|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 4, 2020 21:27:24 GMT
So anyone who likes it is a cult member? I'm a 50 year old white Aussie ghey, I am hardly it's target audience. I have never listened to the CD or indeed had anything to do with it other than see it live 3 times. The first time I paid 50 quid for literally the worst seat in theatre. I was a part of the back wall in the circle and could only see the bottom 3rd of the stage. Despite this I still understood everything that was going on without ever reading a word about the show or the person it is based on. I will admit about a minute in I thought 'ok I am going to have to REALLY concentrate on what they are saying to understand this' but once I knew this, that is exactly what I did and didn't have a problem with it. This is probably because I am familiar with Dave Malloy's work and Hamilton is clearly very heavily influenced by The Great Comet in the style it's written. Comet's score is even more dense and includes stage direction, narration, character emotions and dialogue within the actual song lyrics. Personally I find the style exciting and thrilling and love the fact I have to use my brain while watching such a traditional art form. It is very much like listening to a musical audiobook as it's performed on stage. I guess some people like it and some people don't, but the fact you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't good or that people who do like it have something wrong with them... Err, we didn't say "anyone" that likes it, and @dom (nor I) was referring to Hamilton in particular. It is pretty exiting and dynamic to watch, as I said, but I find it hard to care about. There's nothing particularly to "love" about it, in my opinion. But the ambitiousness of the piece is admirable.In a world of endless revivals with washed up stars, bad movie franchises and jukebox nightmares, that is exactly the main reason why people loved it x |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 4, 2020 21:40:07 GMT
What really was the point of it in the end? A phrase in the final number - "who tells your story". The overall point of the show, and the reason for casting minority performers as white historical figures, is about WHO is telling the story of the founding fathers. It's an attempt to reclaim America's origin myths on behalf of all Americans - as the original advertising tagline at the Public put it, "the story of America then, told by America now". (There's a big Native American-sized hole in that argument, of course, and the show carefully glosses over the fact that most of the founding fathers owned slaves, but it does make an important statement.) |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 4, 2020 21:48:01 GMT
For what it's worth I just told my partner about this discussion and he said 'despite absolutely loving it live in the theatre, if I'd have seen the film first you'd have had to drag me at gun point into the theatre'.
So there's that...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 0:08:59 GMT
But should you have to do that amount of homework before seeing a show? Yes, particularly when it's a show about historical events. Do the research before or after, your choice, but it's easy to do and therefore there really is no excuse for anyone saying they don't understand the story. And that isn't a point exclusive to Hamilton either, it really isn't difficult to look up the plot of anything nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 0:25:30 GMT
For what it's worth I just told my partner about this discussion and he said 'despite absolutely loving it live in the theatre, if I'd have seen the film first you'd have had to drag me at gun point into the theatre'. So there's that... I think I'd probably have said the same - in fact, I did pretty much think that after watching the Tony Awards performance and it was only the London cast that drew me to give in to the hype and buy a ticket. I hadn't listened to any of the rest of the show before I saw it. I've now seen it 5 times. I found the film a bit disappointing. It is mostly beautifully filmed but I found myself unhappy with a few shot choices - the wide shots from up high/far away were too far, and there were a few too many unnecessary close ups. And sadly the OBC aren't a patch on the original London cast for me. Daveed Diggs is a much better Jefferson than Jason Pennycooke but his Lafayette was a bit anonymous. Jasmine Cephas Jones was the best Peggy I've seen, but Christine Allado was a better Maria Reynolds. I don't totally get the hype about Philippa Soo - beautiful voice but I didn't ever believe her Eliza was head over heels for Hamilton in Act 1. I prefer the slightly giddier version that Rachelle Ann Go did (once she settled in the role she was great). Soo was much stronger in Act 2 though, except for the very last gesture which was over-done (though I don't like it anyway, it is unnecessary). Burn and Who Lives Who Dies Who Tells Your Story were great. I think the lack of chemistry is also to do with Lin-Manuel Miranda though. He is a creative genius but I didn't like his Hamilton at all - he isn't a strong actor and I didn't get the light and shade that Jamael Westman had, and sometimes his acting choices just seemed strange - smiling the whole way through It's Quiet Uptown didn't work for me. I didn't have any sympathy for Hamilton and he didn't seem to mature that much. The standouts for me were Leslie Odom Jr and Renee Elise Goldsberry - both brilliant and charismatic, and on a par with their London counterparts. Easy to see why they won the Tonys. I thought the ensemble were good - Ariana deBose in particular caught the eye whenever she was on stage - it is easy to see why her star is rising. There were some lyrics I found much clearer, which was good. But overall it just felt a little flat compared to seeing it live in London, and I was left wishing even more that they had recorded the original London cast. |
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jul 5, 2020 9:35:49 GMT
But should you have to do that amount of homework before seeing a show? Yes, particularly when it's a show about historical events. Do the research before or after, your choice, but it's easy to do and therefore there really is no excuse for anyone saying they don't understand the story. And that isn't a point exclusive to Hamilton either, it really isn't difficult to look up the plot of anything nowadays. I never do, as I don't want spoilers. And it's rarely been an issue. No problem with Evita, Les Mis etc.
