2,694 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 28, 2017 8:51:44 GMT
I think Angelica is the "showier" role - she's the clever, smart, sassy sister and more in tune with modern sensibilities. Eliza is more the classic drippy musical theatre heroine standing by her man, suffering from her man's absencees/infidelities, etc. Not sure if Philippa Soo would have won even if it hadn't been Cynthia Erivo's year with a killer performance.
That said, I think while Angelica is a great role to win awards for, the way the role is written makes it easy to shine, while it's a bigger challenge to sell a number like "I'm still here". So, I wouldn't call that particular award race decided yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 9:17:26 GMT
I don't tend to comment negatively about shows on Twitter, and neither do many of my friends, as it's really not the medium for nuanced conversation, and it is ever so easy for cast, creatives, family and friends to find you and misconstrue you. I had a VERY frosty exchange with an actor once who took my praise as insult (can't remember exactly what I said but yes, it was possible to read it both ways). I will make exceptions if I think a show is completely dire and people need to be warned to stay away, but "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is a reasonable way to be on Twitter.
What makes this place different is you have more than 140 characters to play with so you can really choose your wording carefully, and also it's a very distinct niche on the internet where people are going to discuss theatre, and I think criticism as part of discussion is far more inherently expected here than scattered across more general social media sites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 9:26:02 GMT
Also here (on the whole) the criticsim is 'constructive' or at least backed up with reasoning and evidence. Of course there are shows you're just going to hate because you hate tham (and that's valid too sometimes a thing just isn't your thing). But it's also easier here to say that clearly in an envirnoment geared to it, rather than the world of social media.
Also this is very much our 'bubble' and while I've curated a twitter bubble of theatre folks, in my followers (and anyone googling) there's a LOT of non theatre folks, so while a lot of my niche theatre tweets get ignored you can almost be sure some person who hasn't even set foot in a theatre will also manage to take a theatre tweet out of context and start a riot. So that's good reason to say mainly nice things too.
|
|
10 posts
|
Follies
Aug 28, 2017 9:31:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by stitcher on Aug 28, 2017 9:31:30 GMT
Yes, it wasn't great... Did anyone see the production at the Landor with Claire Moore playing Sally? Despite my skepticism of it being done in such a tiny venue I really enjoyed it, it'll go down in history as the most intimate version ever ... Going to see this on Saturday - does Phyllis do The Ballad of Lucy And Jessie or Ah, But Underneath? As Janie Dee's getting praise for her dancing I'm guessing it's the former? |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 28, 2017 9:44:53 GMT
does Phyllis do The Ballad of Lucy And Jessie or Ah, But Underneath? As Janie Dee's getting praise for her dancing I'm guessing it's the former? Yes, Janie does Lucy & Jessie! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 11:51:44 GMT
Follies will surely get a West End transfer and must be an Olivier contender with the caliber of it's cast and the great reviews it is getting. [ Slightly naïve statement. The Olivier stage is huge and it's very hard to transfer a show from there to a west end theatre- unless say Drury Lane becomes available. Follies is not a show that will sell out a 2000+ seat theatre. Plus it is eligible for The Oliviers anyway playing at the NT. doesn't need to transfer to be eligible. Plus it hasn't yet received critics reviews.. only 'reviews' of twitterers I know that NT Productions are Olivier eligible. I thought a transfer is likely given it is a heavyweight Musical Theatre cast - 3 established West End Leading Ladies, Philip Quast, an Opera Dame even a Strallen for good measure. The Reviewers on here are quite knowledgeable IMO so if they like a show then it must be doing something right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 11:54:06 GMT
I could see it do a limited run somewhere, but where to go is the question, as the stage itself looks quite large for this one? Dare I say, could it take over the Dominion at the end of American in Paris' contract for a limited run? A huge theatre to fill, but the demand could well be there, especially once reviews come out.
