Miss Saigon - Theatre Royal / Prince Edward / UK Tour

[danb]

Love that they’ve re-done footage from the cinema release with the new cast for the tv ad. It looks great and will hopefully sell it in Bristol.

[tysilio2]

Saw this in Manchester on Thursday last week with Tom Hier on as Chris. Lovely voice but felt his acting seemed a little 'inhibited' compared to Ashley Gilmour's. Joreen Buatista was on as Kim as when I saw it in Birmingham and her voice seems to have matured. She was even better than before. All the remaining cast were superb again. Stalls were very full.

[Dave25]

Apr 16, 2018 21:49:12 GMT BurlyBeaR said:

I think this show is a grower for me, as was the case with Les Mis. I had to invest a couple of viewings in that before the score really hit me and this is exactly the same. First time I saw it at the Prince Edward I was halfway back in the stalls. I liked it ok, but it didn’t really register because a lot of the lyrics were lost. The lighting is so dark much of the time I found it quite hard to “read” the actors. Third time for me tonight and i found some parts of it quite emotional. Being up close in the two times Ive seen the tour has means I’ve been much more engaged in the story, rather than being dazzled by the spectacle of those big numbers.

Alternate Engineer who was different but equally as good as Red, a little less cuddly and more menacing.

Having heard reactions from people watching various productions of this show since 1989, it seems like it really makes a huge difference in experience if you watch it up close, versus way back, balcony, grand circle, etc.

I think Miss Saigon is a show you really need to see up close, because it's all about the human emotions, the subtlety of sung thoughts, people who see the show up close are very engaged and emotional afterwards. People who have seen it from the back miss all of this and only talk about the effects and the helicopter or find certain scenes boring. It's the human emotion that carries this show. Not the effects.

I also think that the intimacy of the original London production, with the small theatres created front centre stage, where sun and moon, why god why, last night of the world, etc, took place, helped this given very much. It was like that really pulled the audience in. In this new production with the steel pipe construction, everything feels less intimate and Kim's bed being somewhere up right in that construction and last night of the world taking place in the stockroom of a bar, being basically the whole stage, does not help either.

[d'James]

I don’t agree at all. Both times I’ve seen it I’ve sat further back and didn’t miss the emotion.

With most shows I’d rather sit further back to begin with and if I see it again then sit closer. I did that with Titanic for example, and if I had the choice I would always sit further back in future.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2018 12:00:26 GMT d'James said:

I don’t agree at all. Both times I’ve seen it I’ve sat further back and didn’t miss the emotion.

I would agree. It's not exactly the most subtle of shows and there's a lot of stuff going on so I would think personally that you would lose a little more being sat closer really.

[d'James]

Apr 30, 2018 12:20:55 GMT @ryan said:

Apr 30, 2018 12:00:26 GMT d'James said:

I don’t agree at all. Both times I’ve seen it I’ve sat further back and didn’t miss the emotion.

I would agree. It's not exactly the most subtle of shows and there's a lot of stuff going on so I would think personally that you would lose a little more being sat closer really.

Agreed. I definitely felt that with Titanic (I have seen other shows).

[Deleted]

A few familiar faces in the new cast. Gabriella Williams, Ross Lee Fowkes and Louis Stockil are in it, and I really want to see Gabriella as Ellen.

[daniel]

Vinny Coyle on as Chris tonight.

[zak97]

Is it normal for a cast change to occur mid-venue. Is it possible that the cast have joined mid-way through Manchester so that they first cast do the Manchester press night, get some local word of mouth in to get tickets sold. Then get the new cast in to get the up to speed, like previews after press night, so they are full and ready to go in the next city.

[undeuxtrois]

Does anyone know who's on generally on a Saturday Matinee?

[LaLuPone]

Apr 30, 2018 18:06:28 GMT undeuxtrois said:

Does anyone know who's on generally on a Saturday Matinee?

Pretty sure it would be Joreen.

[zak97]

Apr 30, 2018 18:06:28 GMT undeuxtrois said:

Does anyone know who's on generally on a Saturday Matinee?

If it's the same as the London schedule - the only planned absence will be Sooha for Joreen, the alternate Kim.

[hitmewithurbethshot]

Do we know who the new understudies are?

[daniel]

May 1, 2018 0:28:24 GMT hitmewithurbethshot said:

Do we know who the new understudies are?

Yes:

[kimbahorel]

OMG Vinny is 2nd Cover John now I would do anything to see him do that 😭

[Deleted]

Does anyone know if Sunderland is going to end up being the last UK date for this? Seems to be Zurich after that, but am hoping there will be then be more UK dates. Though has done all the big UK venues so guess is unlikely....

[sf]

Apr 30, 2018 17:41:50 GMT daniel said:

Vinny Coyle on as Chris tonight.

He was very good (I saw it last night).