The only show that sprung to mind that also 'assumes previous knowledge' (and a show Hamilton is known to be inspired by too) is Jesus Christ Superstar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 10:05:04 GMT
Yes, particularly when it's a show about historical events. Do the research before or after, your choice, but it's easy to do and therefore there really is no excuse for anyone saying they don't understand the story. And that isn't a point exclusive to Hamilton either, it really isn't difficult to look up the plot of anything nowadays. I never do, as I don't want spoilers. And it's rarely been an issue. No problem with Evita, Les Mis etc.
The only show that sprung to mind that also 'assumes previous knowledge' (and a show Hamilton is known to be inspired by too) is Jesus Christ Superstar.
I didn't say you had to do any research before seeing a show, but there is nothing to stop you looking up anything you want to know more about after the show. For a show as lyrically dense as Hamilton hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing. I noticed lyrics on viewing the film last night that I hadn't picked up on before. There is no rule that says shows can't require people to think and concentrate a bit. Not everything has to be pure escapism. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 5, 2020 10:26:33 GMT
The vast majority of people who love Hamilton have done no historical research before or since watching it.
Everyone gets different things out of art, but it’s always a product of the time in which it was made. As human beings we re-tell stories from the past as a way of talking about the present.
Of course it feels different to watch now than it did in 2015. Our present is so vastly different.
In terms of following it, though - anyone who likes hip hop will not have trouble parsing the lyrics. It’s just a matter of tuning in to the frequency. Like listening to Sondheim lyrics - which are also not everyone’s cup of tea - or understanding Shakespeare.
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jul 5, 2020 11:03:11 GMT
I never do, as I don't want spoilers. And it's rarely been an issue. No problem with Evita, Les Mis etc.
The only show that sprung to mind that also 'assumes previous knowledge' (and a show Hamilton is known to be inspired by too) is Jesus Christ Superstar.
I didn't say you had to do any research before seeing a show, but there is nothing to stop you looking up anything you want to know more about after the show. For a show as lyrically dense as Hamilton hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing. I noticed lyrics on viewing the film last night that I hadn't picked up on before. There is no rule that says shows can't require people to think and concentrate a bit. Not everything has to be pure escapism.
Most definitely not! And I am usually at the shows that DO require me to concentrate. Pure escapism never truly grabs me.
Again, the fact that "hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing" is another barrier that I am astounded it's overcome to become such a mega hit.
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Jul 5, 2020 11:08:30 GMT
Everyone gets different things out of art, but it’s always a product of the time in which it was made. As human beings we re-tell stories from the past as a way of talking about the present. Of course it feels different to watch now than it did in 2015. Our present is so vastly different. Absolutely, which reminds me of some things that came up on my twitter last night. Peversely (considering what the show set out to achieve) it is getting a bit of a backlash in the current 2020, post George Floyd landscape and sensitivities.
