|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 29, 2021 9:12:51 GMT
If Aimee, as an insider, had taken to Twitter to criticise the new production, instead of defending it, she would have been lauded by the very same Phans who are now outraged by her candor. I rather like her. She didn't exactly defend the new show, though, did she? She just told people to get laid. I'd have respect for someone who tried to engage in a civil conversation about it. Nadim Naaman has done just that on Twitter in a very classy way. |
|
3,475 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 29, 2021 9:14:25 GMT
This all looks like a bit of a witch-hunt. Some people seem unnecessarily passionate about something that really doesn't matter that much. Social media is full of polarising figures and views - it's the world we live in. I still don't see anyone organising a so-called "witch hunt" (probably not the best phrase to use for a myriad of reasons). It's sad people find this kind of unprofessionalism and vulgarity acceptable. But then the same found Cameron's comments about the orchestra acceptable, so I shouldn't be surprised. Is "witch hunt" on the PC "not to do" list too now? I ought to publicly express that I wasn't implying the person concerned is a witch. Far from it, she has opened Pandora's box. |
|
cpm
Auditioning
|
Post by cpm on Jul 29, 2021 9:21:11 GMT
I'm a long-term fan. Phantom's my go-to show when there's nothing new I'd like to see.
I'm very much on the pessimistic side of the fence, I'm afraid. I certainly don't buy that the changes were in any way driven by safety or maintenance concerns nor indeed by anything other than money. I'm surprised that ALW has gone along with them, although I'm not entirely certain what the business relationship is between him & CAM (i.e. who has the whip hand) -- all of the changes seem to me to mitigate against quality & in favour of economy to such a degree that there's really no mistaking their true purpose.
I don't feel that "modernising" the show is of any benefit since (for me) its oldness was part of its appeal. I don't want modern & fresh & bright; I want classic & proven & dark. Albeit I agree that HMT was in a bad way, dirty & dusty when you actually looked at it closely. I always put that down to cheapness, too -- there was a gap in the black orchestra pit curtain that annoyed me for years whenever I had B11-B14, partly because no-one ever fixed it but mainly because it let bright light out from the pit. Although even the run-down state of the theatre had a perverse charm.
I left early on opening night, mainly because of the sound quality. I found it very thin & flat. I also didn't like any of the principals, but this could easily be down to my annoyance with the sound. I generally don't follow theatre news lately, so didn't actually know about the orchestra being cut in half until I started looking at other's views on the night of the show. I've no idea what a professional musician costs, I guess maybe £50-60k all-in, so perhaps the orchestra cut saves £1m or so per year, but it seems like madness to me to make such a cut unless in extremis. Even then, I'd say the musicians should be pretty much the last thing to go from a musical.
I think someone said on Twitter that restoring the orchestra might save it even in the face of the other changes. I guess maybe. But everything combined is like an almost deliberate attack on the (mock-)gravitas of the show, where its appeal-to-me sat. There are plenty of modern musicals already, and they are almost always not very good. Phantom was a monster because it was Phantom, an impossible-to-recreate combination of deliberate & accidental things. This new show is not whatever that was, nor do the qualities that contributed to the success of the old show necessarily get inherited by the new. I don't understand, having once caught lightning in a bottle, the temptation to start tinkering with the bottle. The bottle should be put on a cushion in a safe & surrounded by armed guards 24/7. If the bottle requires repairs, they should be done tentatively, by a master, with the aim of invisibly preserving the original. Anyone who's inclined to rant on SM about detractors needing to get laid probably shouldn't even be in the room (nor threatened with the sack, it's far too minor an indiscretion for that).
