Opening Night - Gielgud

[martin217]

Excellent show!

Saw it last night and thought there was very little to fault (apart from there being, for me, a bit too much action going on towards the back - ironically - of the large stage, which might have been due to technical reasons).

• story was simple and thought-provoking
• acting was fantastic from start to finish
• singing was mainly very good
• music was very good and at no point was it too loud for the dialogue
• hoovering stuff at the start, which apparently sucked, has been cleaned up, i.e. it's gone
• red see through curtain worked perfectly for me, as did the big single screen at the back of the stage
• running time was about 2hrs 25, about 20 mins shorter than what many people had previously said
• I didn't get a bored once and I didn't see anyone else get bored either
  

Thoroughly enjoyable. There must be something wrong with me.

[aneild]

I was there last night and agree with everything Martin217 writes. I feel like I saw a different show to what many here have described. And based on some of the descriptions I think maybe I literally did…The whole cast are incredible and though not every character felt fully fleshed out by the second half I was absolutely wrapped up in Smith’s character’s arc. I hope some of the early posters go again, so they can confirm whether I’m just a weirdo or whether it is a substantially different show now. Easy four stars teetering on five.

[Steve]

Mar 15, 2024 0:15:56 GMT sph said:

I'm also have the same question for this as I did about his All About Eve though. Why does a show set in a theatre, about theatrical people, telling a story about life in the theatre, need to be told with cameras? What does it really add?

This is not the same as "Sunset Boulevard," where Jamie Lloyd uses cameras thematically to demonstrate how desperate Norma is for her close-up, and why, demonstrating the star making power of the camera.

Cameras are simply a part of Van Hove's toolkit, and have been for donkey's years. He feels (rightly) that we consume our modern world through screens, and the stage space becomes archaic without them.

In Kings of War, the cameras showed us the way we consume war today through war footage, and made Shakespeare feel like now.

Some spoilers follow. . .

In this show, the screen and the stage represent two different spaces, the world of the physical (the quotidian stage) and the world of the mind (the closeup heartfelt screen of dreams).

So, Sheridan's Myrtle looks in mirror and we see her back in the physical space, but on screen we see her dreaming close-up mind.

In the stage space, we see Sheridan's Myrtle messing around with her lines, while on screen we see the raging passion of Nicola Hughes's writer, who wrote them.

By showing us two worlds, and challenging us to combine them, Van Hove shows us a fuller appreciation of lived experience.

[ix]

Mar 16, 2024 15:48:19 GMT Steve said:

Mar 15, 2024 0:15:56 GMT sph said:

I'm also have the same question for this as I did about his All About Eve though. Why does a show set in a theatre, about theatrical people, telling a story about life in the theatre, need to be told with cameras? What does it really add?

This is not the same as "Sunset Boulevard," where Jamie Lloyd uses cameras thematically to demonstrate how desperate Norma is for her close-up, and why, demonstrating the star making power of the camera…

…By showing us two worlds, and challenging us to combine them, Van Hove shows us a fuller appreciation of lived experience.

In Sunset Boulevard, to me, the camerawork cleverly accentuated Norma's long-conditioned world of delusion and paranoia that Max trapped her in – the only existence that she's capable of understanding, with the other characters becoming sucked into that cinematic universe. They were used cleverly, obviously giving insights into emotion that would be invisible in a traditional staging. They weren't explained, they weren't acknowledged – they were just there and as much part of the action as any other cast member. However, they never make me lose focus from the action on stage – the understated and stylish simplicity of the staging ensured that. Every motion, every blink, every word, every tear were all carefully rationed to have the maximum impact (bar the cast's 'comedy' routine backstage after the interval, which I really could have lived without).

In Opening Night, the weak framing device (making a documentary) was distracting from the start. The cast are supposed to know they're there, but at times in the story that framing device meant they shouldn't have been there – and yet there they were, with the cast suddenly pretending they weren't. There was literally so much being pointlessly captured and broadcast with the poor camera work (on the night I saw it anyway), that it was almost impossible to work out not only what was going on but why it was going on and who we should be focusing on to help drive the story forward at any point. The stage is chaotically busy enough even without the footage – it feels like it has everything going on in the same space except the toilets and the theatre cat.

I get the 'two worlds' concept that they were aiming for, but it needed a far tighter filter overall. Van Hove may have helped pioneer camerawork in the theatre, but, with Sunset, Jamie Lloyd has recently done it far better than him recently in the same neighbourhood – making him look like a follower than a leader.

[Steve]

Mar 16, 2024 12:04:50 GMT aneild said:

I feel like I saw a different show to what many here have described. And based on some of the descriptions I think maybe I literally did. . . I hope some of the early posters go again, so they can confirm whether I’m just a weirdo or whether it is a substantially different show now.

I saw it last Saturday night, and I just saw today's matinee, and I can confirm it is not a different show, but it is a tighter, more easily understood show, with a MUCH more dramatic ending to the first half, that takes the audience into the interval on an exhilarating narrative and musical high.

Spoilers follow. . .

