|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 12, 2021 2:49:21 GMT
Quite interesting how they handled the violence in this production. Julie is cowering expecting to be hit when she tells Billy she's pregnant, and instead he gently takes her in his arms. The second he slaps Louise he realises he's ruined everything again and screams at himself. To be fair - apart from the bit about Julie cowering, that's all in the original script. The cowering bit seems at odds with Julie telling Billy that's she's not scared of him (or anyone else) and the way that she makes him sit down and drink his coffee, while she tells him she's pregnant. The scene when Billy hits Louise's hand, ironically, when he tries to comfort her, is also followed up by a display of guilt in the original script. I find the original Hammerstein book a challenge, in a good way. The "improvements" tend to miss the point completely. |
|
910 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Aug 12, 2021 7:44:21 GMT
Quite interesting how they handled the violence in this production. Julie is cowering expecting to be hit when she tells Billy she's pregnant, and instead he gently takes her in his arms. The second he slaps Louise he realises he's ruined everything again and screams at himself. To be fair - apart from the bit about Julie cowering, that's all in the original script. The cowering bit seems at odds with Julie telling Billy that's she's not scared of him (or anyone else) and the way that she makes him sit down and drink his coffee, while she tells him she's pregnant. The scene when Billy hits Louise's hand, ironically, when he tries to comfort her, is also followed up by a display of guilt in the original script. I find the original Hammerstein book a challenge, in a good way. The "improvements" tend to miss the point completely. Maybe it was just the subtleties of how it was played. Seeing Patrick Wilson do it reminded me how different this version of Billy felt from previous productions at the time. And yes, if you see Billy as beyond redemption, what's the point of doing Hammerstein's show? |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Aug 12, 2021 10:27:36 GMT
The scene when Billy hits Louise's hand... Doesn't he slap her face in this production? The audience really gasped when it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 12, 2021 10:52:44 GMT
The scene when Billy hits Louise's hand... Doesn't he slap her face in this production? The audience really gasped when it happened.Quite and it's not the first production to add this, but originally, he hits her hand - "impulsively, involuntarily". Louise runs off, calling for Julie, Billy looks guiltily at the Heavenly Friend, who calls him a failure for striking out. Billy is there, after all, to break the cycle... |
|
5,142 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Aug 12, 2021 22:49:27 GMT
There's an offer in the Evening Standard that may be of interest. If nothing else, I suppose it proves its review was independent and honest.
The £65 seats are reduced to £45 with the promo code UPGRADE65.
Monday to Thursday evenings and Thursday matinees.
|
|
3,428 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Aug 14, 2021 0:14:06 GMT
Took my daughters to see this tonight - my third time in two weeks. Very interesting responses from them - but first some observations. I saw the whole cast (no covers) for the first time. I understand better what OAT was trying to do with this now. Casting Jo Eaton-Kent as Mrs Mullin chucks in the curve ball of gender fluidity and provokes questions that might otherwise never see the light of day in a conventional staging. Is Billy so aggressive due to living a lie? Does he try to be one of the lads to conform, hence the exaggerated male behaviour? Is the carousel symbolising relationships - people jumping on and off for a ride, Billy the barker is a magnet for the girls but does he perhaps prefer or yearn for Mrs Mullins company? Is Billy conflicted beyond the stereotypical domestic abuser? So many questions...
Second half was much tidier again - my daughters preferred the second half to the first, and the dance sequence told the story better for them as they found some of the songs in the first half "a bit long". Having enjoyed the first half, they raved about the choreography in the second half.
I've absolutely no problem with gender-blind casting, as the portrayal of Mrs Mullins by Jo Eaton-Kent provoked many thoughts that wouldn't otherwise have crossed my mind (which is surely what art should do). However, I must confess I far preferred Charlotte Riby's interpretation of the role as understudy - her's was authentic, grounded, believable, and somewhat vulnerable. Jo Eaton-Kent's interpretation felt quite shallow and they didn't make me believe in (or care about) the character. They also didn't seem present/in the moment on stage, whereas Charlotte Riby truly inhabits her characters, even just performing as a member of the ensemble.
