Photo Flash: SWEET CHARITY At Theatre Royal Haymarket.. ummm.- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:06pm

"Small" is not the new "large." I just won't buy it. Not that those prices.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:09pm

Imagine 42nd Street... Londonized.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:17pm

It would be "42nd Street in Topeka, Kansas."

[chrissydee]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:31pm

I am a londoner.......... I like what the chocolate factory did with La Cage and Night Music, and have seen charity at the factory and at its new home, the haymarket.

Im not a fan. the direction is washy (everyone acts like they are in different shows), there is no over all style to the piece, the set is damn Fugly, andd the choreography (mostly) is bland.

Tamsin is a great actress, but cannot sing charity as well as it should be sang.

The costumes and design Look like they have been thrown together at the last second. (I actually REALLY despised the set both times I saw it).

The band, for once in a chocolate factory, sounded IMO, great! There are only 9 of them, but I thought it sounded really full!

x

[Holbee]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:32pm

I actually enjoyed the show, but did note its very amateur theatrical sets at the Menier. I liked it more than La Cage at the Menier but then again, Douglas Hodge was sick and his understudy wasn't all that. The best part of the show was Phillip Quast's "Song on the Sand". Never heard it sung better. But when I saw it on the West End I was somehow blown away, I'm sure it was Hodge, but his presence upped the ante for the whole production. Part of the charm of "Charity" was its cheapness though, hopefully the new sets will retain that feel as did "La Cage". And as for Brits vs US musical theatre, its not size the Brits like. Its vulgarity. Its musical "comedy". Anything that smacks of the real they send into the alley. Even something as deep as "Drowsey Chaperon", which was also a farce, couldn't cut it there. Yet they love our very surface productions. Like "Hairspray" (okay I'll give 'em that...) and "Legally Blond" which is a much bigger hit there than here. They even vulgarized "The Secret Garden" making Dickon the silly comic lead with a chorus of lads and lady sheep herders. The straight dramas and comedies of Britain are magnificent, the actors the best. But their taste in musical theatre, post Lloyd-Webber, is horrible and about fifty years behind the times.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:44pm

Granted, I'm doing online currency conversion, but it seems that when you covert pounds to dollars, shows at both Meiner and Haymarket are considerably less than their equivalent top Broadway prices.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:50pm

"Because after a while it becomes hard to justify paying Broadway prices when you can you go see a regional production (which is usually inherently scaled down) at about 1/4 the price. "

But you are missing the point with these productions. The show and the score and the book come 1st, thats why these shows are doing so well here and so well on Broadway. Do you think the New York press raved about La Cage and Night Music for the hell of it? they liked them because they allow the material to shine, something that so many of the bad Broadway revivals dont do. Finians was pretty scaled back as was Ragtime (ironicly people stayed away from them both) and nobody started screaming blue murder about them.

How about the Sweeney Todd revival that came from the UK that everyone seemed to adore, it to was scaled back to let the show shine rather than the over blown production.

When you spend money to watch a Broadway show it should not be about how many chorus members they have, how many set changes they have, it should be about did the material connect with you, did the production sell the story, these shows do.

I loved Appelegate in the revival of Sweet Charity but the production itself was so over produced.

Guys and Dolls at the Donmar got AMAZING response and everyone on here wanted it to come to NY. it was darker, not over produced and played the story to perfection. Instead you got ANOTHER overblown revival with huge sets and video screens which everyone hated.

Little shop was turned from a small Off Broadway production which suits the material perfectly to a large scale over blown cold and somewhat disjointed production that again everyone agrees was far to big. However the recent revival in the UK was full of heart, nice simple sets and the book and score shone as did the actors.

So why everytime the UK produces something more intimate and more scaled back do the same old same old people moan, when themselves have spoke how over blown and over produced some of their own revivals were.

Broadway should not be about spectacle, it should be about great shows, if 25 people are in the pit or 7 people are in the pit, if 30 people are on stage or 8 people on stage....what does it matter as long as the job is done well.

It's Broadway's odd fascination with bigger is better which have led to a string of over blown flops. Its like the thinking is if you throw as much scenery and lighting and costumes as possible at a production that a dumb audience wont realize they are just watching a polished turd.

And on Sweet Charity you are looking at clips from the choclate factory not the West End, and the fact you can judge a show on a 2 min clip is amazing.

Oh and for the idiot who asked if Charity was played by a man or tranny in this show, well thats just childish and cruel. Tamzin is a beautiful and talented woman

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:53pm

But you are missing the point with these productions.