|
|
19,739 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 28, 2017 12:07:43 GMT
[ Slightly naïve statement. The Olivier stage is huge and it's very hard to transfer a show from there to a west end theatre- unless say Drury Lane becomes available. Follies is not a show that will sell out a 2000+ seat theatre. Plus it is eligible for The Oliviers anyway playing at the NT. doesn't need to transfer to be eligible. Plus it hasn't yet received critics reviews.. only 'reviews' of twitterers I know that NT Productions are Olivier eligible. I thought a transfer is likely given it is a heavyweight Musical Theatre cast - 3 established West End Leading Ladies, Philip Quast, an Opera Dame even a Strallen for good measure. The Reviewers on here are quite knowledgeable IMO so if they like a show then it must be doing something right. Imelda is supposed to be doing Gypsy on Broadway next Spring isn't she? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 28, 2017 12:11:49 GMT
Follies will surely get a West End transfer and must be an Olivier contender with the caliber of it's cast and the great reviews it is getting. As far as I know, no commercial production of Follies has ever turned a profit - including the original London production, which ran a year and a half (the longest run of any version of the show) but lost money. I wouldn't say a transfer of this production is impossible, but I don't think it's very likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 12:25:23 GMT
I know that NT Productions are Olivier eligible. I thought a transfer is likely given it is a heavyweight Musical Theatre cast - 3 established West End Leading Ladies, Philip Quast, an Opera Dame even a Strallen for good measure. The Reviewers on here are quite knowledgeable IMO so if they like a show then it must be doing something right. Imelda is supposed to be doing Gypsy on Broadway next Spring isn't she? It was rumoured a while back, late last year that it would happen. Nothing offical more than talks at the moment, but its been a decade by 2018 Since the Patti version, and the one before was only 5 years before that, so it won't be the biggest surprise to see it bzck on Broadway, even if its not Imelda, in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 12:28:01 GMT
Amazing to think a show ran 18 months but lost money. The cast is large - 37 but certainly no bigger than a lot of blockbuster musicals which also have huge sets. The current cast of 42nd Street is over 50 I think.
If this show costs a lot to stage then isn't the NT effectively throwing money down the drain if it cannot transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 12:47:26 GMT
Also here (on the whole) the criticsim is 'constructive' or at least backed up with reasoning and evidence. Of course there are shows you're just going to hate because you hate tham (and that's valid too sometimes a thing just isn't your thing). But it's also easier here to say that clearly in an envirnoment geared to it, rather than the world of social media. Also this is very much our 'bubble' and while I've curated a twitter bubble of theatre folks, in my followers (and anyone googling) there's a LOT of non theatre folks, so while a lot of my niche theatre tweets get ignored you can almost be sure some person who hasn't even set foot in a theatre will also manage to take a theatre tweet out of context and start a riot. So that's good reason to say mainly nice things too. Hmm, I find that the majority of negative (and positive) comments on here are not backed up with reasoning or evidence! I think you are right in that negativity deserves proper explanation in the way that praise doesn't, though. There are some who do take the time to explain and they are illuminating in a useful way. I always try to give explanations and background for negative comments myself. The Life at Southwark recently, for example, which was just closing when I saw it. Often there would be nothing gained from posting about something I didn't enjoy as others are enjoying it and I don't want to put people off from going to see it too. I also get the impression that some people don't really understand how visible this place is. Similar to Broadwayworld which has been forced into having stricter moderation after complaints from people mentioned in posts. We've had some pretty nasty comments about performers, writers and directors of a personal nature, the low point being a comment about a young writer who was called 'subhuman' (on WOS before the current moderation team, I think). Some just cannot separate considered objective comments about a show from escalating disappointment into something more aggressive. The people creating work are not your servants, they are human beings doing their best and they sometimes fail, sometimes badly. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then, on here as on twitter, I don't say it, because the people I may have referred to, or someone who knows them and who could pass it on, may read it. I try not to refer to people that I know but I see them frequently (including in this production), that's just the result of decades of teaching. All involved are very open to criticism and there are some who seek me out to be picky even after they have become successful in the business. I tell people not to google for comments and reviews but it's human nature. Whatever you post may well be read more widely than you imagine. |
|
19,739 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 28, 2017 12:59:34 GMT
|
|
524 posts
|
Post by callum on Aug 28, 2017 13:53:26 GMT
So far it seems like negative reviews on here are negative reviews of the book/music rather than the production itself. It seems that that is as good as it gets for Follies, for better or worse.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 28, 2017 13:59:32 GMT
If this show costs a lot to stage then isn't the NT effectively throwing money down the drain if it cannot transfer. No. The National exists to produce work that would not be financially sustainable in the commercial sector. Follies is just as much a 20th-Century American classic as, say, Death of a Salesman or The Iceman Cometh or A Delicate Balance or The Glass Menagerie, but it's written on a scale that demands resources that make it impossible to produce without a subsidy. That's precisely what theatres like the National are for. They aren't simply there to be tryout venues for commercial producers - although obviously if something does turn out to be a commercial hit it will bring them valuable additional income. |
|
8,140 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Aug 28, 2017 14:48:53 GMT
Can't see it transferring to the west end as Sondheim is a bit of a niche market and would struggle to fill a theatre long enough to turn a profit. I would think that most people who want to see it will do so during its NT run.