They're still tinkering with this production - the music is still the most impressive element of the whole show.
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Aug 14, 2021 17:35:22 GMT
Oops wrong thread!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepflower on Aug 15, 2021 19:27:29 GMT
I saw this last week and enjoyed it. This may be because I've never encountered the show before, so had nothing to compare it to! So I'm not sure how it works as a less traditional interpretation. I wasn't sure if the songs fitted the 'new' setting, and the second act was definitely anti-climactic, but it had plenty of good moments. Also my first time at Regents Park, what an amazing theatre! Can't wait to go back there.
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 21, 2021 16:33:10 GMT
Just heading home from seeing this. I thought it was great for the most part, but there was some questionable choreography in the ballet and the ending was definitely an anti-climax (though I don't think the original ending is much better, but bear in mind I've never seen a full production before so I'm only going off of what I've read and listened to). I understand them wanting to decentre Billy in favour of the female characters (obviously Julie in particular) to give them more agency/power in the dynamic, but I think there's a more satisfying middle ground between completely axing Billy's lingering influence from the ending and giving him a total redemption. I didn't like that they cut the 'felt like a kiss' line because, although you run the risk of seeming to condone/excuse abuse as long as it comes from a place of love, I think if properly directed it could serve as a haunting reminder of the cycle of abuse and inherited trauma and I think there's something more interesting to mine there even if it's difficult to avoid the battered woman trope. I dunno, it's a messy show with a messy ending anyway so I don't blame them for falling at the final hurdle, it was always going to be difficult to navigate.
Overall I came out positive on all aspects except those last 20 or so minutes (and also the cutting of music from act 1, it's the best part of the show so why get rid of it if you're already cutting down the book anyway?)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 21, 2021 21:25:11 GMT
Oscar Hammerstein's Glaswegian grandfather, an old rogue, pointed out a man in the park to young Oscar, saying, "There's the devil". But he told Oscar, not to worry, because the man (the devil) had a wonderful smile, love in his heart and sweeties in his pocket (I paraphrase). This little story, for me, is at the root of Hammerstein's morality based on the beliefs of his liberal Protestant upbringing, which centred around the idea that the possibility of redemption is something that resides in us all, if we are prepared to do something about it ourselves, even presumably, the devil. That is the essence of Carousel.
Really the book isn't messy, directors, not trusting their audiences and the material, make it messy.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Aug 21, 2021 22:49:27 GMT
I may have missed something in the final ballet scene... I didn't get the impression he'd earned redemption at all. In fact, I thought he'd blown it. Doesn't he walk offstage by going down? If I'd thought about the symbolism, I'd have thought that was going 'down' to hell. (Although it's been a couple of weeks since I saw it, so I might be misremembering.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 22, 2021 4:20:53 GMT
I may have missed something in the final ballet scene... I didn't get the impression he'd earned redemption at all. In fact, I thought he'd blown it. Doesn't he walk offstage by going down? If I'd thought about the symbolism, I'd have thought that was going 'down' to hell. (Although it's been a couple of weeks since I saw it, so I might be misremembering.) That ending is Liliom's, which Hammerstein rejected, it's not Carousel. |
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 22, 2021 6:17:33 GMT
I may have missed something in the final ballet scene... I didn't get the impression he'd earned redemption at all. In fact, I thought he'd blown it. Doesn't he walk offstage by going down? If I'd thought about the symbolism, I'd have thought that was going 'down' to hell. (Although it's been a couple of weeks since I saw it, so I might be misremembering.) Normally he is redeemed but this production does away with that. I think that's the right call because I don't think he does anything worthy of earning his redemption in the original book but maybe I need to see a production with fewer changes to get a better idea. |
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 22, 2021 9:01:00 GMT
The redemption lies in his choice to go back to try to help Louise, the second time, and not give up (as Liliom does). He gets the choice because of his obvious remorse, after the first attempt.