No, I'm not. I'm just missing why I should pay a hundred bucks for something I can see at a regional theatre for 25.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:54pm

PS
Top price tickets for Chairty in London work out at around $90

Yes its cheaper than what they would be on Broadway, but hats simply because most Broadway ticket prices are to high, something again so many of you have complained about.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:55pm

"No, I'm not. I'm just missing why I should pay a hundred bucks for something I can see at a regional theatre for 25. "

Oh come off it, are you taking the p**s?
You think you can see something as brilliant as the La Cage revival regional?
Or again are you talking about the size of the show?

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:57pm

You think you can see something as brilliant as the La Cage revival regional?

Yes.

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 7:59pm

I have to say... it's just down to different taste. And I understand why people will want a big glamorized production for what they're charging. But I would rather see a good production scaled-down rather than a big scale musical that really means nothing. That said, it only depends what mood I'm in when I'm watching the musical.
There's no good or bad on big or small scale musicals, it's not even about Broadway and West End. I think it's on whether the production itself is done well, marketed well and quite frankly I think the West End is abit overpriced now... I can't imagine how expensive it is to watch a show in NYC!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:00pm

Of course you can

You know what you guys are right, these silly small scale shows are just not right on Broadway. You should stick to the large scale stuff because its far better, like Bye Bye Birdie, Promises Promises etc, those shows will do the job............because they have way more chorus members and pretty sets.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:01pm

Oh come off it, are you taking the p**s?

I'm not being thick here, but although I've heard that expression, I'm not quite sure what it means. Does it mean am I just arguing for arguemnt's sake? If so, no

You think you can see something as brilliant as the La Cage revival regional?

I have seen many a brilliant regional production. I have seen amateur productions that outshone professional productions. And yes, I've seen plenty of Broadway shows that blew me away as well. Good theatre is good theatre, no matter where or who does it.

Or again are you talking about the size of the show?

Isn't that what we're all talking about?

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:10pm

"You think you can see something as brilliant as the La Cage revival regional? "

Yes. And (as I said earlier), you need to get out more, if you think you can't.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:14pm

I get out more than enough thanks since im a theatre critic here in the UK. And i know that i could not see a production like the current La Cage anywhere else, i could see one with the same amount of actors or same band in the pit, but thats just numbers, not the production.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:17pm

I'm not familiar with the quality of regional theatre in the UK, so I don't dispute your assessment at all.

Here in the U.S., however, I have seen regional, summer stock, community theatre, and even college productions with my own eyes that have rivaled their counterparts on Broadway.


EDIT: To be fair, I will add "not as a general rule." Certainly, many and even most productions aren't up to the caliber of the performers on Broadway. But some are as good or better.

And when you take away the "spectacle" and scale, you're only rating performances. Everything else is nearly the same.

Updated On: 5/4/10 at 08:17 PM

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:33pm

For some reason I always thought going to the West End to see a production means I'll see a stellar, solid production of something and never really got the idea of 'oh it needs BIG sets...etc' For me, a West End production means a guaranteed performance (which obviously is not the case). As for regional theatre, it's more about low expectation, felt great coming out. lol.
I never thought Broadway was about BIG lavish set, which might prove me wrong... but I always that's Vegas' job.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:50pm

It isn't just the sets ... It's seeing a chorus of six. And a pit orchestra to match.

Broadway has been "big scale" since its birth, particularly in the musical genre. It's always been about the quality, true ... but that has never been its uniqueness, despite what New Yorkers would tell you. It has been about size and impact. And not just in the "talent" department.

I agre with you that artistic satisfaction is the goal. But if I can get that in any state in the union, why would I want to pay big bucks to see the same thing in NYC?

[binau]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 8:56pm

"You know what you guys are right, these silly small scale shows are just not right on Broadway. You should stick to the large scale stuff because its far better, like Bye Bye Birdie, Promises Promises etc, those shows will do the job............because they have way more chorus members and pretty sets.
"

So the choices are between Meiner productions and Bye Bye Birdie?

What about large scale productions of "Night Music" or "La Cage"? (To use your examples). I heard a rumour both of those shows were successfully performed this way in the past. I'm not completely sure though, I heard another rumour that as soon as you have an orchestra over 20 members or 'pretty sets' a show necessarily becomes mindless fluff.

Updated On: 5/4/10 at 08:56 PM

[ruthiefan_felix]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 9:21pm

big productions work, small production works as well. Just a different interpretation, different direction. We really should not make a stereotype out of it ~

[wickedfan]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 9:24pm

South Pacific's 30 piece orchestra, large chorus, and lavish sets are totally to the detriment of the piece. That's why it garnered unanimous pans and was completely shut out by the Tonys. Same goes for Hal Prince's Show Boat with a cast of 60+, and Carousel with its turntable, and Kiss Me Kate's colorful production, and No, No Nanette with its dozens of tapping chorines.

