|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 20, 2021 23:43:41 GMT
Lucy St Louis is quite a bit older than Christine is supposed to be. But I suppose it's unlikely to get anybody the right age who could actually play the role. Absolutely. Katie Hall is the youngest to have played the part. She was, I believe, only 16 when she went on as understudy in the West End. She later played Christine again in Laurence Connor's tour. I know Lucy through friends (which is how I broke the casting news on this thread in the first place) and as I said back then, the casting call was quite specific what they wanted. IIRC terms like seeking "international" auditionees and "of all races and backgrounds" appeared prominently in emails to agents. None of these terms had previously been used, or at least so prominently, in the casting call. Interestingly, I read an interview where ALW claimed that he had personally auditioned Lucy during the lock down period after being taken with her voice. He offered her the part and had found a special talent yadda yadda etc. The usual spiel he does when he gets overexcited. What's weird about this is that casting calls were still going out for the part long after this alleged interaction. I also know we were very close to having a minority Raoul too, but there were issues with the language barrier (seriously). Age wise, they used to cast generally older and this was policy. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 20, 2021 23:57:03 GMT
Lucy St Louis is quite a bit older than Christine is supposed to be. But I suppose it's unlikely to get anybody the right age who could actually play the role. How old is Christine supposed to be? In the book, she is stated as being 15 - with the ballet corps mostly being around that age or a year or two either way - and Erik is assumed to be 50-60, based on Madame Giry finding him when he was prepubescent older child, around 9-10 years old. Almost every adaptation ages up Christine and ages down The Phantom/Erik to whatever the story needs for the romantic aspect to be "comfortable". In the show, she sings a lot about how he is a Father-like figure. "Angel or father, friend or Phantom", "this thing is not your Father" etc. In the ALW show this never really made sense from the get-go, but in other adaptations (particularly a few of the movies) it is truer to the book - and ickier. The ballet corps giggle and whisper and stuff like girls in their early teens (Meg Giry often plays this up as being child like in manner), placing them around 15-16 at most. A few of the old-timers in the cast playing these parts were in their mid 40's. In the show, whilst not definitively stated anywhere, Christine plays as if she is 18-20ish and Meg's peer. Given Raoul's childhood with Christine, "those picnics in the attic", he should be roughly the same age give or take a few years. |
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Jul 21, 2021 1:39:27 GMT
It's been a while since I read the book, I admit, but I imagined her a bit older than that — I'd have put her at 18–20, because she'd trained as an opera singer at the Paris Conservatoire for three or four years. She definitely isn't more than early twenties though.
Not that it has to be exact for on stage, but I think if your Christine is older (and doesn't act young), and your Phantom is young-ish, the dynamic could shift. In the original cast both Sarah Brightman and Claire Moore were 26, and Michael Crawford 44, so an 18 year age gap. I think Lucy St Louis is 30/31, Killian Donnelly is 37 and Rhys Whitfield 27ish.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 21, 2021 1:45:28 GMT
It's been a while since I read the book, I admit, but I imagined her a bit older than that — I'd have put her at 18–20, because she'd trained as an opera singer at the Paris Conservatoire for three or four years. She definitely isn't more than early twenties though. Not that it has to be exact for on stage, but I think if your Christine is older (and doesn't act young), and your Phantom is young-ish, the dynamic could shift. In the original cast both Sarah Brightman and Claire Moore were 26, and Michael Crawford 44, so an 18 year age gap. I think Lucy St Louis is 30/31, Killian Donnelly is 37 and Rhys Whitfield 27ish. Just found this from Google; "In the Lofficier translation of the novel, it is stated that Christine is 15 years old. However, this is a mistranslation of a passage which says her heart was "as pure as that of a 15-year-old". The evidence of Christine's childhood friendship with Raoul, and her studies at the Paris Conservatory, put her age at 20" I guess that was the translation I read! |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 21, 2021 8:19:27 GMT
She's definitely at least 20 in Leroux's novel. Schumacher's constant claims back in 2004 that she was only 15/16 in the book drove me nuts! Raoul is about 21. The Phantom has to be about 50 in the novel. Even in the stage show, he really can't be less than 40 given the amount of backstory he has. Which is why young-acting Phantoms don't work for me. Also, I think everyone is going to be severely disappointed if they think somehow this new production updates effects like the fireballs. I'm still at a loss as to how anything in this represents effects that couldn't, or weren't, done in 1986. I've a soft spot for the piano though, so leave that alone!  |
|
3,474 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 21, 2021 9:36:47 GMT
I thought she was originally 27 but is now expected to be 14.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 21, 2021 10:10:04 GMT
I thought she was originally 27 but is now expected to be 14. I don't get it... Edit: Damn it, I'm dense! The orchestra! Very, very witty! |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 21, 2021 10:49:23 GMT
I'm over 30 years late asking this (don't say it's 'Far Too Late'...) but:
What are the 'rules of magic' in this show?
It's something I thought the usually fastidious Hal Prince would have insisted on being legible and intellectualised - or was he letting 'high romance' overtake cerebral logic. For example: when, in the lair, Eric motions downwards with his hands and the portcullis descends, is that magic, or has he flicked a lever somewhere secretly to make it look like he's magic?
If the show started from the perspective of Christine (rather than the auction house / Raoul's aged mind) I could accept that magical/impossible things are from her naïve father-grieving innocent viewpoint, and we're see it all through her distorting vision. Yet the opening framing doesn't support that.
