2,422 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Sept 29, 2022 21:33:45 GMT
Has anyone tried the standing section yet?
|
|
5,184 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Sept 29, 2022 23:16:22 GMT
Has anyone tried the standing section yet? Going on Saturday for my second visit and standing. My friend bad a standing ticket on Monday and was given a seat at 7.28 - they fill any gaps |
|
|
|
Post by jaggy on Sept 30, 2022 1:55:17 GMT
Sorry to ask again, but has anyone noticed people sitting in Row C in the Dress Circle?
|
|
2,702 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Sept 30, 2022 4:55:18 GMT
Sorry to ask again, but has anyone noticed people sitting in Row C in the Dress Circle? I have a ticket for Row C in the Dress Circle, so I'd sure hope it would let me sit down, LOL. |
|
4,804 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 30, 2022 6:07:21 GMT
Sorry to ask again, but has anyone noticed people sitting in Row C in the Dress Circle? I’m sitting there tomorrow night. |
|
5,184 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Sept 30, 2022 9:25:53 GMT
Sorry to ask again, but has anyone noticed people sitting in Row C in the Dress Circle? I sat there on Monday, great view |
|
|
|
Post by jaggy on Sept 30, 2022 11:02:49 GMT
Thank you all! 👍
|
|
195 posts
|
Post by tal on Sept 30, 2022 11:07:39 GMT
Has anyone tried the standing section yet? I stood for the first preview. View was ok, but it will be affected by your height - if you're shorter, you'll have more trouble seeing the action. For a standing section, it was comfortable enough, as there's space to lean on behind the last row. And you're obviously super close to the actors anyway, so it was not difficult for me to get moved by the story. |
|
2,422 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Sept 30, 2022 11:42:06 GMT
Has anyone tried the standing section yet? I stood for the first preview. View was ok, but it will be affected by your height - if you're shorter, you'll have more trouble seeing the action. For a standing section, it was comfortable enough, as there's space to lean on behind the last row. And you're obviously super close to the actors anyway, so it was not difficult for me to get moved by the story. Thank you so much, very helpful. I'm 6'6" so shortness very much not a problem 🤣 |
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 30, 2022 20:10:36 GMT
It's too good for the masses to enjoy it. It's too good for the masses to enjoy it. It really is What do you mean by “the masses”? Who are you if not “the masses”? |
|
221 posts
|
Post by Peter on Sept 30, 2022 20:31:28 GMT
On the strength of the early good notices here I’ve booked for mid-October. I know absolutely nothing about the show - I’ve no idea of the story, I’ve never heard anything from the score - and am going to see if I can keep it that way. I can’t actually think of a time where I’ve gone in to a show without knowing anything at all and it’ll be an interesting experiment!
|
|
19,782 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 30, 2022 21:04:02 GMT
On the strength of the early good notices here I’ve booked for mid-October. I know absolutely nothing about the show - I’ve no idea of the story, I’ve never heard anything from the score - and am going to see if I can keep it that way. I can’t actually think of a time where I’ve gone in to a show without knowing anything at all and it’ll be an interesting experiment! Hopefully you’re not “the masses” because if you are it’s not for you apparently. |
|
pb
Auditioning
|
Post by pb on Sept 30, 2022 21:54:13 GMT
On the strength of the early good notices here I’ve booked for mid-October. I know absolutely nothing about the show - I’ve no idea of the story, I’ve never heard anything from the score - and am going to see if I can keep it that way. I can’t actually think of a time where I’ve gone in to a show without knowing anything at all and it’ll be an interesting experiment! That was me when I went on Wednesday. I found a last minute singular stalls seat available and booked it on a whim. It's a really nice piece, very poetic. Definitely worth seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2022 23:11:32 GMT
Why such a fuss over the term "the masses"? Is the word inherently pejorative to some?
