520 posts
|
Post by anthony on May 1, 2023 20:06:39 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 Hmm, I always took this as meaning it happens immediately after Alex leaves Rose because Giulietta also says "it won't be long Jenny's a woman, what then?" after 'Anything but Lonely'. Both the opening scene and the final scene take place at the train station in Pau. I think only a few hours have passed from 'Anything but Lonely' to 'Love Changes Everything'. It's cyclical.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on May 4, 2023 7:36:01 GMT
|
|
8,159 posts
|
Post by alece10 on May 4, 2023 7:59:31 GMT
Part of a recent Times interview with Michael Ball.
"The story needed tweaks, though, they agreed. Among its issues: an ending in which Alex, now in his thirties, seems likely to start a romance with his besotted 15-year-old cousin. “It’s more problematic now than it was in 1989,” Ball says. So George and Rose’s daughter Jenny, who comes to take a shine to her cousin Alex, ends up 18 rather than 15, while Alex, played by Jamie Bogyo, is now 18 at the start of the story rather than 17, among other changes they are making as rehearsals proceed. (Burns is adamant that the show must not be about “predatory behaviour”.)"
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 4, 2023 9:18:47 GMT
Part of a recent Times interview with Michael Ball. "The story needed tweaks, though, they agreed. Among its issues: an ending in which Alex, now in his thirties, seems likely to start a romance with his besotted 15-year-old cousin. “It’s more problematic now than it was in 1989,” Ball says. So George and Rose’s daughter Jenny, who comes to take a shine to her cousin Alex, ends up 18 rather than 15, while Alex, played by Jamie Bogyo, is now 18 at the start of the story rather than 17, among other changes they are making as rehearsals proceed. (Burns is adamant that the show must not be about “predatory behaviour”.)" Well, that's BORING! What I enjoyed/appreciated about seeing it with the un-tinkered script at Southwark Playhouse, was there was a certain degree of "ickyness" and shock factor to an otherwise quite pedestrian storyline. It made you think about what was acceptable in the time and social class of the original story, and how things have changed. The sanitising of art continues apace. We seem to be going backwards.... Do we really need protecting by Nica Burns and her ilk as moral arbiters/gatekeepers? Good lord!
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 4, 2023 9:24:40 GMT
What Burns is seeking to do is not protect audiences but protect herself.
As I said in an earlier post, keyboard warriors will attack a piece like Aspects because of a perception of what the show represents (without ever actually looking at the detail or source material)
Any producer is going to want to protect their investment by doing all they can to stop twitter pile ons from damaging sales.
Should producers have more backbone? Absolutely
Should certain people on Twitter learn that not everything revolves about them and their warped ways of thinking? Absolutely
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 4, 2023 9:28:15 GMT
What Burns is seeking to do is not protect audiences but protect herself. As I said in an earlier post, keyboard warriors will attack a piece like Aspects because of a perception of what the show represents (without ever actually looking at the detail or source material) Any producer is going to want to protect their investment by doing all they can to stop twitter pile ons from damaging sales. Should producers have more backbone? Absolutely Should certain people on Twitter learn that not everything revolves about them and their warped ways of thinking? Absolutely You're absolutely right of course. In this day and age, the mentality of "cancel culture" - or call it what you will (I have no particular attachment to the term) will ultimately spell the sanitisation of everything. To protect the bottom line from a boycott.
|
|
|
Post by capybara on May 4, 2023 9:50:42 GMT
As someone yet to see Michael Ball on stage, I am intrigued and want to see this. I may have to wait for offers though.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on May 4, 2023 20:47:18 GMT
Part of a recent Times interview with Michael Ball. "The story needed tweaks, though, they agreed. Among its issues: an ending in which Alex, now in his thirties, seems likely to start a romance with his besotted 15-year-old cousin. “It’s more problematic now than it was in 1989,” Ball says. So George and Rose’s daughter Jenny, who comes to take a shine to her cousin Alex, ends up 18 rather than 15, while Alex, played by Jamie Bogyo, is now 18 at the start of the story rather than 17, among other changes they are making as rehearsals proceed. (Burns is adamant that the show must not be about “predatory behaviour”.)" Well, that's BORING! What I enjoyed/appreciated about seeing it with the un-tinkered script at Southwark Playhouse, was there was a certain degree of "ickyness" and shock factor to an otherwise quite pedestrian storyline. It made you think about what was acceptable in the time and social class of the original story, and how things have changed. The sanitising of art continues apace. We seem to be going backwards.... Do we really need protecting by Nica Burns and her ilk as moral arbiters/gatekeepers? Good lord! I agree - see my earlier post - but this is happening more and more. (See the ‘cleaning up’ of Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming books, for example.) If characters are not allowed to act badly then art/drama/literature will eventually be populated by a cast of squeaky-clean do-gooders. (It’s interesting that at the Royal Premiere, in 1989, the ‘icky’ Jenny storyline was kept in while the lesbian kiss was cut!)
