5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Feb 14, 2024 0:09:02 GMT
2 stars from the Guardian
4 stars from What's On Stage.
What a wild situation I find myself in where I find myself agreeing with the Guardian critic.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotster on Feb 14, 2024 0:32:50 GMT
4 stars from The Telegraph
3 stars from The Times
|
|
546 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by drmaplewood on Feb 14, 2024 8:04:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 14, 2024 8:26:31 GMT
Is it really ok for a publication to review something from such an aggressively ‘right-on’ standpoint; assuming that its readers don’t already know the background or aren’t capable of balanced human thought? I’m sure they’d be quick to deride The Mail or The Guardian for doing the same. I’m sure it probably is tone deaf, and a celebration of the white saviour, but let us not forget the good that the money did in the short term even if we continue to make the same mistakes? |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 14, 2024 8:34:35 GMT
City AM:
“Majestic”
“banging songs”
“Hilarious “
“Incredibly entertaining”
“A brilliant watch”
“Dazzlingly imagined”
⭐️⭐️
I think he liked it but hated himself for liking it,
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Feb 14, 2024 8:34:54 GMT
It does come across as a bit frothy, which is a bit ironic since it's written by a white man.
But I think it's fair to be critical of the writing and how it presents Live Aid and whether it worked or not. And I suppose people could argue till the cows come home whether "white saviour syndrome" was something terrible at the time or not - at least those people got together and raised a lot of money and HELPED - what do today's pop stars do apart from polluting the world in their private jets and singing an endless succession of bland songs about love and relationships? Gen Z (if that's what the writer belongs to, he looks older) is always happy to find fault with everything the oldies did back in their times, but what are they actually DOING that actively helps and changes the world for the better?
|
|
545 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by shownut on Feb 14, 2024 8:36:28 GMT
Is it really ok for a publication to review something from such an aggressively ‘right-on’ standpoint; assuming that its readers don’t already know the background or aren’t capable of balanced human thought? I’m sure they’d be quick to deride The Mail or The Guardian for doing the same. I’m sure it probably is tone deaf, and a celebration of the white saviour, but let us not forget the good that the money did in the short term even if we continue to make the same mistakes? I think it is a fair critique and whether we like the tone or not, reviewers are meant to write about their thoughts on a show, warts and all. Sometimes that includes the intention/focus of a piece and not just the writing itself. The only parts of the review I disagreed with were the ones where he mentioned that the show had some positive, well-done moments. Wish I could agree.... |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 14, 2024 8:43:34 GMT
Is it really ok for a publication to review something from such an aggressively ‘right-on’ standpoint; assuming that its readers don’t already know the background or aren’t capable of balanced human thought? I’m sure they’d be quick to deride The Mail or The Guardian for doing the same. I’m sure it probably is tone deaf, and a celebration of the white saviour, but let us not forget the good that the money did in the short term even if we continue to make the same mistakes? I think it is a fair critique and whether we like the tone or not, reviewers are meant to write about their thoughts on a show, warts and all. Sometimes that includes the intention/focus of a piece and not just the writing itself. The only parts of the review I disagreed with were the ones where he mentioned that the show had some positive, well-done moments. Wish I could agree.... I guess ‘GenZ’ enjoy being told what to think a lot more than us ‘oldies’. 🤷♂️ |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 14, 2024 9:17:10 GMT
I think the reviews are pretty much what everybody expected - we know that this show has divided opinion. Perhaps the critics (in the media not on this board!) would do better to get off their soapbox pontificating about white saviour syndrome and accept the show for what it is. It is a jukebox musical which oozes nostalgia presented to a very high standard by an excellent cast and band.
Perhaps the producers/Bob would have been better saying: "F*** trying to weave in a narrative that lays the gauntlet down to today's generation - they'll only over-analyse and critique it. Let them work out how to fix their own problems."
Am I ashamed to be part of an audience where perhaps 75% of people are probably over 40 years old and white? A little bit. It doesn't represent the Britain that I see each day. But am I ashamed to enjoy a show that makes so many people happy? Not at all. I don't subscribe to sanitising the past, and I don't believe that every show, book, film, song should appeal to as many people as possible and offend as few people as possible.
