1,484 posts
|
Post by theatrefan62 on Apr 28, 2023 17:39:20 GMT
I'd quite like to see it too but the male leads put me off. It just comes across as a vanity project for Michael Ball. A vanity project would be if he was playing Alex. I think it’s a stretch to suggest that him playing a role which is firmly in his casting bracket is a vanity project… Not really, I don't think he is suited to George at all but is cast in the role. He can now claim he had played both roles in a musical he feels some ownership over, so there is ego there. An actor has been cast as Alex who is no threat to Ball vocally and it appears the big song may now be George's too, or at least shared. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbievanhusen on Apr 28, 2023 19:27:33 GMT
A vanity project would be if he was playing Alex. I think it’s a stretch to suggest that him playing a role which is firmly in his casting bracket is a vanity project… Not really, I don't think he is suited to George at all but is cast in the role. He can now claim he had played both roles in a musical he feels some ownership over, so there is ego there. An actor has been cast as Alex who is no threat to Ball vocally and it appears the big song may now be George's too, or at least shared. Tosh. Unless he is producing it, cast himself and then decided he wants to sing his signature tune, and revised the show to fit, then its hardly a vanity project. Because Louose Dearman played Elphaba and Glinda, she can now claim to have been the only actress to play both roles full time. Does that mean she has an ego too? |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 28, 2023 19:53:45 GMT
Not really, I don't think he is suited to George at all but is cast in the role. He can now claim he had played both roles in a musical he feels some ownership over, so there is ego there. An actor has been cast as Alex who is no threat to Ball vocally and it appears the big song may now be George's too, or at least shared. Tosh. Unless he is producing it, cast himself and then decided he wants to sing his signature tune, and revised the show to fit, then its hardly a vanity project. Because Louose Dearman played Elphaba and Glinda, she can now claim to have been the only actress to play both roles full time. Does that mean she has an ego too? I also think that this does Bogyo a disservice. Whilst he may have been woefully miscast as a Bohemian romantic lead, bright eyed obvious romantic Alex is a lot more in his wheelhouse and he’ll have a good stab at filling that room with sound the way that Ball used to fill the POW back in the day. He has a big trained voice. |
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Apr 29, 2023 7:39:31 GMT
I honestly can’t make my mind up about this. LPP is the one I’d like to see. I saw the original production but every one I have seen since has been dreadful I saw the OP twice and agree that nothing can touch it, especially in terms of design, which was superlative. The stripped back Gale Edwards version was ok I guess, tho had too many billowing curtains and a poorly redesigned logo. The David Essex tour was dire. (His fan club - all around me - were v disappointed that he only had one solo!) |
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on Apr 29, 2023 9:35:11 GMT
One of my favourite musicals of all time and definitely top three ALW for me.
Agree with others that the original production was the best. It was simply stunning. Often forgotten about in discussions of the "mega" musicals, but mega it really was. Whilst Maria Bjornson's Phantom designs are (rightly) constantly praised this was her biggest musical theatre triumph for me. The set was extraordinary. Fully automated and massive it just kept changing and folding into scene after scene after scene - almost like a film. John Napier's Sunset had the "wow" moment of the house and the split for New Year's Eve, but Aspects you really did wonder at it constantly - where backstage did they fit it all? The best thing about it though was that it did all this subtley, without ever overshadowing the action. Aspects has since often been described as a chamber piece suitable to smaller stagings (it can be no doubt, but there is certainly cost savings benefits in treating it as such), but I adored it as a mega musical. I was a kid of the 80's though. Sadly the naughty set had eaten Ann Crumb's leg by the time I went, but Susannah Fellows was wonderful.
Having said all this I also loved the productions that followed.
The Gale Edwards tour was all huge white drapes, terracotta and revolve and in terms of colour was much warmer than the original. While the latter was somewhat dark and brooding, this was such more Summery. It also had some fabulous bona fide MT talent in the leading roles.
