910 posts
|
Post by karloscar on May 19, 2022 10:37:45 GMT
I prefer the Wendy Hiller and Leslie Howard movie of Pygmalion. The chemistry between them is wonderful. You don't miss the songs one bit, and because it's set slightly later Eliza's emancipation seems more probable somehow ( although they did stick on the "where are my slippers?" ending against Shaw's wishes).
|
|
|
|
Post by shambles on May 19, 2022 12:36:11 GMT
So reviews are 3s across the board.
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 19, 2022 12:47:19 GMT
I have to wonder if The Guardian were expecting to be like the Young Vic's Oklahoma! Bartlett Sher is a great director but he's not one for totally reinventing shows.
|
|
19,661 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 19, 2022 13:10:18 GMT
Is the the same Guardian reviewer who gave ALW’s Cinderella five stars by any chance?
|
|
8,097 posts
|
Post by alece10 on May 19, 2022 13:11:25 GMT
Today's press show 20 minutes late and counting. Not the best start Would you believe one of the biggest problems with press nights is actually the audience? All those critics and luvvies in one building at the same time chatting away after having not seen each other for months. Getting them to sit down to give clearance to start the show is a nightmare! I can confer. Total nightmare getting them to sit down. Even harder after the interval. |
|
|
|
Post by shambles on May 19, 2022 13:16:34 GMT
Is the the same Guardian reviewer who gave ALW’s Cinderella five stars by any chance? No. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 19, 2022 15:39:05 GMT
I understand the 3 star reviews tbh. It's a solid production but not a stunning one. Casting was a little off across the board and the only one I found genuinely outstanding was Higgins. Others I felt were a little bland or just plain miscast.
The sets were mixed in quality (the "grand staircase" in the ballroom scene looked like something you use to board a plane) and some of the costumes just plain didn't work.
|
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on May 19, 2022 16:08:08 GMT
It's very disappointing that all the reviews pointed out issues in the sound design. There were definitely issues when I went for the first preview but I hoped they would have fixed it by now
|
|
19,661 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 19, 2022 16:09:37 GMT
Presumably they’ll be touring this same set so maybe compromises have had to be made.
|
|
7,054 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 19, 2022 16:28:38 GMT
Presumably they’ll be touring this same set so maybe compromises have had to be made. It was obvious we wouldn't get the original Broadway set as that was designed for a thrust stage. I'm surprised there is still sound issues, does the Coliseum usually have these issues with the ENO? |
|
|
|
Post by jennapatchell on May 19, 2022 16:49:35 GMT
It's very disappointing that all the reviews pointed out issues in the sound design. There were definitely issues when I went for the first preview but I hoped they would have fixed it by now It's an issue with the venue. No show has ever sounded good in there when using amplification. It's not designed for it |
|
122 posts
|
Post by kirstylovesmusicals on May 19, 2022 18:57:18 GMT
I got rush tickets today on Today Tix for this afternoon. £25 and I had a row J of the stalls, seats 33 & 34. A pretty good view!!
I enjoyed the production immensely. I’ve only ever seen the movie with Audrey Hepburn so had nothing to compare it too. I’d rate it 4/5 stars!
|
|
81 posts
|
Post by actorsinger on May 19, 2022 19:26:43 GMT
It may have been more “groundbreaking” in NY as the Trevor Nunn production didn’t go there, although I think it toured America. I think that production, for all its casting controversy, was recieved by the press here as pretty much perfect and the critics will probably still remember that one and will be comparing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by A.Ham on May 19, 2022 21:20:52 GMT
Got a rush ticket for today’s matinee and I really enjoyed this - I relished the chance to see a classic musical that I’ve never seen (and not seen the film either!)
Amara does a great job I thought - loved the opening scene and then Wouldn’t It Be Loverly shortly after. Harry H-P plays a very Hugh Grant-like but enjoyable Higgins, and despite some comments on here saying he was the weak link I thought Stephen K Amos did a great job with his numbers - they certainly got a good reaction from the audience.