And now it is being seen by a wider audience, it goes to show JUST how quickly attitudes are changing these days. I am surprised myself. But there are accusations of it white washing the slavery associations of the Founding Fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 5, 2020 11:18:34 GMT
The vast majority of people who love Hamilton have done no historical research before or since watching it. Everyone gets different things out of art, but it’s always a product of the time in which it was made. As human beings we re-tell stories from the past as a way of talking about the present. Of course it feels different to watch now than it did in 2015. Our present is so vastly different. In terms of following it, though - anyone who likes hip hop will not have trouble parsing the lyrics. It’s just a matter of tuning in to the frequency. Like listening to Sondheim lyrics - which are also not everyone’s cup of tea - or understanding Shakespeare. Honestly after I walked out of the theatre I didn't care any more about Alexander Hamilton than I did when I walked in. I felt like the show told me everything I needed to know about the man and I knew why it existed because it was obvious. I mean could that last song be any more cliched and on the nose... He was the forgotten 'immigrant forefather' because he died so young and that is why the show exists. The fact that he wrote most of the constitution they all cling to so dearly to back up the horrible things they still do to each other to this day, doesn't hold him in very high esteem with me, but Americans love their 'heroes'. That wasn't really what interested me, I just loved the innovative way they told his story and the fact that I probably wouldn't have ever seen such an amazing set of performers on a West End stage together if it wasn't for this particular show. I agree re Sondheim and Shakespeare and they are also very clearly not for everyone either. I have no idea how someone could understand Shakespeare and not this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 11:30:54 GMT
I didn't say you had to do any research before seeing a show, but there is nothing to stop you looking up anything you want to know more about after the show. For a show as lyrically dense as Hamilton hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing. I noticed lyrics on viewing the film last night that I hadn't picked up on before. There is no rule that says shows can't require people to think and concentrate a bit. Not everything has to be pure escapism.
Again, the fact that "hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing" is another barrier that I am astounded it's overcome to become such a mega hit.
It is such a mega hit because of the music which will not be to everyone's taste, but is what allowed it to cross over into the public consciousness so rapidly, as it sounds like the music that is popular on the radio now. Not getting it on first viewing or listen isn't an issue because most people want to listen to these songs over and over and eventually, it all clicks into place. If something adds more value every time you watch or listen then people spend more time with it, rather than seeing it, enjoying it and then forgetting about it, which is what the general public do with musicals most of the time. As for the backlash, it is not surprising as popular art has to be extraordinarily safe in order to not achieve backlash in 2020. Anything that mentions slavery or race is going to be scrutinized beyond belief. It is convenient how people forget that it was written in a different time, for a different time and that in 2015 very few people were raising the issues with Hamilton that everyone seems to be raising now. We expect our writers to be prescient I suppose. I definitely am eager to hear the response of black people - positive or negative - but when it is then co-opted by non-black people to dismiss the entire musical as without any merit is when we end up getting a backlash to the backlash and it all becomes a sad commentary on how we treat art in the modern day. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 5, 2020 11:32:55 GMT
I didn't say you had to do any research before seeing a show, but there is nothing to stop you looking up anything you want to know more about after the show. For a show as lyrically dense as Hamilton hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing. I noticed lyrics on viewing the film last night that I hadn't picked up on before. There is no rule that says shows can't require people to think and concentrate a bit. Not everything has to be pure escapism.
Most definitely not! And I am usually at the shows that DO require me to concentrate. Pure escapism never truly grabs me.
Again, the fact that "hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing" is another barrier that I am astounded it's overcome to become such a mega hit.
You are also judging a piece of art created for the theatre based on watching it in a medium it wasn't designed or created for. I don't see the film as 'the way' to watch it, it is something to have as a momentum of your theatrical experience AFTER you've seen it on stage. The film is a moment in time captured on film, but it is not how the show should be seen. It should be seen live in a theatre with an audience, a live band and amazing performers. The thrill of the live performance is totally missing and live theatre transfixes you into paying more attention instantly in ways that watching a tv from your couch never will. I don't really think you 'get' any show, especially musicals fully until you delve into it more AFTER your experience in the theatre. I just don't like the flatness of the cast recording as compared to the live experience, so I could never get into it at home. I find the Six OST the same. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 5, 2020 11:33:52 GMT
Again, the fact that "hardly anyone will get it all on first viewing" is another barrier that I am astounded it's overcome to become such a mega hit.