This is all very negative. And I know my small-c conservative mindset is one that's easy to attack in the modern world. But not everything new is automatically superior by dint of being younger or fresher. This new show seems to me to have been reduced in every conceivable way, and I think its x-factor is something that's been inadvertently modernised-out in the process. Its momentum would certainly carry it for a very considerable time whatever changes were implemented. But it will certainly end one day, which means there must be a beginning of the end, and this seems to me to be the thing you could look back at 5 years from now & say: here is the beginning of the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 29, 2021 9:22:46 GMT
Wow! The same people still hanging their entire life on this. Back/Forth/Back/Forth like a game of satanic ping pong. Maybe it should have just run until the building fell down around it…or the set stopped working. Quite happy for it to have closed in dignity. Isn't that what happens when a show isn't feasible any more? Showbusiness etc... |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Jul 29, 2021 9:40:09 GMT
Come on, now. My original little grumble has been blown out of proportion! All I wanted, was some better manners and proper decorum, from someone who has a more public-facing persona than you and me, AND who has a contract-mandated responsibility to represent their employer well. Pretty sure most of you would not accept it had it been someone from your workplace! I haven’t witnessed any slagging off and was not even condoning it here- don’t twist this into yet another phans vs producers argument. Also, organised bullying- overactive imagination much? And just because jobs are hard to come by doesn’t mean one can do it with a bad attitude and expect to stay on. If Aimee, as an insider, had taken to Twitter to criticise the new production, instead of defending it, she would have been lauded by the very same Phans who are now outraged by her candor. I rather like her. Lol, just lol. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 29, 2021 10:22:20 GMT
If Aimee, as an insider, had taken to Twitter to criticise the new production, instead of defending it, she would have been lauded by the very same Phans who are now outraged by her candor. I rather like her. She didn't exactly defend the new show, though, did she? She just told people to get laid. I'd have respect for someone who tried to engage in a civil conversation about it. Nadim Naaman has done just that on Twitter in a very classy way. Exactly. Nobody on that Twitter thread was name calling or using crude language until she did - even those whose Twitter handle made it clear they were very fervent fans. Really surprised to see some here can't (or won't) make a distinction between discussion and name calling, and even make efforts to celebrate the latter. Some social media training for the team wouldn't go amiss. If it goes from strength to strength we'll hear no more about all this from ALW. If it closes in a year (more due to lack of tourists - Covid/Brexit - than the changes) expect him to bemoan how his arm was twisted, and Broadway is where his true heart is anyway, and what a relief to see the brilliant original there with a glorious full orchestra serving the score etc |
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jul 29, 2021 10:37:14 GMT
Does anyone know if Phantom are back doing the Thursday matinee day tickets?
|
|
3,475 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 29, 2021 10:38:44 GMT
I agree that the sound on opening night was thin and lacked depth.
|
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jul 29, 2021 10:43:59 GMT
Does anyone know if Phantom are back doing the Thursday matinee day tickets? Oh they don't even have matinee on Thursday anymore...  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2021 13:21:27 GMT
I do increasingly think Twitter is really not a very nice place, and tends to bring out the worst in people. It is useful for news sometimes, and as well as theatre I do follow sports and politics on there. But there are many confrontations, behind keyboards, that I think play out much more aggressively than they would in real life and people do end up very polarised on Twitter.
Never heard of the lady being discussed, but yes, it does seem her choice of words were unfortunate. I wouldn't judge a person from one outburst on Twitter though and I can absolutely see how frustrating it must be to have people criticise what you are working on. Eventually people will snap.
What I do find really very sad/depressing however is the hardcore "Phans" who repeatedly tag in cast and crew currently working on THIS version of Phantom, to say how awful the changes are. Fair enough, discuss it among yourselves, we live in a free country. But it really is neither kind, polite nor helpful to tag the current cast. These people have been out of work for 18 months, have worked hard to bring a show to the stage that they believe in and to be attacked on Twitter for matters beyond their control is I think indefensible. Fortunately Killian et al are very professional and don't get involved in these discussions. Nadim Naaman (ex Raoul) was involved, but has spoken calmly and intelligently on the topic which is good.
It's almost like a theatrical version of football hooliganism. It's the same relatively few accounts constantly attacking. And although there aren't many of them they are very very loud! Still, one good thing is that whatever they think of the changes, the new version is up and running now, the old one gone, so ultimately these posts will be less and less relevant and will fizzle out.
Mark Shenton's anti ALW drive is also increasingly sad to see. So inconsistent though as he has gone on and on about how reckless opening Cinderella at full capacity was. Yet he either bought or was gifted (and accepted) a ticket for the ill fated "freedom day" performance so did ultimately wish to go. I don't doubt he'll also do a u turn on Phantom and see that too!
