117 posts
|
Post by bramble on Aug 10, 2018 10:26:14 GMT
A polished production of a rather poor show.Didn't connect with it at all .Rather cold and uninvolving.Everyone else seemed to be having a ball!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 10:43:47 GMT
that proves it's not a good production as cold is not something that should be associated with the show.but I agree this production is
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Aug 10, 2018 11:47:56 GMT
Put me in the 'really enjoyed it' camp. But then I enjoy most things I see!
|
|
2,677 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 13, 2018 5:21:00 GMT
Well, that was a bit of a disappointment. The show itself is very enjoyable with great sets, frocks à la Downton Abbey and lots of good numbers, but I just couldn't get past the awfulness of Matt Lucas. To be fair the audience seemed to love him and laughed along with him, but to me he came across as a silly buffoon rather than a "fish out of water" charmer and I didn't like him at all. The rest of the cast was terrific though and pretty much made up for it at least.
I also really didn't like the cross-dressing female solicitor. This isn't a show with crass gender imbalance as there are three terrific female parts in it, so there's no deed for this to begin with and if you feel the need to make the role female, why not at least give her proper female clothes instead of that awful male getup that didn't suit the actress's curvy shape at all?
The house was full and everyone except me seemed to love it, so I'm quite sure it will transfer to London. I'd see it again after a cast change or when Lucas is definitely on holiday, but in all my 30 years or so of theatre going I've never experienced a show so let down by miscasting the leading man.
|
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Aug 13, 2018 7:36:07 GMT
but in all my 30 years or so of theatre going I've never experienced a show so let down by miscasting the leading man. Thank you for your thoughts, sorry you didn’t enjoy it too much! I feel kind of guilty now. I really didn’t think Matt Lucas was that bad, and I’m certainly no fan. I loathed his Thenardier. Re: the above quote - Pellow. |
|
2,677 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 13, 2018 7:55:47 GMT
well, I've never seen Pellow in anything, so I don't know if he's even worse. And I actually liked Lucas as Thenardier, but not in this, I kept thinking what a proper leading man with bucketfuls of charisma could have done with the part. Would have been a great opportunity to launch another promising career the way Half a Sixpence did for Charlie Stemp as I think Me & My Girl is one of those shows where you can easily cast 2-3 bigger names in supporting roles (the way they've done now with Caroline Quentin as the Duchess) if you need a draw, but give young unknowns a chance to shine in great leading parts.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 13, 2018 8:22:08 GMT
Completely agree with your view viserys I am not too sure about a transfer to be honest. Some musicals at Chichester actually don't! Fiddler, Music Man, 42nd Street. We shall see..... |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 18, 2018 18:53:45 GMT
Saw this today
Matt Lukas was AWFUL and soooo miscast. Couldn’t dance, over acted and couldn’t sing.
Bad staging, horrible arrangements, sad choreography, the Sally was weak, Caroline Quentin fabulous but couldn’t save this car crash of a production. They don’t even WALK in the Lambeth Walk! Ha....
Speaking to the audience in the interval so many people have glorious memories of Robert Lindsey, Gary Wilmott or Andrew Oconner. Such an incredible show and this Chichester version is a dud. Why have a theatre in the round and simply stage it all like a pros arch facing forward?
5/10
This won’t transfer I’m sure.....
|
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Aug 19, 2018 4:19:33 GMT
I wouldn't dismiss it as a dud and found plenty to enjoy, though Matt Lucas was definitely a drawback. However, it is popular enough at CFT and there will be audience members who have not seen an earlier production and/or who are now unable or unwilling to travel beyond the local area to see theatre.
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by peterbrook on Aug 19, 2018 8:48:40 GMT
Saw this yesterday afternoon. The cast worked their socks off and the (largely mature) audience loved it, interacting loudly with the jokes and giving each song a huge ovation. Yes, it was a most enjoyable way of spending two and a half hours, but....
I have to agree with the comments about Matt Lucas being the wrong casting. I never felt his Bill was really in love with Sally, and of course this is crucial to the plot. Also the scene in the original show between Jacqueline and Bill on the sofa with cushions which can be deliciously funny and sexy was here replaced by the (portly) Bill sitting in a bath. Why?
The rest of the cast were great performers, as one would expect, and the band (including the conductor's acting turns!) sprightly enough. Perhaps the aristocrats were not sufficiently sneering or toffee-nosed, which weakened the effectiveness of the times when the conflicts between the toffs and cockneys diminish.
