|
|
Post by theatrelover97 on Sept 24, 2023 0:07:15 GMT
Well, the show is already out there so none of this really matters anyway. Perhaps any people who are incensed that this isn't Sunset Boulevard as originally written will picket and protest outside the theater {sarcasm}. See, this is the problem. Emotions run high when discussing subjects, and people get silly and don’t address the topics raised. From my point of view, all shows absolutely can be rebooted while maintaining their integrity to the writer’s intentions. Take Cabaret, for example, at the Kit Kat Klub. I hugely enjoyed that interpretation despite a complete change in direction creatively from productions which preceded it. What that production didn’t need to do was re-write the book or cast performers who don’t match the characters as written. Yet that production felt fresh, exciting and new - with no sets and a smallish band - if that is the definition nowadays of “reimagined”. Cabaret is not that different really. It is actually quite traditional. |
|
|
|
Post by toomasj on Sept 24, 2023 0:09:55 GMT
See, this is the problem. Emotions run high when discussing subjects, and people get silly and don’t address the topics raised. From my point of view, all shows absolutely can be rebooted while maintaining their integrity to the writer’s intentions. Take Cabaret, for example, at the Kit Kat Klub. I hugely enjoyed that interpretation despite a complete change in direction creatively from productions which preceded it. What that production didn’t need to do was re-write the book or cast performers who don’t match the characters as written. Yet that production felt fresh, exciting and new - with no sets and a smallish band - if that is the definition nowadays of “reimagined”. Cabaret is not that different really. It is actually quite traditional. Personally for me, it was my first time seeing it in the round with no set whatsoever; I also enjoyed the take on Emcee and Sally compared to the previous productions I’ve seen. But that’s for another thread! It certainly felt non-traditional to me, right down to the building, setting, pre-shows and casting. |
|
1,258 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Sept 24, 2023 0:33:59 GMT
The big issue is that there is little new here. It might be slightly new for a musical but it’s the same stuff seen in any Jamie Lloyd or Ivo van Hove productions. It worked in Network. It didn’t work in All About Eve. And others. Please please stop talking about this as original. It’s ALW accepting that this is a modern take when it’s just a take not understanding the material and trying to make something out of the material that’s not there. Just write something new rather than trying to crowbar an old flawed work into a new mould. It’s not modern. It’s not new. It’s not edgy. It’s not revelatory. It’s just desperate and horribly out of touch. I hate hate hate museum theatre but I also hate desperate attempts to change things for change’s sake when the material is not understood and it becomes about the ego of the director and lead actress. It’s a pretty terrible show musically and it absolutely doesn’t need a version which smacks of ego and commercialisation when they had to chance to do something interesting and not like a student production in Edinburgh which threw every student like idea at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oobi on Sept 24, 2023 1:10:51 GMT
Sunset Boulevard, like it or not, is a piece whereby the the setting, characters and tone is crucial to the telling of the story. It’s why Andrew Lloyd Webber didn’t take Billy Wilder’s work and 90’s it “to the max, brah!”. It’s a period piece. (...) Do you know what? Actually, I think I’d be very interested in seeing this if it was truly modernised and re-written, keeping the music of course, but bravely reworking the piece. Rename the characters (Gemma Desmond, Rylan Gillis), be more modern, update her faded star as being a flash-in-the-pan Big Brother/Love Island contestant. I feel like you're completely contradicting yourself. Are the 1940s setting and characters 100% intrinsic to the show, or would this production have been better if it had totally modernized and rewritten its setting and characters? It sounds like your issue here is less to do with some overriding philosophy of reinvention and more to do with just a personal dislike of Jamie Lloyd's style of reinvention. (Which is fine, but I wish you'd present your artistic opinions as artistic opinions, rather than posing them as a noble crusade against misleading ad campaigns.) |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Sept 24, 2023 1:10:58 GMT