Anyway, there we are. I think stepping away from Twitter would be beneficial to many! And if some of these conversation happened face to face I think people would see that there is generally more in common than divides us and there would be considerably more tolerance for different view points.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 29, 2021 14:04:31 GMT
What I do find really very sad/depressing however is the hardcore "Phans" who repeatedly tag in cast and crew currently working on THIS version of Phantom, to say how awful the changes are. Fair enough, discuss it among yourselves, we live in a free country. But it really is neither kind, polite nor helpful to tag the current cast. That is indeed inappropriate; the cast have no responsibility for what ALW and Cam Mac have done. What are they saying to the current cast? I haven't found anything on Twitter but maybe I'm not looking in the right places. That said, if the current cast are claiming it's the original production and it is "bigger and better" than the original, then I can see why there would be upset. Less sure about that. It's been a couple of years now and the original Miz is very much still discussed and lamented online. And in the case of Phantom, CM only has the rights in certain territories and there's nothing to stop RUG from mounting the full version internationally outside of the UK/US/Oz. Meanwhile, the Broadway incarnation is still around and it will be a while before Cameron can downscale that. Separately, can anyone clarify whether the first set of doubles in the title song are used any more? I read on Tumblr that they've replaced that with Raoul just wandering around with the ballet girls...which has nowhere near the impact of the sudden darkness plus seeing the first set of doubles descend into the lair and then 'magically' the Phantom and Christine appear high above. That effect still got gasps as late as 2019 from first-timers! |
|
3,475 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 29, 2021 14:46:11 GMT
First set of doubles lost - there's now an elongated/protracted shift to the travelator/Bridge which felt and looked clumsy on first night and sucked any hint of menace out of the situation and smacked a bit of "he's behind you (and the curtain)". The cuts/changes are very obvious even to a less critical eye, so I sympathise with the pain of the diehards on several fronts.
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 29, 2021 14:51:18 GMT
First set of doubles lost - there's now an elongated/protracted shift to the travelator/Bridge which felt and looked clumsy on first night and sucked any hint of menace out of the situation and smacked a bit of "he's behind you (and the curtain)". The cuts/changes are very obvious even to a less critical eye, so I sympathise with the pain of the diehards on several fronts. Oh GOD, that was my favourite moment in the show as the cinematic fluidity of the transition was so perfectly in sync with the music. And it's why I loathed the staging of the same number in the Connor tour where everyone was just stationery to a pulsing beat. OK, so that change isn't anything to do with making the show smoother or safer. They can certainly still do that...so...why?! |
|
|
|
Post by fiyerorocher on Jul 29, 2021 15:00:16 GMT
I did wonder if they cut a set of doubles because they don't have another woman of colour in the cast who could double for Lucy, other than Beatrice. The easiest solution to which would be to hire more WoC, I would have thought, but they evidently didn't do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 29, 2021 15:06:03 GMT
I've always found the doubles a bit funny/naff. Weird how they (seemingly) haven't changed the other naff/dated bits. That bloody player piano! The whole staging of the Don Juan Rehearsal for me was always strange, when they go into a "trance". The whole point I thought is that the Phantom relies on mechanical gimmickry and mental intimidation, not actual Jedi mind tricks...
|
|
3,475 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 29, 2021 15:10:16 GMT
First set of doubles lost - there's now an elongated/protracted shift to the travelator/Bridge which felt and looked clumsy on first night and sucked any hint of menace out of the situation and smacked a bit of "he's behind you (and the curtain)". The cuts/changes are very obvious even to a less critical eye, so I sympathise with the pain of the diehards on several fronts. Oh GOD, that was my favourite moment in the show as the cinematic fluidity of the transition was so perfectly in sync with the music. And it's why I loathed the staging of the same number in the Connor tour where everyone was just stationery to a pulsing beat. OK, so that change isn't anything to do with making the show smoother or safer. They can certainly still do that...so...why?! If I'm being charitable, I'll say it was a first night hitch and they hadn't cleared the stage, though Raoul was looking vacantly at the ballet troupe, all of whom were tottering en pointe and then moved downstage right to left with no obvious motivation for entering or exiting stage. It then took an age for the curtain to rise, the lighting jolted from fade down to blackout then a back-light to create the silhouette. It felt cheap compared to the fluidity of the previous version that you described so well. That was my first:"if its going to be like this then I'm out" moment... I put it down to first night nerves, though much of this stuff arguably might well fall to an ASM (to bring the conversation round full circle). My point being, only gob off about the new show if it is slick and well-tuned enough to merit it. It wasn't on Tuesday, though it showed enough promise to eventually be a worthy successor. But then does the driver of a Rolls Royce get given a Dacia Duster as a courtesy car? That's the nub of all this - it's a gamble by the producer that the new show will suffice. A cynical one though as if it fails in London, there's enough to play with to put it on the road as a tour so potential loss scenario is minimised. Is it business or pleasure these days to ALW and CM? So many questions. I'd hope if I reach billionaire status, I might put so.ething on for the hell of it just because I can (a bit like Anything Goes). That would be a bolder statement - Barnumesque showmanship instead of cheap penny pinching. I'm trying hard to remain objective. |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Jul 29, 2021 15:25:27 GMT
I think ALW genuinely doesn’t think of the stage “decoration” as part of the show. That’s why he seems convinced the show remains the same.
