1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Oct 29, 2017 1:00:45 GMT
Oh My God I saw this tonight. I am in love. Can you legally marry a musical because if so I'm about to become Mrs 42nd Street. From the first song my jaw was on the floor. By the interval I'd already made up my mind to come again. I loved basically everything about this show. Sure, the plot is fairly thin and quite predictable, but it's ALL about the dancing, and the cast are unanimously fabulous in that respect. I also think I'm a bit in love with Norman Bowman as an actor. He was on as Julian, as zak97 said, and was just fantastic. So hard to understand how he plays the role of Pat normally. He was a real stand out to me. Gorgeous voice. I recognised him from last year's LMTO A Christmas Carol Concert so actually FOUND my comments on the thread from last year about that show, and whaddaya know, I said much the same thing about him then. Claire Halse and Stuart Neal were also just wonderful with an unreal energy level, and wonderful stage presence. I'm sensing this show getting A LOT of Oliviers love. I haven't been able to stop raving about it since the interval!!  Saw a matinee of An American In Paris on the same day and while that was good 42nd Street was on a whole other level. Not a very coherent post, but honestly I'm still 'recovering' from how good it was. I almost cried with joy at several points.  Absolutely 100% recommend! |
|
1,083 posts
|
Post by andrew on Oct 29, 2017 7:54:14 GMT
I saw this a few weeks ago and I didn't post anything. I walked out a bit underwhelmed. But that's OK, sometimes it takes a period of reflection, sometimes shows grow on you. There's obviously a lot of spectacle and that can be bewildering. Follies grew on me a lot, Groundhog Day, for two recent examples. You have to go away and let these things settle, maybe listen to a cast album or something and form an overall impression. Don't rush to a conclusion. And I've had that time now.
And I still think it's rubbish.
It's a struggle, because most of the reviews on here are along the lines of "I accept it's flaws, but it's so brilliant". I just find that a bit hard to reconcile. The story is non-existant, there are more complex tales woven in the Gruffalo. It's not even that it's predictable, or simple, it's just that it's boring. It extends to the people onstage as well, there are more relatable (and frankly likeable) characters in a community production of Sweeney Todd than cross the pages of 42nd Street's script. These aren't unimportant things, these aren't aspects of a show I'm willing to forgive, these are essentials of storytelling. Fundamental concepts one has to get right. Yes, the dancings good, yes the show looks alright (although the sets actually left me a bit cold with their painted on people, I sort of assume that it's a nod to the era of theatre it's set in, however maybe I'm being generous...), but that's only part of what makes a good show. It's like someone spent 5 minutes coming up with the book and the next 8 months getting the tap number right - are we not worth trying for both? Is that so much to strive for?
Sometimes you get into conversations with people who don't attend the theatre where you find yourself justifying your interest. Most commonly it's someone saying they don't like musical theatre, they don't want cheesy showtunes and cartoon characters prancing around a stage. And I come back and say that I wouldn't like that either, and that musical theatre is so much more. I say that it's this beautiful fusion of story and song, where music is used to pull you into a characters world in a way that words alone can't manage. The visceral emotions that music can evoke take you somewhere that can be uniquely exciting, or tragic, or beautiful. This show vomits on that concept. It's all spectacle and no substance, and I honestly just don't think that in 2017, in the West End, that this is what we should be aiming for. We are quite capable of having good stories that deserve the sequins and set pieces on top, if we tried.
This show is exactly what I don't want people to think of when they think of musicals. It's stupid. I enjoy it less the more I think about it. No one on here will like me anymore but I think you've all gone mad. Or maybe I've gone mad. Maybe I'm missing the joke. Even parsley liked it.
I'm sorry everyone.