I hate it. Everyone in black and white t-shirts and shorts. No set, no props, busy scenes done in a line with everyone talking to the front. Can’t process everything at the moment, I’m so angry. Orchestra and score are beautiful thankfully. It’s just totally butchered. Thanks for expressing how I feel. I'm really quite upset. Lloyd has mutilated this musical, one of my favourites. The issue is not the paring back to basics, it's having the heart ripped out from the piece. Sunset Boulevard is first and foremost an homage to both silent cinema and to film noir and all they entail: the glamour, the star system, the fan adulation, the style, the melodrama, and that long meandering road that links the cheap Hollywood hang-outs with the upscale mansions of the stars. All of that has been excised. An initial projection tells us we are in 1949, but otherwise you'd never know. The supporting cast randomly wear either all black or all white Nike trainers. Betty edits Joe's film script on a laptop. Those and plenty more deliberate anachronisms serve no purpose other than to irritate and distract. Jamie Lloyd's hi-definition video backdrop (at a 45-degree angle that must result in all manner of geometric distortion for those in the Gods) is as far removed from the look of 35mm celluloid as you can get. The way he has the principal characters frequently turn suddenly to face the handheld, on-stage cameras in exaggerated fashion seems to be a mocking parody of silent screen acting rather than showing any love, understanding or even any familiarity with the genre. That screen by the way already has hundreds of dead pixels, some grouped together very noticeably. Tom Francis as Joe Gillis excels in singing, acting and energy levels. The acting elsewhere ranges from poor (Scherzinger) to serviceable. The main problem is that, Joe apart, all the roles are spectacularly miscast. Scherzinger can sing, but that's insufficient in musical theatre; you have to be able to sell a song to the audience, you have to be able to act through song. A good actor with a weak voice is better than the reverse, but, at West End prices, I expect both good acting and good singing. That's far from the case here. This is the fifth version of the Sunset musical I've seen. It has never failed to move me to tears in certain scenes, and I have never rated a production at less than five stars. That changed tonight. I had no emotional engagement with any characters at any point. Instead, I sat appalled at the car crash before me. The cuts made no sense. (The Lady's Paying is fundamental to understanding Joe's growing unease at his loss of self-respect as he descends to gigolo status.) Joe's outdoors promenade along The Strand, while technically impressive, doesn't actually have any significance. It's just another of Lloyd's gimmicks, most of which he's nicked from other directors who use them far more sensibly and effectively. Judging by the way Saturday night's crowd ovated and applauded, this new interpretation has plenty of admirers, but I just felt like screaming out the obvious that Emperor Lloyd was not actually wearing any new finery. One star. Act 1: 19:34-20:40 Act 2: 21:01-22:05* *The play-out music finished at either 22:00 or 22:05, but I think it was the latter. I was so wound up by what had gone before it's affected my memory! |
|
622 posts
|
Post by chernjam on Sept 24, 2023 2:45:16 GMT
I'm thoroughly enjoying all the back and forth on here between admirers and those who aren't. I'm far from a well-versed theater-goer. There will be years when I don't get into NYC which is only 20 miles away from me, and then there will be years like 2017 when I saw the revival of Sunset Blvd 5 times (as well as Sunday in the Park with George twice). I am biased towards ALW and all his works, but never saw School of Rock (never saw and never wanted to see the movie and the recording of the score didn't really get me excited). And as much as I enjoyed all the pre-production drops of Cinderella, thinking each song revealed another great score, again, the source material never appealed to me, and then hearing all the campiness of there version along with the melodrama and seemingly mis-cast lead here, well, it was another pass. So I'm in a weird category of being an ALW fan - with a shelf full of multiple recordings of the same show that I listen to regularly - but not a blind sycophant of him and his works. Anyway, my understanding or exposure to Jamie Lloyd is very minimal. I had obviously read and heard a lot and likened it to a lot of hype directed towards someone who is staging things in a minimalist way. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Sunset 2017 revival was as well - what made that extravagant was a 40 piece orchestra (10 smaller than you had across the pond!) But I thought Lonnie Price had done some really interesting things that brought different dimensions to the story (the "ghost Norma" which seemed to divide people, I loved, because it made Norma more vulnerable and the audience felt deeper empathy for an old woman truly trapped in her past, not ever able to move on or find joy since) The more I thought about it, one of the challenges ALW and the creative team had with this was the knives were out from the get-go when they first set about to do this. Aspects was far from the hit of its predecessors. And now ALW/RUG really were trying to demonstrate they didn't need Cameron Macintosh. The critics, at least here in the US never really gave ALW any respect. And now with adapting Sunset Blvd -something that the sainted-Sondheim had attempted and abandoned - something considered US cinema classic - the scrutiny was epic. Add that Billy Wilder was alive and well and unfiltered as well. So had they even tried something like the "ghost Norma" he would've hated it and given everyone another talking point to bash this. So in retrospect, the creative team was very constrained to the source material. Which is why I'm excited to read and hear all this buzz about this fresh take on things. I listened to the score today skipping "The Ladys Paying" and "Eternal Youth..." and as much as I enjoyed them in the previous incarnations, they really weren't missed and I could see how just those cuts raise the intensity of the darkness of this piece. Add the change to "too much in love to care"- tonally it makes more sense. And I've been saying for awhile, especially after the 2017 revival, when I took some friends who were in the 20's, I could see that without some updates, this show would probably never have a future successful life as a revival. Silent pictures/talkies - Cecil B De Mille - its ancient cinema history by now. But the major themes of this show, the human psychological drama, betrayals, etc. sadly are universal themes that people can sadly relate to. From these early reports, it sounds like Jamie Lloyd has found a way to unlock that and get people truly excited for a favorite score of mine in a way that I haven't seen from any of the revivals, including the 2017 ENO one. So here's fingers crossed it transfers - or else I'm going to have to break down and come over and see this and I don't think my bank account can take that  |
|
121 posts
|
Post by theatregeek on Sept 24, 2023 6:09:56 GMT
I hate it. Everyone in black and white t-shirts and shorts. No set, no props, busy scenes done in a line with everyone talking to the front. Can’t process everything at the moment, I’m so angry. Orchestra and score are beautiful thankfully. It’s just totally butchered. Thanks for expressing how I feel. I'm really quite upset. Lloyd has mutilated this musical, one of my favourites. The issue is not the paring back to basics, it's having the heart ripped out from the piece. Sunset Boulevard is first and foremost an homage to both silent cinema and to film noir and all they entail: the glamour, the star system, the fan adulation, the style, the melodrama, and that long meandering road that links the cheap Hollywood hang-outs with the upscale mansions of the stars. All of that has been excised. An initial projection tells us we are in 1949, but otherwise you'd never know. The supporting cast randomly wear either all black or all white Nike trainers. Betty edits Joe's film script on a laptop. Those and plenty more deliberate anachronisms serve no purpose other than to irritate and distract. Jamie Lloyd's hi-definition video backdrop (at a 45-degree angle that must result in all manner of geometric distortion for those in the Gods) is as far removed from the look of 35mm celluloid as you can get. The way he has the principal characters frequently turn suddenly to face the handheld, on-stage cameras in exaggerated fashion seems to be a mocking parody of silent screen acting rather than showing any love, understanding or even any familiarity with the genre. That screen by the way already has hundreds of dead pixels, some grouped together very noticeably. Tom Francis as Joe Gillis excels in singing, acting and energy levels. The acting elsewhere ranges from poor (Scherzinger) to serviceable. The main problem is that, Joe apart, all the roles are spectacularly miscast. Scherzinger can sing, but that's insufficient in musical theatre; you have to be able to sell a song to the audience, you have to be able to act through song. A good actor with a weak voice is better than the reverse, but, at West End prices, I expect both good acting and good singing. That's far from the case here. This is the fifth version of the Sunset musical I've seen. It has never failed to move me to tears in certain scenes, and I have never rated a production at less than five stars. That changed tonight. I had no emotional engagement with any characters at any point. Instead, I sat appalled at the car crash before me. The cuts made no sense. (The Lady's Paying is fundamental to understanding Joe's growing unease at his loss of self-respect as he descends to gigolo status.) Joe's outdoors promenade along The Strand, while technically impressive, doesn't actually have any significance. It's just another of Lloyd's gimmicks, most of which he's nicked from other directors who use them far more sensibly and effectively. Judging by the way Saturday night's crowd ovated and applauded, this new