I think he (and CM) are incredibly lucky to have had a Director and Designer that created something of such high quality that, even after chunks are ripped out, it remains at a level above most musicals.
As someone who has been a huge ALW fan for decades I think I have reached the end of my fandom. All of his recent media shenanigans have been ridiculous. Am glad the Conservatives, who he has loved for so long, have now treated him the way they treat non-billionaires. Poetic justice.
|
|
3,475 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 29, 2021 15:36:05 GMT
I think ALW genuinely doesn’t think of the stage “decoration” as part of the show. That’s why he seems convinced the show remains the same. I think he (and CM) are incredibly lucky to have had a Director and Designer that created something of such high quality that, even after chunks are ripped out, it remains at a level above most musicals. As someone who has been a huge ALW fan for decades I think I have reached the end of my fandom. All of his recent media shenanigans have been ridiculous. Am glad the Conservatives, who he has loved for so long, have now treated him the way they treat non-billionaires. Poetic justice. The irony being that "rich list" demoted him to mere multi millionaire status. Maybe he's not in the club any more. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 29, 2021 15:46:13 GMT
Oh GOD, that was my favourite moment in the show as the cinematic fluidity of the transition was so perfectly in sync with the music. And it's why I loathed the staging of the same number in the Connor tour where everyone was just stationery to a pulsing beat. OK, so that change isn't anything to do with making the show smoother or safer. They can certainly still do that...so...why?! If I'm being charitable, I'll say it was a first night hitch and they hadn't cleared the stage, though Raoul was looking vacantly at the ballet troupe, all of whom were tottering en pointe and then moved downstage right to left with no obvious motivation for entering or exiting stage. It then took an age for the curtain to rise, the lighting jolted from fade down to blackout then a back-light to create the silhouette. It felt cheap compared to the fluidity of the previous version that you described so well. That was my first:"if its going to be like this then I'm out" moment... I put it down to first night nerves, though much of this stuff arguably might well fall to an ASM (to bring the conversation round full circle). My point being, only gob off about the new show if it is slick and well-tuned enough to merit it. It wasn't on Tuesday, though it showed enough promise to eventually be a worthy successor. But then does the driver of a Rolls Royce get given a Dacia Duster as a courtesy car? That's the nub of all this - it's a gamble by the producer that the new show will suffice. A cynical one though as if it fails in London, there's enough to play with to put it on the road as a tour so potential loss scenario is minimised. Is it business or pleasure these days to ALW and CM? So many questions. I'd hope if I reach billionaire status, I might put so.ething on for the hell of it just because I can (a bit like Anything Goes). That would be a bolder statement - Barnumesque showmanship instead of cheap penny pinching. I'm trying hard to remain objective. I find it hard to imagine anything can be put on like "42nd Street" again, with the enormous cast, incredible sets (and production numbers) and Jae Alexander's fabulous band. Wasn't that just unbelievable? It was so brave of the producers to go all out. Phenomenally cast, too. The best dance ensemble I've ever seen in a musical. I think I was spoiled! (I went many times) Re: Phantom, I suspect you're right. If I were to see it, it would be fine - as you say, it would suffice. Knowing this, I just don't want to see it. The orchestra situation and a few other things would annoy me, and I know that in advance, so it would be a wasted trip. I'd probably go though if they cast a Phantom that really excited me, or I knew someone in the show. |
|
4,026 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 29, 2021 15:46:55 GMT
I did wonder if they cut a set of doubles because they don't have another woman of colour in the cast who could double for Lucy, other than Beatrice. The easiest solution to which would be to hire more WoC, I would have thought, but they evidently didn't do that. If that's the reason then what will they do when the one suitable double is on holiday or off sick? Not have any doubles at all in that scene? It wouldn't be a very impressive title song if the stage is empty for the first couple of minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 29, 2021 15:56:36 GMT
