|
|
Post by max on Jun 4, 2023 8:14:57 GMT
Eva sleeps with Magaldi and moves to the city with him when she’s 15. Better cancel that upcoming Evita concert. How will people cope with the “ick factor”? 😱 I'm sure minor adjustments can be made. "There was nowhere she'd been at the age of fift...um sixt....eigh....oh she's a frickin' grown up, okay?!" has some knock-effects, to stay proportional to the first change but no problem really: High Flying Adored: "High flying adored, so middle aged, the instant queen" "I shame you did it all at forty one" Lament: "Remember, I was really quite old then" |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 4, 2023 13:27:26 GMT
|
|
96 posts
|
Post by tommy on Jun 4, 2023 16:44:34 GMT
Got a £25 stalls ticket for the matinee about halfway back. What a gorgeous production. The vocals are sublime and the staging is very well done. I had only seen it at Southwark previously and thought a bigger production did it justice as you can really see better the different locations and passage of time. We saw the same show then, didn't you also found that yesterday's audience standing ovation at the end said it all - indeed sublime vocals, in such a subtle way as if the singing of the score looked a piece of cake - but I guess not easy at all, which proves the high talented casting. The score and the way it was played sounded wonderful, the repetitive character in the score didn't bother me at all, maybe even its strength. Great staging with fluent scène changes like a combination of a painting and a movie - though in my opinion the images sometimes conflicted a bit with the decor/set design - but perhaps that was meant to be. Cannot understand if somebody would rate it less than 3 stars, at least 4 or 4+ The performances alone I would already rate 5 stars! Also saw the Southwark production a couple of years ago, liked that particular approach too. In that production I remember 'Hand me the Wine and the Dice' had a very strong energy, and a sublime Madalena Alberto. |
|
134 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on Jun 5, 2023 14:49:56 GMT
|
|
520 posts
|
Post by anthony on Jun 5, 2023 17:10:27 GMT
Wait until they discover the plot of Phantom and how old the movie version of POTO makes Christine at the point the story happens... The thing that I hated about the Phantom film was that they made it appear that Erik had been grooming Christine since she was a child. Having a 17-year-old cast as the character didn't help. Well, I hated a LOT about the film, but that grooming implication really unbalanced their relationship. In the novel, Christine has more strength as a character, more agency, even when she's aware she's acting out of pity. Plus she's 21/22 and the "relationship" between vocal teacher/pupil has only been going on for three MONTHS. To be fair, this seems to all stem from a mistranslation in the novel itself- older copies of the text claim she was 15 (but it actually says she had the heart of a 15 year old - in a metaphorical sense!) But Phantom still grooms Christine regardless. But not sure it matters - I've said it a few times here, people only care about Aspects because it is cool to hate on Lloyd Webber at the moment. |
|
4,988 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jun 5, 2023 17:27:39 GMT
Hate? That's quite a strong accusation.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 5, 2023 17:45:46 GMT
Yes, hate is a strong word. I think a fair few people think he’s been hoisted by his own petard; they saw the whole Cinderella shambles as him being a petty tyrant who refused to be stopped by a ‘mere pandemic’, and cared more about his investment than the well being of his cast & crew. Hopefully its subsequent failure on Broadway will convince him that it was just a bit sh!t and that ‘humility’ should be his new vibe for a bit.
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 5, 2023 17:57:37 GMT
He’s not doing so badly though is he? Phantom, Aspects, Evita, Love Never Dies, Sunset Boulevard, Wizard of Oz all either playing or planned. Not to mention the Starlight rumours. Oh to be so unpopular!
|
|
1,287 posts
|
Post by theatrefan77 on Jun 6, 2023 0:05:36 GMT
I enjoyed this. Good cast in general. Loved Danielle de Niese. Didn't care much for Michael Ball as George, his voice sounded strained and he spoke a big portion of Love Changes Everything. He did however hold the final note.