Oh wait.

The truth is that stripping down a production to its bare essentials doesn't make it more intimate or truthful to the piece. Nunn's A Little Night Music has an 8-piece orchestra and a unit set and it was not a truthful, intimate experience. It just felt cheap and misconstrued. And yes, while there were a few NY critics who gave positive reviews (mostly citing how wonderful the material still is), a great deal found it mediocre, and a few others hating it-the NY Times included.

That isn't to say that large scale productions are the only way to go. Numerous large scale revivals have tanked. But guess what. It wasn't BECAUSE they were large scale. No one said "Oh look at that set! It's so BIG! This revival sucks!" They sucked for the same reason numerous "stripped back" revivals suck. Directors who feel that they have to "save" a show with their vision and actors who are either miscast or misdirected. In other words, a complete lack of faith in the material.

You know what would have been an amazing revival of A Little Night Music? A 20+ orchestra and an elegant, sweeping set by Michael Yeargan or Bob Crowley with direction by Bartlett Sher, one out of perhaps five directors out there who CAN handle spectacle. It would have been big. Bigger than the Chekhovian funeral at the Walter Kerr, anyway. And it would have been brilliant.

People use the term "overproduced" incorrectly the same way they use the term "fun." These days, "fun" is used to describe a show that isn't well written or just a complete waste of any creative thought. Posters on here used the term "fun" and "it's not MEANT to be a deep piece of theatre" to describe The Little Mermaid, Tarzan, The Addams Family, Cry Baby... well, you get the idea.

And people use "overproduced" to justify a stripped back approach to a latest revival. The original La Cage Aux Folles was "overproduced"? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who stood and cheered for it when it opened. Was the original Follies overproduced? The original Dreamgirls? Spectacle is a part of musical theatre. When done well, it becomes a PART of the show and enhances the piece as well as the theatre going experience. Don't blame directors who can't handle it or designers who just throw money on stage for a large scale revival failing.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 5/4/10 at 10:56pm

Smaller does not mean better.

Bigger does not mean better.

Can't we just judge a production on its own terms? I mean, the best part about theatre is that you can do a show extravagantly, and do that exact same show in a more scaled down atmosphere. A Little Night Music and Ragtime are both perfect examples of that.

Truth be told, as much as I love a big huge spectacle, I care more about the material and the performances. And those can be great in both "overproduced" and "stripped down" versions.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 1:44am

I could not agree with Best12bars more! Well said
AND
I also agree with TalkinLous. We should judge a production on its own terms

But when producers go on the "small boat" on Broadway more and more... there is a problem.

Broadway used to mean spectacle as well as quality.
Funny Girl, Sweet Charity, Mame, Cabaret, Oliver,
and the more recent Producers, Hairspray.
You would get chills from the choral singing and dancing and the full orchestra.
Exactly what the G-d Dionysus had in mind when he invented musical theatre in Ancient Greece. Not only good theatre but theatre with spectacle.

Take the amazement I got from Mame with its 25 piece orchestra; lavish costumes and sets and Angela Lanbury coming down the staircase to meet none other than Bea Arthur and Jane Connell. With fabulous Onna White choreography.
Musical Theatre was God Like

That was Broadway. That is the Broadway I miss.
The chills not only from the quality of the performers and the musical but from the bigness.

I can see scaled down shows in the local dinner theatre.
On Broadway, with some exception, I want them big.


Mind you big does not always mean good. ( Shogun the musical was a large abortion of a musical) but I can't stand these mini musicals
parading as Bway Shows at $ 132 per ticket.

And I can not stand the Times Ben Brantley's hating a show simply because it's big: Memphis, 9 to 5, Promises Promises
and liking a show simply because it's little: La Cage, Million Dollar Quartet, Everyday Rapture etc.

That Charity in the video should stay over in London. Especially that blonde woman playing Charity. I think everything I've seen from the Chocolate Factory should stay over in London.

I think that La Cage with Hodge should have stayed on the other side of the ocean..
The worst La Cage I have ever seen including dinner theatre productions.
And Night Music with the exception of Lansbury was a snore.. My opinion.

7 musicians in a Broadway theatre with substandard choreography and sets do not
a Bway Musical make.

Bring back quality and spectacle. Leave Chocolate Shows in London. Ugh.

[mallardo]

Posted: 5/5/10 at 3:55am

All these judgments on a show virtually none of you have seen. Of those who have seen it all but one loved it.

All this bitching and moaning about size and prices from some people who don't even live in New York (check the bios) and probably haven't attended a live Broadway show in years.

The hypocracy is a bit thick these day.