1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 20, 2017 0:43:50 GMT
I'm apprehensive now, as if my expectations weren't high enough with the hype and word of mouth from Broadway, with the raves from here too, I hope when I see it that it won't live up too the hype. Although it happens with every show I suppose. A recent example being 42nd Street, where it recieved raves from everyone who saw it, and then as time went on some went dissapointed, likely because of the amazing word of mouth prior making their expectations so high. We know (and you know) you're going to love it...
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 16, 2017 1:02:57 GMT
It'll be interesting if this gets a London run either in the West End or the Barbican Contracts signed this week by the cast for the London run. They're on their way. (via a Roman road?)
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 15, 2017 7:52:03 GMT
Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are both raves. Overall it did well...most of the reviews are mixed Really? This from Variety: "How ironic that “Pinocchio” should be a bit lifeless. With Disney handing over the keys to a cherished classic for the first time, “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” director John Tiffany has served up an eye-popping production that is as stiff as a board. For all its staggering stagecraft, this “Pinocchio” is, for the moment, missing real soul." Can you link to the one you read?
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 15, 2017 3:20:38 GMT
3* is what it deserves. None of the mainstream papers have gone above this, beyond Billington as Parsely points out, but his review is more a summing up of events, rather than actual an actual critique. The West End Whingers review is brilliant: westendwhingers.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/review-pinocchio-national-theatre/But the review for Exeunt Magazine nails it in it's first two paragraphs. The show forgot its audience: "I’m sitting in the stalls at the Lyttleton, flanked by two kids. I know the girl to my left: this is Qeiva. She’s ten years old and one of my favourite people to take to the theatre. She’s smart and sparky and utterly unafraid to say what she thinks. By the end of this dark and overly complicated take on Pinocchio – part pantomime, part sh*t scary fable, part nightmarish puppet show and part schmaltzy musical – Qeiva is plaiting my hair and sketching in my notepad. I’m fairly tempted to join her, despite all the imagination and thought that has so obviously been poured into this show (perhaps a little much too thought, a little too many flourishes and not enough plain fun). Meanwhile, there’s the girl on my right. I don’t know this girl but she seems thrilled to be at the theatre. Some of the signs are good: she wriggles to the front of her seat and bounces about with excitement. She gets particularly animated when Pinocchio dances about with the other kids on stage – even if some of the children are wearing grey masks; drinking alcohol and puffing away on pipes; transforming into donkeys (the story just gets weirder and weirder). The girl to my right clearly wants to enjoy the vaudeville performance from the marionettes at Strombolio’s circus, but it feels a bit like a horror movie mixed with a kid’s birthday party (the marionettes look like murderous clowns) and it’s all a little confusing. There are moments that are genuinely frightening; I watch this girl hide beneath her mum’s arms, properly scared and increasingly alienated. And then there are great stretches of this show during which this girl visibly droops and slides down her seat, lost and painfully bored."
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 14, 2017 19:54:10 GMT
Went to the platform tonight which was interesting but I think the press night is tonight as it was busy and Tiffany mentioned it. Maybe something got lost in translation when the NT were changing it. Last night was Press Night. Tonight is their Gala/Sponsors night. Reviews embargoed until after this night so as not to upset the funding peeps in case negative.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 14, 2017 13:15:42 GMT
It's not giving preferenace to negative ones. It's saying that people rarely want others to know that they've had a night out at the theatre and it's been sh*t. Thus you're far more likely to see "I loved this" tweets. Especially from industry people tagging the theatre company/actors in as well. Yes, I know perfectly well to ignore 'friends of the cast', you really think people are stupid and can't discriminate? If a production is poor you get few tweets and non committal words, if it's good you get the sort of wide praise that this show is getting. As for whether shows I won't like get praise, they do and people do like 'Thriller' (shock, horror, people don't like the same things!!). Do your research, see what appeals, see what non aligned people say in their totality, take that on board - never fails.
The English language is a wonderful thing, it allows for all sorts of nuance, it also allows you to summarily dismiss the cynicism and negativity that comes from insiders and jaundiced 'non friends of the company' or (increasingly) those with a political axe to grind......