Where it gets harsh is when people are jibing at the past as if some kind of misdemeanour has been committed. Yes, it was somewhat naive (never done before), it was rushed together, mistakes were made. What this story attempts to show is that a little bit of effort, cajoling and tenacity can go a long way.
I tell my kids that they will be the generation that makes a real difference. If anybody in the younger generations looks at this story and thinks: "I/We want to do something like that" or even "I/We can do better than that" and feels motivated and inspired to do something about the injustices of today, then I think the show has done its job.
Also, on a personal level, I fall between the generations. I find myself nostalgic for an event where I was very young and didn't quite grasp the magnitude of what was happening. I find myself yearning to "be the difference" but don't know how to be. Bob Geldof raised awareness of the famine in Ethiopia and made it relevant. It was as shocking to see as watching bombs rain down in Ukraine, Gaza. It was as shocking as living with the constant threat of IRA bombs. What Bob achieved was to distil the zeitgeist, concentrate it, and release it across as broad an audience as possible at the time. In doing so, nearly half a trillion dollars in today's money was raised.
With the tools available to us, surely today's generation can do even better. That's a positive message. It shouldn't take a bunch of codgers to remind today's generation that we are mere custodians. Bob could have thrown soup over the Mona Lisa, but I doubt it would have raised as much money.
I've really enjoyed the discussion about this show over recent weeks - from everybody. I've learnt stuff along the way and some comments have provoked me to consider my own thoughts, beliefs, and even the basics like how I communicate and how my own comments might be interpreted.
Every day is a learning day. Cheers all.
|
|
|
|
Post by westendgirls on Feb 16, 2024 0:07:05 GMT
Have they brought end any merch for this? When I went to one of the first previews it was only programmes on sale
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 16, 2024 7:11:58 GMT
Have they brought end any merch for this? When I went to one of the first previews it was only programmes on sale No merch yet - though the number of people turning up in Live Aid t-shirts might persuade them to consider producing some should this show transfer. With 10% of money going to the charity, it's a no-brainer. |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 16, 2024 15:12:45 GMT
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Feb 17, 2024 6:49:40 GMT
Afraid I'm in the meh camp for this. I was ready to just sideline all the political stuff and generational debate and just enjoy the music, but was disappointed by a) the music-blather ratio (far too much talking) and b) that most songs were shortened, chopped by more blather and so on.
The whole thing had something "Gen Z school project" about it, the way most of the cast sat in the stadium seats in the background waiting their turn to sing and they had made sure to give as many people a chance to shine as possible. I never got a proper 80s vibe from the characters' looks either. Props to Collette Guitart for braving that awful mullet though.
I give it three stars for the great cast, even if many of them are wasted and the whole thing being mildly entertaining, but it certainly didn't bowl me over and did leave me with a sour feeling about Gen Z constantly finding fault with everything the oldies do, having weaponized "being offended" about everything, while not doing much at all that just tries to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Feb 17, 2024 10:30:56 GMT
Afraid I'm in the meh camp for this. I was ready to just sideline all the political stuff and generational debate and just enjoy the music, but was disappointed by a) the music-blather ratio (far too much talking) and b) that most songs were shortened, chopped by more blather and so on. The whole thing had something "Gen Z school project" about it, the way most of the cast sat in the stadium seats in the background waiting their turn to sing and they had made sure to give as many people a chance to shine as possible. I never got a proper 80s vibe from the characters' looks either. Props to Collette Guitart for braving that awful mullet though. I give it three stars for the great cast, even if many of them are wasted and the whole thing being mildly entertaining, but it certainly didn't bowl me over and did leave me with a sour feeling about Gen Z constantly finding fault with everything the oldies do, having weaponized "being offended" about everything, while not doing much at all that just tries to help. I vary from you in one way, as I was left with "a sour feeling" that THEY had depicted "Gen Z constantly finding fault..."etc. The generation going on school strikes over the environment, and marching for Palestinian rights. The show 'deceives to flatter'. It has to depict a sour youngster of today so that Bob has to ('reluctantly', lol) put the work in to show how....great he is/was. It has to show the youngster decrying a simplistic view of Africa as 'one country' in order to excuse the fact it then goes for the most generic sound and visual imagery of Africa, regardless. What Bob Geldof did was amazing. When it comes to 'white saviour' accusations, that he's defended in The Times this week, they are nonsense. In the words of an ABC song of the 1980s: "That Was Then, But This Is Now"; back then he was a saviour, and is white. But now it IS now. And, in this show now, using three people of colour to be the only questioners of Bob, and have them won over I found offensive in renewing the 'white saviour' 'inspired wiseman deliverer' image. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 17, 2024 10:40:44 GMT
Yep, this. Don’t judge yesterday by today because (in the most simplistic terms) they aren’t the same thing.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 19, 2024 13:53:27 GMT
City AM: “Majestic” “banging songs” “Hilarious “ “Incredibly entertaining” “A brilliant watch” “Dazzlingly imagined” ⭐️⭐️ I think he liked it but hated himself for liking it, Aaahaaaaa! In one phrase you have just solved a mystery that has long puzzled me about some critical responses to a range of art forms. So that’s what’s going on in their heads!! |
|
882 posts
|
Post by longinthetooth on Feb 19, 2024 14:15:33 GMT
Going on Wednesday. Don't know whether to be excited or full of dread!
