2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 26, 2018 14:30:42 GMT
First musical seen was the mid seventies tour of Jesus Christ Superstar, I think. Only later did I get to know the golden era shows in anything apart from their film versions and came to find out that there was a lengthy history behind the genre, which I devoured throughout my twenties. In doing that, my interest was advanced by being introduced to Sondheim whilst I was a student and the realisation that musicals could also be as deep as the plays.that I had come to love. That was also helped by performing and, being a singer, I was able to learn about the genre from that side as well.
As I get older, the relative lack of new musicals is a drawback. Once you’ve found out about everything that came before then a few decent new musicals a year, compared to the many more good new plays that get produced, highlights the dichotomy that musicals may attract a mass audience but only to a limited number of them.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 24, 2018 11:01:08 GMT
thinking about what the director was aiming for. I get what the director was aiming for, but if Bolingbroke was supposed to be Theresa May it didn't work. She did have a degree of gravitas a couple of years ago: the character here was absurd from the start and power-wise the production felt top-heavy. Which suggests that such a personification isn’t his intent. It’s common to think that a director is responding to events of the last few months but the likelihood is that the idea came long before and that there is a much less specific analogy imagined. The recent rise of expressionistic rethinkings of plays leads to any central character being elevated with others seen through that characters eyes so realism in terms of character and relationships would not remain the aim.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 24, 2018 1:56:52 GMT
Billington remains all at sea in his prejudices again I actually agree with him on this one. A more interesting reviewer starts from a position of looking at what the production is doing, Billington, as time has gone on, starts from a position of what he thinks it should be doing instead. This is especially the case with plays where he wants a particular political slant to be highlighted. In comparison, Lukowski's review was an example of someone thinking about what the director was aiming for.
They could have put across completely opposite opinions and I would still find the way that Billington reviews far less interesting. It's the style, not the opinion.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 22, 2018 19:48:15 GMT
Romola Garai - The Writer Ria Zmitrowicz - Dance Nation Kevin Harvey - The Wild Duck Ken Nwoso - An Octoroon Mary Louise Burke - John Patsy Ferran - Summer and Smoke
No particular order.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 22, 2018 10:38:18 GMT
The whole Brexit farrago, the seeming collapse of liberal democracy in the face of fear stoked by populists and a political system which rewards ideology over pragmatism.
On a personal level, spending more time on repairing my inexorably aging frame than at any time previously.
Theatre is, as always, a welcome respite and the idea that people are striving to educate and entertain us means that I can’t be too negative, especially as what I don’t respond to is likely going to be someone else’s favourite. A few few that just weren’t for me, then. Underground Railroad Game (Sophomoric), Le Maladie de Mort (Katie Mitchell not given enough to work with) and Beginning (didn’t identify with the characters in the way which I was probably expected to).
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 21, 2018 17:57:04 GMT
Not in any order of preference, but... 1. Pressure (I have now got hold of J.M.Stagg's book about that forecast, and will read it over Christmas. That's how involved I got with the story!) 2. The Grinning Man (pity there isn't a full soundtrack for this. Louis Maskell was wonderful!) 3. Network (a bold staging, I felt very involved in the story, and a fantastic, moving performance from Bryan Cranston. NT live-type broadcast from NYC, anyone?) 4. Lieutenant of Inishmore (bloody, but outrageously funny, with a great central performance from Aiden Turner) 5. Red (great to see Alfred Molina on stage) and.... I loved Jamie Ballard's version of Harry Potter. My favourite of the 3. There is a full cast recording of 'The Grinning Man' (not the five song promo available earlier), it was recorded live in the theatre.
castalbums.org/recordings/Grinning-Man-The-2018-Original-London-Cast/39370/
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 20, 2018 18:49:16 GMT
Still a few to see but, at the moment,
Fun Home The Writer The Wild Duck The Octoroon (I was late getting to see this one) Company
No particular order.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 20, 2018 14:03:26 GMT
Yeah, just because they don't do anything interesting with their non-linear storyline doesn't mean it's linear. "Might as well be linear" isn't the same as "not non-linear". I would accept the argument that something with a particular sort of flashback scene or dream ballet might not count though. The Ballad Of Loco Chanel, for instance, is Hugo recounting his past; just because the action of the story is staged doesn't mean it's not basically Hugo in the present telling the story. And a dream ballet is... well, a dream. I can sit at my desk and think vivid thoughts about my possible futures without suddenly being classed as a time traveller. We're all time travellers, it's just that we only go in one direction and at one speed.....