|
|
625 posts
|
Post by chernjam on May 4, 2023 21:45:41 GMT
I don't have a problem with them trying to tighten up the story. Not to necessarily cave to keyboard warriors, but because the story always seemed to weigh down the score. Particularly the Jenny angle
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on May 4, 2023 21:50:43 GMT
Well, that's BORING! What I enjoyed/appreciated about seeing it with the un-tinkered script at Southwark Playhouse, was there was a certain degree of "ickyness" and shock factor to an otherwise quite pedestrian storyline. It made you think about what was acceptable in the time and social class of the original story, and how things have changed. The sanitising of art continues apace. We seem to be going backwards.... Do we really need protecting by Nica Burns and her ilk as moral arbiters/gatekeepers? Good lord! I agree - see my earlier post - but this is happening more and more. (See the ‘cleaning up’ of Roald Dahl and Ian Fleming books, for example.) If characters are not allowed to act badly then art/drama/literature will eventually be populated by a cast of squeaky-clean do-gooders. (It’s interesting that at the Royal Premiere, in 1989, the ‘icky’ Jenny storyline was kept in while the lesbian kiss was cut!) It's so true. And yet no one ever objects to characters committing murder, which happens all the time in fiction. I just never understand it.
|
|
1,759 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on May 4, 2023 22:10:36 GMT
Would always rather see the original version of something rather than some bowdlerised version. If it’s a classic, show me why it’s a classic, rather than altering it so it’s barely recognisable.
Hadn’t realised they’ve censored Ian Fleming’s books as well. They are rammed full of casual bigotry against anyone who wasn’t a white upper-class Englishman and very much of their time, which for me was part of the fun of reading them. Can understand watering down kid’s books, even if I don’t agree with it, but troubling that they’re censoring adult novels now too.
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 5, 2023 7:47:08 GMT
And also, the more I thought about this, the more I feel La Ball is talking NONSENSE.
I think it's quite insulting to suggest that "incest" and cousins falling in love was "acceptable" to late 80's/early 90's audiences.
There is a big difference between something been "acceptable" to the public to something that is a somewhat shocking to them, OR not calling for the production to be shut down or a "moral panic" in the sh1t stirring media.
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on May 5, 2023 8:02:58 GMT
Yes, the Bond books are also being snipped. History is being revised. Instead of being a reflection of the time they’ll be a reflection of ‘our’ time.
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 5, 2023 8:31:21 GMT
And also, the more I thought about this, the more I feel La Ball is talking NONSENSE. I think it's quite insulting to suggest that "incest" and cousins falling in love was "acceptable" to late 80's/early 90's audiences. There is a big difference between something been "acceptable" to the public to something that is a somewhat shocking to them, OR not calling for the production to be shut down or a "moral panic" in the sh1t stirring media. But isn't that what Michael Ball means? Back in 89/90, the audience might have quietly talked amongst themselves and said "that bit about Jenny and Alex was a bit icky, wasn't it?", shrugged it off and went home. Today you get the keyboard warriors stirring up sh*t online, most of which haven't seen the show, and shout for cancellation. It'll stick to the production like dogsh*t to a shoe. I often get the sense that today's shouts for sanitation and changes to "problematic bits" automatically seem to mean that audiences a few decades ago were all fine with things. They weren't. It just wasn't such a big deal, it was perhaps quietly talked about after leaving a show and/or remarked on in a printed newspaper review that was forgotten two weeks later, it wasn't all so blown up online. I also feel that this kind of sanitation would love to ignore things that are simple facts. 15 year old girls DO often crush on older men because boys the same age are still seen as pimply immature little idiots. Most girls that age crush on older movie stars or pop stars, but many also on older men in their vicinity. And a (female) cousin of mine confessed to me years ago that when we were teens, she had also crushed on a (male) cousin of ours. She was around 14 then, he was 19/20 - not the same age difference as Jenny and Alex, but still a vast gulf at that age. Nothing had come out of it, as hers had been a silent crush, but it was there. It's also easy to forget that in many societies girls as young as 14-15 have been regarded as women once their period had kicked in, they got married and were expected to have children (and it's still happening in parts of the world). The keyboard warriors also seem to forget that David Garnett wrote Aspects of Love when he was part of the Bloomsbury Group around Virginia Woolf, who were famous for their unconventional lifestyles. Garnett himself lived in a menage à trois with Duncan Grant and Vanessa Bell for a while. Vanessa (Virginia Woof's sister) married Clive Bell, but still had a child with Duncan Grant, Angelica, who later married David Garnett, her own mother's lover. Talk about Aspects of Love. They explored a lot of things in real life, even more in literature and they certainly scandalized their peers with their lifestyle. Angelica later wrote a fairly bitter biography about her childhood amid all of that and I wonder how much of her can be found in Jenny.