My goodness, you're very angry about this.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 14, 2017 13:10:43 GMT
Nothing at all from press night yet? Seems very odd. They've been embargoed so as not to impact on the corporate night tonight.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 14, 2017 2:06:15 GMT
Never trust Twitter for theatre reviews. People rarely, if ever, tweet if they've not had a good night. Look at what they say, trust people. Look at their prevalence. It’s foolish to dismiss positive comment and give preference to negative ones. It's not giving preferenace to negative ones. It's saying that people rarely want others to know that they've had a night out at the theatre and it's been sh*t. Thus you're far more likely to see "I loved this" tweets. Especially from industry people tagging the theatre company/actors in as well.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 13, 2017 23:28:28 GMT
I am suspicious of anything that has two directors. Maybe that's a prejudice I should overcome, but when I read "Direction Stephen Daldry & Justin Martin" I have visions of Daldry not turning up and Justin Martin picking up the slack. Alex Lawther is in it, which would usually interest me. You mean like War Horse, or the original Follies or.....?
I presume people interested are seeing/hearing the outstanding word of mouth for this but just in case... twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=jungle%20youngvictheatre&src=typd
In other words, there are few tickets left but don't leave it for long.
Never trust Twitter for theatre reviews. People rarely, if ever, tweet if they've not had a good night.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 13, 2017 23:25:52 GMT
Can anybody tell me where the Friday rush tickets tend to be in the Lyttleton? I'm hoping to bag some tickets in the weekly release Back 2 rows of the Circle.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 13, 2017 23:22:42 GMT
So, I just looked back at my previous #receipts, and hasn't there been an announcement that Chenoweth was also involved a musical adaptation of Soapdish (that was supposed to try out at the Other Palace)..and somehow that fizzled out. emhm. And: "A spokesperson for Universal Theatrical Group confirmed there is no creative team—including a composer, book writer, or director—attached to the project at this time." So it's looking even more remote! They could have attached Meryl & Goldie to it for all this announcement was worth.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 13, 2017 18:21:21 GMT
I happened to love this show...clever, creative and wonderful performances. The storytelling is a bit on the nose and some of the backstory with the Fox doesn't work, but no one ever promised Disney here - it is a Tiffany/NT production. OIs it dark, yes - but i was crying toward the end. Do we think it will get a transfer? Definitely no transfer for this. It's got to survive it's reviews as well... Press Night tonight.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 13, 2017 18:17:59 GMT
😂
Have you read the article on Playbill though?
"A spokesperson for Universal Theatrical Group confirmed there is no creative team—including a composer, book writer, or director—attached to the project at this time."
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 11, 2017 3:01:54 GMT
Were you really there? Did you hear the laughter and applause? Did you see the full standing ovation? Did you see how Elaine Paige roared onto that stage and the laughs she got? Do I need to say anything about the genius of Clary, Wilmot, Zerdin and Havers? The freshness of Diversity and the impact of Stemp and Williams? The Wow factor of the effects and the great London theme It was a much tighter show than last year. Funnier and more spectacular Good to hear you'd go back on a deal though..... doubt that will happen I've already paid full price.... yes I was there...what an odd thing to ask 🤔 Yes I heard the laughter and applause. Did I not say that I enjoyed the show? Yes I did. Did I see the full standing ovation? No, because there wasn't one in the Upper Circle, and I couldn't see the lower levels. Elaine didn't work for me. I'm wholly aware that I may be in the minority. The beauty of having an opinion, eh. I said how much I enjoyed Clary and Havers. I said how talented Zerdin is, my criticism of him is the way that he uses the exact same material every year. No criticism of Stemp or Williams. No criticism of the set or physical production. I've long maintained that Qdos pantos are the best physical productions with the best sets and effects, and that was no different tonight. You thought this one was funnier and tighter than last year, I didn't. How about we accept each other's opinions as they're both equally valid? Cinderella had TodayTix deals in January last time. If I don't want to pay west end prices to watch it again, then it's entirely my prerogative to take the gamble and hold out for a potential deal. Hazarding a guess, but I think dannypc might be involved in the show...
