|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 20:22:39 GMT
Seeing the show this week reminded me of this one. If Anne-Marie had done this version, the show would have been sensational. I've been singing this song all day. In this arrangement.
It will become my first single release.
|
|
7,576 posts
|
Post by alece10 on Apr 20, 2019 20:29:50 GMT
Seeing the show this week reminded me of this one. If Anne-Marie had done this version, the show would have been sensational. I've been singing this song all day. In this arrangement.
It will become my first single release.
Thank you so much for digging that song up. I've not heard it for so long. It was a big hit when I was a holiday rep in Greece and for 3 minutes I was back there in my youth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 23:34:08 GMT
The least charitable part of me wants to be all sorts of scathing about the tiny fairground and the LED gloves, someone rinsing their suspender belt on stage and an overhead projector used as a lift. AMD hit some of the notes and not always in the right order. But she made me tear up out of nowhere when she got to ‘To think the highest brow which I must say is she/ Should pick the lowest brow which there's no doubt is me’ in the middle of ‘If My Friends Could See Me Now.’ Did not see that one coming. Pretty much every criticism on here is valid. And every bit of praise is true. AMD sells it like the rent is due and I am glad I saw it. What an odd show. Very lovely to meet my first ‘live’ theatreboarder in the interval Being Alive. You were right to stay in the circle. I thought I was going to lose an eye when she got that ribbon twirler out.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Apr 21, 2019 7:28:30 GMT
I thought this was great. Seemed to me the concept (similar to the Donmar Shakespeare trilogy) is we are watching the Exploding Plastic Inevitable production of "Sweet Charity" put on by the denizens of Warhol's Factory one day. This is made clear by what's going on pre-show with them sitting around listening to the Velvet Underground, watching "Empire State", until one writes the opening title card up and they kick off the show. I think perhaps they could have made a bit more of this to be clearer this is key to what is happening rather than just the ensemble hanging around on stage. So we have the set based on the Factory various Warhol artworks - the paintings of Vittorio, the Brillo pad boxes etc everyone in Andy wigs, stripy t-shirts etc. Plus the staging is done using the type of technology they would have had available - particularly the OHP elevator which I thought was brilliant. And Anne Marie Duff isn't the greatest singer but she's playing Edie Sedgwick playing Charity, so this is fine Has anyone been sitting in Circle A5-6 for this production already? I am really worried about the sightlines. Never been in the Donmar's Circle Sat in the equivalent seats on the high-numbered side last night - it's absolutely fine. Most of the action is staged in the middle of the stage and you have a clear view. Only thing you'll miss is that in some of the big ensemble numbers you wan't see all of the dancers, but that's only brief moments.
|
|
1,020 posts
|
Post by andrew on Apr 21, 2019 8:55:21 GMT
Just to continue my grump about this, the overhead projector thing everyone's commenting on would have been really cool in my view if they'd actually done it. Instead they have a prop projector and hung up on the edge of the circle they use a digital projector to fake the image on the screen. I presume with the other elements of lighting the OHP wasn't bright enough to be seen, although I would have thought that would be a surmountable problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2019 12:23:23 GMT
This is an inspired interpretation Xanderl
|
|
|
Post by winonaforever on Apr 21, 2019 14:26:46 GMT
AMD hit some of the notes and not always in the right order. But she made me tear up out of nowhere when she got to ‘To think the highest brow which I must say is she/ Should pick the lowest brow which there's no doubt is me’ in the middle of ‘If My Friends Could See Me Now.’ Did not see that one coming. Me too. I've heard that song hundreds of times and it's never made me cry before!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 8:19:46 GMT
Just realised that one of the chorus (Jo Eaton Kent) is also in Don’t Forget Your Driver. Multi-talented!