I took its use here to (rightly) mean, this is not the type show that audiences typically expect when seeing a musical. That was commonly said about the show throughout its Broadway run. It is a quiet show with subject matter musicalized less frequently.
But perhaps the crossover London audience between &Juliet or Six and The Band's Visit is quite massive and I am completely mistaken.
|
|
5,184 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Sept 30, 2022 23:29:39 GMT
Exactly @stevea
|
|
2,702 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Oct 1, 2022 6:07:41 GMT
Why such a fuss over the term "the masses"? Is the word inherently pejorative to some? I took its use here to (rightly) mean, this is not the type show that audiences typically expect when seeing a musical. That was commonly said about the show throughout its Broadway run. It is a quiet show with subject matter musicalized less frequently. Because it implies that "if you don't like it, you're part of the ignorant masses" (who may go and see some jukebox musicals or other extremely easily digestible stuff but nothing a bit more demanding). I found The Band's Visit as a musical terminally boring and dull. I had enjoyed the original Israeli movie (which I could watch for free on my couch) and found it a lovely little gem, but the stage version added nothing to it, nothing much happens plot-wise and the music apart from 1-2 songs was completely forgettable. I bought a ticket now in the hope that maybe I'll like it better when seeing it live on stage. At least London doesn't make the mistake to tout small intimate shows as big Broadway shows at corresponding prices but actually puts them on in small venues at reasonable prices. But anyway - I don't like the implication that if I dislike the show, it was "too good" for me. It's the kind of bias that has put me off Sondheim and his hero-worshipping fans for 30 years. No, he's not "too good" for me, neither is the Band's Visit. I have a wide range of favourite musicals and I can enjoy a well-done jukebox musical as much as a small challenging show when it speaks to me. I love the current unconventional Oklahoma revival and I just threw out a crazy lot of money just to see Hadestown in New York, because it's dragging its feet coming over/back. I've seen hundreds of shows in more than 30 years, so I'm definitely not what "the masses" imply here, the people who just go and see 2-3 shows a year, preferrably jukebox or otherwise broadly mainstream. Can we just accept that different things speak to different people and not just pre-emptively shoot down any potential negative opinions with this kind of statement? |
|
139 posts
|
Post by Joseph Buquet on Oct 1, 2022 15:46:22 GMT
Why such a fuss over the term "the masses"? Is the word inherently pejorative to some? I took its use here to (rightly) mean, this is not the type show that audiences typically expect when seeing a musical. That was commonly said about the show throughout its Broadway run. It is a quiet show with subject matter musicalized less frequently. But perhaps the crossover London audience between &Juliet or Six and The Band's Visit is quite massive and I am completely mistaken. If the they had meant this, they could’ve said “a quieter and more intimate show than most people may except from a musical”. But they went for the condescending “too good for the masses”. Which suggests a level of appreciation and discernment which they have, but most don’t. Totally different to what you summarised. |
|
4,804 posts
|
Post by Mark on Oct 1, 2022 21:26:10 GMT
A return visit for me tonight having seen it in New York just before it won the Tony. I enjoyed it more here, but it’s still not the show for me.
I don’t think it’s particularly right to brand shows as “not for the masses”. This is definitely not a show aimed at the “once or twice a year crowd” of those looking for an entertaining night out, but may appeal to those from the Jewish or Middle Eastern cultures who never go to the theatre. And of course, to the regular theatre goer. What I will say, is I’d consider that most people who like “big” musicals, whether that be in staging, performances, story, they will not like this. Everything about it is subtle in a way like nothing else I have ever seen. It was a very wise to stage it at the intimate Donmar, a definite gain from seeing it in a big Broadway house.
That’s not to say the performances are not good - they are, and Miri Mesika is particularly captivating. Peter Polycarpou is charming as ever in a relatively small role. And the band sound fantastic. I still can’t get over how Tony Shaloub won a Tony for playing Tewfiq - to me it’s such a nothing role.