interpretation has plenty of admirers, but I just felt like screaming out the obvious that Emperor Lloyd was not actually wearing any new finery. One star. Act 1: 19:34-20:40 Act 2: 21:01-22:05* *The play-out music finished at either 22:00 or 22:05, but I think it was the latter. I was so wound up by what had gone before it's affected my memory! Thank you for so eloquently rounding up my thoughts, I’ve been struggling to come to terms with it since Thursday. I’m not a fuddy duddy who only wants to see the original version of classics like this, I was at the Guys and Dolls matinee on Thursday afternoon - a show I’ve performed in a couple of times - and absolutely adored it! The cabaret re-invention worked really well, even the modern versions of Superstar have still remained loyal to the storyline/period, but not so here. I had my expectations set accordingly - or so I thought - but sadly it was change, shock and butchery for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Sept 24, 2023 6:44:20 GMT
I relate to your frustration, but your prescriptions are nutty. Theatre is and always has been a transformative medium. I think it's completely unreasonable for anybody to go into a show and expect it to have the same costumes or sets or staging as a version they saw decades ago. Of course, productions that mark a radical departure should convey their new vision, but that's precisely what the two shows you mentioned do: Oklahoma's website says "Oklahoma! as you’ve never seen it before – re-orchestrated and reimagined for the 21st century"; Sunset's website says "reimagined by visionary director JAMIE LLOYD for a new generation". This is perfectly sufficient to inform audience members what they're in for. It's just petty to demand a name change. (As an aside, “Sunset Boulevard: The New Millennium” might literally be the worst thing I have ever heard.) I also disliked the new Oklahoma but I was never under under any impression that the production was traditional. When a piece becomes so far removed from the source material, in my view, it takes on a new life as a piece of art independent to the original work. Shakespeare, as an example cited a few pages back as a piece of transformative theatre, has had centuries to grow. It can find new audiences from slow, steady growth. It doesn’t need a “visionary” to reinvent the text - it’s an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. Sunset Boulevard, like it or not, is a piece whereby the the setting, characters and tone is crucial to the telling of the story. It’s why Andrew Lloyd Webber didn’t take Billy Wilder’s work and 90’s it “to the max, brah!”. It’s a period piece. Keeping references to the original setting (who on earth as young people know who Cecil B. De Mille is nowadays, or the concept of silent movies for that matter - I had to explain to a young niece was a cassette tape was) is disingenuous. Do you know what? Actually, I think I’d be very interested in seeing this if it was truly modernised and re-written, keeping the music of course, but bravely reworking the piece. Rename the characters (Gemma Desmond, Rylan Gillis), be more modern, update her faded star as being a flash-in-the-pan Big Brother/Love Island contestant. Perhaps I’m being a touch facetious (Sunset Boulevard: Social Media Edition”). But when a piece becomes so far removed from the original construct, surely as I type this, it is as much of a leech of the original material as any David Ian or Kenwright tour. Art is art. You make your own expectations. I have to agree that the marketing & buzz around this have made it clear that it will be radically different from what has gone before. If people can’t be bothered doing their research, or indeed decide to task a risk, it is unfortunately on them when they don’t enjoy it. |
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 24, 2023 6:47:48 GMT
I don’t get the problem here? You pay to see and hear Sunset Boulevard- and that’s what you are getting. Any clued up person will know what to expect with Jamie Lloyd directing. This was never going to be that original Adelphi production, and rightly it is a different take on it. I doubt even 50 people in the audience each show know who Jamie Lloyd even is. Thetare is expensive nowadays and the main people who can afford the prices of the more expensive seats will be older wealthier people who are often more Conservative in nature. My daughters (12 / 14) sat with me in row E stalls last night, are far from Conservative in nature, have seen over 50 different professional theatre productions in their lifetime, and declared this production of Sunset Boulevard to be the best thing they have ever seen. I'd disagree as I've seen many fantastic works, but there's no doubting this is a brilliant reinvention that simply wouldn't have been possible a few years ago. Somebody used the word meta earlier in the thread and I'd agree. Those wanting a big set, cars, pools, gimmicks, will be disappointed. In this show the music and story do the talking and I promise you that Sunset has never sounded better. I will concede, two people behind me left at the interval, and there were one or two bemused faces struggling with the minimalism. My view is that anybody who wants a memory of the original should watch a bootleg, and there can be no bigger irony for this production than an audience stuck in time, unable to move on, wanting faithful replications of what they have always known, wanted and expected. |