I did wonder if they cut a set of doubles because they don't have another woman of colour in the cast who could double for Lucy, other than Beatrice. The easiest solution to which would be to hire more WoC, I would have thought, but they evidently didn't do that. Personally I don't think this would bother me. It's a small moment and a case where colourblind casting really isn't necessary. It's not a huge moment, doesn't affect the plot and can even be explained away in universe. Maybe the Phantom could only steal a white mannequin from the costume department, as that's all they had? Done. I'm all for colourblind casting unless it messes with the narrative. It's up to the casting director and producers to ensure that doesn't happen and in this case it's a non-starter. And, speaking as a light skinned mixed race person I just want to add one more point about this. It could become very easy to cast yourself into a bit of a wormhole with race matching. Casting an understudy based on their race can cause problems with their appropriateness playing their regular track, and so on. In an ideal world, roles would he cast based entirely on ability, appropriateness for the role and nothing else. As long as the pipeline is full of talented, trained, West End ready talent from all backgrounds then a racially mixed cast will happen naturally. |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 29, 2021 16:04:27 GMT
I did wonder if they cut a set of doubles because they don't have another woman of colour in the cast who could double for Lucy, other than Beatrice. The easiest solution to which would be to hire more WoC, I would have thought, but they evidently didn't do that. Personally I don't think this would bother me. It's a small moment and a case where colourblind casting really isn't necessary. It's not a huge moment, doesn't affect the plot and can even be explained away in universe. Maybe the Phantom could only steal a white mannequin from the costume department, as that's all they had? Done. I'm all for colourblind casting unless it messes with the narrative. It's up to the casting director and producers to ensure that doesn't happen and in this case it's a non-starter. And, speaking as a light skinned mixed race person I just want to add one more point about this. It could become very easy to cast yourself into a bit of a wormhole with race matching. Casting an understudy based on their race can cause problems with their appropriateness playing their regular track, and so on. In an ideal world, roles would he cast based entirely on ability, appropriateness for the role and nothing else. As long as the pipeline is full of talented, trained, West End ready talent from all backgrounds then a racially mixed cast will happen naturally. This isn't the first ever actor of colour to portray Christine, and it never stopped the double thing before, so I doubt this is the reason. Particularly since the double Christine looks away from the audience so they can't see her face. But for me it's such a thrilling moment in the show that seeing what bills itself as "substantially identical" to the Hal Prince production and then being given this thing with Raoul wandering around aimlessly would spoil it for me. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 29, 2021 16:10:56 GMT
If that has gone and wasn't just a blip the other day it would be a shame - that is one of those "hang on, how..?" moments which both gets the audience thinking and ensures there's no bizarre break in action on stage.
As others have said, there's no safety reason why that would have been culled - and from a casting perspective it's a bit of a silly reason to mess with the staging when most people wouldn't have noticed as Christine's double was always directed to face upstage anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 29, 2021 16:14:18 GMT
Personally I don't think this would bother me. It's a small moment and a case where colourblind casting really isn't necessary. It's not a huge moment, doesn't affect the plot and can even be explained away in universe. Maybe the Phantom could only steal a white mannequin from the costume department, as that's all they had? Done. I'm all for colourblind casting unless it messes with the narrative. It's up to the casting director and producers to ensure that doesn't happen and in this case it's a non-starter. And, speaking as a light skinned mixed race person I just want to add one more point about this. It could become very easy to cast yourself into a bit of a wormhole with race matching. Casting an understudy based on their race can cause problems with their appropriateness playing their regular track, and so on. In an ideal world, roles would he cast based entirely on ability, appropriateness for the role and nothing else. As long as the pipeline is full of talented, trained, West End ready talent from all backgrounds then a racially mixed cast will happen naturally. This isn't the first ever actor of colour to portray Christine, and it never stopped the double thing before, so I doubt this is the reason. Particularly since the double Christine looks away from the audience so they can't see her face. But for me it's such a thrilling moment in the show that seeing what bills itself as "substantially identical" to the Hal Prince production and then being given this thing with Raoul wandering around aimlessly would spoil it for me. It would be fun if he joined in with the ballet corps, threw in some pointe stuff! |
|
19,752 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 29, 2021 18:28:32 GMT
Posts removed. Stop trying to wind up other members please.
|
|