A transfer to the West End? The production has the potential to do well in London so long as the casting is improved and certain scenes are re-worked. However, I believe that Half A Sixpence struggled to sustain an audience for it full West End run, and maybe the same would happen to an improved version of this production.
|
|
274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 19, 2018 10:13:06 GMT
Saw this yesterday afternoon. The cast worked their socks off and the (largely mature) audience loved it, interacting loudly with the jokes and giving each song a huge ovation. Yes, it was a most enjoyable way of spending two and a half hours, but.... I have to agree with the comments about Matt Lucas being the wrong casting. I never felt his Bill was really in love with Sally, and of course this is crucial to the plot. Also the scene in the original show between Jacqueline and Bill on the sofa with cushions which can be deliciously funny and sexy was here replaced by the (portly) Bill sitting in a bath. Why?
The rest of the cast were great performers, as one would expect, and the band (including the conductor's acting turns!) sprightly enough. Perhaps the aristocrats were not sufficiently sneering or toffee-nosed, which weakened the effectiveness of the times when the conflicts between the toffs and cockneys diminish. A transfer to the West End? The production has the potential to do well in London so long as the casting is improved and certain scenes are re-worked. However, I believe that Half A Sixpence struggled to sustain an audience for it full West End run, and maybe the same would happen to an improved version of this production. I agree. The fact that the bath was right next to the loo made it even less sexy. I seem to remember at one stage the loo is flushed although (Thank God) we don't see the loo being used. |
|
1,210 posts
|
Post by musicalmarge on Aug 19, 2018 10:33:00 GMT
I wouldn't dismiss it as a dud and found plenty to enjoy, though Matt Lucas was definitely a drawback. However, it is popular enough at CFT and there will be audience members who have not seen an earlier production and/or who are now unable or unwilling to travel beyond the local area to see theatre. I am sure that most theatre loving people over 50/60 years old (80 percent of CFT’s demographic) know the famous 1937 musical Me and My Girl better than most musicals today! It’s been around their whole lives; Doing the Lambeth Walk, Leaning on a Lampost - I had people around me singing along in the overture! It was a huge show in the 30’s, 50’s and 80’s. The original production gained success after a matinee performance was broadcast live on BBC radio following the cancellation of a sporting event to practically the whole country. On the 1st of May 1939 a performance was even televised from the theatre, one of the first times such a broadcast was made. Plus Me and My Girl has toured for decades and has been done on the amateur stage by every group going. I would say most audience members had seen it before, heard most of the songs and know the show very well. I think that comment shows your age! |
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Aug 19, 2018 12:00:29 GMT
The thing I don’t understand is why Matt Lucas would have wanted to be in a old war horse of a musical like this one.
I get why he wanted to do Thenardier, especially in a big anniversary year for Les Mis, but not why MAMG would have been an attractive proposition for him.
|
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Aug 19, 2018 12:11:00 GMT
The thing I don’t understand is why Matt Lucas would have wanted to be in a old war horse of a musical like this one. I get why he wanted to do Thenardier, especially in a big anniversary year for Les Mis, but not why MAMG would have been an attractive proposition for him. Money, dear boy. Actors gotta work. It’s not like he’s batting away Hollywood movie offers every day. |
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Aug 19, 2018 12:20:04 GMT
The thing I don’t understand is why Matt Lucas would have wanted to be in a old war horse of a musical like this one. I get why he wanted to do Thenardier, especially in a big anniversary year for Les Mis, but not why MAMG would have been an attractive proposition for him. Money, dear boy. Actors gotta work. It’s not like he’s batting away Hollywood movie offers every day. I doubt that’s the reason ( I’m a ‘dear girl’ by the way!). Regional theatre doesn’t pay big bucks even for big names. Panto is a better bet for big theatre pay cheques.Even WE Theatre doesn’t pay anywhere near what a star could make for an advert or a TV role. Also I would think ML is still fairly comfortable from past TV revenue. |
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Aug 19, 2018 12:27:37 GMT
Olivier on starring in “Inchon”;
“People ask me why I'm playing in this picture. The answer is simple. Money, dear boy.”