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Sept 24, 2023 7:13:25 GMT
When a piece becomes so far removed from the source material, in my view, it takes on a new life as a piece of art independent to the original work. Shakespeare, as an example cited a few pages back as a piece of transformative theatre, has had centuries to grow. It can find new audiences from slow, steady growth. It doesn’t need a “visionary” to reinvent the text - it’s an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. Sunset Boulevard, like it or not, is a piece whereby the the setting, characters and tone is crucial to the telling of the story. It’s why Andrew Lloyd Webber didn’t take Billy Wilder’s work and 90’s it “to the max, brah!”. It’s a period piece. Keeping references to the original setting (who on earth as young people know who Cecil B. De Mille is nowadays, or the concept of silent movies for that matter - I had to explain to a young niece was a cassette tape was) is disingenuous. Do you know what? Actually, I think I’d be very interested in seeing this if it was truly modernised and re-written, keeping the music of course, but bravely reworking the piece. Rename the characters (Gemma Desmond, Rylan Gillis), be more modern, update her faded star as being a flash-in-the-pan Big Brother/Love Island contestant. Perhaps I’m being a touch facetious (Sunset Boulevard: Social Media Edition”). But when a piece becomes so far removed from the original construct, surely as I type this, it is as much of a leech of the original material as any David Ian or Kenwright tour. I guess you're happy with going to museum theatre then.... The irony that while ALW didn't touch Sunset Boulevard in terms of the setting, the stage adaptation of Whistle Down the Wind moved from rural England to the deep South so it's not like he's a purist. The original book of Whistle was set in the South; it was the film that transposed it to England. I really dislike the term ‘museum theatre’! As if any production which doesn’t trample all over its source material is somehow stuffy and out of date. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Sept 24, 2023 7:54:24 GMT
The original book of Whistle was set in the South; it was the film that transposed it to England. It was always in England, just moved from south to north. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Sept 24, 2023 7:57:39 GMT
I guess you're happy with going to museum theatre then.... The irony that while ALW didn't touch Sunset Boulevard in terms of the setting, the stage adaptation of Whistle Down the Wind moved from rural England to the deep South so it's not like he's a purist. The original book of Whistle was set in the South; it was the film that transposed it to England. I really dislike the term ‘museum theatre’! As if any production which doesn’t trample all over its source material is somehow stuffy and out of date. I’m pretty sure it’s just being used to demonstrate some sort of intellectual superiority in this case; if you enjoy it you are somehow behind the times? Not just having appreciation for something done differently or a preference? Edit: perhaps ‘heritage theatre’ is a little gentler? |
|
1,484 posts
|
Post by theatrefan62 on Sept 24, 2023 7:58:40 GMT
The original book of Whistle was set in the South; it was the film that transposed it to England. I really dislike the term ‘museum theatre’! As if any production which doesn’t trample all over its source material is somehow stuffy and out of date. I’m pretty sure it’s just being used to demonstrate some sort of intellectual superiority in this case; if you enjoy it you are somehow behind the times? Not just having appreciation for something done differently… That's the way it comes across to me too. It's been used in several threads and usually has a tone of superiority |
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 24, 2023 8:06:50 GMT
Sunset Blvd – a truncated ironic pastiche of an old film versus modern expectations and entitlements
I’ve gathered my thoughts, for what they are worth. Let’s tackle the elephant that is stomping around the room right now… This production will not be for everybody. I think it is superb, but I still have doubts about whether enough people will be curious enough to buy up the significant number of tickets that remain. A hunch says they will, but perhaps not at the prices currently being demanded. This one will definitely come down to reviews and word of mouth.