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 5, 2023 8:39:22 GMT
And also, the more I thought about this, the more I feel La Ball is talking NONSENSE. I think it's quite insulting to suggest that "incest" and cousins falling in love was "acceptable" to late 80's/early 90's audiences. There is a big difference between something been "acceptable" to the public to something that is a somewhat shocking to them, OR not calling for the production to be shut down or a "moral panic" in the sh1t stirring media. But isn't that what Michael Ball means? Back in 89/90, the audience might have quietly talked amongst themselves and said "that bit about Jenny and Alex was a bit icky, wasn't it?", shrugged it off and went home. Today you get the keyboard warriors stirring up sh*t online, most of which haven't seen the show, and shout for cancellation. It'll stick to the production like dogsh*t to a shoe. I often get the sense that today's shouts for sanitation and changes to "problematic bits" automatically seem to mean that audiences a few decades ago were all fine with things. They weren't. It just wasn't such a big deal, it was perhaps quietly talked about after leaving a show and/or remarked on in a printed newspaper review that was forgotten two weeks later, it wasn't all so blown up online. I also feel that this kind of sanitation would love to ignore things that are simple facts. 15 year old girls DO often crush on older men because boys the same age are still seen as pimply immature little idiots. Most girls that age crush on older movie stars or pop stars, but many also on older men in their vicinity. And a (female) cousin of mine confessed to me years ago that when we were teens, she had also crushed on a (male) cousin of ours. She was around 14 then, he was 19/20 - not the same age difference as Jenny and Alex, but still a vast gulf at that age. Nothing had come out of it, as hers had been a silent crush, but it was there. It's also easy to forget that in many societies girls as young as 14-15 have been regarded as women once their period had kicked in, they got married and were expected to have children (and it's still happening in parts of the world). The keyboard warriors also seem to forget that David Garnett wrote Aspects of Love when he was part of the Bloomsbury Group around Virginia Woolf, who were famous for their unconventional lifestyles. Garnett himself lived in a menage à trois with Duncan Grant and Vanessa Bell for a while. Vanessa (Virginia Woof's sister) married Clive Bell, but still had a child with Duncan Grant, Angelica, who later married David Garnett, her own mother's lover. Talk about Aspects of Love. They explored a lot of things in real life, even more in literature and they certainly scandalized their peers with their lifestyle. Angelica later wrote a fairly bitter biography about her childhood amid all of that and I wonder how much of her can be found in Jenny. You've expressed what I was thinking with far more eloquence than I possess.
|
|
2,022 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 5, 2023 8:44:30 GMT
Also, we are in a certain culture now where - young people in particular - are encouraged to "call out" anything they believe to be wrong. "Silence is violence" and all that. It is not enough to shrug something off, or say nothing. People are being compelled to say something - regardless of their ignorance on a subject.
(I'm not going to use the "W" word, as it's divisive)
|
|
|
Post by max on May 5, 2023 8:56:28 GMT
I realise it wasn't necessarily a direct quote from Nica Burns, but there was never any predatory behaviour in Aspects Of Love. Whether idolising someone else, addicted to drama in a relationship, staving off old age, or a gay man's love for a somewhat camp icon (as Marcel has sometimes been played in his love for Rose) it was all consensual - which doesn't necessarily mean healthy. I suppose there's still the fear of being mistakenly perceived to be portraying predatory behaviour. A shame they wouldn't stand up for the complexity, but as others have said, I guess that's the commercial calculation.