|
|
625 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by chernjam on Jun 6, 2023 0:20:02 GMT
does anyone have any idea or word on whether they will be making a cast recording?
|
|
143 posts
|
Post by Mr Crummles on Jun 6, 2023 10:39:39 GMT
I really enjoyed this: amazing cast, spectacular direction, great everything. I was awed from moment to moment, as the show flowed on, thanks to a clever use of dynamic projections and screens. I especially loved the stunning background paintings (by John Macfarlane) that reminded me of the beauty and vivid theatricality of Tolouse-Lautrec. The audience seemed to have appreciated the show as well because of the standing ovation at the end (in great part, I imagine, in appreciation of Michael Ball). No unusual laughs that I could discern anywhere. I was a little worried about the sanitisation of the story for the more squeamish in our days, but I thought it all worked very well in the end. I thought the ending was extremely interesting, as Alex faced some challenging choices. This production, and a few notes in the programme, made me appreciate better the meaning of the title. I have a feeling that perhaps the older you are, and the more you have lived, the more you are likely to appreciate its idea of love.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbievanhusen on Jun 6, 2023 12:26:21 GMT
I enjoyed this. Good cast in general. Loved Danielle de Niese. Didn't care much for Michael Ball as George, his voice sounded strained and he spoke a big portion of Love Changes Everything. He did however hold the final note. I think Danielle de Niese would be a fabulous Rose in a future production. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jun 6, 2023 12:49:04 GMT
I really enjoyed this: amazing cast, spectacular direction, great everything. I was awed from moment to moment, as the show flowed on, thanks to a clever use of dynamic projections and screens. I especially loved the stunning background paintings (by John Macfarlane) that reminded me of the beauty and vivid theatricality of Tolouse-Lautrec. The audience seemed to have appreciated the show as well because of the standing ovation at the end (in great part, I imagine, in appreciation of Michael Ball). No unusual laughs that I could discern anywhere. I was a little worried about the sanitisation of the story for the more squeamish in our days, but I thought it all worked very well in the end. I thought the ending was extremely interesting, as Alex faced some challenging choices. This production, and a few notes in the programme, made me appreciate better the meaning of the title. I have a feeling that perhaps the older you are, and the more you have lived, the more you are likely to appreciate its idea of love. Interesting review. I agree about the additional resonances likely to gather if you're older. As for the title encompassing myriad aspects, it's quite neat that (now 'Love Changes Everything ' has moved later) the first time the word 'love' is heard would presumably be: "Love". "Don't call me 'love'!". (Marcel & Rose) A testy reaction to over-familiarity, and misuse of the word. The inadequately & dangerously defined word to be explored across the show.
|
|
65 posts
|
Post by dazzlair on Jun 7, 2023 0:06:45 GMT
What an interesting evening for me. It seems like a thousandty years ago that I skipped uni at least 4 times to see Michael Ball wander stage left in his white boxers. AOL remains my favourite ALW score - sumptuous, stirring and psychologically astute. It is also my least favourite ALW book - full of WTF moments that nobody could suspend their disbelief for.
The original for me, will always be definitive. I've seen the Menier version so I can understand why many would think AOL works better as a more intimate chamber piece. However I think the stunning, breathtaking sets (especially the wall that cracked open to transform into the Pyrenees mountains and the fluid moving shutters were needed to match the melodramatic tone of the whole show. It kind of swept me up into a cinematic dreamscape.
This was a solid "reimagining" though not really much has been reimagined apart from what others have already observed. Michael Ball was fabulous and was sorely needed to anchor this version. His worldly, avuncular manner was believable and I thought Love Changes Everything really worked. A man who has seen and done much really deserves to declare that one can live or perish in love's flame.
Laura Pitt-Pulford was good - a fiery, contrary Rose. I just thought Ann Crumb's interpretation was just that bit more rounded. Her Anything But Lonely was really something to behold.
