52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 11:38:57 GMT
Yes - all is true. But this is a team that is clearly young, inexperienced and doing this for the first time. They don't have the backing, cash or resources that a Sonia Friedman or Cameron Mackintosh have to doctor a show. But you can tell that to them it's a lot more than just commercial enterprise. In ways that is naive if you have a show on the West End - in other ways, it's completely admirable, and I think their passion and love totally floods the auditorium. I'm not easy to please and I am such a huge cynic and very unforgiving to West End musicals, but this little show, despite its flaws, completely won me over. Can't wait to see it and share with my friend on Saturday evening. Exactly Ali- as much as they're 'sharing stages' with other musicals in the West End with that backing it's unfair to compare note for note (or pound for pound) because they simply don't have the resources that the 'Big Boys' have- and I think it's really admirable what they've done. I also think it's really important we DO see smaller producers/theatres get their West End transfers because otherwise we'll be back to the 80s with homogenised 'Super Shows' that say nothing, do nothing and are just 'pretty'. I'm all for a slick West End Friedman produced spectacle, but there's space for a few Jamies alongside that too. However if you strip back the staging etc and the cheap look of the show shouldn't these smaller shows be BETTER than the blockbusters in their content? I think they have more of a responsibility to be fantastic because they have to prove themselves harder especially when they are dealing with a niche subject matter that isn't immediately going to appeal to a wide audience. As I said I really wanted to love it but there's no denying the fact that it's not very good in a lot of places - more than it's fantastic (I was completely with it for the first 25 minutes thinking YES here's a smash). Yes it is joyous in its message and I'm not debating that - but just why ISN'T it better when it had so much potential? A few cuts and changes could easily have made this an actual 5* show rather than the 2* show it really is... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 11:43:42 GMT
However if you strip back the staging etc and the cheap look of the show shouldn't these smaller shows be BETTER than the blockbusters in their content? I think they have more of a responsibility to be fantastic because they have to prove themselves harder especially when they are dealing with a niche subject matter that isn't immediately going to appeal to a wide audience. As I said I really wanted to love it but there's no denying the fact that it's not very good in a lot of places - more than it's fantastic (I was completely with it for the first 25 minutes thinking YES here's a smash). Yes it is joyous in its message and I'm not debating that - but just why ISN'T it better when it had so much potential? A few cuts and changes could easily have made this an actual 5* show rather than the 2* show it really is... Which bits are "not very good" for you? |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Nov 23, 2017 11:46:14 GMT
Yes, I think they would have benefitted from another workshop between Sheffield and London to fully doctor and incubate the show. Same with the preview period- I'm not sure if they used the previews for content/structural reconsideration or if it was just an extended public technical rehearsal.
What they need to do isn't that impossible or radical. Between these last three pages, I think everyone here as given notes that are very clear, practical and doable.
|
|
52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 11:53:31 GMT
However if you strip back the staging etc and the cheap look of the show shouldn't these smaller shows be BETTER than the blockbusters in their content? I think they have more of a responsibility to be fantastic because they have to prove themselves harder especially when they are dealing with a niche subject matter that isn't immediately going to appeal to a wide audience. As I said I really wanted to love it but there's no denying the fact that it's not very good in a lot of places - more than it's fantastic (I was completely with it for the first 25 minutes thinking YES here's a smash). Yes it is joyous in its message and I'm not debating that - but just why ISN'T it better when it had so much potential? A few cuts and changes could easily have made this an actual 5* show rather than the 2* show it really is... Which bits are "not very good" for you? It sounds mean to go into it because I didn't want the purpose of my post to rip it to shreds but if you want specifics... The cringey dance sequence. The lack of focus on who the villain is meant to be (is it the teacher? not really... The bully - kinda?... The Dad...yes he's a dick but not a strong enough presence to be the main bad guy). The lack of focus in the second half of act one. Poor structure - no act one or act 2 finale. Also it should have been edited down considerably - the new song Ugly doesn't do much for the story so could be lost and the Loco Chanel sequence doesn't make the most of what it could be and is too long. I just think the creatives thought they had it nailed after their 19 sold out performances in Sheffield and rode that wave to Shaftesbury Avenue. |
|
52 posts
|
Post by althea on Nov 23, 2017 11:54:39 GMT
Yes, I think they would have benefitted from another workshop between Sheffield and London to fully doctor and incubate the show. Same with the preview period- I'm not sure if they used the previews for content/structural reconsideration or if it was just an extended public technical rehearsal. What they need to do isn't that impossible or radical. Between these last three pages, I think everyone here as given notes that are very clear, practical and doable. I completely agree with you. I'm just very frustrated that they didn't do them because this SHOULD have been AMAZING! |
|
19,677 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 23, 2017 12:26:09 GMT
Someone will correct me probably but I don’t remember projections being used at the Crucible?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 12:35:38 GMT
Someone will correct me probably but I don’t remember projections being used at the Crucible? Really?! There are loads in this version! |
|
4,177 posts
|
Post by HereForTheatre on Nov 23, 2017 13:00:34 GMT
I really enjoyed it. I'm not going to particularly go over every aspect of it with a fine tooth comb to finf everything that's wrong or could be done better. I enjoyed it for what it currently was, and that's good enough for me.