|
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on May 7, 2023 9:05:30 GMT
Of course the plot of Aspects of Love is less scandalous than David Garnett's own life. Garnett was bisexual, as were several members of the artistic and literary Bloomsbury Group, and he had affairs with Francis Birrell and Duncan Grant. On 25 December 1918 he was present at the birth of Grant's daughter by Vanessa Bell, Angelica, who was accepted by Vanessa's husband Clive Bell. Shortly afterwards he wrote to a friend: "I think of marrying it. When she is 20, I shall be 46 – will it be scandalous?" On 8 May 1942, when Angelica was in her early twenties, they did marry, to the horror of her parents. She did not find out until much later that her husband had been a lover of her father.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on May 7, 2023 10:30:58 GMT
Of course the plot of Aspects of Love is less scandalous than David Garnett's own life. Garnett was bisexual, as were several members of the artistic and literary Bloomsbury Group, and he had affairs with Francis Birrell and Duncan Grant. On 25 December 1918 he was present at the birth of Grant's daughter by Vanessa Bell, Angelica, who was accepted by Vanessa's husband Clive Bell. Shortly afterwards he wrote to a friend: "I think of marrying it. When she is 20, I shall be 46 – will it be scandalous?" On 8 May 1942, when Angelica was in her early twenties, they did marry, to the horror of her parents. She did not find out until much later that her husband had been a lover of her father. Also, Vanessa Bell was Virginia Woolf's (also a member of the Bloomsbury Group) sister. Hey, it's a small world!
|
|
2,263 posts
|
Post by richey on May 7, 2023 12:33:08 GMT
Just heard Elaine Paige play a song called "The Summer Game" from Cricket, which I'd never heard before. It's probably been remarked on before, but the intro to the song is what would later become Anything But Lonely (and the rest of the song bore a strong resemblance to Amigos para Siempre) Dear old ALW recycling his tunes!
|
|
|
Post by max on May 7, 2023 12:39:06 GMT
Just heard Elaine Paige play a song called "The Summer Game" from Cricket, which I'd never heard before. It's probably been remarked on before, but the intro to the song is what would later become Anything But Lonely (and the rest of the song bore a strong resemblance to Amigos para Siempre) Dear old ALW recycling his tunes! Yes, exactly those references. I think Tim Rice was rather miffed that the tunes from Cricket got used elsewhere - but really best that they didn't carry on with a musical about Cricket, and of course he cares about the game and ALW doesn't. Early news reports of rifts in their partnership came during Evita rehearsals, with ALW cross that Rice was watching a cricket match at Lords. 'Cricket' was written for the Queen in 1986 at the time Prince Edward was involved in Really Useful, and tantalisingly, would have been their reunion musical I guess. It's a really good matching of ALW and Rice - Rice voices a character on the recording - and the bits of tune that haven't been recycled are really good (as are the since-recycled bits). With Rice shipping out of writing Jeeves, and ALW ditching this one, between them they skirted writing a quintessentially English musical together - that they 'd have been rather good at.
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by ilovewemusicals on May 10, 2023 15:50:06 GMT
Danielle de Niese will NOT be performing on Tues 13th June, Weds 21st June, Sat 1st July, Thurs 6th July, Sat 8th July (eve), Tues 11th July, Tues 18th July, Tues 25th July, Fri 4th August, Tues 8th August, Tues 15th August, Mon 4th September, Tues 5th September, Weds 6th September, Tues 12th September, Tues 19th September, Tues 26th September, Thurs 5th October, Tues 10th October, Tues 17th October, Tues 24th October, Tues 31st October and Thurs 9th November.
The role of Giulietta will be played by Soophia Foroughi.
Michael Ball will be on The One Show at 7pm tonight, advertising the show and announcing something…
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 10, 2023 15:53:12 GMT
Danielle de Niese will NOT be performing on Tues 13th June, Weds 21st June, Sat 1st July, Thurs 6th July, Sat 8th July (eve), Tues 11th July, Tues 18th July, Tues 25th July, Fri 4th August, Tues 8th August, Tues 15th August, Mon 4th September, Tues 5th September, Weds 6th September, Tues 12th September, Tues 19th September, Tues 26th September, Thurs 5th October, Tuesday 10th October, Tuesday 17th October, Tuesday 24th October, Tuesday 31st October, Thurs 9th November. The role of Giulietta will be played by Soophia Foroughi. Michael Ball will be on The One Show at 7pm tonight, advertising the show and announcing something… She must have lots of other gigs on Tuesdays...
|
|
324 posts
|
Post by ilovewemusicals on May 10, 2023 16:30:04 GMT
The news is that Michael is releasing a book about his journey with the show. How the original production made him a star and how he’s now back in it in a different role. It’s out in October.
|
|
19,788 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 10, 2023 17:05:36 GMT
Good luck with that Michael!
|
|