to notice a lot more people being openly gay than say 30 years ago and some of them are camp. Is a gay man being classed as very appearance conscious, being a good listener to his female friends, being fabulous seen as offensive or some being seen as very camp offensive I personally don't think so but I could understand some gay people feeling that way. I for one have become a lot more accepting and open minded as I've got older and have actively supported LGBT causes that I'd have felt uncomfortable doing in my much younger years. I will admit my youngerself would now be regarded by myself as homophobic. Maybe I am a hypocrite but I'd say it was like a smoker stopping smoking and becoming anti smoking. |
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on May 26, 2022 17:08:30 GMT
3 stars from me. It seems some of the issues raised early on have been improved, there are some really good performances, and it's a strong score and story. But it's ugly and cheap to look at, and don't get me started on the dogs or the dildo.
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on May 27, 2022 9:59:00 GMT
I thought the vibrator was funny and very accurate. Cos let's be honest, if someone riffles through a woman's drawers, they are bound to find one, just as likely as they are to find some kind of hair dryer clip on thingie that the other productions used. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on May 27, 2022 10:21:17 GMT
I agree, it was funny.
|
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on May 27, 2022 10:42:42 GMT
But he was going through her desk...who keeps one out on a desk?
And it's against the point of the song, he's saying she should spend more time working on the inside of her head, not the outside (i.e. doing her hair as it's originally staged where he finds a hair accessory). Throwing in a dildo instead is nothing more than a cheap excuse for a crude laugh that isn't needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pomegranate on May 27, 2022 10:46:22 GMT
But he was going through her desk...who keeps one out on a desk? And it's against the point of the song, he's saying she should spend more time working on the inside of her head, not the outside (i.e. doing her hair as it's originally staged where he finds a hair accessory). Throwing in a dildo instead is nothing more than a cheap excuse for a crude laugh that isn't needed. Initially I laughed when I saw it, but now you say this I think I agree! |
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on May 27, 2022 10:49:14 GMT
The dildo is really more of a "muck-up matinee" idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on May 27, 2022 11:08:24 GMT
But he was going through her desk...who keeps one out on a desk? And it's against the point of the song, he's saying she should spend more time working on the inside of her head, not the outside (i.e. doing her hair as it's originally staged where he finds a hair accessory). Throwing in a dildo instead is nothing more than a cheap excuse for a crude laugh that isn't needed. For me it was more a fun way to show his ignorance and fallibility by not knowing what it is, which added depth to the character and how his drive had perhaps impeded his worldliness. Picking up a theme later continued in Take It Like A Man |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 11:26:15 GMT
If the character doesn't know what said toy was it makes it funny but that sort of joke has to be used in the right setting and the owner of the appliance has to be the straightlaced or villain woman to get max laughs IMO.
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on May 27, 2022 11:44:28 GMT
I don't know, for me the joke is also on him not knowing what it is and yes, I probably wouldn't have mine out on top of the desk, but I didn't pay proper attention and thought he was going through her stuff in general, trying to find the book.
Maybe I just like crude jokes more than grown men in doggie onesies. I thought it was funny and worked in the context whereas I hated the 'dogs'. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by shambles on May 27, 2022 11:49:52 GMT
Looking at the response for this, Moss could probably get a good few years of making her name for zany productions, until some backlash inevitably arrives/
|
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on May 27, 2022 12:08:02 GMT
I do find it unlikely that any man in 2022 wouldn't know what it was, as much as they may want to ignore their partners owning one!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2022 12:14:47 GMT
Those sort of jokes have to get the timing and facials right as if they hit the mark they are funny but go on too long or wrong setting and it appears clumsy and crude. Also a show like LB could have a younger audience so you don't leave the implement on view too long otherwise those who don't get the joke start asking what it is/what is funny. Julian Clary in panto does all his double entendre jokes but the timing is pefect so those who get it laugh but it just goes over the head of younger theate goers and it is onto the next line before they start asking too many questions.