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Apr 22, 2019 10:12:01 GMT
Just realised that one of the chorus (Jo Eaton Kent) is also in Don’t Forget Your Driver. Multi-talented! I didn't realise till afterward that the dancehall manager is played by Ian from The Archers.
|
|
539 posts
|
Post by jek on Apr 22, 2019 10:22:22 GMT
Anyone who is interested in Warhol might enjoy the exhibition currently on at the House of Illustration in King's Cross. It about the work of Corita Kent, a Catholic nun and educator who was inspired by Warhol. I have a longstanding interest in her work and have quite a few of her prints around my house (from over a decade ago when they were cheaper to get hold of) and so may be a bit biased, but they are just so optimistic. www.houseofillustration.org.uk/whats-on/current-future-events/corita-kent-power-up/
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 10:35:53 GMT
Does the Donmar still get unbearably hot? Sitting in circle row C tonight and debating whether or not to change into my shorts before heading into town.
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Apr 22, 2019 10:39:32 GMT
I think that’s at least 3 of us there tonight 🙂
|
|
539 posts
|
Post by jek on Apr 22, 2019 10:58:50 GMT
Mark We were in Row B of the circle last week and wilted. It really is very hot up there.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Apr 22, 2019 11:15:03 GMT
So it appears my interpretation of Josie Rourke's production may have been correct ...
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 11:49:37 GMT
Mark We were in Row B of the circle last week and wilted. It really is very hot up there. Shorts and t-shirt it is then! Hopefully I won’t make an appearance in the bad behaviour thread for being underdressed 🤣
|
|
|
Post by winonaforever on Apr 22, 2019 13:55:56 GMT
Actually I'm also there (again) tonight! On the opposite side of the stalls to last Friday, so a different viewing point. I'm up in the circle next week. It WAS warm in there the other day, but I didn't think it was that hot. I could see someone in the central stalls constantly fanning themselves though, which was quite distracting 😕
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Apr 22, 2019 14:23:08 GMT
I’m up in C of the circle tonight, should be easy to spot as I’m using a stick at the moment if anyone wants to say hello 🙂
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 22, 2019 14:25:00 GMT
I’m up in C of the circle tonight, should be easy to spot as I’m using a stick at the moment if anyone wants to say hello 🙂 C3/4 for us!
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Apr 22, 2019 15:27:08 GMT
I’m up in C of the circle tonight, should be easy to spot as I’m using a stick at the moment if anyone wants to say hello 🙂 C3/4 for us! Other side I think - in the 30’s anyway. Can’t remember the seat number!
|
|
18,904 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 17:33:37 GMT
So it appears my interpretation of Josie Rourke's production may have been correct ... I wonder if they ever would have let on. Major kudos to you Xanderl for working that out but shouldn’t it be in the programme notes? Or was it to be some sort of in-joke for the creatives?
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 22, 2019 17:37:46 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'?
Weird.
|
|
18,904 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 17:55:41 GMT
^^ totally agree. If that’s what’s going on here then it screams pretentiousness (moi?)
|
|
1,192 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Apr 22, 2019 17:59:44 GMT
Hang on! Retweeting a tweet doesn’t imply that’s what they intended. They might just like what was said as a concept and wanted to give it publicity. They might never have thought about it before. They might have. But let’s not start bitching about pretentiousness of the creatives when equally it might not have been their intention. The end
|
|
18,904 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 18:11:42 GMT
I did say “if that’s what’s going on here”.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 22, 2019 18:42:31 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'? Weird. You don't have to 'get' it, although I think that Warhol's influence on popular culture remains pretty strong and won't be missed by many or has he really fallen out of favour? Directors deal on different layers of understanding (mostly). At face value you can see that this is a sixties pop art influenced design and that the style is deliberately rough and improvised, so not many would miss that. Beyond that then the images of dancing Warhols will be recognised by fewer and knowing Edie Sedgwick or the very specifics of the Factory and Exploding Plastic Inevitable by fewer than that. It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It's no different to most art, where you aim at different levels of understanding. I certainly wouldn't want art to be aimed at the entry level all of the time.