The production as a whole... isn't, at least compared to the original. It's broader and cruder and louder, and nearly every last scrap of subtlety has been taken out of a piece that was never very subtle to begin with. And none of the rewrites are improvements (I don't count the replacement of 'The Sacred Bird', which was gone a long, long time ago, and whose faux-Orientalist lyrics were slightly wince-inducing even in 1989). Some of them, like the rewrite of 'The Movie in my Mind', are actually damaging. This production is very well sung indeed, but it's like watching the cartoon version of something that was originally written for grown-ups.

[distantcousin]

May 1, 2018 15:12:28 GMT sf said:

Apr 30, 2018 17:41:50 GMT daniel said:

Vinny Coyle on as Chris tonight.

He was very good (I saw it last night).

The production as a whole... isn't, at least compared to the original. It's broader and cruder and louder, and nearly every last scrap of subtlety has been taken out of a piece that was never very subtle to begin with. And none of the rewrites are improvements (I don't count the replacement of 'The Sacred Bird', which was gone a long, long time ago, and whose faux-Orientalist lyrics were slightly wince-inducing even in 1989). Some of them, like the rewrite of 'The Movie in my Mind', are actually damaging. This production is very well sung indeed, but it's like watching the cartoon version of something that was originally written for grown-ups.

I pretty much agree. Most of the score changes aren't improvements at all.

[Dave25]

I actually like the change in The movie in my mind very much, I think that's an improvement. I love how she sings she longs for a place where she doesn't have to "dance" anymore, which is like a metaphor for the whole game that's going on there. Also that her dreams are shattered because of what she's been through. I never really liked the "Ice cream" line, which sounded like "I scream" at times, and the line was merely mentioning a few very random specific things that she liked. Also the dollar bill line felt a bit misplaced to me, because I feel that Gigi's dreams are not about money.

But there is another part of the show that I think needs to be changed back as soon as possible, because it was perfect. It's in the confrontation. The change in the first part, Chris' solo is actually really well done, "senseless fight" etc, is an improvement from the old lyrics. But the part with Ellen used to be: "I think this is the answer, for now this is the answer, It's done.....it's planned......the girl is smart, she'll understand. I just love that these last 2 lines both have 4 syllables, because musically, that gives off the feel that they are trying to affirm to themselves that they are right in the lines they sing. It's like 1234, 1234. This show is written so incredibly well that every syllable and intention of each line matches the music precisely. That's why this material does not need extra sauce by speaking or exaggeration words, but that's another issue. I also love that Chris is so confused and determined to choose Ellen's side at that moment that they sing "the girl is smart, she'll understand", which gives me shivers as it creates a change in attitude that is very realistic for ex lovers in difficult situations. It's really the essence of this show, what do different situations do to people and their love. And the 3rd mistake is replacing the beautifully: "we will do what is right, right for him, right for us, right for Kim..." First, I just love this rhyme scheme. And here they do mention her name in a way that goes from stilted turning into the beginning of doubt, at the end of the line, and then we hear Kim singing "I still taste your kisses...". They start with "him" because they were already talking about Tam, as the previous line was "he will go to American schools", etc. And Kim sings "you won't forget Tam is a part of you". So we know what "him" means.

In the new version, this is a mess. It doesn't make sense anymore, first because they leave out a syllable and sing "It's done, it's planned....Kim is smart, she'll understand". It doesn't fit the music anymore and really it ruins the flow of the moment and the effect of the affirmation is gone musically. Yes people, this is fine art and especially because Miss Saigon is so very well written and has always painted with this given so well, it is a slap in the face if moments like this are ruined. The rest of the show does an exquisite job at this. It flows and lyrics and music match. I don't think people realize how well the lyrics and music match in this show. Also, just mentioning "Kim" here makes the scene less dramatic. The next mistake is that they sing "we will do what is right, right for Tam (while his name is already mentioned twice in line before, they were already talking about Tam, as the previous line was "he can go to American schools", and Kim sings "you won't forget Tam is a part of you). And then they sing "and for us, and for Kim". While it's just an ugly line, it makes no sense in terms of rhyme scheme whatsoever either.

I really hope they will fix this soon.

I like the lyric changes in American Dream, which I think are an improvement, and I don't really understand the beginning of "I still believe", "I heard you speak my name....I cried". Which is a very different way of writing than the rest of the show. This verse is Kim talking to herself, "I cried" is suddenly talking to an audience, one would never tell herself that, which is weird and misplaced. I see that as a mistake in writing. The engineer is the only character that is supposed to speak to the audience in that way. The rest of the show is either sung thoughts or dialogue, but not telling the audience these kind of literal things.

[sf]

May 6, 2018 15:29:16 GMT Dave25 said:

I actually like the change in The movie in my mind very much, I think that's an improvement. I love how she sings she longs for a place where she doesn't have to "dance" anymore, which is like a metaphor for the whole game that's going on there. Also that her dreams are shattered because of what she's been through. I never really liked the "Ice cream" line, which sounded like "I scream" at times, and the line was merely mentioning a few very random specific things that she liked. Also the dolar bill line felt a bit misplaced to me, because I feel that Gigi's dreams are not about money.