|
|
182 posts
|
Post by tom on May 28, 2022 20:35:28 GMT
Long-time lurker, first-time poster here. Just thought I'd give my review for balance! I saw Legally Blonde this week and really enjoyed it. The audience seemed to be really on board with the whole thing - there was a full standing ovation, and I heard nothing but positive comments from people around me during the interval and at the end. To address some of the criticisms which have been brought up here, I found the dogs funny and I don't think I was in a minority with this. There was lots of laughter, and even applause when the second 'dog' appeared. I had zero issues with Isaac's voice as Margot. To me, their vocals didn't stand out as being worse than anyone else's. I think it was also mentioned here that Elle doesn't look different enough from the Harvard students. This was the most confusing comment to me, because Elle is wearing bright pink and the Harvard students are all in brown, so she couldn't have stood out more... Unless there were different Harvard costumes in previews that got changed? Just wanted to share my thoughts in case anyone had been keen to see this, but was put off by the reaction here. You might like it! Out of interest, did anyone see But I'm A Cheerleader at the Turbine? The incredibly camp staging reminded me of that a lot. The damage has been done for me. People whose opinion I’ve seen and agreed with in the past have posted their views on this which is enough to make me think twice about booking. A new poster suddenly deciding to post defending all the criticisms is unlikely to change my opinion. |
|
124 posts
|
Post by terrylondon79 on May 28, 2022 21:56:11 GMT
Long-time lurker, first-time poster here. Just thought I'd give my review for balance! I saw Legally Blonde this week and really enjoyed it. The audience seemed to be really on board with the whole thing - there was a full standing ovation, and I heard nothing but positive comments from people around me during the interval and at the end. To address some of the criticisms which have been brought up here, I found the dogs funny and I don't think I was in a minority with this. There was lots of laughter, and even applause when the second 'dog' appeared. I had zero issues with Isaac's voice as Margot. To me, their vocals didn't stand out as being worse than anyone else's. I think it was also mentioned here that Elle doesn't look different enough from the Harvard students. This was the most confusing comment to me, because Elle is wearing bright pink and the Harvard students are all in brown, so she couldn't have stood out more... Unless there were different Harvard costumes in previews that got changed? Just wanted to share my thoughts in case anyone had been keen to see this, but was put off by the reaction here. You might like it! Out of interest, did anyone see But I'm A Cheerleader at the Turbine? The incredibly camp staging reminded me of that a lot. Yes, a lot of people find homophobia acceptable. Laughing at the gays is funny. Ha ha. The gay gimp dogs what a hoot. When a work college sees this as asks you do all gays dress up as dogs.. yes it's hilarious. |
|
2,417 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on May 28, 2022 22:09:16 GMT
Long-time lurker, first-time poster here. Just thought I'd give my review for balance! I saw Legally Blonde this week and really enjoyed it. The audience seemed to be really on board with the whole thing - there was a full standing ovation, and I heard nothing but positive comments from people around me during the interval and at the end. To address some of the criticisms which have been brought up here, I found the dogs funny and I don't think I was in a minority with this. There was lots of laughter, and even applause when the second 'dog' appeared. I had zero issues with Isaac's voice as Margot. To me, their vocals didn't stand out as being worse than anyone else's. I think it was also mentioned here that Elle doesn't look different enough from the Harvard students. This was the most confusing comment to me, because Elle is wearing bright pink and the Harvard students are all in brown, so she couldn't have stood out more... Unless there were different Harvard costumes in previews that got changed? Just wanted to share my thoughts in case anyone had been keen to see this, but was put off by the reaction here. You might like it! Out of interest, did anyone see But I'm A Cheerleader at the Turbine? The incredibly camp staging reminded me of that a lot. The damage has been done for me. People whose opinion I’ve seen and agreed with in the past have posted their views on this which is enough to make me think twice about booking. A new poster suddenly deciding to post defending all the criticisms is unlikely to change my opinion. I'd say if you saw the original London run or the tour, this production isn't very good. If you've never seen the show before, it's alright. |
|
|
|
Post by anxiousoctopus on May 28, 2022 22:52:00 GMT
Just got out of Legally Blonde and wanted to get my initial thoughts down. Overall it was a fun night! But that’s mainly because the show’s book and songs are just so fun, and the cast was pretty strong!
It was more the direction and set that let it down. Everyone’s talked about the stage and yeah I agree, there’s not much set changing or props so there’s not really a proper sense of place, it’s all kind of a big pink-and-blonde void.