I think reviews will be split. Some critics will ‘get it’ whilst others will absolutely loathe it. I loved it, and here’s why…
The set is a black box old fashioned cinema set with old lamps and objects at the back, juxtaposed with very modern lighting running down the left and the right. The much talked about screen forms the roof of the box and you don’t know it is there until it descends for the first time. (Incidentally, somebody mentioned dead pixels in an earlier post – from my seat last night, the dark spots on the panels I saw were fake blood from the end scene, all of which is done in the dark. Also, these large screens comprise many smaller panels, so any defective or burnt panels can be removed relatively easily.)
The sound is incredible… One of the best sound experiences I have ever had the pleasure to enjoy. My message to the purists who pine for a more traditional production is to go and sit with your eyes closed and just enjoy the music – it is worth the ticket price on its own.
The cast is excellent. Nicole Scherzinger as Norma certainly puts in a shift, and before the show I felt that Rachel Tucker might be a good fallback if I was disappointed. I wasn’t disappointed… I simply can not imagine this show without Nicole Scherzinger, who sings immaculately and beautifully, and acts unhinged in a hugely convincing way. She reminds me of my ex-wife. For me, Tom Francis absolutely owns the role of Joe – I can’t find enough words to describe how great his performance is, and how being so close up last night I could really see the character evolve through the performance. Grace Hodgett Young as Betty has a beautiful voice and I see lots of tv/film work coming her way, as on the big close-ups her face and eyes said so much. David Thaxton as Max was also superb (my favourite interpretation will probably always be Adam Pearce’s) and I love the fact that “YoungThacko” was able to do his own unhinging scene on the “Lights, Camera, Action” scene at the end. He does controlled despair so damn well.
The ensemble are all dressed in black and white, and some of the choices felt a little odd to me – I kept telling myself this was set many years ago, but the accoutrements such as branded trainers and three stripe socks on some reminded me that it is 2023. Was this deliberate? Hopefully. Probably some kind of subtle nod to product placement in today’s tv and cinema. Or perhaps it is to contrast with Norma who seems totally ‘stuck in time’, whereas the ensemble moves around her with a fluidity and relevance that she no longer seems to have.
Is this production minimalism? Expressionism? Abstract expressionism? Theatrical brutalism?! The purists will hate it. This is no bad thing in my view, as it is a complete reinterpretation. It is bold, brash, sassy, feels adventurous, a little dangerous, edgy, unnerving at times, yet true to the tradition of theatre in so many ways in terms of technique, the effective use of a chorus, the simple use of smoke and light to create and mirror changing moods. This production makes many others look and feel dated, which in itself is an interesting achievement.
