PhantomMickey said: "I won the lotto for tomorrow night! I'm taking my mom since she grew up with it as a musical her mom loved. I recall not really loving the movie when she showed it to me, buutttt I'm doing it for her, haha."
Not having seen the current production, I can't speak to that, but I can say that there are big differences between the movie and the original play, just in terms of pacing and style and tone. The movie pretty much sucked all the life out of the proceedings.
I hope Jordan is on Friday night! I would love to see his performance! How was Matías?
The idea is to work and to experiment. Some things will be creatively successful, some things will succeed at the box office, and some things will only - which is the biggest only - teach you things that see the future. And they're probably as valuable as any of your successes. -Harold Prince
TaffyDavenport said: "Matías is on as Lancelot for both shows today."
He was very good, but the chemistry I’ve read so much about the three was wanting. Looking forward to seeing it again with hopefully all three later this month.
I was absolutely taken with this production, it really is quite stunning and the acting effervescent. I was drawn to Burnap from beginning to end, what a perfect and somewhat unexpectedly perfect choice for Arthur. Soo was visually stunning throughout and delivers a shimmering vocal and acting performance.
Having seen each of the revivals this season, to me this is second only to Into the Woods. I feel like this is going to get a lot of critical and Tony love.
ren598 said: "Damiensta said: "The pictures don’t do the stage justice. Yes, it’s bare minimum but the way lighting , shadows and projections are used makes it feel gorgeous. I have never heard or seen previous productions before. The leading trio are great. If this year wasn’t so competitive, I would say Burnap had the Tony in the bag.
Surprised about comment on Soo here. I thought she was perfect in Into The Woods and she was even better here . very good night at the theatre even if it was 3 hours. The theatre was pretty full.
also, most of the show is played center stage"
I agree Burnap was fantastic in this and absolutely deserving of a Tony nomination. However with the Lead actor in a Musical so competitive this year, I doubt he’ll even get nominated. Especially after winning a Tony for The Inheritance just 2 years ago."
I think he has a good chance of getting nominated for his nuanced and empathetic performance. His casting, unlike the other two leads was a bit out if the box which was exciting. Similar to using Ambrose in My Fair Lady where both skillfully shaped characterizations.
Why has Jordon been out? Does his understudy also understudy Andrew?
On a very random note I loved what Jordon was doing with his hair as far as changing it up to fit the scene work.
I think the reviews will focus somewhat on Sorkin but Green will give Andrew a glowing review.
The orchestra sounds wonderful. Those sitting close can feel the floor reverberating beneath you from the orchestra. Can't remember the last time a Broadway pit had 2 bass players.
The cast is excellent. Phillipa's voice doesn't ring as much as others I've seen as Guenevere, but she's just so winning and giving a nuanced acting performance that it doesn't matter. I wasn't sure about Andrew Burnap in act 1, but in act 2 you really see his growth into an adult king, and I found his work very effective. Donica sounds wonderful. Taylor Trensch is having fun.
The set design illustrates the vast loneliness of the castle. Gorgeous lighting and costumes. No sound issues. 59 Productions (projection design) is the best in the biz.
I don't mind the lack of accents. If done effectively, I suppose that could illustrate the "otherness" of both those characters, but French accents can be so bad onstage that this choice worked for me. Did Goulet and Andrews both use French accents in the original?
The other stuff:
I'm often a Sorkin and Sher fan, but both are pulling from their bag of tricks and I'm tired of it. Sorkin's anachronisms and constant banter register as annoyingly cute in this context. There are inherent problems with trying to adapt a book like this, and in some ways it heightens the limitations of the source material in trying to shoehorn in the songs. We barely get an intro to Merlyn, and then he's dead but looms large in Arthur's mind; you get act 1's only two uptempo songs directly next to each other (May and Fair); the jumps in time can be episodic and chaotic; act 2 is overstuffed and has to move sooo briskly through the Mordred/Morgan/affair plots; Morgan is an interesting idea but not 100% successfully executed. About halfway through, I started daydreaming about what someone like Peter Morgan or David Hare or Tony Kushner or Yorgos Lanthimos might have done with CAMELOT instead of Sorkin.