To enjoy this show I'd have to make some logic for myself, as 'ah but that's the mystery' doesn't really cut it. I have a feeling it's not for me, and I could only destroy it by testing it too hard.
|
|
19,750 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 21, 2021 11:07:27 GMT
I’ve always taken it to be smoke and mirrors. He’s a theatrical genius so has the various tricks up his slave to beguile Christine. What does the novel say about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 21, 2021 11:36:18 GMT
Can I answer this one as well, or does anyone else want to jump in? X
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkcityboy on Jul 21, 2021 14:16:48 GMT
The de-ageing thing has always bugged me. I always took Christine to be 20ish and the Phantom around twice her age (otherwise she would never have thought of him as her father/a father figure). This meant he should be in his 50s in Love Never Dies, but Ramin was barely 30! (Not to take anything away from his performance.)
|
|
61 posts
|
Post by TheatreTwittic on Jul 24, 2021 10:03:44 GMT
A big expensive full page ad in the Times today which incorporates the left hand side of the 'new proscenium' presumably to try and recover the slow ticket sales.
Looks pretty identical to the the one everyone saw with the planning application images.
Can't upload a picture as someone posted it in a private Facebook group.
Also there's a picture on insta showing the 'new' orchestra pit. Wow, perhaps it was the angle, but I've seen bigger ones at a panto
|
|
4,977 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 24, 2021 10:17:24 GMT
I saw a poster for it on the tube this morning and it looks very cheap and nasty.
|
|
2,259 posts
|
Post by richey on Jul 24, 2021 12:56:22 GMT
I've seen a few social media posters and they seem very reminiscent of the originql Love Never Dies artwork, with a very angular mask rather than the rounded one of the original poster
|
|
19,750 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 24, 2021 15:23:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 24, 2021 15:33:10 GMT
Looks like they're insisting on destroying the proscenium, then. I also saw the ad on the Tube the other day. At least they've stopped using the 'Brilliant Original' tagline.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 24, 2021 16:43:07 GMT
I can't wait for the reviews from "normal people" on this thread and elsewhere. That will be the acid test.
We all know certain people here will hate it, no matter what, and certain people will say they love it - both sides acting out of spite to an extent. It's somewhat predictable.
I'm more interested in what the average punter thinks at this stage.
|
|
660 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on Jul 24, 2021 17:35:46 GMT
Looks like they're insisting on destroying the proscenium, then. I also saw the ad on the Tube the other day. At least they've stopped using the 'Brilliant Original' tagline. That’s not the proscenium. |
|
3,474 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jul 24, 2021 17:53:54 GMT
I can't wait for the reviews from "normal people" on this thread and elsewhere. That will be the acid test. We all know certain people here will hate it, no matter what, and certain people will say they love it - both sides acting out of spite to an extent. It's somewhat predictable. I'm more interested in what the average punter thinks at this stage. I'm an average punter - I'll let you know on Tuesday. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2021 18:19:44 GMT
Wow those posters look cheap. Like a copy paste type job, they don't blend into one image. Have they changed ad agency? Phantom has always had some brilliant and atmospheric ad imagery.
Also, no 'the' really bugs me and doesn't make grammatic sense. Can't work out why out of everything they would drop that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2021 18:21:45 GMT
I can't wait for the reviews from "normal people" on this thread and elsewhere. That will be the acid test. We all know certain people here will hate it, no matter what, and certain people will say they love it - both sides acting out of spite to an extent. It's somewhat predictable. I'm more interested in what the average punter thinks at this stage. I'm an average punter - I'll let you know on Tuesday. You're a proven big alw fan and on a theatre discussion board, to be honest I wouldnt say that makes you an average punter. I don't really think most people on here would be classed as average theatre punter. |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Jul 24, 2021 18:24:51 GMT
Um. The set in this artwork is quite obviously (I'd have thought) the Stage Right Box from scenes within the Opera House.
In terms of dropping the 'The', I always thought this was a contentious/rights issue given the production that inspired this was Ken Hill's 'Phantom of the Opera'.
Edit: context
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jul 24, 2021 18:58:30 GMT
I can't wait for the reviews from "normal people" on this thread and elsewhere. That will be the acid test. We all know certain people here will hate it, no matter what, and certain people will say they love it - both sides acting out of spite to an extent. It's somewhat predictable. I'm more interested in what the average punter thinks at this stage. I'm an average punter - I'll let you know on Tuesday. 🤣🤣🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Jul 25, 2021 9:31:33 GMT
Looks like they're insisting on destroying the proscenium, then. I also saw the ad on the Tube the other day. At least they've stopped using the 'Brilliant Original' tagline. That’s not the proscenium. Not sure if you mean it's not the proscenium in the picture, or it's not the proscenium right now in Her Majesty's. If the former, you can see enough of the detail to align it with the planning submission design based on the tour. The stage picture wouldn't have looked like this in the original when the boxes are used. |
|
19,750 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 25, 2021 9:43:55 GMT
I’ve been mulling over whether to put up a poll for people to give their ratings after the opening on Tuesday. I do think the star ratings are fun for high profile shows or those which have generated a lot of discussion. We do see members participating in polls where they have never actually posted on a thread for so it’s a good way for those people to get Involved over and above just reading the forum. I’m just worried that it will become the source of arguments. what do you think? Is it more trouble than it’s worth?
|
|