It is such a mega hit because of the music which will not be to everyone's taste, but is what allowed it to cross over into the public consciousness so rapidly, as it sounds like the music that is popular on the radio now. Not getting it on first viewing or listen isn't an issue because most people want to listen to these songs over and over and eventually, it all clicks into place. If something adds more value every time you watch or listen then people spend more time with it, rather than seeing it, enjoying it and then forgetting about it, which is what the general public do with musicals most of the time. As for the backlash, it is not surprising as popular art has to be extraordinarily safe in order to not achieve backlash in 2020. Anything that mentions slavery or race is going to be scrutinized beyond belief. It is convenient how people forget that it was written in a different time, for a different time and that in 2015 very few people were raising the issues with Hamilton that everyone seems to be raising now. We expect our writers to be prescient I suppose. I definitely am eager to hear the response of black people - positive or negative - but when it is then co-opted by non-black people to dismiss the entire musical as without any merit is when we end up getting a backlash to the backlash and it all becomes a sad commentary on how we treat art in the modern day. You just won the internet x It has so many instantly memorable songs in it. I can't remember the last time I left a musical with so many different songs swirling around in my head while leaving the theatre. That is really the genius behind the show and something I did not expect at all watching it for the first time. |
|
131 posts
|
Post by eliza on Jul 5, 2020 11:46:51 GMT
I think 'tuning into the frequency' as someone else above put it is exactly right. It maybe took me 5-10 minutes to get used to the rapping the first time I saw it but got it perfectly once I had.
I don't think I ever did tune in the first time I saw Les Mis. It was a long time ago now and I've seen it again since so not sure what didn't click that first time, but I left the theatre thinking 'I have no idea what just happened' and had to read the plot again on my phone on the train home!
Sometimes it does depend on your mindframe when you're watching. I also think the medium makes a massive difference because it's so much harder to focus on your TV and become immersed.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 5, 2020 12:06:10 GMT
For what it's worth I just told my partner about this discussion and he said 'despite absolutely loving it live in the theatre, if I'd have seen the film first you'd have had to drag me at gun point into the theatre'. So there's that... I think I'd probably have said the same - in fact, I did pretty much think that after watching the Tony Awards performance and it was only the London cast that drew me to give in to the hype and buy a ticket. I hadn't listened to any of the rest of the show before I saw it. I've now seen it 5 times. I found the film a bit disappointing. It is mostly beautifully filmed but I found myself unhappy with a few shot choices - the wide shots from up high/far away were too far, and there were a few too many unnecessary close ups. As an editor (and I have cut quite a few live performances) I can say that I thought it was actually pretty badly edited considering the time and budget this thing had. The first 30 minutes was pretty much ALL closeups and gave little time to take the whole thing in. The cutting had no rhyme or reason beyond 'oh I should probably change shots here' and didn't compliment the show itself at all. It had no energy, was never timed to any musical moments and missed pretty much every single good piece of choreography and lighting in the show. I don't think it was very well shot either frankly. There seemed to be quite a few instances where cameramen were doing their usual throwing the camera about instead of them concentrating on anything properly, which is why I think they had to rely on so many closeups. There were a lot of instances where the camera is clearly coming off a move or starting a new move for no reason what so ever other than the fact that the cameraman can't just leave the frickin' camera alone for longer than 10 seconds. Mid and wide cameras should be just locked off for filming live shows or these people will literally stand there for 3 hours flinging their cameras about. Bad cameramen are the bane of my existence... I am actually loving this lockdown thing where we just send someone a camera and they set it up and film themselves! |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jul 5, 2020 19:23:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jul 6, 2020 4:33:21 GMT