This production was such a mess in the second act, I was nearly tempted to leave, it was like watching an old friend being mugged.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Aug 22, 2021 9:35:07 GMT
Saw this last night, and absolutely loved the first act. I was very sceptical of this production from the start - as I posted on this thread months ago, I find Carousel a questionable choice of show to do these days due to the issues with the narrative, and I also wasn't convinced of the British reimagining and new orchestrations. But that worked brilliantly, with a heavy British-seaside nostalgia and nicely varied and rounded characters which never felt awkward taken out of their original American context. I also saw the 2018 Broadway Revival and this version is much stronger and fresher in so many ways.
But then the second half of Act 2 (or, the traditional Act 2 - they've moved the interval here). Ugh. This reminded me why I don't think Carousel should be done. They seemed to hit a wall, cut all text which could be deemed inappropriate (which doesn't leave much to work with in the climax...) and didn't know where to go with it so just gave up, with Billy Bigelow literally just walking off stage and never coming back.
I get what they were going for, and a final tableaux empowering women is nicely done and built to with a clever reimagining of the Starkeeper role. But unfortunately the production just dribbles to an unsatisfying and abrupt ending after an inventive and entertaining first 2/3rds.
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 22, 2021 9:54:27 GMT
The redemption lies in his choice to go back to try to help Louise, the second time, and not give up (as Liliom does). He gets the choice because of his obvious remorse, after the first attempt. This production was such a mess in the second act, I was nearly tempted to leave, it was like watching an old friend being mugged. I understand I just don't think that's enough of a change of heart to demonstrate he's worthy of redemption. All throughout the show he is shown to be quick-tempered and resort to violence against those he supposedly loves, even doing so in his first meeting with his own daughter. Remorse is not good enough when there's no actual change in behaviour and I don't think the book does enough to show such a change in behaviour and just comes off as excusing abuse as long as the abuser is sorry and comes from a place of love. |
|
754 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Aug 22, 2021 11:25:35 GMT
I think it must depend on the performance you see quite a bit — the last one I saw was am-dram, and it came across that he hit Julie once, and was horribly ashamed of it but didn't know how to apologise/make their situation better. That was what he did "right" in the end — he went back to Louise after hitting her the first time and did help her.
In fact, I think even Julie said he only hit her once, but it was in part the way everybody assumed he hit her often that made him find it even harder to behave better in a "they all look down on me because I'm from the fair, and they all think I hit her all the time, they'll think that whatever I do" sort of way.
Writing that makes it sound like it was an apology for domestic violence, but it really didn't come across that way when I saw it! I think it's very difficult source material to manage.
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 22, 2021 11:29:37 GMT
I think it must depend on the performance you see quite a bit — the last one I saw was am-dram, and it came across that he hit Julie once, and was horribly ashamed of it but didn't know how to apologise/make their situation better. That was what he did "right" in the end — he went back to Louise after hitting her the first time and did help her. In fact, I think even Julie said he only hit her once, but it was in part the way everybody assumed he hit her often that made him find it even harder to behave better in a "they all look down on me because I'm from the fair, and they all think I hit her all the time, they'll think that whatever I do" sort of way. Writing that makes it sound like it was an apology for domestic violence, but it really didn't come across that way when I saw it! I think it's very difficult source material to manage. He only hit her once, sure, but his first instinct is always to resort to violence anyway (Mrs Mullin has to intervene when Julie tells him 'no' when she's trying to tell him she's pregnant for example). Even in their first meeting he's threatening to slap these women. And then in his first meeting with his daughter he hits her. He may not have beat Julie repeatedly up to this point, but I don't think there's a good chance it would have stayed a single instance if he hadn't died when he did. |
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 22, 2021 11:59:23 GMT