I suppose there's a division between 'actual time' and 'imagined time', two different categories of non-linearity. The case of something like Man of La Mancha is interesting as regards storytelling, he is re-enacting a story of the past but the past seems to take over, as there is no logic in his fellow prisoners being able to recount his memories in such detail. It's 'imagined time' but maybe more than that.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 20, 2018 2:15:46 GMT
Yeah, wouldn't call a musical with just one flashback/forward a non-linear musical. Once something is not linear, then it’s non-linear. Some may not be as complex as others mentioned but one instance still serves to break the linearity. Even the cursory one in Phantom colours what we see to an extent.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 19, 2018 15:40:41 GMT
The Watsons for me too, also Poet in Da Corner from the Royal Court, maybe?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 19, 2018 15:19:51 GMT
ADDENDUM: It's interesting to go further and think about why these experiments in form happened when they did. The backwards looking operetta has already been mentioned, always harking back to a golden age and used as escapism from war, industrialisation etc..
Freud figures a lot in the dream structure shows, even to the extent of Lady in the Dark being about psychoanalysis. Eugene O'Neill had helped to make visible the Expressionism that came from a similar source in New York by the early twenties.
Brecht's work permeated global theatre post the Second World War and the storytelling aspect likely comes from that, albeit softened markedly. His 'epic structure' with self contained scenes as opposed to cause and effect also leading to more revue like structures. Then again, Wilder's Our Town had done something similar by the outbreak of war just as his Skin of Our Teeth prefigures Love Life with its structure.
It might be pushing it but the sixties social revolution and its questioning of previously accepted norms might have led to the Sondheim gamechangers and, maybe more obvious, the mind expanding substances that are clearly paralleled in Hair (Walking in Space, particularly) leading to further fractures in linearity.
Multiverse theory surely leads to the dual/multiple reality timelines more recently seen, when there can be more than one universe then all bets are off. Science Fiction is really playing with that idea to great effect.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 19, 2018 15:00:21 GMT
Well, I mentioned it once.....
As has been said, with shows like Follies and Company, remembering is the simplest way to use non-linearity. In my work with students I introduce it via the idea of a 'memory play' as, given that our minds are not bound by chronology, it's fairly easy to replicate that in storytelling. More complex structures can create different meanings such as the backwards/forwards The Last Five Years and its holding on/moving on or the backwards Merrily We Roll Along showing the uninevitability of cynicism replacing idealism. Sondheim, as you can see, figures large and Company really was a game changer, albeit trailing behind playwriting by a considerable time.
Early examples of flashbacks go back to operetta, the idea of 'looking back' being very conducive to that form. A later example being Bitter Sweet (Noel Coward) from 1929 and, of course, much later, taking its cue from operetta, Phantom of the Opera.
Not necessarily based on chronology but other ways of disrupting linearity can be seen in the idea of dreams (Peggy Ann or A Connecticut Yankee (both with Rodgers and Hart scores and books by Herbert Fields), Dubarry Was a Lady (Cole Porter, book again by Fields with Buddy DeSylva) or Lady in the Dark (Weill and Moss Hart)). Weill also, with Alan Jay Lerner, writing Love Life which is less dream more fantasy eschewing realism quite comprehensively as time moves on yet characters move on a different timescale. These are all from the twenties to the forties.
Later on the idea of a story being told, shifting between storyteller and story allowed for early/mid sixties shows such as Man of La Mancha and Zorba. A similar element of a more revue like structure of separate scenes permeates shows like Stop the World I want to Get Off, Oh, What a Lovely War, Hair or You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown from the early to late sixties, this at a time when revues were also making a comeback. Godspell, Chorus Line and Pacific Overtures in the seventies cover both the storytelling aspect and the revue-like structure, arguably Chicago as well.
One of the most successful musicals building on the Sondheim shows that really started to play around with form is 'Nine' (1982), a brilliant piece of storytelling and score. Sondheim's own Assassins (1990) is also as non-linear as anyone could expect.
Since then we seem to have regressed a bit, Our House had a really nice dual-linear story with If/Then on a similar (dual) path, these followed by Groundhog Day with its variations on a day. Otherwise it's been, ironically, variations on what has come before.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 19, 2018 11:31:30 GMT
Usual perceptive review from Lukowski in Time Out, especially on how the production works on its own terms, yet Billington remains all at sea in his prejudices again, wanting it to be on his terms instead.