And so on to that much talked about opening scene for the second half… I DO believe that it is / was done live. However, I have reasons to believe it might also be recorded. Reasons for it being live: it was one continuous seamless ‘take’, it felt believable, uncontrived, lots of fiddling with the earpiece after it was dislodged in a hug with another cast member, the walk out the stage door, up the hill past the Coal Shed pub, down the Strand, stopping outside the front of the theatre to look at a poster of the Scherz, then in through the doors, down loads of stairs and in to the theatre via Stalls door audience right. Reasons for it not being live: lips were out of synch occasionally with an absolutely flawlessly sounding orchestra and vocal; there was no background noise of traffic, sirens, people; the light levels felt too light – darker dusk, rather than night time; the Strand was way too empty for a Saturday night (little traffic and very few people); there was no noise going past the Coal Shed pub; there is a point just before Joe enters the stalls where an usher opens the doors and I think that this might be a switch point between a pre-recorded track and the live vocal. I might be wrong, and I am not trying to deconstruct or spoil the moment for others – however it is achieved, it is a coup de theatre and (again) worthy of the ticket price for its bold ambition. How could it be improved? I would mix in some traffic noise/sirens/ pub noise at the relevant points on the outdoor section to give it more ambience, unless the surreal purity and clarity of sound is another subtle nod towards the juxtaposition of silent movies vs talkies vs modern day expectations for surround sound perfection.
If people are going along expecting swimming pools, opulent sets, big car chases, overtly camp over-acting, this isn’t the show for you. I must admit, the one thing I felt when I last saw this show was dispelled last night. When I saw Glenn Close in SB at the Coliseum, I loved it (and her) but the show and audience felt like a cliquey club, with little in-jokes, famous lines, and the kind of knowing laughter that I’ve only really ever felt at Shakespeare productions where the oddball academic is sitting there as the only person “getting” the obscure references or jokes. The Coliseum version whilst fantastic, made me feel a bit like an outsider. Somebody used the term “museum theatre” and I would agree with this, in the sense that the Coliseum production felt like it was trying to meet and exceed the expectations of the audience, and the super-fans, all of whom wanted to see and hear certain things in certain places at certain times.
This production doesn’t indulge such people, so as a result, the super-fans will possibly feel alienated and hurt by what feels like an absolute trashing of their expectations and previous experiences. However, if you believe that the star of the show is actually the music, then this production excels on all fronts, as it pops the cork of the Sunset bottle, and is brave and bold enough to let the glories breathe and acclimatise, in synch with a recalibration of the audience expectation and experience when seeing this show either for the first time, or as a curious return visitor who remembers the glory and wonder of previous productions.
It's black and white, it’s definitely marmite, and whilst I understand why this will alienate and upset many people, for me I thought it was absolutely stunning, and I have never been so quick to get to my feet at the end of a show. (And I have seen/see a huge amount of theatre during my lifetime.) Without a doubt this show and several of the cast will be shortlisted for future awards in what looks like a very competitive field in the next awards season. The biggest compliment I can give it is that whilst Nicole Scherzinger is obviously a big draw for many people, the buzz and chat about this production seems to be about the core content, music and staging (which, for me, is what theatre should be about). This production could (and should) be replicated with any cast and still be a success. Five stars from me (only because a sixth star is not available), but caveated with a full disclaimer that I fully appreciate some people will pathologically HATE this production.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattnyc on Sept 24, 2023 8:37:59 GMT
Quick note on the act two opening. I saw this for the second time last night and noticed subtle differences from people on the street than I did the first preview, so it certainly wasn’t the same “video”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2023 8:49:13 GMT
Maybe we sometimes lack language with adequate shared meaning to describe different productions and help people manage their expectations.
I associate "museum theatre" less with an air of superiority and more with suggesting a work be a faithful reproduction of a show's original staging similar to a work from the past preserved in a museum's permanent collection. Of course, one might be trying to project an air of superiority by suggesting you're more open to new interpretations than someone who wants only to see replica productions.
Some shows are generally faithful reproductions of the book (and the score if a musical) even if the staging or period of the piece is reimagined to some degree. I think this often happens with the "classics."
Other productions significantly reinterpret or reimagine the book and/or score (major cuts, reordering songs and text, eliminating characters out right, et al), but may or may not use the more traditional or expected staging and period.
