Moulin Rouge Colonial Theatre Previews- Page 13

[mcsquared]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 7:11pm

It's up for scoring if any one wants to add their review on Show-Score--probably because they want to promote their social which is for a few weeks from now.

https://www.show-score.com/touring-shows/moulin-rouge-boston

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 7:17pm

I don't care if it's a thin, romantic melodrama. This moment was perfectly executed in the movie and it's what audiences are going there to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dW1ddAC_4

[mailhandler777]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 8:02pm

R. GreenFinch said: "mailhandler777 said: "R. GreenFinch said: "mailhandler777 said: "EllieRose2 said: "Metal detectors? That's insanely annoying and will slow the entire process down. They should tell people to come at least 45 minutes early or always expect to start the show late. It's very odd that Boston would have more security than Midtown NYC."

My theatre here in Hershey,PA has had metal detectors for years. Also why is it odd? You forget about the Boston Marathon a few agos?"

I spent a lot of time at the Hershey Theatre growing up and I always think their security is a bit overkill compared to NYC venues. At least I know what to expect when I see Moulin Rouge in a few months!"

So I'm guessing you grew up in the past 5yrs since that's when they first installed the detectors. Before that they never even checked in your bag."

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all (my bad)! I meant in my visits in the years since compared with what I encountered when I was growing up. I haven't lived in PA for the past few years. When I see the occasional show in Hershey now, it's definitely more than I usually experience in Bostonor NYC."

Oh yeah it's an experience. Kinda like getting on a plane...lol. I live so close though that I never have anything on me but my wallet,phone and keys. Only one other place I had to go through detectors was in a theatre in Orlando.

[gray_area]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 8:37pm

VintageSnarker said: "I don't care if it's a thin, romantic melodrama. This moment was perfectly executed in the movie and it's what audiences are going there to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dW1ddAC_4"

THIS. Not gonna lie, I came in thinking they could stage this ending scene in a somewhat similar fashion to the movie.

[Elizabeth Moore]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 8:51pm

Yes. This moment fell VERY flat.

I'm anxious to see what the reviews from tonight say. After the weekend, there are two days off again for (hopefully) more changes. Opening Night freeze is still ten days away. *Crosses Fingers*

[Broadwaybound22]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 9:12pm

The biggest issue they really need to overcome is the sequencing of events. Pausing and going back in time seldom works on stage. It kills any momentum being built to that point. And in this instance, starting the show with 'Lady Marmalade' (and not even the film's version with Zidler that moves the plot along) and a series of Can Can pop hit mash-ups is a mistake.  They're giving away the farm during the first 15 minutes, only to then pause things and try and make us care about Christian's backstory.

It's also my issue with that lavish (and beautifully designed) Moulin Rouge set:  they've already blown their wad from the outset.  It leaves little mystery (or spectacle) for the audience. Compare this with Hal Prince's treatment in Phantom (a la Follies) where you start with a crumbling, bleak 'present' during the Auction scene (with Raoul looking back)...and then as the Overture begins, it *transports* you and pulls you deeper into the story. The 'present' grounds the 'past' and they did this in the film version to great effect. There's nothing transportive or grounding in the current iteration of MR on stage.  

I think it's why the audience members are laughing at the various pop songs being introduced...because there's so little emotional connection to the story being established.  No pathos, no romance!

Updated On: 7/12/18 at 09:12 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 9:23pm

Just curious. For those who’ve seen this and other recent blozckbuster-film-to-stage adaptations, how would you rank this in comparison to Mean Girls and Frozen?

[theaterdarling]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 9:42pm

VintageSnarker said: "I don't care if it's a thin, romantic melodrama. This moment was perfectly executed in the movie and it's what audiences are going there to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dW1ddAC_4"

I am going to see the show on Aug 3 and thus part of the "audience" you refer to. Contrary to your assertion,  I am going there to see Alex Timbers and John Logan's interpretation of Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge" (and to which Luhrmann has given his blessing), not to see what was perfectly (or otherwise) executed in the movie precisely recreated on stage. A theatrical version will have its own delights and exploits which I am (and I bet others) are looking forward to.  It seems to me that if people are going to the theater to see perfect  recreations of all or certain scenes in the movie, then disappointment will be inevitable (and, clearly, no point in waiting to see the show in its entirety to register that inevitable disappointment). 