In the version that played last Saturday, there was a little bit of jolly hoovering, and that's gone, and that's a good choice because , as delightful as the sequence was, it misinforms the audience that they're about to watch a funny lightweight show, which they are NOT.

There are two major changes from last Saturday to now:-

(1) The first half initially ended with a fully performed big number by Sheridan Smith's Myrtle, which I'll guess is called "A Somebody." Before that there was a number I've forgotten, as it had little lasting impact on me. And before that was Nicola Hughes's writer's dazzling "Its Over," performed with all the belt and bravura of Shirley Bassey's "Goldfinger," complete with dramatic romantic strings and percussion you'd expect in a classic Bond film title sequence. That Hughes song is a highlight of the whole show, and it's very threatening and ominous narratively for Smith's "Myrtle." Now the first half ends with Hughes blasting us into the interval with "It's Over," and it really feels like it's ALL OVER for Smith's Myrtle and for the show-within-the-show. You really feel the pain of Nicola Hughes's writer watching her whole play go up in smoke, as Hughes's giant angry closeup face on the big screen completely overwhelms Smith's tiny onstage frame, and Hughes's singing really is Shirley Bassey level devastating!

Now "A Somebody," in which Smith's Myrtle builds herself back up, is abridged, and opens the second half, which makes SO much sense, as for the whole interval, we now sit with the Hughes's scary emotional bombshell, and "A Somebody" lets us breathe again.

The way it was before allowed us to breathe too early, and to go to the interval in a state of complacency, with Smith not in jeopardy. The other forgettable song has been ditched, explaining the contracting running time.

(2) The book now is more explanatory as to what the dead girl is all about. This probably betrays Cassavetes a tiny bit, as Cassavetes would never explain what he was up to, and revel in people being confounded. On the other hand, for West End audiences, who couldn't care less about Cassavetes, they will now understand better what they are watching, and feel Myrtle's predicament much more powerfully, and they will understand the denouement, when Smith's Myrtle has her showdown with Haas's Nancy.

On second watch, this time from the gods (I didn't trust my slow fingers in the Rush so just caved and bought a £25 gods ticket instead, as I really didn't want to book any other show lol), I felt reinforced in my initial opinion that Rufus Wainwright has written a masterful score and that Sheridan Smith is giving a great performance. And I love how Van Hove is making this show more dramatic and cohesive for an unsuspecting West End audience who don't know they've bought a ticket to an avant garde show.

My own personal feeling is that I'd now raise my rating from 4 stars to 4 and a half, based on the changes described above.

PS: The running time was 2 hours, 25 minutes, with the matinee ending promptly at 4:55pm.

[mrbarnaby]

“ He feels (rightly) that we consume our modern world through screens, and the stage space becomes archaic without them”

This is one of the most depressing things I’ve read on here.

So basically every show should have video now or it’s antiquated.

[Steve]

Mar 16, 2024 18:05:20 GMT mrbarnaby said:

“ He feels (rightly) that we consume our modern world through screens, and the stage space becomes archaic without them”

This is one of the most depressing things I’ve read on here.

So basically every show should have video now or it’s antiquated.

Rest easy, Mr Barnaby.

Van Hove is only one director, and other directors will follow their own idiosyncratic obsessions, and do things differently.

Even Van Hove doesn't always use screens to suggest immediacy: sometimes he just uses bodily fluids and emotional violence, etc etc.

Some directors will always still just make well-made plays, that have Robert Ickes and Van Hove racing out at the interval, but which keep the rest of us conventional "robots" happily entertained in our cosy cocoons.

Bring on another high-kicking spectacle of a "42nd Street," I say, but please let there also be some artistic space for bonkers shows like this one.

[simon]

So everything's been sorted out now and it's a 5 star show?

[matty]

Saw this tonight and while there are some good moments, a 5 star show this is not.

Sheridan is the clear highlight and owns the stage. The Act 1 closing number is the best song

Other than that, it's all a but meh and a lot of the time had me and my other half asking "what's the point of this."

By the time you get to the last number, Myrtle's breakdown feels like a bit of a non-event, despite it driving the story for the previous 2 hours.

I was expecting a bit more of the live filming outside the theatre.

The scene with the producer where he sings about moths to a flame was so cringe it was difficult to watch. If they cut it, they wouldn't lose anything.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler - click to view}
Manny's wife was so insignificant that when him and Myrtle started kissing I didn't even care he was married because you kind of forget that he is.

The fact that the curtain didn't open straight away was frustrating 

There were often no pauses to let the audience applaud, despite some of the bigger numbers feeling like they needed it since it is not a sung through musical.

The first and last songs felt like traditional show tune songs, but then didn't match the majority of the other music.

During one scene in Act 2, the screens weren't in sync with what was happening on stage, so I spent the entire time wondering if it was on purpose or whether something had gone wrong.

Ooverall, it was not the worst thing I have seen, but there is so much room for improvement.

[Jon]

I think Ivo's best shows were one where he didn't use too many gimmicks like A View from the Bridge and A Little Life. 