I really enjoyed Anna Unwin as older Jenny. Great acting and I thought she brought depth to quite a cipher of a character. Soophia Foroughi was on as Giuletta and she was every shade of fabulous - rich in tone and utterly believable as the bohemian.
Jamie Bogyo - eeeks! I enjoyed him in Moulin Rouge but whereas young Michael Ball brought a certain charm and likeability, I thought Mr Bogyo was awkward and stiff.
I appreciated the quartet version of "She'd Be Far Better Off With You" with the criminally underused Rosemary Ashe. There was no inappropriate laughter, perhaps because Alex's "It's all my fault" line has been removed. So George's death scene is quick and over with quickly (though I do miss that travellator lol). Loved, loved, loved the sets. The painted backdrops (is that the right word?) were gorgeous and I didn't mind the moving screen as I thought of it as a mechanism to effect the quick cinematic transitions that I think the score demands.
For me, a sold 4 out for 5.
PS. For what it's worth, I sat in Stalls Row C next to an American lady who had bought her ticket that morning for £25.
PPS. Oliver Tompsett was on my train and I just had to tell him how frickin' funny he was in & Juliet lol
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on Jun 8, 2023 15:22:03 GMT
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Jun 8, 2023 20:55:59 GMT
I'm genuinely not sure what I made of this.
After the Menier production I wrote what was practically an essay on this board, extolling its many virtues, waxing lyrical about how it really prised apart the vagaries of the human heart... I've never bought into the 'unlikeable characters' schtick. I have always related a lot to George and his philosophies - memories of happy moments, letting love go free, making the most of every moment, taking more from this life than we ought to take. Honestly, if I could live as any musical theatre character, I think it would be him. I always loved the whole languid, bohemian, European atmosphere of the piece, these characters whose lives revolve around art and theatre and wine and sunlight and the joy of having a flirtatious dalliance, even if its just conversational, with a beautiful other.
Nevertheless, there's something in this production that doesn't quite land for me, and I can't put my finger on it. For the first time, I actually didn't quite warm to the characters. The performances are strong (although Ball doesn't convince as George for me - he just doesn't have the suave sophistication - he's too cuddly and jolly). The score has had some lovely countermelodies and vocal harmonies added. The edits are a mixed bag - making Alex 18 rather than 17 takes away something - a slight hint of danger or madness, and making his family relationship with George crystal clear (the bit George sings about his sister moving to Maine and having a son), both of those undercut the atmosphere somehow. I also thought the ensemble sections were thin - especially the opening/café scene, which lost the whole bustle of backstage and the camaraderie of a troupe of actors, and the Venice section (I really missed all the people chasing Rose for money), as well as the fairground and circus. The whole thing felt a bit sanitised somehow.
I did like the painted backdrops, but as others have noted the projections didn't always fit and often felt distinctly un-period, which was jarring.
I weirdly felt that grown-up Jenny now seemed too old - she and Alex felt very close in age, so the whole teenage crush thing, and Alex's desperate attempt to resist, actually lost its power for me, which is odd considering how troublesome some people are finding it.
I still appreciate the score and wish ALW had followed this path more, weaving together motifs so seamlessly and exploring adult subjects. I still enjoyed it, but didn't fall in love.
|
|
134 posts
|
Post by magnificentdonkey on Jun 8, 2023 23:04:06 GMT
This is slightly off topic, but I just couldn't resist sharing it here.
|
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Jun 9, 2023 7:38:11 GMT
That's a wonderful video. I have fond memories of the original production and the design was absolutely beautiful.