Strangely, the ultra conservative Treneman and (maybe demob happy) Letts both appreciating it. Maybe they see the country and their role in its future looming like the fever dream fhat it has become.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 16, 2018 14:05:58 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 16, 2018 14:05:58 GMT
I think I agree with the Cardinal: free vote in Commons for her deal. Then other options. This would prob lead to General Election. Corbyn might win but his stand is very muddy so depends on how May presents her options. Meanwhile she has to tell EU to hang on a mo while we sort it out 😂 I think that means asking for a double espresso. On current polling an election will lead to another hung parliament. There's always the chance that a number of people stand on a pure remain or leave platform and get elected (although a snap election won't allow any time for that sort of organisation) but the country is so hopelessly divided I'm not sure that another election is going to do anything other than buy time.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 16, 2018 10:19:26 GMT
I'm truly lost as to what you are trying to say. How can people attacking the cause of Brexit be the cause of Brexit? Are people supposed to not bring it up and hope that bigotry can be confronted through osmosis?
I am not going to dignify any response that tris to paint me as a racist, because that is the simple default setting when they don’t get the answer they want and have their view challenged. Political correctness is a reason why people wanted out? As a person that happens to have voted remain, I can respect the result of the referendum and emphasise with peoples concerns for voting out and I don’t believe that everyone that voted out were racial driven. I think it is terrible that people who have well paid jobs and come across as snobbish and elitist and come out with non meaning platitudes and are calling for article 50 to be cancelled or another referendum, to suit their own confirmation bias. The reason why we have brexited was because the majority felt being a member of the EU as non-beneficial and when our own citizens are looked down at, because they voted out is a terrible thing. I have asked several times what Theresa May should do next, no one has replied to it. None of this is aimed at the poster who I quoted, the level was of response was acceptable for me to enter at, but I know nothing of osmosis? Osmosis, as your position seemed to be, on first reading, that we should ignore the racist element of the leave vote. Hoping that that we can highlight the issue by not mentioning it is just not a useful position to take. From a working class background myself I know first hand what that element of the leave vote are like, and a significant but small proportion are unreconstructed racists and bigots. There is no question of this (and as mentioned above, ignorance of the facts about immigrants and immigration is at the heart of that, so there is an element of truth that the more educated are less so). Pandering to it is the worst thing to do, however; we shouldn’t be agreeing with it, we should be destroying that argument and marginalising it. That small percentage of voters are only one element of the leave vote but they also made the difference. History teaches us that bigotry emboldened leads to a very dangerous place for any nation. It isn’t an attack on the leave vote, just on that element of it, and it cannot be ignored. My fears now are primarily for the working class; I will be okay where I am now in my life* but the weaker and less wealthy, those reliant on the state will be destroyed by any type of leave. A hard Brexit will be even worse. To keep some semblance of social cohesion we cannot leave now and like this. Those who suffer will not primarily be the well off; as is always is always the case in such a crisis, those without the means and position will be the ones hurt the most. * I have, however, had to work hard to do that, and at some cost. The effect on my job, being one of the first to see the coming dangerous shift in its customer base, could have destroyed the latter part of my career. Other areas of society are yet to understand the effects and repercussions of such a profound shift in our economy. EDIT: On what May should so, she’s doing what she probably could do now but she’s so limited by her own red lines and positioning that she can do very little. It’s like the end of a Chess game where she can only move within a few squares of the board but can see the inevitable defeat in the next few moves. What she should do is allow a free commons vote on each possibility - deal, no deal, revoke, referendum.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 15, 2018 18:40:44 GMT
Another few - Drowsy Chaperone (extremely flimsy), Grey Gardens (pallid score and questionable ethically), Carrie (performed like a CBeebies cartoon) and The Life (very questionable ethically).
On people who hark back to an imaginary golden age. On one of our American equivalents, and I swear I’m not making this up, there were a series of posts recently saying that revivals of shows weren’t necessary when there was a perfectly good original production that could be recreated. Jaw dropping stuff, really.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 15, 2018 10:38:17 GMT
Increasingly. But I am aware this is to do with age and experience of seeing some truly great stuff here and in New York. I also will not apologise for being a devotee of the "golden age" of both productions and performers. Nevertheless I keep trying but am inevitably disappointed but that's mainly due to lacklustre performers who seem to continue to work despite their (to me) obvious shortcomings (Ria Jones, Tracie Bennett, Janie Dee and the like). I wholeheartedly agree with previous posters about HAMILTON, FUN HOME and of course COMPANY (aside from Ms LuPone naturally). I simply did not understand the "Rocky Horror" style reaction to MORMON either. That's one party I was not invited to!