Also, in two or three OTHER posts in this thread, it is so very disappointing that a community of supposed theater lovers, some of whom I assume earn their livelihood from theater, are giving tacit approval (and therefore encouragement) to boot-legging by not shutting down the posts that refer to this bootleg audio. Other people's intellectual property and hard work are being stolen and, then, to add insult, posters are audaciously commenting on and critiquing  the show based on listening to half of show on STOLEN audio. By not shutting down the posts, people are clearly more interested in hearing reports of what is on the audio rather than calling out the morality of such a thing. Even more unbelievable, someone requested a link to the stolen audio via PM to perpetuate the crime. Gross.  

 I only  just saw the posts referring to the audio, and unless I missed something, I can't believe I am the first to call them out and that the moderators haven't yet seen fit to delete them. This is so wrong. Metal detectors (oh, horrors) and inability to bring one's luggage and leftovers into a theater seem to invoke more outrage. Shameful. 

 

 

[robskynyc]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 9:53pm

theaterdarling said: "Also, in two or three OTHER posts in this thread, it is so very disappointing that a community of supposed theater lovers, some of whom I assume earn their livelihood from theater, are giving tacit approval (and therefore encouragement) to boot-legging by not shutting down the posts that refer to this bootleg audio. Other people's intellectual property and hard work are being stolen and, then, to add insult, posters are audaciously commenting on and critiquing the show based on listening to half of show on STOLEN audio. By not shutting down the posts, people are clearly more interested in hearing reports of what is on the audio rather than calling out the morality of such a thing. Even more unbelievable, someone requested a link to the stolen audio via PM to perpetuate the crime. Gross.

I only just saw the posts referring to the audio, and unless I missed something, I can't believe I am the first to call them out and that the moderators haven't yet seen fit to delete them. This is so wrong. Metal detectors (oh, horrors) and inability to bring one's luggage and leftovers into a theater seem to invoke more outrage. Shameful."

Would I would LOVE to hear the audio and see some sneak peeks of the show? ABSOLUTELY. Am i going to shell out top dollar for a front row seat when it's here in NYC? you bet your ass. 

Updated On: 7/12/18 at 09:53 PM

[EllieRose2]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 10:02pm

"Also, in two or three OTHER posts in this thread, it is so very disappointing that a community of supposed theater lovers, some of whom I assume earn their livelihood from theater, are giving tacit approval (and therefore encouragement) to boot-legging by not shutting down the posts that refer to this bootleg audio. Other people's intellectual property and hard work are being stolen and, then, to add insult, posters are audaciously commenting on and critiquing the show based on listening to half of show on STOLEN audio. By not shutting down the posts, people are clearly more interested in hearing reports of what is on the audio rather than calling out the morality of such a thing. Even more unbelievable, someone requested a link to the stolen audio via PM to perpetuate the crime. Gross.  I only just saw the posts referring to the audio, and unless I missed something, I can't believe I am the first to call them out and that the moderators haven't yet seen fit to delete them. This is so wrong. Metal detectors (oh, horrors) and inability to bring one's luggage and leftovers into a theater seem to invoke more outrage. Shameful."

Oh, I am completely against ANY recording in the theater, I just don't bother to entertain idiots recording it illegally.  That is why I did not say anything, but I completely side with you.  It's disrespectful to everyone who worked on this show. 
 

[Lily Garland]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 10:23pm

To each their own, but the mass love for this film baffles me.  Kidman's performance, and a few great moments aside, I find it to be a complete mess. I've revisited it several times, attempting to see what people love so much about it, and am always left cold (and with a headache).  I find much of it to be mocking of musicals, which is why I'm surprised so many musical lovers love it so much.  