By the time the Nikolai Foster tour came I had kind of given up hope of seeing a large (ish) scale tour of Aspects ever again so was very pleased to see it. The weakest of the three no doubt but often unfairly maligned I'd say. 14 piece tour orchestras are few and far between and it sounded sublime (why has there never been another cast recording since the original) and I thought the set was pretty good (and stunningly lit) by general touring standards at the time. The David Essex thing. Hmmm. Do agree. You did sit in a sea of his fanclub. And he wasn't the best George. But then, on the other hand, think that's the bums on seats thing that enabled the tour to happen. Sadly, without some kind of "name" I don't think there's enough public interest in this show to make it viable. (Cf the very poor sales of Nikolai's - I think very good - Sunset Boulevard tour).
And for the two smaller productions, I preferred the Hope Mill to the Menier, despite the Menier having the better orchestra. It was just performed so well and the cast were sensational.
Re the comments about Michael Ball, I really don't see it as a vanity project for him. I'd revert to what I said about David Essex. I'd love to think it's a popular enough musical to sell on it's name alone, but I really don't think it is. He's the bums on seats guy. To be honest, I think it's the best outcome to get this show back on stage, as had Alex or Rose been stunt cast or cast as a fangirls fave (with the usual ensuing stage door/flying cupcakes pandemonium) I think it would have been much worse.
I don't really understand the dislike of Jamie Bogyo. He has a gorgeous pure classic MT voice and am sure is more than capable. Moulin Rouge is a tricky one. I have seen 4 Satines and 4 Christians and they have all been fairly generic and, whilst I love the spectacle, I have never really felt invested in the story. I just think the script and direction doesn't give much. Anyway, we'll see how he is in this.
So yeah - guess you could say I am looking forward to this one :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Apr 29, 2023 10:40:46 GMT
One of my favourite musicals of all time and definitely top three ALW for me. Agree with others that the original production was the best. It was simply stunning. Often forgotten about in discussions of the "mega" musicals, but mega it really was. Whilst Maria Bjornson's Phantom designs are (rightly) constantly praised this was her biggest musical theatre triumph for me. The set was extraordinary. Fully automated and massive it just kept changing and folding into scene after scene after scene - almost like a film. John Napier's Sunset had the "wow" moment of the house and the split for New Year's Eve, but Aspects you really did wonder at it constantly - where backstage did they fit it all? The best thing about it though was that it did all this subtley, without ever overshadowing the action. Aspects has since often been described as a chamber piece suitable to smaller stagings (it can be no doubt, but there is certainly cost savings benefits in treating it as such), but I adored it as a mega musical. I was a kid of the 80's though. Sadly the naughty set had eaten Ann Crumb's leg by the time I went, but Susannah Fellows was wonderful. Having said all this I also loved the productions that followed. The Gale Edwards tour was all huge white drapes, terracotta and revolve and in terms of colour was much warmer than the original. While the latter was somewhat dark and brooding, this was such more Summery. It also had some fabulous bona fide MT talent in the leading roles. By the time the Nikolai Foster tour came I had kind of given up hope of seeing a large (ish) scale tour of Aspects ever again so was very pleased to see it. The weakest of the three no doubt but often unfairly maligned I'd say. 14 piece tour orchestras are few and far between and it sounded sublime (why has there never been another cast recording since the original) and I thought the set was pretty good (and stunningly lit) by general touring standards at the time. The David Essex thing. Hmmm. Do agree. You did sit in a sea of his fanclub. And he wasn't the best George. But then, on the other hand, think that's the bums on seats thing that enabled the tour to happen. Sadly, without some kind of "name" I don't think there's enough public interest in this show to make it viable. (Cf the very poor sales of Nikolai's - I think very good - Sunset Boulevard tour). And for the two smaller productions, I preferred the Hope Mill to the Menier, despite the Menier having the better orchestra. It was just performed so well and the cast were sensational. Re the comments about Michael Ball, I really don't see it as a vanity project for him. I'd revert to what I said about David Essex. I'd love to think it's a popular enough musical to sell on it's name alone, but I really don't think it is. He's the bums on seats guy. To be honest, I think it's the best outcome to get this show back on stage, as had Alex or Rose been stunt cast or cast as a fangirls fave (with the usual ensuing stage door/flying cupcakes pandemonium) I think it would have been much worse. I don't really understand the dislike of Jamie Bogyo. He has a gorgeous pure classic MT voice and am sure is more than capable. Moulin Rouge is a tricky one. I have seen 4 Satines and 4 Christians and they have all been fairly generic and, whilst I love the spectacle, I have never really felt invested in the story. I just think the script and direction doesn't give much. Anyway, we'll see how he is in this. So yeah - guess you could say I am looking forward to this one :-) Great analysis! There has been one other cast recording - in Japanese! Once you’re over the language barrier it’s really rather marvellous. Agree re: the original set which truly was mind blowing. (It was unfairly overshadowed, at the time, by the helicopter in Miss Saigon.) |
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Apr 29, 2023 11:45:17 GMT
It's really not fair to criticize anyone for failing to make the leads in Moulin Rouge come alive. Even in the movie they're cardboard cutouts that Kidman and McGregor fail to ignite, though that would've been the best thing for them.