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Apr 22, 2019 18:47:31 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'? Weird. You don't have to 'get' it, although I think that Warhol's influence on popular culture remains pretty strong and won't be missed by many or has he really fallen out of favour? Directors deal on different layers of understanding (mostly). At face value you can see that this is a sixties pop art influenced design and that the style is deliberately rough and improvised, so not many would miss that. Beyond that then the images of dancing Warhols will be recognised by fewer and knowing Edie Sedgwick or the very specifics of the Factory and Exploding Plastic Inevitable by fewer than that. It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It's no different to most art, where you aim at different levels of understanding. I certainly wouldn't want art to be aimed at the entry level all of the time. Thing is, I have a basic knowledge of Warhol and pop art but other than twigging that there were lots of dancing Warhols I didn't get any of the rest of the things you mention so the design made no sense, looked cheap and didn't seem to tie in to the rest of the story. Maybe I'm a bit thick.
|
|
18,904 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 22, 2019 19:01:55 GMT
It's this sort of thing that frustrates me about theatre sometimes. Why should the audience have to 'get' some niche reference for a show to make sense? Why are the creatives patting themselves on the back because one person (as far as I can see) cracked the clues to understand their concept? Shouldn't everyone who sees the play be allowed to 'get it'? Weird. It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It doesn't though, does it? Hence the very poor feedback here.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 22, 2019 19:33:25 GMT
It works at face value to pretty much everyone then, yet it has further depth for those who look for it. It doesn't though, does it? Hence the very poor feedback here. One issue, as far as I can see, is that Rourke has directed this as she would direct a classic play, looking for different angles, getting rid of the stuff that has covered it up over the years. It's the sort of thing you tend to get at the Donmar. The other major London revivals have been depressing pale sub-Fosse imitations; the show is as old as me (literally) so maybe it's time for something different. It's only recently we've started to see Ibsen, Chekhov and so on, saved from the 'way they are always done', so it's not surprising that it divides people. Anyhow, I thought that those who didn't like it did so because they disagreed with how it had been changed rather than that they didn't understand it.
|
|
869 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Apr 22, 2019 21:35:18 GMT
Reinterpreting Ibsen, Chekhov and the like is not a new thing at all. They've always been adapted to suit the location and era of the production with new translations often by prominent writers on a regular basis. Musicals are less likely to get a radical rethink because the original staging is often as important as the book and music and sometimes holds the whole thing together. Charity without Fosse's choreography can work, but it needs something just as strong to replace it. The original Fellini film tells the story far better than Neil Simon's version. Maybe that should be the place to start.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Apr 22, 2019 21:50:18 GMT
Reinterpreting Ibsen, Chekhov and the like is not a new thing at all. They've always been adapted to suit the location and era of the production with new translations often by prominent writers on a regular basis. Musicals are less likely to get a radical rethink because the original staging is often as important as the book and music and sometimes holds the whole thing together. Charity without Fosse's choreography can work, but it needs something just as strong to replace it. The original Fellini film tells the story far better than Neil Simon's version. Maybe that should be the place to start. In terms of style Ibsen and Chekhov haven't really been pushed away from realism though until quite recently, especially when you look at European productions which have just ripped apart what was once thought possible. One big problem I have with musical creators is how they (or at least the rights holders) try and push an old version on you; having to use Robbins' choreography for example. It was for commercial reasons not artistic ones if he was being honest about it, so that he got a bigger chunk of royalties but it has had the effect of preserving those shows in aspic. I'm with Peter Brook, a production is dead after five years or so (maybe less), it's an imitation of an imitation. In terms of plays it's the same with the Beckett estate. The new Broadway Oklahoma looks amazing, however, finally freed from its origins; I think and doing that with more classic musicals will keep them fresher. The King & I desperately needs someone to do something with it, for example. I don't think it needs to be 'as good', just different, once a piece is opened up then others will find better ways to do it.
|
|