One thing I have always wondered about. I remember reading that they had a full sized Rolls Royce which was used in a scene cut during previews. Did anyone see it or know what the scene depicted?
|
|
|
|
Post by asps2017 on Jun 9, 2023 8:05:22 GMT
Where are people picking up cheaper tickets to this?
|
|
|
|
Post by thistimetomorrow on Jun 9, 2023 8:49:53 GMT
Where are people picking up cheaper tickets to this? They have dynamic pricing and reduce prices on the website on the day or the day before. I think TKTS also has a few on the day deals. |
|
1,582 posts
|
Post by anita on Jun 9, 2023 9:26:31 GMT
I got mine in the summer sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by solangelafitte on Jun 9, 2023 9:52:25 GMT
Where are people picking up cheaper tickets to this? Friends got some for tonight through the TKTS website. I've just checked and second row is still available for £38 which isn't bad at all. Might try for them myself next week! |
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on Jun 9, 2023 10:08:46 GMT
The original for me, will always be definitive. I've seen the Menier version so I can understand why many would think AOL works better as a more intimate chamber piece. However I think the stunning, breathtaking sets (especially the wall that cracked open to transform into the Pyrenees mountains and the fluid moving shutters were needed to match the melodramatic tone of the whole show. It kind of swept me up into a cinematic dreamscape. I totally agree with this :-) |
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on Jun 9, 2023 10:15:16 GMT
I'm genuinely not sure what I made of this. After the Menier production I wrote what was practically an essay on this board, extolling its many virtues, waxing lyrical about how it really prised apart the vagaries of the human heart... I've never bought into the 'unlikeable characters' schtick. I have always related a lot to George and his philosophies - memories of happy moments, letting love go free, making the most of every moment, taking more from this life than we ought to take. Honestly, if I could live as any musical theatre character, I think it would be him. I always loved the whole languid, bohemian, European atmosphere of the piece, these characters whose lives revolve around art and theatre and wine and sunlight and the joy of having a flirtatious dalliance, even if its just conversational, with a beautiful other. Nevertheless, there's something in this production that doesn't quite land for me, and I can't put my finger on it. For the first time, I actually didn't quite warm to the characters. The performances are strong (although Ball doesn't convince as George for me - he just doesn't have the suave sophistication - he's too cuddly and jolly). The score has had some lovely countermelodies and vocal harmonies added. The edits are a mixed bag - making Alex 18 rather than 17 takes away something - a slight hint of danger or madness, and making his family relationship with George crystal clear (the bit George sings about his sister moving to Maine and having a son), both of those undercut the atmosphere somehow. I also thought the ensemble sections were thin - especially the opening/café scene, which lost the whole bustle of backstage and the camaraderie of a troupe of actors, and the Venice section (I really missed all the people chasing Rose for money), as well as the fairground and circus. The whole thing felt a bit sanitised somehow. I did like the painted backdrops, but as others have noted the projections didn't always fit and often felt distinctly un-period, which was jarring. I weirdly felt that grown-up Jenny now seemed too old - she and Alex felt very close in age, so the whole teenage crush thing, and Alex's desperate attempt to resist, actually lost its power for me, which is odd considering how troublesome some people are finding it. I still appreciate the score and wish ALW had followed this path more, weaving together motifs so seamlessly and exploring adult subjects. I still enjoyed it, but didn't fall in love. Other than the painted backdrops which I wasn't a huge fan of, I totally agree with all of this and sums up my feelings very well. Particularly the line in bold! I do agree re Ball - his George was way too cuddly and bubbly for me - moved a long way from the original novella and musical. And it is all sanitised and has lost a lot of dramatic tension. Agree again re the ensemble scenes being very underpowered. In addition, Hand Me The Wine And The Dice, which I have always previously found breathtaking was a huge let down for me. Anyway, second trip next week will hopefully crystallise my views (I still absolutely adore the score - probably ALW's best for the weaving of motifs you describe. This was attempted similarly in Woman In White I think - but to my ear the motifs weren't quite as good!) |
|
287 posts
|
Post by singingbird on Jun 9, 2023 11:17:56 GMT
I'd love to hear how you respond to your second trip. I agree about WiW, but what I like about Aspects is that there are lots of musical motifs that never become proper songs, and I think that's really unusual. In fact, in this new version the hero doesn't even have one single solo song. The show really is one long, unwinding piece of music and I can't think of another musical quite like it in that regard. |
|