I’d actually recommend for anyone interested enough in theatre to be on this board to go and see it - make up your own mind, because I know some people who really love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Oct 2, 2022 12:14:19 GMT
I know it sounds a little condescending, I know it sounds rude, but I do think Sondheim is the perfect example of a composer that is definitely too good for the masses. The music is so complex and innovative, by far the best ever written for musical theatre, that I don't really expect the masses to connect with it (especially on first listening) the same way they might do with 'Wicked', 'Phantom', or the 'Lion King'. Music can be complex and requires careful attention, study and effort to really understand what is going on, hear and appreciate the patterns. Without this, it can sound like a garbled mess. There is a reason why the masses connect more to Harry Styles than Stravinsky. One of the hallmarks of popular styles is that they reduce the complexity and add repetition so you can appreciate it more immediately and don't really need to think much or listen much. In some ways, it makes for a better night out at the theatre because who wants to have to listen to something 30 times to really hear what's going on? But I'm not going to pretend there isn't a qualitative difference between Sondheim's music and the music of other composers. The difference is real. The 'masses' - Charlotte or Bob from Leeds or whoever - do not necessarily have exposure to the complexity of music in general and enough exposure to the specific music they are listening to, to really appreciate it. 'The masses' idea of music is probably also informed, by definition, popular music. It's a completely different construct.
|
|
139 posts
|
Post by Joseph Buquet on Oct 2, 2022 14:29:06 GMT
I know it sounds a little condescending, I know it sounds rude, but I do think Sondheim is the perfect example of a composer that is definitely too good for the masses. The music is so complex and innovative, by far the best ever written for musical theatre, that I don't really expect the masses to connect with it (especially on first listening) the same way they might do with 'Wicked', 'Phantom', or the 'Lion King'. Music can be complex and requires careful attention, study and effort to really understand what is going on, hear and appreciate the patterns. Without this, it can sound like a garbled mess. There is a reason why the masses connect more to Harry Styles than Stravinsky. One of the hallmarks of popular styles is that they reduce the complexity and add repetition so you can appreciate it more immediately and don't really need to think much or listen much. In some ways, it makes for a better night out at the theatre because who wants to have to listen to something 30 times to really hear what's going on? But I'm not going to pretend there isn't a qualitative difference between Sondheim's music and the music of other composers. The difference is real. The 'masses' - Charlotte or Bob from Leeds or whoever - do not necessarily have exposure to the complexity of music in general and enough exposure to the specific music they are listening to, to really appreciate it. 'The masses' idea of music is probably also informed, by definition, popular music. It's a completely different construct. I get the point you’re making, but at the end of the day, music - like any art form - is subjective. So I feel it’s misplaced to say that Sondheim’s music “by far the best ever written for musical theatre”. For some it will be, for others it won’t (to my ear, it really isn’t). There’s no definitive ranking of music from best to worst. I also think that you underestimate the skill which is often involved in writing music which will have a wide appeal, and I would personally not consider it as a lesser skill than writing more complex (yet ultimately inaccessible) music which is likely to only be appreciated by the few. Also worth adding that it is possible for musicals to be commercially popular, but with more complex music. For example, a lot of the music in Wicked in not simple, but it is nonetheless hugely popular - something which Sondheim has often struggled with. I think that the bottom line is that we don’t need to say that one is better than the other - different people just look for different things. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 2, 2022 15:17:04 GMT
May I also add that I do not think it should be assumed that everyone who chooses not to see Sondheim shows does so on account of the music. Personally I would never see some of his shows, such as Sweeney Todd or Assassins, despite liking some of the music from them because the plots are far too gruesome for me to be able to cope with.
(As an aside, for those who go to operas as well as musicals, do you agree that the attitude of certain Sondheim fans to other musicals & musical composers is pretty much exactly the same as that of certain Wagner fans to other operas & opera composers?!)
