19,661 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 26, 2023 18:20:31 GMT
I did say beyond ick. I’m making comparisons between shows with what might be called ‘controversial’ content. The age guidelines on both of the shows I mentioned is 16+. From what I have read, if they were films they would be surely be adults only. And yes, in the case of ASL that is because of that one song which is pornographic. Thanks for clarifying that Mr B. You didn't say if you'd seen ASL or not. The thing is with *that* song is that it is a very difficult scene to watch, but I would argue that it's an important one. Michael R Jackson really doesn't hold back in any part of the show and I'm sure there are other things in it that might be offensive or shocking to certain groups of people. In terms of the development of the lead character, in my opinion, something that debased does need to happen to him as part of his journey around the strange loop. It's controversial for sure, but I'm not sure I would define it as pornographic. The language used in the scene certainly is in more way than one, but physically it is dimly lit and suggested, rather than seen in the way everything is enacted up, close and personal in A Little Life. Before I saw the show and had only heard the OBC, I skipped 'Inwood Daddy' every time as I found it so unpleasant to listen to. The second time I saw the show I felt having watched that scene once, it was fine to stare at the floor until it was over. Part of that was because I felt so much for the lead character by that point that I didn't want to watch him being hurt and humiliated in that way. Also watching that scene once was quite enough for me to get the point. Having said that, in my opinion, the show is such an original and totally unique piece of work, I really hope that one scene doesn't end up getting so much negative word of mouth that it stops people going to see the show. There's nothing else resembling anything like that in the show (but super fans of Beyonce, Whitney Houston and Tyler Perry may want to sit near a member of the St John's Ambulance staff  ). I very much appreciate your reasoned reply. I’m not sure I agree but that’s ok. |
|
2,848 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by couldileaveyou on May 26, 2023 20:27:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by capybara on May 26, 2023 20:41:50 GMT
As I said in my initial post, I get that some people like this show but I do wish the same people wouldn’t dismiss those of us who thought it was rubbish as just not being open-minded enough to deal with uncomfortable themes.
As has been said by others, I have no issue with disturbing or ‘problematic’ stories but the issue is that this production seemingly has a complete lack of self-awareness. The relationships and responses to said relationships are so ludicrous and improbable, that’s what makes the show so perplexing. Not just that the characters are predatory and incestuous.
People can make up their own minds but it would still be a bad show, even without the inter-family affairs and age issues. As I said, that “let me be the first song” is utterly bizarre but it’s the tone as much as the content. People in the balcony were also audibly amused/bemused by the boring, repetitive video screens during scene changes.
Anyway, that’s the last I’ll post on this thread. Just getting fed up with fans of Aspects deriding anyone who didn’t like it as being too closed-minded or sensitive.
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on May 26, 2023 20:58:00 GMT
Shockingly good. Will post full thoughts later but wow.
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on May 26, 2023 22:19:49 GMT
So it was just perfect. I did think Bogyo's acting was a bit stiff at some parts during act 1, but that he warmed up and was great for the rest of the show. I saw the David Essex tour years ago when I was young (I remember a lot of nudity and me wishing I was anywhere else, as I'd went to see it with my grandmother!)
The audience did laugh in places, but they were all comical moments. Having some funny moments does not make it a comedy, no more than sections of Hannibal make Phantom a comedy. Comments above are full of hyperbole in this regard. Although I don't recall Alex saying "It's my fault" after George's death.
The only odd choice was to have a young Jenny to begin with, for her to randomly change after Mermaids. The change was hilariously bad - perhaps it happened too soon, but the young Jenny ran off stage around 1/4 from the edge, meaning it was so obvious what had happened. They may as well have had Anna Unwin play Jenny the whole way through and had her act more childish prior to the year change.
Laura Pitt-Pulford and Danielle de Niese were stand outs. I was also pleasantly surprised at Ball - I've only seen him in Hairspray, but his voice is full of cheese and kitsch. Saw the live stream of Les Mis etc, and it always seems that he plays every role the same. But he was bloody amazing - unrecognisable. Just brilliant. Set was wonderful.
I've got home and already bought return tickets.
I do agree that a lot of people are jumping on the "Hate Lloyd Webber" bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on May 26, 2023 22:28:23 GMT
Maybe next season we can have ‘Harold & Maude - The Musical’ & ‘Queer As Folk - The Musical’, just to annoy those critics who find Lloyd Webber shows too challenging.
Edit: Or maybe ‘Phillip Schofield - The Musical’, given recent revelations?!
|
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on May 27, 2023 10:07:29 GMT
There was a time when any new production of an ALW show would mean me booking 2 or 3 performances, at top price, the second the tickets went on sale. But this just didn’t excite me. The tickets are far too expensive, and some of the casting was putting me off.