The set-design was well done - loved the revolving house. And it didn’t feel overly long or drag (which with the three hour running time I feared it might). If I’m being critical it could’ve done with being louder, and even though I was near the front of the stalls, with the huge expanse of orchestra pit between audience and stage there was something of a divide during the fairly long book sections.
Elsewhere, Vanessa Redgrave (as one of the newspaper reviews points out) is rather Maggie Smith Dowager Countess but how wonderful to see her on stage. And Maureen Beattie as Higgin’s housekeeper helped with the comedy moments.
Not a 5 star show, but I’ve rated it 4 (perhaps I’d have gone 3.5 if we had an option to give halves) as it was luvverly getting to see an old fashioned musical performed brilliantly in the West End.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 19, 2022 21:42:37 GMT
I found Okereke's performance, good, solid, just a little tentative. Especially compared to Lauren Ambrose at the Lincoln Centre who really threw her whole body into the characterisation.
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 19, 2022 21:54:03 GMT
Presumably they’ll be touring this same set so maybe compromises have had to be made. Presumably they’ll be touring this same set so maybe compromises have had to be made. It was obvious we wouldn't get the original Broadway set as that was designed for a thrust stage. I'm surprised there is still sound issues, does the Coliseum usually have these issues with the ENO? No doubt it is for touring, however that shouldn’t prevent a reasonable decent set from being built. The problem I found is that a set was designed for the smallest stage on the tour, the London Coliseum is a massive stage. Here is the rub for me and what should be the main jaw dropping part of the set being Professor Henry Higgin’s study was parred back so much on a stage that already had masking, which made the staging very narrow already, for the study it had additional masking coming in from the side, which made it look minuscule and anaemic. it was like wearing a size 8 shoe size, but made to wear a size 7. It was all very uncomfortable to look at. The study was pushed on by a truck from the back, so why cannot the staging have a truck that can be enlarged for the bigger stages, with 2 additional panels, one for each side to make the study bigger, instead of having additional masking? If they tried to do this in New York, it wouldn’t last, the British seem more forgiving, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. They did the same for Hairspray. |
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 19, 2022 22:22:31 GMT
Presumably they’ll be touring this same set so maybe compromises have had to be made. It was obvious we wouldn't get the original Broadway set as that was designed for a thrust stage. I'm surprised there is still sound issues, does the Coliseum usually have these issues with the ENO? No doubt it is for touring, however that shouldn’t prevent a reasonable decent set from being built. The problem I found is that a set was designed for the smallest stage on the tour, the London Coliseum is a massive stage. Here is the rub for me and what should be the main jaw dropping part of the set being Professor Henry Higgin’s study was parred back so much on a stage that already had masking, which made the staging very narrow already, for the study it had additional masking coming in from the side, which made it look minuscule and anaemic. it was like wearing a size 8 shoe size, but made to wear a size 7. It was all very uncomfortable to look at. The study was pushed on by a truck from the back, so why cannot the staging have a truck that can be enlarged for the bigger stages, with 2 additional panels, one for each side to make the study bigger, instead of having additional masking? If they tried to do this in New York, it wouldn’t last, the British seem more forgiving, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. They did the same for Hairspray. We do seem to get a lot of touring productions with touring sets landing in the West End - it doesn't happen on Broadway so much does it? You would just expect that for a venue like the Coliseum they'd pull all the stops out! Ah well. My issues weren't so much about the set tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by A.Ham on May 19, 2022 22:31:45 GMT
I thought the Higgins’ house set was good, but agree it could’ve been bigger to really fill the stage. There’s masking in place throughout, and then when the study set is used an additional metre or so moves in from each side to further enclose the masking around the study.