(although I did quite like the mirror bit)
|
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 29, 2017 8:06:23 GMT
Aw I still like you andrew. Because you’ve made me feel better about not getting the fuss about Follies  Your comment about all spectacle and no substance though, maybe back in the day 42 St was the equivalent of today’s blockbuster SFX movies. People went to see it purely to be visually wowed. The fact that singing, dancing sets and music can still do that in this day and age is pretty impressive I think. |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Oct 29, 2017 8:44:45 GMT
Great review andrew. I loved the show, but I also loved your review and I'm glad you finally found some (brilliant) words to express how it was for you. |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Oct 29, 2017 9:01:55 GMT
Having slept on it, I really want to go again - as in next week! First time, I probably came out a 5/10, last night 8.5/10 and now I'm on 9.5/10. I think its the last 20 minutes through finale that has got me.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Oct 29, 2017 9:07:00 GMT
Well andrew, that made my gushing review just above yours seem a bit unfounded 😉 but of course you make all excellent points. I agree the story was not there. But for me the spectacle of the design, and the out of this world talent of the cast, made up for that entirely. I'm not one to typically be taken in by bright lights and glittery costumes, but 42nd Street was an unapologetically big, brash showstopper, and I adored it for what it was. Admittedly I was in the £15 front row dayseats, but I'd have paid significantly more and probably will if I drag my parents along at some point. For me the energy and talent of the cast, and the gorgeous feast of glitz sold 42nd Street to me. It all comes down to personal taste I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 9:11:02 GMT
Well andrew, that made my gushing review just above yours seem a bit unfounded 😉 but of course you make all excellent points. I agree the story was not there. But for me the spectacle of the design, and the out of this world talent of the cast, made up for that entirely. I'm not one to typically be talken in my bright lights and glittery costumes, but 42nd Street was an unapologetically big, brash showstopper, and I adored it for what it was. Admittedly I was in the £15 front row dayseats, but I'd have paid significantly more and probably will if I drag my parents along at some point. For me the energy and talent of the cast, and the gorgeous feast of glitz sold 42nd Street to me. It all comes down to personal taste I suppose. Love that you had such a wonderful time. Good for you! I think the point it we would like all musicals To be done on this scale An orchestra of 20 Cast of 50 Wonderful dancing The fact remains that very few producers are willing to take the risk and dip their hands into their pockets This is why we keep getting small scale shows What I regard about 42nd Street Is that even in this day and age They have not scaled back or skimped on anything I think it shows some respect for audiences Which has been lost these days Regarding “plot” and storylines I can’t think of a single musical which has a proper “plot” They are constantly hindered by songs and dancing If I want a good engaging plot I attend a play |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Oct 29, 2017 9:15:28 GMT
To question the story line of 42nd Street is to entirely miss the point. It is what it is and always was, a loving tribute to a classic 1930s depression era movie with all the corniness and heart on sleeve sentimentality that that implies. Who would have it any other way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 9:18:32 GMT
To question the story line of 42nd Street is to entirely miss the point. It is what it is and always was, a loving tribute to a classic 1930s depression era movie with all the corniness and heart on sleeve sentimentality that that implies. Who would have it any other way? The main point It’s in the money 💰 |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Oct 29, 2017 9:29:05 GMT
I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 9:46:02 GMT
I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom? I am 6 3 And have sat there fine |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:12:13 GMT
It's all spectacle and no substance, and I honestly just don't think that in 2017, in the West End, that this is what we should be aiming for. Well that's what half the West End is, so clearly that's what a lot of people want, and I think the West End will always be aiming for what people want as that makes money! I get all your points, they make sense and of course you are entitled to your opinion, but my opinion is pretty much the polar opposite to yours. Not all musical theatre has to be a highbrow story, not all musical theatre has to give you an important lesson or message to take away, not all musical theatre has to have a good plot (let's face it, half of musicals don't really). A good plot is essential to a play because that is necessarily the major part of the production, whereas a musical also has singing, and often dancing, so the focus is dissipated. I don't need a musical to make me think deeply, that's not why I go to see them. I go to hear good scores, see good dancing and generally escape the world for a couple of hours and leave with a smile on my face. If a show does do that, then I absolutely can forgive it for not having much plot, and I make no apology for doing so. That doesn't make it a poor piece of theatre, it just makes it a piece of theatre that does music and dancing exceptionally well, and that to me is what a good, old Hollywood musical is all about. 42nd Street has all of that, in spades. |
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 29, 2017 10:16:56 GMT
I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom? I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom? I am 6 3 And have sat there fine I’m 6’3 and couldn't even get my legs in properly in an aisle seat, front block, centre stalls. If you’re very slender and are abe to twist around in the seat maybe it would be ok, but I’m not and I looked at A0 last time I was there and wouldn’t risk it. |
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 29, 2017 10:21:18 GMT
Regarding “plot” and storylines I can’t think of a single musical which has a proper “plot”
They are constantly hindered by songs and dancing I can think of loads. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:28:49 GMT
I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom? I am 6 3 And have sat there fine I’m 6’3 and couldn't even get my legs in properly in an aisle seat, front block, centre stalls. If you’re very slender and are abe to twist around in the seat maybe it would be ok, but I’m not and I looked at A0 last time I was there and wouldn’t risk it. I am very slender Slim as a pickle |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:29:28 GMT
Regarding “plot” and storylines I can’t think of a single musical which has a proper “plot”
They are constantly hindered by songs and dancing I can think of loads. Me meaning was They are quite simple Musicals are usually not on a par With Jacobean Tragedy Plot wise |
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Oct 29, 2017 10:36:51 GMT
I am being tempted by £15 tickets for next week, what's the tallest you can be to sit in A0 with it being restricted legroom? I am 6 3 And have sat there fine I’m 6’3 and couldn't even get my legs in properly in an aisle seat, front block, centre stalls. If you’re very slender and are abe to twist around in the seat maybe it would be ok, but I’m not and I looked at A0 last time I was there and wouldn’t risk it. Hmmm, might no be worth the risk. The difference isn't much between £15 and £25 anyway, so I'll stick with rush. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 10:38:39 GMT
I’m 6’3 and couldn't even get my legs in properly in an aisle seat, front block, centre stalls. If you’re very slender and are abe to twist around in the seat maybe it would be ok, but I’m not and I looked at A0 last time I was there and wouldn’t risk it. I am very slender Slim as a pickle This is possibly the best simile I have ever read on this board. It conjures up all sorts... |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Oct 29, 2017 10:40:08 GMT
It's all spectacle and no substance, Loved (?) your review andrew - don't worry the medication will kick back in soon.......