The redemption lies in his choice to go back to try to help Louise, the second time, and not give up (as Liliom does). He gets the choice because of his obvious remorse, after the first attempt. This production was such a mess in the second act, I was nearly tempted to leave, it was like watching an old friend being mugged. I understand I just don't think that's enough of a change of heart to demonstrate he's worthy of redemption. All throughout the show he is shown to be quick-tempered and resort to violence against those he supposedly loves, even doing so in his first meeting with his own daughter. Remorse is not good enough when there's no actual change in behaviour and I don't think the book does enough to show such a change in behaviour and just comes off as excusing abuse as long as the abuser is sorry and comes from a place of love. Billy's ability to change his behaviour is severely limited. Killing himself and admitting his guilt are big statements, but selfish. Heaven, definitely, has something else in mind, and this is for Billy to save his own daughter from repeating his behaviours. But if a director cuts and/or diminishes that, then we're not really watching Carousel and the point of the show is lost. |
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 22, 2021 12:33:27 GMT
I think it must depend on the performance you see quite a bit — the last one I saw was am-dram, and it came across that he hit Julie once, and was horribly ashamed of it but didn't know how to apologise/make their situation better. That was what he did "right" in the end — he went back to Louise after hitting her the first time and did help her. In fact, I think even Julie said he only hit her once, but it was in part the way everybody assumed he hit her often that made him find it even harder to behave better in a "they all look down on me because I'm from the fair, and they all think I hit her all the time, they'll think that whatever I do" sort of way. Writing that makes it sound like it was an apology for domestic violence, but it really didn't come across that way when I saw it! I think it's very difficult source material to manage. He only hit her once, sure, but his first instinct is always to resort to violence anyway (Mrs Mullin has to intervene when Julie tells him 'no' when she's trying to tell him she's pregnant for example). Even in their first meeting he's threatening to slap these women. And then in his first meeting with his daughter he hits her. He may not have beat Julie repeatedly up to this point, but I don't think there's a good chance it would have stayed a single instance if he hadn't died when he did. Julie tells Billy, "no" and that's she not scared of him. Mrs Mullin's "let her alone" is dismissive. There's nothing in the script to suggest that there's violence, Billy is taken aback by Julie's answer. In the first scene - Billy says that the late,lamented Mr Mullin would probably have given Mrs Mullin a sock on the jaw; yes, he chases her off with her with a pretend "sock". Depends how it's played but is it really violence. Yes, he says the same to Julie, but I've never really felt that was a real threat. As for Louise's slap on the hand, that is a mistake, not purposeful - but it obviously screws up Billy's chance to try comfort her and talk to her. He is guilty about that and the Heavenly Friend calls him a failure. Arguably, Billy's ultimate and worst example of violence is against himself. I think we may also have to consider that this is a different, rougher society - Carrie's response to hearing of Billy hitting Julie, is to ask, "did you hit him back?" And on the subject of Carrie - 7 or 8 children in 15 years seems as much an attack on a woman's body,as one slap... |
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Aug 22, 2021 13:00:13 GMT
He only hit her once, sure, but his first instinct is always to resort to violence anyway (Mrs Mullin has to intervene when Julie tells him 'no' when she's trying to tell him she's pregnant for example). Even in their first meeting he's threatening to slap these women. And then in his first meeting with his daughter he hits her. He may not have beat Julie repeatedly up to this point, but I don't think there's a good chance it would have stayed a single instance if he hadn't died when he did. Julie tells Billy, "no" and that's she not scared of him. Mrs Mullin's "let her alone" is dismissive. There's nothing in the script to suggest that there's violence, Billy is taken aback by Julie's answer. In the first scene - Billy says that the late,lamented Mr Mullin would probably have given Mrs Mullin a sock on the jaw; yes, he chases her off with her with a pretend "sock". Depends how it's played but is it really violence. Yes, he says the same to Julie, but I've never really felt that was a real threat. As for Louise's slap on the hand, that is a mistake, not purposeful - but it obviously screws up Billy's chance to try comfort her and talk to her. He is guilty about that and the Heavenly Friend calls him a failure. I think we may also have to consider that this is a different, rougher society - Carrie's response to hearing of Billy hitting Julie, is to ask, "did you hit him back?" And on the subject of Carrie - 7 or 8 children in 15 years seems as much an attack on a woman's body,as one slap... I'll have to watch a production with fewer cuts to make a more informed opinion, as I mentioned I only know what I've read from plot summaries and obviously from this production so maybe my opinion of Billy would be more positive otherwise but for me remorse isn't enough - plenty of abusive husbands tell their wives how sorry they are after the fact but they still go on to beat them in future and the same seems to be true of Billy - there is no real outward change from him and I don't see how him encouraging his daughter at her graduation or whatever in any demonstrates he's actually changed so as to be worthy of redemption. |