|
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Apr 29, 2023 12:45:24 GMT
It's really not fair to criticize anyone for failing to make the leads in Moulin Rouge come alive. Even in the movie they're cardboard cutouts that Kidman and McGregor fail to ignite, though that would've been the best thing for them. It just would have been nice if Bogyo had sung it without with voice cracking all over the place though. I think that was the main issue for me. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Apr 29, 2023 13:04:54 GMT
Aspects has only got one Ball
(is he in the Albert Hall on Mondays?)
Sales for Aspects on Mondays are almost non existent. That's star power.
Interesting pattern the rest of the time. Expensive seats sold, but hardly anything in the balcony. Suggests a lot of Ball fans want to be close up, same with some Aspects fans. Could be a very old audience who luckily didn't need the steps to cheaper levels.
Perhaps it's upcoming, but other than 'we're doing aspects ' I haven't noticed a single mention of 'why now' or what Jonathan Kent sees in it. For me, a mistake to take away the threat of taboo desires between younger Jenny and Alex. It's either a daring exploration of aspects of love, including uncomfortable grey areas, or it's pappy romance.
I like this show but is there a point to it right now? And other than 'Ball is back' when is the production going to state anything interesting about why they're doing it?
They're in danger of putting it into a silo of Michael Ball testimonial dinner.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Apr 29, 2023 15:01:28 GMT
Aspects has only got one Ball (is he in the Albert Hall on Mondays?) Sales for Aspects on Mondays are almost non existent. That's star power. Interesting pattern the rest of the time. Expensive seats sold, but hardly anything in the balcony. Suggests a lot of Ball fans want to be close up, same with some Aspects fans. Could be a very old audience who luckily didn't need the steps to cheaper levels. Perhaps it's upcoming, but other than 'we're doing aspects ' I haven't noticed a single mention of 'why now' or what Jonathan Kent sees in it. For me, a mistake to take away the threat of taboo desires between younger Jenny and Alex. It's either a daring exploration of aspects of love, including uncomfortable grey areas, or it's pappy romance. I like this show but is there a point to it right now? And other than 'Ball is back' when is the production going to state anything interesting about why they're doing it? They're in danger of putting it into a silo of Michael Ball testimonial dinner. I agree about the age gap. The whole point is that he has to resist her or risk being put in prison. If she’s 18 the only oddity is that she’s his cousin. And he once had sex with her mother. Which - in the age of EastEnders and Love Island - is not taboo but completely normal. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 29, 2023 15:30:49 GMT
I can understand the desire to make a change in the age of Jenny lest the show be accused of celebrating paedophilic behaviour.
Producers are increasingly risk averse and so changing it is understandable even if it does diminish the power of the narrative.
Having Jenny as 15 going on 16 might have been a better compromise.
But whilst I may not agree with the change, I do see why the team might wish to avoid a twitter storm
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Apr 29, 2023 17:54:04 GMT
I can understand the desire to make a change in the age of Jenny lest the show be accused of celebrating paedophilic behaviour. Producers are increasingly risk averse and so changing it is understandable even if it does diminish the power of the narrative. Having Jenny as 15 going on 16 might have been a better compromise. But whilst I may not agree with the change, I do see why the team might wish to avoid a twitter storm I see your point, but it’s not as if he actually sleeps with her. And it isn’t grooming: if anything she pursues him. In the end he does the decent thing and decides to walk away. (If anything, Chris in Miss Saigon is more morally dubious; he exploits a 17 year old orphan/virgin who’s been forced into the sex trade, gets her pregnant, promises to take her away from it all and then doesn’t. And then she dies!) |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 29, 2023 19:10:25 GMT
I know this. You know this.