I definitely agree about the age and experience thing. I've seen some fantastic stuff over the years, and sometimes I think the people raving on Twitter about how utterly AMAZING and FANTASTIC and MINDBLOWINGLY AWESOME shows are, just haven't seen much to compare. I think it's great that people are enthusiastic about stuff they've seen, and are loving things, but I feel a bit jaded in comparison.
Having said that, my regular theatre companion is half my age and we usually agree on what we just don't get, when the rest of the audience seems to be losing their minds over something.
On the other hand some just get stuck, as with haircuts and clothes, so experience is a two edged sword and can hold people back. Take Company, for example. The original was ground breaking for its time, the Mendes revival was perfectly attuned to its time and the Elliot one now is stunningly recreated for now. None is ‘better’, just aimed differently. One thing that I have changed on is spectacle. I used to think it mattered but now I can take it ir leave it.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 14, 2018 18:54:11 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2018 18:54:11 GMT
The EU27 have already signposted that they would extend article 50 in the event of an election or referendum so it's up to the UK government.
Extending the Article 50 requires unanimous approval from each member of the EU27. We can rescind the A50 notice unilaterally. That may (sorry) turn out to be an important distinction.
Another unknown that leads on from that is the relative likelihoods of a majority for revoke or extend. I would think that revoke is politically more of a challenge and so less likely, at least at first. Extend then revoke might be a staged version of it, though.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2018 17:39:02 GMT
Company and Fun Home are my two standouts in musical theatre this year, the non linearity of their plots appeals to me. Could that be a factor as the othre three you mention are linear?
I was in the OP’s position at 42nd Street, which I found to be shallow, badly acted and tackily designed.
Different strokes....
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2018 16:07:17 GMT
It's a lovely show, I saw it in Edinburgh and it brightened my day.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 14, 2018 8:27:25 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2018 8:27:25 GMT
If no deal is likely could EU step in and extend article 50 As such, there would be a majority to extend article 50 in light of a general election being called or during negotiations for a replacement coalition. This is one area that we can be pretty sure of, that enough MPs (with prior agreement already there from the EU) will vote for an extension if it proves necessary. But can this be done unilaterally by the UK, or would the EU27 have to agree to this? Keep in mind that there is an election for the European Parliament in May 2019, so if it were extended after then, British citizens would have to vote in this election and British parties would have to nominate candidates which then would have to step down again once you've actually left the EU. The EU27 have already signposted that they would extend article 50 in the event of an election or referendum so it's up to the UK government.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 14, 2018 1:26:34 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2018 1:26:34 GMT
Not if parliament votes to revoke or extend article 50, which would be pretty definite in those circumstances. There is already a tacit agreement from EU states that they would allow an extension in the event of an election or referendum. If there was a vote of No Confidence and it was lost then getting a vote to postpone Brexit through would be very hard before 2nd confidence vote and not something hardliners would support. Imagine parties scrambling around to try and get a majority and to get a Brexit postponement vote won. If no deal is likely could EU step in and extend article 50, you cannot campaign for an election and still negotiate plus Parliament actually closes as once election is called all members seek to be MPs. Then with a snap election you have to find out who will stand again, who will step down etc. I think an election pre-brexit is something no one wants. There is a majority in the current parliament to avoid a hard Brexit (we know this from the Grieve amendment passing). As such, there would be a majority to extend article 50 in light of a general election being called or during negotiations for a replacement coalition. This is one area that we can be pretty sure of, that enough MPs (with prior agreement already there from the EU) will vote for an extension if it proves necessary.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 14, 2018 0:37:20 GMT
sf likes this
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 14, 2018 0:37:20 GMT
Our own residents? What a horrible choice of phrasing. As far as I'm concerned our own residents are all those legally residing here regardless of where they come from. If you mean people of British origin, then say so. And if that is the case, then what shameful treatment exactly affects them but not others? Issues with the NHS and the welfare state affect all residents no matter where they come from, issues with racism affect specific races and cultures whether the people who belong to those groups are British-born or not. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. If what you actually mean is some sort of concept of British jobs for British people or anything like that, then the simple answer to that is there are jobs there if people chose to do them, and the fact that people born abroad are doing a lot of the manual labour jobs is as much because some British people (and some non-British as well, to be fair) have decided that claiming benefits is easier than doing an honest day's work. Those people are the problem, not the victims. The victims are those who are contributing hugely to our society yet not even being guaranteed a right to continue to do so. There is nothing that can justify such discrimination as far as I'm concerned, and I can't see how anyone could possibly defend it. I echo poster J 's question, what exactly do you mean by this? No it’s not a horrible choice of phrasing and it is this very attitude that made Brexit happen, well done.