Having her sing about longing for a place where she doesn't have to dance is precisely the problem, and the point - which was perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention to the words - was never that Gigi's dreams were about money, even given the lyric about dollar bills. The original lyric was heartbreaking because the vision of America she described was essentially fake - a too-good Promised Land based on images from movies (hence "the movie in my mind"). The replacement version is a generic plea for a Big Strong Man to come and take her away. It takes a moment that was poignant on more than one level and significantly debases it.

Admittedly the showtunes-as-karaoke performances in this production don't help, but dumbing that lyric down was a very, very damaging choice.

[Dave25]

double

[Dave25]

May 6, 2018 15:43:30 GMT sf said:

the vision of America she described was essentially fake - a too-good Promised Land based on images from movies (hence "the movie in my mind"). The replacement version is a generic plea for a Big Strong Man to come and take her away. It takes a moment that was poignant on more than one level and significantly debases it.

Thanks for your reply! It's nice to read your views and see things from different sides.

I have to disagree though. I think for many women in the USA, or in the world, life is indeed finding a man, getting children, eating ice cream and receiving dollar bills. I don't think there is anything particularly untrue or heartbreaking about the idea of getting kids, ice cream or money. Or "fake" or "too good" for that matter.

It's merely about dreaming of a normal life with normal things. But I feel that in that lyrics, the focus lies on a big strong man taking her away and giving her money and saving the day, while in the new lyrics the focus lies more on getting away from hell, and hoping for a better life somewhere.

I feel that summing up nice everyday things that a man can give you is not the best way to reach the audience's sympathy.

[Dave25]

May 1, 2018 15:12:28 GMT sf said:

 it's like watching the cartoon version of something that was originally written for grown-ups.

This is a very interesting point too. I do feel that the original production was much more mature, real and sincere.

It could have something to do with the belittling "acting the song" approach that seems to happen nowadays, where every lyric is given extra sauce by moaning, speaking or exaggerating, clearly underestimating the power of music and singing and instead "overdoing it" is hurting its essence. 

I once wrote a post about that. When does it lose its sincerity? I think this artform loses its sincerity when overdoing it. "Acting out" each line on top of the singing too much, which feels doubly forced and fake.

I call it the "seed approach". Too much Sauce, Emphasis, Exaggeration and Distraction.

Therefore it feels like posturing and affected. By doing that people are essentially separating the acting from the singing. They might think they are combining it by the constant switching and exaggerating, but they are not.

Speaking 5 words "now..come on...ladies....settle..." and then use a long vibrato on the 6th "doooooooown" simply does not work. That's what makes people feel uncomfortable, laugh and talk down this artform. People will then wonder why they are actually singing if the arform is not embraced/apologized for. Distraction is not the solution.

This is not necessarily about talent, but about making wrong choices in the performance. As you can see in the clip I posted, even Lea Salonga does it right sometimes and wrong sometimes. It's all about natural singing and "acting through it" instead of "in spite of it" by doing distracting things that create a disconnect.

Edit: Here is the link to that clip about the natural approach versus the seed approach

[sf]

May 6, 2018 16:32:23 GMT Dave25 said:

I have to disagree though. I think for many women in the USA, or in the world, life is indeed finding a man, getting children, eating ice cream and receiving dollar bills.

Wow.

Have you tried viewing those lyrics through a lens that isn't breathtakingly misogynist and seventy years out of date?

May 6, 2018 16:32:23 GMT Dave25 said:

I don't think there is anything particularly untrue or heartbreaking about the idea of getting kids, ice cream or money. Or "fake" or "too good" for that matter.

It's merely about dreaming of a normal life with normal things. But I feel that in that lyrics, the focus lies on a big strong man taking her away and giving her money and saving the day, while in the new lyrics the focus lies more on getting away from hell, and hoping for a better life somewhere.

I feel that summing up nice everyday things that a man can give you is not the best way to reach the audience's sympathy.

Well, no. As I said, the original version of the song is not about "nice everyday things that a man can give you". It's about an idealised but delusional vision of a promised land that doesn't exist. Even in this country, in 1975 the USA was still seen as a land of (relative) abundance. There's a reason this song comes close to the beginning of the show and "The American Dream" comes close to the end - or at least there was, until the lyrics were rewritten and all the interesting stuff was removed.

[Dave25]

There is nothing delusional about getting kids and eating stuff. She's longing for a very low key, normal life.

That was the intention of the original lyrics, that she doesn't need much, she is easily content with small normal things such as ice cream. That was the sweet thing. Not asking much, just a normal life. The only problem there was that she literally sang, he gives me this, he gives me that. And while probably historically accurate, the writers thought it has probably more impact to focus on her situation of getting out of that hell hole and a better life in general instead of only singing about the strong cliche saviour man who gives her things. I actually like the wider focus.