And some productions, of course, sort of blow everything up.
I'm sure other categorizations exist beyond those I've mentioned.
|
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 24, 2023 8:58:17 GMT
Quick note on the act two opening. I saw this for the second time last night and noticed subtle differences from people on the street than I did the first preview, so it certainly wasn’t the same “video”. I think the video aspect is live (ish) but I think the vocal is precorded. |
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Sept 24, 2023 9:07:19 GMT
The original book of Whistle was set in the South; it was the film that transposed it to England. It was always in England, just moved from south to north. My mistake! Apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by toomasj on Sept 24, 2023 9:16:53 GMT
The sound is incredible… One of the best sound experiences I have ever had the pleasure to enjoy. My message to the purists who pine for a more traditional production is to go and sit with your eyes closed and just enjoy the music – it is worth the ticket price on its own. You’re… you’re joking, right? |
|
3,476 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 24, 2023 9:28:56 GMT
The sound is incredible… One of the best sound experiences I have ever had the pleasure to enjoy. My message to the purists who pine for a more traditional production is to go and sit with your eyes closed and just enjoy the music – it is worth the ticket price on its own. You’re… you’re joking, right? No, not joking at all. Some people seem as stuck in the past and unable to move forward as Norma herself, so if what people seek are memories, the music alone will evoke those memories. What purists won't get is a re-creation or emulation of the previous opulent and extravagant versions. This version holds up a mirror to the audience, some of whom might well be stuck in their own Norma-esque black and white freeze-frame... |
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on Sept 24, 2023 9:32:46 GMT
The sound is incredible… One of the best sound experiences I have ever had the pleasure to enjoy. My message to the purists who pine for a more traditional production is to go and sit with your eyes closed and just enjoy the music – it is worth the ticket price on its own. You’re… you’re joking, right? Serious I expect. I had the same thought. The vocals, orchestration, sound design and score are so thrilling. It would be hard even for people who don’t enjoy Jamie Lloyd visuals to at least not get something from the sound. God I hope we get a cast recording! |
|
|
|
Post by toomasj on Sept 24, 2023 9:33:39 GMT
Heck of a lot of effort and money for people to go and see a production they know they will hate, then shut their eyes for the duration. As opposed to, say, listening to the one of the bootlegs of the show already on Tumblr and other social media from the comfort of their own home.
|
|
1,432 posts
|
Post by BVM on Sept 24, 2023 9:35:29 GMT
You’re… you’re joking, right? No, not joking at all. Some people seem as stuck in the past and unable to move forward as Norma herself, so if what people seek are memories, the music alone will evoke those memories. What purists won't get is a re-creation or emulation of the previous opulent and extravagant versions. This version holds up a mirror to the audience, some of whom might well be stuck in their own Norma-esque black and white freeze-frame... Exactly! People wanting something faithful to the original. The orchestrations and musical direction is very faithful. Unlike, for example, the new Oklahoma. Or Rent Remixed lol. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Sept 24, 2023 9:46:05 GMT
... My view is that anybody who wants a memory of the original should watch a bootleg, and there can be no bigger irony for this production than an audience stuck in time, unable to move on, wanting faithful replications of what they have always known, wanted and expected. It's frankly a little insulting to attack detractors as "stuck in time", etc. and to blame the failure on us. I loved All About Eve and Roman Tragedies for example, just to pick two contemporary reimaginings. I went in knowing this would be vastly different, and that was exciting, but I did not expect the essence of the original gone. Someone said "art is art", but art fails to be art when it is done badly (cf. Tracey Emin). Anyone with a brain can look at creator choices and construct pretentious explanations as to meaning and relevance -- heck, that's how most art critics make their living -- but when it fails entirely to resonate in the moment, something is wrong. |
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Sept 24, 2023 9:48:46 GMT
...Forgot to say, the dead pixels were just that. They were there before any blood, and blood does not form into neat rectangles, comprised of adjacent dead pixels.
|
|
