|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2022 19:54:17 GMT
Been looking at tickets for Edinburgh Playhouse. The side stalls seats that are sold as restricted view are on being sold for £56. £56! Ridiculous. Yes, price wise at my local it's comparable to the lion king and my fair lady tours. It seems overpriced for a Leeds Playhouse production, I can't imagine it's going to be a tour on par with Disney production wise. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jul 31, 2022 11:42:05 GMT
Maybe a fraction too early with 4 months to go til it opens in Leeds, but any hints, rumours or speculation around casting etc?
Pricing seems pretty steep on ATG for next years tour and seats not selling as fast as I'd expected, early days yet but could well be some dynamic bargains to be had closer to the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2022 10:12:30 GMT
|
|
5,183 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Aug 1, 2022 10:28:42 GMT
It's a Leeds Playhouse production...it's hardly going to be extravagant - their tour of Chitty shows that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2022 10:57:05 GMT
It's a Leeds Playhouse production...it's hardly going to be extravagant - their tour of Chitty shows that. Yes I know and I agree, and that'd why I'm struggling with the cost. It's the same price as The Lion King and My Fair Lady |
|
5,183 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Aug 1, 2022 11:07:01 GMT
It's quite a poor musical anyway - I remember seeing it and just being really disappointed with the direction they'd taken it in.
Unless the supporting cast has also got some great theatre names in, I won't be making a return visit.
|
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 1, 2022 20:53:38 GMT
Happy with this. Gareth Snook is great casting for a great part in a great show. Looking forward to seeing it.
|
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Sept 6, 2022 15:46:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Sept 6, 2022 15:51:47 GMT
So Charlie is no longer a male specific role.
|
|
4,984 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 6, 2022 17:17:26 GMT
I'm happy with that
|
|
5,158 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 6, 2022 17:33:22 GMT
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 6, 2022 17:35:06 GMT
Nice! As long as they can sit the role and act it, gender really isn’t really a consideration.
Charlie as a name can be used interchangeably so no fiddling with the script.
My only slight concern is how they play the Wonka/Charlie dynamic. Slightly eccentric, borderline creepy with a little girl has the potential to seem a little gross at times, but I’m sure they will work it out.
Writers (and the Dahl estate) were fine with switching around which of the bucket parents was alive and the other not, so they’ll be fine with this too.
|
|
1,933 posts
|
Post by LaLuPone on Sept 6, 2022 18:49:03 GMT
Nice! As long as they can sit the role and act it, gender really isn’t really a consideration. Charlie as a name can be used interchangeably so no fiddling with the script. My only slight concern is how they play the Wonka/Charlie dynamic. Slightly eccentric, borderline creepy with a little girl has the potential to seem a little gross at times, but I’m sure they will work it out. Writers (and the Dahl estate) were fine with switching around which of the bucket parents was alive and the other not, so they’ll be fine with this too. Since when are one of the parents dead??? Is that just in the musical? I swear they’re both alive in the novel and the Tim Burton movie? |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 6, 2022 18:59:04 GMT
Nice! As long as they can sit the role and act it, gender really isn’t really a consideration. Charlie as a name can be used interchangeably so no fiddling with the script. My only slight concern is how they play the Wonka/Charlie dynamic. Slightly eccentric, borderline creepy with a little girl has the potential to seem a little gross at times, but I’m sure they will work it out. Writers (and the Dahl estate) were fine with switching around which of the bucket parents was alive and the other not, so they’ll be fine with this too. Since when are one of the parents dead??? Is that just in the musical? I swear they’re both alive in the novel and the Tim Burton movie? Whooops, Strike that and reverse it, compete lies - I'm mis-remembering it!! I recalled the song "If your mother was here" from the London production changing to "If your father was here" on Broadway and filled in a few too many blanks - its been a while. Stand down haha. |
|
1,061 posts
|
Post by David J on Sept 6, 2022 19:22:28 GMT
I remember If Your Mother Were Here. Confusing the first time I saw that. By the time the musical finished in the west end they had tried improving it, but otherwise it felt completely unnecessary and comes out of nowhere
Like even if his biological mother had died at no point do we feel Charlie misses her
|
|
212 posts
|
Post by sprampster on Sept 6, 2022 23:26:57 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters !
|
|
|
|
Post by hadeswasking on Sept 6, 2022 23:33:36 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters ! Can you explain what you mean by "done for wokeness" please. |
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 12:06:31 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters ! Have to say, I agree. As a bit of a traditionalist, I'd quite like to see something staged that simply sticks to the original script/story. It's a bit like when the Old Vic casts girls as Tiny Tim only to visually dress them as boys on stage as they have done on occasion. But current fashion seems to be to fiddle with everything so that boxes can be ticked and nobody can subsequently be accused of being gender/age/colour biased. Is it genuine open casting or is it fear of a backlash from the vocal local woke-alls? |
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 7, 2022 12:22:31 GMT
If it was Wonka being blind casted, I might understand the outrage but having Charlie being played by a both a girl and a boy is actually interesting casting.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Sept 7, 2022 12:29:46 GMT
Sorry this casting seems like a tick box exercise to me .. done for wokeness. I will put this out there and bring on the haters ! Have to say, I agree. As a bit of a traditionalist, I'd quite like to see something staged that simply sticks to the original script/story. It's a bit like when the Old Vic casts girls as Tiny Tim only to visually dress them as boys on stage as they have done on occasion. But current fashion seems to be to fiddle with everything so that boxes can be ticked and nobody can subsequently be accused of being gender/age/colour biased. Is it genuine open casting or is it fear of a backlash from the vocal local woke-alls? There was nothing in the original Matilda novel to imply Trunchball had male genitalia under the skirt, yet men play that role quite effectively on stage, to much applause too. Would you rather a woke intervention take hold of that show also and insist boy plays boy and girl plays girl? |
|
|
|
Post by anxiousoctopus on Sept 7, 2022 12:36:05 GMT
Don’t understand the ‘woke’ backlash either. There’s no in-text reason the Charlie needs to be a boy at all. Charlie is a child who is defined by his kindness and selflessness, Charlie is a unisex name, and the character’s gender doesn’t play into the plot so nothing except pronouns needs to be changed.
They’ve cast two boys and two girls, two white kids and two black kids - it literally couldn’t be more balanced and gives more opportunity for both younger girls and black children who often aren’t seen for these roles because of the idea that Charlie Bucket needs to be a white boy. The idea that any casting outside of ‘tradition’ (ie white boys/men) as just being woke boxticking seems rather narrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Sept 7, 2022 12:45:47 GMT
I think it's nice to celebrate a boy for being kind, rather than tough. Casting girls doesn't make a huge difference in terms of singing etc at that age, but I don't really see there's a massive benefit to it either.
Pretty sure the reason behind casting a man as Miss Trunchbull is different — she's definitely a woman, but casting a man is "theatre trickery" to make the character look more physically imposing surely? Like the costume and camera angles used in the film. The Matildas can't actually be 4 or 5, so you cast somebody taller and broader as Miss Trunchbull to get that size difference.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 7, 2022 13:06:30 GMT
I think it's nice to celebrate a boy for being kind, rather than tough. Casting girls doesn't make a huge difference in terms of singing etc at that age, but I don't really see there's a massive benefit to it either. Pretty sure the reason behind casting a man as Miss Trunchbull is different — she's definitely a woman, but casting a man is "theatre trickery" to make the character look more physically imposing surely? Like the costume and camera angles used in the film. The Matildas can't actually be 4 or 5, so you cast somebody taller and broader as Miss Trunchbull to get that size difference. I believe the role of Miss Trunchbull doesn't exclude females from being cast but I've yet to see a woman cast in the role. |
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 13:57:08 GMT
Have to say, I agree. As a bit of a traditionalist, I'd quite like to see something staged that simply sticks to the original script/story. It's a bit like when the Old Vic casts girls as Tiny Tim only to visually dress them as boys on stage as they have done on occasion. But current fashion seems to be to fiddle with everything so that boxes can be ticked and nobody can subsequently be accused of being gender/age/colour biased. Is it genuine open casting or is it fear of a backlash from the vocal local woke-alls? There was nothing in the original Matilda novel to imply Trunchball had male genitalia under the skirt, yet men play that role quite effectively on stage, to much applause too. Would you rather a woke intervention take hold of that show also and insist boy plays boy and girl plays girl? Good point about Trunchbull - hadn't crossed my mind. As I said, I'm a bit of a traditionalist. As a fan of the CATCF musical, I look forward to seeing whatever improvements have been made since Drury Lane, though of the two recordings available, I prefer London to Broadway. |
|
3,485 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 7, 2022 14:00:00 GMT
Don’t understand the ‘woke’ backlash either. There’s no in-text reason the Charlie needs to be a boy at all. Charlie is a child who is defined by his kindness and selflessness, Charlie is a unisex name, and the character’s gender doesn’t play into the plot so nothing except pronouns needs to be changed. They’ve cast two boys and two girls, two white kids and two black kids - it literally couldn’t be more balanced and gives more opportunity for both younger girls and black children who often aren’t seen for these roles because of the idea that Charlie Bucket needs to be a white boy. The idea that any casting outside of ‘tradition’ (ie white boys/men) as just being woke boxticking seems rather narrow. You might enjoy reading this: blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2017/09/18/charlie-from-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-was-originally-written-as-a-little-black-boy/ Seems relevant to the thread. |
|