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Oct 2, 2022 15:38:25 GMT
I agree, you have changed my mind a little. For some reason we like to suggest that people who create commercially appealing art (in any almost all forms) are somehow lesser artists or have less skills. But it's not like it's easy to come up with these ideas, and to have to do it in shorter time (in the case of popular music for example), adds extra challenges that those who choose not to conform to these constraints don't have to face (could Sondheim have pulled off the openings of Into the Woods or Sunday in the Park With George, for example, if he had to use half the time knowing that much of the audience might find it difficult to pay attention for so long). And just because music is complex does not make it 'the best' (or even good) because it really depends on how you define the terms. To someone 'good' might mean something that is immediately catchy, holds your attention, is brief and something you can easily remember. Whereas to others 'good' can mean something completely different, such as how complex something is (e.g. how many musical ideas are explored) and innovative it is (e.g. is this the first time they have been explored by an artist or if not the first, is it being explored in a different way).
I think the only thing I would maintain is the more complex something is the more difficult it is for people to understand, and so I don't think everyone has the knowledge or capability to be able to really understand what is happening - especially if it's completely new or different. So I do think there is value trying to distinguish between criticism where people truly understand what is happening and the intentions behind it but just don't like it for whatever reason vs criticism when people just don't get what is happening because it's too much or difficult to take in for the first time.
For what it's worth, on the topic at hand I LOVE The Band's Visit but I don't actually consider it to be something THAT complex. It's short and relatively straight forward to understand. I would also say the music and lyrics are quite accessible. People might not like it because when they think about a musical they might want something a bit more high energy, or don't care about the characters, or find it a bit boring...even if they understand what is happening. My only reaction I suppose is that I think there are examples, such as much of Sondheim's work, where the typical person just can't understand what is going on at first viewing if they haven't really learned some of the basic constructs of the art they are experiencing. So it can be frustrating to have people say something is 'bad' when really they don't understand it. It is for this reason that I actually predicted Hamilton would be far less popular than it ended up being - there are just so many lyrics spat out so fast often by so many different characters that I really don't know how anyone could really actually appreciate what is happening the first time they experience it. In reality I think what happened is that there was enough about it to make it accessible enough to enjoy it that people didn't really need to fully understand it or take in every detail to appreciate it, and those that wanted to dig a bit deeper to listen to it more or read the lyrics ended up being rewarded for doing so.
I would also say that if someone is posting on a musical forum and has seen a wide range of musicals they are probably not who I would consider to be 'the masses' because they are indulged in the world and probably understand the techniques that are used in our art form. When I think of masses I think of an 'average person' (whatever that is) who only superficially engages with the art form (or not at all before).
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 2, 2022 15:44:04 GMT
Gosh…so much to unpack here…
Firstly, there are quite a few misconceptions about the shows Broadway run going on here. it had played a 2 month sold out Off-Broadway run in 2016 in a small house and was nominated for and won a lot of the major non Tony awards that year, so there was a lot of interest in the show long before it hit Broadway in 2017 as a lot of people couldn’t get tickets once the initial stellar reviews came out.
Secondly, Broadway is spilt into play houses (under 800 seats) and musical houses (800+) so technically it landed in one of the smaller ‘musical’ houses. Personally I thought it filled the stage fine, but I was in the stalls 6th row so probably didn’t suffer from the ‘barn’ affect others may have. Plus it sold very well so why not?
Thirdly, the only people who pay full price for tickets on Broadway are wealthy New Yorkers who have the money to burn and don’t care and ill informed tourists who don’t know how to blag cheaper tickets. I paid $85 for my ticket (at the TKTS booth which it was on practically its entire run) and 60 quid for the Donmar, so technically it was exactly the same price.
