ALW's Cinderella - Gillian Lynne / U.K. Tour (rumour)

If this is the only significance of midnight, it isn't clearly explained and doesn't make for much of an Act 1 cliff-hanger. But I know that's what previews are for - identifying things that don't come across clearly.



An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere.



Plot inconsistencies aside, my bigger problem with this show is that tonally it's all over the place. I always thought that, if you were going to create a believable fantasy world, you had to define its boundaries and stick to them. I can't really buy the argument that 'it's a fairy-tale world, so we don't have to have any rules on when/where/what we are.'



However, I think if I were to see the show again, knowing now to expect a silly romp, I'd be more forgiving and enjoy it more, even though I still maintain that the silliness makes the sincere emoting of parts of it stick out like a sore thumb.



It was noted earlier in the thread that ALW has 'done Cinderella' before with Starlight. I'd add to that Evita, which was originally described as a 'Cinderella story' and, more pertinently, the fact that ALW's first show, written at school, was Cinderella Up the Beanstalk and Most Everywhere Else. I wonder if this score draws on his music for that? It wouldn't surprise me. Because what this show comes across to me as, more than anything, is a student-y burst of daftness that I'd more expect to see done by a university drama society at Edinburgh than as a major West End musical. How much you like it will probably depend on your tolerance for (and prior expectation of) that kind of show!

That would've been great - would have added some real jeopardy and drama! But I still don't know where the 'sea' bit fits. There's no mention of the sea anywhere in the show, as far as I remember!

That's fair enough and you're probably right, although I definitely didn't get all that on one listen. But, if that's the case, it feels like another area for interesting plot development that is completely ignored. And, in a really good production, would we not have seen some of this back story brought to life in front of us, rather than just described second-hand?

Very happy my £19.50 ticket got upgraded to mid stalls!

The only decent thing to happen to me because of corona

Its interesting, that Sunset was really the only one that going back to "revise" it made it actually work.  Having seen a bootleg of Sunset in London from previews, I was amazed to see how much changed in terms of the physical production (which, honestly, in some ways I preferred the London one with silhouettes of the House, etc that helped establish those scenes a bit more) and script/score wise, apart from "Every Movies A Circus" it was a lot of streamlining, re-orchestrations, etc.  But not a complete overhaul.  The basic structure of score and story were all there and worked, but it needed some fine tuning.  

From what we're hearing here, what needs to be resolved is this midnight/cliff-hanger thing to make a more dramatic landing on the audience and a few other plot clarifications.  It will be interesting to see if 3 weeks is enough time.  If not, ALW can always blame COVID 

Someone gave this 5* ??
Has ALW suddenly become a member?

Agree - it would be nice if folk didn't skew the numbers so we get a realistic view.  I don't think that anybody who has actually seen it thinks it is currently either 5* or 1*...    I said in my initial feedback that I thought it was 4*. Having reflected, I'd say 3.5* now after letting the dust settle on my thoughts.  However I'm going back Saturday for another view, as there are things I want to look for that I wasn't aware of in the first viewing.  

Why is it not possible for some people to think it’s 1 star and other people to rate it as 5 stars, without people thinking it’s being skewed or there is some ulterior motive for some reason?

I'd suggest because most people who voted prior to those ratings had posted their views, what they liked and didn't like, and left interesting reviews/comments. That's all. They've been brilliant to read, by the way, as always when a huge new show opens.

It just feels a bit ‘Trip Advisor’ without a review is all…

But you can offer a score and a review OR a score without a review, no?