|
754 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Aug 22, 2021 13:05:47 GMT
I think the redemption is in part contrasting what he does afterwards. He hits Julie, then doesn't really do anything for her — it's all about him. With Louise he hits her (so we have a parallel story) and then he goes back and actually manages to help her.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaffe on Aug 22, 2021 13:14:07 GMT
Julie tells Billy, "no" and that's she not scared of him. Mrs Mullin's "let her alone" is dismissive. There's nothing in the script to suggest that there's violence, Billy is taken aback by Julie's answer. In the first scene - Billy says that the late,lamented Mr Mullin would probably have given Mrs Mullin a sock on the jaw; yes, he chases her off with her with a pretend "sock". Depends how it's played but is it really violence. Yes, he says the same to Julie, but I've never really felt that was a real threat. As for Louise's slap on the hand, that is a mistake, not purposeful - but it obviously screws up Billy's chance to try comfort her and talk to her. He is guilty about that and the Heavenly Friend calls him a failure. I think we may also have to consider that this is a different, rougher society - Carrie's response to hearing of Billy hitting Julie, is to ask, "did you hit him back?" And on the subject of Carrie - 7 or 8 children in 15 years seems as much an attack on a woman's body,as one slap... I'll have to watch a production with fewer cuts to make a more informed opinion, as I mentioned I only know what I've read from plot summaries and obviously from this production so maybe my opinion of Billy would be more positive otherwise but for me remorse isn't enough - plenty of abusive husbands tell their wives how sorry they are after the fact but they still go on to beat them in future and the same seems to be true of Billy - there is no real outward change from him and I don't see how him encouraging his daughter at her graduation or whatever in any demonstrates he's actually changed so as to be worthy of redemption. Actually, Billy doesn't say he's remorseful to his wife, but she knows that he is and understands why he acts the way he does (not just the slap). Other husbands' behaviour notwithstanding, it's just this story we're asked to consider. As for redemption - Billy's behaviour can't change, he's dead. But he's asked to try to change the behaviour of his daughter, to stop her making his mistakes all over again. He seems to succeed. I think that's worthy of redemption, you don't and when you're God, we'll all have to try a little harder 😉 |
|
375 posts
|
Post by Theatre Fan on Aug 22, 2021 14:35:13 GMT
This is a very interesting production, I applaud them for trying to shift the focus from Billy. Though I don't think purists will enjoy this production overall, I overheard quite a few people unhappy with the ending or just plain confused by it, at the end of the show.
I think we all like to believe in the power of redemption and even though it's a more realistic take and you can argue if Billy deserves any kind of redemption, I came away not completely satisfied.
Though I will be seeing this again, because I did think it was beautifully done and Carly Bawden is just exquisite x
|
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Aug 22, 2021 17:18:45 GMT
This is a very interesting production, I applaud them for trying to shift the focus from Billy. Though I don't think purists will enjoy this production overall, I overheard quite a few people unhappy with the ending or just plain confused by it, at the end of the show. I think we all like to believe in the power of redemption and even though it's a more realistic take and you can argue if Billy deserves any kind of redemption, I came away not completely satisfied. Though I will be seeing this again, because I did think it was beautifully done and Carly Bawden is just exquisite x I don’t think the dissatisfaction with the reworked ending is down to purists alone. The ending as it stands is just plain confusing. It isn’t clear what’s happening or why any of the events after Billy’s exit are in any way significant, and although it’s sung beautifully I think an audience loses any emotional attachment to something if they don’t understand what’s going on. Of course, purists will know they’re missing crucial parts of the text so may have a grasp of why things don’t quite hang together. Casual audience members won’t, but I reckon they’ll feel like they’re missing something. Like when you doze off and miss 5 crucial minutes of exposition in a movie so the rest of it doesn’t make any sense. It’s a shame because they’ve set up a really beautiful world for the first two thirds of the show. The tone and performances are just right and it could have been brilliant. |
|
