276 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Feb 15, 2024 18:54:36 GMT
Interesting artwork. I'm not suggesting that it is, but it feels more set in WWII / The Blitz than Victorian London. It still says victorian in the description, but I'd actually be more interested in a ww2 set Oliver I'm afraid I disagree. The CFT production of Sweeney Todd moved the action from Victorian times to WW2 and I felt it didn't add anything. |
|
|
|
Post by damaskanddark on Feb 15, 2024 18:55:52 GMT
I never saw the Palladium version but did see Drury Lane and the subsequent tour. Enjoyed it on the whole but hated the panto elements/breaking 4th wall with the star fagin with 'in' joked A darker, more dickensien version could be good. But I can't think of what could be done with the book to improve it, with a major rework of the whole thing The Drury Lane and later tour were definitely given a panto/camp treatment in certain parts. The earlier 90s Palladium version had none of that. I saw the Palladium production and have seen it recently again on tape, and I was reminded how stunning it was, not least because of Jonathan Pryce, Miles Anderson and Sally Dexter who brought such gravitas and Dickensian truth to their roles. Dexter has to be the least showbiz Nancy we've ever had. She brought such humanity and depth to that character. And Pryce with all his musical credits did not go over the top in any cheesy ways, he remained truthful and dramatic and really brought out the darkness in his performance. If they are gonna do anything to the show, as previously mentioned I'd love to see them go back to its music hall/Brechtian roots and keep it raw and spare. I loved the original dinky orchestrations and the wonderful Sean Kenny jungle gym set. Rambling now... |
|
|
|
Post by marob on Feb 15, 2024 19:18:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2024 19:19:43 GMT
It still says victorian in the description, but I'd actually be more interested in a ww2 set Oliver I'm afraid I disagree. The CFT production of Sweeney Todd moved the action from Victorian times to WW2 and I felt it didn't add anything. I didn't think it necessarily added anything, but it worked (aside a very bad Michael Ball) as a different take |
|
5,030 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 15, 2024 19:32:08 GMT
It still says victorian in the description, but I'd actually be more interested in a ww2 set Oliver I'm afraid I disagree. The CFT production of Sweeney Todd moved the action from Victorian times to WW2 and I felt it didn't add anything. I don't think it was the WW2 setting that failed that production. The casting was terrible, chorus looked bored, Staunton treated it like Ibsen and then Michael Ball played himself |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2024 19:47:47 GMT
I'm afraid I disagree. The CFT production of Sweeney Todd moved the action from Victorian times to WW2 and I felt it didn't add anything. I don't think it was the WW2 setting that failed that production. The casting was terrible, chorus looked bored, Staunton treated it like Ibsen and then Michael Ball played himself I'd rather Imeldas take rather than the current beoadway rivals 'for laughs' approach |
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 15, 2024 21:46:13 GMT
Oliver! has been revised before, the 1994 production had a prologue added to it by Lionel Bart as well as new incidental music which I think was Cameron's way of giving him royalties since he no longer owned the rights to Oliver! by that time.
|
|
34 posts
|
Post by wanderingranger on Feb 15, 2024 23:51:49 GMT
Interesting they're going for an older Dodger, I mean it's not much older but having to cast only one saves a bit of dough. It’ll be because he’s just played Dodger on TV and he’ll get fans of that one in. |
|
3,556 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 16, 2024 7:20:21 GMT
The imagery is clever. A boy made from the soot, smoke and grime of the city. Look at the eyes and nose - this draws inspiration from the iconic Les Mis Cosette image by Emile Bayard.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Feb 16, 2024 8:13:13 GMT
I never saw the Palladium version but did see Drury Lane and the subsequent tour. Enjoyed it on the whole but hated the panto elements/breaking 4th wall with the star fagin with 'in' joked A darker, more dickensien version could be good. But I can't think of what could be done with the book to improve it, with a major rework of the whole thing The Drury Lane and later tour were definitely given a panto/camp treatment in certain parts. The earlier 90s Palladium version had none of that. I saw the Palladium production and have seen it recently again on tape, and I was reminded how stunning it was, not least because of Jonathan Pryce, Miles Anderson and Sally Dexter who brought such gravitas and Dickensian truth to their roles. Dexter has to be the least showbiz Nancy we've ever had. She brought such humanity and depth to that character. And Pryce with all his musical credits did not go over the top in any cheesy ways, he remained truthful and dramatic and really brought out the darkness in his performance. If they are gonna do anything to the show, as previously mentioned I'd love to see them go back to its music hall/Brechtian roots and keep it raw and spare. I loved the original dinky orchestrations and the wonderful Sean Kenny jungle gym set. Rambling now... A lot of shows seem to become camped up/pantofied the longer they tour. Sister Act did it, so Legally Blonde, and Spamalot certainly did (and that was already heightened!) and I agree Oliver! could do with pulling back to its roots. Even looking back at the movie, I think a lot of people forget how dark it is at moments and how stripped bare or unsettling some of the arrangements are (the movie’s “As Long As He Needs Me” especially is quite different to the stage orchestrations). It feels much grittier than many a subsequent lavish production of Oliver! I’ve seen and I don’t think it’s a bad thing if the creative team lean back towards that. |