Anyway, I overcame the first problem by getting a £145 “premium” seat for £25 on TodayTix yesterday, so went along last night.
Still not convinced by Jamie Bogyo’s vocals. Thought the new placing of “Love Changes Everything” was very random. But the main thing that let this down was the awful cheap projected film clips! The set itself is beautiful, then an awful, tacky and jerky video clip passes across it 🙄
Well, apart from that this is a great production. The orchestra sounds gorgeous (you know you’re on to a winner when there is a harp!).
I really don’t care about all the storyline controversy. Depicting something does not equal condoning it. And anyway, all the characters are against the Alex/Jenny relationship, to the point that it literally gives one of them a heart attack!
Definitely worth seeing, but how it could have been worth £145 is beyond me.
|
|
1,470 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 27, 2023 11:24:27 GMT
If I could rate the orchestra -- perched high behind the stage -- alone, five stars. Similarly, the set design, slick changes and evocative, mood-setting video images. (I do not at all understand the criticism of the latter.)
From the front stalls, the sound design was faultless too: every word audible amid that sumptuous score. Kudos too to the person responsible for the exquisite lighting design.
The score is beautifully sung, the direction inspired, and the acting ranges from mainly great to occasionally serviceable.
Where the show falls down is in the narrative, which is slight and unconvincing, particularly in the second act. But, allow yourself to be swept along by the mood, and there's much to enjoy.
Four stars.
Act 1: 19:32-20:32
Act 2: 20:54-21:56
This was my first visit to the Lyric Theatre. Although I was sat in the stalls, I noticed how good the views were from the second and third tiers (but not the balcony). There's little rake to the stalls, but the stage is high enough for a clear view. I really liked the Lyric. Only the Fortune left to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on May 27, 2023 18:30:27 GMT
The stock photo style of imagery on the video walls just seem so jarring compared to the dominating, traditionally painted backdrops (which, when used in full effect like in the circus scene, was really nice)- almost like they were created at almost opposite ends of thought and care. IMO it would be much more visually cohesive if they had stuck to one side of the spectrum...
|
|
1,381 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by BVM on May 28, 2023 10:35:00 GMT
So I went to see this on Friday. It is my second favourite ALW score (after Starlight Express) and I have seen all the previous UK productions. Was so excited when was announced this was coming back to the West End. Basically I couldn't have been more pumped to see it or ready to love it. But I didn't love it. I really liked it. But it just didn't quite do it for me. Been trying to analyse quite why ever since and am not sure I can quite put my finger on it.
Rambling thoughts follow in no particular order and including spoilers. It's mainly the negatives below but this is in the context that I did enjoy it and would probs give it 3.5 stars. But as it's a show I love so much, just why I'd not give it more. All very much IMHO and things I didn't like, perhaps others would.
- The Theatre. Only been there once before (for Grease 2 Cool Rider) but I didn't like it. So dark and dingy (honestly given the average age of the audience it's only a matter of time before someone slips and fractures their hip) and front stalls was awful. No rake at all, no offsetting and a man's head accounted for much of my view. I was in row E and would definitely go much further back next time though decent rake doesn't really kick in until 2/3 way back of stalls.
- The script. Lots and lots of small edits - they've cut about 20 mins off the show. Lots of small lyric changes for the sake of it that didn't add anything but sort of aimed to be funny in a non subtle way. Felt a bit like it was being adapted for the iPhone generation that can't concentrate for long. Aspects normally holds me in a borderline hypnotic state from start to end - it didn't this time. Also the Jenny storyline has been sanitised to the point that I am amazed it could offend anyone. Preferred the genuine awkwardness and intake of breath version of the original. It's meant to be uncomfortable. All the edits feel like it's apologising for the original. And I think in that it's really lost something.
- The new orchestrations. Were gorgeous. But the ALW/Cullen ones were so stunning why did they need changing? Felt there was a little less variety and light and shade and was more string heavy. Still sumptuous and really very lovely - but certain sections underpowered. Hand Me The Wine And The Dice and Fairground/Circus particularly.
- The cast. Were all excellent. Laura Pitt Pulford is sensational and her Anything But Lonely was the highlight of the night for me by a mile. Incredible! Jamie Bogyo has a gorgeous voice and is a superb Alex. His acting is good but not amazing. I think he'll grow into the role. de Niese was good but not life changing. Ball's George, I dunno, had a touch of the nudge nudge wink wink about it. So they were all good, and clearly incredibly talented - but together their interpersonal relationships were just not quite fully believable. I didn't find it as cohesive as previously. I am nor sure Kent has the same understanding of the piece that Trevor Nunn and Gale Edwards did.