|
|
3,558 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Aug 19, 2018 14:56:57 GMT
I wouldn't dismiss it as a dud and found plenty to enjoy, though Matt Lucas was definitely a drawback. However, it is popular enough at CFT and there will be audience members who have not seen an earlier production and/or who are now unable or unwilling to travel beyond the local area to see theatre. I think that comment shows your age! Well maybe, and each of us here is after all only voicing her/his opinion. But I'm not sure what you meant about age as I'm a 60-something. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2018 16:18:59 GMT
The thing I don’t understand is why Matt Lucas would have wanted to be in a old war horse of a musical like this one. I get why he wanted to do Thenardier, especially in a big anniversary year for Les Mis, but not why MAMG would have been an attractive proposition for him. Maybe he just likes it. I've been listening to it on CD since I was a kid, I'd JUMP at the chance to perform in it (again).  |
|
274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 20, 2018 8:11:55 GMT
I remember Matt Lucas in one of those 100 best musicals TV shows as a talking head and I was impressed by his knowledge and enthusiasm for musicals. According to the Chichester Observer, Daniel Evans took Lucas out to dinner and asked what he would like to appear in at Chichester and Lucas said "Me and My Girl" as it was his favourite musical. It seems tragic that he was so deluded to think that he would make a great lead in this.
|
|
21 posts
|
Post by elliott on Aug 20, 2018 8:31:26 GMT
I saw this on Saturday afternoon and thought it was pretty good.
The cast is full of energy, ensemble give it 100%, Caroline Quentin- didn't know she had that voice on her and she was brill- Matt Lucas I found to play it for the comedy but there wasn't a lot of chemistry with his co-star, and ditto Clive Rowe.... very good but the story is a bit implausible.
The set is beautiful, works well and I thought note-worthy. Band were great- I just think the piece is let down by the writing in parts; it takes a while to get going and there's a lot of 'fill'... Also some of the gags are cringe-worthy even when served up by Matt Lucas.
Can't see it having any commercial value- great for Chichester, zero for West End.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 20, 2018 9:41:21 GMT
Can't see it having any commercial value- great for Chichester, zero for West End. I don't think this production will transfer but this version of the show with the revised book by Stephen Fry ran for 8 years in the West End from 1984 and 3 years on Broadway. |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Aug 20, 2018 11:44:27 GMT
I remember Matt Lucas in one of those 100 best musicals TV shows as a talking head and I was impressed by his knowledge and enthusiasm for musicals. According to the Chichester Observer, Daniel Evans took Lucas out to dinner and asked what he would like to appear in at Chichester and Lucas said "Me and My Girl" as it was his favourite musical. It seems tragic that he was so deluded to think that he would make a great lead in this. That is surprising, if true ( not doubting you emsworthian but local newspapers are notoriously unreliable). I had begun to form the opinion that Evans, normally such a good judge of talent, had had Lucas foisted on him. I do also think his press night absence was really fishy as I'm sure the reviews would have been less favourable. |
|
274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Aug 20, 2018 11:51:53 GMT
I remember Matt Lucas in one of those 100 best musicals TV shows as a talking head and I was impressed by his knowledge and enthusiasm for musicals. According to the Chichester Observer, Daniel Evans took Lucas out to dinner and asked what he would like to appear in at Chichester and Lucas said "Me and My Girl" as it was his favourite musical. It seems tragic that he was so deluded to think that he would make a great lead in this. That is surprising, if true ( not doubting you emsworthian but local newspapers are notoriously unreliable). I had begun to form the opinion that Evans, normally such a good judge of talent, had had Lucas foisted on him. I do also think his press night absence was really fishy as I'm sure the reviews would have been less favourable.
Don't forget another spectacular miscasting by Evans - Richard Wilson in "Forty Years On."
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Aug 20, 2018 12:17:12 GMT
Don't forget another spectacular miscasting by Evans - Richard Wilson in "Forty Years On." I've just read the article. The reason Matt Lucas was in Chichester in the first place was to see his friend Richard Wilson in Forty Years On. Daniel Evans found out, invited him to dinner...and the rest is history. So one indirectly led to the other. Lucas also said he auditioned for the role via Skype from his home in LA. Let that be a lesson to everyone involved in casting decisions! Matt Lucas interview |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Aug 20, 2018 13:28:39 GMT
Hmmm...I know Evans must have wanted to make an impact at Chi but he has just slightly gone down in my estimation (which will worry him, I'm sure!)
|
|