I think I'd probably have said the same - in fact, I did pretty much think that after watching the Tony Awards performance and it was only the London cast that drew me to give in to the hype and buy a ticket. I hadn't listened to any of the rest of the show before I saw it. I've now seen it 5 times. I found the film a bit disappointing. It is mostly beautifully filmed but I found myself unhappy with a few shot choices - the wide shots from up high/far away were too far, and there were a few too many unnecessary close ups. As an editor (and I have cut quite a few live performances) I can say that I thought it was actually pretty badly edited considering the time and budget this thing had. The first 30 minutes was pretty much ALL closeups and gave little time to take the whole thing in. The cutting had no rhyme or reason beyond 'oh I should probably change shots here' and didn't compliment the show itself at all. It had no energy, was never timed to any musical moments and missed pretty much every single good piece of choreography and lighting in the show. I don't think it was very well shot either frankly. There seemed to be quite a few instances where cameramen were doing their usual throwing the camera about instead of them concentrating on anything properly, which is why I think they had to rely on so many closeups. There were a lot of instances where the camera is clearly coming off a move or starting a new move for no reason what so ever other than the fact that the cameraman can't just leave the frickin' camera alone for longer than 10 seconds. Mid and wide cameras should be just locked off for filming live shows or these people will literally stand there for 3 hours flinging their cameras about. Bad cameramen are the bane of my existence... I am actually loving this lockdown thing where we just send someone a camera and they set it up and film themselves! As a viewer, I’m afraid I loved the editing and where it put our focus. The lighting design & the turntable stage working in tandem are some of the shows‘ best visual attributes hence the many overhead shots. I found the sense of movement and urgency totally in keeping with the style of the piece. The last song of act one is called ‘Non-Stop’. “Why do you write like you’re running out of time” isn’t an ethos well served by a static camera. It may also just have been the brief they were given. |
|
4,171 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Jul 6, 2020 10:30:15 GMT
I watched this on the weekend, the first Act on Friday night but I as unaware as to how long this was and as I was tired and getting late, watched Act II on Saturday.
I have the case recording but have never seen the show- too expensive and every attempt to grab a ticket via the lotter has been unsuccessful.
Firstly, I thank whoever decided to film this. Beautifully directed with so incredible close ups (for anyone who’s watched it I’m thinking of Jonathan Groff’s spittle) and ariel shots.
In filming it they’ve not only captured the show and its original cast, but their reactions, facial expressions, hair, make up and costumes.
Having now watched it, I can now see why everyone is fighting for a ticket. Great (but not over strained) vocals.
Sharp, slick chorography and lighting.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is the go-to man of the moment, isn’t he? What a talent!
For me, I found at times Act I to be a little frantic and busy. There is just so much dialogue in the lyrics and going on that I feel I may have to re-watch it, in case there was anything I missed.
And as it’s streaming, I can do without having to pay the exorbitant fees they’re charging for tickets. Again, thank God it was filmed!
Personally, I liked Act II better- but that’s just me.
I LOVED the Skyler sisters- each of them and their interactions with each other and other case members.
So pleased that I saw this.
(Hopefully) this may set a benchmark and encourage more shows to be professionally filmed in a similar manner.
I know a lot of shows a professionally filmed for archival purposes but not ever released. I know Les Miserables has been professionally filmed, as has Wicked and American Psycho. Even though I was lucky enough to see it live, I actually caught a screening of American Psycho at the V&A Museum a little while back.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if sometime in the near future there are plans for a DVD/Blu-Ray release? It might have the ‘Chicago effect’ and help get more bums on seats when theatres eventually do re-open again.