- The set - this is my biggest gripe. I hate the saying "it didn't know what it wanted to be" but, errr, it didn't know what it wanted to be. I was pretty mystified by the variation of comments on here with some saying it was very lavish and some saying it was cheap as chips. But I kinda get it now. There was a lot of use of of full size stage drapes with paintings on them to depict scenes (is there a special name for these in theatre?!) They remind me of 1970's/early 1980's sets, before the mega musicals came along. Then after that bare staging and projections took over. You don't see them much now but I just thought they looked really old fashioned. (Are they used more in opera? I noted that is the designers background) Also they cut the stage in half for the Fairground/Circus and Wake scenes. In precious incarnations these scenes have been huge epic stagings making full use of the full stage - here they just felt a bit limp. Then the set pieces themselves just looked a bit cheap. The bed in the mid Act 1 scene looked borderline Kenwright. I mean - clearly they had spent a bit of money on the set as it moved from scene to scene, but I'd say, errr, not enough. And the projections that sweep across the stage between scenes are terrible. Very blurred. Projection technology being what it is in 2023 there isn't much excuse for that.
Perhaps I have been spoiled. The design of Maria Bjornson's original and the Gale Edwards tour (who designed that?!) were SO stunning and I remember them so well that it's a tough act to follow. Can't really compare to Menier/Hope Mill. In terms of size, scale and ambition the best comparison is the Nikolai Foster tour. Unpopular in these parts I know, but I thought that tour was nicer to look at (and I preferred it's direction) and much more cohesive.
Anyway, there we are - despite that long lost of negatives it was still wonderful to hear ALW's gorgeous score performed by a full orchestra. And the cast's vocals were lovely. And I would even go so far as to say not including Les Mis and Phantom, it's my personal fave show currently on in London. I still hope for a cast recording.
I just feel it could have been so much more! My seat no doubt didn't help my visual misgivings and I have booked again from much further back - hopefully this will elevate it from 3.5 to a solid 4 stars for me!
|
|
78 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by westendfan1 on May 28, 2023 11:21:55 GMT
Also the Jenny storyline has been sanitised to the point that I am amazed it could offend anyone. Preferred the genuine awkwardness and intake of breath version of the original. It's meant to be uncomfortable. All the edits feel like it's apologising for the original. And I think in that it's really lost something. I couldn't agree more with this. Of course it's meant to be uncomfortable! That's literally the point. |
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on May 28, 2023 12:31:50 GMT
There was a lot of use of of full size stage drapes with paintings on them to depict scenes (is there a special name for these in theatre?!) They remind me of 1970's/early 1980's sets, before the mega musicals came along. Then after that bare staging and projections took over. You don't see them much now but I just thought they looked really old fashioned. (Are they used more in opera? I noted that is the designers background) I've not seen the production but it sounds like the word you're looking for is backcloth or backdrop. I'm not sure I'd say they're used more in opera productions than musicals overall, as plenty of modern opera productions go for minimalism & projections. However I would say that if a production hires John MacFarlane then they're likely expecting/wanting painted backdrops as that's his usual style. |
|
1,381 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by BVM on May 28, 2023 13:19:30 GMT
There was a lot of use of of full size stage drapes with paintings on them to depict scenes (is there a special name for these in theatre?!) They remind me of 1970's/early 1980's sets, before the mega musicals came along. Then after that bare staging and projections took over. You don't see them much now but I just thought they looked really old fashioned. (Are they used more in opera? I noted that is the designers background) I've not seen the production but it sounds like the word you're looking for is backcloth or backdrop. I'm not sure I'd say they're used more in opera productions than musicals overall, as plenty of modern opera productions go for minimalism & projections. However I would say that if a production hires John MacFarlane then they're likely expecting/wanting painted backdrops as that's his usual style. Thanks Dawn. Yeah backcloths! Really got me thinking that in most musicals I’ve seen last 30 years they’re hardly used. But I think very very common back in the day…. I’d have preferred UHD projections really. My mind can’t make the leap of indignation from a painted cloth that I’m looking at a real scene. (Though it can from something more minimalist). |
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on May 28, 2023 14:05:53 GMT
I’d have preferred UHD projections really. My mind can’t make the leap of indignation from a painted cloth that I’m looking at a real scene. (Though it can from something more minimalist). I'm the other way round in general. I certainly like MacFarlane's designs for the Royal Ballet's Swan Lake and Birmingham Royal Ballet's Nutcracker, which are the productions of his that I've seen in the last few years. |
|
4,959 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on May 28, 2023 14:18:14 GMT
Macfarlene and Laura P-P are why I want to see this production.