But keyboard warriors are all to eager to see things that aren't there to get over excited about.
|
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on Apr 29, 2023 21:07:57 GMT
Great analysis! There has been one other cast recording - in Japanese! Once you’re over the language barrier it’s really rather marvellous. Agree re: the original set which truly was mind blowing. (It was unfairly overshadowed, at the time, by the helicopter in Miss Saigon.) I spent ages looking for the Japanese CD in lockdown on e-bay etc but never found it! At least not at a normal-ish price. Agree re Saigon - there were absolutely two mega sets that year! Interesting pattern the rest of the time. Expensive seats sold, but hardly anything in the balcony. Suggests a lot of Ball fans want to be close up, same with some Aspects fans. Could be a very old audience who luckily didn't need the steps to cheaper levels. So Nimax seen to have a very odd allocation. It's not like AGT/DMT/LWT where you see all seats available. Basically large swathes of seats that look sold on Nimax are available on other sites. So you can't really judge how well sold it is I don't think from the official site. I think it's the same software Newsies and (previously) &Juliet used - but it can be confusing (and annoying when you're looking for specific seats!). Specifically I find London Theatre Direct has seats for sale for this that Nimax don't! I know this. You know this. But keyboard warriors are all to eager to see things that aren't there to get over excited about. I think very much this sadly.... |
|
|
|
Post by max on Apr 29, 2023 23:18:31 GMT
Say WHAT?!!!
"Invited to a country villa by a love struck young AMERICAN, Alex Dillingham, she impulsively accepts".
How did I miss that on the show's website? I just assumed an American actor was going to play it English.
Alex Dillingham really doesn't sound like an American name (I guess it's never said out loud in the text). I just can't hear "She'd Be Far Better Off With You" working with the accents oscillating between American Alex and English George. Why is Alex so different from ultra-English fake-artist Uncle George? Do Americans say "Civvy Street"? - I don't think so. Can the actress playing Rose slip in an extra syllable and sing "You're a long way from New England" without ALW doing his nut and saying 'If my Memr'y serves me right, I wrote no extra grace note for the word New to be added'? So many questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Apr 30, 2023 8:22:11 GMT
Say WHAT?!!! "Invited to a country villa by a love struck young AMERICAN, Alex Dillingham, she impulsively accepts". How did I miss that on the show's website? I just assumed an American actor was going to play it English. Alex Dillingham really doesn't sound like an American name (I guess it's never said out loud in the text). I just can't hear "She'd Be Far Better Off With You" working with the accents oscillating between American Alex and English George. Why is Alex so different from ultra-English fake-artist Uncle George? Do Americans say "Civvy Street"? - I don't think so. Can the actress playing Rose slip in an extra syllable and sing "You're a long way from New England" without ALW doing his nut and saying 'If my Memr'y serves me right, I wrote no extra grace note for the word New to be added'? So many questions. That is strange. Not as if they made Rose American to accommodate Ann Crumb…. |
|
5,901 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Apr 30, 2023 11:24:38 GMT
Give poor Jamie Bogyo a break.
He will be focusing so hard on trying to act and not walk into the furniture - don’t make him attempt an English accent too.
Having said that- I would love to hear his attempt 🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbievanhusen on May 1, 2023 4:15:11 GMT
How will an American Alex go into the army in the UK?
|
|
|
|
Post by max on May 1, 2023 8:17:55 GMT
American soldier still there after the liberation of France, takes time to indulge his love of Ibsen plays, falls for French actress who he takes to a villa he has access to because, conveniently, he has an English Uncle who owns the villa.
In film a McGuffin is an object, device, or event that is necessary to the plot and the motivation of the characters. For a while now, in Andrew Lloyd Webber productions, it's necessary to add something or someone outlandish in pre-production to ensure there's something to blame if it fails. How about not building in hopeless ideas to hide behind, and not failing?