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 19, 2024 18:27:44 GMT
Going on Wednesday. Don't know whether to be excited or full of dread! Be full of dreadcitement! |
|
|
|
Post by mrnutz on Feb 20, 2024 7:44:55 GMT
Going on Wednesday. Don't know whether to be excited or full of dread! There's nothing to dread - I gave it 2/5 as the book is 100% cringe but the songs are great and the cast excellent. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 9:45:24 GMT
Ok I just read the thing in full. Six pejorative mentions of the race of the people involved in the event dramatised and the writer of the show. At some point you do have to wonder at the double-standards on display. A critic would never dream of criticising a writer for being from an ethnic minority. |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 20, 2024 11:11:01 GMT
Ok I just read the thing in full. Six pejorative mentions of the race of the people involved in the event dramatised and the writer of the show. At some point you do have to wonder at the double-standards on display. A critic would never dream of criticising a writer for being from an ethnic minority. I think the writer is obsessed with colour. In his Twitter he comments '...a white character sentimentally sings "feed the world" over and over, looking dramatically into the distance...' to try and underpin his belief that the show is 'tone deaf'. That 'white character' is James Hameed who plays 'Khalil'... Frankly, the number of apologists (many of whom are white, incidentally) who are feigning offence over a concert that took place before many of them were even born, shows a remarkable level of ignorance and lack of cultural insight for the period the event happened. Live Aid was a global event comprising people of many colours, gender, race, sexuality. It was a huge success. It's easy to look back through a 2024 lens and point out things that don't sit right retrospectively. Clearly Bob Geldof got it all wrong... His efforts were misguided and naive, he had a white saviour complex along with over a billion people around the world, many who contributed to the half a trillion dollars (in today's money) that was raised. Just think what he might have achieved, had he thought it through... I don't think I will see any person or event raise the same magnitude of awareness or money in my lifetime. THIS is what the message of the show is about. Where are the Bob Geldofs of today? They can be black, white, gay, straight, religious, atheist. But this story is saying "there are similar issues around the world in 2024 that need addressing... who is going to step up?". This isn't about inter-generational arguments or bragging rights, it's about stepping up and having a social conscience. Shame on Adam Bloodworth (and other critics) for trying to make it about colour. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 14:09:31 GMT
Live Aid was very far from perfect, especially in the actual execution of the funds spent - there is research that suggests it was a wash, in terms of lives saved, because the civil war was prolonged by the money flowing in to the economy - but that had nothing to do with the skin colour of the people involved.
The outcome would have been the same if it had been spear-headed by Lionel Ritchie and Quincy Jones (who led ‘We are the World’) instead of Bob Geldoff.
|
|
882 posts
|
Post by longinthetooth on Feb 21, 2024 21:43:43 GMT
Back from the matinee and ... I absolutely loved it! I was around for the original Live Aid, but just took this as a plain old story, and deliberately didn't try to make any in depth analyses. I just sat back and enjoyed the narrative and music (actually, it would have been very easy to end up in the Bad Behaviour thread, as it was all I could do not to sing my way through the entire show, never mind having to sit on my hands so as not to wave them in the air at appropriate moments!). An easy 4.5 from me.
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 22, 2024 19:33:32 GMT
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 23, 2024 12:58:22 GMT
Track released from the show for those who fancy a listen.
|
|