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jul 6, 2020 20:45:03 GMT
As an editor (and I have cut quite a few live performances) I can say that I thought it was actually pretty badly edited considering the time and budget this thing had. The first 30 minutes was pretty much ALL closeups and gave little time to take the whole thing in. The cutting had no rhyme or reason beyond 'oh I should probably change shots here' and didn't compliment the show itself at all. It had no energy, was never timed to any musical moments and missed pretty much every single good piece of choreography and lighting in the show. I don't think it was very well shot either frankly. There seemed to be quite a few instances where cameramen were doing their usual throwing the camera about instead of them concentrating on anything properly, which is why I think they had to rely on so many closeups. There were a lot of instances where the camera is clearly coming off a move or starting a new move for no reason what so ever other than the fact that the cameraman can't just leave the frickin' camera alone for longer than 10 seconds. Mid and wide cameras should be just locked off for filming live shows or these people will literally stand there for 3 hours flinging their cameras about. Bad cameramen are the bane of my existence... I am actually loving this lockdown thing where we just send someone a camera and they set it up and film themselves! As a viewer, I’m afraid I loved the editing and where it put our focus. The lighting design & the turntable stage working in tandem are some of the shows‘ best visual attributes hence the many overhead shots. I found the sense of movement and urgency totally in keeping with the style of the piece. The last song of act one is called ‘Non-Stop’. “Why do you write like you’re running out of time” isn’t an ethos well served by a static camera. It may also just have been the brief they were given. You don't need to be afraid, your opinion is just as valid as mine. I watch things on a very technical level because of what I do for a living and look out for things other people wouldn't even notice or think about. Great editing is something you shouldn't/don't even notice, it should just flow and decide the pace of what you're watching. If you watch something and think the editing was good, it is usually because the editing was bad and vice versa lol I thought Act 2 was better, but as I said the first 30 minutes wasn't good. It felt both over edited and under edited at the same time and didn't suit those scenes. I didn't mind the camera placements, they were fine, it was the movement in the shots that annoyed me and it must've been bad if they HAD to use some of those shots. Live shows are very hard to direct because it is a cameramans obsession to keep moving the camera. I once cut a show that had 8 cameras filming an aerial performer and her wig fell off. Every single one of the 8 cameras panned away from her about a second before the wig fell off and not one of them caught it! It was unbelievable! There were some pretty big 'no no's' in the editing though, for example cutting from a camera filming the stage from the right, directly to a camera filming from the left or vice versa...  That is one of the first rules of editing and they did it constantly to the point I was actually shocked they were allowed to leave it that way. There should always be a bridging shot in the middle, it is disorientating for the viewer. There were a lot of moments throughout that I remembered from the show that I thought I would NEVER have cut that like that! But then maybe they just didn't have the shots to cut it properly. On the flip side I have seen tonnes of people say they thought the dancing in the Cats film was terribly edited, when in fact it was really well edited, certainly much better than this. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jul 6, 2020 21:06:00 GMT
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if sometime in the near future there are plans for a DVD/Blu-Ray release? It's planned, but not for this year. As far as I can remember without googling the announcement, the deal with Disney+ means it will be available exclusively there for a while; I think they're still planning a cinema release so people can see it on a big screen, and then at some point afterwards a DVD/Blu-ray release, preserving the same intervals between each step that there would have been if they'd followed the schedule they originally planned instead of releasing it to stream early because of the pandemic. That puts a DVD release somewhere at the back end of next year. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jul 7, 2020 8:00:46 GMT
As a viewer, I’m afraid I loved the editing and where it put our focus. The lighting design & the turntable stage working in tandem are some of the shows‘ best visual attributes hence the many overhead shots. I found the sense of movement and urgency totally in keeping with the style of the piece. The last song of act one is called ‘Non-Stop’. “Why do you write like you’re running out of time” isn’t an ethos well served by a static camera. It may also just have been the brief they were given. You don't need to be afraid, your opinion is just as valid as mine. I watch things on a very technical level because of what I do for a living and look out for things other people wouldn't even notice or think about. Great editing is something you shouldn't/don't even notice, it should just flow and decide the pace of what you're watching. If you watch something and think the editing was good, it is usually because the editing was bad and vice versa lol I thought Act 2 was better, but as I said the first 30 minutes wasn't good. It felt both over edited and under edited at the same time and didn't suit those scenes. I didn't mind the camera placements, they were fine, it was the movement in the shots that annoyed me and it must've been bad if they HAD to use some of those shots. Live shows are very hard to direct because it is a cameramans obsession to keep moving the camera. I once cut a show that had 8 cameras filming an aerial performer and her wig fell off. Every single one of the 8 cameras panned away from her about a second before the wig fell off and not one of them caught it! It was unbelievable! There were some pretty big 'no no's' in the editing though, for example cutting from a camera filming the stage from the right, directly to a camera filming from the left or vice versa... That is one of the first rules of editing and they did it constantly to the point I was actually shocked they were allowed to leave it that way. There should always be a bridging shot in the middle, it is disorientating for the viewer. There were a lot of moments throughout that I remembered from the show that I thought I would NEVER have cut that like that! But then maybe they just didn't have the shots to cut it properly. On the flip side I have seen tonnes of people say they thought the dancing in the Cats film was terribly edited, when in fact it was really well edited, certainly much better than this. I switched off at the tacky meme I’m afraid. I didn’t ask to be schooled in film editing nor talked down to. I just enjoyed the film and what it looked like. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 8:08:08 GMT
Honestly, I am just grateful to have a high quality video capture of almost the entire original cast. They were a very special group of people and performers.