|
|
608 posts
|
Post by chernjam on May 28, 2023 20:11:16 GMT
So I went to see this on Friday. It is my second favourite ALW score (after Starlight Express) and I have seen all the previous UK productions. Was so excited when was announced this was coming back to the West End. Basically I couldn't have been more pumped to see it or ready to love it. But I didn't love it. I really liked it. But it just didn't quite do it for me. Been trying to analyse quite why ever since and am not sure I can quite put my finger on it. Rambling thoughts follow in no particular order and including spoilers. It's mainly the negatives below but this is in the context that I did enjoy it and would probs give it 3.5 stars. But as it's a show I love so much, just why I'd not give it more. All very much IMHO and things I didn't like, perhaps others would. ! So appreciate the honest and thoughtful assessment from a fellow AOL fan  I'm really hoping for a cast recording to help decide whether to break the bank and plan the trip from the US to London to see this or not. I mean it's not likely we'll ever see a full blown production with a pretty full orchestra of Aspects again. I was happy when it was announced and suprised in this day of cancelling/PC run amok they were doing it (as borne out by some of the reviews "why revive such a troubled show that should have been forgotten...") It really is one of ALW's most beautiful scores that is underrated and forgotten, mostly because of the storyline, not to mention being sandwiched between Sunset and Phantom. And honestly, I do hope they preserve this on film as, like I mentioned, its unlikely to be revived again. For us fans, it would be nice to have it to go back to. BVM - curious about the cuts you referenced - were there specific sections from the original that were cut? I'm also curious about where is the placement of Love Changes Everything. Since it opened the show previously where did it end up now that George sings it and how does the show open? |
|
1,381 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by BVM on May 29, 2023 7:34:23 GMT
So I went to see this on Friday. It is my second favourite ALW score (after Starlight Express) and I have seen all the previous UK productions. Was so excited when was announced this was coming back to the West End. Basically I couldn't have been more pumped to see it or ready to love it. But I didn't love it. I really liked it. But it just didn't quite do it for me. Been trying to analyse quite why ever since and am not sure I can quite put my finger on it. Rambling thoughts follow in no particular order and including spoilers. It's mainly the negatives below but this is in the context that I did enjoy it and would probs give it 3.5 stars. But as it's a show I love so much, just why I'd not give it more. All very much IMHO and things I didn't like, perhaps others would. ! So appreciate the honest and thoughtful assessment from a fellow AOL fan I'm really hoping for a cast recording to help decide whether to break the bank and plan the trip from the US to London to see this or not. I mean it's not likely we'll ever see a full blown production with a pretty full orchestra of Aspects again. I was happy when it was announced and suprised in this day of cancelling/PC run amok they were doing it (as borne out by some of the reviews "why revive such a troubled show that should have been forgotten...") It really is one of ALW's most beautiful scores that is underrated and forgotten, mostly because of the storyline, not to mention being sandwiched between Sunset and Phantom. And honestly, I do hope they preserve this on film as, like I mentioned, its unlikely to be revived again. For us fans, it would be nice to have it to go back to. BVM - curious about the cuts you referenced - were there specific sections from the original that were cut? I'm also curious about where is the placement of Love Changes Everything. Since it opened the show previously where did it end up now that George sings it and how does the show open? Thanks Chernjam - yes we've chatted AOL a lot over the years haven't we :-) So it is definitely a full production with a full orchestra and I totally agree with you that I can't see that happening again any time soon (probably not in my lifetime!). And certainly things that didn't work for me visually (like all the painted backcloths) and I thought looked a bit cheap, others have liked so much of it is down to personal taste no doubt. More spoilers follow: As for the cuts - no, no whole sections have been axed. There are just lots and lots of small lines removed all the way through. So if you know the OLC backwards you'll often be expecting a line that doesn't come. But all scenes other than the prologue are as per the original. The show now opens immediately at Rose's first theatre performance "the master builder is dead." Love Changes Everything is now mid Act 1. Just as George is leaving Pau for the first time having met Rose; so just after the "I've had a splendid time, a truly splendid time" section. Then one verse at the end of the Act is reprised by Alex as usual. They have got rid of the big ending to Act 2 though. And the show ends with Guilietta saying "hand me the wine and the dice and perish the thought of tomorrow." It's slightly underwhelming though I know ALW always wanted it to have this subtler ending but thought the people wanted the high note of Love Changes Everything again! |
|
1,381 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by BVM on May 29, 2023 16:17:59 GMT
Another daft change I just remembered: {Spoiler - click to view}