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 10:54pm

I loved the movie because it was completely unexpected.  Every moment was wonderfully executed and glorious.  And I don’t think it was mocking musicals at all but father brought in people who don’t like typical musicals.  To add to my enjoyment, the 2nd time I saw it Bono and the Edge were in the audience. Visually it was spectacular.  Not to mention that the Roxanne number was superb.  I hope the stage production is not like the movie because I am tired of seeing something on stage that is an exact copy of something I can see in film.

[Elizabeth Moore]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 11:01pm

theaterdarling said: "VintageSnarker said: "I don't care if it's a thin, romantic melodrama. This moment was perfectly executed in the movie and it's what audiences are going there to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dW1ddAC_4"

I am going to see the show on Aug 3 and thus part of the "audience" you refer to. Contrary to your assertion, I am going there to see Alex Timbers and John Logan's interpretation of Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge" (and to which Luhrmann has given his blessing), not to see what was perfectly (or otherwise) executed in the movie precisely recreated on stage. A theatrical version will have its own delights and exploits which I am (and I bet others) are looking forward to. It seems to me that if people are going to the theater to see perfect recreations of all or certain scenes in the movie, then disappointment will be inevitable (and, clearly, no point in waiting to see the show in its entirety to register that inevitable disappointment).

As someone who was physically there I think the problem the op is referring to is that we didn't see the lovers reconnect at this pivotal moment -a pinnacle of their love. Instead, she was panicked that he was about to kill himself and seemed to be acting only to save him, not because she had any hope they'd be together. It is established that she expects to die on stage, she knows she is at the end before the performance even begins. The love story part never came together because the story wasn't the central concern.

 

Movie it not, everyone wants a good love story. (Or not, I suppose. To each their own. ??

[mcsquared]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 11:19pm

VintageSnarker said: "I don't care if it's a thin, romantic melodrama. This moment was perfectly executed in the movie and it's what audiences are going there to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8dW1ddAC_4"

Except for the part right before this movie scene is when Christian throws Satine violently  to the ground and throws money at her, making him as despicable as the Duke in my eyes. I'm glad they changed this part of the ending at least though it seemed like they went to the other extreme to want to get you to leave the theatre in a "feel good" mood. I just watched the film for what I thought was the second time since I thought I saw it when it first came out, but I'm glad I watched it after the musical and not before so I didn't have to make comparisons. I thought they were both bizarre in their own way, at least initially, but I appreciate the extra insight I've gotten from posters here. 

 

Updated On: 7/12/18 at 11:19 PM

[gray_area]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 11:29pm

Elizabeth Moore said: "As someone who was physically there I think the problem the op is referring to is that we didn't see the lovers reconnect at this pivotal moment -a pinnacle of their love. Instead, she was panicked that he was about to kill himself and seemed to be acting only to save him, not because she had any hope they'd be together. It is established that she expects to die on stage, she knows she is at the end before the performance even begins. The love story part never came together because the story wasn't the central concern."
 

True. I've always thought that one of the most powerful lines/lyric in the movie was "come back to me and forgive everything". Like Satine loved him so much that she still chose him in the end after all of that drama and wanted them to be together, no matter how much time she had left. That failed to translate well on stage for me and is why I felt disappointed when the show ended.
 

 

[ren598]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 11:43pm

Miles2Go2 said: "Just curious. For those who’ve seen this and other recent blozckbuster-film-to-stage adaptations, how would you rank this in comparison to Mean Girls and Frozen?"

Haven’t seen Mean Girls and I just saw Frozen last weekend, Moulin Rouge is a lot better than Frozen.  Everything in Moulin Rouge is first rate.  Frozen was disappointing because it was exactly like the movie with a few new songs thrown in.  The effects and sets in Frozen looked cheap.  You won’t have that issue with Moulin Rouge.  

[gray_area]

Posted: 7/12/18 at 11:55pm

Miles2Go2 said: "Just curious. For those who’ve seen this and other recent blozckbuster-film-to-stage adaptations, how would you rank this in comparison to Mean Girls and Frozen?"