|
|
8,117 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alece10 on Oct 29, 2017 10:41:36 GMT
I’m 6’3 and couldn't even get my legs in properly in an aisle seat, front block, centre stalls. If you’re very slender and are abe to twist around in the seat maybe it would be ok, but I’m not and I looked at A0 last time I was there and wouldn’t risk it. Hmmm, might no be worth the risk. The difference isn't much between £15 and £25 anyway, so I'll stick with rush. I'd go for the £25 rush. It's worth a tenner more. I did it recently and got row A centre stalls. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:22:32 GMT
It's all spectacle and no substance, and I honestly just don't think that in 2017, in the West End, that this is what we should be aiming for. Well that's what half the West End is, so clearly that's what a lot of people want, and I think the West End will always be aiming for what people want as that makes money! I get all your points, they make sense and of course you are entitled to your opinion, but my opinion is pretty much the polar opposite to yours. Not all musical theatre has to be a highbrow story, not all musical theatre has to give you an important lesson or message to take away, not all musical theatre has to have a good plot (let's face it, half of musicals don't really). A good plot is essential to a play because that is necessarily the major part of the production, whereas a musical also has singing, and often dancing, so the focus is dissipated. I don't need a musical to make me think deeply, that's not why I go to see them. I go to hear good scores, see good dancing and generally escape the world for a couple of hours and leave with a smile on my face. If a show does do that, then I absolutely can forgive it for not having much plot, and I make no apology for doing so. That doesn't make it a poor piece of theatre, it just makes it a piece of theatre that does music and dancing exceptionally well, and that to me is what a good, old Hollywood musical is all about. 42nd Street has all of that, in spades. This show has a particular problem in that there is a very clear political and economic underpinning that the film (and similar Warner Brothers musicals of the time) has and which would have been understood by its audience at the time. This is during the depression, performers are fainting because of lack of food, the glitz is a cover for rising economic disaster and the rise of political extremism. Put that back into the show and it would be a much deeper one whilst clarifying to the contemporary audience the reason for the mindless escapism of Pretty Lady. As it is it’s like Cabaret would be with scant reference to its time and place |
|
8,117 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by alece10 on Oct 29, 2017 11:42:54 GMT
Blimey! And there was me thinking it was just a camp show with lovely costumes and lots of tap dancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 12:39:19 GMT
Blimey! And there was me thinking it was just a camp show with lovely costumes and lots of tap dancing. Because that’s what 1980’s Reagan era Broadway made it into, the adaptation you are seeing is a political statement. Marsh is told that doing one more show could kill him, he’s on the verge of a breakdown but he lost his money in the stock market crash. Peggy faints because she had no ‘lunch’ but that hides her desperation, she needs a job, she had no experience, she is barely subsisting. Go back to the original and you see that Julian and Billy are gay and in a relationship. It was 1980 but a truly authentic adaptation would have foregrounded those, maybe even the last one (we after all, only a few years off La Cage and a decade after Boys in the Band). What you see now is a hobbled version which is nearly all surface when it could have been so much more. |
|
19,705 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 29, 2017 13:08:49 GMT
I think I prefer the version we got.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 13:09:36 GMT
I am very slender Slim as a pickle This is possibly the best simile I have ever read on this board. It conjures up all sorts... Strong as an ox |
|
Absolutely 100% recommend! 