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 9, 2017 23:22:04 GMT
Is this ending early? Just been informed performance on 29th Dec cancelled, with a call to please book 23rd Dec or earlier perf.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 9, 2017 1:02:30 GMT
Speaking of which, would anyone be so lovely as to post the list of Musical Numbers? It's the six songs from the movie (listed on the Wikipedia), some of them played very brief. I was also there Thursday evening and got a £15 ticket at the front of the upper slips (purchased the day before). Excellent view. You lose a tiny part of the stage at the far right where nothing happens. The stalls were pretty full. The circle had around 20 empty seats (in prime positions) free. I didn't try and move into one of them as I liked my view and also had space for my bag (which I should probably have checked in, but I arrived close to the starting time). The slips at the other side were empty, I believe. I don't think they went on sale until that morning. I perhaps should have waited, as I noticed all of the front row became available online at about 10am (£15 seats), along with the other slips. There were maybe 1 or 2 free seats left in the front row. However, although I'm normally a front row person, I think that may have been too close. The theatre is pretty small and many of the puppets are double human height. This definitely isn't a musical. It's a play with some musical elements. The first song isn't until about an hour into the show (there are some single lines from songs, but that's about it). The plot is pretty close to the Disney film. I did really enjoy it, but it needs tightening up too. It ran about 2 hours 30 minutes (the website said 2 hours 20 minutes) and the second half Pleasure Island scene dragged. The script was very mixed. It had some witty adult humour and could do with more (the ratio of adults to children was about 50:1). And designed to be scary (if you find mannequins suddenly moving etc scary). I see this having more of a future as a show for adults than children. The whole production is really simple. Not much in the way of sets, but lots of puppets. It's all ready to tour. Some excellent and varied puppets, with the twist of Pinocchio not being a puppet. I would like to see the puppets mouths move to match the speech, as that looked really odd to me when they didn't. The whale scene is quite spectacular and that's the one for the traditional Disney musical audience. I think it does need some more big set pieces if it's going to be sold as an alternative to the Lion King and Aladdin. I also found the ending really quite moving. Will go back once it's all been tightened up a bit. Yep, you definitely wouldn't want to sit in Row A in the stalls for this. The stage is high and has been extended out to almost touching the front row people. And yes, this really isn't a musical. If any moderators are reading this, it should be put in the PLAYS category, as Sr Tom has pointed out, it is a play, with music.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 9, 2017 0:59:40 GMT
Speaking of which, would anyone be so lovely as to post the list of Musical Numbers? Don’t get too excited. There are only about five and they’re not good. Yep. There aren't many and the ones they do sing, they repeat again...and again...and again...
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 9, 2017 0:58:47 GMT
I went last night. Thought it was jaw droppingly good overall. Loved the big puppets. Loved Pinocchio, Jiminy and Lampy especially. Gepetto was beautifully played. Small boy behind me (aged about 5) was spellbound throughout and loved it. Fantastic final payoff and the Monstro section was out of this world literally. Am now going back and taking my kids and a friend to see it too. The Fox was the least successful part for me - they really need to change his costume and he needs to drop his Trunchballisms. Thoroughly recommend. Thank goodness the kid near you was engaged. The 6 near us were slumped, and one fell asleep!
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 6, 2017 13:13:55 GMT
We were also there on Saturday. Feel very lucky now that we got to see a show at all. Second preview. The only thing that didn't work, as mentioned, was the nose in the second half. It worked fine in the first half, but you could see how easy it might be to fail, as the guy playing Pinocchio really has to press the fake nose to his face hard. We were Row M so got a good effect of the stage overall.
The problem with the show as it stands at the moment is that it's just not magical enough. For all the work that ha gone into the giant puppets, and the flying, etc. the script never allows the show to lift off the page. It also, in it's design, seems to be about four different shows. Connected set pieces that don't quite create a throughline, in the way say War Horse's design and puppet use did.