The scenic transitions are clumsy. Changing the direction of the thrones at the end of act 1 just...because? This is a revival that could have benefited from an out-of-town tryout.
Sher once seemed like such a confident & singular theatre artist, and 2017/18 something shifted with him and it seems like he's questioning and second-guessing his artistry, what the audiences will like, and what he "should" be doing. Artistic evolution is vital of course, but it doesn't seem like such a natural journey for him. There are enough interesting things here to keep me engaged, but the one-two punch of Pictures From Home and now this make me worried about his future output as a director.
In terms of the show's view of race, I almost wonder if it would have been better off with an actor of color as Arthur, and a white "himbo" as Lance. It feels like that's what Sorkin & Sher want Lance to be, but he's not being played as such.
Maybe this CAMELOT would have been better if Sorkin wrote a nonmusical play about King Arthur for Sher to direct, instead of this Frankensteined piece that doesn't know if it should be a play or a musical, or a comedy or drama or tragedy. It wants to be too many things, and just kind of ends up being nothing. I'm interested in seeing it again in a month or two to see how my feelings evolve.
If the cast album is anything to go by (there's a bit of speaking on it as well as singing), Andrews didn't use a French accent. I don't think her character was meant to be French -- she came from another kingdom, but I don't think it was ever specified which one.
TaffyDavenport said: "Tons of loge seats available for next Thursday's opening, starting at $48."
Thinking of going to the opening, with that $48 ticket option. For someone who is almost 6 feet tall, how is leg room and the view in the upper loge (left or right side)?
Theatrelove1987 said: "TaffyDavenport said: "Tons of loge seats available for next Thursday's opening, starting at $48."
Thinking of going to the opening, with that $48 ticket option. For someone who is almost 6 feet tall, how is leg room and the view in the upper loge (left or right side)?
I sat in the loge row D, left side. The view was fantastic, full view, but the legroom is non existent. Any attempt to adjust my legs resulted in kicking the seat in front. I'm 5'7-ish.
Someone on All That Chat said he won't be back until Tuesday, and critics have been rescheduled, which would explain the ticket dump of prime orchestra seats for this weekend that happened the other day. Nothing on social media as to the reason, but the timing suggests COVID.
So we went to the 4/5 8pm show. Lottery win, seats Orch row L 105, 106. Legroom was very tight but view was great. You can't read the main screen fully, but they have side ones set up which do the job just fine.
Lancelot seems like such a tough role to understudy for with the French lines and sword choreography. Neither of us were particularly wowed by him though sadly enough. I'm not sure how much was him or how much was his character feeling like a third wheel to Arthur and Gwen's characters.
I really enjoyed the Lusty May and Then You May Take Me to The Fair scenes. However, I felt like the show had some good ideas that got shoe-horned into Act 2 instead of being set up more gradually in Act 1... particularly would have loved to see Morgan introduced sooner. Also all of Philipa's costumes were gorgeous.
I've heard nothing but terrible reviews from friends who have seen the show. I guess it is diving people, since so many seem to love it.
I'm not a Soo fan. I've seen her a few times and while her singing is gorgeous, I've never felt anything for a character she portrays. She always reads so flat to me.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
MCfan2 said: "If the cast album is anything to go by (there's a bit of speaking on it as well as singing), Andrews didn't use a French accent. I don't think her character was meant to be French -- she came from another kingdom, but I don't think it was ever specified which one."
I was really taken by this. I thought the first act was stunning. The second act definitely starts to get a bit weird and a bit draggy, but it didn't affect my overall enjoyment. I think I'd like to go back again sometime when Jordan Donica is back as I felt his vocals were definitely missing. Both Phillipa Soo and Andrew Burnap are terrific, though. The press photos definitely do not capture how stunning some of the stage pictures are. All that said, I can see why some might find it boring or a slog to sit through. Still, it's probably my 2nd favorite revival of the year.
-There's the muddle in the middle. There's the puddle where the poodle did the piddle."
The brilliant score aside, I can understand why some may find the original boring since so much of the love triangle is unspoken. A look here and a gaze there. It depends heavily on the actors ability to project that love/betrayal without words. I haven’t seen this production yet and I’m very curious to find out if Sorkin has fleshed that out at all.