[max]

Mar 17, 2024 0:34:46 GMT Jon said:

I think Ivo's best shows were one where he didn't use too many gimmicks like A View from the Bridge and A Little Life. 

When I saw 'A Little Life' (from the brilliant onstage seats) before it began I looked at the video screens and thought they'd dominate, and looked up at that metal contraption and thought - yep, all present and correct, that's where the water/rain will come from.  All the expected tricks, and then......neither of those things happened.  Very restrained with nothing feeling overlayed for the sake of signature style. Great.

Sounds like this may be coming together in previews - while not ever aiming for bullseye mainstream tastes (which may yet be its commercial downfall despite the draw of Sheridan Smith).

[BurlyBeaR]

I’d be feeling pretty ticked off if I’d paid all that money for an early preview to discover the show had changed significantly by the time it opened. Yes I know that’s what previews are for but what happened to selling them with a meaningful price reduction to compensate for this?

[max]

If Van Hove, in previews, has started making very specfic (and readable) sense with the use of Screen he'll have got way further than I thought Jamie Lloyd did with 'Sunset Boulevard'. I went along not expecting to like everything, but excited by what others described as an inarguably meticulous working out of his scheme/logic. I absolutely couldn't see any of that!

I'm looking forward to 'Opening Night' though somewhat grateful (and selfish) that it looks like being more affordable than a raging Sheridan popular hit might be.

[luvvie23]

Are we saying the show has massively improved since the early previews?

[lemiz1862]

Mar 17, 2024 23:39:29 GMT luvvie23 said:

Are we saying the show has massively improved since the early previews?

As someone who saw the show on the first preview and then again Saturday night, can say it has improved massively. 

The first preview was truly a turgid unintelligible mess. It's now a rather interesting night at the theatre. Seems they've cut almost half an hour and kept most of the best bits. 

Went from a 1.5 stars to a 4 for me. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but would rather see this 100 times over than some of the recent new musicals we've seen on the West End.

[simon]

I saw an early preview and the show was dreadful.I would have thought it to be beyond saving.
However, I have considerable admiration for creatives and cast if they have managed to transform it into an engaging production.

[ladidah]

Well done to then for listening to critique.

[Being Alive]

It certainly wasn't beyond saving at preview 3, and I assumed it would only improve as they continued to work on it.

Looking forward to catching it again some time in the coming month or so.

[lemiz1862]

Mar 18, 2024 11:57:16 GMT ladidah said:

Well done to then for listening to critique.

Don't get me wrong, I think this will continue to be a marmite production and if you don't like van Hove you won't like this.

I guess they should have had an out of town tryout instead of having a week or two of dreadful previews but yes it seems as if they have really put the work in to making this good.
I say well done to them as well for trying to fix this and doing something actually interesting in the West End.

[mrmarmelstein]

This really excites me now and previews should be about ironing out the problems, even though they should also be priced more appropriately. I’m an out-of-towner who was in London for a few days over the weekend and on the basis of this thread decided to hold off seeing it in previews and wait until my May visit. Hopefully it lasts that long…

[A.Ham]

I’m disappointed now that I booked an earlier preview than I usually would (2nd performance in this instance) and went a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps I’d have enjoyed it more if I’d waited and booked for a later performance once the cuts and adjustments had been made (no extended hoovering opening sequence to sit through for starters!).

I understand previews are exactly that, and they’re used to iron out kinks/make improvements, but as others have pointed out, given they’re rarely priced at anything more than a few pounds less than post-press night performances, I guess we tend to go in with an expectation of a certain level of polish already being in place.

[PineappleForYou]

I'm kinda glad I went to an early preview so I got to see Ivo's original full-fat vision/nightmare 😂

[simon]

I must say I have found this Opening Night thread to be fascinating.
I attended the first Friday performance and many of the audience were aghast at what they saw. I must admit that I ,like others I talked to, were quite angry at the confused mess on stage. This was evidently not because we didn't appreciate the avant garde production but because it is was not ready for a paying public.
2 weeks later it is now quite clear that the creatives felt the same as so many changes have evidently been made. Whilst I appreciate that previews are a time to fine tune a show it now seems clear that Opening Night was nowhere near ready to be presented to a west end audience. Experimental theatre is all very well but experimenting and working things out in front of paying theatregoers doesn't seem quite right to me.

[A.Ham]

Mar 18, 2024 17:40:02 GMT PineappleForYou said:

I'm kinda glad I went to an early preview so I got to see Ivo's original full-fat vision/nightmare 😂

Haha, that's one way of looking at it!

[mrnutz]

Mar 18, 2024 18:26:26 GMT simon said:

Whilst I appreciate that previews are a time to fine tune a show it now seems clear that Opening Night was nowhere near ready to be presented to a west end audience. Experimental theatre is all very well but experimenting and working things out in front of paying theatregoers doesn't seem quite right to me.

I strongly agree with this. Previews are not workshops, and these days they're rarely priced much lower than a ticket for a show post-press night.