As for the success of the show itself, it recouped in less than 9 months (which is almost unheard of) and won 10 Tony Awards. I’m sorry but if something is bad or or boring or even mediocre it does not garner such achievements regardless of what you personally thought of it. Just because someone doesn’t like something doesn’t mean it is bad, it just means you didn’t like it and that’s something a lot of people these days should probably learn. It also doesn’t make them a bad person, they just made the wrong decision to see what they went to see. As for judging something from a bootleg or on Youtube…well…where does one even begin with that one…
Now did it luck out because it didn’t have much decent competition, definitely. The year before it would’ve been wiped out by Comet, Hanson and Come From Away and if any of those had opened a year later it’d have been more than likely clouted out again. But it still won 10 Tony awards and recouped which is a hell of a lot more than 95% of musicals achieve on Broadway.
My personal experience of the show which inspired the supposedly ’controversial Stephen Sondheim fever dream inducing remark’ is exactly what Stevea said. But thanks for the variety of misinterpretations and mis-gendering (joke), that is on me, I will try to explain a little better next time.
As I have stated before I loved it and thought it was beautiful, as did the rather lovely mid 50’s lady sat beside me. We even shared a tissue…however…the loud mouth across the aisles from ‘Minnesssssota’ who upon his arrival made himself known to everyone around him as ‘a school teacher who travels to see shows and then rushes back and tells his students about it’ did not. I know this because for the 10 minutes that it took me to get from the 6th row to the street he made sure that I and everyone else in ear shot was very, very aware of that fact. By his 15th ‘I mean…what was it even about?’ I was very close to spinning around and saying ‘it was about a really stupid school teacher who should not be allowed to teach children anything because he doesn’t possess a single shred of empathy or humanity in his pathetic little body’…but I held back…
He was not the only one as a few others Americans with assorted funny accents joined in on the way out. This turned what had been a magical night at the theatre into a miserable frustrating experience and I’m sorry if this triggers anyone, but IMO the show was just too good for them, they didn’t understand it and they’d have been much better off seeing The Lion King. I don’t really care who that offends, the truth wins out here *shrug
There is currently a 202 page thread on this forum full of accounts of people who supposedly ‘shouldn’t’ be at certain shows (frankly it could be argued they should be allowed at any) and ruining other people’s nights because they made a bad decision to see a show that was not suitable for them. So was my comment ‘really’ that provocative even if I had meant it that way, considering even then it is still a fact?
It is not a class thing or wealth thing or intellectual thing, it is a respect thing. The fact that someone thinks they can’t go see something for those reason is on them not anyone else. I don’t care who is in the theatre with me. They can wear flip flops and (clean) underwear if they like. As long as they aren’t blind drunk, turn their phone off, STHU and respect the performers and audience members around them. If you’re not enjoying something leave, don’t ruin everyone else’s night. Leave your reviews for whatever cesspit social media platform you post on.
Also are we actually pretending here that all forms of entertainment don’t have different content made to appeal specifically ‘to the masses’ and for those who prefer more ‘cerebral’ entertainment? That is not to say people can’t or shouldn’t or don’t enjoy both (and I am certainly in that camp, I own all the Transformers movies on blurry, 3D blu-ray and 4K) nor should they be judged or judge themselves or anyone else on what they enjoy, but the entire entertainment industry is literally set up on that model and always has been. Sure streaming has shook things up a little, but even there we have this same problem. Blonde for example has been panned this week simply because the wrong audience is watching something that isn’t really designed for them. The whole Cuties incident was the same thing, this is not something new.
Art of any kind that requires a little extra thought is often misunderstood or misinterpreted by audiences that it is not designed for and then panned by them. This is just a fact of life and even more so these days where everyone has an opinion on everything and the means to let everyone know how they feel. There are 3 or 4 threads in General Discussion on the Disney animation remakes for children being torn apart by adults. Do the vocal runs of a mermaid really need to inspire such vitriol when the movie isn’t even being made for them in the first place? Should the young black girl cast sing it like a white girl because that’s how it supposedly ‘should’ be sung? Does any of it really matter?