I'm truly lost as to what you are trying to say. How can people attacking the cause of Brexit be the cause of Brexit? Are people supposed to not bring it up and hope that bigotry can be confronted through osmosis?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 13, 2018 23:49:19 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 13, 2018 23:49:19 GMT
If Brexit bill goes before Parliament around 21st January and was rejected. Labour call confidence vote the next day and if Government loses, I believe they would have to try and win a further confidence vote in the following two weeks otherwise there would be an Election in late Feb/Early March but if Parliament was dissolved then would Brexit go ahead and we crash out on a no deal? Not if parliament votes to revoke or extend article 50, which would be pretty definite in those circumstances. There is already a tacit agreement from EU states that they would allow an extension in the event of an election or referendum.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 13, 2018 16:02:13 GMT
With big Sondheim songs like Being Alive, there is the surface character connection but then a much deeper connection between the song and the listener. Taken on its own Being Alive is a good summation of Bobby(ie) at that moment in their life. On a wider canvas, however, the similarity or otherwise to the listener's own experience brings a much more profound depth. In essence we are not sorry/grateful for Bobby(ie) but sorry/grateful for ourselves. That's the real emotional hit.
A song of his that really hits home for me is 'Move On' from Sunday in the Park With George. I doubt it's going to be many people's 'go to' Sondheim song but the resonance for me is profound and therefore the emotion somewhat overwhelming.
When people say that Sondheim doesn't write standalone songs I disagree; maybe not in the way that people expect but in a more targeted way.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 13, 2018 11:46:01 GMT
The naivety/boneheadedness (delete as appropriate) continues. The deal that May has is not going to be renegotiated or changed in any meaningful way, so why are people thinking that (and these are just from a short section of radio listening this morning) 'we just need to put more pressure on the EU' or 'We have to mean that we will have a no Brexit to force the EU to change'? This is it, this is the compromise, reached the way that most European governments work, painstakingly trying to balance a coalition. There is and will be nothing else.
If people don't like this deal and think we should be given more time to get a better one then they really haven't been listening. Not having this deal means either no deal or no Brexit. A few weeks on an imaginary quest to find more unicorns isn't going to change that.
The vote needs to be before Christmas, leaving it just invites a no deal chaotic exit before anything can be done to stop it. I appreciate that Labour want the deal to fail on a vote in parliament before they attempt a vote of no confidence (and that point will be where parties split, if only temporarily, to make a last ditch attempt to halt the process) but we don't have time to faff about any longer.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 13, 2018 0:07:13 GMT
JDon’t think people voted Brexit because they were bored and we are certainly not in a mess, it certainly was a protest vote, you see with Trump being elected and other far right groups the world has tilted towards nationalism, The last time we had this was in 1930’s - so now Theresa has got a vote of confidents, what do you/she do now? Not bored before but bored now, the strategy being to dull people so much that they no longer care. It’s one of the oldest political con tricks in the book. It isn’t just far right movements globally but also populist left movements as well. The common thread is that of populism. The lie that so called populists trade on is claiming that there is a simple answer to complex issues; they are, without exception, ideologues with no interest in anything beyond their own wishes, least of all those who vote for them. Again, one of the oldest political con tricks in the book.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 12, 2018 23:49:50 GMT
Ten years time.
Q: So why did people let this happen? Breaking up the UK? Sending the economy into a tailspin?
A: I was bored.
....well, thanks for that.....
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 21:24:45 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 12, 2018 21:24:45 GMT
I imagine that this will be followed by a vote of no confidence in parliament now as the figures are not good. But a vote of no confidence in Parliament now needs a 2/3rds majority to have any effect, so I don't think she's going anywhere soon. There are two methods, the one you refer to is a motion for an early election before the fixed term is over, which requires two thirds of MPs to pass. The other is a vote of confidence which requires a simple majority, the wording being “this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s government”. If it passes there are then two weeks to put together a new government and, if labour can't, then there will automatically be a general election.
Are there ten or twenty conservative MPs angry enough to do this? The likelihood has just increased markedly, given that they have no other recourse to a party vote of no confidence.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Brexit
Dec 12, 2018 21:10:01 GMT
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Dec 12, 2018 21:10:01 GMT
Closer than many would have expected.
I imagine that this will be followed by a vote of no confidence in parliament now as the figures are not good.
|
|