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 16, 2024 13:43:55 GMT
The imagery is clever. A boy made from the soot, smoke and grime of the city. Look at the eyes and nose - this draws inspiration from the iconic Les Mis Cosette image by Emile Bayard. I like it as well. The Fagin with Oliver! name in the face logo is iconic but good to see something new. Noticed the co director is Jean Pierre Van Der Spuy who has worked with Cameron on various things like Les Mis at the Gielgud, the last tour of Miss Saigon as well as associate director of Mary Poppins. |
|
19,855 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 16, 2024 15:22:06 GMT
The imagery is clever. A boy made from the soot, smoke and grime of the city. Look at the eyes and nose - this draws inspiration from the iconic Les Mis Cosette image by Emile Bayard.  |
|
5,996 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 16, 2024 20:28:52 GMT
Saying he’s made from soot and smoke is a reach. I think it’s just a standard watercolour/filter.
|
|
3,556 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 16, 2024 20:56:18 GMT
Saying he’s made from soot and smoke is a reach. I think it’s just a standard watercolour/filter. Watch the CFT trailer and the soot/smoke effect used in the transition to create the face... |
|
5,996 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 16, 2024 21:36:52 GMT
Saying he’s made from soot and smoke is a reach. I think it’s just a standard watercolour/filter. Watch the CFT trailer and the soot/smoke effect used in the transition to create the face... I will take a look! |
|
|
|
Post by damaskanddark on Feb 16, 2024 23:54:52 GMT
What revision do people think they're making? - is it with the book?
I have a bootleg of the 1984 Broadway revival starring Ron Moody and Patti LuPone. This was a slavish recreation of the original production, and it was directed by the original director Peter Coe. It featured the Kenny set and all the original stagings/orchestrations etc. The major change this production made to tighten up the book was that they moved the Bumble/Corney workhouse Act 2 scene to the first act after Food Glorious Food, and they eliminated the Old Sally/Bumble/Corney Act 2 scene altogether. It made the second act tighter, but it really did not suit the first act so early in the show. I can see why the made the change but it didn't work. I wonder are they going to make these structural changes to the show or is it something else?
|
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Feb 17, 2024 0:52:33 GMT
The 1994 Palladium production was Cameron wanting to breath new life into Oliver! What had happened was the original production kept getting revived with diminishing returns and it was the failure of the 1984 Broadway revival which closed after 17 performances that Cameron realised they needed to do something different with the show.
|
|
126 posts
|
Post by idinafanzel on Feb 20, 2024 15:13:25 GMT
Oscar Conlon Murray as Mr Bumble
|
|
|
|
Post by damaskanddark on Feb 20, 2024 15:19:39 GMT
Oscar Conlon Murray as Mr Bumble oh god |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 20, 2024 15:33:07 GMT
Far too young for the role. Ludicrous
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on Feb 20, 2024 20:17:25 GMT
Stick some sideburns and a beadle’s hat on him and he’ll be fine.
Googled him to see how old he is, not really expecting to find an answer. First thing that came up were several news stories about him having just split up with his boyfriend… Sir Ian McKellen. Was not expecting that. 😲 Anyway, he’s 30.
|
|
5,996 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 21, 2024 0:19:46 GMT
Stick some sideburns and a beadle’s hat on him and he’ll be fine. Googled him to see how old he is, not really expecting to find an answer. First thing that came up were several news stories about him having just split up with his boyfriend… Sir Ian McKellen. Was not expecting that. 😲 Anyway, he’s 30. Ewwww!!! |
|
1,579 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Feb 21, 2024 5:06:37 GMT
Thru should have just cast Joel Montague as Mr. Bumble. Mr. Bumble should be a bit thick unless it’s being reconceptionalized
|
|
114 posts
|
Post by theatregod on Feb 21, 2024 10:55:55 GMT
Maybe a transfer to the Gielgud means it will be a new west-end fixture than playing a bigger house and leaving after a year or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik24601 on Feb 21, 2024 12:28:55 GMT
Thru should have just cast Joel Montague as Mr. Bumble. Mr. Bumble should be a bit thick unless it’s being reconceptionalized Ouch! |
|