Lastly, The Band’s Visit it is very much a show that has a very specific point to make and if you don’t pick up that point…well…you’ll probably think it’s boring and about nothing. You need to think more about it in the context of what is going on in the world and THEIR world just as much as what is going on in the show itself. My advice to anyone going to see it would be simple. Sit back and listen and listen closely, because listening is literally what the show is all about and if you don’t listen, you won’t ‘get it’. Is it slow, yes, deliberately so. It is taking you from your modern day fast paced life into a little quiet town in the middle of nowhere where nothing happens. It is slowly drawing you into their lives and the lives of the visitors. It is not going to spoon-feed you a single thing and as said by someone else, it almost redefines subtlety. But there is a moment where what is actually going on just ‘ciicks’. If you miss that ‘click’ you won’t ‘get it’ and you should’ve just stayed at home and hate watched it for free on youtube.
PS
You didn’t miss a thing, I have disliked every Sondheim I have ever seen x
|
|
|
|
Post by apubleed on Oct 2, 2022 15:51:54 GMT
intoanewlife I think that is a good anecdote.
If someone really does not put the attention or effort needed to understand The Band's Visit (or can't, for whatever reason) and as a consequence does not understand or enjoy it, it is a completely different scenario to someone who does pay attention and understand it but doesn't like the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Oct 2, 2022 16:05:19 GMT
I know it sounds a little condescending, I know it sounds rude, but I do think Sondheim is the perfect example of a composer that is definitely too good for the masses. The music is so complex and innovative, by far the best ever written for musical theatre, that I don't really expect the masses to connect with it (especially on first listening) the same way they might do with 'Wicked', 'Phantom', or the 'Lion King'. Music can be complex and requires careful attention, study and effort to really understand what is going on, hear and appreciate the patterns. Without this, it can sound like a garbled mess. There is a reason why the masses connect more to Harry Styles than Stravinsky. One of the hallmarks of popular styles is that they reduce the complexity and add repetition so you can appreciate it more immediately and don't really need to think much or listen much. In some ways, it makes for a better night out at the theatre because who wants to have to listen to something 30 times to really hear what's going on? But I'm not going to pretend there isn't a qualitative difference between Sondheim's music and the music of other composers. The difference is real. The 'masses' - Charlotte or Bob from Leeds or whoever - do not necessarily have exposure to the complexity of music in general and enough exposure to the specific music they are listening to, to really appreciate it. 'The masses' idea of music is probably also informed, by definition, popular music. It's a completely different construct. I get the point you’re making, but at the end of the day, music - like any art form - is subjective. So I feel it’s misplaced to say that Sondheim’s music “by far the best ever written for musical theatre”. For some it will be, for others it won’t (to my ear, it really isn’t). There’s no definitive ranking of music from best to worst. I also think that you underestimate the skill which is often involved in writing music which will have a wide appeal, and I would personally not consider it as a lesser skill than writing more complex (yet ultimately inaccessible) music which is likely to only be appreciated by the few. Also worth adding that it is possible for musicals to be commercially popular, but with more complex music. For example, a lot of the music in Wicked in not simple, but it is nonetheless hugely popular - something which Sondheim has often struggled with. I think that the bottom line is that we don’t need to say that one is better than the other - different people just look for different things. There is a ranking though, some things are just better than others, that's why we have rankings. Surely we rate something as better if it actually means something as apposed to something meaningless? Surely Schindler's List is better than Freddy Got Fingered? There is absolutely nothing wrong with likely anything on either end of the scale, but surely Mozart is better than Kylie (and I loves me some Kylie) and that's just a fact. Is Sondheim better than A.L.W, probably...but I can't stand either of their work so it doesn't matter to me who is better. Why are people attaching their own self esteem or self importance to someone else's work? I don't really get it. Like what you wanna like if it brings you joy, who cares. It doesn't matter what's better, it matters what it means to you. |
|