A small niggle I suppose but perhaps a sign of the times where budgets need to be stuck to and so it’s simpler and cheaper to have the one set for both West End and tour. Like the idea of the extra panels though and surely that wouldn’t have broken the bank?!
|
|
4,975 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 20, 2022 10:13:41 GMT
No doubt it is for touring, however that shouldn’t prevent a reasonable decent set from being built. The problem I found is that a set was designed for the smallest stage on the tour, the London Coliseum is a massive stage. Here is the rub for me and what should be the main jaw dropping part of the set being Professor Henry Higgin’s study was parred back so much on a stage that already had masking, which made the staging very narrow already, for the study it had additional masking coming in from the side, which made it look minuscule and anaemic. it was like wearing a size 8 shoe size, but made to wear a size 7. It was all very uncomfortable to look at. The study was pushed on by a truck from the back, so why cannot the staging have a truck that can be enlarged for the bigger stages, with 2 additional panels, one for each side to make the study bigger, instead of having additional masking? If they tried to do this in New York, it wouldn’t last, the British seem more forgiving, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. They did the same for Hairspray. We do seem to get a lot of touring productions with touring sets landing in the West End - it doesn't happen on Broadway so much does it? You would just expect that for a venue like the Coliseum they'd pull all the stops out! Ah well. My issues weren't so much about the set tbh. I had other issues with production and only commented on the set design as it was brought up already. My Fair Lady is one of the greatest musicals written, however most of the great songs are in the first half and falls flatter more in the second half. But still it is a great musical of a rotten production. But saying that Amara Okereke was fantastic, this production was better on Broadway much better, however I wasn’t convinced by Harry Hadden-Paton then and I wasn’t again last night. I was lucky to see the much better Cameron Mackintosh production 20 odd years again, but was luckier still to see a marvellous Sheffield theatres’ Christmas production 10 years ago, with Dominic West and Carly Bowden that production was superb, however this production was none of that. 2 Stars |
|
4,779 posts
|
Post by Mark on May 21, 2022 22:37:39 GMT
Got rush in row H for today’s matinee and enjoyed the show. I’d seen a version in Sydney a good couple of years back (directed by Julie Andrews).
Amara and Harry the standouts (especially Harry).
Like many in this thread I found Stephen K Amos weak and also found Sharif Afifi to be miscast.
It’s a great set, although definitely looks like a touring production. I wish I had seen it at LCT. The costumes were stunning!
Sound mix a bit off, dialogue seemed a bit echoey for the first 20 minutes or so and then I could have done with a bit more volume on the vocals. The mix in general wasn’t great.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 21, 2022 23:50:30 GMT
and also found Sharif Afifi to be miscast. My friend said that too. I suppose his take on the character of Freddie did seem a bit immature and silly. I did find it interesting that they made Pickering gay (or strongly implied to be) in this production. I wonder if the original writers had that intent at any point? |
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on May 21, 2022 23:58:53 GMT
If memory serves, the only hint at that in the past was when he was asked by Higgins how he knew where to buy women's clothing ("Common knowledge!"), but there did seem to be a new lingering moment with one of the costermongers who offered to find him a taxi.
There were also two lads who went off together after Alfie Doolittle was thrown out of the pub for the first time.
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on May 22, 2022 10:58:42 GMT
If memory serves, the only hint at that in the past was when he was asked by Higgins how he knew where to buy women's clothing ("Common knowledge!")
Given when the piece was written & when it is set, I'd interpret that line as implying that Pickering had kept a mistress in the past. I don't see why it would imply he's gay.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 22, 2022 12:28:48 GMT
If memory serves, the only hint at that in the past was when he was asked by Higgins how he knew where to buy women's clothing ("Common knowledge!")
Given when the piece was written & when it is set, I'd interpret that line as implying that Pickering had kept a mistress in the past. I don't see why it would imply he's gay.
Yes that would make sense - they've taken it in a different direction this time though. In this production the most obvious one is the reaction Pickering gives when Higgins asks him if he'd care if he went out with another man. |
|
2,848 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on May 22, 2022 13:08:21 GMT
Given when the piece was written & when it is set, I'd interpret that line as implying that Pickering had kept a mistress in the past. I don't see why it would imply he's gay.
Yes that would make sense - they've taken it in a different direction this time though. I think that line is often used to imply Pickering is gay in recent productions, it has been so at least since the NT revival |
|