Having seen them in the original staging at The Public, it is wonderful to revisit their compelling performances, particularly Diggs, Goldsberry, Soo, Jackson, and Odoms Jr.
I'll leave others with stronger opinions or more technical expertise to discuss, debate, and nitpick over what could have been and what should not have been. I'll just enjoy the show.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by frosty on Jul 7, 2020 8:36:23 GMT
I watched with an open mind (it had never been high on my list of things I wanted to see, for some reason it just wasn't something I was particularly interested in). I was pleasantly surprised, I enjoyed it a lot. However, after watching the beautifully filmed 'Small Island', the live capture seemed slightly off to me, and I couldn't put my finger on what, but after reading 'intoanewlife's comments on the editing, it made sense. At first, I couldn't get the scale of the show and wanted to be able to see what was happening on the whole stage, but there were just too many close ups. This article in the NY Times is interesting, explaining why more Broadway shows aren't available to stream: www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/theater/theater-streaming-questions.htmlThis part in particular: "Britain and many other European countries got a head start because digital initiatives were made a condition for state funding, to help achieve accessibility, equity and sustainability. “Most countries started with that top-down view of digital, whereas in the United States it’s an upside-down approach, which is one reason everything has lagged behind so much here,” said Marquee TV’s Kirschner. He also points out that video recording is prohibitively more expensive in America. “To capture a Broadway production costs 5 to 10 times what it would overseas,” he said, which helps to explain the impressive film catalogs of Britain’s National Theater and France’s Comédie-Française, not to mention Canada’s Stratford Festival. " Perhaps the American's lack of experience in live capture of theatre explains the differences in recording/editing style. Anyway, I still enjoyed it and was glad I watched. But as Disney paid $75 million for it, I hope they see it as a good investment and do some more! |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Jul 7, 2020 9:34:07 GMT
I watched with an open mind (it had never been high on my list of things I wanted to see, for some reason it just wasn't something I was particularly interested in). I was pleasantly surprised, I enjoyed it a lot. However, after watching the beautifully filmed 'Small Island', the live capture seemed slightly off to me, and I couldn't put my finger on what, but after reading 'intoanewlife's comments on the editing, it made sense. At first, I couldn't get the scale of the show and wanted to be able to see what was happening on the whole stage, but there were just too many close ups. This article in the NY Times is interesting, explaining why more Broadway shows aren't available to stream: www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/theater/theater-streaming-questions.htmlThis part in particular: "Britain and many other European countries got a head start because digital initiatives were made a condition for state funding, to help achieve accessibility, equity and sustainability. “Most countries started with that top-down view of digital, whereas in the United States it’s an upside-down approach, which is one reason everything has lagged behind so much here,” said Marquee TV’s Kirschner. He also points out that video recording is prohibitively more expensive in America. “To capture a Broadway production costs 5 to 10 times what it would overseas,” he said, which helps to explain the impressive film catalogs of Britain’s National Theater and France’s Comédie-Française, not to mention Canada’s Stratford Festival. " Perhaps the American's lack of experience in live capture of theatre explains the differences in recording/editing style. Anyway, I still enjoyed it and was glad I watched. But as Disney paid $75 million for it, I hope they see it as a good investment and do some more! I think it's becoming quite common for US shows to come to the UK to be filmed because of the huge cost/experience difference. Disney chose to film their 'Aladdin' in London (even though they swapped out the cast for various international actors and used the Broadway script) and Nickelodeon also completely rebuilt the 'Spongebob' musical set in Plymouth, of all places, even though it's never played in the UK - if they can do that and still be cheaper than filming the existing US set, the cost differences must be staggering. |
|