I'm still planning on seeing Mean Girls, but Moulin Rouge is many levels above Frozen. I thought Frozen was a very lazy film-to-stage adaptation and even the new elements brought nothing to the show. At least the new additions in Moulin Rouge left me very entertained. I'm still not over the choreography of some of the numbers, whereas the only thing I really remember from Frozen is Let It Go. And I thought MR has a much stronger cast/ensemble over-all as well.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 12:08am

Thanks for the comparisons. I was late to the Frozen (film) parade (finally watched it this year) and have never seen the Mean Girls movie (gasp!). So I have really zero interest in either stage productions. But comparison to help. Of people were saying this is worse than MG and Frozen, my excitement would definitely dissipate a bit.

I have seen Moulin Rouge and even own it on DVD and enjoy the soundtrack. I am starting to get very intrigued with the stage production and can definitely see myself seeing this when it makes it to New York.

Glad to hear that so far Moulin Rouge compares favorably against at least Frozen. Hopefully, they can fix some of things that need fixing.

[sparepart973]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 12:18am

Just saw the second preview tonight.

Off with a very rocky start when we were evacuated due to a fire alert, then told to come back in, and then no no, you have to go back out, and then again come back in. Needless to say, the entire operations part of the theatre is very rough and it's evident, and the ushers don't know where to direct the patrons to (and just like some Broadway theatres, there are sections that only have odd numbers, and others have even numbers). 

The show itself works for the most part. It's a sensory overload monster, and yes, of course it's style over substance. We've seen the movie, and if it's substance we are looking for, this wouldn't have been something you would be interested in to begin with. It's a jukebox megamusical for people who want to have fun and have their eyes bedazzled, and it delivers. 

The unit set is pretty much what we've seen in production shots. Red, opulent and rich. It remains mostly the basis of the entire show, and is used well. The lighting is slick and has great variety. There are smaller sets within the set, namely Satin's dressing room in the elephant and Christian's studio. Satin's room is a bit of a let down. It's one dimensional, and the piece and furniture in it look amateur. What it needed is some more perspective and character. Christian's studio is a bit better, and utilizes different pieces that are flown in to form the scenery. And that's my biggest gripe with the scenic elements of the show. For a show that is based on a movie that is so dynamic, and quick, I would have wanted these scenes to be less static and to give us fantastical theatre magic. For all the work that has done, the visual part of the show lacks the stagecraft that I would have expected from Moulin Rouge. Satin's room only came to life at the end of the Love Medley, when it spun around and revealed the rooftop. What I wanted was a lot more scenes that would dissolve, assemble and reassemble in front of our eyes. For the most part, especially in the more emotional songs and ballads that don't have any big movement and choreography, the staging is a let down. Parking and barking or just running from one end of the stage to another does not work.  

This is where the choreography is used to great effect to compensate. The ensemble are unbelievably strong and insanely talented, and the dancing is pretty thrilling and sometimes absolutely aggressive.  

Karen Olivo is luminous, and I don't know how and where she'll find the stamina to sustain this with the pressures of opening a show on Broadway. This will need unbelievable commitment from her. She really has to deploy all she has throughout the show, and she does marvelously. Aaron Tveit, as I thought, was broad, generic and really uninteresting and unoriginal. For a bohemian, he's pretty square and clean cut. He has vocal range, I'll give him that, and that works for the pop songs. Otherwise, he's mainly bland and only comes to life towards the end when his jealously drives him insane. His two sidekicks are excellent (sorry -it's very late, can't pull up their names now). Tam Mutu is greatly underused, and Danny Burstein is pretty good though he gives us Cabaret Emcee especially at the beginning. For those who said that he doesn't have much material or that much to do, I disagree. He's very prominent. 

The songs, old and new, are plentiful and I don't recall all of them now. The audience seemed to be delighted at how they are shoe-horned in new scenes. I honestly do not know most of the new songs from the pop catalogue, but I recognized Firework, Rolling in the Deep, Crazy and Chandelier. Bad Romance is the Act II opening, and it was pretty damn thrilling. The Show Must Go On, my favorite song from the film, is eliminated, which is a shame, considering that this show is about the show going on. It's frustrating that Satin says, "after all, the show must go on" but we never get the song. 