When Alex shoots Rose, Elizabeth immediately says something like "she's fine it's just a graze" before George says "my only genuine Matisse, thank God no damage done." So you totally lose the comedy that George either cares more about the painting than Rose or is in a state of shock so pretends he does. Lots of little examples of how they've made it safer but feels like change for changes sake! |
|
2,242 posts
|
Post by richey on May 29, 2023 16:21:57 GMT
Another daft change I just remembered: {Spoiler - click to view}
When Alex shoots Rose, Elizabeth immediately says something like "she's fine it's just a graze" before George says "my only genuine Matisse, thank God no damage done." So you totally lose the comedy that George either cares more about the painting than Rose or is in a state of shock so pretends he does. Lots of little examples of how they've made it safer but feels like change for changes sake! Thats on the original cast recording, so hardly a 'daft change' |
|
1,381 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by BVM on May 29, 2023 16:32:15 GMT
Another daft change I just remembered: {Spoiler - click to view}
When Alex shoots Rose, Elizabeth immediately says something like "she's fine it's just a graze" before George says "my only genuine Matisse, thank God no damage done." So you totally lose the comedy that George either cares more about the painting than Rose or is in a state of shock so pretends he does. Lots of little examples of how they've made it safer but feels like change for changes sake! Thats on the original cast recording, so hardly a 'daft change' The Elizabeth line is what’s been added since! (As in the character. Not Crossrail). I think it is a daft change as it's more amusing/awkward when you think {Spoiler - click to view}
George cares more about the painting than checking Rose is ok. |
|
4,959 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on May 29, 2023 19:23:55 GMT
I'd love it if the Betty line got a name check, perhaps in Seeing is believing
|
|
253 posts
|
Post by frankubelik on May 30, 2023 15:40:28 GMT
I've been flirting with seeing this but cannot justify the absurdly high prices (I'm too old to sit in the "gods"). Today I saw seats become available (official website) in the third row for £39:50 and almost booked but as I need an aisle seat, could not face the thought of being "trapped" in the middle of a row. I wonder if anyone knows what these are? I can't imagine they would be restricted in any way and would imagine if they were house seats or keeps, they would be on sale for a higher price. Curious........
|
|
8,097 posts
|
Post by alece10 on May 30, 2023 15:52:49 GMT
I've been flirting with seeing this but cannot justify the absurdly high prices (I'm too old to sit in the "gods"). Today I saw seats become available (official website) in the third row for £39:50 and almost booked but as I need an aisle seat, could not face the thought of being "trapped" in the middle of a row. I wonder if anyone knows what these are? I can't imagine they would be restricted in any way and would imagine if they were house seats or keeps, they would be on sale for a higher price. Curious........ The only thing I know is that there is no rake for the first 4/5 rows so if younhave someone tall in front of you then you don't get the best view. You maybe better with the TodayTix £25 lottery. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on May 30, 2023 15:54:14 GMT
There always seems to be last minute availability, so whether they are, as you say house seats, or agency allocations being released I do not know. Either way if you pick a day and hang tight I’m sure something suitable will appear. Edit: loads of availability across all price bands tonight.
It’s so disappointing to see so many squeamish reviews for this. People need to grow up and do some research before they go rather than being faux shocked at the subject matter. Most of the needlessly ‘enlightened’ on-line reviewers have clutched their pearls at this in their reviews. It’s 34 years old ffs!
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on May 30, 2023 16:22:25 GMT
I've been flirting with seeing this but cannot justify the absurdly high prices (I'm too old to sit in the "gods"). Today I saw seats become available (official website) in the third row for £39:50 and almost booked but as I need an aisle seat, could not face the thought of being "trapped" in the middle of a row. I wonder if anyone knows what these are? I can't imagine they would be restricted in any way and would imagine if they were house seats or keeps, they would be on sale for a higher price. Curious........ The only thing I know is that there is no rake for the first 4/5 rows so if younhave someone tall in front of you then you don't get the best view. You maybe better with the TodayTix £25 lottery. There is no lottery, sadly! I picked up seats on Tkts on Friday. Band A for £39.50 - same tickets are currently on Tkts for £59! |
|
).
I'm really hoping for a cast recording to help decide whether to break the bank and plan the trip from the US to London to see this or not. I mean it's not likely we'll ever see a full blown production with a pretty full orchestra of Aspects again. I was happy when it was announced and suprised in this day of cancelling/PC run amok they were doing it (as borne out by some of the reviews "why revive such a troubled show that should have been forgotten...") It really is one of ALW's most beautiful scores that is underrated and forgotten, mostly because of the storyline, not to mention being sandwiched between Sunset and Phantom. 