The cast are all having the best time. Paulette was the best character (as always!) and while the USP guy was played more dorky than the original, their relationship was still cute. I heard a clip of Isaac on opening night and their vocals were wobbly and pitchy, but as of tonight his singing is absolutely fine and they have the attitude to pull it off and look fabulous!
The dogs… I’m still unsure about the dogs. Most of the audience found them hilarious, and I didn’t HATE them but they felt like they were from a different show. Like a Ru Paul’s Drag Race version of the show maybe? Their vibes felt different to the rest of the show.
Some scenes and songs were really well choreographed, like OMIGod and What You Want - but others (like Gay or European) felt over-choreographed at times. Also again the lack of a larger ensemble and furniture or moving set made things feel a bit empty on stage sometimes. Paulette’s salon was a ‘Hair Affair’ sign and a single wheeley stool, and Legally Blonde Remix had only the 3 Delta Nus because the others were all still in costume as Hair Affair employees.
All in all, the performances were a 4/5 and the stage, set and overall look was more a 3/5. I don’t understand why it’s getting 5/5’s from so many reviewers, although it is easy to get swept up in how good the show itself is, but the set really does let it down.
|
|
4,177 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on May 30, 2022 8:34:57 GMT
There seems to be some drama around a critics comments about Courtney in a review? Does anyone know who the critic is that is under fire?
|
|
234 posts
|
Post by Jane Parfitt on May 30, 2022 8:47:49 GMT
There seems to be some drama around a critics comments about Courtney in a review? Does anyone know who the critic is that is under fire? |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on May 30, 2022 9:02:47 GMT
He's such a fool. Who actually likes Quentin Letts? Bitter old cretin.
I hated the show for many of the same reasons as dear Quent, but putting a slaughter piece like that out is ridiculously over the top and unnecessary.
The production is indeed absolutely dire, and he covers a couple reasons why, but weight shaming? You can practically smell the smug on the screen.
Horrible little man.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on May 30, 2022 9:06:59 GMT
Matt Hemley and others reposting the review just adds to the problem. By all means get angry about the nonentity that is QL and his comments. But no need to repost. Take away the power of his words.
I have to say I agree with some of his points but he loses the argument and credibility once personal insults are made[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on May 30, 2022 9:11:25 GMT
I'm shocked anyone would publish his ramblings.
|
|
|
|
Post by cezbear on May 30, 2022 9:12:52 GMT
I don't exactly disagree with his criticisms (still pondering how to word my own thoughts), but it's beneath any critic to make personal insults like that. If he felt plus sized casting made no sense for the character that's a valid opinion and he could have worded it respectfully, choosing not to makes him a dick.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 30, 2022 11:07:26 GMT
There is an assumption amongst many that being 'progressive' means that a production is necessarily worthy of praise. Not for quality of the work but for the initial choices made.
Progress is made by showing a better way forward. That means doing a better job than has been done before.
It doesn't mean, at least in my eyes, accepting lower standard outcomes because someone had good intentions.
It is great that this production has made some steps towards inclusive casting. Representation really does matter.
But that doesn't excuse poor design choices, bad sound design and inadequate consideration of vocal ranges.
Letts is known for his love of being provocative. He knows the audience for which he is writing. And he relishes getting people to react to his comments.
Attacking him, as has already been discussed, only draws further attention to him.
If the production had not wanted a Mail review, they could have chosen not to send an invite. They were naive if they had expected anything other than a typical Letts reaction. And they got exactly what most of us could have predicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by budd on May 30, 2022 11:30:31 GMT
Letts doesn't write for the Mail, he writes for the Sunday Times, and that is not a publication that is easy to say no to, since most people go there to promote their work in the first place. Letts should never have been given the position.
And framing Letts' style as merely provocative, does no good . He's been called out for sexism, racism, homophobia and even beyond his bigotry, general exhibition of poor, outdated tastes. Hell, his sexist tirade led the production from disinviting him from Kristin Scott Thomas' play, but he turned up anyways.
People want to call it out because he absolutely does not deserve a platform to spread his bile.
|
|