Sweeney Todd which is by far the most well known Sondheim struggled towards the end at the Adelphi even with dame Staunton and Ball. Merrily and Night Music were the same even though Merrily had more 5 star reviews than any other musical at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 15:10:16 GMT
Can't see it transferring to the west end as Sondheim is a bit of a niche market and would struggle to fill a theatre long enough to turn a profit. I would think that most people who want to see it will do so during its NT run. Sweeney Todd which is by far the most well known Sondheim struggled towards the end at the Adelphi even with dame Staunton and Ball. Merrily and Night Music were the same even though Merrily had more 5 star reviews than any other musical at the time. I think the cinema broadcast scheduled for November is fairly indicative that a transfer is unlikely. I've noticed that cinema broadcasts of shows generally follow a west end(/broadway) run rather than precede one. |
|
28 posts
|
Post by barbra99 on Aug 28, 2017 15:43:04 GMT
A second viewing on Saturday evening. Much tighter technically during the Loveland sequence.
Sadly the Bolero d’Amour couple have been cut. Ah well. I though Imelda Staunton’s perfomace was more evenly paced, less manic at the beginning. Although I still have doubts about her casting. Her top and soprano notes sounded more convincing as well.
I enjoyed it even more this time. A thrilling evening out. I am just trying to fish out my programme from the 1987 London production but can’t find it!!!. would be great to see some pics of that production again.
|
|
28 posts
|
Post by barbra99 on Aug 28, 2017 16:16:30 GMT
Are we allowed to post videos? If so, I found this performance of Who’s that Woman from the 1987 London production. Choreography by Bob Avian. I wish someone would show this to Bill Deamer. This number was perfectly staged in the 1987 production, in my opinion and really made use of the ‘mirror’ effect.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 28, 2017 16:45:58 GMT
Are we allowed to post videos? If so, I found this performance of Who’s that Woman from the 1987 London production. Choreography by Bob Avian. I wish someone would show this to Bill Deamer. This number was perfectly staged in the 1987 production, in my opinion and really made use of the ‘mirror’ effect. Not exactly choreography by Bob Avian, actually. That's Bob Avian recreating Michael Bennett's choreography from the original Broadway production (Avian was Bennett's assistant on the original Broadway 'Follies'). The rest of the choreography in the original London production was Avian's own, but 'Who's That Woman' was not. (It wasn't the first production to recreate Bennett's choreography for 'Who's That Woman', though I think none of the others that did were choreographed by Avian.) |
|
28 posts
|
Post by barbra99 on Aug 28, 2017 16:47:29 GMT
Thanks for the clarification. Still genius Tho.
|
|
|
|
Follies
Aug 28, 2017 17:45:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 17:45:01 GMT
See, Trafalgar Studios do it right... You leave during the show, you don't come back in. Maybe that is what the National should do with this show to stop any issues. The usher made a point of telling me as I came in, so doing that at the National.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 18:23:57 GMT
At the time of the last Broadway revival, another well-received production was underway at Chicago Shakespeare Theatre. In case any of the Follies fans want to see excerpts, some video clips are available on YouTube, as well as here www.chicagoshakes.com/plays_and_events/follies. The intimate size of the theatre really made that production feel special. The cast was excellent overall with strong performances from the leads. |
|
7,153 posts
|
Follies
Aug 28, 2017 18:36:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jon on Aug 28, 2017 18:36:06 GMT
I could see it do a limited run somewhere, but where to go is the question, as the stage itself looks quite large for this one? Dare I say, could it take over the Dominion at the end of American in Paris' contract for a limited run? A huge theatre to fill, but the demand could well be there, especially once reviews come out. Follies would die a death at the Dominion, its double the capacity of The Olivier! |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 28, 2017 18:42:06 GMT
hey, that's not on, cutting the Bolero. It's just as much a part of the show as the other numbers. Is this a nod to Bladdergate?
|
|