Too many things seem to be contorting production choices - 'how can we get Michael to keep his big song?' was the first. That song is the worst thing in the show - absorbing it as naturally as possible into action and character is the best thing to do, and for that you need Alex to be an excellent actor. Rather than the "yay here it comes" moment for Michael. Just pray he's able to resist doing the 'back of net' double fist pump he did in the promo video on the two notes before "off into the world we go" which seemed to signal him saying 'I know this is cheese, so why not?'. We don't know if Alex was conceived as American for this version before they cast it, or they cast it and decided to go with the line of least resistance on accent.
I hope this production turns out to be a revelation and visionary. If so, I'll certainly come back here and eat a huge piece of humble pie, but it all seems seriously off kilter so far. In promotion, they've not put out anything mildly interesting or grown up about the interpretation of the piece which really annoys me.
|
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on May 1, 2023 11:18:21 GMT
I'll reserve judgment until I see it obviously, but certainly of the above, giving the romantic male lead song to George is the more jarring for me. And yes, very much feels shoehorned just so Ball can sing it rather than dramatically driven. So on the face of it a bit of a shame.
(The flip side of course is that the Ball&Boe Hunfandel brigade are I expect very much here for Michael's rendition - probably complete with fist pump - and would be complaining if he didn't sing it).
As I alluded to above, longer run higher budget shows will always be treading the line between what Joe Public is perceived to want (and willing to pay for) and what the musical geeks do, with the former increasingly winning. But I expect it gives the the option of 6 months at the Lyric rather than 1 or 2 at HopeMill/Southwark with two pianos, so, IDK.....
The American accent thing doesn't bother me though. I find it utterly jarring hearing Americans do English accents on Broadway, and Americans no doubt feel the same thing in the West End.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on May 1, 2023 11:22:32 GMT
The American accent thing doesn't bother me though. I find it utterly jarring hearing Americans do English accents on Broadway, and Americans no doubt feel the same thing in the West End. Very true. Though I think I've come up with a workaround over the knotty problem of casting English Alex, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on May 1, 2023 11:40:29 GMT
I actually think giving the song to George makes sense dramatically, if he’s imparting his years of wisdom to his younger, more impulsive nephew. (Much more sense than Alex - who we don’t yet know at the beginning of the show, the song’s original placement - just standing mid stage & belting to the rafters.)
It might have been even *more* interesting to reframe the show entirely, so that Ball plays an older version of Alex, telling the story of his life/experiences to his own young nephew; he could therefore sing as many reprises of LCE as he likes, as bridges between flashback scenes! (With hindsight he might even see that he and George are not too dissimilar.)
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on May 1, 2023 15:32:56 GMT
Still haven't taken the leap and bought tickets yet... What are the cheap balcony seats like in this theatre? I reckon I'm going to buy the RV Balcony tickets for £28 and then go for the inevitable rush tickets later, given how poorly this seems to be selling overall.
|
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on May 1, 2023 16:25:57 GMT
Still haven't taken the leap and bought tickets yet... What are the cheap balcony seats like in this theatre? I reckon I'm going to buy the RV Balcony tickets for £28 and then go for the inevitable rush tickets later, given how poorly this seems to be selling overall. Had a browse today and couldn’t bring myself to buy anything yet either 🤷♂️ |
|
2,263 posts
|
Post by richey on May 1, 2023 19:06:46 GMT
I actually think giving the song to George makes sense dramatically, if he’s imparting his years of wisdom to his younger, more impulsive nephew. (Much more sense than Alex - who we don’t yet know at the beginning of the show, the song’s original placement - just standing mid stage & belting to the rafters.) It might have been even *more* interesting to reframe the show entirely, so that Ball plays an older version of Alex, telling the story of his life/experiences to his own young nephew; he could therefore sing as many reprises of LCE as he likes, as bridges between flashback scenes! (With hindsight he might even see that he and George are not too dissimilar.) But isn't the original placement of the song the same as this anyway? It's the older Alex reflecting on the events Hence the "why did I go back to see her?/Alex It's all in the past" interlude |
|