In great shape for a second preview for such a big, movement-based show. When everyone settles in a bit, it'll be as perfect as it can get. 

Okay, I'm going to bed  :)

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 12:26am

Sad to hear about the design! I thought Timbers direction of Rocky was gorgeous and some really interesting stage pictures, so would have thought he’d have come up with something more. Maybe they couldn’t get the rights to certain songs? Also, it seems like they picked some cheesy songs to throw into the show, which could be why they are getting laughs. Why not take something a bit obscure - and reimagine it.

[Ladybug101]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 1:58am

Theater Darling and Ellie Rose comments on bootlegging:

I am so sorry that I disturbed you both.  I am a New Yorker who in the past was able to pay top dollar for theater but who is now 10,000 miles away and probably will never see another thing on Broadway -- life can play very unfortunate tricks -- I was photographed years ago with Hillary Clinton when I was a VP and now .........well, she is still doing better than me even with her "loss".  

As I said in the first of my two posts, the tape has disappeared so nada.  But I was so very tired of hearing the production torched by many of the posters here, so I thought Moulin Rouge The Musical needed an advocate. Should have lied and said I was there.  But I don't lie -- stupid me.

I mentioned in a post the lack of comments on the audience's continuing crazy excitement.  Reminded that things may changed since the movie -- "Me Too" movement should stem the assault. They had a tango with Bad Romance that was the most popular number in the show.  That teens and young women would probably be the mainstay of MR (if they can afford this expensive show so the new music should spark their interest more than Queen's "The Show Must Go On" etc. which probably had licencing problems since the group has seen a resurgence with the addition of Adam Lambert.  Etc., Etc. Etc. Read my earlier posts if you wish for those "insights."

I just read a 2nd day reviewer and they complained about Aaron Tveit being so broad. I have said in two prior places that the production is asserting his innocence -- he is not a bohemian but a midwesterner from Lima Ohio like the Glee show -- so therefore sounding perhaps a bit gauche.  I still sound like the midwest after many NYC years and several degrees.

Theater Darling -- you saw Tveit in "Company" and felt him excellent though surpassed by Raul Esparza.   I heard AT's singing some Company on WMAC pod recording and preferred his take -- Esparza was too over the top for me.  Just my opinion -- he did get a Tony nom.  Did AT sound like a 1970's sophisticate or what?  Also, Ellie Rose, you seconded my defense I made of Tveit a while back while a  poster here savaged him.  I mentioned the overwhelmingly positive reviews for him in "Company" and "Assassins".  Maybe Timbers should have made him southern ala Booth.

It's ironic that you and Ellie Rose have called me out on this board since we are among the rare Tveit supporters.  Also, the person who shared this third hand or more audio is 5,000 miles from Boston (and obciously didn't originate it) and New York and isn't able to afford the passage.  But the audio is gone and if I am allowed to stay on this board, I will report from that memory.  Its a good thing that I have good one.

 

[EllieRose2]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 2:26am

Ladybug, I said a general statement regarding audio, I was not targeting you.  I think Aaron Tveit is brilliant in every single thing he does, and after Company last summer, he was kind, warm, and incredibly generous with his time.  His Bobby was stunning, and mostly got great reviews all over the place.  I will always defend someone I find to be a wonderful actor but also know to be a good human, like Aaron. I never called you out, I was just sharing my opinion about boot legging.  I'm sorry life has thrown you some pretty awful curve balls, good luck to you. 

[Ladybug101]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 2:36am

Ellie Rose2,

Thanks for the sweet response!!!

[KatVer]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 3:34am

Another look at Satine from Baz Lurhmann 

[Princeton2]

Posted: 7/13/18 at 3:46am

I'm guess The Show Must Go On and Like A Virgin are rights issues as We Will Rock You probably has the rights to the former and hasn't a Madonna musical been talked about?