|
|
19,677 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Nov 23, 2017 13:47:56 GMT
Seriously I dont remember any. What are they projecting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 13:54:24 GMT
Seriously I remember any. What are they? Work of Art has alot! They have alot of projections of the houses on the council estate when they are at the house |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 14:34:29 GMT
Seriously I dont remember any. What are they projecting? Their VOICES. Otherwise you'd never hear them in the back of the circle. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Nov 23, 2017 18:43:48 GMT
Someone will correct me probably but I don’t remember projections being used at the Crucible? They were only added in London. You can see them in the new promo shots from the It Means Beautiful scene |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 19:03:23 GMT
... isn't Jamie set in Sheffield? One of the top ten largest cities (by population) in the UK? The Rome of the north, with a thriving student population thanks to its two universities (one of which is the eighth largest in the UK)? I mean, stop me if I'm wrong and Jamie is actually set in a small town outside Sheffield, I haven't seen it yet, but if it is indeed set in Sheffield, then please allow my defence of Sheffield as "not a small town actually" to stand. I thought it was set just outside Sheffield. Needless to say it’s still surprising that there’s an exclusive shop for drag queens when I can’t think of a place like that in London. A) it’s loosely based on actual events, so chances are high that one does indeed exist. B) If it doesn’t exist, what does it matter? It’s a piece of theatre. C) If you were so inclined and desired to dress in drag attire, you would know a shop like that in London. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 20:28:41 GMT
Real talk though, am I the only one who thought it was so innapropriate for Jamie to kiss the straight guy against his will at the start of Act 2? I don't know what it was about it, but it hasn't sat right with me ever since I saw the show. I like to see guys kiss eachother as much as the next guy, but when it is against one of their will. I get the guy is a bit of a dick, but still. Just me?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluetoothpick on Nov 23, 2017 21:02:08 GMT
I REALLY wanted to love this show but I think the accolades it's been getting are more of a result of people not wanting to seem homophobic or being negative about original British theatre. Either that or the producer has paid for them. This show is average at best and hasn't transformed enough from the Sheffield staging to warrant a West End transfer. The book and direction are clunky and apart from the opening number lacks energy. There are some good one-liners but a lot of the show falls flat. The entire section in the drag dress shop (also for a small town it's slightly astounding that there would be a such a shop - I wouldn't know where in London to go and get a good drag frock in men's sizes) literally drags and the actor playing the "legendary" Loco Chanel just looks uncomfortable. The big moments of the show fail to ever materialise. We never actually get to see Jamie in drag as Me Me Me and the second act gets taken over with a confusing arc to go to the prom in drag but in the end lets you down as well by confusing drag with transgender issues. I really don't want to hate on something that I really enjoyed and shouted about in concept album stage and the show is a story that should be told in 2017 I just didn't think it was good enough. John McCrea is an excellent actor but a below par singer, the staging of the ballads in act 2 just become samey and dull and if you're going to have contemporary dance in one part - make it a part of the whole show or it just feels like a lazy way of filling the stage when you don't have any interesting set. Also pick a finale and end on it - don't have three lack lustre ones that never get a WOW factor. When this closes early (and sadly I think it will) everyone will be talking about how audiences don't support British writing and the West End is doomed to be filled with a plethora of Jukebox musicals - when actually that isn't true. If something is TRUELY great people will go and see it, Jamie just isn't it. Great to see this has caused some conversation. I agree with all of this. Some aspects of the show I REALLY liked, including some of the performances (Mina Anwar is brilliant) but a lot of it felt like a wasted opportunity from a creative team that lack experience. Some of the songs, for example, completely lack musicality. We say as much in our review as The Break A Leggers over on YouTube and it's clear from our like/dislike ratio there are some vehement defenders of the show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but I just don't feel like the 5* reviewers are rating the show completely subjectivly. At least, not the same show I saw..... |
|
4,790 posts
|
Post by Mark on Nov 23, 2017 21:05:24 GMT
So I've just watched the documentary on BBC iplayer. Really good programme and I can see how it was a great inspiration for a stage musical.