An awkward problem for the show is the puppets themselves. Jiminy was actually one that fared beter, so if they have got rid of it, that would be a shame. But the giant puppets used for Gepetto, the dead-mum figure, and the Coachman, all seem to big and wieldy. This is turn means they take an age to get on and off stage, slowing it all down and killing the pace. They also seem dead behind the eyes. So you stop looking at the puppet because there's little emotion there, and start looking at the actors instead.
The songs are well done, but it seems like there are only four of them in the entire 2hr 40minute show.
(A reason I would strongly suggest to offer that this thread actually be moved to the plays category.)
This is really not a musical. The only "big" number is "I've Got No Strings" at the end of the first half, repeated to death, and coming from nowhere, just seems too forced. Makes for great production photos, but sitting there watching it, we felt nothing. A lot of sound and lights.
Also, because they've chosen only to use so few songs, they're just repeated on loop throughout. It gets tiring.
The cast worked very hard. Most of the casting choices seem right. The only miscast was the actor playing the Fox who is playing it as some sort of drag act. Very bizarre. And not in the least threatening or scary, as he should be.
As has been mentioned, there are a lot of moments (blue flames galore) taken from Cursed Child, but again, these seem out of place with the stripped back prod values Bob Crowley seems to have gone for in much of his design.
Ultimately though, the story (as someone mentioned, just 88mins in the Disney cartoon) doesn't have the weight to sustain itself (or our attention) for 2hrs 40mins. The kids in the audience looked bored. Never a good sign. Only one boy near me was excited when Jiminy was on (credit to actress and puppeteer operating it). The script, aside from the only vibrant scene in the second half with Dawn Sedgewick from Our Ladies, never provides for the creators to give real action, pace, and adventure.
It is salvageable, but in the time left before press (a week and a half), if the Olivier shows this year were anything to go by, even hacking away and ammending said script, will not be enough.
I think Disney have watched it, and demanded that 2nd cancelled show. It all looks too weak and not exciting or joyous enough.
It will be interesting to hear from others here if they can get the magic and joy back into it, beyond the initial sighting of the big puppets, and lighting effects.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 3, 2017 12:48:57 GMT
It's fairly obvious from all the above posts that the version first previewed is a work-in-progress While I take that comment on board, surely script editing, workshops and rehearsal time should be used for "work in progress". Once a show goes into the theatre technical issues take over the rehearsal time and previews should be used to "bed the show in" and do some minor tweaks/cuts/edits depending on audience reaction etc. not rewrite the piece! Common cancelled more than one preview to amend/totally rewrite its script, if I recall. They never seem to sort the script out in either the workshop stage or rehearsals at the National, and always end up with this. It's so frustrating that they never learn.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Nov 28, 2017 13:31:33 GMT
She's miscast surely as the sister in law. She should be playing the wife...
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Nov 19, 2017 20:30:35 GMT
It's like the Old Vic and Young Vic are having a Vic-off as to which theatre can respond the worst to harrasment allegations...
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Nov 19, 2017 2:01:14 GMT
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Nov 14, 2017 21:58:27 GMT
Good heavens, are people still employing Tunji Kasim? I have to assume he's an absolute delight to have in the rehearsal room, because they cannot be casting him on the grounds of acting ability. Good to know we're not the only ones who struggled with him. The other young actor in it had about 3 lines but acted him off the stage. I was like Give him Tunji's part instead and we'll be fine.
|
|
1,023 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Nov 14, 2017 17:04:30 GMT
What is the casting misstep? Douglas Henshall? Michelle Dockery? I thought her innate blankness worked in the role, but - as I said somewhere else - she seems to build her entire performance around two facial expressions. (But then, she usually does.) Agree about Dockery. She didn't seem to have the natural drive or fire of Diana. Also Tunji Kasim failed for us. He lacked the gravitas and presence to give the required status to that part. We did see an early preview, but would be interested if others felt the same about him. Most tricky in the head-to-heads with Cranston, who even when defeated managed to look stronger than Kasim. Couldn't fault the rest of them.
|
|