The thing that struck me was the accents - a definite North East accent, I hadn't realised that the story wasn't originally in Sheffield but County Durham. I'm wondering if the only reason the story was moved was due to the original production at the crucible, and maybe to make it not so "Billy Elliot"
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 21:06:33 GMT
I REALLY wanted to love this show but I think the accolades it's been getting are more of a result of people not wanting to seem homophobic or being negative about original British theatre. Either that or the producer has paid for them. This show is average at best and hasn't transformed enough from the Sheffield staging to warrant a West End transfer. The book and direction are clunky and apart from the opening number lacks energy. There are some good one-liners but a lot of the show falls flat. The entire section in the drag dress shop (also for a small town it's slightly astounding that there would be a such a shop - I wouldn't know where in London to go and get a good drag frock in men's sizes) literally drags and the actor playing the "legendary" Loco Chanel just looks uncomfortable. The big moments of the show fail to ever materialise. We never actually get to see Jamie in drag as Me Me Me and the second act gets taken over with a confusing arc to go to the prom in drag but in the end lets you down as well by confusing drag with transgender issues. I really don't want to hate on something that I really enjoyed and shouted about in concept album stage and the show is a story that should be told in 2017 I just didn't think it was good enough. John McCrea is an excellent actor but a below par singer, the staging of the ballads in act 2 just become samey and dull and if you're going to have contemporary dance in one part - make it a part of the whole show or it just feels like a lazy way of filling the stage when you don't have any interesting set. Also pick a finale and end on it - don't have three lack lustre ones that never get a WOW factor. When this closes early (and sadly I think it will) everyone will be talking about how audiences don't support British writing and the West End is doomed to be filled with a plethora of Jukebox musicals - when actually that isn't true. If something is TRUELY great people will go and see it, Jamie just isn't it. Great to see this has caused some conversation. I agree with all of this. Some aspects of the show I REALLY liked, including some of the performances (Mina Anwar is brilliant) but a lot of it felt like a wasted opportunity from a creative team that lack experience. Some of the songs, for example, completely lack musicality. We say as much in our review as The Break A Leggers over on YouTube and it's clear from our like/dislike ratio there are some vehement defenders of the show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but I just don't feel like the 5* reviewers are rating the show completely subjectivly. At least, not the same show I saw..... Oh I watch your reviews all the time! Sidenote, nothing to do with Jamie, but I love that in your 42nd Street review, as you are reviewing it, Tom Lister just casually walks right past and looks at you and the camera.  |
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on Nov 23, 2017 21:49:52 GMT
Great to see this has caused some conversation. I agree with all of this. Some aspects of the show I REALLY liked, including some of the performances (Mina Anwar is brilliant) but a lot of it felt like a wasted opportunity from a creative team that lack experience. Some of the songs, for example, completely lack musicality. We say as much in our review as The Break A Leggers over on YouTube and it's clear from our like/dislike ratio there are some vehement defenders of the show. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but I just don't feel like the 5* reviewers are rating the show completely subjectivly. At least, not the same show I saw..... Oh I watch your reviews all the time! Sidenote, nothing to do with Jamie, but I love that in your 42nd Street review, as you are reviewing it, Tom Lister just casually walks right past and looks at you and the camera. Dan you know you don't have to make every single one of your posts about 42nd Street, right?  |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Nov 23, 2017 21:53:09 GMT
Just be thankful he didn't mention Christopher Howell 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 21:57:42 GMT
Just be thankful he didn't mention Christopher Howell 😉 I'm sorry, who? |
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on Nov 23, 2017 22:54:56 GMT
Just be thankful he didn't mention Christopher Howell 😉 Shady don't start him off again!! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 23:01:06 GMT
Just be thankful he didn't mention Christopher Howell 😉 Shady don't start him off again!! *correction* don't start the ***** who tried to come for me on said thread off again. |
|
2,775 posts
|
Post by daniel on Nov 23, 2017 23:18:56 GMT
Shady don't start him off again!! *correction* don't start the ***** who tried to come for me on said thread off again. Well, it seems the artichoke is steamed. |
|
5,820 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Nov 24, 2017 7:53:12 GMT
I get the sense that all reviewers were too scared to tell the truth and get blamed for killing a rare new British musical. This show is in no way a ‘5 Star’ show. It’s massively unresolved and too many elements are just not good enough.
I don’t wish any of them out of a job, but this is simply not going to run.
|
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Nov 24, 2017 7:59:32 GMT
I hope you are proved wrong.
It is not perfect but we should be embracing new talent and new musicals in the U.K. We don’t produce enough and have relied heavily on America too much over the past two decades. Remember the eighties? It was the other way round!
It was a brave decision to transfer Jamie and I loved it. May it have a healthy run and may it be a new benchmark for other regional musicals to move into town.
|
|
